I don't want to build the expectation that I will post every day, so I'm countering that by trying to avoid empty days...
I don't know, but I think that sounded very stupid, even to me and I'm the one that wrote it then decided to share that brain fart with the rest of the world. So anyone who actually reads this blog, don't expect daily posts, but I'll try for at least one larger post per week. The retards at Adsense seem to think that I'm hosting copyrighted material and preventing both myself and them from making money out of nothing. The most appropriate counterpoint to that would be for my blog to become quite heavily trafficked. It's not likely, and it would also be disappointing to not profit from such popularity.
Anyway, posting later, it seems I've got myself into something of a pattern of writing for here, let's see if I can keep it up.
Sunday 28 April 2013
Friday 26 April 2013
Finite Shock
A Bioshock Infinite review, as will be obvious to anyone who continues to read this post...
Anyway, still figuring out how I'm going to format this thing, but given that it's going to be my opinion and impressions of the game, not a thorough description or recap of the plot.
Anyway, the opening has little in common with the majority of the game, although it does establish the Luteces and their confusing banter, which makes a little more sense towards the end of the game. While it's made very clear that you must succeed or face dire consequences, the most prevalent theme related to the player character (Booker DeWitt) is that of guilt over past actions. You don't find this out right away, rather your first experience is the whole " the South will rise again" attitude of the inhabitants of Columbia - which is a flying city held up by science-magic (quantum physics is the new magic, it seems). I initially thought (and was somewhat correct) that the theme of the game would be an examination of the cult of the USA, as "founding fathers" are worshipped by the locals. There is even a quote from the antagonist (Comstock) that "no animal is born free, except for the white man": subtlety in action. While this theme does carry through most of the game, it wanes in influence towards the later stages to make way for alternate realities and time travel. Like I said, science-magic.
Aside from this, most of the game is plot driven - go here, do this, go there, shoot things, run around, throw magic at people. Most of the game has you "escorting" Elizabeth, the girl you were sent to retrieve. I say "escorting" because you mainly follow her, she even runs faster than you do. And unlike the usual escort mission in games, Elizabeth is entirely immune to damage and enemies don't shoot at her. So in that regard, the game separates itself from the pack by not punishing you for failing to protect your companion. There is also a fair amount of self-awareness in the game, something of a hallmark of the series, that draws attention to the lack of real choices in the narrative. Highlighted in this case by the "infinite" in the title, there being infinite possibilities, but of course not displaying all of them to the player.
Speaking of choices, there were only a few here, unlike the previous titles which had a cumulative effect over the course of the game (which will be discussed in a different article I have planned). Your only choices are who to target at the raffle, which pendant to give to Elizabeth and whether or not you kill Slate after he requests it. Otherwise you really only choose how to engage in combat, whether to mainly use guns or vigours or some combination of the two, or to just swing your sky-hook around and carve people up. Having only played through once, I mainly focused on guns, which is done in a rather old-fashioned run-and-gun style most shooting games avoid these days, mainly because it's rather bland. But at least it's not some cover-based shooter that would be equally bland in gameplay. You're limited to only two guns at a time, and two active vigours, but at least you can always swap vigours around. This makes the weapon upgrade system a little useless, as you'll always need to pick up other weapons which may not have been upgraded. Either that or you can spend your money on ammo every chance you get. I didn't, but that's because I wanted to try the upgraded guns, and that costs a lot.
Well that covers story and gameplay, though not as thoroughly some readers might prefer. So I'll follow up with a simple "what I did/didn't like".
I liked the design, rather futuristic looking for 1912, but that was obviously intentional. Bright and colourful for the most part, getting darker as the game progresses, and eventually the nice looking city becomes cracked and ruined as revolution hits the streets. I liked the self-awareness, considering that most of the game is combat in various shooting galleries, the game introduces you to the combat controls by having you visit carnival shooting galleries. And the explicit reference to the previous Bioshock games was neat.
I didn't dislike much of the game, mainly just some little annoyances. It seems to be more linear than it's predecessors, which is saying something. And the few choices you can make have more obscured outcomes than the prior games as well. Even though I made a separate post about achievements, they have become somewhat integral to the way developers build their games - and here, the collection achievements bugged me because I thought I was quite thorough in my exploration, yet I failed to complete any collections. And I missed quicksaves the entire time I was playing this. Checkpoint saves on a PC game? Really?
Well there, not quite how I imagined the review might turn out, but the game wasn't quite how I imagined either. Perhaps it could have been more detailed, but I can't retain details of gameplay for all that long, so I'm left with impressions, which I have passed on here. Plenty of other places are discussing the game in more detail and laying out more of the plot/story. If you want the game ruined for you, go read them, of you want a recommendation, play the game, it's fun for the most part.
Anyway, still figuring out how I'm going to format this thing, but given that it's going to be my opinion and impressions of the game, not a thorough description or recap of the plot.
Anyway, the opening has little in common with the majority of the game, although it does establish the Luteces and their confusing banter, which makes a little more sense towards the end of the game. While it's made very clear that you must succeed or face dire consequences, the most prevalent theme related to the player character (Booker DeWitt) is that of guilt over past actions. You don't find this out right away, rather your first experience is the whole " the South will rise again" attitude of the inhabitants of Columbia - which is a flying city held up by science-magic (quantum physics is the new magic, it seems). I initially thought (and was somewhat correct) that the theme of the game would be an examination of the cult of the USA, as "founding fathers" are worshipped by the locals. There is even a quote from the antagonist (Comstock) that "no animal is born free, except for the white man": subtlety in action. While this theme does carry through most of the game, it wanes in influence towards the later stages to make way for alternate realities and time travel. Like I said, science-magic.
Aside from this, most of the game is plot driven - go here, do this, go there, shoot things, run around, throw magic at people. Most of the game has you "escorting" Elizabeth, the girl you were sent to retrieve. I say "escorting" because you mainly follow her, she even runs faster than you do. And unlike the usual escort mission in games, Elizabeth is entirely immune to damage and enemies don't shoot at her. So in that regard, the game separates itself from the pack by not punishing you for failing to protect your companion. There is also a fair amount of self-awareness in the game, something of a hallmark of the series, that draws attention to the lack of real choices in the narrative. Highlighted in this case by the "infinite" in the title, there being infinite possibilities, but of course not displaying all of them to the player.
Speaking of choices, there were only a few here, unlike the previous titles which had a cumulative effect over the course of the game (which will be discussed in a different article I have planned). Your only choices are who to target at the raffle, which pendant to give to Elizabeth and whether or not you kill Slate after he requests it. Otherwise you really only choose how to engage in combat, whether to mainly use guns or vigours or some combination of the two, or to just swing your sky-hook around and carve people up. Having only played through once, I mainly focused on guns, which is done in a rather old-fashioned run-and-gun style most shooting games avoid these days, mainly because it's rather bland. But at least it's not some cover-based shooter that would be equally bland in gameplay. You're limited to only two guns at a time, and two active vigours, but at least you can always swap vigours around. This makes the weapon upgrade system a little useless, as you'll always need to pick up other weapons which may not have been upgraded. Either that or you can spend your money on ammo every chance you get. I didn't, but that's because I wanted to try the upgraded guns, and that costs a lot.
Well that covers story and gameplay, though not as thoroughly some readers might prefer. So I'll follow up with a simple "what I did/didn't like".
I liked the design, rather futuristic looking for 1912, but that was obviously intentional. Bright and colourful for the most part, getting darker as the game progresses, and eventually the nice looking city becomes cracked and ruined as revolution hits the streets. I liked the self-awareness, considering that most of the game is combat in various shooting galleries, the game introduces you to the combat controls by having you visit carnival shooting galleries. And the explicit reference to the previous Bioshock games was neat.
I didn't dislike much of the game, mainly just some little annoyances. It seems to be more linear than it's predecessors, which is saying something. And the few choices you can make have more obscured outcomes than the prior games as well. Even though I made a separate post about achievements, they have become somewhat integral to the way developers build their games - and here, the collection achievements bugged me because I thought I was quite thorough in my exploration, yet I failed to complete any collections. And I missed quicksaves the entire time I was playing this. Checkpoint saves on a PC game? Really?
Well there, not quite how I imagined the review might turn out, but the game wasn't quite how I imagined either. Perhaps it could have been more detailed, but I can't retain details of gameplay for all that long, so I'm left with impressions, which I have passed on here. Plenty of other places are discussing the game in more detail and laying out more of the plot/story. If you want the game ruined for you, go read them, of you want a recommendation, play the game, it's fun for the most part.
Thursday 25 April 2013
Regarding the End
I was reading something somewhere somewhat recently about how the death penalty was not cost effective due to the expensive and lengthy appeals process (the author was from the USA). What struck me about the argument was that by factoring in the appeals process, they had accepted that the process should be there. I would ask: why? Why should there be a way for the convicted to escape their punishment? And before anyone thinks I'm trolling for some moral debate about whether governments have the right... oh you think there is a "right"? I don't think anyone would have the right or get the right or get it right at all. None is more right or correct or valid than any other. I don't deal in such absolutes because they don't really exist. Just a food for thought experiment.
Plus I'm using this post to introduce a new category for my posts. In future there will likely be more, especially if I take to posting about every stupid thing that occurs to me as I try vainly to avoid thought because thought just leads to thinking and I do too much thinking particularly upon subjects I'd rather not think about and most people seem not to think at all anyway...
So, new category, others potentially joining it in the future include (but not limited to): Literature (as in books), Film (as in movies) and actually I think it's just the two at the moment. I find there's no point in talking politics, especially since my location may not match up with the entirety of my audience (if I even have one). I'll try to curb my parenthetical remarks.
Plus I'm using this post to introduce a new category for my posts. In future there will likely be more, especially if I take to posting about every stupid thing that occurs to me as I try vainly to avoid thought because thought just leads to thinking and I do too much thinking particularly upon subjects I'd rather not think about and most people seem not to think at all anyway...
So, new category, others potentially joining it in the future include (but not limited to): Literature (as in books), Film (as in movies) and actually I think it's just the two at the moment. I find there's no point in talking politics, especially since my location may not match up with the entirety of my audience (if I even have one). I'll try to curb my parenthetical remarks.
Waiting impatiently
For the morons at Adsense to realise that when they reject an application for "copyrighted material", they could be doing the applicant a huge favour by pointing out exactly what material is leading to the rejection. I've removed all links from my NCT posts, but if links are the issue, how does anyone post anything at all? Are you only allowed to post bland and boring updates about your life as if it's somehow news the world needs desperately? With such strict standards, how does anyone - including you - make any money from their blogs?
So congrats, Adsense, you're fascists.
So congrats, Adsense, you're fascists.
Tuesday 23 April 2013
Progress
So I might be getting a jump on this whole world domination thing, did have to use a different browser but soon I should have ads. Now I just need to gather more minions. The modern world seems so confusing and frightening; I don't like it. Anyway, working on playing through a new game which, when reviewed, might garner me more attention. That seems to be what everyone is doing these days, trying to get the attention of others, as if it somehow validates their existence. Just look at reality TV, or better yet, don't. Not that my condemnation will stop you, of course. But when it all crumbles around you, I'll be there to say "I told you so".
What was I on about? Game review in process of being, or becoming; those weird types of phrases can be difficult to cram in sometimes. Also I will be trying to pace myself, since I've had a few ideas for posts. I don't want to do them all in a week and then have nothing to write about for months. If any of you have been paying attention, you'll recognise that basically describes most of the history of this site... Corrections to that behaviour are pending. And this stupid thing is telling me that I'm spelling words incorrectly. There will be a post about that sometime in the future, so hold your breath.
EDIT: Apparently my "share to Google+" counts as a comment and a +1, I don't see why. This stuff makes no sense to me.
EDIT: Apparently I'm hosting copyright content, and since I have no idea what it is, I guess I won't be putting up ads, so no money and no world domination.
What was I on about? Game review in process of being, or becoming; those weird types of phrases can be difficult to cram in sometimes. Also I will be trying to pace myself, since I've had a few ideas for posts. I don't want to do them all in a week and then have nothing to write about for months. If any of you have been paying attention, you'll recognise that basically describes most of the history of this site... Corrections to that behaviour are pending. And this stupid thing is telling me that I'm spelling words incorrectly. There will be a post about that sometime in the future, so hold your breath.
EDIT: Apparently my "share to Google+" counts as a comment and a +1, I don't see why. This stuff makes no sense to me.
EDIT: Apparently I'm hosting copyright content, and since I have no idea what it is, I guess I won't be putting up ads, so no money and no world domination.
Sunday 21 April 2013
New World
There might be some crap showing up on here in the near future, mainly because of all this newfangled "social networking" thing that everyone seems to going for. As much time as I spend in front of a computer, I understand very little about them. I understand people even less, which is usually OK because I hate them, but now my hope is to exploit them for profit (marginal profit at least). So there may be new "gadgets" and things floating around, plus I might add some imagery or colour to the layout. Also, I'll need to come up with a more varied approach, I've established my three Rs (rants, reviews, ruminations) but have really only talked about games so far. I'll attempt to remedy that.
But rest assured that you probably understand all this techno-stuff better than I do.
But rest assured that you probably understand all this techno-stuff better than I do.
Rewarding Gameplay
Achievements, aren't they fantastic? No?
I find that for the most part that achievements in games are either stupid or far too easy. When reaching a certain point in the story of a game is an "achievement", the game creators have very low expectations. Or they're struggling to find something to label as an achievement because achievements are the thing you do at the moment. I find them either too straightforward or frustrating to accomplish. Some times there are some in the middle there, when it does take some skill and effort to attain. As an example, the challenge mode achievements in Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. You have to get into the right rhythm for combat as well as know how to build up points. Granted the best method for gaining points in the combat challenges is to just have really long combo multipliers, which is simple but can be difficult in practice. Or maybe I just suck at it.
There are too many examples of the "reach this point in the story" achievements to cite here, so I'll assume you know what I'm talking about. If not, why are you reading about games if you don't play them? There are of course those that are a reward for some banal or random task, such as what I've heard about World of Warcraft which has an achievement for catching fish, even though fishing is just some idle thing that your character can do.
On the other hand, some games like to provide the players with a glut of achievements. Currently Killing Floor has 209 achievements, a large portion of which are for completing maps on different difficulty levels. Given that there are four levels for which there are achievements, they are a simple solution for the developers, but also rather annoying. At least they're annoying to me, I look at the list and think: "I don't want to play the game that much."
But I think this raises the most pertinent point: do players really want to achieve this? I suppose before the advent of in-game achievements, players would make up their own to brag to others about. Now the developers can decide for you. Except of course for the fact that many achievements are easily attained. So people will still find absurd applications of their time that add up to something worthy of bragging about; it's just that some of those things will have the equivalent of a boy scout patch to prove that they did it.
Which is why we still have leaderboards. Achievements aside - leaderboards show just how fast or skillful you are. Except of course where they don't. In the aforementioned Batman games, the number one position for challenges is usually held by someone who apparently earned about a trillion points in a millisecond. If that confuses you, they cheated, obviously. I've seen several leaderboards topped by obvious hackers, so we know that you really suck and couldn't accomplish that.
So, most achievements are pointless or they can be gained by cheating... is there a point to them? I think it depends on what use they are put to. In the first Mass Effect, achievements were awarded for various skill uses or character uses, but the achievements had an effect on actual gameplay: allowing access to certain skills that weren't available for your character class, health regeneration, faster skill cooldown and such. In Alpha Protocol you were awarded "perks" depending on your actions during gameplay that assisted is similar ways: faster skill cooldown, extra points for levelling up your skills, so forth. They meant something to the gameplay, rather than just being arbitrary awards for doing whatever.
I can't think of many ways that achievements could be put to actual use, other than those I've already cited. This is just a bit of rambling about a somewhat nonsensical subject. Gamers were always making up their own achievements anyway, even arcade games were about attaining a high score and getting your name (or initials) onto the scoreboard, even if most of them ended up being POO or ASS. I think that demonstrates just how seriously gamers take the issue.
I find that for the most part that achievements in games are either stupid or far too easy. When reaching a certain point in the story of a game is an "achievement", the game creators have very low expectations. Or they're struggling to find something to label as an achievement because achievements are the thing you do at the moment. I find them either too straightforward or frustrating to accomplish. Some times there are some in the middle there, when it does take some skill and effort to attain. As an example, the challenge mode achievements in Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. You have to get into the right rhythm for combat as well as know how to build up points. Granted the best method for gaining points in the combat challenges is to just have really long combo multipliers, which is simple but can be difficult in practice. Or maybe I just suck at it.
There are too many examples of the "reach this point in the story" achievements to cite here, so I'll assume you know what I'm talking about. If not, why are you reading about games if you don't play them? There are of course those that are a reward for some banal or random task, such as what I've heard about World of Warcraft which has an achievement for catching fish, even though fishing is just some idle thing that your character can do.
On the other hand, some games like to provide the players with a glut of achievements. Currently Killing Floor has 209 achievements, a large portion of which are for completing maps on different difficulty levels. Given that there are four levels for which there are achievements, they are a simple solution for the developers, but also rather annoying. At least they're annoying to me, I look at the list and think: "I don't want to play the game that much."
But I think this raises the most pertinent point: do players really want to achieve this? I suppose before the advent of in-game achievements, players would make up their own to brag to others about. Now the developers can decide for you. Except of course for the fact that many achievements are easily attained. So people will still find absurd applications of their time that add up to something worthy of bragging about; it's just that some of those things will have the equivalent of a boy scout patch to prove that they did it.
Which is why we still have leaderboards. Achievements aside - leaderboards show just how fast or skillful you are. Except of course where they don't. In the aforementioned Batman games, the number one position for challenges is usually held by someone who apparently earned about a trillion points in a millisecond. If that confuses you, they cheated, obviously. I've seen several leaderboards topped by obvious hackers, so we know that you really suck and couldn't accomplish that.
So, most achievements are pointless or they can be gained by cheating... is there a point to them? I think it depends on what use they are put to. In the first Mass Effect, achievements were awarded for various skill uses or character uses, but the achievements had an effect on actual gameplay: allowing access to certain skills that weren't available for your character class, health regeneration, faster skill cooldown and such. In Alpha Protocol you were awarded "perks" depending on your actions during gameplay that assisted is similar ways: faster skill cooldown, extra points for levelling up your skills, so forth. They meant something to the gameplay, rather than just being arbitrary awards for doing whatever.
I can't think of many ways that achievements could be put to actual use, other than those I've already cited. This is just a bit of rambling about a somewhat nonsensical subject. Gamers were always making up their own achievements anyway, even arcade games were about attaining a high score and getting your name (or initials) onto the scoreboard, even if most of them ended up being POO or ASS. I think that demonstrates just how seriously gamers take the issue.
Friday 19 April 2013
Excuse the mess
Don't know what I was thinking with the previous post. I was half asleep when I came up with it, seemed funny at the time. Might convince myself to add in some general game-related posts in the near future or sooner or later. Just ignore the previous post, even though I could delete it I think exploring the pointless should be recorded for posterity.
Introducing: The Adventures of General Fatman and Captain Starboy
CS: Starboy to command.
GF: Fatman here.
CS: Sir I've encountered a large asteroid on your flightpath.
GF: Good, I was getting hungry.
CS: It's largely silicate sir.
GF: You insubordinate cur, I was passing stones long before you were born.
CS: I was thinking about your health, sir.
GF: Listen lickspittle, I've got to show off my new look to Admiral Hotpants. The bastard thinks he's going to win the next catwalk medal. I cannot allow that.
CS: We all support you sir, but the asteroid?
GF: Very well, what's the forecast?
CS: Looming chance of showers.
GF: That will wreak havoc with laundry, I suppose I'll need to machine dry.
CS: Very good sir.
GF: Get back here, it's almost dinner time.
GF: Fatman here.
CS: Sir I've encountered a large asteroid on your flightpath.
GF: Good, I was getting hungry.
CS: It's largely silicate sir.
GF: You insubordinate cur, I was passing stones long before you were born.
CS: I was thinking about your health, sir.
GF: Listen lickspittle, I've got to show off my new look to Admiral Hotpants. The bastard thinks he's going to win the next catwalk medal. I cannot allow that.
CS: We all support you sir, but the asteroid?
GF: Very well, what's the forecast?
CS: Looming chance of showers.
GF: That will wreak havoc with laundry, I suppose I'll need to machine dry.
CS: Very good sir.
GF: Get back here, it's almost dinner time.
Thursday 18 April 2013
Some thing maybe
A while back I considered writing proper game reviews (as opposed to the rants that have so far appeared) but obviously didn't get to it. It was supposed to be a way to potentially generate page views and seemed like an idea at the time as I had three brand new games; normally I don't acquire games until they're much cheaper and therefore not new anymore. A major setback was that I had no idea as to the format the reviews would follow. So if you see some proper reviews here in the near future they will:
1. Likely be for games that aren't quite new
2. NOT use a rating of 1-5 or 1-100 or any numerical value
3. Be thoroughly opinion based, so you will have to read them, don't expect a concise summary
They'll probably be in sections relating to gameplay, story, graphics - the usual stuff, but no point scores. Point scores are misleading - that's how you end up with something like Metacritic, one gives 50 another gives 100 you get an average of 75 and it doesn't tell you that one person hated it and another prostrates themselves in supplication to the gods who allowed their puny existence to be enriched buy their marvellous grace. Or something. Not to mention that the standard now seems to be that 90-plus is great, 80-plus is OK and 70-plus is crap - which the astute among you will notice completely ignores the purpose of a percentage rating.
Thinking of general game related crap - why the hell are we still seeing four-player co-op as some sort of standard (think Left 4 Dead, Dead Island, and so many others involving some kind of dead). I know it arose from consoles having four controllers, but even on consoles these days you can't play these games on the same machine. So why four-player, not six or ten? Or more? If you're gearing up for a new system that you hope will last longer than the current generation consoles, maybe expand your thinking a little?
Side note, just linked to Metacritic because I thought it was time I learned how to hyperlink, so I just wanted try it out. You can visit them if you want, I won't be offended. I recommend you read the user reviews, they can be more helpful than the "official" reviews that come, of course, from people being paid to talk about games and who didn't have to buy their own copy to play it. Most of my frustration stems from having paid money for entertainment that doesn't entertain. Because I'm poor, but also angry and a little entitled.
And I'll try to avoid swearing in my reviews (if I do any reviews, this is still hypothetical) although really, they're just words. Books are full of them, do you hate books? If you do, remember I'm talking about the idea of books, not about some specific books that may be complete garbage. I recommend Ira Levin's This Perfect Day, for commentary on what society thinks is acceptable.
Where was I? Games, maybe later.
1. Likely be for games that aren't quite new
2. NOT use a rating of 1-5 or 1-100 or any numerical value
3. Be thoroughly opinion based, so you will have to read them, don't expect a concise summary
They'll probably be in sections relating to gameplay, story, graphics - the usual stuff, but no point scores. Point scores are misleading - that's how you end up with something like Metacritic, one gives 50 another gives 100 you get an average of 75 and it doesn't tell you that one person hated it and another prostrates themselves in supplication to the gods who allowed their puny existence to be enriched buy their marvellous grace. Or something. Not to mention that the standard now seems to be that 90-plus is great, 80-plus is OK and 70-plus is crap - which the astute among you will notice completely ignores the purpose of a percentage rating.
Thinking of general game related crap - why the hell are we still seeing four-player co-op as some sort of standard (think Left 4 Dead, Dead Island, and so many others involving some kind of dead). I know it arose from consoles having four controllers, but even on consoles these days you can't play these games on the same machine. So why four-player, not six or ten? Or more? If you're gearing up for a new system that you hope will last longer than the current generation consoles, maybe expand your thinking a little?
Side note, just linked to Metacritic because I thought it was time I learned how to hyperlink, so I just wanted try it out. You can visit them if you want, I won't be offended. I recommend you read the user reviews, they can be more helpful than the "official" reviews that come, of course, from people being paid to talk about games and who didn't have to buy their own copy to play it. Most of my frustration stems from having paid money for entertainment that doesn't entertain. Because I'm poor, but also angry and a little entitled.
And I'll try to avoid swearing in my reviews (if I do any reviews, this is still hypothetical) although really, they're just words. Books are full of them, do you hate books? If you do, remember I'm talking about the idea of books, not about some specific books that may be complete garbage. I recommend Ira Levin's This Perfect Day, for commentary on what society thinks is acceptable.
Where was I? Games, maybe later.
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Dishonest
Over the weekend, I made the seemingly rational choice to purchase an new game to play, to break the monotony essentially. The mistake however was that I purchased Dishonored [sic](yes, that is not how you spell it). I was sold on the promise of player choice and the opportunity of engaging in a stealth based game - something I've not really seen or tried since Thief: The Dark Project. This is not a stealth based game, this is a serial killer training simulator.
Hyperbole aside, one might think that in a stealth game where there is an achievement for not killing anyone and for remaining undetected, that one would be able to actually do either of those things. Without resorting to swear words, let me just say that in this instance, it actually is an achievement to accomplish these. Because you will spend a ludicrous amount of time replaying short sections and quick loading or reverting to the most recent auto save. I used one restart and a couple of auto saves in the first sequence (escaping from prison) and that gave me a sense that perhaps it wasn't beyond my abilities - limited though they may be sometimes. However after spending 4 hours attempting the first mission trying to be undetected and non-lethal, to be told that I was detected, even though I'm certain I wasn't and moreover that it won't even tell you when you were detected so perhaps it was in the early stages, perhaps it was during the constant retries of sneaking past the 10 or so guards in a tiny section of the map who were looking for me even though they hadn't seen me, I've decided to use swear words:
Fuck this game. Fuck the people who made it so shitty. Fuck the people who sold it as something that might be enjoyable. Fuck you for every time I had to slaughter those who spotted me even though they didn't and fuck you for charging people money for this frustration-fest.
Hyperbole aside, one might think that in a stealth game where there is an achievement for not killing anyone and for remaining undetected, that one would be able to actually do either of those things. Without resorting to swear words, let me just say that in this instance, it actually is an achievement to accomplish these. Because you will spend a ludicrous amount of time replaying short sections and quick loading or reverting to the most recent auto save. I used one restart and a couple of auto saves in the first sequence (escaping from prison) and that gave me a sense that perhaps it wasn't beyond my abilities - limited though they may be sometimes. However after spending 4 hours attempting the first mission trying to be undetected and non-lethal, to be told that I was detected, even though I'm certain I wasn't and moreover that it won't even tell you when you were detected so perhaps it was in the early stages, perhaps it was during the constant retries of sneaking past the 10 or so guards in a tiny section of the map who were looking for me even though they hadn't seen me, I've decided to use swear words:
Fuck this game. Fuck the people who made it so shitty. Fuck the people who sold it as something that might be enjoyable. Fuck you for every time I had to slaughter those who spotted me even though they didn't and fuck you for charging people money for this frustration-fest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)