[quote name='n0man']I have a question for you, Wombat: do you believe professional tennis players ever think to themselves, 'boy this game sure would be a whole lot better if we didn't have that pesky net to deal with?' Indeed, in any game or sport, would the players still play the game if it was not bound by the challenges of its respective ruleset? Of course, in a world of uncertainty and fear, the prospect of unlimited mulligans and the sense of control it would bring seems quite attractive, especially to those of us with flaccid spines and lukewarm constitutions.
Now, in all my time listening to the CAGcast, I had never received the impression that you were anything but the most erect of vertebrates. Which is why I was so surprised to hear you bemoaning the lack of a quicksave feature in the console version of FarCry 2. Becuase I value and respect your opinions as an authority on games, I feel compelled to argue as the devil's advocate, so to speak, and offer a counterpoint to your declaration that all games of this ilk should be equipped with the pussy-fying device you so forcefully promote.
As a designer myself, not of games but of buildings, I can appreciate the considerable creative effort involved in invoking a particular aesthetic through dynamic human interaction with an environment. In this case, Ubisoft has gone to great lengths to take away the players safety net and cast them into a world of desparation and violence. In doing so, the developers force the players to be very deliberate and discilpined in their actions, use the (beautifully crafted) environment around them to their advantage, and, most importantly, to innovate. This is what an open world shooter is all about: immersing the player in a world, developing a set of constraints, and then giving the player free reign to figure out how to creatively deal with those constraints in an effort to advance the storyline. Which says nothing about the safety net that Ubisoft did build into the game.
Perhaps in an effort to qualm naysayers such as yourself, the developers did a little innovation of their own, creating a game mechanic that not only gave the players a second chance if they totally botch a mission, but integrates additional texture and complexity into the aesthetic of the story and environment. The Buddy system in the game does all of this without resorting to cheaply allowing players to just quicksave at any moment and reload after realizing their arrogance in their ability to play the game is entirely unfounded. As lame as I feel when I have to be dragged off the battle field by an elderly eastern european mercenary, it certainly feels less like cheating than relying on the deus ex machina of a quicksave. Also, there is something sublimely poetic about taking your fallen buddy into your arms, putting him out of his misery by pumping full of morphine, and then placing your hand over his face to close the lids of his lifeless eyes...it still gives me chills.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: enjoy the game for what it is and stop wishing it to be something else. Also stop sucking at games so much. Don't worry I still love you Wombat...you to Cheapy.[/QUOTE]
Damn that was a good point! You know so good, in fact, I think you must have helped develop far cry 2...
I love that Cheapy is plugging both of my shows from AMC: Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad just gets better and better. Hurry up and finish season 1 so you can watch season 2 when it premiers in March.
ing pisses me off when a guy starts shooting me while I barely see them a half of a mile away. If you hate some of the parts I hate also, I suggest you NEVER play the multiplayer, as it is the cheapest piling of bullshit ever, as all the higher level players usually dominate with their one shot snipers and auto-shooting grenade launchers while you are left with sticks and stone.
