/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

this makes my lizard stand up

I meant any of the Fable games, not just games in general

lntigracy wrote:

capi duffman wrote:I should reinstall again Theme Hospital, if only to regret that more than twenty years later, no one will do anything like it.

Tavern Tycoon is trying.

Trying, and currently failing. Clearly inspired by, but it's just not there yet.
It might still get there, but there's a lot of work to do before then

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Freedom Force and Evil Genius.

Give me a Zeno clash 3 too

How are you always the best post in a thread?

XSI wrote:

lntigracy wrote:

capi duffman wrote:I should reinstall again Theme Hospital, if only to regret that more than twenty years later, no one will do anything like it.

Tavern Tycoon is trying.

Trying, and currently failing. Clearly inspired by, but it's just not there yet.
It might still get there, but there's a lot of work to do before then

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Freedom Force and Evil Genius.

Give me a Zeno clash 3 too

How are you always the best post in a thread?

Because i am a good boy

Thank you for liking freedom force evil genius and Zeno clash as well

half life

[youtube]-9_IEsYRdEM[/youtube]

[youtube]hLBk1L-l2hk[/youtube]

i remember a very old n64 game that was a vehicular combat thing that had you running doing missions and shit, you drove a light grey porsche? had miniguns that popped out of the fenders

ThanatosRa wrote:half life

people who haven't played/don't know what half life is know about the half life 3 meme

companies like to make money and a good way to make money is brand recognition - you don't make money off your IP known by millions of people by deciding to leave it dead and buried

I guarantee you 100% episode 3 (or hl3 whatever they call it now) will come to be, it makes no financial sense not to, but the problem is the duke nukem forever level expectations that people have for it now

since the game has been endlessly hyped (and all the leddit posters saying "i'm not even excited for hl3 anymore it's a dead series" are lying and will be the first on the train when we get concrete word regarding it) valve can either

-release a mediocre game to cash in on the fame and make a quick buck
-delay the game for a long time in order to get something they feel is of good quality out, but probably get blasted for not living up to the hype anyways
-spend forever trying to make it live up to the impossible expectations and accidentally accomplish one of the above options

valve employees have gone on record many times saying they don't like to release things they don't think are of a certain quality, and you can disagree if that's true or not, but option 2/3 fits valve's MO a lot more than option 1 does (and please don't give me the "lol dae hats???" spiel, it takes so much less effort to release a skin pack/cosmetics for a game that have systems built in to allow for that than it does to make a game - bob the 3d modeller is not delaying half life 3 because he made some tf2 hats)

tl;dr I guarantee you half life isn't dead, even if it takes years for us to even get word of it, and that's also ignoring the times valve has spoken on the subject and literally said "we won't announce anything concrete until it's something good", and since expectations are so high that'll probably be a long fuckin' time

So basically, it's dead and they plan to raise the corpse in a few years

"we're working on hl3 but don't want to share news until it's ready" doesn't sound dead to me

People were working on Duke Nukem as well, and that was dead until someone actually decided to finish it

XSI wrote:People were working on Duke Nukem as well, and that was dead until someone actually decided to finish it

i could write about how this doesn't make sense but starting an argument over this is stupid so i'll leave it at "I disagree"

CosmicScientist wrote:Half Life Thwee will either never come out or won't stand up to expectations.

I mean the first two games had a naff plot and by modern standards had little going on in the weaponry department.

That and unless they attach a rokkit to the head of the crowbar whilst making it twice the size and strapped to Freeman's back, so you can do rokkit jump attacks with it, then what could HL3 offer? More zombies? Forgettable dystopian police? That random guy with the pegleg modern augment? Next gen Upper tier lip sync and character animation?


I would like to whip out a red crowbar and let its blinding fire guide me to swift retribution of the groin caving variety.

this reeks of seinfeld isn't funny tbh

duke freeman forever

John_Oxford wrote:[youtube]-9_IEsYRdEM[/youtube]

[youtube]hLBk1L-l2hk[/youtube]

i remember a very old n64 game that was a vehicular combat thing that had you running doing missions and shit, you drove a light grey porsche? had miniguns that popped out of the fenders

[youtube]h34MviiKXXc[/youtube]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_Hunter

Arcade (original)
Amstrad CPC, Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit, BBC Micro, ZX Spectrum, C64, Apple II, ColecoVision, MS-DOS, NES, Mobile

[youtube]YxzVleeyi0E[/youtube]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpyHunter

PlayStation 2, GameCube, Xbox, Game Boy Advance, Microsoft Windows, OS X, Tapwave Zodiac

Also the problem with DN:Forever is that they changed too much about what made the game good and fun to make it be more in line with cawadooty (wow bill, your mom only lets you have TWO guns?)

lntigracy wrote:Also the problem with DN:Forever is that they changed too much about what made the game good and fun to make it be more in line with cawadooty (wow bill, your mom only lets you have TWO guns?)

probably a symptom of the game having been slapped together out of the various bits and pieces made over the years, hence why it has a bunch of old shooter tropes that were becoming less and less relevant as time went on

CosmicScientist wrote:

Qbopper wrote:snip
this reeks of seinfeld isn't funny tbh

What is this Seinfeld people keep talking of? Does no-one hear the good word of pre-Bean Rowan Atkinson or Monty Python these days?

"seinfeld isn't funny" is the trope where an old piece of work that creates a formula/whatever appears old and out of date by modern standards and people judge it by their current day standards, I wasn't specifically talking about seinfeld

Seinfeld is hilarious

>beat Dragon's Dogma for the first time today
>that perfect dragon boss fight
>that ending
>only sequel it got was a f2p mmo that's exclusive to Japan

FantasticFwoosh wrote:

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Freedom Force and Evil Genius.

Give me a Zeno clash 3 too

Not anymore

[youtube]DMUG2WCEyOQ[/youtube]

Give me a gameplay trailer and I'll rejoice. Just annocing a follow up to a long dead game series means nothing anymore.

CosmicScientist wrote:So... I suggested that they'd need to change the formula such as add something a little more fast paced like a rokkit jumping crowbar? I even directly said the old staff is naff by modern standards?

Cossy wrote:I mean the first two games had a naff plot and by modern standards had little going on in the weaponry department.

yeah but I mean comparing it to modern standards is an odd choice because it's such an old game by now

If Valve really wanted to just print some money from HL3 they would have done it a long time ago and made the half life series a yearly game installment. But they didn't, because Valve is a weird as hell company and don't care about things in the same way traditional companies do.

I think they held off for so long because half-life wasn't a very great game series.

Don't get me wrong, I think half-life was important, but I think saying it doesn't hold up isn't the same trope as Seinfeld Isn't Funny, it isn't about the old becoming so copied its generic as the old... having legitimate problems and inefficiencies despite the thing it innovated on.

Half Life isn't some gem that everyone takes everything from. The story isn't really that great outside of a few moments (PICK UP THAT CAN), it even literally pokes fun at itself thematically by having trains and artificial opaque time constraints that don't mean anything as motifs. The gunplay wasn't that exciting outside of very select few segments, and exploration wasn't very fun either because it mostly used old methods of level design where a lot of the level was empty space and dead ends rather than being either truly linear or truly open. Half-life was important because the source engine was very technologically important and was very good compared to other shooter engines. Most games from the era or earlier control like complete ass and run like complete ass but source doesn't, which is why a bajillion games were made in source. Shit is the Model T of videogames, you can't say that it is something legitimately great and you would be super razzed to get another version of it as it was, but you can say it is very important it was made because everyone uses the underlying structure of it and it paved the way for better and brighter things.

So if they just literally made "Half life 3" in source with all the same stuff it would feel painfully bad and generic because the main thing that was good about it was the technology, and the main technological improvement of Half Life isn't relevant at all anymore because games feeling fun to control is no longer something you have to specifically search for. The specific amazing thing about it is no longer amazing or unique at all and everything surrounding that thing is kinda eh.

It is eminently fair to compare it to modern standards, because it allows us to identify what about it was actually good. Its sorta like how almost everything surrounding the original Dues Ex was kinda ass, from the control scheme to the engine, but the fact it is still beloved simply because it had a very open framework tells us what about it was actually great. This is doubly true if you are talking about a desire for a game to be updated because failing to identify where a game was ahead of its time and how it overall stacks up is a recipe for disaster. There are plenty of games that hold up well to modern standards despite being extremely old, the fact something was old isn't an excuse for a bad design when some gems just got it fucking right or even did it better that modern games in their genre, and its interesting to note what holds up really well and what doesn't is often a genre based thing. Shooters rarely hold up because mistakes in the design become rapidly more apparent with age, while platformers are mostly about having just responsive good controls and interesting segments and the world's greatest platformers literally were designed on graph paper as a result.

fuck hl3 I want portal 3

Remie Richards wrote:fuck hl3 I want portal 3

I just want a good level editor. The reason they wouldn't do another portal is that a sequel would just be a level pack and a memey story. But its a physics based puzzle game so your userbase could literally just generate infinite content.

I mean, they do generate content, there's the workshop for portal 2?
also they can always add new mechanics like they did 1->2
light bridges, those weird tubes, they had co-op they could go bananas and do 3 or 4 people puzzles (why the HECK not)

Remie Richards wrote:fuck hl3 I want portal 3

it's too bad portal 2 took the comedy approach and scrapped the atmosphere for portal 1

it was a genuinely unsettling game the first time through and still gives me those vibes to this day

dezzmont wrote:I just want a good level editor. The reason they wouldn't do another portal is that a sequel would just be a level pack and a memey story. But its a physics based puzzle game so your userbase could literally just generate infinite content.

you mean like the level editor in portal 2 that has access to every gameplay mechanic in the game along with support for singleplayer and coop levels on the workshop??

CosmicScientist wrote:

Qbopper wrote:rip sim city probably

4 still works on windows 10, right? I sorta want to go back to it but I don't have a CD up here with me. It's not like the sims where 2 is broken on 7 and 3 burns GPUs, right?

I almost wish it died with Societies as simulating each person going about their day really cuts down on what the rest of the game can do but I suppose then it really makes it feel like a living, breathing game.

Definitely a few months late, but my Deluxe Edition CD didn't work on Windows 10. So I took a picture of the open CD case with registration code and disk 1 visible, then called EA support, they looked at the picture, then added it to my Origin account. The Origin version definitely works.

HL3 will almost certainly be good when it comes out but there will always be people screeching it'd bad/disappointing just because it took a century to make and was such a classic.

JJRcop wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:

Qbopper wrote:rip sim city probably

4 still works on windows 10, right? I sorta want to go back to it but I don't have a CD up here with me. It's not like the sims where 2 is broken on 7 and 3 burns GPUs, right?

I almost wish it died with Societies as simulating each person going about their day really cuts down on what the rest of the game can do but I suppose then it really makes it feel like a living, breathing game.

Definitely a few months late, but my Deluxe Edition CD didn't work on Windows 10. So I took a picture of the open CD case with registration code and disk 1 visible, then called EA support, they looked at the picture, then added it to my Origin account. The Origin version definitely works.

origin support is surprisingly reasonable about old retail copies

like they have (had?) a policy that they can't do anything about retail codes, but I spoke with them anyways and they just gave me BF2 since I had a valid CD key anyways

Qbopper wrote:

Remie Richards wrote:fuck hl3 I want portal 3

it's too bad portal 2 took the comedy approach and scrapped the atmosphere for portal 1

having just replayed portal 2 less than a week ago, it has about the humor level of the first game but what it lacks that the first game had was subtlety. very good game and still has a really good atmosphere, especially things just talk to you really directly, like Wheatley, so the whole aspect of you not having any clue of what's going on that the first game had was thrown out the window, basically. the part I mentioned in the spoiler was probably the most subtle part of the game, but even that is quickly explained by johnsons booming voice and aperture logos everywhere.

kind of felt like hotline miami 2 vs hotline miami 1, where the first game has a fairly deep story but you have to really search for it to find it. the second game continues on that story and keeps it really cool, but instead of being implied it's just handed to you.

it also has the hotline miami 2 thing of changing the gameplay fairly significantly (sorta)

instead of more windows we got more un-portalable surfaces though

but it was also explained why portalable surfaces exist.
moon rocks.

it also breaks portal's own rules and has a moving portal which can't exist!!!!!

lntigracy wrote:

Wyzack wrote:

Jacough wrote:

Wyzack wrote:Against all odds I actually mostly liked fable 2, but anything after that is a write off

I actually liked Fable 2 more than Fable 1, mainly because they cut out the god awful escort missions where you'd have to babysit helps fuck wads too stupid to even run away from enemies while being attacked. It felt a lot more open too while 1 felt pretty on rails

I mostly just liked the guns and the world felt a bit bigger. Fable 1 had easily the best magic system of any of the games, i loved finding neat new combinations for the spells and stuff. After fable 1 it basically turned into eight different colours of laser and like two utility powers

Best spell system I've seen in a game is Two Worlds 2.

Played this game again fairly recently it feels like a parody of a game

The accents were funny

Remie Richards wrote:but it was also explained why portalable surfaces exist.
moon rocks.

it also breaks portal's own rules and has a moving portal which can't exist!!!!!

not sure how the explanation for what is portalable affects the fact that portal 2 had so much more black space

portal 1 had a lot more surfaces you could slap portals on but that didn't help you solve the puzzles

Qbopper wrote:

Remie Richards wrote:but it was also explained why portalable surfaces exist.
moon rocks.

it also breaks portal's own rules and has a moving portal which can't exist!!!!!

not sure how the explanation for what is portalable affects the fact that portal 2 had so much more black space

portal 1 had a lot more surfaces you could slap portals on but that didn't help you solve the puzzles

The first game was just "Oh I guess it doesn't work on glass" - No explanation.
The second game is "Well you see it's not WHITE things that it works on, it's things made out of spacerocks!" - An Explanation, it's a really minor thing but it's enough to be acceptable.
Also given that in the first game the facility isn't a shithole, where as in the second it is, the moonrock panels have just fallen off, did you actually look around you in Portal 2? aperture is a shithole.

CosmicScientist wrote: I also assume moving portals weren't allowed in 1 because they hadn't set up the game to work like that. I do still sort of wonder how they managed the portal stoof because plenty of games chug to death on smaller tasks than duplicating a level (or positioning a duplicate that always exists) or producing a picture or something. I mean, did they actually have da lore sez nu in 1?

They're not allowed because they would mega violate the laws of physics.
Whereas stationary portals only violate it slightly.

The engine in portal 2 can't properly handle moving portals either, though I believe that's just because the only one in portal 2 can't be visited by a player, only a laser can go through it, so they most likely just did the bare minimum for that 1-2 minutes of gameplay to be cool without actually implementing proper moving portals.

Moving portals in portal 2 actually turns on a cheatmode for that segment that allows you to place those kinds of portals, before being immediately turned off after the segment.

Remie Richards wrote:only violate it slightly.

No. Both portals, moving and unmoving kind, violate physics enough to render any difference between them moot from that point of view.

Regarding Valve, both Portal 3 and Half Life 3 (or HL2 ep 3) would be very neat, but if anything Valve would first do Left For Dead 3, since it has much less emotional value and, if it were a flop, wouldn't hurt their reputation too badly. Some hope they would draft Black Mesa team en masse after they do xen.

Anyway, back to hard reality, Valve is experimenting with Source 2. DOTA has already been ported, and they've stated they will port CS:GO this summer. Plus, supposedly, they have 3 VR games in development.

Slightly is a relative term.
Compared to moving portals, stationary portals DO only violate it slightly.

I thought the deal was clearly that a portal needs a perfectly smooth flat surface to work on, and the moon rocks (somehow) create a smooth enough surface to make a portal cleanly, while Aperture's smooth shiny design mostly lends itself to portable surfaces, between the facility falling into decay, the old test areas where they didn't have as good materials and resources, and the AIs deliberately setting up challenging test chambers there's less usable surfaces in most of Portal 2's areas. I may be putting more thought into it than the devs did, mind.

Remie Richards wrote:

Qbopper wrote:

Remie Richards wrote:but it was also explained why portalable surfaces exist.
moon rocks.

it also breaks portal's own rules and has a moving portal which can't exist!!!!!

not sure how the explanation for what is portalable affects the fact that portal 2 had so much more black space

portal 1 had a lot more surfaces you could slap portals on but that didn't help you solve the puzzles

The first game was just "Oh I guess it doesn't work on glass" - No explanation.
The second game is "Well you see it's not WHITE things that it works on, it's things made out of spacerocks!" - An Explanation, it's a really minor thing but it's enough to be acceptable.
Also given that in the first game the facility isn't a shithole, where as in the second it is, the moonrock panels have just fallen off, did you actually look around you in Portal 2? aperture is a shithole.

it's pretty shitty for gameplay regardless of plot reasons though

it wouldn't have been difficult to do "oh yeah cave is a fucking madman and he put a portal on the moon to get as many rocks as he wanted but he fucked up and didn't consider the vacuum of space at first so they lost millions of dollars in damages"

now you can use as much portalable surfaces as you want and you still have the "aperture went bankrupt" plot point

Qbopper wrote:

Remie Richards wrote:

Qbopper wrote:

Remie Richards wrote:but it was also explained why portalable surfaces exist.
moon rocks.

it also breaks portal's own rules and has a moving portal which can't exist!!!!!

not sure how the explanation for what is portalable affects the fact that portal 2 had so much more black space

portal 1 had a lot more surfaces you could slap portals on but that didn't help you solve the puzzles

The first game was just "Oh I guess it doesn't work on glass" - No explanation.
The second game is "Well you see it's not WHITE things that it works on, it's things made out of spacerocks!" - An Explanation, it's a really minor thing but it's enough to be acceptable.
Also given that in the first game the facility isn't a shithole, where as in the second it is, the moonrock panels have just fallen off, did you actually look around you in Portal 2? aperture is a shithole.

it's pretty shitty for gameplay regardless of plot reasons though

it wouldn't have been difficult to do "oh yeah cave is a fucking madman and he put a portal on the moon to get as many rocks as he wanted but he fucked up and didn't consider the vacuum of space at first so they lost millions of dollars in damages"

now you can use as much portalable surfaces as you want and you still have the "aperture went bankrupt" plot point

You've completely missed the point.
The point isn't that they can't afford portal panels.
It's that they've fallen off/into disrepair.

As for bad for gameplay, I disagree entirely, it's more focused gameplay which allowed them to produce better puzzles, Portal 2 beats Portal 1 in every way.

You say that, but having played both I liked the first better

Didn't even bother to finish portal 2 personally, just couldn't give enough of a shit

What about freespace? I miss that one.

XSI wrote:You say that, but having played both I liked the first better

Didn't even bother to finish portal 2 personally, just couldn't give enough of a shit

Bbut ending was very gut!
I admit, not finishing all the coop tests would be fine, but the singleplayer?
Anyway, back to dead game series, recently I've actually been reminded that Landmark existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_(video_game)

Portal 1 had a lot of ways in which it was better than Portal 2, but Portal 2 was more Portal and that was what I wanted from it.

I would like a new Golden Sun, please...

Gun Hog wrote:I would like a new Golden Sun, please...

i would like a golden sun that gets its mythology straight

Remie Richards wrote:

Qbopper wrote:

Remie Richards wrote:

Qbopper wrote:

Remie Richards wrote:but it was also explained why portalable surfaces exist.
moon rocks.

it also breaks portal's own rules and has a moving portal which can't exist!!!!!

not sure how the explanation for what is portalable affects the fact that portal 2 had so much more black space

portal 1 had a lot more surfaces you could slap portals on but that didn't help you solve the puzzles

The first game was just "Oh I guess it doesn't work on glass" - No explanation.
The second game is "Well you see it's not WHITE things that it works on, it's things made out of spacerocks!" - An Explanation, it's a really minor thing but it's enough to be acceptable.
Also given that in the first game the facility isn't a shithole, where as in the second it is, the moonrock panels have just fallen off, did you actually look around you in Portal 2? aperture is a shithole.

it's pretty shitty for gameplay regardless of plot reasons though

it wouldn't have been difficult to do "oh yeah cave is a fucking madman and he put a portal on the moon to get as many rocks as he wanted but he fucked up and didn't consider the vacuum of space at first so they lost millions of dollars in damages"

now you can use as much portalable surfaces as you want and you still have the "aperture went bankrupt" plot point

You've completely missed the point.
The point isn't that they can't afford portal panels.
It's that they've fallen off/into disrepair.

As for bad for gameplay, I disagree entirely, it's more focused gameplay which allowed them to produce better puzzles, Portal 2 beats Portal 1 in every way.

glados was also fixing the facility and it would be a non issue after the opener

I don't really want to argue if the specific puzzles are better or not, but I think it was a misstep to have so much black space, I think it made it interesting to play Portal 1 where you could put portals in a lot of areas but it didn't help you to spam them

Rip Command and conquer series.

Not only did you die by the hands of EA they made sure to rape your bloody corpse until the last breath.

>there will never be another game where the final boss of new game+ is your character from the previous playthrough

feels bad man

[youtube]mCHuR7CMh40[/youtube]

CosmicScientist wrote:

Durkel wrote:Rip Command and conquer series.

Not only did you die by the hands of EA they made sure to rape your bloody corpse until the last breath.

It feels as though RTS games are dead, the only exceptions being a 40K downgrade and a not-40K surviving on table scraps left behind by an MMO and crate micro transactions. =(

RIP Empire Earth. You were mediocre and died from a premature, underdeveloped birth of your third generation.

The last RTS I remember being announced was the Age of Empires (one) HD remake, of all things.