Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Vega on March 26, 2007, 04:56:41 pm
-
For what games do you fail to understand why everyone thinks they are great? I'd have to say Age of Empires II (blows starcraft away in terms of micromanagement) and Chrono Trigger.
-
Final Fantasy 7. easily the most overrated game of all time.
-
DAikatana, shouldent be stated, BF 2142, ...
-
Final Fantasy 7. easily the most overrated game of all time.
FF7 is a good game, but most of the games are ****ing idiots. Hi, i'm Sepiroth,I*gets mowed down by gun fire.* :D
-
Chrono Trigger
:eek: LIES!
Anyway, I'd say the Halo series is most overrated. I don't really have anything against it; I had a great time playing Halo 1. I just don't think it's as orgasmically good as a lot of people think it is.
-
Chrono Trigger
:eek: LIES!
Anyway, I'd say the Halo series is most overrated. I don't really have anything against it; I had a great time playing Halo 1. I just don't think it's as orgasmically good as a lot of people think it is.
Indeed, hit the nail on the head :)
-
For what games do you fail to understand why everyone thinks they are great? I'd have to say Age of Empires II (blows starcraft away in terms of micromanagement) and Chrono Trigger.
i dunno, i disagree. don't get me wrong, me and my buddies will still get together every 3 or 4 months to play a game or two of AOE2, but i think they tried to make it too in-depth, too complicated. it took wayyyy too long to learn how to really play it. i mean you're managing lumber, gold, stone, and food. starcraft's just minerals and vespene.
i liked starcraft better :)
but maybe that's just cause i was better at it
-
Every goddamn MMORPG since Everquest.
-
Halo is easily overrated and the GTA series (except 1 and 2, those were actually fun to play).
Every goddamn MMORPG since Everquest.
:yes: Definitely.
-
Battlecruiser 3000.
....waaaaaiiiiiiiiit......
-
WOW...
-
Freespace 2
i just dont et wtf is good about it
-
Half Life 2!
-
Freespace 2
Bwhat? :eek2:
Drop the BanHammer on him! He must be purged!
Half Life 2!
That, I do agree on.
-
HL2 ep 1 was awesome :)
-
Yup. Going to buy Ep2 as soon as it is out.
Doom 3, now there's an overrated game.
P.S. Prophet, fanaticism is so yesterday.
-
P.S. Prophet, fanaticism is so yesterday.
Oh. Well in my defence, I was away for a while... :blah:
-
World Of Warcraft...
-
I think every game which is based only on a "ZOMG!!!111 That's next-gen graphic!!!1111one" thingy is overrated. And lately, many games are based on that :sigh:
-
that reminds me, far cry was defo overrated
-
I liked Far Cry. At least it wasn't about running in a pipe.
-
World Of Warcraft - Just a buch of hippie elves in it
/Dice
-
Halo
GTA
FF7
Metal Gear
Madden
Civ 4
WoW
-
You know, it funny. I liked Doom 3 - but even if I didn't, it would be hard to call it overrated because you don't hear that much positivity about it anymore.
HL2....eh.....people made this game out like the second coming, and to be blunt, it's rather bland. Terribly dull driving bits, one interesting weapon and the rest are just flat out blase, and a plot that just isn't very interesting. Not like the AI is spectacular either. All I can guess is that the newness of the grav gun enthralled people, and now that it's no longer new, it just can't grip me the way it did them.
-
Half Life 2 is the main title that comes to mind.
-
Halo. The mostest ever.
-
All nickaloaden games period.
-
We're talking overrated, not plain bad (although they need not be exclusive)
-
Halo is overrated, not just bad.
The indoor architecture is horrible. Like this one time, I passed up this room with like 3 hunters in it. You know what I did? I walked around the room. Do the designers actually expect you to fight them? And everything is so repetitive. And it's all hallway.
And anyway, just to keep the action going, they put bad guys everywhere, even when in made no sense what-so-ever. I would rather have five minutes of no baddies than that.
Honestly, I don't really see why people like it so much.
-
Yeah, Halo is far too repetitive.
-
Well in all fairness, they did run out of time in the end. Hence the poor level design.
But the granade button and melee were good ideas.
You should thank your lucky stars that they did finally decide to drop those dinosaurs from the game. They were infesting the ringworld all the way to the late stages of development. :shaking:
-
I did enjoy Chrono Trigger greatly, one of my favorites, but I could definitely see why some would think it overrated. I also consider Halo overrated. Many of my friends are way into it, but I've yet to see what the big deal is.
-
I'm pretty objective, and I think Halo is brilliant. No fanboi, mind, but the 'fifteen seconds of fun' principle seems to operate wonderfully.
The level design is awful at times, but it just doesn't always matter. Immersive, that game is; such attention to detail that it's easy to suspend disbelief.
But I don't want to start a debate. Just putting in my two cents.
-
Half life 1 definetely.. it was good but not THAT good, besides Unreal looked way better
WoW or Evercrack
starcraft... totally and utterly boring, i loved AoE2 much better.
haven't played HL2, D3, farcry or halo 1 yet to give any good ideas.
Daikatana was the most overhyped game LOL... well maybe second after Duke Nukem Forever :lol:
-
Half life 1 definetely.. it was good but not THAT good
I liked HL a lot. I will admit that there were some weak points, though.
HL2 was a true disappointment. It's very overrated.
-
I did enjoy Chrono Trigger greatly, one of my favorites, but I could definitely see why some would think it overrated. I also consider Halo overrated. Many of my friends are way into it, but I've yet to see what the big deal is.
Chrono Trigger was a good game, especially toward the end, but I have heard some people compare it to FFVI (Mikhael ranked it above), which is beyond comprehension.
-
HL2 springs to mind. Great game but not mind-blowing.
Also - GTA.
-
Also - GTA.
which one? number two was actually really good.
-
Well in all fairness, they did run out of time in the end. Hence the poor level design.
But the granade button and melee were good ideas.
You should thank your lucky stars that they did finally decide to drop those dinosaurs from the game. They were infesting the ringworld all the way to the late stages of development. :shaking:
Dinosaurs?
What's a real shame its that they sacrificed Oni to make Halo. :(
-
I wish they had kept the dinosaurs. :(
-
I love halo. is it a good game? Yes. Is it a great game? No F****** Way! Is it overated? Hell Yes.
I like dino's, why no dino's
-
I think it's a great game with uninspired environments. Hopefully this is rectified in Halo 3.
-
outcast absolutely fraking ownd :)
-
Unreal II
Doom 3
Civilization III
X3 - Reunion
Homeworld 2
-
Doom 3
-
Like this one time, I passed up this room with like 3 hunters in it. You know what I did? I walked around the room. Do the designers actually expect you to fight them? And everything is so repetitive. And it's all hallway.
I think that was supposed to be that way.. other wise, they would have fixed it. ie, if you want, you can kill the Hunters, if not, leave them there... sometimes it's better to kill enemies found like this, because if you don't, you end up fighting them on the way back.
Anyways, I think ppl prolly like Halo because of the multiplayer, as well as Halo CE (lets you play user created maps, see my siggy)
-
Half Life 1 (I suppose I am a bit out of touch, considering I played it about 3 years after it's release. Still, found it very boring).
Half Life 2 (Mind numbingly overrated IMO. A barely average shooter with some nice cinematic direction, that's all.)
Doom 3 (All show, no go. What was scary for the first twenty minutes became incredibly repetitive the rest of the 10 hours or however long it takes to beat that game).
Halo 1 (Meh. An average shooter, never saw the big deal. Basically the Half Life 2 of console shooters - nice cinematic direction, average gameplay (although Half Life 2 didn't even have the wicked fun melee' or grenade features, so Halo 1 beats HL2 gameplay wise).
Halo 2 (See above).
-
Doom 3 definitely.
And Perfect Dark Zero. It's a good game, but most of the levels sucked, IMO. They didn't get the full potential the game could have.
-
Halo and Halo2, both good games just nothing OH MY GOSH!! incredible.
-
I think UT2004 was more than slightly overrated, but not terribly. Yes, it's a good game, yes it's got good graphics (at the time anyway), yes it's more fun than a barrel of monkeys, but no, it isn't Halo. (BIG fan of Halo, maybe even to the point of fanboishness, but alas, I digress)
The indoor architecture is horrible. Like this one time, I passed up this room with like 3 hunters in it. You know what I did? I walked around the room. Do the designers actually expect you to fight them?
I do believe I know which room you're talking about: The Silent Cartographer, Security Override Room. The way Bungie developed Halo was unique in it's day. Bungie, IMHO, developed the game in a way that you could either run your butt off dodging plasma discharges, or go in, AR ablaze, mowing down every covenant b*****ds as the Forefunner installation can hold. Not like Oblvion or KOTOR, but.... You'll notice in Halo 2, you can't do that, you actually do have to kill all of the Covenant to proceed. Either way, I prefer the run and gun, but some people don't...
-
I think UT2004 was more than slightly overrated, but not terribly. Yes, it's a good game, yes it's got good graphics (at the time anyway), yes it's more fun than a barrel of monkeys, but no, it isn't Halo. (BIG fan of Halo, maybe even to the point of fanboishness, but alas, I digress)
The indoor architecture is horrible. Like this one time, I passed up this room with like 3 hunters in it. You know what I did? I walked around the room. Do the designers actually expect you to fight them?
I do believe I know which room you're talking about: The Silent Cartographer, Security Override Room. The way Bungie developed Halo was unique in it's day. Bungie, IMHO, developed the game in a way that you could either run your butt off dodging plasma discharges, or go in, AR ablaze, mowing down every covenant b*****ds as the Forefunner installation can hold. Not like Oblvion or KOTOR, but.... You'll notice in Halo 2, you can't do that, you actually do have to kill all of the Covenant to proceed. Either way, I prefer the run and gun, but some people don't...
Actually, you're thinking about 3 Elites. But the OP was wrong too, there are 2 hunters, and its in Assualt on the Control Room.
-
Half life 1 definetely.. it was good but not THAT good
I liked HL a lot. I will admit that there were some weak points, though.
HL2 was a true disappointment. It's very overrated.
Sacrilege! HL2 is IMHO one of the best FPS games ever made for the PC.
How was it a disappointment, exactly?
-
I could name a lot of things, but the level design was the main problem I had with it. It was inferior to even HL1 in some ways and didn't hold a candle to other games of its time, making it a chore to go through the game. In fact, HL2 wasn't just a disappointment, but quite simply bad. I don't think I would say that about any other game I've played in the last five years or so.
UT2004 was a very good game, but it alienated a lot of longtime UT fans like me by the major gameplay changes they made. The heavily neutered weapons, in particular, completely changed the pace of the game.
I thought Unreal 2 was actually rather underrated. It got fairly mediocre reviews, mainly because it had nothing to do with the first game, but the maps and weapons had tons of variety to them. You could ignore the story and still have fun just going through the levels.
-
How was it a disappointment, exactly?
HL1 had much better atmosphere.
I thought Unreal 2 was actually rather underrated. It got fairly mediocre reviews, mainly because it had nothing to do with the first game, but the maps and weapons had tons of variety to them. You could ignore the story and still have fun just going through the levels.
I thought that to when I played it. Of course that was a while ago, and I long since lost it.
-
Half Life 2 is the main title that comes to mind.
::)
-
Half life 1 definetely.. it was good but not THAT good, besides Unreal looked way better
OH, so what, graphics make a game now? :rolleyes: Seriously, I would rather play a good, fun game with a ****ty story, than a good looking, good story game with goddamn no gameplay(looks at FF fanboys>_>)
And Unreal 2 deserves to burn in hell. Read the SA eview, its funny as hell. :)
-
Unreal both looked and played better. The combat mechanics in that game were somewhat different from anything else seen in singleplayer FPSs, either before or after it. The enemies were both fast and strong, so it actually played more like a traditional multiplayer FPS, with strafing and dodging being much more important than in most other singleplayer games. Although to be fair, the story was indeed pretty lousy.
Half Life 2 is the main title that comes to mind.
::)
::)
-
Unreal both looked and played better. The combat mechanics in that game were somewhat different from anything else seen in singleplayer FPSs, either before or after it. The enemies were both fast and strong, so it actually played more like a traditional multiplayer FPS, with strafing and dodging being much more important than in most other singleplayer games. Although to be fair, the story was indeed pretty lousy.
Half Life 2 is the main title that comes to mind.
::)
::)
::) ::)
Ya see, I preemp ****e like this, cuz I suck horribly Least you have a point with Unreal looking better and having a unique feel to it
-
You people are slipping--
Black & White
-
Black and White had its flaws, I would agree. But there were some good ideas in there. :)
As for over-rated.........I hate to say it, but my view is Wing Commander. Sorry, CIC guys, but it's true. Leave the story out and the way it's told and what have you got? A bunch of samey missions. Fly somewhere, shoot something. Fly somewhere else, shoot something else. Fly home. Whoopee.
Now, I could tolerate that for the first couple of games, but by the time it got to the fourth, it was getting a bit stale.....
Just my two cents. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
-
Can't agree with the claims that Half-Life 2 is a bad game. I suppose you could say its overrated, but its tough to avoid that when the general rating is best PC game of all time, which it isn't. What could possibly have been wrong with the level design? Maybe I could tepidly agree that the part starting at Anticitizen One went on a bit long, but there were huge variations in terrain and environment thoughout the game, from tight indoor combat to street combat to vast outdoor fighting. I could play the assault on Nova Prospekt over and over (and have). My problem with Half Life 2 is the relative lack of variation in weapons and enemies, but I still loved it.
Halo I think is so highly touted because the multiplayer is pretty fun.
-
What could possibly have been wrong with the level design?
Well, pretty much everything. The game allowed for absolutely no deviations from the main "path" and was not only horribly linear, but often felt linear in a very artificial way. I remember countless instances of some rubble being arranged in just the right way for you to use it to get over a wall and proceed, with that being the only path you could take. The environments were also extremely repetitive and nearly devoid of any objects or other details. Every rundown house you entered looked exactly like the previous one, with hardly anything in it apart from an enemy or two, and you had to spend hours going through these places. There were some notable exceptions to all this - the short cutscene levels were excellent with the small details, and the last two or three levels also had some cool areas - but they were hardly worth going through all the other dreary levels for.
Valve's map designers seem to be stuck in the 90s and need to take a good look at the nonlinearity in Deus Ex, the meticulous small details in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory or the overall environment variety in UT2004. In my opinion, these games pretty much set the standards for various aspects of level design and HL2 is downright pathetic in comparison. The HL1 levels were actually more fun to explore and felt more believable (and I don't just mean for their time), since you were not completely confined to a strict, linear path like in HL2.
-
Black and White had its flaws, I would agree. But there were some good ideas in there. :)
As for over-rated.........I hate to say it, but my view is Wing Commander. Sorry, CIC guys, but it's true. Leave the story out and the way it's told and what have you got? A bunch of samey missions. Fly somewhere, shoot something. Fly somewhere else, shoot something else. Fly home. Whoopee.
Now, I could tolerate that for the first couple of games, but by the time it got to the fourth, it was getting a bit stale.....
Just my two cents. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Do you mean that the WC1 and WC2 games were OK then? Things did certainly change after that.
But then, Fly somewhere, shoot something. Fly somewhere else, shoot something else. Fly home. could describe FS too...
-
HL2....Well, the level design wasn't bad.. what kinda bugged me was the 2mood".. too depresive, too dull a colour scheme. The lvl design itself was OK.
The diffrenece is in HL1 you are running around a high-tech top scret facility, while in HL2 your're runnin around aabandoned buildings and somewha post-apocalyptic towns.
HL1 was one of the best games ever made (by popular vote) so people expected so much from HL2...And when you expect too much, you're gonan end up being dissaponted.
-
HL2....Well, the level design wasn't bad.. what kinda bugged me was the 2mood".. too depresive, too dull a colour scheme. The lvl design itself was OK.
The diffrenece is in HL1 you are running around a high-tech top scret facility, while in HL2 your're runnin around aabandoned buildings and somewha post-apocalyptic towns.
HL1 was one of the best games ever made (by popular vote) so people expected so much from HL2...And when you expect too much, you're gonan end up being dissaponted.
Bah the atmosphere in HL2 was excellent ok maybe a bit deprressing but still I think it was alot better then I thought, now just waiting for Episode Two
-
Well, we've got a difference of opinion CP, I really don't want nonlinearity in a first person shooter. I don't enjoy getting lost, and even that happened a few times on my way through HL2. I can easily see myself in Ravenholm, spending hours going around and around in circles if there were multiple paths strewn all over the place. I think variation throughout the game is far more important than nonlinearity, and I cannot agree with you that the environments were repetative.
-
I still don't know what all the fuss was over HL1....
-
Well, we've got a difference of opinion CP, I really don't want nonlinearity in a first person shooter. I don't enjoy getting lost, and even that happened a few times on my way through HL2. I can easily see myself in Ravenholm, spending hours going around and around in circles if there were multiple paths strewn all over the place. I think variation throughout the game is far more important than nonlinearity, and I cannot agree with you that the environments were repetative.
I think nonlinearity gives levels a more realistic layout and makes the game more immersive (linearity makes the place feel like a predetermined crash course for me), but even if you like linear levels, HL2's levels are quite inferior to many other games of its time. Take the first two Splinter Cell games, for example. Their levels are also very linear, but are exceptionally well detailed. You can tell that the developers put a lot of effort into decorating each and every room, and I find it fun to just spend a few moments examining each room in detail. Valve seems to have spent a lot of time with the cutscene areas (like Kleiner's lab) in HL2 but most of the other rooms look like they were pulled out of an HL1-era game. If you're mainly looking for overall environment variety, try playing Unreal 2 and you'll notice quite a remarkable difference from HL2, with each map having its own unique setting.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I get the feeling that many people who praise HL2's gameplay are really either just tolerating it for the story or have not played a lot of other FPS/TPS games and don't have very high expectations. HL2's levels may have been acceptable at the time of HL1's release, but I expect rather more out of the games I play now.
-
Unreal both looked and played better. The combat mechanics in that game were somewhat different from anything else seen in singleplayer FPSs, either before or after it. The enemies were both fast and strong, so it actually played more like a traditional multiplayer FPS, with strafing and dodging being much more important than in most other singleplayer games. Although to be fair, the story was indeed pretty lousy.
Half Life 2 is the main title that comes to mind.
::)
::)
::) ::)
Ya see, I preemp ****e like this, cuz I suck horribly Least you have a point with Unreal looking better and having a unique feel to it
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
See, when I pick up an FPS game I want story. I thought HL1 was a little too much action and a little too little story. HL2 I thought managed the balance perfectly. I'll admit some components in the level design were irritating, but on the whole I thought the game was extremely well done. In a stroy-driven game, linearity is a must... or at least, in that type of story-driven game where you are essentially playing through a novel. Take a game like Deus Ex or System Shock 2, however, and you get a little more variability in paths and outcomes (for anyone who hasn't played either of these games, I'd say they're probably my favorite two of all time. Deus Ex edges in slightly above SS2, but only slightly).
Halo was a great game too - yes, some repetitive levels (God, I HATE the Library), but on the whole the story was excellent. And really, I'll take a fantastic story with level flaws above a technically well-designed game with no story ANY day.
On those grounds, I'd say HL2, HL1, and Halo were all excellent games. Especially Half-Life 2. There's so much in it. I can understand why some people wouldn't like them, though.
However, if anyone here slams Deus Ex or System Shock I'm going to have to break out the baseball bat. =P
-
I thought it would be the monkey wrench MP-Ryan :P
-
However, if anyone here slams Deus Ex or System Shock I'm going to have to break out the baseball bat. =P
I just played System Shock II for the first time last year, and I gotta tell ya, even with the ancient graphics that game scared me way more than F.E.A.R. ever did. At least until I got the skills to use the Assault Rifle and realized I'd saved up about a thousand bullets...then it was slaughtering time.
-
However, if anyone here slams Deus Ex or System Shock I'm going to have to break out the baseball bat. =P
Deus Ex was a really good game, but the design was a little crude compared to Thief or SS2. Viva Looking Glass!
-
It's a shame they killed Deus Ex 2.
-
In a stroy-driven game, linearity is a must... or at least, in that type of story-driven game where you are essentially playing through a novel.
This is definitely not true. Most of the levels had hardly any story elements to speak of and just involved going through about 20 of these rundown buildings. There was no reason not to have multiple paths and/or side areas available in these levels.
And really, I'll take a fantastic story with level flaws above a technically well-designed game with no story ANY day.
We all have different preferences. I'll take the well designed game every time, as I play FPS games primarily for their gameplay, not their stories. I liked things such as Unreal or Far Cry for just that reason. Of course, it's best to have games like Deus Ex and SS2 (especially DX) that have both an excellent story and the gameplay to match.
-
Halo was a great game too - yes, some repetitive levels (God, I HATE the Library), but on the whole the story was excellent. And really, I'll take a fantastic story with level flaws above a technically well-designed game with no story ANY day.
The Library was actually one of my favorites, because I thought it had excellent level design from a tactical standpoint; there was room to manuver, and actual point to doing so. It was only in that level you could have the feel of fighting off the enemy hordes so well, because of those things. They could afford to throw more enemies at you. I have yet to find a game that replicates that quite so well, though HL2 came close in a couple of places.
-
Deus Ex 2
To be fair they put a lot of effort into it (and they even had TV commercials for it), but it just wasn't a good game. The flaws have already been discussed in other threads a while ago, so I won't go into it again. But even standing by itself it was just barely tolerable.
StarControl 3 was overrated and total crap.
-
Halo was a great game too - yes, some repetitive levels (God, I HATE the Library), but on the whole the story was excellent.
I agree on all points above ( :mad: Library )
-
Deus Ex 2
To be fair they put a lot of effort into it (and they even had TV commercials for it), but it just wasn't a good game. The flaws have already been discussed in other threads a while ago, so I won't go into it again. But even standing by itself it was just barely tolerable.
StarControl 3 was overrated and total crap.
Out of curiousity, who do you think overrated SC3? The only people who are even aware of it's existence are SC2 fans, and well...the reception the game gets from us is about the same as athiests got from the spanish inquisition.
-
Deus Ex 2
To be fair they put a lot of effort into it (and they even had TV commercials for it), but it just wasn't a good game. The flaws have already been discussed in other threads a while ago, so I won't go into it again. But even standing by itself it was just barely tolerable.
StarControl 3 was overrated and total crap.
Never played Star Control... Sadly, this is what you get when you are born in 1992 :sigh:
-
I agree on all points above ( :mad: Library )
yea, Library = :mad: :mad2: :shaking: :eek: :no: :hopping: :(
Library w/ Rocket Launcher = :yes: :D :p :drevil: 8) ::)
-
I agree on all points above ( :mad: Library )
yea, Library = :mad: :mad2: :shaking: :eek: :no: :hopping: :(
Library w/ Rocket Launcher = :yes: :D :p :drevil: 8) ::)
Uh, you dont get the Rocket Launcher in the Library>_>
-
I usually used shotgun as much as possible, and picked up a needler as secondary whenever possible.
-
HomeWorld, never knew why it was that much better then O.R.B (probably because ORB was released later and didn't get the attention it deserved... and the game CAN NOT be considered a clone of homeworld, since it was more then 2 years in development)
-
I agree on all points above ( :mad: Library )
yea, Library = :mad: :mad2: :shaking: :eek: :no: :hopping: :(
Library w/ Rocket Launcher = :yes: :D :p :drevil: 8) ::)
Uh, you dont get the Rocket Launcher in the Library>_>
Yea, you do... whenever you take it off of a dead Flood Warrior form. :D
-
Yea, you do... whenever you take it off of a dead Flood Warrior form. :D
Which isn't hard to do with the shotgun/pistol. They can't aim the rockets anyway. Heck, Flood can't really aim much at all (Legendary excepted :mad:)
-
They're not that bad of an aim on Heroic (which is what I beat the game on; I only did the last level on Legendary).
-
They're not that bad of an aim on Heroic (which is what I beat the game on; I only did the last level on Legendary).
Oh, you haven't lived until you've played the Library on Legendary.
"Why the $#@! did I pick Legendary?! Why the $#@! aren't these Sentinels more helpful? I wish I could $#@!ing kill the stupid blue orb floating around above my head and making snarky comments! Who the $#@! is responsible for this level, and where do they live?! $#@! it, maybe I should just use this rocket launcher on myself! Next time I want a $#@!ing book, I'll buy it - I'll be $#@!ed if I'll ever visit a Library again!"
I cannot put into words how much I hated that level. And the worst part was, it never ended. You'd get on the elevator and think "that's it! I made it" and then it stops 10 feet up and you want to cry.
Really, it made you long for the levels where all you had to deal with were Hunters. At least they don't appear by the thousands.
-
Yeah, it was no picnic on Heroic, either. The good thing about Legendary is that you can actually jump over a Hunter's head, and move faster (but so can the enemy XD ).
-
The libary is the same as any other level. Take your time, remember where the big ambushes are and prepare yourself by running back to some cover so you can fight them one or two at a time.
-
The libary is the same as any other level. Take your time, remember where the big ambushes are and prepare yourself by running back to some cover so you can fight them one or two at a time.
That's how you have to beat every level... Well, except for Assault on the Control Room (:ick:) and the beginning of The Silent Cartographer (;7)
Yeah, it was no picnic on Heroic, either. The good thing about Legendary is that you can actually jump over a Hunter's head, and move faster (but so can the enemy XD ).
Why would you want to jump over a hunter's head? Just strafe around him until he charges, turn around, and BLAM, one pistol shot to the back (or the front, tricky shot though) and that hunter's toast.
Oh, you haven't lived until you've played the Library on Legendary.
"Why the $#@! did I pick Legendary?! Why the $#@! aren't these Sentinels more helpful? I wish I could $#@!ing kill the stupid blue orb floating around above my head and making snarky comments! Who the $#@! is responsible for this level, and where do they live?! $#@! it, maybe I should just use this rocket launcher on myself! Next time I want a $#@!ing book, I'll buy it - I'll be $#@!ed if I'll ever visit a Library again!"
I cannot put into words how much I hated that level. And the worst part was, it never ended. You'd get on the elevator and think "that's it! I made it" and then it stops 10 feet up and you want to cry.
Really, it made you long for the levels where all you had to deal with were Hunters. At least they don't appear by the thousands.
That's when it's time for 'nades, rockets, assault rifles, and shotguns . .. . :D
-
I found The T. & R. harder than The Library.
-
T&R on legendary HURTS. Especially once you get on the ship itself. Is it even possible to save anyone during the first part on the ship?
The library's pretty nasty, but at least you're never really pinned down (too badly). Most aggrivating thing is just how many there are. Even on legendary, flood don't aim too well actually. If you don't strafe though, assualt rifle, humiliatingly, is the most likely thing to screw you over, IMO.
-
T&R on legendary HURTS. Especially once you get on the ship itself. Is it even possible to save anyone during the first part on the ship?
The library's pretty nasty, but at least you're never really pinned down (too badly). Most aggrivating thing is just how many there are. Even on legendary, flood don't aim too well actually. If you don't strafe though, assualt rifle, humiliatingly, is the most likely thing to screw you over, IMO.
Yeah, T&R, not T&A hurts like a bastard skateboard on the back of the leg
-
If you ask me:
HL2, Battlefield 2, FEAR... and a lot of other games that are popular atm.
Overrated doesn't mean bad, but those games really aren't special in any way and way too simple to stand out. (simple, not easy...)
I'm waiting more more elaborate games like Bioshock. At least they try to move forward, while most other games just copy already kown stuff.
I completely disagree on FF7 and Chrono Trigger. Those games are special. You can tell the extreme ammount of work behind them.
Crysis and UT3 also need a lot of work... but mostly for the gfx content and the gfx code...
-
Supplement to Spartan's List:
BF2142. Yea, it was a good game, but it wasn't everything that was advertised...
-
Yeah, it was no picnic on Heroic, either. The good thing about Legendary is that you can actually jump over a Hunter's head, and move faster (but so can the enemy XD ).
Why would you want to jump over a hunter's head? Just strafe around him until he charges, turn around, and BLAM, one pistol shot to the back (or the front, tricky shot though) and that hunter's toast.
Wait till he starts to charge you, jump over his head, spin around, and shoot him in the back. :D
-
I remember playing Halo 2 for the first time, trying that trick, and then getting splattered by the Hunter's arm coming down on my face. Tricky programmers!
-
New entry: Gears o' War. Just finished the single-player campaign and I feel ****ing robbed.
-
New entry: Gears o' War. Just finished the single-player campaign and I feel ****ing robbed.
How so?
-
GoW was pretty short..
-
How so?
When you have no idea of the reason behind your objectives, you've got a problem. When you find yourself repeatedly asking 'what the hell is that?' regarding major plot devices, you've got a problem. When you don't actually realise you're fighting the final boss of the game, you've got a big mother****ing problem.
I had heard talk of the GoW singleplayer plot being less-than-stellar, but that was just ****ing abysmal. It was as if they just sort of gave up on the singleplayer halfway through to go back to rendering the lovely-but-irrelevant scenery! Although, maybe i'm just misguided to expect, y'know, a finished product these days. Maybe the ending will be downloadable from XBL in the future, for a modest fee of course.
Gods help us that GoW is the current flagship game of the 360.
-
It's really fun though, and I could care less about the story. The characters and atmosphere more than make up for it IMHO.
EDIT: Please tell me you played through on Hardcore co-op. Casual is a joke, and the game is WAY better in co-op. Personally, I found the ending to be quite satisfying, not story-wise of course, but because the escalation in the fighting was brilliant.
-
I have a hard time tolerating split screen these days, unfortunately.
-
but because the escalation in the fighting was brilliant.
really?.. it screamed "buy the sequel when it comes out at an inflated fee!"
if you want my opinion, the current trend of games "better if you play it with a friend" is disturbing to say the least, Game developers can't write outside of source code in my opinion.
Hell, if you want the shock of the century, Unreal Tournament 3 (they've dropped the year names, thankfully) WILL have a sort of single player story. if it's anything beyond something bordering on trite, i'll be surprised.
i don't rightly care what your delusions are about Gears of War, Deepblue, but if you ask me, you can't see the forest for the trees. Because it WASN'T THAT GREAT..
after i finished it i went back to nuking bloody great snow worms in Lost planet..
-
after i finished it i went back to nuking bloody great snow worms in Lost planet..
I've heard good things about Lost Planet. Worth a buy? Or at the very least a rent?
-
after i finished it i went back to nuking bloody great snow worms in Lost planet..
I've heard good things about Lost Planet. Worth a buy? Or at the very least a rent?
definitely worth a rent, it actually does the whole story thing with better execution than Gears of war could ever pull off, and in my opinion, better use of graphics..
oh, and the main characters don't look like shaved gorillas :p
it's an action game, make no mistake, but a very nicely done one at that.
-
i don't rightly care what your delusions are about Gears of War, Deepblue, but if you ask me, you can't see the forest for the trees. Because it WASN'T THAT GREAT..
I have to disagree. Gears makes it on its gameplay alone. The characters help a great deal when they're allowed to. The last few sections misfired remarkably badly storywise, but the gameplay was enough to carry it through.
When you don't actually realise you're fighting the final boss of the game, you've got a big mother****ing problem.
And how the hell did you not realize that was the final boss Mefustae? You sleep through the section at the start where they said the Light Mass Bomb would end it all with one shot? There be the Bomb, that'd damn well better be the last boss.
-
And how the hell did you not realize that was the final boss Mefustae? You sleep through the section at the start where they said the Light Mass Bomb would end it all with one shot? There be the Bomb, that'd damn well better be the last boss.
You'll have to forgive me for missing the single, obscure line that mentioned it. Honestly, the voice-work was such a mess i'm surprised I even knew who to shoot at, let alone the intricacies of the half-baked plot.
Anyway, it's a nice game regardless. Great gameplay and visuals to be sure, and had the story been present it would have almost deserved the hype it got. It's not as overhyped as, say, Half Life 2 or Halo 2 for instance, but there can be no denying that Gears was still pretty darn overrated.
Such promise, too. If only they'd hired a proper writer rather than getting Mike from payroll to do the job. :doubt:
-
And how the hell did you not realize that was the final boss Mefustae? You sleep through the section at the start where they said the Light Mass Bomb would end it all with one shot? There be the Bomb, that'd damn well better be the last boss.
You'll have to forgive me for missing the single, obscure line that mentioned it. Honestly, the voice-work was such a mess i'm surprised I even knew who to shoot at, let alone the intricacies of the half-baked plot.
he's got a point, the "boss" wasn't much, all one hadta do was run like heck to the troika up front, and let him have it..
the corpser was harder by comparison..
really, all that's said and done, GoW wasn't really that revolutionary, it raised no bar, its popularity is purely based on its XBL appeal, i assure you, if it tried to carry its weight based on the SP component alone, it woulda failed.
Let's face it, Epic's great at Multiplayer based shooters, Unreal went as far as it did for its SP component 'cuz there was a lot of it to be played, and it begun a Renaissance for the FPS community, along with Half life.
the Look of the levels was rather arbitary, looking at it from one perspective, all it was, was yet another corridor shooter with pretty scenery to separate it from the crowd. Highly linear, too.
Tim Schafer said it best, Game developers need to learn how to write.
Doom 3, which had a pretty weak multi component and was prolly tacked on to sate the crowd, relied entirely on its single-player story to carry it through, only problem is, as pretty as Id can make a game, they can't write to save their lives.. and definitely no scary moments, 'cuz you pretty much knew when and where they were gonna jump out at ya.
-
...I think I remember hearing somewheres that the big thing with GoW was the multiplayer action; not sure, though.
-
About Gears of War, sure, it was definitely overrated now just wait when the movie comes about. :) :p
-
I hope it's not like Doom :ick: Doom couldn't been alright (main storyline held potential), but they made it a watch stuff blow up like in the game movie. Oh, wait,... throw in partial frontal nudity, that'll make it a best seller for sure!! :hopping: :ick:
-
I hope it's not like Doom :ick: Doom couldn't been alright (main storyline held potential), but they made it a watch stuff blow up like in the game movie. Oh, wait,... throw in partial frontal nudity, that'll make it a best seller for sure!! :hopping: :ick:
Oh, it wont be like Doom, it'll be worse. :D Of course it wont be nowhere near as worse as the Postal movie wich is being directed by the one whose name shall not be spoken. :P
-
I hope it's not like Doom :ick: Doom couldn't been alright (main storyline held potential), but they made it a watch stuff blow up like in the game movie. Oh, wait,... throw in partial frontal nudity, that'll make it a best seller for sure!! :hopping: :ick:
if the shave some gorillas and put body armor on them, that's half the cast over and done with ::)
-
Of course it wont be nowhere near as worse as the Postal movie wich is being directed by the one whose name shall not be spoken. :P
What, D3r3k Sm4rt?
-
No, Uwe Boll.
-
About Gears of War, sure, it was definitely overrated now just wait when the movie comes about. :) :p
on the plus side, it'll actually be true to the game for once. :p
(yes, the game DID suck, had no plot, no point, and was mindless)
-
on the plus side, it'll actually be true to the game for once. :p
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Metal Gear Solid was overrated. It was short and the gameplay wasn't perfect, and Italian Gaming magazines gave it a nice 10/10.
Final Fantasy VII isn't that overrated. It's one of the best games ever, and there were 3 Bahamut. It's sufficient! :lol:
-
I'll agree that MGS shouldn't get a 10/10, but it's still a darn good game, one of my favorites. :yes:
-
About Gears of War, sure, it was definitely overrated now just wait when the movie comes about. :) :p
on the plus side, it'll actually be true to the game for once. :p
(yes, the game DID suck, had no plot, no point, and was mindless)
I completely disagree with your statement that the GAME sucks. See, you like Lost Planet, I game I found to be rated pretty well (an 8 ). Lost Planet had some cool moments, but the game play feels a little too shallow/arcade for my own tastes. Furthermore, I personally liked the mood and art in Gears more than Lost Planet, and I found the story in LP to be way too self-serious. At least Gears poked fun at itself. And the voice work a mess?!? Compared to what? I get the criticisms for the story, and they are deserved, but everything else is so well done, that to me, it doesn't matter.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
-
I'll agree that MGS shouldn't get a 10/10, but it's still a darn good game, one of my favorites. :yes:
We are talking about Overrated Games...MGS...all the MGS for PS One, PS2 and PSP are overrated. Entire articles about the
-
Most overrated game ever = Starcraft
People go nuts for it, and I can't for the life of me think why :confused:
*Congratulations! You worship a mediocre game :-3*
-
StarControl 3 was overrated and total crap.
Uh, it wasn't really overrated. IIRC, it was actually bashed and heavily criticized for not being anywhere remotely as good as its predecessor (which happens to be one of the only games I ever play anymore).
-
Hopefully we will get another good Star Control game since Toys For Bob (they made Star Control 1 & 2 but not 3) are thinking of making a proper sequel (http://sc2.sourceforge.net/petition/petition.php). (but it probably won't happen)
-
Star Control (1 & 2) was, nay IS one of the best games ever.
Melee vs. a friend has to be one of the funnest and most stupidly competetive passtimes I have ever come accross :p
SC3 was alright on its own, but as part of the whole starcon series was VERY dissapointing.
Heck, its not even considered canon :lol:
As for overrated things.
Master of Orion 3
Talk about being hyped up out of all proportion then landing squarely on its face.
-
Anything not "Half-Life 2." Most excellent game.
...
Uh...get back! Soap! I've got soap!
*holds off entire forum with bar of soap*
-
/me throws solvent at soap
-
* Spartan quickly hurls a base at Snail's solvent...
-
Which forms water, which is still a solvent of soap...
-
Anything not "Half-Life 2." Most excellent game.
...
Uh...get back! Soap! I've got soap!
*holds off entire forum with bar of soap*
But remember, Half-Life 2 teh suxxzors because of steam!!!111 bull****
-
Anything not "Half-Life 2." Most excellent game.
...
Uh...get back! Soap! I've got soap!
*holds off entire forum with bar of soap*
Half Life 2 sucked. It was a barely average game.
And I agree with the Starcraft comment, it was...meh. I don't see what the big deal is, it's a mediocre strategy game that focuses on pretty much only rush tactics.
-
Anything not "Half-Life 2." Most excellent game.
...
Uh...get back! Soap! I've got soap!
*holds off entire forum with bar of soap*
Half Life 2 sucked. It was a barely average game.
And I agree with the Starcraft comment, it was...meh. I don't see what the big deal is, it's a mediocre strategy game that focuses on pretty much only rush tactics.
HL2 sucked not because of steam, the source engine was nice, and it didn't fall down flat graphically, what it did fail on was story, and the delivery of that story, it was very sloppily done for a start, and what you could glean from the game itself could fit on a pamphlet, in reality, there was a backstory to HL2, was it elaborated much? no, was anything elaborated on? no.
very poor delivery makes this game only marginally better than Pariah
-
*brow furrows*
It was one of the best FPS games in years and you know it! :p
And the creation of Steam, Starforce, etc is your own faults. Well, maybe not your specific faults, but most likely it actually is...
-
I have started keeping an extra hard drive with its own windows install to deal with those things. I can install any suspicious games on it (for which I can't find a crack or something) and don't need to worry about them messing up my main drive/data, as I can nuke the extra drive at any time without losing anything.
-
*brow furrows*
It was one of the best FPS games in years and you know it! :p
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/ngtm1r/youlie.jpg)
-
*brow furrows*
It was one of the best FPS games in years and you know it! :p
And the creation of Steam, Starforce, etc is your own faults. Well, maybe not your specific faults, but most likely it actually is...
i'm more inclined to say that Halo was better than HL2 in the singular aspect of it being story driven. Bungie's story, although a little on the cliche'd side of things, was executed relatively well.
FEAR was better than HL2 because of two things: Bullet Time, and excellent atmosphere.
-
fear is scray as **** so is oblivion ... untill you get invisibility spell :p
-
*brow furrows*
It was one of the best FPS games in years and you know it! :p
And the creation of Steam, Starforce, etc is your own faults. Well, maybe not your specific faults, but most likely it actually is...
So now it's our faults that Steam treats us all like criminals?
On top of that, HL2 fell flat on story, in that it had none. Every HL2 fan goes on about how awesome the story is, but in reality, it's just not there. The only way you get the backstory is by reading random out of the way newspaper clippings - that's worse than Doom 3 (which people said was worse than HL2 story wise), where at least the PDAs that you picked up were obviously visible. On top of that, you basically just ran through a set of linear levels, with no real purpose behind it. Oh, let's go kill that guy. Why? Because he's evil. Let's kill Breen. Why? I dunno, because he surrendered or is cooperating or something, I don't know, he's just bad, let's go get him. At least Doom 3 kept the story going, and you knew why you were doing stuff.
Now, in terms of graphics. Puh-lease. OMG OMG OMG PHYSICS LOLLERSKATES! Excuse me, ragdoll physics have been around since 2003. And moveable boxes and objects have been around long before that. If I knew coding I could add a gravity gun into Unreal Tournament 2003/2004, and ta-da, it'd be exactly the same as HL2. There's almost no difference physics wise, it's just that HL2 gave you a gun that actually exploited the physics (which was a nifty idea I'll admit). In terms of straight eye-candy - come on, you gotta be ****ting me. When games are coming out with dynamic shadows and bump, normal, and parallax mapping, what does HL2 have? Uhh...high resolution people textures and HDR lighting (aka bloom lighting on steroids - and bloom has been around for quite some years now)? Please. The game was outdated graphically before it even came out.
How about gameplay? Eh, it's alright. Once again you run through linear levels and kill random gas-masked humanoid enemy/zombies/wild creatures. Yawn. Been there, done that for the last ten years, give me something new. The gravity gun was pretty nifty, but again, that's only one gun out of a (incredibly boring) arsenal of your usual assault rifle/shotgun/pistol/melee' assortment. Multiplayer deathmatch was fun though.
Basically, HL2 is an overrated, under-par, run of the mill shooter, that everyone salvitates over simply because it's the sequel to a shooter that they all have fond memories of (and if you go back and play it now, wow, you'll be surprised at how crappy it is. I couldn't get past the second or third level because I got so bored with it).
----
Now, in comparison, we have Far Cry, released a couple months before HL2 and Doom 3. Lush, beautiful graphics, with all the new whiz-bang shader features, reasonably intelligent AI, gigantic maps that allow you to truly play the mission YOUR way - as opposed to having two or three ways to actually complete it, and a dozen others that will pretty much get you killed every time (probably the most amazing and fun aspect of the game, or any game I've played in awhile), a storyline that you actually, you know, see and interact with, (as semi-cliche as it is), and even though the weapons are your typical modern day varieties, they all have a purpose - unlike Half Life 2, where it goes - small - big - bigger- biggest.
-
Most overrated game ever = Starcraft
People go nuts for it, and I can't for the life of me think why :confused:
*Congratulations! You worship a mediocre game :-3*
I take it you've never really played multiplayer?
-
Possibly he just came late to the game. Really, if you were to start playing starcraft multiplayer today, for the first time, it would be a decidedly negative experience as you got eaten alive by veterans who had become build order, map memorizing cyborgs. And that not even considering the really high level players who click faster then the machine does.
-
Basically, HL2 is an overrated, under-par, run of the mill shooter, that everyone salvitates over simply because it's the sequel to a shooter that they all have fond memories of (and if you go back and play it now, wow, you'll be surprised at how crappy it is. I couldn't get past the second or third level because I got so bored with it).
I played HL1 after I played HL2, and I loved it. I didn't think it was crappy at all. I had a lot more fun with HL1, than, say, Halo (although I liked Halo as well). I also thought that the Half-Life 2 storyline, while not rich or particularily focused, was still interesting and available to those who paid attention. You aren't spoon-fed, and I liked that. With the exception of one that I can think of, most "plotholes" are resolved ingame.
I thought Doom 3 and Quake 4 were crappy. But that's just my opinion, obviously, and I don't feel like writing an epic, scathingly irreverent essay on either game at this time. Any such essay/massive block of text could essentially be summed up as, "to each his own," anyways.
Which is the entire point of this thread. Which basically cancels out this entire swath of the post. So, really, any text you think you're reading right now is, in this entirely subjective reality, solely the product of a deranged mind.
So now it's our faults that Steam treats us all like criminals?
Yes, absolutely. Well, like I said specifically, perhaps not you, specifically, but PC Gamers in general. The President of Epic gave an interesing presentation on this. (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/media.html?sid=6169043&autoplay=6169043&om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;img;1) Piracy is eating the PCGaming industry alive. And the PC software industry in general. Almost four million copies of Quake 4 were pirated within the first week of release. That's just horrible (cited from a John Carmack interview/statistic thing from PCGamer, last year).
And how many of you have pirated software at some point? Eh? :p
Finally, Steam isn't that bad, anymore. Although I don't fault you for not trying it since the HL2 release debacle. Anyways, it runs quite smoothly, now, and complaints are relatively few and far between.
-
It is twisted morality indeed for someone who has downloaded numerous pirated copies of games to complain he is being treated like a criminal. Oh the irony. I'm not saying UT has pirated games (albeit there is a very high chance at that), this was just a general statement.
My own pirating days are pretty much over because these days I don't see any need to. Linux offers all the software I need for free and legally. I can wait for DVD's to rent or buy, so that covers movies. I need one legal license of Windows to play games, no biggie because OEM versions have very good discount. Games I select very carefully and prefer internet download distribution channels like Steam and Stardock Central over physical copies with copy protection and DRM. This way more money should go to the developers, instead of greedy and stupid publishers.
If PC gaming industry dies or becomes a niche market, at least there is the upside that we don't need to upgrade our computers even nearly as often anymore, maybe once every 6-9 years as opposed to 3 years. The downside is that PC hardware industry would also suffer because there wouldn't be as much need to provide faster and faster PC components.
-
Now, in terms of graphics. Puh-lease. OMG OMG OMG PHYSICS LOLLERSKATES! Excuse me, ragdoll physics have been around since 2003. And moveable boxes and objects have been around long before that. If I knew coding I could add a gravity gun into Unreal Tournament 2003/2004, and ta-da, it'd be exactly the same as HL2. There's almost no difference physics wise, it's just that HL2 gave you a gun that actually exploited the physics (which was a nifty idea I'll admit). In terms of straight eye-candy - come on, you gotta be ****ting me. When games are coming out with dynamic shadows and bump, normal, and parallax mapping, what does HL2 have? Uhh...high resolution people textures and HDR lighting (aka bloom lighting on steroids - and bloom has been around for quite some years now)? Please. The game was outdated graphically before it even came out.asically, HL2 is an overrated, under-par, run of the mill shooter, that everyone salvitates over simply
Valve uses Havok for their physics, so it's hardly new, or revolutionary, Max Payne 2, for example, which came out before, used havok's physics engine.
the only thing honestly revolutionary about it was the fact that valve upped the sheer ability for character facial animation, which would be great.... if HL2 was an RPG. :p
-
It's the combination of the Havok physics engine with the features of the gravgun, that made HL2's environment unique. The sheer amount of stuff you can throw around to kill zombies makes for quite some fun time.
I'm just playing through it the first time, and I'm having a blast cutting zombies in half.
-
Didn't like Halo that much as an SP game, but in multiplayer co-op it becomes one of the most awesome FPS ever created ("I'M driving!" "Fine, I call shotgun, *BLAM*, Right, now I'm driving!" "*&%$£'~!" ; "No, go left! LEFT!! OTHER LEFT!" *flies off a cliff*)
Ahh, good times :D
HL2 wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.
Doom3/Quake4... I'd say they were overrated, but most people didn't rate them that highly anyway so my point would be a bit moot.
We need more co-op FPS.
I'm playing STALKER atm; Damned good game, but many times I wish there was a co-op mode (And a FSCKING CAR!! The world is too big and full of Nasty Pointy Toothy Things to slog about on foot everywhere!)
Fury: I hate to tell you mate, but Steam, Telltale, Stardock etc. have got more invasive and tighter copy protection and DRM than almost all physical media stuff. AND they know your address, e-mail, phone and credit card no.
They were smart 'tho and made it very easy, with lots of carrot to go with the stick so most people will go for it.
After enough bad experiences, I personally stopped buying anything that I wouldn't be able to run on an off-line machine. Unfortunately, it seems most commercial games are going this way, and I'm dreading the day when all software will be like that. Microsoft would certainly love that.
I wish more companies were like Rake in Grass in that regard, but even Bioware took the copy protection off NWN, and Dawn of War+Expansions doesn't have any copy protection at all!
-
Possibly he just came late to the game. Really, if you were to start playing starcraft multiplayer today, for the first time, it would be a decidedly negative experience as you got eaten alive by veterans who had become build order, map memorizing cyborgs. And that not even considering the really high level players who click faster then the machine does.
Quite an accurate assessment there.
It's not fun if you lose ALL the time.... :p
Aside from my inadequacies there are one or two rather poor aspects of StarCraft that really let it down.
Firstly, the finite nature of the resources on any given map outright encourage if not demand that you commit to an attack as quickly as possible.
Fine, this is not in itself a really huge point but it guarantees that there will be rushing of some sort - personally I dislike such things and tend to prefer a longer more thought out approach with feints, decoys and traps.
Point #1 - SC is all about who can rush best. I hate rushing.
Now, this is the biggie. The one thing that drives me up the wall with this game. Unit control - or lack therof.
As we determined in Point #1, SC is a rushers game.
A rush is generally get as much stuff as you can and throw it at someone as soon as you can, right?
An SC rush will usually take place in the 1st few minutes with 5 or 6 units, so lets just pretend we don't like that sort of thing for a moment and we're into a well developed game with big armies and such.
You have hundreds of units to do battle with, but something is stopping you....
YOU CAN ONLY CONTROL UPTO 12 UNITS AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
Seriously. Who thought that this would have been a good idea? Especially considering that one of the races specialises in mass 'swarm' fighting but can't do so with any degree of effectiveness.
I find this immensely frustrating.
Point #2 - I don't know what Point #2 is, but I want to control a useful number of units.
StarCraft is a game I have no trouble enjoying occaisionally, but to my jaded perception it feels very much like a regression from the original (and limited) C&C.
I think I should shut the hell up about StarCraft eh? :p
Just a little fix:
>Possibly she just came late to the game :lol:
-
Possibly he just came late to the game. Really, if you were to start playing starcraft multiplayer today, for the first time, it would be a decidedly negative experience as you got eaten alive by veterans who had become build order, map memorizing cyborgs. And that not even considering the really high level players who click faster then the machine does.
YOU CAN ONLY CONTROL UPTO 12 UNITS AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
Control groups, my friend, control groups.
-
Still, this means you can control at most 120 units, right? (using 1-9 and also 0) This means there's 80 possible units that are left running around, let's say 40 are drones, still leaves 40 when your supply limit is maxed. And when I'm terran, I like to control group my ComSat station taking up 12 units of one of my groups itself. Granted, most units will cost more than just 1 supply, but having to make 10 control groups and forgetting which is what and what I need... I agree, it's annoying.
-
Control groups, my friend, control groups.
Yes, all well and good.
But say you have 100 units to move somewhere for x reason, why is it a good idea to have to issue that order NINE times instead of just once?
Why is it *not* a good idea to simply select ALL of them?
Even C&C got this sorted first time out years before :p
Also: Whats the point in creating the Zerg speciality of swarm tactics when you can't do it properly because you have a ton of micromanagement that needent be there?
Just plain counter-productive.
While I'm here I'll throw another contentious bone on the pile:
EvE
About as overrated as games get.
And this coming from a former player (Gallente).
I spent just under a month flying round in a rattletrap frigate trying to make any kind of money and getting repeatedly shot to bits for no reason I could ever determine.
I spent more time in the cloning tanks than in space dammit! :p
After the realisation I was basically paying to get wound up and frustrated I packed it in went back to playing proper games with shiny black ships... :lol:
-
A comment of StarCraft's grouping limitation: I consider it as a kind of encouragement to use different kinds of units in a limited number, as opposed to countless units of the same kind. This way, you can attack from four directions with several different units. The question is if you can pay attention to four directions.
-
i have my doubts on steam, recently (6 months ago) i played a shooter called Sin Episodes: Emergence, it was not particularly interesting, then i remembered that there was a game with a similar title from along time ago, and i did play it. i replayed it and i was amazed that i even remembered where everything was, considered the first time i played it was when i was 7.
so with that in mind i can imagine that hl2 is no different in many aspects.
Quake 4, is in my opinion, average and something i was expecting given that quake was the beginning, quake 2, some blood and dead bodies. then quake 4 where it built up and besides that, it was quite predictable.
i would definatly put EvE online a highly overrated game, the advertising is fake on some lines. and now - well, before eve had a trial, now they do not have it. imo if you ever want to play this game and lucky enough to have a friend who plays this game and you want to try it out, then this person will probably link you under their account, otherwise if you ever want to play this waste of time for a game and you have no friend who plays the game, it's going to be a real pain for certain people who do not have the right credit cards as one example of fake advertising.
the other points are, it is very limiting. can be extreamly boring. and the upgrades are not for people have no time for being the biggest in 30 minutes.
-
A comment of StarCraft's grouping limitation: I consider it as a kind of encouragement to use different kinds of units in a limited number, as opposed to countless units of the same kind. This way, you can attack from four directions with several different units. The question is if you can pay attention to four directions.
They shouldn't force the issue. Chances are, a variety of units from different directions will work out better for you in the long run anyway, so that should be your encouragement, not bad game design.
-
Firstly, the finite nature of the resources on any given map outright encourage if not demand that you commit to an attack as quickly as possible.
No, it encourages the player to expand, although this may imply an attack it is not always so.
Fine, this is not in itself a really huge point but it guarantees that there will be rushing of some sort - personally I dislike such things and tend to prefer a longer more thought out approach with feints, decoys and traps.
Point #1 - SC is all about who can rush best. I hate rushing.
No, SC is about who can use the gathered resources best, like every other RTS. Just because your playing style is very bad compared to the oposite playing style (booming vs rushing) doesn't mean it's a rushing game. Go see some high profile player's replay.
Now, this is the biggie. The one thing that drives me up the wall with this game. Unit control - or lack therof.
As we determined in Point #1, SC is a rushers game.
A rush is generally get as much stuff as you can and throw it at someone as soon as you can, right?
An SC rush will usually take place in the 1st few minutes with 5 or 6 units, so lets just pretend we don't like that sort of thing for a moment and we're into a well developed game with big armies and such.
Starcraft and big armies are mutually exclusive.
You have hundreds of units to do battle with, but something is stopping you....
Apart from the 199 pop cap limit and most units above the first tech tier costing more than 1 in pop cap.
YOU CAN ONLY CONTROL UPTO 12 UNITS AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
Seriously. Who thought that this would have been a good idea? Especially considering that one of the races specialises in mass 'swarm' fighting but can't do so with any degree of effectiveness.
I find this immensely frustrating.
Point #2 - I don't know what Point #2 is, but I want to control a useful number of units.
As someone else mentioned, you can use control groups. While it may seem to be strange, it is an encouragement to have several groups of units instead of a giant blob of doom fighting another blob of doom which strangely most players prefer. Also if you have enough units that you don't have enough control groups to manage, you are doing something wrong.
-
Point #1 - SC is all about who can rush best. I hate rushing.
YOU CAN ONLY CONTROL UPTO 12 UNITS AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
...
Point #2 - I don't know what Point #2 is, but I want to control a useful number of units.
ROFL!!! :lol: HAHA!! HAHAHahaha.....
...
:blah:
The twelve unit limilt is used to berate rushing and large swarm attacks, while fostering the use of strategy and tactics.
And have you ever noticed how long it takes for most units to build compared to other RTS's?
-
Don't get me wrong, StarCraft is fun, well balanced, and well made, but I do find that most of the games online last less than 10 minutes due to someone rushing me with 6 zealots (more or less) and unless I have more zealots than they do, I'm hosed. If I survive, I can usually counter. I wish I didn't have to play every online sc game the same way because of these rushes, that's all. If it's cause I "suck" as you might say, so be it. I'd rather suck and not play than play the same boring way again and again because it's unbeatable most of the time.
-
there are bugs in the game, quite a big one indeed. if you have an arbiter and a lot of zerg units on any custom pvp map, then you can cloak them. burrow them, wait until the artiber is at the edge of the range, then unbourrow them.
another is hydralisk stacking and a programme called Oblivion....
i have noticed this quite well, atleast when i use it on pvp!
if i do not have the resources or time, i created control groups and send them in, likewise with star trek armada 2 (very frequent on sta2) and age of empires... and you say you can only control 12 units :wtf:.
-
Does anyone play with the 'use map settings' multi maps? You know, the crazy insane ones?
-
ahh i play of them more then pvp. my fav is Turret stacking or Sunken Def.
-
Halo... GTA...super smash bros and Homeworld
-
Homeworld 1 rocked.... Homeworld 2 absolutely sucked compared to it.
-
Homeworld 1 rocked.... Homeworld 2 absolutely sucked compared to it.
But, unto itself, it was pretty damn good. Definitely one of the better space RTS'es these days.
-
HW1: The Kushan trying to reclaim Hiigara from Tiidani hands.
HWC: Kiith Sowtaaw-Sa moving up the political ladder from miners to warriors, by accident.
HW2: Hiigaran's get pushed off there world by the Vaygr because of 3 cores but eventually the Vaygr Fall and Sajuuk returns.
i think there all good, i have never really seen too much hype from anyone of them really. i do not see where the overhype comes into play. anyhow. i am not really here to argue.
-
Oh the storyline in 2 rocked. The Eye of Aaron :eek2:
It's the execution was so poorly done. I got sick of hearing "Frigate destroyed"
-
HW2 is a tragedy of level design.
-
Hw2 was far too complicated and completley ruined the capture dynamic.
I mean, anti-fighter corvettes fine but anti-corvette corvettes ? WTF ?
-
Hw2 was far too complicated and completley ruined the capture dynamic.
I mean, anti-fighter corvettes fine but anti-corvette corvettes ? WTF ?
Not to mention unbalanced. A destroyer chewing through a fleet of frigates :doubt:
-
I mean, anti-fighter corvettes fine but anti-corvette corvettes ? WTF ?
Whats wrong with that?
It's like space superiority corvettes.
-
Hw2 was far too complicated and completley ruined the capture dynamic.
I mean, anti-fighter corvettes fine but anti-corvette corvettes ? WTF ?
Not to mention unbalanced. A destroyer chewing through a fleet of frigates :doubt:
**** destroyers, just take a look at the Vaygr battlecruiser. That thing is ****ing ridiculous.
-
The voice acting in Homeworld 2 sucked horribly. The characters didn't seem to have any emotion.
I'll have to play Homeworld 1 at some point. The case is currently sitting on my shelf, unopened.
-
Hw2 was far too complicated and completley ruined the capture dynamic.
I mean, anti-fighter corvettes fine but anti-corvette corvettes ? WTF ?
Not to mention unbalanced. A destroyer chewing through a fleet of frigates :doubt:
**** destroyers, just take a look at the Vaygr battlecruiser. That thing is ****ing ridiculous.
The Vaygr battlecruiser's main weapon is nearly useless... it can only fire horizontally in a 3D enviroment!!
-
The Vaygr battlecruiser's main weapon is nearly useless... it can only fire horizontally in a 3D enviroment!!
Seconded. It takes a bit of tactics, but you can easily overpower a Vaygr BC whore. Sure, it's not as easily neutered as the Hiig BC, but micromanaging your ships out of the Trinity Cannon's line of fire while beating the **** out of it with a swarm of bombers can knock it down simple as Simon. Not to mention taking out its engines alone render the main cannon completely useless.
Not to mention unbalanced. A destroyer chewing through a fleet of frigates :doubt:
An anti-frigate ship destroying frigates? No! Really?!
-
the Vaygr BC's were powerful, but they were beaten on range and versatility by their hiigaran counterparts. i generally had two BC's supporting eachother in most cases, anyways..
-
quite easy to over power any battleship.
Hiigaran: get your ship directly above or below the ioon cannon, destroy the cannon and get in there and destroy it.
Vaygr: just keep your ship out of the 45 degree angle of the 3 red connons on the front of that ship under the antennae.
-
Actually, I was referring to its array of cruise missiles. I'll have to load up HW2 again and check out this forward cannon. I can't recall it.
-
Actually, I was referring to its array of cruise missiles. I'll have to load up HW2 again and check out this forward cannon. I can't recall it.
That can be disabled by two squadrons of bombers in two or three strafing runs, so it's not really a big problem as long as you plan ahead. I'll admit, if you get jumped by a few Vaygr BCs you're proper ****ed, but it would serve you right for not using hyperspace interdiction.
-
You know PDS elimenates the trinity cannon horizontal problem by letting ships fully move.
But it also completely changes gameplay.
-
When you get a wave of 20-odd Vaygar battlecruisers...well, the bastards are tough to kill before they get to you.
-
Not to mention unbalanced. A destroyer chewing through a fleet of frigates :doubt:
An anti-frigate ship destroying frigates? No! Really?!
[/quote]
A wing of ion cannon frigates could take down a HW 1 destroy without major problems. Try doing that in HW2, unless it's a huge wing.
-
Tomb Raider, one of the crappiest games I've ever played, and it has almost spawned by itself a new genre ( I thought it'd kill it)...
-
oh god...well here comes the list
Once again, every damned MMORPG ever made, particularly EVE online, Star wars Galaxies, runescape (hell that sucked) and especially WOW. (YES, WOW! I MEEN YOU TO YOU FAT BASTARDS!)
Halo 2. Halo one was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.
the Medal Of honor series. I never did like war games, and this just made it worse
Another big one is the original Super mario brothers. I always hated platformer/side-scroller games, and SMB was just way to hard at later levels. duck hunt ftw.
In fact, The freespace series and the entire star wars collection are the only real games that never let me down, Freespace was and will always be the best space sim i ever played, and one of the best storylines. The star wars games we're always fun, particularly the jedi knight series. OH, man those were great times, the whole reason i like first person shooters, even though it wasen't much of a shooter in itself, i just liked the layout
-
Halo 2. Halo one was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.
Thats strange. I've only played parts of Halo two, but from what I've seen, It's been much better. 1) ships aren't all hallway. 2) there are actual level decorations. 3) they have a good reason for enemies being everywhere (not just unexplainable except for the purpose of game play like H1). 4) The level design is much better.
-
Gameplay is king. Halo(1) is therefore king.
-
particularly EVE online,
Heresy. Summon the Inquistion.
-
EVE online's combat sucked, like all mmorpgs. and everything else wasen't interesting either.
-
particularly EVE online,
Heresy. Summon the Inquistion.
Nobody expects the ngtm1r inquisition!
-
then again he can't really do anything unexpected that is significant.
unless you were being sarcastic, which i don't know. thats internet for ya.
-
Star Wars Empire At War.
I dunno if it ever got rave reviews but if found it worse then previously indicated
The Space Combat was lack luster next to older games such as Homeworld 2. The ground combat was... well lets just say after i got the Death Star there was no more ground combat. Graphically and game-play(especially gameplay) wise older games such as Homeworld and Dawn of War mop the floor with this Sithspit waste of code. If only i could have sold it back to the game store, but alas they only buyback console games now :P
-
EVE online's combat sucked, like all mmorpgs. and everything else wasen't interesting either.
Yes, I know, you could neither button mash nor live by reflexes alone. This is a horrible cruel fate for you.
Put simply, EVE's combat makes you do a moderate level of thinking, as opposed to...well, almost everything else I've played. This is far beyond mere rock-paper-scissors stuff.
-
With EVE I felt like I was watching the game moreso than playing it.
-
ditto