🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:14:21 -0700, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In my effort to post more often instead of bottling it all up for the 
>end of month report, I'm posting on this one:
>
>Assassin's Creed for xbox 360
>
>I picked this up for cheap in the used bin at gamestop (along with some 
>other games I haven't tried yet) a couple weeks ago.  The game looked 
>mildly interesting for some time, and I figured with all the sequels 
>there must be somthing to it.  I'm finding it pretty interesting.  I 
>hadn't realized you weren't the actual assassin and are somehow picking 
>up 'ancestral DNA memories.'  which doesn't seem necessary, or really 
>make much sense, but it does make it a bit more interesting.  I've never 
>been much for sneaking around, but it hasn't been too bad though with 
>the exception of some times when I have to walk really slowly through 
>some large numbers of soldiers.
>
>I've got a few issues beyond that, I don't seem to be able to grok 
>combat, sometimes I do really well and other times I get my ass handed 
>to me.  I've lately taken mostly to pushing people down and hitting them 
>when they're down, which seems a bit unfair and unrealistic which takes 
>me out of the immersion a bit, but it seems to work better than trying 
>to time sword swings which I'm never sure I did right or not, and 
>getting hit by another guard while doing so.
>
>I'm having a lot more trouble running away and hiding when I'm suppose 
>to.  I can climb just fine when I'm not trying to run away, but I keep 
>wall-jumping instead when I'm trying to run away climbing a wall, or if 
>I do manage to climb, getting hit on the way up and knocked down 
>repeatedly, If somehow I do get up, it seems the soldiers always follow 
>and find me, and I can't seem to find anywhere to hide when I'm out of 
>sight, if I try to go to a bench the people get up or the soldiers show 
>up again before I can.  I'm tempted to just kill everone instead, but 
>that'd be against the creed.
>
>Speaking of which, it seems odd I was told not to just kill people at 
>random and only kill my target, but I get a lot of 'rescue civilian' 
>missions which entails me killing 4 or more guards who are harrassing 
>someone.
>
>Still liking the game, but these issues are definitely detracting from it.
>
>- Justisaur
>
>P.S.  I've had some back issues crop up I couldn't even play games for 
>the last couple days, I really hate being laid up, and all I could do 
>was watch TV.  I did watch Batman vs. Superman, which was alright. It 
>was a bit difficult as the kiddies were running back and forth in front 
>of the TV yelling at the top of their lungs though, so that might have 
>affected my enjoyment.

I wanted to love this series due to the open world and nice graphics.
I bought 3 or 4 of them during one a Steam sale and tried ACIII
first.I hated the controls so much it ruined the game for me.

I can repeatedly push a button and climb a 50 foot tower in ten
seconds but I can't draw a pistol and aim it without going through
some crazy select target/auto aim thing?

Not a fan of console controllers to begin with, but found the game
near unplayable with the mouse/keys. It was the same vibe I got from
ARMA, the intentionally convoluted interface got in the way of doing
even the simplest things. I gave it the old college try to the tune of
about 4 hours, but finally gave up.

I tried that 1st one & did not like it.
I recently decided to try the series again & after much searching settled on
"Assassin's Creed Brotherhood" (2010)
I like this .
It has much the same setting as the first 2 games.
I agree with Tim O re. the control system being maddening ,
no so bad in '..Brotherhood'
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse ( Squeak) 

>Assassin's Creed for xbox 360

    I loved AC1 on the pc.  First things first:  Do NOT waste time looking 
for flags!  Not a single second!  Phew, that's out of the way.  As for 
combat, I used m+kb so can't comment too much, except that I did find it 
difficult to pull off battles smoothly.  But everything else was just so 
fun:  moving through crowded streets, climbing so fluidly, horseback riding: 
I *loved* horseback riding!  Excepting flags, I think I 100%'d that game. 
AC2 is also great.

rms 

On 2016-09-07, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my effort to post more often instead of bottling it all up for the 
> end of month report, I'm posting on this one:
>
> Assassin's Creed for xbox 360
>
> Still liking the game, but these issues are definitely detracting from it.

I played and enjoyed it on 360 a few years ago. I remember coming out
of it thinking "that was good, I'll play the next one". Then they
started releasing so many Assassin's Creed games that it became
apparent that I would never be able to keep up unless I never played
another game. Consequently I've never played AC2 or beyond.

There's something to be said for the slower release cycle we see with
games like Doom, Duke, Quake, Half Life. I need a bit of time
in-between games to muster the excitement again.

-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:32:28 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-09-07, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my effort to post more often instead of bottling it all up for the 
>> end of month report, I'm posting on this one:
>>
>> Assassin's Creed for xbox 360
>>
>> Still liking the game, but these issues are definitely detracting from it.
>
>I played and enjoyed it on 360 a few years ago. I remember coming out
>of it thinking "that was good, I'll play the next one". Then they
>started releasing so many Assassin's Creed games that it became
>apparent that I would never be able to keep up unless I never played
>another game. Consequently I've never played AC2 or beyond.

You haven't really missed anything. They improved the controls
somewhat in the "AC2 trilogy" and generally made the core gameplay
more polished but that's pretty much it. The stories are purest
nonsense and at this point actually detract from the game. They keep
experimenting with new gimmicks (the most blatant being the "tower
defense" mode in Revelations), most of which aren't that much fun. The
new features that aren't completely awful - such as the crafting - get
added to the franchise's repitoire, until it gets to the point where
the game just has too many sub-systems and mini-games; the franchise
desperately needs to slim down and focus. The graphics and set-pieces
are usually impressive, and I love the climbing and exploring,
although these seem to be taking a back seat to the combat and grindy
"find the gimcrack" nonsense that Ubisoft games are famous for. 

Assassin's Creed is worth playing and if you haven't, then you should
give it a try. But just play one game of the franchise; it really
doesn't matter which one (AC1 is a bit rough around the edges though;
I think most people would say AC4 Black Flag is the best, although I
think I personally enjoyed AC3 more). Just don't bother with more than
one game; you aren't going to get any more out of it than you would if
you replayed the one you already have ;-)

>
>There's something to be said for the slower release cycle we see with
>games like Doom, Duke, Quake, Half Life. I need a bit of time
>in-between games to muster the excitement again.

Well, maybe not like Half Life ;-)

But Ubisoft, taking the hint from Activision and EASports,  has really
jumped onto the yearly-iteration-train for its franchises, and it has
definitely cost their games character and freshness. Apparently even
Ubisoft noticed this, as they've put the AC series "out to pasture"
for a few years so they can think up some new ideas. Unfortunately,
Watch Dogs and Far Cry (and to some degree, Ghost Recon) series have
been roped in to take up the slack...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 09:11:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:32:28 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2016-09-07, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In my effort to post more often instead of bottling it all up for the 
>>> end of month report, I'm posting on this one:
>>>
>>> Assassin's Creed for xbox 360
>>>
>>> Still liking the game, but these issues are definitely detracting from it.
>>
>>I played and enjoyed it on 360 a few years ago. I remember coming out
>>of it thinking "that was good, I'll play the next one". Then they
>>started releasing so many Assassin's Creed games that it became
>>apparent that I would never be able to keep up unless I never played
>>another game. Consequently I've never played AC2 or beyond.
>
>You haven't really missed anything. They improved the controls
>somewhat in the "AC2 trilogy" and generally made the core gameplay
>more polished but that's pretty much it. The stories are purest
>nonsense and at this point actually detract from the game. They keep
>experimenting with new gimmicks (the most blatant being the "tower
>defense" mode in Revelations), most of which aren't that much fun. The
>new features that aren't completely awful - such as the crafting - get
>added to the franchise's repitoire, until it gets to the point where
>the game just has too many sub-systems and mini-games; the franchise
>desperately needs to slim down and focus. The graphics and set-pieces
>are usually impressive, and I love the climbing and exploring,
>although these seem to be taking a back seat to the combat and grindy
>"find the gimcrack" nonsense that Ubisoft games are famous for. 
>
>Assassin's Creed is worth playing and if you haven't, then you should
>give it a try. But just play one game of the franchise; it really
>doesn't matter which one (AC1 is a bit rough around the edges though;
>I think most people would say AC4 Black Flag is the best, although I
>think I personally enjoyed AC3 more). Just don't bother with more than
>one game; you aren't going to get any more out of it than you would if
>you replayed the one you already have ;-)
>
>>
>>There's something to be said for the slower release cycle we see with
>>games like Doom, Duke, Quake, Half Life. I need a bit of time
>>in-between games to muster the excitement again.
>
>Well, maybe not like Half Life ;-)

I doubt it would be a wise move to even bother releasing another HL
game at this point.

After all these years, gamers have had time to fester in their
anticipation, creating intrinsic expectations about what that game
might be like in an ideal world.  Designing a game to accomodate such
deep-rooted belief that a game should be a certain way is an
impossible task.  At the very best, it would get trashed in reviews
and induce a lot of polarized opinions like Duke Nukem Forever did.  

When a game is initially released, it has the advantage of not having
these pre-assembled expectations to live up to.  

If it's a follow up with a high bar of expectations, it has a big
challenge.  If it has a decade or more of festering expectations, it
has an impossible challenge.

Doom was of course a success, but the expectations weren't really
there.  Most Doom fans already felt let down by Doom 3 (or the
audience was polarized at best), so it didn't matter much if Doom 2016
was a stinker.  Thankfully it wasn't.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:37:59 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 09:11:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 2016-09-07, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>There's something to be said for the slower release cycle we see with
>>>games like Doom, Duke, Quake, Half Life. I need a bit of time
>>>in-between games to muster the excitement again.

>>Well, maybe not like Half Life ;-)

>I doubt it would be a wise move to even bother releasing another HL
>game at this point.

I read an interesting article -
https://kopitiambot.com/2016/09/05/why-you-will-never-see-half-life-3/
- that postulated that there can't be a HL3 because the hero of HL2
died. The gist of the article - and I can see their point - the hero
of HL2 was /not/ Gordon Freeman but Eli Vance, and his death at the
end of episode 2*, the game lost its main protagonist.** An
interesting read.

Of course, the death of the main hero has never stopped a popular
franchise from continuing on, and I'm sure Valve is clever enough to
think up a story if they want to. But given the money-machine that is
Steam, I don't think they really want to.

>After all these years, gamers have had time to fester in their
>anticipation, creating intrinsic expectations about what that game
>might be like in an ideal world.  Designing a game to accomodate such
>deep-rooted belief that a game should be a certain way is an
>impossible task.  At the very best, it would get trashed in reviews
>and induce a lot of polarized opinions like Duke Nukem Forever did.  

>When a game is initially released, it has the advantage of not having
>these pre-assembled expectations to live up to.  

>If it's a follow up with a high bar of expectations, it has a big
>challenge.  If it has a decade or more of festering expectations, it
>has an impossible challenge.


This is a problem for games, but an "easy" way around this is to
re-introduce the franchise with "mini-games" first. E.g., don't jump
right into Half Life 3, but instead first release Half Life 2 Episode
3, Half Life: The Platformer and Half Life: The
Ultra-HD-Remake-With-VR-and-Whatever-Other-Tech-Is-The-Current-New-Hottness.
Only /then/ do you release Half Life 3. This method not only gets you
some extra cash and readies people for the "big game", it lessens
people's expectations because - instead of having waited ten years for
a "new Half Life game", they've only been waiting two or three.

Think of it like an appetizer for a big meal; stuff 'em full of
chicken wings first and they won't wolf down the main course and then
complain about how fast it disappeared ;-)



* spoiler, but c'mon, it's been 9 years. Also, Darth Vader is Luke's
dad) 

** The article does not challenge the idea that Gordon was the hero of
Half Life 1, however.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:37:59 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 09:11:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>><spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2016-09-07, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>There's something to be said for the slower release cycle we see with
>>>>games like Doom, Duke, Quake, Half Life. I need a bit of time
>>>>in-between games to muster the excitement again.
>
>>>Well, maybe not like Half Life ;-)
>
>>I doubt it would be a wise move to even bother releasing another HL
>>game at this point.
>
>I read an interesting article -
>https://kopitiambot.com/2016/09/05/why-you-will-never-see-half-life-3/
>- that postulated that there can't be a HL3 because the hero of HL2
>died. The gist of the article - and I can see their point - the hero
>of HL2 was /not/ Gordon Freeman but Eli Vance, and his death at the
>end of episode 2*, the game lost its main protagonist.** An
>interesting read.

Read the article and it is an interesting theory but one I don't
believe.

While they did take the focus away from Gordon, *YOU* were still playing
Gordon, not Eli.
In most games the player character is the hero, not a sidekick or other
bit player.
His analogy at the end is semi-apt about You being a Mario equivalent
and Eli the Princess Peach - except it's Half-life not Mario, and the
princess was never even in the first one.

Just because Gordon got relegated to seeming gopher status in HL2 does
not mean there can't be a HL3, Eli is irrelevant except as a symbol,
after all he never actually did anything (that I can remember anyway.)
Funny I can remember pretty much all of Half-life and pretty much
nothing about HL2, it was that forgettable.

So just forget it and pick up with Gordon as the hero, as he is supposed
to be.
I just treat HL2 like the *other* Hl2 and pretend it didn't exist.
The other one of course being Highlander2.

Hopefully HL3 the game turns out better than Highlander3. :)

>Of course, the death of the main hero has never stopped a popular
>franchise from continuing on, and I'm sure Valve is clever enough to
>think up a story if they want to. But given the money-machine that is
>Steam, I don't think they really want to.

It depends on their gamerness and self-image I guess - are they game
devs or are they beancounters and salescritters?

>>After all these years, gamers have had time to fester in their
>>anticipation, creating intrinsic expectations about what that game
>>might be like in an ideal world.  Designing a game to accomodate such
>>deep-rooted belief that a game should be a certain way is an
>>impossible task.  At the very best, it would get trashed in reviews
>>and induce a lot of polarized opinions like Duke Nukem Forever did.  

Well honestly DNF did suck hard and was so heavily consolized no PC
player could really be happy with it.

>>When a game is initially released, it has the advantage of not having
>>these pre-assembled expectations to live up to.  
>
>>If it's a follow up with a high bar of expectations, it has a big
>>challenge.  If it has a decade or more of festering expectations, it
>>has an impossible challenge.

Yes and no.   If you keep the hype machine alive, then you build those
expectations - if Valve were to just get on with making halflife3
*without telling anyone they were doing so*, then there would be no
expectation, and then when they suddenly, out of the blue, announce beta
testing, the hype machine that is the internet would cream it's jeans in
rapture, but with a fairly short time between the announcement and
release, you wouldn't have festering expectations, just expectations for
a game they never though would happen.

That is I think the problem with beancounter run companies, because they
want market saturation and want to sell as many copies as humanly
possible, they start advertising the game when it's in pre-alpha stages
to build hype, hype they cannot possibly maintain in a positive way.
Every delay costs them, every feature that gets dropped costs them,
every change costs them.
If they'd just shut the fuck up until the game was actually playable and
ready for public beta, and then let people know it's happening,  they
wouldn't fuck themselves like this over and over again.

Don't want people to be disappointed with a game, don't hype features
you don't actually end up including and don't start hyping a game you
know is not going to be ready for years.


The need to just make it and then blindside the gamers with it's
existence.
No hype = no theories about what's going to be in it, no featurets on
youtube showing gameplay = no grumbling when those features get changed
or cut.

Valve aren't a new company, they don't need to find a publisher, they
don't need to hype at all, they don't need to show off at E3.

They could just wait until it's ready for beta and slap a splash screen
on steam "Sign up for Halflife 3 beta test" and probably bring steam to
it's knees with millions of people trying to sign up all at once.

>This is a problem for games, but an "easy" way around this is to
>re-introduce the franchise with "mini-games" first. E.g., don't jump
>right into Half Life 3, but instead first release Half Life 2 Episode
>3, Half Life: The Platformer and Half Life: The
>Ultra-HD-Remake-With-VR-and-Whatever-Other-Tech-Is-The-Current-New-Hottness.
>Only /then/ do you release Half Life 3. This method not only gets you
>some extra cash and readies people for the "big game", it lessens
>people's expectations because - instead of having waited ten years for
>a "new Half Life game", they've only been waiting two or three.
>
>Think of it like an appetizer for a big meal; stuff 'em full of
>chicken wings first and they won't wolf down the main course and then
>complain about how fast it disappeared ;-)

I was thinking bread sticks or garlic bread rather than chicken wings.

>* spoiler, but c'mon, it's been 9 years. Also, Darth Vader is Luke's
>dad) 
>
>** The article does not challenge the idea that Gordon was the hero of
>Half Life 1, however.

Since he's the character you play, he's the hero in hl2 as well, even if
it seems he doesn't lead - he's the only one actually doing anything.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 09:27:10 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>If it's a follow up with a high bar of expectations, it has a big
>>challenge.  If it has a decade or more of festering expectations, it
>>has an impossible challenge.
>
>
>This is a problem for games, but an "easy" way around this is to
>re-introduce the franchise with "mini-games" first. E.g., don't jump
>right into Half Life 3, but instead first release Half Life 2 Episode
>3, Half Life: The Platformer and Half Life: The
>Ultra-HD-Remake-With-VR-and-Whatever-Other-Tech-Is-The-Current-New-Hottness.
>Only /then/ do you release Half Life 3. This method not only gets you
>some extra cash and readies people for the "big game", it lessens
>people's expectations because - instead of having waited ten years for
>a "new Half Life game", they've only been waiting two or three.
>
>Think of it like an appetizer for a big meal; stuff 'em full of
>chicken wings first and they won't wolf down the main course and then
>complain about how fast it disappeared ;-)

>* spoiler, but c'mon, it's been 9 years. Also, Darth Vader is Luke's
>dad) 
>
>** The article does not challenge the idea that Gordon was the hero of
>Half Life 1, however.

When did that Lost Coast thing come out? That was well after HL2,
right? Didn't that add a bunch of ligthing effects and stuff?

Was that just a test for what was coming in Left 4 Dead?

My timeline might be a bit screwed up, I never felt the HL2's were
more than OK games. From Xen to that thing with the flinging the
barrels with the car... Its like Valve tries to top themselves for
shittiest last level with every release of the game.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 14:47:55 -0400, Tim O <n...@thanks.com> wrote:



>When did that Lost Coast thing come out? That was well after HL2,
>right? Didn't that add a bunch of ligthing effects and stuff?

>Was that just a test for what was coming in Left 4 Dead?

Lost Coast came out in 2005. It was an update to the HL2 engine, so
yes, it came out after HL2, which was released a year earlier. It
wasn't a test for Left4Dead (2008) as much as a graphical-overhaul of
the Source engine with a tech-demo map attached to it, perhaps in
anticipation of Episode 1 (2006).


>My timeline might be a bit screwed up, I never felt the HL2's were
>more than OK games. From Xen to that thing with the flinging the
>barrels with the car... Its like Valve tries to top themselves for
>shittiest last level with every release of the game.

I too was underwhelmed by Half Life 2. Its level design was
disgustingly linear - even for FPS games of the day - with too many
invisible walls destroying immersion. The story and characters were
absolute crap, not helped by Valve's insistence on keeping Gordon
Freeman as a voiceless protagonist (the plot improved some with
episodes 1 and 2, but the original was awful). Except for the water
effects and the facial animation, I thought the graphics were
/average/ but the actual artwork was often an eyesore (Nova Prospekt
especially). Unlike most, I was not particularly impressed by the
gravity gun or half-assed "physics puzzles" that were crammed into the
gameplay willy-nilly.  It was, in my opinion, an average game that
achieved renown far beyond its worth simply because it was a sequel to
the far-better Half Life 1. 

But I have accepted that I am in the minority here ;-)

Mind you, I didn't hate the Xen levels that much either. The
platforming at the start of that chapter was attrocious, of course and
it ran in opposition to the strengths of the rest of the game, but I
could see what the developers were trying to achieve. They admirably
created a world that felt very alien - all the more impressive given
the limited technology of the era - where the player felt truly
isolated. The actual gameflow was poor and definitely needed more of
Valve's famouse iterative process, but - after fighting so long
through the samey-looking halls of Black Mesa, I didn't mind the
change of scenery. In no way can I call Xen my favorite part of the
game - I agree it is the weakest chapter - but I did not feel the same
vehemence toward it as did others.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:37:50 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:



>I too was underwhelmed by Half Life 2. 

Burn him!


>But I have accepted that I am in the minority here ;-)


I don't think anything beat it at the time. It's still one of my most
favourite games (along with the original).


I also dearly loved the Bioshock games...well the first two anyway. I
really didn't think much of Bioshock Infinite.

I'm looking forward to playing the first two again very soon when
"Bioshock: The Collection" is released very soon. The remastered
versions look rather nice.

I never finished Infinite (although I'm pretty sure I was close to the
end when I quit) but I won't play it ever again anyway.

The first two I played multiple times and will do so again.


http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bioshock-the-collection-pc-system-requirements-rev/1100-6443455/

-- 
Rob

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:44:45 +0100, Mr Rob
<noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:37:50 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I too was underwhelmed by Half Life 2. 
>
>Burn him!
>
>
>>But I have accepted that I am in the minority here ;-)
>
>
>I don't think anything beat it at the time. It's still one of my most
>favourite games (along with the original).

I played HL2 after playing the orignal Far Cry. Even though FC only
hinted at the open world action games to come, it felt so much more
immersive than HL2 with its levels that looked open, but were actually
little pathways with obstructions preventing you from getting to the
painted backgrounds.

It felt like being on a movie set after Far Cry. Looked great, but was
all fake.

On 2016-09-10, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mind you, I didn't hate the Xen levels that much either. The
> platforming at the start of that chapter was attrocious, of course and
> it ran in opposition to the strengths of the rest of the game, but I
> could see what the developers were trying to achieve. They admirably
> created a world that felt very alien - all the more impressive given
> the limited technology of the era - where the player felt truly
> isolated. The actual gameflow was poor and definitely needed more of
> Valve's famouse iterative process, but - after fighting so long
> through the samey-looking halls of Black Mesa, I didn't mind the
> change of scenery. In no way can I call Xen my favorite part of the
> game - I agree it is the weakest chapter - but I did not feel the same
> vehemence toward it as did others.

I preferred Xen to the monorail level. In fact I didn't get the hate
at all until I read about it years later on the web.


-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 2016-09-10, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mind you, I didn't hate the Xen levels that much either. The
>> platforming at the start of that chapter was attrocious, of course and
>> it ran in opposition to the strengths of the rest of the game, but I
>> could see what the developers were trying to achieve. They admirably
>> created a world that felt very alien - all the more impressive given
>> the limited technology of the era - where the player felt truly
>> isolated. The actual gameflow was poor and definitely needed more of
>> Valve's famouse iterative process, but - after fighting so long
>> through the samey-looking halls of Black Mesa, I didn't mind the
>> change of scenery. In no way can I call Xen my favorite part of the
>> game - I agree it is the weakest chapter - but I did not feel the same
>> vehemence toward it as did others.
>
>I preferred Xen to the monorail level. In fact I didn't get the hate
>at all until I read about it years later on the web.

I never understood the hate.
I can see why some people didn't like it since it was a drastic change
of pace, but that's also what made it good - it was extremely different
and _ALIEN_.   Instead of some alien shit in our world, you have the
occasionally bit of human stuff in their world, the exact opposite of
what happened in the first 80% or so of the game.

They broke into your house, first you kicked em out, then you took the
fight to them.

As odd as the levels are, it's still damn good, in part because it is
damn odd and utterly alien feeling, and that is hard to do.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:44:18 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:

>Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On 2016-09-10, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>
>>I preferred Xen to the monorail level. In fact I didn't get the hate
>>at all until I read about it years later on the web.
>
>I never understood the hate.
>I can see why some people didn't like it since it was a drastic change
>of pace, but that's also what made it good - it was extremely different
>and _ALIEN_.   Instead of some alien shit in our world, you have the
>occasionally bit of human stuff in their world, the exact opposite of
>what happened in the first 80% or so of the game.

Well, the platforming segments at the very beginning probably had a
lot to do with it. Platforming in FPS games - and especially early FPS
games - is terrible. That first Xen level had you jumping onto
floating platforms over an infinite abyss; one slip and you were
toast. That's not a great introduction to the world. The Xen levels
also had much poorer direction than the Black Mesa levels; it wasn't
immediately obvious where you were supposed to go next. Again, this
was a fairly radical change compared to the Black Mesa levels, where
you usually had a good idea of what your next step was. Also, one of
Half Life's most impressive features was its friendly AI; you met and
worked with computer-controlled allies in a way that felt fairly
lifelike. There was none of this in Xen. 

