171 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

foogoo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

1. Bulletstorm. It was fun for one playthrough, but that's about it. On a good note, Jennifer Hale's voice acting was stellar.

2. Any and all MMOs.

3. Anything Call of Duty or Battlefield

4. Warcraft 3. Unfulfilling storytelling

5. Most RTS games. RTS games are about who can spam the most APM, which kind of it makes it not really about strategy any more. When the day comes that an RTS is actually about strategy and not how fast you can click, my opinion will change.

6. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. Frankly, Oblivion was a much friendlier game.

7. Starcraft Brood Wars. Unfulfilling story telling, weak assed interface. Starcraft 2 is 10 times the game.

Disagree with all except #1. RTS is not about apm, apm is not a measure of skill and never will be. Most of apm is spam, most of it is useless. You should know that by now. RTS is strategy based so strategy often beats micro. For example starcraft, either rushes or macro will win you the game. Except for warcraft 3 maybe since it's micro intensive while starcraft is macro intensive.  If you can't micro then rts is not for you. It ain't called Real Time Strategy for nothing, real time means speed. If you want strategy only play chess. Warcraft 3 and brood war centers on multiplayer not storytelling. Storytelling is for rpg's. Broodwar is still more balanced that Starcraft 2. Stracraft 2's interface is noobified, maybe that's why you like it. Morrowind > Oblivion too. Oblivion is just eye candy with no flavor. Battlefield > Call of duty. Call of duty is noobified child's play.

I just don't agree.  The best Starcraft 2 players in the world are from South Korea, and South Korean style SC2 play includes massive micro management of units on the battlefield to the detriment of macro play.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not really a strategy game if I have to manage an entire army and individually manage where every damned soldier stand to within two feet.  It becomes a game for caffeine junkies.

SC2's interface is not what I'd call 'noobified'.  It did remove arbitrary limits that made it impossible to even being to manage the kind of armies you could build at max supply.  An RTS is not worth playing seriously if I can't implement the strategy I envision due to a poor interface.  SC2 isn't as bad in this respect as SC1, but it's still not that good.  I really only play Starcraft for the storyline, which I like.

I do strongly favor turn based strategy games, chess being one of the classics of course.

Sorry, Oblivion was a much better game than Morrowind, chiefly because Morrowind included a number of gameplay mechanics that served no real purpose other than to annoy the player.

Modifié par jamesp81, 30 juin 2011 - 10:02 .

[naughty99]

jamesp81 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
5. Most RTS games. RTS games are about who can spam the most APM, which kind of it makes it not really about strategy any more. When the day comes that an RTS is actually about strategy and not how fast you can click, my opinion will change.

Civilization V ?

By RTS, I mean real time strategy.  I haven't played Civ 5 yet, but I assumed it was turn based like it's predecessors.

Civ 5 is actually slightly under rated.

It has a few huge problems due to the AI being allowed to cheat to compensate for the fact that the devs couldn't teach it to manage its armies effectively with the 1-unit-per-tile rule, as well as multi-player not allowing you to save and load games correctly, among numerous other issues.

Civilization fans were pretty outspoken about this, so it has not garnered heaping amounts of praise. (instead it garnered heaping amounts of something else)

A few days ago I believe there was a large patch that addresses some of these problems.

Ultimately, the UI is easier to use than Civ4 IMO, and since I bought Civ5 last year, I haven't gone back to play Civ4, which indicates I enjoy it more, I suppose.

[Boiny Bunny]

It might be good to keep some level of objectivity here. Whilst posting about a game that you feel is overrated, is in fact a subjective action, the definition of 'overrated' is not.

To be clear, an overrated game is not a popular game that you don't like. It is a game that received far more praise from others than it deserved.

[The Baconer]

Bioshock.

[88mphSlayer]

goldeneye, turok and perfect dark were both better games

FF7, that game had great music and cinematic presentation, but awful graphics, dull characters and a story that has aged terribly compared to other games in that franchise

[Clover Rider]

88mphSlayer wrote...

goldeneye, turok and perfect dark were both better games

FF7, that game had great music and cinematic presentation, but awful graphics, dull characters and a story that has aged terribly compared to other games in that franchise

FFVII's graphics were fine for the time it came out and how is Cid dull?

[ObserverStatus]

jamesp81 wrote...

1. Bulletstorm. It was fun for one playthrough, but that's about it. On a good note, Jennifer Hale's voice acting was stellar.

2. Any and all MMOs.

3. Anything Call of Duty or Battlefield

4. Warcraft 3. Unfulfilling storytelling

5. Most RTS games. RTS games are about who can spam the most APM, which kind of it makes it not really about strategy any more. When the day comes that an RTS is actually about strategy and not how fast you can click, my opinion will change.

6. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. Frankly, Oblivion was a much friendlier game.

7. Starcraft Brood Wars. Unfulfilling story telling, weak assed interface. Starcraft 2 is 10 times the game.

Starcraft 2 has better storytelling than Broodwar?  Is you trolling?  The multiplayer in starcraft 2 was solid, but the voice acting was so hammy at times it made me want to vomit.

Modifié par bobobo878, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:04 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Ringo12 wrote...

I'll have to add Dragon Age Origins. I am NOT I repeat NOT saying it's a bad game. Just overrated. The story is cliche, it's not what was promised. It didn't feel reminiscent of Baldur's Gate or even dark fantasy. It's an ugly game and nowhere near the complexity of BG1 or 2. No idea why it's called the spiritual successor it felt nothing like imo.

I agree 100% with this.  DAO wasn't a bad game, but it wasn't a game that had the same impact as BG2 and did not succeed it in any way (putting in "Gather your Party?" bits does not make a game a successor).  With their own control over the world DA is set in I expected a lot better from Bioware than what I got, especially since I felt that the main problems with BG games was that it felt often that they were trying to write around the limitations of the world it was set in and so without those limitations I expected more. 

DAO did help me realise what I actually liked about BG2: before DAO I thought it was just the story, but after it I realised it wasn't really the story but the combination of everything.  Its the combination of detailed side quests with a story for each one that made the game great: you felt like you were truly an adventurer travelling the world coming across a vast range of stories that differed from each other greatly, yet were still side quests and so were more a collection of short stories that differed drastically.  Bioware don't write deep stories, they write detailed stories or logical stories when they are not full of plot holes (usually when they are not trying to write epic stories but a side quest that is).  When they are not trying to be badass or morally grey (which they seem to have difficulty with, with them its a choice between either saint or ****** actions) they work fine.  In other words, when they act like a GM (DM for D&D players) they work fine, when they try to act like some "awesome film director" plot holes and railroading ensues. 

They are not film directors, and they need to remember that, they are game makers, possibly a harder craft to write for, and one that they should not be forcing their preferences upon the player...

[88mphSlayer]

Some Geth wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

goldeneye, turok and perfect dark were both better games

FF7, that game had great music and cinematic presentation, but awful graphics, dull characters and a story that has aged terribly compared to other games in that franchise

FFVII's graphics were fine for the time it came out and how is Cid dull?

he had like... 2 scenes, doesn't make up for hours of cloud and sephiroth and aerith and zzzzzzzzzz

also this:



compared to this or this? no thanks

[C9316]

Ocarina of Time
Oblivion
Fallout series
Call of Duty/Battlefield
Final Fantasy series

[xkg]

nvm

Modifié par xkg, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:31 .

[FlintlockJazz]

88mphSlayer wrote...

he had like... 2 scenes, doesn't make up for hours of cloud and sephiroth and aerith and zzzzzzzzzz

also this:



compared to this or this? no thanks

Both of your links are to games developed later (well duh your links are to later Final Fantasies!).  Yes they were on the same hardware but they didn't learn how to make those graphics overnight.  I liked Final Fantasy 8 more than 7 at first, then I finished the first disc and saw how the plot and storyline and, well, pretty much everything, became the biggest pile of ****** I have ever had the displeasure of playing.  Seriously, the first disc seemed to be a completely different game to the rest that followed, and it wasn't like 7 had a deep plot or anything to overcome...

[Clover Rider]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

goldeneye, turok and perfect dark were both better games

FF7, that game had great music and cinematic presentation, but awful graphics, dull characters and a story that has aged terribly compared to other games in that franchise

FFVII's graphics were fine for the time it came out and how is Cid dull?

he had like... 2 scenes, doesn't make up for hours of cloud and sephiroth and aerith and zzzzzzzzzz

also this:



compared to this or this? no thanks

Cid was the only ray of hope left when Cloud was out of the scene.

And sure the games that came out after would look better.

[Ghost Lightning]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

goldeneye, turok and perfect dark were both better games

FF7, that game had great music and cinematic presentation, but awful graphics, dull characters and a story that has aged terribly compared to other games in that franchise

FFVII's graphics were fine for the time it came out and how is Cid dull?

he had like... 2 scenes, doesn't make up for hours of cloud and sephiroth and aerith and zzzzzzzzzz

also this:



compared to this or this? no thanks

But to be fair both those links are to later FF titles. Of course they'd look better. VII was groundbreaking at the time, that's why it is still praised so much (possibly too much). It's the Mario sickness: "Oh it's so classic guy! It must be the best!" 

[ScepticMatt]

Oblivion (vanilla)
GTA IV
Call of Duty
ME2. (Don't get me wrong it's not a bad game but I don't get the "OMZG OMG AMAZING !!!11!")

[foogoo]

jamesp81 wrote...

foogoo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

1. Bulletstorm. It was fun for one playthrough, but that's about it. On a good note, Jennifer Hale's voice acting was stellar.

2. Any and all MMOs.

3. Anything Call of Duty or Battlefield

4. Warcraft 3. Unfulfilling storytelling

5. Most RTS games. RTS games are about who can spam the most APM, which kind of it makes it not really about strategy any more. When the day comes that an RTS is actually about strategy and not how fast you can click, my opinion will change.

6. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. Frankly, Oblivion was a much friendlier game.

7. Starcraft Brood Wars. Unfulfilling story telling, weak assed interface. Starcraft 2 is 10 times the game.

Disagree with all except #1. RTS is not about apm, apm is not a measure of skill and never will be. Most of apm is spam, most of it is useless. You should know that by now. RTS is strategy based so strategy often beats micro. For example starcraft, either rushes or macro will win you the game. Except for warcraft 3 maybe since it's micro intensive while starcraft is macro intensive.  If you can't micro then rts is not for you. It ain't called Real Time Strategy for nothing, real time means speed. If you want strategy only play chess. Warcraft 3 and brood war centers on multiplayer not storytelling. Storytelling is for rpg's. Broodwar is still more balanced that Starcraft 2. Stracraft 2's interface is noobified, maybe that's why you like it. Morrowind > Oblivion too. Oblivion is just eye candy with no flavor. Battlefield > Call of duty. Call of duty is noobified child's play.

I just don't agree.  The best Starcraft 2 players in the world are from South Korea, and South Korean style SC2 play includes massive micro management of units on the battlefield to the detriment of macro play.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not really a strategy game if I have to manage an entire army and individually manage where every damned soldier stand to within two feet.  It becomes a game for caffeine junkies.

SC2's interface is not what I'd call 'noobified'.  It did remove arbitrary limits that made it impossible to even being to manage the kind of armies you could build at max supply.  An RTS is not worth playing seriously if I can't implement the strategy I envision due to a poor interface.  SC2 isn't as bad in this respect as SC1, but it's still not that good.  I really only play Starcraft for the storyline, which I like.

I do strongly favor turn based strategy games, chess being one of the classics of course.

Sorry, Oblivion was a much better game than Morrowind, chiefly because Morrowind included a number of gameplay mechanics that served no real purpose other than to annoy the player.

Koreans are good because they have these training "camps" (actually just a rented apartment) where they do nothing but play starcraft full time in teams. Western "pros" don't do that, they play at home in their room and watch vods, go out party, go to school, mixing their gaming with a normal life. That's because westerners don't take gaming seriously, if they had training camps as well then they can match koreans. If you know "Idra" the amercan zerg player (terran in bw), he went to train in korea for some time and became really good but when he left korea he went back to being "ok". Same with "Huk". It's all work ethic based.

I don't see how you can remove the speed factor in RTS. That would make it Turn Based, a very different genre. Example- Shogun - Total War. Some elements are turn based, although battles are real time. Civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic are turn based.

Depends what rts game/race you are playing. In starcraft all you do is a-click, most of the time you just macro ecomony since economy means huge army and huge army > micro. So to break that, a smart opponent will harass your workers do death so you won't make a huge death ball. All you have to do is fend off harassment and you win. No matter how well a guy micros if my economy (and thus army) is larger I'll crush him him like a flea. Multitasking is key, although I can't say it's easy. It took me years to get better, since there are a lot of lame/strong strats and racial weaknesses, but then after a lot of experience it just becomes instinct reactions.

That's what rts is about, just raw brutality. That's the thrill of rts. Turn based is slow so I get bored with that. RTS Story is "ok" I finished all on brutal, nothing special. Athough mulitplayer is real reason why I bought the game.

Modifié par foogoo, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:55 .

[Manic Sheep]

These are all games I really like I just think the amount of fuss people make about them is ridicules. They are not the best thing ever to grace the earth.
Portal 1 & 2. Fun games that they may be but I don’t understand the hype and really wish people would using memes from them. Yes I love the game and it was funny but  it’s not getting any funnier the more it’s repeated.
Half life 2. Again good but not a gift from god or anything.
Bioshock The atmosphere is good, the writing for the most part is good. I love Andrew Ryan, he made an awesome antagonist and the twist was well executed tho not “the best twist ever”, the combat in general and last few levels sucked IMO. I just don’t see why its held up as the game which proves “games are art”.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:37 .

[MinotaurWarrior]

Planescape torment. I bought this game recently on GoG.com, and was hugely disappointed. I didn't care about "my" character at all, I had no motivation to go on with the main quest, all the dialog came down to "select the option you unlocked by having a large INT / WIS score" and, above all else, it was boring. I might pick it up again at some point, but after the huge chain fetchquest that is the Brothel of Slating Intellectual Lusts, followed by the Sensate hall, followed by being sent to the Godsmen hall, all for what? What's my motivation? To meet some nighthag I don't care about, so that I can "regain" my mortality? What?! Why? Oh, that's right, because its the only way to move the game forward!

It's just stupid.

[wizardryforever]

foogoo wrote...

I don't see how you can remove the speed factor in RTS. That would make it Turn Based, a very different genre. Example- Shogun - Total War. Some elements are turn based, although battles are real time. Civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic are turn based.

Depends what rts game/race you are playing. In starcraft all you do is a-click, most of the time you just macro ecomony since economy means huge army and huge army > micro. So to break that, a smart opponent will harass your workers do death so you won't make a huge death ball. All you have to do is fend off harassment and you win. No matter how well a guy micros if my economy (and thus army) is larger I'll crush him him like a flea. Multitasking is key, although I can't say it's easy. It took me years to get better, since there are a lot of lame/strong strats and racial weaknesses, but then after a lot of experience it just becomes instinct reactions.

That's what rts is about, just raw brutality. That's the thrill of rts. Turn based is slow so I get bored with that. RTS Story is "ok" I finished all on brutal, nothing special. Athough mulitplayer is real reason why I bought the game.

There are RTS games out there who don't emphasize speed.  They downplay the speed factor by making units take a while to build and move slowly.  Thus, while it is still possible to "rush," you don't have to be inhumanly fast to pull it off, nor does the game really encourage rushing.  Good examples include Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire.  Sins is my favorite RTS game of all time (despite its lack of a campaign) because it is very difficult to rush and turtling is actually viable.  Also, micromanagement is really not all that necessary in Sins either, except leveling up your capital ships.  Otherwise it's all macro: planet development, fleet construction, general battle orders, defense building.  It's very large scale and strategic, and yet, real-time.  I'd recommend it to anyone who dislikes how "twitchy" the RTS games have gotten.

[Homebound]

U forgot WoW...

[Chuvvy]

jamesp81 wrote...

1. Bulletstorm. It was fun for one playthrough, but that's about it. On a good note, Jennifer Hale's voice acting was stellar.

2. Any and all MMOs.

3. Anything Call of Duty or Battlefield

4. Warcraft 3. Unfulfilling storytelling

5. Most RTS games. RTS games are about who can spam the most APM, which kind of it makes it not really about strategy any more. When the day comes that an RTS is actually about strategy and not how fast you can click, my opinion will change.

6. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. Frankly, Oblivion was a much friendlier game.

7. Starcraft Brood Wars. Unfulfilling story telling, weak assed interface. Starcraft 2 is 10 times the game.

You, sir, can get ****ed.

[Chuvvy]

C9316 wrote...

Ocarina of Time
Oblivion
Fallout series
Battlefield

You can also get ****ed.

[MrDizazta]

People who make threads like these are only trying to start flame wars.

[foogoo]

wizardryforever wrote...

foogoo wrote...

I don't see how you can remove the speed factor in RTS. That would make it Turn Based, a very different genre. Example- Shogun - Total War. Some elements are turn based, although battles are real time. Civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic are turn based.

Depends what rts game/race you are playing. In starcraft all you do is a-click, most of the time you just macro ecomony since economy means huge army and huge army > micro. So to break that, a smart opponent will harass your workers do death so you won't make a huge death ball. All you have to do is fend off harassment and you win. No matter how well a guy micros if my economy (and thus army) is larger I'll crush him him like a flea. Multitasking is key, although I can't say it's easy. It took me years to get better, since there are a lot of lame/strong strats and racial weaknesses, but then after a lot of experience it just becomes instinct reactions.

That's what rts is about, just raw brutality. That's the thrill of rts. Turn based is slow so I get bored with that. RTS Story is "ok" I finished all on brutal, nothing special. Athough mulitplayer is real reason why I bought the game.

There are RTS games out there who don't emphasize speed.  They downplay the speed factor by making units take a while to build and move slowly.  Thus, while it is still possible to "rush," you don't have to be inhumanly fast to pull it off, nor does the game really encourage rushing.  Good examples include Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire.  Sins is my favorite RTS game of all time (despite its lack of a campaign) because it is very difficult to rush and turtling is actually viable.  Also, micromanagement is really not all that necessary in Sins either, except leveling up your capital ships.  Otherwise it's all macro: planet development, fleet construction, general battle orders, defense building.  It's very large scale and strategic, and yet, real-time.  I'd recommend it to anyone who dislikes how "twitchy" the RTS games have gotten.

You make a good point when mentioning Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire as in slowing down the pace. The problem is you'll need a lot of time playing these.

[Fidget6]

 I agree on Halo. I just don't understand the hype for it. Like at all, not even a little bit. Never have.