So, I had to write this review in the light of how terribly wrong pretty much every critic out there is. I generally respect IGN's reviews of games. They're usually a bit hard on games, but they're usually equally hard on games, so they do tend to be fair. My review of the first game in the reboot pretty much agrees with IGN's review. But IGN's review of Warfighter, while bringing up some legitimate problems, doesn't accurately reflect what kind of game it truly is.
First, to acknowledge the issues people have raised against this game: Yes, there does seem to be some framerate issues here and there. Though it's more something you see after playing the game a while, not something so bad that it disrupts gameplay. Graphically for the most part, it's on par with Battlefield 3. Yes, the campaign does over-use breaching. It doesn't feel exactly annoying, just pointless. Yes, the campaign doesn't introduce anything that hasn't been done in other games (though that's usually the case, and when they do e.g. Bulletstorm, they're not usually received well). Yes, enemies aren't the sharpest knives in the box, and could make better use of cover and work together as a team better. I'd add that it's frustrating to see them run past the rest of your team, to target you specifically. This makes no tactical sense and is the same lame AI they used in the 2010 title. They aren't the only series to do this, but boy is it annoying. Some have complained about the story as well. I thought it wasn't exactly an exciting plot, but it does tell the story fairly well. Complainers are advised to note that it's been some time before we've had good storytelling in a shooter, and no one buys shooters for their storyline anyway. And finally, yes, the menu system is confusing at first. But once you get used to it, it's actually rather nice.
As far as weapon design (something I've not really heard anyone comment on), the weapons seem to have less recoil than they ought, and all sound suppressed, but the damage is more realistic (or at leat the bullet tracking seems to work better) than games like Call of Duty, particularly with headshots (though in my opinion it could be cranked up even further). Actually, the weapons are more responsive and damaging than Battlefield 3 as well, and I have far fewer latency issues than I do in Call of Duty. There are also some cool animations in multiplayer, like rappelling out of a Blackhawk spawn point, cutting wires as you deactivate explosives placed by opposing players, throwing a UAV to deploy it, sliding or diving into cover, and great takedown sequences when you melee with the tomahawk. The multi-nation features they've added, like the ability to play as different nations an apply tokens towards different nations' victory are a nice touch. I do agree with those that say the nations feature needs adjusted. Since it is scored by # of tokens / # of contributing players, countries that have only a few big contributors beat out nations with more massive amounts of tokens because there are also more players contributing. This has lead to Portugal being the victor each of the first 3 seasons. The absolute biggest thing Warfighter has going for it is the buddy system. The buddy system lets you can get health and ammo from your buddy, points for your buddy spawning on you, for saving or avenging your buddy, for being close to your buddy while he makes kills. Speaking of the fact it's a he, why are there no female fighters in the game? It's unfathomable to me how critics can knock this game for not having made any innovations, when they've added this really fun and effective mechanic. Then go on to say "This is not the shooter you expected" about Black Ops 2, of which the only new thing is the strike force missions with their overhead tactical operations (something that is neat to see, but not something I care to play), everything else about it is really a tweak of what they've been doing the last several years, and the engine hasn't been touched at all. I loved Modern Warfare 2, and Call of Duty is still a solid series (and offers more types of multiplayer), but I feel like they have to do more to deserve remaining the top shooter out there, and in my opinion (having bought both games), I feel Warfighter is actually the better game and the one I spend most of my time in these days. It's not as realistic as the Battlefield series (Bad Company 2 having more realistic destruction in my opinion), but I'm finding it more fun for some reason.
Showing posts with label gaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gaming. Show all posts
Friday, January 4, 2013
Thursday, September 1, 2011
A few Autohotkey scripts
I decided to post the source for a few Autohotkey scripts a couple of days ago:
- GW Tonic Bot : This one is a bot to drink tonics for you in Guild Wars to help you get your Party Animal title. It maps back and forth between your Guild Hall and drinks 2 tonics (yes, 2 tonics because of a bug in GW) each time it stops.
- GW Drunkard Bot : This one was meant to drink alcohol at specific intervals to achieve optimal points towards your Drunkard title. This was made obsolete by the March 3, 2011 update. You can now click them (or have an autoclicker click them) as fast as you want.
- Generic Autoclicker : This one can be for any kind of automated clicking, it just clicks (or double clicks) where you tell it to at an interval you specify.
Note that I haven't tested them in IronAHK, only Autohotkey on Windows. Also note that it's also easy to convert these to an .exe file if you don't want to install Autohotkey. And if a non-techie is reading this, I'm happy to provide that for you. Just leave a comment below.
Also feel free to comment (or fork) either of these scripts if you have improvements. Some people have found that the delay between mappings in the tonic bot is not long enough for slower internet connections and so you have to tell it to drink more tonics than you'd think (since some clicks will be wasted).
Also feel free to comment (or fork) either of these scripts if you have improvements. Some people have found that the delay between mappings in the tonic bot is not long enough for slower internet connections and so you have to tell it to drink more tonics than you'd think (since some clicks will be wasted).
Sunday, October 24, 2010
My Review of Medal of Honor (2010)
I was on the fence about getting this game. If they didn't offer guns that were only available through pre-ordering, I may not have even gotten the game. But this coupled with the bonus sniper rifle for having BC2 VIP, and my lack of interest in the upcoming CoD game nudged me to the purchasing side of the fence. Oh, one other bonus is that you get in on the beta for Battlefield 3 (if that's important to you). And probably there'll be other bonuses through EA's Gun Club.
First off: everything mediocre I've read about this game is true. The single player is unremarkable in almost every way, it does suffer from a few scripting issues (I don't think worst than other MoH titles I've played, but our standards have gone up since then), and the graphics stutter in a few places (seemed to me to be mostly around save points). On the plus side, the sliding into cover system they have in single player is pretty cool. Unfortunately, this isn't available in multiplayer. Which is the other unfortunate thing about this game: how disconnected the singleplayer is from the multiplayer. It was done by two teams, in two countries, with two different engines, and they seemed to communicate very little between them during development. It's amazing how much time (3 years) was spent on the singleplayer and yet it still rings pretty hollow at the end of the day. Interestingly, EA's stock dropped 6% on launch day, due to investors being worried by the mediocre reviews. There are a couple of interesting levels, but nothing we haven't really seen before and no level sticks out in my memory as "woah, that was awesome!". There's a level where you get to use attack helicopters, a sniping level, a level with ATVs, and the cinematics are pretty good (and you could skip them if you wanted to, which I've not seen in recent games). The storyline could have been a little tighter (for example the incompetent, friendly-fire causing general is all but forgotten later in the game), but I did like that it was grittier and had fewer Jack Bauer-esque moments than MW2's storyline.
For the mulitiplayer side: It's actually pretty good, and I've found the description as a hybrid of BC2 and MW2 to be true. This game differs from BC2 in that there is limited destructibility (one of the coolest things about BC2), and most game modes don't have any vehicles (the other really cool thing about BC2), although there are light tanks in one of the modes. There are perks like in MW2, but you don't roll through them in the frantic pace that seems to dominate MW2. The guns do seem more balanced than either of the other 2 games. The maps are bigger than MW2, but smaller than BC2. One thing that is unique about their perk system is that every time you unlock a perk, you can choose between a defensive and an offensive action. Defensive actions include stuff like enemy radar and flak vests for your buddies, and offensive actions involve things like mortar strikes and rocket strikes. But unlike MW2, then chain of perks is not configurable. Like BC2 and MW2, you unlock new guns and stuff for your guns as you progress ranks by earning points. The number of rounds to take down an opponent is about the same as BC2 (they have a hardcore mode too, which I haven't tried yet).
The only major downside to the multiplayer is the spawn points. They're awful. In BC2, you'd only get popped on spawn if you spawned on a buddy about to get pwnd. In this game I find myself spawning into a mortar strike or into a gang of enemies fairly often. Which, needless to say, is intensely aggravating (particularly after it happens 4 times in a row -- not uncommon since kills with a perk count towards the next perk). In some modes, you can spawn back to your base instead of the front, but not all modes have this idea (for example their version of Death Match). But sometimes you can use this to your advantage. On some maps, I've been able to run up to one of their spawn points with my M60 a few seconds into the game and wipe half their team before they can put a stop to my mayhem. A dirty trick, but it made me giggle.
Overall, if you have to choose between this game and BC2 and MW2, I'd say get either BC2 or MW2 (depending on your playing style). But if you already have those games and are looking for something with a little less Vietnam and RC cars, this might make for a good distraction until something better comes along. It's definitely not a terrible game, but its not an amazing game either. The worst thing about it is realizing what could have been...
First off: everything mediocre I've read about this game is true. The single player is unremarkable in almost every way, it does suffer from a few scripting issues (I don't think worst than other MoH titles I've played, but our standards have gone up since then), and the graphics stutter in a few places (seemed to me to be mostly around save points). On the plus side, the sliding into cover system they have in single player is pretty cool. Unfortunately, this isn't available in multiplayer. Which is the other unfortunate thing about this game: how disconnected the singleplayer is from the multiplayer. It was done by two teams, in two countries, with two different engines, and they seemed to communicate very little between them during development. It's amazing how much time (3 years) was spent on the singleplayer and yet it still rings pretty hollow at the end of the day. Interestingly, EA's stock dropped 6% on launch day, due to investors being worried by the mediocre reviews. There are a couple of interesting levels, but nothing we haven't really seen before and no level sticks out in my memory as "woah, that was awesome!". There's a level where you get to use attack helicopters, a sniping level, a level with ATVs, and the cinematics are pretty good (and you could skip them if you wanted to, which I've not seen in recent games). The storyline could have been a little tighter (for example the incompetent, friendly-fire causing general is all but forgotten later in the game), but I did like that it was grittier and had fewer Jack Bauer-esque moments than MW2's storyline.
For the mulitiplayer side: It's actually pretty good, and I've found the description as a hybrid of BC2 and MW2 to be true. This game differs from BC2 in that there is limited destructibility (one of the coolest things about BC2), and most game modes don't have any vehicles (the other really cool thing about BC2), although there are light tanks in one of the modes. There are perks like in MW2, but you don't roll through them in the frantic pace that seems to dominate MW2. The guns do seem more balanced than either of the other 2 games. The maps are bigger than MW2, but smaller than BC2. One thing that is unique about their perk system is that every time you unlock a perk, you can choose between a defensive and an offensive action. Defensive actions include stuff like enemy radar and flak vests for your buddies, and offensive actions involve things like mortar strikes and rocket strikes. But unlike MW2, then chain of perks is not configurable. Like BC2 and MW2, you unlock new guns and stuff for your guns as you progress ranks by earning points. The number of rounds to take down an opponent is about the same as BC2 (they have a hardcore mode too, which I haven't tried yet).
The only major downside to the multiplayer is the spawn points. They're awful. In BC2, you'd only get popped on spawn if you spawned on a buddy about to get pwnd. In this game I find myself spawning into a mortar strike or into a gang of enemies fairly often. Which, needless to say, is intensely aggravating (particularly after it happens 4 times in a row -- not uncommon since kills with a perk count towards the next perk). In some modes, you can spawn back to your base instead of the front, but not all modes have this idea (for example their version of Death Match). But sometimes you can use this to your advantage. On some maps, I've been able to run up to one of their spawn points with my M60 a few seconds into the game and wipe half their team before they can put a stop to my mayhem. A dirty trick, but it made me giggle.
Overall, if you have to choose between this game and BC2 and MW2, I'd say get either BC2 or MW2 (depending on your playing style). But if you already have those games and are looking for something with a little less Vietnam and RC cars, this might make for a good distraction until something better comes along. It's definitely not a terrible game, but its not an amazing game either. The worst thing about it is realizing what could have been...
Bad Company 2 vs Modern Warfare 2
I'd played and loved Modern Warfare 2. I still believe it to be the best multilayer first person shooter I've ever played. That said, when MW2 released their so-called stimulus package at a rate of $15, I felt like that was kind of an insult to their playerbase, which helped them to record-breaking profits in the midst of a recession (particularly when 3 of the maps weren't even new). When I saw that BC2 offered new maps for free (and had already released 2), and claims some were making that it was a better game than MW2, I had to give it a try. What follows is my impressions in contrast to MW2.
When I first started playing the game, I felt a bit underwhelmed. The single player in MW2 is short, but intense. The single player in BC2 might be worth playing to get a feel for the characters, but its a pretty forgettable experience. But the singleplayer isn't why you bought the game anyway.
The sound is great, the graphics look not quite as nice as MW2 in particular with regard to weapon detail, but I think some of this is the scaling. My impression is that BC2 drew humans with a more realistic relative size, this coupled with that the maps are much larger makes everything seem a bit smaller, and perhaps not as graphically wowing. But if you look at the water, buildings, and people (up close), the graphics actually are pretty good. You just might not notice it at first.
There's also some fun stuff about BC2's personality. In singleplayer, whilst riding some 4-wheelers, they comment how much more awesome 4-wheelers are than snowmobiles. While heading into a mission, one says that they want to go in first, because otherwise they'll send some pansy special ops group with rifles and heartbeat sensors. All, of course, references to Modern Warfare 2's singleplayer campaign.
Gameplay: I'd have to say neither are 'better' than the other. BC2 is a different kind of game than MW2. MW2 is a run & gun fragging game, with BC2 there's more strategy. MW2 is on smaller maps, where people routinely camp in predictable places. BC2 has huge maps where camping is largely meaningless. MW2 lets you build a custom warrior with a wide array of addons and perks. BC2 has some customization, but not as large as MW2, and only within your class (rifleman, recon, medic, and engineer). There are no perks like MW2 has after a certain number of kills. BC2 has vehicles prominently featured in combat. MW2 does not. BC2 has destructible environments. MW2 does not. (As a MW2 player, you'll be really lost at first 'How the hell am I supposed to take cover? Everything is exploding!').
I also really love what they've done with the sniper, calling it recon. This makes the role more useful than some griefer only contributing a few kills, because they can call out enemy positions they observe through their scope and place motion sensors.
There are some minor gripes I have with BC2. Such as the repeating sound on the unlock page once you unlock everything for a class, the small and difficult to read menus when not displayed on a widescreen TV, the awful guns you start with in assault class, the unskippable cinematics when you start the game and at the end of each round of multiplayer.
They do seem to have taken a cue from MW2 when it comes to unlocks. You'll be able to win new guns and gadgets as you play along in multiplayer. The pace seemed slower to me than MW2 because there weren't a lot of little things that you unlocked like MW2. But many people find 'the hump' less than MW2. I'd say the guns are more balanced overall (with the exception of the M80 for the medic class). One thing I don't get is the pins you win for doing things like getting a revenge kill, being thrifty with your LMG ammo, etc. They award them to you, but you can't really do anything with them. It was nice in MW2 to be able to brag about them by putting them up with your nametag.
What others have said about BC2 being more strategy and team oriented is true. You can't win the game by yourself. While they do have a deathmatch, I play (and most others too I think) rush or conquest, mostly rush in my case. It doesn't matter if you go around slaughtering the other team (although I think you'll find that more difficult to pull off in this game). If your buddies don't have your back, your team will still lose (and you will probably die).
I didn't feel like BC2 was a better game, especially with respect to single player. And while instinctively I'd say buy MW2 before buying BC2, I also have to recall that since getting BC2 I've barely touched MW2. I certainly don't miss the camping, lag & DCs. If you have a preference for fragging games, get MW2. If you enjoy multiplayer shooters that involve a little more strategy, get BC2. If you've got enough money, get both. They each have something different to offer, and having both provides for a good change of pace.
When I first started playing the game, I felt a bit underwhelmed. The single player in MW2 is short, but intense. The single player in BC2 might be worth playing to get a feel for the characters, but its a pretty forgettable experience. But the singleplayer isn't why you bought the game anyway.
The sound is great, the graphics look not quite as nice as MW2 in particular with regard to weapon detail, but I think some of this is the scaling. My impression is that BC2 drew humans with a more realistic relative size, this coupled with that the maps are much larger makes everything seem a bit smaller, and perhaps not as graphically wowing. But if you look at the water, buildings, and people (up close), the graphics actually are pretty good. You just might not notice it at first.
There's also some fun stuff about BC2's personality. In singleplayer, whilst riding some 4-wheelers, they comment how much more awesome 4-wheelers are than snowmobiles. While heading into a mission, one says that they want to go in first, because otherwise they'll send some pansy special ops group with rifles and heartbeat sensors. All, of course, references to Modern Warfare 2's singleplayer campaign.
Gameplay: I'd have to say neither are 'better' than the other. BC2 is a different kind of game than MW2. MW2 is a run & gun fragging game, with BC2 there's more strategy. MW2 is on smaller maps, where people routinely camp in predictable places. BC2 has huge maps where camping is largely meaningless. MW2 lets you build a custom warrior with a wide array of addons and perks. BC2 has some customization, but not as large as MW2, and only within your class (rifleman, recon, medic, and engineer). There are no perks like MW2 has after a certain number of kills. BC2 has vehicles prominently featured in combat. MW2 does not. BC2 has destructible environments. MW2 does not. (As a MW2 player, you'll be really lost at first 'How the hell am I supposed to take cover? Everything is exploding!').
I also really love what they've done with the sniper, calling it recon. This makes the role more useful than some griefer only contributing a few kills, because they can call out enemy positions they observe through their scope and place motion sensors.
There are some minor gripes I have with BC2. Such as the repeating sound on the unlock page once you unlock everything for a class, the small and difficult to read menus when not displayed on a widescreen TV, the awful guns you start with in assault class, the unskippable cinematics when you start the game and at the end of each round of multiplayer.
They do seem to have taken a cue from MW2 when it comes to unlocks. You'll be able to win new guns and gadgets as you play along in multiplayer. The pace seemed slower to me than MW2 because there weren't a lot of little things that you unlocked like MW2. But many people find 'the hump' less than MW2. I'd say the guns are more balanced overall (with the exception of the M80 for the medic class). One thing I don't get is the pins you win for doing things like getting a revenge kill, being thrifty with your LMG ammo, etc. They award them to you, but you can't really do anything with them. It was nice in MW2 to be able to brag about them by putting them up with your nametag.
What others have said about BC2 being more strategy and team oriented is true. You can't win the game by yourself. While they do have a deathmatch, I play (and most others too I think) rush or conquest, mostly rush in my case. It doesn't matter if you go around slaughtering the other team (although I think you'll find that more difficult to pull off in this game). If your buddies don't have your back, your team will still lose (and you will probably die).
I didn't feel like BC2 was a better game, especially with respect to single player. And while instinctively I'd say buy MW2 before buying BC2, I also have to recall that since getting BC2 I've barely touched MW2. I certainly don't miss the camping, lag & DCs. If you have a preference for fragging games, get MW2. If you enjoy multiplayer shooters that involve a little more strategy, get BC2. If you've got enough money, get both. They each have something different to offer, and having both provides for a good change of pace.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
GW2 Update (well, sorta)
Yesterday ArenaNet put the Test Krewe page back up and gave some small hints at forthcoming GW2 news. They've posted a shiny swf on their homepage to be: http://www.guildwars2.com/, created a facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/GuildWars2, and a twitter account: http://twitter.com/guildwars2. All indicators that they're preparing to release some news. Probably nothing as dramatic as a date yet, but we should at least get a trailer and some concept art. Maybe even some discussion about the professions (my prediction is that it will be the core professions from GW1 or very similar, based on the fact the shaping of the world has cut off Tyria from Cantha and Elona).
The related GWGuru page is here: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10395760. Mostly people are excited (those that haven't left the game anyway) though some other pages lurking on the internets weren't as generous.
Am I peeing my pants excited? No. But as I've said, I do think little tidbits, even if they're contrived and only give the illusion of progress (which I don't think these will be) are an important part of keeping a feeling of aliveness in the community.
The related GWGuru page is here: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10395760. Mostly people are excited (those that haven't left the game anyway) though some other pages lurking on the internets weren't as generous.
Am I peeing my pants excited? No. But as I've said, I do think little tidbits, even if they're contrived and only give the illusion of progress (which I don't think these will be) are an important part of keeping a feeling of aliveness in the community.
Friday, August 14, 2009
ArenaNet Fail
This is something that has been bugging me, and I'm sure several others over the past couple months. ArenaNet seems to be unable to meet deadlines or even keep up with routine maintenance.
The latest of ArenaNet's offenses has been the Test Krewe page. They enlist players to play around with updates on a test server before it was pushed out to the live one. Cool. The problem? Apparently they don't know how to write PHP! Basic form validation was completely absent, people who used hard returns, too many characters, or certain punctuation broke the page. Come on people, this is basic stuff. They took it down until it could be fixed the same day it was up (Aug 11) and its still down. Yet again, ANet kept the community in the dark. While there was a post by Regina Buenaobra buried in Guild Wars Guru, if you navigate to the page today, you will just get the message "We're sorry, the page you requested could not be found." How hard would it have been to put a message saying "We know this page is broke, we're fixing it". As usual, there is no time estimate whatsoever for when the page will be back up.
Another example of their apparent complete lack of even basic web dev skills was the whole Xunlai Tournament House fiasco. The page was taken down June 23 because of problems with the distribution of the points for May. It's now been 2 months and there is no word on its status. There are players who still haven't gotten their points. Another 'It'll be done when it's done' deals.
GW2 news, plz. I know, I know, everyone who plays Guild Wars would love to have some tasty morsel of information regarding Guild Wars 2 and ArenaNet doesn't want to jump the gun (though I think they already did by suggesting a beta in 2008 then reneging on it). I think especially in the light that there won't be a beta, players would much appreciate a blog or something where once or twice a month SOMETHING is posted about GW2. Maybe its an idea they have for a profession. Maybe its some kind of rough sense of progress (1/2, 2/3, etc). It doesn't have to be much. It doesn't have to be written in stone. Just something to let us know we aren't forgotten, and that GW2 is still making progress.
While this is a problem that is not unique to Guild Wars, I'd really like to see community involvement. Take a look at GuildWarsGuru, there are several threads full of ideas people have for making the sequel kickass. Why not find a way to incorporate these in some way? Maybe even respond to some of them?
It seems to me that ANet is short-staff and/or over-tasked and anachronistic in its communication. I know they're probably working on a tighter budget than some other game companies (though their quarterly report shows increased sales (up 51%), and growth in Guild Wars), but would it really be that expensive to be more open with your customers?
I'm kinda mad.
---Oh, and $20 is too much for character renames.
The latest of ArenaNet's offenses has been the Test Krewe page. They enlist players to play around with updates on a test server before it was pushed out to the live one. Cool. The problem? Apparently they don't know how to write PHP! Basic form validation was completely absent, people who used hard returns, too many characters, or certain punctuation broke the page. Come on people, this is basic stuff. They took it down until it could be fixed the same day it was up (Aug 11) and its still down. Yet again, ANet kept the community in the dark. While there was a post by Regina Buenaobra buried in Guild Wars Guru, if you navigate to the page today, you will just get the message "We're sorry, the page you requested could not be found." How hard would it have been to put a message saying "We know this page is broke, we're fixing it". As usual, there is no time estimate whatsoever for when the page will be back up.
Another example of their apparent complete lack of even basic web dev skills was the whole Xunlai Tournament House fiasco. The page was taken down June 23 because of problems with the distribution of the points for May. It's now been 2 months and there is no word on its status. There are players who still haven't gotten their points. Another 'It'll be done when it's done' deals.
GW2 news, plz. I know, I know, everyone who plays Guild Wars would love to have some tasty morsel of information regarding Guild Wars 2 and ArenaNet doesn't want to jump the gun (though I think they already did by suggesting a beta in 2008 then reneging on it). I think especially in the light that there won't be a beta, players would much appreciate a blog or something where once or twice a month SOMETHING is posted about GW2. Maybe its an idea they have for a profession. Maybe its some kind of rough sense of progress (1/2, 2/3, etc). It doesn't have to be much. It doesn't have to be written in stone. Just something to let us know we aren't forgotten, and that GW2 is still making progress.
While this is a problem that is not unique to Guild Wars, I'd really like to see community involvement. Take a look at GuildWarsGuru, there are several threads full of ideas people have for making the sequel kickass. Why not find a way to incorporate these in some way? Maybe even respond to some of them?
It seems to me that ANet is short-staff and/or over-tasked and anachronistic in its communication. I know they're probably working on a tighter budget than some other game companies (though their quarterly report shows increased sales (up 51%), and growth in Guild Wars), but would it really be that expensive to be more open with your customers?
I'm kinda mad.
---Oh, and $20 is too much for character renames.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)