As I said, I understood what the developers were going for: they
wanted to change things up by creating a world that felt different and
alien, shaking the player out of his complacent understanding of the
game's mechanics. Unfortunately, I think - and popular opinion seems
to agree with me for once - that Valve did it in a half-assed way,
resulting in a less-than-stellar experience. For a lot of player,
these changes were too broad and sudden and just not fun. And since
the rest of the game was so good, Xen compared very poorly.

I think player's reception to Xen would have been less negative if
Valve had introduced the players to the region more gradually; perhaps
by having parts of Xen "bleed over" into our dimension (sort of like
Hell did in the later levels of Doom 3), or if the player was briefly
teleported to Xen for a quick puzzle before returning to Earth
(similar to how was done in the Blue Shift expansion). 

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:44:18 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>>the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>>On 2016-09-10, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>I preferred Xen to the monorail level. In fact I didn't get the hate
>>>at all until I read about it years later on the web.
>>
>>I never understood the hate.
>>I can see why some people didn't like it since it was a drastic change
>>of pace, but that's also what made it good - it was extremely different
>>and _ALIEN_.   Instead of some alien shit in our world, you have the
>>occasionally bit of human stuff in their world, the exact opposite of
>>what happened in the first 80% or so of the game.
>
>Well, the platforming segments at the very beginning probably had a
>lot to do with it. Platforming in FPS games - and especially early FPS
>games - is terrible. That first Xen level had you jumping onto
>floating platforms over an infinite abyss; one slip and you were
>toast. That's not a great introduction to the world. 

It actually is - you're not in the facility you know like the back of
your hand, with allies and such, you are in an alien world and your life
could be snuffed out in a second.

Besides, this was before the over consolization of PC games and it had
save anywhere didn't it?  Save, try jump, fall, reload no biggie.

Now had it come out post 2010 that would be: jump, fall, reload at save
point, watch long annoying cutscene, travel some distance to reach the
jump point again, try the jump again.

>The Xen levels
>also had much poorer direction than the Black Mesa levels; it wasn't
>immediately obvious where you were supposed to go next. Again, this
>was a fairly radical change compared to the Black Mesa levels, where
>you usually had a good idea of what your next step was. Also, one of
>Half Life's most impressive features was its friendly AI; you met and
>worked with computer-controlled allies in a way that felt fairly
>lifelike. There was none of this in Xen. 

Yeah, cause it's an alien world, not your place of work where you know
the place and the people, you aren't supposed to be comfortable, or know
what to do or where to go instantly, you're in an alien dimension and
have to figure it out.   You do have the advantage of knowing you aren't
the first in and the previous people will have left signs, and they did.


>As I said, I understood what the developers were going for: they
>wanted to change things up by creating a world that felt different and
>alien, shaking the player out of his complacent understanding of the
>game's mechanics. Unfortunately, I think - and popular opinion seems
>to agree with me for once - that Valve did it in a half-assed way,
>resulting in a less-than-stellar experience. For a lot of player,
>these changes were too broad and sudden and just not fun. And since
>the rest of the game was so good, Xen compared very poorly.

The pre-Xen world in half-life was on rails.
Very pretty, very lifelike, very well done rails, but rails nonetheless,
and methinks that people had a big problem going from on rails to "I
have to think now" and just started whining and bitching about how they
weren't being handheld anymore.

>I think player's reception to Xen would have been less negative if
>Valve had introduced the players to the region more gradually; perhaps
>by having parts of Xen "bleed over" into our dimension (sort of like
>Hell did in the later levels of Doom 3), or if the player was briefly
>teleported to Xen for a quick puzzle before returning to Earth
>(similar to how was done in the Blue Shift expansion). 

I doubt it - they got used to being told exactly where to go and what to
do, in an environment that didn't really let them go off the rails, then
they're placed somewhere that's not true anymore.
Unless they were sent to XEN as part of an expedition under orders and
told exactly what to do at every stage, the bitching would have happened
exactly as it did.
The mindless shooter suddenly made them think and they didn't like it
one little bit.

Probably thought it was a nasty trick; Valve gave them a fun mindless
shooter and then suddenly made them think - what a dirty nasty trick!

I'd almost be willing to bet you the people who didn't have a problem
with it at all were all older gamers and/or RPG players, used to games
that weren't on rails and that required thought, so the XEN levels were
no big deal at all.

For the DOOM type "just shoot everything" players on the other hand ...

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

Xocyll wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:44:18 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>>> the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-10, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I preferred Xen to the monorail level. In fact I didn't get the hate
>>>> at all until I read about it years later on the web.
>>>
>>> I never understood the hate.
>>> I can see why some people didn't like it since it was a drastic change
>>> of pace, but that's also what made it good - it was extremely different
>>> and _ALIEN_.   Instead of some alien shit in our world, you have the
>>> occasionally bit of human stuff in their world, the exact opposite of
>>> what happened in the first 80% or so of the game.
>>
>> Well, the platforming segments at the very beginning probably had a
>> lot to do with it. Platforming in FPS games - and especially early FPS
>> games - is terrible. That first Xen level had you jumping onto
>> floating platforms over an infinite abyss; one slip and you were
>> toast. That's not a great introduction to the world.
>
> It actually is - you're not in the facility you know like the back of
> your hand, with allies and such, you are in an alien world and your life
> could be snuffed out in a second.
>
> Besides, this was before the over consolization of PC games and it had
> save anywhere didn't it?  Save, try jump, fall, reload no biggie.
>
> Now had it come out post 2010 that would be: jump, fall, reload at save
> point, watch long annoying cutscene, travel some distance to reach the
> jump point again, try the jump again.
>
>> The Xen levels
>> also had much poorer direction than the Black Mesa levels; it wasn't
>> immediately obvious where you were supposed to go next. Again, this
>> was a fairly radical change compared to the Black Mesa levels, where
>> you usually had a good idea of what your next step was. Also, one of
>> Half Life's most impressive features was its friendly AI; you met and
>> worked with computer-controlled allies in a way that felt fairly
>> lifelike. There was none of this in Xen.
>
> Yeah, cause it's an alien world, not your place of work where you know
> the place and the people, you aren't supposed to be comfortable, or know
> what to do or where to go instantly, you're in an alien dimension and
> have to figure it out.   You do have the advantage of knowing you aren't
> the first in and the previous people will have left signs, and they did.
>
>
>> As I said, I understood what the developers were going for: they
>> wanted to change things up by creating a world that felt different and
>> alien, shaking the player out of his complacent understanding of the
>> game's mechanics. Unfortunately, I think - and popular opinion seems
>> to agree with me for once - that Valve did it in a half-assed way,
>> resulting in a less-than-stellar experience. For a lot of player,
>> these changes were too broad and sudden and just not fun. And since
>> the rest of the game was so good, Xen compared very poorly.
>
> The pre-Xen world in half-life was on rails.
> Very pretty, very lifelike, very well done rails, but rails nonetheless,
> and methinks that people had a big problem going from on rails to "I
> have to think now" and just started whining and bitching about how they
> weren't being handheld anymore.
>
>> I think player's reception to Xen would have been less negative if
>> Valve had introduced the players to the region more gradually; perhaps
>> by having parts of Xen "bleed over" into our dimension (sort of like
>> Hell did in the later levels of Doom 3), or if the player was briefly
>> teleported to Xen for a quick puzzle before returning to Earth
>> (similar to how was done in the Blue Shift expansion).
>
> I doubt it - they got used to being told exactly where to go and what to
> do, in an environment that didn't really let them go off the rails, then
> they're placed somewhere that's not true anymore.
> Unless they were sent to XEN as part of an expedition under orders and
> told exactly what to do at every stage, the bitching would have happened
> exactly as it did.
> The mindless shooter suddenly made them think and they didn't like it
> one little bit.
>
> Probably thought it was a nasty trick; Valve gave them a fun mindless
> shooter and then suddenly made them think - what a dirty nasty trick!
>
> I'd almost be willing to bet you the people who didn't have a problem
> with it at all were all older gamers and/or RPG players, used to games
> that weren't on rails and that required thought, so the XEN levels were
> no big deal at all.
>
> For the DOOM type "just shoot everything" players on the other hand ...
>

Sadly I don't remember hardly anything from HL2, and not the XEN levels. 
  I remember thinking it was o.k. but no HL1.  I know I finished it, but 
that's it.

- Justisaur