Reply
Origami Killer
BlightedRMT
Posts: 8,852
Registered: ‎05-20-2008

Re: sup


ButteredScones wrote:

True dat RMT.

 

RMT and I would also send out the death planes. **bleep** hilarious


"Deploy Death Planes Scones!!! Two birds ready and waiting on the flight deck marked with bfg's"

Please use plain text.
Origami Killer
ButteredScones
Posts: 8,832
Registered: ‎07-02-2008

Re: sup


BlightedRMT wrote:

ButteredScones wrote:

True dat RMT.

 

RMT and I would also send out the death planes. **bleep** hilarious


"Deploy Death Planes Scones!!! Two birds ready and waiting on the flight deck marked with bfg's"


Those were the days. Only a few people knew about that right?

 photo ButteredSconesSig-1.jpg
Please use plain text.
Origami Killer
ButteredScones
Posts: 8,832
Registered: ‎07-02-2008

Re: sup

Also Samo, another rage inducing thing is how build and battle was implemented. Some have touched on it but here are my thoughts as well.

 

One of the cons about B&B is what it lets you build. In order to get vehicles, etc. you use B&B. You use B&B to get the things that are all already readily available to you in a Warhawk game. This is bad because when you do not have B&B to use, whether it's because you hit the build limit or you have no rift, you have nothing. If B&B was used to help fortify bases that are already on the map, or provide perks to soldiers or vehicles, then even WITHOUT B&B, you still have core gameplay that is always there to fall back on. And that core gameplay would have EVERYTHING required to still have a blast. B&B would then add to that experience, not make it. There is nothing wrong with the idea of B&B making the experience, however because of how it was put in the game, like I said, if B&B isn't available, you get NOTHIN'. 

 

If your buildings are being constantly destroyed, you have NOTHIN. No vehicles, no bases, not even any cover. 

 

Let's say there were pre-made bases on the map that couldn't be destroyed (this is just an example). If players got points for capturing these bases and you could spawn on them, expanding territory would be an integral part of gameplay that would be a clear objective the entire time. 

 

If the enemy had base A and your team had base B, and base A had tons of guys in it where you'd need constant support to take it, you could put an outpost by it and lay direct seige. But if that outpost was destroyed, you wouldn't be sent all the way back to your homebase. You'd still have base A. You wouldn't be in a position to be spawn camped yet. So not only would attacking enemy bases be fun in my opinion, that mechanic also reduces spawn camping right off. 

 

Taking one of said bases wouldn't take as long as zones. They would be there to give your team multiple places to spawn that couldn't be destoyed with just a torpedo. And in this scenario, you don't need B&B to capture a base. So even without B&B, you can still get more places to spawn, as well as have places to find action that aren't all the way across the map. And because you could put an outpost right next to a base, which would make capturing that base significantly easier, being able to fortify the base with B&B would balance things out.

 

yus

 photo ButteredSconesSig-1.jpg
Please use plain text.
Fender Bender
Samokoske
Posts: 3,285
Registered: ‎10-16-2012

Re: sup

I just created a thread about this that promtes this kind of discussion. We should take it there lest this one gets locked for idiocy. But since I am here, I may as well address this.

Before we get any misconceptions about me, I'd like to make it clear I am no fanboy. I have never found a reason to bash anything for its flaws and my opinions on 'superiority' almost always are based on direct familiar similarities, ie: wii vs. ps3 graphics capabilities.

I am a gamer 1st. Been doing it for too long to deprive myself now as an adult from diverse gaming experiences. It is how and when I can take 2 of this gen's "critically acclaimed" new IPs and say for myself that Darksiders and Assassin's Creed isn't worth my time, but I really like Ratchet, All 4 One, even though everyone else says it sucks.

You are also very much entitled to your opinion, but I can imagine that after 1k hrs invested into 1 game, and being duped into thinking this was going to be more of what you loved, you felt disenfranchised and that affinity to Warhawk has made you biased. TX11 himself admitted that the merits to Starhawk are on a different level of Warhawk's, and it comes from a biased point of view. Mini_Sal was my introduction to this point of view on SH, and what sucks is that bias was both a fault and a detriment of LBI.

It was LBI's fault for telling you "hey, you're gonna like this game, because you like warhawk," and then changing the game so drastically, but it was sony's fault for not telling me, "hey, you like rts? Yea? You like to shoot **bleep**? Yea? You like to bring **bleep** out of the sky, kill your enemies, pick up a torpedo and destroy people's bases? YEA? WELL WHY THE **bleep** AREN'T YOU PLAYING STARHAWK? I'm serious, this game will **bleep** blow your **bleep** to mexico, it's how **bleep** awesome it is!"

But that is why I think the game failed, as opposed to why it sucks. I don't think it does.

As for the BnB argument. I have read it before and though I'd like to explore a psycholigical approach to this reasoning, it wouldn't do to actually change your mind about the mechanic.

I shall adress BnB when I get home though. Cause I am driving


this is me helping
Please use plain text.
I Only Post Everything
stabbybizzle
Posts: 878
Registered: ‎09-05-2009

Re: sup

scones is pretty much right on everything here but I don't know why he feels like typing so much. 

trying to debate with the "more dedicated fans" on this forum is like getting blood out of a stone.

 

peace

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Please use plain text.
Origami Killer
ButteredScones
Posts: 8,832
Registered: ‎07-02-2008

Re: sup

Just a friendly conversation. I type a lot but I type fast.

 

This post took like 3 seconds to type.

 photo ButteredSconesSig-1.jpg
Please use plain text.
Fender Bender
Samokoske
Posts: 3,285
Registered: ‎10-16-2012

Re: sup

Ok part 2.

The reason I'm not ok with what Bioware did to Mass Effect 3 is because THEY created it. I would hate to make a song that I like to play, and have someone else just come and intervene and rewite my lyrics. Was stairway to heaven made like that? Hell No! Other than that, from a development point of view, if I were to create a shooter, that 'competes' (IMO that is a horrible way to set up your game), how would I do that? Well we already have some basic knowledge of how Warhawk works, so 3rd person shooter seems prudent. But it needs some pizzazz to get Call of Duty's jiffy's in a ruffle.

The organic way to do this may have come to the conclusion that an RTS style gameplay mechanic infused in what we know from Warhawk's structure would deem a game so incredibly different it should stand by its own merits. So in an organic sense, I am fine with Starhawk being a complete bizarre departure from an already firmly established game and franchise. Furthermore, as an advocate, I am glad as it has spawned inspiration for another possible franchise and IP that many (read: few) of us are willing to support.

Build and Battle as a mechanic was brought to the forefront in the development cycle as a different mechanic to introduce to the radically stagnant shooter franchise, and if that were to take the forefront, it was most likely going to be most prominent feature in the game. And so, as the natural progression of things when a game goes afoot, the ideas are rampant and branching, and inclusive, and eventually came down to maybe Dylan Jobe's maybe even Pete (everyone is an idea man in game development), "wouldn't it be so **bleep** badass if you could summon the jeeps?" to which people obviously replied, "**bleep** yea! and let's do that for hawks, and bunkers, and watchtowers..... know what? let's give people the ability to create their own bases!"

So I'm really not too upset with that. It allows me to do that, and that's what I find fun about it.

It's not like the whole procedural machinations of Warhawk were exactly taken to account. They didn't play the game for thousands and thousands of hours, to realize....... waitaminnit, first 5 minutes........ claim a base. And that was an important preemptive objective of the game.

By all accounts and purposes though. This is a very different game, and though Warhawk is incredibly good, this game is just as fine. Only thing I'm upset about is the lack in content.


this is me helping
Please use plain text.
Fender Bender
Samokoske
Posts: 3,285
Registered: ‎10-16-2012

Re: sup

What I'm trying to say is that Starhawk should live and die by its own merits. It has that WH legacy stigma attached to it, and coming from that point of view and opinion, telling others it's 'not as good as warhawk' is kinda putting warhawk into the grave too. Many people in their wrong sense of mind will think, but warhawk is a 7 year old game, and starhawk is worse? Making warhawk irrelevant by association.

For a stranger though, the vehicles are still fun, the weapons are pretty cool, and BnB is pretty fresh, but they should definately try warhawk too now that it's 3$. It's a little old but sooooo much fun.


this is me helping
Please use plain text.
Gaming Beast
bus_driver68
Posts: 1,931
Registered: ‎02-04-2010

Re: sup

I found war hawk brand new at Fry's for $19.99 both with and without the Bluetooth headset.
Photobucket
Please use plain text.