REVENGEotSITH's forum posts

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
[QUOTE="REVENGEotSITH"]

[QUOTE="0rin"]
FPS = First Person Shooter. What do you do in bioshock? You run around in first person, and shoot things, with either a gun, or a plasmid, either way, it's shooting. No matter what you are doing, or how you're doing it, it is still, at it's core, a First Person Shooter.

That isn't to say it doesn't have RPG elements, or puzzle solving or whatever. You can call it what you want. I do not think someone that calls it an FPS is "blind" though. I think you are misjudging what FPS means. You must think that there are more criteria to being an FPS than being in first person, and shooting. there isn't. Metroid is an FPS as well. Both games are definately not the STANDARD FPS, like Halo, UT, or Resistance, but they still fit the "First Person Shooter" requirements.

Also, Gamespot is just rating games as they see them. But I do agree, it seems their "standards" went up remarkably. Which isn't bad, its just we'll see less AAA and more A/AA titles (from ALL consoles). Doesn't really matter though. Just read the review, and get what you can out of that.
0rin

OK, call it what you want. I just felt that "shooting" in the game was secondary and in many cases unnecessary, thus making it more of a FP adventure. Would you call Oblivion a FPS? See, I felt that Bioshock's gameplay was more along the lines of Oblivion than, say, Halo 3.



Well, I completely understand where you are coming from. and my little ramble about MGS made me think. Whilst your thing about oblivion is void, since Oblivion has minimal "shooting", and most of that is with spells/bows, it is a FPRPG. In Bioshock, you are shooting guns. However, You are also trying to find alternate means of getting what you need. Thus making it far from a "run and gun" adventure.

So lets agree on this, It is a FPS/Tactical Shooter/RPG Hybrid, or FPTRPS First Person Tactical RP Shooter.

Does that work?

Agreed.... I think.

I think my view on the game being/not being a FPS is skewed by the fact that I went through the first 3 levels only using the Mighty Wrench...

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
[QUOTE="darbyshireandy"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]It is funny how Xbox fans said that Gears was amazing and all when it was an exclusive, but now that it is coming to the PC the game is all of a sudden overrated and it sucks. It is the best Xbox 360 game out right now that has the "total package", Halo 3 will be the next game to have the "total package". I guess Halo 3 will be crap and be overrated when it is ported to the PC in a few years.smokeydabear076

true and pc makes the game better i will pick it up for my pc lol:lol:

The Modding community could really fix this "horrible" game and make it something great.

I know. I am seriously considering a gaming PC just to play this game and its mods... :evil:

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts


FPS = First Person Shooter. What do you do in bioshock? You run around in first person, and shoot things, with either a gun, or a plasmid, either way, it's shooting. No matter what you are doing, or how you're doing it, it is still, at it's core, a First Person Shooter.

That isn't to say it doesn't have RPG elements, or puzzle solving or whatever. You can call it what you want. I do not think someone that calls it an FPS is "blind" though. I think you are misjudging what FPS means. You must think that there are more criteria to being an FPS than being in first person, and shooting. there isn't. Metroid is an FPS as well. Both games are definately not the STANDARD FPS, like Halo, UT, or Resistance, but they still fit the "First Person Shooter" requirements.

Also, Gamespot is just rating games as they see them. But I do agree, it seems their "standards" went up remarkably. Which isn't bad, its just we'll see less AAA and more A/AA titles (from ALL consoles). Doesn't really matter though. Just read the review, and get what you can out of that.
0rin

OK, call it what you want. I just felt that "shooting" in the game was secondary and in many cases unnecessary, thus making it more of a FP adventure. Would you call Oblivion a FPS? See, I felt that Bioshock's gameplay was more along the lines of Oblivion than, say, Halo 3.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

The problem with EA has always been their strict adherence to staying on-budget and on-schedule. I remember when the Superman game (though terrible) was delayed - a lot of game mags and websites were shocked that EA let a game slip. It almost never happens.

So what, you say? Well, this usually translates to games that are: rushed, have corners cut, are buggy, aren't quite as good as promised, etc. etc. etc. Any game developed in-house by EA will be put under these strict guidelines in order to maximize their profit margin. They rely, instead, on heavy marketing and industry tricks (don't give out reviewable copies of bad games prior to release) in order to get the bulk of their game sales in the first week of a game's launch.

This is why I don't have much faith for games like Army of Two and Battlefield Bad Company. In the end, they will be rushed out the door and the quality of the gameplay will suffer.

Obviously, games being developed by 2nd party developers don't fall under these same guidelines, so look for games like Half Life 2 and others to still be of high quality.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

Well, the last videos I saw on Bioshock looked amazing. The combat system (which was my biggest worry going into the game) looks pretty amazing. It now shows the character using a cover system (ala Gears) and the interface to switch weapons/abilities/party members looked REALLY slick.

I give this game a 9.5 and put it above Bioshock and Halo 3 for 360 GOTY.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

Different people have different opinions..To me BioShock is just another FPS..chicken008

:lol: If you think that Bioshock is a FPS, you are sadly mistaken. The thing that Bioshock does worst is how it handles shooting. Very little precision in the aiming system and poor hit detection. It is more of a FP adventure with RPG elements in it. To call it a FPS is just blind.

That being said, I really didn't care much for the game. Probably because it DID lack in the area of shooting and fighting. The security bots just got annoying after the 20th time you ran into one. The hacking system slowed the gameplay to a grinding halt each time you tried to hack something. I just started saying "the hell with it" and just paid the $$$ to avoid having to go through the hacking minigame. The lack of a real penalty for dieing basically was the straw that broke the camel's back. The 9.0 is fine for this game and may be a bit too high.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
First, let me just explain my position.

If you were to ask any hermit, any cow, or any sheep here what they think I would be, they would call me a lemming.

Now, as to why Gears sucks:

Well, it doesn't really. It's a good game. But it truly is overrated. If you take away the pretty graphics; the pure, visceral imagery, you don't have much of a wonderful game. Granted, high production values do contribute to a game's merits, but the game play is somewhat lacking.

Let's take into account the single player. There ultimately is a lack of story. Get co ordinates, trigger the light bomb, that's about it. The aching twist in the plot? (DON'T READ THIS BIT IF YOU DON'T WANT THE STORY SPOILED. JUST MOVE ONTO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH FORUMITES) The plot twist was the plan to get the coordinates didn't work the first time. So if the story is not story-driven, then one must assume it was character driven? Again, there was nothing there. Now Marcus Fenix, Dom, Baird and Cole are likeable characters at least, but they have no character development whatsoever, just like how the end of the story goes nowhere. It was like Halo 2 all over again.

Oh, and why have the biggest climax halfway through the campaign in the "Angry Titan" chapter? RAAM seemed like an anti climax compared to that behemoth.

Don't get me wrong, it was a rush, and still is a rush playing some parts: the Berserkers are one of the most adrenaline pumping enemies to ever be conceived. But then the question that was bugging me was why did the Sergeant call those things in a feminine term? How are the Berserkers implemented in the overall Locust army? Oh, and before I forget, RAAM too wasn't even developed. He just looked like a retexture of a Locust. He wasn't given any importance.

Now, for the multiplayer. I think we can all come to terms as to why we affectionally nickname this game Glitches of War.

The Chainsaw glitch was fun for awhile. It got old after a week.

It's not uncommon for my brother to jump on a custom match on Annex, meet new random strangers as they exploit every singlebug in the game. Sometimes I wonder why none of those guys want to try ranked matches or at least play annex properly.

Bullet lag is a major problem. Yes, it's arguably askill to develop, but it's unintentional on Epic's part, and it's more about luck of internet connection than anything. And, most importantly, what's the point of a shooter when you're estimating a position of where the enemy will be rather than shooting him with precision and accuracy?

That's another thing. Shotgun wh0rez. You really don't need any sort of aiming skill for that thing. Point (perhaps estimate the position) and shoot. Rinse, repeat. The only things that require precision and accuracy are the sniper and the torque bow. They too, are also affected by bullet lag though. Forget about the assault rifle in multiplayer. And what happens if you suck at shotgun wh0ring and sniping? Annoy the hell out of people with grenade tagging. I'm no good at Gears of War, so it's surprising when I can rack up some kills just by grenade tags alone. And yeah, I get sh** for it.

It would seem to me, by the way I observe people playing the game, that Gears is starting to bore them. I've heard a few are just wasting time until the release of Halo 3.

And I may just presume everyone else is doing the same when they're trying to reach unattainable areas on Gridlock.

FrozenLiquid

Well, I appreciate your response. At least you've played the game and are not just a blind fanboy.

The story - I think people were expecting too much from the story and, thus, were let-down by what it was. Personally, I really liked the story (though it had some plot holes) and I REALLY liked the interaction between the characters. Each one had their own personality, quirks, and quotes. It reminded me of a great action flick like Predator or Aliens. The main character seemed real, not someone with superpowers, but a real soldier thrown into this warn-torn conflict.

Glitches of War it is - or should I say was. Besides an occasional person leaving a map or an occasional crabwalker, I really haven't been glitched since the last update. Still, despite the glitches, the game still played well.

Bullet lag - yes, this is the bane of Gears. Terrible decision by Epic to go with Host Side Hit Detection to determine kills - especially with a game that has so much close-up action. But, knowing that this lag exists, one adapts and leads their shots slightly. Because of this, a higher level of skill is required in order to land shots consistently. I'm not saying that I like the bullet lag, I'm just saying that because of it, the best players often rise to the top.

Given that, yes, there are elements in the game that are n00b-ish. Grenade tagging leads the list. Personally, I don't mind it one bit. Its in the game. It can be dealt with or countered. And, it is a way for people new to the game to contribute to the team.

Yes, shotgun wh0res are pretty bad sometimes, but there are ways to counter a pack of 4 shotgunners - it just requires more team coordination.

To me, the two biggest gripes against Gears multiplayer are: the Host Advantage and the lack of a Clan system. I don't mind the bullet lag - it can be dealt with. Its the fact that there is 1 player in the match that doesn't have to deal with the lag, thus, giving that 1 player a distinct advantage over the others in the match that is wrong. Epic has countered this by splattering blood on the screen of the host as they get shot, but it is really minor compared to the advantage that the host receives in a match. The lack of a Clan system is inexcusable in this day and age. Epic failed on this one.

Despite these things, Gears still tops any other shooter out there and will continue to dominate my time spent gaming long after Halo 3 and other arrive...

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

I agree with the TC. Look at what happened with Assassin's Creed. When it was thought that the game was a PS3 exclusive, it was on everyone's mind and all the talk of the forums. Now that it is multiplat, nobody ever talks about it or hypes it at all.

Get used to seeing more of this "deception and deceit" from publishers/developers. They play us for morons, but it works.

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts
[QUOTE="REVENGEotSITH"]

[QUOTE="themagicbum9720"]gears is overatedFrozenLiquid

:lol: This is coming from a Sheep. What a surprise.

(Checks Gears stats: 10,000 rounds played, 8,675 kills)Yep - its overrated! :roll:

And this is coming from an Xbox owner.

Gears sucks.

Well, given you need a 360 in order to play Gears, you are right on that part....

Dude, Gears has taken over my gaming life for the past 10 months. Total immersion. Total obsession. All other games that have come out since Gears pale in comparison. The bar has been raised, imo, for games and what I expect from them. The intensity, the graphics, the feeling of "weight", the visceral experience, the cover system, the curbstomp, the chainsaw, the Hammer of Dawn, the "pop" when you take someone's head off, the gore, the team work required to win, and on and on. All of this makes Gears what it is - King of Next Gen gaming.

You can sit here and say "Gears sucks" and run away to hide in your barn (Sheep and Cow referrence). Care to elaborate why it "sucks" so bad???

Avatar image for REVENGEotSITH
REVENGEotSITH

3938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

12

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 REVENGEotSITH
Member since 2003 • 3938 Posts

gears is overatedthemagicbum9720

:lol: This is coming from a Sheep. What a surprise.

(Checks Gears stats: 10,000 rounds played, 8,675 kills)Yep - its overrated! :roll: