Evil Genius

Pretty much everything after 2001... what the fuck happend?


HL2s lack of a good story and design made me frown, cough and vomit. And noob, if you start yammering about "awesome game mechanics" let me put you to rest: excellent game mechanics isn´t worth shit if you don´t have good setting to utilise it.
To use an absurd example: HL2 game engine, the setting: a desolate desert with nothing happening. Setting setting setting & plot, that´s 70-80% of a game IMO.


So yeah basically: last few years have been dissapointing entertainment wise...



Oh, and postal2 wasn´t so funny after all...

I dont really enjoy games like halo for the story i just play them with friends for fun. For story Ill play games like Metal Gear or kotor. Halo is somewhat overrated but its still good fun . If i had a n64 and some people who were willing to play i would be down with playin Golden Eye anyday though.

Yeah, Half-life 2 was not as great as I thought it would be.

redria wrote:Yeah, Half-life 2 was not as great as I thought it would be.

and yet your avatar and sig are dedicated to HL2...

heh i was wonderin that too.

This is actually part of derKaiserFuchs 's sociology experienment on groupthink.... after all, you don't want to be the only person that liked half-life 2.

I nver played the half life series.

halfnhalf wrote:

redria wrote:Yeah, Half-life 2 was not as great as I thought it would be.

and yet your avatar and sig are dedicated to HL2...

I never said I hated the game It's just not as good as I thought it would be

He never said that you hated it.. He merly thought it was amusing that you make your sig and av one from a game that "wasnt as good as you thought it would be" But its all good

Buzkashi wrote:He never said that you hated it.. He merly thought it was amusing that you make your sig and av one from a game that "wasnt as good as you thought it would be" But its all good

ok.

Goldeneye is great on the n64. I still play it today.

redria: don't dwell on it so much, it was tasteless humor, and im sorry for it.

as for games now days, they are too short, and too easy. The one thing i think that needs to ge done away on some games is the save feature. I grew up on a sega genesis, no save feature, made games a lot more challenging. Now dont go tell me that you need to save.. games are too short, meaning 6-10 hours. Plus all the games have been done over and over again. there needs to be innovation. OOO physics in a game, that not innovation, that just a crappy simulation of life. If i wanted to throw a can at someone, ill go outside and do that.

Fable. An example of a hyped RPG that failed to deliver. Hailed as the revolutionary RPG, it didn't deliver all the aspects it promised. Like the aging system, which is linked to the amount of levels that you put the experience into. My character grown 30 years older in just 5 game days.

Fable was a big failure in that it didnt live up to the hype. But it was still a good game and I had a lot of fun playing it. I just wish it were longer, like 4x longer.

halfnhalf: I agree that games are a lot easier nowadays, but they shouldn't get rid of the save feature on games. Unlike 10 years ago, I cant sit down and devote hours and hours to a game. I have a job, school, and other responsibilities, so I can only put in a small amount of time here and there. And maybe Starnum is right, you just arent playing the right games.

psi29a wrote:This is actually part of derKaiserFuchs 's sociology experienment on groupthink.... after all, you don't want to be the only person that liked half-life 2.

Please stop spoiling my games...

Gaiseric wrote:Fable was a big failure in that it didnt live up to the hype. But it was still a good game and I had a lot of fun playing it. I just wish it were longer, like 4x longer.

halfnhalf: I agree that games are a lot easier nowadays, but they shouldn't get rid of the save feature on games. Unlike 10 years ago, I cant sit down and devote hours and hours to a game. I have a job, school, and other responsibilities, so I can only put in a small amount of time here and there. And maybe Starnum is right, you just arent playing the right games.

I mean some games you need the save feature, but what do you mean you dont have time?!?!?!?!? thats the thing you do like around 1am, sleep! Lose some sleep and play some games!!! lets see... If i were to say i sleep at 11pm and wake up at 6am... 7 hours, more then enough to beat the average games right now, and in like 5 days that like 5 games beaten. Then you're gonna say that you need sleep, SLEEP IS FOR THE WEAK!!! jk jk.

As for me not playing the right games, there are still games that i enjoy very much (ok hate me now since i lose sleep over halo2). I just think the gaming industry has lost its touch, just like the Hollywood movies.

Well, regarding the length of games nowadays, I think it sucks that "Replay Value" is a major factor in most reviews and is, thus, an important aspect in what games people end up buying. As if being longer or being able to play it over and over makes a game any better. It 's the stupid mentality of "quantity over quality" and "bigger is better" that's screwing up a lot of games these days. I'll take Ico over fucking San Andreas any day of the week.

As for the most overrated game today, three words: Grand. Theft. Auto.

Femto wrote:
As for the most overrated game today, three words: Grand. Theft. Auto.

I agree with your over rated game. I got the first one, well i didnt consider it that fun. go out steal cars, kill people, get health from a hooker. that was fun and all on the first game, then there is a second one, and a 3rd. Same stuff gets boring sometimes...

San Andreas actually added a lot to the series. While I do agree that the games are over-rated, they are still a hell of a lot of fun to play. I mostly like doing the main missions in the game, I dont really screw around or do all the side things(like tagging and taxi missions). I was surprised at how many of the missions were new, for some reason I expected some of them to be re-hashed from III and Vice City.

I think replay value is important. If I am going to buy a game, I want it to be a game that will either last a long time or one that I will play over and over again. I dont want to play through it once then let it sit on my shelf forever. I like the KOTOR games because they were long games and I looked forward to playing though the whole game again with a different alliance. But the game has to be good to make me want to go through all of it again, so quality is most important.

I like resident evil 4 A LOT... 2 discks 8 chapters I play off and on but i think im on hour 26 or soo and i just started disc 2. I've heard some people say that the game is overrated. But if anything its underrated.

Starnum wrote:I don't get it? Games are too easy? Then raise the difficult level. Go play a Metal Gear game on Extreme, and you'll stop all that nonsense talk. Games are to short? Go play a good RPG, those things run for about 60+ hours. Like I said, you aren't playing the right games. I love all of the games I play to death. I even got thirty hours out of Berserk. I got 100% on that thing though.

As for the GTA games, I hear ya. I like those games, but I wouldn't give San Andreas second place for 2004 like PSM did.

I played metal gear solid on PSone on extreme... roughly 19 hours, since the soldiers move the exact way as in easy and normal and hard, sneaking around on extreme was not to hard. Bosses gave a challeng (surprising, the easiest boss with radar, Raven was the hardest for me on extreme...)

Starnum wrote:Hm, if you say so. All I know is that MGS2, is crazy hard on extreme.

when your snake, its not to hard, that mission is actually less then an hour. Ive beaten that mission on extreme ( but i had radar.. i know i defeat the purpose...) I didnt bother with raiden, his character was too much of a homo to even bother with. It is crazy hard on extreme, took me while to get through the fire fights. The sneaking around isnt different from easy or normal, so once again if you know what to do its a piece of cake.

another over rated game i thought was splinter cell. it was suppose to kill metal gear... well i just never thought it was fun and all you did was like the same thing, sneak. I felt sorry for sam fisher, he must have some cramped legs from crouch walking soo much. And Prince of Persia: SoT. So it was an ok game, but i mean come on, the gameplay got boring. he had like only 5 moves. Compared to ninja giaden the prince was just way too arcobatic, and too involed in ripping his shirt off. At least the prince can hold his ground in WW.

Full Secptrum Warrior brought something that i havent seen before in video games. I loved the game until i found out a HUGE glitch. If you are behind a object that that has full shield on the shield meter and it will never go down, it means it will never go down, even if the enemies are shooting rockets at you. it wasnt really an over rated game, just a like problem i had with it.