2008-12-18 11:52 am (UTC)
Re: GameFAQs Saved My Gaming Life
Oh, I know about FAQs and on occasion, I've used them. It's just that there's so much stuff you have to do in GTA4 to get the achievements, so much tedious work, that I just can't even fathom going through it all. Heck, I can't even see myself going through what little work I have left in Halo 3 to unlock the Katana armor. I have paid for a few books, though, but those always made for decent shit reading material. There's a reason written word exists outside of the internet. Plus, my life lags pretty bad if I have my computer on while I play.
Ah, but I am the hyperactive child throwing a tantrum. Or I used to be at least. Maybe the fast paced gameplay somehow entices the hyperactive child deep down in me. Or maybe I just prefer fast paced gameplay, who knows. The sluggishness really isn't what turned me off GTA4, though. The gameplay is just... not as polished. It clearly wasn't a game created with multiplayer in mind. They simply added that aspect. Rockstar dudes have never really cared much for multiplayer and it shows in the little things. Headshots are very often not head shots. Bazookas are incredibly inconsistent on when they'll off you a kill.
I can still see the appeal. Cruising around in a fast car, mowing down people, doing drive bys. I just can't help but think that it was a great idea poorly executed. Bad mechanics are fine against AI, but in a player vs. player format, there's simply too much pride at stake usually to allow any strange fuck ups. Just look at your average halo match. People absolutely screaming over their mics at how they just got jobbed and should have gotten the kill. No imagine how bad it would be if the mechanics were as hit or miss as they are on GTA.
The driving, I can honestly say really upset me at first. I had been playing GTA for a long time and I thought I had a good handle on how things worked in that world. GTA4 was like an entirely different game. The driving was much more difficult, but once I adapted, I enjoyed the extra challenge it offered when trying to catch someone or speed away from a crime scene. It did ruin bikes for me, though. Which makes me laugh out loud at the idea that they expect me to pay for something that's going to want me to ride bikes a lot. Bikes don't forgive the occasional lapse into the old, peddle to the metal style of driving.
And yeah, going from one game to another is rather unnerving. Halo to GTA especially since I've always had both games up to date. They're the only franchises I'll go out and buy when they come out with a new release. Really though, the fact that GTA still forces inverted aiming on the players is pretty shitty. Up should never be down.
Actually, the worse case of this involves no game changing at all. I only have one controller, so when my cousin's over, we take turns on Halo. He's one of those inverted weirdos. A lot of times I forget to switch it before my game starts. There's nothing worse than being in a fast paced game in halo that relies on split second instincts than your instincts suddenly being the exact opposite of what they should be. I swear to God, I'm absolutely useless when I try to play inverted. I'll leave like that for an entire game and by the end I'm still flipping out and staring at the ceiling when I meant to jump over someone and look down so I could shoot them as I flew past.
2008-12-18 07:32 pm (UTC)
I'm also staring at the ceiling or floor during heated battles, lol.
Hahaha. Man, the switch in game controls gets to me ... glad to see I'm not the only one.
I haven't experienced the same difficulties you did in GTA 4's multiplayer. I think it's the lag that causes headshots not to be that ... I've run up to people and shot them several times while they just stood there, and I've also experienced where someone else was shooting me while my end lagged, so that might have something to do with the non-head headshots. Lag I'm used to ... that's been a fact of all internet gaming from day one.
One of the reasons I love GTA 4 ... it takes a lot to go up to a person and kill their character with a knife, fist, or bat. One swing Halo is completely eliminated, and I like that ... also, Halo 3 should drop melee entirely unless you have a sword. It doesn't help how they determine a melee 'winner' not by who struck first but by the relative health
both characters have.
I love the logical results from GTA 4's weaponry. A pop-gun is still effective if you have good aim. The AK vibrates more than the M rifle, causing for short bursts as a rule. In fact, with any weapon, if you hold down the trigger, you will get a spray pattern that is way less effective, just like in reality. I can also see tracers in GTA, which is something I hate about the Spartan weaponry ... I can't see where my shots are flying from a distance. I also really really dislike most of the Covenant weaponry because it seems like it's less effective in general, even though plasma or laser technology should be far more effective than ballistics.
Call of Duty and GOW may be the popular new realms, but I have a feeling that if either is going to overtake Halo, it's going to have to amp up the story or the gameplay. I read about the massive glitching in GOW and the sequel, and I want no part of that. Call of Duty might have promise, since it's based on reality, but I doubt it'll take over Halo's legacy. The only thing that will kill Halo universe's king status ... Bungie. If they make a lousy sequel, or if they charge too much for too little gameplay, those are surefire ways to lose the crown.
Meh, I guess it could be slight lag, but it sure doesn't feel laggy when it happens. Maybe I'm just used to Halo and that's why I don't see the immense value of meleeing as a downside. It's been like that from the very beginning. Someone gets to close, they get smacked. That's just the consequences of halo. And really, I think I prefer it that way. There's nothing more satisfying than getting in someone's face and beating them down.
As far as the relative health business goes, I don't know... I honestly can't remember much of a difference between Halo 2 and 3 when I went in to melee. I've still come out winning most battles. Looking at the video, it shows that one person is clearly winning the AR battle from the very beginning. It's not like they lose that extra health when they stop shooting and melee. They're just a crappier shot or not as quick with the shooting. To me, it would be pretty shitty to win the AR battle outright and see no type of affect in the melee battle. What it basically comes down to is the people who are good at Halo come out winning whether it's 2 or 3. As long as the clearly inferior players don't start dominating, I don't see a problem with it.
As far as realism in shooting games go, I've never been in big favor of it. Fuck being shot in the leg and having to limp around for a century. Fuck hiding for half a game and popping your head out only to be one hit killed. I need my games to be forgiving of small things. Hell, in most battles on Halo, I'm not even the person who initiates. I'm usually getting shot and have to scramble to find where it's coming from before I can jump into the fray. If whoever one each battle was based simply on who saw who first, it'd be absolutely no fun for me.
The spread, meh, I could deal with. It would just require you to adapt. When halo 2 came out and everyone was complete shit because of the buck on the SMG, I was a God. I was able to compensate for it from the very beginning and won most battles without ever having to pick up another weapon. Really, this only applies to a few guns anyway since the majority of them require you to shoot in bursts.
As far as the difference in weaponry, as a general rule, Covenant guns take down the shields, ballistics mow through the weak. That's why a plasma rifle coupled with a SMG in Halo 2 was golden. In Halo 3, there's really not much of a need to dual wield anymore not that the assault rifle has returned. In fact, I very seldom see anyone even bother with it and when they do, they're very often not very good. For this reason, I honestly think Halo 2 is the better game. But still, I find myself using plasma weaponry when I see it. Usually, I use it when in closed quarters and expect a melee battle. Plasma rifle + Melee beast Assault Rifle + Melee every time. They burn your shields hella fast, but they take forever to finish the job.
Fantasy beats reality every time for me. I go to video games to escape reality, not be reminded of it.
Actually, on second though, that shit is pretty broken. But whatever.
Which shit, GTA, Halo? I'm lost, haha.
These are great games, we're splitting hairs. I'm just lookin' for more peeps to have fun doing the Deal Breaker multiplayer in GTA, in terms of that game and my desire. There's more stuff coming out for it in Feb, so that's gonna rule.
The melee in Halo 3.
I'm not even sure what the Deal Breaker is... I can go pop in GTA and play some with you right now. I'm not against playing GTA. I just prefer Halo.
Yeah, I prefer Halo because of the massive population of players, although, some might be surprised to know that GTA 4 has turned massive profits of their own. There's got to be a huge base of people playing GTA multiplayer, as a result.
Right now I'm about to do some other stuff, but if you're up later, I'm guessing I'll have some time for the Deal Breaker.
It's a match where you and up to 3 other people work together to complete a GTA-like mission.
You play one of the old world mobsters working for Petrovic, going to a drug deal they caught wind of ... their Italian rivals and a biker gang. Only, you bite off more than you can chew. It's a whole army of bikers, in the industrial complex at the bottom of Alderney. The goal is to kill 'em all, take their drugs, and make it back to the start point.
It's one of the most profitable missions in multiplayer in terms of raising the GTA rank, which adds to its popularity. On Hard difficulty level, mission completes get $4500 plus $100 per every CPU bad guy killed.