Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This only gave grief

3 (6.1%)

Grakelin is not stupid

6 (12.2%)

Are you happier now?

1 (2%)

------ Haiku, the encore -----

17 (34.7%)

Disagreeing, Fine

0 (0%)

Why you make a fuzz 'bout it?

3 (6.1%)

Lets just be happy

19 (38.8%)

Total Members Voted: 48

[fenrif]

out of curiosity, how did valve work that out? seems a bit wierd that a relativly small group of people would be pre-ordering the game faster than the other 90 percent of the steam userbase? was it a proportional thing?

[Draco18s]

out of curiosity, how did valve work that out? seems a bit wierd that a relativly small group of people would be pre-ordering the game faster than the other 90 percent of the steam userbase? was it a proportional thing?

Listen to the comment yourself.

[smeej]

Eh, my biggest issue is really how much time and money developers waste on trying to look slightly better than last year's game. Also, HD and crazy surround sound.

This could be that I haven't gotten a new television in many, many years and use headphones for video games, but I just don't feel that they really add a whole lot to the gaming experience. I will concede that some games really do need crazily precise audio, but they are the minority.

[The Architect]

If you enjoy the experience of an immersive world and a big show, then yes HD graphics and surround sound are a very important and substantive addition to games.

The problem is when they act as if putting on a show is a substitute for making a good game, and leave you with some piece of crap that has nothing going for it but nice graphics. Great graphics and audio are fantastic in a game. However, it had better have a lot more to it than that or I won't be pleased.

[Soulwynd]

Yep, don't you just love it when a new game comes out and all they talk about is the graphics and how they have been enhanced? Like... Dirt 2...

[The Architect]

I'm not sure I see how Dirt 2 only had improved graphics (I'm not a fan anyway, although my roommate loves it. I'd buy Forza 3 if I had the cash for a new game).

However, it's a racing game. If you have a realistic racing engine, oodles of cars (all you could ever want, really) and tons of well-replicated race tracks, isn't the next freaking step to make the graphics, physics engine, and audio as realistic as possible? As far as I know, isn't the main point of any racing game to replicate the experience of racing to the highest degree possible, and to show those gorgeous cars and hear their revving engines in all their glory?

A racing game would be a rare example of a genre where graphics and audio are the best areas to improve. Unless the driving engine were inadequate, which it isn't.

[Virtz]

I'm not sure I see how Dirt 2 only had improved graphics (I'm not a fan anyway, although my roommate loves it. I'd buy Forza 3 if I had the cash for a new game).

However, it's a racing game. If you have a realistic racing engine, oodles of cars (all you could ever want, really) and tons of well-replicated race tracks, isn't the next freaking step to make the graphics, physics engine, and audio as realistic as possible? As far as I know, isn't the main point of any racing game to replicate the experience of racing to the highest degree possible, and to show those gorgeous cars and hear their revving engines in all their glory?

A racing game would be a rare example of a genre where graphics and audio are the best areas to improve. Unless the driving engine were inadequate, which it isn't.

I've yet to see a game where the effects of crashing a car at high speed into a wall would be adequately portrayed. I think the closest was Carmageddon. I want my realistic car crashes, damn it. >:C

[Soulwynd]

I'm sorry, I was using of sarcasm.

What I meant was. The news about Dirt 2 were all about graphics. Sure there are a few that weren't, but yeah.

I think I'd rather stick to GT4 on ps2 or that other one on pc that was made by a small studio that I haven't played in ages... hm... what was the name...

[sproingie]

As far as I know, isn't the main point of any racing game to replicate the experience of racing to the highest degree possible

If you narrowly define "racing game" as "racing sim", yes.  The Burnout series takes a different view for a more arcade-ish flavor.  Sadly Burnout is an example of EA taking a good franchise (Criterion) and turning it into mediocre pablum.  Burnout 3 was the last really good Burnout because it was in the can by the time EA got their paws on it.

[JoshuaFH]

I like this topic. Can someone tell me who this Spoony character is though?

[SHAD0Wdump]

http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/

He is also found on...

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/

[Muz]

Hey, some people buy games just for the immersion. Those are the people who only talk about the great graphics and sound. There's a lot of them out there, and they don't really give a damn about gameplay, not more than how immersive it is while they do random stuff.

[Zangi]

Hey, some people buy games just for the immersion. Those are the people who only talk about the great graphics and sound. There's a lot of them out there, and they don't really give a damn about gameplay, not more than how immersive it is while they do random stuff.

Casual gaming at its finest...  >.>

Personally, I hate loading times, who doesn't?
Also... dumbed down games... Spore is a disappointment in that regard... good thing I didn't shell out a dime...
At least we have DF and other free games like Aurora...

[The Architect]

mmm... dumbed down games...

Without getting into the shortcuts IW took with the attachments and some other attention to detail on the guns (which are fine; the gameplay and representation of weapons are both still nice) I still have to whine about that stupid auto aim that can never be disabled. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen!

You can turn off the main auto aim, the one that is generally useful to most people if you leave it on. I find aids detract from whatever actual chance I may have to test reflexes and skill, so I always have them off. However there is one you can never disable, and I don't have the faintest f*ing clue why. It's the most useless and aggravating feature I've ever had ruin my experience after paying major bucks for a gaime.

Basically it works like this: if you leave your aim/reticule/cursor still for any period of time (fractions of a second) in the vicinity of a moving enemy, the game automatically moves your reticule along in the same general path they are taking (as if to draw attention to them). Basically this seems to be meant to help people with inadequate displays or eye stigmatisms notice the big moving things you're supposed to shoot. What it means to actual gameplay is that you are literally not permitted to let your aim remain still if enemies move in the vicinity. The most obvious problems come from not being able to control your aim when enemies move past your target, or strafe / pinpoint burst on moving groups of enemies or lines of enemies crossing your line of sight, as the game will jerk your aim around (intentionally just a little behind the enemy, so as not to be too much of an advantage for the mentally impaired who rely on it). Keep in mind that this sort of "sticky reticule" that snatches your aim two steps behind the enemy cannot be disabled, and every time you are rushed by a group your aim will automatically be jerked into shooting just behind the closest one (in other words, shooting at f***ing no-one).

TL;DR: MW2 has an aim de-assist that cannot be disabled.

[Kishmond]

Oh, that is pretty nasty.

I chose none of the above because I am a fruit, and here's why (keep in mind that I am exclusively a PC gamer):

 Loading screens I don't really like, but I don't mind.
 It is true that games are easier, however, I would rather do a quick play through of Mass Effect or something than die dozens of times on one level in, say, Megaman.
 I really have no logical excuse why I don't mind 'flogging a dead horse'. If a game is good, and they make something like it, buy it. If it's worse, don't buy it. You aren't forced to play every game out there.
 Linear gameplay is sometimes a good thing. Look at Half-Life or its sequel. Anyway most games nowadays are adding in some kind of sandbox mode. It's the hype, or something.
 Everything here I can somewhat agree with, but the "Think of all the fake people you're killing" argument just comes across as stupid.
 Graphics Above All. Maybe more applicable than any of the others. There are games that have great graphics but are not enjoyable. There are games that have bad no graphics and are very fun. There are games that have both. Most are in the last category, really. Yes, there are games that are hyped purely on their graphical quality, but they end up not doing well if they can't back it up.