21 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 21. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 30, 2003, 14:59 |
KaRRiLLioN |
|
|
I like chrome. The graphics and vehicles are great. I just wish you could use the vehicles more in the game, but they're still pretty cool.
Graphics IMHO are 10/10 for outdoors, 6/10 indoors, 4/10 for character models, 7/10 for weapons models, and 8/10 for vehicle models.
Gameplay is less hectic than HALO, i.e. no massive onslaughts like in the library. Gameplay is repetitive in some regards, but it still has some fresh stuff, like there's a part where you get into the back of a shuttle and shoot things while it's flying, which is pretty cool. Otherwise, you're shooting, sniping, and ocassionally shooting rockets at stuff. AI can be quite retarded, though, and that's a weak point. They take cover and respond well when fired upon, but they can see you too easily and stealth doesn't work like it should.
For overall experience I'd give it a 8/10 and rate it a "Good Buy". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Marathon? |
Nov 30, 2003, 14:47 |
Hunterzyph |
|
|
Are you referring to Marathon? I'd hardly say it had superior graphics...given the usage of sprites =P Was it more fun? The multiplayer was a real blast...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 30, 2003, 09:50 |
Hump |
|
|
And yeah, Halo PC.
The other version came out like 7 years ago and somehow still had better graphics.
huh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Playing: CoD, Halo MP, DC .5. Hotly Anticipating: Armed & Dangerous, Firestarter, UT2004 Listening to: Dropkick Murphys |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 30, 2003, 08:58 |
Dread |
|
|
Now I DID notice the lag in Chrome during an outside level.
I jumped around and straffed from side to side for a minute or two.
It definitely was noticeable.
I also didn't like how I felt like I was 4 feet tall (much like Unreal 2).
The ground just seemed awfully close to me.
But again, didn't ruin the game for me.
I don't know....
Positives?
Beautiful, HUGE, outdoor environments.
Difficult (but not overly) levels that made the completion of the game last longer than 6 hours (now THAT'S something that's been getting on my nerves lately. I know, I know. Quality over quantity......)
Great character details.
Excellent vehicle controls and graphics. This is one of the more underrated aspects of the game I thought.
And of course, the engine.
I don't know.
It's all a matter of prefference.
Now Worms 3D, wow....
You can't configure your keys, set mouse speed, invert look...
And yeah, Halo PC.
The other version came out like 7 years ago and somehow still had better graphics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 30, 2003, 07:01 |
Quboid |
|
|
are a little trivial like the awkwardness of a movement system
Ah ha, now you've caught what I consider to be the least appreciated essential part of a game - input and movement. Default keys don't matter to me, there's no way any game will fit my exact keyboard layout so i always go into personalise without playing the game. However, movement in games is essential, which is one reason I couldn't quite take to BF1942 - somehow human movement in that wasn't quite natural. Likewise for RtCW and ET, where it's too smooth. Chrome was pretty good - I think the performance issues where the only problem with lagged input. I'm a terrible nit-picker when it comes to player movement and configuration. I even had a problem with Vietcong's weapons as they were too far out on the right hand side so it didn't feel natural - but I still played that game to death. That's also my biggest complaint with X2 - no configurable controls. It's not too bad when they set up a 10 button joystick fairly well (but where's the freakin' target key?) but I'm probably going to get a 16/28 button joystick for Christmas and I'd like to spend a happy hour configuring that one
Cheers,
Quboid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 30, 2003, 00:56 |
Rebian |
|
|
"Overall though, I enjoyed this game much more than Halo.
To me, it felt like I was playing a more life-like, more adult version of the over-rated Microsoft fiasco."
You mean the PC halo right? The x-box version wasn't overrated and was the farthest thing from a fiasco as you could get. I thouroughly enjoyed it... as did the thousands of people that made the game an extreme sucess. Hell, it was the ONLY reason to get an x-box for almost a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
No subject |
Nov 29, 2003, 21:51 |
Azer |
|
|
Game ran flawless on my 3ghz, 1gb ram, 9800 Pro.
The gameplay was good, it felt somewhat fresh. There were obvious parts of the game I wish they could have improved and spent more time on like AI, voice acting, and maybe some more weapon balancing.
But all in all it was an entertaining game and if a movie or game can keep my attention then by all means its good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 29, 2003, 21:44 |
Dread |
|
|
I'm sorry, but could you clarify this statement? Good gameplay is what makes a game fun, but for a minute it sounded like that didn't matter to you.
Gameplay is huge.
No argument.
I'm saying that in general, MOST games have pretty decent gameplay.
A lot of times people get caught up on things that I think are a little trivial like the awkwardness of a movement system or the default key settings, etc.
Most things take some getting used to.
A lot of the problems people talk about when they mention Chrome are things that bothered me the first hour or so, then I get used to it, and now I don't even notice anymore.
I don't think it ruins the game, that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 29, 2003, 19:21 |
vacs |
|
|
The graphics are only beautiful on a system that can run them on high settings - my P4 3Ghz, 1GB, Rad9700 couldn't and that's a pretty high end system.
hm, my P4 2.8 with a 5900 Ultra does run Chrome very nicely at 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF at high details. Graphics are definitely the better part of the game, where gameplay and originality is completely missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 29, 2003, 19:11 |
Ludomancer |
|
|
"Most people are too picky with gameplay in my opinion.
They take it to a ridiculous level of importance."
I'm sorry, but could you clarify this statement? Good gameplay is what makes a game fun, but for a minute it sounded like that didn't matter to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Chrome had.. |
Nov 29, 2003, 18:04 |
Fillem |
|
|
a very nasty AI.
They always, ALWAYS, see you immedeately no matter if you crawl or run to them and they also seem to have impeccable aim. Kinda ruined the game for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Porno laughs are not funny, ok?"
-David Brent- |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 29, 2003, 17:37 |
Ray Marden |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: ne1 playing? |
Nov 29, 2003, 17:37 |
beaves |
|
|
thx guys ... I just got the sp demo and it was pretty tough. i used like 8 save slots, it looked very good, but I can see your point about it being repetetive. The bad guys didn't talk much unlike halo, and the grenades sometimes seemed really powerful then other times not so. i don't know maybe a buy or maybe XIII.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: ne1 playing? |
Nov 29, 2003, 17:12 |
Hump |
|
|
Its pretty clear they had two different artists for interior and exterior levels. Some of the interior parts are pretty lousy.
yeah, planning and thinking before taking any type of action is important in the game. In a lot of ways its how I had hoped SoF2 was going to be but it turned out you couldve launched a mission in your skivvies and run around and STILL get through the mission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Playing: CoD, Halo MP, DC .5. Hotly Anticipating: Armed & Dangerous, Firestarter, UT2004 Listening to: Dropkick Murphys |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: ne1 playing? |
Nov 29, 2003, 15:59 |
Quboid |
|
|
Thanksgiving? Oh yes, that. No one really cares about it around here
Since when is art not part of the graphics? I said the graphics are bad, not the engine. I'd say the art is probably the most important part of a game's graphics! I'm not sure what system you play Chrome on but on mine, the graphics weren't a touch on UT2003, CoD or even Quake 3. This was at a low res (800x600 or 1024x768, I don't remember which) and most of the settings low. Put them high and yes, it is very pretty, probably on par with UT2003 (which has excellent art). However, I can't say it's graphics are as good as UT2003's as I compare what I play at in one game with what I play at in another game on the same system.
Prehaps the lack of planning is why I found it so hard. I just wasn't envolved enough to bother.
Cheers,
Quboid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: ne1 playing? |
Nov 29, 2003, 15:48 |
Hump |
|
|
Graphics: 5/10 - very nice at high settings but a high end system such as mine can't handle it so it's pretty pointless. Settings which were playable where mostly ugly but it had it's moments and painted some nice large open areas well
still imbibing in the Thanksgiving drinks Quboid?
Chromes graphics are easily the best there are at this moment. Of course that will change soon with several games on the horizin with next gen tech. Granted some of the interior levels are generic looking but thats a fault of the art talent and not the engine.
Also, the game missions aren't anything like Halo. Missions have to be planned out and gone through carefully. Run-n-gun gets you killed very quick.
Theres a lot of rough edges on the game but I hope Techland keeps making games as they definitely have some good technology in their engine and some decent ideas about gameplay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Playing: CoD, Halo MP, DC .5. Hotly Anticipating: Armed & Dangerous, Firestarter, UT2004 Listening to: Dropkick Murphys |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Chrome is... |
Nov 29, 2003, 14:52 |
Quboid |
|
|
The graphics are only beautiful on a system that can run them on high settings - my P4 3Ghz, 1GB, Rad9700 couldn't and that's a pretty high end system. I applaud them for pushing the bar and if I play this in 2 years, I might appreicate their effort. However, when the settings have to go down so far that they are ugly by todays standards, then the graphics are bad.
Yes, I put a lot of emphasis on gameplay because I believe it is essential. I'm not saying FPS games can't have good gameplay, I'm just saying that this one doesn't. It is a more believable game than Halo, I'll give it that.
Cheers,
Quboid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Chrome is... |
Nov 29, 2003, 14:43 |
Dread |
|
|
.. not that bad.
The graphics are beautiful, definitely not 5/10 or whatever.
Even most reviews that dislike the game give it props in the graphics department.
Gameplay has some issues... but it's like any game. Give it a little time and you'll adjust.
Most people are too picky with gameplay in my opinion.
They take it to a ridiculous level of importance.
It's still "WASD" mouse-look, etc.
Storyline is decent.
Cookie-cutter to be sure but I actually enjoyed it quite a bit more than Halo's storyline.
Since it's been mentioned, comparisons to Halo are unavoidable.
Overall though, I enjoyed this game much more than Halo.
To me, it felt like I was playing a more life-like, more adult version of the over-rated Microsoft fiasco.
If you're a fan of FPS's and you can overlook a few issues, I think it's worth the money.
I don't know...
That's my opinion anyways.
This comment was edited on Nov 29, 14:45. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: ne1 playing? |
Nov 29, 2003, 14:25 |
Quboid |
|
|
Gameplay: 3/10 - boring, repetative, too hard but not because of overly clever opponents. Some nice ideas but I'm struggling to remember them. A choice of endings, which is nice.
Graphics: 5/10 - very nice at high settings but a high end system such as mine can't handle it so it's pretty pointless. Settings which were playable where mostly ugly but it had it's moments and painted some nice large open areas well.
Originality: 1/10 - it wants to be Halo. It's not, managing to be even worse than the PC Halo port which is bad in pretty much the same ways except less so.
I know this will come as a surprise after that glowing minireview, but I actually didn't like it at all. It's unimaginative and repetative and while it's far from the worst game ever (*cough*iss3*cough*), lifes too short and wallets are too thin for me to recommend it.
Cheers,
Quboid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
21 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
