UOGamers Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
To obtain new Razor updates, please reinstall Razor from our new website.
Game of the year?
- Thread starter SpiralIPY
- Start date
psz
Administrator
Re: Game of the year?
Now I'm leaning towards Mass Effect (if only the nose shadows were better...)
Anyway I was thinking about something about this thread:
Game Of The Year according to WHO or WHAT? Are we supposed to be predicting what a specific site/show/magazine considers GoTY?
Are we supposed to decide what it is? If so, based on what? Opening Day/Week/Month/Total sales? Money Made? Tis a bit vague ;->
Now I'm leaning towards Mass Effect (if only the nose shadows were better...)
Anyway I was thinking about something about this thread:
Game Of The Year according to WHO or WHAT? Are we supposed to be predicting what a specific site/show/magazine considers GoTY?
Are we supposed to decide what it is? If so, based on what? Opening Day/Week/Month/Total sales? Money Made? Tis a bit vague ;->
Feersum Endjinn
Knight
Re: Game of the year?
The GotY hasn't changed since 1987:
Nethack.
FE
The GotY hasn't changed since 1987:
Nethack.
FE
Eskeshehir
Knight
Re: Game of the year?
Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis. Discuss.
Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis. Discuss.
Sintoo
Sorceror
Re: Game of the year?
Awesome game!
A bit repetitive though, hmm...I'm suddenly struck with a vague feeling that I have never completed it. And now I'm to afraid to ever read this thread again in the case that someone would post the ending.
The X-Com series was a thing of beauty as well, even Apocalypse with the risk of getting my throat cut in the sleep.
Eskeshehir;330523 said:
Awesome game!
A bit repetitive though, hmm...I'm suddenly struck with a vague feeling that I have never completed it. And now I'm to afraid to ever read this thread again in the case that someone would post the ending.
The X-Com series was a thing of beauty as well, even Apocalypse with the risk of getting my throat cut in the sleep.
Dingus-demise
Sorceror
Re: Game of the year?
Fallout, k thanks.
Fallout, k thanks.
Mario-Demise
Sorceror
Re: Game of the year?
this is sorta off topic but, has anyone ever beat diddy kong racing for the N64.. that fucking pig is hard as heck to beat and once you beat him.. you have to again!!! and like, im stuck there.... i cant beat him. that game pisses me off a lot but bothers me cause its like one of the few games i never beat that i played.
this is sorta off topic but, has anyone ever beat diddy kong racing for the N64.. that fucking pig is hard as heck to beat and once you beat him.. you have to again!!! and like, im stuck there.... i cant beat him. that game pisses me off a lot but bothers me cause its like one of the few games i never beat that i played.
Nottheking
Lord
Re: Game of the year?
And lastly, you play as a military person named "Shepard." Can you get any *less* creative?
As for deciding by one's self, the game of the year isn't just the best-selling one. Rather, I'd think that it would be the game that had the biggest impact on the gaming industry, gamers themselves, and gaming in general. It's more than a single aspect: it'd require more than just a revolutionary idea: it'd require that idea, AND also making good on it. Hence, while Narbacular Drop may have already pioneered the same ideas as Portal did, Portal had a bigger effect that was seen, as the former didn't achieve enough visibility to bring its ideas out.
You were quick.
You failed to be Game of the Year.
The same, if not more, can be said of many games, including, in particular, the Halo series.qweazdak;329373 said:
Whoops.Kowe;329661 said:
Quite possibly. But you have it spelled wrong: should be "UR MR GAY."roly;330008 said:
Actually, after trying it, I liked some things, but I disliked too much of it to consider it anywhere close to a GOTY contender. One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was the "music." I mean, c'mon... It uses flippin' annoying 10-second loops that don't even blend into the background too well. And then there's the bloom... I mean, is it possible to have MORE than is in there? I've not played it yet long enough to really say too much on the gameplay, (aside from the fact that it seems promising, but is not outright wow-inducing) but the atmosphere, in many ways, hurts: the faces look awesome, but the shadows are nearly as bad as Oblivion's, and its painful how everyone speaks eloquent English with perfect and calm tones.psz;330396 said:
And lastly, you play as a military person named "Shepard." Can you get any *less* creative?
