Search
Search results
Williams Plays: 4: Sucker Punch; Category B; Joe Guy; Baby Girl; There's Only One Wayne Matthews: 4
Book
'[Williams's] plays have brought the experience of black urban youth onto the stage' Observer Sucker...
Kane: Complete Plays: Blasted, Phaedra's Love, Cleansed, Crave, 4.48 Psychosis, Skin
10.0
Rate It
Book
When Blasted was first produced at the Royal Court in 1995 it was hailed jointly as a masterpiece...
Moira Buffini: Plays 2: Dinner; Dying for it; A Vampire Story; Welcome to Thebes; Handbagged
Book
Dinner: "A cracking black comedy that has you laughing uproariously one moment and jumping with...
Stephens Plays: Three Kingdoms; The Trial of Ubu; Morning; Carmen Disruption: Part 4
Book
Four plays inspired by and originating on the European stage from one of Britain's most important...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The latest in the popular Call of Duty series has arrived with Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII. The game has made the controversial decision to forgo the traditional campaign in favor of a Battle Royale mode known as Blackout and a more expansive online experience which includes more Zombie modes and a greater emphasis on gameplay.
I played the game first at E3 and then again during the Beta phases for the game so I had a decent familiarity with what to expect when the full release version of the game arrived.
After several days of playing the game, I have to say it is to me a mixed bag and many aspects of it disappointed me which is very frustrating as fan of the series since the very first game.
The look and feel of the game does not come across to me as a new game but instead to me look and play like DLC for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3. Many of the maps seem familiar and have been updated from their appearances in previous games. The same holds true for the weapons and kill streaks. I am not saying it is not fun, but it all has a sense of having seen most of it before.
Another very annoying change to the game is the severe limitation of grenades in the game. Usually a player has a grenade option which comes in handy when Snipers setup behind cover. Without the ability to lob a grenade to get Snipers out from cover, players are easy pickings, especially when the first appear on the screen. You can unload a full clip into a player at a distance and still end up dead with one shot from a sniper. As such you have to wait until you reach level 42 in order to add them to your customized loadout and even then they are very Nerfed from what players have come to expect.
The multiplayer modes are what you have come to expect as there are the Team Deathmatch variations as well as the Capture and Control modes and a new mode called Heist where players need to capture or prevent the capture of a target.
For me the most enjoyable aspect of the game was the Zombie modes as not only were the players I was matched with usually very helpful, but they were also much friendlier than many of the other people I encountered.
The Blackout mode is very popular with gamers but not being a fan of the One and Done mode of play, I found myself enjoying the vast details of the map and preferring to work with a team, capturing vehicles, and such. I have seen multiple players unload point blank on a player in this mode only to see them walk away and one shot kill their attackers. This is either a hack or an example of how imbalanced things can be at times and you will see multiple instances of players taking numerous hits and walking away while others go down with one shot.
Black Ops IIII does not have a regenerative health system and instead requires players to use a timed injection in order to restore health.
This is all designed to foster teamwork and to make the game more appealing to the eSports community. While this is nice, it deviates from much of what has made the game so appealing from the start.
The game to me seems like it was hurried to market as it released on October 12th vs the traditional November release date. I am sure a big part of this was a desire to beat Red Dead Redemption 2 to market but in doing so it seems that things are missing from the final product.
There is much to like about the game as it is still an exciting and intense experience but to me is the first Call of Duty game to not feel shiny and new but instead more of the same in many cases.
The developers have supported the game with numerous updates and there are more on the way as well as planned DLC down the road so the game as it is now is likely to change in the next few months as more feedback is given to developers and new features are added.
Hopefully they will also look to add a campaign at a later date as although it is fun, it seems lacking and dated in many aspects as the changes seem like a step back to me rather than progress.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/23/call-of-duty-black-ops-iiii-2/
I played the game first at E3 and then again during the Beta phases for the game so I had a decent familiarity with what to expect when the full release version of the game arrived.
After several days of playing the game, I have to say it is to me a mixed bag and many aspects of it disappointed me which is very frustrating as fan of the series since the very first game.
The look and feel of the game does not come across to me as a new game but instead to me look and play like DLC for Call of Duty: Black Ops 3. Many of the maps seem familiar and have been updated from their appearances in previous games. The same holds true for the weapons and kill streaks. I am not saying it is not fun, but it all has a sense of having seen most of it before.
Another very annoying change to the game is the severe limitation of grenades in the game. Usually a player has a grenade option which comes in handy when Snipers setup behind cover. Without the ability to lob a grenade to get Snipers out from cover, players are easy pickings, especially when the first appear on the screen. You can unload a full clip into a player at a distance and still end up dead with one shot from a sniper. As such you have to wait until you reach level 42 in order to add them to your customized loadout and even then they are very Nerfed from what players have come to expect.
The multiplayer modes are what you have come to expect as there are the Team Deathmatch variations as well as the Capture and Control modes and a new mode called Heist where players need to capture or prevent the capture of a target.
For me the most enjoyable aspect of the game was the Zombie modes as not only were the players I was matched with usually very helpful, but they were also much friendlier than many of the other people I encountered.
The Blackout mode is very popular with gamers but not being a fan of the One and Done mode of play, I found myself enjoying the vast details of the map and preferring to work with a team, capturing vehicles, and such. I have seen multiple players unload point blank on a player in this mode only to see them walk away and one shot kill their attackers. This is either a hack or an example of how imbalanced things can be at times and you will see multiple instances of players taking numerous hits and walking away while others go down with one shot.
Black Ops IIII does not have a regenerative health system and instead requires players to use a timed injection in order to restore health.
This is all designed to foster teamwork and to make the game more appealing to the eSports community. While this is nice, it deviates from much of what has made the game so appealing from the start.
The game to me seems like it was hurried to market as it released on October 12th vs the traditional November release date. I am sure a big part of this was a desire to beat Red Dead Redemption 2 to market but in doing so it seems that things are missing from the final product.
There is much to like about the game as it is still an exciting and intense experience but to me is the first Call of Duty game to not feel shiny and new but instead more of the same in many cases.
The developers have supported the game with numerous updates and there are more on the way as well as planned DLC down the road so the game as it is now is likely to change in the next few months as more feedback is given to developers and new features are added.
Hopefully they will also look to add a campaign at a later date as although it is fun, it seems lacking and dated in many aspects as the changes seem like a step back to me rather than progress.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/23/call-of-duty-black-ops-iiii-2/
Trainz Driver 2 - train driving game, realistic 3D railroad simulator plus world builder
Games and Entertainment
App
The most realistic Train Simulator on mobile, Trainz let's you DRIVE, EXPLORE, and now CREATE your...
Fred (860 KP) rated The Thing: Infection at Outpost 31 in Tabletop Games
Mar 7, 2018
Good game. Could be great with some house rule tweaking.
The Thing: Infected at Outpost 31 is a good game. It really gets the feel of John Carpenter's movie a far as the characters, the props & the look and layout of the outpost. That being said, the game has none of the suspense the movie has. But it can, with some house rules.
The first game I played, we had 6 players. We played the game wrong & had 3 infected. Even though we had too many infected, I was still able to pick all 3 infected. One I torched, 2 I got with the blood tests. Because the humans are able to talk about what cards are given to the captain with each mission, it's too easy to figure out the infected, unless the infected plays the game as a human & totally straight. Because of that, the game is boring as it was too easy for the humans to beat the missions & that it was a guarantee the game would get to the escape portion with no problem. During the game, the danger level didn't get past the third spot, so the danger never affected the missions. Far too easy for the humans. One friend, who was infected, played 2 sabotage cards & we easily figured out he was infected. The other 2 I guessed because of the way they acted. Not the way they acted in the game, just the way they acted. After the game, I suggested that we not be allowed to say what cards you give to the captain. I suggested we say either we can help with the mission or we cannot help. One friend disagreed & said it would be too easy for the infected to win the game by destroying 4 rooms or making 8 missions fail. I disagree.
Due to the arguments of my one friend, we decided it was up to the captain as to whether the cards were told during their missions. This doesn't work because only an infected would want to not have the cards said. As I mentioned, in the first game the danger level only moved up to the third spot. In the second game, we played with 8 players. The danger level only moved up once. Once! There is no suspense when the captain looks at his cards & says "No sabotage." because it's known the infected are playing the game as human, because they'll give themselves up otherwise. And once you're found out, you're left out for much of the game. I was infected in the second game. The first infected in fact. Every time I was chosen for a mission, it was with 3 or 4 player teams & would have been too easy to figure out I was the infected if I sabotaged the mission. So, I played the game straight to the end. It was only when my friend accused me of being infected & I gave up my "tell" that he was adamant I was infected. So again, it had nothing to do with the game, but rather reading my face.
