thanks tron :) 

Quake 4

A pretty good game...much better than people seem to have said it was. Out of all the games on this list, Quake 4 was definitely the hardest. There are a lot of really fucking tough battles at points in the game, mostly towards the end. I would have preferred it if they had spread them around evenly with a slight ramp up towards the end as opposed to being a game where I never die for the first 5 hours then OMG QuickLoad for the last 3-4.

The game has an absolutely awful fucking ending...definitely in my top 3. A much better ending would be Kane gets back to base and all of the dudes freak out and forget that he's been "changed" and start firing upon him mercilessly. As you lay dying, they hover over you completely unaware that you save their ass and someone in the background yells out "OK where's Kane..." And then the game fades to black. End of the terrible Quake 4 storyline and characters forever.

The story on a whole is pretty damn shaky...but part of the problem is that Quake and Quake 2 really didn't have too much of a story and therefore Quake 4 had nothing to build off despite being the 4th damn game in the series. The industry has changed since '96 and suddenly if you don't have a good in-game story, your game is a piece of shit. I think part of the problem is that there have been sooooooo many shooters since then that good gameplay alone just isn't enough to cut it anymore.

Quake 4 is rock solid gameplay-wise other than the aforementioned difficulty balance issues, it just suffers from a terrible story, a terrible ending, and the fact that id already let everyone down with the Doom 3 game and engine.

(P.S. Raven don't you fucking dare make a sequel with these same characters, as was indicated that you might do with the ending of Quake 4)

Most memorable moment

Stroggification & the excellent and really creepy human-machine hybrids that are mounted on the walls in various levels.

7/10 

Prey

Oh my sweet Lord Jesus...ohhhhhhh why HumanHead why why why did you ruin what could have been a good game with your ridiculous lack of the player dying? I can't even begin to express my disappointment with this system.

The game was perfectly fine for the most part with a nice story, some excellent puzzle bits, and really innovative level design, but it was completely ruined by the fact that player CAN NOT FUCKING DIE. I know we had a debate on this very messageboard about whether or not dying is a good game mechanic to use, and I have to say after playing Prey that this game is the best argument to have the player die as part of the progression of the game.

I literally spent 20 minutes beating the penultimate boss to death with my wrench because I knew I wouldn't die and I was just bored to tears by that point because of it. I knew that no matter what I did, I would come back to the exact same spot, the boss would have the exact same health from when I died, and everything would be fine and dandy while I continued to not fear death at all and play the game like a trained monkey.

If you're going to remove the fact that the player can die from your game, it's probably not a good idea to have an hour long boss battle. I mean seriously, if you're going to say that tactics and combat matter so little that there is no consequence to dying, then just remove the HOUR LONG boss battle and replace it with the puzzle and story elements that you seem to be able to pull off just fine.

The level design in Prey was top notch. It boggles my mind to think how long it must have taken to design some of the areas that you could completely rotate on all 3 axes. It had to be at least a month for just one of those areas. They were completely fantastic and awe-inspiring pieces of layout design. The levels themselves were usually less repetitious than Quake 4 and F.E.A.R and any other games that pad their length slightly with an hour or two of "room-doorway-room" layouts. I really feel bad for the level designers because I'm sure so many people didn't bother to explore at all since the lack of dying made it so you didn't need to hunt down health or ammo.

The story and universe were pretty compelling, with only Tommy's girlfriend really being the only sore spot in the acting department. The major plot point is basically the story of creation as presented by Scientology with some names swapped out -- but it still works.

Overall what could have been a great game was marred by one really stupid game mechanic that serves to nullify any kind of immersion you might feel. And yeah, it could be argued that quicksave is basically the same thing, but that would be wrong because I don't usually quicksave every 5 seconds during a boss battle, because if I did that I might end up quick saving with one health and have to go back to my last proper save because the game would be unbeatable. But since Prey brings you back with full health and all enemy attributes exactly where you left them, there's no reason to approach the game with any kind of strategy at all.

