17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 17. |
Re: Sir |
Nov 14, 2006, 10:58 |
Awesome Spume |
|
|
Do not feed the trolls.
------------------------------------------------- Dear Customer,
We can confirm, despite a European shortage of the Nintendo Wii consoles, that Play.com should be able to supply your pre-ordered Nintendo Wii at launch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 16. |
Re: Sir |
Nov 14, 2006, 09:44 |
Ecthelion |
|
|
I'm not really sure why Doom was more successful than Wolfenstein 3D (I assume that's the game you're talking about, since Castle Wolfenstein wasn't a FPS). Maybe it's the fact that Wolf 3D was my first PC game, but I thought it was great. When Doom came along, I didn't see what the fuss was all about. Sure, it had steps and diagonal angles, but besides the tech advances, it didn't really bring anything new to shooters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 15. |
Sir |
Nov 14, 2006, 04:13 |
venomhed |
|
|
Keep dreaming. You and many others think reinventing the wheel is the only way to progress. Without evolution, there can be no revolution.
So you're going to tell me that all the FPS games out there suck except the very first one, which to my memory, would be a game called Corporation (Pre doom, pre duke nukem)? That game fucking sucked. However, Castle Wolfenstein from ID was very neat, but utterly shattered by Doom when that arrived.
So for you, Corporation, the game, is the best one out there. I will take the evolutionary route and say Doom was.
Let's look at sales and see who wins this argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 14. |
Re: Sir |
Nov 14, 2006, 01:38 |
sir |
|
|
If that is your basis for an arguement, then you better go back to playing Pong and using wood and stone as tools.
This game series didn't really interest me until Rome came about. Same with Splinter Cell, never liked it until Chaos Theory.
How's that slide show coming along? Since movies fall into your analogy right?
Another cretin who's graduated from the Derek Smart school of game design. Once again, feature creep does not make a good game. In most cases, memorable games come about through a paradigm shift in gameplay - revolution not evolution.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 13. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 14, 2006, 00:27 |
Dave_b |
|
|
A game of the first Medieval generally took a month if you weren't skiping work to play. I've been playing since Shogun, and the pincal of the series for me was the first Medieval. The battles in that were significantly more challenging than Rome on Very Hard. Though Rome is beut - I still love watching a crew of Lombard Beserkers plowing into a bunch of grunts. I think every episode since Shogun has been a step foward, and after playing the demo I pretty sure they'll recapture the battlefield feel of Medieval uno. But of course nothing is going to recapture that first sense of playing something that seemed to actually be sort-of-real, when everything had been so blatently a game (or a clunky hex-sim)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 12. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 22:16 |
Creston |
|
|
Any way you look at it, M2:TW is leaps and bounds ahead of Shogun in almost every way. Granted Shogun might be a better game, but M2 is more advanced in every way.
Technologically, the game has definitely gotten better. They've also gotten rid of several bad design decisions and implemented others. However, I have to say that none of the other Total Wars have the same feel as Shogun had. Also, you could play a game of Shogun in an evening. A game of Rome takes a week. I'm assuming a game of medieval will take at least a week, if not more.
Making the game more complex has in no way (in my opinion) made it better. Just more of a chore to play.
I'll still pick this up, sometime next year in the lean months.
Creston
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 11. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 20:55 |
shinchan0s |
|
|
Shogun is probably the only game in the last 10 years that lived up to the massive hype it got. Rome was a slight disappointment but Medieval II looks to make up for it.
And the next Total War game will be fantasy-based. Book it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 10. |
No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 18:56 |
nin |
|
|
download it its bene ot for a wile but i hav sum prob1em it lock up on a map screen time two time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 9. |
Cool |
Nov 13, 2006, 17:26 |
Muscular Beaver |
|
|
Always wanted a new Medieval when I saw Rome. I still play Rome from time to time. I love the medieval age. Cant wait for this one!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
________ I'm not... gonna... cry... you... dumb... doo-doo brain! -Bubbles |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue! - Mojo Jojo |
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 8. |
Sir |
Nov 13, 2006, 17:12 |
venomhed |
|
|
If that is your basis for an arguement, then you better go back to playing Pong and using wood and stone as tools.
This game series didn't really interest me until Rome came about. Same with Splinter Cell, never liked it until Chaos Theory.
How's that slide show coming along? Since movies fall into your analogy right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 7. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 16:45 |
Malakai |
|
|
Did you read what i had posted? I never said that added features and greater complexity equaled a better game. Read what i posted again. I merely said that M2:TW is more advanced.
But hey, i know you'll probably reply with "you're stupid" or something similar, so to advoid it, please, enlighten me as to what sequal that has come out recently that is a better game than it's predecessor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 6. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 16:37 |
sir |
|
|
Since when does added features and greater complexity equal a better game? No, I think you're the one who has been overdosing on the stupid pills. And by leaps and bounds I meant better, not stuffed with unnecessary bullshit that makes the game a chore to play.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 5. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 16:30 |
Malakai |
|
|
Sorry that argument is just....stupid. Almost every single game played now is nothing more than a slightly more complex and pretty version of something created years ago.
M2:TW has come on in leaps and bounds. The diplomatic funcations, the battle sequences, the map/movement system on the strategy level, the implementation of cities vs citadels, traits to commanders, missions. Hell i could go on for a bit longer if you wanted me to.
Any way you look at it, M2:TW is leaps and bounds ahead of Shogun in almost every way. Granted Shogun might be a better game, but M2 is more advanced in every way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 4. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 16:23 |
sir |
|
|
Sorry, fanboy, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on how the game has come on in leaps and bounds and isn't just a prettier and slightly more complex version of what we were playing six whole years ago?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 3. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 16:11 |
DDI |
|
|
Downhill? You are insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 2. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 14:57 |
MachineMk2 |
|
|
I want Civil War:Total War
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| 1. |
No subject |
Nov 13, 2006, 14:00 |
sir |
|
|
I remember being blown away by Shogun when it first appeared, but I think - stunning graphics aside - this series has gone downhill ever since. When are we going to get naval combat?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|