Dvader said:

edgecrusher said:

I thought every game they make is judged on the standard created by GTA 3?

GTA3 was surpassed by VC. GTA3 is the template but its been long surpassed by its sequels. That is like saying the Super Mario franchise is judged by SMB1, no its  not.

Not really. SMB1 was a very different game than the newer ones obviously. GTA 3 is more like Mario 64....both designs still being used today.

And while yeah, the newer GTA games all do things better than GTA 3, it was still the game that set the standard. Just as Mario 64 was.

gamingeek said:

Guys, check the Dragons Dogma pics

That game looks really epic. Very interested...I love my epic adventures.

gamingeek said:

edgecrusher said:

Well there was a long period there between 2001 and 2008 where it seemed like nobody was allowed to say that either GTA or Halo was anything but the greatest things ever made. Honestly I stopped reading any previews or reviews on these franchises long ago because you know you're not going to get an honest opinion or anything besides glorified hyperbole. There's been a few games in each series that I don't think were 9+ games....but reviewers automatically throw out those 9.5, perfect 10's faster than a 20 dollar whore spreads her legs.

GTA 4 getting all those perfect 10's in particular still baffles me to this day.

I suppose Call Of Duty is also in this camp since 2007.

I find it baffling sometimes, with Halo too. I mean I bought all 4 of the main series and I enjoy them a lot, but I don't get how the games media overlooks some of the flaws in these series and then doesn't do the same in other games or series. It's all 10/10 again and again and again. GTA IV review hype was insane too. I tend to regard the first game in the series as the defining title which laid the groundwork like Halo 1, GTA3 or Metroid Prime. If subsequent games are just aping that in a formula, sure they can be great but never in the same context as the original game in the original period it was released in.

Yeah like with Halo, I've played and enjoyed all the games to differing degrees. But to me, none of them have come close to giving me the feeling that Halo Combat Evolved did. There was just something about that game at the time, that made everything about it feel perfect, other than the horrible library level. The combat felt alive, the difficulty levels each seemed different and Legendary was a challenge without feeling cheap. The Production values, graphics, soundtrack were all great. The controls. The levels. The way the game had an almost horror vibe at times. All it lacked was online play.

To me, the best ones since then were the last two, ODST and Reach. And even they couldn't recapture the magic for me completely. Something about the games just didn't click like CE. They didn't feel long enough, and epic enough. Too focus tested, too much like a formula. There's something particularly bad when 1st-person shooters follow the same formula too closely. Halo 2 and 3 though, had way too much of the George Lucas factor.

In case you missed it a new podcast is here.  It's under and hour and makes for great memorial day listening.

I really have to go back and play Halo 3.  That's what I should have done this week instead of Max Payne.

I was so irrationally pissed off with it at the time that I need another look at it.

Halo 2 was technically better than Halo 1 and added a lot of new elements while retaining what made the first one so good, so I mean, it is "better" than the first one I guess... but the first is the FIRST so it had more of an impact (and remains my favorite).

The ending  was poor but then Halo 1 had a crap ending as well, (at least mechanically).  I think the worst part of Halo 2 for me, was playing as the Arbiter.  I just never felt as good as playing as MC.  I respect the out of the box thinking though.

I have to agree with aspro on San Andreas.

It was the first GTA game I played more than a few minutes in, and I loved it. Then I went to 3 and VC and "WTF?! THEY'RE SO SMALL!!!1" So much less to do, so much less story structure. San Andreas was easily the best, ignoring the setting. (Not saying the setting was bad, just that it's a legitimate thing to like or dislike.)

And while I've only played the first two Halos, I have to say that I prefer the first. Everything looks plastic-like or smeared in the second one, melee attacks are crap, the pistol is crap, the plasma pistol was only good for taking out shields.... Great game, but just not as memorable to me.

Just some clarification on the headline above;

Fallout in doubt as Interplay fears collapse

Fallout, as the modern gamer knows it, is in no jeopardy. Zenimax (Bethesda) owns the rights to Fallout.  The question as to who owns the right to a Fallout MMO is in question.  Interplay says that they retain those rights.

Interplay doesn't really exist as a game studio anymore, and they have not for many years.  The best they can show for a Fallout MMO being in production is a story outline and some concept drawings.

Opinon: Interplay is going through the motions of pretending that they have a Fallout MMO in production.  This is a play to get as most out of Bethesda in a settlement (they have to establish damages).  They'll "win", Zenimax has more money and better things to do with their time than fight with someone who has demonstrated questionable business ethics in the past.  Interplay will get a few million, Zenimax will get the rights to an MMO.

Yay!

aspro said:

Yeah. I have not played Bully yet so canot comment on that, but keeping things in the GTA3 world up until Vice City Stories San Andreas was the best GTA.

Most people like Vice City (the second GTA3 game, not the final one on the PSP) for the same reason they like Bioshock -- it's the dressing, the music, the look.  The actual game itself is only slightly better than the original GTA3 and no where near as polished as San Andreas.

Most people don't like San Andreas because they are closet racists.  They'll say things like, "I just didn't like CJ" or "I didn't like the gang setting".

The merits of the game may not be obvious if you've only played an hour or so.  For me there were 4 key aspects that I enjoyed:

1. The dressing. I liked the music, the characters and the setting.  Too brown? I'll remind you that Southern California and Las Vegas are in a DESERT.  That's what they look like.  When you get to go up north you get all the pretty blues and greens.

2. The territory taking.  This added meaning to all the usually meaningless gunfights in GTA.

3. The role-playing elements.  I enjoyed making CJ who he was through my actions.  This was implemented better in this game than anywhere else, as it actually worked.  I kept CJ in shape, but occasionally I'd miss the gym or eat too many burgers and he'd start to show it.

4. The relationships. The dating-sim components of the game were unprecedented in a western title.  I actually got to like my hoodrats.

The game suffered from the same thing that all GTA games suffer from. No in-mission checkpointing, tedious driving to missions and mission failure due to game mechanic problems rather than the user's skills.

I'm not saying it's a ten, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be (I played it as recently as a few months ago, for reference).

Havnig beaten GTA4, I have no idea how anyone, in any circumstance could give it a ten.  At that point they had made 5 GTA3 games and they barely learnt a thing.  Yes they improved driving and targeting. Yes, they added fast-travel, but they still did not fix any of the main problems with their formula.

=-=-

As for Halo? Say what you want about 2 and 3, but the original was and is pure "10" to this day.

+1 of the verbal variety.

Part of that is being sig'd by the way. I am sure you can guess what part.

welcome back Leo!

edgecrusher said:

To me, the best ones since then were the last two, ODST and Reach. And even they couldn't recapture the magic for me completely. Something about the games just didn't click like CE. They didn't feel long enough, and epic enough.

I got to the end of Reach and it didn't feel like a proper ending, well I guess because it was then the beggining of Halo 1 after that. It just seemed to end on that landing pad and I was like: that's it?

Halo 1 would be a 10 if it didn't have the library level and didn't make you back track for the last 3rd of the game. It was IMO obviously unfinished, so I'm eager to see what this remake will be like.