 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Action Games / Half Life / June 2007NPC sympathy
Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional level? Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond just being helpers)? >Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along >with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a >sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional >level? >Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond >just being helpers)? Alyx in HL2:Ep1 was an NPC that felt good to have by your side. In HL2, most of the NPC's were stupid and got in your way which detracted from the immersion, so I wasn't bothered when they got shot. I missed the Antlions more than the humans! Helper NPC's done right really improve a game for me, but done wrong can really show up a bad AI implementation.  SignatureAndrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. > Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along > with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a > sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional > level? Dude, I'm a total pussy. I felt bad when the antlions died. Although I did purposefully kill the the scientists in HL1 /scratches chin > Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond > just being helpers)? Cannon fodder? You mean like loud mouthed right wing republican whiskey drinking gun touting Texans? :) I purposefully conserve them. I had to reload a section before Nova Prospekt because I tried to do too much of it myself and didn't employ my antlions enough. I didn't have enough health to proceed so I needed to reload. > Cannon fodder? You mean like loud mouthed right wing republican whiskey > drinking gun touting Texans? :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my antlions enough. I didn't have enough health to proceed so I needed > to reload. I should point out (on re-read) that's the antlions I conserve. ;) > Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along > with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a > sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional > level? > Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond > just being helpers)? I hold them to be no more "real" than, say, Tony Blair or the Beckhams. Utterly disposable. ;o) > I hold them to be no more "real" than, say, Tony Blair or the Beckhams. > Utterly disposable. > > ;o) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2075005,00.html >> I hold them to be no more "real" than, say, Tony Blair or the Beckhams. >> Utterly disposable. >> >> ;o) > > http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2075005,00.html Yeah, like I said, utterly disposable... >>> I hold them to be no more "real" than, say, Tony Blair or the Beckhams. >>> Utterly disposable. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yeah, like I said, utterly disposable... Whatever dude, you're entitled to your opinion, unfortunately... >>>> I hold them to be no more "real" than, say, Tony Blair or the Beckhams. >>>> Utterly disposable. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Whatever dude, you're entitled to your opinion, unfortunately... Uhoh - you a Blair fan? >>>> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2075005,00.html >>> Yeah, like I said, utterly disposable... >> Whatever dude, you're entitled to your opinion, unfortunately... > > Uhoh - you a Blair fan? I'm not going to even answer that. What I was hoping for was some sort of cognitive response and not some clipping you'd taken from the back of a tabloid. I'm going to cite a good example from that article I posted. "Tony Blair's legacy will depend immensely on when you ask historians that question. Jimmy Carter was considered a complete disaster shortly after the end of his term in office, but has been recently voted the most popular American president." I'll admit, I'm a child of the Thatcherite era. After her, things really couldn't have been much worse. Domestically (I don't know, are you British?) I believe Blair was a very good PM no matter how much you do or do not attribute to Brown. Please, by all means disagree with me. But don't come out with "utterly disposable..." what does that even mean? >>>>> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2075005,00.html >>>> Yeah, like I said, utterly disposable... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Please, by all means disagree with me. But don't come out with "utterly > disposable..." what does that even mean? It's my opinion of him - good riddance to the lying creep. I think him and his bunch have done serious damage to this country. And I don't read tabloids... >>>>> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2075005,00.html >>>> Yeah, like I said, utterly disposable... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Please, by all means disagree with me. But don't come out with "utterly > disposable..." what does that even mean? Not really one for politics so I'll make one post in this thread. I also lived through the Thatcher years and hated the Tory's with a vengeance. I went to Court for refusing to pay the poll tax, I marched. Everyone I knew including me and most of my family were out of work. On the day Blair was voted in I could have partied for two weeks. Now I look around and I see improvements almost everywhere especially in our regenerated town centres. I don't know anyone out of work. I have lots of family that work in the NHS and they have seen massive improvement (no matter what the papers say - they have other agendas and deliberate short memories anyway). On the other hand I have never been taxed so much in my life and the BIG downer for me? - never have I felt so spied on. Never have I felt so strongly that my liberties are being eroded. Camera's on every street corner, tagged passports and now they want spies in the car and in my bloody refuse bin FFS. He was in too long. He got carried away with his self-importance. Its time for a change... and if Brown isn't a fairly clean sweeping brush I'll be the first in my family to vote Tory. If only as a protest - I'm not too old for protests though they'll have to be more peaceful than they used to be... ;-) > Not really one for politics so I'll make one post in this thread. I > also lived through the Thatcher years and hated the Tory's with a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If only as a protest - I'm not too old for protests though they'll have > to be more peaceful than they used to be... ;-) I confess the powers they're trying to force through enabling the police to hold suspects for more than 72 hours is worrying. I don't feel intimated by the camera's though. I think they're for the good, personally. Lots of "anti social behaviour in my part of the world. I think the Balir administration did lose it's way and the confidence of the electrorate in the end. One last thing. I would vote Liberal as a protest vote. I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote Tory again. > I confess the powers they're trying to force through enabling the police > to hold suspects for more than 72 hours is worrying. I don't feel > intimated by the camera's though. > I think they're for the good, personally. Lots of "anti social behaviour > in my part of the world. What?! Cameras don't do sh.t against anti-social behavior, nor do asbos! There an erosion of my civil liberties IMHO, I'd rather they weren't there. > I think the Balir administration did lose it's way and the confidence of > the electrorate in the end. Yeah, ever since the death of David Kelly, I think public respect for Blair has dipped pretty low. Its a shame, he had mostly good domestic policies and good economics, he brought peace to the north. But he also substantially eroded civil liberties, invaded Iraq and openly lied to the people. He's leaving Britain a little too "Brave New World" for my liking. > One last thing. I would vote Liberal as a protest vote. I don't think I > could ever bring myself to vote Tory again. Yeah, same, Torys = more of the same. Civilian_Target > What?! Cameras don't do sh.t against anti-social behavior, nor do asbos! > There an erosion of my civil liberties IMHO, I'd rather they weren't there. It's my understanding that they do but since I've no facts to back it up I can say no more. I know that video evidence has been used in the past however. >> I think the Balir administration did lose it's way and the confidence >> of the electrorate in the end. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the people. He's leaving Britain a little too "Brave New World" for my > liking. He did deceive on several policies but I think he held true on more than he failed to deliver. >> One last thing. I would vote Liberal as a protest vote. I don't think >> I could ever bring myself to vote Tory again. > > Yeah, same, Torys = more of the same. Depends whether you think "New Labour" are middle or right. I go for the former although their success came about partly due to the f.ck ups of the tories and the said grey area. > It's my understanding that they do but since I've no facts to back it up > I can say no more. I know that video evidence has been used in the past > however. CCTVs don't reduce crime http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/response-surveillance_p4.htm http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-61925&als[theme ]=Video%20Surveillance&headline=CCTV%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions http://www.nacro.org.uk/templates/news/newsItem.cfm/2002062800.htm Even home office reports say, at best that CCTV "can be linked to" reduction in crime. It doesn't show that crime was reduced by CCTV. Civilian_Target >> It's my understanding that they do but since I've no facts to back it >> up I can say no more. I know that video evidence has been used in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Civilian_Target Any reduction is good. I don't think the privacy concerns are as strongly founded as some might claim. The sites you all posted have a definitive bias. > Any reduction is good. I don't think the privacy concerns are as > strongly founded as some might claim. I like my privacy! I think being spied upon all day is an unnecessary intrusion into my life and having all my details on an electronic record available to the fingertips of any dubious government employee for any purpose is not only dangerous, it also constitutes an undermining of the very principle of innocent until proven guilty by encouraging assumed guilt or innocence based on ones record. > The sites you all posted have a definitive bias. Of course! I want to you to agree with me :) But when I googled it there were definitely more anti- than pro- CCTV sentiments out there! Civilian_Target >> Any reduction is good. I don't think the privacy concerns are as >> strongly founded as some might claim. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Civilian_Target Well I like treacle pudding, doesn't mean I'm going to be able to eat it everyday. :) As I see it, the CCTV might only cut down crime a little in some areas but in others it will discourage it a lot. Stabbings are not unheard of Newcastle and having a camera there for evidence can be, well as you might expect, important. >>> Any reduction is good. I don't think the privacy concerns are as >>> strongly founded as some might claim. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Stabbings are not unheard of Newcastle and having a camera there for > evidence can be, well as you might expect, important. Personally I'd prefer half-dozen burly coppers to prevent it in the first place. There's a reason 'hoodies' became popular amongst the 'youf' you know. > Stabbings are not unheard of Newcastle and having a camera there for > evidence can be, well as you might expect, important. I'd much rather patrolling police officers, that would serve as crime prevention instead of evidence to a crime. Civilian_Target >> Stabbings are not unheard of Newcastle and having a camera there for >> evidence can be, well as you might expect, important. > > I'd much rather patrolling police officers, that would serve as crime > prevention instead of evidence to a crime. Aaah... deja vu... Agreed. >> Stabbings are not unheard of Newcastle and having a camera there for >> evidence can be, well as you might expect, important. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Civilian_Target So would I but I'm enough of a pragmatist to know the people cannot be everywhere all the time. They're no jesus although some of them certainly think they are. > I like my privacy! I think being spied upon all day is an unnecessary > intrusion into my life... I don't think it's as bad as people make out. I'm more worried about some hidden camera reality show inadvertently catching a w.nk session than low-res images of innocent passers-by in the street. > ...and having all my details on an electronic record available to the > fingertips of any dubious government employee for any purpose is not only > dangerous, it also constitutes an undermining of the very principle of > innocent until proven guilty by encouraging assumed guilt or innocence > based on ones record. That is a bigger worry than CCTV, for sure. >> The sites you all posted have a definitive bias. > > Of course! I want to you to agree with me :) But when I googled it there > were definitely more anti- than pro- CCTV sentiments out there! That's to be expected. It's one of these things where people either hate it, or don't care - a bit like Steam. You don't ever see posts that say how wonderful it is, but there was at least one writer on this group who seemed to devote his waking life to ranting about it. People who don't fret about privacy are ambivalent about CCTV because its worth cannot be proven. If it suddenly became invaluable in finding Madeline McCann there would be a polar shift in opinion, in this country, at least. >> Not really one for politics so I'll make one post in this thread. Well... buggered that didn't I? > One last thing. I would vote Liberal as a protest vote. I don't think I > could ever bring myself to vote Tory again. Have to ask... Again!!!!???? > Have to ask... Again!!!!???? Sorry, I was quite twatted by that stage. Allow me to rephrase. -again Ta Ok, I can't remain silent on this topic. my comments are below. Squat >>>>> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2075005,00.html >>>> Yeah, like I said, utterly disposable... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the end of his term in office, but has been recently voted the most > popular American president." Stri, do you agree with this or just cut&pasting? Who the hell thinks Carter is the most popular? 5 yr olds? Agree or disagree, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton (Three VERY different presidents) are and were FAR more popular than Carter ever was or will be. Carter won the election because of the Watergate fallout. He was promptly voted out of office 4 yrs later when everyone realized what an incompetent boob the man was. Remember, he lost in one of the largest landslide elections in history. It's only because he is rude enough to criticize a sitting president (A rare occurrence and considered un-presidential) that he is being used by Anti-Bush types to bolster their arguments. I can't speak for Thatcher and Blair as I don't live in the UK. From the US Point of view, it seems that Blair has run against the base of his party (Isn't his party typically liberal?) and taken a long view that the west is engaged in a societal struggle to adapt and come to terms with Islam. This may not be popular (and history will show if he was correct) but it seems he is working from principal and not from the polls. But, I am old enough to remember Carter and what a complete fool the man was. (His answer to the energy crisis? Wear sweaters indoors! - oh my god, what an idiot) Someone is attempting to rewrite history to fit their agenda. > I'll admit, I'm a child of the Thatcherite era. After her, things really > couldn't have been much worse. Domestically (I don't know, are you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Please, by all means disagree with me. But don't come out with "utterly > disposable..." what does that even mean? > Stri, do you agree with this or just cut&pasting? No, I was quoting a notable American paper (I think it was the NY Times) but I may have made a mistake. I've only recently started taking an interest in politics so you'll have to forgive me if wrong occasionally. > Who the hell thinks Carter is the most popular? 5 yr olds? Agree or > disagree, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton (Three VERY different presidents) are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > occurrence and considered un-presidential) that he is being used by > Anti-Bush types to bolster their arguments. I may be wrong but I think Labour are considered a socialist party although after "New Labour" adopted several Thatcherite policies it's considered to middle now. > I can't speak for Thatcher and Blair as I don't live in the UK. From the US > Point of view, it seems that Blair has run against the base of his party Yes, it seems that after several back bench revolts he lost the support of the party and after that his replacement was inevitable. > (Isn't his party typically liberal?) and taken a long view that the west is > engaged in a societal struggle to adapt and come to terms with Islam. This > may not be popular (and history will show if he was correct) but it seems he > is working from principal and not from the polls. I believe that too but I still to this day do not understand why he so strongly supported the US in Iraq. It seems that was a mistake. >> Stri, do you agree with this or just cut&pasting? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > although after "New Labour" adopted several Thatcherite policies it's > considered to middle now. I had wondered about that. (Labour = Socialist) but wasn't sure. >> I can't speak for Thatcher and Blair as I don't live in the UK. From the >> US Point of view, it seems that Blair has run against the base of his >> party > > Yes, it seems that after several back bench revolts he lost the support of > the party and after that his replacement was inevitable. I am surprised that didn't happen earlier. He must be either really good elsewhere or there are no better (i.e. more popular) options. >> (Isn't his party typically liberal?) and taken a long view that the west >> is engaged in a societal struggle to adapt and come to terms with Islam. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I believe that too but I still to this day do not understand why he so > strongly supported the US in Iraq. It seems that was a mistake. History will tell us if it was a mistake. I do believe the hype concerning weapons of Mass Destruction was overblown (not that he didn't have them, I think he did because he most likely bought them from the US) I think there were a multitude of good reasons for removing him (Saddam) from power. (violation of the cease fire agreement was enough for me.) My thoughts, (warning, speculation here) is that Blair supported it for the following reasons: 1 - The British intellegnce service reported on the Nigiria connection to yellowcake. 2 - Saddam certainly acted as if he had them (Maybe to bluff Iran and Syria into staying away.) 3 - Blair may have felt that after years of no progress in the middle east, this might change things for the better (Long shot but possible) 4 - It would annoy the French. Maybe he will write a book someday and explain all. Squat > 4 - It would annoy the French. If he'd said it was to annoy the French he's have got more support... > > 4 - It would annoy the French. > > If he'd said it was to annoy the French he's have got more support... That is an understatment ;p >>> 4 - It would annoy the French. >> >> If he'd said it was to annoy the French he's have got more support... > > That is an understatment ;p Sorry... IF HE'D HAVE SAID IT WAS TO ANNOY THE FRENCH HE'D HAVE GOT MORE SUPPORT!!!!!! ;-) > I had wondered about that. (Labour = Socialist) but wasn't sure. >>> I can't speak for Thatcher and Blair as I don't live in the UK. From the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am surprised that didn't happen earlier. He must be either really good > elsewhere or there are no better (i.e. more popular) options. Bit of both I think. Certainly a good PM in my opinion bur also the tories having a new leader every other week and each one of them as hopeless as the next. They also were marred by one party embarrassment after another. > History will tell us if it was a mistake. I think as soon as there is a withdrawal the Shi'a and the Sunni's are going to murder each other and the only reason they didn't do it any great quantity before was out of fear of Saddam. That's how I see it. > I do believe the hype concerning > weapons of Mass Destruction was overblown (not that he didn't have them, I > think he did because he most likely bought them from the US) I think there > were a multitude of good reasons for removing him (Saddam) from power. At the time, I agreed. I think in the then political climate and not knowing if WMD's where there or not validated the decision. However when the WMD's were not found I think it I realized how horrible that region is going to get. > (violation of the cease fire agreement was enough for me.) > > My thoughts, (warning, speculation here) is that Blair supported it for the > following reasons: > 1 - The British intellegnce service reported on the Nigiria connection to > yellowcake. If that information is correct then Iran is next and then where, Syria? Worrying. > 2 - Saddam certainly acted as if he had them (Maybe to bluff Iran and Syria > into staying away.) > 3 - Blair may have felt that after years of no progress in the middle east, > this might change things for the better (Long shot but possible) > 4 - It would annoy the French. Always a plus. > If that information is correct then Iran is next and then where, Syria? > Worrying. My own feeling is that it is inevitable that countries would develop nuclear weapons on their own or in tandem with others. I don't really see a way to hold back technology. We (the US and Europe) will eventually have to deal with Islamic states that are nuclear powers. The truly scary part is that eventually, terrorist organizations will obtain them and use them to prove a political point. This is a problem that our children (or grandchildren) will have to deal with. Lovely thought on a Friday afternoon... >> 2 - Saddam certainly acted as if he had them (Maybe to bluff Iran and >> Syria into staying away.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Always a plus. Pissed off the Russians and Germans too, Perfect Trifecta! We already do... Try Pakistan..... > We (the US and Europe) will eventually have to deal >with Islamic states that are nuclear powers. The truly scary part is that >eventually, terrorist organizations will obtain them and use them to prove a >political point. This is a problem that our children (or grandchildren) will >have to deal with. Lovely thought on a Friday afternoon... > We already do... Try Pakistan..... Indeed. And as far as I know, they haven't nuked anyone yet... but then, I think the only leader on this planet stupid enough to *not* realise that the second he fires off a nuke at anyone there'll be retaliation from half the planet, is George Dubya. <g> >> We (the US and Europe) will eventually have to deal >> with Islamic states that are nuclear powers. The truly scary part is >> that eventually, terrorist organizations will obtain them and use >> them to prove a political point. This is a problem that our children >> (or grandchildren) will have to deal with. Lovely thought on a >> Friday afternoon... Signature-- * I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me to expect the worst. Yahoo: evilbill_agqx Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk Yeah, I agree... It really pisses me off when he fires one off every morning after coffee.... Yer an idiot.... >> We already do... Try Pakistan..... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >-- > Yeah, I agree... It really pisses me off when he fires one off every > morning after coffee.... Yer an idiot.... He was the one talking about dropping nukes on Iran a few months back... >>> We already do... Try Pakistan..... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> -- Signature-- * I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me to expect the worst. Yahoo: evilbill_agqx Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk "Stri" <geordiekid@gmail.com> wrote in message > I believe that too but I still to this day do not understand why he so > strongly supported the US in Iraq. It seems that was a mistake. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > "Stri" <geordiekid@gmail.com> wrote in message >> I believe that too but I still to this day do not understand why he so >> strongly supported the US in Iraq. It seems that was a mistake. > $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well that's the obvious answer isn't it. > I still to this day do not understand why he so > strongly supported the US in Iraq. It seems that was a mistake. I heard that the White House had pictures of him and a goat. == Thad > I heard that the White House had pictures of him and a goat. In this day and age, anything is possible. >> I heard that the White House had pictures of him and a goat. > > In this day and age, anything is possible. Presumably they'd have to marry... Civilian_Target > Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along > with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a > sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional > level? > Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond > just being helpers)? Generally I'll use the NPC's to draw fire away from me or, if they get really annoying (and the game allows) I'll shoot them in the face myself. I'm glad I'm living proof that games don't make a (fairly) normal person into a raving loony with a gun in real life cos my gaming persona is not very cuddly. > I'm glad I'm living proof that games don't make a (fairly) normal person > into a raving loony with a gun in real life cos my gaming persona is not > very cuddly. Wait... > Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along > with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a > sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional > level? > Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond > just being helpers)? Hate the bastards, especially when you are forced by a linear storyline to save the incompetents... [see the GTA series, especially Vice City and Vice City Stories, for a perfect example; IMHO, the only bad part about Blue Shift, other than its length, is having to protect Dr. Rosenberg - much better would've been the traditional dying scientist telling you where to go next :] Also hate squad-based games, even if it's just for a short segment. Signature"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush [August 5th, 2004] > Hate the bastards, especially when you are forced by a linear storyline > to save the incompetents... [see the GTA series, especially Vice City > and Vice City Stories, for a perfect example; GTA is a bad example though. The A.I in GTA was pretty bad. The A.I in Half-life generally is pretty good. > IMHO, the only bad part > about Blue Shift <snip> is everything I fixed your post. > Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along > with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a > sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional > level? > Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond > just being helpers)? I tolerate their incompetence because they are carrying the ammo I will need later on. > I tolerate their incompetence because they are carrying the ammo I will > need later on. In Half-life1, before I got decent at FPS's I used the barney's more often. Certainly early on they can be quite effective in allowing you to conserve your ammo as theirs is obviously infinite. Even later on against the alien and human grunts they can often buy you one or two seconds extra which can make quite the difference. Which reminds me of another point. This isn't a boast. Hell if it were a boast it would make me sound very sad indeed. On the first run through of Half-life2 I had very little trouble. The last level was a joke, even Breen was easy. I would have liked Half-life2 / EP1 + Ep2 etc to have hard a fourth difficulty setting. One where there are perhaps an abundance of medikits to prevent the possibility of being stuck in an area where you literally do not have enough health to get out but where the damage / resistance / effectiveness of the combine and the Xen creatures were increased exponentially. I'd be interested to see, just for the challenge. > even Breen was easy. Yeah, but it isn't easy being Breen... >> even Breen was easy. > > Yeah, but it isn't easy being Breen... Oh I dunno. While the world was being oppressed he was atop the citadel eating cream cakes and having mild psychotic episodes. I could do that... > Which reminds me of another point. This isn't a boast. Hell if it were a > boast it would make me sound very sad indeed. On the first run through [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would have liked Half-life2 / EP1 + Ep2 etc to have hard a fourth > difficulty setting. Really? I first played it on hard, and it was hard. It started getting tough at Ravenholm, I completely ran out of ammo, and at that part where you're given machine guns in the jail, I got stuck for several hours until I figured out where all the baddies were coming from! But I agree, compared to the Niliath, Breen was easy. Civilian_Target > Really? I first played it on hard, and it was hard. It started getting > tough at Ravenholm, I completely ran out of ammo, My dear Civ, didn't I teach you ammo conservation in T-AGHL? :) Fire, fire, check the clip :) > and at that part where > you're given machine guns in the jail, I got stuck for several hours > until I figured out where all the baddies were coming from! That was tough, I wont deny I died a plenty there but I have to struggle to think at many other points where I really struggled or got frustrated. I guess you could say it's good balancing. I like the balance of hard but I would like to have gone back and been handed my a.s. Just to prolong the replay value. > But I agree, compared to the Niliath, Breen was easy. In addition. If you get to the end of a game you've been waiting a long time for you want to hand out some hurt. Breen had been committing genocide. He'd been coming out with his little comments all the way up the citadel and let face it, he had it coming. So when you get to the top you don't even get to shoot his a.s. No good peeps, no good at all. Where is the violence :) >> Really? I first played it on hard, and it was hard. It started getting >> tough at Ravenholm, I completely ran out of ammo, > > My dear Civ, didn't I teach you ammo conservation in T-AGHL? :) Pfft - crazy notion. Why do you think I always buy the saw in CS? :) Subtlety is overrated! Civilian_Target > Pfft - crazy notion. Why do you think I always buy the saw in CS? :) > Subtlety is overrated! > > Civilian_Target You'd have potential. Shame you're pissed all the time :) > Many of the newer games, including HL series, have NPCs that fight along > with you. Many are becoming more realistic and human. How many here feel a > sense of loss when they die or motivation to help them on an emotional > level? > Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond > just being helpers)? I don't think of them at all like Cannon Fodder. Hell they'd all just stand around with a whiskey in hand, waist band full of pistols telling fishing stories. SignatureJethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Pinger Reply Email: jethro86 (at) gmail (dot) com Wrong on two counts... I drink rum and I don't put pistols in my waist band... That's a good way to become a Castrati... I use holsters.... ;) >>> Do you think of them just as cannon fodder or do you conserve them(beyond >> just being helpers)? > >I don't think of them at all like Cannon Fodder. Hell they'd all just >stand around with a whiskey in hand, waist band full of pistols telling >fishing stories. > Wrong on two counts... I drink rum and I don't put pistols in my waist > band... That's a good way to become a Castrati... I use holsters.... > ;) I do believe you're a legend. You almost make me want to condon pistols, almost Snakebite forward! /glug! One time on the tactical course at the pistol range and you'd be hooked.... >> Wrong on two counts... I drink rum and I don't put pistols in my waist >> band... That's a good way to become a Castrati... I use holsters.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >/glug! Yep, that way you only shoot your a.s off :-D Heh! McG. > Wrong on two counts... I drink rum and I don't put pistols in my waist > band... That's a good way to become a Castrati... I use holsters.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>stand around with a whiskey in hand, waist band full of pistols telling >>fishing stories. > Wrong on two counts... I drink rum and I don't put pistols in my waist > band... That's a good way to become a Castrati... I use holsters.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> stand around with a whiskey in hand, waist band full of pistols telling >> fishing stories. Was I at least right on the fishing stories? At least I got the liquor and handguns generally right. :-) SignatureJethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Pinger Reply Email: jethro86 (at) gmail (dot) com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.