the glory days of video games - Armor Games Community

139	20102

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted March 21, '12 9:39pm UTC

I'd say that's more a method of engagement where you take advantage of the enemy's (poor) position. . . what sAviOr did for the most part was stop a confrontation by risking more than the enemy's army.

Between a rock and a hard place, if you will. And when his opponent is trying to decide what to do, Savior does it for him.

It's quite close, but the targets are different and whilst I can imagine Onagers or Battering Rams being slower than most other units, being taken out by your Hussars (right?), I'd say that's more a problem with the enemy and his travelling, where he shouldn't lose units to something like that.

I bank more on the rapid mobility of my units, rather than the individual stregnth that they have. If you can get Hussars or what have you out there early enough, then my opponent is forced to deal with them and the damage they cause. He uses up resources, which takes away from the ones he can use on defense.

Being as you was quite intensive on cavalry it seems you would struggle taking down walls, so he would have time to have his entire force progress there -- but that does give you the ability to do simultaneous attacks.

The mobility helps me to achieve something similar as Savior: since my army is so mobile, you can't be quite sure where I am. So you get stuck having to account for so many scenarios, simply because I might be there.

Walls aren't too much of a problem. If I can do it correctly, I can effectively 'starve' my opponent in his own fortress. Eventually he'll run out of some resource, which will then be aggrivated by my raiding. Eventually he'll come after me, and I can engage him as I please.

Just watch pro games, it'll help you so much as it did me. I don't play SCII as often as I'd like, but I'm better than most people I know personally even though some of them have played more than 5x as many times as me, purely because I learn something and apply it to my play as fast as I can, and progress without needing to see myself play. I get good reads from intuition and I always act as if the enemy is really good so I don't get caught out (because no strategy is bad if it works).

Once I get a better computer, definately. Once I can get SCii, definately. Big problem is that I'm not familiar with the visuals of the units, so its a bit hard to follow. Figured out what lurkers were pretty quickly, and lings, but thats about it.

It's my brother, who I've seen with his trigger finger and it's not immensely impressive. The accuracy is what I appreciate more from it.

The accuracy is quite impressive. I rewatched the video, and the sound isn't quite right with the video. As it affects all the videos I watch, its a problem on my end. So I'm thinking that might be throwing me off a bit.

I find Losira's fingers much more intimidating

Woah.

I used Longbowmen with micro -- strong against even cavalry if you do it right and especially so if you get a good choke. . . although now I much prefer using Siege Onagers to open up raid locations for my Eagle Warriors or just going full-Turk, building walls and Bombard Towers protected by Bombard Cannons, impenetrable.

My big problem with full-Turk is that its just asking to get a trebuchet used on you. Its why I love using the Byzantines: You can wall up, but then you have calvary on hand to manage that stuff. Never was too fond of Jaisonaries, either.

Recently I've gotten into using the Mongols and castling Mangudai. A hell of a lot of fun when you've got two castles guarding the shallows on a Rivers map.

As for Longbowmen microing, you should try it with the Saracens. Can't name their special unit off the top of my head, but a group of about 20 can take out pretty much anything in a few volleys, and then have the mobility to get away.

[quote]I'd say that's more a method of engagement where you take advantage of the enemy's (poor) position. . . what sAviOr did for the most part was stop a confrontation by risking more than the enemy's army.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBetween a rock and a hard place, if you will. And when his opponent is trying to decide what to do, Savior does it for him.\r\n\r\n[quote]It's quite close, but the targets are different and whilst I can imagine Onagers or Battering Rams being slower than most other units, being taken out by your Hussars (right?), I'd say that's more a problem with the enemy and his travelling, where he shouldn't lose units to something like that.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI bank more on the rapid mobility of my units, rather than the individual stregnth that they have. If you can get Hussars or what have you out there early enough, then my opponent is forced to deal with them and the damage they cause. He uses up resources, which takes away from the ones he can use on defense.\r\n\r\n[quote]Being as you was quite intensive on cavalry it seems you would struggle taking down walls, so he would have time to have his entire force progress there -- but that does give you the ability to do simultaneous attacks.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe mobility helps me to achieve something similar as Savior: since my army is so mobile, you can't be quite sure where I am. So you get stuck having to account for so many scenarios, simply because I [i]might[/i] be there.\r\n\r\nWalls aren't too much of a problem. If I can do it correctly, I can effectively 'starve' my opponent in his own fortress. Eventually he'll run out of some resource, which will then be aggrivated by my raiding. Eventually he'll come after me, and I can engage him as I please.\r\n\r\n[quote]Just watch pro games, it'll help you so much as it did me. I don't play SCII as often as I'd like, but I'm better than most people I know personally even though some of them have played more than 5x as many times as me, purely because I learn something and apply it to my play as fast as I can, and progress without needing to see myself play. I get good reads from intuition and I always act as if the enemy is really good so I don't get caught out (because no strategy is bad if it works).[/quote]\r\n\r\nOnce I get a better computer, definately. Once I can get SCii, definately. Big problem is that I'm not familiar with the visuals of the units, so its a bit hard to follow. Figured out what lurkers were pretty quickly, and lings, but thats about it.\r\n\r\n[quote]It's my brother, who I've seen with his trigger finger and it's not immensely impressive. The accuracy is what I appreciate more from it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe accuracy is quite impressive. I rewatched the video, and the sound isn't quite right with the video. As it affects all the videos I watch, its a problem on my end. So I'm thinking that might be throwing me off a bit.\r\n\r\n[quote]I find Losira's fingers much more intimidating[/quote]\r\n\r\nWoah.\r\n\r\n[quote]I used Longbowmen with micro -- strong against even cavalry if you do it right and especially so if you get a good choke. . . although now I much prefer using Siege Onagers to open up raid locations for my Eagle Warriors or just going full-Turk, building walls and Bombard Towers protected by Bombard Cannons, impenetrable.[/quote]\r\n\r\nMy big problem with full-Turk is that its just asking to get a trebuchet used on you. Its why I love using the Byzantines: You can wall up, but then you have calvary on hand to manage that stuff. Never was too fond of Jaisonaries, either.\r\n\r\nRecently I've gotten into using the Mongols and castling Mangudai. A hell of a lot of fun when you've got two castles guarding the shallows on a Rivers map. :D\r\n\r\nAs for Longbowmen microing, you should try it with the Saracens. Can't name their special unit off the top of my head, but a group of about 20 can take out pretty much anything in a few volleys, and then have the mobility to get away.

offline

TheMostManlyMan

5,872 posts

Chamberlain

Posted March 22, '12 3:12pm UTC

You must've gotten into a clean lobby then. Whenever I tried playing it in the past I would always meet people who could fly, who couldn't die, and those with aim bot. Same thing with World at War.

no i'm pretty sure i didn't i tried several lobbies i think they just cleaned them up somehow and i'm going to check if they did the same to world at war today

offline

GhostOfMatrix

15,595 posts

Bard

Posted March 22, '12 4:52pm UTC

no i'm pretty sure i didn't i tried several lobbies i think they just cleaned them up somehow and i'm going to check if they did the same to world at war today

They can't stop people from hacking or modding their games.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted March 22, '12 6:04pm UTC

how ever you forget 3 of the most inovative FPS series around at the time. wich are Medal of Honor, being about the 1 and most succesfull ww2 fps serie. and the Unreal (tournament) serie fighting whit the quake serie over realy fast style shooters. that together had a over 30million online players at there top time.

Ouch, sorry about that.

I know much of what I know now from playing the games and analysing how they worked, whilst CoD games and etc were still out -- drawing comparisons like that are useful. I'm 15 so "the good old days" are going to be a while for me, but I recognise the significance and advancement previous generations of consoles had, before what I'd say was "the gaming industry solidifying, with major companies consolidating their power, maintaining a lead in the competition and thus becoming what could be considered 'lazy'".

Which also points towards KentyBK's post, if that is indeed referenced at me (either just me or me with a group of others). It's only been research and practice that has brought me to these conclusions, and three years ago was Call of Duty 4 for me so. . . xD

that was for me the glory days of gaming. and it's a shame that there have not been 1 game like that since then =(

I believe one that is familiar in terms of movement (although lacking such consistency) and having a similiar style in weaponry is Tribes: Ascend. Although it lacks such close quarter combat, pickups and etc, it incorporates a free style, fast-paced and precision-requiring playstyle that melds well with the earlier days whilst having traits of more modern games that quite frankly, are the good ones.

Indie Games are a strong way to go, I've made several posts already (with links) about Magicka, Amnesia and more on I believe the primary CoD Thread and other threads. . . it's been a while though (you can find videos of each game, usually on YouTube and furthermore you can find lots of Indie Games -- many of which being good, on Steam).

Between a rock and a hard place, if you will. And when his opponent is trying to decide what to do, Savior does it for him.

Even when a brilliant player instantly makes the decision, sAviOr has shown an astonishing psychological manipulation where he actually overloads the player's physical capability of managing all situations, reaping fantastic rewards that were inconceivable to most and usually deemed a "mistake" by the other player -- because of sAviOr putting "all the things on at the same time".

I bank more on the rapid mobility of my units, rather than the individual stregnth that they have. If you can get Hussars or what have you out there early enough, then my opponent is forced to deal with them and the damage they cause. He uses up resources, which takes away from the ones he can use on defense.

So you play quite clutch? Forcing the enemy to keep burning economy and thus letting you raid him? The main issue I see this being, with Age of Empires is that he won't necessarily use lots of Stone on units, would he? xD

The mobility helps me to achieve something similar as Savior: since my army is so mobile, you can't be quite sure where I am.

Now imagine burrowed Hussars. . . that would be brilliant.

So you get stuck having to account for so many scenarios, simply because I might be there.

It's quite a scary issue, especially being as you could split and have lots of map control as a result -- where even as you have that you can thus take more resources and mount an army that acts very much like Zerg -- inefficient but swells with numbers. I could very easily imagine you decimating afterwards, after backstabbing multiple times (even applying pressure at a wall and making him approach allows you to attack from multiple angles).

Eventually he'll come after me, and I can engage him as I please.

Very nice. I'm not sure what the most effective playstyle is -- as far as I know there was no real professional scene for AoEII but being how defensive prowess exceeds true military force (due to the cheapness and range of building defences), you can take a lot of people by surprise.

Big problem is that I'm not familiar with the visuals of the units, so its a bit hard to follow.

I know what you mean, it felt like a strange control but it doesn't take much to get into -- being someone who originally started with AoM, AoE(II) and C&C Generals. Even moving to Starcraft 1 (which was the one you was watching, being as you mentioned Lurkers) was so easy and it felt natural just playing that game.

If you plan on getting into Starcraft II, there's some basic games you can see that can even boost your intuition (this was Starcraft II Beta, however). The main one coming to mind is JTProg vs Viperskwa.

Things are much different now, but they point out some things that (being a newbie RTS player in terms of smart play) baffled me, and made me think how awesome it was.

Figured out what lurkers were pretty quickly, and lings, but thats about it.

I'm accustomed to SC1 things now but it's harder to understand -- my friend called it "floating pixels" and can't really interpret a Dragoon from a Marine (if you saw the two you'd see how obviously different they are). With that in mind, you cannot possibly make the same mistake in Starcraft II.

As it affects all the videos I watch, its a problem on my end. So I'm thinking that might be throwing me off a bit.

I believe that is part of the video anyway -- either way, that would kill a player in half a second.

Excluding headshots. xD

Never was too fond of Jaisonaries, either.

Even I can't remember the proper name you're referring to. Jassonary or something. . . it's not Jaison though. xD
I remember them mostly from Age of Empires III mind you. Main issue being they're glass cannons. . . you are much better off with cavalry.

Another issue -- a guy who goes with lots of Trebuchet is that they'll likely have Bombard Towers and walls defending them.

Recently I've gotten into using the Mongols and castling Mangudai. A hell of a lot of fun when you've got two castles guarding the shallows on a Rivers map.

Very nice. I'm much more fond of just Black Forest, however. It lets you weave so many entrances, and allows some great play that can take a while. . . although I really would love to try out some other maps that don't require sea battle, if only to truly test the effectiveness of Eagle Warriors.

I really just want to stick with Mayans and Aztecs if anything. One of them has +40HP for the Eagles, whilst another has +4 attack -- I value the +4 attack being as it lets you harass brilliantly.

As for Longbowmen microing, you should try it with the Saracens. Can't name their special unit off the top of my head, but a group of about 20 can take out pretty much anything in a few volleys, and then have the mobility to get away.

Marauders or something. . . They're the ones who throw this weird Scimitar or something, with a range of 4 and are on horseback, correct?

Ah yes, I can see why AoEII would be the glory days for you :P

They can't stop people from hacking or modding their games.

A lot of people claim to see lots of hacking and glitches etc but from my many many hours of playing MW2 and Black Ops I've rarely if ever seen it. Even Call of Duty 4 was great thanks to PunkBuster (thanks for removing that in the sequels >.> ) but ultimately it just astounds me to how much I must've been missing if what people say is true which. . . not sure it is a lot of the time. xD

For now, you may want to watch the best of the best of the best in SCII. These people I would consider MVP, MMA, Stephano, DeMuslim (possibly), NesTea, probably Losira (not seen his play in a while) and some others. Just type in "*Name* vs" and something with them will likely come up.

Good casters (or tolerable) would include:
TotalBiscuit (often with +dApollo)
Day9 (sometimes with +HuskyStarcraft)
HuskyStarcraft (sometimes with +Day9)
PsyStarcraft
HDStarcraft

One thing I think would be lovely for you to watch (and anyone else really) is Day[9] Daily 100.

You mostly just need audio but it's easier / better if you watch him as well. ^^

See you all. :>

- H

[quote]how ever you forget 3 of the most inovative FPS series around at the time. wich are Medal of Honor, being about the 1 and most succesfull ww2 fps serie. and the Unreal (tournament) serie fighting whit the quake serie over realy fast style shooters. that together had a over 30million online players at there top time.[/quote]\r\nOuch, sorry about that.\r\n\r\nI know much of what I know now from playing the games and analysing how they worked, whilst CoD games and etc were still out -- drawing comparisons like that are useful. I'm 15 so "the good old days" are going to be a while for me, but I recognise the significance and advancement previous generations of consoles had, before what I'd say was "the gaming industry solidifying, with major companies consolidating their power, maintaining a lead in the competition and thus becoming what could be considered 'lazy'".\r\n\r\nWhich also points towards KentyBK's post, if that is indeed referenced at me (either just me or me with a group of others). It's only been research and practice that has brought me to these conclusions, and three years ago was Call of Duty 4 for me so. . .  xD\r\n\r\n[quote]that was for me the glory days of gaming. and it's a shame that there have not been 1 game like that since then =([/quote]\r\nI believe one that is familiar in terms of movement (although lacking such consistency) and having a similiar style in weaponry is Tribes: Ascend. Although it lacks such close quarter combat, pickups and etc, it incorporates a free style, fast-paced and precision-requiring playstyle that melds well with the earlier days whilst having traits of more modern games that quite frankly, are the good ones. \r\n\r\nIndie Games are a strong way to go, I've made several posts already (with links) about Magicka, Amnesia and more on I believe the primary CoD Thread and other threads. . . it's been a while though (you can find videos of each game, usually on YouTube and furthermore you can find lots of Indie Games -- many of which being good, on Steam).\r\n\r\n[quote]Between a rock and a hard place, if you will. And when his opponent is trying to decide what to do, Savior does it for him.[/quote]\r\nEven when a brilliant player instantly makes the decision, sAviOr has shown an astonishing psychological manipulation where he actually overloads the player's physical capability of managing all situations, reaping fantastic rewards that were inconceivable to most and usually deemed a "mistake" by the other player -- because of sAviOr putting "all the things on at the same time".\r\n[quote]\r\nI bank more on the rapid mobility of my units, rather than the individual stregnth that they have. If you can get Hussars or what have you out there early enough, then my opponent is forced to deal with them and the damage they cause. He uses up resources, which takes away from the ones he can use on defense.[/quote]\r\nSo you play quite clutch? Forcing the enemy to keep burning economy and thus letting you raid him? The main issue I see this being, with Age of Empires is that he won't necessarily use lots of Stone on units, would he? xD\r\n\r\n[quote]The mobility helps me to achieve something similar as Savior: since my army is so mobile, you can't be quite sure where I am.[/quote]\r\nNow imagine burrowed Hussars. . . that would be brilliant.\r\n\r\n[quote]So you get stuck having to account for so many scenarios, simply because I might be there.[/quote]\r\nIt's quite a scary issue, especially being as you could split and have lots of map control as a result -- where even as you have that you can thus take more resources and mount an army that acts very much like Zerg -- inefficient but swells with numbers. I could very easily imagine you decimating afterwards, after backstabbing multiple times (even applying pressure at a wall and making him approach allows you to attack from multiple angles).\r\n[quote]\r\nEventually he'll come after me, and I can engage him as I please.[/quote]\r\nVery nice. I'm not sure what the most effective playstyle is -- as far as I know there was no real professional scene for AoEII but being how defensive prowess exceeds true military force (due to the cheapness and range of building defences), you can take a lot of people by surprise.\r\n\r\n[quote]Big problem is that I'm not familiar with the visuals of the units, so its a bit hard to follow.[/quote]\r\nI know what you mean, it felt like a strange control but it doesn't take much to get into -- being someone who originally started with AoM, AoE(II) and C&C Generals. Even moving to Starcraft 1 (which was the one you was watching, being as you mentioned Lurkers) was so easy and it felt natural just playing that game.\r\n\r\nIf you plan on getting into Starcraft II, there's some basic games you can see that can even boost your intuition (this was Starcraft II Beta, however). The main one coming to mind is [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUBwRiZ3Xrc]JTProg vs Viperskwa[/url].\r\n\r\nThings are much different now, but they point out some things that (being a newbie RTS player in terms of smart play) baffled me, and made me think how awesome it was.\r\n\r\n[quote]Figured out what lurkers were pretty quickly, and lings, but thats about it.[/quote]\r\nI'm accustomed to SC1 things now but it's harder to understand -- my friend called it "floating pixels" and can't really interpret a Dragoon from a Marine (if you saw the two you'd see how obviously different they are). With that in mind, you cannot possibly make the same mistake in Starcraft II.\r\n\r\n[quote]As it affects all the videos I watch, its a problem on my end. So I'm thinking that might be throwing me off a bit.[/quote]\r\nI believe that is part of the video anyway -- either way, that would kill a player in half a second.\r\n\r\nExcluding headshots. xD\r\n\r\n[quote]Never was too fond of Jaisonaries, either.[/quote]\r\nEven I can't remember the proper name you're referring to. Jassonary or something. . . it's not Jaison though. xD \r\nI remember them mostly from Age of Empires III mind you. Main issue being they're glass cannons. . . you are much better off with cavalry.\r\n\r\nAnother issue -- a guy who goes with lots of Trebuchet is that they'll likely have Bombard Towers and walls defending them.\r\n\r\n[quote]Recently I've gotten into using the Mongols and castling Mangudai. A hell of a lot of fun when you've got two castles guarding the shallows on a Rivers map. :D[/quote]\r\nVery nice. I'm much more fond of just Black Forest, however. It lets you weave so many entrances, and allows some great play that can take a while. . . although I really would love to try out some other maps that don't require sea battle, if only to truly test the effectiveness of Eagle Warriors.\r\n\r\nI really just want to stick with Mayans and Aztecs if anything. One of them has +40HP for the Eagles, whilst another has +4 attack -- I value the +4 attack being as it lets you harass brilliantly.\r\n\r\n[quote]As for Longbowmen microing, you should try it with the Saracens. Can't name their special unit off the top of my head, but a group of about 20 can take out pretty much anything in a few volleys, and then have the mobility to get away.[/quote]\r\nMarauders or something. . . They're the ones who throw this weird Scimitar or something, with a range of 4 and are on horseback, correct?\r\n\r\nAh yes, I can see why AoEII would be the glory days for you :P \r\n\r\n[quote]They can't stop people from hacking or modding their games.[/quote]\r\nA lot of people claim to see lots of hacking and glitches etc but from my many many hours of playing MW2 and Black Ops I've rarely if ever seen it. Even Call of Duty 4 was great thanks to PunkBuster (thanks for removing that in the sequels >.> ) but ultimately it just astounds me to how much I must've been missing if what people say is true which. . . not sure it is a lot of the time. xD\r\n\r\nFor now, you may want to watch the best of the best of the best in SCII. These people I would consider MVP, MMA, Stephano, DeMuslim (possibly), NesTea, probably Losira (not seen his play in a while) and some others. Just type in "*Name* vs" and something with them will likely come up.\r\n\r\nGood casters (or tolerable) would include:\r\nTotalBiscuit (often with +dApollo)\r\nDay9 (sometimes with +HuskyStarcraft)\r\nHuskyStarcraft (sometimes with +Day9)\r\nPsyStarcraft\r\nHDStarcraft\r\n\r\nOne thing I think would be lovely for you to watch (and anyone else really) is [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJztfsXKcPQ&noredirect=1]Day[9] Daily 100.[/url]\r\n\r\nYou mostly just need audio but it's easier / better if you watch him as well. ^^\r\n\r\nSee you all. :> \r\n\r\n - H