Quite probably, going on guesses as to what the bulk of the media will say: generally, they get CLOSE to a consensus... Like on the PC, deciding for Half-Life in 1998, Unreal Tournament in 1999, Half-Life[sup]2[/sup] in 2004, and so on. And at the very least, narrowing it down to two games at most: 2006 was more or less Company of Heroes and Oblivion for PC, and Gears of War and Oblivion for the Xbox 360.psz;330396 said:
As for deciding by one's self, the game of the year isn't just the best-selling one. Rather, I'd think that it would be the game that had the biggest impact on the gaming industry, gamers themselves, and gaming in general. It's more than a single aspect: it'd require more than just a revolutionary idea: it'd require that idea, AND also making good on it. Hence, while Narbacular Drop may have already pioneered the same ideas as Portal did, Portal had a bigger effect that was seen, as the former didn't achieve enough visibility to bring its ideas out.
You were a vegetarian.Feersum Endjinn;330449 said:
You were quick.
You failed to be Game of the Year.
why the **** does EVERYONE in there insist on calling you "chummer?"Eskeshehir;330523 said:
Godawful combat system. Especially when all of your allies insist on an heroism while you wait the half-hour before it becomes your turn to miss.Dingus-demise;330978 said:
Sintoo
Sorceror
Re: Game of the year?
Your popular culture references are lost on me
I loved Apocalypse, I think it was probably the best out of the 3.
So I cant understand the hatred for it.
The only thing I lacked in it was the use for ground vechiles, as they were pretty god damn useless.
Here you had all these futurustic wonderful 50's inspired cars and they served absolutely no purpose. For the beginning of the game I used them as cargo transporters carrying all the alien loot and that was the only use they ever saw. As for getting to the buildings that were under attack they were to damned slow.
While in combat if they managed to arse themself as to where the ships where attackign they just ended up as sitting ducks that barely lived beyond the first shot. And in the case of that the alien ship would miss they'd just hit the road instead. Causing the vechile to be stranded or chrashing to it's doom or god forbid having a building tumbling down on them.
I really wish they had made them operable within the building missions or as you were boarding the alien ships/ chrash sites. Just as you had the tank, and hovertanks in X-Com.
I guess the androids where the equivalent of the tanks in the first game. They were a nice touch as they were really useful in the beginning of the game acting as meat shields and an effective way of rendering the "face f******" useless. Thought still think more could've been done with them, perhaps researching for upgrades. Using alien technology on them to improve them then just having them go obsolete after awhile when your human soldiers where trained.
Also liked that you could choose between real time and turn based.
Unlike in the previous games where you just had turn based gameplay, as the missions gets pretty repetitive and it's nice to be able to use whole squads at once and not having to move them one by one all the time. As it gets really tedious especially in missions where you have a case of "hide and seek" affliction.
The mission maps was a lot more fun as well as they where designed on that particular building. Meaning that if it was a gun factory that was under attack you'd enter a factory like structure that actually held armaments that were interactive or if it was a school it actually felt like you were in a school building. Yes I know the same applied to X-com as well, shooting a gas station pump would cause it to explode. But I think it really hit more at home in apocalypse. Being able to destroy every piece of interior on a buildings caused some interesting tactical advantages or disadvantages. Whether it was shooting out a walk bridge to stop the aliens from taking that route or shooting it out under them and watching them fall to their doom or having it collapse on someone.
Or plainly sealing of 2 halls of an apartment complex just to blast your way through the apartment in the middle to ambush the aliens and flush them out to their death at either end of the corridor.
I think that economics played a bigger part in apocalypse more then in the previous games. Recently been re playing X-com after reading this thread and money just keeps flowing in and I have nothing to spend it on, the only thing I am in need of is elerium and that cant be bought or manufactured. So there I'm sitting with a fortune having nothing to spend it on.
Where in apocalypse I remember having more of a hard time trying to find the means of allocating my funds in to equipment, research and new bases etc.
I think that something that previous X-com players was disgruntled with was that your only protecting a city this time rather then the whole world.
Which I cant understand I'd rather take that city with structures that can be blown up, chrashed into and city streets filled with cars over that 3d globe any day. After the 134 mission and you have rotated around that globe for the 400 time which you remember so vividly from your ground school geography the glorious shine from it begins to fade in to darkness.
I havent played Terror from the deep more then a few minutes.
But the little I did play it it felt more like an exact replica of X-com rather then a game in itself. The game play was exactly the same, the layout also. Only difference was that the ghrapics were...hmm cant really call them better as they were pretty much the same, they were just different.
With that said does anyone know how to get Terror from the deep to work on XP?
And whats with the hatred for X-com: Apocalypse?
Oh how I hate to agree with you as the fallout games are the best games I've ever played. But the combat system can be a bit annoying at times, especially with your allies blowing themself up, running of and trying to shoot you in the back as they decide to burst through the crowd with their fully automatic rifles.
As for it taking a long time until your turn there is a simple answer to that problem, just turn up the combat speed.
Waiting for fallout 3 with great anticipation and some nerve wrecking terror that they will have messed it up. But I'll try and keep my complaints or praises until I've actually played the game.
psz;330795 said:
Your popular culture references are lost on me
I loved Apocalypse, I think it was probably the best out of the 3.
So I cant understand the hatred for it.
The only thing I lacked in it was the use for ground vechiles, as they were pretty god damn useless.
Here you had all these futurustic wonderful 50's inspired cars and they served absolutely no purpose. For the beginning of the game I used them as cargo transporters carrying all the alien loot and that was the only use they ever saw. As for getting to the buildings that were under attack they were to damned slow.
While in combat if they managed to arse themself as to where the ships where attackign they just ended up as sitting ducks that barely lived beyond the first shot. And in the case of that the alien ship would miss they'd just hit the road instead. Causing the vechile to be stranded or chrashing to it's doom or god forbid having a building tumbling down on them.
I really wish they had made them operable within the building missions or as you were boarding the alien ships/ chrash sites. Just as you had the tank, and hovertanks in X-Com.
I guess the androids where the equivalent of the tanks in the first game. They were a nice touch as they were really useful in the beginning of the game acting as meat shields and an effective way of rendering the "face f******" useless. Thought still think more could've been done with them, perhaps researching for upgrades. Using alien technology on them to improve them then just having them go obsolete after awhile when your human soldiers where trained.
Also liked that you could choose between real time and turn based.
Unlike in the previous games where you just had turn based gameplay, as the missions gets pretty repetitive and it's nice to be able to use whole squads at once and not having to move them one by one all the time. As it gets really tedious especially in missions where you have a case of "hide and seek" affliction.
The mission maps was a lot more fun as well as they where designed on that particular building. Meaning that if it was a gun factory that was under attack you'd enter a factory like structure that actually held armaments that were interactive or if it was a school it actually felt like you were in a school building. Yes I know the same applied to X-com as well, shooting a gas station pump would cause it to explode. But I think it really hit more at home in apocalypse. Being able to destroy every piece of interior on a buildings caused some interesting tactical advantages or disadvantages. Whether it was shooting out a walk bridge to stop the aliens from taking that route or shooting it out under them and watching them fall to their doom or having it collapse on someone.
Or plainly sealing of 2 halls of an apartment complex just to blast your way through the apartment in the middle to ambush the aliens and flush them out to their death at either end of the corridor.
I think that economics played a bigger part in apocalypse more then in the previous games. Recently been re playing X-com after reading this thread and money just keeps flowing in and I have nothing to spend it on, the only thing I am in need of is elerium and that cant be bought or manufactured. So there I'm sitting with a fortune having nothing to spend it on.
Where in apocalypse I remember having more of a hard time trying to find the means of allocating my funds in to equipment, research and new bases etc.
