Buying a PS3

Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Akratus, Feb 14, 2015.

  1. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    That's pretty damn impressive. They're showing things I wasn't even aware of. But then, the game's been out longer, so naturally more tricks are being picked up on than its successor, so the speedruns I saw of Dark Souls were when the game was less than a year old. Naturally there's going to be huge differences in approach, with such differences in length of exposure.

    See, this is what I don't like. It's not being at odds. It's not arguing. It's spouting bullshit because you're just too damn proud. Silly? Even BEYOND silly? No. No it's note. Speedruns, by their definition, are ways to beat a game while cutting through as much as possible, spending the least amount of time to beat said game. Because of its very design, Dark Souls is shorter because much of the game is totally optional, like the revisit to the Asylum, like half of Anor Londo, and to boot as is often (tragically) the case with speedruns, glitches may often be employed to FURTHER avoid even more of the game, to the point that speedruns for Dark Souls involved rushing the Lord Vessel, then IMMEDIATELY accessing the Kiln, not even killing a single major boss. Can this be done within Demon's Souls? No, it simply cannot. You can skip Mephistopheles, you can skip the World Tendency events, you can skip all the NPC interactions, and you can skip Old King Doran, but you can't skip all the world bosses (being able to skip 2 is news to me). Plain and simple. A speedrun isn't necessarily representative of what a game should provide because they're players endeavoring to AVOID gameplay, sure. But if you're trying to argue about a game's length, and if optional content is part of your argument, you're inviting into your point the very nature of skipping gameplay. So no, it's not silly at all. Your avoiding the point is silly, and wrong.

    Anecdotal nonsense, subjective by its definition, is not an objective, definitive point.

    More pointless pride. Besides, your "dare" comes 3 years too late. I've ALREADY found an abundance of players who say exactly what you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is ever said. Frequently. Any and every chance the subject is broached. There's no small subset of players who prefer the predecessor over the successor who recognize game length to be a contributing factor, just as much as there are those who prefer the predecessor who don't acknowledge game length. Somehow you only see the latter sort, and that's your shortcoming, not mine, neither definitive. To this day I remain in contact with users who I conversed with AT GREAT LENGTH about the differences between the 2 Souls games, and we all agreed upon much of the same things (hence why we clicked and still remain in contact), so "finding" someone to echo these points is not an issue. Again, you're 3 years late in the asking. I could possibly find MORE, were the site I originally found them to begin with one of those exemplary forums I sometimes mention as the pinnacle of abuse of moderator power. I don't visit the site anymore, which is why I "wouldn't be able" to find new sources of those sentiments, but not because they don't exist.

    Having lost count of how many times I've reaffirmed this, let's just say "again", this is NOT an issue of taking difference to what you've stated, but your manner in doing so. It's the stubbornness and snideness, not the comments themselves. I enjoy thorough discourse, and disagreement yields the best sources of debate. But what you do is not that. You're just flinging shit for the sake of flinging shit. You're posing comments as though I didn't take note that "an entire series" is longer than "a game", when I included that in my point from the beginning. You say that I'm offended by your disagreement, when I'm not. You keep saying things that simply aren't true, and that's what pisses me off. When you don't know, you don't know. But you keep saying it like you do, and that's infuriating.

    EDIT: Fuck spelling errors that change the entire meaning of sentences... ~_~
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
  2. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    You stealth a lot more than you shot since the ammo is kida hard to get. And the 30fps is a console thing wich is not something just for this game. And if that is to big of a problem you could always get the new version.. Or skip buying a filthy console :)
     
  3. Ceratisa

    Ceratisa Sarcastic SOB

    228
    Nov 4, 2013
    It doesn't need to be particularly deep when I can sneak up and shiv things in the neck, I rather enjoyed never using an actual gun in that game.
     
  4. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    So did you play Bioshock Infinite, too, so you could enjoy its stealthier gameplay DLC "Burial at Sea: Episode 2"? LOTS of sneaking behind guys in that! No shiving, but lots of sneaking. Tranquilizer darts, surprise-butt-sehks shotgun blasts to the back, blows to the back of the head to knock them out, etc. Gameplay-wise, I enjoyed it the most out of the entire game, but lore-wise it pissed me off the most, so it was a rather polarizing experience.

    Of course, if it's the shiving in particular that's so awesome, there's always Escape from Butcher Bay, a really awesome game and some of the best of the Riddick franchise! =D
     
  5. AlphaPromethean

    AlphaPromethean Vault Senior Citizen

    Mar 16, 2013
    Surely it's unfair to say a game is shorter than another purely based on speedruns which have used exploits to beat the game earlier than they should have (You're not supposed to get to the Kiln before you've beaten all the bosses, as I'm sure you already know, the only way to do so is to use exploits.). I'm sure if there was some sort of exploit that allowed someone to enter the realm of the Old One immediately after entering the Nexus for the first time, Speedrunners would use it? Would I then be allowed to flaunt that Demon's Souls can be beaten in five minutes?Would you consider that to be fair? I'd say the only thing that you can gain as a point from speedruns is that Demon's Souls is less exploitable than Dark Souls, which everyone knows, Dark Souls was (and sort of still is) a hot mess of bugs. That's why I said it was silly, to compare speedruns when speedrunners are able to lop off the second half of one game is not very fair at all.

    And as for me being some stubborn fanboy or whatever it is you're telling me I am, I didn't come into this thread to pointlessly trash on Demon's Souls. It's very likely that Akratus would be able to beat Demon's Souls in a much shorter time-span than the whole MGS series, especially since Akratus is an experienced Souls player. Akratus asked me to expand upon the idea of DeS being short, so I did.

    I also don't recall stating all of my DeS criticisms as facts either (save for the length, but I'll address that.), I've always said "I found" or "I thought" or "I much preferred" when talking about DeS and DaS, if I have then that's clumsiness on my part for not clarifying it as my opinion or preference. Length wise, I feel comfortable in saying that DeS is objectively shorter than DaS based on my own experiences and the experiences of others I've talked to. As I've said before, my first blind playthrough of DeS didn't take that long, it didn't break 20 hours, whereas my first playthrough of Dark Souls took nearly 50. Even now after I've learnt the layout of every area in DaS like the back of my hand, it still takes me between 30 to 40 hours, whereas on a repeat playthrough of DeS, it took me around 12.Obviously my own experiences aren't the law of the land, but seeing such huge jumps in time taken to complete should give the implication to anybody that one game is shorter than the other.

    It's very obvious that both of us are getting tired of this debate (Or whatever you want to call it), so I'll say this:

    I think we should both accept that Dark Souls and Demon's Souls both have their advantages and disadvantages over eachother, and that they're both excellent games at the end of the day, and neither one is objectively better than the other.
     
  6. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Burial at Sea was the most hilariously retarded retcon I have seen. Not only did they waste the only interesting thing to come out of Infinite (the creation of a seemingly omnidimensional reality warper with a mission) by having her suddenly turn "normal" from being killed once, but they also tried to tie all the already pretty bad plot threads of Infinite to both the original game and with half assed explanations. And like with all of Levine's stuff, it was more interested in wow the players with "Shocking Revelations!" or just shocking moments than with being a coherent story.

    Last of Us, you might enjoy if you aren't sick to death of Zombie stories. Have you played a story before where there is a disease that has caused an apocalypse almost at a ridiculously fast pace and there is a magical girl who happens to be immune and you have to protect her to the end of the journey but she will for some reason die in the elaboration of the cure? Do you like heavy handed messages about nature that makes you cringe even when you technically agree with the general statement? Well then Last of Us is the game for you.
     
  7. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    But with the best gameplay out of the entire game! =D
     
  8. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Eh... I guess? The bar was pretty low from the base game tho.

    Also it's pretty adorable Naughty Dog thinks they are Cormac McCarthy.
     
  9. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    Pfft, that's just being cynical. The bar wasn't high, seeing as it was more or less "modern FPS by the numbers" in terms of gameplay, but at least it wasn't bad. The tears also made for a nice touch, gameplay wise. It was often gimmicky and somewhat easily exploitable gameplay, but not bad at all. But stepping into the shoes of a vulnerable character who PLAYED like a vulnerable character, instead of some deadly predator taking out their prey in the most mundane manner possible JUST for shits and giggles, was above and beyond better than what the base game provided.

    Also you missed the part where "Burial at Sea: Episode 2" was a massive, terrible retcon of NOT ONLY Infinite itself, but all of Bioshock. The rewriting of the events of BS1 was just appalling...

    . . . . . . . . . .

    As I have been arguing elsewhere, possibility is irrelevant to likelihood. It IS possible to beat FO1 within mere minutes. It IS possible to beat FO2 within minutes. It's TOTALLY fair to point that out, even though they use script exploits and abuse engine bugs to do so. They key point, consistent with my arguments, is that it DOESN'T MATTER. You entertained the notion that Demon's Souls was objectively the shorter and smaller game better itself and Dark Souls, and that's a stance that invites certain points to be addressed. One of which is "What determines a game's length?" and you seemed to cling to rushing through the game at top speed with refined skills. Well, this is little different than speedrunning; it's not easy to rocket jump consistently, it's not easy to land on those platforms so you can skip x amount of the level, etc.

    On the other hand, what about optional game content? Well exploring optional content which would NOT prevent you from proceeding forward is obviously going out of one's way, so it's not rushing through the game at top speed with refined skills, therefore it doesn't count, according to the line of thought you were presenting. My point was very clearly that like its counterbalancing opposite, IT DOESN'T MATTER. What's possible is NOT what's likely, and what's likely to happen is that a player will find themselves equally as lost (in a good way) in the world of Demon's Souls no less so than its younger cousin.

    Yet you do so, every time. Every time there's a not-positive with Demon's Souls, you latch onto it with fervor. There's a fine line between criticism and cynicism, and maybe it's just because we're on opposite ends of an opinion, but it continually APPEARS like it to me that you frequently cross that line. But I enjoy debate and discourse and two forces at odds because I find there's no better determinant for a conclusion that surpasses the status quo than beginning with two capable forces at odds, so I wouldn't immediately assume "being on opposite sides" would color my perspective any different than usual. But it certainly is possible. That said, it still appears to me that when you venture forward to critique Demon's Souls, you seem to cross that line into cynicism. Maybe it's because it was honestly news to me that you liked and praised the game, because of how rarely you mentioned that? Meanwhile EVERY time I levy a complaint about Dark Souls, I never do so without measuring it against its successes and triumphs. Perhaps some people think that's needless conversational padding, but I consider it vital equalizer, no less important than the constructive criticisms themselves.

    Yes, we BOTH realized that 1 game length < 1 series length, but your presentation was misleading, which caused Akratus to pose the question "[Demon's Souls is] that short?" Despite the obvious, that a game won't take up as much time as a series- let alone a series notorious for lengthy (often unskippable) exposition -you made a point that seemed to exaggerate a game's size, and worse it seemed like you were okay with that, on the basis that, objectively speaking, it WAS a shorter game, according to you. Again, as addressed at the beginning of this post, while nebulous to determine at best, it's still irrelevant to the overall length of the game that its content offers and delivers consistently.

    And the conclusions you and "others you've talked to" differs from the conclusions I've reached and others I'VE talked to, which is why anecdotal evidence is not to be confused with objectively certifiable. For instance, FO3 fans (and fanboys) love to criticize FONV as the inferior game based on it being smaller, when in fact the map is larger by several sectors... its width and the large unused areas simply make people perceive that it is smaller. Something about a square, one with just as much unused space, somehow makes people perceive it as larger. Perception should simply not be confused with concrete evidence. As I listed last time, your "I dare you" comments were refuted years before you made them, but I still endeavored to contact those people I referred to, just to make sure I wasn't putting words in their mouths, and they were still on board with Demon's Souls being the objectively superior (by law of averages) and objectiely larger of the games. The difference between them and myself is, unlike me, they started with Dark Souls, and migrated backwards upon my suggestion. Most players who did so ended up with the same results: a greater appreciation for the predecessor and an understanding that, while a great experience, the successor was simply overall inferior. But, unlike your points of "feeling comfortable that it's objectively such and such", I'm still chalking all that up to experience and perception. I WON'T say all that proves it to be the bigger game, but it DOES stand as a counterpoint to your equally anecdotal point. So long as a group of people "feel" like a game is x and another group "feel" like a game is z, and x cannot be z, one cannot matter, because there are differences in perspective skewing the results.

    This was my stance all along, with one major caveat: ASPECTS of each game can be segregated as objectively superior and inferior, and those are worth pointing out- bosses, size, combat mechanics, etc.

    Frustrated, not tired. I could continue this forever, so long as the thing being continued is a civil debate between two wills at odds and that there's signs of acceptance and both parties are willing to acknowledge facts. I'll never tire of that. But the issues as mentioned above will always be frustrating, and increasing so, the more I encounter them.
     
  10. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    Bioshock Infinite gameplay wasn't bad?

    1. 2 weapon limit
    2. Upgrade system forcing you to specialize in two so picking any others up is usually a waste
    3. All of the plasmids were either a stun or damage dealer except for the takeover one
    4. Linear uninteresting levels
    5. Shit AI
    6. Regenerating shield. . why?
    7. Elizabeth was invulnerable and magically creates items

    And let's not get into the story.

    I've seen too many critiques to like the game at all.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  11. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    "Click to shoot a stun ball, hold and release to lay an explosive trap" = Every single "Vigor", except possession but that one used up too much "salts" per use so it was kind of not even worth using.
     
  12. AlphaPromethean

    AlphaPromethean Vault Senior Citizen

    Mar 16, 2013
    A suggestion to both Akratus and anyone else looking for PS3 games is the JRPG named Dragon's Dogma.

    It's like a cross between Monster Hunter and Skyrim, but better than both. A very fun game indeed.
     
  13. Guiltyofbeingtrite

    Guiltyofbeingtrite Vault Dweller

    751
    Oct 13, 2008
    Suprised about the "The Last of Us" hate . The stealth gameplay was good, challenging, and entirely avoidable if you didn't want to play that style. The writing and character development blew away pretty much every other console game of any genre. Everything Joel does makes complete sense for his character and the ending, despite being incredibly bold for a AAA title is completly in character. I was shocked and proud that a game of that magnitude had an ending like that when a game like Fallout can't even have siding with Killian Darkwater also be a "bad ending".



    As for my suggestions:
    Play every Metal Gear solid game in order of release, there isn't a better collection of action games on consoles. I personally think MGS3 is the best by a good amount.
    Valkyria Chronicles: Great ww2 style story and tactics gameplay, don't let the visuals or character styles dissuade you if you don't like anime, it is a lot more sincere than it looks
    Journey: Takes a few hours to beat but fantastic music, great visuals and I don't think you can have better writing with zero text or dialogue.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
  14. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
  15. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    I saw a whole playthrough of it, I saw the game's fanboys telling the guy playing that he was not "supposed"to do a bunch of things he did even tho the game doesn't punish you in any way, I also saw what is supposed to be just a regular 30 something dude having detective vision that was "explained" as hearing. I also saw a pretty stupid scene with a Giraffe and cringed like mad and a game that tries to be about serious themes while the only interactions you have with the world is gunning down people.

    And it's another Zombie story pretending to be deep, are we back in the 80's? Did the italian exploitation directors sent their kids to work on the videogame industry?

    It does have a good presentation, but just like with Disney, with all the money they have it has to have high polish.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  16. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    Those are easily dismissible points. 2 Weapon limit isn't considered a downside to COD or Halo or Uncharted or plenty of other VERY popular shooters, so that's little more than grasping for straws. Hating for the sake of hating. Saying stuff within a thing is bad because you don't like the thing and it has stuff therefore the stuff is bad. The upgrade system forcing specialization is a GOOD thing, and regardless, most games with weapon upgrades and weapons that are progressively found as you more forward "force" specialization on the players because they have to work with what they've collected so far, so that's a really moot point. Games that let you acquire one of everything aren't inherently superior to games that force you to specialize. The only actual issues with the game's upgrade system is that it allows you to upgrade weapons you haven't found yet, mainly the Vox alternative versions of the Founders weapons, and by the time you reach the part of the game where those can be found, you may not like them, or find that their Founders variants suit your tastes better.

    The "plasmids" were great, conceptually, but they were limited by how generic the enemies were. One ability would be an instant kill on some but ineffective against another. People don't blame Pokemon games for having rock-paper-scissors gameplay, so why is it an issue with BSI? It's because there aren't that diverse of a range of enemies. You'll encounter humans, humans, humans, special humans, humans, special humans, robots, humans, cyborgs, special humans, and more humans. So you end up seeing the "same results" from the abilities because the enemies are all largely the same, not because the abilities were all the same. Linear levels are not a problem unless, like the 2 weapon limit, you're out to make it a problem just because you don't like the thing it's in. Linear storytelling is great, nonlinear storytelling is great. One isn't inherently superior. Levels designed with how you may approach them or how you wish to approach them, linear or otherwise, aren't bad in and of themselves.

    The AI wasn't "shit", if anything, it was merciless. Arguably cheap at times, but not like W@W cheap, or like plenty of other games that are yet beloved because people don't care. Regenerating shields are a staple of modern shooters. Not liking them is one thing, but BSI's variant is nothing special or particularly terrible. It's just another staple in an already homogenized medium. It's not a problem so much as an issue of meager creativity. Elizabeth being "immortal" was a convenience of the story that made sense most of the game until the people trying to shoot you voiced indifference towards Elizabeth. Until then, everyone was told to go out of their way to leave her unharmed. Her role as a plot device and as an ammo and supply refill helped utilize native gameplay to reinforce her role as an important character to the player, and it worked very well. Griping about it is, once more, just grasping for straws.

    BSI has problems, but none of them are from that list. That's a pretty shallow, poorly-considered list that just struggles for relevance to voice personal hate. It isn't something that presents any valuable, quantitative, agreeable assessments of the game's actual shortcomings.
     
  17. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    I think you're being more defensive than necessary here. . just saying.

    I played the game, so I don't think this argument flies. Even before I took in any of the negative consensus on the internet I was annoyed with the combat's bad design. Just because CoD or Halo are popular, doesn't mean I don't think it's still idiotic that they have a two weapon limit.

    I don't believe it is. In Bioshock 1 and 2 there was an upgrade system but because of the lack of a weapon limit you were at least not nearly forced to overspecialize.

    Yeah I found one of those 'better' machine guns with a red ribbon around it, and immediately threw it away because the regular one had a higher upgrade for me.

    They were, but, really? You think they were conceptually great? They were put in because the were in bioshock. They were just placed in the game because of their popularity and marketability. There was no good reason to have them in the early 20th century when they were invented in the sixties. But then again the explenation of the lutece's somehow thinking it a need to be fulfilled in columbia is more logical than a lot of other things in infinite.

    I do.

    Well I disagree. I think these two problems are interconnected.

    Wow. I'm gobsmacked a Fallout fan would dare say this.



    Well I disagree. Half-Life 2 is the shit, but would still have been better with a bit of choice or branchin in there.

    Then explain to me, what does it add?

    In what world is that NOT a problem?

    I disagree. Making her invulnerable was a work around to not put too much pressure on the already oh so challenged player. Yes she was useful to the player, and for some this might reinforce her value as a companion. But why couldn't we have extra realism, or competent design/programming on top of that. It worked very well according to you, and therefore they couldn't have done better?

    How about this then?

    -Second half devolves into alternate world jerkoff session for levine
    -Endless filler mobs and repetitive enemy types
    -Final battle is just filler, no actual elite force or single enemy to face
    -Use of song bird is a dull, wasted gimmick
    -Rapture pandering
    -Elizabeth being social and cheerful is a contradiction to her supposed life long isolation
    -Resurrection mechanic is wholly unrealistic, breaks suspension of disbelief
    -Weapons are unsatisfying to use
    -Big daddy type with new paint job because bioshock!
    -Still munching everything down, no inventory
    -Insufficiently explained technology like turret tracking ("A lutece did it?")
    -Infinite dimensions reduces player's actions to literally nothing
    -Le ebin you are teh bad guy twist!
    -There is always a 2deep4u lighthouse because franchise!
    -Ludonarrative dissonance
    -"""""puzzles""""""
    -Let's hop to an alternate dimension when the writer don't know what to do!

    Game sure looks good though.

    Obviously this is mostly subjective stuff that depends on an opinion you're welcome to have.

    But I agree with this guy.
     
  18. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    It's funny how the pulpy game about Occultist nazi Cyborg Zombies has more branching paths on the story than the "super intelectual" game about "Constants and variables".
    Bioshock Infinitie's gameplay is very very shallow, it almost feels like an after thought as they were way too focused on going over budget with a shitty story that would have made a very dull episode of Sliders. The upgrades don't really force specialization, you are actually better off notgiving a shit about those and saving money for Salt recharges and Ammo, you have a limit on how much ammo of a specific weapon you can carry, but you are never given the option to instead of picking up all those rockets and ammo for other weapons you don't use to get more inventory capacity for the shit you actually use; I mean Jesus Fuck, an Inventory System is something games 10 years ago already had..... So much for "Citizen Kane of gaming"; upgrades are dull increases in numbers and there is only 9 weapons in the whole game and half of them are just "improved" versions of the others, all the vigors act exactly the same, enemies have no interesting attack patterns, they just lunge at you while yelling, the idea of the tears is completely wasted as they just create a single helper item that you can just spam with no strategy or reason, they feel more like gimmicks than a real mechanic, to the point where I mostly ignored them unless they were a crate of medkits. Elizabeth is completely non existent during combat, enemies don't notice her despite their mission being to get her back and they can even shoot you through her. She is a less advanced AI companion than Ashley in Resident Evil 4, and that was a Gamecube game. The loading screens also outright LIE, they tell you "not every situaton has to be solved with violence" yet there is literally no other interactions or mechanics on the game other than shooting things and pressing E on shiny objects. Often times the game will just spawn guards in front of you and lock up the stage until you clean out the area.

    And the story also sucks, it's visuals are pretty (when you aren't looking at them up close, I mean holy shit this game has some of the worst props I have ever seen) but completely lacking in concept or substance. it's like when someone says they are gonna make something Steam Punk so they just make a Top Hat covered in Cogs and gears, because that makes any sort of sense.

    Your use of Pokemon as a defense for the stupid systems here doesn't really work when you use it against a Pokefag like me. I am gonna lay down TEH POKEYMANS Knowledge on your ass! casuals may think you just use the super effective 120 power attack whenever possible, but in the actual game, in a competitive setting that's not even a reliable strategy, pokemon is half having a pokemon that fills a specific role on your team properly and the other half is mind games with your opponent, will he switch? is that Slowbro a Mega Slowbro or just a regular tank? does that Pokemon have This ability or the other? Am I being set up to power up one of his pokemon? is the 70% accuracy worth the extra power? Could I try and set up anticipating a switch? Is he gonna sac that Pokemon or is he baiting me? etc... there is also the deal with Abilities, items, status effects and stats that will disrupt the idea of just straight forward offensive. In fact there are numerous pokemon whose main role in most teams is disrupting the opponent offensive and defensive capabilities with status effects, passing disruptive items into opponents, entry hazards and the like. Hell the last Pokemon world champion had a Pachirisu on his team that had an entirely support oriented role (Pachrisiu for reerence is a Pikachu clone wannabe Squirrle with rather mediocre stats). So it's all about building a team with good synergy.
    Bioshock Infinite is just whack a mole, and the immunities to elements barely come into place, and you can just switch between 2 plasmids the whole game and have no problem.

    THe ending also breaks the rules they spent the last 5 hours hammering on you, and doesn't even work as an ending and it is just the point where the game stops. Not to mention the seemingly "pro suicide" message Levine was probably too much of an idiot to realize he was putting in there.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
  19. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    I agree very much with your first sentiment, in that post, Walpknut. Levine apparently said that he's more interested in the process of making choice, the things that go on in a player's head. Rather than an outcome. So we get to pick between a cage and a bird, rather than anything even remotely substantial.
     
  20. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    That sounds like pretentious wankery. What sort of incredible mental process is going on when you choose between cameos for Elizabeth? I mean they don't even look like they are part of the same collection or design, the bird is stylized while the cage is just a simple generic cage pictogram, it also has 0 effect on gameplay or story so any "process" that would've occurred inside our heads as we pick cameos amounts to nothing. The fact that the first "choice" in the game (the racist ballot) being Binary could've worked well as it is a Forced choice born out of Peer Pressure, if it had any real effect other than changing which set of npcs gives you a magical pair of pants a coupe of minutes later it would've been interesting, but it's not.

    I'll say the best part of Infinite is LITERALLY the introductory sequence, right before you start chopping people's faces off, I was actually rather impressed with how inventive of a tutorial it was, you can go to a shooting gallery, you can try 2 of the Vigors (and at that point you might even get dupe into thinking all of them are going to be unique) it felt like a Disney ride but in a good way and maybe even poked fun at other FPS.... then the game continued being like that, to the point where I started thinking the initial cleverness of the introduction was just a fluke as the whole game never stopped feeling that artificial and stilted. And the story started crawling more and more into it's own ass.

    Also what the fuck was up with that Murder of Crows shit? What sense does it make? Why do you shoot crows? Did they make a survey at a hot topic for what powers to include? If I didn't know better about how long this game has been in production I would accuse them of trying to rip off Dishonored and it's Plague Rats power (Dishonored by the way is a game that actually gives you direct and long term effects to how violently you play, therefore actually serving better as a game about choices, variables and the mental process of a player as he engages in choices).
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015