Discussion in 'Community' started by Lazy Storm Trooper, Oct 9, 2013.
I thought you liked Call of Duty.
I would also recommend everyone the Splinter Cell series. They are amazing stealth games.
I thought you liked Call of Duty.[/quote]
Hell No. Other than the stories (no matter how unrealistic they are) to me their is no other good qualities. Mechanics are bad, MP is bad, and the community is bad. I don't really like those games much.
Pong was gaming's peak.
Then you are missing out on a lot...
Pfft, crokinole or nothing.
It was all downhill after Spacewar! anyway.
It's dangerous to go alone.
Take one of these:
Dishonoured was thoroughly unrewarding though Jello. I played it stealthily (and anyone who says stealth and never played as Garrett... GTFOTMFB) as well as brutally and once you get the rune/power/whatever that lets you vape an enemy when you kill them you limit the risk of the plague spreading. I found it pretty unrewarding.
Knew that was sarcasm and it was a half sarcastic answer.
Ender: eh? I'd read that the developers specifically confirmed that that specific ability still counted as a kill for purposes of the chaos calculation (as well as the kills statistic).
Jello: Yeah, it's a lot better. Gods and Kings improved AI combat a bit (though the AI cannot for the life of it properly handle a navy) add a religion mechanic that's pretty good, and readded spies. Brave New World made the AI a bit better, added trade routes, an ideology mechanic (communism, fascism, democracy), a tourism mechanic, and a world congress. Compared to vanilla Civ, current Civ is great.
Can't get any better than this.
I tried to play Crusader Kings 2 and my brain exploded. I think it has the most useless tutorials of all time.
Yeah, the tutorial doesn't... tell you anything. You've just muck around until you figure it out. Guess it keeps out the riffraff, but it also means you're confused for a while.
I've read that Crusader Kings 2 is supposed to have a really good Game of Thrones mod.
I would suggest skipping the in-game tutorial, which is bugged anyway, and just reading this: http://lparchive.org/Crusader-Kings-2/ It's somewhat outdated by the expansions/updates - to the extent that a revision is currently in progress, but it's really helpful for actually learning the game. I was instructed in the fine art of EU3 by this guy, he's got a knack for explaining the mechanics.
Eh. It's creative and got some nice features, but the designers are really... lacking an attention span. Instead of focusing on polishing, they've decided to have as many playable historical periods from ASOIAF as possible with the net result of very little depth. The best part of that mod is using characters people are familiar with, so you'd think a setting during the books would be ideal, but they love doing thing's like Aegon's Conquest or Robert's Rebellion where we might know (in the former case) like 3 names and that's it.
I prefer the base game which has actual historical dudes in it and is balanced and designed for long points of history.
Jello; if it made a hint of difference, I certainly didn't notice it.
After watching Master and Commander I recommended it to my sister. Her response was: "Oh... is that one of those films that has no women in it?".
I actually laughed at first at the idea that there were a whole bunch of films that did not feature women in them, it just seemed so unlikely; then I realised that I had actually seen lots of films that had no female characters of any real weight or dimension, used solely as window dressing if they were there at all, and most of these films were war films. I'm a guy and simply had not noticed this until it was pointed out to me.
You'll notice that in all the big budget super-hero films there is a romance sub-plot, whether it makes sense or not, whether it's good or not; the studios think, rightly or wrongly, that women want romance in their films, and the female demographic (and their cash) is very important to the studios, especially since Titanic. Getting a big budget film green-lit today is, I imagine, very difficult if it doesn't feature a romance sub-plot and at least one strong female character, and that can be difficult to slot into a script based on a CoD-style narrative.
War films are too violent for young kids, also an important demographic that you can say goodbye to, whereas with, say, super-hero movies or most sci-fi/fantasy movies, kids will actively want to go see them (theoretically... poor John Carter).
I think the lack of war films in recent years is a symptom of a much bigger problem, which is that studios are concentrating on big budget tent-poles that have to have the widest demographic possible to bring in the cash, and much smaller budget films like rom-coms; mid-budget actioners just aren't getting green-lit today. That might be an over-simplistic take on the matter, but I really think until you have a mega-hit war film that appeals to teenage girls and young kids as well as the male 18-35 demographic the studios simply won't put up the money for semi-realistic war films.
You would be Pearson. I'd be Colbert.
Guy would be Wright.
I'd rather no romance in a film than bad, forced romance.
This thread reminds me that I have Deus Ex but haven't gotten around to playing it yet.
I NEVER ASKED FOR THIS