I think that something that previous X-com players was disgruntled with was that your only protecting a city this time rather then the whole world.
Which I cant understand I'd rather take that city with structures that can be blown up, chrashed into and city streets filled with cars over that 3d globe any day. After the 134 mission and you have rotated around that globe for the 400 time which you remember so vividly from your ground school geography the glorious shine from it begins to fade in to darkness.
I havent played Terror from the deep more then a few minutes.
But the little I did play it it felt more like an exact replica of X-com rather then a game in itself. The game play was exactly the same, the layout also. Only difference was that the ghrapics were...hmm cant really call them better as they were pretty much the same, they were just different.
With that said does anyone know how to get Terror from the deep to work on XP?
And whats with the hatred for X-com: Apocalypse?
Nottheking;331106 said:
Oh how I hate to agree with you as the fallout games are the best games I've ever played. But the combat system can be a bit annoying at times, especially with your allies blowing themself up, running of and trying to shoot you in the back as they decide to burst through the crowd with their fully automatic rifles.
As for it taking a long time until your turn there is a simple answer to that problem, just turn up the combat speed.
Waiting for fallout 3 with great anticipation and some nerve wrecking terror that they will have messed it up. But I'll try and keep my complaints or praises until I've actually played the game.
Nottheking
Lord
Re: Game of the year?
Yep, I know what you're talking about. It's quite a shame that the games had such an abysmal combat system: most of the rest of the game was quite nice.Sintoo;332210 said:
My #1 most-hated suggestion people have given to me about the Fallout games. That speed slider, at least for MY copies of Fallout&Fallout 2, have been from "slow" to "slower" to "stupidly slow" to "slower than a sloth frozen in a pool of molasseses during the Antarctic winter."Sintoo;332210 said:
Two Wolves
Knight
Re: Game of the year?
x-com fans I know, now play Silent Storm and Hammer & Sickle
http://www.nival.com/silentstorm/
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/silent-storm/
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/hammer-sickle/
The interface layout and time management system with interrupts is based on x-com with improvements for snipers who can plan shots over several turns.
sorry, offtopic - not GOTY candidates.
x-com fans I know, now play Silent Storm and Hammer & Sickle
http://www.nival.com/silentstorm/
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/silent-storm/
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/hammer-sickle/
The interface layout and time management system with interrupts is based on x-com with improvements for snipers who can plan shots over several turns.
sorry, offtopic - not GOTY candidates.
psz
Administrator
ParagonDancer
Lord
Re: Game of the year?
Something new to add.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T9GgZERaIA&feature=related
Obviously in english when its released, but yeah.
Something new to add.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T9GgZERaIA&feature=related
Obviously in english when its released, but yeah.
shiftydaclown
Sorceror
Re: Game of the year?
Game of the year 2007 goes to Mass Effect
Game of the year 2007 goes to Mass Effect
psz
Administrator
Re: Game of the year?
I'm liking it, for sure... Just not "sold" on the idea of it being the End All Be All GOTY... Now, if the hinted-at "Episodic Content" is true (DLCs to tie in ME1 with ME2 down the road), then Yes. It may well be.
Side note, 1 year total sales of the "Big Three":
http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?con...=X360®3=All&start=39047&end=39411&weekly=1
I'm liking it, for sure... Just not "sold" on the idea of it being the End All Be All GOTY... Now, if the hinted-at "Episodic Content" is true (DLCs to tie in ME1 with ME2 down the road), then Yes. It may well be.
Side note, 1 year total sales of the "Big Three":
http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?con...=X360®3=All&start=39047&end=39411&weekly=1
ParagonDancer
Lord
Re: Game of the year?
Actually psz if you watch the entire trailer, at the end it says "2008" but the "8" is then crossed out and replaced with a "7." I believe they are aiming for a Christmas release date.
Actually psz if you watch the entire trailer, at the end it says "2008" but the "8" is then crossed out and replaced with a "7." I believe they are aiming for a Christmas release date.