21st December 2004, 11:31 PM
Quote:I know Pod isn't the most popular racing game ever, but it's a very fun game with fantastic track design and focus. Definitely one of the better futuristic racing games ever made. And I can *almost* get it to run on my PC... if I only had a different videocard... ah well. It's probably not a game I would have bought had I had to buy it myself as the ads and demo looked okay but not worth spending money on, but as a free game that we got with our PC? Great game, and I've gotten a lot of play out of it. Oh, and it's also got a pretty fun splitscreen mode.
I'm just saying that you don't exactly have the finest tastes in games. Your opinion is your opinion, but it's a pretty out-there one...
Quote:In the main city, there is a area with several pearls in a hidden base down a deep tunnel... you go into the building that is the guards' base or something (by a side door) and start going down this deep pit where you go past traps and then drop to the next level... well a good way down there's one where you have to walk on a narrow ledge around the hole and dodge the lasers. In the PC version I could never get around the second corner. Looked it up (for help or something) and saw a few other people had mentioned it... I guess maybe it's possible, but it sure doesn't seem it to me. Stupid morons and their cost-cutting that didn't allow for gamepad control...
That's just what got me to stop that time, though. I'd picked it up again because I wanted to try to finish... finally managed to come up with the cash for those stupid scanners (and the money supply is still a problem... getting it is slow and I need so much to buy all those pearls in the stores...) and progressed a bit, but then this came up and I stopped again. As I've said before, it's a good game but not a great one for many reasons I've laid out in depth... the control problems are annoying, and lower the PC version's score relative to the others, but even ignoring that all of my past complaints are certainly still valid.
But as I said, it's original and has good ideas at heart so it's too bad they won't make another one and try to improve on things.
Anyway, for your post... Rayman 2 is definitely better than BG&E, IMO. Rayman 2 I'd give an A while BG&E is closer to a B to B+... solid but flawed and just not as good as true AAA game.
How far am I? Uhh... it was like a month ago that I was playing it... past halfway certainly though for sure. I have the jump jets and have won the races. Next I have to get a couple more pearls so I can get enough for the thing that gets me into the Slaughterhouse. ... wait, or do I need a couple more pearls so that I can buy the jump jets? Either way, I need a couple more and then I can get there. More than just "a little ways into the game" for sure.
Jesus, you've barely gotten anywhere in the game! Yet you still critisize it's "twists" as you put it. What an asinine thing to say. That's like only watching the first half of The Sixth Sense and complaining about how dumb the story is. Not that I expect any less of you, however...
Quote:Uh, I love Diablo-eque games? First I've ever heard of it. I seem to recall saying many times before that I find most of them simplistic and boring... see my opinion on Dungeon Siege (stopped playing like 10 hours in because of boredom) or Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (beat because it's short and not too hard) for examples. As for Diablo II itsself, it is repetitive, which is why I never had interest in it beyond the first time through, but it was very well done and had enough to it to keep me interested through my first time through. It's got nice depth with the skill system and all of those abilities... as for the story, it wasn't brilliant but it was good enough to keep me going.
Oh yeah, and I got it as a birthday present. I was not considering spending my own money on Diablo II (like how I had not bought Diablo I) and would not have. It's nice to have, but not something I'd have wanted to spend my own money on...
Now, none of that matters to you of course. You're not talking about any of those games, you're talking about Gauntlet. And here you show to be foolish. Seriously, can't someone like simple games as well as complex ones? Gauntlet is good because of its simplicity. The story is stupid and irrelevant. Depth? Barely there. And that is GOOD. The main failing of a Dungeon Siege or BGDA is that they are caught inbetween forces of simplicity and depth and get somewhat torn apart at the crossroads... yes, those games got good scores, and I enjoy them for a little while, but they are flawed and I've said so before. Diablo II is purer and thus stands up better. Gauntlet? Gauntlet is action with a slight dash of RPG and doesn't try to pretend to be anything else. It's got about as much to do with an RPG as Gradius does with a strategy game (because of the more-strategic-than-most-shooters powerup system). And I wouldn't want it any other way just like how I wouldn't want Gradius to be TIE Fighter. I like BOTH kinds of games. This is really not such a tough concept.
8 Hours Ago 03:58 PM
You just made my point for me. I said that you were a hypocrite for blasting BG&E's relative simplicity (despite the fact that it isn't supposed to be a super-deep game and that it does so many different things so very well), while at the same time liking mindless simplicity like the Gauntlet series.
Uh, I love Diablo-eque games? First I've ever heard of it. I seem to recall saying many times before that I find most of them simplistic and boring... see my opinion on Dungeon Siege (stopped playing like 10 hours in because of boredom) or Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (beat because it's short and not too hard) for examples. As for Diablo II itsself, it is repetitive, which is why I never had interest in it beyond the first time through, but it was very well done and had enough to it to keep me interested through my first time through. It's got nice depth with the skill system and all of those abilities... as for the story, it wasn't brilliant but it was good enough to keep me going.
Oh yeah, and I got it as a birthday present. I was not considering spending my own money on Diablo II (like how I had not bought Diablo I) and would not have. It's nice to have, but not something I'd have wanted to spend my own money on...
Now, none of that matters to you of course. You're not talking about any of those games, you're talking about Gauntlet. And here you show to be foolish. Seriously, can't someone like simple games as well as complex ones? Gauntlet is good because of its simplicity. The story is stupid and irrelevant. Depth? Barely there. And that is GOOD. The main failing of a Dungeon Siege or BGDA is that they are caught inbetween forces of simplicity and depth and get somewhat torn apart at the crossroads... yes, those games got good scores, and I enjoy them for a little while, but they are flawed and I've said so before. Diablo II is purer and thus stands up better. Gauntlet? Gauntlet is action with a slight dash of RPG and doesn't try to pretend to be anything else. It's got about as much to do with an RPG as Gradius does with a strategy game (because of the more-strategic-than-most-shooters powerup system). And I wouldn't want it any other way just like how I wouldn't want Gradius to be TIE Fighter. I like BOTH kinds of games. This is really not such a tough concept.