FPS and RPGs are hell to play on a console, it just doesnt feel right without the mouse and keyboard combination.
No, you mean that it doesn't feel right to you. I have no problems playing those games on a console if they have been designed with that control method in mind.
I can go from playing three hours of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory online to shooting the Covenant in Halo on the xbox without batting an eyelid.
I'd love to be able to play Metroid Prime or Final Fantasy 10 on my computer and no matter how good those games are I'd never buy a game console. They're too limiting.
Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense at all. In what way is a console limiting? It plays games as that is what it was designed for.
A TV is no different in that respect and neither is a chair or a cheese sandwich.
If there's a problem with the X-Box, it's Windows ('cause it crashes games pretty often), its high price, and its relatively frequent patches and firmware updates.
Yawn. This is totally and utterly incorrect.
The tiny little bit of Windows that the Xbox makes use of for it's games is nothing like the Windows that gets installed on your PC.
Please. FPS gaming without a mouse is like coding without a keyboard.
You are quite obviously one of those idiots who cannot grasp the fact that some people are able to play FPS games on both consoles and PC's.
Yes, the mouse/keyboard system is better for FPS games than a controller. But that doesn't mean that a controller is totally useless. I can go from playing three hours of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory on the PC to playing Halo on the Xbox without any trouble at all.
But then many console games are more geared to be replayed many times. Whilst the likes of Panzer Dragoon Orta can be beaten quite quickly, the idea is that you strive to play it through on the harder skill levels and improve your score. Cripes, I still play Christmas NiGHTS every so often and it is a piece of piss to finish but that is not the point. The point of playing it is to beat your high scores.
Such as? The only ones I can think of that benefit greatly from being on a PC are FPS games, RTS and perhaps flight simulation games. But this is only because of the mouse/keyboard issue which a console can easily make use of.
Some of them can be done the same (platformers, racing games maybe, etc...)
The likes of platformers and racing games can be done far better on a console because they all have the same controller. This means that the developers can fine tune the handling to that controller.
Which is exactly the point, those people that don't like random encounters should play the RPGs that don't have them.
Well, um, they quite obviously do.
Talking about things that you do not like is called 'discussion', and you are basically saying that people should not bother talking about something unless they like it.
If that is what makes the criticism valid, than it is not, because technical constraints have nothing to do with random encounters in console RPGs. There were plenty of games with fewer and more RPG elements (and RPGs themselves) that did not have random encounters, even before FF and DQ/DW. Even PC RPGs have almost always been both ways.
It most certainly is because of the technicial limitations of old systems for these random encounters. The systems were not really capable of displaying the numerous enemies at once with the detail that the designers wanted, so they came up the random encounters with the battles played on a different engine.
Maybe all of you people complaining about random encounters really just do not like RPGs. If you hate the way they are maybe you should look into playing a different style of game instead of ragging on random encounters.
I take it that you do not realise how many RPG's there are WITHOUT random encounters? It is perfectly valid to critisise them as they are a left-over legacy from times when technical constraints forced the developers to use these random encounters.
Damn stright - those American soldiers that commited attrocities in Vietnam should have been brought to justice.
So you can tell the difference between the American soldiers who commited the atrocities and the American soldiers who did NOT commit the atrocities, but not the difference between a German and a Nazi?
At least have the courage to admit what you are.
I am not a 'fucking Nazi sympathiser'. I just happen to know the difference between a Nazi and a German. It is obvious that you do not.
You try to find all sorts of *excuses* for the evil behavoir of the German people during WWII - try to fix the hatered in your heart instead of trying to duck responsibility.
Oh, now it is the German PEOPLE who are to blame for it all. You DO realise that not every German during WWII was a Nazi, right?
I am not excusing the actions of the Nazi's during WWII in the slightest, but once again I know the difference between who did it and who did not.
The US decided that removing the system that decided to make an un-provoked attack on Pearl Harbor, attack and occupy parts of China, and wage war across the Pacific, was the only way that we would accept surrender. We had made that very clear. But, the Japanese officials were more interested in their honor, than in saving their own people.
And so the US reply was too wipe out a city and thousands of civilians out in a split second.
Excuse me whilst I don't holler and cheer this act.
The reason we had to drop atomic bombs on Japan is because they had a very unfortunate way of looking at war. They would not surrender, either individually, or collectively.
American WWII veterans will tell you that fighting the Germans was more of a 'fair fight', in that they would surrender when obviously beaten. Also, when the roles were reversed, the Japanese would kill/torture our troops to a greater extent than the Germans would.
We had little choice when facing an enemy who was willing to send their last man on a kamikaze mission.
I think you will find that the Japanese actually WERE interested in surrenduring. They made such noises to the US govt., but wanted to do it in such a way so as not to lose their honour.
However, the US were not interested in such a thing and decided to drop the A-bomb instead.
Because they diden't mass murder civilians for sadistic pleasure.
Face it, the Allies were the *GOOD* guys. They fought for their survival.
The Gemrans and Japanes fought for EMPIRE. They fought so that they could murder millions of people for their pleasure.
I think that you will find the German soldiers were fighting because they were told to. If you seriously believe that the German soldiers were into murdering inccocent civilians for pleasure then you are a fool.
'm kinda the same. I have no qualms playing as terrorists in Counterstrike. In fact I actually prefer it (mostly due to this bogus war on imaginary terrorists threats around the world). But in WW2 games, no, I agree with you. It's tough to get any enjoyment playing murdering bastards.
And how were the Allied soldiers any less murdering bastards than the German ones?
Halo is a multiplayer game at heart, with a single player mode attached for practice and late-nights when your friends are asleep.
Erm, since when?
I know very few people who have actually played it multiplayer, but everyone raves about the single player. Halo is possibly the best FPS I have ever played.
First of all, the multiplayer co-op mode! Hello? Did you reviewers just not notice it? Or do you not know anyone else you can play it with? Lemme explain the co-op mode: One person steers, the other mans the weapons and does the power slides. And you can swap places! I'd file this one under "progress" people.
I would file this under 'pointless'. The Atari 2600 did this sort of thing with it's games, and it was a bit pants. I would rather they sort out the single player aspect than put gimmicks like this in.
So slashdotters: Don't believe the reviews, they're mostly wrong.
Yes, that's right. Everyone who doesn't like MK:DD is 'wrong'.
If you liked Mario Kart on SNES or N64, you'll love what they've done with it on the GC. It's that simple.
No, it most certainly is NOT that simple. Look at the amount of people who liked the original MK, but not MK64. It seems that many people have similar feelings this time around.
1 vs 1 is always boring in any multiplayer FPS, but 2 vs 2 is good in Halo.
The only thing missing from Halo multiplayer is the bots. At first, Halo deathmatch does feel rather lightweight - it takes time to get into it.
However, to say that TS2 is a better game overall I have to disagree with. I found TS2 to be utter crap for the most part. Only two or three of the single player levels were any good and everything else was boring. It may have had bots for multiplayer, but give me Halo any day. Perhaps the single worst part of TS2 is the weapons - they are truly AWFUL and just so weedy it's pathetic. Not to mention that it feels like you are controlling a floating gun when playing the game.
Amen, brother. And MS will continue to have a noxious effect on the entire gaming industry.
Yawn. People say the same crap about Sony as well.
Not only will it inevitably affect the creativity of indie development houses (which is reason enough to avoid the situation), but on the console side of things it's worse.
So how is a developer having financial security such a bad thing? And what about the developer deciding to sell out in the first place?
So not only did I miss the Halo phenomenon, sadly, I will also be missing the sequel---along with any other quality games the Bungie crew happen dream up.
That is your own fault entirely. If you cannot let go of your silly, childish little principle then you have no one else to blame.
As a momentary exercise in completely extraneous hypotheticals, and to drive the point home with much more force (given the audience), imagine for a moment that MS had decided to acquire Squaresoft instead of Bungie... *shuter*
Yes, just imagine! We would have to put up with endless sequels of an RPG series that have no bearing on past episodes!
I visited the site this morning, and it was all there.
Click on the 'Articles' bit on the left, and then in the middle you should see the various categories. Choose one, and the articles should appear listed a bit lower down. Most of the articles were written by myself.
Anyways, what makes you assume that my experience with Namco games is out of narrowmindedness? Should I assume that your experiences are borne of narrowmindedness as well, or is it possible that the fact that the majority of the multiplatform games I own are Namco games is purely coincidence, due to the fact that they make some great games, and are a major multiplatform publisher?
You basically said that there are no bad PS2 ports on the GC if you don't count American games and only Namco ones. That sounds like a pretty narrow selection to me...
You are free to post what you like, but neither you nor anyone else has responded to my sincere question about PS2 games that are superior in visual presentation and gameplay to their GameCube versions.
That isn't what you said. You asked for some bad PS2 - to GC ports.
One of the worst examples is Medal of Honor - the graphics are TERRIBLE, and don't even look good for a PS2 game.
The Nintendo one is here:
http://www.backseatgamer.com/index.php?option=arti cles&task=viewarticle&artid=10&Itemid= 3
The retro one is here:
http://www.backseatgamer.com/index.php?option=arti cles&task=viewarticle&artid=9&Itemid=3
I have no idea how long that the site is going to last. It was setup during the summer by someone, and I agreed to contribute to it.
Sadly, I was pretty much the only one who actually worked on the site which was very annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
FPS and RPGs are hell to play on a console, it just doesnt feel right without the mouse and keyboard combination.
No, you mean that it doesn't feel right to you. I have no problems playing those games on a console if they have been designed with that control method in mind.
I can go from playing three hours of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory online to shooting the Covenant in Halo on the xbox without batting an eyelid.
I'd love to be able to play Metroid Prime or Final Fantasy 10 on my computer and no matter how good those games are I'd never buy a game console. They're too limiting.
Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense at all. In what way is a console limiting? It plays games as that is what it was designed for.
A TV is no different in that respect and neither is a chair or a cheese sandwich.
So who is going to be the first one to submit this story to the Darwin Awards site?
If there's a problem with the X-Box, it's Windows ('cause it crashes games pretty often), its high price, and its relatively frequent patches and firmware updates.
Yawn. This is totally and utterly incorrect.
The tiny little bit of Windows that the Xbox makes use of for it's games is nothing like the Windows that gets installed on your PC.
Please. FPS gaming without a mouse is like coding without a keyboard.
You are quite obviously one of those idiots who cannot grasp the fact that some people are able to play FPS games on both consoles and PC's.
Yes, the mouse/keyboard system is better for FPS games than a controller. But that doesn't mean that a controller is totally useless. I can go from playing three hours of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory on the PC to playing Halo on the Xbox without any trouble at all.
Halo certainly has near-infinite replay value, especially in co-op mode.
But then many console games are more geared to be replayed many times. Whilst the likes of Panzer Dragoon Orta can be beaten quite quickly, the idea is that you strive to play it through on the harder skill levels and improve your score. Cripes, I still play Christmas NiGHTS every so often and it is a piece of piss to finish but that is not the point. The point of playing it is to beat your high scores.
A lot of them can be done better on PC
Such as? The only ones I can think of that benefit greatly from being on a PC are FPS games, RTS and perhaps flight simulation games. But this is only because of the mouse/keyboard issue which a console can easily make use of.
Some of them can be done the same (platformers, racing games maybe, etc...)
The likes of platformers and racing games can be done far better on a console because they all have the same controller. This means that the developers can fine tune the handling to that controller.
Which is exactly the point, those people that don't like random encounters should play the RPGs that don't have them.
Well, um, they quite obviously do. Talking about things that you do not like is called 'discussion', and you are basically saying that people should not bother talking about something unless they like it.
