User information for Ryan

Real Name
Ryan
Nickname
chino
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
Signed On
May 24, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
77 (Suspect)
User ID
20965
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
77 Comments. 4 pages. Viewing page 4.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
10.
 
Re: pitman
Jun 27, 2004, 00:39
10.
Re: pitman Jun 27, 2004, 00:39
Jun 27, 2004, 00:39
 
I can't remember the last time I've ever actually felt influenced to buy a hygiene product simply because of its advertisement. I have doubts that its ever happened in my life. Try it, you like it? Get it. You don't? Don't get it. It's deoderant, for christ's sake.

1.
 
Settlers
Jun 26, 2004, 02:49
1.
Settlers Jun 26, 2004, 02:49
Jun 26, 2004, 02:49
 
I give Settlers IV about a 0.5% chance of being any good.

They pretty much finished the series with Settlers 2, they can't do better than that. In fact, with a new graphics engine, they can do much, much worse.

47.
 
Re: Nazi Super Baby!
Jun 26, 2004, 02:46
47.
Re: Nazi Super Baby! Jun 26, 2004, 02:46
Jun 26, 2004, 02:46
 
For example, he makes a big deal about the fact that only 1 congressman has a son in the enlisted military, but does not mention how many congressman's children are officers in the military. He then starts badgering Representatives on the streets of Washington trying to get them to enlist their children, but we only see congressman who run away from the camera.

I think the point he is trying to make with this is the fact that a Congressman without children in the military and who is in support of the war even exists at all, if only even a few. It's pointing the finger at the undeniable "detachment" that occurs in politicians. Hard to argue with that, even if his methods of portraying it are pretty radical.

As someone else said, in somewhat different terms, nobody gives a flying fuck unless you shove it in their faces.

35.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 26, 2004, 02:42
35.
Re: No subject Jun 26, 2004, 02:42
Jun 26, 2004, 02:42
 
Fuck 10 years, it just takes a developer who's willing to take a risk. Nothing more. There's a mold right now that's apparently pretty tough to break. Any new MMO has the potential to break that mold, including a Fallout MMO.

As soon as details are released about any new MMO in development, it's always very apparent whether it's going to be the "same old thing" or not.

32.
 
Re: Fallout MMO is a bad idea
Jun 26, 2004, 02:23
32.
Re: Fallout MMO is a bad idea Jun 26, 2004, 02:23
Jun 26, 2004, 02:23
 
Anarchy Online was a very drab, dark-themed MMO, and I consider it one of the best, if not simply because of the developers' ambition. People constantly misjudge the true reason that the MMO genre is so damn appealing. It's definitely not just a matter of having vibrant colors and a cartoony, uplifting world design.

It's the simplicity of the appeal that makes it so versatile. Simply because most of the games of the genre on the market right now doesn't mean that the genre is dead, or locked in a state of repetitive boredom. People simply want to live out the life of a role that they most likely will never achieve in their lifetime, and actually have it affect other real people. It's been a bit skewed now into a chat room where you happen to simultaneously be in a graphical environment where grinding is the main attraction, but being immersed in another socially-affecting role is the most basic drive behind the genre.

If the only succesful games are the ones with elves, orcs, and swords, that's only because the others simply weren't as good.

I've been wanting a good post-apocalyptic MMO for ages.

edit - typos :0


This comment was edited on Jun 26, 02:28.
24.
 
Re: Obsidian/Troika
Jun 25, 2004, 23:57
24.
Re: Obsidian/Troika Jun 25, 2004, 23:57
Jun 25, 2004, 23:57
 
Wow, even in a blue's news comment thread, where posts are written against popular ideal simply so they can be different from everybody else's, not one person has refuted the "Interplay is broke, this will never happen" argument. I don't keep up on the business much anymore, but this startling fact alone convinces me that Interplay must be seriously fucked.

This comment was edited on Jun 26, 02:10.
8.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 9, 2004, 15:08
8.
Re: No subject Jun 9, 2004, 15:08
Jun 9, 2004, 15:08
 
UT2k4 itself is crap, the only reason it has any worth is for the mods.

2.
 
Re: Thief: DS
Jun 9, 2004, 15:04
2.
Re: Thief: DS Jun 9, 2004, 15:04
Jun 9, 2004, 15:04
 
The majority of reviews I've read are between 80-90 final rating, which pretty accurately sums up the game. I'd put it below 85 though, personally.

69.
 
Re: ehhhh...maybe not
Jun 3, 2004, 23:52
69.
Re: ehhhh...maybe not Jun 3, 2004, 23:52
Jun 3, 2004, 23:52
 
Truthfully, other (living, breathing) players in a game generally piss me off too much to actually enjoy the game. I would prefer a MMOG where I can play solo, have the din of others around me if I so choose, but enjoyment isn't dependant on coop play.

I feel like I'm overposting here, but I want to elaborate on that kind of thing. Generally what I was talking about in the examples he mentioned (games such as KOTOR, Gothic 2) was forming a co-op game with people you already know (talking more immediate future, for the nitpickers). Support for LANs, netplay for connecting from wherever you want, or in the case of consoles, which you can already see from the success of Halo, just grabbing another controller and playing. Yes, the option of playing with anyone on the net, like most of the multiplayer games out right now, is of course still available, but nothing's forcing you to deal with a bunch of shitbags.

In the MMOG sense, yes, no mmog should be biased to playing solo or grouped, even though the current ones almost all are. Ideally, the enjoyment should be the same either way.

This comment was edited on Jun 3, 23:54.
67.
 
Re: MMORPGs
Jun 3, 2004, 23:19
67.
Re: MMORPGs Jun 3, 2004, 23:19
Jun 3, 2004, 23:19
 
Timmy, that's why MMORPG's all basically suck right now. The potential of the genre is massive however. I think as technology improves though, the problem of inflexibility will slowly dissapear. Short-run - It definitely needs some innovation like the idea you mentioned, because the amount of people being turned off by the current MMORPG's seems to be rising, as the genre is past it's "pioneer" stage now, so it doesn't quite have that shiny new interest to it.

Quazz, the point was lost to you from the beginning I think. We're obviously on different pages. And yes, I still do mean every game.

This comment was edited on Jun 3, 23:20.
63.
 
Re: MMORPGs not as fun
Jun 3, 2004, 22:11
63.
Re: MMORPGs not as fun Jun 3, 2004, 22:11
Jun 3, 2004, 22:11
 
I referred to those as two completely different points in time. I emphasized it over, and over. I'll make it clear for you:

Every game as MMOG: Extreme future
All w/ Integrated Multiplayer: More immediate future

We disagree, yes. But you're still wrong.

This comment was edited on Jun 3, 22:12.
61.
 
Re: MMORPGs not as fun
Jun 3, 2004, 21:50
61.
Re: MMORPGs not as fun Jun 3, 2004, 21:50
Jun 3, 2004, 21:50
 
No definitely not. The "ultimate future" I was talking about is, like I said, a long, long way into the future. And yes, I would predict without wavering, that all games would exist as an MMOG. This is a reference to a pinnacle of gaming in the extreme future, which, like I said, everything evolves toward, no matter how far away it is.

In the more soon-to-be future, I think, yes, multiplayer will be a part of every game on the market (not necessarily forcing it on you, but at the very least it will be an option). And in the even sooner future, I think more games will begin to show up with coop features. I would've LOVED to have been able to play with a couple other real people in KOTOR and Gothic 2. I haven't played Prince of Persia, but I'm sure I'd come up with the same conclusion.

The fact that you'd rather play with computer controlled teammates than a real person taking one of those roles, or all of them, is rare (I'm making a guess at this, from my own experiences talking to other people). I'm saying until MMOG's can actually provide that same sort of enjoyment, small-scale multiplayer "single-player" games will have a larger role (still years away from being completely apparent). But I'll make a confident prediction that MMOG's providing that experience WILL happen.

59.
 
Re: MMORPGs not as fun
Jun 3, 2004, 20:52
59.
Re: MMORPGs not as fun Jun 3, 2004, 20:52
Jun 3, 2004, 20:52
 
The idea is, to bring that same enjoyment to an MMO, to have every quest basically be as entertaining as any current single player experience on the market. It won't happen anytime soon, but that is the idea I'm talking about. How many single player games have you wished there were co-op in, so you could play through it with maybe 2-4+ other people in to enjoy the experience? If you haven't wanted that, I'm guessing that's a rarity, because I've yet to talk to a gamer that hasn't.

You enjoy the MMO aspect in what I'll refer to as a seperate medium, a universe of some sort where the mass of people reside, where you meet your RL friends, talk to other people, etc., and supposedly have plenty of general content to enjoy whenever you want in a fully-functional environment. When you want to be the badass (or in the small group of badasses, either one), you do your quest (this is kind of a bad word to use for what I'm thinking, but it's the most recognizable) and, technology allowing, it will be just as epic and realistically affecting as any single-player game you'd enjoy.

Until the point where MMO's can have this kind of experience, I think even the best single-player game could be improved by the availability of multiplayer, even on a smaller scale, perhaps involving just roughly 8 people or more. There are a shitload of possibilities with this in mind, but multiplayer will be the key in all of them.

56.
 
Re: MMORPGs not as fun
Jun 3, 2004, 20:07
56.
Re: MMORPGs not as fun Jun 3, 2004, 20:07
Jun 3, 2004, 20:07
 
You're assuming that there's a generic rule that has to be followed by every MMORPG that does NOT allow you to feel important. Those kinds of rules, in any situation, MMORPG or no MMORPG, are always the ones that are broken by innovators. You're assuming that MMORPG's will always be the same as they are now, and they won't, hence why I use the word future.

Any game where real people can legitimately take the place of what would've previously been a computer controlled character, as long as the game mechanics remain solid, will be a better one. I'm also talking about future as in, maybe years, maybe decades, maybe centuries. As technology gets to unimaginable points, the perfect game (which will never be created, but just as a reference example) is going to involve real people in all aspects, unless the human brain is mapped out and succesfully reproduced and articial intelligence becomes equal to human intelligence. Extreme future, yeah, but it will always be what everything moves towards, and it's a good reference to use.

I don't want to defend any MMORPG's currently out, just the genre itself, because it has a hell of alot more promise than the current bullshit selection would have you think.

This comment was edited on Jun 3, 20:15.
48.
 
Re: MMORPGs not as fun
Jun 3, 2004, 19:05
48.
Re: MMORPGs not as fun Jun 3, 2004, 19:05
Jun 3, 2004, 19:05
 
Took em damn long enough to realize that people ENJOY succeeding. It's definitely about to come over a hump now.

It can't be denied, however, that the perfect game, however mythical or in the future it may be, would be an MMOG. It's not a genre to be "not interested in", because it's basically the ultimate future of gaming.

But oh yeah, about the topic; Yeah, SWG sucks.

3.
 
Re: Gamespot review
May 27, 2004, 05:45
3.
Re: Gamespot review May 27, 2004, 05:45
May 27, 2004, 05:45
 
The game is dissapointing, but still quality. That's all there is to say. It has the exact same cramped and linear feeling that turned me off of DX2.

25.
 
Re: No subject
May 24, 2004, 18:37
25.
Re: No subject May 24, 2004, 18:37
May 24, 2004, 18:37
 
It cracks me up to read these "The real thing is better" posts. OF COURSE the real fucking thing is better. I don't think any game developer in his right mind is out there to make a virtual substitute for sex, and I think the people complaining about this have some insecurity issues.

I haven't played it yet, but the sims had me in a fuckin nut vice. According to the reviews, this game just focuses on the relationship aspect, and if they pull off an addicting game out of it, that's pretty innovative as far as gameplay goes (even though it's definately a rip of the Sims, the sims had such a broad spectrum that this is not a bad thing). If this was just some cheap porn game, I get the feeling it wouldn't have been so succesful in Europe, which apparently it was.

Shit. way too much whining about a couple tits, you'd think this was a goddamn PTA meeting.

77 Comments. 4 pages. Viewing page 4.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older