[QUOTE=Aegis]I'm not sure how you can really call either of these games (franchise's) overrated. Both have proven their selling and staying power, and have both become the model for the way many games of the genre play out (how often did you see three different, yet balanced, races in an RTS?). It's alright that you don't enjoy them, but I'm not sure saying they are overrated is a fair assessment of what they are. The rest, though, I can agree with.[/QUOTE]
As has Counter-Strike and The Sims, yet you agree with me that they are overrated.
I do enjoy Starcraft, but I don't think of it as the best RTS ever as many people do. I simply found it a bit simplistic, and the lack of good unitpacks and conversions as well as less tactical depth and worse gameplay made it inferior in my opinion to games like the much underappreciated Total Annihilation. Yes, Starcraft has great variety and balance, but once you take into accout the plethora of mods created, TA beats it in variety and perhaps balance. Of course, Starcraft's single player is far superior to TA's, but you can only paly the single player campaign so many times.
FF I found repetitive among other reasons (like annoying mini-games). See http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/sep ... ex20.shtml (the hyperlink button isn't working) for some other reasons (but instead of the critisisms applying only to FF7 it applys to most).
What was all the fuss about?
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Unreal is just so strange, you know. I stopped playing First Person Shooters cause it was just too easy. Unreal, however, gave me a lot of work. His 'aiming help' sistem is far worst than Quake, what makes it harder to aim, but very better to kill. Not to mention the skaarj. They are cute. 
DX is very nice indeed - and hard to finish, specially against the augumented folk. Havent played System Shock, only Half Life, but I dont like Half Life much, even though it has better history and consistent storyline for sure.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there are a lot of stuff I appreciate and respect in Unreal; it just didn't hook me though.
System Shock 2 is one of the most unique games I've ever played. I just recently beat it and though Deus Ex is the proverbial "son" of it, they're quite different games. In SS2 you meet maybe 3-4 people (Half of whom die anyways or are dead when you meet them). Yet, many characters had strong personalities, because their story is told through "audio logs", kind of like diaries, and their input helps the whole storyline progress (and gives hints away).
Regarding Starcraft Aegis, it's not a crime if I prefer Age of Empires and Command & Conquer is it?
I think some games you can only fully appreciate if you're a fan of that genre and reviewers, when they say you should "buy this game now", are probably referring to those fans. I can't think of any game that fans of every genre would get addicted to.
@Noober...YES!! I can't believe so many people play CS and for so long! I can't see how someone wouldn't get bored of it after a few months of play.
DX is very nice indeed - and hard to finish, specially against the augumented folk. Havent played System Shock, only Half Life, but I dont like Half Life much, even though it has better history and consistent storyline for sure.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there are a lot of stuff I appreciate and respect in Unreal; it just didn't hook me though.
System Shock 2 is one of the most unique games I've ever played. I just recently beat it and though Deus Ex is the proverbial "son" of it, they're quite different games. In SS2 you meet maybe 3-4 people (Half of whom die anyways or are dead when you meet them). Yet, many characters had strong personalities, because their story is told through "audio logs", kind of like diaries, and their input helps the whole storyline progress (and gives hints away).
Regarding Starcraft Aegis, it's not a crime if I prefer Age of Empires and Command & Conquer is it?
I think some games you can only fully appreciate if you're a fan of that genre and reviewers, when they say you should "buy this game now", are probably referring to those fans. I can't think of any game that fans of every genre would get addicted to.
@Noober...YES!! I can't believe so many people play CS and for so long! I can't see how someone wouldn't get bored of it after a few months of play.
"It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
Perhaps we are looking at games somewhat differently. I'm looking at them as far more than personal enjoyment, but rather, their lasting affect on the gaming industry as a whole. Of all games you mentioned, only two of them revolutionized the game genres.
NOTE: I am not attacking the games you enjoy, or play, I'm just trying to impress upon you how SC and the FF series are no over rated, but do not appeal to all crowds.
Before starcraft, a third race was unheard of. Not only that, but an actual decent stroy line in a RTS was non-existant, especially one that tied in three seperate factions so well, and left no real loose ends. As for converstions, I don't think they should be considered, because, simply put, they are not part of the hype, nor original release, and are something that are added by the die-hard community, often after the initial wave of hype rolls away. In the case of Starcraft, the need of conversions and mods were not needed, because of the work Blizzard had done on the game. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it certainly is not 'over rated'. If anything, it is hands down one of the most spectacular games to be released, simply for the massive following and popularity it has garnered and maintained. As for liking other RTS', that's fine. I enjoy TA myself (though, I like TA:Kingdoms more), and even C&C has it's merits (though, I hate Red Alert 2 with an intense passion).
For Final Fantasy, saying it's over rated is flat out wrong. I'm sorry for this blatant statement, but it is probably one of the longest living, if not the longest, game franchises out there, and it is what every console RPG aspires to be. Square (before they sold out and joined with Enix... Those bastards...) combined many elements to create a masterwork series, in music, gameplay, graphics, and my personal favorite, story. The Final Fantasy series, hands down, lay claim to some of the greatest stories told in the gaming world, taking classic elements, and presenting them in a fashion that has drawn in gamers everywhere. Not only that, but the Final Fantasy series can also lay claim to creating a new wave of RPG gamers, most specifically in North America.
Now, to touch on CS. Simply put, CS is a game that became popular because of the fact Half Life was one of the most pirated games on the market, and CS was a free download. That's how it got it's popularity. It became the poor gamer's game, and eventually, it became better because of that. Now, it's one of those odd phenominia, in which I, and obviously others, cannot understand. I personally would rather play another FPS, then CS, but I won't knock people's choices on what they should play, if they enjoy it.
NOTE: I am not attacking the games you enjoy, or play, I'm just trying to impress upon you how SC and the FF series are no over rated, but do not appeal to all crowds.
Before starcraft, a third race was unheard of. Not only that, but an actual decent stroy line in a RTS was non-existant, especially one that tied in three seperate factions so well, and left no real loose ends. As for converstions, I don't think they should be considered, because, simply put, they are not part of the hype, nor original release, and are something that are added by the die-hard community, often after the initial wave of hype rolls away. In the case of Starcraft, the need of conversions and mods were not needed, because of the work Blizzard had done on the game. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it certainly is not 'over rated'. If anything, it is hands down one of the most spectacular games to be released, simply for the massive following and popularity it has garnered and maintained. As for liking other RTS', that's fine. I enjoy TA myself (though, I like TA:Kingdoms more), and even C&C has it's merits (though, I hate Red Alert 2 with an intense passion).
For Final Fantasy, saying it's over rated is flat out wrong. I'm sorry for this blatant statement, but it is probably one of the longest living, if not the longest, game franchises out there, and it is what every console RPG aspires to be. Square (before they sold out and joined with Enix... Those bastards...) combined many elements to create a masterwork series, in music, gameplay, graphics, and my personal favorite, story. The Final Fantasy series, hands down, lay claim to some of the greatest stories told in the gaming world, taking classic elements, and presenting them in a fashion that has drawn in gamers everywhere. Not only that, but the Final Fantasy series can also lay claim to creating a new wave of RPG gamers, most specifically in North America.
Now, to touch on CS. Simply put, CS is a game that became popular because of the fact Half Life was one of the most pirated games on the market, and CS was a free download. That's how it got it's popularity. It became the poor gamer's game, and eventually, it became better because of that. Now, it's one of those odd phenominia, in which I, and obviously others, cannot understand. I personally would rather play another FPS, then CS, but I won't knock people's choices on what they should play, if they enjoy it.
[QUOTE=Aegis]<snip>
For Final Fantasy, saying it's over rated is flat out wrong. I'm sorry for this blatant statement, but it is probably one of the longest living, if not the longest, game franchises out there, and it is what every console RPG aspires to be. Square (before they sold out and joined with Enix... Those bastards...) combined many elements to create a masterwork series, in music, gameplay, graphics, and my personal favorite, story. The Final Fantasy series, hands down, lay claim to some of the greatest stories told in the gaming world, taking classic elements, and presenting them in a fashion that has drawn in gamers everywhere. Not only that, but the Final Fantasy series can also lay claim to creating a new wave of RPG gamers, most specifically in North America.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
Just because a lot of other people like it - dosen't mean some persons can't find it overrated and hyped.
Just the same as with me and SW:KotOR - which I know many people swear to as the best roleplaying game, and I was dissapointed about.
And so with other games.
You can like/love FF and its influence - others can dislike it, but calling them wrong isn't possible when we talk about oppinions and taste .
For Final Fantasy, saying it's over rated is flat out wrong. I'm sorry for this blatant statement, but it is probably one of the longest living, if not the longest, game franchises out there, and it is what every console RPG aspires to be. Square (before they sold out and joined with Enix... Those bastards...) combined many elements to create a masterwork series, in music, gameplay, graphics, and my personal favorite, story. The Final Fantasy series, hands down, lay claim to some of the greatest stories told in the gaming world, taking classic elements, and presenting them in a fashion that has drawn in gamers everywhere. Not only that, but the Final Fantasy series can also lay claim to creating a new wave of RPG gamers, most specifically in North America.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
Just because a lot of other people like it - dosen't mean some persons can't find it overrated and hyped.
Just the same as with me and SW:KotOR - which I know many people swear to as the best roleplaying game, and I was dissapointed about.
And so with other games.
You can like/love FF and its influence - others can dislike it, but calling them wrong isn't possible when we talk about oppinions and taste
.Insert signature here.
[QUOTE=Aegis]Before starcraft, a third race was unheard of. Not only that, but an actual decent stroy line in a RTS was non-existant, especially one that tied in three seperate factions so well, and left no real loose ends. [/QUOTE]
Starcraft is a good game. Period. But as many people say it's the best RTS, I therefore believe that it is overrated. And when was the last time you had a 6 hour 4 player game in Starcraft?
[QUOTE=Aegis]As for converstions, I don't think they should be considered, because, simply put, they are not part of the hype, nor original release, and are something that are added by the die-hard community, often after the initial wave of hype rolls away. In the case of Starcraft, the need of conversions and mods were not needed, because of the work Blizzard had done on the game. [/QUOTE]
If thats the case, then NWN is one of the worst games ever created. The main reason that it was so good was its toolset (and DM client). It had an extraordinarily boring single player campaign, exceedingly high system requirements, bad graphics, disfunctional DM client and poor netcode. Yet NWN maintains a decent following, all because of the customisability of the game. Certainly that must contribute somewhat to the high score and awards given to NWN. Mods also add a huge element of replayability and allow you to customise the game to your tastes. And either way I believe that TA had superior gameplay spoiled only by the lack of a half-decent story.
[QUOTE=Aegis]For Final Fantasy, saying it's over rated is flat out wrong. I'm sorry for this blatant statement, but it is probably one of the longest living, if not the longest, game franchises out there, and it is what every console RPG aspires to be. Square (before they sold out and joined with Enix... Those bastards...) combined many elements to create a masterwork series, in music, gameplay, graphics, and my personal favorite, story. The Final Fantasy series, hands down, lay claim to some of the greatest stories told in the gaming world, taking classic elements, and presenting them in a fashion that has drawn in gamers everywhere. Not only that, but the Final Fantasy series can also lay claim to creating a new wave of RPG gamers, most specifically in North America. [/QUOTE]
Final Fantasy I was good, but once it started getting to V, VI, VII etc. it became far too repetitive for my likes. Yes, many of the stories were good, but I don't think that the gameplay was that amazing. And I suppose my absolute hatred of consoles and MMORPG's did contribute slightly to my opinion, so I suppose I should withdraw Final Fantasy from my overrated list.
[QUOTE=Aegis]Now, to touch on CS. Simply put, CS is a game that became popular because of the fact Half Life was one of the most pirated games on the market, and CS was a free download. That's how it got it's popularity. It became the poor gamer's game, and eventually, it became better because of that. Now, it's one of those odd phenominia, in which I, and obviously others, cannot understand. I personally would rather play another FPS, then CS, but I won't knock people's choices on what they should play, if they enjoy it.[/QUOTE]
Actually in the begining I quite enjoyed the different style of gameplay that CS offered, and so too did much of the FPS public. And the fact that it was free simply made it better. So once lots of people began to play it, more people started playing it from references and then it became pretty much the official platform for FPS games.
Starcraft is a good game. Period. But as many people say it's the best RTS, I therefore believe that it is overrated. And when was the last time you had a 6 hour 4 player game in Starcraft?
[QUOTE=Aegis]As for converstions, I don't think they should be considered, because, simply put, they are not part of the hype, nor original release, and are something that are added by the die-hard community, often after the initial wave of hype rolls away. In the case of Starcraft, the need of conversions and mods were not needed, because of the work Blizzard had done on the game. [/QUOTE]
If thats the case, then NWN is one of the worst games ever created. The main reason that it was so good was its toolset (and DM client). It had an extraordinarily boring single player campaign, exceedingly high system requirements, bad graphics, disfunctional DM client and poor netcode. Yet NWN maintains a decent following, all because of the customisability of the game. Certainly that must contribute somewhat to the high score and awards given to NWN. Mods also add a huge element of replayability and allow you to customise the game to your tastes. And either way I believe that TA had superior gameplay spoiled only by the lack of a half-decent story.
[QUOTE=Aegis]For Final Fantasy, saying it's over rated is flat out wrong. I'm sorry for this blatant statement, but it is probably one of the longest living, if not the longest, game franchises out there, and it is what every console RPG aspires to be. Square (before they sold out and joined with Enix... Those bastards...) combined many elements to create a masterwork series, in music, gameplay, graphics, and my personal favorite, story. The Final Fantasy series, hands down, lay claim to some of the greatest stories told in the gaming world, taking classic elements, and presenting them in a fashion that has drawn in gamers everywhere. Not only that, but the Final Fantasy series can also lay claim to creating a new wave of RPG gamers, most specifically in North America. [/QUOTE]
Final Fantasy I was good, but once it started getting to V, VI, VII etc. it became far too repetitive for my likes. Yes, many of the stories were good, but I don't think that the gameplay was that amazing. And I suppose my absolute hatred of consoles and MMORPG's did contribute slightly to my opinion, so I suppose I should withdraw Final Fantasy from my overrated list.
[QUOTE=Aegis]Now, to touch on CS. Simply put, CS is a game that became popular because of the fact Half Life was one of the most pirated games on the market, and CS was a free download. That's how it got it's popularity. It became the poor gamer's game, and eventually, it became better because of that. Now, it's one of those odd phenominia, in which I, and obviously others, cannot understand. I personally would rather play another FPS, then CS, but I won't knock people's choices on what they should play, if they enjoy it.[/QUOTE]
Actually in the begining I quite enjoyed the different style of gameplay that CS offered, and so too did much of the FPS public. And the fact that it was free simply made it better. So once lots of people began to play it, more people started playing it from references and then it became pretty much the official platform for FPS games.
"Heya! Have you been to Baldur's Gate? I've been to Baldur's Gate... Oops, stepped into something. Have you stepped into something?"
[QUOTE=Xandax]Just because a lot of other people like it - dosen't mean some persons can't find it overrated and hyped.
Just the same as with me and SW:KotOR - which I know many people swear to as the best roleplaying game, and I was dissapointed about.
And so with other games.
You can like/love FF and its influence - others can dislike it, but calling them wrong isn't possible when we talk about oppinions and taste .[/QUOTE]
You're right, opinions and tastes do vary, and I have no problem with people not liking, or enjoying games (I, myself, bash Final Fantasy 8 on a regular basis ), but at the same time, not enjoying a game, and calling it over rater are two seperate things, because, as is pointed out, a game can receive a high/low rating, and still be enjoyed/disliked.
A game being over rated would entail that it does not deserve the praise heading it's way. In many of the cases mentioned in this thread, the praise is not overly warranted. In the case of Starcraft and Final Fantasy, though, it is foolish to think, regardless of one's personal taste in games, to say those games are over rated, especially considering how many aspects of those games are attempted to be emulated.
@Noober: As for NWN, I can't agree me. It is over rated, and had I gotten my way, initially, GB would be sporting a much more scathing review of the game. NWN was hyped to no end, and failed to deliever on many of the things it promised. The fact that it took the community to make it good is already a bad sign, and in my opinion, a bad sign in any game that has a mod community that makes the game worth buying. A game should be good based on its merits, not the merits of what people do with the game afterwards.
As for TA, it was praised by many people, but it was knocked, with valid reasons. It was also compared heavily to both Starcraft and Command and Conquer, with Starcraft taking the prize for doing right everything that should be in an RTS.
As for saying the Final Fantasy games were far too repetitive after 5, I question how much of them you really played, considering 5 is when they started really switching the gameplay up, making some drastic changes to each one, and how they played, following it. But, that's a different matter.
Lastly, I'd hardly call CS the official platform for FPS. IF it was, it would be the game being used for benchmarks, and comparisons in the gaming industry, not Quake
Just the same as with me and SW:KotOR - which I know many people swear to as the best roleplaying game, and I was dissapointed about.
And so with other games.
You can like/love FF and its influence - others can dislike it, but calling them wrong isn't possible when we talk about oppinions and taste
.[/QUOTE]You're right, opinions and tastes do vary, and I have no problem with people not liking, or enjoying games (I, myself, bash Final Fantasy 8 on a regular basis
), but at the same time, not enjoying a game, and calling it over rater are two seperate things, because, as is pointed out, a game can receive a high/low rating, and still be enjoyed/disliked.A game being over rated would entail that it does not deserve the praise heading it's way. In many of the cases mentioned in this thread, the praise is not overly warranted. In the case of Starcraft and Final Fantasy, though, it is foolish to think, regardless of one's personal taste in games, to say those games are over rated, especially considering how many aspects of those games are attempted to be emulated.
@Noober: As for NWN, I can't agree me. It is over rated, and had I gotten my way, initially, GB would be sporting a much more scathing review of the game. NWN was hyped to no end, and failed to deliever on many of the things it promised. The fact that it took the community to make it good is already a bad sign, and in my opinion, a bad sign in any game that has a mod community that makes the game worth buying. A game should be good based on its merits, not the merits of what people do with the game afterwards.
As for TA, it was praised by many people, but it was knocked, with valid reasons. It was also compared heavily to both Starcraft and Command and Conquer, with Starcraft taking the prize for doing right everything that should be in an RTS.
As for saying the Final Fantasy games were far too repetitive after 5, I question how much of them you really played, considering 5 is when they started really switching the gameplay up, making some drastic changes to each one, and how they played, following it. But, that's a different matter.
Lastly, I'd hardly call CS the official platform for FPS. IF it was, it would be the game being used for benchmarks, and comparisons in the gaming industry, not Quake
[QUOTE=Aegis]You're right, opinions and tastes do vary, and I have no problem with people not liking, or enjoying games (I, myself, bash Final Fantasy 8 on a regular basis ), but at the same time, not enjoying a game, and calling it over rater are two seperate things, because, as is pointed out, a game can receive a high/low rating, and still be enjoyed/disliked.
A game being over rated would entail that it does not deserve the praise heading it's way. In many of the cases mentioned in this thread, the praise is not overly warranted. In the case of Starcraft and Final Fantasy, though, it is foolish to think, regardless of one's personal taste in games, to say those games are over rated, especially considering how many aspects of those games are attempted to be emulated.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the oppinon of overrated isn't the same as disliking/liking a game.
But people can still have individual "overrated" oppinions about games, other likes and even tries to emulate. Just because people copy something, dosen't mean what they copy from, is not overrated.
I've never played FF, so I can't comment directly on that one.
But generally speaking - concepts can become repetitive throughouth series, and if the concepts are copied, then this repetitiveness would only increase.
Now throw into the mix a large group of very loyal fans - and you a good chance for hyped games, that indeed could proove overrated to many.
The emulating of concepts from a game, is not a stamp of approvale where the (original) game can't be called overrated.
Actually - in my oppinion - emulating concepts from a game, has more to do with the number of fans of the game then the quality of said game.
But anyways - overrated is also a personal oppinion, and therefore - you still can not say that somebody thinking FF is overrated is wrong.
), but at the same time, not enjoying a game, and calling it over rater are two seperate things, because, as is pointed out, a game can receive a high/low rating, and still be enjoyed/disliked.A game being over rated would entail that it does not deserve the praise heading it's way. In many of the cases mentioned in this thread, the praise is not overly warranted. In the case of Starcraft and Final Fantasy, though, it is foolish to think, regardless of one's personal taste in games, to say those games are over rated, especially considering how many aspects of those games are attempted to be emulated.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the oppinon of overrated isn't the same as disliking/liking a game.
But people can still have individual "overrated" oppinions about games, other likes and even tries to emulate. Just because people copy something, dosen't mean what they copy from, is not overrated.
I've never played FF, so I can't comment directly on that one.
But generally speaking - concepts can become repetitive throughouth series, and if the concepts are copied, then this repetitiveness would only increase.
Now throw into the mix a large group of very loyal fans - and you a good chance for hyped games, that indeed could proove overrated to many.
The emulating of concepts from a game, is not a stamp of approvale where the (original) game can't be called overrated.
Actually - in my oppinion - emulating concepts from a game, has more to do with the number of fans of the game then the quality of said game.
But anyways - overrated is also a personal oppinion, and therefore - you still can not say that somebody thinking FF is overrated is wrong.
Insert signature here.
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
well, for purely spiteful reasons, I now dislike Ground Control. I'll admit it's a very good game, but it appears unable to run on machines with a version of DirectX higher than 8.
Here where the flattering and mendacious swarm
Of lying epitaths their secrets keep,
At last incapable of further harm
The lewd forefathers of the village sleep.
Of lying epitaths their secrets keep,
At last incapable of further harm
The lewd forefathers of the village sleep.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Yeah, truth, three races.
[/QUOTE]
The first RTS that offered three sides for you to choose among was Dune II. It was also the first RTS (1992, I think), and was subsequently remade, a few years back, as Dune 2000. You got to choose whether to play as House Atreides, Ordos, or Harkonnen. Depending upon which of the three you choose, the mission types were slightly different, and you faced off against one of the other two (or both) in later missions. It wasn't a bad game at all, with pretty decent AI.
I can't say there were many 3-sided RTS games after that, though. Westwood set a standard, and a lot of companies all too typically tried to make uninventive clones. The next 3-sided one might have been Starcraft.
[/QUOTE]
The first RTS that offered three sides for you to choose among was Dune II. It was also the first RTS (1992, I think), and was subsequently remade, a few years back, as Dune 2000. You got to choose whether to play as House Atreides, Ordos, or Harkonnen. Depending upon which of the three you choose, the mission types were slightly different, and you faced off against one of the other two (or both) in later missions. It wasn't a bad game at all, with pretty decent AI.
I can't say there were many 3-sided RTS games after that, though. Westwood set a standard, and a lot of companies all too typically tried to make uninventive clones. The next 3-sided one might have been Starcraft.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]<snip> Depending upon which of the three you choose, the mission types were slightly different, and you faced off against one of the other two (or both) in later missions. <snip>[/QUOTE]
Actually - in some of the latter missions (the last two IIRC - been a long time since I played Dune 2), you would also face off against the Emperors Sarduka(sp?) troops, which were a "side" of its own, with its own base and all, like the two non-player controlled houses.
So possible, one could argue, that although there "only" where 3 playable houses - there were 4 active sides in the game; Artredis, Harkonnen, Ordos and the Emperor.
(although they non-player controlled, all ganged up on you, and therefore could be concived as only 1 side).
Actually - in some of the latter missions (the last two IIRC - been a long time since I played Dune 2), you would also face off against the Emperors Sarduka(sp?) troops, which were a "side" of its own, with its own base and all, like the two non-player controlled houses.
So possible, one could argue, that although there "only" where 3 playable houses - there were 4 active sides in the game; Artredis, Harkonnen, Ordos and the Emperor.
(although they non-player controlled, all ganged up on you, and therefore could be concived as only 1 side).
Insert signature here.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]Actually - in some of the latter missions (the last two IIRC - been a long time since I played Dune 2), you would also face off against the Emperors Sarduka(sp?) troops, which were a "side" of its own, with its own base and all, like the two non-player controlled houses.
So possible, one could argue, that although there "only" where 3 playable houses - there were 4 active sides in the game; Artredis, Harkonnen, Ordos and the Emperor. [/QUOTE]
Very true! And those lesser houses you didn't align with would ultimately align against you as well, if I recall correctly.
So possible, one could argue, that although there "only" where 3 playable houses - there were 4 active sides in the game; Artredis, Harkonnen, Ordos and the Emperor. [/QUOTE]
Very true! And those lesser houses you didn't align with would ultimately align against you as well, if I recall correctly.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Thing about Dune 2 though, was that it wasn't as mainstream as Starcraft was. I mean, AFAIK, gaming hadn't really taken off yet. I hadn't even heard of Dune 2 until awhile ago when I was looking for some abandonware (don't worry, nothing illegal, no warez). I looked at it and was kind of thinking, "So that's C&C's daddy...whoa." So for a lot of people it and C&C are like the greatest fathers of RTS gaming (of course, now that we've had a Dune 2 lecture, we all know that they share that throne).
Completely unrelated, but has anyone been pretty decent at one RTS but completely sucked at another no matter how hard you've tried (or at any genre)? I mean, probably the main reason why I like Age of Empires and C&C more than Starcraft is because I could actually play them half decently. Starcraft, I could get through the campaigns, but whenever I played custom or multiplayer I got absolutely worked over. I dunno if that's just me, but for some reason I can play certain games in a genre but can't play others.
Completely unrelated, but has anyone been pretty decent at one RTS but completely sucked at another no matter how hard you've tried (or at any genre)? I mean, probably the main reason why I like Age of Empires and C&C more than Starcraft is because I could actually play them half decently. Starcraft, I could get through the campaigns, but whenever I played custom or multiplayer I got absolutely worked over. I dunno if that's just me, but for some reason I can play certain games in a genre but can't play others.
"It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Thing about Dune 2 though, was that it wasn't as mainstream as Starcraft was. I mean, AFAIK, gaming hadn't really taken off yet.
There were more major league gaming magazines, more reviews of the games, a greater diversity of genres and a wider distribution of PC game sales at that time than there are now. If you doubt this, take a look at the Home of the Underdog site, and compare 1992 game developers and releases with today. Or just ask me to discuss some of the titles I reviewed at the time. If you can stay awake through the list, you'll find out just what you missed in 1992.
There were more major league gaming magazines, more reviews of the games, a greater diversity of genres and a wider distribution of PC game sales at that time than there are now. If you doubt this, take a look at the Home of the Underdog site, and compare 1992 game developers and releases with today. Or just ask me to discuss some of the titles I reviewed at the time. If you can stay awake through the list, you'll find out just what you missed in 1992.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]
There were more major league gaming magazines, more reviews of the games, a greater diversity of genres and a wider distribution of PC game sales at that time than there are now. If you doubt this, take a look at the Home of the Underdog site, and compare 1992 game developers and releases with today. Or just ask me to discuss some of the titles I reviewed at the time. If you can stay awake through the list, you'll find out just what you missed in 1992. [/QUOTE]
Really? How come? I had no idea, as far as I knew games are more "in" than they ever have been.
BTW - Cut me some slack with '92, I was only 4 back then ...but go ahead and list away, I've got plenty of time.
There were more major league gaming magazines, more reviews of the games, a greater diversity of genres and a wider distribution of PC game sales at that time than there are now. If you doubt this, take a look at the Home of the Underdog site, and compare 1992 game developers and releases with today. Or just ask me to discuss some of the titles I reviewed at the time. If you can stay awake through the list, you'll find out just what you missed in 1992.
[/QUOTE]Really? How come? I had no idea, as far as I knew games are more "in" than they ever have been.
BTW - Cut me some slack with '92, I was only 4 back then
...but go ahead and list away, I've got plenty of time. "It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=The Z]Really? How come? I had no idea, as far as I knew games are more "in" than they ever have been.
BTW - Cut me some slack with '92, I was only 4 back then ...but go ahead and list away, I've got plenty of time. [/QUOTE]
4? You whippersnapper! Why, I oughta thrown my false teeth atcha!
The process of development become far more expensive, as games grew more sophisticated and especially, as visuals ramped up under GUIs. On top of that, software retailing chains started charging far, far more than ever before. Finally, large corporations without any interest whatsoever in gaming became aware that PC games were a potentially Excellent Investment. The combination of these three factors forced a lot of small and medium-sized publishers and developers out of business in the mid and late 90s. Simply put, the margin for error in producing a failure vanished, as did the ability to survive on modestly successful titles.
I'm not going to give you a list of those games--go look 'em up at Home of the Underdogs. But I will say that many of the best titles ever published appeared back then: Civilization and Railroad Tycoon, Master of Orion, StarQuest, all the fine KOEI PC-based strategy games (Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Nobunaga's Revenge, Balor of the Evil Eye, etc), The Magic Candle series, Starflight II, the SSI RPG games, the best of Origin Systems' titles, Might and Magic III-V--the list is really huge. People were still experimenting with what could be done in a PC game. Chris Crawford, who created a host of genres, still hadn't been turned off by the dumbing down and standardization of games. Will Wright was just developing his first SimCity. Sid Meier was a quiet kinda guy working for Microprose, and bringing in his mother's fantastic chocolate chip cookies to work.
There were no dead times of the year for new games: you'd expect a steady shipment of 20-30 titles per month, with perhaps 40-50 titles each month in the holiday season. The industry was in a boom phase, making money easily and trying out new ideas. E3 was started up after COMDEX screwed the games companies over, and filled four sprawling conference main floors with PC booths. Nowadays, they fill one, consoles have a second, and the fringe items get a smaller third.
Incidentally, many of the items over at Home of the Underdogs are abandonware, and available for download. Check out the list of their Hall of Belated Fame, along with their mini-reviews and screens. There's plenty of gold in those products, and if you want my opinion of RPG, strategy or sim titles, I'll help where I can.
BTW - Cut me some slack with '92, I was only 4 back then
...but go ahead and list away, I've got plenty of time. [/QUOTE]4? You whippersnapper! Why, I oughta thrown my false teeth atcha!
The process of development become far more expensive, as games grew more sophisticated and especially, as visuals ramped up under GUIs. On top of that, software retailing chains started charging far, far more than ever before. Finally, large corporations without any interest whatsoever in gaming became aware that PC games were a potentially Excellent Investment. The combination of these three factors forced a lot of small and medium-sized publishers and developers out of business in the mid and late 90s. Simply put, the margin for error in producing a failure vanished, as did the ability to survive on modestly successful titles.
I'm not going to give you a list of those games--go look 'em up at Home of the Underdogs.
But I will say that many of the best titles ever published appeared back then: Civilization and Railroad Tycoon, Master of Orion, StarQuest, all the fine KOEI PC-based strategy games (Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Nobunaga's Revenge, Balor of the Evil Eye, etc), The Magic Candle series, Starflight II, the SSI RPG games, the best of Origin Systems' titles, Might and Magic III-V--the list is really huge. People were still experimenting with what could be done in a PC game. Chris Crawford, who created a host of genres, still hadn't been turned off by the dumbing down and standardization of games. Will Wright was just developing his first SimCity. Sid Meier was a quiet kinda guy working for Microprose, and bringing in his mother's fantastic chocolate chip cookies to work.There were no dead times of the year for new games: you'd expect a steady shipment of 20-30 titles per month, with perhaps 40-50 titles each month in the holiday season. The industry was in a boom phase, making money easily and trying out new ideas. E3 was started up after COMDEX screwed the games companies over, and filled four sprawling conference main floors with PC booths. Nowadays, they fill one, consoles have a second, and the fringe items get a smaller third.
Incidentally, many of the items over at Home of the Underdogs are abandonware, and available for download. Check out the list of their Hall of Belated Fame, along with their mini-reviews and screens. There's plenty of gold in those products, and if you want my opinion of RPG, strategy or sim titles, I'll help where I can.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Babylonian Gods have false teeth?
Ah. The infamous "Corporations". Is it just me or are they behind everything that's bad in the world?
Just to add a sidenote, I think the corporations are also take out small businesses outside of PC gaming. I mean, the Olympics are becoming an excuse to lay out ad after ad after ad of massive businesses, while the small business that's been surviving in-town only for the last 10 years is kicked out.
Anyways...back then was the golden age of gaming? And I missed it?
Ah. The infamous "Corporations". Is it just me or are they behind everything that's bad in the world?
Just to add a sidenote, I think the corporations are also take out small businesses outside of PC gaming. I mean, the Olympics are becoming an excuse to lay out ad after ad after ad of massive businesses, while the small business that's been surviving in-town only for the last 10 years is kicked out.
Anyways...back then was the golden age of gaming? And I missed it?
"It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Anyways...back then was the golden age of gaming? And I missed it?
No, but you did miss what was probably the golden age of small developer's gaming. Most of the defining creativity that established genres and the interactive concepts behind computer gaming are gone now, though there are still great games being made. There are simply fewer of 'em because of the resources required in development, and they aren't defining new genres so much as refining the visuals and interface, etc.
No, but you did miss what was probably the golden age of small developer's gaming. Most of the defining creativity that established genres and the interactive concepts behind computer gaming are gone now, though there are still great games being made. There are simply fewer of 'em because of the resources required in development, and they aren't defining new genres so much as refining the visuals and interface, etc.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
There are simply fewer of 'em because of the resources required in development, and they aren't defining new genres so much as refining the visuals and interface, etc.[/QUOTE]
And this is what I miss from that area.
Playing innovative games. I remember first time I booted up Civilization - damned I didn't leave the computer or noticed the clock, from 14.00 to 02.00 litterally, and could hardly sleep afterwards because it was so gripping, and I just wanted to get through "next turn".
It is a feeling that has all but died out, sure you can still get entertained from games, but "back then" (*sobbing* Getting nostalgic), there was a *feel* to play games that is much lacking these days.
This innovative stage of course had to slow/die down, but I miss it tremendously. I would give up much graphic and sound to get back into the gameplays. (and I somehow feel sorry for people that didn't get to experience this feel )
Annoying that I can't really get the "underdog" site to work proberly (no images are shown, and can't download either) because I've been hunting some of the old games (Origin's for instance)
There are simply fewer of 'em because of the resources required in development, and they aren't defining new genres so much as refining the visuals and interface, etc.[/QUOTE]
And this is what I miss from that area.
Playing innovative games. I remember first time I booted up Civilization - damned I didn't leave the computer or noticed the clock, from 14.00 to 02.00 litterally, and could hardly sleep afterwards because it was so gripping, and I just wanted to get through "next turn".
It is a feeling that has all but died out, sure you can still get entertained from games, but "back then" (*sobbing* Getting nostalgic), there was a *feel* to play games that is much lacking these days.
This innovative stage of course had to slow/die down, but I miss it tremendously. I would give up much graphic and sound to get back into the gameplays. (and I somehow feel sorry for people that didn't get to experience this feel
)Annoying that I can't really get the "underdog" site to work proberly (no images are shown, and can't download either) because I've been hunting some of the old games (Origin's for instance)
Insert signature here.