If that is what makes the criticism valid, than it is not, because technical constraints have nothing to do with random encounters in console RPGs. There were plenty of games with fewer and more RPG elements (and RPGs themselves) that did not have random encounters, even before FF and DQ/DW. Even PC RPGs have almost always been both ways.
It most certainly is because of the technicial limitations of old systems for these random encounters. The systems were not really capable of displaying the numerous enemies at once with the detail that the designers wanted, so they came up the random encounters with the battles played on a different engine.
Maybe all of you people complaining about random encounters really just do not like RPGs. If you hate the way they are maybe you should look into playing a different style of game instead of ragging on random encounters.
I take it that you do not realise how many RPG's there are WITHOUT random encounters? It is perfectly valid to critisise them as they are a left-over legacy from times when technical constraints forced the developers to use these random encounters.
Damn stright - those American soldiers that commited attrocities in Vietnam should have been brought to justice.
So you can tell the difference between the American soldiers who commited the atrocities and the American soldiers who did NOT commit the atrocities, but not the difference between a German and a Nazi?
At least have the courage to admit what you are.
I am not a 'fucking Nazi sympathiser'. I just happen to know the difference between a Nazi and a German. It is obvious that you do not.
You try to find all sorts of *excuses* for the evil behavoir of the German people during WWII - try to fix the hatered in your heart instead of trying to duck responsibility.
Oh, now it is the German PEOPLE who are to blame for it all. You DO realise that not every German during WWII was a Nazi, right?
I am not excusing the actions of the Nazi's during WWII in the slightest, but once again I know the difference between who did it and who did not.
The US decided that removing the system that decided to make an un-provoked attack on Pearl Harbor, attack and occupy parts of China, and wage war across the Pacific, was the only way that we would accept surrender. We had made that very clear. But, the Japanese officials were more interested in their honor, than in saving their own people.
And so the US reply was too wipe out a city and thousands of civilians out in a split second.
Excuse me whilst I don't holler and cheer this act.
"I vas only following orders" doesen't absolve anything.
What, like in Vietnam?
You may count me a fool - But I count you as evil.
Fucking Nazi sympantiser.
Wow, you really strengthened your argument there. Try learning the difference between a German and a Nazi before replying with your childish comments.
The reason we had to drop atomic bombs on Japan is because they had a very unfortunate way of looking at war. They would not surrender, either individually, or collectively.
American WWII veterans will tell you that fighting the Germans was more of a 'fair fight', in that they would surrender when obviously beaten. Also, when the roles were reversed, the Japanese would kill/torture our troops to a greater extent than the Germans would.
We had little choice when facing an enemy who was willing to send their last man on a kamikaze mission.
I think you will find that the Japanese actually WERE interested in surrenduring. They made such noises to the US govt., but wanted to do it in such a way so as not to lose their honour.
However, the US were not interested in such a thing and decided to drop the A-bomb instead.
Because they diden't mass murder civilians for sadistic pleasure.
Face it, the Allies were the *GOOD* guys. They fought for their survival.
The Gemrans and Japanes fought for EMPIRE. They fought so that they could murder millions of people for their pleasure.
I think that you will find the German soldiers were fighting because they were told to. If you seriously believe that the German soldiers were into murdering inccocent civilians for pleasure then you are a fool.
'm kinda the same. I have no qualms playing as terrorists in Counterstrike. In fact I actually prefer it (mostly due to this bogus war on imaginary terrorists threats around the world). But in WW2 games, no, I agree with you. It's tough to get any enjoyment playing murdering bastards.
And how were the Allied soldiers any less murdering bastards than the German ones?
Halo is a multiplayer game at heart, with a single player mode attached for practice and late-nights when your friends are asleep.
Erm, since when?
I know very few people who have actually played it multiplayer, but everyone raves about the single player. Halo is possibly the best FPS I have ever played.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I never owned a Nintendo 64. I know I can't be the only one.
Why, exactly, would "it's too much like Mario Kart 64" be a problem to me?
I have been in a coma for 20 years, and haven't ever played a computer game before.
Why, exactly, would EA's latest rehash be a problem for me?
First of all, the multiplayer co-op mode! Hello? Did you reviewers just not notice it? Or do you not know anyone else you can play it with? Lemme explain the co-op mode: One person steers, the other mans the weapons and does the power slides. And you can swap places! I'd file this one under "progress" people.
I would file this under 'pointless'. The Atari 2600 did this sort of thing with it's games, and it was a bit pants. I would rather they sort out the single player aspect than put gimmicks like this in.
So slashdotters: Don't believe the reviews, they're mostly wrong.
Yes, that's right. Everyone who doesn't like MK:DD is 'wrong'.
If you liked Mario Kart on SNES or N64, you'll love what they've done with it on the GC. It's that simple.
No, it most certainly is NOT that simple. Look at the amount of people who liked the original MK, but not MK64. It seems that many people have similar feelings this time around.
1 vs 1 is always boring in any multiplayer FPS, but 2 vs 2 is good in Halo.
The only thing missing from Halo multiplayer is the bots. At first, Halo deathmatch does feel rather lightweight - it takes time to get into it.
However, to say that TS2 is a better game overall I have to disagree with. I found TS2 to be utter crap for the most part. Only two or three of the single player levels were any good and everything else was boring. It may have had bots for multiplayer, but give me Halo any day. Perhaps the single worst part of TS2 is the weapons - they are truly AWFUL and just so weedy it's pathetic. Not to mention that it feels like you are controlling a floating gun when playing the game.
Amen, brother. And MS will continue to have a noxious effect on the entire gaming industry.
... *shuter*
Yawn. People say the same crap about Sony as well.
Not only will it inevitably affect the creativity of indie development houses (which is reason enough to avoid the situation), but on the console side of things it's worse.
So how is a developer having financial security such a bad thing? And what about the developer deciding to sell out in the first place?
So not only did I miss the Halo phenomenon, sadly, I will also be missing the sequel---along with any other quality games the Bungie crew happen dream up.
That is your own fault entirely. If you cannot let go of your silly, childish little principle then you have no one else to blame.
As a momentary exercise in completely extraneous hypotheticals, and to drive the point home with much more force (given the audience), imagine for a moment that MS had decided to acquire Squaresoft instead of Bungie
Yes, just imagine! We would have to put up with endless sequels of an RPG series that have no bearing on past episodes!
Oh, hang on a second...
Really?
I visited the site this morning, and it was all there.
Click on the 'Articles' bit on the left, and then in the middle you should see the various categories. Choose one, and the articles should appear listed a bit lower down. Most of the articles were written by myself.
Anyways, what makes you assume that my experience with Namco games is out of narrowmindedness? Should I assume that your experiences are borne of narrowmindedness as well, or is it possible that the fact that the majority of the multiplatform games I own are Namco games is purely coincidence, due to the fact that they make some great games, and are a major multiplatform publisher?
You basically said that there are no bad PS2 ports on the GC if you don't count American games and only Namco ones. That sounds like a pretty narrow selection to me...
You are free to post what you like, but neither you nor anyone else has responded to my sincere question about PS2 games that are superior in visual presentation and gameplay to their GameCube versions.
That isn't what you said. You asked for some bad PS2 - to GC ports.
One of the worst examples is Medal of Honor - the graphics are TERRIBLE, and don't even look good for a PS2 game.
but I've just never seen a case where a PS2 game was ported to the GameCube without being universally improved
Try opening your eyes, then. If you limit yourself to such a narrow viewpoint (just Namco games), then you obviously won't see very much.
The Nintendo one is here: http://www.backseatgamer.com/index.php?option=arti cles&task=viewarticle&artid=10&Itemid= 3
i cles&task=viewarticle&artid=9&Itemid=3
The retro one is here: http://www.backseatgamer.com/index.php?option=art
I have no idea how long that the site is going to last. It was setup during the summer by someone, and I agreed to contribute to it.
Sadly, I was pretty much the only one who actually worked on the site which was very annoying.