At a family gathering yesterday my little brother (kaiakapero) chastised me for not keeping to my "3 posts a week" goal you people set for me. Things have been crazy busy at work and since I love to take a break and type up my entries at work I haven't had much of a chance to do so lately. Yes, I know I could do it once I got home, but after staring at not one, but two computer screens all day I just can't stand to look at another monitor at home. It might be because I've got two 21" flat screen monitors on my desk at work and one 19" old CRT monitor on my desk at home. It makes a difference.
And speaking of my brother kai, his birthday is coming up on June 11th so be sure to pester him with well wishes for growing old. Yes, I know I'm older than him, but I've come to terms with my old age. I'm not sure he's done that for himself yet. Besides, sometimes I think he's lonely playing Call of Duty 4 by himself. We all keep talking about going back to that game. Maybe someday we'll do it and join ya, kai.
And don't worry about this being my only post for the week. I've got another idea rattling around in by brain that I'd like to spill out, once it's more fully framed. And kai and Genghis Khan are to blame if you don't like it.
Showing posts with label Call of Duty 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Call of Duty 4. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Poll results - New ranking system in GoW2
So here's the poll results:
I have to admit that it's nice to finally see some progress for all the hard work I put into Gears matches. That being said I will admit that I voted for "It's okay" and not "Love it!". I'll tell you why.
The reasons why I like it is the fact that you actually get to see what you're working towards. There's your progress. There's a goal. And there's a sense of accomplishment when you level up. Yes, I know there are people who'd play Gears online just for the fun of it whether there was a ranking system or not. I'm not one of them. Mostly anyway. I do enjoy playing online with my friends but sometimes the monotonous nature of online matches can get boring after awhile. When that happens I'd turn the game off and probably never come back. With a ranking system (and one you can actually see working and you understand) it's nice to come back to the game and see if you can "level up" one more time before going to bed.
Just the other night I was 7 points from leveling up and we were about to call it a night. Well, I just couldn't leave my rank that close and just go to bed so the group decided to play one more match so I would hopefully get those 7 points. Unfortunately the match we were in didn't turn out very good. We had 4 people in our party so we picked up a "FOUND PLAYER" and started the match. By the second round all players on the other team had dropped out and we were running around shooting bots. We were cruising to a very easy victory when with 1 win away from winning the whole match we got the "host disconnected to the game" message. Apparently that "FOUND PLAYER" was the game's host and he didn't want to stick around for 1 more round and an easy win. He would rather take a 1,500 point loss than play another minute against bots. Game over.
Unfortunately that meant I didn't get my 7 points to level up. We all wanted to see if we'd be penalized the 1,500 points for "quiting" the game just because the host quit. We stuck around for one more match and I was able to level up. We also found out that we didn't lose the penalty for dropping out. But that's not always the case.
I've played a couple of games where I've left early. One I willing took the penalty instead of sticking around in a laggy game. The other times I've lost connection to the host or that other error message (something about timing out). Sometimes I've gotten the penalty and sometimes I haven't. After talking to my friends that's happened to them too. One of them lagged out of a game due to his internet connection and got the penalty. It's wasn't his fault, but I guess a computer system wouldn't recognize that.
As much as I like the fact that you can now see where you stand, the random penalty assessment is very annoying. But does it matter anyway? If you play long enough everyone will be able to max out their rank in the game. A higher rank doesn't necessarily mean you're better than the person next to you, it just means you've played it long enough to accumulate a lot of points. Now, for some people it might take them one month to get to rank 20 (like me) when someone else can do it in a couple of days. That is a differentiation in rank but that doesn't show up when you get into a public room. You don't know if that "15er" has been playing a couple of days or just a couple of hours. I know the system that everyone has compared the new ranks in Gears 2 to is Call of Duty. But with Call of Duty it's the same way. I'm on my third level of prestige in COD4 and I'm not that good of a player.
Even though we have the "experienced" based ranking that you can see in a game lobby the developers said they still kept the "true skill ranking" for better matchmaking, but it just stays in the back ground. While I like the idea of playing against similarly skilled players instead of facing a room full of zen masters, it bothers that they say "you're a 13 ranked player but we're going to treat you like a 2 ranked player because of your skill". If I'm a terrible shot than just all me that. I can handle it.
And how can we be sure that "true skill" rankings are accurate. My friend Genghis Khan leads all friends in almost every single category on my friend's leaderboard, but he never achieved a gold stripe in the original ranking system. Evil Ric, who's not far behind Genghis on many of the boards, got a gold stripe and kept it for a very long time before losing it and then never being able to get it back. Then there's other players that got the stripe, lost it, got it back and lost it again. And they couldn't figure out why. Where's the consistency in that?
I think this new ranking system is a huge step in the right direction, but I don't think it's perfect. The "true skill" ranking is too much like Halo's system (which is Microsoft's baby) so there should be no surprise that it's used in this game. But it's a system that I don't think anyone's ever really understood. It's just now that the gaming population has cried loud enough for someone to do something about it. And while I will probably never max out my prestige levels in Call of Duty games there is some hope that I can max things out in Gears of War 2. It just might take me until the next game comes out before I do. Another year or two should give me enough time.
What do you think of the new ranking system in Gears of War 2?
Love it! = 3 votes
It's okay = 1 vote
Hate it! = 0 votes
I don't play Gears of War 2 any more = 2 votes
I have to admit that it's nice to finally see some progress for all the hard work I put into Gears matches. That being said I will admit that I voted for "It's okay" and not "Love it!". I'll tell you why.
The reasons why I like it is the fact that you actually get to see what you're working towards. There's your progress. There's a goal. And there's a sense of accomplishment when you level up. Yes, I know there are people who'd play Gears online just for the fun of it whether there was a ranking system or not. I'm not one of them. Mostly anyway. I do enjoy playing online with my friends but sometimes the monotonous nature of online matches can get boring after awhile. When that happens I'd turn the game off and probably never come back. With a ranking system (and one you can actually see working and you understand) it's nice to come back to the game and see if you can "level up" one more time before going to bed.
Just the other night I was 7 points from leveling up and we were about to call it a night. Well, I just couldn't leave my rank that close and just go to bed so the group decided to play one more match so I would hopefully get those 7 points. Unfortunately the match we were in didn't turn out very good. We had 4 people in our party so we picked up a "FOUND PLAYER" and started the match. By the second round all players on the other team had dropped out and we were running around shooting bots. We were cruising to a very easy victory when with 1 win away from winning the whole match we got the "host disconnected to the game" message. Apparently that "FOUND PLAYER" was the game's host and he didn't want to stick around for 1 more round and an easy win. He would rather take a 1,500 point loss than play another minute against bots. Game over.
Unfortunately that meant I didn't get my 7 points to level up. We all wanted to see if we'd be penalized the 1,500 points for "quiting" the game just because the host quit. We stuck around for one more match and I was able to level up. We also found out that we didn't lose the penalty for dropping out. But that's not always the case.
I've played a couple of games where I've left early. One I willing took the penalty instead of sticking around in a laggy game. The other times I've lost connection to the host or that other error message (something about timing out). Sometimes I've gotten the penalty and sometimes I haven't. After talking to my friends that's happened to them too. One of them lagged out of a game due to his internet connection and got the penalty. It's wasn't his fault, but I guess a computer system wouldn't recognize that.
As much as I like the fact that you can now see where you stand, the random penalty assessment is very annoying. But does it matter anyway? If you play long enough everyone will be able to max out their rank in the game. A higher rank doesn't necessarily mean you're better than the person next to you, it just means you've played it long enough to accumulate a lot of points. Now, for some people it might take them one month to get to rank 20 (like me) when someone else can do it in a couple of days. That is a differentiation in rank but that doesn't show up when you get into a public room. You don't know if that "15er" has been playing a couple of days or just a couple of hours. I know the system that everyone has compared the new ranks in Gears 2 to is Call of Duty. But with Call of Duty it's the same way. I'm on my third level of prestige in COD4 and I'm not that good of a player.
Even though we have the "experienced" based ranking that you can see in a game lobby the developers said they still kept the "true skill ranking" for better matchmaking, but it just stays in the back ground. While I like the idea of playing against similarly skilled players instead of facing a room full of zen masters, it bothers that they say "you're a 13 ranked player but we're going to treat you like a 2 ranked player because of your skill". If I'm a terrible shot than just all me that. I can handle it.
And how can we be sure that "true skill" rankings are accurate. My friend Genghis Khan leads all friends in almost every single category on my friend's leaderboard, but he never achieved a gold stripe in the original ranking system. Evil Ric, who's not far behind Genghis on many of the boards, got a gold stripe and kept it for a very long time before losing it and then never being able to get it back. Then there's other players that got the stripe, lost it, got it back and lost it again. And they couldn't figure out why. Where's the consistency in that?
I think this new ranking system is a huge step in the right direction, but I don't think it's perfect. The "true skill" ranking is too much like Halo's system (which is Microsoft's baby) so there should be no surprise that it's used in this game. But it's a system that I don't think anyone's ever really understood. It's just now that the gaming population has cried loud enough for someone to do something about it. And while I will probably never max out my prestige levels in Call of Duty games there is some hope that I can max things out in Gears of War 2. It just might take me until the next game comes out before I do. Another year or two should give me enough time.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Linkin Park has it all wrong
I'm a huge Linkin Park fan. I have all their CDs, blast their songs when I hear them on the radio and sing loudly along with them while I'm driving. One of my favorite songs is "In the End", but I have to tell you they've got it all wrong . . . as far as gaming is concerned.
If you don't know the lyrics to the chorus here they are:
"I tried so hard
And got so far
But in the end
It doesn't even matter
I had to fall
To lose it all
But in the end
It doesn't even matter"
How do I know they've got it all wrong? Because in "The End" it DOES matter.
Just ask my brother kai. He recently just finished playing the story in Call of Duty 4 and he was over the moon at having finished his first video game. I know how he feels. I've finished a few games in my life too. And I have four more I should be finishing sometime (along with my brother dain --hint hint--).
There's something magical about getting to see "The End" pop up on the screen after long hours of game play. After saving Little Sisters . . . or harvesting them. After finding out your father is Sin and defeating him . . . and then realize who/what you are? And finding out long lost friends, who became enemies, become friends again in death and their Dragoon orbs await another hero. It's a sense of accomplishment. An achievement without a musical note and a score of points . . . unless you finish Portal than you have your very own musical score to listen to.
Finishing a game means your hard work paid off. Hours spent agonizing over how to finish a level and move on to the next one are answered with a "Ta-da" instead of "our Princess is in another Castle". It's a show of mental powers as well as physical endurance. You can prove that you can go days, weeks or even months between gaming sessions in a single game and yet still follow the story line to get done what needs to be done. You've endured the button mashing and you might even have the bruises or calluses to prove it. It's wonderful.
But once you finish a game that has more than one difficulty setting every gamer is faced with the same question. Do I go back and replay the game on a harder difficulty? I know some gamers that go for the hardest difficulty the first time around. In a lot of games that unlocks all the achievements on the lower difficulty settings at the same time. Even then, in a lot of games the "insane" setting doesn't unlock until you've beaten the game once before. So in order to get those achievements you would have to play the game twice. But we're not talking about finishing achievements here. We're talking about the game itself.
As much as getting "The End" message on your screen after a long gaming session, it's even worse getting the "Game Over" message. You don't have "to fall" to get to "The End" . . . at least not in any of the games I've finished. And with save files it really doesn't matter if you do. Do you remember when "Game Over" literally meant your game was over? There were no restarts from the last checkpoint or loading last save file. When your character died he was . . . well, dead. But as much as "Game Over" is devastating "The End" is just as rewarding.
So Linkin Park might not have got it right when it comes to gaming, but I'm still going to be belting out their tunes on my drive home even though I hear the shower has better acoustics. And once I get home I'll be working on that elusive "The End" and the rush of euphoria that comes with it.
If you don't know the lyrics to the chorus here they are:
"I tried so hard
And got so far
But in the end
It doesn't even matter
I had to fall
To lose it all
But in the end
It doesn't even matter"
How do I know they've got it all wrong? Because in "The End" it DOES matter.
Just ask my brother kai. He recently just finished playing the story in Call of Duty 4 and he was over the moon at having finished his first video game. I know how he feels. I've finished a few games in my life too. And I have four more I should be finishing sometime (along with my brother dain --hint hint--).
There's something magical about getting to see "The End" pop up on the screen after long hours of game play. After saving Little Sisters . . . or harvesting them. After finding out your father is Sin and defeating him . . . and then realize who/what you are? And finding out long lost friends, who became enemies, become friends again in death and their Dragoon orbs await another hero. It's a sense of accomplishment. An achievement without a musical note and a score of points . . . unless you finish Portal than you have your very own musical score to listen to.
Finishing a game means your hard work paid off. Hours spent agonizing over how to finish a level and move on to the next one are answered with a "Ta-da" instead of "our Princess is in another Castle". It's a show of mental powers as well as physical endurance. You can prove that you can go days, weeks or even months between gaming sessions in a single game and yet still follow the story line to get done what needs to be done. You've endured the button mashing and you might even have the bruises or calluses to prove it. It's wonderful.
But once you finish a game that has more than one difficulty setting every gamer is faced with the same question. Do I go back and replay the game on a harder difficulty? I know some gamers that go for the hardest difficulty the first time around. In a lot of games that unlocks all the achievements on the lower difficulty settings at the same time. Even then, in a lot of games the "insane" setting doesn't unlock until you've beaten the game once before. So in order to get those achievements you would have to play the game twice. But we're not talking about finishing achievements here. We're talking about the game itself.
As much as getting "The End" message on your screen after a long gaming session, it's even worse getting the "Game Over" message. You don't have "to fall" to get to "The End" . . . at least not in any of the games I've finished. And with save files it really doesn't matter if you do. Do you remember when "Game Over" literally meant your game was over? There were no restarts from the last checkpoint or loading last save file. When your character died he was . . . well, dead. But as much as "Game Over" is devastating "The End" is just as rewarding.
So Linkin Park might not have got it right when it comes to gaming, but I'm still going to be belting out their tunes on my drive home even though I hear the shower has better acoustics. And once I get home I'll be working on that elusive "The End" and the rush of euphoria that comes with it.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Poll Results - How long for a single player game?
Here's the results of the last poll:
How long should it take to finish a good single player game?
15-30 hours = 2 votes
30-50 hours = 5 votes
50-75 hours = 1 vote
100+ hours = 1 vote
0-15 and 75-100 hours = 0 votes
I can understand why no one votes for 0-15 hours. That's just way too short for any game. And if you look at the financial investment you can tell. At $60 a game and it only lasts 15 hours that means you spent $4 a hour to play it. That might not seem like much but I can remember when the minimum wage was less than $4. Now a days that's a breakfast at McDonald's for every hour of game play. Two hours of game play could probably get you into to see a matinee movie, which might also take two hours. But at least with a matinee all you have to do is sit there and be entertained. A game takes work.
I voted for the 100+ hours. You might think I'm crazy, but I have my reasons. I was mostly thinking of RPG style games. Those games usually have areas, side quests, and what-nots built in to them that require a little extra time exploring and wandering around. I certainly don't expect BioShock to take 100 hours to play. I think I did it in about 20 hours, but I'll have to go online tonight and check that out.
However long it took me, BioShock was a short game. The fact that there was nothing else to do besides the main quest didn't help. It's still a great game but it didn't completely satisfy my gaming needs. In other words I wanted more.
With traditional RPG games there's places all over that don't require you to visit them to advance the story. And just about everybody you talk to is going to either a) give you information about the main quest, b) give you the opportunity for a side quest, or c) annoy the crap out of you. In Lost Odyssey the other night I visited an area that opened up on the map but I didn't have to go to. I picked up a few cool items so it was very beneficial to do so. I didn't have to, but I'm a completist when I play RPG type games. I'll explore every option presented to me before moving on.
For some reason I don't expect a game like Gears of War or Call of Duty 4 to have extensive single player campaigns. It would be really nice if it did, but I don't expect it. Maybe because the developers know that the longevity to those games are through the multiplayer game play rather than the single player campaigns. Look at the Halo franchise. The first game was all about the story and game play. They throw in multiplayer stuff with the second one and not everybody who talks about that game focuses on that aspect only. You don't hear people raving over the single player stuff, now do you?
I remember in the good old original Playstation days games were made with really long (and sometimes very difficult) single player game play. Multiplayer game play took a back seat if it was included at all. Now a days with more casual gamers getting into the action and more interactive games on the market (Guitar Hero, anything for the Wii) more gamers are looking for more multiplayer action than single player campaigns. I guess this high profile move is taking the stereotypical gamer from their parent's basement to everyone's living rooms but I hope it doesn't do in single player campaigns and games entirely. Some days you've just got to immerse yourself and play alone in someone else's world. It beats listening to the news in our own world.
How long should it take to finish a good single player game?
15-30 hours = 2 votes
30-50 hours = 5 votes
50-75 hours = 1 vote
100+ hours = 1 vote
0-15 and 75-100 hours = 0 votes
I can understand why no one votes for 0-15 hours. That's just way too short for any game. And if you look at the financial investment you can tell. At $60 a game and it only lasts 15 hours that means you spent $4 a hour to play it. That might not seem like much but I can remember when the minimum wage was less than $4. Now a days that's a breakfast at McDonald's for every hour of game play. Two hours of game play could probably get you into to see a matinee movie, which might also take two hours. But at least with a matinee all you have to do is sit there and be entertained. A game takes work.
I voted for the 100+ hours. You might think I'm crazy, but I have my reasons. I was mostly thinking of RPG style games. Those games usually have areas, side quests, and what-nots built in to them that require a little extra time exploring and wandering around. I certainly don't expect BioShock to take 100 hours to play. I think I did it in about 20 hours, but I'll have to go online tonight and check that out.
However long it took me, BioShock was a short game. The fact that there was nothing else to do besides the main quest didn't help. It's still a great game but it didn't completely satisfy my gaming needs. In other words I wanted more.
With traditional RPG games there's places all over that don't require you to visit them to advance the story. And just about everybody you talk to is going to either a) give you information about the main quest, b) give you the opportunity for a side quest, or c) annoy the crap out of you. In Lost Odyssey the other night I visited an area that opened up on the map but I didn't have to go to. I picked up a few cool items so it was very beneficial to do so. I didn't have to, but I'm a completist when I play RPG type games. I'll explore every option presented to me before moving on.
For some reason I don't expect a game like Gears of War or Call of Duty 4 to have extensive single player campaigns. It would be really nice if it did, but I don't expect it. Maybe because the developers know that the longevity to those games are through the multiplayer game play rather than the single player campaigns. Look at the Halo franchise. The first game was all about the story and game play. They throw in multiplayer stuff with the second one and not everybody who talks about that game focuses on that aspect only. You don't hear people raving over the single player stuff, now do you?
I remember in the good old original Playstation days games were made with really long (and sometimes very difficult) single player game play. Multiplayer game play took a back seat if it was included at all. Now a days with more casual gamers getting into the action and more interactive games on the market (Guitar Hero, anything for the Wii) more gamers are looking for more multiplayer action than single player campaigns. I guess this high profile move is taking the stereotypical gamer from their parent's basement to everyone's living rooms but I hope it doesn't do in single player campaigns and games entirely. Some days you've just got to immerse yourself and play alone in someone else's world. It beats listening to the news in our own world.
Monday, June 9, 2008
In the heat of the moment
I don't know of any game that doesn't get intense. Even Uno. But maybe that's just the way I play games or the friends I play with. And sometimes when things get a little intense, people can get a little heated. In actions and words. And usually I don't mind.
I think any game where you don't respawn after death automatically makes the game play more intense. If you've only got one life to play you want to make sure you play it well. And when you get killed (with a spectacular shot or a lucky one) there's bound to be some words spoken in the heat of battle. Yep, I'm talking cuss words. Now, I'm not a prude as I've been known to say a few cuss words myself in the heat of battle, so I don't usually mind the expletive explosions that usually come at one's own death. It's free speech right?
What I don't like is the swear words that get bantered around usually at the start of a match or when you're playing with strangers and they start using them in anger or hatred. The words don't have to be hate words either. Call of Duty 4 is a game that seems to get a lot of jerks playing and chest-thumping their own skills or the lack thereof in their opponents. Those matches just turn me off. I ran into quite a lot of that over this past weekend. I think the "double EXP points" weekend brought all the loonies out of the woodwork. When those words start to fly the game's no longer fun for me any more, especially when I become the target for no other reason then people think my name is funny for a guy (and then they find out I'm a girl which only fuels their fire).
But not all swear words are said in anger or hatred. Some are used towards a comedic effect . . . at least with my friends. Gears of War is a game we all like to play except for all the glitches in the game (sticking to walls, host advantage, etc). So the frustration levels can get very high. And when someone dies . . . well there might be a few words spoken that sound just the same as the angry words spoken in a Call of Duty 4 match but the laughter that usually accompanies them lets everyone know it's all in good fun. And it is.
I certainly don't take it any other way. And if you've ever seen me play you know that I've got more to be frustrated about than others, since I'm usually the first kill or one with the lowest score. After I die, I get to watch others play and then hear the burst of laughter as someone just got their head blow off by a well placed sniper shot. Or my personal favorite, the desperation Boomshoot where you take yourself out to make sure you get who you're aiming at as well.
There is another problem I have with swearing in games and playing with my regular group of friends. The problem is they're good guys. Gentleman all around. And when they play with a girl they think they should moderate their language. And if they forget to they end up apologizing for everything they say. There are certain swear words I just don't like to hear and if I heard one I'll let them know, otherwise they're free to say whatever they'd like. I don't expect to control them or dictate what they can and can not say. When one of my friends got a little carried away in a Call of Duty 4 match I just left. I'm free to do that too. And since I know these guys are gentlemen I know they don't mean anything by it, but then again the laughter usually gives them away.
I use to think that swearing was for the unintelligent that just couldn't figure out anything else to say. But sometimes swearing happens because that's the only thing that's going to express the emotions in the heat of the moment. Do I have to mute everyone who does so I don't hear any of it? No. Besides, sometimes those heat of the moments comments make for a F-ing good laugh, at least when you play with my friends.
I think any game where you don't respawn after death automatically makes the game play more intense. If you've only got one life to play you want to make sure you play it well. And when you get killed (with a spectacular shot or a lucky one) there's bound to be some words spoken in the heat of battle. Yep, I'm talking cuss words. Now, I'm not a prude as I've been known to say a few cuss words myself in the heat of battle, so I don't usually mind the expletive explosions that usually come at one's own death. It's free speech right?
What I don't like is the swear words that get bantered around usually at the start of a match or when you're playing with strangers and they start using them in anger or hatred. The words don't have to be hate words either. Call of Duty 4 is a game that seems to get a lot of jerks playing and chest-thumping their own skills or the lack thereof in their opponents. Those matches just turn me off. I ran into quite a lot of that over this past weekend. I think the "double EXP points" weekend brought all the loonies out of the woodwork. When those words start to fly the game's no longer fun for me any more, especially when I become the target for no other reason then people think my name is funny for a guy (and then they find out I'm a girl which only fuels their fire).
But not all swear words are said in anger or hatred. Some are used towards a comedic effect . . . at least with my friends. Gears of War is a game we all like to play except for all the glitches in the game (sticking to walls, host advantage, etc). So the frustration levels can get very high. And when someone dies . . . well there might be a few words spoken that sound just the same as the angry words spoken in a Call of Duty 4 match but the laughter that usually accompanies them lets everyone know it's all in good fun. And it is.
I certainly don't take it any other way. And if you've ever seen me play you know that I've got more to be frustrated about than others, since I'm usually the first kill or one with the lowest score. After I die, I get to watch others play and then hear the burst of laughter as someone just got their head blow off by a well placed sniper shot. Or my personal favorite, the desperation Boomshoot where you take yourself out to make sure you get who you're aiming at as well.
There is another problem I have with swearing in games and playing with my regular group of friends. The problem is they're good guys. Gentleman all around. And when they play with a girl they think they should moderate their language. And if they forget to they end up apologizing for everything they say. There are certain swear words I just don't like to hear and if I heard one I'll let them know, otherwise they're free to say whatever they'd like. I don't expect to control them or dictate what they can and can not say. When one of my friends got a little carried away in a Call of Duty 4 match I just left. I'm free to do that too. And since I know these guys are gentlemen I know they don't mean anything by it, but then again the laughter usually gives them away.
I use to think that swearing was for the unintelligent that just couldn't figure out anything else to say. But sometimes swearing happens because that's the only thing that's going to express the emotions in the heat of the moment. Do I have to mute everyone who does so I don't hear any of it? No. Besides, sometimes those heat of the moments comments make for a F-ing good laugh, at least when you play with my friends.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Call of Duty 4 is very bad for Xbox Live
If I were to ask you what game is the best representation of the Xbox 360 console in game play, what the system can do and fan base what would you say? I'm sure a lot of you are thinking Halo 3. Oh sure, it's the easy choice. The original Halo game is what put the original Xbox on the map. And at it's release that game had more hype than a Brittany Spears night on the town.
But you're wrong.
If you ask me the same question I'd have to say Cal of Duty 4. Why? Just look at the facts. There's nothing personal or preferential in my choice. I've played a lot of Call of Duty 4 (mostly multiplayer) and not so much of Halo 3. I haven't played enough of Halo 3 to really get a firm opinion of the game or the franchise. But what I have played I've liked . . . except for most of the people that I've played against. I just want you to know that because my decision is not based on my opinions of the game but what the game has done for Microsoft and their Xbox Live service.
When Halo 3 came out there were stores staying open until midnight to sell the game. And once it was out everybody seemed to be playing the game on Xbox Live. The system was a little slow for that first week but it wasn't disruptive to those not playing Halo 3. Call of Duty 4 on the other had was a whole different story.
The release wasn't so much the media event as Halo 3's was. But at the same time there were just as people playing Call of Duty 4 as there was Halo 3. There was a bit of a slow down in the Xbox Live network for COD4 but once again it wasn't as much Halo 3. What's different about COD4 is that it's audience grew by word of mouth and more and more people bought the game and started playing it. With Halo 3 you were pretty much going to get it at release or you'd wait until the price comes down or you wouldn't get it at all.
The more people who started to play COD 4 the more the Xbox Live network started to have problems. Over the Christmas holiday was the worse. You could feel the slowness of the network in COD4 and it affect not only your gameplay but everyone else's gameplay on the network.
Yesterday a batch of new maps were released for COD4 and things went down hill from there. The market place crashed and you couldn't get to the place where you could download the maps. And some of us were kicked off of Xbox Live altogether while we were playing other games. Yes, that's right. I was logged in but I was playing Begeweled 2 when I heard that lovely little beep. I had thought I unlocked an achievement. Nope. What I got instead was "Pengwen has been disconnected from Xbox Live". Why? Probably because I wasn't really playing a game over Xbox Live and they needed the server space/power for someone else who was. Do I think it's just a coincidence that this happens on the day the COD4 maps are released? I don't think so. So what does that tell us about COD4?
To me, it says that more people want to pay 800 points for 4 new maps for that game. Enough people to overwhelm their network and make it difficult for some of the rest of us to get online. Has this happened with anything for the Halo games? Not that I'm aware of. There's been map packs for previous Halo games and the rush of users trying to download those and play them hasn't tanked the system. So you've got to see that Call of Duty 4 is more the quintessential Xbox 360 game instead of Halo 3. I know the Halo fanboys out there aren't going to like it, but it is what it is. And for some of us it means we won't be able to connect to Xbox Live through our consoles until everyone's had their fill of the new maps and have moved on.
But you're wrong.
If you ask me the same question I'd have to say Cal of Duty 4. Why? Just look at the facts. There's nothing personal or preferential in my choice. I've played a lot of Call of Duty 4 (mostly multiplayer) and not so much of Halo 3. I haven't played enough of Halo 3 to really get a firm opinion of the game or the franchise. But what I have played I've liked . . . except for most of the people that I've played against. I just want you to know that because my decision is not based on my opinions of the game but what the game has done for Microsoft and their Xbox Live service.
When Halo 3 came out there were stores staying open until midnight to sell the game. And once it was out everybody seemed to be playing the game on Xbox Live. The system was a little slow for that first week but it wasn't disruptive to those not playing Halo 3. Call of Duty 4 on the other had was a whole different story.
The release wasn't so much the media event as Halo 3's was. But at the same time there were just as people playing Call of Duty 4 as there was Halo 3. There was a bit of a slow down in the Xbox Live network for COD4 but once again it wasn't as much Halo 3. What's different about COD4 is that it's audience grew by word of mouth and more and more people bought the game and started playing it. With Halo 3 you were pretty much going to get it at release or you'd wait until the price comes down or you wouldn't get it at all.
The more people who started to play COD 4 the more the Xbox Live network started to have problems. Over the Christmas holiday was the worse. You could feel the slowness of the network in COD4 and it affect not only your gameplay but everyone else's gameplay on the network.
Yesterday a batch of new maps were released for COD4 and things went down hill from there. The market place crashed and you couldn't get to the place where you could download the maps. And some of us were kicked off of Xbox Live altogether while we were playing other games. Yes, that's right. I was logged in but I was playing Begeweled 2 when I heard that lovely little beep. I had thought I unlocked an achievement. Nope. What I got instead was "Pengwen has been disconnected from Xbox Live". Why? Probably because I wasn't really playing a game over Xbox Live and they needed the server space/power for someone else who was. Do I think it's just a coincidence that this happens on the day the COD4 maps are released? I don't think so. So what does that tell us about COD4?
To me, it says that more people want to pay 800 points for 4 new maps for that game. Enough people to overwhelm their network and make it difficult for some of the rest of us to get online. Has this happened with anything for the Halo games? Not that I'm aware of. There's been map packs for previous Halo games and the rush of users trying to download those and play them hasn't tanked the system. So you've got to see that Call of Duty 4 is more the quintessential Xbox 360 game instead of Halo 3. I know the Halo fanboys out there aren't going to like it, but it is what it is. And for some of us it means we won't be able to connect to Xbox Live through our consoles until everyone's had their fill of the new maps and have moved on.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
My opinion - GRAW
Every now and then I'm going to pick a game and give my opinion of it. Why? Because this is my blog and I can do whatever I want. So there.
Any hoo! The game I picked this time is Ton Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter otherwise known as GRAW. This game came out in March of 2006 but I didn't get it until later. When I did get it it was because a bunch of my friends were playing it and they suggested it to me. Without playing a demo I took them up on it. Now I don't think I should have.
I owned it for a long time before I ever put it into my system to play. There were just other games that I was more interested in that more of friends were playing instead. When I did put it in I had a hard time reading and following the instructions in the tutorial level. I couldn't understand what they were asking me to do or where they wanted me to go. And then I got the grenade toss.
That was where I quit. I just couldn't toss the smoke grenade in the right spot in order to run across the open road without dying. No matter how many times I tried I just couldn't do it the way the computer wanted me to and that meant that I couldn't progress in the training. It really frustrated me. I stopped playing. A couple of weeks later I came back to the game and tried again. The second time through the controls were a little easier to understand, but not much. But then I got the grenade part. I had the same problem again.
This time I stopped playing for months. If I was getting frustrated just trying to make it through the training mission what was the actual game play going to be for me? Once GRAW 2 came out I figured I should at least try it one more time. Still the same problem. It wasn't worth it for me any more. But I kept the game.
I always thought I'd come back and play GRAW. I never have. And my experience playing Call of Duty 4 has taught me that there are some games I just won't be very good at. And if that is the case, why play them? I'm still playing Call of Duty 4 because I still have fun with my friends despite how poorly I play. But will I ever go back to playing GRAW? I don't think so.
So I decided to trade it in . . . as soon as I can find the case for it. I don't see the point in keeping a game that I have no desire to play (even if my friends want me to play). I'd rather spend the money on a game that interests me and doesn't frustrate me completely on the training level. Maybe The Orange Box perhaps. Or Eternal Sonata. I already have a hard enough time finding the time to play the games that I have and love that I don't think I'll ever want to put GRAW in and give it another go.
This doesn't mean I think it's a terrible game. It just means that I couldn't get through the training level. I feel stupid for that too, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it any more. If a game doesn't interest me it's going back. And maybe I'll start downloading demos to try them out first. And if you're on my friend's list and have been waiting for me to learn how to play GRAW so we could play together we'll have to find another game to meet in. May I suggest Boogie Bunnies?
Any hoo! The game I picked this time is Ton Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter otherwise known as GRAW. This game came out in March of 2006 but I didn't get it until later. When I did get it it was because a bunch of my friends were playing it and they suggested it to me. Without playing a demo I took them up on it. Now I don't think I should have.
I owned it for a long time before I ever put it into my system to play. There were just other games that I was more interested in that more of friends were playing instead. When I did put it in I had a hard time reading and following the instructions in the tutorial level. I couldn't understand what they were asking me to do or where they wanted me to go. And then I got the grenade toss.
That was where I quit. I just couldn't toss the smoke grenade in the right spot in order to run across the open road without dying. No matter how many times I tried I just couldn't do it the way the computer wanted me to and that meant that I couldn't progress in the training. It really frustrated me. I stopped playing. A couple of weeks later I came back to the game and tried again. The second time through the controls were a little easier to understand, but not much. But then I got the grenade part. I had the same problem again.
This time I stopped playing for months. If I was getting frustrated just trying to make it through the training mission what was the actual game play going to be for me? Once GRAW 2 came out I figured I should at least try it one more time. Still the same problem. It wasn't worth it for me any more. But I kept the game.
I always thought I'd come back and play GRAW. I never have. And my experience playing Call of Duty 4 has taught me that there are some games I just won't be very good at. And if that is the case, why play them? I'm still playing Call of Duty 4 because I still have fun with my friends despite how poorly I play. But will I ever go back to playing GRAW? I don't think so.
So I decided to trade it in . . . as soon as I can find the case for it. I don't see the point in keeping a game that I have no desire to play (even if my friends want me to play). I'd rather spend the money on a game that interests me and doesn't frustrate me completely on the training level. Maybe The Orange Box perhaps. Or Eternal Sonata. I already have a hard enough time finding the time to play the games that I have and love that I don't think I'll ever want to put GRAW in and give it another go.
This doesn't mean I think it's a terrible game. It just means that I couldn't get through the training level. I feel stupid for that too, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it any more. If a game doesn't interest me it's going back. And maybe I'll start downloading demos to try them out first. And if you're on my friend's list and have been waiting for me to learn how to play GRAW so we could play together we'll have to find another game to meet in. May I suggest Boogie Bunnies?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
New Year Resolutions completed
Okay when I said this back in January I either had a low expectation of myself or I tapped into some awesome motivation to work on these New Year Resolutions:
Well, I've already achieved 2 out of the 3 resolutions so now what do I do?
I reached the rank of #55, went through one level of Prestige and I'm on level 12 of my second level of Prestige. And I think scoring points is easier so I might blow through another level of Prestige or two this year as well (all depending on time spent playing other games of course). Sometime towards the end of last week I achieved 5,501 as a gamerscore. I have since added a few points to that total so I can cross that resolution off of the list.
The only resolution I haven't completed yet was finishing Final Fantasy VII. I haven't even connected my PS2 up this year so I've still got a ways to go on that one. Maybe I'll take this week and see if the PS2 still runs.
So now that I've already accomplished most of my resolutions what do I do? Should I set more? Maybe ones that I actually have to work towards and are a stretch? How about breaking that 10,000 point barrier with my gamerscore? Or finishing some disk games and maybe a couple of Arcade games? Or how about buying a PS3 and a DS Lite? I think I need to give this some thought before I make anything too official. But here are some of the contenders for "Mid-Year Resolutions" (since the year is no longer new):
1. gamerscore 10,000 or higher
2. finish BioShock/Lost Odyssey/Mass Effect/Legend of Legaia/Dark Cloud/Arc the Lad: Twilight of the Spirits/Untold Legends: Brotherhood of the Blade/Pikmin/or any number of games
3. finish Lego Star Wars II (those undefeated vehicle missions are going to be the death of me)
3. finish Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga (almost there anyway so why not)
4. all achievements Texas Hold 'Em
5. all achievements in Catan (but only if my internet connection behaves itself)
6. get ANY achievement in Rayman Raving Rabbids
7. all achievements in Uno/Root Beer Tapper/any other Arcade game
8. finish Gears of War on Hard
Any suggestions? And if you say "all of them" you better hope there isn't any good games coming out this year that are going to take up my time (excluding Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 and Gears of War 2 of course).
My New Year's (Gaming) Resolutions:
1. Finish Final Fantasy VII.
2. Reach rank #55 & complete one level of Prestige in Call of Duty 4.
3. Raise my gamer score to 5,500 or more.
Well, I've already achieved 2 out of the 3 resolutions so now what do I do?
I reached the rank of #55, went through one level of Prestige and I'm on level 12 of my second level of Prestige. And I think scoring points is easier so I might blow through another level of Prestige or two this year as well (all depending on time spent playing other games of course). Sometime towards the end of last week I achieved 5,501 as a gamerscore. I have since added a few points to that total so I can cross that resolution off of the list.
The only resolution I haven't completed yet was finishing Final Fantasy VII. I haven't even connected my PS2 up this year so I've still got a ways to go on that one. Maybe I'll take this week and see if the PS2 still runs.
So now that I've already accomplished most of my resolutions what do I do? Should I set more? Maybe ones that I actually have to work towards and are a stretch? How about breaking that 10,000 point barrier with my gamerscore? Or finishing some disk games and maybe a couple of Arcade games? Or how about buying a PS3 and a DS Lite? I think I need to give this some thought before I make anything too official. But here are some of the contenders for "Mid-Year Resolutions" (since the year is no longer new):
1. gamerscore 10,000 or higher
2. finish BioShock/Lost Odyssey/Mass Effect/Legend of Legaia/Dark Cloud/Arc the Lad: Twilight of the Spirits/Untold Legends: Brotherhood of the Blade/Pikmin/or any number of games
3. finish Lego Star Wars II (those undefeated vehicle missions are going to be the death of me)
3. finish Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga (almost there anyway so why not)
4. all achievements Texas Hold 'Em
5. all achievements in Catan (but only if my internet connection behaves itself)
6. get ANY achievement in Rayman Raving Rabbids
7. all achievements in Uno/Root Beer Tapper/any other Arcade game
8. finish Gears of War on Hard
Any suggestions? And if you say "all of them" you better hope there isn't any good games coming out this year that are going to take up my time (excluding Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 and Gears of War 2 of course).
Sunday, March 9, 2008
New Poll - Are you getting Rainbow 6: Vegas 2?
There's a new poll up. Are you buying Rainbow 6: Vegas 2? Me? I'm undecided at this point.
A lot of my friends are having a hard time believing me when I tell them the shooter genre of video games isn't my first choice. I prefer RPGs. You see they met me while playing Star Wars Battlefront, I joined them in Gears of War and Rainbow 6: Vegas and we've all moved on to Call of Duty 4. So you can understand the confusion.
The thing is I started playing Battlefront not because it was a shooter but because it was a Star Wars game. The fact that it was a shooter with good game play kept me coming back over and over again. When Gears of War came out I was drooling over it and upset that i didn't have a 360 at the time. I corrected that problem and got to enjoy a visually stunning game. I wasn't planing on getting Vegas but when all of my friends jumped over there from Gears I really didn't have anyone to play with. I eventually got that game and had fun. And when Call of Duty 4 came out it was the same thing all over again but much worse.
It's not that I have anything against a shooter game. They're great for relieving stress and tension. But when I play games with blood, guts, and violence I'm more of the run and gun type or the hack and slash type. I don't want to have to go and find the enemy . . . I want to burst into wherever they are and start cutting them to bits. If Vegas 2 is going to be anything like the first one we might have a problem.
But if I don't get the game I won't have anyone to play with for quite some time. All my friends are salivating over this upcoming game. So much so that I hope they don't get their hopes up too high. I would hate to see all these last months of getting themselves worked up come crashing down due to a poorly devised overhaul of the game.
With the price of $60 a game that's a big chunk of change for something I might not enjoy as much as my friends. But if buying that game is the only way for me to hang out with my friends that I'll have to decide if it's worth it to buy at release or wait awhile until the price comes down. Unfortunately with this caliber of game I don't think the price is going to come down anytime soon.
A lot of my friends are having a hard time believing me when I tell them the shooter genre of video games isn't my first choice. I prefer RPGs. You see they met me while playing Star Wars Battlefront, I joined them in Gears of War and Rainbow 6: Vegas and we've all moved on to Call of Duty 4. So you can understand the confusion.
The thing is I started playing Battlefront not because it was a shooter but because it was a Star Wars game. The fact that it was a shooter with good game play kept me coming back over and over again. When Gears of War came out I was drooling over it and upset that i didn't have a 360 at the time. I corrected that problem and got to enjoy a visually stunning game. I wasn't planing on getting Vegas but when all of my friends jumped over there from Gears I really didn't have anyone to play with. I eventually got that game and had fun. And when Call of Duty 4 came out it was the same thing all over again but much worse.
It's not that I have anything against a shooter game. They're great for relieving stress and tension. But when I play games with blood, guts, and violence I'm more of the run and gun type or the hack and slash type. I don't want to have to go and find the enemy . . . I want to burst into wherever they are and start cutting them to bits. If Vegas 2 is going to be anything like the first one we might have a problem.
But if I don't get the game I won't have anyone to play with for quite some time. All my friends are salivating over this upcoming game. So much so that I hope they don't get their hopes up too high. I would hate to see all these last months of getting themselves worked up come crashing down due to a poorly devised overhaul of the game.
With the price of $60 a game that's a big chunk of change for something I might not enjoy as much as my friends. But if buying that game is the only way for me to hang out with my friends that I'll have to decide if it's worth it to buy at release or wait awhile until the price comes down. Unfortunately with this caliber of game I don't think the price is going to come down anytime soon.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Playing for points before time runs out
So when I put in Call of Duty 4 yesterday I finally decided to play the single player campaign and pick up some achievements. I'm glad I did because those 90 points pushed my gamerscore higher than my brother's . . . by 11 points. Whoo Hoo!!!
But that's not why I did it (despite what he thinks). In about two weeks Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 is coming out and all my friends will be playing that game instead of Call of Duty 4. I'd like to be able to get to level 2 prestige by then but it'll be close. And then I realized that I've own the game for almost 4 months and haven't even looked at the single player side of it. So I gave it a shot.
And some of the problems I have in the multiplayer games are the same in the single player game. I can't see things or people. I don't know where fire is coming from. And I can't figure out where to go. I don't know how many times I ran too far ahead from my squadmates, or stayed to far behind, and didn't know what to do or where to go. And getting through the tv news room was a disaster. I think it took me 6 or 7 times. And I even set the difficulty at the "I'm a noob and never played a shooter before" setting. Once I got to the Bog area I quit. I'd had enough. And my eyes were killing me.
There's just something about this game that makes it very difficult for me to see things. I don't know how many times I've watched a Kill Cam and I couldn't even see where I was even with the little red "You" circle pointing at my head. Does everyone play on high def 52" tvs?
Despite all the headaches trying to see and figure out what's going on I liked it. But with my friends moving on to R6:V2 (I'm still undecided if it's a launch pickup for me) and myself getting immersed in the story of BioShock and Lost Odyssey I'm not sure how much of this game I'll play in the future. Eventually I'm sure I'll play it to finish getting the achievement points but only because I hate to leave things unfinished. So until time runs out and all my friends and I have all moved on I'll at least give it a try for more points.
But that's not why I did it (despite what he thinks). In about two weeks Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 is coming out and all my friends will be playing that game instead of Call of Duty 4. I'd like to be able to get to level 2 prestige by then but it'll be close. And then I realized that I've own the game for almost 4 months and haven't even looked at the single player side of it. So I gave it a shot.
And some of the problems I have in the multiplayer games are the same in the single player game. I can't see things or people. I don't know where fire is coming from. And I can't figure out where to go. I don't know how many times I ran too far ahead from my squadmates, or stayed to far behind, and didn't know what to do or where to go. And getting through the tv news room was a disaster. I think it took me 6 or 7 times. And I even set the difficulty at the "I'm a noob and never played a shooter before" setting. Once I got to the Bog area I quit. I'd had enough. And my eyes were killing me.
There's just something about this game that makes it very difficult for me to see things. I don't know how many times I've watched a Kill Cam and I couldn't even see where I was even with the little red "You" circle pointing at my head. Does everyone play on high def 52" tvs?
Despite all the headaches trying to see and figure out what's going on I liked it. But with my friends moving on to R6:V2 (I'm still undecided if it's a launch pickup for me) and myself getting immersed in the story of BioShock and Lost Odyssey I'm not sure how much of this game I'll play in the future. Eventually I'm sure I'll play it to finish getting the achievement points but only because I hate to leave things unfinished. So until time runs out and all my friends and I have all moved on I'll at least give it a try for more points.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Great online games should never die
Don't you just love it when you find a really great game? A game that sucks you in the minute you start playing. And one that will do that all over again even if you haven't played it in months.
I've wanted to play Gears of War again for a long time but I've been having too much fun (even though I suck) playing Call of Duty 4 with my friends. Last night a couple of them were playing Gears so I put the disk in. It took awhile for me to get use to the controlls again. But after I figured out that I needed to hold A down to run instead of the left stick all the old memories came back and it felt good.
There was something comforting about shooting locus hordes and watching their bodies contort themselves in death that just felt good. I remember coming from large teams in Star Wars Battlefront to having only 4 people on a side and thinking that was ridiculous. Last night it seemed right. Four people were plenty enough for me, thank you very much. Matches were short and sweet (or should I say bloody). And it just felt right.
But before I jumped into the match with my friends I did a search for ranked and player matches. I was disappointed in how many matches were available. Only 2 ranked matches showed on my list. And only about 8 player matches. I'd like to think that was because there were already hundreds of other matches being played that were full. But considering how long this game has been out I doubt that. And that makes me sad.
For games that have great online multiplayer game play there should always be lots of matches to choose from. We shouldn't let those games die or be transported to online purgatory. You know, the place where someone hosts a match but nobody joins them. Something needs to be done to save these games and their online lives from becoming extinct. Games like Star Wars Battlefront I and II, Gears of War, Halo 2, Counter Strike, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Burnout Revenge, Chromehounds, Call of Duty 2 & 3, G.R.A.W 1 & 2, Lost Planet, Rainbow 6: Vegas, I could on for awhile, but I think you get the picture.
Every time a new game comes out we set aside the old game and don't play it. Most people probably sell it back in order to afford the new game. But "newest and latest" doesn't always mean better. And even if it did, that doesn't lessen the enjoyment you got out of that "old" game or that you still can't enjoy it again if you played it. It's the game play that matters, not "realistic graphics" or "seamless scene loadings" or "largest weapon selections than any other game out there". If we don't enjoy playing a game, we won't. Funny how that works, isn't it?
So don't give up on older games. You liked them for their game play once so you can still play them for that reason again no matter how "old" and "dated" they may look or feel. If you did sell back your copy of those games you can always pick it back up used. Video games should be played and enjoyed for many years, not just the few months they're the latest thing out there before the next new game come out. And it is okay to buy the latest great game like Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 that's coming out next month, but don't forget to show some lovin' to the older games as well. No one likes to be stuck in purgatory trying to find a match.
I've wanted to play Gears of War again for a long time but I've been having too much fun (even though I suck) playing Call of Duty 4 with my friends. Last night a couple of them were playing Gears so I put the disk in. It took awhile for me to get use to the controlls again. But after I figured out that I needed to hold A down to run instead of the left stick all the old memories came back and it felt good.
There was something comforting about shooting locus hordes and watching their bodies contort themselves in death that just felt good. I remember coming from large teams in Star Wars Battlefront to having only 4 people on a side and thinking that was ridiculous. Last night it seemed right. Four people were plenty enough for me, thank you very much. Matches were short and sweet (or should I say bloody). And it just felt right.
But before I jumped into the match with my friends I did a search for ranked and player matches. I was disappointed in how many matches were available. Only 2 ranked matches showed on my list. And only about 8 player matches. I'd like to think that was because there were already hundreds of other matches being played that were full. But considering how long this game has been out I doubt that. And that makes me sad.
For games that have great online multiplayer game play there should always be lots of matches to choose from. We shouldn't let those games die or be transported to online purgatory. You know, the place where someone hosts a match but nobody joins them. Something needs to be done to save these games and their online lives from becoming extinct. Games like Star Wars Battlefront I and II, Gears of War, Halo 2, Counter Strike, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Burnout Revenge, Chromehounds, Call of Duty 2 & 3, G.R.A.W 1 & 2, Lost Planet, Rainbow 6: Vegas, I could on for awhile, but I think you get the picture.
Every time a new game comes out we set aside the old game and don't play it. Most people probably sell it back in order to afford the new game. But "newest and latest" doesn't always mean better. And even if it did, that doesn't lessen the enjoyment you got out of that "old" game or that you still can't enjoy it again if you played it. It's the game play that matters, not "realistic graphics" or "seamless scene loadings" or "largest weapon selections than any other game out there". If we don't enjoy playing a game, we won't. Funny how that works, isn't it?
So don't give up on older games. You liked them for their game play once so you can still play them for that reason again no matter how "old" and "dated" they may look or feel. If you did sell back your copy of those games you can always pick it back up used. Video games should be played and enjoyed for many years, not just the few months they're the latest thing out there before the next new game come out. And it is okay to buy the latest great game like Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 that's coming out next month, but don't forget to show some lovin' to the older games as well. No one likes to be stuck in purgatory trying to find a match.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
New Poll - Is it wrong to play Avatar: Burning Earth for quick achievement points?
So my brother and I are locked into a gamer score battle. With no end in sight. You see we're both competitive people and neither one of use can stand that the other one might have a higher gamer score than the other. His score currently stands at 5,010 and I'm at 4,967. Now if I could just stop playing Call of Duty 4 online I'm sure I could make up the difference.
We have a lot of the same friends in common and now they're starting to get in on the competition. They help us out when we're stuck trying to get an achievement. They've offered to "distract" the other one into playing something (that won't get them achievements) so one of us can work on achievements in peace. I've even had one of my friends offer to play a game for me to earn the points while I could play something else. And then there's the suggestion, from just about everyone, to play Avatar: The Burning Earth.
The game only has five achievements and if you watch the YouTube video you'll see that it only takes about 10 minutes to get all those achievements. Instant 1,000 points. As appealing and tempting as this is there's a downside to having those 1,000 points in your gamer score. It doesn't matter what game forum you go to but everyone looks down on those that have played the game for the points. You're scum. You're slim. You're an achievement whore.
That may be, but it’s 1,000 points! That would mean I would be 5,967 and my brother would still be 5,010. I'd be ahead of him by a large margin. Of course there's nothing to stop him from renting the game and getting those 1,000 points himself. Which would mean he be ahead of me again.
So I guess it comes down to whether I want to beat my brother's gamer score (yes) and look like scum on game forums (like I care what they think anyway) or play and EARN achievements for games that I actually like (yes, yes, and oh . . . yes). Vote in the poll and tell me what you think.
We have a lot of the same friends in common and now they're starting to get in on the competition. They help us out when we're stuck trying to get an achievement. They've offered to "distract" the other one into playing something (that won't get them achievements) so one of us can work on achievements in peace. I've even had one of my friends offer to play a game for me to earn the points while I could play something else. And then there's the suggestion, from just about everyone, to play Avatar: The Burning Earth.
The game only has five achievements and if you watch the YouTube video you'll see that it only takes about 10 minutes to get all those achievements. Instant 1,000 points. As appealing and tempting as this is there's a downside to having those 1,000 points in your gamer score. It doesn't matter what game forum you go to but everyone looks down on those that have played the game for the points. You're scum. You're slim. You're an achievement whore.
That may be, but it’s 1,000 points! That would mean I would be 5,967 and my brother would still be 5,010. I'd be ahead of him by a large margin. Of course there's nothing to stop him from renting the game and getting those 1,000 points himself. Which would mean he be ahead of me again.
So I guess it comes down to whether I want to beat my brother's gamer score (yes) and look like scum on game forums (like I care what they think anyway) or play and EARN achievements for games that I actually like (yes, yes, and oh . . . yes). Vote in the poll and tell me what you think.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Your winning streaks are being manipulated
A friend of mine came up with a theory of people's winning streaks in Call of Duty 4. He thinks they’re rigged. After playing and seeing what he told me to look for I believe him.
When you get online in COD4 look at your friends leaderboards for wins. Under "winning streak" how many wins do your friends have? 10? 5? 3? Based on Evil's theory they will probably only have a win streak of 2. Why? Because if you win 2 games in a row most likely you'll lose the third.
I looked at all my friends and sure enough the longest winning streak anyone had was at 2. And I have players on my list who play this game religiously. And they're good. And one of them has finished prestige. So why aren't they winning more in a row.
The thing with this theory is that it only applies if you stay in the same room with mostly the same group of people for three rounds. If you swap out a few players between matches it won't effect things very much. If you leave the game lobby after two rounds things start all over again when you enter your next lobby.
For three or four nights I watched this, keeping track of wins and loses and how long we've been in a room. Sure enough if we won 2 matches in a row the next match we would lose (even if we totally dominated the other team in the previous matches). For some reason we couldn't seem to aim and shoot anyone. Our targeting seemed to be off. Their grenades seem to have a wider explosion radius. We'd have to knife someone two times. They could shot us once in the knee caps and we'd die. It's all very subtle unless you know what to look for. And the reverse of this theory works too. If you've lost 2 matches in a row against the same group of people you'll win the next one.
