Grand Theft Auto [Archive]

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 19:06

Marketed mainstream products? What, like Duke Nukem and Quake, which at the time were very mainstream? And I find it humorous that you talk of work of arts whilst referring to Open TTD.
Nah, the latter, as I've said, is on the opposite end of the spectrum - a zero-violence "all ages" simple fun game. Even these are better when on PC and with a classic touch. Quake is valuable as a classic. Duke is more than just a classic, it's still a great game, one of the very few shooters that have captured the essence of fun. That's why Duke stood the test of time, and is still being developed, both software and episodes, by volunteers.

Games that are works of art, like Planescape: Torment, are much more rare - and they even still occur these days, like Dreamfall - they just don't get as wide market appeal and so tend to stay on PC, the more mature and diversity-welcome platform.

Your taste is entirely subjective (like everyone), and from what I've seen, you're not in any sort of place to legitimately make huge generalisations about games today.
Look around you, this is NSG, so I am in exactly that sort of place.

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 19:20

Nah, the latter, as I've said, is on the opposite end of the spectrum - a zero-violence "all ages" simple fun game. Even these are better when on PC and with a classic touch. Quake is valuable as a classic. Duke is more than just a classic, it's still a great game, one of the very few shooters that have captured the essence of fun. That's why Duke stood the test of time, and is still being developed, both software and episodes, by volunteers.

I can't believe you're not even referencing Doom, which started all this, and still has a massive following (see - skulltag).

Games that are works of art, like Planescape: Torment, are much more rare - and they even still occur these days, like Dreamfall - they just don't get as wide market appeal and so tend to stay on PC, the more mature and diversity-welcome platform.

Look around you, this is NSG, so I am in exactly that sort of place.

My point still stands, you only seem to like games that conform to the traditional standards that were around back in the 'good ol' days', as such the only new games you like are ones that are re-creating the traditional RPG style. That's called being narrow minded.

Adunabar

01-09-2008, 19:23

Then it's even more so without reason to exclude the original ones.

Explain.

Gravlen

01-09-2008, 19:44

I like the GTA series. :)

I've yet to play GTA 4, and GTA 2 sucked. But the entire GTA 3 series rocks! Vice City is my favourite, with San Andreas a very close second (the missions there tend to suck while the gameworld itself is fantastic!)

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 20:18

Explain.
If you think there'll be few people to vote for GTA1 anyway, why not include it in the poll, seeing as 3 or 4 will still win?

I can't believe you're not even referencing Doom, which started all this, and still has a massive following (see - skulltag).
Doom is very good too. But, in most aspects, it has been surpassed. Even the lowly Doom 3 gives a bit of Hell near the end, and it's, I'd say, better than in the original Doom. Its levels are a bit more repetitive, and it doesn't have quite the same atmosphere, but, in large part, it's still true to the spirit, just very reworked.
So, Doom's value lies half in its classic appeal and half in the distinctive atmosphere of Hell it offers, but it's not fully unique in that. In contrast, Duke offers what no other 3d-action does - no-repetition level design, sense of purpose in every level, and the unique life-reflecting style. Surprisingly, many user maps and whole new episodes still keep up to the same standard. I think the Build engine is partially to thank for that, as it strongly discourages copy-pasting, but most of all it's the charge of spirit Levelord has put into it.

My point still stands, you only seem to like games that conform to the traditional standards that were around back in the 'good ol' days', as such the only new games you like are ones that are re-creating the traditional RPG style. That's called being narrow minded.
No, it's called having respect for quality.

And no, I don't only like games that conform to the traditional standards... Though, oh, wait, but I do. You see, if I buy a P997 today, it will not only be more comfortable, but also faster and better handling than the old P993. It conforms to the P993 standards, and surpasses them. So, I fail to see why, if I buy a new computer game, I should not expect it to surpass or at least match the old standards of quality.

Say, what do CRPG offer today? Well, let's look at Oblivion. We get a dumb Hollywood-level storyline, genericized fantasy world, no choices such as war of houses seen in MW, and for dialogues, we get a hundred short phrases repeated in different voices. To add insult to injury, not even matching each other. As for theme, it's limited to "save da world from monsters from hell".

What did CRPG offer ten years before? They offered a unique post-nuclear California world of Fallout, and the Planescape setting, which needs no introduction. They offered a choice in at least every second quest, and they were filled with intelligent dialogue. And as for themes... Well, anyone who has fully played Planescape: Torment, should have a whole other impression of what computer games can possibly be. It passes through the three philosophical schools of thought, each valid, each with its roots in the reality, each with strong arguments. And it gives the choice. Furthermore, apart from that, each decision you make affects your alignment, presenting your character through what you do, not what you select on some stat sheet.

Well, Torment is a work of art. I don't expect that from a modern RPG. But I do expect at least a bit of thought inside, and a bit of role-playing, choice. Say, Geneforge, while not as deep as Torment, still has a unique theme. It explores the matter of religion, but its question is not just "Is there a god?", but rather more blasphemous "If there is God, and if He actually created us, and wants us to worship Him... is that enough reason to do so?". At least, after finishing Geneforge, you are a bit different person in your beliefs.

Can that be said of the modern-day C"RP"G? Not really. When they even have any meaningful dialogue at all, there are no ideas there; just some scripted entertainment. They're like junk food, calories to get you through the day, and nothing else.
So if "open-mindedness" means consuming junk food, I'll pass. I won't lower my standards of quality just because the mass production system does. If that means I'll mostly have to order classic recipes, which taste great without dozens of synthetic additives and tons of MSG, so be it.

Bouitazia

01-09-2008, 20:30

GTA I&II are the (only) good ones in the series.

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 20:35

Even the lowly Doom 3 gives a bit of Hell near the end, and it's, I'd say, better than in the original Doom. Its levels are a bit more repetitive, and it doesn't have quite the same atmosphere, but, in large part, it's still true to the spirit, just very reworked.

Fucking fail.

So, Doom's value lies half in its classic appeal and half in the distinctive atmosphere of Hell it offers, but it's not fully unique in that. In contrast, Duke offers what no other 3d-action does - no-repetition level design, sense of purpose in every level, and the unique life-reflecting style.

Even more insane fail. Have you ever even played an fps other than doom, quake or Dn?

Say, what do CRPG offer today? Well, let's look at Oblivion. We get a dumb Hollywood-level storyline

I find it funny when people actually believe that any RPG has a story good and credible enough to stand on its own, story's are only there to supplement the game play. Yes very occasionally they end up being aright to the extent that you care what happens, but I never play a game for that aspect, since if it's merely a good story I require, I'll read a book.

-snip-

Wait, why are you only talking about crpg's? There are hundreds of other genres to explore.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 20:44

Fucking fail.
Yes, it's not a good game, but - they did it as they should. Well, parts of it. It's how a modern-day Doom has to look to keep up with the times. The idea is still there, although only through parts of the game.
It's a much less spectacular failure than most other new games, even those better than Doom, since unlike others it had to be at least partially that way.

Have you ever even played an fps other than doom, quake or Dn?
Well, tell me what new-make I should play to find comparable fun.
Apart from Half-Life, it's great, no doubt.

I find it funny when people actually believe that any RPG has a story good and credible enough to stand on its own, story's are only there to supplement the game play.
PS:T. Could make for a quite decent book. Of course, good story and good gameplay reinforce one another a great lot.

Yes very occasionally they end up being aright to the extent that you care what happens, but I never play a game for that aspect, since if it's merely a good story I require, I'll read a book.
So you're fine with pointless and mindless monster-chopping? Thought so.

Wait, why are you only talking about crpg's? There are hundreds of other genres to explore.
No, more like six or eight genres. RPG, adventure, action, strategy, simulation, arcade. Well, something else too.
RPG just offer the most pronounced examples of game degradation over time.

Tolvan

01-09-2008, 20:50

I'm personally partial to Vice City, I couldn't get into San Andreas or GTA IV.

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 20:57

Yes, it's not a good game, but - they did it as they should. Well, parts of it. It's how a modern-day Doom has to look to keep up with the times. The idea is still there, although only through parts of the game.
It's a much less spectacular failure than most other new games, even those better than Doom, since unlike others it had to be at least partially that way.

I cannot believe this. You decry the mainstream mass teenage targeted modern video gaming as garbage, but then proceed to praise Doom 3, and what's worse, claim it's true to the spirit of Doom. Your views are totally inconsistent, the main reason people denounce Doom 3 is because it's NOT true to the spirit, but because it's far too mainstream. That being said, it is an alright game on its own.

Well, tell me what new-make I should play to find comparable fun.
Apart from Half-Life, it's great, no doubt.

I don't even know where to begin to be honest. Almost every FPS has a 'purpose' to each level (not that DN was particularly meaningful). Why don't you try Crysis or something.

PS:T. Could make for a quite decent book. Of course, good story and good gameplay reinforce one another a great lot.

So could Grand Theft Auto 4, it has a pretty ok-ish storyline as well (with a fantastic and witty script).

So you're fine with pointless and mindless monster-chopping? Thought so.

Depends on the type of game I'm playing. If it's an adventure/RPG, I expect it to be adventurous and exploitative, if it's an action/shoot-em-up then I expect it to be action packed, maybe tactical, good fun, and a great multilayer. Storyline is usually the last of my considerations.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 21:13

I cannot believe this. You decry the mainstream mass teenage targeted modern video gaming as garbage, but then proceed to praise Doom 3, and what's worse, claim it's true to the spirit of Doom.
No, I don't praise D3. But it was less of a letdown than modern games normally are.

Your views are totally inconsistent, the main reason people denounce Doom 3 is because it's NOT true to the spirit, but because it's far too mainstream.
Doom has always been as mainstream as it gets.
It's just that the mainstream these days consisted of 25 year old bored programmers, rather than 15 year old gaymer kids.

I don't even know where to begin to be honest. Almost every FPS has a 'purpose' to each level (not that DN was particularly meaningful). Why don't you try Crysis or something.
Crock, totally. It's basically a FarCry turned entirely into eyecandy, and that says quite a lot, since past the first 4 levels FC got worthless.

OTOH I have to say Bioshock was tolerable. But it's still a long way down from System Shock or Deus Ex.

So could Grand Theft Auto 4, it has a pretty ok-ish storyline as well (with a fantastic and witty script).
Yes, I think so. From what the media reports, it's quite a regular criminal novel plot.

That's why I emphasize synergy of storyline, setting and gameplay, rather than any single component. And emphasis is largely on gameplay. A game storyline isn't the same as a book one. Good gameplay makes you at least in part the writer, poor or mediocre leaves you just the reader.

Depends on the type of game I'm playing. If it's an adventure/RPG, I expect it to be adventurous and exploitative, if it's an action/shoot-em-up then I expect it to be action packed, maybe tactical, good fun, and a great multilayer. Storyline is usually the last of my considerations.
It's not as much storyline as setting. What are you going to "adventure" in a stupid world?
And then, gameplay degrades even worse than other elements. The best of what modern action games have to offer, Armed Assault, is nothing more than a paint job on Operation Flashpoint, but one that made it less playable and involving at that.

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 21:25

No, I don't praise D3. But it was less of a letdown than modern games normally are.

Doom has always been as mainstream as it gets.
It's just that the mainstream these days consisted of 25 year old bored programmers, rather than 15 year old gaymer kids.

That's not the point, the point is that if there is one thing you can say about Doom 3, is that it's NOT keeping to the spirit of the game. If you think it is, then I don't have much regard for your opinion of modern FPS's.

Crock, totally. It's basically a FarCry turned entirely into eyecandy, and that says quite a lot, since past the first 4 levels FC got worthless.

What a meaningless dismissal. I could just as easily say that DN is a doomclone with sloped edges.

Yes, I think so. From what the media reports, it's quite a regular criminal novel plot.

That's why I emphasize synergy of storyline, setting and gameplay, rather than any single component. And emphasis is largely on gameplay. A game storyline isn't the same as a book one. Good gameplay makes you at least in part the writer, poor or mediocre leaves you just the reader.

It's not as much storyline as setting. What are you going to "adventure" in a stupid world?

GTA 4 has a setting which is about involved as you can get, it's possibly the most extensive and interactive environment I've ever seen in a game. There's a reason they describe the city as literally "living and breathing".

And then, gameplay degrades even worse than other elements. The best of what modern action games have to offer, Armed Assault, is nothing more than a paint job on Operation Flashpoint, but one that made it less playable and involving at that.

What? Firstly, Armed Assault is merely an expansion of OFP released shortly after, it's not supposed to be presented as a new or original game. Secondly, OFP is a completely different type of game, you can't compare it to modern action games, as it's a combat simulator it comes from a totally different angle.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 21:41

That's not the point, the point is that if there is one thing you can say about Doom 3, is that it's NOT keeping to the spirit of the game. If you think it is, then I don't have much regard for your opinion of modern FPS's.
That depends on what you consider keeping to the spirit. Everything is understood in compatison. For a gap of over 10 years between games, it's not as bad as it happened with others. The major difference is that D3 has changed into more of a horror game. But, OTOH, it can be seen as a sort of evolution of the concept. Remember, Doom started with you being left behind in the ship by marines, with just a pistol, and then exploring horrors of the base and Hell. Doom 1 tried to be horrifying, it just didn't manage to, D3 managed to (a bit), even though it lost the old pure fun factor. Still, it at least can be something a Doom player could want.
Not what happened with HL1->HL2 pure degradation, for instance.

What a meaningless dismissal. I could just as easily say that DN is a doomclone with sloped edges.
And be wrong. Because DN is the first 3d action to feature a modern city setting with realism, humour and a bit of dirt.

Unlike it, Crysis doesn't even try to be different, or be anything more than eye candy at that.

GTA 4 has a setting which is about involved as you can get, it's possibly the most extensive and interactive environment I've ever seen in a game. There's a reason they describe the city as literally "living and breathing".
Maybe. I might look into it when it comes out.

What? Firstly, Armed Assault is merely an expansion of OFP released shortly after,
Wrong, actually. It's been 5 years between OFP and ArmA.

Secondly, OFP is a completely different type of game, you can't compare it to modern action games, as it's a combat simulator it comes from a totally different angle.
It's merely an evolution of action games. Just one not recognized by casual gaymers. A real evolution, if I might.
Actually, if you like FarCry, you should have noticed how much of its evolution is borrowed from (or at least follows) Operation Flashpoint. From weapon reloading and select fire to the whole crouching and falling prone deal. The main difference is that FarCry AI is so primitive that realistic techniques don't work well, but one can't say they didn't try.

Basically, FarCry is to Flashpoint what canned gin-tonic is to gin, or what a wine cooler is to good Bordeaux dry red.

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 21:55

That depends on what you consider keeping to the spirit. Everything is understood in compatison. For a gap of over 10 years between games, it's not as bad as it happened with others. The major difference is that D3 has changed into more of a horror game. But, OTOH, it can be seen as a sort of evolution of the concept. Remember, Doom started with you being left behind in the ship by marines, with just a pistol, and then exploring horrors of the base and Hell. Doom 1 tried to be horrifying, it just didn't manage to, D3 managed to (a bit), even though it lost the old pure fun factor.

The main thing is, I cannot believe you are giving Doom 3 so much leeway, when at the time even many of the most mainstream shooters were much more advanced and exciting to play.

Not what happened with HL1->HL2 pure degradation, for instance.

Wtf? Explain. All the good things about HL were left in HL2, but the setting, mechanics, graphics, level design and AI were improved.

And be wrong. Because DN is the first 3d action to feature a modern city setting with realism, humour and a bit of dirt.

Just because it's the FIRST does not make it a work of art. And I'm not entirely sure it was the first game to feature a modern city setting.

Unlike it, Crysis doesn't even try to be different, or be anything more than eye candy at that.

Wtf? It's pretty much impossible to be different these days with shooters, since almost every aspect in FPS's has been covered. Everything about Crysis is excellent, the AI are extremely realistic and allows you to be far more tactical than with FarCry. The environment is amazing, and actually enhances the gameplay very much. Difference, merely for the sake of difference, is not something you should aspire to all the time. I found DN a billion times more similar to Doom then I did with Crysis and Farcry.

Maybe. I might look into it when it comes out.

Good, that's far better than just immediately dismissing it.

Wrong, actually. It's been 5 years between OFP and ArmA.

I can't believe that, they are almost exactly the same, but whatever. Calling it "a paint job of OFP" is not an insult, since that's what it's supposed to be.

It's merely an evolution of action games. Just one not recognized by casual gaymers. A real evolution, if I might.
Actually, if you like FarCry, you should have noticed how much of its evolution is borrowed from (or at least follows) Operation Flashpoint. From weapon reloading and select fire to the whole crouching and falling prone deal. The main difference is that FarCry AI is so primitive that realistic techniques don't work well, but one can't say they didn't try.

Basically, FarCry is to Flashpoint what canned gin-tonic is to gin, or what a wine cooler is to good Bordeaux dry red.

Evolution can take many routes. You shouldn't expect a game to have to be intensely tactical, to be AS REALISTIC AS POSSIBLE is not always the best idea (although it worked for OFP, but for many other games it didn't). If you believe that is the case, then you shouldn't be liking games like DN.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 22:13

The main thing is, I cannot believe you are giving Doom 3 so much leeway, when at the time even many of the most mainstream shooters were much more advanced and exciting to play.
I'm not judging it per se, but comparing with the original Doom. And in that light, it's acceptable.

Wtf? Explain. All the good things about HL were left in HL2, but the setting, mechanics, graphics, level design and AI were improved.
Oh really?
Well, let's start with level design.
How many times in HL2 do you even have a choice of where to go?
It's a damn corridor, you run through it shooting at enemies, and that's it. You never even need to turn back. Forward, forward, take the only turn there is, shoot the dudes, forward.

Not sure if it's worth evaluating further after that.

But well, other player choices?
In HL1, you at least could have a say about people following you. Throughout the game. And it was often crucial. In HL2, there's a bit of "team" action near the end, but just a bit, and you have no control.

Rail shooter.

Just because it's the FIRST does not make it a work of art. And I'm not entirely sure it was the first game to feature a modern city setting.
The problem is, there isn't really the second one. Maybe SIN and somewhat Deus Ex, but they're too distinctly different.
No, not the first, but the first to feature it together with a healthy dose of humour, dirt and gritty realism.

Everything about Crysis is excellent, the AI are extremely realistic
Could you elaborate?

Just to note, the benchmark is OFP.

Good, that's far better than just immediately dismissing it.
But I know it still won't make a lasting impression, unlike Fallout or PS:T. It's set to be just another game.

Evolution can take many routes. You shouldn't expect a game to have to be intensely tactical, to be AS REALISTIC AS POSSIBLE is not always the best idea (although it worked for OFP, but for many other games it didn't). If you believe that is the case, then you shouldn't be liking games like DN.
Once again, the thing about DN is its unique spirit, which no other games, apart from maybe SIN, even tried to reproduce. Duke Nukem is FUN. Proper, American, uncensored fun. And it's always tongue-in-cheek, since these "aliens" aren't like ebil rubber zombies, they do what real people do, up to bodily functions.
Just tell, in how many games can you find an alien sitting on a loo, kick his butt, pee, flush, then kick the toilet and drink out of it?

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 22:21

Oh really?
Well, let's start with level design.
How many times in HL2 do you even have a choice of where to go?

Just as much as in HL1

It's a damn corridor, you run through it shooting at enemies, and that's it. You never even need to turn back. Forward, forward, take the only turn there is, shoot the dudes, forward.

There's loads of shit like that that you have to do. All the time, for instance, it involves you utilizing the games physics to construct catapults or other devices. I actually found the game to be less linear than HL1.

Rail shooter.

Every single game reviewer, even nerdy fanboys of the orignal HL game disagrees with you.

The problem is, there isn't really the second one. Maybe SIN and somewhat Deus Ex, but they're too distinctly different.
No, not the first, but the first to feature it together with a healthy dose of humour, dirt and gritty realism.

That on its own is not enough to render it a 'work of art'.

Could you elaborate?

Just to note, the benchmark is OFP.

That's your benchmark for AI? OFP is a fantastic game, but its AI is very poor, that was one of the major let downs. Crysis exceeds that, AI wise, by miles.

But I know it still won't make a lasting impression, unlike Fallout or PS:T. It's set to be just another game.

If it doesn't, that doesn't make it bad.

Just tell, in how many games can you find an alien sitting on a loo, kick his butt, pee, flush, then kick the toilet and drink out of it?

Postal 2? There are loads of games with humorous things to do.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 22:31

Just as much as in HL1
Nope. Never, actually.
Play them both and compare.

I actually found the game to be less linear than HL1.
Tell me ONE place where it's non-linear.

That on its own is not enough to render it a 'work of art'.
I never said it is. DN is simply a great game.

That's your benchmark for AI? OFP is a fantastic game, but its AI is very poor, that was one of the major let downs. Crysis exceeds that, AI wise, by miles.
Elaborate. First, what does Crysis AI does, that would put it as more advanced.
Second, what does Crysis AI do that OFP AI doesn't.

If it doesn't, that doesn't make it bad.
Of course.
As I've said, I don't think wine coolers are bad (well, I do think they are crap, actually, but that's not the point). However, even if they're not bad, that doesn't make them a replacement for proper wine.
There always have been "wines" and "wine coolers" among games, but, sadly, lately it's virtually all "wine coolers".

Postal 2? There are loads of games with humorous things to do.
Postal is violence for violence's sake, a porn video for guro perverts. It's not even comparable.

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 22:45

Nope. Never, actually.
Play them both and compare.

Have, thoroughly.

Tell me ONE place where it's non-linear.

That would be pointless, since it's too easy to be pedantic about it. If what you're saying is so obvious, you should be able to cite it in at least one review.

Elaborate. First, what does Crysis AI does, that would put it as more advanced.
Second, what does Crysis AI do that OFP AI doesn't.

Again, a pointless task due to the same reason as with HL. Anyone who's actually played the game would be able to tell that Crysis' AI is infinitely better than OFP's poorly programmed AI.

Of course.
As I've said, I don't think wine coolers are bad (well, I do think they are crap, actually, but that's not the point). However, even if they're not bad, that doesn't make them a replacement for proper wine.
There always have been "wines" and "wine coolers" among games, but, sadly, lately it's virtually all "wine coolers".

You could just as easily say that about all the games you've cited. You've merely set arbitrary parameters that decide whether a game is a 'wine cooler' or not.

Postal is violence for violence's sake, a porn video for guro perverts. It's not even comparable.

Not comparable aye? Lets see:

Is it an FPS?

Dn - Yes Postal 2 - Yes

Is it in a city setting?

Dn - Yes Postal 2 - Yes

Is it witty and humorous, and can you use funny and obnoxious weapons like piss?

Dn - Yes Postal 2 - Yes

Does the main player constantly add witty commentary to the game?

Dn - Yes Postal 2 - Yes

There really isn't that much of a difference, except from the fact that Postal 2 is more violent since it has the advantage of looking slightly more realistic.

Ifreann

01-09-2008, 22:57

I've only played a little of IV, so that aside San Andreas was my favourite.

Say, what do CRPG offer today?

Entertainment, which is the point of games in general.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 22:58

That would be pointless, since it's too easy to be pedantic about it. If what you're saying is so obvious, you should be able to cite it in at least one review.
I don't read game reviews that don't come from authors I highly respect. Sadly, the only serious game mag has gone bankrupt a few years ago.

Just tell what "nonlinearity" is there in the HL2, since I haven't found any at all.

Again, a pointless task due to the same reason as with HL. Anyone who's actually played the game would be able to tell that Crysis' AI is infinitely better than OFP's poorly programmed AI.
I don't think so, due to the simple lack of same space in Crysis preventing any use of proper tactics.
Just tell, what specifically does Crysis AI do what makes it good.

For instance, the OFP AI hides its AT soldiers until you send an IFV near enough to get shot. It hides well in the forest. It goes prone and crawls behind buildings when shot at, then comes out when you're not looking. It ambushes you from the flank. When it can, it lets you get through the lines, to surround you and strike.

You could just as easily say that about all the games you've cited. You've merely set arbitrary parameters that decide whether a game is a 'wine cooler' or not.
Pretty clear parameters. Much like with quality wine versus soft drink. Wine gives you rich taste and aroma, something to analyze, and an impression that lasts.
Alcopops give you synthetic soda taste and some BAC.

Planescape: Torment makes you think throughout the entire game, and gives a lot to consider afterward, especially if you read on the themes mentioned in depth.
GTA lets you hijack some cars and shoot some guys, in a hollywood criminal action movie plot.

Not comparable aye? Lets see:
Is it an FPS?
Dn - Yes Postal 2 - Yes
This "point" comparison is pointless. These games are just on different levels. DN is a well rounded up one, with all components in synergy. Postal is just guro.

Is it witty and humorous, and can you use funny and obnoxious weapons like piss?
In DN, BTW, peeing isn't a weapon. It has these elements for the sake of them being there, not for practicality.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 22:59

Entertainment, which is the point of games in general.
WHICH modern CRPG can possibly provide any entertainment?

Ifreann

01-09-2008, 23:10

WHICH modern CRPG can possibly provide any entertainment?

To you? Probably none. To other people? Depends on the person, but the fact that some of these games sell millions of copies suggest that millions of people enjoy playing them.

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 23:18

I don't read game reviews that don't come from authors I highly respect. Sadly, the only serious game mag has gone bankrupt a few years ago.

But normally when people make bad claims about a game you normally see it in at least one review mentioned briefly. I have never, in my life, seen anyone say that Half Life 2 is more linear than Half Life 1. Your taste in gaming is very bizarre.

Just tell what "nonlinearity" is there in the HL2, since I haven't found any at all.

How? I can't be bothered to describe in full detail a place in HL2, and I can't be bothered to look for pictures. I mean there are millions of places for instance that you can stop in when you're driving or boating along, that you don't have to stop in at all, often whole buildings with multiple floors that is good to utilize for acquiring weapons and ammo, but not part of the actual rout. What about at the end of HL 2 episode 2, when you're battling the striders, there is absolutely no linearity at all, there is a rather large area you have to cover, and you have to stop Striders from destroying buildings from all sorts of different directions.

I don't think so, due to the simple lack of same space in Crysis preventing any use of proper tactics.
Just tell, what specifically does Crysis AI do what makes it good.

If you can pinpoint patterns in the AI, then it indicates that it isn't realistic. I simply can't point to things that the AI do, since they are constantly acting differently, often depending on the environment around them.

For instance, the OFP AI hides its AT soldiers until you send an IFV near enough to get shot. It hides well in the forest. It goes prone and crawls behind buildings when shot at, then comes out when you're not looking. It ambushes you from the flank. When it can, it lets you get through the lines, to surround you and strike.

The only thing it does is stay back a little and go prone, any hiding around corners is purely co-incidental.

Pretty clear parameters.

But arbitrary and can be easily applied to the games you've cited. Quake and DN can easily be called Doomclones with a different settings. And Doom can be easily called a clone of Wolvenstein but with more eye candy. And you can go back further, saying that Wolvenstein is merely a clone of Maze War but with more eye candy.

Planescape: Torment makes you think throughout the entire game, and gives a lot to consider afterward, especially if you read on the themes mentioned in depth.
GTA lets you hijack some cars and shoot some guys, in a hollywood criminal action movie plot.

Again, making massive simplifications of a game is a very poor style of argument (YOU HAVEN'T EVEN FUCKING PLAYED GTA4), in fact there are many important moral choices you have to make quite often in GTA4 that can affect the future of the game. These aren't easy decisions either, ones that go quite deep, asking whether you should go back on your principles, or go for safety/happiness.

This "point" comparison is pointless. These games are just on different levels. DN is a well rounded up one, with all components in synergy. Postal is just guro.

DN was considered violence for the sake of violence at the time, and was also considered very controversial.

Call to power

01-09-2008, 23:21

I have always liked the overall feel of vice city which I can't say has been matched yet in the series, but alas I guess its more to do with how the 80's tacky goes so well with such a game

I'd say second place would go to liberty city stories for the excellent missions (having a Chainsaw battle at the bottom of a freighter was class)

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 23:36

But normally when people make bad claims about a game you normally see it in at least one review mentioned briefly. I have never, in my life, see anyone say that Half Life 2 is less linear than Half Life 1. Your taste in gaming is very bizarre.
I've said, I generally don't read reviews. But yes, you're right, I too have never seen anyone say that HL2 is less linear than HL1.

How? I can't be bothered to describe in full detail a place in HL2, and I can't be bothered to look for pictures.
Nope, just a point.

I mean there are millions of places for instance that you can stop in when you're driving or boating along, that you don't have to stop in at all, often whole buildings with multiple floors that is good to utilize for acquiring weapons and ammo, but not part of the actual rout.
Ah. Great. So there are some gun caches you're free to miss.

But is there a place where, at the very least, you can take two different routes to the goal?

What about at the end of HL 2 episode 2,
I've only played the original (not e1 or e2). If you have to dig as deep as the 2nd sequel, the argument is pretty weak.

If you can pinpoint patterns in the AI, then it indicates that it isn't realistic. I simply can't point to things that the AI do, since they are constantly acting differently, often depending on the environment around them.
Nope, I can pinpoint patterns in human behavior. Furthermore, I've even been taught to do it, somewhat.
So describe a few instances of how the Crysis AI has tactically outsmarted you.

The only thing it does is stay back a little and go prone, any hiding around corners is purely co-incidental.
"Coincidental" that happens every time. And the things I've described, too, happen regularly.

But arbitrary and can be easily applied to the games you've cited. Quake and DN can easily be called Doomclones with a different settings.
"Clone" refers to a game which offers no real changes apart from just enough plot and visual tweaks to be legal. This is not the case for either game.
Plus, the criteria wasn't about cloning.

These aren't easy decisions either, ones that go quite deep, asking whether you should go back on your principles, or go for safety/happiness.
Well, and here you have spilled it out. So all the depth of choice is whether you stand on principle and be a honest guy or don't stand on principle and sell out.

How deep, indeed.

Now compare it to Geneforge, where you have to decide which principles to stand on, because each of the four sides has compelling arguments for their position, and practice affirming them. Where the decision you make won't just affect your character, but affect you, since you are forced to form an opinion on a question that has no correct answer.

I won't even mention Torment.

DN was considered violence for the sake of violence at the time, and was also considered very controversial.
No, it wasn't (to the first point). Duke has very little graphical violence. A bit more than none. Just as much as other games of the time. What was controversial about DN, apart from partial nudity, is that it ruthlessly mocked the "American Lifestyle", and the "aliens" you killed could just as well be humans, and civilians at that. But could, not were. It worked on the intellectual level, not plain visual.

Vault 10

01-09-2008, 23:44

To you? Probably none. To other people? Depends on the person, but the fact that some of these games sell millions of copies suggest that millions of people enjoy playing them.
Well, you see, it's not that it's just me who is disappointed in modern games. It's most of the people who grew up playing good classic games, especially adventures and RPG.
The fact that McDonalds rolls billions clearly proves that there are tens of millions people who enjoy eating what they claim to be food. But still, there are millions of those who don't like it, and these people have their strong arguments for preferring proper food.

So have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, there indeed might be some thing lacking in the majority of the newer games, which was common in many older ones?

Hydesland

01-09-2008, 23:53

I've said, I generally don't read reviews. But yes, you're right, I too have never seen anyone say that HL2 is less linear than HL1.

Yeah yeah you know what I meant, check the edit. You're viewpoint is not even in the extreme marginalised minority, it's less then that.

Ah. Great. So there are some gun caches you're free to miss.

More than that, ah fuck, this is the sort of bullshit pedantry I'm talking about.

But is there a place where, at the very least, you can take two different routes to the goal?

Are you fucking kidding? HL1 barely offered alternate routes to the same goal itself, having played the game loads, I can't even think of any specific place where this occurs, but I am willing to accept it may have happened in areas outside of my memory. Regardless, I am now absolutely convinced you have never even played HL2, so I don't see the point in even continuing this discussion.

I've only played the original (not e1 or e2). If you have to dig as deep as the 2nd sequel, the argument is pretty weak.

But its a very good example, since it's millions of times less linear than HL1, and makes up a very large section of ep2, so it is significant.

Nope, I can pinpoint patterns in human behavior. Furthermore, I've even been taught to do it, somewhat.
So describe a few instances of how the Crysis AI has tactically outsmarted you.

That's a ridiculous question to ask. I can't even describe a time when any of the AI in OFP has outsmarted me. Most of the time when you die in a good shooter, you can't work out where they popped out from because they actually... OUTSMARTED you.

"Coincidental" that happens every time. And the things I've described, too, happen regularly.

Ok, now you're just speaking absolute utter bullshit. Firstly, it happens extremely rarely since you're very rarely in a place where there is actually a corner to hide behind. Secondly, the AI simply can't interact properly with buildings in the game (if you have played you would know this), hence them constantly running into and sometimes glitching through walls when you command them to go inside a building.

"Clone" refers to a game which offers no real changes apart from just enough plot and visual tweaks to be legal. This is not the case for either game.
Plus, the criteria wasn't about cloning.

Neither is it the case for Crysis and Farcry, yet you seem to be getting away with it.

Well, and here you have spilled it out. So all the depth of choice is whether you stand on principle and be a honest guy or don't stand on principle and sell out.

How deep, indeed.

Firstly, I never expect a video games storyline to be deep at all. Since anyone who actually regards a video games storyline as deep to a credible standard, is extremely pretentious, and has probably never actually read a good book.

Now compare it to Geneforge, where you have to decide which principles to stand on

That happens in GTA4, for instance, you have to decide whether a crooked cop offers more to society than an abusive drug dealer. Both rest on different principles, both affect the storyline greatly (edit: ok not greatly, but a little, but other similar decisions like this can completely affect the ending). This also has 'no correct answer', and decisions like this can end up with people hating you.

No, it wasn't (to the first point). Duke has very little graphical violence.

That's because it can't.

A bit more than none. Just as much as other games of the time. What was controversial about DN, apart from partial nudity, is that it ruthlessly mocked the "American Lifestyle", and the "aliens" you killed could just as well be humans, and civilians at that. But could, not were. It worked on the intellectual level, not plain visual.

Postal 2 does all of these things, and mocks them even more in my opinion, in fact that's kind of the point. You just need to look past the whole violence thing, remember you can control the violence, you can almost complete the game without harming a single person.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 00:05

More than that,
Tell me a place where. Level name, rough location description.

But its a very good example, since it's millions of times less linear than HL1, and makes up a very large section of ep2, so it is significant.
However, I haven't played the eps. Let's deal with HL2 itself first.

That's a ridiculous question to ask. I can't even describe a time when any of the AI in OFP has outsmarted me. Most of the time when you die in a good shooter, you can't work out where they popped out from because they actually... OUTSMARTED you.
No, because they were placed in a well hidden location, and (unlike in OFP) the AI there isn't restricted by minutiae like bushes obscuring the LOS. In most shooters, they don't move at all until the player is at a set distance.

Ok, now you're just speaking absolute utter bullshit. Firstly, it happens extremely rarely since you're very rarely in a place where there is actually a corner to hide behind.
Very frequently. Most fights are for towns.

Secondly, the AI simply can't interact properly with buildings in the game (if you have played you would know this), hence them constantly running into and sometimes glitching through walls when you command them to go inside a building.
It does glitch, but it does try to do the right thing, and more often than not to positive result.

Firstly, I never expect a video games storyline to be deep at all. Since anyone who actually regards a video games storyline as deep to a credible standard, is extremely pretentious, and has probably never actually read a good book.
You see, I've read enough good books. I don't hold games to the same standards. But nonetheless, I do expect them to have a good amount of content, which is at least somewhat interesting and thought-inspiring.

PS:T or Geneforge offer that.
Oblivion or GTA don't.

That happens in GTA4, for instance, you have to decide whether a crooked cop offers more to society than an abusive drug dealer.
This is very deep indeed, yeah.

Look, have you actually played Geneforge series and PS:T, or just looked them up in Wiki?

Postal 2 does all of these things, and mocks them even more in my opinion, in fact that's kind of the point. You just need to look past the whole violence thing, remember you can control the violence, you can almost complete the game without harming a single person.
Possibly. However, at least the Postal 1 just isn't nearly as fun as Duke Nukem.

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 00:08

Well, you see, it's not that it's just me who is disappointed in modern games. It's most of the people who grew up playing good classic games, especially adventures and RPG.
Which doesn't change the fact that some people are entertained by modern video games.
The fact that McDonalds rolls billions clearly proves that there are tens of millions people who enjoy eating what they claim to be food. But still, there are millions of those who don't like it, and these people have their strong arguments for preferring proper food.
And their argument have about as much merit as arguments for why salt and vinegar crisps taste better than cheese and onion crisps. None at all. It's purely a subjective matter. Just like like McDonalds or not liking it, or enjoying playing modern games or not enjoying them.

So have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, there indeed might be some thing lacking in the majority of the newer games, which was common in many older ones?

I'm sure there are many things that old games had that new ones don't, and vice versa. That an old game or other was some kind of glorious work of art that could have been mistaken for the work of some kind of god has no bearing on how much fun I have playing GTA 3.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 00:19

Tell me a place where. Level name, rough location description.

I'm tired of this. You tell me a place in HL1 where you can take a SIGNIFICANT alternate route to the same goal. Because I'm convinced that there is no such place, or if there is one, it's so insignificant and does not affect the overall gameplay to render it irrelevant.

No, because they were placed in a well hidden location, and (unlike in OFP) the AI there isn't restricted by minutiae like bushes obscuring the LOS. In most shooters, they don't move at all until the player is at a set distance.

Again, stop using OFP, it's just completely different from almost every shooter. And there are many things about the AI, not just tactics, that makes it very exciting to play. The thousands of different ways they die for instance, the way they interact with their environment, what they say, the emotions they express (you can often see them express fear for instance when you're creeping up on them cloaked).

Very frequently. Most fights are for towns.

Not most fights, but the tanks patrol the outside of towns, and you're almost always coming into a town, not fighting inside a town trying to defend it.

more often than not to positive result.

Not from my experience. I usually have to give up ordering them into a building.

You see, I've read enough good books. I don't hold games to the same standards. But nonetheless, I do expect them to have a good amount of content, which is at least somewhat interesting and thought-inspiring.

And most people consider the enhanced and far more realistic story of GTA 4 something that sets it apart from the other ones, indeed, many have complained that it's TOO realistic.

This is very deep indeed, yeah.

I could just as easily leave a snarky sarcastic remark at your laughable description of 'deep' in the examples you presented, but I didn't.

Look, have you actually played Geneforge series and PS:T, or just looked them up in Wiki?

I've read about them (most of which has indicated Geneforge was fairly mediocre, whilst PS:T was on the whole a good game), regardless, I don't need to since I'm not the one making ridiculous and unsubstantiated generalisations about a game I've never played.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 00:24

Which doesn't change the fact that some people are entertained by modern video games.
Just like by junk food.

And their argument have about as much merit as arguments for why salt and vinegar crisps taste better than cheese and onion crisps.
Not really. You see, taste has originally developed as a way to distinguish quality food from, pardonnez mon francais, merde.

Quality food usually consists of decent amount of proteins, moderate fat amount, and that being fat with good cholesterol, and a large concentration of vitamins and useful minerals. And many of great tasting products contain just that.
Fast food establishments, particularly McDonalds, and junk food packages contain merde. Loads of saturated and trans fats, some carbohydrates, artificial taste additives and preservatives, often carcinogenic or otherwise harmful.

None at all. It's purely a subjective matter. Just like like McDonalds or not liking it, or enjoying playing modern games or not enjoying them. ...And, so, it's not all subjective. Food has objectively determined value in important nutrients and empty calories. Liking or not liking McDonalds is directly linked to hating or not hating your body.

People with good taste in food stay away from empty-calorie merde and rather enjoy quality food, which, apart from tasting much better, is good for their health.

And people with good taste in entertainment stay away from crappy hollywood cliche movies, which are prettily wrapped emptiness, and enjoy films that actually give some insight, or at the very least food for thought (though that's not much).

I'm sure there are many things that old games had that new ones don't, and vice versa.
Yes. What old games had is usually the factor of creators' personality deeply reflected in the game, like in unfiltered beer as opposed to canned cocktail. And what new games have is, generally, just visuals.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 00:31

People with good taste in food stay away from empty-calorie merde and rather enjoy quality food, which, apart from tasting much better, is good for their health.

You've completely subjectively decided that a good taste is a taste which is as healthy as possible.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 00:33

Again, stop using OFP, it's just completely different from almost every shooter. And there are many things about the AI, not just tactics, that makes it very exciting to play. The thousands of different ways they die for instance, the way they interact with their environment, what they say, the emotions they express (you can often see them express fear for instance when you're creeping up on them cloaked).
Yeah, the ways they die, and some scripted lines, and expressions of fear. That's indeed great AI. Could beat Kasparov and Fischer at once.

Not from my experience. I usually have to give up ordering them into a building.
Yes, it's the enemy AI that can use cover properly, and it doesn't go inside the buildings, just behind.

I could just as easily leave a snarky sarcastic remark at your laughable description of 'deep' in the examples you presented, but I didn't.
Because it would be unsubstantiated. Choices you make in a game like GF (let alone PS:T) are pretty complicated, and go beyond the usual political choices. For one, most people have changed their opinions through the course of the four chapters.

I've read about them (most of which has indicated Geneforge was fairly mediocre, whilst PS:T was on the whole a good game), regardless, I don't need to since I'm not the one making ridiculous and unsubstantiated generalisations about a game I've never played.
I can understand not playing Geneforge, since it's a bit of a niche game, and it didn't have an impact on others.

But trying to talk about RPG (or quality games at all) without having played Planescape: Torment is like trying to talk about the history of drama theater without having read or seen a single work of Shakespeare.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 00:46

Yeah, the ways they die, and some scripted lines, and expressions of fear. That's indeed great AI. Could beat Kasparov and Fischer at once.

Again, a very weak argument. Just sarcastic pedantry. Like scripting a soldier to go 10 feet back and go prone is sophisticated. :rolleyes:

Yes, it's the enemy AI that can use cover properly, and it doesn't go inside the buildings, just behind.

No they don't, they simply don't. I don't know what else to say. Every single fan of OFP I have spoken to have conceded that the AI are pretty crappy. Even still, it is a fantastic game. I don't know why you're choosing this as a bench mark however, since Half Life's AI is significantly worse than OFP's, but you still consider that to be a great game.

Because it would be unsubstantiated. Choices you make in a game like GF (let alone PS:T) are pretty complicated, and go beyond the usual political choices. For one, most people have changed their opinions through the course of the four chapters.

I don't even know why we went down this digression. GTA 4 has a very good and witty story that supplements the gameplay well, end of.

I can understand not playing Geneforge, since it's a bit of a niche game, and it didn't have an impact on others.

But trying to talk about RPG (or quality games at all) without having played Planescape: Torment is like trying to talk about the history of drama theater without having read or seen a single work of Shakespeare.

Perhaps you would need to play Planescape to assert the quality of modern RPG's, but its actual impact on gaming itself is minimal. I'm not asserting anything about RPGs, and I'm certainly not asserting anything about those two games. You're (or you were) making crazy assertions about a game you have never played, I'm not.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 01:00

Again, a very weak argument. Just sarcastic pedantry. Like scripting a soldier to go 10 feet back and go prone is sophisticated.
Well, it just works. And it's not just that. They know when to hide and when to strike.

The difference with OFP AI is that it makes every enemy station a challenge, FC doesn't.

No they don't, they simply don't. I don't know what else to say. Every single fan of OFP I have spoken to have conceded that the AI are pretty crappy. Even still, it is a fantastic game. I don't know why you're choosing this as a bench mark however, since Half Life's AI is significantly worse than OFP's, but you still consider that to be a great game.
OFP fans are comparing the AI to humans, keep that in mind. All other shooters don't have even what OFP has - no, not even a fraction of what OFP has, AI-wise.
HL is a good game thanks to its level design.

Perhaps you would need to play Planescape to assert the quality of modern RPG's, but its actual impact on gaming itself is minimal.
Its impact is being accepted as the all-time high of computer games. Its impact is attracting adventure games players to RPG. Its impact is actually making some modern art admirers turn their eyes and at least have a thought that games indeed can be a form of art and not just shallow time-fillers.

I'm not asserting anything about RPGs, and I'm certainly not asserting anything about those two games. You're (or you were) making crazy assertions about a game you have never played, I'm not.
I have played GTA III, and GTA II, and the original GTA. So I might not be up to date to games that are to be released in 3 months, but I do have a good idea of what kind of game I'm talking about.

You don't have even a vague idea of what games I'm presenting as examples of past masterpieces, yet you're fast to decry all game storylines as being unable to match books, and consider GTA comparable to PS:T in the depth of its themes.

BTW, for the record, Torment has more in-game text than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. And at least one book could be filled with the dialogue you encounter among a single decent playthrough. Which wouldn't say much, if that writing wasn't of better quality than an average Dragonlance book has to offer.

Articoa

02-09-2008, 01:13

I have Vice City and San Andreas.
Vice City had a better setting, characters, music, etc.
But San Andreas just had bigger cities and stuff, it was easier to just do nothing.

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 01:55

...And, so, it's not all subjective. Food has objectively determined value in important nutrients and empty calories. Liking or not liking McDonalds is directly linked to hating or not hating your body.
Then the analogy is flawed. There is no objective standard for enjoyability.

And people with good taste in entertainment stay away from crappy hollywood cliche movies, which are prettily wrapped emptiness, and enjoy films that actually give some insight, or at the very least food for thought (though that's not much).

That's what you like in movies. Prove to me that that is related to the objective quality of the movie. Oh wait, movies don't have an objective standard of quality. Neither do games.

Yes. What old games had is usually the factor of creators' personality deeply reflected in the game, like in unfiltered beer as opposed to canned cocktail. And what new games have is, generally, just visuals.

And people like visuals, so clearly that is a good thing.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 02:10

Then the analogy is flawed. There is no objective standard for enjoyability.
There is. Enjoyment is a method of rewarding you for doing something good for yourself. Sometimes it's basic instincts, and sometimes it's learning.

Oh wait, movies don't have an objective standard of quality. Neither do games.
They do. From videos, I know a lot more about countries I've never been in and probably won't. From edutainment series, I know about wildlife outside my region that I'd be unlikely to see otherwise. From films, I know about emotions that I would otherwise have no idea about.

And as for games, Operation Flashpoint (more precisely, its "hardcore" variant, Visual Battlespace) is used in training by USMC and other armed forces. MSFS is used as a beginner pilot training tool. And that's just the beginning, just the most material part.

And people like visuals, so clearly that is a good thing.
Well, people like junk food, so clearly that's a good thing. For some, yes. But objectively, it's still junk, the fact that some like junk doesn't make it anything else.

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 02:22

There is. Enjoyment is a method of rewarding you for doing something good for yourself. Sometimes it's basic instincts, and sometimes it's learning.
I've never heard that before. Source?

Also, if that's true, then why are modern games so popular? If they're so devoid of the things which, according to you, are necessary for a game to be enjoyable, then why on earth do people play them?

They do. From videos, I know a lot more about countries I've never been in and probably won't. From edutainment series, I know about wildlife outside my region that I'd be unlikely to see otherwise. From films, I know about emotions that I would otherwise have no idea about.

And as for games, Operation Flashpoint (more precisely, its "hardcore" variant, Visual Battlespace) is used in training by USMC and other armed forces. MSFS is used as a beginner pilot training tool. And that's just the beginning, just the most material part.
Educational value isn't quality and isn't objective.

Well, people like junk food, so clearly that's a good thing. For some, yes. But objectively, it's still junk, the fact that some like junk doesn't make it anything else.

Yes, it is. It tastes good. It has limited nutritional value, but it still tastes good. Tasting good is a good thing.

Non Aligned States

02-09-2008, 03:02

But is there a place where, at the very least, you can take two different routes to the goal?

Having played Half Life from the beginning of the resonance cascade all the way to Xen to that damned space tram, there aren't any two different routes. At least viable routes that aren't thinly disguised suicide quests.

Non Aligned States

02-09-2008, 03:07

Most of the time when you die in a good shooter, you can't work out where they popped out from because they actually... OUTSMARTED you.

Or rather, they have telescopic x-ray eyes and guns capable of hitting you from a thousand miles away, although that could be due to the horrendous Hawaiian shirt you're wearing. :p

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 03:10

Or rather, they have telescopic x-ray eyes and guns capable of hitting you from a thousand miles away, although that could be due to the horrendous Hawaiian shirt you're wearing. :p

It's a long established fact in video games that the computer is a cheating bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheComputerIsACheatingBastard)

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 05:47

I've never heard that before. Source?
Our very existence. Until lately, the body predominately rewarded survival-improving behavior. Though, seemingly, today we're so FUBAR that people refuse to believe there even is a connection between enjoyment and behavior.

Also, if that's true, then why are modern games so popular? If they're so devoid of the things which, according to you, are necessary for a game to be enjoyable, then why on earth do people play them?
They're not entirely devoid. They contain a tiny bit of taste, and a big load of monosodium glutamate, in the form of eye candy.

Educational value isn't quality and isn't objective.
It's most certainly a quality and most certainly an objective one. However, the term "educational" isn't inclusive enough, as it refers to more school-style knowledge, while emotional content can also qualify as knowledge, just of less direct nature. The entire pleasure of reading comes from the learning aspect, it's just that different people have to be reached from different levels.

Yes, it is. It tastes good. It has limited nutritional value, but it still tastes good. Tasting good is a good thing.
No, it's not. Over 60% of Americans are overweight, and the fast food and junk food industries, which spice worthless merde with synthetic additives to taste good and put it into a pretty package, are largely to blame, so we can pretty well conclude that tasting good is generally a bad thing.

But, fortunately, this prettily-wrapped hazardous waste only tastes good to the part of population that has no taste. The rest see it for the crap it is.

Saxnot

02-09-2008, 10:25

*snip*
I think you're confused about what objective means... within the realm of human emotion there can be no objectivity. It's your OPINION. The very fact someone else is arguing something else (with rather more logic, I'm finding), suggests that your points are not the unassailable heights of logic you would like to believe.

You can't quantify the utlity one gets from playing say... Streets of Rage 2, compared to.... Halo 4 or some shit. You'll get different responses from everyone about how much they enjoyed each based upon their pre-existing biases.

You can't be objective about this, except in a kind of robotic false-syllogism sort of way.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 10:33

I think you're confused about what objective means... within the realm of human emotion there can be no objectivity.
In part. But there is some objectivity in evaluation of what a game consists of; much like there's no objectivity in liking the taste, but there's objectivity in determining the nutritional content of the food, or what it is made of.

You can't quantify the utlity one gets from playing say... Streets of Rage 2, compared to.... Halo 4 or some shit. You'll get different responses from everyone about how much they enjoyed each based upon their pre-existing biases.
No, no. I wasn't talking about the utility. Obviously, the utility of a thoroughly spiced piece of manure for someone who likes that stuff is much greater than that of any other dish.
But it doesn't invalidate the fact that it's a low-grade product.

Rambhutan

02-09-2008, 10:54

San Andreas is my favourite game of all time. Found GTA IV a bit hard to get into, found the same with Vice city.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 13:59

Well, it just works. And it's not just that. They know when to hide and when to strike.

The difference with OFP AI is that it makes every enemy station a challenge, FC doesn't.

We're talking about Crysis here, however, I challenge you to play through it on the hardest difficulty. The only thing that makes OFP ridiculously hard (at points) is that it's pretty much one shot kill, so you have to be as tactical as possible at all times. Other difficult components includes controlling your team effectively in combat situations.

OFP fans are comparing the AI to humans, keep that in mind. All other shooters don't have even what OFP has - no, not even a fraction of what OFP has, AI-wise.

I really don't know where you're getting this crap from, seriously. It's just so... wrong. You are really out of touch with reality, I'm not sure if it's worth debating.

HL is a good game thanks to its level design.

So if you don't need good AI to be a good game, why the fuck are we even talking about it?

Its impact is being accepted as the all-time high of computer games.

Only among your circle-jerk.

I have played GTA III, and GTA II, and the original GTA. So I might not be up to date to games that are to be released in 3 months, but I do have a good idea of what kind of game I'm talking about.

No you don't, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't have even a vague idea of what games I'm presenting as examples of past masterpieces, yet you're fast to decry all game storylines as being unable to match books, and consider GTA comparable to PS:T in the depth of its themes.

I didn't say GTA's storyline was as good, I've never played PS:T so I have no idea what the story is like. Unlike you, I'm not arrogantly rubbishing games' I haven't played, in fact, I haven't actually rubbished a single game you've mentioned. I've thoroughly played all the games (except those two RPG's) you've mentioned, and enjoyed them greatly, but this hasn't caused me to make a stupid and insanely exclusive hierarchy of games and rubbishing any that don't fall under the ridiculous subjective parameters I've set. I mean, 90% of the games you regard as classics don't even come close to the standards you're expecting modern games to live up to.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 14:05

There is. Enjoyment is a method of rewarding you for doing something good for yourself.

Utter nonsense.

They do. From videos, I know a lot more about countries I've never been in and probably won't.

Subjective measure of quality.

From edutainment series, I know about wildlife outside my region that I'd be unlikely to see otherwise.

Subjective measure of quality.

From films, I know about emotions that I would otherwise have no idea about.

Subjective measure of quality.

And as for games, Operation Flashpoint (more precisely, its "hardcore" variant, Visual Battlespace) is used in training by USMC and other armed forces.

Subjective measure of quality.

MSFS is used as a beginner pilot training tool. And that's just the beginning, just the most material part.

Subjective measure of quality.

Well, people like junk food, so clearly that's a good thing. For some, yes. But objectively, it's still junk

Junk is a meaningless and subjective word, ultimately.

You don't know what subjective means.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 15:07

We're talking about Crysis here, however, I challenge you to play through it on the hardest difficulty. The only thing that makes OFP ridiculously hard (at points) is that it's pretty much one shot kill, so you have to be as tactical as possible at all times.
Just proper, not "ridiculously hard". It's how things works, a gun doesn't need to unload 10 bullets into a person to kill them. And if you can't get through something without getting shot down even with some S/L capacity, let's face it, you just can't get through it. It's already giving a lot of leeway to the player as it is.

So if you don't need good AI to be a good game, why the fuck are we even talking about it?
It's you who started talking about "extremely realistic" AI in Crysis.

Only among your circle-jerk.
Well, yes in a way, only among the people who have actually played it.

No you don't, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
So GTA IV is radically different from III ?

Unlike you, I'm not arrogantly rubbishing games' I haven't played, in fact, I haven't actually rubbished a single game you've mentioned.
Which game that I haven't played have I called rubbish? I never said GTA III (or IV) is bad - it might well be the best action to have come out on consoles.

I mean, 90% of the games you regard as classics don't even come close to the standards you're expecting modern games to live up to.
That's because classics don't have to. And, really, the only standard I expect is to have something remarkable apart from visuals.

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 15:09

Our very existence. Until lately, the body predominately rewarded survival-improving behavior. Though, seemingly, today we're so FUBAR that people refuse to believe there even is a connection between enjoyment and behavior.
That survival-improving behaviour can be enjoyable does not suggest that enojoyment must be a reward for survival-improving behaviour. As evidenced by the fact that I like things that won't help me survive, even some things that are detrimental to my health. But they're still fun.

They're not entirely devoid. They contain a tiny bit of taste, and a big load of monosodium glutamate, in the form of eye candy.
Then that little taste is very good, or people like eye candy.

It's most certainly a quality
There is a difference between 'quality' and 'a quality'.
and most certainly an objective one.
Nope. If we could objectively determine the educational value of something then designing a perfect school system that educated 100% of the participants would be a trivial matter. Humans, unfortunately, are a bit more complicated than that.

No, it's not. Over 60% of Americans are overweight, and the fast food and junk food industries, which spice worthless merde with synthetic additives to taste good and put it into a pretty package, are largely to blame, so we can pretty well conclude that tasting good is generally a bad thing.
No, we can't. You've previously stated that healthy food tastes good. Obviously something can taste good regardless of its nutritional value.
But, fortunately, this prettily-wrapped hazardous waste only tastes good to the part of population that has no taste. The rest see it for the crap it is.

Bullshit. You're just trying to make out that your preference for healthy food and old games makes you superior. Your preferences are subjective. You can trot out all the justifications for them you want, but they're still subjective.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 15:10

Utter nonsense.
Nope. It's how these mechanisms have evolutionarily developed.

Subjective measure of quality.
No, it isn't. If a squad that has been trained in VBS does better in exercise or in combat than one that hasn't, then VBS is objectively useful.

Subjective measure of quality.
No, it isn't. If a guy who has trained with MSFS flies better than one who hasn't, them MSFS is objectively useful.

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 15:13

Useful isn't the same as enjoyable.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 15:17

That survival-improving behaviour can be enjoyable does not suggest that enojoyment must be a reward for survival-improving behaviour. As evidenced by the fact that I like things that won't help me survive, even some things that are detrimental to my health. But they're still fun.
Generally, they used to help you survive. For instance, sugar, lard? They make you fat, but getting some fat used to be useful when food was scarce.

[/QUOTE]Then that little taste is very good, or people like eye candy.[/QUOTE]
Then it's the load of monosodium glutamate which makes that cheap fake taste feel pleasant, and that's it.

Nope. If we could objectively determine the educational value of something then designing a perfect school system that educated 100% of the participants would be a trivial matter. Humans, unfortunately, are a bit more complicated than that.
Fortunately, we don't need to determine it strictly objectively.

No, we can't. You've previously stated that healthy food tastes good. Obviously something can taste good regardless of its nutritional value.
Yes. It's the practice of creating fake substitutes which fool the senses that can make merde taste good. Doesn't make it good, however.

You're just trying to make out that your preference for healthy food and old games makes you superior. Your preferences are subjective. You can trot out all the justifications for them you want, but they're still subjective.
Maybe. But I'll end up better than someone feeding on junk food, burgers and cup ramen. And that will be objectively better.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 15:20

Just proper, not "ridiculously hard".

HURRR DURRR, it's thousands of times harder than all the other FPS's you've mentioned.

It's how things works, a gun doesn't need to unload 10 bullets into a person to kill them. And if you can't get through something without getting shot down even with some S/L capacity, let's face it, you just can't get through it. It's already giving a lot of leeway to the player as it is.

Your point? I didn't say I was complaining about it being hard.

It's you who started talking about "extremely realistic" AI in Crysis.

But realistic AI is something you don't care about, so I don't know why you bothered to challenge it. If you did care, then you would hate half life.

Well, yes in a way, only among the people who have actually played it.

And only a small minority of them actually elevate it to the pioneering status you do.

So GTA IV is radically different from III ?

It is very different.

Which game that I haven't played have I called rubbish? I never said GTA III (or IV) is bad - it might well be the best action to have come out on consoles.

Maybe you didn't specifically, but your tone the whole time has been negative towards it for no fucking reason. And I'm sure you said that 1 and 2 are the only ones that are good. Plus, you also said something even more insane, only something that the most childish fan boy would ever actually say - the game isn't properly out on any actual platform yet. You then even more hilariously, and fanboyishly, consider the mac to be a proper platform.

That's because classics don't have to. And, really, the only standard I expect is to have something remarkable apart from visuals.

And there we have it. The classics don't have to because they are part of your nostalgic memories, totally non-objective.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 15:25

Nope. It's how these mechanisms have evolutionarily developed.

Firstly, it may have evolved as a mechanism for reward, but it's very easy to enjoy something that isn't helpful (or even harmful), have you ever taken drugs? And it's totally utterly irrelevant, and I find it funny that you've deluded yourself into thinking our evolved instincts are somehow perfect, and an objective measure of quality.

No, it isn't. If a squad that has been trained in VBS does better in exercise or in combat than one that hasn't, then VBS is objectively useful.

Objectively useful =/= objectively enjoyable, or objectively fun. Let alone objectively good.

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 15:34

Generally, they used to help you survive. For instance, sugar, lard? They make you fat, but getting some fat used to be useful when food was scarce.
How did getting drunk ever help humanity survive?

Then it's the load of monosodium glutamate which makes that cheap fake taste feel pleasant, and that's it.
Call it crap to your heart's content. It's still fun. If you can't have fun just because it's fun then that's your problem.

Fortunately, we don't need to determine it strictly objectively.
So you admit that preferences are subjective?

Yes. It's the practice of creating fake substitutes which fool the senses that can make merde taste good. Doesn't make it good, however.
If your tongue is telling you that something tastes good then it does. That's how the tongue works, when it and the brain are working normally. How it came to taste like that doesn't change anything.

Maybe. But I'll end up better than someone feeding on junk food, burgers and cup ramen. And that will be objectively better.

Only if they eat that, and nothing else, and don't exercise. If they enjoy such things in moderation they'll be better off. They'll be just a healthy and will be able to enjoy unhealthy things now and then.

And if someone ate just like you, but played modern games then they'd be just as healthy as you, so your arguement kind of falls apart. Video games aren't comparable to food.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 15:48

HURRR DURRR, it's thousands of times harder than all the other FPS's you've mentioned.
Rather, other FPS are tens of times easier. Actually, after OFP I find myself a bit unable to enjoy other FPS "stock", and always after a brief glance modify their weapon damage tables to increase all damages and eliminate the player's "damage soaking" advantage (in HL2, it was sometimes outright ridiculous - up to 3 times difference). Otherwise, it just doesn't feel like I'm there.

But realistic AI is something you don't care about, so I don't know why you bothered to challenge it. If you did care, then you would hate half life.
Realistic AI can enhance a game. It's not necessary, but it can be a big plus.

And only a small minority of them actually elevate it to the pioneering status you do.
Nope, not a minority. Actually, out of people I know, about 1/3 of the people who've played PS:T, consider it the best computer RPG ever, and over half at least consider it one of the best. Interestingly, I've noticed that the more CRPGs one has played, the more respect they have for PS:T.

Maybe you didn't specifically, but your tone the whole time has been negative towards it for no fucking reason. And I'm sure you said that 1 and 2 are the only ones that are good.
Sure. They are better than Gta 3 and actually really good. So what? It was my subjective opinion.

Plus, you also said something even more insane, only something that the most childish fan boy would ever actually say - the game isn't properly out on any actual platform yet. You then even more hilariously, and fanboyishly, consider the mac to be a proper platform.
The only proper still living platforms are PC and Mac. Everything else is lowly blasphemous consoles.

And there we have it. The classics don't have to because they are part of your nostalgic memories, totally non-objective.
Nope, I enjoy many classics I've never played before just as well. Games these days just used to be made with a soul [subjectively]. Today, they sometimes are too, but more often not.

Hydesland

02-09-2008, 15:56

Otherwise, it just doesn't feel like I'm there.

So the fuck what? The same can be said for 99.99% of the games you've talked about. Making the enemies give you more damage does not make it any more realistic.

The only proper still living platforms are PC and Mac. Everything else is lowly blasphemous consoles.

Why? And using terms like blasphemous does not help your fanboy image.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 16:05

How did getting drunk ever help humanity survive?
That's one of the deceptions, much like MSG-laden food today. Note, though, that not everyone likes to get drunk. I, for one, enjoy only moderate (and beneficial) quantities of alcohol.

Call it crap to your heart's content. It's still fun.
Well, yes. I wouldn't be describing how lowly crap it is, if that wasn't fun. Although the fun of it quickly wears out.

If your tongue is telling you that something tastes good then it does. That's how the tongue works, when it and the brain are working normally. How it came to taste like that doesn't change anything.
Sort of.
But then we come to the matter that some things that taste good are actually good (nutritionally), and some are just refuse laden with deceptive additives.
And I think it's fair to say that people who enjoy properly cooked dishes made of only high-quality ingredients have a better taste than those who like junk food.
That's because it's the whole purpose of taste, to tell good food apart from bad food.

Only if they eat that, and nothing else, and don't exercise. No, not only. Junk food still has a negative effect. It's just that it's smaller with smaller quantities of junk food.

And if someone ate just like you, but played modern games then they'd be just as healthy as you, so your arguement kind of falls apart. Video games aren't comparable to food.
There's a term, "food for thought". Playing PS:T is much like reading a good book.

Pure Metal

02-09-2008, 16:07

its a tough one - there are elements from each game i like (apart from III because i really can't remember it any more)

GTA Vice City: the soundtrack & the setting; the humour; ability to buy legit businesses and earn money

GTA San Andreas: the mix of cities and surrounding countryside; ability to customise character more; the story; planes and the jetpack; buying houses

GTA IV: graphics; story.... err... multiplayer?

IV actually missed a lot of the things that i loved about the other games, but made up for it by being so well put together and fun. that said, i really missed a lot of the humour that was present in previous GTA titles - though it was there, i felt it was hidden under a much more 'serious' style and attitude.

overall i'd probably go with Vice City, with San Andreas coming a close second

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 16:23

*more stuff about food*
This is getting very off topic.
There's a term, "food for thought". Playing PS:T is much like reading a good book.

I'm sure it is. That doesn't mean that a game must be like reading a good book for it to be fun.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 16:34

This is getting very off topic.
But correct.

I'm sure it is. That doesn't mean that a game must be like reading a good book for it to be fun.
Does for me. Just kidding, it doesn't, I get a lot of fun out of OFP too.
But it is part of what demonstrates this game is of a higher grade than most. Just like among books there are cheap run off the mill crime novels written in a month, read in a jam, and thrown away, and there are really good books offering some insight into psychology and philosophy.

Ifreann

02-09-2008, 17:12

But it is part of what demonstrates this game is of a higher grade than most.

Not necessarily. Games can be fun regardless of their similarities to a book. Tetris is amazingly popular, and involves nothing even vaguely resembling a plot or characters. Fighting games might have a plot, but nobody cares about it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExcusePlot). Games where the story is important are obviously going to suffer from a bad story and benefit from a good one, but a good story doesn't make a good game, it just makes a good story.

Trans Fatty Acids

02-09-2008, 19:17

Games where the story is important are obviously going to suffer from a bad story and benefit from a good one, but a good story doesn't make a good game, it just makes a good story.

The story is kind of why I like the GTA games; not that they're good stories, but they're amusingly bad stories that show the authors' great appreciation for better stories than they're telling. Plus it's fun to play "spot the Europeanism" in games that are nominally set in the USA.

Vault 10

02-09-2008, 19:54

Not necessarily. Games can be fun regardless of their similarities to a book. Tetris is amazingly popular, and involves nothing even vaguely resembling a plot or characters. Fighting games might have a plot, but nobody cares about it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExcusePlot).
That's why I'm using the term "higher grade", not "better". Like with drinks, you don't expect much taste and aroma from a box of generic blend Franzia to be gulped down in mugs, and that's fine, but a bottle of connoisseur wine with thoroughly selected terroir, grape and process is still a higher grade product.
Tetris doesn't need any content, Franzia doesn't need any taste, it's not in their set of requirements. But sometimes it is. And when we have a genre with high requirements and a work that fulfills them, well, the word "better" might not be in order, but at least respect is.

Games where the story is important are obviously going to suffer from a bad story and benefit from a good one, but a good story doesn't make a good game, it just makes a good story.
Story is not all there is to content. As a few authors have independently said, "there are only 7 stories in all of the literature" (exact number varies, from 5 to 19). Interesting dialogue might be not part of the story, but it can greatly enhance the experience. The amount of choice given, and the consequences of choices might not change the core story, but put the game on a higher level. Setting itself can be very important, and, while Torment can't be credited with inventing the Planescape setting, it's got the best representation of that setting, well beating the original work.
A good story does make a good game, if there's gameplay to match. But all the above combined, with addition of good gameplay, is what makes a great game.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Grand Theft Auto