There was nothing hypocritical about what I said- you misunderstand my point. Normally I have no problem with people whining (as gamers tend to do) but both yourself and Ray effectively said, "Golly gosh gee, I just don't get why people like a mediocre/poor game like this." and I explained that the fault isn't with them- it's with you. You see, Extreme Paintbrawl is a bad game. Quake 4 is not a bad game- you just have a poor idea of what mediocre is to the general gaming public. You know what it is for yourself, sure, but you're obviously clueless as to the rest of the world, which is why Quake 4 is quite well reviewed, and why the majority of comments I've heard about it have been positive.
...my points still stand...
I'm sorry, what points were those? You offered a number of "The levels were dumb." comments, and a brief list of what happens in the game, which really doesn't bother me (nor would I expect too many other Quake-hungry gamers) at all. I mean, Quake 1 had no plotline... Quake 2 had no plotline, and so I personally don't have an issue with running around shooting things, and doing little much else. It's Quake for goodness sakes.
Aside from about two points, Ray's comments were also completely lacking (the semi-factual, non opinion based ones), and proved in about two seconds Ray has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to texture sizes, model polycounts, how the Doom 3 engine works, or why Raven made the choices they did as far as graphical design (skyboxes, etc) goes. Of course, I'm
sure you agreed with him because of the amazing facts Ray provided to go with his long list of complaints. [Not]
Blah blah blah, if you have any decent complains to make, I'm all ears.
Edit: As for the stars thing, although a point drawing system would have made for a much better backdrop, it might have been a big waste of time to get going (there's not that much in space, right?) and it may not have been easily (or at all) workable into the D3 engine.
This comment was edited on Nov 24, 07:37.