Gaming GoldenEye: Rogue Agent

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']In Goldeneye there wasn't too much stealth, yes. In Perfect Dark there was, as long as you set up the scenario to where it allowed for it (Ravine, no radar, etc.) But "using the surroundings..." was me telling you Goldeneye was not "all about knowing where the weapons are." Because it's not. James and everyone else here is absolutely right when he says that it was critical to know where things were in Goldeneye. BUT, it took no time at all to learn just where everything was. Everyone knew where to go for body armor, rockets, etc. Playing with anyone except complete newbies, Goldeneye multiplayer was not at all about knowing where everything was. Yes it was critical, but it was also a given.[/quote]
Question for you. What do you think "using the surroundings" includes? Weapon location. Knowing which weapon to use at a particular point in the level, and, if lacking the required (most useful) weapon, knowing where to get it. I mean, you can't expect to survive an encounter with an RCP90 when all you hold is a simple Dostoveii pistol (that encounter is possible, too. Power Weapons). Do you agree? Knowledge of weapon location is a much larger part of the game than you are giving it credit for.

Do you play with Infinite Ammo, by any chance? If you do, then I see why you aren't as inclined to stress the importance of weapon location. If you don't, however, then something isn't right here. It's quite bad to exhaust your ZMG when you've got an assault rifle bearing down on you. Agreed?

The Ravine level with No Radar, huh? I trust you were playing with experienced players? If you were, Ravine with No Radar is not Stealthy at all, because experienced players do not lose track of a target that easily. Ravine may be more complicated, yes, but it's still rather easy to track a player in there, by knowing the level layout. Do you agree?

For example, Players 3 and 4 can dart into a lower passageway to try to get the drop on Players 1 and 2, but is it really Stealth (read: skill on the part of P3 and 4) or is it just poor battle strategy on the part of P1 and 2?

That needs to be your first criterion for assessing the scenario. Is the success of Red Team dependent on Red Team's skill level, or is that success a result of Blue Team's lack of skill and/or planning?

[QUOTE]If you [i]balance[/i] the weapons (i.e. not RANDOM, as you for some reason assumed), then it won't matter which one you pick up! There isn't a "most useful weapon" in that case. There wasn't just a "random" set-up in PD for weapons; there was also a "custom," in case you don't remember.[/QUOTE]
Look at the last sentence in that point.

[QUOTE]Customization means nothing, because the player will still go right for the heavy-hitting weapons or the most useful weapon.[/QUOTE]
What do you think CUSTOMIZATION is? What do you think I was referring to when I said CUSTOMIZATION? I'll give you a hint. Random wasn't it.

So, your idea of balancing is putting five of the same weapon? Five Falcons and nothing else? It may look balanced in that weapon screen, but that's not balanced at all in terms of human players.

[QUOTE]Well, first of all dual-wielding and grenade throwing doesn't add anything to make sure players don't experience the same game twice. Those mechanics are cool and fun, and do add to battle strategy, but it's not as if the game would get old without them. Also, I'm not sure what game I've played where I actually cared if I experienced it the same way twice, as long as the game was decent.[/QUOTE]
What makes you so sure of it not being beneficial to the game? I'm not here praising everything to no end, but I'm not writing things off. I'm getting more and more interested in what EA is looking to do with this game, and the dual-wielding and grenades are steps in the right direction, considering what Nightfire turned out to be (read: bleh). Surely, you're not hoping for the limitations of Nightfire?

[QUOTE]But anyway I'm still looking forward to trying the game out. EA has been steadily improving with their Bond games, and hopefully this one will continue in that trend (as it does seem to be doing). But EA has not only Goldeneye to live up to, it has Halo 2, Timesplitters 3, and a bunch of other competitors to worry about.[/QUOTE]
Exactly why we're all interested and impressed by what we've seen so far, because EA seems to be doing the FPS correctly with Rogue Agent.

[quote][b]Still, in the end, it's not [i]what's[/i] there that's important; it's how it's done.[/b] The original Halo showed us that. It had 100 times less weapons than Goldeneye and PD, less freedom in multiplayer modes (no kill/time limit options), and zero customizeability with characters (colors, woohoo). But it still pulled off a great game. EA seems to be throwing in a lot of different stuff here, and that's why I'm concerned about how polished all of the gameplay elements will be in the end. After all, there's not THAT much production time going into this game compared to others.[/QUOTE]
And EA looks to be getting it done right. The previews and hands-on have been pretty positive, you have to admit, and for IGN to praise something with "chunky [font=Arial]graphics and rough control," that should say something, true?[/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Anime_fangurl*247'] Knowledge of weapon location is a much larger part of the game than you are giving it credit for.[/quote]
My point is that it's a given. Everyone knows where all the weapons and ammo are. It doesn't set you apart from anyone, which is why Goldeneye isn't about it.

[QUOTE]Do you play with Infinite Ammo, by any chance? If you do, then I see why you aren't as inclined to stress the importance of weapon location. If you don't, however, then something isn't right here. It's quite bad to exhaust your ZMG when you've got an assault rifle bearing down on you. Agreed?[/QUOTE]
Ummm, ammo and the gun it's for are usually in the same spot. I don't see how this has anything to do with knowing or not knowing the location of either.

[QUOTE]The Ravine level with No Radar, huh? I trust you were playing with experienced players? If you were, Ravine with No Radar is not Stealthy at all, because experienced players do not lose track of a target that easily. Ravine may be more complicated, yes, but it's still rather easy to track a player in there, by knowing the level layout. Do you agree?[/QUOTE]
It's pretty easy to track a player, unless that player is a total bastard and hugs dark walls so you don't know where he is. Trust me, it's possible to incorporate stealth into Perfect Dark. Even with players being of equal skill levels.

[QUOTE]That needs to be your first criterion for assessing the scenario. Is the success of Red Team dependent on Red Team's skill level, or is that success a result of Blue Team's lack of skill and/or planning?[/QUOTE]
Success in a good game should always depend on relative skill. But skill includes many things, one of which may be being able to know where your opponent is while he doesn't know where you are.

[QUOTE]What do you think CUSTOMIZATION is? What do you think I was referring to when I said CUSTOMIZATION? I'll give you a hint. Random wasn't it.[/QUOTE]
Well you mentioned random setup for some reason, trying to make some sort of point, so I figured I'd address it. And it's clear that you don't know how to properly utilize the custom weapons option, seeing as your idea (for some reason interpreted by you as [i]my[/i] idea) of balanced weapons is the following:
[QUOTE]So, your idea of balancing is putting five of the same weapon? Five Falcons and nothing else? It may look balanced in that weapon screen, but that's not balanced at all in terms of human players.[/QUOTE]
First of all, balanced weapons doesn't mean they're all the same. It means each weapon can be just as powerful as the others if used well. In PD, in the yellow building with blue walkways and a bottomless pit, one-hit-kills with XR-20, remote mines, rocket lauchers, the triple-shot pistols (I forget the name), and phoenix--that's quite balanced. And the weapons all play differently. Which one would you think is so powerful that everyone is going to go for it?
Secondly, five falcons IS balanced in terms of human players. If it is not, then who would you say has an advantage?

[QUOTE]And EA looks to be getting it done right. The previews and hands-on have been pretty positive, you have to admit, and for IGN to praise something with "chunky graphics and rough control," that should say something, true?[/QUOTE]
Well, IGN is sometimes good and sometimes not that good when it comes to being reliable as far as their impressions of a game go. At least for me personally. I will sometimes disagree with their overall reviews and certainly with what they see as a game's strengths/weaknesses.

But still, it is a good sign that despite the game's graphical problems IGN still likes it. But all that means for me is that I'm not going to ignore the game. If IGN said the visuals made them dislike the game, I'd be much more likely to stay away from it altogether.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']My point is that it's a given. Everyone knows where all the weapons and ammo are. It doesn't set you apart from anyone, which is why Goldeneye isn't about it.[/quote]But we've all agreed that GoldenEye [i]is[/i] about knowing where weapons are. We've all agreed that it's a very important point of the game. In the middle of a fire-fight, when your opponent has run out of Shotgun shells, and you're closer to the Ammo Dump than he is, are you going to let him refill? No. Through that fire-fight, if you see his Ammo Count dropping into the single digits, and you know precisely where that Ammo Dump is, you are going to force him away from it. You see, out of knowledge, comes effectiveness.

[QUOTE]Ummm, ammo and the gun it's for are usually in the same spot. I don't see how this has anything to do with knowing or not knowing the location of either.[/QUOTE]When you have Infinite Ammo, you don't need to get ammunition, right? And thus just picking up the gun is enough. Without the cheat, however, you need to know where the gun is so you can get the necessary ammo. Picking up AR33 rounds when your ZMG is empty will do you no good, meaning in order to survive, you need to know where the ZMG is. And, you may ask why not just use the AR33 when you pick-up the ammo for it. What if someone else has anticipated that and the AR33 has already been picked-up? Again, this is "out of knowledge, comes effectiveness."

I can't tell you how many times I've cheated my friends out of ammunition, weapons, body armor, just from anticipating their needs in the game. Sometimes, you don't even need to kill to win the match. You can very effectively shut-down their game by simply preventing them from picking up weapons, because you know where they are, and know the fastest and most effective way to get to them. It is very delicious when they run to pick-up an RCP90 and find you standing over the spot where it once was, your brand-new RCP90 pointed right at their head.

[QUOTE]It's pretty easy to track a player, unless that player is a total bastard and hugs dark walls so you don't know where he is. Trust me, it's possible to incorporate stealth into Perfect Dark. Even with players being of equal skill levels.[/QUOTE]If you know of the danger of dark walls, then simply find a different path to your destination. Simple as that. And do correct me if I'm wrong, but hiding in a dark corner/area in order to pick-off passersby is considered camping, correct?

[QUOTE]Success in a good game should always depend on relative skill. But skill includes many things, one of which may be being able to know where your opponent is while he doesn't know where you are.[/QUOTE]This is a rather vague statement. What do you mean by "knowing where your opponent is while he doesn't know where you are"?

That can be applied to just about every playstyle in FPS. Sniping certainly incorporates that. Camping uses it. Stealth uses it.

Also, if we're still talking about GE/PD here, a simple glance to the other players' screens will accomplish that.

[QUOTE]Well you mentioned random setup for some reason, trying to make some sort of point, so I figured I'd address it. And it's clear that you don't know how to properly utilize the custom weapons option, seeing as your idea (for some reason interpreted by you as [i]my[/i] idea) of balanced weapons is the following:[/QUOTE]Did I ever imply it was my idea? I merely was wondering what you were trying to say, Sciros. And I'm sure I don't know how to properly utilize the custom weapons option. Futuristic weaponry will only get you so far in PD. Conventional weaponry (non-alien) is much more effective when creating a balanced weaponsheet. My custom set-ups were simply the Falcon, Shotgun, perhaps CMP150, maybe a Proxie or Remote Mines, and a Grenade Launcher. That was it. All conventional weaponry. Is that the set-up of one who doesn't understand the customization?

[QUOTE]First of all, balanced weapons doesn't mean they're all the same. It means each weapon can be just as powerful as the others if used well. In PD, in the yellow building with blue walkways and a bottomless pit, one-hit-kills with XR-20, remote mines, rocket lauchers, the triple-shot pistols (I forget the name), and phoenix--that's quite balanced. And the weapons all play differently. Which one would you think is so powerful that everyone is going to go for it?[/QUOTE]G5 Building, I believe.

Now, you have at least two explosives out of five. Three, if you count the Phoenix's Secondary Function. When we consider what G5 is, essentially drop death, everyone is clearly going to go for the explosive weaponry. The walkways are quite narrow, and due to splash damage, explosives will prove most effective.

The Farsight is useless in this level, due to the intertwining walkways and the slow reaction speed of the weapon. The MagSec 4 is a rapid-fire pistol, but due to its limited clip and skewed rate of fire, not to mention the danger of limiting one's movement while zooming in in an effort to increase accuracy, it proves to be quite inferior to the Phoenix.

Thus, the Phoenix is the best weapon for your set-up. It has a nearly identical clip to the MagSec 4, is much faster than the rocket launcher, is much safer for the user than the remote mines, and in terms of alien weapons, is much more effective in the type of combat most closely associated with G5, that being mid-range combat. Also, the Phoenix is a dual-purpose weapon, as it features conventional-type rounds as the Primary Function, and explosive rounds as Secondary.

[QUOTE]Secondly, five falcons IS balanced in terms of human players. If it is not, then who would you say has an advantage?[/QUOTE]Five Falcons are balanced in the game itself. Human players introduce the [i]human element[/i], which is a major factor/variable in the gameplay.

[QUOTE]Well, IGN is sometimes good and sometimes not that good when it comes to being reliable as far as their impressions of a game go. At least for me personally. I will sometimes disagree with their overall reviews and certainly with what they see as a game's strengths/weaknesses.[/QUOTE]Generally, IGN is overly critical of games. Very rarely will they give an objective review of a Nintendo title, and I've often detected a hint of "true gamer" in their reviews, which does not bode well when we're trying to get a level-headed assessment of a game's qualities. I have found that the majority of the time, an IGN review must be taken with a grain of salt, and also compared with other reviewers on other sites. IGN is pretty slanted.

[quote]But still, it is a good sign that despite the game's graphical problems IGN still likes it. But all that means for me is that I'm not going to ignore the game. If IGN said the visuals made them dislike the game, I'd be much more likely to stay away from it altogether.[/QUOTE]Precisely. It's interesting. Because IGN is so hypercritical, we can often be more optimistic about a game when IGN is able to look past the superficial and examine the fundamentals of a game, even while the game is still in development. However, this is also a double-edged sword: because IGN is so hypercritical, when they dislike a game, we have to closely examine why, because IGN is so slanted sometimes.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Anime_fangurl*247]But we've all agreed that GoldenEye [i]is[/i'] about knowing where weapons are.[/quote]
I haven't agreed and I won't agree. It's essential to know where the weapons/ammo are, but everyone does! That's why it's not [i]about[/i] it! Just like it's not about knowing what buttons do what. Goldeneye might be about effectively utilizing the knowledge of where the weapons and pickups are, but it's not about the knowledge itself.

[QUOTE]If you know of the danger of dark walls, then simply find a different path to your destination. Simple as that. And do correct me if I'm wrong, but hiding in a dark corner/area in order to pick-off passersby is considered camping, correct?[/QUOTE]
Not hiding, but moving along dark areas. Without radar, someone glancing quickly at your screen won't know where you are if you do that. Yes, it [i]is[/i] a stealth tactic. But also, "camping" in PD can be overcome with strategy anyway, so it's not really a cheap tactic.

[QUOTE]And I'm sure I don't know how to properly utilize the custom weapons option. Futuristic weaponry will only get you so far in PD. Conventional weaponry (non-alien) is much more effective when creating a balanced weaponsheet. My custom set-ups were simply the Falcon, Shotgun, perhaps CMP150, maybe a Proxie or Remote Mines, and a Grenade Launcher. That was it. All conventional weaponry. Is that the set-up of one who doesn't understand the customization?[/QUOTE]
Well, the setup you described is far from balanced, so really all it tells me is you dislike alien weaponry.

[QUOTE]The walkways are quite narrow, and due to splash damage, explosives will prove most effective...The Farsight is useless in this level, due to the intertwining walkways and the slow reaction speed of the weapon. The MagSec 4 ... proves to be quite inferior to the Phoenix.
Thus, the Phoenix is the best weapon for your set-up. It has a nearly identical clip to the MagSec 4, is much faster than the rocket launcher, is much safer for the user than the remote mines, and in terms of alien weapons, is much more effective in the type of combat most closely associated with G5, that being mid-range combat.[/QUOTE]
Very good analysis. But it's not complete. Explosives are indeed often effective at killing people on the level (besides the Farsight, which we placed on the balcony, making it actually useful), but G5 is not just mid-range combat. It's often extremely close-range combat. There are small rooms full of pillars all over the place. Wielding an explosive weapon and trying to take out a very mobile player is extremely risky. Even with the Phoenix's secondary. Often, in such situations, the MagSec or the Phoenix's primary is your best bet if you don't want a suicide or a kill/suicide.
Also, if someone is a beast with the XR-20, he can keep up with you running all over the level simply by not holding down "aim" all the time, but rather letting it go to manually aim the gun and have it catch up to you. Additionally, the XR-20 makes people frantic, and considering they can only get you if they go up to the corridor that leads to the balcony, you have plenty of time to prepare a remote mine. So you see, in my setup, each weapon has a purpose. And each can be deadly if used right. So there's balance.

[QUOTE]Five Falcons are balanced in the game itself. Human players introduce the [i]human element[/i], which is a major factor/variable in the gameplay.[/QUOTE]
If everyone has the same gun, then no-one has an advantage. The "human element" has barely any place in this discussion, because it always exists. Are you trying to say that there's no such thing as a balanced weapon setup in practicality?

Concerning IGN, I still have found them to be the most reliable of any reviewing site out there. True, like all reviewers they can really mess up (Mario Kart 64..., then there's giving Prince of Persia 9.6 and Ninja Gaiden a 9.4.. don't know what they were smoking), but usually they're more right than wrong.

But I'm probably more critical of games than IGN is, really. There aren't that many games out there that I really, truly like. It's gonna take a lot for any game, whether its Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 or G:RA, to really impress me.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I haven't agreed and I won't agree. It's essential to know where the weapons/ammo are, but everyone does! That's why it's not [i]about[/i'] it! Just like it's not about knowing what buttons do what. Goldeneye might be about effectively utilizing the knowledge of where the weapons and pickups are, but it's not about the knowledge itself.[/quote]
Sciros, forgive me if I sound insulting, but you are operating with absolutely no logic whatsoever with the above phrase, lol. If a game requires the player to have extensive knowledge of a level, weapon locations, etc, so that the player may do well, then the game certainly places an emphasis on knowing where things are, right? You should agree with that. It's common sense. And since said game strongly emphasizes this understanding of the level/weaponry, the game is certainly "about" that.

Now, let's examine your "button" statement. You're saying that a game does not base itself at all on the player's understanding of the A Button being used for a normal, physical attack, and the B Button being used for special moves? Are we to then say that...an FPS like GoldenEye does not base its gameplay on the gamer knowing that B reloads?

What are you trying to say here? What point are you trying to make?

[QUOTE]Not hiding, but moving along dark areas. Without radar, someone glancing quickly at your screen won't know where you are if you do that. Yes, it [i]is[/i] a stealth tactic. But also, "camping" in PD can be overcome with strategy anyway, so it's not really a cheap tactic.[/QUOTE]
You're arguing semantics. "Hiding" and "moving along dark areas" are the same thing, only with different phrasings.

Okay, now if Camping can be overcome with strategy, and thus is not a cheap tactic, why do you have beef with the "sneaky bastards" who hide in the shadows? Surely, there are ways to overcome that, strategies one can develop?

[QUOTE]Well, the setup you described is far from balanced, so really all it tells me is you dislike alien weaponry.[/QUOTE]
"Far from balanced"? Not at all. When you play without the One-Hit-Kill and Instant Kill Alien Weaponry, you will find this selection of Conventional weaponry is very balanced. You see, you play with a very Extreme set-up, which doesn't allow for proper balance at all, because with One Hit Kill, a simple chop will kill you. Without One Hit Kill, one headshot from the Farsight will do you in. I'm going to go into that balance issue in more detail later in this reply. But I'm going to explain right now how my Custom Set-up is balanced.

With the weapons I have selected (Falcon, Shotgun, CMP150, maybe a Proxie or Remote Mines, and a Grenade Launcher), I place much more emphasis on the player's talents. You see, the guns in my set-up are relatively simple, but in the hands of an expert, the Falcon can overcome the Shotgun. I've done it. It comes down to knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the weapons themselves.

The Falcon is a rapid-fire and very accurate weapon, with a very quick reload time. The Shotgun is the opposite: slow to fire, slow to reload, but very powerful when its blast connects. The key to victory in a Falcon vs Shotgun firefight is a matter of getting the correct distance. The Pistoleer is better in long-range and mid-range, while the Shotgunner needs to get in close.

But there is another balance that needs to be considered here. The Falcon sits much higher up than the Shotgun, and moving into close range means that a headshot is much more likely. But this increased headshot probability comes with a price to the Pistoleer, as the Shotgunner can decimate in close-range.

Many view it as suicide to go up against a Grenade Launcher with nothing but Remote Mines. This is not a problem when those Mines are handled by an experienced player who knows the button combination for Quick Detonation. But, if that Grenade Launcher is in the hands of someone who is also very skilled, the match becomes a very taut and exciting one.

While the Grenadeer may have the advantage of a high-powered projectile, the Miner (lol) can toss those Mines anywhere, stick them to ceilings, and even have a much greater level of control of his explosions than the Grenadeer.

The CMP150 is there simply if they want to try something different. It's a neat little machine pistol that's oh-so-cute and I find its inclusion gives some help to a Newbie. The Lock-On Secondary Function will at least give them a taste of how the aiming will work.

See? Just conventional weapons and player skill.

[QUOTE] Very good analysis. But it's not complete. Explosives are indeed often effective at killing people on the level (besides the Farsight, which we placed on the balcony, making it actually useful), but G5 is not just mid-range combat. It's often extremely close-range combat. There are small rooms full of pillars all over the place. Wielding an explosive weapon and trying to take out a very mobile player is extremely risky. Even with the Phoenix's secondary. Often, in such situations, the MagSec or the Phoenix's primary is your best bet if you don't want a suicide or a kill/suicide.[/quote]
You'll notice that I do make mention of the Phoenix's Dual Function:

[quote name='Anime_fangurl*247]Thus, the Phoenix is the best weapon for your set-up. It has a nearly identical clip to the MagSec 4, is much faster than the rocket launcher, is much safer for the user than the remote mines, and in terms of alien weapons, is much more effective in the type of combat most closely associated with G5, that being mid-range combat. [b]Also, the Phoenix is a dual-purpose weapon, as it features conventional-type rounds as the Primary Function, and explosive rounds as Secondary[/b'].[/quote]
I am fully aware of the dangers of close-quarters explosives, and you will see that "conventional-type rounds as the Primary Function" illustrates that awareness.

[quote]Also, if someone is a beast with the XR-20, he can keep up with you running all over the level simply by not holding down "aim" all the time, but rather letting it go to manually aim the gun and have it catch up to you. Additionally, the XR-20 makes people frantic, and considering they can only get you if they go up to the corridor that leads to the balcony, you have plenty of time to prepare a remote mine. So you see, in my setup, each weapon has a purpose. And each can be deadly if used right. So there's balance.[/QUOTE]
Sciros, nope. I went through Perfect Dark earlier today and did an extensive field test. The angles are all wrong for the Balcony Farsight. I'll explain it to you.

Keep these points in mind.

1) You're playing with One Hit Kill, and featuring Explosive Weaponry.

2) We're all very much aware of the GE Engine in place.

3) Because of this Engine, we know that explosions go through walls.

4) Because of this explosion-wall dynamic, your weapon placement does not benefit the Farsighter in the Balcony.

5) You have placed a Rocket Launcher on the walkway directly in front of the Balcony.

6) While this placment does make it difficult for a player to pick-up the Rocket Launcher when the Balcony Farsighter is active, it is not a sure kill, regardless of the skill level.

7) This is because the opposing player can easily go to the other side of the stage, where you have placed Remote Mines.

8) Upon picking-up the Remote Mines, the opposing player can then run through the Balcony Farsighter's half of the stage.

9) But the opposing player does not have to confront the Farsighter in the small corridors before the Balcony.

10) This is because of the GE Engine and the explosion-wall dynamic.

11) With this understanding of the explosion-wall dynamic, the opposing player simply has to set a Remote Mine on the wall, on the opposite side of the Balcony Farsighter, and detonate.

12) The resulting explosion with kill the Balcony Farsighter, because of the explosion-wall dynamic.

This is only one of a variety of battle responses.

Addendum: If the opposing player is not confident in their abilities to execute this maneuver, then there is a second Farsight rifle in the stage.

Conclusion: The Balcony is not a strategically sound location. It is a bottleneck, and the player utilizing it for cover is putting themselves more at risk because of the increasingly confined space.

Advantage: Opposing Player.

[QUOTE]If everyone has the same gun, then no-one has an advantage. The "human element" has barely any place in this discussion, because it always exists. Are you trying to say that there's no such thing as a balanced weapon setup in practicality?[/QUOTE]
The human elemnt has a significant place in this discussion, because the human element is skill, and the varying levels of it. The game is just a game. When human players begin, however, then it gets interesting. Very rarely is there a balanced weapon set-up, Sciros. Your Custom Set-Up is not balanced because it does factor in the need for a controlled environment.

You cannot expect to have a balanced fight with Explosives and One Hit Kills, and the Farsight. It doesn't work that way. By adding all of these extra conditions, you are not leveling the playing field. You are not simplifying the playing field. In fact, you are only further complicating it and further diluting what you are striving to achieve: balance of gameplay. You are concentrating on the game itself. Don't do that. Concentrate on the human element. Concentrate on the gamer[b]s[/b]. Simplify. Use conventional weaponry with -2 Health, and no extra features. That's a balanced game.

If you disagree with that, think about why the Alien Weapons are in the game. To provide high-powered killing instruments. To give the gamers an edge over every other weapon in the game. The Alien Weapons' sole purpose of the game is to [i]unbalance[/i] the game.

[quote]Concerning IGN, I still have found them to be the most reliable of any reviewing site out there. True, like all reviewers they can really mess up (Mario Kart 64..., then there's giving Prince of Persia 9.6 and Ninja Gaiden a 9.4.. don't know what they were smoking), but usually they're more right than wrong.[/quote]
A 9.6 and 9.4 are bad scores?

[quote]But I'm probably more critical of games than IGN is, really. There aren't that many games out there that I really, truly like. It's gonna take a lot for any game, whether its Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 or G:RA, to really impress me.[/QUOTE]
Then how can you enjoy anything? I'm serious when I ask that, too. How can you expect to enjoy any game at all?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Anime_fangurl*247]Sciros, forgive me if I sound insulting, but you are operating with absolutely no logic whatsoever with the above phrase, lol. If a game requires the player to have extensive knowledge of a level, weapon locations, etc, so that the player may do well, then the game certainly places an emphasis on knowing where things are, right? You should agree with that. It's common sense. And since said game strongly emphasizes this understanding of the level/weaponry, the game is certainly "about" that.

Now, let's examine your "button" statement. You're saying that a game does not base itself at all on the player's understanding of the A Button being used for a normal, physical attack, and the B Button being used for special moves? Are we to then say that...an FPS like GoldenEye does not base its gameplay on the gamer knowing that B reloads?

What are you trying to say here? What point are you trying to make?[/QUOTE]
Uh, you poor guy. When something is absolutely required of a player in order to play the game, the game isn't "about it." Magic the Gathering isn't "about" knowing that a tournament deck has a minimum of 60 cards. Goldeneye is about UTILIZING well the knowledge of where weapons in a level are; it's not about the knowledge itself, because everyone posesses it. How can you not follow that?

And yeah, you should understand that Goldeneye does not base its gameplay on the gamer knowing that B reloads. Again, it's a given that the player knows what button does what. (The controls can be customized anyway, can't they?) Is Goldeneye really "all about knowing what buttons do what"? That would be a funny way of looking at it, seeing as every game ever made has that mindset.

[QUOTE]You're arguing semantics. "Hiding" and "moving along dark areas" are the same thing, only with different phrasings.[/QUOTE]
As long as you acknowledge that moving along dark areas is stealth, you can call it whatever you want.

[QUOTE]Okay, now if Camping can be overcome with strategy, and thus is not a cheap tactic, why do you have beef with the "sneaky bastards" who hide in the shadows? Surely, there are ways to overcome that, strategies one can develop?[/QUOTE]
I don't have beef with any "sneaky bastards." In fact, if we're playing Ravine and no radar, it's possible that I'll be that bastard. If I call someone a "total bastard" in a video game, that doesn't mean I dont like the way he plays. It means he's a mean mofo.

As for your custom setup, I still don't think it's balanced. It's not as if I've never played normal, conventional weapon setups before. I've played them more than anything else. You talk about what it takes for a Falcon-wielder to ovecome a shotgun-wielder. Well, let's turn the tables. All the shotgun guy has to do is close the gap between his opponent and aim just a tad higher than default. Much simpler than maintaining a medium range and hoping the shotgun guy sucks too much to aim at your face.

As for grenade launcher vs. Falcon, that's really hard to sell as a balanced matchup. (Mind you balanced implies the players are of equal skill levels.) Same goes for remote mines and Falcon. I don't know, man, I think there's a definite weapon of choice in that setup--the grenade launcher.

[QUOTE]
1) You're playing with One Hit Kill, and featuring Explosive Weaponry.
2) We're all very much aware of the GE Engine in place.
3) Because of this Engine, we know that explosions go through walls.
4) Because of this explosion-wall dynamic, your weapon placement does not benefit the Farsighter in the Balcony.
5) You have placed a Rocket Launcher on the walkway directly in front of the Balcony.
6) While this placment does make it difficult for a player to pick-up the Rocket Launcher when the Balcony Farsighter is active, it is not a sure kill, regardless of the skill level.[/QUOTE]
There should never be such a thing as a sure kill. And you'd be very bold to engage a Farsighter at that range, because he might pull out a different weapon and kill you right there.

[QUOTE]7) This is because the opposing player can easily go to the other side of the stage, where you have placed Remote Mines.

8) Upon picking-up the Remote Mines, the opposing player can then run through the Balcony Farsighter's half of the stage.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh, yeah, let's give the guy with the Farsight the biggest window possible for a x-ray kill. Genius strategy.

[QUOTE]9) But the opposing player does not have to confront the Farsighter in the small corridors before the Balcony.

10) This is because of the GE Engine and the explosion-wall dynamic.

11) With this understanding of the explosion-wall dynamic, the opposing player simply has to set a Remote Mine on the wall, on the opposite side of the Balcony Farsighter, and detonate.

12) The resulting explosion with kill the Balcony Farsighter, because of the explosion-wall dynamic.
[/QUOTE]
And because the Farsighter has apparently fallen asleep, and so couldn't move his *** away from the balcony. Really, your strategy is completely flawless.

Really, PT, looking at your step-by-step breakdown of why my setup isn't balanced, all you did was come up with a way to take out a Farsight-wielder who has to be so clueless as to what's going on he might as well pull out a phoenix, hug the wall, and blow his own face off.

Also, nobody says the Farsighter can't pull out a rocket launcher or remote mine himself if he has to. Use the right weapons at the right time. That's how that setup works.

Your decision that the defending player has the advantage is very flawed, because it took your defending player a relatively long time to kill the Farsight-shooter. By then that Farsight shooter, looking at the other guy's screen and seeing the obvious strategy, might have turned into a crazy close-up remote mine chucker.

BUT, we can play "what-if"s about these scenarios all day and all night for a month. Play that scenario against really good players, and you'll see that for every strategy you can come up with they'll come up with a counter-strategy. The only way to know if a scenario is truly balanced is to play it A LOT. Once you do that, come back and tell me what you really think.

[QUOTE]You cannot expect to have a balanced fight with Explosives and One Hit Kills, and the Farsight. It doesn't work that way. By adding all of these extra conditions, you are not leveling the playing field. You are not simplifying the playing field. In fact, you are only further complicating it and further diluting what you are striving to achieve: balance of gameplay. You are concentrating on the game itself. Don't do that. Concentrate on the human element. Concentrate on the gamer[b]s[/b]. Simplify. Use conventional weaponry with -2 Health, and no extra features. That's a balanced game.[/QUOTE]
Simple doesn't mean balanced. It only means simple. And if you try to account for the human element (differing skill levels, which are then only legitimate element to at all consider) in creating a scenario, then it will work well in a lot fewer situations than if you design it for players of equal skill. That's how I make my scenarios. I assume every player is equal in ability.

[QUOTE]If you disagree with that, think about why the Alien Weapons are in the game. To provide high-powered killing instruments. To give the gamers an edge over every other weapon in the game. The Alien Weapons' sole purpose of the game is to [i]unbalance[/i] the game.[/QUOTE]
That's BS through and through. Alien weapons are more powerful only if you forget that more powerful conventional weapons exist (superdragon, RCP120, etc.). Also, with one-hit-kills, the Callisto is virtually worthless compared the human weapons that have either faster firing rates or larger magazines. And the Phoenix is crap against rapid-fire in one-hit-kills in most levels.

[QUOTE]A 9.6 and 9.4 are bad scores?[/QUOTE]
No; But a 9.6 is a better score and for everything PoP did better than NG it did 100 things worse. But let's not talk about that.

[QUOTE]Then how can you enjoy anything? I'm serious when I ask that, too. How can you expect to enjoy any game at all?[/QUOTE]
So you assume I don't enjoy any games at all? Hmmm...

[BlueYoshi]

[COLOR=Teal]The official site opened two days ago, you can find it[/COLOR] [url=http://www.eagames.com/official/goldeneye/rogueagent/us/][u]here[/u][/url].

[COLOR=Teal]Nothing interesting really, the official announcement is on there which tells us more about online play with Xbox live along with some other EA titles. Besides that you won't find anything you wouldn't see on your usual games website.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Uh, you poor guy. When something is absolutely required of a player in order to play the game, the game isn't "about it." Magic the Gathering isn't "about" knowing that a tournament deck has a minimum of 60 cards. Goldeneye is about UTILIZING well the knowledge of where weapons in a level are; it's not about the knowledge itself, because everyone posesses it. How can you not follow that?

And yeah, you should understand that Goldeneye does not base its gameplay on the gamer knowing that B reloads. Again, it's a given that the player knows what button does what. (The controls can be customized anyway, can't they?) Is Goldeneye really "all about knowing what buttons do what"? That would be a funny way of looking at it, seeing as every game ever made has that mindset.[/quote]
Sciros, when someone is utilizing knowledge, they possess that knowledge, correct? If a situation requires them to utilize that knowledge in order to be effective, then one lacking the knowledge will be at risk, as they will be unable to succeed because they lack it. Agreed? I realize I am speaking in "Truisms" and you hate that, but just have patience here, please. Now, if one will fail without possessing that knowledge, how does the situation [i]not[/i] emphasize possessing that knowledge? How is the situation [i]not[/i] about possessing particular knowledge?

While there are definitely more complicated facets of Magic: The Gathering, where would a player be if they showed up to a Tournament with only 55 cards? What would happen to them? Would they still be allowed to play, even though they do not have sufficient pre-requisites?

Where would you be without the Intro Comp Sci courses? Would you be able to function at all in your advanced programming courses without a basic understanding of basic programming functions?

You can dress it up all you want, but there is a very real and fundamental core to life, and that is knowing the basics first. Without the basics, people can forget about ever learning advanced techniques/tactics.

[QUOTE]As long as you acknowledge that moving along dark areas is stealth, you can call it whatever you want.[/QUOTE]
What's the context, Sciros, what's the context? All of what you've described regarding Stealth and PD is nothing more than exploiting a player's lack of knowledge of an area and/or camping. I notice you didn't even bother touching my point about strategy to overcome a camper.

[QUOTE]I don't have beef with any "sneaky bastards." In fact, if we're playing Ravine and no radar, it's possible that I'll be that bastard.[/QUOTE]
So, this,

[quote name='Sciros]It's pretty easy to track a player, [b]unless that player is a total bastard and hugs dark walls so you don't know where he is[/b'].[/quote]
isn't having any problem [i]at all[/i] with a sneaky bastard?

[QUOTE]If I call someone a "total bastard" in a video game, that doesn't mean I dont like the way he plays. It means he's a mean mofo.[/QUOTE]
[b][i]What?!?[/i][/b] What are you trying to say here?

[QUOTE]As for your custom setup, I still don't think it's balanced. It's not as if I've never played normal, conventional weapon setups before. I've played them more than anything else. You talk about what it takes for a Falcon-wielder to ovecome a shotgun-wielder. [b]Well, let's turn the tables. All the shotgun guy has to do is close the gap between his opponent and aim just a tad higher than default. Much simpler than maintaining a medium range and hoping the shotgun guy sucks too much to aim at your face[/b].[/QUOTE]
And you have just further illustrated the dynamics of the balance of the human element of my weaponset.

[QUOTE]As for grenade launcher vs. Falcon, that's really hard to sell as a balanced matchup. (Mind you [b]balanced implies the players are of equal skill levels[/b].) Same goes for remote mines and Falcon. I don't know, man, I think there's a definite weapon of choice in that setup--the grenade launcher.[/QUOTE]
Remember, Sciros, that an inexperienced player will normally always go for the grenade launcher, but that doesn't mean he's going to be effective with it. ~_^

[QUOTE]There should never be such a thing as a sure kill. And you'd be very bold to engage a Farsighter at that range, because he might pull out a different weapon and kill you right there.

Uhhh, yeah, let's give the guy with the Farsight the biggest window possible for a x-ray kill. Genius strategy.

And because the Farsighter has apparently fallen asleep, and so couldn't move his *** away from the balcony. Really, your strategy is completely flawless.

Really, PT, looking at your step-by-step breakdown of why my setup isn't balanced, all you did was come up with a way to take out a Farsight-wielder who has to be so clueless as to what's going on he might as well pull out a phoenix, hug the wall, and blow his own face off.

Also, nobody says the Farsighter can't pull out a rocket launcher or remote mine himself if he has to. Use the right weapons at the right time. That's how that setup works.

Your decision that the defending player has the advantage is very flawed, because it took your defending player a relatively long time to kill the Farsight-shooter. By then that Farsight shooter, looking at the other guy's screen and seeing the obvious strategy, might have turned into a crazy close-up remote mine chucker.[/QUOTE]
So then, is the Balcony Farsighter in danger at all?

[QUOTE]BUT, we can play "what-if"s about these scenarios all day and all night for a month. [b]Play that scenario against really good players[/b], and you'll see that for every strategy you can come up with they'll come up with a counter-strategy. The only way to know if a scenario is truly balanced is to play it A LOT. Once you do that, come back and tell me what you really think.[/QUOTE]
What makes you so sure I haven't played GE/PD to death? What makes you so sure that I haven't explored every option in the game, checked out every angle, weapon-strengths, etc? My cartridges have worn out. PD barely works. GE isn't faring much better.

[QUOTE]Simple doesn't mean balanced. It only means simple. And if you try to account for the human element (differing skill levels, which are then only legitimate element to at all consider) in creating a scenario, then it will work well in a lot fewer situations than if you design it for players of equal skill. [b]That's how I make my scenarios. I assume every player is equal in ability[/b].[/QUOTE]
I've bolded a few statements regarding "equal skill."

If you're designing your scenario with the assumption that every player will be equal in ability, and essentially designing the scenario for that and that alone, what happens when you have varying skill levels? Do your weapons still hold the same potency? Are all players equal? Are any players equal? No two players are alike, remember that, Sciros. In designing a scenario where you are assuming your combatants are equal, you have created a scenario that works only on paper, only in a vacuum.

In your extensive playtime, if you can remember, that is, as it has been a long while since you've played (like you mentioned in the PM), who won the majority of the matches? Was the victor different every time? Or was there one player who consistently won? How many players did you play again? Two? Three? Four? (Two, I think it was; one-on-one. Yes, you did mention that in the PM. So, only two combatants at a time?)

These are all variables you need to take into account when designing a weaponset.

[QUOTE]That's BS through and through. Alien weapons are more powerful only if you forget that more powerful conventional weapons exist (superdragon, RCP120, etc.). Also, with one-hit-kills, the Callisto is virtually worthless compared the human weapons that have either faster firing rates or larger magazines. And the Phoenix is crap against rapid-fire in one-hit-kills in most levels.[/QUOTE]
I notice you are crossing the weapon-type boundaries here, or dealing in vagaries. You mention how the Alien weapons are more powerful only when we forget the more powerful conventional weapons like the superdragon and RCP120. I hardly think comparing a weapon like the Mauler or Callisto NG to something like the RCP120 is wise. They are different types of weapons, in what are essentially different categories. As I recall, they do inhabit entirely different places on the weaponsheet in PD.

Regarding one-hit-kills and the Callisto's (supposed) ineffectiveness, what do you think about GE's Klobb?

The Phoenix's inferiority to rapid-fire weaponry...the only rapid-fire [i]pistol[/i] I can think of is the MagSec 4, which you and I both agree is substandard and the Phoenix is far superior to it. The other rapid-fire weaponry are submachine guns and assault rifles.

And if you don't feel that the Alien weaponry is in there to unbalance the game, care to explain the Farsight? Perhaps...explore its application in a Deathmatch?

[QUOTE]No; But a 9.6 is a better score and for everything PoP did better than NG it did 100 things worse. But let's not talk about that.[/QUOTE]
But why take it to heart? A 9.4 is a damn good score and as I recall, IGN [i]did[/i] give Ninja Gaiden an Editor's Choice.

[quote]So you assume I don't enjoy any games at all? Hmmm...[/QUOTE]
Just a simple question, Sciros, just a simple question.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Anime_fangurl*247]Sciros, when someone is utilizing knowledge, they possess that knowledge, correct? If a situation requires them to utilize that knowledge in order to be effective, then one lacking the knowledge will be at risk, as they will be unable to succeed because they lack it. Agreed? I realize I am speaking in "Truisms" and you hate that, but just have patience here, please. Now, if one will fail without possessing that knowledge, how does the situation [i]not[/i] emphasize possessing that knowledge? How is the situation [i]not[/i] about possessing particular knowledge?
...You can dress it up all you want, but there is a very real and fundamental core to life, and that is knowing the basics first. Without the basics, people can forget about ever learning advanced techniques/tactics.[/QUOTE]
My whole point is that in Goldeneye everyone knows these "basics." The only thing that sets you apart from players you'd give two craps about is not whether they possess knowledge of the level, but how they utilize that knowledge. That's why it's not "about" that knowledge. You brought up introductory Comp. Sci. courses. Well whether you're a decent programmer or not has nothing to do with whether or not you're familiar with languages whose syntax is C-like or whether you can work on Unix. That's a given. Programming as a field is NOT "about" the basic knowledge that all programmers should possess. I don't know how I can be any more clear than that.

[QUOTE]What's the context, Sciros, what's the context? All of what you've described regarding Stealth and PD is nothing more than exploiting a player's lack of knowledge of an area and/or camping. I notice you didn't even bother touching my point about strategy to overcome a camper.[/QUOTE]
The context was no radar + Ravine, remember? And even if you know the area, unless you've been paying really good attention to your opponents' screens, you're not going to know which of the 1000 dark walls one of them is hugging while moving. It has very little to do with anyone's lack of knowledge of an area or camping. Oh, and I was the first to say that one could overcome a camper with strategy in PD, and that's all I really had to say on the matter because I'm not even talking about camping.

[QUOTE]...And you have just further illustrated the dynamics of the balance of the human element of my weaponset.[/QUOTE]
No, there was no balance because a shotgun against a pistol is not balanced at all. Now, if your scenario were to have a rock-paper-scissors sort of setup, then that wouldn't matter. But I don't think it does.

[QUOTE]Remember, Sciros, that an inexperienced player will normally always go for the grenade launcher, but that doesn't mean he's going to be effective with it. ~_^[/QUOTE]
What's your point? What if an experience player goes for it? And would you say an inexperienced player would be more effective with something else? Especially against an experienced player armed with a grenade launcher?

[QUOTE]So then, is the Balcony Farsighter in danger at all?[/QUOTE]
Yes he is, but if you're going to engage him it's not going to be "through the wall," where he clearly has the advantage (I mean what's a Farsight for anyway?). Once you near his corridor and happen to be just around the corner from him, he cannot use the Farsight anymore because it fires so slowly and he'll have to use it at nearly point-blank range. So you end up being on nearly the same playing field, depending on what other weapons the two of you have. But again, we're just playing "what if" here, and that's a waste of time.


[QUOTE]What makes you so sure I haven't played GE/PD to death? What makes you so sure that I haven't explored every option in the game, checked out every angle, weapon-strengths, etc? My cartridges have worn out. PD barely works. GE isn't faring much better.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm dead sure you haven't really played my scenario that much, because otherwise you wouldn't have come up with the worst possible strategy available to take out the Farsighter. I know you've played GE/PD a lot, but that's not what I was talking about and you know it.

[QUOTE]If you're designing your scenario with the assumption that every player will be equal in ability, and essentially designing the scenario for that and that alone, what happens when you have varying skill levels? Do your weapons still hold the same potency? Are all players equal? Are any players equal? No two players are alike, remember that, Sciros. In designing a scenario where you are assuming your combatants are equal, you have created a scenario that works only on paper, only in a vacuum.[/QUOTE]
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a scenario which will put less-skilled players on the same level as experienced ones is a balanced one? In my scenarios, when players of varying skill levels play, those who are less skilled LOSE. As it should be.

You can design a scenario that will always give less-skilled players an advantage (impossible, because more skilled players can utilize that same weapon/pickup and just dominate), or you can design one that is geared towards players of equal skill levels (as are most GAMES, in fact). You cannot do both. I think the former is stupid.

[QUOTE]In your extensive playtime, if you can remember, that is, as it has been a long while since you've played (like you mentioned in the PM), who won the majority of the matches? Was the victor different every time? Or was there one player who consistently won? How many players did you play again? Two? Three? Four? (Two, I think it was; one-on-one. Yes, you did mention that in the PM. So, only two combatants at a time?)[/QUOTE]
Who won the majority of the matches of all PD multiplayer games? The good players (me, my brother, and two of my friends). Who won 1 vs. 1 when I played my brother in that scenario? It was a toss-up. Sometimes I did, sometimes he did. We ended up being about even on that one.

[QUOTE]I notice you are crossing the weapon-type boundaries here, or dealing in vagaries. You mention how the Alien weapons are more powerful only when we forget the more powerful conventional weapons like the superdragon and RCP120. I hardly think comparing a weapon like the Mauler or Callisto NG to something like the RCP120 is wise. They are different types of weapons, in what are essentially different categories. As I recall, they do inhabit entirely different places on the weaponsheet in PD.[/QUOTE]
I don't care where on the weaponsheet they are. You said that the Alien weapons are meant to upset the balance, but now you go ahead and isolate them in some arbitrary category of weapons just so you have a leg to stand on in this matter. I'm not even going to bother pursuing this subject further.

[QUOTE]Regarding one-hit-kills and the Callisto's (supposed) ineffectiveness, what do you think about GE's Klobb?[/QUOTE]
The Klobb was the only rapid-fire weapon in a preset Licensed to Kill scenario. So duh, the Callisto would be just fine against pistols and sniper rifles. Is THIS how you categorize it?

[QUOTE]The Phoenix's inferiority to rapid-fire weaponry...the only rapid-fire [i]pistol[/i] I can think of is the MagSec 4, which you and I both agree is substandard and the Phoenix is far superior to it. The other rapid-fire weaponry are submachine guns and assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and there are sort of a lot of those submachine guns and assault rifles, aren't there? So you avoid putting them and the Phoenix in the same scenario, and then claim that the Phoenix is unfair against the rest of the weapons? Just let this one go.

[QUOTE]And if you don't feel that the Alien weaponry is in there to unbalance the game, care to explain the Farsight? Perhaps...explore its application in a Deathmatch?[/QUOTE]
The Farsight in close range is bad, just like the Sniper Rifle in Halo. It fires way too slowly. "Bad in close range" = huge weakness, because most weapons excel in close range. So the Farsight is far from unbalanced, unless you place it in a particular level in such a way that whoever finds it is far away from the other players for a very long time.