EPTOn September 23 2009 05:23 eMbrace wrote:
Halo is easily the most well-made FPS on a console.
Halo is easily the most well-made FPS on a console.
Poll: Which game is better?
(Vote): Goldeneye 64
(Vote): Halo
Rant about gaming here in the U.S.A. - Page 2
| Blogs > TwilightStar |
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Poll: Which game is better? (Vote): Goldeneye 64 (Vote): Halo | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
| ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
nostalgic bias, here we go! | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
DanceCommander
United States1808 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:30 eMbrace wrote: also, and i can't leave this alone -- CS is has an extremely deep learning curve and there is a reason it is still bigger than casual games like Halo and CoD in terms of competitive play. honestly, CS IMO is the SC of FPS. I hope you are talking about CS 1.6 ;D and I totally agree with you. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Starcraft does have nice graphics, I think. They aren't by any means perfect, but they do their job very well in informing you of the units, for the most part. Some things are still really ugly and confusing, like the lurker... wtf is that? Same with Devourers. Much of the BW stuff is actually a bit less impressive graphically ... compare the Dark Archon death animation to the HT one. If the role of graphics is to be realistic, as much of the recent trends indicate, then yes, SC fails pretty hard and will be owned by any recent game. Wireframe portraits occasionally leave a bit to be desired, and lots of the buildings aren't very self-explanatory... the ugliest thing in the game is a floating CC, I think. I think there is starting to be a move away from this sort of over-realism in games, especially with games like TF2 being very popular, and the rise of Casual games like desktop tower defense. | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:43 Chef wrote: Nah, I just really hate the idea of regenerating health. I think most people can agree that's a cheap trick for making Single Player easier to design, and doesn't belong in a competetive environment. absolutely agree, takes a lot of intensity out of the game . and it's the new standard for every shooter being made, which is why games like CS where you need to watch HP and behave accordingly (as well as actually having to control some tough recoil), are going to be things of the past. it's really sad =/ | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:48 Nevuk wrote: Being able to recover HP has always been a part of multiplayer FPS, going back to Doom. Ah, there was a glorious game. We're not talking about picking up health packs though, we're talking about "get out of combat for 5 seconds and you got back to full health." | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:48 Nevuk wrote: Being able to recover HP has always been a part of multiplayer FPS, going back to Doom. Ah, there was a glorious game. in the form of healthpacks, yes -- getting rocked in the face and then ducking behind cover so you can try again is just stupid IMO (in multiplayer, it works with single-player). | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. Really, if the only standard you have for "good" is "highly competitive," then think about board games. How many of them have high-level competition? Now compare that to the number of board games that exist. Not everyone wants "highly competitive" gaming. Indeed, videogames are capable of more than just "achieve victory," and the majority of gamers are more interested in those things than competition. If the only thing you want out of a videogame is competitive play, then yes, you're not going to like most games. But there's nothing wrong with that objectively. You're simply part of a niche that is being catered to by only a few developers. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:44 Nevuk wrote: Starcraft does have nice graphics, I think. They aren't by any means perfect, but they do their job very well in informing you of the units, for the most part. What ? Yes, 10 years ago maybe.. Now ? By today standars ? Ugly as hell.. I dont expect from a game so old to be nice.. But i also dont make illusions of a game this old being nice ( graphic wise) because it simply isnt.. But it makes the job done, even now. I for one will always say that graphic doesnt make the game good, i see nothing wrong with 2D overview like Starcraft.. And will never put down a game because of "shitty graphic", since i have always enjoyed good old FRP like Torment, even now  ..For me, gameplay is all that matters... | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
especially when you go around spouting provably false statements like They are the kind of games that any random chobo can pick up and be 'professional' at in a months time. ..it really gives off a bad impression of all starcraft players to be honest. like, when the TL Dota vent became public, why is it that when we were playing dota, starcraft players come into our channel and start spouting how terrible dota is compared to sc? superiority complex much? at least there's a password on it now to prevent it (not that i dont get c/p spam either) or the inherent hate on war3, wow/lineage/other mmos or fps's like CS, quake etc those are all good games. just like starcraft. stop being so narrow-minded already.. it hurts to read  | ||
|
TwilightStar
United States649 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:09 Chill wrote: Because, if you survey the general population, the past 5 years have yielded some fantastic games. That's not a reasonable truth, that's branding your opinion as fact. To add a little subjective weight against your claim: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?type=reviews&platform=5&mode=all&sort=score&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc&official=all Last 5 years, Nothing of interest found. I've played around 80-90% of the games on that list. The fact that Age of Empires II : Age of Kings is ahead of StarCraft makes me just want to punch something. On September 23 2009 05:13 Duke wrote: i disagree with starcraft's graphics being bad, they are perfectly functional(even moreso functional compared to other games where you can't even see what the hell is going on, which although SC2 graphics are good some people still have this problem) and just because they are outdated doesn't take away anything from the game The graphics of StarCraft were good for when they were made, and they are completely perfect in relation to the gameplay be honest. You can tell what is going on and it's easy to see whats going on (No distracting explosions). But in terms of looking graphically realistic, StarCraft loses compared to a modern game. On September 23 2009 05:15 levelzx wrote: Actually, that 'horrible' Starcraft graphics is pretty functional if not essential part of the whole game. After some practise, you can figure out what's going on within a second, because units/animations/sprites are not messing up your strategic view. This is one of the reasons I prefer SC over Warcraft or Diablo or anything else: in those games everything is glowing, exploding, blinking and you never know what really happens. From graphical standpoint, Starcraft is like chess: you have information before your eyes, the only thing is to use it efficently (fog of war being the only exception). I really love that comparison, as both a chess and StarCraft player. The raw information is before our eyes, and we the player get to decide what happens with it, not luck. On September 23 2009 05:20 Chef wrote: I mean, it definitely is a great game, but you aren't doing it any justice when the person you're talking to has no idea what you're talking about (and your understanding of the game is probably pretty low as well). You don't know if my understanding of the game is low or not. I've actually been playing StarCraft since it was released. By NO means would I be able to ever compete with a professional gamer like Flash or Jaedong, and the list goes on, But I sure have a decent understanding of the game. On September 23 2009 05:43 Chef wrote: Nah, I just really hate the idea of regenerating health. I think most people can agree that's a cheap trick for making Single Player easier to design, and doesn't belong in a competetive environment. License to Kill (one hit kill no matter what or where you hit your enemy) is actually the only interesting game mode in any multiplayer FPS. I really hate the health-regeneration factor in Halo as well. It completely ruins the game from my point of view. 1-Hit kill in FPS games is something alot of people seem to complain about, at least in counter strike with the AWP... but I like it better that way too! On September 23 2009 05:23 eMbrace wrote: If there's anything worse than ignorant modern gamers, it's jaded gamers who can't leave the past behind. Sorry, but I feel as if this is directed towards me, so here is my explanation. I've played a majority of the most recent games. I actually HAVE played CounterStrike, I actually HAVE played WoW. What I'm saying is, the games I'm actually criticizing I put a decent and honest effort into trying to play competetively. From the way I see it, living in the past is only bad if you haven't even had a taste of the newer stuff, which isn't the way I am. On September 23 2009 05:55 NicolBolas wrote: Really, if the only standard you have for "good" is "highly competitive," then think about board games. How many of them have high-level competition? Now compare that to the number of board games that exist. If the only thing you want out of a videogame is competitive play, then yes, you're not going to like most games. But there's nothing wrong with that objectively. You're simply part of a niche that is being catered to by only a few developers. I understand what you are saying. The people who play games casually, I have no problem with, and I feel happy for them. It's the people who think something is deep where it really isn't is what I have a problem with. Again, Thanks for all replies! | ||
DivinO
United States4796 Posts
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote: I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me. No lie, never saw it this way before. | ||
|
| ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
| ||
|
TwilightStar
United States649 Posts
| ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:09 Chill wrote: Because, if you survey the general population, the past 5 years have yielded some fantastic games. That's not a reasonable truth, that's branding your opinion as fact. To add a little subjective weight against your claim: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?type=reviews&platform=5&mode=all&sort=score&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc&official=all Looking at that list, about 1/5th of the games >= 9 have been made in the last 5 years, when it should be closer to 1/3rd due to the timeframe. Why is that? Although the OP overdramaticized his argument, surely he's on to something when he says that games are getting worse. (And not even just the average game, but the best games are getting worse too.) I think it's more "can only vote for one option" bias. >_> | ||
|
hooktits
United States972 Posts
| ||
| ||
