Anyone else disillusioned with gaming now?

[AmishSlayer]

The thing that works with BF2 this time around is that you're offered much more opportunity to specialise. In the other Battlefields it was more a case of 'saying' that you're a specialist driver/pilot/whatever, but it was more a case of using that equipment more than anyone else rather than taking any excelled skill in it.

You're right in saying that it's outrageous and annoying if one regular person in a tank could take out waves of men, but someone who specialised in tank use could easily take the task on in BF2 - there are certain intricate skills and methods to use that really give you an edge; the addition of smoke cannisters, for example. If I got into a chopper and started trying to cause some havoc, I reckon I'd kill a few people then meet my end. Someone like you though Amish (who I know is a good pilot), can do so much more, just like I can use the Assault's grenade launcher to great effect.

I'm talking 7 equal-skilled players. 6 Infantrymen of assorted kits like you'd find in any squad - 1 man in the tank. Given that they're all equal-skilled I'd find it outrageous if the tank won the battle. In DC he probably would but in BF2 I'd say the tank would go down.

I agree that each kit/vehicle has the basic level at which many people play at, but once you play enough with it you realize various ways you can get an edge over other normal players. Everything has its advantages and disadvantages. Armor in DC was too good so everybody went AT to fight it. This took away from infantry combat a LOT. I'm just glad that things are much more balanced this time around with BF2.

 

[Agent.M]

I hate these kinds of arguments because they completely lack any kind of factual backing.

All the changes I've seen fanatically listed off to anybody who dares to compare BF2 to DC have come off to me as minor. Some for the better, some for the worse. I still think that the core gameplay is, on the whole, no different or improved over the previous games, and that much of its flaws still persist.

Couple that with annoying bugs and ridiculously steep system requirements (come on, the game doesn't look that good), and it's a title I'll pass on unless the full product somehow manages to wash out the bitter aftertaste I had with the demo.

BLah Blah Blah....in no way shape or form is BF2 and DC alike except for the time frame there are so many examples I could list but I dont feel a need too If you wanna veiw BF2 as being just another DC well you go ahead and do that I just feel bad for you.... what a waste.

 

[Absinthe]

Of course the core of the gameplay hasn't changed. It's a team-based FPS with vehicles, just like the other BF games. What did you expect to change? Did you want an RTS element where each team builds a base? Did you want an RPG aspect where you level up and gain more hp? Did you want a money system like in CS? Because it doesn't seem like you wanted another BF game. The core aspects of a game shouldn't change for sequels unless they're trying to dig the series out of a hole or something (which they didn't need to do).

Emphasis on improve. Or add. I do not expect a grand departure from the core gameplay. I would, however, prefer not to play an old game with new visuals. Yeah, there is the squad element now. Personally, I don't see what everybody is jizzing about.

The core aspects of gameplay in HL2 didn't change from HL1 and I didn't see any bitching. I could go on with examples of many good games and their sequels.

Yes, the core did stay the same, but the game offered more than its predecessor. It incorporated the use of realistic physics, stepped up the quality of in-game cutscenes and story-telling, and was polished to a tee.

By contrast, I think BF2 feels samey and buggy.

You're right. DC is very similar to BF2 in that it's set in the same time period, using the BF-style of gameplay (which I don't want them to completely change), using lots of the same equipment.

DC felt like a mod, not a game. Sure DC had tons of new additions and maps but that's all they did, add more and more vehicles and maps. What they should've worked on were the game mechanics and balancing because if you didn't have a vehicle in DC you were screwed.

The game may technically be very much like DC but as an experience I find it completely different. Not only has teamwork completely solidified (in servers I've played) and actually come in as a good aspect of the game rather than something forced by yelling at your losing team full of lone-wolves, but they've improved on BF1942 & DC in every way I can find.

Then chalk this up to personal difference, I guess. I personally don't see enough distinction between DC and BF2, and I've found the community to be just as jackholish and unorganized as it's ever been.

I hate these kind of arguments, you make outrageous claims and don't say what you actually want. DC clan matches were a joke for the most part, dog fights would last the entire match and 6 infintry guys would be killed by 1 tank.

Please, inform me as to what's so outrageous about my claims. What do I want? I didn't know it was my responsibility to innovate for the developers. I would like to see more measures introduced that keep asshats from running off lone-wolf style with vehicles. I would like to see sniping be something other than a constant unreliable hit-and-miss affair. I would like some ****ing QA before the game is released. I would like more polish. I would like something that makes the experience more unique. I mean, Christ. Just look at how the UT franchise has progressed.

I'm not going to defend DC. I'm just going to say that what you've described is something I've seen in BF2 as well.

BLah Blah Blah....in no way shape or form is BF2 and DC alike except for the time frame there are so many examples I could list but I dont feel a need too If you wanna veiw BF2 as being just another DC well you go ahead and do that I just feel bad for you.... what a waste.

Yes, please pity me for not liking a game that you do.

Shithead.

Any way, I'm not going to try and change minds around here. If you like BF2, then that's great. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Foxtrot]

I am getting a sense that your are not even tryin to enjoy Battlefield 2.

 

[Absinthe]

Well, I'll be honest. I've never been that good at the games. The only thing BF-related that I ever truly enjoyed was the Eve of Destruction mod for BF1942. So yeah, that makes it somewhat difficult to really enjoy the game.

It's not that I dislike the game. I still do load up the demo occasionally because when everything clicks, it's pretty fun. But such experiences are too few and far between for me. I don't want to pay for something that I already own, albeit without the stupidly steep system requirements.

Of course, maybe it's just something with the demo. Maybe the map sucks. Maybe I need to wait for all the the niggling little problems to be cleared up first before I see the game shine. I dunno. I may very well pick it up in the end, but that's only after I've played more of it.

 

[TheSomeone]

Battlefield 2 is an acquired taste. It's really for people who are hardcore INTO teamplay.

 

[HunterSeeker]

There are a lot of games I loook forward too: BF2, Dragon Age, Dragonshard, NWN2, DoW: Winter Assault, The expansion for Rome: Total War and SPORE!

 

[DeusExMachina]

Spore and Dragon Age are going to be amazing. And Spore has to be the most original and innovative idea ever attempted in video games. I really can't wait for it.

 

[Absinthe]

Now, Spore...

THAT'S something to look forward to.

 

[oldagerocker]

I wouldnt say Spore was too original, just lots of unoriginal things put together in an innovative way.

 

[Absinthe]

Hence... it's original...

I mean, I guess you could also argue that most games are unoriginal for having main characters, but that's rather ridiculous, don't ya think?

 

[AmishSlayer]

Spore does sound pretty sweet...I have a hard time getting excited for something that's a year or so away though.

 

[Absinthe]

Consider yourself lucky, then. I, like many people, sometimes suffer for years when awaiting a title. :\

 

[Pesmerga]

I wouldnt say Spore was too original, just lots of unoriginal things put together in an innovative way.

What is creativity if not a chimera of concept?

 

[Doppelgofer]

to the guy who said you can run and gun through far cry and it makes it easier, thats bollocks...if you even attempt to run and gun in far cry, even on the easiest difficulty, you die within a minute

 

[Foxtrot]

Well, I'll be honest. I've never been that good at the games. The only thing BF-related that I ever truly enjoyed was the Eve of Destruction mod for BF1942. So yeah, that makes it somewhat difficult to really enjoy the game.

It's not that I dislike the game. I still do load up the demo occasionally because when everything clicks, it's pretty fun. But such experiences are too few and far between for me. I don't want to pay for something that I already own, albeit without the stupidly steep system requirements.

Of course, maybe it's just something with the demo. Maybe the map sucks. Maybe I need to wait for all the the niggling little problems to be cleared up first before I see the game shine. I dunno. I may very well pick it up in the end, but that's only after I've played more of it.

IMO, stats will fix a lot of them problems.

 

[jonbob]

I'm hoping for an Evil Genius/Dungeon Keeper sequel, maybe NOLF3. Something new like Spore will be nice. Not so keen on B&W because they're going to shift the focus onto the creature and I really hated having to devote time to it in the first one. It should have been just you and the people. Maybe another Soldier of Fortune, or even better another MDK. Lucasarts haven't brought out a good adventure game since Grim Fandango so they're overdue.

I want something to make me laugh, not shit my pants. Evil Genius is my favourite game of late.

