Son Of General Retro Discussion

DinoRex

I just find games where you run around as johnny America shooting johnny foreigner in the face to be a bit distasteful and they don't appeal to me at all.

Johnny America shooting johnny alien or johnny demon in the face is just fine by me though...

Pyongyang

...and I told a fib. I do like FPS, but only some titles. Though games like CoD and Battlefield etc just honestly do nothing for me.

Mainly because the few times I have played them online the only 'entertainment' I've had is a bunch of whiny teens telling me I'm a "stupid horse f*cker that likes rubbing cold Pot Noodles over Linda Martin's neck skin on Thursday afternoons".

And if your not being verbally abused then everyone else playing is cheating, or is instantly 80,000 times better than you at the game even though it's literally been on sale for like, 37 minutes and 36 minutes of that they spent driving home from the shops.

DinoRex

Think the last FPS I enjoyed was The Darkness (But don't tell Retr0)

Atavan-Halen

DinoRex wrote: »

Think the last FPS I enjoyed was The Darkness (But don't tell Retr0)

I'll have to agree with retr0 on this one. It wasn't great.

James Howlett

DinoRex wrote: »

Oh there's something fun and exciting about midnight launches.

I'd say there is but the reason I've never been to one is that;
1. I would need to want the game bad enough.
2. I would need enough for money for such a game.
3. I would need the next day off of work.

It's hard to get all of those lined up these days

Regarding COD itself I've only ever played Modern Warfare for about 20 minutes so I've never given the series a fair chance but I just love that the abbreviation is a fish hence the reason I referred to it so.

johnny_ultimate

I liked the Darkness too. At the time. Although it had been the only major 360 release in around six months, which could have explained it. Still, Butcher Bay remains a rare '**** film to great game' adaptation. Edge preview of Starbreeze's Syndicate reboot this month sounds a bit cautious at best, though.

As for CoD, I thoroughly enjoyed the series until they a) decided to screw with the balancing and b) get occupied by every obsessive American teenage twerp who has access to disposable income. I've also come to resent the whole 'levelling up' approach to multiplayer gaming. It was a brilliant evolution with CoD4, but has now ruined otherwise promising multiplayer games by rewarding time commitment rather than skill. And it's not like you can seek solace in the ho-hum (being generous there) campaigns of CoD.

Oh well, it's not like there's not enough other great games to choose from this holiday season!

Atavan-Halen

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh well, it's not like there's not enough other great games to choose from this holiday season!

See that's where being able to appreciate older games comes in. If there's nothing good out new I have a library of millions of games to choose from!

Retr0gamer

I actually really liked the Call of Duty games. The first game was fantastic and how it handled the WW2 battles was excellent. There was a bit of authenticity to the games because all the battles you fought in actually happened and the names of the characters are the actual people that fought in the battles. It gave a bit more gravity and emotion to the battles. Whereasin most games it feels weird having one man mow down hundreds of troops, in CoD you played as a small British commando unit that really did hold off wave after wave of german troops and tanks to hold onto pegasus bridge until the D-day troops arrived (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deadstick) or else in the expansionpack the handful of russian soldiers that managed to hold onto a building in stalingrad against a couple of platoons and a panzer division with anti tank rifles and small arms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov%27s_House)

By the time CoD 2 rolled around they seemed to have run out of battles and the ones present in it while not bad didn't have the impact of the originals, in particular the stalingrad missions were really poor while being the highlight of the original.

CoD 4 was a return to form, despite the modern setting and the sort of silly plot the first person view was used extremely effectively in scenes like execution at the start, the nuclear explosion and the chernobyl episode and gave the emotional impact that the first game had.

MW2 just seemed really rushed. They did try some shock tactics such as the no russian level and trying to go for an emotional punch by having america be invaded but it all ended up being silly and I found the no russian level being really ineffective in conveying what it stood for.

The less said about treyarchs entries the better. Blops was ok but it was nothing more than a stupid michael bay movie. It's not that I don't like CoD games, it's that I like good ones and since CoD 4 they've all been forgettible at best.

johnny_ultimate

I'm still a bit surprised Battlefield 3 didn't come in and wipe the smirk off Activision's smug face. But DICE sort of shot themselves in the foot with a dodgy quote BETA unquote that was more Betamax, plus (supposedly) dodgy console ports and a half-assed SP. I have very little interest in military shooters anymore, but I was kinda hoping they'd really knock the game up

atavan-halen wrote: »

See that's where being able to appreciate older games comes in. If there's nothing good out new I have a library of millions of games to choose from!

Millions?! I bet you're counting ET in that, aren't you?

Retr0gamer

Just looked at metacritic. CoD MW3 is out right now, lots of shops broke the street date, and yet there's not one review of it which is always a bad thing. I'm expecting an ultra conservative sequel that the critics will tear into.

As for Battlefield 3, it's basically EA doing what MS did with the original Xbox. They know that they haven't a hope of outselling MW3 so they have created enough media to put it into the public conscience. CoD players are going to sample the far better multiplayer offered by BF3 and next time the franchises go head to head you'll see BF outsell CoD unless they **** up.

johnny_ultimate

BF should have caught up by now, though, given the likes of Bad Company. I think the fact that the 'ideal' BF3 experience is still very much on PC kind of limits the audience, too.

But yeah, a release day embargo for reviews is absurd. But MW3 is pretty much critic proof.

Game journalism in general is really pissing me off these days, or more appropriately gamers' idiotic reactions to it. Eurogamer put up a pretty considered, well articulated review of Uncharted 3 and gave it 8/10 (I'd probably agree with that rating). The comments were just full of abuse because it screwed up the metacritic rating by 1% or something.

How are we ever meant to have thoughtful discourse when most gamers are a pack of childish idiots? It's like gamers peer-pressure reviewers to manufacture consent, and then rebel at the slightest hint of independent thought. Find me a film with questionable 'universal acclaim' and I'll be impressed. Seems every other major release enjoys it, though.

Retr0gamer

Yep the whinging from gamers if a reviewers dares give a game a great review instead of an excellent review is embarassing. Some people also seem to think that if you criticise a game then it's not worth playing, for example people jumping down my throat when I point out flaws in FFVII. I may think the game is flawed but I also think it's well worth playing. Some of the best games I;ve played in the last year have been horribly flawed, Rule of Rose, Nier, Fragile Dreams and Deadly Premonition. I think how intertwined internet culture and gaming are make it very hard to find somewhere to have intelligent discussion about games.

Jack burton

Got the new COD myself and I really like the multiplayer and I want to see how this story ends, in no way are any of them the best games ever made but there a grand bita fun to play with the friends during the ****ty winter nights.

Glad someone mentioned the darkness aswell, really underrated game and I'm delighted to see its getting a sequal

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yep the whinging from gamers if a reviewers dares give a game a great review instead of an excellent review is embarassing. Some people also seem to think that if you criticise a game then it's not worth playing, for example people jumping down my throat when I point out flaws in FFVII. I may think the game is flawed but I also think it's well worth playing. Some of the best games I;ve played in the last year have been horribly flawed, Rule of Rose, Nier, Fragile Dreams and Deadly Premonition. I think how intertwined internet culture and gaming are make it very hard to find somewhere to have intelligent discussion about games.

MEMO

To: All Gamers
From: Head Office
Re: Reviews

Hi folks,
After the recent uproar after a Swedish site gave Battlefield 3 an 8/10 (let's just say the reviewer won't be eating solid food ever again) we've decided to prepare an official standard chart for review scores so we're all on the same page and can judge our response appropriately. Please consult the following if in doubt:

10/10: Masterpiece
9/10: Near-masterpiece
8/10: Journalist thinks game is worse than Hitler, and is effectively defecating on your doorstep
7/10: Journalist despises humanity and is threatening to ritualistically sacrifice your first born-child
6/10 or lower: these scores are only acceptable for really bad truck racing games that we can mock ironically. For anything else, this rating is a crime on the scale of mass genocide / nuclear holocaust.

Optimus Prime

I think the likes of Battlefield and COD are great online games for playing with friends, if your going on there on your own its just an all out verbal assault and at least a few tea baggings along the way by american teenagers. i have to admit, i do love playing the games online when you get a group of friends together and actually work as a team instead of running in rambo style, especially battlefield, when played right the game is amazing, there are so many different ways to achieve the objectives and the best way to do it is in a group.

The last few single player storys are just by the numbers, walk along shoot some stuff games, they need something new to freshen them up. Gears3 was the same.

They need to take a page out of Uncharted3s book, that game was a masterclass in single player story telling and epic locations. I dunno if anyone has played it, but it really is an amazing game. even the multiplayer on it is good, and a change from the norm, in one map you start off on a runway in the back of a truck and your team have to board a plane before it takes off. Just good ideas added into the mix, to break up the usual both teams start on opposite sides of generic map.

DinoRex

More games should have endings like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAku53ZQZOg

James Howlett

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

MEMO

To: All Gamers
From: Head Office
Re: Reviews

Hi folks,
After the recent uproar after a Swedish site gave Battlefield 3 an 8/10 (let's just say the reviewer won't be eating solid food ever again) we've decided to prepare an official standard chart for review scores so we're all on the same page and can judge our response appropriately. Please consult the following if in doubt:

10/10: Masterpiece
9/10: Near-masterpiece
8/10: Journalist thinks game is worse than Hitler, and is effectively defecating on your doorstep
7/10: Journalist despises humanity and is threatening to ritualistically sacrifice your first born-child
6/10 or lower: these scores are only acceptable for really bad truck racing games that we can mock ironically. For anything else, this rating is a crime on the scale of mass genocide / nuclear holocaust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5bqMDGWXO8

Dr Bob

DinoRex wrote: »

More games should have endings like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAku53ZQZOg

See , you dont get that life advice on the NES , just sh!t about the princess being in another castle.Which is of course why the Mastersystem is a superior machine in all respects


Oh yeah , the battlefield games have been going downhill since battlefield vietnam. COD was grand when it was in WWII but the modern ones seem to kill your character in a dramatic fashion in each and every cutscene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdhhQhqi_AE

Mr Vengeance

I enjoyed Call of Duty 2 on the PC at release, but even back then it was a little dated in its campaign design. Games like Perfect Dark, Operation Flashpoint, Vietcong and the masterpiece that is No One Lives Forever had far more depth and progressive game design that the linear and repetitive Call of Duty games, and those titles are all old!

Playing Call of Duty 4 last year.... well it was no more complicated than Doom. A prettier Medal of Honor Frontline basically. Guys would pop up and you'd shoot them, then they'd respawn - rinse and repeat. At least Doom was a revolution in its day, and arguably has more charm today than CoD. I actually tried to bring CoD 4 back to the shop, but they told me to jog on.

No I don't "do" online multiplayer, which is the CoD "thing" as it were. For me its all about the campaign, and sadly, the Call of Duty series' campaign have all been dull, repetiitive and forgetable in recent time in my opinion. I have no doubt the games are doing something right, otherwise no one would buy them, but they should at least provide a half decent campaign in their games as its the campaign they are promoting in the advertisements.....

johnny_ultimate

Reviews seem surprisingly positive though - even when you skip past the no-name blogs that somehow got featured on metacritic and bring the average score up about 20 or 30 points!

Seems like they have done a bit of balancing to multiplayer, which is nice. They all seem to be under the assumption that the MW campaigns are a good thing though - 'no major surprises' and 'more of the same, slightly polished' seem to be common threads. If that means invisible trigger points *shakes fist*

DinoRex

Professey Chin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Reviews seem surprisingly positive though - even when you skip past the no-name blogs that somehow got featured on metacritic and bring the average score up about 20 or 30 points!

Seems like they have done a bit of balancing to multiplayer, which is nice. They all seem to be under the assumption that the MW campaigns are a good thing though - 'no major surprises' and 'more of the same, slightly polished' seem to be common threads. If that means invisible trigger points *shakes fist*

From what Ive read, yes.Yes it does

CiDeRmAn

DinoRex wrote: »

I was once that soldier!
I saw they were referring to game as MW2 and I thought of Mechwarrior 2!
Do I get a prize?

johnny_ultimate

The main character in Persona 4 anime has the Catherine 'Game Over' music as his ringtone.

Meguro.

pdbhp

MW3 will probably play some of it soon enough when one of my mates buy it.

I know deep down in my heart it's gonna suck monkey balls big time with broken hit detection and all the silly american flag waving bullshít that comes with it.

Multi player can be really fun when played with mates and not 14 year old boys and their screaming into the mic

DinoRex

Haha... apparently this is what happens when MW3 crashes:

CiDeRmAn

Who wrote that Enduro Racer ending?
Dr. Phil?

Could be one of those Jerry Springer closing monologues either!

DinoRex

I went to Jerry Springer the Opera on Saturday. It was brilliant.

Jesus threw the holy Eucharist right in my face as I was sitting in the second row.

Retr0gamer

Finally!

CiDeRmAn

Does Retr0 having licked a game make it more or less valuable when trading it in?
Will people send you games so they can have them licked, with suitable photographic evidence and perhaps some sort of commemorative certificate?
Are there any games you'll refuse to lick?
Will you try to work dressing up as a japanese schoolgirl into any of these rituals?
Does Sera know of this new, added, worrying deviant behaviour?
Are there any more?

Retr0, a man who poses more questions, and some when he just poses....