DLC..... This shit has to stop

[SextusMaximus]

Left 4 Dead 2. It is truly, a great game. Being an expansion would have ruined it. However, just to p*ss people off, if I worked at valve, I would make it an expansion, that cost more than the original game.

 

[MurderousToaster]

I hope that remark about you being a sexy pimping fox was not about Furries.

 

[Jenova65]

[HEADING=1]If you guys fight about L4D, I will slap you with a Banana. Fair warning[/HEADING]

In it's skin or out? ;-)

 

[Jiggabyte]

Majora's Mask was practically running the same game as Ocarina of Time (models were the same, for instance.) No way do I think that "should have been DLC."
People need to grow up.

 

[Abedeus]

I'm pretty sure that when an engineer (a single character) requires a teamwork to be taken down, there is something seriously wrong.

Also, no, FPS games are superior on PCs. Sorry. The skill lies in fast reactions and keen eye. And precise hand. In consoles, it's usually spray and pray.

I can't imagine trying to play Sniper on an Xbox. God... It would be more of a luck than "who can aim and shoot better". Which I thought FPS games were all about.

No, engineers are supposed to lay down static defenses that are stronger than a single character but be weak in personal confrontations. That's kind of the point. When a single soldier can pop-and-shoot a turret that is unbalanced (after all, the engineer needs a while to set it up and maintain it and the soldier can spam rockets instantly). But all of that is besides the point.

The real issue is that you think FPSs are about who can aim and shoot better and I completely disagree. I think FPSs should be about tactics, strategy and teamwork. I think anybody who has been playing FPSs for a few years should be basically interchangeable with anybody else. I think if you're playing a sniper that should be about positioning and target selection, not about moving your mouse really fast.

It's okay if you like the twitch FPS, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I just happen to enjoy outsmarting people more than I enjoy being faster than them. I also happen to think that makes for a higher quality experience, too.

If you want tactics to be more important than skill, then play RTS games. Reaction time isn't even half as important there as with FPS games. Seriously, you are playing the wrong genre.

FPS games have always been about being faster, better AND smarter. Just because someone relies on his speed and accuracy doesn't mean that they don't use tactics. But seriously, even in real world there is a limited amount of tactics...

a) scorched earth.
b) turtling.
c) blitzkrieg.
d) guerrilla/hit and run.
e) ambush.

Usually in FPS games, especially online games, the game is dominated by b, c or e, and RTS games are more about a, c and d.

Don't get me wrong, I love games where you get to use some real tactics. For instance, Enemy Territory series has done it in an awesome way - a team of 12 people, 6 go to the main entry and 4 cover their backs and 2 try to sneak around and catch the enemy off-guard. Or when 2 of your field opses attack the back of enemy's position with artillery, while the rest of the team rushes at them to pincer between bullets and explosions.

It all doesn't matter if you simply can't aim, though.

 

[Abedeus]

If you want tactics to be more important than skill, then play RTS games. Reaction time isn't even half as important there as with FPS games. Seriously, you are playing the wrong genre.

Yeah, like RTSs aren't about clicking really fast. I think you're thinking about turn based games. But then its not the same, is it?

No, clicking fast matters, but reflexes don't. You don't suddenly notice an army over the hill, you usually notice them 5 minutes earlier.

Look, I like FPSs, and I'm pretty decent at aiming at shooting assuming my rig and my connection hold up. That's not my problem. What I like about console FPSs is that they are a level playing field (sure, if you're in Australia playing against Americans you'll be in trouble, but since that's not my case, it doesn't affect my perception). Everybody has the same controller, the same hardware and most likely the same resolution.

What if someone has a 40 inch HD monitor and uses a mouse, and you are on a 28" inch 6-year old box with a rusty controller.

It's a given, then, that if you aim at a guy and a guy aims at you and you kill him, you killed him because you're better at playing the game, you were faster aiming and shooting. That element is still in the game. But since everybody is playing with a standardized set of tools, the edge is going to be given more by people playing cooperatively and handling their tools and skills intelligently.

And how is that different from 5 people with a computer and a mouse? It's not my fault you want to play the game on a high level with a Internet-browsing computer.

So that's the point here. In the PC there are plenty of technical issues getting in the way: your framerate, your mouse speed and resolution, your monitor resolution and a bunch of other things. All of that gets in the way and changes the experience. Even worse, since the mouse and keyboard are superhumanly responsive when compared to a controller, the experience becomes faster. Too fast for my taste (which, I admit, is a far more subjective complaint than the rest of what I've said).

Maybe that's why you don't like PC FPS games - you are just bad at them. "Too fast" means you are too slow.

The one argument that pisses me off in the "PC FPSs are better" camp, the only one I think isn't debatable, is the one claiming that mouse and keyboard are "better" because they are faster or more accurate. After all, if we're talking about a competitive experience, as long as everybody is using the same control scheme everybody is on the same level. You may like or dislike controllers for FPSs, but the claim that it somehow makes you a worse player is pointless, given that everybody else is using the same gear as you are.

I do believe that the controller that is faster, smoother and easier to use is the better one. Just like a car that drives faster, is safer and burns less gas is superior to a slower, more expensive in exploitation and less safe model.

If you were good with a keyboard and mouse and you suck with a controller there are only two options: either you were exploiting a hardware advantage and you're not nearly as good in pure skill terms as you thought you were or you're just not used to the new control scheme, which doesn't make the scheme itself better or worse.

Or maybe you just got great with a racing car and someone told you to drive a 88" Toyota.

If I can't make a 180" turn in two seconds, then I can blame either the game or the controls. When a game is on both consoles, I blame the controls.

 

[Sevre]

"they should have just made a gun mod for Oblivion instead of wasting money making Fallout 3"

Honest to God I've heard that...

Hmm....not a bad idea.

 

[AkJay]

My only problem with DLC being released is when they release it on the same fucking day as the original fucking game!

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I can't argue....

As much as I hate DLC, much of which would of been free to install PATCHES in the old days, crying everything should be DLC is just stupid.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I agree it has become ridiculous. It's proven multiple times that the changes made in Left 4 Dead 2 meant that it could not have been DLC for the first game. Now it's fine to believe that it's not worth full price. That's your opinion, and your entitled to it. But saying it should have been DLC is just stupid.


It's weird. Gamers criticize companies for making to much DLC, and then they condemn them when they make sequels instead of DLC. Gamers are never satisfied.

I was one of the people who wouldn't get L4D2 cause I felt they where betraying the original game, that they had promised free to download patches (it is valve, they have yet to make us pay for DLC) for it then tossed that idea aside in the sake of money.

Then someone bought it for me and I played it and... well I still feel it didn't bring anything all that flash to the game. Yet, YET, it has proven itself to have more then enough content to be a game in it's own right! I've converted, it is worth the money.

Now if the same could be said for other DLC...

 

[astrav1]

Go kill yourself pimppeter2.

 

[Abedeus]

snip

Okay, then:

1) I never said I had a problem with reflexes. I have a problem with reducing what could otherwise be a tactical, intelligent form of gameplay to pointing at somebody's head and clicking. In fact, my objections to PC FPSs pretty much port over perfectly to micromanagement-intensive RTSs. Again, clickfest=bad. That's what I've been saying (RTSs, though ARE far worse on consoles).

Okay, fair enough. I also don't enjoy pure shooters like Quake or all-on-all like Unreal Tournament. Okay, for 5-25 minutes they're fine, but then they get boring.

2) If somebody is using a mouse on a console FPS I absolutely call that an unfair advantage. As long as we're all playing with controllers on 720p screens, that experience is far more balanced than any PC fps setup other than a LAN party with identical PCs, monitors and mouses. They best way to guarantee a balanced playing field on a massive scale is the standard equipment meant for consoles, that much is obvious, not the heavily customized PC rigs.

What if someone with a screen twice as big as yours spots you earlier, because of more detail? Or if someone tweaks his vision to, for instance, see players more than the enviornment? I remember a lot of screens from Enemy Territory where people would mess with their config till the game looked black and white, but it helped them see the enemies amongst the bushes.

3) Oh, it's not your fault if your rival is using a worse PC, but you're probably bragging about how serious of a gamer you are and how playing on the PC really makes your skills more relevant when in fact you're using the money you spent on a better rig to buy and advantage. You can like the experience on the PC more, that's up to you, but you can't sell me the notion that PC twitchyness is more skill based with all that hardware interference.

How about you finally name me a popular PC game where the requirements are huge enough to make people run for their money? Crysis doesn't count, too old and people don't play it anymore on multi.

4) Flamebait, much? I don't feel the need to justify my leet skillz or trash talk with you here at all. Let's just assume a guy who has been doing fine when playing FPSs and was gaming before FPSs even existed will at least be able to hold his own to the point where his opinion on a game's experience will be relevant, eh?

You said that PC FPS games are too fast for you. Not me.

5 and 6) I like the car metaphor. If I race against Michael Schumacher and we both use the same car, I will lose, no matter if the car is a F1 or an 88 Toyota. He's a better driver, so as long as he and I are using the same car, I lose. If I'm on the F1 and he has the street car, though, I suspect I might win even if I suck at it.

Well that's great, but I didn't say anything about racing. For instance, my PC is medium-high end (3,4GHz Dual Core, 4GB RAM, 9800GT). Someone next to me has a quad core or a i7/i5, 2xGeForce 295MX in SLI and 16GB of RAM.

You might say I have the disadvantage, right? What if we are both playing Enemy Territory or Quake Wars and we both have at least 60FPS (because more is useless)? The better player will win. Just because you have a car that drives 200 km/h doesn't mean you can drive more than 50-60 km/h inside of towns.

Now, for competition, people who are damn good at racing will typically race in fast cars because that will make for a more interesting situation. But if you're going to race for fun with people of different skill levels you may want to go to a go-kart track, where even the less skilled can feel useful and have fun while the skilled drivers will still have fun pushing the envelope of what they have and trying to beat track records.

If you want to race for fun, don't complain that someone in a better car wins. Again, I didn't compare the situation to RACING.

That's my point. I play for fun, even in competitive games. I like it when the guy who sucks can still be given a gun and told to guard a flag and he will be an useful part of the team, rather than get sniped with a handgun from across the map by a guy playing at twice the resolution.

You can play competitively, competitively for fun... but can't be for fun AND competitively. You play competitively and you may have a lot of fun, but if you are just for the fun, you won't be competitive.

Also, resolution doesn't make much difference when 90% of the players have 1680x1050 or bigger. Not in FPS games, the angle for everyone is the same. In older games like Diablo 2 it would make a difference, but not here.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I'll tell you what has to stop... Dragon Age reminding me every five minutes in every possible way that there's DLC to be had.

Really leaves a sour taste when you talk to an NPC and the DLC option is part of the convo.

agreed there should be some sort of "destroying the immersion" rule

Or a 'don't be scummy, imposingly greedy bastards' rule.

Even the title screen keeps yelling at me about goddamn DLCs.

I thought DLC was supposed to add to the experience after you've played it a bit, not be utterly conspicuous in its absence.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

"they should have just made a gun mod for Oblivion instead of wasting money making Fallout 3"

Honest to God I've heard that...

I'd like to play oblivion for a bit with guns. I mean, I know there are mods that try to do these things but inevitably they are entirely garbage since there doesn't appear to be a way to change the most basic way weapons behave. Oddly enough, the only attempts I've seen are actually just staffs with a model swap and ludicrous stats. Were I to make an attempt, I'd likely try using a bow as a model. Morrowind had a better option with the addition of thrown weapons since these did not requre a "draw" period as part of the damage model.

I'm almost tempted to look into that.

 

[TheDoctor455]

that every call of duty after the first one should have been DLC.

Though of course, these people forget that DLC didn't exist until a little ways after COD4.

Anyway...

I've actually heard some idiots say the same thing about the entire Myst series... which is weird because even though the basic first person point-and-click adventure gameplay never really changes all that much, the developers always worked pretty damn hard to make graphical and level design improvements, and to keep the stories of each game engaging enough to make you want to go through every puzzle (as if exploring the gorgeous worlds wasn't enough motivation).