Rate The Last Game You Played

Half Life 1

9/10

The only thing that keeps this game from perfection is the linearity which lowers its replay value and the occasional collision error on dead bodies.

Thief 2: The Metal Age 9/10

I'm barely half-way through, but it's already better then Thief Gold (not a fan of dealing with zombies), with additions like Mechanist creations. Love the huge and complex levels. If only Deus Ex had stealth on the level of this game.

Definitely curious what Thi4f is going to look like.

hal said:

The "unknown Steam error" isn't the fault of the game... it's a. Steam. error.

Click to expand...

I know it's a Steam error, but Steam is needed to play the game. It wouldn't be fair just to completely ignore it. I've had similar problems in TF2, but they don't happen nearly as often. Is it a coincidence that it happens so often for me in KF? Probably. But I don't think it would be fair to ignore the problem when Steam is practically a part of the game. It would be like if I played Spore and ignored all the problems Securom causes.

Also, the game IS based off of a UT2004 mod and that's why it's priced as it is. If you played the mod and then this game you'd know that it HAS been polished.

Click to expand...

Well, you got me there. I never played the mod, let alone even looked it up. I still think that KF could have been fixed up a bit more given how long it has been out for.

I realize the score you gave it is your own opinion, but it's not a very fair score.

Click to expand...

In hindsight, it probably wasn't a very fair rating, but if it wasn't for Steam not letting me access and save my profile at the most inconvenient moments, I would've given it a much better score. It just gets really old when I have to exit the game and start it back up again just to change my character or switch perks.

Rohit said:

Thief 2: The Metal Age 9/10

I'm barely half-way through, but it's already better then Thief Gold (not a fan of dealing with zombies), with additions like Mechanist creations. Love the huge and complex levels. If only Deus Ex had stealth on the level of this game.

Definitely curious what Thi4f is going to look like.

Click to expand...

It hasn't aged very well but Thief 2 is one of my favorite games of all time. The story is decent and very interesting, the art style is good, if a bit underdeveloped due to graphical limitations and the stealth is second to none (even if, again, it's dated). I especially love the emphasis on sneaking without killing (I'm a thief, not an assassin) through good use of the environment and tools. Deadly Shadows was a pale shadow (exception of The Cradle, which was a disturbingly well-done level) and so I can only hope that Thief 4 gets back on track, adapting the movement and abilities from games like Assassin's Creed, Mirror's Edge and Splinter Cell while maintaining the 1st person perspective and emphasis on stealth from Thief 2 (none of this Deadly Shadows 3rd person cam BS).

~Jason

Greed: Black Border - 6/10

Average, but perfectly enjoyable if you're after a coop arpg romp and have already played the 'big' ones like diablo2, titan quest, dungeon sieges, and whathaveyous.

dragonfliet said:

Fallout: New Vegas B+

Click to expand...

the most important thing you pointed out here is the fact that the game is basically over the moment you reach the Vegas Strip.

despite the many ways in which New Vegas improved upon Fallout 3, FO3 is still the superior gameplay experience because it allows you to make use of all the weapons and gear you've collected for much longer and employ them against a greater variety of situations. even after finishing the story and side missions you could trek across FO3 and still find areas you missed with enemies worth fighting.

the Wasteland in FO3 was much, much more enjoyable to explore than in New Vegas. it kept you busy for a lot longer. New Vegas seems so big when you first start the game, but then you realize the majority of it is empty space that cannot be reached. and in the parts that you can explore there's not enough enemies to come across, the ones you do provide little to no challenge.

I played New Vegas twice and have never touched it since.
my first playthrough was entirely "Good," my second was completely "Evil." and since finishing the second play, I've had ZERO incentive to go back. the game has nothing left to offer. the only reason I made it through the second play was to see the changes in the story based on my being an evil prick.

there's nothing in the NV wasteland to make you want to go back.
very unfortunate.

Mojave Wasteland is definitely better than FO3's crappy overpopulated thing, like a proper post-apocalyptic place should be (welcome back proper old Fallout atmosphere AND ALSO Mark Morgan music instead of Inon Zur noise).
What the **** was up with having 4 Rad Scorpions, 5 Enclave Soldiers, dozen of robots, a Deathclaw, all in the same place? It was never supposed to be a war-like FPS game.

I remember hating New Vegas. Now it makes Fallout 3 look and feel like crap. This is a step in the right direction. They have to improve on the dark atmosphere now.

But then, you're right on something. The game is shorter, and most of the locations are simply very small or useless - but on the positive side, they are all unique and different, and it's not the same Metro being recycled again, again, and again. But still, I confess that World of Pain (dungon mod) made the game even more enjoyable. Dungeons end up always cool I guess :C
Also it's funny how the weather modders know more about good atmosphere. Nevada Sky + brown cloudy sky feels awesome, instead of that annoying baby blue retail sky.

to hell with whats "proper."
it's a video game.
there should be stuff to do. you have to balance realism with fun. and lets be honest, Fallout isn't realistic anyway.

I don't care if an empty wasteland is more proper, I want there to be lots of junk to find and enemies to fight.
seriously, keep playing New Vegas. it gets boring fast. there was lots more explore in FO3.

UBerserker said:

Nevada Sky + brown cloudy sky feels awesome, instead of that annoying baby blue retail sky.

Click to expand...

You can't be serious. I don't care much for the Oblivion sequels, but how could crappy brown skys ever be better than, I don't know, a real sky? I always hated how they made a bunch of maps in BF2 with brown skys. Makes no sense and it feels like I'm not on Earth.

So retarded. Obviously the mod makers fail at environment compared to the devs, which is funny because normally mods are supposed to improve stuff, not make it look like crap.

I'm still playing New Vegas for three months now and I'm still enjoying it more than FO3!
Fallout 3 was just longer because it had just 40 or so metros that looked the same. It was dumb. And also it was 10 times easier.

SleepyHe4d said:

So retarded. Obviously the mod makers fail at environment compared to the devs, which is funny because normally mods are supposed to improve stuff, not make it look like crap.

Click to expand...

I guess I can't agree with this! It's not really brown per se. Just, uh, cloudy. But no, Fellout and Nevada Sky improve everything.

Well since it's not brown I guess it's fine. They both look like decent skys from the screens I was able to find. They both pretty much look realistic but just with a different atmosphere.

Orig:
[SCREENSHOT]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7687/falloutnewvegas2590x368.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

Mod:
[SCREENSHOT]http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1834/gamefalloutnewvegasmodn.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

Real:
[SCREENSHOT]http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/7492/52866129baretreewidesky.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]


Well actually the modded one looks extremely dark without cloud cover over the sun. Wtf?

UBerserker said:

I don't see the image

Click to expand...

Really? Lame, I'll host on imageshack or something.

I don't see the image but I guess I know which one are you referring about. In my game it is actually way brighter than that.

EDIT: yes, in my game the lighting with that modded sky is definitely brighter.

UBerserker said:

Fallout 3 was just longer because it had just 40 or so metros

Click to expand...

I'm not referring to the metro or any other underground area of the game.

Fallout 3 still covered much more territory with regards to above-ground and interior areas. I couldn't believe how much space was wasted in New Vegas; the casinos are tiny with equally tiny floorplans and most interiors were half the size of what they would have been in similar structures from FO3. New Vegas was "overpopulated" in all the wrong places, with tons of people standing around doing nothing on the Strip yet hardly any roving packs of enemies or stuff to encounter out in the desert.

when you first look at the NV map it seems boundless. later you realize at least 25% of the desert outside the city is off limits and empty. when you see The Strip for the first time from far away it looks epic. you can't wait to go there. but then you get there and it's like a Disney amusement park. the only building in New Vegas that lived up to its apparent size from a distance was the Ranger Headquarters located in the old airport terminal. oh and that airfield where the Boomers live, that was cool with its full size hangars and what not.
everything else was more like Lego land.

with Fallout 3 you could feel how vast the landscape was. and you could literally walk to the very end of all edges of the map. and it was all full of crap to find and stuff to kill. when you first saw downtown DC from far away it also looked epic and you wanted in. and when you arrive it totally delivers; the city itself is much more dense than any area of New Vegas. mercs are running around having isolated firefights with groups of mutants and sh*ts blowing up, meanwhile there's booby traps everywhere and you gotta' go from building to building as you slowly progress deeper into the city.
there's no moments like this in New Vegas. plus, in FO3 you can come back through a few days later and things will have reset and you can do it all again. the roaming packs of Wasteland enemies don't just disappear like they do at the end of New Vegas.

I could go on.
you'll probably still disagree. we obviously look for different reasons to enjoy this game.
also like Jason pointed out; New Vegas just becomes a headache once you finish the side missions outside the Strip. most of the remaining quests are a grind that consist of nothing more than walking back-n-forth between objectives because the fast travel waypoints were placed by someone with Downs syndrome.

On the whole quantity of locations and the walk-able size of the world map I agree a lot, I'll just quickly say it on the stuff you said. I won't be surprised if the blocked parts will be added throughout DLCs (there are some unfinished stuff when I "ghosted" through the barricades, and also hints).
It's just a lot of wasted potential. I also miss big cities - I hope Obsidian will add the Boneyard (Los Angeles) beyond that blocked gate in the NCR outpost found at south-west, but unfortunately it will probably never happen :c
Instead we will get the Grand Canyon (and maybe Area 51? They confirmed that it will be done).

