[Duke of Hazzard]

I think rating system for drugs, sex, etc. is bollocks.

[Kathy]

Jimmy, on 10 April 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

The difference is that arcade games were tough. Addictive + tough = tons of quarters. Now all your addictive games are just simple pleb tier puzzle shit or easy peasy hand holding shooters.

Being tough to acquire more quaters is worse.

[MetroidJunkie]

Also, you could argue that a chunk of the challenge was artificial because of technological limitations of the time. For instance, Link to the Past didn't make enemies any less imposing than the NES original but Link had a much more fluid range of movement that made dealing with them much easier. Doom is certainly alot easier when you add mouse looking.

[Duke of Hazzard]

MetroidJunkie, on 11 April 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

Also, you could argue that a chunk of the challenge was artificial because of technological limitations of the time. For instance, Link to the Past didn't make enemies any less imposing than the NES original but Link had a much more fluid range of movement that made dealing with them much easier. Doom is certainly alot easier when you add mouse looking.

I haven't yet gotten used to mouselook so I'll have to disagree, lol.

Since you brought up Nintendo, one of the things that made the original Super Mario Bros. so hard were the horribly slippery and sluggish controls that were refined in further installments.

[MetroidJunkie]

For me, personally, the WADS keys and mouse make Doom leagues easier than just keyboard. Makes strafe circling a breeze. Yeah, I agree there, it was great for its time but it's like you're walking on ice. The SNES era was generally much easier than the NES era and not out of watering down enemy AI but superior mechanics.

[Jimmy]

Kathy, on 10 April 2014 - 07:10 PM, said:

Being tough to acquire more quaters is worse.

Not really. Most of them were tough in a good way. I had no problem dumping quarters into games like Marvel VS Capcom or Killer Instinct or Area 51, and I'll still do it to this day. Hell, if I see any pinball machine, I know for a fact I'm dumping at least 10 dollars into the fucking thing.

[MetroidJunkie]

In a way, that can be just as bad as those mobile games that suck people out of money for microtransactions. The people who pony up money into these games typically would argue that they enjoy the games they're pouring money into just as you would argue that you highly enjoyed the old fashioned arcade games that you're sinking quarter after quarter into.

[Jimmy]

Here's the thing, I'm not paying for content. I'm paying for the electricity and the investment in the machine.

[100199]

I was never sure how Hl2 got so much acclaim, perhaps most of the people saw it more as an adventure game than just a fps.
Unfortunately I can't be like that, if the core action/gunplay/combat sucks there's not any strong narrative, characters or other thing that will make me enjoy the game. Those things should be secondary, not primary in a fps.

Strange since HL1 had great gunplay and Ai. Guns felt great to use, unlike HL2 with its peashooting weapons.

[Person of Color]

HL1 is a plodding slow FPS. Black Mesa is superior. As is HL2.

HL2's gunplay is far more intense.

[iTech]

The most controversial view I hold is that Videogames do not cause acts of violence. (Shocking I know - please don't ban me!)

See, the amount of people that play videogames containing violence is, according to my calculations, extremely high. Reaching a billion people easily. Now, citing the observations I made while formulating this hypothesis, and I know it will be controversial, is that less that 0.0000002 percent of those people commit violent acts. Given the fact that violent videogames are so ubiquitous,one would expect to see a rise in violent crimes since the advent of videogames if they indeed had any kind of statistical influence. Since we do not see more than a few high school/mall/army base shootings every couple of years, and almost a billion people are playing violent games daily, I dare to say they have absolutely no influence on violent crime statistics whatsoever.


Now, I understand if you do not agree (as most politicians and the entire media industry don't) and will accept all criticism willingly and quietly as you are probably right (When the politician dude and the news says so it must be the truth).

[100199]

Protected by Viper, on 09 June 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

As is HL2.

HL2's gunplay is far more intense.

I disagree. No recoil on the guns and the AI is dreadful. A game from 6 years before on older tech had it better.
Half-Life 2 might have done plenty of things right, but gunplay wasn't one of them.

[LkMax]

100199, on 10 June 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

I disagree. No recoil on the guns and the AI is dreadful. A game from 6 years before on older tech had it better.
Half-Life 2 might have done plenty of things right, but gunplay wasn't one of them.

HL1 owns HL2 in many aspects:

- Gibs;
- Enviroment destruction;
- Far less scripted cutscenes that can't be skipped;
- Better AI (at least it feels this way);
- Guns doesn't look like toys;
- Far less scripted cutscenes that can't be skipped;
- An alien world (fuck the haters, altough Xen was better on Opposing force and Blue Shift);
- More "Giant Secret Lab with cool experiments" and less "Occupied Poland during nazi regime alien invasion".

What HL2 Does better:

- Physics.
- Animations;

HL2 is not bad, but it's overestimated and did not cause the same impact on me as did HL1 just because "physics" and shinier graphics/facial animation.

[MusicallyInspired]

I love aspects of both games. I love the feeling of a big journey across the countryside. I like the massive science complex too, but I did enjoy the locales of HL2 more.

[100199]

LkMax, on 10 June 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

HL2 is not bad, but it's overestimated and did not cause the same impact on me as did HL1 just because "physics" and shinier graphics/facial animation.

agree with all your points, HL1 was also a far more enjoyable experience for me.

[Bloodshot]

Maybe not to most people, but this is controversial for me at least because most people I know hate it.

I like Halo, a lot. Not the new ones, but the bungie halos. I find the universe quite interesting and I really like the gameplay and the open ended large levels, and I wish the rest of the bungie halos would come to PC.

I also can't think of many other games with fantastical large alien environments and such nice skyboxes, besides Unreal.

[Tea Monster]

MusicallyInspired, on 10 June 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

I love aspects of both games. I love the feeling of a big journey across the countryside. I like the massive science complex too, but I did enjoy the locales of HL2 more.

The bridge level was amazing.

[MusicallyInspired]

You mean the dam?

[Inspector Lagomorf]

MusicallyInspired, on 13 June 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

You mean the dam?

[MusicallyInspired]

Ah right. Could not picture it. Lol

[Bloodshot]

I always love bridge levels. I just wish HL2 had gore beyond blood decals, and better weapon animations, and maybe better hit reactions. The enemies don't flinch much and the ragdoll in source is actually kind of weird in action and IMO seems a little unnatural.

[MetHy]

I think Homecoming is the best Silent Hill game and that 2 is the worst. I don't disregard 2's for its storytelling though, but I'm sure its blow out of proportions and it wasn't as groundbreaking.

I believe there are 2 things that dooms and restrains video games : giving so much importance to technical advancements, and trying so damn hard to be like movies.
Both have been some of the most importants aspects of video games for as far as I can remember.

For the first thing (technical advancement), it all boils down to wanting your customers to buy the newest products at the high price. The only argument you have to make people buy it is that it's more powerful, that 16bit is more powerful than 8bit, and you somehow make people believe that this inevitably equals better games; they make people believe that Super Mario Bros 3 is suddenly shit, not worth playing anymore, because Super Mario World is out, and etc; (and they also make them believe they're not "in" anymore if they don't have the most recent stuff).
It's always been there and I find extremely SCARY that so much importance is given to the technical aspects by everybody, from console makers, publishers/developers, to reviewers and players. The scariest is regarding reviewers and players. It's a faith that was put into their brains, and they don't even realize it. For them it's a fact : it's technically superior therefore it is undoubtly a better game.

When the Wii came out, I had a bit of hope. Something barely technically superior to the previous console, and which instead focuses on new gameplay. That was a first, a step in the right direction. Like Nintendo realized this mindless technical course was at its end, and that it was mindless, that the most important was somewhere else. People didn't realize it and mocked it; "TRUE GAMERS" didn't have a Wii. You're not a TRUE gamer if you don't have the most technically advanced hardware. You'd think people realize how scary and stupid that sounds...

Something else also showing how this "technical advancement faith" is completely dumb; is how people mostly regard it towards "graphics", but not for example regarding sound. A random example was IGN's Megaman 9 review : giving a very low mark to "graphics" because of how dated they are; yet giving a fairly good mark to "sound" even then the musics sounded as dated as the graphics looked.
At least be goddamn consistent in your stupid belief. But no, it can pretty much be summarized to technical advancement regarding "graphics".

As for the 2nd point, "trying so damn hard to be like movies". 99% of games that try to have a "serious" story, especially high budget ones because nowadays, you can't be a game if you don't have a "real story"; instead of trying to tell the stories in means that are unique to video games (and which therefore I believe would suit video games better), they try to imitate how movies are, what works in movies. Except that can't work, by definition it can NOT work because a game is a game, a movie is a movie, and a game trying to a movie will always appear like a sordid mockup, like a dog trying to purr so his master may like him more.

I believe there is a LOT that could be done in terms of interactive storytelling as far as video games are concerned, I think we've only scartched the surface of what can be done in the better cases; but they're not even trying.

[MYHOUSE.MAP]

I'm getting tired of "serious stories" as well. All of them are the same hackneyed trite they try to portray as deep and thought-provoking. I don't mind cliche, but but when every goddamn game has either "humans are the real monsters" or "main character dies at the end" as their plot points and they're all presented as the same, then it gets stupid. No matter how much grit, murder, rape and little girls escorted by men with troubled pasts you put over it, they're still obnoxious and annoying. Despite what hack writers may think, it's gotten to the point where "everything sucks forever", "your character has PTSD, as interpreted by someone that watched Law and Order SVU once", and "the government is evil" is just as cliche as "save the princess" and "stop the aliens from invading".

The sad part is that people actually fall for it and praise it like it's the best ever. I honestly don't get how people think "cynicism" and "grit" that only a teenager would think is deep is fantastic and engaging writing.

[Fox]

MetHy, on 13 June 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

For the first thing (technical advancement), it all boils down to wanting your customers to buy the newest products at the high price. The only argument you have to make people buy it is that it's more powerful, that 16bit is more powerful than 8bit, and you somehow make people believe that this inevitably equals better games; they make people believe that Super Mario Bros 3 is suddenly shit, not worth playing anymore, because Super Mario World is out, and etc; (and they also make them believe they're not "in" anymore if they don't have the most recent stuff).
It's always been there and I find extremely SCARY that so much importance is given to the technical aspects by everybody, from console makers, publishers/developers, to reviewers and players. The scariest is regarding reviewers and players. It's a faith that was put into their brains, and they don't even realize it. For them it's a fact : it's technically superior therefore it is undoubtly a better game.

When the Wii came out, I had a bit of hope. Something barely technically superior to the previous console, and which instead focuses on new gameplay. That was a first, a step in the right direction. Like Nintendo realized this mindless technical course was at its end, and that it was mindless, that the most important was somewhere else. People didn't realize it and mocked it; "TRUE GAMERS" didn't have a Wii. You're not a TRUE gamer if you don't have the most technically advanced hardware. You'd think people realize how scary and stupid that sounds...

Something else also showing how this "technical advancement faith" is completely dumb; is how people mostly regard it towards "graphics", but not for example regarding sound. A random example was IGN's Megaman 9 review : giving a very low mark to "graphics" because of how dated they are; yet giving a fairly good mark to "sound" even then the musics sounded as dated as the graphics looked.
At least be goddamn consistent in your stupid belief. But no, it can pretty much be summarized to technical advancement regarding "graphics".

Game reviews are bogus, but that's old news.

Technical advancements do count. However the question is what you would consider an advancement. Since you mentioned movies, let's compare it to special effects. Look at Jurassic Park, the film was a landmark, however it has a very poor story. The success of the movie is purely because of special effects. On the other hand, we have Transformers, which has ten times more special effects and is pure shit. However, based on the logic of how much regard is given towards graphics in games, Transformers would be the greatest movie ever made.

The same goes for games, it's not about how great they are, but how you use them. And gamers are too stupid to realize that.

MetHy, on 13 June 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

As for the 2nd point, "trying so damn hard to be like movies". 99% of games that try to have a "serious" story, especially high budget ones because nowadays, you can't be a game if you don't have a "real story"; instead of trying to tell the stories in means that are unique to video games (and which therefore I believe would suit video games better), they try to imitate how movies are, what works in movies. Except that can't work, by definition it can NOT work because a game is a game, a movie is a movie, and a game trying to a movie will always appear like a sordid mockup, like a dog trying to purr so his master may like him more.

The problem is that for a game to be produced it must have approval from executives. And executives don't play the goddamn game, they will only sit and watch a presentation. And you can imagine that showing a movie look-alike would be more convincing than 10 minutes of a gun firing from the same angle.

[MYHOUSE.MAP]

The thing with game reviews is that they're ok if you want to see what the first two hours of a game are as played by someone who's fantastically awful at video games and is a pretentious moron. If you want any sort of serious review of the game as a whole, you're better off going elsewhere because you're not going to get it from sites like IGN.

[Person of Color]

MYHOUSE.MAP, on 21 June 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

I'm getting tired of "serious stories" as well. All of them are the same hackneyed trite they try to portray as deep and thought-provoking. I don't mind cliche, but but when every goddamn game has either "humans are the real monsters" or "main character dies at the end" as their plot points and they're all presented as the same, then it gets stupid. No matter how much grit, murder, rape and little girls escorted by men with troubled pasts you put over it, they're still obnoxious and annoying. Despite what hack writers may think, it's gotten to the point where "everything sucks forever", "your character has PTSD, as interpreted by someone that watched Law and Order SVU once", and "the government is evil" is just as cliche as "save the princess" and "stop the aliens from invading".

The sad part is that people actually fall for it and praise it like it's the best ever. I honestly don't get how people think "cynicism" and "grit" that only a teenager would think is deep is fantastic and engaging writing.

Dude, what the fuck do you expect? I mean seriously man, that entire industry is now full of super hardcore beta male introverts who think "/b/ - The Game" is good writing, and they're oldfags because they've been there since 2008 and the cake is a lie.

Also, implying post DLC Mass Effect 3 has a shitty plot and ending. I see what you did there faggot.

[Duke of Hazzard]

MYHOUSE.MAP, on 21 June 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

I'm getting tired of "serious stories" as well. All of them are the same hackneyed trite they try to portray as deep and thought-provoking. I don't mind cliche, but but when every goddamn game has either "humans are the real monsters" or "main character dies at the end" as their plot points and they're all presented as the same, then it gets stupid. No matter how much grit, murder, rape and little girls escorted by men with troubled pasts you put over it, they're still obnoxious and annoying. Despite what hack writers may think, it's gotten to the point where "everything sucks forever", "your character has PTSD, as interpreted by someone that watched Law and Order SVU once", and "the government is evil" is just as cliche as "save the princess" and "stop the aliens from invading".

The sad part is that people actually fall for it and praise it like it's the best ever. I honestly don't get how people think "cynicism" and "grit" that only a teenager would think is deep is fantastic and engaging writing.

When they announced a The Last of Us movie I said to myself "what's the point? isn't the game already movielike?"

Whenever these AAA titles get adapted to movies people see how shitty their stories actually are, because the movies end up being even worse in most cases.

[Person of Color]

"HEY GOYS WE HAVE TO CONDENSE 40 HOURS OF GAMEPLAY INTO 90 MINUTES IT'LL TOTALLY WORK."

[Oook]

Quake is probably the best FPS ever made. At least, the best I've ever played.
Half Life 2 is atrocious.
Command & Conquer and Total Annihiliation are better than Starcraft.
Heroes of Might & Magic IV was the best in the saga (of course, I love the second and the third).
Bioshock has outstanding artistic values, but the gameplay is obnoxious.
Bioshock 2 is better than the first.
Quake 2 wasn't as good as the first, but still an excellent shooter.
Fallout New Vegas is way better than Fallout 3 (I guess this will be common opinion here, but it's not everywhere).
Duke Nukem Forever is actually a good game.
BioWare's classics' combat system is boring.
Might & Magic is the best RPG saga.
Sin is more fun than Half Life.
Quake 3 is the best online FPS.
Generals is the best C&C, although I would die for Kane.
Ground Control is a milestone in RTS.
Spiderweb's games' combat system is close to perfection.
Doom 2 is even harder than Thy flesh consumed.
Quake 4 is a very good game, althought not as good as Quake 2.
Doom 3 is a crime, but still better than Half Life 2.
Far Cry and Painkiller are the best FPS released in their time-span.
Crysis was not only a graphic monster, its gameplay is brilliant.
Sonic 2 is waaaaaaay better than the third.
Sonic CD is awesome.
Max Payne 3 is crap.
Kane & Lynch Dead Men is not that bad.
Hard to be a God is a great RPG.
Diablo 2 is awful.
The Whispered World not only has excellent visuals, but good puzzles too.
Dragon Age 2 was criminal in many ways, but its fighting system is much better than Origins'.
Mass Effect 3 is the worst in the saga by far, and not only for its ending.
Last Battle is one of the best games in Mega Drive.
Eternal Champions is better than Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat.
Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter.
Crysis 2 is a bad game, no matter how you mod it.
Every copy of RAGE should be destroyed and removed from Steam. Then id should close doors.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare singleplayer is fun.
Arkham Asylum is better than Arkham City.
FEAR 2 is mediocre.
The FEAR expansions are way better than the sequel.
Cryostasis is delightful.
Postal 2 is not a bad game.
Zeno Clash is one of the top visual achievements of videogame history, such as Alice and Quake.
Call of Juarez games are quite good.
Serious Sam 2 was good.
Borderlands is booooooring, even when playing it with friends.
Splinter Cell Double Agent was the first painful backstab to the franchise.
Dead Space isn't scary nor entertaining at all. I even couldn't complete it; too predictable, too dull.
Darksiders only started being fun when my character was overpowered. Until then, the combats were severely repetitive and uninspired.
Bulletstorm got the sales it deserved, it was crappy, nothing compared to People Can Fly original masterpiece. And the writing was unnecessary and insufferable.
The Club is a very nice game and its concept deserves another try.

[Lunick]

Oook, on 22 June 2014 - 03:28 AM, said:

Doom 2 is even harder than Thy flesh consumed.
Crysis was not only a graphic monster, its gameplay is brilliant.
Sonic 2 is waaaaaaay better than the third.
Sonic CD is awesome.
Max Payne 3 is crap.
KIane & Lynch Dead Men is not that bad.
Every copy of RAGE should be destroyed and removed from Steam. Then id should close doors.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare singleplayer is fun.
Serious Sam 2 was good.