Slowtrain

Those are some of the best games ever, you silly person.

I was only offended because my name wasn't mentioned. :cool:

As usual with thee sort of threads everybody is just going to name games they personally didn't like regardless fo actual merit or worth. So in that vein I nominate Planescape: Torment on grounds: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8. Yay!

I still play games in 320*240. And the cool thing is, they are still awesome fun to play.

I've had an account at the Bio boards for well, um, years. My post count is three or four, iirc. And all of them were insults. I still get their awesome newsletter though! w00t.

Well, don't say we never gave you anything.

hmmm. I have a copy of Chaos Theory which I've yet to play. Haven't even opened the box actually. One of these days I should do so, maybe. Actually its a little embarassing the number of unopened games sitting on my shelf. KOTOR 1 still has the wrappings on it.

I've lived in big cities all my life so I've never really thought about it. As long as the rats in the subways don't get too big and the alligators stay in the sewers where they belong, I don't think hunting has much purpose anymore. But I guess it doesn't really bother me either. A person's take on hunting probably has a lot to do with where they grow up, I would imagine.

1) I personally hate anti-aliasing. It makes everything, especially text and hud graphics, look slightly blurry. I prefer the tight crisp look of a non-anti-aliased screen. 2)Aliasing is FAR more noticeable on still shots and screen captures than it is when you are running around dodging bullets or leaping off platforms or warping through ftl jumpgates. When you are actually involved in gameplay, you'll never hav e the time to even notice the aliasing effect.

crpg western with some supernatural elements. *faints*

I also have 2 gigs RAM and FEAR runs perfect with all option smax at 1024*768 even on my aging 9800 Pro and now no-longer what it used to be P4 3.4. I never run anything higher than 1024*768 since it looks good enough at that res. I also never run lower than 102*768 cause 3d games start to look like crap below that.

Apparently war and ancient civilations are hot commodities in the computer games market these days. Anyway, I just bought Hammer and Sickle. I've been playing around with it and really its not very compelling so far.

No, you are right and its a good point. A game needs to be evaluated on how well it does what it wants to do. DX and SS2 would both be pretty bland as straight shooters. Not awful, but they would lose the elements that make them special. FEAR, as you say, was never meant to be a CRPG, but, I think, it does try to push FPS "shooter" based gameplay to a more involving level. Single-player-wise, that is. Multi-layer shooters have to be evaluated differently.

I'm not saying its a great game. But it makes a stronger than usual attempt at story and atmosphere than is bothered with in most FPS games, especially ones that class as "shooters". I found the game interesting enough to play despite its overall reliance on standard FPS mechanics. WHich is unusual for me. Well, that can also be interpreted to mean other things than just sequels don't sell any more. ANyway, I don't think sequels or series are inherently any better or worse than "original" games. A fun game is a fun game regardless of whether it is entry number 9 in a series or something wholly unique. Ideally, I think a mix of sequels and originals is generally a nice compromise.

@BW: It doesn't bode well because if a game like FEAR, which does make SOME attempt to create a more interesting FPS dynamic, doesn't sell well then publishers are going to conside that effort wasted time and are going to force devs to churn out more Doom clones.

F.E.A.R was a far above average FPS title, not a DX or SS2 or NOLF but just the next level down. ANd it ran fine at 1024*768 with most graphic options on high on my p4 3.4/ati 9800 Pro. If FEAR got bad sales that desn't bode well for FPS titles becoming more interesting and involved in the future.

I think tatoos are cool...as long as they are on other people.

hah. that's cool. *pummels stockholders*

I updated my video driver for my ATI 9800 Pro then went to replay Bloodlines again and it was running something awful, stuttering all over the place, dropping frames, gah. So I rolled back to the previous drivrer and it was fine again. Obviously this progamming thing is an art not a science.

Most times I'd agree with you, Vis. But in Far Cry the exterior environments WERE part of the gameplay. They made the game better than in would have been both in terms of spectacle and immersion and also tactically. 3d graphics are closing in on the point where they will bring games an entirely new level of realism resulting in an altogether new dynamic of gameplay. Before too long we wil be looking back on such great games as Thief and Deus Ex and System SHock 2 and wondering how we ever could have been so immersed in such plastic, empty gameworlds.

Mostly its just using common sense and acting respectful.

Difficulty is a balance issue not a rules/mechanics issue. One can balance any gameplay system to be nearly impossible or incredibly easy. Regenerating health, stim packs, or non-healable location specific damage, none of it really makes a game harder or easier in and of itself. The point, I would hope, is to balance a game so that it is fun to play. Of course "fun" is that tricky variable that varies from player to player.

not really. If you are regening at 1 point per second and you are taking damage at 20 points per second, assuming 100 health you are dead in 6 seconds. Its about proper balance.

Actually, if given a choice between regenerating health and health packs, I would choose regenerating health. As Hell Kitty points out, neither one is any more or less realistic than the other, and I think regenerating health is far less kludgy than having health packs scattered around a level. And in either case, the point is still having to balance damage received against healing available which makes the game fun; the only difference is in one case you are balancing a RATE of damage received vs healing available in the other case you are balancing a total finite number of damage received vs healing available. To me, the former is a much more interesting and flexible system. Its only when you get to games like Jag2 and Xcom etc where there is a more "realistic" implemenatation of health damage that regenerating health wouldn't work for me.

I agree, but the first time was awesome. Once you know that nothing is actually going to happen, its loses 99% of its entertainment value. However, the first time...woo! I wet myself. :cool: