The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'The Outfit'.
The Outfit:
[URL]http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/648/648782p1.html[/URL]
Destructable Environments.
Destruction on Demand.
Its Mercenaries but in WWII.
*Drools*
[URL]http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/648/648782p1.html[/URL]
Destructable Environments.
Destruction on Demand.
Its Mercenaries but in WWII.
*Drools*
Page:
To be honest Bonus, I dont care
*shrugs*
**edit**
I just found it funny you started getting Hanks about WWII being franchised into videogames because it "lessens the meaning" or something.
$ wins over morals any day of the week, that's the world and that's why I get so irate in the Life forum.
But to see you go from not liking these games because they don't say anything about the war to talking about "capitalist gaming companies" and "I can't really see a disconnection between the increasing number of war games by American publishers and the current climate of Americans bombing anyone they don't like" seemed to veer from saying the games are pointless for not trying to say anything about the experience, to some random attack on America and "capitalist gaming companies"
*shrugs*
**edit**
I just found it funny you started getting Hanks about WWII being franchised into videogames because it "lessens the meaning" or something.
$ wins over morals any day of the week, that's the world and that's why I get so irate in the Life forum.
But to see you go from not liking these games because they don't say anything about the war to talking about "capitalist gaming companies" and "I can't really see a disconnection between the increasing number of war games by American publishers and the current climate of Americans bombing anyone they don't like" seemed to veer from saying the games are pointless for not trying to say anything about the experience, to some random attack on America and "capitalist gaming companies"
Goatboy wrote:
> However, Bonus, if your point is that EA are just a terrible
> distributor/parent company that milks a franchise to death for the $
> then I'm in 100% agreement.
Which is exactly what the point was. World War II should not be the focus of a miling operation by the likes of EA and it's companies like them who belittle the situation with their policies, but they'r enot the only publisher who do it, others try to emulate what they do. Just not as successfully.
> However, Bonus, if your point is that EA are just a terrible
> distributor/parent company that milks a franchise to death for the $
> then I'm in 100% agreement.
Which is exactly what the point was. World War II should not be the focus of a miling operation by the likes of EA and it's companies like them who belittle the situation with their policies, but they'r enot the only publisher who do it, others try to emulate what they do. Just not as successfully.
I think I've got 2004. Although to be honest it could even be 2003.
I really need to start playing it again, it's gone on the back burner a bit recently.
I really need to start playing it again, it's gone on the back burner a bit recently.
Goatboy wrote:
> Nope it wasn't missed, I read the article.
> But it's still using serial killers as the basis for videogame
> entertainment.
> The window-dressing is different, but the moralistic outrage is just
> as viable.
I guess it could be looked at that way. I looked at it as a game showing an insight into the work of people given the task of actually digging out the evidence used to track down a killer. I didn't rate it the same as a game where the whole point was to go out and kill people just because it's fun sort of serial killer game. It may morally reprehensible as anything else, but my own blinkered view didn't see it that way.
> Why is not ok to want to vanquish Nazis and play, albeit in shoddy
> videogame form, a part in halting the spread of facism yet it's ok to
> enjoy a survival horror game and try to (I presume) stop
> somebody/something from butchering members of the public?
The vanquishing of the natzi's and the reasons behind why it's a good idea to do so has never been something I've found put across in any of the World War II games I've come across. Any of these games could be remade identically in any other setting without the deep rooted history because very few of them actually make mention of what the era they are set in was actually like or the reasons behind why it came about. Again, I haven't played all of the World War II games on the market, so there's every chance one or two of them might do just that
> And, although I may be wrong, from your "Do we really need more
> World War 2 games flooding the market and glorifying an era which saw
> millions killed, persecuted and treated like mere animals?"
> comment, you were aiming for the moral highground?
> Or "something as fundamental as whether or not the lives and
> deaths of innocent soldiers sent into battle should be glorified and
> the severe risk to their lives belittled by capitalist games
> companies such as EA etc. hoping to make a quick buck off of the
> climate of war we find ourselves in." that would indicate you
> are outraged that we should want to play a WWII game because America
> is invading countries again?
It didn't have as much to do with the moralistic high ground of war for entertainment as it sounds when I said it first, it has turned into that sort of arguement though. I wasn't aiming for any moral high ground or to put down anyone else's opinion by what I said first because there was no arguement for moral high ground to be taken when I posted that. That's the opinion I hold of people franchising out and jumping on the bandwagon of world ar II games as franchised games are usually just churned out to make money and not actually provide any sort of experience of what might actually have happened. You quite rightly pointed out a game whose developer took time to make it a good game but the developer might not have been the driving force behind the game being released, it could have come from a publisher directive to release a WWII game and the developer simply takes pride in it's work. I don't know the background behind that particular game.
> Capitalist Games Companies?
> So what are the makers of the serial killer game then?
As far as I'm aware it's a game straight out of monolith and is being published by Sega. Meaning the game came as an idea in the head of a designer/programmer or someone working at that company and is more likely to have been a project driven by making a good game before it was a project of milking a cash-cow.
> Nope it wasn't missed, I read the article.
> But it's still using serial killers as the basis for videogame
> entertainment.
> The window-dressing is different, but the moralistic outrage is just
> as viable.
I guess it could be looked at that way. I looked at it as a game showing an insight into the work of people given the task of actually digging out the evidence used to track down a killer. I didn't rate it the same as a game where the whole point was to go out and kill people just because it's fun sort of serial killer game. It may morally reprehensible as anything else, but my own blinkered view didn't see it that way.
> Why is not ok to want to vanquish Nazis and play, albeit in shoddy
> videogame form, a part in halting the spread of facism yet it's ok to
> enjoy a survival horror game and try to (I presume) stop
> somebody/something from butchering members of the public?
The vanquishing of the natzi's and the reasons behind why it's a good idea to do so has never been something I've found put across in any of the World War II games I've come across. Any of these games could be remade identically in any other setting without the deep rooted history because very few of them actually make mention of what the era they are set in was actually like or the reasons behind why it came about. Again, I haven't played all of the World War II games on the market, so there's every chance one or two of them might do just that
> And, although I may be wrong, from your "Do we really need more
> World War 2 games flooding the market and glorifying an era which saw
> millions killed, persecuted and treated like mere animals?"
> comment, you were aiming for the moral highground?
> Or "something as fundamental as whether or not the lives and
> deaths of innocent soldiers sent into battle should be glorified and
> the severe risk to their lives belittled by capitalist games
> companies such as EA etc. hoping to make a quick buck off of the
> climate of war we find ourselves in." that would indicate you
> are outraged that we should want to play a WWII game because America
> is invading countries again?
It didn't have as much to do with the moralistic high ground of war for entertainment as it sounds when I said it first, it has turned into that sort of arguement though. I wasn't aiming for any moral high ground or to put down anyone else's opinion by what I said first because there was no arguement for moral high ground to be taken when I posted that. That's the opinion I hold of people franchising out and jumping on the bandwagon of world ar II games as franchised games are usually just churned out to make money and not actually provide any sort of experience of what might actually have happened. You quite rightly pointed out a game whose developer took time to make it a good game but the developer might not have been the driving force behind the game being released, it could have come from a publisher directive to release a WWII game and the developer simply takes pride in it's work. I don't know the background behind that particular game.
> Capitalist Games Companies?
> So what are the makers of the serial killer game then?
As far as I'm aware it's a game straight out of monolith and is being published by Sega. Meaning the game came as an idea in the head of a designer/programmer or someone working at that company and is more likely to have been a project driven by making a good game before it was a project of milking a cash-cow.
Still do with 2005 almost a year after it's been out.
New one end of this month, with Live play too.
As long as they've kept the create-a-player the same as 2005 I'm happy.
15 courses in new one, "tiger-vision" has been binned and the controls slightly refined to make it less easy.
That's my only criticism with the Tiger Woods games, to present any real challenge in 2player or vs CPU, you need to turn off all aids and not use the zoom-to-hole feature.
New one end of this month, with Live play too.
As long as they've kept the create-a-player the same as 2005 I'm happy.
15 courses in new one, "tiger-vision" has been binned and the controls slightly refined to make it less easy.
That's my only criticism with the Tiger Woods games, to present any real challenge in 2player or vs CPU, you need to turn off all aids and not use the zoom-to-hole feature.
I agree with the Goat.
Tiger Woods is ridiculously addictive. When I first got it me and a mate played it until about 4am with various pizza & beer combinations to keep us going.
Tiger Woods is ridiculously addictive. When I first got it me and a mate played it until about 4am with various pizza & beer combinations to keep us going.
However, Bonus, if your point is that EA are just a terrible distributor/parent company that milks a franchise to death for the $ then I'm in 100% agreement.
First Medal of Honour was (from Normandy to snow-forest level) fantastic, but progressive installment has been less and less interesting.
And their sports titles are a joke, except I'm addicted to the Tiger Woods games. Them so pretty.
First Medal of Honour was (from Normandy to snow-forest level) fantastic, but progressive installment has been less and less interesting.
And their sports titles are a joke, except I'm addicted to the Tiger Woods games. Them so pretty.
Hedfix wrote:
> The whole 'go blow a goat' post.
>
> It reads as an angry splutter: The sort of post we used to get out of
> Bell.
Ah, I getcha.
> The whole 'go blow a goat' post.
>
> It reads as an angry splutter: The sort of post we used to get out of
> Bell.
Ah, I getcha.
I think perhaps you should go and read back through, before I joined the discussion and raised my point, the only post you'd made with any kind of point in is this one:
Oh damn!
Better go have a go at GTA while your at it.
Glorifies killing innocent pedestrians... stealing cars...
How about WW2 games glorify people fighting fascism, extreme racism and genocide?
Oh but war's just always bad, perhaps if we'd just let Chamberlin get lied to for a few more years...
- - - -
Which you made about 7 or 8 posts into the thread.
Oh damn!
Better go have a go at GTA while your at it.
Glorifies killing innocent pedestrians... stealing cars...
How about WW2 games glorify people fighting fascism, extreme racism and genocide?
Oh but war's just always bad, perhaps if we'd just let Chamberlin get lied to for a few more years...
- - - -
Which you made about 7 or 8 posts into the thread.
The whole 'go blow a goat' post.
It reads as an angry splutter: The sort of post we used to get out of Bell.
It reads as an angry splutter: The sort of post we used to get out of Bell.
Page: