[quote]Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all. [/quote]
Without guns, video games are meaningless.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all. [/quote]
Excellent.
I’m only getting mine on Friday - but can’t pick it up from work till next Tuesday - ridiculous.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all. [/quote]
We could only hope.
Keep us updated. I’m very interested, but I want to hear that they made it a little less repetitious, indefinitely.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all.
Without guns, video games are meaningless.[/quote]
Throwing knives, flying machines and various gadgets supposedly created by DaVinci are why video games were created.
Anybody can shoot at a target. How many can plan a stealth hand to hand combat maneuver from miles away during the Renaissance?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all.
Without guns, video games are meaningless.
Throwing knives, flying machines and various gadgets supposedly created by DaVinci are why video games were created.
Anybody can shoot at a target. How many can plan a stealth hand to hand combat maneuver from miles away during the Renaissance?[/quote]
I really want to pick up this game but I haven’t played part one. Is part one essential to this story or can I play this without being totally lost.
[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all.
Without guns, video games are meaningless.
Throwing knives, flying machines and various gadgets supposedly created by DaVinci are why video games were created.
Anybody can shoot at a target. How many can plan a stealth hand to hand combat maneuver from miles away during the Renaissance?
I really want to pick up this game but I haven’t played part one. Is part one essential to this story or can I play this without being totally lost.[/quote]
I’d get part one to see where the game is comming from - it’s not essential but that’s what I tend to do. I think the story is different this time.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Pootie Tang wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all.
Without guns, video games are meaningless.
Throwing knives, flying machines and various gadgets supposedly created by DaVinci are why video games were created.
Anybody can shoot at a target. How many can plan a stealth hand to hand combat maneuver from miles away during the Renaissance?
I really want to pick up this game but I haven’t played part one. Is part one essential to this story or can I play this without being totally lost.
I’d get part one to see where the game is comming from - it’s not essential but that’s what I tend to do. I think the story is different this time.[/quote]
I can’t really get into it until Friday afternoon, but every review I’ve read seems to agree that every single aspect of the game that people didn’t like in the first one was thrown out completely and revamped.
That means this one may be more like GTA-SA in that I never played the previous games before that one and didn’t need to.
the first game was nice, but it was repetitive and the environments looked pretty similar with only minor changes between middle Eastern cities. All of the pics of this game seem to be completely different. It is a much bigger land scape and the people aren’t even carbon copies anymore.
This may be one of those games where you may want to eventually play the first one…but doing so first may possibly leave you less than satisfied considering the upgrades.
Reviews make it seem as if the first one was just a rough draft of an idea. Maybe we should all think of it that way considering this is supposed to be a trilogy.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
Pootie Tang wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Update: My first impression is this will be the next “GTA-SA” if people have any taste at all.
Without guns, video games are meaningless.
Throwing knives, flying machines and various gadgets supposedly created by DaVinci are why video games were created.
Anybody can shoot at a target. How many can plan a stealth hand to hand combat maneuver from miles away during the Renaissance?
I really want to pick up this game but I haven’t played part one. Is part one essential to this story or can I play this without being totally lost.
I’d get part one to see where the game is comming from - it’s not essential but that’s what I tend to do. I think the story is different this time.
I can’t really get into it until Friday afternoon, but every review I’ve read seems to agree that every single aspect of the game that people didn’t like in the first one was thrown out completely and revamped.
That means this one may be more like GTA-SA in that I never played the previous games before that one and didn’t need to.
the first game was nice, but it was repetitive and the environments looked pretty similar with only minor changes between middle Eastern cities. All of the pics of this game seem to be completely different. It is a much bigger land scape and the people aren’t even carbon copies anymore.
This may be one of those games where you may want to eventually play the first one…but doing so first may possibly leave you less than satisfied considering the upgrades.
Reviews make it seem as if the first one was just a rough draft of an idea. Maybe we should all think of it that way considering this is supposed to be a trilogy.[/quote]
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
But this is coming from someone who’s burnt out on most video game genres.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
[/quote]
Disagree.
I was all about online play a year ago, now I’d much rather play a GOOD single player RPG or strategy. I still like online play, but it’s not a preference.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
But this is coming from someone who’s burnt out on most video game genres.[/quote]
Nah, there is still plenty of room for single player campaigns and stories. DMC4, NG2, Dead Space are all proof you don’t need to crowd 16+ folks into a room to duke it out to have fun. Co-Op games like Left 4 Dead, Gears’ Horde, Halo’s Firefight, and GRAW 2 are generally more fun with pick ups groups than their multi-player pvp modes. Mostly due to far fewer retards being in Co-Op than multi-player and the host’s ability to boot any annoying d-bags. For me single player and Co-Op campaigns are the top reasons to buy a game.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
Disagree.
I was all about online play a year ago, now I’d much rather play a GOOD single player RPG or strategy. I still like online play, but it’s not a preference.[/quote]
Strategy = Gay
RPG…I’ve played so many that it takes an epic rpg to make me care (Elder Scrolls Oblivion for example…I love it …it could literally take a year for a person to beat the main quest.
At least with Multiplayer games, I get a chance to play with other people. And T-bag them.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
But this is coming from someone who’s burnt out on most video game genres.
Nah, there is still plenty of room for single player campaigns and stories. DMC4, NG2, Dead Space are all proof you don’t need to crowd 16+ folks into a room to duke it out to have fun. Co-Op games like Left 4 Dead, Gears’ Horde, Halo’s Firefight, and GRAW 2 are generally more fun with pick ups groups than their multi-player pvp modes. Mostly due to far fewer retards being in Co-Op than multi-player and the host’s ability to boot any annoying d-bags. For me single player and Co-Op campaigns are the top reasons to buy a game.[/quote]
DMC4= A faggy emo with guns. Take that shit back to japan
NG2=No clue what that is
Dead Space = I didn’t finish it, but it was a good game.
Left 4 Dead= Awesome
Gears of War = Not a fan
GRAW = NEver played and not a fan.
I like Single player games, but they have to be epic…EPIC! With multiplayer games, at least I’m having fun with my friends.
Left 4 Dead is an example of a perfect game for me. You can play it by yourself and have fun. Or play it with 3 other good friends and its epic. Love that game.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
Mostly due to far fewer retards being in Co-Op than multi-player and the host’s ability to boot any annoying d-bags.[/quote]
That’s a console problem(or at least, was, until IW decided to make the PC version of MW2 the biggest joke ever).
I’m generally with Wol on this though, I still enjoy SP games enough to have bought my ps3 pretty much exclusively for them, but when it comes down to it the majority of my game time is spent online with something like Team Fortress 2, or on Quakelive, and had MW2 not dropped the ball tremendously on PC I’d be playing the fuck out of that right now too.
I love me some solid single player story driven action, but nothing beats going online with some friends and shooting some faces off, it’s just a shame I may have to give up my mouse+keyboard for that soon =/
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Strategy = Gay
RPG…I’ve played so many that it takes an epic rpg to make me care (Elder Scrolls Oblivion for example…I love it …it could literally take a year for a person to beat the main quest.
At least with Multiplayer games, I get a chance to play with other people. And T-bag them.[/quote]
When you listen to an album, do you only fast forward to the songs whose beats/lyrics you immediately dig, or do you listen to the album from beginning to end to judge the overall quality of the compilation?
Regardless, neither of the above two can take the place of ART, whether that is art in pure aesthetic design of the game, the storyline itself and how it is told, or how intuitive the controls of the game are. You must be one of those guys who loved playing Diablo II to get to level 99 and have insane items. That’s fine, but it just means you are obsessive compulsive and not observant enough to appreciate an immersive experience.
The amazing thing about Assassin’s Creed (the first one) is how many controls they were able to milk out of the controller’s layout by having modifier keys. It was actually daunting for a while such that I needed the manual to recall how to do something. However, clever control design is NOT something that just comes naturally to game designers; it is a culmination of evolving control systems over the lifespan of a game company (observing their most successful games and understanding what about the control systems made the game successful) along with how well those controls fit in with what the character needs to do through the game. These video games have approached the status of true ART, blending multiple art forms for a polished product.
AC and AC2 (when I finally play it) and the original PoP series (minus PoP 4) is why I maintain that Ubisoft is the best game company out there and the most innovative.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Strategy = Gay
RPG…I’ve played so many that it takes an epic rpg to make me care (Elder Scrolls Oblivion for example…I love it …it could literally take a year for a person to beat the main quest.
At least with Multiplayer games, I get a chance to play with other people. And T-bag them.
When you listen to an album, do you only fast forward to the songs whose beats/lyrics you immediately dig, or do you listen to the album from beginning to end to judge the overall quality of the compilation?
Regardless, neither of the above two can take the place of ART, whether that is art in pure aesthetic design of the game, the storyline itself and how it is told, or how intuitive the controls of the game are. You must be one of those guys who loved playing Diablo II to get to level 99 and have insane items. That’s fine, but it just means you are obsessive compulsive and not observant enough to appreciate an immersive experience.
The amazing thing about Assassin’s Creed (the first one) is how many controls they were able to milk out of the controller’s layout by having modifier keys. It was actually daunting for a while such that I needed the manual to recall how to do something. However, clever control design is NOT something that just comes naturally to game designers; it is a culmination of evolving control systems over the lifespan of a game company (observing their most successful games and understanding what about the control systems made the game successful) along with how well those controls fit in with what the character needs to do through the game. These video games have approached the status of true ART, blending multiple art forms for a polished product.
AC and AC2 (when I finally play it) and the original PoP series (minus PoP 4) is why I maintain that Ubisoft is the best game company out there and the most innovative.[/quote]
I fast forward to the songs I like.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Strategy = Gay
RPG…I’ve played so many that it takes an epic rpg to make me care (Elder Scrolls Oblivion for example…I love it …it could literally take a year for a person to beat the main quest.
At least with Multiplayer games, I get a chance to play with other people. And T-bag them.
When you listen to an album, do you only fast forward to the songs whose beats/lyrics you immediately dig, or do you listen to the album from beginning to end to judge the overall quality of the compilation?
Regardless, neither of the above two can take the place of ART, whether that is art in pure aesthetic design of the game, the storyline itself and how it is told, or how intuitive the controls of the game are. You must be one of those guys who loved playing Diablo II to get to level 99 and have insane items. That’s fine, but it just means you are obsessive compulsive and not observant enough to appreciate an immersive experience.
The amazing thing about Assassin’s Creed (the first one) is how many controls they were able to milk out of the controller’s layout by having modifier keys. It was actually daunting for a while such that I needed the manual to recall how to do something. However, clever control design is NOT something that just comes naturally to game designers; it is a culmination of evolving control systems over the lifespan of a game company (observing their most successful games and understanding what about the control systems made the game successful) along with how well those controls fit in with what the character needs to do through the game. These video games have approached the status of true ART, blending multiple art forms for a polished product.
AC and AC2 (when I finally play it) and the original PoP series (minus PoP 4) is why I maintain that Ubisoft is the best game company out there and the most innovative.[/quote]
I fast forward to the songs I like.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Bujo wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
But this is coming from someone who’s burnt out on most video game genres.
Nah, there is still plenty of room for single player campaigns and stories. DMC4, NG2, Dead Space are all proof you don’t need to crowd 16+ folks into a room to duke it out to have fun. Co-Op games like Left 4 Dead, Gears’ Horde, Halo’s Firefight, and GRAW 2 are generally more fun with pick ups groups than their multi-player pvp modes. Mostly due to far fewer retards being in Co-Op than multi-player and the host’s ability to boot any annoying d-bags. For me single player and Co-Op campaigns are the top reasons to buy a game.
DMC4= A faggy emo with guns. Take that shit back to japan
NG2=No clue what that is
Dead Space = I didn’t finish it, but it was a good game.
Left 4 Dead= Awesome
Gears of War = Not a fan
GRAW = NEver played and not a fan.
I like Single player games, but they have to be epic…EPIC! With multiplayer games, at least I’m having fun with my friends.
Left 4 Dead is an example of a perfect game for me. You can play it by yourself and have fun. Or play it with 3 other good friends and its epic. Love that game.[/quote]
You’re like some stereotype for all shooter game players. I like thinking my way through some of this shit, not just aiming and firing at random targets.
Granted, I have friends who ONLY play shooter games, but they generally all have very short attention spans. If that gets you off, so be it, but I am willing to bet there are more stupid people online playing those shooter games and that it isn’t a coincidence.
Also, what is more gay than playing games with 14 year old boys on the internet?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Bujo wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
But this is coming from someone who’s burnt out on most video game genres.
Nah, there is still plenty of room for single player campaigns and stories. DMC4, NG2, Dead Space are all proof you don’t need to crowd 16+ folks into a room to duke it out to have fun. Co-Op games like Left 4 Dead, Gears’ Horde, Halo’s Firefight, and GRAW 2 are generally more fun with pick ups groups than their multi-player pvp modes. Mostly due to far fewer retards being in Co-Op than multi-player and the host’s ability to boot any annoying d-bags. For me single player and Co-Op campaigns are the top reasons to buy a game.
DMC4= A faggy emo with guns. Take that shit back to japan
NG2=No clue what that is
Dead Space = I didn’t finish it, but it was a good game.
Left 4 Dead= Awesome
Gears of War = Not a fan
GRAW = NEver played and not a fan.
I like Single player games, but they have to be epic…EPIC! With multiplayer games, at least I’m having fun with my friends.
Left 4 Dead is an example of a perfect game for me. You can play it by yourself and have fun. Or play it with 3 other good friends and its epic. Love that game.
You’re like some stereotype for all shooter game players. I like thinking my way through some of this shit, not just aiming and firing at random targets.
Granted, I have friends who ONLY play shooter games, but they generally all have very short attention spans. If that gets you off, so be it, but I am willing to bet there are more stupid people online playing those shooter games and that it isn’t a coincidence.
Also, what is more gay than playing games with 14 year old boys on the internet?[/quote]
…doing it in your underwear, I would imagine.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Bujo wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
All I’m saying is that video games are about Online capabilities and kicking the shit out of people online.
But this is coming from someone who’s burnt out on most video game genres.
Nah, there is still plenty of room for single player campaigns and stories. DMC4, NG2, Dead Space are all proof you don’t need to crowd 16+ folks into a room to duke it out to have fun. Co-Op games like Left 4 Dead, Gears’ Horde, Halo’s Firefight, and GRAW 2 are generally more fun with pick ups groups than their multi-player pvp modes. Mostly due to far fewer retards being in Co-Op than multi-player and the host’s ability to boot any annoying d-bags. For me single player and Co-Op campaigns are the top reasons to buy a game.
DMC4= A faggy emo with guns. Take that shit back to japan
NG2=No clue what that is
Dead Space = I didn’t finish it, but it was a good game.
Left 4 Dead= Awesome
Gears of War = Not a fan
GRAW = NEver played and not a fan.
I like Single player games, but they have to be epic…EPIC! With multiplayer games, at least I’m having fun with my friends.
Left 4 Dead is an example of a perfect game for me. You can play it by yourself and have fun. Or play it with 3 other good friends and its epic. Love that game.
You’re like some stereotype for all shooter game players. I like thinking my way through some of this shit, not just aiming and firing at random targets.
Granted, I have friends who ONLY play shooter games, but they generally all have very short attention spans. If that gets you off, so be it, but I am willing to bet there are more stupid people online playing those shooter games and that it isn’t a coincidence.
Also, what is more gay than playing games with 14 year old boys on the internet?[/quote]
But part of the appeal of Multiplayer games is that you can pwn noobs and make them feel like garbage. AND you can talk shit. I guess we can agree to disagree. But I bet you would love a session of Left 4 Dead on Expert mode with a few friends.
Also, threatening to sexual abuse the 14 year old boys on the internet is a bit gayer. I’ve seen it done before. Hilarious and creepy at the same time.
Geekiest thing I"ve been doing lately: Playing the original Fable for like 5+ hours a day. Idk if anyone even remembers that one. I like it.