 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
and chton too
as for the unreal2, i'm playing thorugh it now. well indeed, visuals are the best there. they crammed bazillions of polys there, and every poly does its work. and it seems developers were too busy adding polys and forgot about proper gameplay. too much intermissions that break your immersion into the gameplay. the missions are short. indeed, some designs look uber pretty, but true atmosphere is only in certain places/maps, not in the entire game. (remember u1, it was fully atmospheric game) and what i disliked the most is jump puzzle room with broken lazers. this is the most stupid place i encountered so far: arseloads of polys (ie lower framerate), and you have to jump with high precision over lazers and melted metal. this just plain sucks. it's clear that developers wanted to increase playing time via such silly attempts. anyway, have to finish it yet, maybe there will be more good things in the game i hope... it is one of the best games I've ever played - it was developed by sony and released on the ps2.
http://www.gamespy.com/games/2763.shtml It's perfection on a disc, really. --- u2; also, non-skipable cut-scenes makes wrath reach for the big red button. Good
* Great graphics * Some good weapons Bad * Shockingly slow loading times ( made worse by the frequent need for quicksaving/loading ) * Crap enemies ( plus most take at least 3 close range blasts with a shotgun = not fun ) * Vomit inducing attempts at humour. * Cutscenes that are so dull your brain will shut down, thus you will usually have no idea what you are supposed to be doing. * Falling into the same stupid traps as every PC fps ever, such as not giving you enough health/ammo to take on extremely tough enemies. I'm probably about 2 thirds of the way through and I really cant be bothered to go back to it. But did I mention the nice graphics? It will probably form an OK base for user levels/mods. I'd recommend someone makes the enemies weaker to hopefully make things more fun. was the cyberdemon the boss at the end of Doom? (or Doom 2)?.
I never made it to the end of Doom or Doom 2 i stopped near the end, about 5 levels off i guess, so i dont think i ever faced a "cyberdemon" and if i do i dont remember it. Dont ask me why i stopped before the finish, i just got bored i guess, although i do love Doom, of course. well, i still keep me words with me.
and fully agreed with damaul. gfx part is 10/10, but gameplay/story is silly. and indeed, cheap jokes are enraging. there were some fun moments in the game, but i can use one left hand to count them all. after finishing the game i have load of sweet screenshot in my head. but not a single remembrance about funny gameplay moments. there, of course, are very nice ideas, i was impressed (won't tell you, don't wanna spoil much) watching how developers made it. but as i said, they (developers) were too busy making visuals looking top. it looks like their primary task was to make shiny new geforces of casuals to work off their money 100%. i'm sure the game will not fly 120fps even on powerful computer. but it'll work as a good test for hardware testers :) and of course, using such vast possibilities of the engine, it's OUR job to make proper levels for this game :) there is excellent editor, top textures and possibility to modify the gameplay. so, i'm really hope there will be talented designers who'll make proper maps/mods out of this engine. now, only doom3 left, my last fort of hope :) Boss combat is not a bad thing on its own, but it needs to be setup well. For some reason in most 3d shooters boss combat is either boring frustrating or both.
I`m finding classic console games bosses much more fun so basically it seems like its:
graphics over gameplay. is this what the state of current gaming is now? and if so, what hope does the future hold? "what hope does the future hold?"
Putting back in the gameplay, maybe? Probably need to start with making it easy to put in the slick stuff. As to boss battles, Good finale if they're not too long. Maybe something smarter instead of something you dump ammo into. Max was pretty cool in Nehahra, could have been over in half the time and still got the point though (but hey, after 20 levels or something...). Actually, the standard big tough fast Unreal enemy would make good bosses. The current state of gaming is thus:
If you want to play fun games: get a console ( or 3 ), if you want to play online games or tech demos with a poor excuse for a game tacked onto the end: get a PC. That the Vietcong multiplayer demo is absolutely incredible, and the game really has some possibilities. Like my friend so nicely said, "It's like air soft, I like go 'OMG! lolol n00bz' when playing!" Oh, and I already introduced his ass to my boot.
But in any case, the game can be really atmospheric, and it's mostly because of a few simple tricks, like hearing the heart beating really fast when shot, not actually hearing the shot that kills you, tinning when a grenade goes off right next to you, the need to use iron sights to really hit anything, and the lack of any HUD. And on top of all that, the level is quite nice, finally with enough foliage for some good jungle warfare. Sorry for taking such a long time to reply. Where can I get OUM?
DaMaul: I like consoles, but the one problem resides in the making and obtaining of quality mods. Haven't seen any Armored Core 3 mods on Playstation II yet. :) Picked up and started playing The Thing, but very little info on the web about this game. From what I can tell UK based development. Anyone know more about the game or the development?
I found <a http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_jenkins011503.asp?p=0>this article</a> rather interesting.
end of the second episode of doom? In doom2 they were used as a normal monster on some levels.
from good to bad:
amazing geometry everywhere often very good atmosphere some varied level designs decent textures better weapons than unreal 1 terrain part of the engine very simplistic and ugly many irritating/not fun to fight AI sub-standard gameplay (it's really boring) a most amazingly retarded storyline for 2003 (cringe) given the quality of the level designers there, I was hoping for some quality level design. It seems most people tend to acknowledge the levels and the skins/models as the best part of the game.
aard, one question, from the 2-3 terrain based screenshots I've seen, it looks pretty good though admittedly in-game can be a lot different. Could you please outline what you thought was wrong with it? Galactix has gotten some pretty new screenshots that show off its nearly final form. Go to http://mods.moddb.com/984/ to look at the screenshots and mod profile.
Regarding mapping (as many people have been asking about it lately), since there is little that will be changed between maps (mostly fog and skybox values, and player move speed), most of the variation will consist of cfg files. Instead of releasing a new bsp for most of the new maps, simply modify the existing one with a cfg that the player execs in addition to loading the map. The architecture never changes - it's a box with some boundaries. Only the skybox and other variables would ever change, and a cfg is much smaller and simpler to build. For example, if you have the skybox "planet", you could make planet.cfg and include it with your skybox. The cfg would set fog to none, would set the skybox to planet, and would lower the player's speed slightly (it's a hard level). You could also modify how much points are recieved, etc. For those of you who do wish to mess with more than that (for example, changing the distance of the background garbage that floats by or doing something creative), a new bsp would be in order and would likely work fine with any cfg modifiers that are released as well. Default variables of the map would be loaded if no cfg is present.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |