icemann on 10/11/2013 at 16:30
Hmm. Reading this pages worth of posts, I'm at odds with half the games people haven't liked.
Thief 2 I actually liked a lot more than Thief 1. The story just pulled me in (especially once the Mechanists showed up and made their presence felt), and it felt much more like you were a Thief and the world just seemed more alive. I did quite like Thief 1 but the 2nd game just drew me in more.
I've yet to finish off Thief 3 even though I quite enjoyed it. Have to play that again at some point.
Note that I've played through Thief 1 & 2 once, tried playing through Thief 3 several times.
Half-Life 2 I loved to death. The only things I would fault it on is that the 1 hour tech demo video (released a year before the game came out if I remember right) had way more cooler stuff in it than what ended up making it into the finished game. Other than that, there was so much stuff that was left unexplained that had me going "what the hell happened between Half-Life 1 & 2?". I get where most of the aliens came from, but then how in the hell did the combine come about / come from? If there had been more back story it would have been much more fleshed out. I'm sure that was the intent from a design perspective but its always been one of those things thats annoyed me about HL2.
I still go and play through Half-Life 1 & 2 every few years.
And lastly I actually enjoyed Heart of The Swarm MUCH more than Wings of Liberty. Wings just lacked much of the typical RTS gameplay that was so common in the first game + its expansion and quite often instead went for more varied levels that more often than not didn't have you building up bases, sending out troops to take out enemy bases etc, where as in HOTS it does it for the majority of the expansion. HOTS to me was much more of what I identify with Starcraft. The rpg elements were much better integrated into the game as well, and complement it.
Wings a fair percentage of the time felt more like playing an adventure game rather than a RTS. That said I still did enjoy Wings very much.
EvaUnit02 on 10/11/2013 at 19:19
Quote Posted by Thirith
Half-Life 2 = Christopher Nolan.
Haha, are you serious? Half-Life 2 = Damon Lindelof. "Let's make up shit as we go along."
HL2 vanilla has MUCH more in common with Call of Duty (Modern Warfare 2 at least) than you give it credit for. It's very evident that they thought of "cool scripted cinematic set-pieces", mission ideas and tech demo-esque shit to show off their new engine (eg physics seesaw puzzles) first and then finally half-arsedly connected them with an appalling excuse of a narrative thread.
Angel Dust on 10/11/2013 at 21:49
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Oooh I've been really curious about it, with a rather interesting premise and general good things I heard. Was tempted to get it, but with my lack of patience for P&Cs that's probably a better candidate for a watching LP.
Surely if you're interested in the premise and don't like P&Cs, and IHNMAIMS is a pretty bad one at that, the best option is to just read the short story?
zacharias on 11/11/2013 at 04:36
Muz has already done this but really..Jason Moyer's take on Thief 2 is a bit odd. If the first 5 levels are 'about average for a Thief level', then surely by definition they are not meh..? (Meh suggests uninspired/below average)
For the record, I'd say: First level is truly meh (understandable, it's a tutorial), Shipping and Receiving is a great level, Framed is pretty tight and interesting, Ambush/city level is probably the best put together level in the game from an architectural pov (bit of a shame the gameplay is just a 'go to point A then B'), Eavesdropping is small but again pretty tight and with a new activity. Overall it's a pretty solid first third of the game.
2nd third: The bank mission for me is not a believable space, Blackmail was a bit meh apart from the twist, Courier is re-used space (fine but not that exciting). But then you have arguably the two best levels in the game, Trail of Blood and LoTP (I maintain that LoTP, whilst great and my favourite level, is obviously unfinished though - look at the architecture around Angelwatch). Still though, a good 2nd third but a bit uneven.
Personally I like Precious Cargo, but after that there's not much I love about the final four missions of Thief 2. I'd say it's this final third that really goes downhill.
To a certain extent I'd say that's true with Thief 1 also though. Most of the classics are in the early or middle stages I'd say.
I don't really understand the derision aimed at Unreal 2. It was playable enough I thought, although nothing great. I liked some of the environments (that bridge level springs to mind). I never played the first though so had zero expectations.
As for the topic, I'd say the Arse Creed series might fit the bill for me; after Thief some aspects of the gameplay are so dumbed down it's ridiculous (climbing and sneaking should never be do-able via auto pilot like this, is my feeling); So yeah I don't really like the gameplay however I still had to admire the great world building. Never finished any of them though..they do get tedious after a while.
SubJeff on 11/11/2013 at 08:00
I quit playing AC1 after the second 'assassination'.
If I'm an assassin how come my first two missions culminate in a cut scene that stops the assassination and forces me into that awful melee combat?
Looks nice though.
Thirith on 11/11/2013 at 09:05
I mostly played these games for the great worlds (and they are great, especially those of the Ezio era); I never compared them to Thief, because there's little there to compare. Since I enjoy faffing about in a world that looks and feels real and that's markedly different from other game worlds, I enjoyed even AC3, though to a lesser extent. However, anyone who wants compelling gameplay first is likely to be disappointed, because that's simply not where the games' strengths lie. Gameplay-wise, the best elements were probably the climbing puzzles in the AC2 games.
I do hear good things about Black Flag, though. Once it comes down in price I'll be happy to check it out.
Muzman on 11/11/2013 at 09:28
Quote Posted by zacharias
I don't really understand the derision aimed at Unreal 2. It was playable enough I thought, although nothing great. I liked some of the environments (that bridge level springs to mind). I never played the first though so had zero expectations.
That's pretty much my review. It's trying so damn hard though. The name and the budget do create certain expectations. You can play through a Chrome or a Chaser and cheerfully declare it a solid 6.5 game and worth a look if you like that sort of thing. U2 is clearly trying to be so much more than that. Its firmly planted in the middle of several styles and shooter eras and serves none of them as well as it wants to. I think I could actually feel the level of expectation as it had to address graphical spectacle from the old game, the slower shooting trend of more recent stuff, the smaller levels that went with that generation and what it would take to cram it into the Xbox eventually; Characters and conversations; Scripted stuff and overhearing conversations from your Half Life's and NOLFs. Black guy who doesn't jive talk. Sexy but depressed women. It's having a go at everything. It's kinda sad how mostly it falls flat.
Anyway, there's loads of console stuff I would put in this category too but I can't claim to have finished them/played them to a great extent. All their great artistry in design and animation ain't enough most of the time.
faetal on 11/11/2013 at 10:45
Quote Posted by Thirith
I mostly played these games for the great worlds (and they are great, especially those of the Ezio era); I never compared them to
Thief, because there's little there to compare. Since I enjoy faffing about in a world that looks and feels real and that's markedly different from other game worlds, I enjoyed even
AC3, though to a lesser extent. However, anyone who wants compelling gameplay first is likely to be disappointed, because that's simply not where the games' strengths lie. Gameplay-wise, the best elements were probably the climbing puzzles in the
AC2 games.
This. Admittedly, I bounced off of the first game
twice, but the third time I really was in the mood for it, plus I had bought ACII in a sale and wanted to play that afterwards. Unfortunately, I loved the second game so much that I immediately bought Brotherhood and Revelations and ACIII when I found them cheap and went straight into Brotherhood after completing ACII. I got burned out and Brotherhood is sitting unfinished on my installed games list. I want to pick it back up (especially now that I'm a bit handy with a 360 controller - thanks Dark Souls), but not sure if I can be bothered. Brotherhood feels so gamey and fragmented compared with ACII - like the whole game is just a map filled with mini-games. The story feels almost inconsequential.
Thirith on 11/11/2013 at 10:50
It's a shame - all of the Assassin's Creed games have things they do brilliantly, and there's some very interesting stuff happening in them in terms of story and characters, but they have deeply split personalities. Next to each intriguing character point there's one that's downright idiotic, and for each cool twist or fascinating development there are plot points that are deeply dumb.
I burned out on Revelations and AC3, and before I set foot in the universe again I need time to play other, better games. However, once I've had a break from AC, I'm certain I'll enjoy Black Flag... at least for the first 2/3 of the game.
icemann on 11/11/2013 at 12:20
If you weren't a fan of Brotherhood then don't ever play Revelations. AC2 and Brotherhood was the best the series got. After that it all went down hill.
