|
|
Post by Muramasa on Feb 27, 2008 0:09:11 GMT -8
Wow, that just sounds insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Mar 4, 2008 1:38:55 GMT -8
-Halo 3-
I played this game last week, but I've been rather iffy on writing this particular mini-article. This is probably because there's really not much to say about Halo. Yeah, I enjoy playing it. Yeah, it's ok FPS. Yeah, certain aspects are kinda annoying, like any game. The problem with talking about Halo is that you really can't talk about much unless you are a die-hard fan boy, or a die-hard anti-fan boy. This is especially true in coop, where it's basically the same game with another person. I could spend the time complaining about the experience, but once again, what's the use? Most of what I say here can be said about any coop game. Also, I could complain about the game itself, but then it would be more of a review of the game, than a review of it's coop experience. Ultimately, I'm just trying to say that you shouldn't expect much from this mini, much like you shouldn't expect much from Halo 3. If you want to shoot at things as Master Chief, then do it, otherwise, there's Dynasty Warriors Gundam.
A friend of my brothers has a been visiting my brother and I alot more recently. It's funny that even now that I call him a friend of my brothers. We hang out together enough that I am actually willing to call him a friend of mine. At the same time, I've known him as "a friend of my brother's" as well, I guess it's just habit. Anyways, all three of us were hanging out, playing Beautiful Katamari and Eternal Sonata again, when Vampyre Heathen (AKA Post-Human Simulacrum, AKA Thumnbs-up Dinosaur, AKA Woobley Gommuck) called me and told me about Halo 3. I was reluctant to agree, but then I felt that we could use another witness in-case something went wrong during Katamari, and we all decided to shoot each other in frustration.
I've never been a hater of the Halo series, though never a big fan either. I've played a bit of it here and there, mostly the multiplayer deathmatches. It's decent fun when you get the hang of the controls (if you're used to playing FPSes on PCs), and the vehicles are all fun to use as well, whether your driving or shooting. Apparently, another thing the console is trying to make itself known for is multiplayer coop. To be honest, I didn't really play much of it. Coop with Halo 3 is like playing Half-Life 2 with another person. It certainly is fun to go through a game with a buddy, but it doesn't add THAT much more to the experience. I'll admit, Kevin and I had a ball though, despite our occasional disagreements. I think the real quintessential coop moment was when we tried to work together to overthrow a tank. Rather unsuccesfully.
Overall, if you have Halo 3, a buddy, and nothing else to do, it's all good fun. If you have 2 copies of Halo 3, 2 Xbox360s, 2 TVs, and 3 other buddies, then you can have a nice little 4 player coop game as well. The great thing about coop is that you can never really lose...
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Mar 4, 2008 15:40:08 GMT -8
Halo 2 has coop as well. So playing Halo 3 with another person is like Halo 2 with another person.
In fact that is my biggest annoyance with it, almost unnoticeable graphics improvement and a bunch of gimmicky new items. And the new story. That's really all the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Mar 6, 2008 1:19:46 GMT -8
Heh, well, Halo was never really known for it's innovation in the first place.
PS: I love our advertisement bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Mar 6, 2008 8:39:16 GMT -8
I wouldn't be too sure about that, it seems to me that all the Halos are praised for some sort of innovation on some level or another, what those are I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Mar 6, 2008 12:43:16 GMT -8
It seems more like the franchise is just coasting by on the innovation Halo 1 received in comparison to over FPS games. However, I always took this innovation as the refinement of the gameplay to be both simplistic but still engaging. But go figure, like as so much that happens in the game industry, dimwitted critics and the subsequent buzz took it as a graphical advancement (which seems to be the driving sell point of the industry, bastards probably don't even play games). Which it was, but it was far from its strong point. Beautiful graphics alone doesn't lead to replay-ability (Halo 1 being the king of it). Anyways, the franchise listened to the hype and focused mostly on graphics with Halo 2 which is why I don't like it all that much. Halo 3, on the other hand, made only superficial graphical changes which comes off as more an over glorified expansion pack, as I've said in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Mar 7, 2008 3:32:47 GMT -8
It seems more like the franchise is just coasting by on the innovation Halo 1 received in comparison to over FPS games. However, I always took this innovation as the refinement of the gameplay to be both simplistic but still engaging. But go figure, like as so much that happens in the game industry, dimwitted critics and the subsequent buzz took it as a graphical advancement (which seems to be the driving sell point of the industry, bastards probably don't even play games). Which it was, but it was far from its strong point. Beautiful graphics alone doesn't lead to replay-ability (Halo 1 being the king of it). Anyways, the franchise listened to the hype and focused mostly on graphics with Halo 2 which is why I don't like it all that much. Halo 3, on the other hand, made only superficial graphical changes which comes off as more an over glorified expansion pack, as I've said in the past. Which is such a shame really. Then again, I can't help but to think that Halo came at a time when graphics really meant everything. While the jump between Generation IV(SNES, Genesis) and Generation V(N64, PS1, Saturn) was significant, the graphical jump between Gen V and Gen VI made a greater impact towards the emphasis in graphics. From what I've seen, it seems like there's a greater diversity in art presentation in the 6th generation of consoles (the previous generation had mostly a raw, blocky, pixelated look to their models, while everything in this gen looks near photorealistic though they are still young consoles), and having something looking near photorealistic was just super awesome at the time. I think Halo got in at the right time. Heh, just imagine if they managed to release Bioshock on the Xbox instead of the Halo. The Xbox mascot might have been a Big Daddy. On to things more coop related... -Hammer: Kuat and Muramasa's trials in HL2 map making- It's a good thing I never named this a gaming coop thread, otherwise I might not have ever made this mini. Sometimes we get together to work on a particular project. Oh boy, is that a challenge in itself sometimes. Sometimes the proper tools aren't available, or certain people slack off, or lightning pours down from the Heavens. Despite the obstacles, sometimes we can get together to complete a job. Sometimes. In any case, Kuat and I have this particular habit where we complain about co-op maps in various Half-Life 2 mods. It came to the point where we eventually felt that we should at least try our hand at the ordeal. Couldn't be that tough right? |
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Mar 23, 2008 16:51:07 GMT -8
-Age of Mythology-
It's been a while since I've written one of these. Do you guys still check this section out anymore?
Historically, I've never really been a fan of Age of Empires. I still played the games, but only to the effect of setting up matches that involved me and 7 other computer opponents, and then wasting them with Limousines and babies on tricycles. For me, the whole rock, paper, scissor setup seemed unsatisfying in theory (though usually most games implement systems well enough to be fun and interesting). Despite my lack of favor for RPS-RTSes, I still played the shit out of that game. Lots of hours were wasted on building tons and tons of artillery, and laying siege to every motherf-ing civilization in my path (I obviously used the Romans alot). Around 1997 or 1998, Empire Earth was released, which I also played the crap out of.
Age of Mythology doesn't change much in the Age of line of strategy games, but it does offer an interesting new setting. Having the gods thrown into the mix really makes for some interesting scenarios, and the Greeks, Egyptian, and Norse gods are very, very different from each other. The game's units are balanced, once again, through a simple rock paper scissors system. Infantry beat calvary, calvary who beat archers, and archers who beat infantry. This initial circle of death is further complicated by the inherent unit groupings: human soldiers beat heroes, heroes beat myth units, and myth units beat human soldiers. It's a fairly simple concept to grasp, though at times, it makes it difficult to determine what a unit is actually good at (this is due to the fact that units themselves may break these rules). It still never really gets in the way of the game itself though, because in the end, it's just damn fun marching into an enemy base with an army of laser shooting alligators.
The factions themselves are pretty unique to each other in terms of tactics and units. Greeks play almost like their classic counterpart in the Age of Empires games, except that this time you get 1 of 3 major Greek gods helping you out. They tend to have rather super specialized infantry and strong heroes. And a consistent economy, making them easier to start with, and good throughout all parts of the game, assuming that you can keep your heroes alive and use their infantry well. Egyptians have a more laid back form of gameplay. I say this because Egyptians can easy aquire resources more readily than other units, and most of the time, they don't ever use wood, making easier to focus on other resources. They tend to do better in the end game because their builders tend to build more slowly and their initial infantry suck. Once Chariots, war camels, and war elephants are out though, be prepared for one helluva fight (or to kick as if you are using Egyptians). Their myth units are nice and varied, and in this writer's opinion, probably the most interesting of the 3 factions, with venom spitting snakes, giant turtles, Anubis-like warriors, an alligator that shoots a giant beam of concentrated sunlight, giant scarab beetles, sphinxes, GODDAMN FIRE-BREATHING PHOENIXES THAT COME BACK TO LIFE AFTER GETTING KILLED, lots of cool stuff. They do suffer in the heroes, given that their only two heroes are the Pharoah, and whatever priests happen to be around. And if you can't tell, the Egyptians happen to be my favorite faction. Norse units tend to focus on being aggressive, kicking ass, and taking names. Heck, their initial building unit is also their initial combat unit as well. Norse tend to have more heroes that are readily available than the other factions. And while a lone Hesir is not as strong as, oh, Jason from the Greek side, you can assemble a group of them much more readily than a force of Greek heroes.
Ok, honestly, there's not much to say on the coop aspect of this game. There are interesting options like shared resources and shared units, but I have no clue how to make them work. Also, computer can't seem to make up it's mind about it's own difficulty, as there are times on the hardest mode when the CPU rushes us with an entire platoon of Colossi, Medusas, Hoplites, and whatever the their archers are, while we still only have a few peasants. Other times, we easily wipe CPU opponents out.
Overall, if you like Age of Empires games, strategy games, or telling Odysseus to attack 3 valkyrie while scorpion men flank your siege weapons, then this game is for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kuat on Mar 24, 2008 17:08:42 GMT -8
Awesome summary as usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Apr 9, 2008 10:16:16 GMT -8
I just finished Command & Conquer 3. I noticed that RTS's can only keep my attention for a while until I get tired of the base building routine and sluggish economic racing (who said that all wars reduce to economies?) until I bust out the cheats, max out the tree, and drop superweapons like candy to tricker treaters, or Schwarzenegger's one liners in an action movie, or tax cuts in a Republican controlled Congress, or like similes in this sentence.
But of course nuking the crap out of a formerly impenetrable GDI base has its own sick joys. Or nuking their pitiful counter-attack force. Seriously, a nuke on three guys and a tank at half health is awe inspiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dankness on Apr 9, 2008 12:27:19 GMT -8
RTS's are to me what 2-D shooters are to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Apr 9, 2008 17:01:02 GMT -8
But after I've had enough of one RTS, it takes a long while for me to want to play another.
You, on the other hand, are a 2-D shooter junky.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dankness on Apr 9, 2008 17:59:54 GMT -8
You, on the other hand, are a 2-D shooter junky. If there was a way to directly inject 2-D shooters into my bloodstream, I'd do it in a heartbeat. *smacks his arm violently* "C'mon c'mon... Daddy needs his Strikers 1945..." |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Apr 9, 2008 22:59:14 GMT -8
You would so be a lot lizard for your vertical shooters.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dankness on Apr 9, 2008 23:37:11 GMT -8
Or maybe even a carpet crawler.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Apr 10, 2008 16:20:41 GMT -8
Genesis reference does not compute.
Program not responding.
Send error report?
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Apr 10, 2008 20:28:36 GMT -8
I just finished Command & Conquer 3. I noticed that RTS's can only keep my attention for a while until I get tired of the base building routine and sluggish economic racing (who said that all wars reduce to economies?) until I bust out the cheats, max out the tree, and drop superweapons like candy to tricker treaters, or Schwarzenegger's one liners in an action movie, or tax cuts in a Republican controlled Congress, or like similes in this sentence. But of course nuking the crap out of a formerly impenetrable GDI base has its own sick joys. Or nuking their pitiful counter-attack force. Seriously, a nuke on three guys and a tank at half health is awe inspiring. You NOD mofo, my tank rush will laugh at your nukes. So how did it end anyways? I was close to finishing the game, but when I switched to Vista, it brought everything over but the saved game files. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Apr 12, 2008 0:02:33 GMT -8
Well, you know, GDI cannons the temple and blows up the liquid tiberium. Aliens come. Then the Aliens build towers in the red zones and GDI is all WTF ION DAT SHIT and Nod is all OMG WANT. So in GDI you try to destroy the towers and Nod you try to keep one up. GDI destroys all but one but it is "inert and not a threat" while Nod captures the last tower and Kane invites you to join him and his inner circle to "ascend" (towers turn out to be insta-transport for the aliens). And then you get to play as the Scrin aliens where they attack, put up towers, defend towers, use the last tower to escape home. However they said they would amass their full invasion force and use the gate DUN DUN DUUUUN.
Anyways the Scrin campaign was weak in my opinion. The units and structures are just wack to me. Also I would have improved on the Nod ending with Kane shooting the player after the bringing him the tower and revealing that Nod was just a stepping stone for his own glory. Kuz Kane be a stone cold muthafuckin pimp like dat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Apr 13, 2008 16:21:10 GMT -8
In that case, I wonder if the expansion would be worth getting. Ah well, at least I'll have Red Alert I guess...
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Apr 13, 2008 20:06:46 GMT -8
I'm confused, at this point is Kane still a hologram? Or did he get 'surrected?
|
|
