They weren't joking about the Arc Rise Fantaisa guide to JRPG hair. Here's some pics from Nintendo World Report.
That shit be messed, yo.
That shit be messed, yo.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Weekend Confirmed Episode 21 - 8/13/10
- Thread starter LiK
- Start date
bleahy said:
What does it mean when an RTS feature isn't supported by explicit game mechanics? In COH, if I'm behind a brick wall I'll receive less damage from frontal fire; forcing a foe to use a flamethrower, toss a grenade, maneuver around my flank, or crush that cover with an armored advance. If that cover isn't conferring a percentage bonus, what is its value and why would an opponent worry? They might outmaneuver me in a tank battle, by attacking my armor where it's weakest, but without explicit game mechanics that simulate turret traversal speeds, armor thickness, etc. that would amount to meaningless grandstanding. If the comment on the edit is supposed to be snarky, consider that my hands are cuffed behind my back here.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
:lol :lol seriously? I need to listen to thisFartOfWar said:
I doubt dude has even played CoH.
nitpick
Not joining a players association will not limit your ability to play said sport professionally. LaVarr Arrington spent the first few years of his career outside the union. He did not get royalties or legal counsel as a result. There was also a random LB with his skills in the game.
Likewise, players who crossed the picket line in the strike of 94 were barred from the union. As such, they are also not in video games, do not receive royalties and do not get representation. This is the reason Damien Miller wasn't in any video games.
They still get to play however Leahy, gawd ur dum *winkyface*
/nitpick
Also, that was atrocious advice on interviews. If you're meeting with executives at a financial firm and they ask what your hobbies are, I don't care how proud you are of video gaming you're going to come off as a fool. If you're interviewing for an entry level position at Kinko's with a 22 year old hiring manager though, then yeah, be loud and proud.
Not joining a players association will not limit your ability to play said sport professionally. LaVarr Arrington spent the first few years of his career outside the union. He did not get royalties or legal counsel as a result. There was also a random LB with his skills in the game.
Likewise, players who crossed the picket line in the strike of 94 were barred from the union. As such, they are also not in video games, do not receive royalties and do not get representation. This is the reason Damien Miller wasn't in any video games.
They still get to play however Leahy, gawd ur dum *winkyface*
/nitpick
Also, that was atrocious advice on interviews. If you're meeting with executives at a financial firm and they ask what your hobbies are, I don't care how proud you are of video gaming you're going to come off as a fool. If you're interviewing for an entry level position at Kinko's with a 22 year old hiring manager though, then yeah, be loud and proud.
FartOfWar said:
Starcraft isn't about individual units, it's about groups of them. 1v1 coming from the side does nothing, but if equal forces engage, 1 as a ball and 1 as a concave, the concave will always win. Also you can't shoot up to higher ground without air, and chocks significantly reduce the amount of dudes who can attack if one group has range advantage.
All the map control elements in CoH due to the capture points (forget what they're called) are also there, because you can't expect to win a fight off 1/2 bases against 3+. As well as watchtowers which give large areas of sight.
The comment was definitely justified IMO.
I might be hopping off the Zerg bandwagon soon for Terran matches. I'm not even close as good as the poster who created the team liquid thread I'm about to link. Just playing scrimmages against Terran I've been having issues finding quality counters. Glad I'm not crazy:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=144149
I dunno how Blizzard wants to do it, but the Terran need to be nerfed or the Zerg buffed. Probably both. Some good change suggestions listed here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=144149¤tpage=3#50
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=144149
I dunno how Blizzard wants to do it, but the Terran need to be nerfed or the Zerg buffed. Probably both. Some good change suggestions listed here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=144149¤tpage=3#50
I'm with you on playing as female characters, Garnett. If there's a choice to pick gender of a character I'm playing as I'll almost always pick female. There's a few reasons for this, and yeah, the "I'd rather look at a girl running around than a guy" is part of it. I don't think it's fair to say that this is an excuse and you should just own up to enjoying playing as a female, when it's an important part of motivation behind the choice. As a heterosexual male I'm programmed to find the female form more pleasing to look at than the male one and so yes, given the option I would rather look at that. That doesn't mean I object to playing as males, hell, the fact remains I still have to do so in the majority of games and it's no problem, but I'm not going to pretend that given the choice I don't want to pick what I find more pleasing to look at.
Female characters tend to fall into the design of being more lithe and agile than their male counterparts as well. If you like playing this type of character in general, female characters are the way to go. An example of this is in the recently released Monday Night Combat where the stealthy assassin character is a woman. In this case it's not even anything to do with sexual attraction or preference, but simply the fact that the female form is typically represented as sleeker, faster and more agile and that in itself is something many will prefer to play as.
I also get the feeling from listening to him over the years that Garnett feels like me in that he loves having strong female lead characters in games and wishes there were more of them. I often express this view and I get looked at strangely, as if only feminists and perverts could want to see female characters as powerful, capable leads rather than an object to the be rescued or a glorified receptionist relaying objectives. It annoys me that something like Metroid with Samus still sticks out as a strange exception rather than a common place occurrence. Again, as such, when I do get the option to play a strong female character I therefore want to take it, if nothing else it's a change from the vast majority of games where I'm just forced to play as a stereotypical male character.
The last point I want to make is the fundamental absurdity of people who look upon playing as a character of the opposite gender as a strange act is given the context of many games this choice is present in. When I'm playing WoW, some people are all up in arms that I'm male controlling a female character, yet they don't bat an eyelid at the fact that that character is also an elf. Or a tauren. Or an orc. Controlling a character of a different species is fine, just make sure it's the same gender as you. It extends to many games; playing as a murderer, gangster, soldier or various other things that you are not is normal, as long as they have the same type of genitalia as you do.
Female characters tend to fall into the design of being more lithe and agile than their male counterparts as well. If you like playing this type of character in general, female characters are the way to go. An example of this is in the recently released Monday Night Combat where the stealthy assassin character is a woman. In this case it's not even anything to do with sexual attraction or preference, but simply the fact that the female form is typically represented as sleeker, faster and more agile and that in itself is something many will prefer to play as.
I also get the feeling from listening to him over the years that Garnett feels like me in that he loves having strong female lead characters in games and wishes there were more of them. I often express this view and I get looked at strangely, as if only feminists and perverts could want to see female characters as powerful, capable leads rather than an object to the be rescued or a glorified receptionist relaying objectives. It annoys me that something like Metroid with Samus still sticks out as a strange exception rather than a common place occurrence. Again, as such, when I do get the option to play a strong female character I therefore want to take it, if nothing else it's a change from the vast majority of games where I'm just forced to play as a stereotypical male character.
The last point I want to make is the fundamental absurdity of people who look upon playing as a character of the opposite gender as a strange act is given the context of many games this choice is present in. When I'm playing WoW, some people are all up in arms that I'm male controlling a female character, yet they don't bat an eyelid at the fact that that character is also an elf. Or a tauren. Or an orc. Controlling a character of a different species is fine, just make sure it's the same gender as you. It extends to many games; playing as a murderer, gangster, soldier or various other things that you are not is normal, as long as they have the same type of genitalia as you do.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Xater said:This might be getting good.
Oh shit, the KING has entered the thread... taking time away from the whole "Bioshock" thing to do so no less. :lol
f0rk said:
It's different though. In SC you micro for position and maybe to activate special abilities, in CoH you micro because even facing matters. One tank can take out three or four tanks of equal or greater power if you are great at micro and can keep your front armor facing the enemy at all times.
I'm not saying there aren't tactics in SC, but in CoH it's much more fine grain and situational.
Farsight said:
It's even more absurd to use Garnett's "I like hot chicks" line though, as if someone needs to justify their heterosexuality or something while playing a female character. It doesn't help that most gamers are 20-something dudebros who like to call you a "fag" even if you sound different, let alone pick a female character.
Besides, I still think the more awkward issue is the fact that people wouldn't play GTA3: San Andreas because they had to play a BLACK (ON NOES!!!!) character.
bleahy said:
You forgot to talk about BlazBlue: CS in last week's and this week's episode. You mentioned very briefly about not liking story mode. I bought it purely for its story mode and it was a waste of money. I finished Ragna's and Noel's story and that was it, I have no desire to finish it. There's nothing fun about "playing" for two hours to finish one story arc, and by playing I mean 1 hour and 55 minutes of dialog and 5 minutes of actual fighting game action.
firehawk12 said:
Well that's the point, they aren't 'explicit game mechanics' in SC, but they are definitely there. You don't have 1 unit vs 1 unit battles in SC2 normally, so it's hard to bring a direct comparison, but using a smaller force and attacked/defending from a certain position certainly gives the same kind of advantages as a 'explicit' cover/flank mechanic.
Personally, I think not defining them gives more room for players to show individual flare in combat, but that is personal opinion.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
f0rk said:
To be honest, I don't know anything about "high level" SC play, so I can't really respond intelligently - but from hearing people talk about SC, even on this week's podcast - battles are won and lost based on never queuing units and fine grain gameplay like that. When listening to Day9's episode about the mental checklist, he makes it seem that it's all about trying to figure out when to build specific structures/units/technology and trying to maximize your initial build order.
In CoH, unit placement and strategy matters a lot. If used correctly, a single MG can suppress a much larger force because of suppression. When pulling back forces from the lines, you have to decide whether or not to use the "retreat button" which gives you some bonuses that allow you to keep your units alive longer (which matters because of veterancy) at the cost of losing control.
Funny thing is that I like both games, so I'm not even sure what I'm arguing about. :lol
DidntKnowJack
Member
LOL Shane. Wtf, dude.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
DidntKnowJack said:LOL Shane. Wtf, dude.
Holy shit, the picture. :lol
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Mother of GOD !
firehawk12
Subete no aware
chandoog said:
Is that his new nickname?!
firehawk12 said:
Well there are situations where unit placement can take out a much larger force, like a siege tank or a colossus (hell pretty much any ranged unit) on high ground overlooking a choke.
The thing about high level play is that the players are smart enough not to run into those kinds of traps, so you don't typically see single tanks wiping out an entire army, but you often see a couple tanks protecting a choke allowing someone to get an expansion up. When two high level players match up, there is a lot of importance on execution of macro, but you will still see someone get caught with their army out of position and get backdoored, or get caught in a choke so their opponent can get a bigger concave on them. Lots of the positioning strategy in SC is making sure your army has enough room so they can all get into range, so its not only your front line firing.
I like both games as well, I particularly like how CoH handles artillery, but the nature of cover mechanic slows down battles and movement immensely and makes them much less fun to watch. There can be arguments as to whether this sort of codified game mechanic allows for more tactical thinking, I think it just slows the pace of play down, as there are already plenty of tactical considerations in SC, and there are plenty of tactics in SC that have no equivalent in CoH. There are no nydus worms or warp prism harass. No real equivalent to stealth units. No air units at all, which limits tactics hugely.
It's completely impossible to compare the set of tactical considerations in such different games. CoH has a cover system, but SC has all kinds of units and tactics that CoH has no equivalent of. That's not even getting into the differences in the macroeconomic/tech game that make it even more pointless to compare the two.
MikeE21286
Member
oh my Shane :lol
They have it, but it clearly is not the focus of the game. SC2 values strategy over tactics by a long shot. Just being able to get the right build order and pump out units at the maximum speed is a skill that will put you in Gold/Platinum, good tactics and micro comes after that. You can say that Starcraft has all that but it's unfairly dismissive to the argument that some people simply prefer a game that places a much higher gameplay emphasis on tactics.bleahy said:
Also I think bringing up all the different kinds of depth in the game is a very bad idea when talking to someone who is skeptical about or intimidated by SC2. You're just scaring them away, most gamers don't want to think about all the stuff they don't know how to do yet when they're playing a video game. Even among hardcore gamers there are so many people who are downright anxious about playing multiplayer matches because they get so psyched out over this stuff. People who are more casual about it can absolutely enjoy SC2 just by playing games for fun and being happy with where they get matched, which is what they should be encouraged to do.
firehawk12 said:
But this happens in Starcraft as well. A player with superior micro can take out a much larger force, i.e. using Blink Stalkers to kite or Sentries to set effective and timely force fields to split up enemy armies.
It's not to the extent that CoH is, but it's there. Macro is generally view as more important in Starcraft games, but micro is still huge. The trick to success comes in properly balancing both.
firehawk12 said:
That's the macro aspect - building up your economy and building up units. Properly controlling those units on the battlefield and during combat comes down to micro, and it's significant in Starcraft.
I agree that CoH is more tactical, but it's a dominant aspect in SC as well, particularly in high-level play where people have been practicing build orders for years and basically have them down to a science.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
iamblades said:
The difference is that both sets of games create their maps for their different mechanics. I mean, France was full of bocage, so the maps were full of cover and choke points. Even then, the maps are "living", so destroyed tanks and buildings can still be used as limited cover. The SC maps are more abstract and have to be symmetrical, so it's more about map position than any specific map features.
To me, it seems that SC is more about production management while CoH is more about unit management. So yeah, you have more unit "types" in SC, but the focus on the game is trying to "trick" your opponent into building units of the wrong kind. I just think the immediate unit tactics are more at play in CoH, where even the natural counters don't necessarily guarantee victory. I mean, if you have an AT gun pointed at a Panzer (or a Panzer facing off against infantry with a Bazooka or salvaged Panzershreck), it's not immediately clear who will win - whereas if you have a Banshee fighting off against a Siege Tank, that battle is already over before the first shot is even fired.
Zeliard said:
That's really what I'm saying. It's not that SC doesn't have tactics, it's that CoH is primarily focused on tactics and that's where its emphasis lies.
Just listening to Brian trying to explain to Garnett how he should improve his game against the AI, the emphasis was on how he doesn't understand how to build units, not that his marines were out of position or whatever.
IMACOMPUTA
Member
Garnett! you mentioned my post about "not finishing games; is it ok?" last week, and said you'd bring it up this week!Blazyr said:
I felt that you came so close to bringing it up, but kept getting interrupted !
ARFGH!
lol
so close! would love to hear what you guys think
IMACOMPUTA
Member
I played as a female in mass effect 1 and 2. Probably the first time i ever chose a female character, but i think as far as the setting/story went it was a much more interesting choice than another generic beefcake-guy as the main character.
I choose based on what would be the coolest story, so i suppose i have the director-mindset.
I choose based on what would be the coolest story, so i suppose i have the director-mindset.
The one thing that popped in my head recently thinking about female characters was how disconnected i feel from a lot of typical male characters in games since they're not like me at all.
Marcus Phoenix in Gears may be a dude but I have less in common with him, both in attitude and size, than I do with my personalized Miranda Shepard in Mass Effect.
It's all about the game. I don't really think too much about gender for player characters since so many dudes in games are such obvious teenage wish fulfillment fantasies that I can't other to relate to them.
Marcus Phoenix in Gears may be a dude but I have less in common with him, both in attitude and size, than I do with my personalized Miranda Shepard in Mass Effect.
It's all about the game. I don't really think too much about gender for player characters since so many dudes in games are such obvious teenage wish fulfillment fantasies that I can't other to relate to them.
firehawk12 said:
Even against natural counters in SC, superior tactics can win the game. The banshee vs tank example is a bit unfair as CoH doesn't even have to worry about air and ground unit interactions like that. The real examples of tactics in SC is using faster units to attack in multiple places at once, using drops or nydus worms to get your smaller army behind your opponents bigger army and mess with his economy, using choke points to prevent your opponents entire army from being able to target your units while all of yours can target his, using hit and run attacks with air units to slowly chip away at his numbers, etc. You don't really have to worry about any of these tactical situations in CoH because the set of units and abilities is so much less diverse.
As for why everyone points out that you should pay attention to your macro and build more units, that's because it's easy to figure out that all else being equal, more stuff is better. It's also easy to figure out if someone is not building enough, just look at the money counters.
The tactics on the other hand vary by map, race, unit composition, what abilities you have trained, etc. It's much more complicated, and going into that much detail does someone who is just trying to be a silver level player or beat the AI on harder difficulties no good. If they are getting massively out produced, they will lose no matter what their units lost to units killed ratio is. To determine if someone's tactics need work takes a lot more in depth study or replays, it's a lot harder than just saying 'do you have money? spend it!'.
The fundamental difference between CoH and SC tactics is that CoH tactics are defensive, and SC tactics are offensive. In SC your tactics for the most part aren't meant to help you defend and hold your ground, you are supposed to make your opponent worry about defending so you can expand and get an economic advantage, thus increasing your chances to win.
My initial thoughts on DQIX mirrored Jeff's to the letter. I've grown to appreciate other aspects of the game, but I don't think I would have put up with how slow and basic the battle system is on a home console. At least give me a quick option to auto-battle against the easy enemies like in Persona 3 & 4! 
With regards to playing as a female character, I'm playing one in DQIX and I was pleasantly surprised that it actually made a small difference in the dialog that was played out in
.
Also, everyone knows that female Shepard is the best Shepard. It's Jennifer Hale!
With regards to playing as a female character, I'm playing one in DQIX and I was pleasantly surprised that it actually made a small difference in the dialog that was played out in
Gleeba's all women bathing chamber
Also, everyone knows that female Shepard is the best Shepard. It's Jennifer Hale!
I have to disagree with comments from StrangeJames and another listener about games like Bayonetta. I find their comments extremely self-serving and ignorant. There are many other types of media out there like books, movies, music and comic books which have gratuitous violence and sexuality that people can enjoy if they want. Video games are no exception. There are many different types of video games and people have different taste in many different things. Just because you are too embarrassed to play a specific game in front of your wife or kid doesn't mean developers shouldn't make the game.
Not all games are the same or have to be the same. If it's not up to your "standards" then don't play it. Telling developers to stop making them is just plain stupid. They sound like the video game equivalent of the Taliban. Sorry you don't like Bayonetta, but I do.
Not all games are the same or have to be the same. If it's not up to your "standards" then don't play it. Telling developers to stop making them is just plain stupid. They sound like the video game equivalent of the Taliban. Sorry you don't like Bayonetta, but I do.
lastplayed
Member
The point about "directing" a game's character was a good one. That's how I mostly play third-person adventures where there's a gender choice. I never feel it's me in the game, but that it's me controlling the game and the characters within. That leaves me free to pick and choose male or female leads, usually depending on the setting and what you get out of it in return.
I've played female characters in many RPGs, even MMOs, but that doesn't mean I like staring at asses or whatever, because I also play male characters. It's nice to mix it up a bit.
Mass Effect for example, I honestly can't say which Shepard I prefer. I've played through so many times as both.
I've played female characters in many RPGs, even MMOs, but that doesn't mean I like staring at asses or whatever, because I also play male characters. It's nice to mix it up a bit.
Mass Effect for example, I honestly can't say which Shepard I prefer. I've played through so many times as both.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
iamblades said:
bleahy said:
I think the problem is just comparing SC to CoH, which is a pure tactics game. That probably set off a nerve. :lol
firehawk12
Subete no aware
LiK said:
Wreck that shit with math, yo!
Regarding Garnett's question of the line between challenge and frustration - for me it's pretty easy and it's literally visible in almost every game: the end credits!
If the credits roll, that's a sign for me that I'm done with the game - frustration only arises if the game is making it too hard for me to reach the end of the narrative.
After the end credits, or on top of what is needed to reach them, everything the developers want to throw at me is fair game. Higher difficulties, meta games, crazy challenges... whatever. I don't need to jump through artificial hoops that are too high for me and would rather enjoy the next experience. At most I mop up a few trophies/achievements that are in easy reach, but that's it.
I guess if Garnett would be able to complete SC2's campaign on the desired difficulty level, he would be much happier with the game and be done with it, even without opening the can of worms that is competitive multiplayer.
If the credits roll, that's a sign for me that I'm done with the game - frustration only arises if the game is making it too hard for me to reach the end of the narrative.
After the end credits, or on top of what is needed to reach them, everything the developers want to throw at me is fair game. Higher difficulties, meta games, crazy challenges... whatever. I don't need to jump through artificial hoops that are too high for me and would rather enjoy the next experience. At most I mop up a few trophies/achievements that are in easy reach, but that's it.
I guess if Garnett would be able to complete SC2's campaign on the desired difficulty level, he would be much happier with the game and be done with it, even without opening the can of worms that is competitive multiplayer.
iamblades said:
The entire discussion has become academic already (my initial contention was and is that the notion of "implicit" features amounts to confused nonsense), but with the single exception of the airborne unit, every one of these exists in COH, and, on the contrary, is worth worrying about. Attacking multiple areas at a time with fast units is a Panzer Elite specialty for instance. Airborne infantry secretly deploys behind enemy lies as do Fallshirmjagers, snipers, and stormtroopers. Clever use of choke points practically defines high-level COH competition. And while not aircraft-based, hit-and-run tactics are another cornerstone of competitive play as any competent users of M8s, armored cars, Pumas, halftracks, rangers, etc. can attest. Again, though, the point is not to argue over player preference, or to debate which is the deeper RTS.
I almost missed this. This statement is demonstrably incorrect (and also suggests a thorough unfamiliarity with COH's territorial control and resource systems). I'm definitely not trying to dick fence, but if you are interested in decent and good-spirited COH play, we should set up a match. You can turtle all you like, and I'll attempt to show you how relentlessly offense-oriented the game actually is.iamblades said:
FartOfWar said:
My original point on the show was that SC2 just as much tactical depth, not that CoH didn't have tactical depth.
You're argument has seemingly become that the people defending the existence of tactics in SC2 are saying either there aren't any/enough tactics in CoH or that the tactics in SC2 are inherently better than those in CoH.
Both games have strategy and tactics and there's no need to figure out which game is "better" or has "more" of something.