I will have to admit STALKER was glitchy as hell, but when you modded it never tried MP though.Fat_Swinub wrote:
Laughing at all the people who think STALKER and CS are bad because they're awful at playing them.
Yeah it had quite a few bugs but nothing game breaking. It suffered from lack of polish the most but saying it's bad because you can't aim at people is dumb.
Well the original pistol was bloody awful. You could carefully aim every shot in the mag and it wouldn't hit a guy 20 feet away. At all. All the while your health is running down.
But I found that it was much easier to use if I didn't use ironsights at all and just emptied my clip as fast as I could instead of carefully aiming each shot. You have enough ammo to pull it off and it kills enemies far more quickly.
Anyway you get good weapons soon enough so the guns didn't bother me at all in STALKER. You end up with a beast of a G36 too .
But I found that it was much easier to use if I didn't use ironsights at all and just emptied my clip as fast as I could instead of carefully aiming each shot. You have enough ammo to pull it off and it kills enemies far more quickly.
Anyway you get good weapons soon enough so the guns didn't bother me at all in STALKER. You end up with a beast of a G36 too .
Last edited by Spidery_Yoda (2009-01-06 09:39:58)
Played in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R tournament, at I31. Right when the game came out, was buggy as shit. We were one match away from winning 2 x 8800GTX which at the time were just out. Team we got beat by exploited at the time a bug that was out, if bullets hit your left arm they did no damage, so they were doing crazy sideways jumping. So got a grudge against the game, might be better now. But I would never pay a penny for it.Fat_Swinub wrote:
Laughing at all the people who think STALKER and CS are bad because they're awful at playing them.
Worst Multiplayer is easy for me: either of the two Syphon Filter games for the PSP. The problem with online gaming on a portable is that it's easy to hack and glitch, and the developers don't do shit about it because once they release the game they're done with it, no patches or anything. So in both of these two multiplayer modes, it's not about getting better or using skill, it's about who can cheat the best. I was excited to play at first because you could gain points and rank up and unlock new weapons, but the starting weapons are so shit and the later guns are so powerful that you don't even stand a chance unless you're playing against another noob like yourself who ALSO doesn't cheat.
Oh yeah, and worst of all, in one of these games, in order to even gain any experience, you have to enter into a ranked match (balanced teams with at least 2v2), and NO ONE can quit the game. Plus, you have to stay for TWO rounds, not just one. So it's nearly impossible to fulfill those conditions, especially with all the cheaters and unbalanced play going on. Who wants to stick around for another ass-kicking by some 10yo who cheats?
Worst Singleplayer: Matrix the Path of Neo. It started off ok, and had some cool parts. But for most of the game it was just button mashing and shitty graphics, shitty storyline, shitty everything. The ending boss battle was the shittiest ever. I got it used at Gamestop for like $5 and I really just played it to fucking finish it. I had rented it once and gotten pretty far and I really just wanted to beat the game. It was like I was a sadist, I was torturing myself playing this shitty game, but I just HAD to finish it.
Oh yeah, and worst of all, in one of these games, in order to even gain any experience, you have to enter into a ranked match (balanced teams with at least 2v2), and NO ONE can quit the game. Plus, you have to stay for TWO rounds, not just one. So it's nearly impossible to fulfill those conditions, especially with all the cheaters and unbalanced play going on. Who wants to stick around for another ass-kicking by some 10yo who cheats?
Worst Singleplayer: Matrix the Path of Neo. It started off ok, and had some cool parts. But for most of the game it was just button mashing and shitty graphics, shitty storyline, shitty everything. The ending boss battle was the shittiest ever. I got it used at Gamestop for like $5 and I really just played it to fucking finish it. I had rented it once and gotten pretty far and I really just wanted to beat the game. It was like I was a sadist, I was torturing myself playing this shitty game, but I just HAD to finish it.
Oh god I remember that on the PS2, started out thinking it was going to be amazing.mtb0minime wrote:
Worst Multiplayer is easy for me: either of the two Syphon Filter games for the PSP. The problem with online gaming on a portable is that it's easy to hack and glitch, and the developers don't do shit about it because once they release the game they're done with it, no patches or anything. So in both of these two multiplayer modes, it's not about getting better or using skill, it's about who can cheat the best. I was excited to play at first because you could gain points and rank up and unlock new weapons, but the starting weapons are so shit and the later guns are so powerful that you don't even stand a chance unless you're playing against another noob like yourself who ALSO doesn't cheat.
Oh yeah, and worst of all, in one of these games, in order to even gain any experience, you have to enter into a ranked match (balanced teams with at least 2v2), and NO ONE can quit the game. Plus, you have to stay for TWO rounds, not just one. So it's nearly impossible to fulfill those conditions, especially with all the cheaters and unbalanced play going on. Who wants to stick around for another ass-kicking by some 10yo who cheats?
Worst Singleplayer: Matrix the Path of Neo. It started off ok, and had some cool parts. But for most of the game it was just button mashing and shitty graphics, shitty storyline, shitty everything. The ending boss battle was the shittiest ever. I got it used at Gamestop for like $5 and I really just played it to fucking finish it. I had rented it once and gotten pretty far and I really just wanted to beat the game. It was like I was a sadist, I was torturing myself playing this shitty game, but I just HAD to finish it.
RA3 has the worst campaign of all the C&C's to date: theres no flow, lack of cinematics, very poor briefings, too easy, too short and just all over the place. Theres just, nothing. Its been blatantly cut for the addition of coop, which is not how it should work.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'd have to disagree on both.
RA3: long enough to keep you occupied for at least a couple of days, depending on your speed. The storyline is recycled campiness from RA2, but if the cheeky outfits kept your interest, more power to you.
SoF2: Never really got into retail, but I had tons of fun in the demo.
C&C'95, RA1 & C&C3 have the best campaigns by a long shot, C&C3 perhaps capping the lot. It just felt, authentic, and properly militaristic, compared to RA3 which Spoiler (highlight to read):
kills off an overhyped Empire in the space of 2-3 missions. Just because its on another timeline, that doesn't mean the manner or length of the battles should be any different. Take the Allies: on the brink of defeat, with the UK about to be invaded. 9 battles later, all Soviet and Empire forces destroyed. Wtf? After the C&C3 campaign, RA3 is, unfortunately, a huge letdown.
Agreed, it was great fun on MP (and SP!), hell, I played it for 1.5years. I only picked it out for its lack of AC supportFenix14 wrote:
Quite right, SOF2 was one of the best games at a Lan Party, I spent alot of time on it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'd have to disagreeSnake wrote:
Worst Multiplayer: This is a tough one, as I haven't really had any bad MP games, but I would probably say SOF2 for its lack of any anti-cheat support and console commands that enabled left-in wallhacks to be used by any player
SoF2: Never really got into retail, but I had tons of fun in the demo.
It's the starting pistol and it's not nearly that bad just low crouchSpidery_Yoda wrote:
Well the original pistol was bloody awful. You could carefully aim every shot in the mag and it wouldn't hit a guy 20 feet away. At all. All the while your health is running down.
But I found that it was much easier to use if I didn't use ironsights at all and just emptied my clip as fast as I could instead of carefully aiming each shot. You have enough ammo to pull it off and it kills enemies far more quickly.
Anyway you get good weapons soon enough so the guns didn't bother me at all in STALKER. You end up with a beast of a G36 too .
I dunno I'd have more of a grudge against the guys who pulled that shit but I never played MP so I can't comment on it.White-Fusion wrote:
Played in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R tournament, at I31. Right when the game came out, was buggy as shit. We were one match away from winning 2 x 8800GTX which at the time were just out. Team we got beat by exploited at the time a bug that was out, if bullets hit your left arm they did no damage, so they were doing crazy sideways jumping. So got a grudge against the game, might be better now. But I would never pay a penny for it.
I forgot about Hellgate: London. That game was a massive festering pile of shit.
Story? Let me jog your memory:Snake wrote:
RA3 has the worst campaign of all the C&C's to date: theres no flow, lack of cinematics, very poor briefings, too easy, too short and just all over the place. Theres just, nothing. Its been blatantly cut for the addition of coop, which is not how it should work.
C&C'95, RA1 & C&C3 have the best campaigns by a long shot, C&C3 perhaps capping the lot. It just felt, authentic, and properly militaristic, compared to RA3 which Spoiler (highlight to read):
kills off an overhyped Empire in the space of 2-3 missions. Just because its on another timeline, that doesn't mean the manner or length of the battles should be any different. Take the Allies: on the brink of defeat, with the UK about to be invaded. 9 battles later, all Soviet and Empire forces destroyed. Wtf? After the C&C3 campaign, RA3 is, unfortunately, a huge letdown.
C&C Renegade (endless Nod closet final mission...)
C&C Generals/Zero Hour
Spoiler (highlight to read):
The Empire was fought in more missions than that and the Allies had a few subterfuge missions. Besides which, if you want to judge realism, you can't do it on a C&C game. Alien craft dying to conventional weapons? It would've been more like the Vogon Constructor Fleet, imo. I think EA did a great job of bringing in another RA title, considering that EA is what it is.
The face of Tim Curry frowns upon you.
I liked it when I was actually playing it, but my packratism was stifled.Wreckognize wrote:
I forgot about Hellgate: London. That game was a massive festering pile of shit.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-01-06 11:14:45)
It sucks.FloppY_ wrote:
watDeathUnlimited wrote:
SP: Crysis
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
I disagree.. It wasn't the best but certainly not the worst imoDeathUnlimited wrote:
It sucks.FloppY_ wrote:
watDeathUnlimited wrote:
SP: Crysis
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Download Oblivion Lost 2.2.r2zoo wrote:
SP:S.T.A.L.K.E.R - Where to start...Lets start with its terrible performence on a decent system, followed by its horrendous weapons that couldn't hide the broadside of a barn if you were inside of it.
Worst SP: Mercs 2. I shall say no more or i'm going to get very angry.
Worst MP: CoD5. Fucking joke. Not even half as good as CoD4. I'll give you an example. My mate's copy of CoD4 on PS3 broke, but CoD5 was coming out in like 1 week so he didn't replace it. Got CoD5, and the two of us had about 4 games together, he phoned me up, "Wanna go into town mate?", slightly mystefied at this I replied "Why?" The reply came "I have to trade in this festering pile of inards before I throw it out my window. 1 hour later we are both playing CoD4 again.
Such. A. Bad. Game.
Worst MP: CoD5. Fucking joke. Not even half as good as CoD4. I'll give you an example. My mate's copy of CoD4 on PS3 broke, but CoD5 was coming out in like 1 week so he didn't replace it. Got CoD5, and the two of us had about 4 games together, he phoned me up, "Wanna go into town mate?", slightly mystefied at this I replied "Why?" The reply came "I have to trade in this festering pile of inards before I throw it out my window. 1 hour later we are both playing CoD4 again.
Such. A. Bad. Game.
#rekt
Oblivion Lost is so It is what stalker SHOULD have been from releasefirebolt5 wrote:
Download Oblivion Lost 2.2.r2zoo wrote:
SP:S.T.A.L.K.E.R - Where to start...Lets start with its terrible performence on a decent system, followed by its horrendous weapons that couldn't hide the broadside of a barn if you were inside of it.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
CoD5>CoD4 in every way.Mint Sauce wrote:
Worst SP: Mercs 2. I shall say no more or i'm going to get very angry.
Worst MP: CoD5. Fucking joke. Not even half as good as CoD4. I'll give you an example. My mate's copy of CoD4 on PS3 broke, but CoD5 was coming out in like 1 week so he didn't replace it. Got CoD5, and the two of us had about 4 games together, he phoned me up, "Wanna go into town mate?", slightly mystefied at this I replied "Why?" The reply came "I have to trade in this festering pile of inards before I throw it out my window. 1 hour later we are both playing CoD4 again.
Such. A. Bad. Game.
SP: Crysis
MP: Either BF2142 or CoD4, never played more then 30 hours of either of them.
Last edited by Fallschirmjager10 (2009-01-06 13:41:08)
Big disagree here. The RA3 campaign was really great. The missions had tons of variety, the cutscenes were really, really fun and it was just overall an extremely well done campaign from start to finish. Each of them.Snake wrote:
RA3 has the worst campaign of all the C&C's to date: theres no flow, lack of cinematics, very poor briefings, too easy, too short and just all over the place. Theres just, nothing. Its been blatantly cut for the addition of coop, which is not how it should work.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'd have to disagree on both.
RA3: long enough to keep you occupied for at least a couple of days, depending on your speed. The storyline is recycled campiness from RA2, but if the cheeky outfits kept your interest, more power to you.
SoF2: Never really got into retail, but I had tons of fun in the demo.
C&C'95, RA1 & C&C3 have the best campaigns by a long shot, C&C3 perhaps capping the lot. It just felt, authentic, and properly militaristic, compared to RA3 which Spoiler (highlight to read):
kills off an overhyped Empire in the space of 2-3 missions. Just because its on another timeline, that doesn't mean the manner or length of the battles should be any different. Take the Allies: on the brink of defeat, with the UK about to be invaded. 9 battles later, all Soviet and Empire forces destroyed. Wtf? After the C&C3 campaign, RA3 is, unfortunately, a huge letdown.
I don't exactly know what you mean by no "flow". If by a progressing story than you'd be wrong there, if by a campaign that eases you into the aspects of the game it does that quite well also. The missions also do for the most part get longer and harder as you go along, with the last few missions in each campaign taking me 30-60 minutes to complete. The missions are also pretty intense to, and require a good amount of planing to work out a strategy that works right given your resources. Heck the only mission that I beat on my first go after the 5th mission in each campaign was the last Soviet one, and in most missions the enemy AI managed to completely route my co-comander.
Also the Soviets and Allies each had 4 missions against the Empire, 4 missions against eachother and 1 mission against themselves. So don't say the Empire wasn't featured enough. They were given as much time as the other two.
Also I didn't feel anything was sacrificed in the name of co-op. Co-Op was easily the best thing going for the campaign. You could play it once through in one perspective and another time in another, you fight the other half of the battle that you didn't get the first time.4
As for CnC3 feeling more "authentic" well RA3 was supposed to get a very cheesy, funny game that makes fun of bad movies and pays homage to good ones. CnC3 was supposed to be a serious Sci-Fi game with an Epic plot, as apposed to the silliness of RA3.
RA3's campaign was imho, just as good as CnC3's campaign. RA3 however has better MP and Co-Op and is thus overall a better game.
Also in RA3 you get boats which sprout legs and shoot lightning. What's more awesome than that. I'll tell you what, a giant death-ray in Theodore Roosevelt's head. And both are in RA3.
I also though Red Alert 3 was good. Better than C&C3 in a lot of ways.
CnC3 had a more epic story I thought, the missions were the same level of funness but RA3 easily has better MP.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
I also though Red Alert 3 was good. Better than C&C3 in a lot of ways.
I was thinking mostly in terms of units and gameplay. Games before have had units having special abilities. In fact I think every rts these days does. But RA3 gives every single unit 1, and makes them all bound to the F key, and it works wonderfully. Then there's the fact that most of the abilities basically turn the unit into 2 units, and you have an incredibly streamlined and fun to use system.
I think its the main thing that got me hooked during the beta.
I think its the main thing that got me hooked during the beta.
Could not disagree more... RA2 > RA3 if you ask me... RA2 looks better aswellSpidery_Yoda wrote:
I was thinking mostly in terms of units and gameplay. Games before have had units having special abilities. In fact I think every rts these days does. But RA3 gives every single unit 1, and makes them all bound to the F key, and it works wonderfully. Then there's the fact that most of the abilities basically turn the unit into 2 units, and you have an incredibly streamlined and fun to use system.
I think its the main thing that got me hooked during the beta.
I played the beta, played the full game.. still hate it... C&C3 was superior to RA3 in every way I can think of tbh, multiplayer and singleplayer alike...
Though C&C3 still has its flaws (I haven't tried Kane's Wrath), like the nubs who seem to think Mammoth spamming is the only viable tactic with GDI....
Last edited by FloppY_ (2009-01-06 14:34:49)
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Pretty much this. RA3 takes way less micro to play than C&C3 and everything feels forced on the play, the way to scout, how to deal with air/vehicles/sea/inf, even build orders. In C&C3 they gave the player much wider choices on how to deal with situations and have a general direction of each faction unlike RA3 where they force each faction into certain strategies and build orders. C&C3 is still flawed though, RA3 does have the better balance I'll give it that but it doesn't have the solid gameplay compared to C&C3.FloppY_ wrote:
C&C3 was superior to RA3 in every way I can think of tbh, multiplayer and singleplayer alike...
Though C&C3 still has its flaws
RA3 was a balls game, where's the argument.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Play MP and win a few games then come back.Uzique wrote:
RA3 was a balls game, where's the argument.
LoL,, Playing against a human opponent won't fix broken software...Fat_Swinub wrote:
Play MP and win a few games then come back.Uzique wrote:
RA3 was a balls game, where's the argument.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me