Wickerman777's forum posts

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@samusbeliskner said:

Even talking about this is just absurd. It's just more conservative sour grapes and fear-mongering. No one is interested in a gay wedding at a church under such circumstances, especially when there are churches that perform gay weddings all the time.

@Wickerman777 said:
@Mystery_Writer said:
@toast_burner said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@Mystery_Writer said:

@Wickerman777:

I see, good point. What's your personal opinion on forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I think those not wanting to make them should just say doing so would offend their Muslim customers. :)

So would you be ok with a shop saying "No blacks allowed" or "No Christians"?

Also a good point. Btw, what's your stance on churches refusing to hold a gay wedding?

Ugghh, what you quoted was a joke. But anyway, discrimination against Christians is considered fine by leftists, it's even encouraged. It's other religions they bend over backward for.

No one discriminates against Christians. Another faux "war on Chriatianity". However, rational, critical thinkers do ridicule their goofy magical beliefs, a trend that I sincerely hope not only continues, but intensifies.

Lol, just words. Meanwhile the real world goes on.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@Mystery_Writer said:
@toast_burner said:
@Wickerman777 said:
@Mystery_Writer said:

@Wickerman777:

I see, good point. What's your personal opinion on forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I think those not wanting to make them should just say doing so would offend their Muslim customers. :)

So would you be ok with a shop saying "No blacks allowed" or "No Christians"?

Also a good point. Btw, what's your stance on churches refusing to hold a gay wedding?

Ugghh, what you quoted was a joke. But anyway, discrimination against Christians is considered fine by leftists, it's even encouraged. It's other religions they bend over backward for.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@Mystery_Writer said:

@Wickerman777:

I see, good point. What's your personal opinion on forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I think those not wanting to make them should just say doing so would offend their Muslim customers. :)

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

It's rubbing their noses in it, that's what it is. There are plenty of enough people willing to conduct gay marriages that someone isn't going to have a hard time getting married in a town they want. Some places would say no, others would do it. But demanding that it happen specifically at the places that don't want to do it is bullying, simple as that. These people don't just want to get married, they want to get married by someone that doesn't want to do it so they can say "In your face!"

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@LuminousAether said:

No, I'm certainly not ruining them. I'd say that playing on normal mode, a difficulty mode which is basically challenge-free for most games, is ruining games for you. Normal mode is balanced such that bad gamers can complete the game.

Lol, to give a movie analogy normal is the director's cut, the other difficulty settings are the special features disc. To hear you talk the harder something is the better it is. Screw balance, if it's impossible that's the best game ever made. Try playing Ninja Gaiden on the most difficult setting sometime and tell me how fun that is, Mr. real gamer. Whether you want to admit it or not normal is the difficulty setting developers expect the majority of gamers to play a game on, at least the first time through. It's also the one they prefer you experience it on, at least for the vast majority of games, because that's the setting the game is balanced for. I always play everything on normal the first time through cuz I want the developer's true vision of the game. And on normal there's no denying that Witcher's combat is better than Skyrim's combat. If Skyrim has to be played on legendary for the combat to be interesting, as you assert, then that's a development blunder. And some of the stuff you say ... "bad gamers" ... lol!!! You're coming off like a smug elitist of the geekiest variety possible.

How long did you play Skyrim anyway? I put around 300 hours into that game to unlock all the achievements and also did plenty of stuff that wasn't for achievements, but there's still smaller missions I could have done but didn't. But holy shit, I can't imagine putting the time in to legendary that behemoth.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@LuminousAether said:

I would never play a game on normal unless for whatever reason normal is the hardest difficulty mode. I would say that nearly every game that has difficulty modes is only interesting on the higher modes. For example, take Thief: the Dark Project, a 1998 PC stealth game, one of my top 10 single player games of all time. On normal mode, you can get spotted, you can fight back and live, you can only loot a small portion of the loot to move onto the next level. On the hardest difficulty level (IIRC it was called master thief or something like that) you instantly failed when you were spotted, fighting back was practically impossible in situations where you wouldn't get an insta-fail, and you had to loot damn near everything to finish the level. This radically made the game more interesting. For a more recent game, look at Styx: Master of Shadows. On the highest difficulty mode, Goblin, enemies will flat out kill you when they see you and get into melee range. You're a little goblin and they are bad ass knights, so they just pick you up by the scruff of your neck and ram a sword through your belly. This is, hands down, the best way to play the game. In my humble opinion, the only way to play the game. The other difficulty modes don't even really exist to me.

If there's no challenge or difficulty, then I don't find the game interesting, period. That element is mandatory for me to appreciate the game. And your statement that there's something wrong with a game to require turning it past normal doesn't make sense to me because, as I've said, I would say that that is true for EVERY game with multiple difficulty levels.

If you're playing everything at the highest difficulty settings your first time through then you're ruining the games. Normal is what a game is balanced to be played at, what is considered the optimal playing experience by the developer. That's why they call it normal and why it's the default! Those other difficulty settings are bonuses for those that want to do it. And I've played games on hard mode before for my second playthrough. But I ain't doing it with Skyrim cuz it's too damned big to play twice.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts
@LuminousAether said:

That's not how I played Skyrim. I would use shields to block melee attacks and respond with counter attacks. I would dodge and juke enemy attacks. You say that you just charge forward and attack and chug potions but that doesn't work on Legendary mode. On Legendary mode, two arrows from a Falmer Warmonger will kill you, and this happens nearly instantly. So charging out in the open will get you killed. You have to summon creatures to block attacks, you have to carefully lead enemies out of the area they are in, and you have to be very careful to not take damage at all because it will most likely be fatal once you start getting hit.

It seems to me that you didn't play Skyrim on Legendary mode or you abused some of the glitches that were patched out of the PC version with the unofficial patch mods. Skyrim is a brutally hard game on Legendary mode and it never lets up because the toughest enemies level up with you (and the higher level you are, the more of the higher level enemies will show up in general). The only saving grace is that you can quick save and quick load. If it had a checkpoint saving system, Skyrim on Legendary would probably be the hardest action RPG ever made, at least 10-15x harder than Dark Souls game.

I only play games on harder difficulty modes. Not necessarily the hardest, for example I found the first 40 or so levels on Skyrim to be far, far too difficult on Legendary mode so I didn't bump it up to that level until that point. But I don't think talking about the default difficulty mode is all that valuable. That's the casual difficulty mode where you can ignore the mechanics in most games. That's the difficulty mode that's there for bad players so they can see the story.

However, The Witcher 3 on the hardest difficulty mode is really, really easy.

I never said I played it on legendary, I said I played it at the default difficulty setting. No way I'm playing something as monumentally enormous as Skyrim at its most inflated difficulty setting just for the sake of doing it. And I ain't playing something that big more than once either. The game was life destroying even at the default difficulty setting and I have a job and other shit I gotta do. Normal are what games are made to be played at anyway. Normal is casual? Wtf? Easy is casual, normal is fucking normal, what the games are balanced to be played at, hence why it's the default setting. If I've gotta turn it up past normal for it to be good then there's something wrong with it. I sure as hell didn't have to do that with Witcher. And on normal not even the dragons required any strategy to beat. I just waited for them to land, hammered the trigger several times and they were dead every time. Skyrim was a fantastic game but it's combat was beyond simplistic. You telling me you had to crank it up to some ridiculous degree to make it interesting in that department only strengthens my point.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@LuminousAether said:

Even Skyrim's somewhat janky combat was much more visceral and exciting and challenging and skill based than TW3's combat.

This is a sentiment I've seen expressed at this board many times and it never ceases to confound me. Skyrim is great in many ways but its combat is not. It doesn't get more simplistic than this: Spam the hell out of the attack button until your enemy falls and guzzle potions and/or use a heal spell when ya get hurt. There's no strategy to it whatsoever. That you say Skyrim's combat is more "challenging and skill based" is the part that amazes me the most. How?!!! Like I said before, just running up to your enemy and mashing the attack trigger repeatedly will get you through all combat scenarios in Skyrim. That's all I had to do with the exception of using some healing spells and potions. I never even bothered blocking cuz it wasn't necessary. Don't get me wrong, I liked Skyrim a lot but its combat is so inferior to Witcher's that even comparing them is silly. At least in Witcher I've gotta dodge sometimes to survive. In Skyrim no defensive maneuver is ever necessary throughout the entirety of the game, not on the default difficulty setting anyway. I suppose you could do that stuff just for the sake of doing it. But you never need to.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

@xantufrog said:

I actually think the combat is more realistic than a lot of games - the fact that he has weight to him and you really need to practice your dodges and sidesteps. Circle your enemies... if you run in spamming attack or assume his dodge is going to move you 10 feet and render you immune to all attacks you're in for a nasty surprise ;-) I think combat tends to be too easy in games, so IDK

Clearly a lot of people hate the combat. I'm fine being in the minority. FWIW, I hated the combat in TW2... although this is very similar design, I don't hate it because it feels much more responsive and refined to me. But to be honest a lot of RPGs have combat that's a joke, so maybe this game's combat is only half a joke :-P

As far as him being a macho meathead. Well I can see how someone new to the series would get that perception. The game, IMO, jumps in with a lot of pre-suppositions about what you know surrounding the world and its lore. It gives really brief get-you-up-to-speed intros along the way for newcomers, but frankly, without context, a lot of what is going on probably comes off as totally generic. It's only by having read the books and/or played the previous games that "RANDOM BADGUY!" becomes something less black and white and less generic, and Geralt's "TOUGH VOICE FOR DUDE WHO HAS A LOT OF SEX AND CARRIES A SWORD!" becomes a more nuanced person.

At the end of the day, that's maybe a fault of the game designers, although one has to pause before jumping in on the 3rd of anything story driven (book/movie/game) and think - is this really the place I need to be at to enjoy what I'm about to experience? Still, as I acknowledged, I think the efforts CDPR put forth to introduce newcomers and get the enthralled are cursory at best.

TLDR: "probably not" - yes the game's story develops and the skills get cooler, but if you don't have the right context for the story side (or simply never liked it to begin with) and/or don't like the control scheme - I can't see it magically becoming your thing with another 10 hours

Guess I'm in the minority too cuz I liked the combat of Witcher 2 even. It was tough at first but once I got the feel of it I liked it. I'm not gonna say the mechanics of it are realistic cuz rolling around a lot is not realistic at all. But I think the danger element was. Ya always had to pay attention to what you were doing when fighting in that game, had to think. One or two mistakes and you were dead. For the first 2/3rds of the game anyway. Towards the end after I'd leveled up a lot it got too easy and automatic. By automatic I mean that at high levels Geralt started doing all these incredible things, rolling and leaping around from one enemy to the next in a very precise way that didn't seem to be asking for enough input from me.

Avatar image for Wickerman777
Wickerman777

2164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Wickerman777
Member since 2013 • 2164 Posts

I've found myself becoming more and more a fan of action RPGs. Love Elder Scrolls and Fallout, Fable, Witcher, etc. Don't like games with lots of driving in them though. I've never been able to get into GTA because of that. Don't think I've ever played any Grand Theft Auto game or its myriad of clones more than an hour or two. The driving kills it for me every time.