46 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 46. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 18:05 |
Prez |
|
|
Agreed. Lacking co-op, Doom 3 multiplayer was pretty bad - until the LMS Co-op mod. That makes it almost a new experience, and a superior MP game. At least if you're into co-op.
Q4 was billed as a SP experience first with a token MP remake of Q3A. Personally, I bought it (on gogamer for $27) solely for the nifty SP.
And, as I said before, BF2 is a really tight and rewarding MP experience imho, whether or not it's innovative.
But, as I said, to each his own. I suppose that if you really are totally spent on current MP conventions, I can see why you do not enjoy the current offerings. But as nin has touched on, if you are expecting ET:QW to be the second coming of MP, you might be a little dissapointed. At any rate, I am excited at the prospect of how fun it looks, regardless of how ground-breaking it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 13:21 |
grudgebearer |
|
|
FEAR, had excellent AI, singleplayer story was tired, but overall from what I played on a friends rig it had its moments. Multiplayer though is a different story...boring rehashed...
I all you want a game for is the single player AI/story, then by all mean if you are choosing between Doom 3, Quake 4, and FEAR then choose FEAR.
But none of these games offer anyting new in the multiplayer department. I can't justify paying $50 for the short singlplayer portions of these games with the same old rehashed multiplayer, and in the case of Doom 3 and Quake 4, the MP aspect is actually a poorer implementation than previouse titles in the series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'I'm not going to walk in through the front door - or the side door - and let you do the talking, just like that. You think I got this old not knowing how to stay alive?'
- Harlon Nayl |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 12:59 |
Prez |
|
|
Grudge:
I think we're on different pages here. You want examples of originality, while I'm of the opinion that derivative game features and value are in no way mutually exclusive.
For the record, I found much innovation in FEAR. The firefights delivered an amazing visceral experience, unlike any game I had played before. That's me. The real question is, does a game have to be innovative and original to avoid being crap? My answer would be a resounding 'no'.
BF2 has sold a ridiculous number of copies. More importantly, the game is genuinely liked by a very large portion of the consumers who bought it. It would be easy to write this off as nothing more than the low standards of the mainstream gaming community who lap up EA releases like candy, except for the numerous, clearly hardcore gamers who frequent the servers.
Doom 3 was cool in its own way BECAUSE it was a throwback of sorts. It made no attempts to revolutionalize anything. This was made clear from the very start.
I can't speak about COD2 because I am currently on a WW2 game-buying freeze. Enough is enough, already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 12:41 |
grudgebearer |
|
|
And I seriously doubt Quake Wars is going to be mind blowingly different...
Your "objective gameplay" has been in UT for years now...
nin, camping power nodes and trying to hold the most is about is objective gameplay as much as camping little flags in Battlefield 2 is; no real objective gameplay in UT, just a rehash of capture the flag. I never said that the objective gameplay is going to be mind blowingly different than any other game, but it is leapsand bounds beyond the same rehashed deathmatch/capture the flag scenarios that every single FPS has been built around in the past.
By all means don't take my word on whether or not the objective gameplay is impressive or not...
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=62456&page=1
here's some more...
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3147035&did=1
I especially like this quote
"Quake 4 covered the basics of online multiplayer, but for Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, developer Splash Damage has something a bit different in mind. Instead of deathmatch and standard options, it wants to bring the franchise into the world of massive online team FPSs"
Here is another should you like to read it...
http://pc.gamedaily.com/game/preview/?gameid=4393&page=1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'I'm not going to walk in through the front door - or the side door - and let you do the talking, just like that. You think I got this old not knowing how to stay alive?'
- Harlon Nayl |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 10:16 |
nin |
|
|
I challenge you to find anything new, as far as gameplay is concerned, where CoD2, Doom 3, FEAR, or Battlefied 2 stand out from their predecessor titles or similar games on the market, that isn't just the same rehashed gameplay that we have seen in every FPS in the last 7 years.
And I seriously doubt Quake Wars is going to be mind blowingly different...
Your "objective gameplay" has been in UT for years now...
--------------------------------------------------------------
GW: Nilaar Madalla, lvl 20 R/Mo / Tolyl Nor, lvl 20 E/Mo / Xylos Gath, lvl 13 W/Mo
http://www.goldfrapp.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 09:27 |
grudgebearer |
|
|
I would say that first of all, I disagree completely that the games you cited are simply prettied-up rehashes, (with the possible exception of Doom3). Are their similar elements? Sure. Show me a completely original property with no borrowed elements from the last 10 years. To be sure, they're out there, but by no means the rule.
Prez, tell me how CoD2, or Battlefield 2, or FEAR even attempt to bring ANY new style of multiplayer gameplay to the genre? The reason they are crap isn't because they borrow from other games, but that in reality they are really no different then the games they borrow from in terms of gameplay. There is nothing really new or innovative about the multiplayer/singleplayer games of the recent batch of FPSs that have hit the market, aside from swanky new physics engines and slick new graphics.
I challenge you to find anything new, as far as gameplay is concerned, where CoD2, Doom 3, FEAR, or Battlefied 2 stand out from their predecessor titles or similar games on the market, that isn't just the same rehashed gameplay that we have seen in every FPS in the last 7 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'I'm not going to walk in through the front door - or the side door - and let you do the talking, just like that. You think I got this old not knowing how to stay alive?'
- Harlon Nayl |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 03:25 |
Prez |
|
|
My, aren't we all a-twiiter with geek superiority! But seriously, my point was not to wow you with my game prowess, but to illustrate that I am not a graphics whore, nor am I a "lowest common denominator" gamer, as you ignorantly implied.
To answer your valid question, How does being an Atari fan/ex-fan who used to play System Shock give you any more resilience when it comes to being swayed by graphics? You telling me that if your baby, Doom3 was to have the graphics of the Atari 2600 which you proffess to dearly love, that you would choose it over a game with a modern graphics engine?, I would say that first of all, I disagree completely that the games you cited are simply prettied-up rehashes, (with the possible exception of Doom3). Are their similar elements? Sure. Show me a completely original property with no borrowed elements from the last 10 years. To be sure, they're out there, but by no means the rule. Totally original properties are far and away the exception, and I for one am not going to spend the rest of my life playing Katamari Damacy.
Moreover, my point was not to belittle you for your tastes - everyone likes what they like, dislikes what they dislike, and that is that. I'm not going to tell anyone what they SHOULD like or dislike, nor tell them they are wrong for liking or disliking anything. I CAN disagree with your (in my opinion) ridiculously over-simplified one-line synopsis of some pretty good games. Notice I said pretty good, not stellar.
Holy shiat Prez! You used to play Atari?! OMFG Xcom AND System Shock?! That definitely means that you know what you are talking about when it comes to gaming. I guess my days on the commodore 64 just don't stand a chance to the video game might that you have accumulated with your atari 2600/system shock experience.
Your problem, if you don't mind me saying so, is that you clearly are using the classic jaded gamer's "Shit or Brilliant" scale (where there can be no middle ground) that is so prevalent today. Does it bother me? Of course not. Is it worth a discourse? Maybe. But when you make generalizations about a person's tastes and even very character, all the while ignoring the actual point that someone is (politely, I might add) trying to make, it sort of defeats the purpose of posting in a forum at all.
Anyway, to each his own, and BTW: let me know if you still have a working tape drive for a Commodore 64. Mine broke. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 19, 2006, 01:05 |
grudgebearer |
|
|
Like I said- best move along. You are clearly too sophisticated to bother with gaming anymore.
And the "swayed by graphics/ you're a silly kid" inference was really funny. Had you been around for longer than 8 posts you might know that I've been gaming since Atari's 'Adventure' and my favorite games are Xcom and System Shock. Hardly graphical powerhouses, wouldn't you agree? But anything to make your point, such as it is, I suppose.
Holy shiat Prez! You used to play Atari?! OMFG Xcom AND System Shock?! That definitely means that you know what you are talking about when it comes to gaming. I guess my days on the commodore 64 just don't stand a chance to the video game might that you have accumulated with your atari 2600/system shock experience.
Enough witty banter. How does being an Atari fan/ex-fan who used to play System Shock give you any more resilience when it comes to being swayed by graphics? You telling me that if your baby, Doom3 was to have the graphics of the Atari 2600 which you proffess to dearly love, that you would choose it over a game with a modern graphics engine? From your defense of the latest rehashed game types wrapped in the slickest new graphics, I seriously doubt that you would.
That being said, of the games that I listed as not buying, how are any of the gameplay features that they possess an advancement from any FPS that has been released since, oh I don't know lets say the year 2001? What advancement have those games propagated, besides new graphics, that set them apart from previous games?
This comment was edited on Jan 19, 01:21. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'I'm not going to walk in through the front door - or the side door - and let you do the talking, just like that. You think I got this old not knowing how to stay alive?'
- Harlon Nayl |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 18, 2006, 18:13 |
Prez |
|
|
Like I said- best move along. You are clearly too sophisticated to bother with gaming anymore.
And the "swayed by graphics/ you're a silly kid" inference was really funny. Had you been around for longer than 8 posts you might know that I've been gaming since Atari's 'Adventure' and my favorite games are Xcom and System Shock. Hardly graphical powerhouses, wouldn't you agree? But anything to make your point, such as it is, I suppose.
This comment was edited on Jan 18, 18:37. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 18, 2006, 11:52 |
grudgebearer |
|
|
nin
And you don't think Quake Wars is going to be like BF2?
Seeing who can stand around a flag till it lowers and raises back up the most is a far cry from the objective gameplay that ET:QW is based around.
This comment was edited on Jan 18, 11:54. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'I'm not going to walk in through the front door - or the side door - and let you do the talking, just like that. You think I got this old not knowing how to stay alive?'
- Harlon Nayl |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 18, 2006, 11:34 |
nin |
|
|
And you don't think Quake Wars is going to be like BF2?
--------------------------------------------------------------
GW: Nilaar Madalla, lvl 20 R/Mo / Tolyl Nor, lvl 20 E/Mo / Xylos Gath, lvl 13 W/Mo
http://www.goldfrapp.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 18, 2006, 11:28 |
grudgebearer |
|
|
How befitting your name. Why do you still even bother to play games? You found nothing of value in any of those titles you listed? At all? Best move along then... gaming is just not for you anymore.
Prez, why would I buy those games if they are the same rehashed gameplay that I can get from Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament? Unlike yourself I am not swayed by newest graphics engine with the same old tired gameplay; better graphics /= better game. But then again, gaming companies are catering to the kids who are distracted by shiny objects these days; from your response, looks like their marketing strategy is pretty effective.
This comment was edited on Jan 18, 11:32. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'I'm not going to walk in through the front door - or the side door - and let you do the talking, just like that. You think I got this old not knowing how to stay alive?'
- Harlon Nayl |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 18, 2006, 11:08 |
Prez |
|
|
How befitting your name. Why do you still even bother to play games? You found nothing of value in any of those titles you listed? At all? Best move along then... gaming is just not for you anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 33. |
Re: Nice! |
Jan 18, 2006, 09:10 |
grudgebearer |
|
|
I refuse to buy any more unoriginal FPSs. Didn't buy Doom 3, Quake 4, CoD2, FEAR, or that pile of garbage that is Battlefield 2.
I am holding out for Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. That is the only game that I have come across that is trying to do something even mildly different than the crap that everyone else is putting out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'I'm not going to walk in through the front door - or the side door - and let you do the talking, just like that. You think I got this old not knowing how to stay alive?'
- Harlon Nayl |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: PLEASE DEVELOPERS-NO MORE WW2 GAMES |
Jan 17, 2006, 21:57 |
Leonidas |
|
|
MOH: PA was just an attempt at making a somwhat diffrent WW2 shooter, but they didn't quite succeed I'd say.
Whit it's story-line, the game felt more like a bad ww2 movie - severly limited freedom of action (also called scripted sequences, and they simply overdid that aspect), japanese showing out of nowhere in many situations (apparently from the japanese spaceship in orbit), deja-vu design of missions, and of course laggy graphics.
I wonder tho, is this game called Medal of Honor Airborne going to be a FPS or some sort of simulation or wat? Can't really see how theyre gonna "redefine the series by introducing players to an entirely new way of experiencing a WWII FPS"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
It was a ton of fun.... |
Jan 17, 2006, 21:49 |
Brick |
|
|
The first time I spawned on that Stalingrad demo map and looked up and saw the muzzle of an M1 sticking out a window and poppin' away with gunsmoke pouring out the barrel, I thought that it was going to be fun... and it was a ton of fun. But it's been downhill from the first installment.
A lot of talent left and I don't know if they'll ever be able to come out with another one like the first. It's near impossible for them to come up with something as fresh and innovative in that genre as the first one was.
Remember the arguing on some forums when they first showed the beach landing clip. Some people just couldn't believe it and maintained that it was just a cut scene\movie and not actual in game footage.
This comment was edited on Jan 17, 21:56. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: PLEASE DEVELOPERS-NO MORE WW2 GAMES |
Jan 17, 2006, 20:54 |
Dice |
|
|
Can someone link me to the game informer scans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: PLEASE DEVELOPERS-NO MORE WW2 GAMES |
Jan 17, 2006, 19:39 |
MuzixMon |
|
|
The overall rating for MoH:PA on GameRankings.com was 80%. I agree with that average totally. To put it simply the game wasn't a knockout epic winner but it certainly wasn't a bad game either. It was a slightly above average FPS that had alot going for it. With more polish and attention from the developers it could've been the best WW2 title of them all. I enjoyed Pacific Assault and CoD2 equally. I loved CoD1 and MoH:Allied Assault but I think both franchises gave us weaker sequals. I'm sure many would argue with me on CoD2 being much better but I just didn't feel it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "When all thats left is console gaming, I will game no more." |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: PLEASE DEVELOPERS-NO MORE WW2 GAMES |
Jan 17, 2006, 18:58 |
Prez |
|
|
Lol. Yeah, I'm waiting for the Medal of Honor 2006 roster update!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Re: PLEASE DEVELOPERS-NO MORE WW2 GAMES |
Jan 17, 2006, 18:48 |
The Half Elf |
|
|
Medal of Honor, the Madden of WW2 heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
46 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
