49724972's forum posts

Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="49724972"]

Gothic 3 is the worst gothic experience imo.

topsemag55

Even if it was, I like the fact that it doesn't crash at all on my PC.

it's not about the crashes....it;s about the atmosphere.....it's lost....it;s not a dark game anymore. I hate the colors the animation the voice acting...
Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

Gothic 2 + Expansion was excellent, I was very glad I put the time in to get past the initial learning curve. Gothic 3 didn't really catch my interest so I haven't put heaps of hours into it yet. I would definitely recommend 2 over 3 from what I've seen so far.danb0

+1

Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

Gothic 3 is the worst gothic experience imo.

Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]$20 says anyone who doesn't like stalker, loves oblivion and thinks its better than morrowind. just a hunch :)Aelius28
Not me. I didn't care for STALKER (as I posted on the first page of this thread) and also think Oblivion is the worse game with respect to the ratio of how popular it is and how good it is. Its popularity does not merit its content, and it will probably forever baffle me it is that this game gets so much goddamn attention. I've heard STALKER compared to Assassin's Creed. I also did not like Assassin's Creed. It was a shoddy console port, with ridiculous AI that just wanders the city in circles. The whole modern-day twist with the memory was just stupid, and the storyline was soul-crushingly repetitive, just sitting on a bench getting intel.

unfortunatly it;s because of you developers/greedy m*%(^ create retarded games....so that you can play them so that you will buy them.

There's a litle quote for you "yes...tehy are fools, but they are many"

Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="49724972"]

you won;t care about crysis because it;s crap now and will allways be crap.

dnuggs40

Oh ok thanks for that, I'll just forget how much fun I had playing it because you said that.

Geesh...some people...I'll tell ya.

you didn't get it did you?

i'm saying that that game is never going to be a classic because it laks substance. It;s more of a tech demo like quake 2 was back then.

Don;t get me rong ...i played them with great enthusiasm and all that but in the end they had no substance. I don;t look back at quake 2's single player and think "wow what a great game that was....".

But if you think about system shock or deus ex...then that;s someting else.

These old games are classics because you can remember the story and the characters.i've lost days and nihgts just to see how the story would evolve and not to see how the uber lvl 100000 armor looks like on my cool character. This is what makes a game great.

Games now days try to much to adress to everybody. Why? Just to sqeeze more money. Gaming has become an industry. I think i can compare modern games with greenhouse fruits and old games with eco fruits. :)) On the surface the modern1s look great, but the taste they leave in your mouth is horible

Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="Agent_Kaliaver"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]Na, it's far beyond aesthetics...it's interfaces, control schemes, limited movement, ect, ect, ect. It's all due to older technology and back then it was great, but after playing new games with full 3D motion, smooth animations, physics, intuitive & interactive interfaces, better controls, ect it all adds up to a better experience. I love my time with those games back then...was fun...but new games is where it's at.dnuggs40
I guess you can't look past the fact that these "new" games will be like those "old" games given enough time. Their interfaces, controls, limited movement, and what not will feel exactly the same. Understanding that should help anyone look past the fact that those past things are not "worse" but the same in a different time. I don't think many old games were really made great for their interfaces, movement, controls, but story and just plain fun. Fun and a good story never gets old as time goes on, but the people do move on. They get used to new things which makes those old ones seem "worse". IF games were made the exact same way as they were back then your entire idea of disliking them would be different. It isn't because the new ones are "better", but that you are used to them.

No...are you kidding? That's EXACTLY what I am saying. In 10 years time you think I will care about playing Crysis? I might replay it...just for ****'s and giggles...but I am sure the FPS will be much improved in 10 years time. And I don't dislike old games...I just don't really want to play them anymore (aside from the occasional walk down memory lane replay). :D

you won;t care about crysis because it;s crap now and will allways be crap.

Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

Okay, the topic is RPG's, so back to that. I suppose even the great Fallouts have their faults in the UI and such, but the writing holds up. It just seems like any RPG (or adventure game for that matter) made in '99 had great writing. But with the tech these days, I guess its easier to just visualize with brilliant graphics what these guys used to write about. But I don't know; something got lost in the process.

Cherub_Rock

Fallout.

What is lost you ask? It;s the free will that is lost, the weapons, the raiders the life in the city the quests.

I remember beeing able choose sides (slavers, gangster famillys......) beeing able to talk your way out of things, the replayeble factor. In fallout 2 you could create diffrent characters and get a diffrent experience -> you could be a lucky bastard, a brute, a thief, a intelligent player........anything. The game wold fit like a glove for any1.

And don;t forget it was a damn hard game...i remember saving loading cursing........great fun :). Nowdays i forget to save.....any mistake if forgiveable and that dosn;t give me any satisfaction. I rly whant to belive that i have to give my best to beat the game.

Avatar image for 49724972
49724972

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 49724972
Member since 2005 • 25 Posts

i read all the coments because i found the subjesct rly interesting.i'm playing sice 1992 so i think i can comment on the above.

playing games is like drugs. When you play the first game you get a senzation that u will never get again in your life. You search for it playing retarded games (like fallout 3 hopeing that the game will be a combination of fallout 2 baldur's gate and morrowind; i played fallout 3 on the hardest lvl and i couldn't find any real challange) but it's not there. I remember that on the old games you could submerge into the game, you could identify yourself with the character......What i'm saying is that the new games are a bit shalow and lak substance. They do have great graphics but that dosn;t help..it;s simply not enough.

Bottom line: old games are for old gamers who try to relive the magic. The only hope for a "junky" is a new game type or a diffrent aproach to the old style (