Most memorable level you've played.

Problem with the computer being more powerful is that there are no standards, when you make a game for PS2, XBox etc. you're making a game for that specific hardware, so no matter its "power" you know the limitations and capabilities. With computers is guess-work and averages to create something that the largest audience can enjoy. Making a great game that is only available to people with $2000+ computers is not a very viable option.

Consoles look mighty fine on my monitor but on my TV its the old 1970s blurry POS, funny that my new monitor (19" 955DF) is actually as big as my TV...so I basically use it for everything now. As well, the layout of controllers is vastly superior to computer setups for many, many games. While FPS games are much more enjoyable on computer as well as games where there is a lot of editing and or modding available the computer is the way to go. But for many genres of single player games and interactive get-togethers the console can't be beat.

Some of the problems of true comparisons is the fact that any game that spans a few systems is almost always just a port, and thus not coded nor aimed towards a certain key/button setup as well as hardware, so no matter how much more powerful it still isn't as good. There are lots of other little technical details I could argue about but it seems it'd end up being more of an IT discussion with Crono rather than any real use.

I did the same thing. I got a monitor thats bigger then my TV so ... well now my computer is my TV.

Is your TV from the 70s? :smile:
It also depends on how far away from it you are. I mean, thats pretty much the reason why monitors have higher quality, because you're up close to them.

About the whole computer standards thing ... thats not entirely true. You're implying that game development is un-dynamic. You aim at a certain group of people (usually next generation gamers) and you make the game specialized for that hardware, then tweak it to run on slower machines (and possibly put in a bunch of extra stuff for faster machines). But even all that isn't so black and white.

Honestly, if you're developing a computer game, there are only three different areas (in users) you have to address, since they're such large areas: Middle-High end users, Low-Middle End users, other platform users. Sadly, a lot of developers ignore that last group.

Knowing what prices things are going to be when you begin developing the graphics stage of a game helps a lot. The other thing is, you can make something as jam packed with GFX as you want, in fact its probably a good idea as long as you support that low end, the reason why is that it will give your product longevity, at least on the graphics end. Because whether you want to admit it or not a good chunk of people out there are sold on graphics alone. (as sad as that may be.)

must we?

all i said was "I" don't like console games,i truly don't care if the rest of this site does or not.. its not the content, although its a part of it, its the interface i cannot stand.. nintendo thumb is a definite turn off. :rolleyes:

personally, i wouldn't care if they made consoles 3 times as powerful, i still wouldn't play one... at least, not the ones i have seen thus far.

funny, now that i think about it, the most memorable level... is played out right here at the pit every damned day :biggrin:

play on.

Must we what? I wasn't arguing more or less clairifying. And there's no such thing as 'Nintendo thumb' anymore. The controlers are incredibly confortable, they're not blocks.

And if you don't want to play consoles because of that, I'm sorry, but thats a terrible reason. There are games on consoles (in general) that are nothing short of amazing.
But if you want to play only 30% of the game market, so be it :smile:

Crono said:
But if you want to play only 30% of the game market, so be it :smile:

thanx for your permission crono :biggrin:

i think i will spend my limited funds on the market i like.

Orpheus said:
funny, now that i think about it, the most memorable level... is played out right here at the pit every damned day :biggrin:

Would that be Questionable Ethics again? :biggrin:

As far as console GAMES go, it depends on the transition. For example:
Ghost Recon, Mario Kart etc. play beautifully on the GC, but Splinter
Cell plays horribly (aiming with the C-stick - ugh). Enter the Matrix
also plays well, but the lack of mouse controls on the PC comprimise it
as a PC game. Its really a case of "horses for courses" with the
PC/console battle. Both are as good as each other, as they should be
for different types of games (sort of).

For me it would definately have to be the D-Day landing/Omaha Beach mission from Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. It would have to be the most intense level of all time set around that one event, and of course it shamelessly plunders Saving Private Ryan, one of my all time favorite movies.

I haven't completed half life :sad: But the most memorable level I remember was on goldeneye on the n64, the aztec level i think it was.