So, basically, if you wanted, you could hand out the blood sample cards, accuse people of being infected, read their faces & guess who's infected without having to bother with the nonsense of the missions. Give the guesser 2 blood tests, because you're guaranteed to still be in danger level 1 & have 2 blood tests anyway. If the missions were exciting, I'd be all for it, but most of them aren't. It's just seeing who has the right cards, which with so many players, you're guaranteed to beat it.
And so, my suggestion of not being allowed to tell what cards you're given is one of the ways to fix this game. Yes, it may be easier for the infected to cause trouble, but without this change, there is no trouble, no sense of danger, no chance for the infected to win, unless they get lucky & get in on the escape. Without that chance of causing trouble, the game is monotonous & is just a big guess at the end. Another way I thought of fixing the game is throwing in a random card during a mission. Just draw an extra card, without looking at it, mix it in with other cards & then see what happens. That may seem unfair because then the mission may be too easily won (even more easily than they already are) & so I suggested another way. If a mission parameter is to have a choice of number of players, for example 4-5 players, then the captain can only choose a 4 player team & the 5th player would be a random card. This way, not every mission will have a random card drawn for it.
Anyway, I do like the game, but feel it could be made into a great game with some kind of tweak to fix this major problem.
The first game I played, we had 6 players. We played the game wrong & had 3 infected. Even though we had too many infected, I was still able to pick all 3 infected. One I torched, 2 I got with the blood tests. Because the humans are able to talk about what cards are given to the captain with each mission, it's too easy to figure out the infected, unless the infected plays the game as a human & totally straight. Because of that, the game is boring as it was too easy for the humans to beat the missions & that it was a guarantee the game would get to the escape portion with no problem. During the game, the danger level didn't get past the third spot, so the danger never affected the missions. Far too easy for the humans. One friend, who was infected, played 2 sabotage cards & we easily figured out he was infected. The other 2 I guessed because of the way they acted. Not the way they acted in the game, just the way they acted. After the game, I suggested that we not be allowed to say what cards you give to the captain. I suggested we say either we can help with the mission or we cannot help. One friend disagreed & said it would be too easy for the infected to win the game by destroying 4 rooms or making 8 missions fail. I disagree.
Due to the arguments of my one friend, we decided it was up to the captain as to whether the cards were told during their missions. This doesn't work because only an infected would want to not have the cards said. As I mentioned, in the first game the danger level only moved up to the third spot. In the second game, we played with 8 players. The danger level only moved up once. Once! There is no suspense when the captain looks at his cards & says "No sabotage." because it's known the infected are playing the game as human, because they'll give themselves up otherwise. And once you're found out, you're left out for much of the game. I was infected in the second game. The first infected in fact. Every time I was chosen for a mission, it was with 3 or 4 player teams & would have been too easy to figure out I was the infected if I sabotaged the mission. So, I played the game straight to the end. It was only when my friend accused me of being infected & I gave up my "tell" that he was adamant I was infected. So again, it had nothing to do with the game, but rather reading my face.
So, basically, if you wanted, you could hand out the blood sample cards, accuse people of being infected, read their faces & guess who's infected without having to bother with the nonsense of the missions. Give the guesser 2 blood tests, because you're guaranteed to still be in danger level 1 & have 2 blood tests anyway. If the missions were exciting, I'd be all for it, but most of them aren't. It's just seeing who has the right cards, which with so many players, you're guaranteed to beat it.
And so, my suggestion of not being allowed to tell what cards you're given is one of the ways to fix this game. Yes, it may be easier for the infected to cause trouble, but without this change, there is no trouble, no sense of danger, no chance for the infected to win, unless they get lucky & get in on the escape. Without that chance of causing trouble, the game is monotonous & is just a big guess at the end. Another way I thought of fixing the game is throwing in a random card during a mission. Just draw an extra card, without looking at it, mix it in with other cards & then see what happens. That may seem unfair because then the mission may be too easily won (even more easily than they already are) & so I suggested another way. If a mission parameter is to have a choice of number of players, for example 4-5 players, then the captain can only choose a 4 player team & the 5th player would be a random card. This way, not every mission will have a random card drawn for it.
Anyway, I do like the game, but feel it could be made into a great game with some kind of tweak to fix this major problem.
Root
9.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Root is a game of adventure and war in which 2 to 4 (6 with the 'Riverfolk' expansion) players...
Boardgames 2018Games
Play Beach Soccer Match - A real football tournament on world popular beaches 2015
Games and Sports
App
Playing soccer on soft sand is always enjoyable, here comes the realistic beach soccer game with...