Games the majority love but you think are crap

Fable and it's sequels. I don't get it.

Born Stellar wrote:Yeah....but I don't see how that's relevant to the controls of HL2 not being outdated...

They did it deliberately. That's what he's saying. It's not dated at all, it's an alternative to having instant access to grenades and a melee, two of the major components of the modern FPSes decline in quality.

Surely if I was holding a grenade in my hand I could hit someone with it? I bet it'd really hurt too!

Like I said HL2 made me sick so I never spent much time with it. It sure sounds crappy though. I certainly dodged that bullet.

Why is this time lag necessary? It's not like decision making isn't a factor when using a grenade/melee in games like Halo, in fact it is very much so. Maybe they thought it'd be too easy if players could use them both so easily, in fairness I can't really imagine the HL2 AI putting up much of a fight if they were.

Jenuall wrote:
Suffocate Peon wrote:
HSH28 wrote:
Suffocate Peon wrote:ican'tbelievrinks said resident evil4noooooooo

Its a less ridiculous game to hate than Half Life 2.

Anyway.

This seems innocuous until you think about it. Resident Evil 4 elevates itself into another echelon of amazingess. Hating it is not understandable in any regard. I can think of lots of acclaimed tv shows or music or films that I think is understandable if some people don't like them because they might want something from them that they don't deliver. But even then...if something is that well made, even if it's not to your personal taste, you can enjoy it. Or you can enjoy some aspects of it that are the best of its kind. 3 reasons why someone might not like RE4: no strafe/run while shooting, no quick weapon change, not like old Resident Evil.

It's abnormally consistently original and amazing in its set pieces, art direction, enemies, weapons, and attention to detail. And it's pacing. You can start the game for the second time and play up to the lake boss and it wouldn't feel like 2 hours worth of game because each section segues into the next with no padding or transitional passages of play, or irritating puzzles or difficulty spikes or aimless trekking. Half-Life 2 has all of those things. It's hopeless at creating set pieces that surprise and are exciting and original. Attack helicopters are not that. More spider things that jump at you are not that. Resident Evil 4 creates places and then somehow is able to take you to new unexpected areas while you journey through them. Its enemies belong to their environments. I hate how lazy Half-Life 2 is with that. RE4 is linear, but doesn't feel so because you occasionally backtrack and take different routes. Those first few hours are so so perfect, like its director had gone through every single space that you walk through and really thought about whether it added anything. Half-Life 2 has plenty of pointless corridors and alleyways and grey dull rooms and brown boxes. It does it to break up play. In RE4, they thought; we need to do the same, you need variety, you need to feel like you're collecting and building up your supplies so when you reach incredible enemies you feel like you've got a chance. So it's entirely worthwhile. And they still thought; this isn't quite enough, lets sometimes surprise them with a snake that jumps at them, that if they're able to kill will give them more money. Half-Life 2 is grueling and horrible, but people like lots of action so mistake this for being exciting. Only the Japanese could have made RE4 as good as it is, because only they would be so humble as to think sections of brilliant gameplay could be improved upon. It doesn't need to be that good that often, it doesn't need an ending credits as classy as that, it doesn't need the best upon completion bonus mode ever, it doesn't need to personalize the El Gigantes when they're introduced later on in the game. But all those things elevate it to a place that is untouchable. It's a game where everything in your line of sight is there to be shot at but they manage to contextualize the enemies and turn them into individuals who have a personality and home. They think it adds something for you to see the El Gigante be introduced by being pulled in by a bunch of men who can't handle it's power. Rather than it just standing there hopelessly, waiting for you to attack it. In a game as silly as it is, it means something to the purpose of playing the thing if you believe everything in the game existed before you came along. It always always puts you in a place and then introduces the enemy.

Half-Life 2 is as awful as it is because it's a game made by people who view themselves as geniuses who see it upon themselves to deliver to gamers a masterclass in game design. Lets do commentaries so we can tell everyone how we ached over the decision of whether that dull generic character should wear an orange coat or a purple coat and miss the fact he's still dull and generic. If they're not in a position to make great games then it's unfair to hate what they produce, but the admiration for them puts them on some kind of pedestal as developers who can do anything they want. And then we get THAT.

edit: probably unhealthy levels of love for RE4

Couldn't disagree more.

I found RE4 to be dull, poorly executed and tedious.

It's abnormally consistently original and amazing in its set pieces, art direction, enemies, weapons, and attention to detail. And it's pacing.

The set pieces were pathetic, sub Shenmue button bash-athons. The art direction was hideous - utterly derivative and entirely bland. The enemies? What was there to like? The weapons were just the standard fare. Can't say the attention to detail stood out for me - certainly not in the way it did in Half-Life.

Half-Life 1 and 2 are phenomenal games and I would happily only play these two games for the rest of time so long as I never have to go near RE4 again.

I don't believe a word of what you've just written. If people are going to say stuff, provide examples. Define tedium for me. Because to me it's hiding behind a wall, being shot to gooseberry fool by a cool looking turret gun, whilst you have to jump out and fire your rocket launcher in the most simplistic approach to battle there is: you shoot me, I shoot you. You do that an awful lot. In Call of Juarez, isn't there an option to shoot out from behind a wall. I always wondered why something like that but better implemented wasn't in modern First person shooters. The gun fights in Red Dead Revolver and Manhunt were superb because of this addition.

Both RE4 and Metroid Prime have limiting controls that change the way you'd normally play a game of that type. But it's like the inflexibility doesn't matter when you work with the controls rather than against them. All the little things you do, like 180 degree quick turns (RE4), and jumping across gaps as you aim your gun and shoot downwards (MP) become more satisfying the more you use them. I feel more limited by a lack of zoom in Half-Life 2, i don't even like the [large] aim reticule that's always on screen. It's one of numerous things about the game that they lazily overlook as unimportant. But zooming in with your gun adds a level of interactivity, it's too uninvolving not being able to do it. Halo has its flaws, but its controls are superb. Moving, jumping, melee-ing feels weighty and satisfying. Ragdoll physics are a thing that just replaces individual memorable death animations for essentially none at all. Nothing of merit or of note. It's like taking away your impulse to shoot stuff and be accurate. That's what you do throughout, and it's like the most overlooked part. It's an FPS, just throw some more helicopters at them, they'll love this!

Throwing grenades in Half-Life 2 is total gooseberry fool. You throw like a girl. I've watched sections of the game that defy belief. Those bits where a gun turret will rise from the floor and before they settle, you've got a split second to throw in a grenade in the hole, or else they shoot you to death before you even have time to move. You have like two grenades and two gun turrets, and grnnnnhgjgj dead. Load again! gngngngnggm strawberry floating missed agrhhjjjjkk. Load again! Wow. I am amazed people forgive this degree of tedium in a game. It goes way beyond awful into something more punishing. My definition of tedium is: being made to do fiddly pointless things such as this. It's just a gun turrent, visually it's just a box. It's a box in a grey room. There's lots of these, lots of these in dull grey rooms. It's like being in hell. Again, amazed people tolerant it, and, gasp, enjoy it. But fair enough. Best game ever ha! wow.

Tineash wrote:That just sounds like excuses from a 3rd rate developer. I mean, it doesn't even have regenerating health!? It's not 1999 anymore!

Regenerating health is terrible and whoever came up with the idea needs to be shot. It's one of the reasons I really dislike most modern FPS games. What's the point of health when you can just pop around a corner and hide for a few seconds to get it all back if you're low? At least HL2 made you actually look for top ups.

Drumstick wrote:
Tineash wrote:That just sounds like excuses from a 3rd rate developer. I mean, it doesn't even have regenerating health!? It's not 1999 anymore!

Regenerating health is terrible and whoever came up with the idea needs to be shot. It's one of the reasons I really dislike most modern FPS games. What's the point of health when you can just pop around a corner and hide for a few seconds to get it all back if you're low? At least HL2 made you actually look for top ups.

It's just so much better, yeah? It's quite lame to have big boxes on the ground that restore your health, it's so unrealistic. And why should I get stuck in the later bit of a level just because I played the first bit badly? Games that don't have regenerating health are just dumb and old fashioned now :lol:

It's just like iron sights, yeah? Someone invented them, probably Call of Duty 2, and now everyone agrees that they're brilliant and should be in every game. I played HL2, and when I pressed LT and I didn't look down the scope of my rifle, I got all confused.

Drumstick wrote:
Tineash wrote:That just sounds like excuses from a 3rd rate developer. I mean, it doesn't even have regenerating health!? It's not 1999 anymore!

Regenerating health is terrible and whoever came up with the idea needs to be shot. It's one of the reasons I really dislike most modern FPS games. What's the point of health when you can just pop around a corner and hide for a few seconds to get it all back if you're low? At least HL2 made you actually look for top ups.

I'm alright with the health system in HL2, with it's top ups and frequent checkpoints and whatnot, but I'm not a huge fan of the Perfect Dark style health where there aren't even any health packs anywhere, and if you die you've gotta do the entire level again. It's probably the only thing I don't really like about PD.

Still, I don't get why there's no butt-of-the-rifle melee in HL2. It's not like that's really unrealistic...

Drumstick wrote:
Tineash wrote:That just sounds like excuses from a 3rd rate developer. I mean, it doesn't even have regenerating health!? It's not 1999 anymore!

Regenerating health is terrible and whoever came up with the idea needs to be shot. It's one of the reasons I really dislike most modern FPS games. What's the point of health when you can just pop around a corner and hide for a few seconds to get it all back if you're low? At least HL2 made you actually look for top ups.

*Sigh*

Regenerating Health doesn't make aything easier. Not only does being 'able to run and hide' (take cover) make sense for a shooting game. Good luck strawberry floating doing it when you have intelligent AI chasing you the strawberry float down. A Covenant Zealot can be an absolute nightmare to take down, and you're not just going to be able to pop in and run away if they're hanging out in a group. They're way more formidable than any other enemies I've seen in an FPS game.

Tineash wrote:
Drumstick wrote:
Tineash wrote:That just sounds like excuses from a 3rd rate developer. I mean, it doesn't even have regenerating health!? It's not 1999 anymore!

Regenerating health is terrible and whoever came up with the idea needs to be shot. It's one of the reasons I really dislike most modern FPS games. What's the point of health when you can just pop around a corner and hide for a few seconds to get it all back if you're low? At least HL2 made you actually look for top ups.

It's just so much better, yeah? It's quite lame to have big boxes on the ground that restore your health, it's so unrealistic. And why should I get stuck in the later bit of a level just because I played the first bit badly? Games that don't have regenerating health are just dumb and old fashioned now

I don't know about boxes and stuff, but I prefer the health system used in the TimeSplitters games. You get a full life bar at the start of a level and that's your lot, with various body armours scattered around.

I think the regeneration system in games with extended levels like Halo makes sense, but I don't like overly long levels either.

The following series are not especially good.

God of War (boring, repetative, plot ruined by entirely unlikeable and unsympathic main character)
Gears of War (boring, repetative, dull aesthetic design and terrible plot)
Metal Gear Solid (poorly implemented gameplay, terrible plot)

Something Fishy

Final Fantasy games.
The Shivering Isles.

Agreed on Zelda TP. Tried to like it, bored stiff. I tried OOT when off ill back in 98 too and couldn't get into that at all either (though i didn't game at all at the time so probably didn't give it much of a chance).

Resistance. Pretty rubbish and does much better than deserved as it's exclusive I suspect.

Mario anything. The wife likes it but just can't find anything to enjoy. I'm not into platformers at all though.

GTA series. Don't like any of it. Did like Red Dead though, maybe the cowboy world made it easier for me to enjoy, better story and much nicer characters.

Last edited by Delusibeta on Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tineash wrote:That just sounds like excuses from a 3rd rate developer. I mean, it doesn't even have regenerating health!? It's not 1999 anymore!

...

*whoosh*

Half Life 2 was released in 2004, pretty much at the same time as Halo 2, which popularised the modern form of regenerating health. (Halo 1 AFAIK had a health bar with regenerating shields, which is slightly different to the current form that's blighting FPSes and causing the enforced linearity in levels, alongside trying to make a "cinematic" experience)

Also, asking for regenerating health in a Half Life game is like asking for all the guns to be removed in a Call of Duty game: it won't work and all the fanboys will burn your house down.

Halo was already out by then, so they'd already seen the way of the future. Or, they could have patched it in. People would have understood.

Tineash wrote:Halo was already out by then, so they'd already seen the way of the future. Or, they could have patched it in. People would have understood.

I see that you didn't read my post.

Whatever, I think you're just jealous that more people play Halo than Half Life. They haven't made a new Half Life for 7 years, so even the developers know it's not that popular.

Tineash wrote:It's quite lame to have big boxes on the ground that restore your health, it's so unrealistic.

Whereas recovering from being shot 20 times in the stomach simply by taking cover for a while is ultra-realistic?

I think you'll find that's explained fully in the award-winning Halo novels.

Tineash wrote:I think you'll find that's explained fully in the award-winning Halo novels.

I don't mind it in Halo, as you're wearing Power Armour so at least it makes a modicum of sense. It makes literally no sense in Call of Duty or any FPS where you're, you know, not wearing power armour.

People heal man. Just cos they aren't pussies about being shot doesn't make it unrealistic. :lol:

Games the majority love but you think are crap

Who is online

Affiliates