4847 replies to this topic

[NoeL]

idk i guess its a fancy way to say ps1

I always took PSX to refer to the chunky PlayStation and PS1 to refer to the redesign "PSOne", but I guess there's no difference between the software.

[Ventus]

I always took PSX to refer to the chunky PlayStation and PS1 to refer to the redesign "PSOne", but I guess there's no difference between the software.

yeah i guess that could be it
You know the only thing i noticed is that the Old PlayStation You know the big gray ones
Was that they played some games better then the PSOne
Heck i have FF8 and it will play on the old one but not the PSOne at all
Imo The old ps1 is better then The PSOne

[SpacemanDan]

I finished up Trials and Tribulations last night and will probably be focusing on getting through Disgaea 4. :3

[Ventus]

I finished up Trials and Tribulations last night and will probably be focusing on getting through Disgaea 4. :3

Hey SpacemanDan May i ask. Is Disgaea like Final fantasy tactics or what?

Bcuz I've been thinking about getting it soon

[SpacemanDan]

They're similar, yes. If you like strategy RPGs, I'd say it's worth giving a shot. I've got some videos going on it right now if you'd like to actually see the game in action. It's a Let's Play though. :3 (Videos are at the bottom of the first post)

But it'd definitely recommend it if you enjoy strategy RPGs.

[Ventus]

They're similar, yes. If you like strategy RPGs, I'd say it's worth giving a shot. I've got some videos going on it right now if you'd like to actually see the game in action. It's a Let's Play though. :3 (Videos are at the bottom of the first post)

But it'd definitely recommend it if you enjoy strategy RPGs.

Okay from what i've seen from said video
Yeah I'll love this game
and i love a strategy RPG Every once in awhile
Thanks for telling me and linking the videos
so i'm buying these games when i get a chance

[NoeL]

Playing Minecraft again. 1.9 pre-release was just... released.

[Dawnlight]

I'm playing Halo Reach online. I got bored with Black Ops. Especially when I'm 10th Prestige.

[Moonbread]

You should try a shooter that isn't regeneration/cover-based. Just saying. It makes a cartoony game like TF2 more realistic than the game that's supposed to be about the US Military in OH SO SERIOUS SITUATIONS.

On that note, I don't understand the appeal of cover-based shooting. I mean, even Battlefield 3 is supposedly going to it, with a cover-based tank (it heals when it goes behind cover *eye twitch*). It's a tank! It's supposed to eliminate cover-based ANYTHING. It just bothers me because they'll claim it's so realistic, but if it were, nobody would ever get killed in wars because, "Oh, I got shot? Let me run like nothing happened, duck behind this conveniently placed barrier, and five seconds later, the bullet will magically disappear!" Video games don't need to be realistic at all, but don't advertise them like that if they aren't at all. It's sad, because I'll probably get branded as someone who hates shooters, but to be honest, I prefer shooters like Goldeneye 64 and TF2 where you sustain your damage and have to find body armor or med kits to prevent yourself from dying. Halo, I think is actually okay in the regard, but I still don't think it's as good. It's nice, at least, because they put it as science fiction, and it makes sense with the armor's shields regenerating.

[Cukeman]

You should try a shooter that isn't regeneration/cover-based. Just saying. It makes a cartoony game like TF2 more realistic than the game that's supposed to be about the US Military in OH SO SERIOUS SITUATIONS.

On that note, I don't understand the appeal of cover-based shooting. I mean, even Battlefield 3 is supposedly going to it, with a cover-based tank (it heals when it goes behind cover *eye twitch*). It's a tank! It's supposed to eliminate cover-based ANYTHING. It just bothers me because they'll claim it's so realistic, but if it were, nobody would ever get killed in wars because, "Oh, I got shot? Let me run like nothing happened, duck behind this conveniently placed barrier, and five seconds later, the bullet will magically disappear!" Video games don't need to be realistic at all, but don't advertise them like that if they aren't at all. It's sad, because I'll probably get branded as someone who hates shooters, but to be honest, I prefer shooters like Goldeneye 64 and TF2 where you sustain your damage and have to find body armor or med kits to prevent yourself from dying. Halo, I think is actually okay in the regard, but I still don't think it's as good. It's nice, at least, because they put it as science fiction, and it makes sense with the armor's shields regenerating.

Agreed, hiding to regenerate is no fun anyways.

[Geoffrey]

I've been playing a lot of Halo: Reach lately, along side yet another replay of Wind Waker. I'm unhappy about the title update, I've always been pretty confused why people thought that Armour Lock was over powered. :/

Edited by Ornlu, 22 September 2011 - 04:14 PM.

[Mitchfork]

You should try a shooter that isn't regeneration/cover-based. Just saying. It makes a cartoony game like TF2 more realistic than the game that's supposed to be about the US Military in OH SO SERIOUS SITUATIONS.

On that note, I don't understand the appeal of cover-based shooting. I mean, even Battlefield 3 is supposedly going to it, with a cover-based tank (it heals when it goes behind cover *eye twitch*). It's a tank! It's supposed to eliminate cover-based ANYTHING. It just bothers me because they'll claim it's so realistic, but if it were, nobody would ever get killed in wars because, "Oh, I got shot? Let me run like nothing happened, duck behind this conveniently placed barrier, and five seconds later, the bullet will magically disappear!" Video games don't need to be realistic at all, but don't advertise them like that if they aren't at all. It's sad, because I'll probably get branded as someone who hates shooters, but to be honest, I prefer shooters like Goldeneye 64 and TF2 where you sustain your damage and have to find body armor or med kits to prevent yourself from dying. Halo, I think is actually okay in the regard, but I still don't think it's as good. It's nice, at least, because they put it as science fiction, and it makes sense with the armor's shields regenerating.

Regenerating/cover-based shooters work better for deathmatch gametypes in my opinion, and if it's a low-health shooter I think that regenerating health is the only way to have any semblance of game balance. If you look at a game like Call of Duty, where you're dying in 3-4 bullets in most situations and there's a high degree of randomness in gunfights, a static health system is frustrating and slows the game down. The regenerating health balances the game in a sense, because it rewards players that win gunfights with the opportunity to win more gunfights instead of having to go into situations where they can't even take a single bullet without dying. It effectively enables aggressive play and is really the only way that the game doesn't turn into a camping contest (which is enough of a problem already).

Halo is a bit of an oddball because it's a so-called "high-health" shooter that still uses that mechanic, but I actually like it a lot because it allows the game to have weapons like the BR or DMR that are capable of headshots (thus using aiming skill as a way to reward good players) and forcing players to hit multiple shots (further rewarding good players). Theoretically you could do this without the regenerating system, but I think it does benefit from it in similar ways to Call of Duty.

Realism is just a dumb concept in shooter design in general.

Also TF2 is still pretty much the only game I'm playing~

[Chakaa]

I've been playing a ton of Steam games since I decided to spend the rest of my money that I was saving there. The list includes:
-Team Fortress 2
-Half Life 2
-Portal
-Star Wars - Battlefront II
-Terraria

And I've been playing some Minecraft too, on my friends server. I've kind of lost interest in single player.

EDIT: Steam name is Henchman21caira if anyone wants to add me.

You should try a shooter that isn't regeneration/cover-based. Just saying. It makes a cartoony game like TF2 more realistic than the game that's supposed to be about the US Military in OH SO SERIOUS SITUATIONS.

On that note, I don't understand the appeal of cover-based shooting. I mean, even Battlefield 3 is supposedly going to it, with a cover-based tank (it heals when it goes behind cover *eye twitch*). It's a tank! It's supposed to eliminate cover-based ANYTHING. It just bothers me because they'll claim it's so realistic, but if it were, nobody would ever get killed in wars because, "Oh, I got shot? Let me run like nothing happened, duck behind this conveniently placed barrier, and five seconds later, the bullet will magically disappear!" Video games don't need to be realistic at all, but don't advertise them like that if they aren't at all. It's sad, because I'll probably get branded as someone who hates shooters, but to be honest, I prefer shooters like Goldeneye 64 and TF2 where you sustain your damage and have to find body armor or med kits to prevent yourself from dying. Halo, I think is actually okay in the regard, but I still don't think it's as good. It's nice, at least, because they put it as science fiction, and it makes sense with the armor's shields regenerating.

QFT

Edited by FefeRawft, 22 September 2011 - 05:53 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

Taking a break from Chrono Trigger because a friend of mine lent me Monster Hunter Tri and basically insisted that I give it a shot. It's okay so far, but...not for me. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. I could be completely wrong about that...I'll keep playing for a while to see if at any point it really hooks me...

Edited by DavidReinold, 22 September 2011 - 05:58 PM.

[Dawnlight]

You should try a shooter that isn't regeneration/cover-based. Just saying. It makes a cartoony game like TF2 more realistic than the game that's supposed to be about the US Military in OH SO SERIOUS SITUATIONS.

On that note, I don't understand the appeal of cover-based shooting. I mean, even Battlefield 3 is supposedly going to it, with a cover-based tank (it heals when it goes behind cover *eye twitch*). It's a tank! It's supposed to eliminate cover-based ANYTHING. It just bothers me because they'll claim it's so realistic, but if it were, nobody would ever get killed in wars because, "Oh, I got shot? Let me run like nothing happened, duck behind this conveniently placed barrier, and five seconds later, the bullet will magically disappear!" Video games don't need to be realistic at all, but don't advertise them like that if they aren't at all. It's sad, because I'll probably get branded as someone who hates shooters, but to be honest, I prefer shooters like Goldeneye 64 and TF2 where you sustain your damage and have to find body armor or med kits to prevent yourself from dying. Halo, I think is actually okay in the regard, but I still don't think it's as good. It's nice, at least, because they put it as science fiction, and it makes sense with the armor's shields regenerating.

At least Reach tries to do something like that with its revamped health system where if you are severely injured, your shields regenerate at a much slower rate. TF2 is fun. A lot more strategic than CoD. I just get bored after about 20 minutes of it or so, but that's just me though. I always compare CoD online to a game of laser tag than being a "realistic" game

Edited by Dawnlight, 23 September 2011 - 11:12 AM.