(P.S. 2K Games, 3DRealms, and HumanHead. If you plan on bringing these characters and this universe back, as you have indicated that you would at the end of the game, that's fine. Please, for the love of the Native American gods in Prey, get rid of the lack of dying. Thank you)

Most memorable moment

Seeing my body on the other side of a room getting flipped upside down and tossed around while I was doing some spirit mode puzzle & the mini-moon orbit gravitational pull sequences

5/10 

"I think part of the problem is that there have been sooooooo many shooters since then that good gameplay alone just isn't enough to cut it anymore"

I have a problem with that line of thinking, because most shooters since then dont actually have good gameplay, but instead try and pass off the inclusion of a (C grade) story and scripted sequences as good gameplay. 

Great reviews there. I don't agree with all your points but you are bang on the money with your assessment of Prey. Actually, you expressed its problem much better than I did. Namely - it's fine if you want to design a game where you can't die, but for fuck's sake at least design the rest of the game mechanics around this.

With Prey you have a standard twitch shooter. Ignore the puzzles for the moment. It's essentially like any other FPS we've seen in the last few years. Make the player invulnerable and the whole game breaks.

Playing Prey made me feel exactly the same way as if I was blasting through say Quake 4 on God mode. An empty and ultimately boring experience. Not once did I get a kick of adrelanine like I did in Doom 3 or Quake 4. I couldn't even be bothered to go out of my way to hunt health or ammo.

Regarding your Quake 4 review - I disagree with your view that if a game doesn't have a good story it's shit. I think this is one of the main problems facing games today - the idea that games need to somehow be interactive movies, with proper stories, characterisation etc.

This is exactly what games don't need to be. I think it's a shame that money has to be spent cooking up expensive cinematics and whatnot when most gamers are going to want to skip them anyway. 

I was a little unclear. I don't think a game is shit if it doesn't have a story, but if I have to pick between a good solid shooter with a good story or a good solid shooter with a bad story, I'm obviously going to go with the one that has a good story.

Quake is a great game with no story, but I don't know the public would accept a game like that today where the entire story is in the readme or in the instruction book. 

I don't think the games buying public really care for stories in games as much as you think. People want fun gameplay - story shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of this. If story elements create immersion, then fine, but to be honest most of the overly scripted crap we see these days doesn't actually benefit the game. It just makes games more linear and expensive to make and the effort is largely unnapreciated. 

how many games have a good story ? Most are b grade level movie stories, if that. 

I didn't have a problem with the spirit/death/reviving thing. I still tried just as hard to avoid dying (apart from in the boss battle but I usually either cheat or quit those anyway), and when I did die I ended up doing some jiggery pokery with shooting spirits instead of some jiggery pokery with F9...

Sounds like I am more able to get into the spirit (sic) of being immersed in a game than you guys... 

Is there ANY shooter at all that has a decent story?
HL1/2 does not. It has good and convincing world. With developed "legend" that is not being told actually.
"Freeman comes and beats the shit out of combines" is not much of a story.

Ok Deus, SysShock and Thief had good storylines. Those are less shooters tho. 

Convincing immersive world (as Kinn said).
And good diverse gameplay (no detailing this time sorry)
Thats what HL2 did. And CoD. And Prey (to some extent)
It feels to me Quake1 did that too pretty well, but Im biased. 

You do die. It is an indication of 'not doing well at game' and it is present. But then there is a punishment - and instead of making you replay some amount from the last savepoint it forces you to go thru the 'spirit' routine for a bit.
Im sorry you cant accept this concept and ruin the game for yourself with 'no need to replay - no need to try hard' attitude. Its more a problem with your preconceptions.
Also you had an obvious choice of using quickload yourself whenever you die, just to make game a bit harder (like I did). But I understand that some people would be unwilling to 'discipline themselves'. I�m on the other hand have more problem with games that don�t have quicksave and use much more sever punishment for losing � forcing you to replay the game from the last checkpoint or the very start of the map. And no other choice, (except maybe cheat, if that�s available). It can get very tedious, and time consuming. Yes, I didn�t like Mario.
To conclude: I believe there should be challenge and should be punishment for losing. But its hard to agree on the degree of both. As was apparent from the many discussions on QMAP some ppl cant stand dying at all.

And back to Prey - I believe the 'resurrection' should be made available on the easy/norm skill level only. Not on the harder one.

I would love to hear some other opinions from people interested in gamedesign. 

I have no idea why Q4 didnt sell well and got many bad reviews. Its not another D3 definitely. And its not a bad game. Solid shooter with its ups and downs.
Maybe many customers shrugged it off as 'another doom3', maybe MP was a letdown, maybe the marketing is to blame... maybe its the lack of bloom!
Pre-release shots of Q4 didnt look spectacular really...

Failure of q4 is a mystery to me, almost as big as the shite looks and the great success of the Halo series.

Was Unreal2 even a bigger flop than q4? 

ta speedy, I forgot I till havent finished that yet :) 

will be a MMORPG. Crap! :(
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057232/000117091806001092/presentation.htm 

Interplay has no money. Needs 75mln? They gotta be kidding

Zero chance of release. 

1.) WTF does "Securities and Exchange commission" whatever the fuck that is have to do with Interplay/games?

2.) $75M budget for a game? That's ridiculous.

3.) Is this Fallout 3 by Bethesday or Interplays rebirth and their own Fallout too? 

FallOutOnLine 

...that are incredibly cool in Gothic 3.

Day/night cycle and random weather cycle (rain and fog).

Wandering around with a tamed Rhinocerous. Looks great and actually very useful fighting tougher stuff. 

Failure of q4 is a mystery to me, almost as big as the shite looks and the great success of the Halo series.

Marketing and advertising. q4 shipped when id wanted it to, and not when activision wanted it to, and activision was footing the bill for promoting the game. if a game doesn't make pre-decided dates, a publisher decides not to waste money on aisle-end space and standees and ads and stuff if there won't be a game to sell on those shelves in time.

that, plus PC gamer's resounding initial 70, plus a consumer base already somewhat beleaguered by doom3, completely nuked enthusiasm for the game. 

PCGamer need to be fucking taken out and shot for that. That was totally unreasonable. I for one will never trust a word they print again.

For the record I think Quake 4 is a great game and it's a shame that shit had to turn out like it did. 

well, i haven't read pcgamer in ages, but i'd say 70% sounds about right for q4. it was never anything astouding, which is what they usually reserve stuff higher than 80 for (iirc).

it was a slightly above average game, but still had many flaws. (sadly, a lot of those flaws were flaws in the d3 engine itself). 

it was a slightly above average game, but still had many flaws. (sadly, a lot of those flaws were flaws in the d3 engine itself).


what aspects of the doom3 renderer were responsible for making this a "flawed" game? (not trolling, just asking :} 

To me, Quake 2 felt more like an adventure, whereas Quake 4 felt more like a cheesy script.

Something about Quake 2's theme made it feel more like a strange, alien place (even though it was clearly not a purely alien environment). Maybe part of it was due to the lack of wires, control panels, and pipes streaming across every scene which made Q4 seem more like a logical Borg facility than a de-humanizing society that recycled body parts.

Which is something that bothered me. The most disturbing elements of Q4 were either only touched upon briefly, or were just recycled in exactly the same way throughout. Example: the medics' futile efforts to de-stroggify their comrades, or the Strogg systems with the same integrated human torsos copied everywhere. I felt like the real horrors of the war were never really touched upon; even in your own stroggification it was very formulaic: of course your teammates still love you as the ever-capable Corporal Kane and shower you with pats on the back, but you're simultaneously bullied by unfamiliar marines onboard the mothership who want to give you the 24th centuary equivalent of a lynching.

Not that Q2 had obviously grotesque imagery, but it didn't try; it was just an action-adventure game. But that also meant it stuck to its ideals pretty easily.

Clearly I was disappointed with the themes of Quake 4. I saw it more like Doom 3 without hell, and humanoid cyborgs substituted for demonic cyborgs.

I don't feel so strongly about the gameplay. It didn't excite me, but it wasn't exactly disappointing to me either. The sections where you drove a vehicle seemed like a weak link, but things were generally balanced pretty well even if there weren't really any gameplay innovations. 

well, one of the key points would be the most obvious one; lighting.

d3's lighting is terrible for outdoor areas, which q4 had quite a lot of. lack of a way to properly fake GI/Ambient Occlusion at the minimum made the game look almost like a step back graphically. (soft shadows would have been prefered, of course, but a faking of ambient occlusion would have rocked)