AU Computer Gaming Club
Game Tips - Gamer Question
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Oct 21, 2005 - 04:18 PM
Post subject: Gamer Question
Crouching. Yes or no? Discuss.
Bandit - Oct 21, 2005 - 05:44 PM
Post subject: RE: Gamer Question
Crouching is a predicessor to camping.
Camping, Just Say NO!
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Oct 24, 2005 - 02:49 PM
Post subject: RE: Gamer Question
Can we truly relate Crouching to Camping, though? What about trying to decrease your hit box so as to take away the sweet taste of victory from the "Spray and Pray" players like myself? Aiming? What's that?
PhukFace - Oct 25, 2005 - 12:26 PM
Post subject: RE: Gamer Question
im gonna agree with el bandito here.
crouching = good, yet leads to camping which = bad...
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Oct 25, 2005 - 01:03 PM
Post subject: RE: Gamer Question
So it can be said that Crouching is a gateway skill to Camping. Interesting. But, what of its use in singleplayer games? Did anyone crouch in Halo? What about Half-life? Conker's Bad Fur Day?
kurtmax_0 - Oct 25, 2005 - 03:04 PM
Post subject:
And how exactly is camping bad? Some games require camping (like battlefield: how are you supposed to defend a cp without camping?) and most of the games that don't require camping (like UT) you die if you are not constantly bunny hopping around...
I've been playing F.E.A.R. lately (which is fscking awesome btw) and crouching and leaning are vital to survival... I think you have about the same amount of HP as each of your enemies because if you are not behind cover you die...
I also used crouching and leaning and stuff in the RS series.
And probably a few other games too, but I don't feel like taking the time to remember..
EDIT: Oh, and to further the topic, what do you think about games that let you go prone?
EDIT2: Fixed typo
jokeyxero - Oct 25, 2005 - 06:26 PM
Post subject:
It's all part of the game. If its there it is a means to an end. Defending is not exactly camping. They only call it camping when they can't kill you and are thus annoyed. Run and gun isn't always the best strategy (actually, its rarely even a good one).
Bandit - Oct 25, 2005 - 09:11 PM
Post subject:
Camping is a term that came about during Quake 1 mulitplayer sessions. Basicly someone would get a big weapon, like a rocket launcher, and setup behind or above a spawn location, or some other critical place you had to show up, and just blast the large weapon in the area. So the orignal definition wasn't Camping but actually Spawn camping. Later it was generalized to just setting up in a unknown or inacessable location with a weapon and ganking people who were un aware of your location.
So what orignally was "you spawn camping son of a bitch" became, "I hate campers", "campers suck". So I was just continuing the generalization to "crouching sucks".
If you want my honest opinion, camping is not bad, neither is prone, or crouching, or any other game mechanic even non-mechanics like exploits. What is wrong is when you use anything in the game or out of it that affects it repeatedly and don't change strategy or use it every single time you are in danger of loosing. Everyone wants to win sometime. Or barring that everyone wants to have a chance at winning. TO over use any one thing causes people to think there is no chance at winning and thus quit trying. So if you want to continue playing a game don't use the same thing over and over change it up, you don't always have to win just because you can.
This was the single hardest lesson I have learned in my years as a gamer. I still have to constantly remind myself of it or I risk turning people off from the games I want to play.
kurtmax_0 - Oct 25, 2005 - 10:48 PM
Post subject:
I agree with you Bandit. There are many people that refuse to play most video games with me anymore 
. So I started letting people win... sometimes...
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Oct 26, 2005 - 04:29 PM
Post subject:
Winning... losing... Perhaps we've missed out on the most important lesson of them all. Funocity. The ability of someone who is funning to have fun. Yes, I now see a clear point. Crouching is a gateway to camping, which is a gateway to winning, which is a gateway to a lack of funocity. Thus, Crouching equals suck. However, I am still in the bewonderment on the subject of prone. Prone, good or bad? Is it a greater level of Crouching? Can you become addicted to Prone? Is Prone where the Crouching gateway leads?
Game mechanics... a .50 calibur, insta-gibbing, hit-your-toe-and-you-die WMD. Perhaps they moved to the games from Iraq. Regardless, they're in games to stay. Thoughts on this? What decides if this is fair? Also, is an auto-shottie really that bad? Or is it a young girl's best friend? Discuss!
Ack - Oct 26, 2005 - 06:21 PM
Post subject:
Well, here's my take on changing play styles to let people win....
...don't. I've had a major problem with losing to others in games I like to play. It's not the losing that I dislike. It's the other guy's reaction. PC games, sure, letting others win isn't such a bad thing since they aren't sitting right next to you. In fact, they usually have no idea who you are, so if they win, it's not so bad. They get happy, and you can smile knowing somebody is having a good day. Unfortunately, consoles aren't like that. Almost every time I lose at a game I'm good at, the other guy goes nuts, and puts on this long show about how he finally beat me, and how great it is, and how he's getting so much better, and I'm getting so much worse, and on and on, until...I just quit. I hardly play fighting games against other people now because it's just no fun listening to them act all high and mighty about winning a round, or whining so badly about how cheap I was being when they lose. Hell, I've had people rant for twenty minutes after beating me for one round in a five round match. It's annoying, and it really makes me want to just quit the game.
With Xbox Live and other new console internet programs, it's not so bad. I just turn sound off when I don't want to hear voice chat.
As for crouching and prone, it's not so bad in some games. I prefer sniping while prone at times, but it's not always a good idea. Sometimes you have to be able to move around, and prone will often get you killed by other guys. The running-and-gunning type will run right over you and pump you full of lead. Also, getting run over by a tank while prone just isn't fun. Then again, it's pretty funny... The insta-gib guns I think are fine at first, when used in larger games by players who've never actually played. It lets them get a feel for controls and such. After two games, though, it should be traded out for something else, so players can actually gain some skill. After that, a player should practice with their new chosen weapon long enough to play without needing an insta-gib gun.
kurtmax_0 - Oct 26, 2005 - 06:54 PM
Post subject:
Well in terms of CS:S, I prefer the pump-shottie over the n00bstick. Mainly because the n00bstick sucks. (<-period) Plus I've never killed somebody 10 meters away with one shot of the auto-shotty. The pump-shotty does lots more damage, but it's completely random (so is every other weapon in CS:S). So I prefer using the pump and getting a lucky one-shot kill...
In BF2 it's alot less random. Although I prefer the pump-shotty to the saiga-12k. I haven't unlocked the auto-shotties yet, but I've been killed by them ALOT. But I don't call those people n00bs or anything because it still takes skill to get up close without being pumped full of lead from an assault rifle or such.
On another topic (still BF2), the n00b tube is anoying. I don't call people n00bs, however, I simply start using the n00b tube on them until they beg me to stop 
Bandit - Oct 26, 2005 - 07:20 PM
Post subject:
whoa there Ack you are seriously missing some viatal information.
1. The internet is no different than playing side by side other than ping times. However I think you are hitting on something. Playing people you don't know vs playing with your core group (friends,club,clan) or people are you trying to get to play is different. When you are playing people you don't know, flame on, warp 10 captain, don't hold back. No reason to.
2. Your problem with people going on and on. I don't know you but I imagine you loosing for whatever reason and getting 20 mins of smack talk is pay back for how you win or how you play. People don't naturally care at 20 min. rant levels unless there is some sort of instigation. So if you don't like that take a serious look at yourself.
3. Quitting: Quitting is the ultimate lameness when it comes to gaming. It is a final resort that means no one will ever get any more chances at fun in that setting again. A contentious gamer is aware of others tolerances of 1)smack talk 2)repeated defeat 3)bragging. But the true great gamers are capable of pushing right up to that limit with apparent violent disregard, all the while secretly riding the wave, baiting the victims on never quite breaking the barrier of tolerance and forcing quitage.
Now back to our original discussion. Crouching is a hybrid form of prone and standing. SO I launch into my proof that prone is ghey.
1. Fact: Spawn camping = teh ghey
2. It doesn't matter if you are getting spawn camped or just camped it is still frustrating to die repeatedly in the same fasion from someone you know is not changing position or style. Fact: Spawn = 0
3.
Spawn camping - Spawn = teh ghey - Spawn
camping = teh ghey
4.
Prone is laying down and not moving. You can move slowly but not enough to be significant in this equation. That is to say as movement aproaches 0 the closer you are to not chaning your location and thus camping a spot.
prone = not moving
camping = not moving + killing
prone = camping - killing
5.
prone < camping
prone = camping - killing
camping = teh ghey
killing = teh: Killing is teh point to teh game and thus is equivalent to teh point.
prone = teh ghey - killing
prone = ghey
trsruiner - Oct 27, 2005 - 03:07 AM
Post subject:
it all depends on what level of play you are looking at. Playing in a tournament and playing with friends is a little different.
Bandit - Oct 27, 2005 - 12:05 PM
Post subject:
tsruiner see my rule 1.
Normally you don't know everyone in a tournament thus it would apply. Usually firends don't have tournaments with just each other because they know who will win.
Ack - Oct 27, 2005 - 05:03 PM
Post subject:
Actually, my response to winning in a fighting game is usually just to sit quiet and shrug. I've also been stuck playing fighting games for hours after getting caught in a loser-passes-the-controller game, to the point that eventually I just let somebody else go because I get bored. And Bandit, we have met, you're rather obnoxious yourself. Still a damn good Tribes player, though. Much respect.
As for quitting, I didn't mean quit entirely. I meant quit playing with that person for a while. I have quit playing very few games, one of which was CS: Source. Played in once. Got a headshot from 10m with the pump shotty. Quit immediately.
Also, I agree with your rules. Specifically 1 and 3. I despise spawn camping, though I also realize that in some games, it's almost all you can do. Battlefield is really bad about spawn camping, but because of the way the game is set up, it practically invites it.
Anyway...yes, spawn camping sucks. Prone does not suck because prone has both positive and negative issues. Crouching does not always suck because it can be used for an effective run and gun strategy, though crouching while camping is very much crap. Sniping while parachuting...cool.
Bandit - Oct 27, 2005 - 05:35 PM
Post subject:
In fighting games I prefer reversing the rule. Looser stays. In practice this actually works out better because the looser needs more practice anyway. Normally this causes the best players to give advise to the looser so he will win and they will get another shot quicker. (in actuality it doesn't get them to play any quicker but the illusion is still there)
Meeting someone and knowing them are 2 different things in my mind, but that is for another time. I know I am the master of obnoxious. I atempt to raise it to an art form, I'm constantly trying to grate people for a number of effects while not pushing them to the point of quiting. I find people that are irritated or thinking up come backs are easier targets. I also find talking large enough and hitting hard enough makes people hesitate when they otherwise should not. This is also an advantage for me. Additionally I find people enjoy smak talk, it is a seperate game outside the game. The trick though is to keep them quipping back at you, when they stop or the don't laugh it is time to start mocking yourself and letting them win.
Now back to you.... I know this may be hard to belive and I don't know if it even applies to you but... Victims(the people you beat and rant at you when they win) may be getting a vibe off you in your body language and style of beating them. This may be the vibe that is causing them to go off the deep end. If you suspect I may be right I suggest a little experiment. One gaming session completely change the way you would normaly act. If you wind up with a different reaction from them when they finally win you have found the Bandit tool. You now have another level of game play. Now you can play the manipulate your opponents mind game. Trust me it is grand fun.
I don't agree with my above proof but I just thought it would be fun to abuse math proof logic in this fasion. I whole heartedly agree with Homer Simpson when it comes to proofs,"Facts, smacts. You can use those to proove anything remotely true."
I honestly feel "there is a time and place for everything, and that place is called college". Chef from Southpark. Spawn Camping can be done for fun and profit in the right situations. For instance say you are getting totaly dominated by someone and just happen to get lost on the map and wind up over their spawn. It sure can relive some stress to pop him as he spawns a couple or twenty times.
T-BirD - Oct 27, 2005 - 11:12 PM
Post subject:
Bandit wrote:
I'm constantly trying to grate people for a number of effects while not pushing them to the point of quitting.
You weren't always this...."refined"....
Classes taught by Bandit:
Age of Kings - How to be a "good" ally....unless you're in danger.
Sacrifice (at Strangel's going-away lan) - how to win a game in under a minute and make everyone not want to play anymore.
....good times!
Bandit - Oct 28, 2005 - 03:36 AM
Post subject:
By no means was I that refiend and I would say I'm still not that refined. I try but sometimes you just don't feel like trying anymore and you feel like letting the hate flow.
I remember the game where T-Bird, Vector, Sithlord, Mauler, Shaft, and X all got pissed at me. 3 of whom left the building they were soo pissed that I backstabed them all in turn. My good buddy T-Bird was the 2nd in the line of back stabbing and was probably the one I stabbed the hardest.
Actual quotes from the match.
T-Bird: Wanna ally?
Bandit: Ok
bandit has allied with T-bird
T-bird has allied with bandit
Bandit to Lynx: Don't kill me I can donate to you and help you win.
