SubJeff on 15/4/2009 at 22:45
That's not the same thing now is it you dolt?
Who am I kidding? We expect this type of idiocy from you. But dethtoll... :weird:
june gloom on 15/4/2009 at 23:50
Okay, going back and reading over your edit (nice timing there bud), I now have something worth replying to. After a fashion.
Your whole argument seems to be that Thief 3 is fundamentally flawed because of... well, you haven't really described your particular beef (and I can't really guess as to which one because NMA Thiefgen has listed so many things they don't like about it.) But my point is, those "fundamental flaws" do not seriously impede on the game. (Well, except not being able to swim. Kurshok Citadel just didn't feel complete without it.)
SubJeff on 16/4/2009 at 00:04
Well this is descending into "what you didn't like in TDS", which is a little odd but actually in keeping with the thread considering the game.
The poor choice of engine for TDS meant that the stealth mechanics were messed up - a "lean" that was a sidestep that could push you off edges and made you step into light, less smooth walking, no ropes, no swimming, too much combat focus, maps not suited to minor acrobatics/climbing by dint of the editor and the new movement mechanics, gloves that had potential but which were poorly implemented (some might say wasted), and a lockpicking system actually less tension producing than in the originals. It also has my favourite Thief level - The Cradle and great lighting. It's deeply flawed. I campaigned for over a year to get that damn editor but the engine was so borked I gave up and switched allegiance to The Dark Mod (which will be far, far superior).
One of the complaints about BioShock and Assassins Creed is that they promise one thing and give another. I'm not far enough in AC to judge, but BioShock was a mix of awesome and the most fetid of sock waters. The idea, the premise, the setup and the look are just a few roses growing out of a pile of dung.
EvaUnit02 on 16/4/2009 at 01:46
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
MoH:Airborne.
I really enjoyed this game, it's significantly better than MoH:Allied Assault + Breakthrough, TBH. It was harder than fuck though, I'd hate to imagine playing that game with a gamepad.
The collision detection was quite shit too.
MoH:AA was a let down because there were too many missions where you played a spy. I loved the missions where you were apart of big cinematic battles with lots of scripted events; the Call of Duty titles really shine in this regard (except CoD3, which is dreadful).
AA:Spearhead was truly terrific, IMO - very Infinity Ward CoD-esque. Breakthrough on the other hand was poorly designed garbage, with cheap gameplay lengthening devices (ie a shortage of ammo and health pick-ups, enemies rarely dropped any) and boring, bland level design.
The Alchemist on 17/4/2009 at 05:51
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but magazines have come out with detailed info and screenies of AC2. It's set in the renaissance period and it looks pretty sweet. One great thing was that they had side by side comparisons of the actual place (somewhere in Italy I believe) and the screenshots and in several occasions the screenshots looked better. :D A plus is that it looks like AC1 but in a different location. You could say that's a minus, but they promised an extensive fix of all the broken parts of AC1's gameplay, so if you take the AC1 gameworld with their intended fixes and I think you've got quite a winner. Keep your eyes out for this one boys.
2am post plz don't criticize.
Aja on 17/4/2009 at 06:01
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
One of the complaints about BioShock and Assassins Creed is that they promise one thing and give another. I'm not far enough in AC to judge, but BioShock was a mix of awesome and the most fetid of sock waters. The idea, the premise, the setup and the look are just a few roses growing out of a pile of dung.
How do you expect anyone to produce a counterargument to such blistering hyperbole? Well, I would suggest that, in terms of critical evaluation, whatever a piece
promises is far less relevant than what it actually
delivers, but of course that idea won't soothe your hurt feelings over a game that didn't turn out as you'd hoped. I hated Assassin's Creed for some very subjective reasons, but I'd never go online to liken its good qualities to roses in shit. That's just silly (and untrue).
Thirith on 17/4/2009 at 07:53
I played (am playing) both Bioshock and Assassin's Creed at least half a year after they came out, so I was prepared for both of them not living up to the expectations and hype.
Having said that, I'm surprised to find that I am enjoying Assassin's Creed more than I enjoyed Bioshock, which surprises me. In all likelihood, I care more about those things that BS does right but they're also much more compromised by what I think doesn't work in the game.
So while I'd agree with Aja that the roses/shit thing is hyperbolic (this is the internet, after all), I definitely see where SE is coming from.
Aja on 17/4/2009 at 08:00
Quote Posted by Thirith
Having said that, I'm surprised to find that I am enjoying
Assassin's Creed more than I enjoyed
Bioshock, which surprises me. In all likelihood, I care more about those things that
BS does right but they're also much more compromised by what I think doesn't work in the game.
And when you put it that way, Thirith, it sounds so much more
reasonable (not to mention defendable!)
SubJeff on 17/4/2009 at 21:48
Quote Posted by Aja
I hated Assassin's Creed for some very subjective reasons, but I'd never go online to liken its good qualities to roses in shit. That's just silly (and untrue).
I didn't do that though did I Einstein? Seriously, are you just subnormal because if you are and know it just tell us now so we can respond accordingly.
june gloom on 17/4/2009 at 21:53
Christ, Subjeff, who pissed in your cereal?
