Well I don't know where you've heard that, firefights do happen in SC:C and as long as you're tactically intelligent about it, your survivability is reasonable. But the thing is that the game, if not forces, then powerfully encourages you to switch between different playstyles to suit the developing situations. So you might start by sneaking around and taking out a few outliers with stealth attacks, then you cut loose with the mark and execute you earned from those stealth takedowns, if you do it well you'll still be uncompromised so you can stealth onwards, but you might have just got the attention of some other guys and a small firefight breaks out - you exploit the way the AI will try to seek out and flank your last known position to get the drop on the enemies and you clear the room and move on.Cybernetic pig wrote:Well I may not be in the position to say, but it looks like it is just playing the game for you (which it is, auto aim instakill) now I hear you do not HAVE to use it but if you try shooting em up normally you will die no matter what.
That's an example of how the pacing in the game works. If you try to gun it through the whole game you're going to have a bad time, it's insanely hard. If you try to use mark & execute to get through the whole game, well... you can't - you unlock them with stealth takedowns. If you try to stealth your way through the whole thing it's probably going to be a challenge but you'll have a good time and it's mostly possible, though there are a few setpieces where you have to try a different approach, such as mining the fuck out of an area where you'll be under attack for a while, for example.
I don't think you can blame the game for your refusal to take responsibility for your own fun. I mean in situations where you're literally punished for playing the game the way you want, then yeah you can blame it on the game, but if the game is trying to accomodate several different playstyles, don't criticise it if you find yourself only wanting to pick one certain playstyle all the time.I havent tried this myself but I never thought too highly of SC1 etc and now with this mark and kill it looks rediculous. Still you dont have to use it and instead stealth the whole game, but most of the time If I have a gun in my hand im gonna start a war, especially when said guns are upgradable.
I mean you're free to criticise it for that, of course, but I'm not sure what to use your criticism for. You have to critique a game on its own terms in order for your criticism to be useful to other people.
Also SC:C has about as much to do with SC1 as BioShock has to do with System Shock. It's such a different game to play, it might as well be a spiritual sequel rather than a proper one. The bottom line being that you won't get a good idea of how the game plays by mentally transposing one of the new features into the old game that you've played.
I too enjoyed Hitman: Blood Money much much more than Splinter Cell 1. But Splinter Cell 1 also did not have mark & execute, so no - I doubt Blood Money's lack of that feature was part of why you liked it more than SC1Hitman Bloodmoney I thought was far better than Splinter Cell in terms of gameplay, even though the shooting sucks. But I enjoyed the stealth because multiple routes, NO mark & kill mechanic and you are rewarded with more cash to upgrade your weapons. If H:BM did not have upgradable weapons though I would have not enjoyed it as much at all. But because it did feature that I had a blast, great music, great atmosphere, some wacky locations. It was a shame the shooting sucked though but everything else was near perfect.
Also while I respect Aemer's right to think highly of Blood Money's shooting, I agree with you that it was pretty bad.
I'm not sure that I agree with that definition of the term, but I understand what you mean now. The whole concept of balance in games is a little problematic to discuss because it seems to mean different things to different people, and besides - a lot of the time you can get amazing gameplay out of really shitty balance. Sometimes, particularly in singleplayer games, the joy of finding a truly overpowered build or strategy is a moment of triumph, rather than the point where the entire game experience breaks down.AEmer wrote:but to me, the sense that something is "OP" (...which is weird in the first place because my friends and I use the term mockingly...) is really a fear that a product is or will be sub-par in my oppinion, due to a quack making a specific aspect ridiculously powerful.
It's probably still prejudice to call something OP without playing it or examining it closely, but honestly, it conveys a specific feeling, a specific criticism, much better than the more general "I don't think I'll like that", which isn't even really a criticism.
AmenIn that sense though, the last question should probably be answered in the affirmitive: It's pretty darn stupid to level criticism at products you haven't played, because you complaints, even if taken seriously by someone somewhere, might just result in a gaming experience that translates better into one of those glimpses you got of the game; in other words, at the very best, criticism of things you don't have a clue about because you haven't played them might cause developers to dumb down future games - and that's at the very best.