 

[HunterSeeker]

You are out of luck I heard Elixir does not exist anymore, I wonder if vivendi (or whatever they are now) will let another developer make the sequel though...

 

[jonbob]

I don't see it happening any more than DK2, NOLF 3 might be on the cards after FEAR is done. A pity really but at least the original has good replay value. I think Spore is probably my current favourite as far as upcoming titles are concerned.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Ohhh MDK how I miss you ;(

The Dog bomb .. so many happy memories... that game invented the Sniper rifle don'tchaknow

 

[Agent.M]

Farcry is another game that i was really pleased with as well and In a way I could see how running thru the whole game might make it easier although that would be a waste of the game. But hey there are still some games to look foward to (FEAR, Stalker, Quake Wars, CoD2 etc.).

Yes, please pity me for not liking a game that you do.

Shithead.

Meet me at the park at 5 you F^&k! lets see how big of a mouth you got then.

 

[Absinthe]

Meet me at the park at 5 you F^&k! lets see how big of a mouth you got then.

Yes, I will meet you there at 5.

 

[Agent.M]

Yes, I will meet you there at 5.

....LoL..

 

[Laivasse]

Yeah I feel pretty underwhelmed by games in general nowadays. HL2 utterly blew me away, and I feel lucky (compared to some others) that it was fresh enough for me to be able to get 4 replays out of it.

Other than that...wuuurl, see. I got The Sims 2 at Xmas and couldn't ever play it in a more than very half-arsed way. I eventually gave up after telling some guy to scrub a toilet for the 50th time, and thinking to myself "...wtf am I doing?"

A few other games have come and gone in a similar fashion. I remember the back in the days when I had a Megadrive, and every new game I got was a major event in my life. I remember anticipating Road Rash 2 so much that I dreamt that I owned it, a dream so detailed that I managed to come up with a swish looking options screen and some cool music...but then I was gutted when I woke up.

Only HL2 has evinced that kind of thrill of anticipation in recent memory (and lived up to it). However, I find that good single player RPGs with a gripping story and rich game worlds (step forward Baldur's Gate, Fallout 2, Planescape, etc) often have what it takes to ignite a little bit of that "magic", despite lacking any sort of techy awesomeness factor. The common thread between games like those and HL2 are creativity, great storytelling and immersion, I reckon. Too many games are coming out nowadays with the sole intent of giving boners to hardware geeks. Gimme some nice RPGs. Single player ones.

 

[Cole]

Oblivion should be great. It's singleplayer, and only singleplayer .

 

[Kebean PFC]

I can't even play BF2 Becuase the morons didn't think to put in a "turn off pixel shading" button so you could just load up the game. I have a decent card, it handeled HL2 with not a stutter, and here is BF2 that wont even start.

On topic though, BF2 and DC seem fairly close to me, i mean having played DC and read reports of BF2 gameplay. I really like Iron Sights, so i will buy thins and a new card to play it.

 

[poo?]

I agree completely with the original post, every single big release in the past year has been dissappointing to me INCLUDING the reverred(sp?) HL2, with only Ninja Gaiden and Resident Evil 4 standing out in my mind. In fact I liked these games so much that they reminded me of the glory days of when games were about fun, hard gameplay and not gimmicky presentations and stories. Cause thats what games have turned into now.

A couple years ago I would have thought I would be playing a half dozen of the most amazing games ever to come out by now, but now I see that the best days of gaming have come and gone. Now we have to wait several years between releases of so called big games just to find out they flat out suck, when I can remember back in the day when awesome classics were coming out every few months.

Just think of all the awesome games that were coming out in a single console generation 10 to 15 years ago. Same goes with the PC. I dunno maybe I'm just jaded and have grown out of this stuff, but I have gotten into BF2 lately.

 

[Laivasse]

Oblivion should be great. It's singleplayer, and only singleplayer .

That looks great actually. I only wish I had faith in my AMD 3400+ and 9800 pro to run it... I couldn't run HL2 anyway near as well as I should have been able to in theory.

 

[Sparta]

to the guy who said you can run and gun through far cry and it makes it easier, thats bollocks...if you even attempt to run and gun in far cry, even on the easiest difficulty, you die within a minute

No, i had it on Challenging difficulty and literally runned-and-gunned the first two levels and it was quite easy. The first thing the A.I does is hide, and eventually they come and get you, but if you run after them as they are hiding you can kill them quite easily. Not to mention when you shoot at them from a distance and they can't see you they don't even bother to hide half the time anyway.

and Absinthe i totally agree with everything you said about BF2. The core gameplay hasn't changed at all, they've improved little aspects of it and thats it. But with that said i had a kickass time last night playing with Outpost and Ray_Man flying helicopters onto that crane and jumping off back into the helicopter, and racing in the buggies. Great fun. But it still feels like DC with slight improvements.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

to Amish and Axyon:

yeah yeah... and people like me would sit back in the shade shouting:

"AMMO HERE!!!"
hehe.

Armor in BF2 is a challenge, it encites that "oh shit, everyone hit the dirt!" feeling when you see one, as you don't want to attract it's attention....
that being said 1 Anti-Tank infantry can take it out with ease (Raziaar is especially talented with the AT), it's not like in previous games... where infantry were useless (and I always played an AT because as Amish said it was useless to be anything else).
.
squad gameplay brings a whole new level to gaming (for me)
I guess however, it's how you approach the game, and who you play it with.
the people I play BF2 with kick major ass (both in skill, attitude and general ass-kickedlyness), which is probably why I love the game so much.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

The only exceptions in the last few months have game so obvious that i can't be bothered mentioning it.

That would be Galactic Civilizations then :thumbs:

 

[Prince of China]

I tried running and gunning in Far Cry. That was a bad idea.

 

[Sparta]

lol, where did you die first?

 

[Prince of China]

Somewhere within the jungle of the early part of the game.

 

[Sparta]

Wow thats early. First time i died was that guy on the chaingun on the Carrier level. Forgot to shoot him and walked right into 20 bullets. Whoops

 

[jonbob]

Very underwhelmed by Far Cry and HL2, Evil Genius was the most recent game I really enjoyed. Quite liked Darwinia too, but also extremely disappointed in Pariah - after all that hype it was so bad I uninstalled after the first level.

 

[Prince of China]

I started to realize that this game wasn't a run and gun game like Doom III but more of a stealth game.

 

[X-FacToR]

Is it just me or have the big, hyped up games that have come out in the last year all ended being nowhere near as good as they've said, and mostly just turned out to be really average?

Doom 3 was a corridor crawl, Halo 2 was incredibly repetitive, GTA:SA is repetitive as well despite having a massive landscape. Battlefield 2 plays exactly like Desert Combat would in a new engine. The demo for Splinter Cell 3 was good but the full game felt like an expansion of the original where as the co-op had too few levels. To put it bluntly i'm just totally disillusioned with gaming. Every big name game that gets churned out to rave reviews ends up being either entirely average or just a little bit above average. The only exceptions in the last few months have been from a few rare games like Resident Evil 4, Ninja Gaiden, Rome:Total War and of course a game so obvious that i can't be bothered mentioning it.

Heck, now i'm even disillusioned with World of Warcraft because after reaching level 40 and not having money to pay for another game card i sat back and thought if pouring 180 bucks into a game is really worth it, if all you do is the exact same quests you've been doing since you started the game. Bah, this sucks.

Anyone else beginning to feel this way?

I do agree with (execpt for the bf2 comment), just wait out for some incredible titles comming this year. Age of empires 3... you can count on some innovative stuff from ensemble. How about Star Wars - Empire at war by petroglyph (not a big star wars buff but any fool can tell this game will be off the charts) I personally played the early gta's and a little vice city but I tried not to over do it and im really enjoying san andreas (PC)I think because of that. WOW I beta tested but I don't like buying thoughs kinda games because they take so much time and sometimes you forget that your not even having fun anymore, plus the monthly fee's.

You should allso try Trackmania - Sunrise $29.99 US try the demo if your skeptical. I love the endless replay value, its insanely fun with a bunch of friends on a weekend.

 

[jonbob]

How was Halo 2 repetitive? The chapters were fairly short and none of the sections were repeated.

 

[Gorgon]

Is it just me or have the big, hyped up games that have come out in the last year all ended being nowhere near as good as they've said, and mostly just turned out to be really average?

yeah for sure. ;(

suks.............. Producers should invent something original such as VR or The Island (movie 2005) system......http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/combined