Video & PC Game Discussion

JLocke wrote: Marty McFly wrote: Not this modern stuff for PS2-3 or similar, but old good ones (that does not require buying new hardware, I hate that). 'Old good ones', as opposed to 'New bad ones'?

Nah, nothing like that. No Walter-ish stuff.

The fact is that I grew up on DOS games. No 80s stuff, just games from 1990-1994 since early 90s. Then I started to mess with Windows games, with my first serious game being Heroes of Might and Magic 2 in 2001. By that time, I also started playing on Playstation. I enjoyed this whole new 3d worlds. I slowly suffered on old computer and by that time, I wanted to play new games, but I wasn't able to. In 2005, I bought new computer and played games like GTA 3 & Vice City, Diablo 2 (yes, it was slow before), Far Cry and Half Life 2.

My hardware threshold was F.E.A.R. & datadisks, while the second datadisk for FEAR burned my graphic card. I bought old computer and played DOS games again. Then in 2008, I acquired mini-notebook (netbook ?) and played some games. Including FEAR on it (I still wonder how). Now I have stronger laptop, but not too much. I can't play new games, so I enjoy playing Master of Orion 2, