Originally Posted by HanSomPa
Originally Posted by Psyren
Compared to what? The stalwarts UT99-UT2004, Doom II, Quake...
Is that like a joke? Have you seen Quake I-IV specifically Quake III Arena? If you call CoD repetitive... Quake should be your hell. What about Quake anyway? It's a boring game. I played all 4 games. The levels are horribly designed, not only can the mazes take you hours to explore AFTER you killed everything, which by the way is extremely mundane and not engaging at all, but the gameplay itselfwas very stale. There was little difference between Quake and Doom. It's like dating twins. Sure there are noticeable big differences here and there, but they look and feel the same in the end, don't they? Okay, bad analogy but you get the idea.Well compared to now the monsters/bosses and weapons of Q1-Q3 are pretty unimpressive, BUUUUUT level design is still pretty solid. Oh, and you forgot one other thing. Those games let u jump, and platform as you please and allowed you to do some really insane platforming feats (chained rocket/grenade jumps ftw). Can't say the same for games today (Press 'A' to herpderp feat that the player cannot do by himself). And yes they were designed in a maze like manner, that was exactly what I was getting at.
And I suppose it's all a matter of opinion, but the skill cap in Q1-Q3 is faaaar beyond any modern CoD title, so i'm part of the camp that ridicules "spray camp & lolstreaks"
I played many games during that time myself, that was my youth. Specifically, Brood War, Warrior Kings, some other random shooting games. I think I did play CS around this time but Im not too sure. Anyway, all of those games were unpolished and released with huge issues that were fixed in later patches. Others were not fixed at all. So when you say, back in my day... yeah well back in those days tons of games sucked. We remember the good ones because everyone remembers the good ones. It's universally true though, that gameplay IS better now than it was back then. Why? Because many gameplay elements simply weren't explored at that time or they weren't possible to simulate due to hardware restrictions.To an extent I agree. They design specs of games regarding ease of play via context help, tutorials, etc. and simply better control schemes are absolutely better than the old days. As an example I loved Dune 2 back in the day, but I seriously doubt I'll play it again, because by today's RTS standard the game is virtually unplayable... Anyway, the point i'm trying to make is that while graphics, interfaces, controls work better than they used to, a lot has been sacrificed in terms of gameplay and depth. In the old days they were limit graphically as well, but they made up for it with amazing gameplay rich in depth and complexity. I honestly doubt I'll see another game like Alpha Centauri or M.A.X.1 or even AOE2 ever again
You know, games that don't move in a straight line, and don't yell at you when you leave "the combat zone". Hell I'd even go so far as to say Delta Force 1, but that's pushing it a tad
. At least you had total freedom of movement :/
That's a personal preference, it has little to do with the actual game quality it self. Besides you probably play DayZ in which case you do have something to play. And that is at the very least, at most you have a ton of games that offer freedom of movement.Actually no I don't, DayZ isn't my type of game. Give me something like that to play in a Single Player or Co-op PvE style and I might get interested. Basically Fallout 3 in post zombie apocalypse setting.
A lot more good games? I beg to differ. There's a lot more media exposure to games these days compared to back in the day, but seriously, the amount of good PS2 games really outnumber a lot of the "good" console games of today. Still there's a lot of games from the 90's-2006 that are better than what we have now.
Well you may be right, I didn't play that much PS2. I only had like maybe... 5 games.
Yes there were a lot of crappy games too, but you're always going to have those.
And with games being "as good as they are these days", the glaring flaws we see today are just as bad if not worse. Worst of all the manpower and funding involved in today's game development faaar exceeds the old days... And yet we see things like Day-1-no-clip-bound-to-key Dead Island levels of fail in this day and age of "good games"
True, the flaws in gameplay we see today are just plain embarassing coonsidering the manpower and funding thrown at game development these days. However, there are still plenty of awesome titles. Specifically, I am looking forward to the next Rome Total War.
Now here is something interesting, I actually play Rome: Total War a lot more than other TW titles. Why? The Mods. That specifically is something that I do hate about new titles. They come locked, and with little modding capability. Yes, I want it back for obvious reasons. So when we say back then, the only thing I truly miss is the open nature of those first pioneers. They let the player base fix what is broken. Nowadays everything comes locked and with little chance to fix anything.And what i love about games from the old days the most (and what we're getting from indie games now), is that love and character and soul that went into those games, and the charm many of the great classics still have. Maybe i'm just jaded, and maybe it's just me being cynical ol' me, but 90% of today's AAA titles are just factory production line pop outs. So many ppl working on separate things, all split up into their own individual teams, disjointed and apart from one another, and all of them forced to conform to the wills of their corporate masters. Sorry, but this is not my idea how games should be made as a work of art. Right now its all hype and about as satisfying as cheap ramen noodles.
And I don't think things are going to be designed for steambox per se. Just looks like its going to be a fancy labeled HTPC with some dev backing really. But w/e. We don't know what Valve are going to do, so all we can do is shout at each other call each other fanboys :/
And what about my logic? In the ideal world, one target platform for gaming would be utopia, but things like corporate greed make this a less-than-ideal solution.
Well I'm not calling you a fanboy, and by your logic I mean your earlier statement that the steambox is going to impact gameplay development. How can that be true when Xbox 360 and PS3 have been out there for ten years, and that very aspect has stagnated? Sure there are plenty of good games, god knows I own over 50 PS3 games but, nothing revolutionary has come out for quite a while. Everything is the same regurgitated crap that we all love and whine about. The only thing that makes it worth playing is the engaging story or immersive experience that we pay 60$ for at launch. Is that wrong? Yes it is, which is why I play my PC far more often than my console. What would I need a steambox for? There is zero need for it. It does nothing.
Btw the fanboy comment was just was me poking fun at half the bickering in this thread, and wasn't directed at anyone. I hardly ever call anyone the F-word unless they prove themselves to be that way inclined
You'd probably the steambox as much as you need an Alienware. Thing is if they price this thing right, and they do a stand up job on the OS and Steam platform itself it could do well. I mean look at it this way, we look at a lot of those overpriced prebuilds and laugh, but we really love the cases themselves (Alienware lol). Now all Valve has to do is make it look nice, pack it with mid-way decent specs and price is accordingly... Remember the Ouya is coming out, with outdated hardware to boot, and we can say the same thing about Ouya. Why do we need Android in a box when we have smartphones?
And i don't get why ppl still fall into that trap of: Buy into hype -> Pre-order/Buy Day 1 for $60 -> Cry precious tears to feed the trolls.
> still falling for the hype
Valve does this for the money, they want people to invest themselves in Steam permanently away from Microsoft. Like I said, a legit tactic but, it does NOTHING for PC gamers. NOTHING. This is strictly to put his business ahead of others. Which is why I hope the steambox crashes and burns. The only thing Gabe is good for is driving the next Half Life out.
It's too bad Valve is turning the way of the very thing we all call "evil" on this forum. Heck, it's game development might be tripleA but it's promoting what we hate about gaming in general. Isn't that wrong?No it's not wrong. I really do feel for and understand a lot of the anti-Steam hate from the staunch defenders, but them pissing and moaning and feeding the pro-Steamers doesn't make them look any better.