A little of that. And a little of it not making sense that the Chinese would invade us seeing as how we're major trading partners. But mostly the producers not wanting to piss off potential Chinese buyers.

What about Korean and Japanese buyers?

Australian buyers are just screwed with anything isn't G-Rated apparently.

One point three billion potential consumers vs. 175 million... If I was a good little capitalist I know which group I'd be okay with honking off.

I dunno why everyone always pretends to be tweaked about this stuff. I'd play a game where you shoot evil Americans, or as an alien/fantasy race against humans, whatever.

Lol, yeah. I can see it now. Noam Chomsky gets involved in the script of a video game featuring cutscenes of Americans, who are universally portrayed as fat belligerent cowboys, who appear in Ethiopia and begin tying up innocent civilians so they can stuff Big Macs in their mouths while punching them in the crotch, before hosing down all the local objects of cultural significance with fire trucks converted to spray high fructose corn syrup.

I think I've already seen that. New ground, c'mon!

The US Invasion of Canada for it's oil, hydro-electric dams, and other natural resources?

I'd buy that for a dollar.

I'd pay full price for that. Of course, it'd be a drinking game where the US Soldiers are sent home without uniforms or equipment because they were taken away while they were all passed out drunk...

Isn't that part of the Fallout backstory?

yes and no.
technically, CHINA invaded and US of A COUNTER invaded and then stayed there and took it all . .
or something like that at least . . maybe the US of A counter invaded first and then china decided to invade before the US of A got it all to themselves . .
And then somebody threw the first nuke and it all became academical from there on . .

Yes, it is. 'Ronto ("Toronto") is mentioned in Fallout 3's DLC, as well.

Ahh, Operation Anchorage . . such a nice dungeon crawl with horribly over powered gear ^^

Nope. The Pitt.

Whut?
Pittsbourrough?
Operation Anchorage is the Chinese Invasion . .

"The Pitt" mentions 'Ronto as one of the cities that's jealous of the full might of The Pitt. As well as a place where they get fresh "Meat".

Ah, okay.
Been quite some time since i actually played F³ . .
New Vegas pretty much has me burned out. Of course, i pretty much played that one for one month straight <.<

I burned out my PS3 with Fallout 3. Let's just say it was good therapy for me, and a good stress test of the PS3. Luckily, I still had three whole days to call Sony for a replacement unit.

I'm eagerly awaiting DLC for New Vegas, however.

Yah, that's probably going to sucker me into playing again too . .

On the subject of griping about multiplayer centric development...

I am thinking in the lines from the play Macbeth where things are going contrary to nature and the world is going mad. I just found an article with some publisher comments about Mirror's Edge.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-...edge-fell-short



I just got Mirror's Edge on a steam sale. I love it. It's got an artistic visual presentation, and it manages to make jumping puzzles (mostly) fun. Maybe the combat is a little rough around the edges but I respect the originality and the vision of the game designer and enjoy focusing on what the game does differently. The reason I didn't buy it originally when it came out was because I had no freaking idea from the TV ads what the hell the game was about. I thought it was an Assassin's Creed ripoff. If they had just said it was single player only attempt to implement free running from a first person perspective in a video game, I would have bought it.

The same guy also had some stuff to say about Dead Space.




Apparently game execs hate games that have a learning curve and that don't have multiplayer.

What the hell is up with everyone wanting multiplayer? I generally don't like multiplayer. I played multiplayer from the days of DikuMUD, and from the days of Marathon on Macintosh computer labs in school, but it doesn't interest me anymore for the most part, because I would rather focus on the vision of the game designer in terms of what they realize for the game than focusing on quasi-social interaction with the boy-men who play multiplayer while constantly exhibiting poor sportsmanship, bizarre misplaced elitism (i.e. vote kicking a guy for not using exploits or for being new to the game), cheating, and rage-quitting.

Rage-quitting says it all. Someone doesn't have the maturity to handle not doing well in a game so they quit. It is the most disgusting exhibition of immature empowerment-fantasy-seeking behaviors. I used to play Left for Dead and Left for Dead 2, and I always went the distance. You wouldn't quit a soccer game or a marathon halfway through just because you weren't winning, and I feel that's just extremely basic character and maturity.

For that reason I prefer single player detail, challenge, and atmosphere nowadays.

Goddamn it. Only multiplayer swill from here on out.

Wasn't that the Saint's Row games?

Because game publisher and developer execs are idiots when it comes to game design - they have business model vision, not game play vision. They are convinced that the only way to keep their physical copy from ending up on the used game market or being pirated is to use systems that don't work, thus the multiplayer and DRM gets the sweat and treasure spent on it, on top of the incredibly wasteful advertising to audiences that generally don't give a shit. As a general rule, these trip A execs are hugely risk averse as they try to eke out every possible cent of profit, irregardless of its impact on the gaming experience, and that even goes into how they approach DLC and why so many sequels get made as opposed to new IP. The more the console dev license and kits cost, the more there is focus on graphics fidelity, and the more marketing focus groups determine what bullet points sell - the more this ridiculous, multi-million development driven by execs in their corporate towers will get. They want to make movies basicly and call it a game because you get to hit a few buttons while you are on the rails, sheesh.

But as they shy away from the areas that made gaming great, they create space that Indy Developers are moving into. How easily these morons forget the games industry crash that happened in the 80s when the glut of sequels and shovel ware hit the shelves. Thank god for digital distribution on the PC and how it has allowed Indy Devs to flourish with more focus on how games are fun.

Oh, and I watched a few different Let's Play of Homefront ... Freedom Fighters is a way better game. IMHO, Homefront is Call of Duty fan fic ... trashy, flat fan fiction. I'm definitely not buying this crap.

That's what Deus Ex was.
Or portions of CoD: MW2.

"Hey, why doesn't my fancy sight light up any longer?"

You aren't a man until you pull a knife out of your own chest and impale the dude who stabbed you in the first place in the eyeball.

To be fair I thought that was a great moment when that happened.

If the game were more realistic, the question would be, "why don't my bullets go where the aimpoint is whenever I'm the one shooting?"

Played Homefront again tonight. I have to say I really do like it.

I like John Milius film. I obsessively watched Conan The Barbarian. I loved Dirty Harry. Red Dawn is a classic.

What Homefront is is an interactive John Milius film. I decided the real point of that game isn't the gameplay, but the cutscenes and the situations. After all, who but John Milius could have come up with the psycho killer militia men, for example? Who but John Milius would have the idea to make a scene about white phosphorous lighting up a parking lot full of Koreans, and then have a character react to the horror of that happening?

John Milius is all about masculine, almost careless storytelling, driven by passion and intensity. I can't say that I'm unhappy to have what is effectively an interactive John Milius movie.

Probably the biggest detraction from Homefront is the Call of Duty style gameplay. They probably picked it thinking it would be the easiest to script their detailed scenes. But the style of the gameplay lacks gravitas. How can I be impressed by a bad guy pointing a pistol in my face during a cutscene when I know that I regenerate from bullet wounds in seconds? That's like the opposite of Dirty Harry's magnum. The gameplay would have been better with beefy, deadly weapons. They should take longer to aim, be deadlier, have more recoil, and there should be no health regeneration. I think the game would have made a lot more of an impression on most people if the gunplay was like something out of Dirty Harry, or if enemy vehicles would own you like the Hinds in Red Dawn. What Call of Duty manages to do is make it not scary when an APC opens up on you with a .30 cal machine gun, when that should instead be absolutely terrifying and badass in order to convey the drama and gravity of the setting. The style of gameplay, with respawning endless enemies, also detracts from the gravitas. There should be fewer enemies, but they should be deadlier.

Milius once stated that he didn't like violence in movies that cheapened human life, or something like that. In keeping with this, HF could have fewer enemies, perhaps introduced some of them in cutscenes, and maybe had Soldier of Fortune II style suffering and dismemberment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNICWlm5tU0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpi-0H2-Gw

You can probably thank the watchdog groups for something like that. Can't humanize anything or make it realistic in that way.

At times I get a little frustrated at FPS 3PS games of late, that give you what...maybe at most 8 hours of a single player campaign nowadays? And I'm wary of the idea that speed running a game is actually a good thing. To me it just implies there's just alot of bare bones stuff hidden behind fluff. That blackops video that shows how you can go through the whole mission letting your npc squaddies clear everything is also not a good sign for me.

I kinda wish they let you do it in installments. Like, if you just want the SP, its 10 bucks, or 15 bucks, and the remainder is the multiplayer unlock. If you never want to play multiplayer you don't have to pay for it, etc. Halo Reach was kinda like that for me, ran the story, but found that I didn't want to run around MP.

These tend to be the games that if I rented games, would be a good week rental, but not really worth a purchase.


Theme wise, heh a 'world shooter' might be fun. You play an <X> national supersoldier and get to stomp on everyone from other realms, with multiple 'endings' since you can be an American one time, a Japanese soldier, a german one, a brit, a frenchie, whatever. Hm, like a mixture of Risk plus FPS.

I'd love to have a level in one of these FPS games that just has a single enemy that doesn't have boss-level health or anything like that, just a scoped rifle and a position, and you've got to ferret him out before he takes out your entire squad.

MW2 was interesting in that the Army Ranger you play during the Wolverines! mission essentially obliterates an entire company of Russian paratroopers (or Sgt. Foley does) using a drone and a variety of rifles. I didn't think there were terribly many Black Hawk Down events in reality.

That's really hard to accomplish in a FPS. Your field-of-view is greatly diminished plus the other senses that you rely on in real life, such as balance, momentum, and awareness of body, are impossible to replicate. Audio cues could work but it would hard to do it subtly and people without stereo sound would be screwed.

I'd rather see something like the sniper battle with Sniper Wolf in MGS, without the "health meter". Some system where you can instantly switch from third- to first-person without awkward finger stretching.

Makes me wish VR had gone somewhere, that did a decent job of stereo sound and peripheral vision. Even if the equipment was massively bulky and heavy at the time.

with todays tech, it should be possible again . .
smaller, higher resolution screens that are lighter too.
and you can get "3D" in these to boot . .

Still a few companies out there working on VR I think, but not as core projects and more as test beds for new technology, the frustrating thing is, ya, totally doable with modern technology.

I hold out more hope for good AR than VR going much further other than being lighter.

One time I played a VR game. I put on goggles, held a plastic gun, and walked around in a hamster ball.

It fucking blew. The plastic gun didn't aim at all, because instead your aim was controlled by looking. So all you did was hold down the trigger and look around. Instinctively, I tried to shoulder the gun and geisha walk, which caused me to lose my balance, as the ball rolled faster and faster in one direction and I ended up sprinting at the edge of my balance to not fall over. The image in the goggles was totally blurry too.

I felt completely disappointed. What the hell is the point of VR if you can't translate your actual physical skills into the game?

Good point but VR technology is still pretty young,It's going to be a few more year before it get like it is in the movies. Just look at how far video games have come in a few decades.

Graphics have come a long way since the Atari 2600 days. And the whole online multiplayer thing. But the technology wouldn't be unrecognizable to someone in 1985.

Virtual Reality has a long way to go. Reading and translating subtle movements from the human body is still beyond our technology level; or at least at a level where it would be commercially feasible. Have you ever seen a motion-capture guy work on a video game cut-scene? He gesticulates in an extremely exaggerated manner in order for his motions to be read by the scanners. I wouldn't want to have to swing my arms around like a lunatic just to get my gun in the right position when I could simply twitch my thumb.

I think Augmented Reality is the next realistic step for gaming, after 3D (well, once they get it to the point where it doesn't give me a raging headache...), and it might be how we see hardcore gamers return to an arcade or public gathering place. What I would picture would be a something like a warehouse or a paintball course covered in laser sensors that a player moves through. The sensors track the player's position within the course and change what he sees through his eyepieces. Rubber cylinders on the physical course become trash barrels, logs and streetlights in AR. Sort of like Laser Tag meets the Holodeck from Star Trek.

Then again, most video gamers don't want to be moving more than their eyes or fingers anyway so the whole AR/VR game discussion might be moot. People who would dig AR would be Wii Sports fanatics, casual gamers, and weekend warriors.

They're getting some major movement, however. Check out what Rock* is doing with L.A. Noir and it's facial system.

At a certain point, I say screw trying to implement this stuff in software, and let's just go and have simunitions battles. If someone set up a pay-to-play MILES arena similar to a lazer tag arena, I know I'd want to try it out.

Heck, if Virtual World Arcades with Mechwarrior were opened here, there'd go both my money and my social life . .

Buying a plot of land to turn into a giant paintball/MILES facility is on my list of "Things To Do When I Have The Bankroll." It's actually fairly high up, and I could see police training or ROTC using the facility as well.

I'd really love a modern version of battletech centers, complete with cockpit sized interfaces, vibration, whatever.

*nods* yah, that'd be rad!

You know what else could work? Those old school simunitions where you'd re-load cartridges with a soft parafin wax bullet. As long as the weather isn't too cold the parafin will splatter when it hits you.

Well, I just finished Mirror's Edge. Took about 5 hours.

I really don't know what people were complaining about re the learning curve. It was challenging but not that hard. You know what was harder and less fun? Pretty much every other game focusing on jumping puzzles.

Firearms combat was a little rough around the edges, and too easy. I agree that the game should have focused on avoiding bad guys and not defeating them in order to play to its strengths and be very unique.

Not a bad game.

Heh, Co-incidence, got a shovelware issue (ie: bargin bin) yesterday and am having some fun with it.

Now, I'm useless when it comes to jumping puzzles and fighting games so I can't claim a 5 hour run like Ronin's, but by god, the gunfight stuff was over in ~ 4 seconds, tops. AI always knows where you are, so you can lead it about and then blow the crap out of it. The guns actually felt..hmmm, real? Lotsa damage, no ammo indicator visible (That sorta sucked when you clicked dry behind the guy with the squad weapon...) and you made people HURT when shot.

I will say, the "escape the training area" bit was the hardest part so far - I had managed to beat the living snot out of my assailants (Run, run, run die. Run, kick off wall, flip and flying kick, WINNING!) and then was flying-kicked off of the edge by the scripted "bursts though the door guy". After that, I just went "stuff it" and ran like hell.

If I get any better, I am so tossing one of those taser bastard off of a roof, just to hear them scream on the way down. My initial pacifistic tendencies were quickly subhumed by bloodlust after the first tasering, oh yes...

-Tir

I was thinking the same thing. But then: North Korea? What the hell? Why not SAY China when you MEAN China?

Because they want the Chinese to buy it.

I don't think they don't get that it really means them ...