[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
SSC wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The movie Taken is probably one of the best “action movies” I’ve seen in a very long time. It reminds me of the Bourne movies only more interesting.
Ha! Couldn’t agree more.
Same here…[/quote]
x3
Loved the movie! Actually got in an argument last night with someone who said they hated it. Go figure…
The latest “Hi, I’m a Marvel…and I’m a DC: Wolverine Heroes and Watchmen Heroes” pretty much sums up my feelings about X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
The latest “Hi, I’m a Marvel…and I’m a DC: Wolverine Heroes and Watchmen Heroes” pretty much sums up my feelings about X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
[/quote]
HA!..that was good.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
SSC wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The movie Taken is probably one of the best “action movies” I’ve seen in a very long time. It reminds me of the Bourne movies only more interesting.
Ha! Couldn’t agree more.
Same here…[/quote]
On a related note, divorce must be the worst hell any man with a kid he loves can experience.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Uncharted 2 looks to be something awesome…hell,I was fully absorbed in the tidbit they’ve shown so far:
(use Flash or WMP…Quicktime is buggy on this website)[/quote]
Awesome. If they make me search every nook and cranny for treasures again, I’m gonna be pissed.
Believe it or not,I’ve never played the first Uncharted…I’ve been inspired to pick it up before I play the sequel.
Is it just me or is there a Boss Battle drought in gaming these days? I mean the endings are getting bigger and more cinematic, but the final bosses are just not there.
**Beware of Spoilers
I just finished Tomb Raider: Underworld and they passed over several opportunities for a boss fight. There were three great characters primed and ready for a brawl. Natla, Amanda, and the Doppleganger all would have been great fights, but noooooooo.
I don’t mean this as a slight against the game. It is a fun game, that makes you think, just would’ve been better with boss battles.
Fable II, I accidentally shot Lucien in the face and he dropped like a rock. 30 hours of gaming and he dies from a slight pistol wound. The 8 wives I had that met with unfortunate accidents had more fight in them.
Fallout 3 the big bag commander of the Enclave died in like 10 seconds under a hail of laser fire.
Gears Of War 2 the new big bad to replace RAAM spent most of his fight running away, hiding, or chasing after me. His death was certainly cinematic, just a little easy. The developers were always talking about how Scorge would eat RAAM alive, but I never died or cussed Scorge for ripping me a new one.
*************Spoilers End *****************
At least I still have the likes of Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden to get my boss battle fix.
[quote]
Is it just me or is there a Boss Battle drought in gaming these days? I mean the endings are getting bigger and more cinematic, but the final bosses are just not there.[/quote]
I know what you mean. It kinda goes hand in hand that games are much easier these days. During the NES days you had to get your ass handed to you several times, sometimes restarting entire levels over and over. The hardest game you’ll play today is COD4 or World at War, only if you put it on Veteran difficulty
Killzone 2 had a good end boss, and the 4 beauties and Liquid were good in MGS4.
Its been all but confirmed that the guy who portrayed George Kirk in Star Trek,Chris Hemsworth,is being cast as Thor. I was hoping for Alexander Skarsgard.
He’s also been cast as Jed Eckert in remake of Red Dawn. I love a modern take on movies…especially with today’s special effects,etc…but damn. Some of these movies are not even “old” enough for remakes,imo. Oh well.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Its been all but confirmed that the guy who portrayed George Kirk in Star Trek,Chris Hemsworth,is being cast as Thor. I was hoping for Alexander Skarsgard.
[/quote]
I was hoping for Alexander Skarsgard, too. I guess we’ll see…
[quote]Pibbz wrote:
The hardest game you’ll play today is COD4 or World at War, only if you put it on Veteran difficulty.
[/quote]
Uh… excuse me? Does “hardest” mean “most-overhyped” now?
[quote]Bujo wrote:
Is it just me or is there a Boss Battle drought in gaming these days? I mean the endings are getting bigger and more cinematic, but the final bosses are just not there.
At least I still have the likes of Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden to get my boss battle fix.[/quote]
Thank God you posted that Volf graphic. 
That second fight with all the horsemen in the underworld was insanely brutal… Good God.
Maybe I’m an elitest, but games just really fucking blow these days. There’s really hardly any challenge (I won’t even go into my Wii rant here,) to any bosses, levels, or anything. I DARE the guy above to even make it half-way through Ninja Gaiden II on the second-highest difficulty. I guarantee FAIL. Old games like Battletoads, R-Type, etc. FORCED you to get better. Hell, keeping up with the comparison, I can only play Ninja Gaiden II essentially checkpoint-to-checkpoint it’s so intense. My heart rate goes up, I start sweating, and I need to be 100% focused to even get through a particular segment.
BTW, for PS3 owners who don’t have a 360, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 (which is essentially just a port of NG2 + extras) is coming out soon; I highly recommend if you want fun and challenge.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Pibbz wrote:
The hardest game you’ll play today is COD4 or World at War, only if you put it on Veteran difficulty.
Uh… excuse me? Does “hardest” mean “most-overhyped” now?
[/quote]
I meant it’s the only game this gen that’s ever given me a challenge. Every other game can be blown through within 3 sittings.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
SSC wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The movie Taken is probably one of the best “action movies” I’ve seen in a very long time. It reminds me of the Bourne movies only more interesting.
Ha! Couldn’t agree more.
Same here…
On a related note, divorce must be the worst hell any man with a kid he loves can experience.[/quote]
Taken was freaking awesome.
[quote]Pibbz wrote:
SSC wrote:
Pibbz wrote:
The hardest game you’ll play today is COD4 or World at War, only if you put it on Veteran difficulty.
Uh… excuse me? Does “hardest” mean “most-overhyped” now?
I meant it’s the only game this gen that’s ever given me a challenge. Every other game can be blown through within 3 sittings.
[/quote]
Then you haven’t been playing the right games. ;D
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Ratchet wrote:
Bujo wrote:
My new best friends in gaming.
http://www.kontrolfreek.com/content/
This got me thinking, I have not seen it in this thread, and I am not sure how many of you are computer gamers, but if you enjoy FPS, or MMO’s you owe it to yourself to buy a Nostromo N52 speed pad… I bought one 2 years ago and love it still… Without a doubt the best purchase I have ever made… It takes about 2 to 3 hours to get used to… But, once you do you can do all your movement with your left thumb, which allows you to use your other four fingers to do a myrid of other things… The software it comes with lets you set up each button to do anything for a single button macro (1, 2, 3, and so on) to complex multiline macros and the software is very intuitive… I personally have the thumb pad set to forward, back, and strafe left / right… I cant imaging gameing without this things anymore, and wish I had had it back in my CS days…
I have tried the logitech and saitech and hated them both, saitech was a piece of crap and logitech software sucked and was overly complicated.
The new version is pretty slick looking. I wish they’d release controllers like this for the consoles.
http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-n52te-Tournament-Edition-SpeedPad/dp/B000WMEHYG/ref=dp_ob_image_ce
I still need to get a pair of those FPS Freeks.[/quote]
A gamepad will never ever be superior to a mouse for FPS play, and most MMOs require a lot more binds than there are buttons on a pad to play at a “high level”(insert joke about no skill in MMOs). It’s probably awesome for games like flight sims, or playing emulators, and definitely would be sick for consoles since the kb/mouse options blow.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Pibbz wrote:
The hardest game you’ll play today is COD4 or World at War, only if you put it on Veteran difficulty.
Uh… excuse me? Does “hardest” mean “most-overhyped” now?
Bujo wrote:
Is it just me or is there a Boss Battle drought in gaming these days? I mean the endings are getting bigger and more cinematic, but the final bosses are just not there.
At least I still have the likes of Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden to get my boss battle fix.
Thank God you posted that Volf graphic. That second fight with all the horsemen in the underworld was insanely brutal… Good God.
Maybe I’m an elitest, but games just really fucking blow these days. There’s really hardly any challenge (I won’t even go into my Wii rant here,) to any bosses, levels, or anything. I DARE the guy above to even make it half-way through Ninja Gaiden II on the second-highest difficulty. I guarantee FAIL. Old games like Battletoads, R-Type, etc. FORCED you to get better. Hell, keeping up with the comparison, I can only play Ninja Gaiden II essentially checkpoint-to-checkpoint it’s so intense. My heart rate goes up, I start sweating, and I need to be 100% focused to even get through a particular segment.
BTW, for PS3 owners who don’t have a 360, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 (which is essentially just a port of NG2 + extras) is coming out soon; I highly recommend if you want fun and challenge.[/quote]
I’m torn on this, on one hand yes the games back then were “harder,” but there’s reasons for that, and pretty good ones that have to do with games evolving in general. A lot of the challenge in old games was lack of capability in the game itself, things like save points, or maps, or bad/unintuitive controls, or just straight up retarded gameplay elements(hello Battletoads, harder with 2 people than 1). Remember the first Zelda, you’d beat the 1st quest and the world would completely change, and the new dungeons were no longer a big door in the middle of a screen of it’s own, they were now hidden in a bush that you had to burn or a rock wall you had to bomb, and the only way to find them was burning every bush and bombing every wall. That’s not difficulty that’s just a test of your patience. The race level in Battletoads, there’s a part where it randomly tells you the obstacle is a jump when jumping causes you to die, you can’t know that until you do it, and it has nothing to do with your “skill” just a test of knowing it is going to happen. Games back then were all about brute force memorizing patterns until you could beat them, but you had no save points so you only had your 3 continues to do this memorizing before you had to start over and do it again, getting further with your new knowledge. You can still get that challenge in Japanese scrolling shooters, where the screen is filled with bullets/lasers/etc, and there is only one small safe spot the size of your ship. Sure that is very difficult, in the sense that you will only win when you have seen every phase of the boss and know how to transition from the old safe spot to the new one, old school arcade style gameplay designed to take your money.
The other big reason for the big shift in gameplay is online gaming. The people that used to play games enough to really enjoy those challenges have moved on to the ultimate challenge, which is playing other human beings. Single player gaming now is designed for the casual gaming crowd that plays them, with some achievements thrown in to try and grab whoever amongst the dedicated gamers likes the franchise/gametype and wants a little extra to make it worth their time. It’s a business decision, and it definitely rubs against some people the wrong way, but that’s how it works. The super immensely difficult games weren’t the ones selling 40 million copies back in the day, Mario Brothers was, and that’s what they care about =[.
That old school style of game does however give you an immense sense of accomplishment as a gamer when you do beat it, and as you pointed out, knowing that one little slip up could mean starting your 3 hour journey over again just to get back to where you were makes for some intense sweaty palms gaming. I’m not really for or against either style, I’ll just keep playing what I find “fun” which is basically 100% online play anymore with a fanboy type franchise thrown in now and again.
Holy paragraph, Batman! Let me sift through the novel real quick…
[quote]red04 wrote:
I’m torn on this, on one hand yes the games back then were “harder,” but there’s reasons for that, and pretty good ones that have to do with games evolving in general. A lot of the challenge in old games was lack of capability in the game itself, things like save points, or maps, or bad/unintuitive controls, or just straight up retarded gameplay elements(hello Battletoads, harder with 2 people than 1). Remember the first Zelda, you’d beat the 1st quest and the world would completely change, and the new dungeons were no longer a big door in the middle of a screen of it’s own, they were now hidden in a bush that you had to burn or a rock wall you had to bomb, and the only way to find them was burning every bush and bombing every wall. That’s not difficulty that’s just a test of your patience. The race level in Battletoads, there’s a part where it randomly tells you the obstacle is a jump when jumping causes you to die, you can’t know that until you do it, and it has nothing to do with your “skill” just a test of knowing it is going to happen. Games back then were all about brute force memorizing patterns until you could beat them, but you had no save points so you only had your 3 continues to do this memorizing before you had to start over and do it again, getting further with your new knowledge. You can still get that challenge in Japanese scrolling shooters, where the screen is filled with bullets/lasers/etc, and there is only one small safe spot the size of your ship. Sure that is very difficult, in the sense that you will only win when you have seen every phase of the boss and know how to transition from the old safe spot to the new one, old school arcade style gameplay designed to take your money.[/quote]
I definitely agree with this. I know I mentioned Battletoads, which I only play if I really want to get pissed off, haha. The evolution of games has, admittedly, allowed us to move past these primitive gameplay formulas, but when I saw R-Type Dimensions on XBox Live, I just had to pick it up. I remember how happy when I almost made it past the third level without dying, lol.
[quote]
The other big reason for the big shift in gameplay is online gaming. The people that used to play games enough to really enjoy those challenges have moved on to the ultimate challenge, which is playing other human beings. [/quote]
This is probably where I start having trouble adjusting. I’ve had my stint of online-gaming (use to be damn near Pro at Halo 2,) but just found it was ultimately more infuriating, repititious, and annoying when I’d get blasted away by someone who really, really sucked at the videogame and couldn’t help me out. There’s plenty of other examples, but I know you get the point. I am admitting that I am totally bias, though, because I just can’t play online games anymore. Between hackers, 7-year old kids, n00bs, and seemingly endless supply of verbal limitations (I’m an angry person when gaming, lol,) it’s just not for me anymore unfortunately.
[quote]
Single player gaming now is designed for the casual gaming crowd that plays them, with some achievements thrown in to try and grab whoever amongst the dedicated gamers likes the franchise/gametype and wants a little extra to make it worth their time. It’s a business decision, and it definitely rubs against some people the wrong way, but that’s how it works. The super immensely difficult games weren’t the ones selling 40 million copies back in the day, Mario Brothers was, and that’s what they care about =[.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more. This is my main issue. I appreciate that there’s a large market segment for online gaming, but can we pleeeeeeeez remember who supported games from Day 1? It was [we] nerds, sitting in our dark parents’ basement, who would spend countless hours just trying to nail that perfect line in the Battletoads racing level. It was those who dared challenge Doom on Ultra-Violence. I don’t mind easier games occasionally.
Some of my favorite games of the last few years weren’t hard one bit on the hardest difficulty - Bioshock, Mass Effect, Kingdom Hearts, the list goes on. Again, all I ask is that there’s at least one or two difficulty levels in a game to cater to the hardcore crowd.
While games like Ninja Gaiden II may be a bit extreme for some (I have friends who can’t beat it on the easiest difficulty - it’s no joke,) there’s not a whole lot more gratifying than getting through three brutally difficult boss fights in a row to end a game, to only be treated to a quick ending and a tiny little achievement. Leaves me wanting MORE!
[quote]
That old school style of game does however give you an immense sense of accomplishment as a gamer when you do beat it, and as you pointed out, knowing that one little slip up could mean starting your 3 hour journey over again just to get back to where you were makes for some intense sweaty palms gaming. I’m not really for or against either style, I’ll just keep playing what I find “fun” which is basically 100% online play anymore with a fanboy type franchise thrown in now and again.[/quote]
Oops, guess I just addressed this, haha.
Here’s one other issue with online games, while I’m ranting a bit - FAIRNESS!
That’s the reason you’ll [i][u]NEVER[/u][/i] see me play one of the C.O.D. games online. The more you play - the more advantage you have. That’s total bullshit. Skill should be the only determining factor in a match, not the fact that some dude who doesn’t know jack shit about videogames has been playing the game for 32 straight hours and can call in air strikes and shit whenever he wants. Come on now, there needs to be a level playing field.
Although it was funny when Halo 3 came up with its “Rank” system… I’d play with some of my old Halo guys (pros/damn near close,) but be at a really low level because I hardly played - So they didn’t see me coming.
Anyway, it’s a great debate, and I think all we can ask for is a GOOD single-player experience for those of us that want one AND a good multiplayer experience for those who dig that!
[quote]SSC wrote:
Here’s one other issue with online games, while I’m ranting a bit - FAIRNESS!
That’s the reason you’ll [i][u]NEVER[/u][/i] see me play one of the C.O.D. games online. The more you play - the more advantage you have. That’s total bullshit. Skill should be the only determining factor in a match, not the fact that some dude who doesn’t know jack shit about videogames has been playing the game for 32 straight hours and can call in air strikes and shit whenever he wants. Come on now, there needs to be a level playing field.[/quote]
I’m gonna disagree with you here. Specifically with COD because that’s really the only game I’ve played with a perk system. But seriously, this reminds me of all the people who play CS and bitch about awp snipers. If your truly good at the game, you can counter such situations. If you know the map layout better and have a quicker aim, you should be sending guys to their graves before they get the chance to use an air strike.
I’m not saying that games have to be brutally tough to beat like the old 2D Scrollers or that every game needs button combo finesse like Ninja Gaiden. I liked Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. It had a lot of slop in the combo system and wasn’t terribly difficult, but it had a classic boss battle at the end of each level. I was just disappointed that end game villains, like Scorge and Lucien, just died rather unexpectedly. This was especially disappointing in Fable II and Fallout 3 where I had been building up this great hero and had no worthy opponent. My biggest gripe with Tomb Raider Underworld is they skipped boss battles all together, when they had a great opportunity to include them.
I do enjoy the challenge of NG II and DMC 4, but I wouldn’t want every game to be that demanding. I also like the way each game unlocks another level of difficulty as you play through. Plus you can always increase the difficulty yourself, like playing Path of the Master Ninja with just Vigorean Flails (NG II). I also like the Skulls idea from the Halo series where you can turn on/off debuffs as you like. How many games would be infuriating if you could turn off the checkpoints? I think it just goes to show that the developers could create some seriously difficult games with out drastically changing the gameplay or adding tons of more code.
Josh Friedman, producer and writer of The Sarah Connor Chronicles, has this to say about the show’s cancellation:
[i]
By now most of you have heard the news that T:SCC is cancelled. I received a call earlier today from Peter Roth at Warner Bros. and I appreciate both his personal and professional support throughout this showâ??s life. I know a lot of you are angry about the cancellation and want to find a place to direct your anger and to that I say do yourself a favor and find a way to move past it. Every network wants a big fat hit, especially one with a brand name behind it, and Fox was/is no different. They supported the show, they supported my vision of the show, and they gave it plenty of time to find an audience.
And what an audience we found: passionate, intelligent, kind of nuts in a good way. My only complaint about the T:SCC fans is that there arenâ??t ten million of them. But I prefer to be happy for the ones we had instead of lamenting the ones we didnâ??t.
Good shows are cancelled every year; smart shows, worthy shows, shows which move their viewers to write blogs and have viewing parties and create action figures and bury executivesâ?? email accounts under thousands of messages. I miss Deadwood and The Wire and Arrested Development but thank God that I still have Rescue Me and The Office and a recently renewed Party Down written by ex-T:SCC writer John Enbom.
Bad shows are cancelled, too. And certainly there are those who did not like what we did and had their own vision for what a Terminator TV show should be. Itâ??s easy to look at low ratings or cancellation as â??failureâ?? and for those who believe weâ??ve gone about this all wrong Iâ??m sure todayâ??s news will only serve to confirm a world view that I would never try to change. Weâ??ve written the show as best we can, executed it to the best of our abilities, and sent it out in the world knowing that we worked out asses off to do something that wouldnâ??t be a waste of anybodyâ??s forty-three minutes.
Thanks to a brave and talented cast, a feature crew working on a TV schedule, and everyone else who I could list but wonâ??t because they know who they are. Mostly Iâ??d like to thank those of you whoâ??ve supported us and fought for us and given up hours of your life to watch our show. At the end of the day, thatâ??s what itâ??s about. The watching.
Hope we do it again soon.
Josh Friedman[/i]