kidmystik101 on 27/12/2008 at 03:41
Quote Posted by Aja
Gaming trends of 2008 -- making inaccurate assessments of games you didn't even play. For all its flaws, Gears 2 is not repetitive -- it puts you in a brand new scenario every twenty minutes!
What? COVER AND SHOOT IN AN ABANDONED FACTORY! COVER AND SHOOT UNDERGROUND! COVER AND SHOOT you see where I'm going with this
Anyway,
BIGGEST DISSAPOINTMENT OF 2008 - S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Clear Sky. It could have been fantastic, let down by buggy gameplay, repetetive firefights, enemies that can take 3 bullets to the head then kill you with a feather, and LACK OF MUTANTS FFS.
ercles on 27/12/2008 at 03:50
I guess the point is that this mechanic was so well implemented it never really got old (at least for me). It was a very satisfying game experience. Also, you can simplify the vast majority of games with that logic, it's a retarded argument. Although I agree that the second game tried to take itself too seriously, I thought the over the top aspect of the first games was simply a bit of fun. The biggest problem people have with this game is expecting too much. If you went into Gears expecting Shakespeare then you are an idiot, if you went in expecting a fun fairly brainless game then you should be satisfied. As far as comparing this to other fps's (apart from the fact that this was third person, hurrr) I thought this was a lot more involving and tense than most ones I have played recently. Playing both Halo 3 and Resistance after Gears, the first two games just seemed too easy.
Also, comparing this game to Halo in the hordes of enemies respect is unfair, most of the gunfights in this game boil down to one on one trench warfare. Enemies in Gears take a hell of a lot more killing than Halo
CCCToad on 27/12/2008 at 03:59
I will say that I preferred the first resistance to either game, due to its unique weaponry and documentary-style narration
ercles on 27/12/2008 at 04:21
Sorry, but I lost interest when they introduced that fucking cheap, can fire through walls weapon.
EvaUnit02 on 27/12/2008 at 04:37
Quote Posted by ercles
Playing both Halo 3 and Resistance after Gears, the first two games just seemed too easy.
You obviously weren't playing Resistance on Hard then.
On Hard difficulty, it can be surprisingly unforgiving for a console game. Sluggish movement and imprecise aiming definitely isn't helping matters. The prick developers were really tight with checkpoint placement (I.e. not having one just before a boss battle). On far more than one occasion, I've found myself having to spend 10 minutes or more to fight my through the same sections of a map. The PS3 requires a HDD, there's no excuse to not implement the ability to save anywhere.
ercles on 27/12/2008 at 05:05
To clarify I was referring to the fact that in Gears you don't seem to have a significantly higher amount of health than the basic enemies. I wasn't referring to the "cheap" developer implemented tactics to make a game tougher such as the example you mentioned in resistance, or the final few levels of Halo 3 which consisted of grinding through swarms of fucking flood.
I just enjoyed the fact that there was a genuine feeling of satisfaction even in killing the basic footsoldiers in the game.
Aja on 27/12/2008 at 06:40
Quote Posted by kidmystik101
What? COVER AND SHOOT IN AN ABANDONED FACTORY! COVER AND SHOOT UNDERGROUND! COVER AND SHOOT you see where I'm going with this
Yeah I do; you're assuming based on the first game that the second is no different, but it's obvious you haven't played it. As far as shooters go, there's more variety in Gears 2 than in most. I'm not claiming it's perfect (far from it), but most of the criticism so far has been unfounded.
You guys just need to learn to take this stuff a bit less seriously, maybe even revel in its silliness rather than pretending to be a serious video-game intellectual? (because you totally ruin the image when describing your own favourites)
june gloom on 27/12/2008 at 07:18
The problem, Aja, is that GoW takes itself seriously, yet it's hands down some of the most offensively bad plot and dialogue I have ever seen. I mean I could understand if someone wrote "ten shitloads" while giggling to himself and it was intended to come off as silly and irreverent and even a nod to all those horrible action movies with horrible dialogue, but it wasn't. Defend its gameplay all you want but you can't possibly try to defend its writing. You may as well be defending pedophilia.
vurt on 27/12/2008 at 08:16
Quote Posted by dethtoll
The problem, Aja, is that GoW takes
itself seriously
you just dont understand the style, it's called "noir" .
J/k
Koki on 27/12/2008 at 09:07
Quote Posted by Zillameth
I mean, some bits are just brilliant, like all those sentient robots with thinly veiled desire to destroy all humanity, who try to get around their three laws of robotics as much as possible. Or the radio broadcasts. Or that tiny Vault 101 sidequest you get near the end of game. Or the Liberty Prime.
I would not call these brilliant. I would call these "trying too fucking hard".
