Post by: KnowsNothing on January 15, 2007, 06:11:43 AM
Also the controls, but mostly the AI of the team members. They are dumb as posts. They often block doorways and refuse to move. Their path finding is worse than Oblivion's. They don't care about their own lives, and often run out into the open and die in the most inconvenient places. I run out to save them, risking my own life, only to find them charging the enemy once more. This is a game about COVER. That was the whole thing with this game, this WASN'T just another run and gun game, where you rush the enemy firing everything you've got. The game was hyped for it's tactical element. WHY OH WHY, then, do your team mates run into the open?! That's just laziness by Epic's part.
Furthermore, I'm at a certain point in the game where it would be a bad thing to go into shadows. My team mate doesn't seem to care, he runs- no, actually, he walks- straight into the shade, and dies. I can't really save him either, since I would die as well. The game was nice enough to automatically revive him in the shade (most of the time...), but often he will immediately die again because he's not smart enough to move out of the shade. One particular time he hid behind a pillar in the shade and didn't want to give up his cover. So he would die, get back up, get back under the cover of the pillar, die, wash, rinse, repeat, DAMMIT. ENDLESS LOOP OF STUPIDITY.
The game's production values seem SO HIGH. The graphics are gorgeous (especially on the new TV
), and the sounds are LOUD (which means they're epic). The controls work well for the most part (except for running and turning and covering and chainsawing). But the AI ruins it. RUINS, I SAY.Co-op is fun though....too bad no one want s to play with me
Post by: couchmonkey on January 15, 2007, 06:29:39 AM
But given what the game's about, yeah, that would suck.
Post by: hudsonhawk on January 15, 2007, 06:43:50 AM
While the AI never really wowed me, it certainly never hurt my enjoyment of the game. Occassionally (especially on the "shadows" level you referred to) my teammates would put themselves in a stupid position, but if you called a regroup (with the left bumper) he'd come back to you.
I will say, the game is much much better on the higher difficulty levels. I'm on my second time through, this time playing it on hardcore, and having less margin for error makes it tons more fun.
Post by: Artimus on January 15, 2007, 06:53:34 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on January 15, 2007, 07:06:09 AM
My beef is wrestling games where the AI is unaware how a tag team match works. Like the ideas of tagging your partner when you're in trouble or cutting off the ring to focus on one guy. And then there was No Mercy where the computer never climbed the ladder in a ladder match EVER thus making it impossible to lose. So the match just went on and on forever because the AI refused to beat you. It would make sure to try to stop you from winning but it would never try to win itself.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on January 15, 2007, 07:31:00 AM
Post by: hudsonhawk on January 15, 2007, 07:43:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
Let me put it this way: When was the last time you had a smart AI on your side in ANY game?
Agreed, wasn't Half-Life 2: Episode 1 considered the first game to actually do it well?
I will say though that so far the AI seems better in Rainbow Six: Vegas, though that may have more to do with you having a greater degree of control over them (the AI has less of a need to guess what to do next; it will just stay put unless you tell it overwise).
Post by: KDR_11k on January 15, 2007, 08:12:33 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 15, 2007, 10:30:45 AM
Post by: Khushrenada on January 15, 2007, 12:06:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
Let me put it this way: When was the last time you had a smart AI on your side in ANY game?
The one game I was really impressed with friendly A.I. was Battalion Wars. I loved my troops. I could just switch them to auto and they would handle situations expertly. Of course, there were times when that doesn't work but on the whole, I thought the A.I. was great.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 15, 2007, 03:14:53 PM
Post by: WuTangTurtle on January 15, 2007, 03:52:13 PM
LoL, what was that like 10 years ago!
Post by: oohhboy on January 15, 2007, 07:43:31 PM
Post by: Smoke39 on January 15, 2007, 07:51:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawkQuote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
Let me put it this way: When was the last time you had a smart AI on your side in ANY game?
Agreed, wasn't Half-Life 2: Episode 1 considered the first game to actually do it well?
I think that was more Alyx being able to take enough of a beating that you didn't need to babysit her combined with some good scripted sequences than groundbreaking AI.
Post by: Nephilim on January 16, 2007, 05:39:32 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 16, 2007, 05:40:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KhushrenadaQuote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
Let me put it this way: When was the last time you had a smart AI on your side in ANY game?
The one game I was really impressed with friendly A.I. was Battalion Wars. I loved my troops. I could just switch them to auto and they would handle situations expertly. Of course, there were times when that doesn't work but on the whole, I thought the A.I. was great.
Thanks a lot for making me regret even more not owning this game. I am now waiting for the BWii I hope that it is as good or better than the original.
Post by: RiskyChris on January 21, 2007, 05:17:59 PM
Post by: Amodaus1 on January 23, 2007, 01:50:25 PM
Who ever said gears sucks is dead on. It is another shooter. I was lured by comparisions to resident evil 4, which is on of my favorite games for this past generation, so much so that i replayed it quite a bit. It is really nothing like RE4, so as you can imagine i was crushed, then i was raging pissed.
Its halo, repackaged with a roll and a cover system, right down to the regening health. They couldn't even give you kits or something with multiplayer, its hunt for your guns by playing the map halo style, and you use positive renforcement to revive fallen teammmates. COME'ON DOM IT'S ONLY A FLESH WOUND! Bitch'in, really...
My final synopsis:
If a game is selling like crazy and is not:
1) made by nintendo
2) called the sims: insert expansion name
3) GTA
4) WOW
Then odds are its a SHOOTER, because that seems to be what casual gamers like. Seriously, no long winded story, or complicated controls, or great technical gameplay (on the competitve side). Just jump in and shoot sh*t. Easy to jump into, and easy to jump out of. I think thats the real route of casual gaming, unless the wii can change things. I've become bitter with FPS's after battle filed 2142, so i can't stand gears at all. Cheers to those who can, but i still say, at least in the U.S., that FPS have become the common man's game.
Edit: Due to Darc's comment, i corrected the FPS and replaced it with shooter, same gameplay different polygon count, shooter term will encompase it all
Post by: IceCold on January 23, 2007, 04:13:39 PM
Post by: bustin98 on January 23, 2007, 04:30:41 PM
Post by: Darc Requiem on January 24, 2007, 02:31:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
It is very twitch in multiplayer, unless you have a team that is coordinated, considering the shotgun in that game is insta-death at a certain range, and has a very wide blast radius
Who ever said gears sucks is dead on. It is another shooter. I was lured by comparisions to resident evil 4, which is on of my favorite games for this past generation, so much so that i replayed it quite a bit. It is really nothing like RE4, so as you can imagine i was crushed, then i was raging pissed.
Its halo, repackaged with a roll and a cover system, right down to the regening health. They couldn't even give you kits or something with multiplayer, its hunt for your guns by playing the map halo style, and you use positive renforcement to revive fallen teammmates. COME'ON DOM IT'S ONLY A FLESH WOUND! Bitch'in, really...
My final synopsis:
If a game is selling like crazy and is not:
1) made by nintendo
2) called the sims: insert expansion name
3) GTA
4) WOW
Then odds are its an FPS, because that seems to be what casual gamers like. Seriously, no long winded story, or complicated controls, or great technical gameplay (on the competitve side). Just jump in and shoot sh*t. Easy to jump into, and easy to jump out of. I think thats the real route of casual gaming, unless the wii can change things. I've become bitter with FPS's after battle filed 2142, so i can't stand gears at all. Cheers to those who can, but i still say, at least in the U.S., that FPS have become the common man's game.
Problem is Gears of War isn't an FPS.
Post by: Kairon on January 24, 2007, 02:36:11 AM
The same genre as Jet Force Gemini?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Amodaus1 on January 24, 2007, 10:32:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Don't forget Madden.
Damn did i miss the biggest one of them all.
And to the smart one who said its not an FPS, i said it's halo repackaged alittle different, and you best believe it plays like an FPS, if you don't think so then you might as well go graze in the field with the other sheep who don't know better
It's a TPS, like jet force, but devoid completely of any platforming, power-ups, side quests, you know anything to add to a game other then basically shooting, which defines a shooter, although they display more polygons of you character then just his gun and hand, don't be fooled into thinking its anything else then a repackaged FPS
Now if you excuse me, i'm going to go look at the BLOOD from my CHAINSAW, yeah awesome, greatest use of the chainsaw EVER. Bitchin'.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 24, 2007, 11:42:40 AM
Post by: Darc Requiem on January 25, 2007, 06:51:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Don't forget Madden.
Damn did i miss the biggest one of them all.
And to the smart one who said its not an FPS, i said it's halo repackaged alittle different, and you best believe it plays like an FPS, if you don't think so then you might as well go graze in the field with the other sheep who don't know better
It's a TPS, like jet force, but devoid completely of any platforming, power-ups, side quests, you know anything to add to a game other then basically shooting, which defines a shooter, although they display more polygons of you character then just his gun and hand, don't be fooled into thinking its anything else then a repackaged FPS
Now if you excuse me, i'm going to go look at the BLOOD from my CHAINSAW, yeah awesome, greatest use of the chainsaw EVER. Bitchin'.
So in other words you were wrong but instead of admitting it, you resort to name calling. It doesn't matter what Gears of War plays like it is still a TPS. Its a shooter with a Third Person perspective. That makes it an TPS. That has nothing to do with the games play style. Just because you don't like how a gameplays doesn't change its genre.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on January 25, 2007, 07:32:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
There was a depressed man who gathered his family for a meeting. He then proceeded to decapitate himself with his chainsaw in front of them.
that would make a great scene on 24
Post by: KnowsNothing on January 25, 2007, 03:05:37 PM
Plus, what exactly is the blood covering again? The screen? The camera? None of these things exist in the game. That always bothers me about some games...there shouldn't be screen effects like that if it doesn't correlate with the game at all. MP did it perfectly because water drops would hit the visor- if there's no visor, having raindrops hit the screen just brings me out of the experience because it reminds me that I'm simply staring at a TV screen. It ruins the transparency. Or something.
Boo!
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on January 25, 2007, 03:54:17 PM
Post by: Extra Terrestrial on January 30, 2007, 03:16:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
My final synopsis:
If a game is selling like crazy and is not:
1) made by nintendo
2) called the sims: insert expansion name
3) GTA
4) WOW
If that is your take on the videogame industry then you must have missed out on a lot of classics available on other systems just because it didn't have the Nintendo logo on the box-art.
A pathetic argument if there ever was one.
Post by: hudsonhawk on January 30, 2007, 04:23:28 AM
Let's test his theory a little bit.
Here are the 10 best selling games of 2006 (in no particular order):
Madden, Kingdom Hearts 2, New Super Mario Bros., GTA: Vice City Stories, NCAA football, GRAW, Fight Night, Brain Age, Madden (again, I know), Elder Scrolls.
Of that list only 3 meet his "final synopsis" - GTA:VCS, NSM2, and Brain Age.
So yeah, patently false and just plain dumb.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 30, 2007, 06:35:08 AM
Post by: hudsonhawk on January 30, 2007, 06:53:49 AM
Post by: Ceric on January 30, 2007, 07:07:57 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 05, 2007, 08:37:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
Further, it's patently false anyway.
Let's test his theory a little bit.
Here are the 10 best selling games of 2006 (in no particular order):
Madden, Kingdom Hearts 2, New Super Mario Bros., GTA: Vice City Stories, NCAA football, GRAW, Fight Night, Brain Age, Madden (again, I know), Elder Scrolls.
Of that list only 3 meet his "final synopsis" - GTA:VCS, NSM2, and Brain Age.
So yeah, patently false and just plain dumb.
Your best selling list fails to be the top 10 best selling games of 2006
1. Madden NFL 07 (PlayStation 2; 1.8 million+ sold)
2. New Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo DS; 1.5 million+ sold)
3. Kingdom Hearts II (PS2; 1.5 million+ sold)
4. Gears of War (Xbox 360; 1 million+ sold)
5. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (Xbox 360; 913,000+ sold)
6. Final Fantasy XII (PS2; 895,000+ sold)
7. Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories (PS2; 860,000+ sold)
8. NCAA Football 07 (PS2; 849,000+ sold)
9. Madden NFL 07 (Xbox 360; 826,000+ sold)
10. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!/ April (Nintendo DS; 792,000+ sold)
Elder scrolls was not in there, and gears of war is most ceratinly there
Number 2, Why don't you read my post which said that if it's none of those 4 (which was latter corrected to 5 as someone pointed out MADDEN and i said, DAMN I CAN'T BELIEVE I FORGOT MADDEN! THAT SHOULD GO ON THE LIST!) Then its gotta be a shooter
So lets recap:
1 MAdden : checks with my synopsis
2 NSMB : Checks with my synop
4 Gears: It's a shooter, check
5 GRAW: Another shooter
7 GTA: Checks
9 Madden: Checks again
10 Brain age: Damn another check
Gee, my contorted view of the gaming industry sure is SAD. I mean with my broad generalization i managed to nail 7 of the top 10 best selling games of 06, AND THAT JUST FOR CONSOLES! Throw in PC stats and you'll find WOW, and not this year but ceratinly last, when SIMS 2 came out you'd find the sims. 7 out of 10, i'll take that.
Regardless, i'm not trying to be elitist. I'm stating games that sell in extremes are usually one of the 6 (madden, shooter, sims, WOW, GTA, and anything published by nintendo) Am i being elitist by only including nintendo and not including a juggernaut like square-enix? Well, if square can float its own console then i would blanket them in that board statement.
And to the other guy who mention that i must have missed alot of games without the nintendo logo? Where the hell did you even derive that conclusion? I was making a statement about games that sell in extremes, not games that i play the most of. Last time i checked gears didn't have a nintendo logo and i just finished playing that, as well a gaint horde of ps2 games. Please read text before saying something.
Post by: Jdub03 on February 11, 2007, 05:04:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Everyone loves the chainsaw in this game, but I think it sucks. It handles poorly, making it hard to get a good hit with it. When I do get a hit, I am "rewarded" with a loud, irritating noise, while blood covers the screen making it hard to see. Very annoying.
Plus, what exactly is the blood covering again? The screen? The camera? None of these things exist in the game. That always bothers me about some games...there shouldn't be screen effects like that if it doesn't correlate with the game at all. MP did it perfectly because water drops would hit the visor- if there's no visor, having raindrops hit the screen just brings me out of the experience because it reminds me that I'm simply staring at a TV screen. It ruins the transparency. Or something.
Boo!
That would be good and fine if it were a FPS but its not. Its not putting you in the shoes of a warrior. You are not the warrior. Your looking from the outside. That is what third person is all about. Theres no way to see another person(third) unless your there in person or you have some type of recording device. Either way its you getting your eyeballs splashed with ketchup or a camera getting sprayed. Besides that doesn't make the game bad anyway. Stop nitpicking. FPS and Transformed FPS(TPS) have become generic. Theres nothing new to them. WE need something fresh. They haven't changed much since doom pc or golden eye.