Lynx: I don't need your resources. Kill T-Bird.
Bandit: OK hold on.
T-Bird: what are all those troops doing in my base.
Bandit: Lynx is about to attack I'm here to defend.
T-Bird: Lynx is on the other side of you how could he attack?
Bandit: I'm sorry Its you or me.
bandit declaired war on T-Bird
T-bird, "What the ..... "
Bandit: Hey where did T-Bird go?
Shaft: I think he left.
But I don't quite remember the Strangel's going-away lan. Refresh my memory. I like to re live these acts of villany in my mind from time to time. But seriously that backstab to T was the single dirtiest thing I ever did. In my defence it was a King of the Net tournament but it was still dirty as hell. It took me 2 quarters to convince ANYONE to ally with me in ANY game after that.
kurtmax_0 - Oct 28, 2005 - 04:10 AM
Post subject:
Heheheh. I've done my share of backstabbing.
Some of my favorite quotes:
"Where the hell are my battlecruisers!!!???"
"Hey! Half the map just went black!!"
"What's with those krogoths in my base??! OMG YOU BASTARD!!!"
Probably a bunch more but that's all I can remember for now. It took me several years to get people to ally with me again
T-BirD - Oct 28, 2005 - 06:30 PM
Post subject:
To refresh:
*Game begins*
Everybody goes to collect NPC souls from the map so that they can begin calling forth minions. ...everybody, except one...
Within a minute, T-BirD receives the message that his altar is being desecrated.
Within moments, T-BirD is out of the game.
T-BirD never plays the game again.
Some others experience a similar fate
...that at least was the second round played. The first was pretty much a stalemate between Bandit and T-BirD (who knows what the others like Vector did...). On what might perhaps be the bloodiest piece of digital land the size of half a soccer field that ever existed, they flung armies at each other which promptly died and were resurrected....for what seemed like forever.
Bandit - Oct 28, 2005 - 06:59 PM
Post subject:
OH yea now I remember that one. Heh... that was after I had supposedly learned my lesson about backstabbing everyone in one game.
Sorry about that T-Bird. I never played the game again either. I don't remember why but I guess we all decided it sucked or maybe it crashed repeatedly on us.
RugerMK1 - Oct 28, 2005 - 09:20 PM
Post subject:
I just run in and gut every motherfucker I see. And shoot the ones farther away!
Ack - Oct 28, 2005 - 09:53 PM
Post subject:
And then I give you an STD.
PhukFace - Oct 28, 2005 - 10:32 PM
Post subject:
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Oct 28, 2005 - 10:34 PM
Post subject:
So what you can all be saying in a more metaphorical since of the speakering is "Bandit is a prick." This seems to be a muchly generalized piece of a statement. Let us contemplate on this for a short slice of the time pie.
As for gutting. Gutting is... sloppy. Takes time for the guts to fall out. Random bashings of the face with the back of your pistol can put someone down but takes a long time. A crowbar to the skull does nicely if using the pointy end. A knife... well... knives are just fun. Point being, kill quickly, not over a long period of time with a scene from Akira.
Ack. Duel pistols. Halo 2. Understandable to be annoyed. Halo 2 pistols are somewhat of a joke. Understandable to gloat with them. Now, when a person shoots you with a rocket launcher right after you spawn... hence spawn camping. Pissed is acceptable. Of course, in some games, that's hard to do, as spawning is random. Point we all know: People who play one game all the time are usually gloatish monkey lovers with large mouths and small gamete delivery appendages. You can't let that get to you. Just remember an important saying: "You can kill me in game, I can kill you in life."
Auto-Shottie=n00bstick? Perhaps you're just tired of dieing so much? N00b tube? What the deuce is that? A rocket launcher? Bah. That just means you can't dodge rockets very well. Remember. If you can dodge a rocket, you can dodge a... high explosive device powered by a jet propulsion system. Or something like that.
On to the next subject: Botting. Bots can be many different things. Need 5 SoJ, Gollum? Bot! Tired of farming? Bot! Tired of not having enough money to buy things on the AH with an over inflated economy due to other people botting their farm lands? Bot! What's your opinion? Phuckface? Ack? T-Bird? Prick?
kurtmax_0 - Oct 28, 2005 - 10:46 PM
Post subject:
That's what the auto-shottie in CS:S is generally referred to as: n00bstick. I didn't make it up. I don't really care when people use it because I normally kill them....
As for the n00btube in BF2. That really needs to be fixed. It's not as bad as the Heavy weapons class that the US had in BFV before they patched it (Anti-Tank AND an m60 that was super accurate). It's the grenade launcher for the Assault class. Again, I really don't mind it thaaat much, as I can generally avoid getting hit.
But not only is the n00btube a "kill button" in the hands of an expert, it's also bugged. Me, and also my clan members have noticed that 90% of the time the sound of the explosion from the grenade is never played. This is really annoying as then you don't even know that the guy is shooting at you sometimes...
Really, I hardly ever complain about n00bs in rl, as I can just counter their tactics. But sometimes games are truely broken...
Bandit - Oct 29, 2005 - 02:58 PM
Post subject:
You seem to be confusing me with the Anti-Bandit.
Botting is something that will have to be delt with in every game who's makers force large durations of time to pass doing repetative actions with low risk to the character. I personally feel Botting is a way the players eliminate the tedium of the game. So to me the bigger issue is not do you use bots or not but why are they even possible? They are possible because the game is too simple and has no risk built into every action performed. You wouldn't have a bot build your base in a RTS would you? Only if your strategy never changed game to game and thus it become tedious. Take Guild Wars for example. All the tedious travel from place to place is gone, the crafting is quick once you collect the items. So your work is in collecting not watching a crafting bar fill up. Secondly there is experiance, in GW you don't get bots for money or experiance because both are of medium difficulty to get because of the risk of dieing. When you die you simply get a -15% on everything untill you go back to town. It would be difficult to build a bot smart enough to xp and get quests and return to town for you as the monsters you fight quickly become worth less and less the more you fight them. Now we come to the final form of botting, 2nd accounts. In GW this is also completely uncessary as NPC's will join your group for free. Yes they are 1-4 levels behind you but the cost and benifit analysis of buying a second copy of the game and writing a bot isn't worth the 1-4 levels of gain you get.
It it only up to a swat bot detection team if your game is tedious and low risk. With just a few minor game adjustments bots become less worth while.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Nov 01, 2005 - 03:04 PM
Post subject:
Interesting justification and negation of botting. So what you seem to be saying is that botting is only a problem if the programmers make it as such? They make a game with holes, and botters fill them. Interesting concept. Still, I find it a bit annoying when the botters/farmers go out, get a large amount of things, and then increase the standard price of items starting at lvl 5. What lvl 5 has 5g? Damn you, WoW! Damn you!
So, anyone else have an opinion on botting?
Kurt, it seems you know what you are doing. I see your point on the frustration with the sound. That needs to be fixed.
If no one else has any opinion on these subjects, we shall move on. Multiplayer Jumping! What's the deal?
Ack - Nov 02, 2005 - 07:47 PM
Post subject:
Ok, first off, bots wouldn't really be necessary if the game didn't end up getting dull. Hence why, in most games that end up getting really dull, bot detection tactics are usually pretty common because so many people are using them...because the game is BORING!
And what do you mean by multiplayer jumping? You mean grenade and rocket jumps, or do you mean stacking on top of one another, or what?
T-BirD - Nov 02, 2005 - 10:17 PM
Post subject:
I'm guessing he means bunny-hopping? I hope it's not strafe-jumping - that's absolutely essential in Quake3 and 4, as dodge-jumping is in UT2kX.
Bunny-hopping in sci-fi games I don't really mind. Bunny-hopping in games that are supposed to be somewhat realistic (like Call of Duty) is infinitely dumb.
lordbyronIII - Nov 02, 2005 - 11:02 PM
Post subject:
Heh, I cycle through quits-and-starts when I get frustrated with a game... Sometimes I just have to realize that I am -- at best -- a mediocre game player, and a crappy FPS player. Sure, I can stumble my way through a single-player campaign, where I control the pace and everything, but multiplay is muchly different. And, when put on a team, I'd do better trying to learn from people than rambo-ing my way through -- but sometimes it's impossible.
So, to be simplified:
If I whine, hit me with a shovel. 'Cuz I try not to whine and reinforcement always helps.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Nov 04, 2005 - 10:01 PM
Post subject:
Multiplayer jumping. The bunny hop. Strafe and jump. Rocket jump. Conc jump. All tools of the trade. Let's discuss the pros and cons of some. Do we find them annoying? Is it really that much help? Here's my thoughts.
Bunny hop... what the hell? Obviously easy to become a rocket jump, 'specially when you land on my rocket. Yeah, I'm a rocket whore that can't aim. Get over it. But does it really help? It seems to me that it makes you more of a target. I mean, who hasn't noticed someone jumping around in a game? Can you dodge better while doing it? Is it in any way essential?
And what's this essential jumping ability in Quake 3 and 4? Strafe jumping? I don't really get it...
Anyone who's played TFC knows the beauty of the rocket jump. Clearly essential in some areas, it involves running, jumping, and shooting the ground under you with a rocket at the same time. The conc jump is similar, but involves a grenade and thus better timing. But do these techniques work in any other games? Can you stand on a rocket and not be shredded to pieces anywhere other than TFC?
I expect a bit more comenting on this before we move on to the next topic "1337 5|>34|<"
T-BirD - Nov 05, 2005 - 12:34 AM
Post subject:
Umm...to the best of my knowledge, the rocket jump began with Quake 1 where it is a very useful technique in deathmatch and other game modes for those that can use it well - in fact, some secret areas basically required you to use it. In Quake 3, you can use multiple rocket jumps (or the plasma gun) to scale walls - look for some trick jumping videos online, or I'll show you some at tigerlan tomorrow.
Strafe jumping - well...let's equate the default "running" speed of Quake 3 to that or a turtle (Quake 4's seems more on paar with a slug on meth). Strafe jumping allows you to easily pass a cheetah if you do it correctly. I'll show that to you tomorrow as well if you like.
kurtmax_0 - Nov 05, 2005 - 02:26 PM
Post subject:
Bunny hopping in some games is needed. In UT you actually moved faster bunny hopping than just straight running. Some games it's "ghey" though. Like battlefield 2. Seriously, there is a sprint in battlefield 2 so you can't complain you can't run fast. It's just annoying to turn a corner and some retard with an autoshotty is bunnyhopping in circles while you try to shoot him with an assault rifle. In games like BF they should really mess up your aim when you jump.... I'm pretty good at BF2 now so I can still generally pwn them, but it's still annoying...
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Nov 10, 2005 - 08:32 PM
Post subject:
So, basically what you're saying is that the more realistic the game, the less jumping is required. And the more it should throw you off. Interesting, indeed. Now, on to this whole 1337 thing.
What the deuce?!? Can anyone... ANYONE... justify it's existance outside of Counter Strike? Thoughts on the matter?
T-BirD - Nov 11, 2005 - 07:14 PM
Post subject:
It didn't start in CS. I first saw it in Quake 1 in early 1997.
kurtmax_0 - Nov 11, 2005 - 07:40 PM
Post subject:
Some games don't have jumping at all. Like the rainbow six series...
lordbyronIII - Nov 12, 2005 - 10:04 PM
Post subject:
1337 as far as I can remember started in IRC and then moved into games... however, those that spoke it that I remember were making fun of it -- much as we do today.
I hear from Russel that it began in Quake I, but having never played Quake I I have to go with where I saw it first.
IRC, during the onslaught of n00bage. (( Stage One, Act Seven. ))
Bandit - Nov 13, 2005 - 01:19 AM
Post subject:
almost correct byron.
Elite Speak or 133+ $p3@k started in sign on message boards where people didn't want others to know what they were saying.
Later it moved to IRC Channels as special characters sort to the top so people would name their channels !!!!!!!!!!!!!!$3X!!!!!!!@11!!!N|5H+!!! instead of sex all night. Basicly the people would just remap their keyboard keys to a custom mapping and type normal. That way it appeared they were some uber typer but actually they knew a silly little secret that made them elite. It was also used to make your typing something other than ordinary abc 123. Basicly if my letters all have ~ ` and - over them you are more likely to read what I am saying. Usually that person would be advertising their porn ftp site or what not.
This eliteness carried over to FPS games to make their gamer tags stick out. I mean how many Bandit's do you think are out there? Compair that to 8@ND1+ and I bet the number is a much smaller.
One of these days ancient ones like T-Bird, Stick, and I will move on and it will be left to you guys to relate the good ole days. For now feel free to ask us where things came from. And also feel free to keep your yap shut when you dont' know what you're talking about, Blue Hair. 
lordbyronIII - Nov 28, 2005 - 05:06 AM
Post subject:
I could say something here like 'roflomgwtfbbq' but I'll leave that out in favor of actually writing out what I want to say:
I just fell of my chair laughing. Excellent post, sir. *salutes*
Ehgret - Nov 29, 2005 - 05:14 AM
Post subject:
This is a link to a L337 translator I found.
3|\|J0Y |317(|-|35
http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/279548
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Nov 29, 2005 - 01:27 PM
Post subject:
I think we can all appreciate Bandit's knowledge on the subject of 1337, or 133+ as he put it. And thanks to Ehgret for the L337 translator. Stay black, my brother.
However, this brings about an interesting idea. We've seen how the realism of games has increased over time, and how the tactics, annoying or otherwise, have changed. More and more games these days are using bullet time. Is this a plus or a negative? And what about the old days when a game moving slowly was a bad thing? Is bullet time really an increase in game play, or a decrease in the skills of the average gamer? After all, if you have to slow down everything just to shoot it, you might not be that good. Discuss.
Bandit - Nov 29, 2005 - 03:31 PM
Post subject:
I have 2 opinions on the subject of bullet time and both could be blamed on being an old codger of a gamer.
1. Bullet Time is just another marketing idea that was good in one game but shouldn't be put in every game just so you have another feature on your box cover. I mean come on what the hell is it doing in Rise of Nations under the guise of Cannon Time?
2. As I age my reaction times drop(theoretically) and I become less of a twitch gamer and more of a methodical force. All the genras have settings that let the server control the game speed. Bullet Time is basically a suspention of the rule at will by a player. As long as this rule change is temporary and limited by another rule I'm fine with it.
What I really want to see is the next level. I want to Speed up time temporarily, and even crazier I want my speed up or slow down to be only in my local area. That way when 2 players are using counter powers you get strange fields of time speeding up and slowing down. Maybe the ultimate in crowbar deaths is for me to catch you in mid jump and hit the top of you with a slow field and the bottom with a fast one. This stirs up memories of the Quake mod Superheros. I want a good Superhero game in first person shooter style where everyone is a superhero.
T-BirD - Nov 29, 2005 - 05:32 PM
Post subject:
Bullet Time is the new Lens Flare - everyone's gotta have it now. Granted, it usually fits (though Cannon Time?? I remember hearing that before, but I've never used it...), starting with Max Payne all the way through FEAR.
Then again, many current games are really frustrating to me nowadays - like Far Cry - where I prolly wouldn't have completed the volcano level if it didn't lag out my computer something fierce....and I had to simply cheat to pass the final map...I tried the legit way probably 50 times and couldn't even pass the first encounter on that stage.
lordbyronIII - Nov 30, 2005 - 02:39 PM
Post subject:
... I tend to throw my controller or keyboard up against the pillow on the wall (because I am an economical gamer and don't need to break things in rage) when confronted with 'bullet time,' 'super jump action combos' and other complicated things in a game. If I can't get to this stuff via kickin' ass in normal methodry then I don't want the game to force me to have to use it.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Nov 30, 2005 - 09:42 PM
Post subject:
So it appears that we're all good on Bullet time as long as it fits. I'd never even heard of cannon time... and now that I have... well... I'm disgusted. Regardless, I do believe that it has it's uses. You've seen it in F.E.A.R. and it was about as beautiful as UG's sister, though with a tad bit more gore. Let's see if he kills me for that one.
Unless someone else wishes to attack Bullet Time, we shall move on. We've talked a great deal about past and current gaming tactics and annoyances, and as I now move to find other ideal ways of spending my time in the philosophy of gaming, I must ask a crucial question. As members of the gaming community, what do you think will come next, and how do you plan on exploiting it? The future is open, so what do you want it to be?
lordbyronIII - Dec 01, 2005 - 02:42 AM
Post subject:
Well, it's pretty obvious I plan to be in on the thick of things, so here's my two cents that I actually am going to implement in "the game" by "the company." Which is oddly close to being a tangible reality.
When I play a game, I want it to be simple. I want cool things to happen just via a normal sequence of events, and even cooler things to happen sometimes if I implement good strategy or some other good thing in addition to normal sequences of events.
Therefore.
I don't want to have to give units specific commands like 'garrison' or 'dig trenches and plant yourselves in them' or 'buy milk at the store while you're out.' The day that I send a unit into enemy territory and they start skirting the trees trying very hard not to be seen without me telling them to... I guess basically I want better AI of your own squad in RTS's and in other games I want to be able to play the game my way and have the strategy be viable.
Perhaps this is why WoW turned me off...
Enough of my ramblings. On to the next avid poster!
Bandit - Dec 01, 2005 - 02:01 PM
Post subject:
Being and RTS guy this is what I have always wanted and will probably continue to go wanting....
An RTS game should incorporate MMPORG ideas. Permanancy, large community, and massive warfare. I would want it in a fantasy setting but would be satisfied with any. Basicly the game would start as a RPG with your avatar(your caracter) your avatar is not you you are the person sitting in the chair controling him and he is the avatar in another 'real' dimention. You can choose to make him from the standard templates or you can customize him from stratch or from a template. The template would include, Stats, Starting Skills, Feats, Spells, and Styles. Stats, Starting Skills, Feats and Spells are simply D20 DnD sorts of things. Samples of a Style would be Tower Guard, which would have Actions. An Action would be how the character moves his body. This Action would result in simply his body moving which could result in an item being contstructed, a sword swining down and back up, a shield moving to block a sword(if none is there the shield arm doesn't move). Spells would also be tied to what you have on you and your Action. You can't cast a fireball without gesturing. Action discovery could occur automatically via standard progression in your training by another character or NPC OR you can edit and create them yourself. Maybe you want a Ice Ball well in that case you have to discover to invert the fire gestures of the fireball while still using the ball gestures.
Next you can choose to collect more Avatars to build your army. You could establish a church to yourself, or you could form a raiding band that follows you. But the point is you are a god to these Avatars. You can control them directly or you can choose to give thim orders, goals, and rewards. All of this cost god mana or somthing. The more powerful worshipers, the more they do for you, the more you have the more mana you have but you influence can only be felt through your followers. You can't cast fireball only your follower can.
Each god also has the ability to meet other gods because they can 'see' each other foating about over the minions. Through this interface you can form alliances with other gods(players) and have your minions form guilds, churches, secret societies whatever you want to call them. This relationship doesn't offer anything to the gods other than communication because they still want to gain worshipers. I suppose you could teach another god's avatar how to cast iceball but I suppose you would want somthing in return. Ultimately the goal is whatever you want it to be. Kill other gods? Build giant cities? Level up your minions? Whatever you want. Just be aware, the world is large and not fair.
One other thing when avatars die, their souls wind up in your well of souls. From this well you can re-incarnate them, or raise them from the dead. reincarnation starts a new avatar with a preset progression that is identical to the sould reincarnated but they are level 1. Raising from the dead destroys part of the soul, Abilities lowered, skills forgoton, actions corrupted.
Anyway just my idea.
Ack - Dec 01, 2005 - 03:20 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, but anybody who doesn't buy the game almost immediately would be seriously underpowered. One Level 1 against a troop of five Level 30s just wouldn't work. There would need to be some kind of power balance.
Personally, I would like to see more of the "Go anywhere, do anything" type gameplay of games like Morrowind. I want a huge world to do it in, too, because I like to just wander around in games. And I want every object I find to be a valid weapon. Picking up paintcans and launching them at people in Half Life 2 was great, but it didn't do nearly enough damage, and I wanted to be able to throw spoons and things like that. Basically I want a huge, fully interactive world in which any sort of object can be used as a weapon. And I want to be able to do anything in these worlds...
...Ultima Online, Morrowind, and Half Life 2 should all have sex, because this game sounds like it would be there love child.
T-BirD - Dec 01, 2005 - 04:56 PM
Post subject:
lordbyronIII wrote:
I don't want to have to give units specific commands like 'garrison' or 'dig trenches and plant yourselves in them' or 'buy milk at the store while you're out.' The day that I send a unit into enemy territory and they start skirting the trees trying very hard not to be seen without me telling them to...
So here's my question - what if you WANT a unit to do something really stupid such as running through an open field so as to - for example - lure the enemy host nearer to the trees next to the field....from which the artillery will then open fire and decimate the enemy?
Some games automatically begin sandbagging troops if they've been stationary long enough - such as Kohan. Actually, check out Kohan 2. You might like it - that is a seriously underappreciated RTS series. I don't think we'll ever see a Kohan 3 either
Bandit: It's not exactly what you want, but it's a start - check out the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms series on the PS2 (parts VII through X are on that system). You can start out as a lowly wanderer, and by making friends, recruiting generals, staging an uprising, and waging (turn-based) war, you can eventually become ruler of all China...and if not you, your children (or designated heirs) can.
Also worth checking out, Europa Universalis 2 and Crusader Kings for PC...but those are even more hands-off in the combat department.
PhukFace - Dec 12, 2005 - 04:54 PM
Post subject:
bump
kurtmax_0 - Dec 12, 2005 - 05:18 PM
Post subject:
Well, one fun MMOFPS is Shattered Galaxy. You create a character and have stats and such. And then you recruit units into your army. Your skills determine what types of units you can use and how many you can use at once. The individual units also level up which allow you to equip them with better equipment. All in all, it's an awesome game. Some battles having 300+ units battling away for control of territory.
Also, I wouldn't like rts games making my units do stuff automatically. I'm pretty good at microing and I think that is part of the skill. I DO like my units to not do stupid stuff, like come out of hiding and attack a tank with an m16 or something.
And artillery annoys me sometimes. I wish there was an option in Battlefield 2 & BF2:SF to turn off commander mode. Having commanders pretty much makes sneaking around impossible, until you take out their equipment and such. (But then they just have to drop a supply crate next to their arty/radar, etc to repair it. It should at least require an engineer to repair...) Also, the arty makes it impossible to camp outside
lordbyronIII - Dec 24, 2005 - 11:58 PM
Post subject:
perhaps I should've made this a bit clearer:
my two favorite things in a game are customization and ... well, cool stuff. I want to see characters on-screen do things I can't do in reality, at least not feasibly.
So, what I'm really after is a customizable option that lets me say 'ok, I want to micro-manage units' or 'let my units make decisions for themselves for now' -- but to actually make the second option viable.
Also... I really want Makai Kingdom again. But a better game. it had everything customizable just like I wanted it... *sniff* but it's too easy. Like FFTactics Advance, horrendously fun at the outset and then... flat.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Jan 16, 2006 - 05:19 PM
Post subject:
Alright then, my fellow space cadets. It's the next semester, so we may as well reincarnate this dead beast of a post with some fluid motions of the hand. So, let's see. We've done quite a bit. But what we havn't done is a discussional segmentation of the past, current, and future AI systems.
So with that in mind, our historically accurate gamers may now fill us in on the past of the AI System. PacMan was on a track. How has that progressed? The current pinacle of AI, I believe, is F.E.A.R., but how close is it to the real thing?
Bandit - Jan 17, 2006 - 06:40 PM
Post subject:
it's not AI at all. Artificial Intelegence in it's current form is acutally Aparent Intelegence. The AI won't be real untill it 'learns' as you play and won't be fair until it uses the same interface you use to play the game. AI requires it to be self aware, preserving, and understand what it is doing and why. Right now and in the past the AI is just a binary tree of reactions to certain situations or worse just a state machine. The only thing that has changed is the character's can do more (squat, throw grenades, alternate fire, ect)and the AI's have bigger binary trees.
AI is a misnomer.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Jan 18, 2006 - 04:46 AM
Post subject:
Ah yes. Bandit, always with his quick responces and utmost intelligence. Now tell me, Bandit. How close is current AI to humanity? Do many players not do the same thing over and over? Does one not rocket jump to climb a wall? Does one not camp behind a box to protect his or her flag? Is the average player nothing more than a bot, following a go here, do this command? I know there are exceptions who do exceptional things, but your average shmoe vs. current AI systems? What's the difference?
Bandit - Jan 18, 2006 - 01:42 PM
Post subject:
Now you are entering the realm of what is intelegence. Let me say this you are asking, "If I can't tell the difference between a bot and a person through the game play, is the bot AI?" I would argue it is a good facimile but not AI. Now my AI professor would have said it is a kind of AI just not the AI. Lets view the AI and the Human players as 2 communities. The AI starts out knowing a set of solutions to the game (crouch, go to box, shoot enemy, throw grenade) and the humans starts only with their familiarity with the genra if any. The humans then play AI and each other trying different paths, like a swarm search on a large finite problem area. There is a time period where the game is new and certain solutions aren't found due to localize minima. Like in SC early on people loved building a spawning pool before building drones and rushing with zerglings. This changed when people found other solutions that were better but it took a while. During this time frame the game is in my opinion the most fun. The humans then eventually exhaust the search space of solutions, ie. everything has been tried and tested vs everything else. Then the humans turn to trimming out the unecessary steps in the solution and the speed at which they apply the solution. Only at that point to they become AI like. That is when the HARD CORE players have taken over the game and it's community of players. That is the point where I say lets go find a new game I don't want to be an AI simulator.
In the old days AI's were state machines. This is basicly a roach. It has no memory of where it was one cycle(tic, second, smallest unit of time) ago but it has a single reaction to a each stimuli for the state it is in. With this you can simulate some level of intelegence. Example: Pac Man. When he is powered up the ghosts run away, when he's not they move toward him. When they get to a branch in the maze they choose a path at random. To make the game harder or easier they can change the speed of the ghosts or the delay in state change when PacMan powers up or powers down. I would argue that the best AI's now are still just state machines. Eventually someone will use swarm AI's or other learning AI's in games because they will be easier to make. Instead of learning a game and building 40 AI's you could build one learning swarm and take 40 members of it's population to make an AI. But in the end humans have the capability as an individual to use swarm tactics mentally, plus the ability to use each other as part of the swarm. The next step in AI is to use more complicated ways to automate AI statemachine creation, the next is to connect those swarm AI's via internet and let them learn after the game has been distributed. SO as the community becomes better at the game so does the AI's.
Bandit - Jan 19, 2006 - 01:28 PM
Post subject:
does no one have a different opinion? or does no one care about AI?
PhukFace - Jan 19, 2006 - 04:45 PM
Post subject:
i was thinking most AI is semi correct... via this:
dont know if the makes sense or not...
say your playin a FPS...
you see an enemy and shoot him he dies, now if you miss then the AI should teach him from that experience and he should dodge accordingly, unfortunately you kill him, with every bot a new"AI" should exist like a real person... they shouldnt learn from the experiences of the previous bots on different levels; just from their surroundings(that specific level, and all the ffects of maybe the group of bots they are with), now if their was an ultimate godlike bot, or commander if you will, then the AI should carry over from level to level until that godbot is dead or extinct, etc.
one bot shouldnt learn from the mistakes of an earlier bot, does that make sense or am i just full of ramblings?.... i vote for the later.
T-BirD - Jan 19, 2006 - 05:44 PM
Post subject:
Bandit wrote:
...is acutally Aparent Intelegence.
I find this to be ironically appropriate 
Anyway, jabs aside, while I've not played it, the AI in Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood is supposed to dynamically react to the situation by advancing, retreating, flanking, and using covering fire - can anybody confirm this?
I also imagine the AI of Stalker is what's keeping that game so delayed - they're trying to create a living world where events happen whether you're around or not (just imagine the processing power that would take!).
Bandit - Jan 19, 2006 - 06:30 PM
Post subject:
Both are just state machines but are more and more complicated state machines. When each soldier starts modifiying his pre-set reactions in game then he is a real AI. True AI can come up with it's own answers even if they weren't programmed with those in the beggining. IE users figured out how to side jump in Quake, and bunny hop in Half Life. The AI never figured this out it was bound to it's original script. I suspect this is the same for BIA:EIB only they are more complicated scripts.
I've never seen software (game or not) sucessfully pull off a simulation of a living environment that didn't eventually reach a final state. IE all the wolves eat all the deer and then starve to death leaving the world empty. Or Weather simulators end up with the entire earth in a perpetual hurricane like Jupiter, or perpetual fog. The issue is these simulations have yet to come up with a source of 'chaos'. That can be said AI's can't make a leap of logic, simulations can't adjust to a stable state of flux. So I highly doubt Stalker will be able to pull it off correctly. But I applaud their atempt as is furthers the public knowledge on how to do it or not as the case may be.
PhukFace - Jan 19, 2006 - 08:37 PM
Post subject:
i saw a demo of s.t.a.l.k.e.r. on toms about a year ago and the physics were fucking incredible. but they were just playing with the engine demoing physics so i cant confim the AI part. i know i was salivated to play it with i saw the demo, and had forgot about ti because its been so long since i heard anything about it.
http://www.stalker-game.com/
here the site if anyone is interested.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Jan 20, 2006 - 07:19 PM
Post subject:
So it seems that AI cannot reach a truly I state until the A becomes less A. So how does the difficulty setting change this scripting? Is it like setting a layer of bricks upon one already built, making the scripting more complex? Or is new scripting used entirely? What about setting up some sort of motion-capture studio, where actual techniques used are copied and scripted straight to the bots themselves? Is that even a plausable idea? After a few more comments, we shall move on to weather effects and how they affect the players with their infectious nature.
Bandit - Jan 20, 2006 - 07:34 PM
Post subject:
Difficulty in different games are handled in a few ways.
1. Making more complex scripts.
2. Damaging complex scripts to have opposite from wise paths.
3. AI Cheating, Auto Aim's, knowledge of where you or your units are even though they can't see you, knowledge of the randomly generated map prior to explorations. This is my point of the AI has to have the same interface as you. They don't have to sit at a keyboard and mouse, but they should be kept from issuing an order to unit A 10 screens away .1 seconds after issuing an order to unit Z.
4. AI's are given better resources, health or powerups than you.
Players want to turn up the intelegence of the AI, but all they can do is increase the cheating or decrease the stupidity.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Jan 22, 2006 - 04:51 PM
Post subject:
So one may assume that this is a direct correlation to fighting games becoming less tactical and more "OMGZ teh b0ss must use teh h4X!"? Then again, is that new? I think all of us have seen Sagat in Street Fighter II Turbo Championship Ultra Force X... or, um, however many other words they can paste on the end of their title. Speaking of fighting games, what's the deal? When it comes down to the line, what kind of character is the best? Fast and Puny, Medium and Mediocre, or Slow and Steady? As for me, Slow and Steady wins the race. Now, what're your takes on this? Bandit? Anyone else? Anyone? Beuler?
T-BirD - Jan 23, 2006 - 01:16 AM
Post subject:
I'm almost always one of the female characters in fighting games.....and not just for the eye candy - I just prefer the faster style of play.
jokeyxero - Jan 23, 2006 - 01:22 PM
Post subject:
give me speed over strength most any day
Ack - Jan 23, 2006 - 02:32 PM
Post subject:
Typically, I go for decent speed more, or general offensive capability. Defense isn't as important, specifically the ability to counter, as long as I can hit you hard and fast. But for some games, I just gotta say screw it and go for the WTF factor. Hence why I started playing Robo-Ky in Guilty Gear...so I can hit you with a flying tricycle. Oh yes.
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Jan 24, 2006 - 10:22 PM
Post subject:
So which then takes the most skill to play? Each character has good combos that can be executed at a certain time which will give a certain effect. Each character has a relatively fast and slow move. Each character is completely different.
I believe in the power of the mountain, the slow and steady beast that must be properly timed. In fact, timing is what all fighting games are about. With a fast character, your mistakes are easily fixed, as attacking too soon is rectified by another fast attack a mere wisp of a second later. Medium characters tend to suffer at the hands of fast characters, but excel vs. slow characters. Slow characters are powned the instant a person makes a mistake. Of course, this is all assuming your opponent knows what they are doing.
Now, there are certain odd characters, such as Robo-Ky, Voldo, or Christopher, the Teddy Bear Furry (If you don't know, don't ask until later). But these can all fall into the fast, medium, and slow categories. Thus, Nightmare was the best character in Soul Calibur.
T-BirD - Jan 24, 2006 - 11:11 PM
Post subject:
I also believe that the slow characters require the most skill. Anybody who can beat a good Chun Li player with Zangief has my respect. If I'm playing a serious Soul Calibur game, Taki it is for me. King of Fighters? - Well...you can't beat the bounce ;p (Mai Shiranui). - though Athena is fun as an alternate.
Ack - Jan 26, 2006 - 03:45 PM
Post subject:
But a slow character can be cheap too. Take Potemkin in Guilty Gear. Easily the slowest character in the game, but press forward punch four times, and the opponent is totally destroyed. I can't stand playing him, but I've beaten the mess out of characters like Jam simply by doing that. Cheap, yes, but effective.
I think, overall, a slow character is no different in gameplay, it just comes down to timing it. But since they're about big damage, they can screw up a little, they can take the punishment and still dish it out for a while. I've seen vicious combos in Virtua Fighter with Wolf that just required a keen eye for countering a faster opponent. I've seen a Hulk player crush Chun Li in Marvel vs. Capcom. I've known a guy who's character in Soul Calibur was Astaroth, and even seen Nightmare own Taki, because Gouji has done it...and no, he wasn't playing T-BirD.
Also...I've never met anybody who claimed to use Zangief. Weird, huh?
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Jan 27, 2006 - 11:16 PM
Post subject:
So, as agreed, it's all about one's timing.
Now, as it was mentioned before, I'd like us to return to weather effects. Which are the best? Which are the worst? Have any seriously damaged your game play? Do you have any tips to get past effects in games in which the normal weather is simply unbearable?
lordbyronIII - Aug 01, 2006 - 01:48 PM
Post subject:
Well yesterday in WoW I wandered into Scarlet Monestary and ran into in-game fog. It was more irritating than fun, because I couldn't turn the weather up past medium, and with it on medium I still couldn't see enemies without auto-target's big red circles showing up from the party Hunter (who btw was an idiot).
... Honestly, I can't think of a counterpoint to this. I can't remember any games where I liked the weather besides maybe Blood, and that technically wasn't ambient weather, it was just fake fog up in the sky in one level.
kurtmax_0 - Aug 01, 2006 - 08:23 PM
Post subject:
The problem with weather in alot of multiplayer games: It can be turned off by turning settings down, etc. This is retarded as it gives people a choice beteween good renders or having a gameplay advantage.
In single player games I find weather can sometimes contribute to the mood quite well. I just finished Dreamfall and the weather effects contributed alot. In Casablanca the bright sunlight reflected off of everything really contrasted with Newport and the dreary rain, etc..
jokeyxero - Aug 02, 2006 - 12:40 AM
Post subject:
Reminds me of HDR in Counter-Strike.. Oh look, I can turn it off and suddenly gain a visual advantage over my oppenent.
fastbilly1 - Aug 02, 2006 - 01:34 AM
Post subject:
Give me FPS over pretty any day of the week in a multiplayer game. Ive played with software rendering in UT to get a boosted 10 fps. Then again I did it on a modern rig simply to get a 300+ fps. What Lias and I were bored.
kurtmax_0 - Aug 02, 2006 - 03:18 AM
Post subject:
Well HDR in Source is retarded. It's extremely slow for HDR and it doesn't even look right. In fact, recent games look too "fuzzy" with all the HDR stuff. They always overemphasize the HDR effect. Almost like they are screaming: "OMG LOOK AT TEH PRETTAY HDR LOOK WAT I CAN DO LOL I AM L33T PROGRAMMER I NEED to GET LAID..."
Not that I haven't implemented HDR in any of my renderers. But I keep it toned down ALOT. You have to really look for it to notice it...
vandyl - Aug 02, 2006 - 03:38 AM
Post subject:
You still need to get laid though.
lordbyronIII - Aug 02, 2006 - 12:17 PM
Post subject:
heheheh, Vandyl...
*ahem* So, we're agreed that weather's fun when it's ambient and irritating when turning it off gives you a visual advantage over your opponent.
PhukFace - Aug 06, 2006 - 12:55 AM
Post subject:
vandyl wrote:
You still need to get laid though.
werd.
lordbyronIII - Aug 07, 2006 - 02:16 PM
Post subject:
good to see you're still kickin', face 
good luck yo
Goji_of_the_Squirrel - Sep 15, 2006 - 08:44 PM
Post subject:
Agreed. Bad lighting effects can screw with a game. I once saw a collection of photos and screenshots in which the next CryEngine (I'm pretty sure that's what it was called.) was used to render an island and a shed. The island looked great and the shed looked almost dead on, except for one small problem. The lighting was too bright and the shadows too dark. When will programmers realize that the prettier doesn't mean the better?
This brings us to the next topic: Is the current trend of pretty yet horrible games simply a trend, or are programmers just that dumb? Is it pressure from the top of the company? Do they realize that they arn't making anything more realistic?
Ack - Sep 15, 2006 - 10:03 PM
Post subject:
TREND! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IT'S A TREND!
Bandit - Sep 19, 2006 - 11:39 AM
Post subject:
Real is not most people are after in a game. Entertainment is... and if I can't see it then it can't entertain me. So turn up the lights.
lordbyronIII - Sep 20, 2006 - 01:15 PM
Post subject:
... It's not really a "trend..." Anytime business higher-ups (or even the lower-downs) are disconnected with gaming enough to think that gamers will buy a game if it has pretty graphics are living in the days of the laserdisc arcade games. They'll continue to do that as long as gaming magazines (and gamers) are still looking at an initial preview movie of a game and going "wow, that's purty!"
T-BirD - Sep 21, 2006 - 04:38 AM
Post subject:
If you have really awesome looking screenshots on your game box, you'll get alot of impulse buys. Also, those awesome shots will be all over previews of the games which will have decided many people on whether or not to purchase a game long before the game comes out, and even longer before they see any reviews of said game. That's the way things work, unfortunately.