SHP Forums

DeadPoolX wrote:After reading GamePro's "most influential games of all time" and then looking at "the ten most overrated games," I got to thinking... I'm sure everyone here has some games that fit into both categories.

I agree about BioForge and Loom. I haven't had the chance to play Full Throttle or Planescape: Torment, but I've heard nothing but good things about them.

I can't agree about Grim Fandango, though; I agree that the controls left quite a lot to be desired, and that some of the puzzles are very difficult, but I found both the story and the characters quite good.

I agree heartily about The Sims, though! It's fun for about half-an-hour, after which you're thinking "Why am I treating my little man as I would some kind of Tamaguchi (sp?) or electronic pet - particularly when I have so many other things that I could be doing?"

Maybe it's because it was the first CRPG I've played, but I have a soft spot for Neverwinter Nights. Yes, the main storyline (with Aribeth etc.) is poor and rather repetitive, but the later episodes are quite good, not to mention the many good modules that people upload from time to time. I thought the interface was fairly simplistic, but as this game is rather old (2001), I don't suppose you could create an interface like Oblivion's or some such.

I actually thought that Neverwinter Nights 2 was a lot worse than the first one; the graphics had hardly improved since the first game (in fact I prefer the first game's graphics), the D&D 3.5-ed rules system was (if anything) even more broken than in the first game, and worst of all, both the storyline and the characters were boring.

I'm not so sure about World of Warcraft. A friend of mine keeps pestering me to get it so that I can play it with him, telling me how much fun it is and so on - but personally, I think it's a waste of time and money. What do you all think? *shrug*

DeadPoolX wrote:16. Guitar Hero - What was once an interesting idea for a game has turned into a lifestyle for many, producing tons of copycats and even contests between GH players. Far too many GH followers have forgotten that hitting the right buttons in Guitar Hero is nothing like playing a real guitar, but they still prance around as if they're rock stars.

Oh, please... don't remind me. My sister works with some people who have installed a GH system in one of their offices for "unofficial" after-work parties. Officially it's there to let off a bit of steam; unofficially, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a bit of a competition between one or two people who act exactly like that. Bleh. *grimace*

Both my sister and her boyfriend play guitar, and I've been singing with a local choir (doing both classical and modern repertoires), so we're all aware just how difficult performing can be. As for GH... I'd say let the baby have his bottle, if it weren't for the fact that now there are GH competitions, with prizes being up to $5,000. I really can't understand that... *makes a face*

Rath Darkblade wrote: I actually thought that Neverwinter Nights 2 was a lot worse than the first one; the graphics had hardly improved since the first game (in fact I prefer the first game's graphics), the D&D 3.5-ed rules system was (if anything) even more broken than in the first game, and worst of all, both the storyline and the characters were boring.

I didn't like NWN2, but for the most part, the graphics in the sequel were much better than the first game. Probably the one downfall of NWN2 was that it's a huge system hog, taking all of your machine's resources and requires a very powerful video card.

I do admit that the character models in NWN2 seemed a little stiff. Worse yet, the hair supplied didn't always fit the model right.

There's no excuse for that since Guild Wars was released in 2005 and had superior graphics. Amazingly enough, GW doesn't require a "monster PC" or a $500 video card. The graphics won't look quite as nice, of course, but it'll still play with good graphics.

Rath Darkblade wrote:Maybe it's because it was the first CRPG I've played, but I have a soft spot for Neverwinter Nights.

Um...you do know that CRPG can be either "console role-playing game" or "computer role-playing game", or possibly both, right?

I'd also say that Anachronox is an underrated game. The combat is minimal and turn-based, so it doesn't dominate the game. The story is really good and the characters have a lot of...well, character. Even though the graphics aren't great by today's standards, they made good use of facial expressions. It has a lot of humour in it, but aspects of the story are mature as well. The main complaint seems to be that it starts out slow, which it does, but it's worth it. There is a lot of cut-scene dialogue which some people don't like, but I think it's worth it for the enjoyment of the game.

