Rakombo

Dark Souls,prepare to die edition specifically is my favorite game of all time.Unlike many fans the difficulty was never a bid draw for me,I always looked at it as something that is worth overcoming so you can experience this sweet sweet game. After hundreds of hours with the game it's hard for me to remember the feelings of wonder I had when I first played this game .I still remember that when the first things that went through my head was:"WTF am I supposed to play now?" The biggest draw for me and the thing that kept me coming back is the combat and leveling system of the game,both of which I consider to be the best I ever encountered in any rpg.

Erkki I do play to win,and I believe that a game should support that mentality.In my opinion any game can have wacky bizarre situations if you go out of your way to make them.For instance in the clip Nick tried to snipe the truck driver,even if he succeeded he would have to blow it up and then lose or kill the rest of the convoy instead he could have use the explosive crossbow.If the game mechanics are solid I should not be deliberately fuckin up to make it interesting.I wasn't saying that you need to to be a mediocre fps player,I meant that maybe the people that consider this games mechanics good did not really experience a lot of open world games or fps games. I f the lack of UI is a big deal to you than I can see why you like this game.I personally don't look for realism in my games,from experience it brings more bad than good.I would argue that Far Cry 2 was more immersive for me because I did not have to deal with pseudo realistic bullshit.The Far Cry 2 map that is so liked on here is just stupid in my opinion,why cant I lower it?And if you want realism make the map static,that would actually be interesting to actually figure out and being able to track where you are.And about the Oculus Rift I think games like mirrors edge are by far more suited for it because you have a more interesting way to interact with the environment.

I am honestly starting to think you are just fuckin with me. -All the video shows is that Nick is going out of his way to artificially create an interesting situation by choosing the least effective option,it feels very forced. -Again you don't really explain how the shooting mechanics compare,is it the recoil,the sound,the animation,the aiming be more specific. -I don't want to shoot all the time in a sandbox game for that I have serious sam or brutal doom,if this is a sandbox it's supposed to give me something interesting to do besides shooting and if shooting is my only true way to interact with the world then give me something to shoot,not all the time but more than this game offers. -If you categorize it like that then stalker has only 2 things as well, shooting things and collecting things.By number I meant not only variety of things but also volume.I like to point out that you contradict yourself,first you say that the fact that you don't shoot often adds weight to the instances when you do and now you say that nothing gets you out of the shooting,which is not true.You know what gets me out of the shooting?The constant amount of fuckin travelling,which by the way far cry 3 solved with having a much better fast travel system.Also before you can skin the animals you have to SHOOT them. -Constantly do missions and ignore the story?Pretty amazing,oh it's like in far cry 3 that you can go hunting, assault bases, take bounty missions.Yeah it's great,if that's what you want far cry 3 has it,btw you don't even need to listen to some fuckin idiot talking, you just go to a sign post and accept.I don't care about the story. -Again all those supposed wacky situations,forced.Here's a far cry 3 wacky situation that happens because the world is more alive,scouting a base to assault,looking for the best way to enter when a fuckin jaguar jumps on you from the rear because he almost kills you, you panic and shoot at it with an unsilenced weapon alerting most of the guys in the base. -Far cry 2's do something is shoot people and travel and if you want to spend your time travelling instead of shooting that is the game for you.WHEN I get to shoot it's fine,nothing special unfortunately I have to travel for an hour before I get to do it.Going to a safe house is a detour,in 3 you would just pick the stuff you need on the way. -I think a lot of people are at awe by far cry 2 on this forum because they are not very versed in the fps genre or they WANT to like this game because the idle guys love it,probably the combination of the two.

First of all,what exactly is that video supposed to show?Second,the shooting in fallout is much more fun for me I have no idea what you mean by more responsive.Besides the shooting in that game happens more frequently.Stalker-I like the rpg mechanics,and if you don't want to deal with things why are you playing a first person shooter?the problem in this game is that you have almost nothing to deal with and the things that you do are far more annoying than anything I encountered in Stalker.The patrols that die from a single explosive or a spray from an LMG are not difficult,the checkpoint that you drive through, sneak by or kill everyone from a distance are not challenging just tedious.Far cry 3-Shit story I agree but the story of Far Cry 2 is no Shakespeare.Not to mention that in my opinion you don't play these types of games for story.The autofail is bullshit no argument there.The UI is not really a big deal to me and even if it was the map in 2 is rage inducing at times,have you used it on a boat? That shit is insane I had to stop and look on the web if there is a button to make the dumb fuck I am playing as to lower the fuckin thing so it won't take up 70% of my screen.The crafting system I actually like,it's gamy sure but it solves a few problems that 2 had: 1)Actually gives you something to do. 2)you don't need to do detours just so you can replenish your healing Items. And even if I agreed will all the things you said I still fell those games are far more competent,both as sandbox and fps games.

An example would be much appreciated.After playing it for around 4 hours and 80% of the time either driving or moving through brush(which is fuckin stupid BTW because most times I forget I'm supposed to be in Africa) I don't see the point of this.When I watch Chris an Nick play on youtube 90% of the time they're just oohing and aahing when they look at the scenery and the other 10 they engage in the average shooting mechanics of the game. Condensed and tightly packed with what exactly?Those little moments or stories that they talked about in tone control,"your gun jams so you run behind cover and the guy crashes and starts a fire" ,something along those lines never happens to me because I am actually trying to win,the stories that I experience are either I snipe every single guy while they run around like chickens with their heads cut off or I get shot and killed while not knowing who the hell did it.I would be also interested to hear why on earth would you choose this game instead of the other 3 games I mentioned.

I don't see how this game can be considered good.It's ok but that is as far as I would go.First time I played it when it was new,played for around 4-5 hours,got annoyed and used cheats to unlock all weapons fucked around for an hour and left it UNTIL NOW!After listening to the cast I decided to dig this thing from the bottom of my box of shame and give it another shot.I don't like this game,the main problem for me is the same as it was then,I fell this game is wasting my fuckin time.The world is boring, a thing that is more noticeable because there are only 5 quick travel locations on the map,the shooting is alright and the driving is fine.Maybe for it's time it was good but now why would you recommend it instead of fallout,stalker or far cry 3,those games actually have interesting things to see and do.