The answer is don't die much, this is supposed to be a "very hard" mode anywayxshadowscreamx said:
Hate that damn siren ghost -_- Nothing worse then respawning waves of enemies. Apparently melting them makes them go for good though.
1999 Mode!
- Thread starter Luca72
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hate that damn siren ghost -_- Nothing worse then respawning waves of enemies. Apparently melting them makes them go for good though.
In my eyes the only major misstep was conviction. The four games before have all been excellant. I liked conviction but I'm not sure if you can call it splinter cell... I am willing to see what they do with blacklist ^_^Luca72 said:
Hopefully they havn't butchered spies vs mercs.
Well... the implementation of the hardcore mode leaves a lot to be desired. So much that i won't use it. It'd be easy to have a "Camp" mode in which i go to sleep in the middle of nowhere and when i wake up my hunger, thirst and sleep meters are in the green.
Same black screen as with normal sleeping, no animations or whatever.
Maybe some conditions need to be met, like it has to be before ten in the evening and you wont wake up until 8 next morning. It will work only when you're with companions so that one can guard the camp so that i wont wake up with a Legionnaire's machete in every one of my orifices.
Also, Soda makes me more thirsty. How does that work? Saltwater soda?
The crafting is also bullshit. There are no groups from which to craft stuff. You need this Ingredient and this Ingredient only.
With some stuff i could understand. Pepper can't be substituted. But why can't i make a kebab from brahmin or Bighorner meat? Bighorner meat seems to be forgotten anyways, no recipes for that.
Why is there no "meat" group from which the different kinds of meat are interchangeable and then produce items with different names?
It gets really irritating when i'm in the middle nowhere and need some water. I have a Prickly pear fruit which i can eat but the water in it wont do anything for my thirst meter. I can craft a bottle of purified water with it if i have an empty bottle.
The game gets picky here, you need an "empty Soda Bottle". The "empty nuka cola Bottle" is useless for this as is the "empty Sunset Sarsaparilla Bottle"...
If the Developer does a good Job in implementing a "Hardcore" mode it might be a nice addition.
Same black screen as with normal sleeping, no animations or whatever.
Maybe some conditions need to be met, like it has to be before ten in the evening and you wont wake up until 8 next morning. It will work only when you're with companions so that one can guard the camp so that i wont wake up with a Legionnaire's machete in every one of my orifices.
Also, Soda makes me more thirsty. How does that work? Saltwater soda?
The crafting is also bullshit. There are no groups from which to craft stuff. You need this Ingredient and this Ingredient only.
With some stuff i could understand. Pepper can't be substituted. But why can't i make a kebab from brahmin or Bighorner meat? Bighorner meat seems to be forgotten anyways, no recipes for that.
Why is there no "meat" group from which the different kinds of meat are interchangeable and then produce items with different names?
It gets really irritating when i'm in the middle nowhere and need some water. I have a Prickly pear fruit which i can eat but the water in it wont do anything for my thirst meter. I can craft a bottle of purified water with it if i have an empty bottle.
The game gets picky here, you need an "empty Soda Bottle". The "empty nuka cola Bottle" is useless for this as is the "empty Sunset Sarsaparilla Bottle"...
If the Developer does a good Job in implementing a "Hardcore" mode it might be a nice addition.
I agree with this, except for the freaking ghost fight. Seriously, screw that fight. In the first one, it's just stupid the number of enemies she spawns. You can't run through that little tunnel at the back either, because her zombie minions will surround and kill you.Adam Jensen said:
I understand that big difficulty spikes can be alluring for some, but I think it's important to consider that the fabled difficulty of games of yesteryear is just another cash-grabbing scheme. We died so much in the eighties and nineties' games because the arcade years weren't that far behind, and making us die repeatedly was the best way for coin-op publishers to make mucho dinero. Come home consoles, most publishers simply ported as much of the coin-op's code to cartridge format as they could and stopped there. The end result was a slew of games that had an established player base and that were recognized for how punishing they were.
Today, the opposite mechanic has developed. Games are mainstream, but for your title to actually rake in money, trying to appeal to the niche groups that demand harder difficulty settings is actually not all that profitable. It's a lot easier to design a game that sacrifices intricate mechanics or punishing difficulty for the sake of being as straightforward as possible.
So-called "hardcore" gamers can put up with the frustration of playing a hard game, and most of it actually turn it into a reward in its own right. Look at Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, for instance. For the growing population of less dedicated players, however, enjoyment matters much more than challenge. Why? Because enjoyment drives sales.
I think the Elder Scrolls series was never really designed as a particularly hardcore experience. It's basic wish-fulfillment, when you think about it. The entire series rests around you designing and playing a Special Person and taking that Special Person to ever-increasing feats of heroism. They throw in a little challenge so you're not absolutely passive while playing, but Skyrim's main goal is to have you win it - or at least to have you complete its quests and see the painstakingly designed world.
On the other hand, the Fallout series has a proven record of being a set of tales that can certainly be hard if you choose for them to be. New Vegas, for instance, didn't really feel like a game I'd "take in", the same way I'd absorb Skyrim. I felt motivated by the narrative to a degree, but the real focus came when I played in Hardcore mode.
Considering, I don't think every game deserves or needs to have a definitively hard mode. In today's market, there's some titles that are more or less intended to make you sweat buckets - and then there's everything else, where satisfaction comes from reaching the end of the story. That feels fair to me, seeing as not everyone is going to care for or need a Hardcore mode.
Today, the opposite mechanic has developed. Games are mainstream, but for your title to actually rake in money, trying to appeal to the niche groups that demand harder difficulty settings is actually not all that profitable. It's a lot easier to design a game that sacrifices intricate mechanics or punishing difficulty for the sake of being as straightforward as possible.
So-called "hardcore" gamers can put up with the frustration of playing a hard game, and most of it actually turn it into a reward in its own right. Look at Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, for instance. For the growing population of less dedicated players, however, enjoyment matters much more than challenge. Why? Because enjoyment drives sales.
I think the Elder Scrolls series was never really designed as a particularly hardcore experience. It's basic wish-fulfillment, when you think about it. The entire series rests around you designing and playing a Special Person and taking that Special Person to ever-increasing feats of heroism. They throw in a little challenge so you're not absolutely passive while playing, but Skyrim's main goal is to have you win it - or at least to have you complete its quests and see the painstakingly designed world.
On the other hand, the Fallout series has a proven record of being a set of tales that can certainly be hard if you choose for them to be. New Vegas, for instance, didn't really feel like a game I'd "take in", the same way I'd absorb Skyrim. I felt motivated by the narrative to a degree, but the real focus came when I played in Hardcore mode.
Considering, I don't think every game deserves or needs to have a definitively hard mode. In today's market, there's some titles that are more or less intended to make you sweat buckets - and then there's everything else, where satisfaction comes from reaching the end of the story. That feels fair to me, seeing as not everyone is going to care for or need a Hardcore mode.
I agree with the concept of 1999 mode, but not so much the execution. BI was an amazing game, but my 1999 mode play through so far hasn't really been a big step up, mostly the same general strategies as my first play through (bar extensive use of bucking bronco now) with the only difference being I just reload a check point if I die more than once.
Great game and I appreciate them trying to add a hardcore mode for those of us who are masochistic enough to like insane difficulty (or in my case, dumb ass stubborn and weirdly obsessed with beating games on the hardest difficulty), but Dark Souls this isn't. Triple A is realizing that their is niche appeal in extreme difficulty, but still can't quite bring themselves to really push it. Still step in the right direction though and I applaud them for it.
Great game and I appreciate them trying to add a hardcore mode for those of us who are masochistic enough to like insane difficulty (or in my case, dumb ass stubborn and weirdly obsessed with beating games on the hardest difficulty), but Dark Souls this isn't. Triple A is realizing that their is niche appeal in extreme difficulty, but still can't quite bring themselves to really push it. Still step in the right direction though and I applaud them for it.
I much prefer customizable difficulty.
For instance, one of my favorite ways to play New Vegas is on Very Hard, Hardcore, but with the added effects of 1 Endurance, HUD opacity of 0 and possibly 1 Strength.
Rather than needing the designers to craft a whole mode specifically, I think it's better to include lots of options.
Also, the whole "Start the game over if you run out of money" seems a bit bullshit
(never actually played the mode, so I may be wrong on what "booted back to the main menu" means. Please correct me if this interpretation is wrong.).
I've never liked difficulty that requires you to monotonously go through sections you've already beaten and had no trouble with. It's why I never beat Nightmare mode on the new AvP. One death on the first Marine level and you have to spend another half hour wandering around a completely empty colony without even fighting anything. That's not difficulty or a test of skill.
Though I will admit, anything that increases the difficulty of a Bioshock game can be considered a good thing.
For instance, one of my favorite ways to play New Vegas is on Very Hard, Hardcore, but with the added effects of 1 Endurance, HUD opacity of 0 and possibly 1 Strength.
Rather than needing the designers to craft a whole mode specifically, I think it's better to include lots of options.
Also, the whole "Start the game over if you run out of money" seems a bit bullshit
(never actually played the mode, so I may be wrong on what "booted back to the main menu" means. Please correct me if this interpretation is wrong.).
I've never liked difficulty that requires you to monotonously go through sections you've already beaten and had no trouble with. It's why I never beat Nightmare mode on the new AvP. One death on the first Marine level and you have to spend another half hour wandering around a completely empty colony without even fighting anything. That's not difficulty or a test of skill.
Though I will admit, anything that increases the difficulty of a Bioshock game can be considered a good thing.
From what I saw, you can reload your last auto save after being sent back to the main menu, so no, it doesn't force you to start the game over.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
Just beat the game on 1999 mode. It wasn't -that- bad but it had it's moments. I just used the more safe/conservative gear along with a fully upgraded Shock Jocky with Sniper/Hand Cannon/Machine Gun. I had a lot of fun, maybe got kicked out of the game three times when I didn't have enough money. I'm still happy with the game though, just always looking for an increased challenge. (Except the hardest difficulty on Dead Space where you can only save three times. F THAT)
One thing I wanted to add, I've seen a lot of people complain about the last fight. It took me two tries and I'm pretty sure the first time it bugged out. In any case, still a lot of fun.
Finally, I do agree/like the idea of a more customizable difficulty. One game that I think did it difficulty well was Bastion. It was more than, "You do less damage but enemies do more!" It really made things different and depending on what gods you evoked, it really ramped up the stakes.
One thing I wanted to add, I've seen a lot of people complain about the last fight. It took me two tries and I'm pretty sure the first time it bugged out. In any case, still a lot of fun.
Finally, I do agree/like the idea of a more customizable difficulty. One game that I think did it difficulty well was Bastion. It was more than, "You do less damage but enemies do more!" It really made things different and depending on what gods you evoked, it really ramped up the stakes.
Ranger hardcore on metro was awesome. Yes you had less bullets, but each one much more deadly, on both sides >Charcharo said:Ehh it is not that unique, this 1999 mode. Metro 2033 Ranger Hardcore is better
YES. This. Though I guess there aren't many contexts in which this approach can work well outside of an RPG; haven't played 1999 mode yet, but having a few more effects other than 'beef enemies up, shoot yourself in the foot' is certainly a step in the right direction.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
I'm not much of a believer in 'old-school' difficulty, personally; you reload a quicksave where you'd respawn, I don't see much of a distinction. 'Course, when a more nonlinear approach is available, then that doesn't really apply, because one has potentially more options than progression or different paths to progression (or, indeed, exploration). Either way, I like to be able to tailor myself a challenge.
Meh, 1999 was only challenging up til you could upgrade your charge vigor completely then it became a complete faceroll. Especially when you added in the Brittle-Skinned Leggings, and Burning Halo Hat.
I did like how Elizabeth's "handouts" became less frequent and in less quantity as difficulty went up, I suppose.
Overall 1999 was fun, but I liked Hard mode better even if thats mostly because I didn't discover how to break the game until I got to looking for Siren fight tips on 1999 mode.
I did like how Elizabeth's "handouts" became less frequent and in less quantity as difficulty went up, I suppose.
Overall 1999 was fun, but I liked Hard mode better even if thats mostly because I didn't discover how to break the game until I got to looking for Siren fight tips on 1999 mode.
Most PC games in 1999 had a save feature. I'd love for infinite to have one.
I appreciate what they're trying to do, but the whole thing just highlights how much better a game System Shock 2 was when you're explicitly pointing to it's release date in your difficulty title.
I appreciate what they're trying to do, but the whole thing just highlights how much better a game System Shock 2 was when you're explicitly pointing to it's release date in your difficulty title.
Meeh, higher difficulties should be a gameplay changer, a la Metro 2033. Which became a first person stealth game on the 2 dlc difficulties. Haven't played Infinity though so I could be underestimating 1999 mode I guess.
Eh...1999 mode was alright, but I felt that RAGE handled difficulties a bit better.
Here's what Id Software did with RAGE as you increased the difficulty:
1. The standard enemy health, damage upgrades as difficulty increases.
2. They made each of your weapons steadily less accurate as you ramped up the difficulty, forcing you to pick your shots more.
3. Cost of items went up, fairly standard and almost completely pointless if you have The Scorchers DLC that adds a poker machine.
4. On the higher difficulties every time you craft an item, you get less of that item, or it's more fragile, or both. I noticed on Ultra-Nightmare difficulty a little over 60% of the wingsticks I threw broke on contact, even the advanced models.
Numbers 2 & 4 I thought were pretty good ideas to increase the challenge on higher difficulties. Forcing you to play a bit more strategically.
Here's what Id Software did with RAGE as you increased the difficulty:
1. The standard enemy health, damage upgrades as difficulty increases.
2. They made each of your weapons steadily less accurate as you ramped up the difficulty, forcing you to pick your shots more.
3. Cost of items went up, fairly standard and almost completely pointless if you have The Scorchers DLC that adds a poker machine.
4. On the higher difficulties every time you craft an item, you get less of that item, or it's more fragile, or both. I noticed on Ultra-Nightmare difficulty a little over 60% of the wingsticks I threw broke on contact, even the advanced models.
Numbers 2 & 4 I thought were pretty good ideas to increase the challenge on higher difficulties. Forcing you to play a bit more strategically.
See, I get where the problem is. Expecting people to have a sense of perspective.DoPo said:
Personally, I found most games to be piss-easy in 1999, anyway. Maybe it's because I'd already been gaming for like 14 years, and tackled crap like Battletoads, Dick Tracy, and (insert other AVGN-featured title). Games really haven't devolved that much since that point.