171 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

MinotaurWarrior wrote...

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.

Hehe maybe it is not as bad as you have described it but i mostly agree. Nothing special about that game. Especially with all the praise it is getting.

[jamesp81]

bobobo878 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.

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.

Yes, it did.  The storytelling of Brood War was repetitive and unfulfilling.  The storytelling of SC2 was more traditional in some ways (I hesitate to call it "tropeish" because Brood Wars was just as troped as SC2, it's just that the tropes used were different) but it was far more satisfying and enjoyable of a single player experience than Brood Wars.

[jamesp81]

foogoo wrote...

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.

One reason I love Rome: Total War is that the strategic game play is turn based.  The tactical portion is real time, but I'm really, really good at it.  The interface is 1000% better for it than with SC2.  For example, in Rome: TW I don't have to order each soldier around individually to get them into some semblance of a formation.  I simply choose a formation from a list and then click and drag to adjust the depth of ranks.  Rome:TW's interface is arranged so that I can put into action my strategies on the battlefield with minimal fuss.  SC2's interface gets in the way of implementing a strategy.  It also makes economic management impossible.  For example, if someone shows up in my mineral line, I run the workers away to preserve them.  Fine.  I repel the attackers and then just put the workers back to work, right?  Wrong.  I have to manually reassign three workers each to the gas geysers.  Or I forget to do it, because I end up having to deal with some other crisis, and then suddenly I've got no gas.  That's....bull****.  That's designing the interface in such a way that it simply gets in the way of me accomplishing what I know I need to accomplish.

A well made strategy game, regardless of whether it's is real time or turn based, should be arranged in such a manner that the player with the superior strategy wins.  SC2 is not like that, at all.  SC2 is a game where you can literally lose the entire match because you bumped your mouse against the left side of your keyboard and registered a single misclick.  That sort of mechanic is appropriate for fast paced FPSes like Quake; it is not appropriate for anything that claims to be a strategy game.

Defending against early harassment is largely a lost cause.  It's not enough to defend against generic worker harassment, you have to know what kind of harassment is coming.  More often than not, it's not possible to scout that sort of thing, unless you're terran and willing to burn Orbital Command energy on scans instead of MULEs, which is usually not a good idea.

[jamesp81]

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.

Love Sins of a Solar Empire, but it has some issues.  It's plagued by significant balance issues, but yes, the unit AI is arranged such that it helps you rather than gets in your way.  There are some changes to the unit AI that need to be made, and this could be said of almost all RTS games.

If I could write my own RTS game (and hell, maybe I will someday) I would make for damned sure that there was an option to control how the AI behaves in combat.  I would have global AI settings where you could change the default behavior of each individual type of unit, and each control group would have AI settings applied to it that overrode the global settings.

Using SC2 as an example...I'd have an option to set target priorities for your units.  I might be using Marines for air defense, so I might put a command inside their global AI setting box that says "attack air units first".  There would also be some basic formationing in this mechanic for control groups.  For example, if I had an army of marines and marauders and I was worried about baneling attacks, I might have a line in that control group's AI settings that says "marauders stay in front of marines", since Marauders are largely resistant to banelings.

Using Sins of a Solar Empire as an example, I would likely have a line in my disabler cruiser class's AI settings that says "use disabling abilities on heavy cruisers first".  Left to their own devices, disablers tend to target enemy disablers.  Sometimes this is appropriate, but many times it is not.  Another thing I need to be able to do is change the behavior of fighters and bombers, especially fighters.  I need to be able to change my fighters' behavior to something like "protect friendly bombers from other fighters".

[Wereparrot]

The Halo franchise. Call of Duty with aliens; and you can't aim, or at least not in Reach. I'd rather play Call of Duty because I prefer military to sci-fi any time you care to ask.

[HoonDing]

Any game I dislike but is liked by others.

[Seagloom]

virumor wrote...

Any game I dislike but is liked by others.

Whether or not you meant this as tongue-in-cheek, it fits. I find games ae too overrated relative to the environment I spend most of my time in. Around here it feels like the ME series receives far more praise than it deserves. Small wonder since this is the BioWare forums. I could pick any old game I personally found overrated, but it feels pointless. Maybe if I chose a fundamentally *bad* game that is lauded more than it deserves? Meh.

[Varen Spectre]

F.E.A.R. !

In terms of being scary... or creepy... or... frightening. I deliberately played solely in the dark, alone and with headphones. But there was none of the above. Absolutely. None.

And I am not a tough guy - facehuggers in original AvP almost made me scream back then.

Otherwise, it was a good game with excellent A. I..  

[Chuvvy]

I don't think any series is overrated, I think some series aren't for me.

[foogoo]

jamesp81 wrote...

foogoo wrote...

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.

One reason I love Rome: Total War is that the strategic game play is turn based.  The tactical portion is real time, but I'm really, really good at it.  The interface is 1000% better for it than with SC2.  For example, in Rome: TW I don't have to order each soldier around individually to get them into some semblance of a formation.  I simply choose a formation from a list and then click and drag to adjust the depth of ranks.  Rome:TW's interface is arranged so that I can put into action my strategies on the battlefield with minimal fuss.  SC2's interface gets in the way of implementing a strategy.  It also makes economic management impossible.  For example, if someone shows up in my mineral line, I run the workers away to preserve them.  Fine.  I repel the attackers and then just put the workers back to work, right?  Wrong.  I have to manually reassign three workers each to the gas geysers.  Or I forget to do it, because I end up having to deal with some other crisis, and then suddenly I've got no gas.  That's....bull****.  That's designing the interface in such a way that it simply gets in the way of me accomplishing what I know I need to accomplish.

A well made strategy game, regardless of whether it's is real time or turn based, should be arranged in such a manner that the player with the superior strategy wins.  SC2 is not like that, at all.  SC2 is a game where you can literally lose the entire match because you bumped your mouse against the left side of your keyboard and registered a single misclick.  That sort of mechanic is appropriate for fast paced FPSes like Quake; it is not appropriate for anything that claims to be a strategy game.

Defending against early harassment is largely a lost cause.  It's not enough to defend against generic worker harassment, you have to know what kind of harassment is coming.  More often than not, it's not possible to scout that sort of thing, unless you're terran and willing to burn Orbital Command energy on scans instead of MULEs, which is usually not a good idea.

You're saying SC2 needs more automation and less human intervention? That's kind of removes "skill" from the formula. You can still scout early on, it's just a matter of timing and intuition. If you know what buildings he's making, you'll know the units. Like a tech lab on a starport means banshees. The problem is you have to memorize timings, the time in which a particular harassment would come. Like a cloaked banshee harass can come at least at 6min. 6pool at a close spawn, 3-4min. Usually microing the scout helps. Scouting a terran wall is hardest, all you can do is send a unit up the ramp to get vision and maybe sacrificing it as well. If a guy has marines only or zerglings only, possible he could be spending gas on heavy air. Your are blind at certain periods of time early on, that's what gives the thrill of the game and alas for others hate for the game. You can still scout somewhat with terran buildings - just let it fly to enemy base, hallucinations for protoss, and overlords with zerg, before getting better scouts. Defending a harassment early on is autowin for you.

[bussinrounds]

xkg wrote...

MinotaurWarrior wrote...

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.

Hehe maybe it is not as bad as you have described it but i mostly agree. Nothing special about that game. Especially with all the praise it is getting.

   It's not for everybody.

[xkg]

bussinrounds wrote...

xkg wrote...

MinotaurWarrior wrote...

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.

Hehe maybe it is not as bad as you have described it but i mostly agree. Nothing special about that game. Especially with all the praise it is getting.

   It's not for everybody.

Isn't it like that with every single game ever made ?

[Gterror]

Call of Duty.

[Get Magna Carter]

Pretty much everything from Rockstar...
I'm not into Table Tennis and their other games focus on flashy presentation, dubious subject matter and rubbish gameplay.

And then there's Mortal Kombat (gross violence instead of good gameplay)

[Khayness]

All those mainstream sport games, I don't understand why would someone buy the same game with different player names/graphics each year (+ the mandatory championship edition each 4 years). Some racing game franchises aswell, NFS is dead since Porsche Unleashed, let it rest.

CoD and Halo. CoD was good up until the massive MP focus development and before it got the one year treatment.

I've played some Halo, but I just can't get it. ODST was plain horrible, if it wasn't for the alcohol induced co-op session, I don't know how could I've played it for more than 30 minutes. And we finished it in 5 hours. The only unique thing about the series is the setting, but after the first game you've pretty much seen it all.

Modifié par Khayness, 02 juillet 2011 - 10:28 .

[88mphSlayer]

Ghost Lightning wrote...

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!" 

the game had worse 3d graphics than Tomb Raider 2 or Crash Bandicoot 2, both of which came out in 1997

for the matter, it had worse 3d graphics than Tomb Raider 1 or Crash Bandicoot 1 which came out the year prior

none of which is that big of a deal with an rpg for sure, but the rest of the game is very overrated so it doesn't help

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 02 juillet 2011 - 10:35 .

[slimgrin]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Pretty much everything from Rockstar...

But Rockstar makes games that have profound political commentary on American culture. And they don't go the usual sci-fi or fantasy route. Not them. They're too clever for that. They even made a game centered around the old west. Can you imagine!? THE OLD WEST.

THE GENIUS OF IT ALL.

[Get Magna Carter]

slimgrin wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Pretty much everything from Rockstar...

But Rockstar makes games that have profound political commentary on American culture. And they don't go the usual sci-fi or fantasy route. Not them. They're too clever for that. They even made a game centered around the old west. Can you imagine!? THE OLD WEST.

THE GENIUS OF IT ALL.

I'm not arguing about their talent at making movies

I would rather have a game that's good to PLAY

[slimgrin]

Oh I agree with you. I was just being a smart ass.

Modifié par slimgrin, 03 juillet 2011 - 12:22 .

[Get Magna Carter]

I thought you might have been, but felt my view was valid and worth saying either way

plus Marston was either a moron or had a death wish (or both) - neither of which make him an endearing character

[Ruse]

Fable 3.

[Ghost Lightning]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

I'm not arguing about their talent at making movies

I would rather have a game that's good to PLAY

GTA: San Andreas. Not sure there is a game that it's more fun to just fool around in than that one.

[KLUME777]

Biggest this gen would be GTA4, Red Dead Redemption, Assassins Creed, others...

Not CoD. I say this because CoD4 is not overated, it is genuinely a good game. And the others after, actually get a lot of flak.

Most CoD fans i know actually hate Black Ops. MW2 was colossaly panned. World at War, within a month of release, was mostly devoid of players on its multiplayer after most went back to Cod4, and only **** Zombies (lulwat, Na-zi is censored?) kept that game popular (which it should, becuase the original Zombie map was great). Of coarse, they all still get monumental amounts of sales, but the praise is gradually decreasing since CoD4.

MW3 was not the highlight of E3, which surprised me (not that i was looking forward to it, but i thought the general internet would get crazy excited and hyped for it, which didn't happen). Battlefield 3 and Skyrim got more publicity. They were the highlights. Battlefield 3 looks like it could seriously pose a danger to CoD, because it is garnering a lot of positive attention.

My belief is that the next CoD after MW3 will be the last in its style, and after that, the series will either drastically change and evolve or the gaming community will finally depose it.

Modifié par KLUME777, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:14 .

[Rockworm503]

slimgrin wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Pretty much everything from Rockstar...

But Rockstar makes games that have profound political commentary on American culture. And they don't go the usual sci-fi or fantasy route. Not them. They're too clever for that. They even made a game centered around the old west. Can you imagine!? THE OLD WEST.

THE GENIUS OF IT ALL.

obsessed with talking smack about Rockstar at every oppurtunity its sad really.