One game I consider overrated is Baldur's Gate 2. While I did enjoy the game and I thought the party interaction was great, I don't think that means that all subsequent RPGs should be exactly like it. New technology and game engines lend themselves to trying new things and I hope the industry remains innovative, while using some of it's positive features (like the good inter-party dialogue). After all I'd heard about Irenicus being such an amazing villain, I was pretty disappointed. While he wasn't completely 2-dimensional, he certainly wasn't as amazing as everyone made him out to be.

Taryn wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote:Maybe it's because it was the first CRPG I've played, but I have a soft spot for Neverwinter Nights.

Um...you do know that CRPG can be either "console role-playing game" or "computer role-playing game", or possibly both, right?

Um, no. I don't use consoles, so I didn't know that.

Taryn wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote:Maybe it's because it was the first CRPG I've played, but I have a soft spot for Neverwinter Nights.

Um...you do know that CRPG can be either "console role-playing game" or "computer role-playing game", or possibly both, right?

The differences between a "computer" and a "console" are rapidly diminishing. The consoles available today -- and even in the past -- were mini-computers. Modern consoles have processors and video cards that rival some computers. Most have internal hard drives and online capability. Some even allow you to install non-supported third-party software, such as ScummVM or Linux.

Perhaps you meant the type of RPG. On the computer, you can often generate a character and name him or her; however, the Xbox had Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and Mass Effect long before the PC. I know a lot of console RPGs give you pre-made characters (good examples would be the Final Fantasy series or even Kingdom Hearts), but games such as those are on the PC as well. Anachronnox, for instance, gives the player pre-made characters and does not allow for character generation or even name changes.

So really, other than the appearance, price (console games are almost always more expensive) and sometimes the control scheme (although controllers are available for the PC, including flight sticks), what is the real difference?

The difference?

1. I don't have a console.
2. You can't install Finale on a console.
3. And more.

But I take it you mean in terms of game possibilities! <grin> It is exciting to think about the potential for an overwhelming game experience on whatever platform it pleases the player to use.

DeadPoolX wrote:So really, other than the appearance, price (console games are almost always more expensive) and sometimes the control scheme (although controllers are available for the PC, including flight sticks), what is the real difference?

Copy protection?

I don't really like most modern games. Probably 95% or more of the games I like were from before 1996 (or remakes of pre-1996 games). At one time, there was often a big difference between RPGs released for personal computers and RPGs released for videogame consoles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_d ... ideo_games

Taryn wrote:I don't really like most modern games. Probably 95% or more of the games I like were from before 1996 (or remakes of pre-1996 games). At one time, there was often a big difference between RPGs released for personal computers and RPGs released for videogame consoles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_d ... ideo_games

The point is that RPGs on consoles and the PC are very similar and sometimes the same nowadays. The fact they previously held little in common is not important, since that difference has been -- for the most part -- eliminated.

DeadPoolX wrote: After reading GamePro's "most influential games of all time" and then looking at "the ten most overrated games," I got to thinking... I'm sure everyone here has some games that fit into both categories.
So what are they? No game is safe and this isn't limited to the adventure genre, either.

Heh. I have to say we disagree on a lot.

DeadPoolX wrote: Overrated

DeadPoolX wrote: 2. King's Quest VI - It seems that this title has been crowned "the very best of the King's Quest games." It's a good game, but the best? Hardly. In fact, the entire KQ series is vastly overrated.

KQ6, over rated? In the "Adventure Gaming" community most hail this game as the best "Adventure Game." But outside of the Adventure Gaming Community, I'd be surprised if you walked up to someone and asked, "What do you think of King's Quest VI?" They'd probably be like, "What?" I don't think KQ6 is overrated at all. Even within the gaming community. If you look at that game for the time it was released - it was amazing on so many aspects. Compare it to games now (graphics, music, etc) - it may not be much. But for a game released when it was - it really set the bar.

DeadPoolX wrote: 3. Gabriel Knight 2 - I despise FMV. It severely limited the ability to actually PLAY the game. I get games to play; not watch. If I wanted to do that, I'd see a movie.

Not a huge fan of FMV, but I loved both GK2 and Phantasmagoria (the first, hated the second one). And you're technically playing GK2. But watching him do the actions you're telling him to do.

DeadPoolX wrote: 5. Halo - This was innovation? We've had FPS wars against aliens for years. Lots of people claim this title brought vehicular combat into the forefront. They're wrong. The Tribes series included the ability to use all sorts of vehicles five years before Halo was even released.

Matter of opinion. Tribes did do it first. But then, Wolfenstien also was the first (or among them) FPS games. Does that mean that every game after Wolfenstien or Doom doesn't deserve some credit for greatness? Granted, Tribes did have vehicle combat - but HALO made vehicle combat really FUN.

DeadPoolX wrote: 11. The Sims - I see this game as fun for a little while, but then boredom sets in. Why raise a fictional family that you have to give instructions to for every little thing. They can't eat or using the bathroom without being told to, which was ridiculous. Eventually, the only thing to do is find horrible way to kill your Sims off.

Um. They can eat and go to the bathroom without being told so... Depends on how you have it customized...

DeadPoolX wrote: 12. Neverwinter Nights - A slightly better-than-mediocre RPG, hampered by a poor storyline and one of the worst interfaces ever in a computer game.

Considering I do a machinima called Neverending Nights which has earned me some minor fame and benefits - I can't say enough good things about NWN, and will just say I disagree 101%.

DeadPoolX wrote: 14. Tomb Raider - A moderately decent 3D action-adventure that places the player in the shoes of an Indiana Jones style woman with a love for guns and incredibly large breasts. Aside from that obvious ridiculousness, the main character (Lara Croft) could actually use two Desert Eagle handguns two-handed. Anyone who knows anything about firearms would realize such a feat is impossible, provided they'd actually wish to hit their target (plus Desert Eages have a huge kick and Lara was not a muscle-bound individual).

Yes, but it is a game. And an adventure game. If you look at Indiana Jones he does some impossible stuff. But you have to suspend reality to some degree. I am not a huge fan of the Lara Croft games (only played the first on the PlayStation) - but it gets under my skin when people are like, "This is impossible!" Yes, well, it's also a game, with no sense of realism at all. Lara Croft also does some pretty amazing jumps, which no one could do - but it's just a part of the game.

DeadPoolX wrote: 15. World of Warcraft - Do I really need to discuss this one?

Have you ever played? And not on a private sever? On a real server? Or are you just a hater of MMOs in general?

DeadPoolX wrote: 16. Guitar Hero - What was once an interesting idea for a game has turned into a lifestyle for many, producing tons of copycats and even contests between GH players. Far too many GH followers have forgotten that hitting the right buttons in Guitar Hero is nothing like playing a real guitar, but they still prance around as if they're rock stars.

I agree, but in the aspect of gaming - it's an incredible thing to add to gaming. Where you're playing a virtual guitar. The response of some people who prance around shouldn't decrease the concept of what this game brought forward.

I have some games for both Under/Over Rated which I will post when I am home so I can add some sensible thoughts (currently at work).

Fender_178 wrote: Overrated
I agree that WOW is overrated I played this game on a private free server and the game was just about as much fun as watching paint dry.

Playing WoW on a private server is like tracing a picture with your eyes closed...
And not just WoW (so I don't sound defensive about it) - but any MMO game on a "private server" is pointless. It's an MMO for a reason. Meaning hundreds of people online at the same time. Not maybe 20 or 30. Or else they would have packaged WoW like Neverwinter Nights or something similiar (where it supports 32 people on).

Tawmis wrote:KQ6, over rated? In the "Adventure Gaming" community most hail this game as the best "Adventure Game." But outside of the Adventure Gaming Community, I'd be surprised if you walked up to someone and asked, "What do you think of King's Quest VI?" They'd probably be like, "What?" I don't think KQ6 is overrated at all. Even within the gaming community. If you look at that game for the time it was released - it was amazing on so many aspects. Compare it to games now (graphics, music, etc) - it may not be much. But for a game released when it was - it really set the bar.

That's just it. I'm not talking about the gaming community at large. I'm referring to those who love adventure games. For some reason, many believe KQ6 to be the second coming or some such nonsense.

Yes, it was a good game. I've never denied that. But it's hardly the "best adventure game ever." I'm not comparing it to modern games in terms of technology, either.

I don't think it was as great as everyone said. It was good. That's it. I've never found anything remarkable about it.

Not a huge fan of FMV, but I loved both GK2 and Phantasmagoria (the first, hated the second one). And you're technically playing GK2. But watching him do the actions you're telling him to do.

Technically playing a game isn't good enough. You're either playing it actively or you're doing it passively. If you're playing a game passively, then all you do is click on a few things here and there and watch the video play out. That's hardly entertaining.

Matter of opinion. Tribes did do it first. But then, Wolfenstien also was the first (or among them) FPS games. Does that mean that every game after Wolfenstien or Doom doesn't deserve some credit for greatness? Granted, Tribes did have vehicle combat - but HALO made vehicle combat really FUN.

I found Tribes to be extremely fun (although I preferred Starsiege a lot more). I've played both the first and second one, and tried a demo of the third. My brother and I logged more hours in the Tribes games than we'd probably like to admit. I was never as good as my brother (who pulled off some stunts that I still find amazing to this day), but it was still a whole lot of fun.

I'm not denying that Halo isn't fun for some. I don't think it's anything new and the main reason people gave it such high marks is because it was one of the very first console games that allowed online play.

Um. They can eat and go to the bathroom without being told so... Depends on how you have it customized...

Not that I remember. I tried different options and inevitably, they'd urinate on the ground and make a mess of the place.

What really struck me is when a Sim can sit there and play their computer. I thought to myself, "This is a waste of time. Here I am playing watching some AI-controlled polygonal character play games as well."

Considering I do a machinima called Neverending Nights which has earned me some minor fame and benefits - I can't say enough good things about NWN, and will just say I disagree 101%.

As I've stated many times, I thought NWN was lacking in the graphics department (yes, I first tried it when it was new) and the control scheme was horrendous. That alone turned me off.

Yes, but it is a game. And an adventure game. If you look at Indiana Jones he does some impossible stuff. But you have to suspend reality to some degree. I am not a huge fan of the Lara Croft games (only played the first on the PlayStation) - but it gets under my skin when people are like, "This is impossible!" Yes, well, it's also a game, with no sense of realism at all. Lara Croft also does some pretty amazing jumps, which no one could do - but it's just a part of the game.

I'm not commenting on the possibility of Lara's action. Most games, no matter how realistic they claim to be, are still impossible to some degree.

My issue with TR is that it was ridiculous. Fun to play back then, maybe, but what is Lara doing shooting at dinosaurs? How is that even relevant to the game? Some of the TR games also had so many bugs that they were rendered nearly unplayable.

Have you ever played? And not on a private sever? On a real server? Or are you just a hater of MMOs in general?

Yes, I have. I tried WoW before GW. I can't say I cared for it.

As for being an "MMO hater," I think that's hardly the case. I've been playing those games since Meridian 59 and Ultima Online.

I agree, but in the aspect of gaming - it's an incredible thing to add to gaming. Where you're playing a virtual guitar. The response of some people who prance around shouldn't decrease the concept of what this game brought forward.

You're right. It is an incredibly original game and many people have fun with it. My issue is when those very same gamers suddenly believe they're "rock gods" simply because they can hit the right buttons. Very few even know how to play a real guitar. Even worse, I've seen people carrying around their GH guitars and saying such things as, "Hey man, I've got a gig to play."

No, you don't. You're playing a game. That's it. Deal with it.

DeadPoolX on KQ6 wrote: Yes, it was a good game. I've never denied that. But it's hardly the "best adventure game ever." I'm not comparing it to modern games in terms of technology, either.
I don't think it was as great as everyone said. It was good. That's it. I've never found anything remarkable about it.

Fair enough. What would you say was the best "Adventure Game"? And I mean of all time - not just from "back in the day." Curious to see where your tastes lie and what would make one the best?

DeadPoolX on GK2 wrote: Technically playing a game isn't good enough. You're either playing it actively or you're doing it passively. If you're playing a game passively, then all you do is click on a few things here and there and watch the video play out. That's hardly entertaining.

Well, in truth - once the Sierra games went to the whole MOUSE CLICK interface - isn't that what you're doing? Playing passively? Where as say in Leisure Suit Larry 2, you had to walk around the garage in the beginning and type "get dollar" (for example) vs King's Quest 5 where you could click all over the screen, have that be what moves the character, until you found something to click on?

Mind you, I much prefer typing over the clicking mouse thing. (I am sure I mentioned my threatening email to Sierra that I'd stop buying their games if all of them went to this mouse based interface... a hollow threat... but still - I tried to stand my ground).

I suppose I just enjoyed GK2 for the story - so even playing "passively" - I managed to enjoy it because it was a movie that I was a part of.

DeadPoolX on NWN wrote: As I've stated many times, I thought NWN was lacking in the graphics department (yes, I first tried it when it was new) and the control scheme was horrendous. That alone turned me off.

We had this discussion somewhere else about the 50+ hotkeys you could use rather than the dial interface.

DeadPoolX on WoW wrote: Yes, I have. I tried WoW before GW. I can't say I cared for it.
As for being an "MMO hater," I think that's hardly the case. I've been playing those games since Meridian 59 and Ultima Online.

No, I wasn't accusing you of being an MMO Hater. But there are people who hate WoW or EQ or whatever JUST because it's an MMO. It's a concept they have heard ill things about and simply base their opinion on that alone, without ever having tried it.

DeadPoolX on GH2 wrote: You're right. It is an incredibly original game and many people have fun with it. My issue is when those very same gamers suddenly believe they're "rock gods" simply because they can hit the right buttons. Very few even know how to play a real guitar. Even worse, I've seen people carrying around their GH guitars and saying such things as, "Hey man, I've got a gig to play."

No, you don't. You're playing a game. That's it. Deal with it.

Have you ever considered theyr'e playing GH2 Actively rather than Passively?

Tawmis wrote:Fair enough. What would you say was the best "Adventure Game"? And I mean of all time - not just from "back in the day." Curious to see where your tastes lie and what would make one the best?

That's an excellent question. I don't really know. From Sierra, I know I enjoy the Space Quest, Quest For Glory and Police Quest games the best. That doesn't really say a whole about my tastes, though. Those series are about as different as can be.

From LucasArts, I'd have to say Indiana Jones and The Fate of Atlantis, The Secret of Monkey Island, Sam and Max Hit the Road, Full Throttle and Loom. All in all, that still says nothing.

So I'm not quite sure how to answer that. I like too many games to pick one.

Well, in truth - once the Sierra games went to the whole MOUSE CLICK interface - isn't that what you're doing? Playing passively? Where as say in Leisure Suit Larry 2, you had to walk around the garage in the beginning and type "get dollar" (for example) vs King's Quest 5 where you could click all over the screen, have that be what moves the character, until you found something to click on?

Mind you, I much prefer typing over the clicking mouse thing. (I am sure I mentioned my threatening email to Sierra that I'd stop buying their games if all of them went to this mouse based interface... a hollow threat... but still - I tried to stand my ground).

I suppose I just enjoyed GK2 for the story - so even playing "passively" - I managed to enjoy it because it was a movie that I was a part of.

I can understand liking the text-parser interface over the point-and-click one. Although it could be more difficult and frustrating at times (due to needing the exact word the designer thought of), it also allowed a greater deal of flexibility. It was also fun to type weird and obscene things.

We had this discussion somewhere else about the 50+ hotkeys you could use rather than the dial interface.

Yes, we did. However, I think the idea of having to learn and memorize over 50 hotkeys is just as ridiculous as using the radial menu.

No, I wasn't accusing you of being an MMO Hater. But there are people who hate WoW or EQ or whatever JUST because it's an MMO. It's a concept they have heard ill things about and simply base their opinion on that alone, without ever having tried it.

I know what you mean. It's the same with many other walks of life. I can't tell you how many times people have said they "dislike sushi" when they've never even tried it.

Have you ever considered theyr'e playing GH2 Actively rather than Passively?

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Honestly, I don't have a real problem with the GH series itself. I've played it and it's fun. The one thing that bugs me is when the die-hard GH players think they're really guitarists and "rock gods."

Look at it this way: I've played plenty of sports games, first-person shooters and flight simulators. If I couldn't make the distinction between games and reality, I might actually think I was on par with a professional athlete, an experienced soldier or a pilot.

I'm none of those things, despite having logged tons of hours playing those games (most of which I'm quite good at, too). That's all I'm talking about. Being good at a game is not the same as being good at it in real life.