At the end what I enjoy more about the Mojave is its desolation aspect. The atmosphere is what I mainly expect after a nuclear war, I've no other idea but that's how I see it. FO3 felt off on that IMO. The use of Fallout 1 music probably counts too. Plus, I also like the fact that it follows the storyline of FO1 and FO2. Being a lover of the two first games is probably one of the reasons why I am happy about New Vegas.
Sort of preference I guess.

Oh yeah, I haven't seen it posted about New Vegas: **** those invisible walls. The quests definitely blow, then I also didn't like the ones in FO3 so it's a tie in that between the two for me.

If NV gets the same treatment FO3 did with DLCs down the road then I'll certainly be putting plenty more hours into it. I'm still playing the game, and generally agree with most of the points you guys brought up, either pros or cons. It's certainly a mark below FO3 in terms of scope and the grander scheme of things, but in other ways it is superior. The difficulty, for instance, has certainly been improved. As much as I loved FO3, I was a walking god well before the cap with all the character combos I made (I had three total for FO3, one for each playing style) on Very Hard, whereas in NV on the same difficulty (and thanks to Hardcore mode) I reached my level cap and was very engaged by the game's difficulty the whole way through, cap or no cap.

It's impossible to ignore the expansion pack feel of New Vegas, it really is. But I bought the game knowing full well this was the case, so I don't feel cheated. I can't very well cast a final verdict on it yet, based on how future DLCs turn out. The ones for FO3, minus Anchorage, were all spectacular and (along with Borderlands) are the best expansions I've played for a game since...jeez, Half-Life?

Mister_Prophet said:

If NV gets the same treatment FO3 did with DLCs down the road then I'll certainly be putting plenty more hours into it. I'm still playing the game, and generally agree with most of the points you guys brought up, either pros or cons. It's certainly a mark below FO3 in terms of scope and the grander scheme of things, but in other ways it is superior. The difficulty, for instance, has certainly been improved. As much as I loved FO3, I was a walking god well before the cap with all the character combos I made (I had three total for FO3, one for each playing style) on Very Hard, whereas in NV on the same difficulty (and thanks to Hardcore mode) I reached my level cap and was very engaged by the game's difficulty the whole way through, cap or no cap.

It's impossible to ignore the expansion pack feel of New Vegas, it really is. But I bought the game knowing full well this was the case, so I don't feel cheated. I can't very well cast a final verdict on it yet, based on how future DLCs turn out. The ones for FO3, minus Anchorage, were all spectacular and (along with Borderlands) are the best expansions I've played for a game since...jeez, Half-Life?

Click to expand...

And I still forget New Vegas was simply supposed to be a spin-off! And yeah, some of the New Vegas enemies don't screw up around, just like those Advanced Securitrons HOLY **** rocketstorm

I also still forget that you're playing on Hardcore, then I guess Dead Money is definitely for you if you want the features of that mode being used at its fullest.

you'll have to forgive my rambling.

I actually really like New Vegas. it's a great game in its own right which does improve on Fallout 3 in numerous ways. the only thing that I was really disappointed with was how NV wasted so much space when compared to the ground covered by FO3. right now, without any expansion packs to speak of, there's maybe half as much territory to explore in the Mojave as there was in the Capital Wasteland.

it just bugs that everything in NV is smaller and that the wasteland is basically empty, despite how realistic or "proper" that might be...

Goldeneye for Wii

Good remake, brings it up to date nicely. If you can imagine a stealth-focused CoD game, this is it, but with James Bond and of course the Goldeneye characters and plot. There were a couple of instances where the level design was perhaps less thought out than it could have been. Getting stuck when escaping the burning facility for example, or ending up at a dead end occasionally.

The Wii remote + Nunchuck control scheme works fine, although I had to sit a bit closer to the TV/Sensor than I usually would due to the accuracy you need sometimes (with autoaim off).

QTE's for the couple of boss fights in the game were very simple. Could have done with actual motion or gesture-based controls for those bits.

+ Great first-person character animations
+ Nicely reinvented levels with some variety
+ Solid control scheme
+ Decent length (not sure exactly how long, but it felt right)
+ Nice graphics for the system
+ Stealth gameplay

- Simple boss fights
- Too easy at times
- Some repetitive/bad design in spots

8/10

I watched some multiplayer gameplay for Goldeneye Wii and it looked exactly like COD. I figured I was not going to pay money for a redux of a game, that in an era of new technology, has bleh graphics and is another generic shooter trying to take the style of the current overhyped game.

I couldn't connect to a MP game, so I can't comment on how much it's like COD or not. But yes, I imagine it would be since its essentially deathmatch variations with weapon loadout and perk-based gameplay. I doubt they'd get away with anything less than that.

SP is where the game shines, and about the graphics... what do you expect from a Wii game (which is hardly new technology)?