Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wobbly]

I don't know. When looking out for something, I occasionally randomly turn around. Would you enjoy a game where every now and then you just... died? Guaranteed loss, for no reason whatsoever. I'm pretty sure it would get old fast. The thing with these games is that for them to be challenging, there must be a narrow margin of error. If there's time to adjust your plan, the margin is so broad it's not difficult.

I actually prefer the occasional "unfair" loss to complete predictability. Otherwise once you've learnt the trick it become very boring. I've played too many games where once you learn the basic pattern, the same pattern always works & it becomes boring & easy way too fast. Now if I'm constantly dying to bad luck then that's going to get annoying fast, but I'm quite prepared to take an unfair death every now & then if it's adding to replay-ability & constantly throwing up new & different situations rather then over scripted puzzles.

[Urist Tilaturist]

I actually prefer the occasional "unfair" loss to complete predictability. Otherwise once you've learnt the trick it become very boring. I've played too many games where once you learn the basic pattern, the same pattern always works & it becomes boring & easy way too fast. Now if I'm constantly dying to bad luck then that's going to get annoying fast, but I'm quite prepared to take an unfair death every now & then if it's adding to replay-ability & constantly throwing up new & different situations rather then over scripted puzzles.

I agree with this.

[Arx]

It would depend heavily on the degree of randomness, which I guess I missed a bit initially. Highly randomised with frequent unpreventable deaths would be tiresome, but I agree that some randomisation is good.

[Neonivek]

I actually prefer the occasional "unfair" loss to complete predictability. Otherwise once you've learnt the trick it become very boring. I've played too many games where once you learn the basic pattern, the same pattern always works & it becomes boring & easy way too fast. Now if I'm constantly dying to bad luck then that's going to get annoying fast, but I'm quite prepared to take an unfair death every now & then if it's adding to replay-ability & constantly throwing up new & different situations rather then over scripted puzzles.

I agree with this.

Well that is more a preference Urist. So you can only concur.

It depends on the game honestly. A lot of the time randomness just leads to white noise compared to the fun that can be found in carefully constructed and crafted games that use their layouts to test your abilities in fun and interesting ways.

Or... the game isn't meant to have amazing replay ability.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Having some things in the player's control and some things not sounds about right. I already said that predicting other players is possible to some extent, but not totally. The same can be true in single player games.

Maybe this is a matter of preference.

[Neonivek]

Having some things in the player's control and some things not sounds about right. I already said that predicting other players is possible to some extent, but not totally. The same can be true in single player games.

Maybe this is a matter of preference.

Now if you want to fight an incredibly intelligent and dangerous enemy who will give you a lot of trouble without overwhelming firepower.

The Female Soldiers from Castle Wolfenstien (the one from 2000) are honestly the most impressive normal enemies I have EVER seen in a videogame... to the extent where I first thought the room with about 4 of them was meant to be the boss. They will take cover, avoid you running in to attack them, throw grenades around corners, and throw your own grenades back at you.

I am not sure if I would include them as a positive female inclusion as their outfits are a bit... something... but they are by far the most dangerous of the ordinary soldiers.

[Urist Tilaturist]

I have never played that game. It is good to hear that some games have competent opposition.

As for the outfits, they should be wearing vaguely sensible uniforms unless they have just come out of their officer's bedroom.

[Neonivek]

http://gameswalls.com/return-to-castle-wolfenstein/elite-guard/1024x768

They look like that...

Which sadly enough... isn't as bad a costume as I remembered given videogames. Heck remove the high heel boots and they do look a bit overly flashy but in a way that only someone's personal highly trained all female guard could be.

In fact if you removed the high heel part of her boots... This wouldn't be so bad at all and I could put this in the "good example" pile effortlessly.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Does not look too bad at all. Just give them flat heeled boots and it looks fine to me. Not all uniforms are the height of practicality; look at the French at the start of World War 1.

[Neonivek]

I am one of those few mutants who doesn't believe a cat suit is "sexy"... at least inherently.

But yeah she easily looks competent in her costume and isn't overly sexy in that suit (if you fixed the boots).

Heck if you wanted to COMPLETELY eliminate her sexiness factor. Make the boots flat, and make her suit less shiny.

But then again the issue is with undue sexualization. hmmmmm...

[Urist Tilaturist]

Some people have weird uniform fetishes. I do not. The uniform with flat heels would be fine for me.

[Neonivek]

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/166/5/0/_wolfenstein_2009__elite_guards_xps_only____by_lezisell-d7mi3xp.jpg

Also to be fair, this is what happens to the elite guard in the very next game...

Why was this considered an improvement?

Also I found out the women in the previous one also came in another flavor

http://pintaw.com/images/wallpapers/elite-guard-Return-to-Castle-Wolfenstein-Wallpaper.jpg

So yeah they had various costumes apparently in that game. Though outside the tank tops, weren't so bad.

[Rolan7]

Because a game where there is a chance of 'oh LOL looks like you just lost GG" is not usually a fun game. Imagine Dwarf Fortress, but every tick there is a one in a hundred thousand chance of the HFS tunneling into your fort. Would you enjoy playing, knowing that statistically all your forts would fall within a hundred thousand ticks, without any chance of stopping it barring extreme luck?

The funny thing is this used to be a mechanic, sorta!  Maybe you're referencing it.
In old 2D DF, once you found any adamantine (or just mined far enough to the right, I don't remember) the fort had a chance to crumble, or maybe a timer.  I think it was a chance per month, and based on the amount of adamantine mined.  It didn't actually spawn the HFS, just destroyed the fort with a brief message.
(of course there was also the constant threat of save-corrupting bugs with the same result)

Dying in a typical FPS/stealth game usually just means a quick reload from the last save. The whole game is not ruined because of 1 death; it is not permanently lost.

Being able to reload the game is one of the advantages players usually have, but I find it very immersion breaking.  I prefer it when games offer a penalty and explanation for death, even if it's kinda contrived.

In Doom, the player character is pretty well balanced with the enemies.  They have crappy AI and mostly dodgeable or melee attacks, but they have the advantage in numbers.  Also levels are designed to challenge the PC, often by releasing monsters in favorable positions to attack you.  The monsters don't need to pick up health kits for the game to be fair.

Typical stealth games revolve around observing a small area full of very predictable guards, then "solving" it by making a plan to avoid an alarm being raised.  In MGS you can actually see the enemy view-cones on a minimap.  Which is an *incredible* advantage... particularly since their view-cones are like 45 degrees or less...  But it makes the gameplay work.  Losing the minimap is like solving one of those stupid mazes where the walls are invisible.  Except in this case if you touch a wall, an alarm is raised, and the stealth gameplay is over until you reload the game or hide in a closet for like a minute.

Not all stealth games have minimaps of course.  In the original Thief games you instead have to rely on hearing footsteps, and hiding in areas of darkness.  Garret can see in the dark just fine, the guards only search for about a minute, and he even has utility arrows which make the game even easier...  But it's still a difficult game, particularly if you go for the optional no-kill objectives.

I love stealth games (:  I like Assassin's Creed also but it doesn't really fit in the stealth-puzzle genre.

[smjjames]

Yeah the giant chest hole is pretty strange and impractical. Pretty obvious that it was meant for eye candy, and possibly to distract the player at the same time. Then again, when you're fighting, who has time to state at exposed boobs.

If they wanted to keep the sex appeal, they could have colored the shirt in a way that brings out the boobs or something while keeping it practical 

[Urist Tilaturist]

The funny thing is this used to be a mechanic, sorta!  Maybe you're referencing it.
In old 2D DF, once you found any adamantine (or just mined far enough to the right, I don't remember) the fort had a chance to crumble, or maybe a timer.  I think it was a chance per month, and based on the amount of adamantine mined.  It didn't actually spawn the HFS, just destroyed the fort with a brief message.
(of course there was also the constant threat of save-corrupting bugs with the same result)

Being able to reload the game is one of the advantages players usually have, but I find it very immersion breaking.  I prefer it when games offer a penalty and explanation for death, even if it's kinda contrived.

In Doom, the player character is pretty well balanced with the enemies.  They have crappy AI and mostly dodgeable or melee attacks, but they have the advantage in numbers.  Also levels are designed to challenge the PC, often by releasing monsters in favorable positions to attack you.  The monsters don't need to pick up health kits for the game to be fair.

Typical stealth games revolve around observing a small area full of very predictable guards, then "solving" it by making a plan to avoid an alarm being raised.  In MGS you can actually see the enemy view-cones on a minimap.  Which is an *incredible* advantage... particularly since their view-cones are like 45 degrees or less...  But it makes the gameplay work.  Losing the minimap is like solving one of those stupid mazes where the walls are invisible.  Except in this case if you touch a wall, an alarm is raised, and the stealth gameplay is over until you reload the game or hide in a closet for like a minute.

Not all stealth games have minimaps of course.  In the original Thief games you instead have to rely on hearing footsteps, and hiding in areas of darkness.  Garret can see in the dark just fine, the guards only search for about a minute, and he even has utility arrows which make the game even easier...  But it's still a difficult game, particularly if you go for the optional no-kill objectives.

I love stealth games (:  I like Assassin's Creed also but it doesn't really fit in the stealth-puzzle genre.

If you want to play without reloading, play ironman and restart the game. You have the option. There is no explanation for reloading, since by reloading you are going back in time to play the segment again, erasing the events after the save. They never happened. The penalty for death, if there is one, should be death - restart the game, like the old roguelikes, or DF adventure mode. That is what death means.

It makes the gameplay work if what you are looking for is a certain sort of puzzle game. If you are looking for a game with a world/story that makes sense and is good for role playing, not so much.

The boob holes are totally unnecessary. Shirts are not armour, so it would not make much difference to their protection, but it would get very chilly in a German winter.