Originally posted by KFS:
But that's still not -true- co-op where
you start at the beginning of the game with your buddies and end at the
end of the game. It's just user-created MP maps with support for
monsters. Being able to take on the Garg in Power up with two people,
or running through Surface tension with a friend providing cover fire, that's coop. :smile:

Sven has that, I don't like the way the altered the single player maps for it though

I wish they woulda just left the sp maps alone except for adding SP support

I object to consoles simply beacuse the controlers are so limited. I'd like to see someone play Starcraft or Empire Earth without a mouse . The only games taht actualy paly better on consoles imo are racing and sports games, but I hate those with a passion anyway so I'm not missing anything.

Tracer Bullet said:
I object to consoles simply beacuse the controlers are so limited. I'd like to see someone play Starcraft or Empire Earth without a mouse . The only games taht actualy paly better on consoles imo are racing and sports games, but I hate those with a passion anyway so I'm not missing anything.

It's called a joystick :razz:

why would you use a joystick for a driving game? that's why they invented the directional keys :razz:

dont forget beat em up's, tracer :wink:

memorable levels - theres not many, but I guess -

GoldenEye (N64) - Surface II - quality game, this level is
memorable for all the wrong reasons. ie getting lost in the reams and
reams of snow drifts on a poor quality, superglued together 15"
television. complete with fixed brightness/contrast/sharp values, it
was never a joy to play...

Half-Life - Anomalous Materials/Unforseen consequences - the story
telling, the atmosphere, the movie like quality of scripting, ambience,
tension and atmosphere sent shivers of awe and anticipation down your
spine. defined the half life game from the word go, beautiful stuff.

Yak_Fighter said:
why would you use a joystick for a driving game? that's why they invented the directional keys :razz:

I was refering to empire earth and starcraft :razz: :razz:

And yea. Joystick ub33r suck with driving games. Mabye it's because I'm from the era of gaming where you had to use a "joypad", or maybe it's because d-pad/joypads are better for driving.

Gwil: If we're gonna discuss goldeneye levels, then put "Dam" on my faveorites list. Not that it looked that good for the first half, but the second half where you step on to the actual dam and see those huge canyons is just... mind boggling.

G.Ballblue said:

Yak_Fighter said:
why would you use a joystick for a driving game? that's why they invented the directional keys :razz:

I was refering to empire earth and starcraft :razz: :razz:

:eek: I'm sorry, I just can't imagine using anything but a mouse and keyboard for any RTS I've ever played.

G.Ballblue said:

Yak_Fighter said:
why would you use a joystick for a driving game? that's why they invented the directional keys :razz:

And yea. Joystick ub33r suck with driving games. Mabye it's because I'm from the era of gaming where you had to use a "joypad", or maybe it's because d-pad/joypads are better for driving.

What era is that exactly? And why are you suggesting I missed it?

Also, here's a better input device for driving: steering wheels. When you're older you'll understand.

Tracer Bullet said:
I'd like to see someone play Starcraft or Empire Earth without a mouse .

i've never played either of them, but i've had a lot of Starcraft players bugging me in irc to change my nick when i'm signed in as fisheye. apparently fisheye is also some sort of starcraft god.

fishy said:

Tracer Bullet said:
I'd like to see someone play Starcraft or Empire Earth without a mouse .

i've never played either of them, but i've had a lot of Starcraft players bugging me in irc to change my nick when i'm signed in as fisheye. apparently fisheye is also some sort of starcraft god.

O_o. When I first started playing Starcraft on BattleNet. , the "Starcraft God" was someone called "I_Like_to_Lose" I think.

And you think my name is bad :razz:

fishy said:
i've never played either of them,

EE, is a very well thought out and fulfilling game to play, most especially with partners or against them :biggrin:

i do however suggest the expansion though, even more carnage.

starcraft... blows :sad:

Orpheus said:

fishy said:
i've never played either of them,

EE, is a very well thought out and fulfilling game to play, most especially with partners or against them :biggrin:

i do however suggest the expansion though, even more carnage.

starcraft... blows :sad:

No, no no. Starcraft is the greatest RTS of all time. It has interesting and varied units, dynamic gameplay, and balanced teams. Yes it has s**tty graphics and sound, but I never play an RTS for those reasons. EE, was fun but I never really got into it. I think I never took the time to really understand the game properly though. That's the problem with the RTS genre. You have to spend a long time learning the strengths and weaknesses of all the units in order to become a truly competent player. To each their own.

Tracer Bullet said:
No, no no. Starcraft is the greatest RTS of all time.

beg to differ...dark reign 1 beat the pants off of starcraft.. as best ever :biggrin:

sad thing is, damned few people have even heard of dark reign.. sad too.

the worlds of DR were no less than 4 times the area of SC or even EE

[EDIT]

take a look see .. its old now, but it was prime when it arrived.. :smile:

I'd heared of DR a long time ago, but sadly never got to play it, and couldn't even find it when I looked. I may have to see about obtainging a copy. IMO fancy graphics are if anything detrimental to RTS gameplay, so it's being old is no bother. Do you know anything about DR2 I know it exists, but that is the extent of my knowledge.

The main thing I had heared about DR is that it has realistic artilery, meaning that you can shoot almost across entier maps!

Tracer Bullet said:
I'd like to see someone play Starcraft or Empire Earth without a mouse .

I've played Jedi Power Battles (crappy Gauntlet-style beat-em-up) with
one of those Dance Dance Revolution pads, since my friend had borrowed
my controllers. It was wonderful - slicing each droid was a painful,
arduous process.

I love Dark Reign. And I also like how the only thing they really changed from 1 to 2 was the graphics.

It's hard to play FPS's using a PS2 controller. But I did alright with goldeneye on the N64.

TB, I think you're being a little narrow minded. To be honest the only things that are good on your computer (by means of control, since you can get a keyboard and mouse for any console, likewise you can get any controller for your computer) are First/third person,strategy, and puzzle games. Everything else is much better with a controller of some sort (those genres only account for about 40% of games out there). Thus they are usually console games. The games you mentioned were terrible ports that were only ported because of the games success on computer (same goes with Half-Life).

I'm not saying you should go out and buy some console right now, I'm just saying you're not giving them enough credit.

Also, I realize there are probably only three other people besides myself here who value the tremendous efforts put into developing console hardware. You guys really have no idea how ugly the x86 really is. Bleh.

I don't think you understand my point Crono. It doesn't matter that you can get a mouse and keyboard for a console if the games are not designed with them specificaly in mind. My point about RTS games is that I have never seen that style of gameplay well-exicuted on a console. I didn't even know there was a port for either SC or EE. The complexity of a console game is inheriently limited because of the controlers the games are designed for. I simply dislike the kind of gameplay that grows up around that interface. Besides, you can't easily edit console games.

You're only thinking of the games that fall under: 1st person, 3rd Person, Puzzle, and Strategy (or so it looks). And the whole keyboard thing wasn't my point either.

I just said that games designed for either aren't meant for the other. You saying that consoles are 'worse' because of that is ridiculous, since computer games are the exact same way. Saying a computer game isn't built around the controls just doesn't make sense, it has to be, otherwise you wouldn't be able to control it very well.

Most controllers have been modeled to better fit the games that have come in the previous generations not the other way around. It does happen with ports though. I just don't understand how computer game developers are golden in this respect. Is it because they're using a universal controlling device? I've played so many games that I can't imagine playing without a controller. A lot of games don't need an insane amount of keys (as something like a FPS might). I mean, look at ICO, it has what ... three or four buttons, not counting directions.

Also, you can't have a fully rotating character axis without a joystick UNLESS the camera placement is behind the character (or in 1st person). Thus, those work better with a mouse. But there are games that work with both just fine.

Anyway, it doesn't matter really. Your opinion is fine, it just doesn't make much sense.

Crono said:
I love Dark Reign. And I also like how the only thing they really changed from 1 to 2 was the graphics.

i wish that i could remember why, but all that comes to mind about #2 is "YUK" #1 is where its at.

and TB, oregon isn't that far away, want me to see if i can send you a taboo? the postal service functions there i assume :biggrin: and hey, now that i am thinking of it, how is my T-shirt coming along?

2 is exactly like 1, just better looking. As far as I remember anyway.

Crono said:
2 is exactly like 1, just better looking. As far as I remember anyway.

yeah, been a long time.. i own them both (yeah i bought them guys) maybe i should loadem and see.. or at least #2.. i vividly remember #1.

funny, all i can recall about #2 is yuk

yeah i bought them guys

Ha, same here. Strange ...

funny, all i can recall about #2 is yuk

I don't know why, Its really good. I don't really like RTS games all that much and I love it, so. (Starcraft is okay ... its kind of like Morrowind with me, Whenever I see it I really want to play it so I do ... then I remember why I never play it :smile: )

SC is the best 2d RTS I've played (and I've played a couple of others... :biggrin: )

I say 2D, because Homeworld2 is teh cool!

HW2 is also the only RTS I can actually beat the AI on... :sad:

And slightly off topic... but why is it that most RTS games have little or no "official" modding capability? Most have a map editor, but you cant really go much further than that. It really wouldnt be too hard to put in unit editors and such, so why not?

wil5on said:
SC is the best 2d RTS I've played (and I've played a couple of others... :biggrin: )

I say 2D, because Homeworld2 is teh cool!

HW2 is also the only RTS I can actually beat the AI on... :sad:

And slightly off topic... but why is it that most RTS games have little or no "official" modding capability? Most have a map editor, but you cant really go much further than that. It really wouldnt be too hard to put in unit editors and such, so why not?

For things like starcraft, the entire game is 2D sprite based. I highly doubt that most of us a willing to sit there, and pain stakingly edit a 2D sprite, frame by frame, direction by direction. Also, you need to be able to essentially re-program the game to work with your new "tile-set". Or atleast, it would probably require programing.

Besides, starcraft has a "hacker" editor for it --- you can make starcraft do things it wasn't intended to do :razz:

Like "MAtRiX----BuLllEt TimmEE :FINAL: " Or whatever

G.Ball, the sprites are all rendered from 3d models. Not much painting
is really involved. Custom tilesets are stored as 2d tiles - no
programming required. Most of the Starcraft modding tools are also
prettyuser-friendly so you can avoid hacking for that very purpose.
Though more advanced things, like custom spells, must be implemented
through assembly code (yuck), unit statistics and other things are
stored in readily accessable tables.

Warcraft 3 is probably the most moddable RTS right now. The community,
however, lacks a strong, mature core that Starcraft had. Projects lack
direction, and in my opinion, everything is in chaos. As a result,
nothing really spectacular has resulted in the last few years. Rather
disappointing, but I suppose it can't be avoided.

I'm not at all trying to say that computer game devlopers are free from the same need to design for their default control set (mouse and keyboard) I simply saying that I prefer mouse and keboard gameplay to game-pad gameplay. I'm not claiming one is better than the other just that I personaly dislike consoles because I hate the contolers and the gamplay style that caters to them. It's two differnt flavors of entertainment and I just like PC better.

Orph, I'll PM you.

G.Ballblue said:
Besides, starcraft has a "hacker" editor for it --- you can make starcraft do things it wasn't intended to do :razz:

I know about that... I mean theres no officially supported editor.

I prefer mouse + kb aswell... fps on console is yukkeh.

FPS on consoles is yukkeh if you don't ever get used to the controls. The Halo controls are fine for both XBox and PC, though naturally I was much better at the game on PC. I still managed to pwn all my friends at Halo MP, though. :biggrin:

sad thing is, there are many people out there who have never played a PC game, they think console is all there is :sad:

i have nephews, they only play console, their comp sits on the desk, off 99% of the time, while they play mindless racing games, or equally stupid, games where you drive and squash stuff with an over-sized vehicle.. yeah, truly challenging material.. sad thing is, they actually seem to be enjoying themselves.. when i watch them play, i remember a scene from the Simpson's where the kid is opening and closing the mail box...

Orph, what the f**k?

Don't give that bulls**t reasoning. I've met so many people that are the same with PC games. Believe it or not there are numerous amounts of GOOD games on CONSOLES.
Just because there are people who only play crappy games like GTA or Manhunt doesn't mean there aren't good, intellectual quality games.

RPGs in general (pre-Playstation) are a great example of the entire good game universe.
To be honest, there really weren't any good games on PC until about 7 years ago. There are a few before then, but not many. You'll probably name off the Doom series and Wolfenstien. When at that point in time consoles in general had practically thousands of wonderful games. And I'm not saying games period, I'm saying good games.

I'm not trying to get you to play consoles or anything, but give the console bashing a rest. When you sit there and say these things that really aren't true, it makes you look rather ... un-knowledgeable. :wink:

There isn't a huge difference between the two media types anymore anyway. Especially from a technical standpoint. Practically everyones argument on which one is better is completely moot.

[EDIT]
I think I should apologize for the 'mood' of this entry. I was rather pre-occupied with other bulls**t at the time.

However, my point still stands, and I honestly don't know why either side is being singled out. Why can't you like both? What's wrong with someone liking the one or the other only? Its a personal preference. I just find it very frustrating when there is such a one sided opinion which basically says, "ITS BAD". It just doesn't make sense. As well as some of the people arguments on this thread are ... well dynamic, because they seem to change every time they post.

All, I'm really saying is, try looking at the entire picture of the entire market and what consoles really do and their interface. As well as a computers interface and all their development efforts. Then, and only then, will you have a really respectable and unbiased opinion, or at the very least a justified one.

Orph, I apologize if you saw what I said as an attack or something like that. You're a really cool guy ... even for an old man :razz:
Just ... try to make more sense ... please.

I mean seriously man ... what the f**k?
[/EDIT]

uhh, crono, if you hadn't noticed, this whole console/PC idea leans toward console..

i haven't hidden the fact that i find this odd, but accept that others feel differently.

my feeling is, its sad for people to only play consoles, when PC is soooo much better, it dosn't even register to me, nor do i even lend credence to the fact that i may be mistaken, i just think its sad is all.

consoles, can be used for... games.

pc's can be used for much more besides.. is that reason enough? prolly not to some, but it is for me.

no hard feelings, outbursts such as that have NEVER caused me troubles, its when someone is NOT allowed to have one that does :sad:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Crono</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" bgColor=maroon>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>Orph, what the f**k?

Don't give that bulls**t reasoning.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
i'll tell you this up front, i read the first two sentance, then stopped.. it was all white noise anyways.. i just figured, i screwed up again and stop reading..

its sad for people to only play consoles, when PC is soooo much better

I play both a whole lot, and one isn't BETTER than the other, they are
different and therefore better for different things. Some games are
suited to the PC (FPS, RTS...), while others are suited to the consoles
(racing, sports, most action game styles...). Obviously Orph is
primarily an FPS and RTS player, so preferring PC's is a natural
choice, but that doesn't make the PC better than consoles, just more
suited to certain people such as orph.

ReNo said:
just more suited to certain people such as orph.

keep that thought upper most in your mind when deciding my preferances..

one isn't exactly wrong, for preferring one over another.. i cannot see the two platforms as equal, because my chosen game type bars the option..

if it makes you feel better, just add it to my list each of you seem to have :razz:

Y'know, I sort of missed this little ranty arguments between Orph and various forum members. The Pit is certainly a lot more boring without them. :razz:

Kage_Prototype said:
Y'know, I sort of missed this little ranty arguments between Orph and various forum members. The Pit is certainly a lot more boring without them. :razz:

sighs

i find it entertaining that people often disagree with my point, for reasons other than those i posted on.. but i am getting tired of people classifying me with arguments.. i have yet to begin one.. i do however seem to get involved with many

i appreciate your sentiments kage, honest, but its like being the town idiot, everyone loves them, but no one would take him home to meet the family :sad:

Crono said:
RPGs in general (pre-Playstation) are a great example of the entire good game universe.

Grandia... 1999.... 5 years later... still haven't finished it....

Orpheus said:
i have yet to begin one..

if one person starts an arguement, then the arguement will make the sound of one hand clapping.

fishy said:

if one person starts an argument, then the argument will make the sound of one hand clapping.

fishy, is that your hand swishing through the air i hear? :rolleyes:

i realize, it takes 2 to argue, but it only takes one to begin one.. you are attempting to begin one.. i on the other hand will endeavor to remind you, i don't want to have one.

i do however point out that, i will never back down from an argument, once i have deemed it prudent to enter the frey.. please don't make me angry enough to do so..

i've got no intention to make anyone angry. all i'm saying is, for an arguement to start, it takes more than one person. sure, one person can try to start it, but for it to actually start, someone else must join in.
and very rarely will both parties even see the same starting point. the past few posts for instance. you appear to have interpreted what i said as an attack/the start of an arguement, possibly because it was you that i quoted.
on the other hand, as i didn't mean anything by it, then i can't view it the same way. i could however, take offence at being falsly accused, and view that as the start of an arguement.

but i don't think i'll bother, cuz i don't want to argue about how many people it takes to start an arguement, especially when i find it difficult to know when it actually starts.

luv

fishy