Jump to content

Xbob42

Members
  • Content Count

    27,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Xbob42 last won the day on November 10 2019

Xbob42 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,772 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I mean, the Skyrim trailer is also total bullshit. Actually playing Skyrim and its god awful gameplay is just a tedious chore. It's so aggressively bad at being a fun video game. It relies entirely on having a world filled to the brim with tons of meaningless-but-mildly-entertaining things to find. And the combat is either you being a melee dude using the awful and limp-wristed melee combat where nothing reacts to anything to chip away at an HP bar for 10 minutes, or you sneaking around as an OP archer to one-shot everything. The story is awful, cliche and is the most generic "You become the master/leader of every organization on the continent" nonsense. So the gameplay is bad, the story is bad, the characters are bad, the acting is bad, what's left? Exploration, I guess. They did that pretty well.
  2. Yup, single shots hugely benefit from aim assist. Especially at close to mid range.
  3. Like I said, KBM still does have the upper-hand, but having the "upper-hand" when you by all rights should be virtually untouchable because the other person is attempting to play an FPS with two goofy thumb sticks just makes it really annoying, because, again, it's not that the other player is doing some amazing shit to kill you, the game literally acquires targets and does the hard work for you. Getting good at aiming is a skill that people take years developing, and then being matched up with people who barely have to interact with that facet of the game is just frustrating. Which is why I said the best solution is separation. For many console gamers, the game without aim assist would be virtually unplayable, and I as a PC player ALSO don't want to be fighting gamepad players who can't use aim assist, because that would be an even more lopsided disaster. And "vertical" doesn't just mean there's rooftops. That's exactly the kind of console FPS development nonsense that frustrates me. Verticality in FPS games, to me at least, means maps with tons of slopes and multi-tiered buildings and jump pads and combat in the air, or at least several of these things. Not you go up some damned stairs and camp on the roof. That's like the most basic bitch vertical level design I can imagine. Which is also why I didn't really include Battlefield. I talked about Quake and Unreal because those are the kinds of games designed around KBM functionality, while modern FPS titles are 100% catered to the slow, unwieldy nonsense that is an FPS with a gamepad. You move slow and can't fire with most weapons while moving at more than a snail's pace, when you want to move slightly faster you can't shoot, you have to hit a button to fucking aim your weapon, which takes time and dramatically further slows your movement speed AND limits your FOV, you can't jump as a defensive option, switching weapons and reloading take forever, etc. It's all designed to slow the game down to an unbelievable level. Yes, it's more "twitch" than Battlefield, but that's not saying anything at all. It has the ridiculous defense of being "more realistic" but in reality it's all designed to make it feel more playable with the most popular control scheme. As for the game doing a good job separating people out, I dunno, every single match I play on PC (again, I play Gun Game mostly) is like 85% controller users, although I'll get the occasional PC-only match and that shit is crazy fun. Is there a Battle.net option to disable crossplay? Or even better, one in-game? I'd like to play a bunch of matches with and without it and see the difference when I'm actually paying attention to that.
  4. I think you guys are underselling the value of a feature like aim assist in a shooter designed like CoD. In something like the Battle Royale mode, it's much less likely to be a defining factor, although it still matters. But in CoD's normal maps, every tiny bit of map and gameplay design is there to benefit aim assist. The narrow, hallway-like design of so many areas means you don't often need to sweep your view very far to acquire targets. The almost complete lack of verticality sans the occasional upper platform or like a 5 foot dip means that you very rarely have to aim up or down very much. The maps aren't completely flat, but they're close enough to it compared to games really designed around it, like ye olde Quake 3 or Unreal. Then you've got a super quick TTK, meaning that the benefit of being able to turn around quickly and fire back is reduced dramatically. It'll happen sometimes, but usually if you get the drop on someone, they're dead before they can react, KBM or no. Combine this with super slow relative to PC shooters movement speed where it's really easy to follow a moving target, no real defensive mobility options, sprinting putting your weapon away, etc, and every advantage of playing on KBM starts to get frayed. And that's all just general gamepad FPS design, without even taking into account aim assist, which is just a friendly way of saying aimbot. Because that's all it is. A low-grade aimbot because aiming and shooting (the very essence of what an FPS is supposed to be) on two goofy sticks just doesn't work very well. Of course people will wind up salty when they have to actually aim and hit every target in the game when someone else doesn't. It's like playing two different versions of the same game. The correct solution would be separating KBM and gamepad players like most games do, but they didn't. So controller guys get to bitch that they get wrecked because KBM does still have an advantage, but dying to someone using a controller and watching the ridiculous death cam is never going to result in someone going "Wow that was a good fight," because the actual player didn't do the most important part. I don't watch death cams myself, or keep track of who's using what (it doesn't tell you after you leave the lobby, although sometimes it's obvious based on voice chat) so none of this really bugs me, but I absolutely understand why it would be annoying for people who take the game a lot more seriously, or just like a good fair competition. For me, what's far more annoying is being shot around a corner or the rare occasion when I do watch a deathcam and while I shot half my magazine into a dude on my screen, the cam shows me literally just running up to them and doing nothing. That'll drive me nuts far more than some aim assist ever will. And since I mainly play gun game, watching the bullshit that can happen (good and bad both) with those throwing knives is enough to give me a headache. It's also a great mode to level the playing field a bit more in terms of gamepad vs KBM, because some guns clearly benefit from one type of control scheme more than others. I've heard that people on gamepad specifically don't seem to like scoped LMGs, while they're my absolute favorite, for example. On the other hand, I fucking hate pistols and magnums while console guys seem to like them a lot more. I actually haven't played CoD outside of BR for a few months, I kind of miss getting a few daily gun games in. Maybe I'll check back in soon.
  5. I liked 4 the most specifically because it stopped being about them sucking the dick of some kid who barely cared about them.
  6. Look fairly promising, a little concerned about the extravagant animations getting in the way of actually playing the game, but I'll assume that was liberties taken to make the video cooler. Way to false advertise to console folks though with that silky smooth FPS that you can't deliver to 'em!
  7. Wait if you're not gonna replay it, how can you recommend it over the original? What if Royal adds a bunch of stupid bullshit no one wants? You can't do that!
  8. Aww, a shame to hear it's not as good as 2, but not surprising. I'm still looking forward to it, though! Even trying out the multiplayer. I hope Capcom is able to learn some lessons from this game's apparent drawbacks. I figured it wouldn't be terribly long given how close to RE2 it was, maybe they should've used that as an excuse to lower the price a bit and set expectations appropriately, although I assume they were hoping the multiplayer would make up for it.
  9. I like Animal Crossing, but I feel like it really lacks the elements that make a game satisfying (for me) to play. The new crafting system is a nice upgrade, but getting furniture that really has no function is weird. I have a dartboard, but "using" it has the darts disappear and re-appear. I'd love to play a little darts mini-game with my friends. I got a beachball, using it makes it bounce -- I'd love to roll it around. Have all the furniture that should have similar functions do that, and I'd really be hooked. As it stands it all just kind of feels like shallow window-dressing. Like fishing, how it's designed visually (pretty sure it's been like this since AC1) makes it look like you should hammer the button to reel in the fish, but of course just tapping the A button once will reel in anything. It all lacks just that little bit of depth that I find really draws me into games. In the first game, the NES titles did that. They were super rare pieces of furniture, and were full-fledged NES titles. That made them exciting. I get that we'll likely never get anything like that again, but I'd like it if the rest of the game stepped it up a notch. Again, just a bit. AC is supposed to be relaxing, but what better way to relax than enjoying the fruits of your labor? My dartboard makes a nice little decoration, but it'd make for a heck of a fun little way to pass time with friends on my island. A few more pieces like that being "playable" would do wonders for my enjoyment of each play session.
  10. As someone who generally hates exclusives, I get it. But my one exception with exclusives is when it's the hardware that makes it possible. If something absolutely HAS to be on certain hardware, then I'm AOK with it. And if this is the creative spark Valve needed to get back into Half-Life and single-player games in general, then I think in the long-term it's good for everybody. Yeah I imagine it's pretty frustrating right now. Not just a big VR tentpole release, but Valve's return to a beloved series. I know that pain, the sting of frustration when you can't afford (or don't want) a certain piece of hardware and that's where something you REALLY want is. That's basically my entire life up to about 6 or 7 years ago. Always a console behind, or getting it late in the generation and then I can only afford one and of course that means I miss out on exclusives on the other two. That's where a large portion of my distaste for exclusives comes from to this day. But this would be a far lesser game if it were just ported, even by Valve, to non-VR hardware. VR is clearly what got them interested. They've always been big on pushing tech, I can tell that from picking up a security card in a building and looking at it under different light, and literally seeing every fucking detail of fingerprints on the card and how they reflect less light than the (matte) plastic surface, all the little bits of ink flecked off around the edges of the card where it gets the most use, I stared at a fucking security card under different lighting conditions for minutes yesterday, so I know that Valve was passionate about this tech. Of course, then you can say "Well why didn't they just do that with a non-VR game!" and I think they've already answered that: They just didn't know where to go, what to do, they don't like to release games like Half-Life just because they haven't done so in a while. They like to have a big push, a reason, a vision. I don't want a Half-Life game that Valve doesn't want to make. Period. If that means it takes years between each release, so be it. A new CoD comes out every single year and I almost never give even half a shit. A new Half-Life game is basically a guarantee that if nothing else, I'll be enjoying some crazy new tech. And the physics on display (and how you can interact with them) just put to shame everything on the market, just like Half-Life 2 did. In many ways it's more subtle, until you really get into it. I hope that this 1. sparks Valve's creative vision for the franchise as a whole and fast-tracks us to Half-Life 3 since they know they can still make a killer Half-Life game and Source 2 is done and 2. helps drive a lot of VR sales and bigger VR games, making the tech cheaper, more user-friendly, and smaller.
×
×
  • Create New...