Aexalven
Big Paws
The chick looks like she;s trying not too laugh. Thats what happens when you are threatened with 5$ katana
The Gaming Thread
- Thread starter Belac
- Start date
DarkGift
ov Doom
Aexalven
Big Paws
People still play UT games as well. Both communities are kicking in their own ways. As for the eating UT dust part, Unreal Tournament franchise buried Quake right out of the gate. There are still people playing sure (both games) but at release time Quake 3 was outmatched and never took the arena shooter throne back even if there is a nostalgic community still setting up servers. Later on both got left behind by bigger things, especially since UT3 was shit. I don't say that with hate towards Quake, I liked both series and Quake 1 was one of my first multiplayer obsessions.
Quake 3 controls are responsive as hell but there is no sense of feedback. You feel like a ghost speeding around and while there is plenty of mayhem to be had I prefer the more grounded style of Unreal games. And I love strafe dodging and double jumps, it adds an extra layer of complexity, unpredictability and how you fight and react during combat rather than just circle strafing.
As was said, it comes down to preference there. These days I just play Doom. The sliding controls work best there.
Well, replace Quake with Counter Strike and replace UT with Battlefield/CoD. It's the same sort of never-ending discussion.
Sure, it's "preference" but UT (and BF and CoD) are multiplayer games for people who play single player games on "Easy". More complex mechanics do not directly translate into more fun. Higher skill ceiling = more immersion = more fun.
PS : I like UT2004. I've spent tens, maybe even hundreds of hours doing Onslaughts with friends and I am pretty garbage at Quake, but I don't think there's much debate which is the superior game.
There is enough debate that we have been having his conversation. And UT is hardly an easy mode game unless you play bots. I wouldn't compare it to CS, BF or CoD at all which are all slower paced and more realistic. You can't shoot someone in the face with a rocket launcher in those games and still lose the fight 
.
It is closest to Quake with its fast and twitchy gameplay, absurd weapons and powerups which is why I compare them. Both are games of speed and skill.
It seems like the part we disagree on is that we are looking for different things. You guys seem to be focused solely on the duel and tournament value of Quake which I admit adds longevity (look at Starcraft). I guess if you are more interested in pro-gamer type of thing maybe Quake is the choice, but overall I still think UT is the bigger, more varied and more well rounded experience.
I like the variety, settings and complexity of the maps, I like the vibrant color palette and architecture, I like all the insane mod support that is synonymous with UT, and I like the powerups, extra moves and how the guns all have their own strategies with just enough chaos to keep it interesting. I also am far more interested in big maps with multiple layers and ways to get around them, with at least 20 players kicking the shit out of eachother at once.
I am not in it to see who can do the craziest 1v1 speed matches or even 2v2, 3v3 etc.
So I guess that's why we won't agree. Which is fine, I'm Canadian and all that.
. And UT is hardly an easy mode game unless you play bots. I wouldn't compare it to CS, BF or CoD at all which are all slower paced and more realistic. You can't shoot someone in the face with a rocket launcher in those games and still lose the fight . It is closest to Quake with its fast and twitchy gameplay, absurd weapons and powerups which is why I compare them. Both are games of speed and skill.
It seems like the part we disagree on is that we are looking for different things. You guys seem to be focused solely on the duel and tournament value of Quake which I admit adds longevity (look at Starcraft). I guess if you are more interested in pro-gamer type of thing maybe Quake is the choice, but overall I still think UT is the bigger, more varied and more well rounded experience.
I like the variety, settings and complexity of the maps, I like the vibrant color palette and architecture, I like all the insane mod support that is synonymous with UT, and I like the powerups, extra moves and how the guns all have their own strategies with just enough chaos to keep it interesting. I also am far more interested in big maps with multiple layers and ways to get around them, with at least 20 players kicking the shit out of eachother at once.
I am not in it to see who can do the craziest 1v1 speed matches or even 2v2, 3v3 etc.
So I guess that's why we won't agree. Which is fine, I'm Canadian and all that
.
Aexalven
Big Paws
So passive and meek, makes me wanna puke
When losing an argument just inult your opponents mom. Works every time.
Yeah, I also forgot to call him a fag. That usually helps elevate me above my internet opponent. Next time.....
Aexalven
Big Paws
Dont forget to threaten him. I have yet to be SWATed, so its a safe and quick way to scare your opponent and force him into agreeing with you.
nizzon
f.k.a Qth
DarkGift
ov Doom
speaking of shooters, did anyone play warhammer: space marine? it was fun multiplayer, they controls were kinda crap though since it was a console port but w/e. the single player was kinda meh as well
isolation_years
Member
I was warned to stay clear of it. I have only played one Warhammer game that I thought was decent so I took the advice in that case. Warhammer does have lots of badass potential, but as a guy that doesn't do boardgames the franchise has not grabbed hold of me yet.
Aexalven
Big Paws
Hooooly fucking shit, im so glad I didnt buy Arkham Knight today when i was in store. 1.5 score on metacritic. Gonna pirate it to just see how much they fucked up
DarkGift
ov Doom
Warhammer Online was pretty awesome tbh, too bad everyone gave up on it because "wow is moar better". the game that's been out for 500 years is more polished? who would've thought!
DarkGift
ov Doom
i'm guessing some sad people are voting 0 because their expectations were higher/because of that one thing that they didn't like etc. instead of just giving it and avg. score
Aexalven
Big Paws
~If the game doesnt work on high end pcs then I feel they are justified to rate the game 0 because this is bullshit and lack of respect from developers.
+ they are using denuvo (pirrrrrate protection) that is confirmed to consume a lot of PC resources. I love it when I buy something legally and im just being fucked because of it.
+ they are using denuvo (pirrrrrate protection) that is confirmed to consume a lot of PC resources. I love it when I buy something legally and im just being fucked because of it.
DarkGift
ov Doom
why wouldn't it work on high end pc's? i haven't read anything about the game, so i'm just generalizing on how people score stuff (like on IMDB for example)
Aexalven
Big Paws
Saw a gameplay from a dude having high end PC, and the game was couldnt even hold 30 fps, often going to 3 fps in batmobile which is unnacceptable.
From the other hand id rather see people rating bad, avarage game with 1 or 0 than people rating average game with 10s. But people cant rate for shit, I like it - 10, 9, I hate it - 1.
I use full 1 to 10 scale and even if i rate something, 5, 6 I still like the game / movie, I just find this average while most people assume i hated the game/movie.
From the other hand id rather see people rating bad, avarage game with 1 or 0 than people rating average game with 10s. But people cant rate for shit, I like it - 10, 9, I hate it - 1.
I use full 1 to 10 scale and even if i rate something, 5, 6 I still like the game / movie, I just find this average while most people assume i hated the game/movie.
That's my biggest problem with Metacritic. The idea of user ratings seems great, but when you actually check the ratings both positive and negative, people give games 10s and 0s when it deserves neither. It completely fucks up the average and defeats the purpose of having regular every day opinions. There are even idiots that will say "the game is okay, it's like the last one but improves nothing. 0/10". That's an abridged version of an actual Arkham Knight review btw. Okay means 0?????
What the fuck? If you think it's okay but adds nothing give it a 5 or 6 for at least reaching a benchmark of some kind. 0 should be reserved for unplayable games that are beyond amateur and can't even be played or beaten.
Too many people get butt-hurt and go off the deep end over stupid shit like a couple of glitches or one design flaw they don't like and too many people are eager to praise a game beyond its worth. I honestly think in the case of Metacritic you are MUCH better off listening to the critic score, because even if some them have a bias, a professional critic can't slant the value to that degree without being able to back it up. It averages out to a more honest number in the end.
I've never played an Arkham game. Anyone here a fan?
What the fuck? If you think it's okay but adds nothing give it a 5 or 6 for at least reaching a benchmark of some kind. 0 should be reserved for unplayable games that are beyond amateur and can't even be played or beaten.
Too many people get butt-hurt and go off the deep end over stupid shit like a couple of glitches or one design flaw they don't like and too many people are eager to praise a game beyond its worth. I honestly think in the case of Metacritic you are MUCH better off listening to the critic score, because even if some them have a bias, a professional critic can't slant the value to that degree without being able to back it up. It averages out to a more honest number in the end.
I've never played an Arkham game. Anyone here a fan?
Aexalven
Big Paws
top overrated game of 2015 - Witcher 3
top underrated game of 2015 - Arkham City probably, but if it really doesnt work well on PC i dont blame pissed off people rating it 0. I rembember buying Mount&Blade With Fire And Sword and the game was literally crashing after half hour of gameplay. They fixed it 3 weeks after the release. Like, test your fucking game.
Im not a fan of superheroes but my short review of arham series:
Arkham Asylum was pretty lackluster for me, the game was either too easy or not fair, story was bland, combat was just okay. 5/10
Arkham City improved everything that should be improved, enemies with guns were finally beatable without retrying 10 times, combat was very fluid, story was more interesting, graphics were improved, solid 7, maybe 7,5/10. Thats why I was hyped for Arkham Knight but oh well.
top underrated game of 2015 - Arkham City probably, but if it really doesnt work well on PC i dont blame pissed off people rating it 0. I rembember buying Mount&Blade With Fire And Sword and the game was literally crashing after half hour of gameplay. They fixed it 3 weeks after the release. Like, test your fucking game.
Im not a fan of superheroes but my short review of arham series:
Arkham Asylum was pretty lackluster for me, the game was either too easy or not fair, story was bland, combat was just okay. 5/10
Arkham City improved everything that should be improved, enemies with guns were finally beatable without retrying 10 times, combat was very fluid, story was more interesting, graphics were improved, solid 7, maybe 7,5/10. Thats why I was hyped for Arkham Knight but oh well.