offline

GhostOfMatrix

15,595 posts

Bard

Posted March 22, '12 6:47pm UTC

A lot of people claim to see lots of hacking and glitches etc but from my many many hours of playing MW2 and Black Ops I've rarely if ever seen it.

I've never encountered someone hacking in those two CoDs, but whenever I try playing CoD 4 or World at War they're everywhere. Even on zombies mode in WaW.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted March 22, '12 8:48pm UTC

I've never encountered someone hacking in those two CoDs, but whenever I try playing CoD 4 or World at War they're everywhere. Even on zombies mode in WaW.

Do you play console? It'd go a long way towards that -- being as PunkBuster pretty much completely removes hacks and etc from CoD4. The other CoDs I've bared witness to little hacking and such (WaW is not a game I've played or will play).

It's one of the reasons I appreciate Battlefield -- PunkBuster on what? Every game?

. . . No doubt someone will come up with the one game DICE has released (of the BF franchise) that doesn't support PunkBuster, but alas, it's close to accurate at least.

- H

offline

TheMostManlyMan

5,872 posts

Chamberlain

Posted March 22, '12 8:53pm UTC

They can't stop people from hacking or modding their games.

you'd be surprised, with the new nintendo DS or 3ds or something they made it so that if the system detects a mod it will be destroyed beyond nintendo's repair they may have done something like that one of the updates, and xbox recently made you agree to a new contract or something and it may have had something to do with cracking down on modders

offline

Kasic

5,546 posts

Jester

Posted March 22, '12 8:53pm UTC

The glory days were definitely the first gen consoles methinks. That was when the games were rapidly getting better, moving into 3d world environments, having new features and improved graphics, as well as original game concepts.

Nowadays, a lot of the games focus on high end graphics and re-hashing old concepts which are worn and torn from overuse.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted March 22, '12 10:25pm UTC

Nowadays, a lot of the games focus on high end graphics and re-hashing old concepts which are worn and torn from overuse.

What could you come up with that is so original? The only thing you can pull off in that regards is a story and it will have multiple elements that are familiar or outright identical to another. . . DotA is a sub-genre if anything and whilst you can always split and differentiate and create variation the bottom line is that each concept has been met with varying qualities and quantities, the time for such innovation and invention has passed.

High end graphics is a way to go in that sense, however I value Age of Empires Online's cartoony and vibrant graphics style, just as I value Trine 2's or Battlefield 3's brilliant light contrast.

However I do feel that video games now are regressing as opposed to advancing the entire medium, and that's quite upsetting. With that in mind eSports and gaming in general has been rapidly growing and I look forward to a point where games reach a strong rate of progression with gamers being widely accepted (more so than they already are).

- H

[quote]Nowadays, a lot of the games focus on high end graphics and re-hashing old concepts which are worn and torn from overuse.[/quote]\r\nWhat could you come up with that is so original? The only thing you can pull off in that regards is a story and it will have multiple elements that are familiar or outright identical to another. . . DotA is a sub-genre if anything and whilst you can always split and differentiate and create variation the bottom line is that each concept has been met with varying qualities and quantities, the time for such innovation and invention has passed.\r\n\r\nHigh end graphics is a way to go in that sense, however I value Age of Empires Online's cartoony and vibrant graphics style, just as I value Trine 2's or Battlefield 3's brilliant light contrast.\r\n\r\nHowever I do feel that video games now are regressing as opposed to advancing the entire medium, and that's quite upsetting. With that in mind eSports and gaming in general has been rapidly growing and I look forward to a point where games reach a strong rate of progression with gamers being widely accepted (more so than they already are).\r\n\r\n - H

offline

TheMostManlyMan

5,872 posts

Chamberlain

Posted March 23, '12 1:49am UTC

someone was saying that black ops, MW2 and BF2 were all &quotoint and shoot" games yes that is a semi-popular term i guess but please tell me what fist person SHOOTER does not involve pointing or shooting, i think i know what you're talking about and i prefer the term "run and gun". no black ops and MW2 are not pretty much the same game there are many differences. and there is a bit of strategy for MW2 and black ops and there is even more in BF3. i demand an apology on behalf of MW2, black ops and BF3, although i permit you to say whatever you want about MW3

offline

Gamer_Cale

1,370 posts

Nomad

Posted March 23, '12 4:41am UTC

I think the glory days for me were when halo 3 gears of war and cod4 were new and I was new to fps gaming on xbox live multi-player on console before that I only played counterstrike source on pc or other games on single player like halo 1 and 2 baldars gate dark alliance and some other xbox originals which were fun but multiplayer is so much more fun for me I just like being competitive and playing with friends it makes it alot better.

offline

AlderonArmor

210 posts

Blacksmith

Posted March 23, '12 5:34am UTC

Glory days of video games for me was the 90s. We started moving from the 8-bit atari and nes era and into exciting new territory with the snes and the megadrive. Games like Street Fighter 2, Super Mario World, Shining Force, Sonic, to name but a few. The old RPGs were brilliant (stil are, check out emulation and see for yourself.)

Then as you moved further into the decade things got even more exciting as the playstation came out, 3d graphics for the first time, Quake, Final Fantasy 7, Crash Bandicoot, Gran Turismo... fantastic games all setting a new standard.

Then the late 90s happened and the internet really started coming into it's own with the dawn of the PC Gamer (sure PC games have been around before then but it's only really around 97-98 they took off.) Baldur's Gate, Everquest, Ultima, Asheron's Call, it was again, a new exciting turn for the games.

Since the millenium we've had some amazing and innotive games, but none of them would of happened without that big leap forward from 8-bit cartridges to full 3D made in the decade before.

Glory days of video games for me was the 90s. We started moving from the 8-bit atari and nes era and into exciting new territory with the snes and the megadrive. Games like Street Fighter 2, Super Mario World, Shining Force, Sonic, to name but a few. The old RPGs were brilliant (stil are, check out emulation and see for yourself.)\r\n\r\nThen as you moved further into the decade things got even more exciting as the playstation came out, 3d graphics for the first time, Quake, Final Fantasy 7, Crash Bandicoot, Gran Turismo... fantastic games all setting a new standard.\r\n\r\nThen the late 90s happened and the internet really started coming into it's own with the dawn of the PC Gamer (sure PC games have been around before then but it's only really around 97-98 they took off.) Baldur's Gate, Everquest, Ultima, Asheron's Call, it was again, a new exciting turn for the games.\r\n\r\nSince the millenium we've had some amazing and innotive games, but none of them would of happened without that big leap forward from 8-bit cartridges to full 3D made in the decade before.

offline

Deathless950

1,943 posts

Nomad

Posted March 23, '12 6:03am UTC

There are really two reasons I can't stand online console games

1- They have no end, I mean, don't you like the idea to know that one day you'll be done???

2- They get replaced every 3 years

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted March 23, '12 7:50am UTC

no black ops and MW2 are not pretty much the same game there are many differences.

*facedesk*
Really, look at the differences merely from CoD4 to MW2, it went downhill. Then go from MW2 to Black Ops -- it was even worse, not as much difference but even more fail.

and there is a bit of strategy for MW2 and black ops and there is even more in BF3. i demand an apology on behalf of MW2, black ops and BF3,

You're not getting it. I meant what I said and if you consider looking at the UAV to find the flank strategy, then please leave now.

Of course, for BF3 there's a lot of depth you can actually extend your arm to and I did not insult the BF franchise in that respect -- the teamwork elements and the scales of the maps introduces a lot more than CoD.

"There's lots of differences" stands for nothing, because in MW2 Snipers were the overruling weapon, the only ones that could match up were:
1) Shotguns;
2) The ACR and,
3) The Scar-H

The only reasons these could hold up was because Shotgun would be 1-shot 1-kill like the sniper, but you didn't need to quickscope to do so reliably. The ACR and Scar-H always cause the recipient of the shot to have his screen shake radically, making aiming impossible (especially with a sniper).

Aside from that however the Sniper was effective at any range. That's the apex of MW2 balance.

although i permit you to say whatever you want about MW3

I don't need your permission, and MW3 is too similiar to both MW2 and Black Ops -- sure, you may be looking deep into the games but you don't actually do anything productive when it doesn't take much to realize key design issues and poor decision making, especially considering who the games cater to (bad players).

Then let's not forget the lack of dedicated servers (MW2 and MW3 -- don't even attempt to argue that MW3 has dedicated servers please), the Sniper Power (primarily MW2), or other weapons being overpowered (ACR MW2, FAMAS Black Ops and FMG9 MW3, I take it?). If they cannot make a wider range of effective weapons then don't bother having as much as they do now.

Whether or not you was directing your post at me -- I just gave valid reasons either way. The "new details" they introduce in CoD are not beneficial to the game and in each new release they do not fix balance, they just find another weapon to corrupt.

1- They have no end, I mean, don't you like the idea to know that one day you'll be done???

Most people view games as entertainment and thus just time-consumption for when they're not doing something more constructive (however they often take games above a few of those acts). There's also possibility for variation between each game -- especially in Starcraft II (with being one of three races in one of three matchups, that's what? 9 matchups?), or you could consider a game of BF3 -- sixty-four players on a single map, the differences could easily be the players' average skill, where half the time they evade reviving you for no reason.

Or consider the game modes -- whilst I prefer only Conquest (as it's well balanced for the most part and waht the BF franchise has always been based on) there's a lot of differences there too. Then you've maps and etc.

The longevity of multiplayer games is astonishing and I wouldn't underestimate something that could be "mere entertainment", as some people take it to the next step and go into the realm of eSports. Some people view DotA or League of Legends as monotonous for the simple reason that you're there in each game doing a 5v5 -- but with 95 Champions and all the compositions that could come from that, you're looking at one of the fastest growing eSport communities ever!

But they still need to remove Critical Strike Chance.

2- They get replaced every 3 years

So when your high level quality of entertainment is redundant, you get a higher level quality of entertainment. . . right, that sounds awful. Especially since you know, you're actually giving your money and supporting the developers, man that's terrible. :/

Okay, that was sarcasm, except the high level quality of entertainment thing. Be happy we have games, man.

- H

[quote]no black ops and MW2 are not pretty much the same game there are many differences.[/quote]\r\n*facedesk*\r\nReally, look at the differences merely from CoD4 to MW2, it went downhill. Then go from MW2 to Black Ops -- it was even worse, not as much difference but even more fail.\r\n\r\n[quote]and there is a bit of strategy for MW2 and black ops and there is even more in BF3. i demand an apology on behalf of MW2, black ops and BF3,[/quote]\r\nYou're not getting it. I meant what I said and if you consider looking at the UAV to find the flank strategy, then please leave now.\r\n\r\nOf course, for BF3 there's a lot of depth you can actually extend your arm to and I did not insult the BF franchise in that respect -- the teamwork elements and the scales of the maps introduces a lot more than CoD.\r\n\r\n"There's lots of differences" stands for nothing, because in MW2 Snipers were the overruling weapon, the only ones that could match up were:\r\n1) Shotguns;\r\n2) The ACR and,\r\n3) The Scar-H\r\n\r\nThe only reasons these could hold up was because Shotgun would be 1-shot 1-kill like the sniper, but you didn't need to quickscope to do so reliably. The ACR and Scar-H always cause the recipient of the shot to have his screen shake radically, making aiming impossible (especially with a sniper).\r\n\r\nAside from that however the Sniper was effective at any range. That's the apex of MW2 balance.\r\n\r\n[quote]although i permit you to say whatever you want about MW3[/quote]\r\nI don't need your permission, and MW3 is too similiar to both MW2 and Black Ops -- sure, you may be looking deep into the games but you don't actually do anything productive when it doesn't take much to realize key design issues and poor decision making, especially considering who the games cater to (bad players).\r\n\r\nThen let's not forget the lack of dedicated servers (MW2 and MW3 -- don't even attempt to argue that MW3 has dedicated servers please), the Sniper Power (primarily MW2), or other weapons being overpowered (ACR MW2, FAMAS Black Ops and FMG9 MW3, I take it?). If they cannot make a wider range of effective weapons then don't bother having as much as they do now.\r\n\r\nWhether or not you was directing your post at me -- I just gave valid reasons either way. The "new details" they introduce in CoD are not beneficial to the game and in each new release they do not fix balance, they just find another weapon to corrupt.\r\n\r\n[quote]1- They have no end, I mean, don't you like the idea to know that one day you'll be done???[/quote]\r\nMost people view games as entertainment and thus just time-consumption for when they're not doing something more constructive (however they often take games above a few of those acts). There's also possibility for variation between each game -- especially in Starcraft II (with being one of three races in one of three matchups, that's what? 9 matchups?), or you could consider a game of BF3 -- sixty-four players on a single map, the differences could easily be the players' average skill, where half the time they evade reviving you for no reason.\r\n\r\nOr consider the game modes -- whilst I prefer only Conquest (as it's well balanced for the most part and waht the BF franchise has always been based on) there's a lot of differences there too. Then you've maps and etc.\r\n\r\nThe longevity of multiplayer games is astonishing and I wouldn't underestimate something that could be "mere entertainment", as some people take it to the next step and go into the realm of eSports. Some people view DotA or League of Legends as monotonous for the simple reason that you're there in each game doing a 5v5 -- but with 95 Champions and all the compositions that could come from that, you're looking at one of the fastest growing eSport communities ever!\r\n\r\nBut they still need to remove Critical Strike Chance. :)\r\n\r\n[quote]2- They get replaced every 3 years[/quote]\r\nSo when your high level quality of entertainment is redundant, you get a higher level quality of entertainment. . . right, that sounds awful. Especially since you know, you're actually giving your money and supporting the developers, man that's terrible. :/\r\n\r\nOkay, that was sarcasm, except the high level quality of entertainment thing. Be happy we have games, man. :)\r\n\r\n - H

offline

Kasic

5,546 posts

Jester

Posted March 23, '12 8:53am UTC

What could you come up with that is so original? The only thing you can pull off in that regards is a story and it will have multiple elements that are familiar or outright identical to another. . .

I can think of a few things off the top of my head that aren't exactly like anything out there that I know of. Although of course there will be mechanics/things in the game that aren't insanely unique.

I was more of talking about the insane re-selling of games like Halo, CoD, GTA, Mario/Sonic, Starwars, Zelda, etc. Not that the most recent games of these are bad per-say (well, excluding MW3 which is a re-face of MW2, which was a shabby re-face of Cod4)) just that they aren't really much better if any than the games that came out originally. They haven't progressed.

Sure, the graphics are better. Sure, there's more controls. Sure, the game has fancy effects, and sure it has multiplayer. But to this date some of the very best games of all time were those first generation ones which started these chains of games, and the consecutive editions really don't do anything for it aside from make it look smoother.

What has CoD gained in all, what, 8 games of it now? More guns/levels/better graphics/different perks. The core game is the exact same however. Halo? Same thing. Zelda? Yep, same there too (although I may be biased in saying that it declined slower, as MM and WW are both top notch games) Mario/Sonic? I feel like I want to puke whenever I see another one of those games being released. On and on I could go.

There's nothing "new" being added. Boiling it down, each consecutive version is like an update where something feels a tad off when compared to where it started.

[quote]What could you come up with that is so original? The only thing you can pull off in that regards is a story and it will have multiple elements that are familiar or outright identical to another. . . [/quote]\r\n\r\nI can think of a few things off the top of my head that aren't exactly like anything out there that I know of. Although of course there will be mechanics/things in the game that aren't insanely unique. \r\n\r\nI was more of talking about the insane re-selling of games like Halo, CoD, GTA, Mario/Sonic, Starwars, Zelda, etc. Not that the most recent games of these are bad per-say (well, excluding MW3 which is a re-face of MW2, which was a shabby re-face of Cod4)) just that they aren't really much better if any than the games that came out originally. They haven't progressed. \r\n\r\nSure, the graphics are better. Sure, there's more controls. Sure, the game has fancy effects, and sure it has multiplayer. But to this date some of the very best games of all time were those first generation ones which started these chains of games, and the consecutive editions really don't do anything for it aside from make it look smoother. \r\n\r\nWhat has CoD gained in all, what, 8 games of it now? More guns/levels/better graphics/different perks. The core game is the exact same however. Halo? Same thing. Zelda? Yep, same there too (although I may be biased in saying that it declined slower, as MM and WW are both top notch games) Mario/Sonic? I feel like I want to puke whenever I see another one of those games being released. On and on I could go. \r\n\r\nThere's nothing "new" being added. Boiling it down, each consecutive version is like an update where something feels a tad off when compared to where it started.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → Games → the glory days of video games