We got into a match when a full team (all with the same Clan Tag) jumped in. We knew we were playing against a cohesive clan and that we'd probably get our butts kicked. We did. The first two matches were a blowout. And humiliating. Why we stayed in I don't know, but we did. And sure enough we won the next map. We weren't doing anything different and I don't think the map is one we favored. We just seemed to get "lucky" . . . a lot. Playing the third time was easy. It made us wonder why we had so many problems before. But that didn't last. The next map they were back to owning us.
Now part of me can understand why a developer would like to even the playing field and make sure one group of people can't consistently dominate another. But another part of me wants to win fair and square by my own efforts (and that of my teammates because I'm a terrible player) without getting some "special help" behind the scenes. It cheapens the whole experience when you finally beat a good team if you know the developers, in some way, helped you along.
Yes, people glitch and cheat in games. It comes with the territory that some people want the glory without the effort. I wish it wasn't that way, but there's very little I can do about it besides booting and reporting players that cheat. But when game developers cheat and rig the system, even if it's to help someone, that's uncalled for. So what if I lose 10 games in a row. Let me enjoy the game and if I do I won't mind losing because I'M HAVING FUN. Rigging the game to manipulate players winning and losing streaks and suddenly I'M NOT HAVING FUN ANYMORE. And if I'm not having fun why should I still play your game?
When you get online in COD4 look at your friends leaderboards for wins. Under "winning streak" how many wins do your friends have? 10? 5? 3? Based on Evil's theory they will probably only have a win streak of 2. Why? Because if you win 2 games in a row most likely you'll lose the third.
I looked at all my friends and sure enough the longest winning streak anyone had was at 2. And I have players on my list who play this game religiously. And they're good. And one of them has finished prestige. So why aren't they winning more in a row.
The thing with this theory is that it only applies if you stay in the same room with mostly the same group of people for three rounds. If you swap out a few players between matches it won't effect things very much. If you leave the game lobby after two rounds things start all over again when you enter your next lobby.
For three or four nights I watched this, keeping track of wins and loses and how long we've been in a room. Sure enough if we won 2 matches in a row the next match we would lose (even if we totally dominated the other team in the previous matches). For some reason we couldn't seem to aim and shoot anyone. Our targeting seemed to be off. Their grenades seem to have a wider explosion radius. We'd have to knife someone two times. They could shot us once in the knee caps and we'd die. It's all very subtle unless you know what to look for. And the reverse of this theory works too. If you've lost 2 matches in a row against the same group of people you'll win the next one.
We got into a match when a full team (all with the same Clan Tag) jumped in. We knew we were playing against a cohesive clan and that we'd probably get our butts kicked. We did. The first two matches were a blowout. And humiliating. Why we stayed in I don't know, but we did. And sure enough we won the next map. We weren't doing anything different and I don't think the map is one we favored. We just seemed to get "lucky" . . . a lot. Playing the third time was easy. It made us wonder why we had so many problems before. But that didn't last. The next map they were back to owning us.
Now part of me can understand why a developer would like to even the playing field and make sure one group of people can't consistently dominate another. But another part of me wants to win fair and square by my own efforts (and that of my teammates because I'm a terrible player) without getting some "special help" behind the scenes. It cheapens the whole experience when you finally beat a good team if you know the developers, in some way, helped you along.
Yes, people glitch and cheat in games. It comes with the territory that some people want the glory without the effort. I wish it wasn't that way, but there's very little I can do about it besides booting and reporting players that cheat. But when game developers cheat and rig the system, even if it's to help someone, that's uncalled for. So what if I lose 10 games in a row. Let me enjoy the game and if I do I won't mind losing because I'M HAVING FUN. Rigging the game to manipulate players winning and losing streaks and suddenly I'M NOT HAVING FUN ANYMORE. And if I'm not having fun why should I still play your game?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Breathing new life into tired game play
My friends and I found a way to breathe new life into some tired game play. Step 1: Put in Call of Duty 4. Step 2: Get a lot of friends together in a party (we had 15 people). Step 3: Set up a private Free-For-All match on "Old school". Step 4: Set the map to Shipment. Step 5: Kill everyone and laugh your head off.
I guess step 5 should read "try to kill everyone" when you have the map set to Shipment. On that map you'll be lucky if you can take 3 steps without being killed, especially with 14 other people all gunning for you.
I have some friends that can get . . . well, extremely rowdy, vocal and lewd. Playing "old school" with just your friends to kill had a different effect on them. They didn't talk as much smack and they spent most of their time laughing instead of cussing people out in the most (porno)graphically way possible. And as an added benefit (for the rest of us at least) we could kill them over and over and over again. That part I especially liked.
It was a riot and I had fun. Unfortunately in a private party you don't acquire points to rank up. And anything you do that would qualify for a challenge doesn't count. Oh well. But just listening to them complain as they have to start off with the Scorpion (a gun they all hate, but I love) is worth it. It almost feels like an even playing field.
I think the general consensus is that we should all play "old school" more often. I don't know if we'll ever have that many people online all playing the same game again, but I wouldn't be surprised if a smaller group didn't jump into a match every now and then. Especially after we all ended the "old school" fun and went back to regular online play. After 2 maps of lagers, glitchers, spawn killers, campers and idiots anything that can breathe new life into what's becoming very frustrating game play is worth a second look.
I guess step 5 should read "try to kill everyone" when you have the map set to Shipment. On that map you'll be lucky if you can take 3 steps without being killed, especially with 14 other people all gunning for you.
I have some friends that can get . . . well, extremely rowdy, vocal and lewd. Playing "old school" with just your friends to kill had a different effect on them. They didn't talk as much smack and they spent most of their time laughing instead of cussing people out in the most (porno)graphically way possible. And as an added benefit (for the rest of us at least) we could kill them over and over and over again. That part I especially liked.
It was a riot and I had fun. Unfortunately in a private party you don't acquire points to rank up. And anything you do that would qualify for a challenge doesn't count. Oh well. But just listening to them complain as they have to start off with the Scorpion (a gun they all hate, but I love) is worth it. It almost feels like an even playing field.
I think the general consensus is that we should all play "old school" more often. I don't know if we'll ever have that many people online all playing the same game again, but I wouldn't be surprised if a smaller group didn't jump into a match every now and then. Especially after we all ended the "old school" fun and went back to regular online play. After 2 maps of lagers, glitchers, spawn killers, campers and idiots anything that can breathe new life into what's becoming very frustrating game play is worth a second look.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Standing in a wall (the evolutionary process of online game play)
After a very frustrating night of trying to play a good game of Call of Duty 4 I realized something. There's an evolution in how people play games online. Now that I know what to look for I can remember going through the same thing while playing Gears of War and even all the way back to Star Wars Battlefront.
The first evolutionary stage a game goes through I'll call the "Advent" stage. The game is just released and all the hardcore fans swarm the stores to pick up their pre-ordered copies. There's a thrill and excitement when they put the disk into their system and start to play. The game is new and everyone is new to the game so everyone is on equal ground.
A lot of the time spent in the "advent" stage is spent just looking around and figuring out how everything works. You try different weapons, play different maps and work out different strategies. If you find a great vantage point to snipe from you're excited . . . and hope to remember where it is and how to get there if you should die. Kill to death ratios are brushed aside because what really matters is just playing the game and enjoying what you've waiting so long for.
The second evolutionary stage of a game's release is the "second skin" phase. In this phase you're starting to learn all the nuisances of the maps. Where the best ambush sites are, where the best sniping sites are, and where best to lay low if your mother calls you on the phone while playing. You've learned what weapons work for you and what ones don't. You've learned short cuts and how to control spawn points. You might not always be successful at it but you feel like you know this game and your characters fits like a second skin.
This is the phase that people start to look at their kill to death ratios. You start to get serious about the game play. You've seen it all and you like it (or you wouldn't still be playing) so now it's time to get down to business. You admire good shots that take you out. You watch and learn from other players. You ask for and give advice about anything that will raise you up in the standings. And you start to smack talk the other teams. Get them off their game so they're easier to kill.
The third evolutionary stage (and the one that I think Call of Duty 4 is in right now) is the "glitcher's" stage. You find yourself getting into matches where it seems everyone is glitching. They've found ways to exploit the code in the game to stand in walls and still fire at you but you're unable to shot them. They've learned that you can throw a grenade through some walls instead of trying to find a window or doorway. They know how to make special jumps to get to places the developer's probably didn't have in mind when the made the game. And in some games they can find a way to go "outside" the map in one area and re-enter back in another all while being out of the field of play so they won't risk getting killed.
This is where all the jerks come out of the woodwork. They brag and talk smack before the game and once the game starts they find the closest place to glitch and take full advantage of the situation. They don't care about playing a clean game. They want the kills but not the deaths. They want the status and prestige or being on top without having to be at risk to get there. To them game play is a joke. Instead of saying "I'm such a pathetic loser that the only way I can kill you is to stand inside of a wall so you can't get me" they say "Ha ha I killed you from inside a wall."
When this happened in Battlefront everyone would beg the host to boot the person from the game. Unfortunately if you were playing on a dedicated account there was no host to boot players. Because of that a lot of players wouldn't play on a dedicated account because they didn't want to get stuck with glitchers. In Gears of War we did the same thing. We even went so far as to close the room down in the middle of a match if we thought more than one person was glitching.
Call of Duty 4 has been out since the first part of November. Plenty of time for gamers to move through the "advent" and "second skin" phase of the evolutionary process. Now after three months we're finding ourselves in the "glitcher's" phase. And if history is any indication we're going to be in this phase for some time. At least until the next two or three big shooters come out. Why?
Because the last phase of evolution is the "true fan" phase. This is where everyone else has moved on to play other games except for the true fans of a game. Battlefront has released in September 2004 yet there are people still playing that game on a weekly basis. Why, especially with all the awesome looking games out there? They play it because they're fans of the game. They're the gamers that really get into the game. They love everything about it and tolerated the glitchers while they played. The excitement they had when the game first came out is the same excitement they have every time they play. Unfortunately in order to get to this phase of the game you have to play through all the glitchers.
I have some friends who are starting to talk about putting up Call of Duty 4 because all the glitchers have come out to play. They love the game but the frustration of playing with glitchers is more then the love of the game. If they stop playing the disk will probably become of coaster for their beer or a Frisbee for their kids. Either way they're missing out on playing a good game in the future.
And for some reasons I think each evolutionary phase is getting shorter with each new game released. With the advent of gamerscores and achievement points players are more concerned with kills/deaths from the moment they put the disk in the tray. And the glitchers are finding things to exploit from day one instead of learning how to play the game the right way.
If we go through the evolutionary process faster with each new release, how much of an online life can some of these games have? Will everyone be burned out of Gears of War 2 within two months? Will Halo 4 (and you know there's going to be another Halo game) last more than a month? And what will late comers do when they pick up a game for the first time a couple of months after it's release only to find it doesn't have much of an online community left? Who knows?
Unless glitchers stop glitching it'll be very difficult for most gamers to get to the "true fan" phase of the evolutionary process. Games will lose large chunks of their long term fan base to cheaters. Games will be forgotten in months instead of years. And some people might no longer call themselves "gamers". And all because someone wanted to stand in a wall.
The first evolutionary stage a game goes through I'll call the "Advent" stage. The game is just released and all the hardcore fans swarm the stores to pick up their pre-ordered copies. There's a thrill and excitement when they put the disk into their system and start to play. The game is new and everyone is new to the game so everyone is on equal ground.
A lot of the time spent in the "advent" stage is spent just looking around and figuring out how everything works. You try different weapons, play different maps and work out different strategies. If you find a great vantage point to snipe from you're excited . . . and hope to remember where it is and how to get there if you should die. Kill to death ratios are brushed aside because what really matters is just playing the game and enjoying what you've waiting so long for.
The second evolutionary stage of a game's release is the "second skin" phase. In this phase you're starting to learn all the nuisances of the maps. Where the best ambush sites are, where the best sniping sites are, and where best to lay low if your mother calls you on the phone while playing. You've learned what weapons work for you and what ones don't. You've learned short cuts and how to control spawn points. You might not always be successful at it but you feel like you know this game and your characters fits like a second skin.
This is the phase that people start to look at their kill to death ratios. You start to get serious about the game play. You've seen it all and you like it (or you wouldn't still be playing) so now it's time to get down to business. You admire good shots that take you out. You watch and learn from other players. You ask for and give advice about anything that will raise you up in the standings. And you start to smack talk the other teams. Get them off their game so they're easier to kill.
The third evolutionary stage (and the one that I think Call of Duty 4 is in right now) is the "glitcher's" stage. You find yourself getting into matches where it seems everyone is glitching. They've found ways to exploit the code in the game to stand in walls and still fire at you but you're unable to shot them. They've learned that you can throw a grenade through some walls instead of trying to find a window or doorway. They know how to make special jumps to get to places the developer's probably didn't have in mind when the made the game. And in some games they can find a way to go "outside" the map in one area and re-enter back in another all while being out of the field of play so they won't risk getting killed.
This is where all the jerks come out of the woodwork. They brag and talk smack before the game and once the game starts they find the closest place to glitch and take full advantage of the situation. They don't care about playing a clean game. They want the kills but not the deaths. They want the status and prestige or being on top without having to be at risk to get there. To them game play is a joke. Instead of saying "I'm such a pathetic loser that the only way I can kill you is to stand inside of a wall so you can't get me" they say "Ha ha I killed you from inside a wall."
When this happened in Battlefront everyone would beg the host to boot the person from the game. Unfortunately if you were playing on a dedicated account there was no host to boot players. Because of that a lot of players wouldn't play on a dedicated account because they didn't want to get stuck with glitchers. In Gears of War we did the same thing. We even went so far as to close the room down in the middle of a match if we thought more than one person was glitching.
Call of Duty 4 has been out since the first part of November. Plenty of time for gamers to move through the "advent" and "second skin" phase of the evolutionary process. Now after three months we're finding ourselves in the "glitcher's" phase. And if history is any indication we're going to be in this phase for some time. At least until the next two or three big shooters come out. Why?
Because the last phase of evolution is the "true fan" phase. This is where everyone else has moved on to play other games except for the true fans of a game. Battlefront has released in September 2004 yet there are people still playing that game on a weekly basis. Why, especially with all the awesome looking games out there? They play it because they're fans of the game. They're the gamers that really get into the game. They love everything about it and tolerated the glitchers while they played. The excitement they had when the game first came out is the same excitement they have every time they play. Unfortunately in order to get to this phase of the game you have to play through all the glitchers.
I have some friends who are starting to talk about putting up Call of Duty 4 because all the glitchers have come out to play. They love the game but the frustration of playing with glitchers is more then the love of the game. If they stop playing the disk will probably become of coaster for their beer or a Frisbee for their kids. Either way they're missing out on playing a good game in the future.
And for some reasons I think each evolutionary phase is getting shorter with each new game released. With the advent of gamerscores and achievement points players are more concerned with kills/deaths from the moment they put the disk in the tray. And the glitchers are finding things to exploit from day one instead of learning how to play the game the right way.
If we go through the evolutionary process faster with each new release, how much of an online life can some of these games have? Will everyone be burned out of Gears of War 2 within two months? Will Halo 4 (and you know there's going to be another Halo game) last more than a month? And what will late comers do when they pick up a game for the first time a couple of months after it's release only to find it doesn't have much of an online community left? Who knows?
Unless glitchers stop glitching it'll be very difficult for most gamers to get to the "true fan" phase of the evolutionary process. Games will lose large chunks of their long term fan base to cheaters. Games will be forgotten in months instead of years. And some people might no longer call themselves "gamers". And all because someone wanted to stand in a wall.
Friday, February 1, 2008
When Johnny comes marching home again
I've got some guys on my friend's list that have been connected with the military in the past and some currently in the army. One of them is named . . . well, since he's changed it a couple of times we'll just call him Johnny. It's close enough. I've know him from the old Star Wars Battlefront days. And no matter what name he goes by he's still a great guy.
We were in the middle of a Rainbow 6: Vegas binge when he had to report for duty because he was going to fight in Iraq. I think he played every minute he could before he left. When I noticed his name was no longer on my friend's list I got worried. I found out his account had expired while he was gone (and another reason why he had a slightly different name when he reactivated it).
Well, he's been home on leave since around Christmas and he's been playing Call of Duty 4 like crazy. Occasionally he goes back and plays Battlefront for old time's sake. Unfortunately his leave is almost up and I think he has to report back this Saturday. He's only got 6 months left of his tour and I don't know what he'll do afterwards, but I really hope he comes back alive. So for Johnny I'd like to dedicate the old civil war song "When Johnny comes marching home again".
When Johnny comes marching home again,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give him a hearty welcome then
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The men will cheer and the boys will shout
The ladies they will all turn out
And we'll all feel glad,
When Johnny comes marching home.
The old church bell will peal with joy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
To welcome home our darling boy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The village lads and lassies say
With roses they will strew the way,
And we'll all feel glad
When Johnny comes marching home.
Get ready for the Jubilee,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give the hero three times three,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The laurel wreath is ready now
To place upon his loyal brow
And we'll all feel glad
When Johnny comes marching home
I wish you luck, safety, and a quick trip home. Thank you for serving your country.
We were in the middle of a Rainbow 6: Vegas binge when he had to report for duty because he was going to fight in Iraq. I think he played every minute he could before he left. When I noticed his name was no longer on my friend's list I got worried. I found out his account had expired while he was gone (and another reason why he had a slightly different name when he reactivated it).
Well, he's been home on leave since around Christmas and he's been playing Call of Duty 4 like crazy. Occasionally he goes back and plays Battlefront for old time's sake. Unfortunately his leave is almost up and I think he has to report back this Saturday. He's only got 6 months left of his tour and I don't know what he'll do afterwards, but I really hope he comes back alive. So for Johnny I'd like to dedicate the old civil war song "When Johnny comes marching home again".
When Johnny comes marching home again,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give him a hearty welcome then
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The men will cheer and the boys will shout
The ladies they will all turn out
And we'll all feel glad,
When Johnny comes marching home.
The old church bell will peal with joy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
To welcome home our darling boy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The village lads and lassies say
With roses they will strew the way,
And we'll all feel glad
When Johnny comes marching home.
Get ready for the Jubilee,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give the hero three times three,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The laurel wreath is ready now
To place upon his loyal brow
And we'll all feel glad
When Johnny comes marching home
I wish you luck, safety, and a quick trip home. Thank you for serving your country.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Poll Results - Favorite Game Genre
So the voting has ended and the scores are like this:
RPG = 2 votes
Shooter - 8 votes
Everything else = 0 votes
I'm a little surprised that hack and slash, racing and platforms didn't get any notes. I guess I shouldn't be since I'm pretty sure only my friends voted in the poll and we play a shooter game every night.
I voted for RPG. And if I hadn't have voted for RPG I would have voted for hack and slash. Why?
As much as I like to play a shooter game like Star Wars Battlefront or Call of Duty 4 someone is always going to be better than me. Sometimes it's not always fun to see your name at the bottom on the list all the time. And it doesn't seem to matter what I do to get better because it doesn't work. When I was level 50+ in Call of Duty 4 and my friends were starting over in another level of Prestige with just the basic weapons they were still getting more points than me in each round. I don't have a High Def TV so I don't have as clear a picture as others and I have issues with my eyes, but that's a post for some other time.
My first foray into "action" (or as some people like to call it "violent") games was through the hack and slash genre. Hunter the Reckoning and Serious Sam to name a few. I liked the running in with sword flailing and see who's still standing in the end. It suited my style. Other hack and slash (or button mashers) like God of War and Conan are great for releasing stress on inanimate objects (instead of co-workers).
But although my very first time with a video game was Tetris and the second time was Mario Bros. I really fell in love with games while playing an RPG. The game was Legend of Dragoon. There was just so much to do and see and collect and master that I spent hours on end playing that game. And when it was done and the credits were rolling I felt sad. Sad that I wasn't playing it anymore. I gave myself time to grieve (play the game and you'll know) and then I immediately wanted to start playing it again. I cared about the characters. They meant something to me. Games could have a human touch instead of mindless button mashing. I missed that game. Could I pick up everything and master everything and finish the game in a shorter amount of time? I certainly wanted to try.
For racing games I'm more inclined to like kart racing games than "real life" racing games. If I wanted to see that kind of racing I'll take the freeway, thank you very much. Besides, you have to agree that there's something about dropping a banana peal behind you and watching someone close on your tail wipe out. It's hilarious
As far was platform gaming is concerned it's all about the timing. Once you learned the timing (admittedly through trail and error) it seems to take the fun out of the game. It seems the game is programmed so that there is only one way to make it through the level. Which to me means I have to play the game the way the developer wanted me to play it. Don't tell me how to play a game. I want to play a game they way *I* want to.
I guess you could say my mind is with the hack and slash type of games, but my heart is with the RPGs. It doesn't really matter too much because I love playing video games and I'll play anything I want.
RPG = 2 votes
Shooter - 8 votes
Everything else = 0 votes
I'm a little surprised that hack and slash, racing and platforms didn't get any notes. I guess I shouldn't be since I'm pretty sure only my friends voted in the poll and we play a shooter game every night.
I voted for RPG. And if I hadn't have voted for RPG I would have voted for hack and slash. Why?
As much as I like to play a shooter game like Star Wars Battlefront or Call of Duty 4 someone is always going to be better than me. Sometimes it's not always fun to see your name at the bottom on the list all the time. And it doesn't seem to matter what I do to get better because it doesn't work. When I was level 50+ in Call of Duty 4 and my friends were starting over in another level of Prestige with just the basic weapons they were still getting more points than me in each round. I don't have a High Def TV so I don't have as clear a picture as others and I have issues with my eyes, but that's a post for some other time.
My first foray into "action" (or as some people like to call it "violent") games was through the hack and slash genre. Hunter the Reckoning and Serious Sam to name a few. I liked the running in with sword flailing and see who's still standing in the end. It suited my style. Other hack and slash (or button mashers) like God of War and Conan are great for releasing stress on inanimate objects (instead of co-workers).
But although my very first time with a video game was Tetris and the second time was Mario Bros. I really fell in love with games while playing an RPG. The game was Legend of Dragoon. There was just so much to do and see and collect and master that I spent hours on end playing that game. And when it was done and the credits were rolling I felt sad. Sad that I wasn't playing it anymore. I gave myself time to grieve (play the game and you'll know) and then I immediately wanted to start playing it again. I cared about the characters. They meant something to me. Games could have a human touch instead of mindless button mashing. I missed that game. Could I pick up everything and master everything and finish the game in a shorter amount of time? I certainly wanted to try.
For racing games I'm more inclined to like kart racing games than "real life" racing games. If I wanted to see that kind of racing I'll take the freeway, thank you very much. Besides, you have to agree that there's something about dropping a banana peal behind you and watching someone close on your tail wipe out. It's hilarious
As far was platform gaming is concerned it's all about the timing. Once you learned the timing (admittedly through trail and error) it seems to take the fun out of the game. It seems the game is programmed so that there is only one way to make it through the level. Which to me means I have to play the game the way the developer wanted me to play it. Don't tell me how to play a game. I want to play a game they way *I* want to.
I guess you could say my mind is with the hack and slash type of games, but my heart is with the RPGs. It doesn't really matter too much because I love playing video games and I'll play anything I want.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Level One Prestige
Okay, I wanted to make level one Prestige before my friend Kralon finished his Prestige but that didn't quite happen. Being sick and hurt sucked.
I did finally roll over to Prestige last Thursday night (I think). And boy was that a shock. All my weapons were gone, all my challenges were gone, everything. I had to learn how to play the game all over again. I knew that would happen but it was still a shock. Weapons I haven't used in weeks and maybe in months I now had to figure out how long their reload was, how much recoil they had, what was their clip size and firing range. Things that I hadn't thought about in a while because I had been using weapons that I had finished and liked.
As much as I hated using Last Stand during my first run through the levels I found I really liked it this time. It was an extra chance to kill someone and get some points. I also found I was much better at it this time around. I think I had one map where I got more kills through Last Stand then I did with my primary weapons while I was still alive. And seeing the "+20" flash on the screen for a Last Stand kill instead of the usual "+10" was great. I think I might actually be looking forward to unlocking martyrdom as well.
I don't know if I'm going to go through ALL levels of Prestige. Considering how long it took me to get to the first level I think it'll take 2 years to complete them all. Another reason why I might not do them all is that there are more games to play and more will be coming out soon. Hopefully I can level up quicker this time. I might just pick whatever icon for a Prestige level I like the most and go through until I get that one. Level 2 or 4 look pretty good to me.
I did finally roll over to Prestige last Thursday night (I think). And boy was that a shock. All my weapons were gone, all my challenges were gone, everything. I had to learn how to play the game all over again. I knew that would happen but it was still a shock. Weapons I haven't used in weeks and maybe in months I now had to figure out how long their reload was, how much recoil they had, what was their clip size and firing range. Things that I hadn't thought about in a while because I had been using weapons that I had finished and liked.
As much as I hated using Last Stand during my first run through the levels I found I really liked it this time. It was an extra chance to kill someone and get some points. I also found I was much better at it this time around. I think I had one map where I got more kills through Last Stand then I did with my primary weapons while I was still alive. And seeing the "+20" flash on the screen for a Last Stand kill instead of the usual "+10" was great. I think I might actually be looking forward to unlocking martyrdom as well.
I don't know if I'm going to go through ALL levels of Prestige. Considering how long it took me to get to the first level I think it'll take 2 years to complete them all. Another reason why I might not do them all is that there are more games to play and more will be coming out soon. Hopefully I can level up quicker this time. I might just pick whatever icon for a Prestige level I like the most and go through until I get that one. Level 2 or 4 look pretty good to me.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Lowered expectations
The world is a cruel place. And after last night I don't expect much more out of it. What happened? I lost rank in Call of Duty 4.
I put the disk in and was "downloading gamer profile" or whatever that message reads when it's loading up your rank. I waiting for awhile and it didn't seem to go away and I was getting invites from friends to join them so I did. As soon as I joined their party we jumped into a game and that started up almost immediately. I started to play and after I got my first kill I noticed the "Congratulations New Rank Brigadier General I". What?
I found the closest hiding place and pulled up the player's list. There I was listed as level 43. I should have been 3/4 the way through level 47. I looked at my weapon and noticed I had the P90 and no Red Dot Sight. I don't even remember selecting that weapon type. And I haven't played with the P90 in well . . . 4 ranks.
And losing rank wasn't the only thing wacky last night either. My system showed the Scorpion as my primary weapon for both my Assault rifle and Sub machine gun classes. I finished the map and did some more investigating in the Barracks. I found I had lost a bunch of completed challenges and some that I had been working on were now locked.
My teammates told me when things like this happen you're suppose to get off Xbox Live completely and get back on WITHOUT PLAYING. Hello! I think it was a little late for that.
So now I'm just over the threshold at the lower rank of 43 and any interest in playing the game has been killed. Don't they know that losing 4 ranks is over a week's worth of daily playing for me? yes, it takes me that long to level up.
I was starting to get excited about getting to the Prestige option at level 55. Getting to level 48 is so much closer to that than level 43. Now I have to do that all over again. I have a friends that's said this has happened to him several times. Now he refuses to play until they get the whole thing worked out.
I've been a pretty patient gamer during all the connection issues but this just takes the cake for me. In addition to the dip in my rank my expectations have been lowered as well. If it can happen once, it can happen again. Maybe it's time to start looking at PS3s.
I put the disk in and was "downloading gamer profile" or whatever that message reads when it's loading up your rank. I waiting for awhile and it didn't seem to go away and I was getting invites from friends to join them so I did. As soon as I joined their party we jumped into a game and that started up almost immediately. I started to play and after I got my first kill I noticed the "Congratulations New Rank Brigadier General I". What?
I found the closest hiding place and pulled up the player's list. There I was listed as level 43. I should have been 3/4 the way through level 47. I looked at my weapon and noticed I had the P90 and no Red Dot Sight. I don't even remember selecting that weapon type. And I haven't played with the P90 in well . . . 4 ranks.
And losing rank wasn't the only thing wacky last night either. My system showed the Scorpion as my primary weapon for both my Assault rifle and Sub machine gun classes. I finished the map and did some more investigating in the Barracks. I found I had lost a bunch of completed challenges and some that I had been working on were now locked.
My teammates told me when things like this happen you're suppose to get off Xbox Live completely and get back on WITHOUT PLAYING. Hello! I think it was a little late for that.
So now I'm just over the threshold at the lower rank of 43 and any interest in playing the game has been killed. Don't they know that losing 4 ranks is over a week's worth of daily playing for me? yes, it takes me that long to level up.
I was starting to get excited about getting to the Prestige option at level 55. Getting to level 48 is so much closer to that than level 43. Now I have to do that all over again. I have a friends that's said this has happened to him several times. Now he refuses to play until they get the whole thing worked out.
I've been a pretty patient gamer during all the connection issues but this just takes the cake for me. In addition to the dip in my rank my expectations have been lowered as well. If it can happen once, it can happen again. Maybe it's time to start looking at PS3s.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
"Are you always on the bottom?"
Usually if one of the guys I play with on regular basis said that to me it would be loaded with sexual connotations. And no matter what my answer would have been they would have made that sexual too.
But last night I was playing with a friend that I only play with occasionally, and only in Call of Duty 4. After the match was over when both sides were sitting in the game lobby waiting for the next match to start he asked "Pengwenn are you always on the bottom?"
A had a moment of stunned silence, but before I could say anything the game lobby closed and we were all back in the party lobby. I thought for sure he'd bring it up again especially since it was just friends in the room now, but he didn't. I asked him to repeat himself but other friends piped in and started talking about other things. I don't know if they were doing it to spare my feelings or they just didn't hear. With how much talking and taunting that sometimes goes on in game lobbies with this group of guys I'm pretty sure they heard.
It doesn't bother me that he asked if I always place last in the rankings because I do. What bothers me is that I always place last in the rankings. If I can score 50+ points a match that's pretty good. It bothers me that no matter how I play (cautious or running and gunning) I always finish last on our team and either last or next to last overall. It bothers me that both of my brothers consistently do better than me. It bothers me that I love the game but I don't know how to play it to the best of my advantage.
There's a card game my family likes to play. It's called Scum. There's a President, Vice President and the middle class. After the middle class you have "next to scum" and scum. Obviously those players are the worst ones in the game. After every hand you'll move your position depending on how you played the game. A scum could become President. A President could become scum. I do better playing that game than I do Call of Duty 4.
So to answer that question, Yes, I'm always last. How long my friends continue to play with me when they realize I'm always last I don't know. Somebody's always going to be last. But with me in the game everyone else could only do as bad as "next to scum".
But last night I was playing with a friend that I only play with occasionally, and only in Call of Duty 4. After the match was over when both sides were sitting in the game lobby waiting for the next match to start he asked "Pengwenn are you always on the bottom?"
A had a moment of stunned silence, but before I could say anything the game lobby closed and we were all back in the party lobby. I thought for sure he'd bring it up again especially since it was just friends in the room now, but he didn't. I asked him to repeat himself but other friends piped in and started talking about other things. I don't know if they were doing it to spare my feelings or they just didn't hear. With how much talking and taunting that sometimes goes on in game lobbies with this group of guys I'm pretty sure they heard.
It doesn't bother me that he asked if I always place last in the rankings because I do. What bothers me is that I always place last in the rankings. If I can score 50+ points a match that's pretty good. It bothers me that no matter how I play (cautious or running and gunning) I always finish last on our team and either last or next to last overall. It bothers me that both of my brothers consistently do better than me. It bothers me that I love the game but I don't know how to play it to the best of my advantage.
There's a card game my family likes to play. It's called Scum. There's a President, Vice President and the middle class. After the middle class you have "next to scum" and scum. Obviously those players are the worst ones in the game. After every hand you'll move your position depending on how you played the game. A scum could become President. A President could become scum. I do better playing that game than I do Call of Duty 4.
So to answer that question, Yes, I'm always last. How long my friends continue to play with me when they realize I'm always last I don't know. Somebody's always going to be last. But with me in the game everyone else could only do as bad as "next to scum".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
