First FPS I've bought since Return to Castle Wolfenstein, but after playing it some in a 'play unreleased games' thing that visited campus I wanted this one... and got it at Best Buy yesterday when I saw that it was $40 (on sale, as they often do for new games -- it's $50 everywhere else). Very good so far. I got it primarially for the single player of course (I'm sure by now all of you know my opinion on multiplayer FPSes), and it's quite good... oh, and jetpacks are really cool. I loved them in games like OutWars (an otherwise mediocre Microsoft game from '98 or '99 that was made cool with the jetpack), and it's no different here...
And darnit, I like Sierra. I know they don't exist anymore, but I see that logo in the game and... (I think that it's great that their name is still appearing on great games)
Haha, no one cares about Tribes!
*laughs at Brian's loneliness*
It's a fun game. You should care. :)
Sure, Half-Life 2 is coming in not too long, and so is Halo 2 (for X-Box), but I'm not interested in those... FPSes are okay, but better when they do something different. Tribes does... and as I said, jetpacks are cool!
Anyway... about the game. It's got multiplayer of course, but unlike Tribes 1 or 2 it's got a single player campaign. Not surprising from Irrational Games, Looking Glass survivors who also made System Shock 2... and also not surprising from such a team it's a well crafted single player mode with a great story. The story also is realistic -- that is, I'd say that it's realistic in its depiction of why people would do the kinds of things they do in the campaign. Lots of games just stereotype one group into being "the bad evil guys" (especially in the FPS genre!) but this does a good job of it... and the great gameplay doesn't hurt either. :) I like the (more common now) aspect of how you can only have a few weapons, not a whole arsenal. And each of the three types of armor (light, medium, heavy) has a unique weapon. The combat is different... normal in a lot of ways, but then you realize that you can jetpack up and (hopefully) out of harm's way. Changes fights a lot. Also leads to a map design with lots of big open areas... sure, the areas aren't quite as big as maps in Tribes 1 or 2. Limitations of the Unreal engine. They're still quite big, though... certainly large enough that I'm not going to complain much. It's dramatically different from what you see in most FPSes... for the outdoor levels that is. The indoor ones are unfortunately much more conventional... yes, you often progress up or down instead of always forward, but still, it's just linear progression and it's almost always obvious where you are supposed to go next. It's good that you can't get too lost, but a bit more variety and choice would be good here.... ah well. I can keep hoping for that, though it sure doesn't show up much in FPSes. And the outdoor levels are definitely like that.
I've never cared about Tribes.
This one is quite different from the previous two... different team, engine, etc. In fact the biggest complaints it is getting are from people who liked the first two games and don't like that things were changed in this one... it's also got demos (single and multi) if you want to try it. :)
Are you kidding me? Like I'll have any time to try out demos between now and january. I have to play PM2, GTA SA, MGS3, MP2, HL2, Halo 2, R&C 3, SM64 DS, Kirby, and a whole lot more.
Only one or two of those games is out right now and I don't think you have them... as for me, those two I might get, but the rest of them I'm not really interested in.
Right now I need to finish up Damashii, Fable, and Pikmin 2. My goal is to beat KD and Fable before PM2 comes out.
I doubt I'll finish anything soon... (of the games I listed in the 'now playing' thread) though I'd say that both Tribes and the GBA platformer are definitely games I could finish. Not too long. :) Wizardy... that's longer. And harder. I very much doubt it.
I also need to get Rome TW sometime...
Can your system handle it?
Which? Rome? No idea... though that should bring me to mention this game and my system. When I got it I honestly had no idea if it'd run decently, but I wanted it a lot so I got it anyway. :D ... and I was quite pleasantly surprised. I'm running it at 800x600 with mixed settings (some on low, some medium, one high, and one ultra high (draw distance)). It runs with a fine framerate. Now, if I turn everything to High I get bad, not really playable, framerates, but It still looks great at these settings so I'm not missing much. The only problems worth mentioning are that once in a while it slows down a little (not a problem really) and that there is one display problem. Sometimes, some small objects like crates, boxes, etc. dissapear when I point the camera at them and am fairly close to them. Yup, they vanish, usually leaving just a little one-pixel outline around where it should be... I can't understand why this happens because it only happens to a few boxes and not all of them. Very, very strange... but rare enough, and limited enough (to just boxes and stuff) that it really isn't a problem at all. Just weird.
As for Rome though, I'm sure it can run in some fashion. :)
Man... 800x600. That's nuts.
Why? I don't run games at above 1024x768 in any case, and often just stick with 800x600, so 800x600 is fine with me...
And anyway, my computer is three years old! P4 1500 with 384MB RAM (PC800 RDRAM, true) are above the minimum requirements, sure, but the video card... 32MB NVidia GeForce2 GTS... ouch. Yeah, that keeps me from setting more things on High (and I would set more things on High first and try higher resolutions later -- I'd say that the detail settings make a bigger difference than the resolution in this case).
800x600 is for old people. Because old people can't see well.
I've just never liked 1024x768 desktops. Too small. As for ingame, resolution helps make games look slightly better, but not by as much as graphic detail settings do... well, resolution would certainly matter if you're comparing, say, 320x240 and 640x480, but 800x600 to 1024x768 is a much smaller jump.
My desktop is at 1600x1200 @ 75Hz. That's quite a difference from 800x600.
.. and you can see the text?
Very clearly. You do know that you can set the font size no matter what the resolution is, right?
And for the stuff that I use my computer for primarily (art stuff), nothing lower than 1600x1200 would be acceptable.
True, you can change text sizes, but sometimes it doesn't seem to work on some websites... and I obviously don't need to be doing high-rez art or something. Yes, 1024x768 is the more normal desktop size, but I'm used to the look of 800x and just don't really like how everything is smaller in 1024.
You've got to keep up with the times, man. You're living in 1990!
No, in 1990 I'd have been using 640x480 at best, that is if we had had a computer in 1990... 1995, now, that is more accurate (resolution-wise). :)
That still makes you a decade behind!
If I like it this way I do not care.
I don't really care. You're weird, but I don't care.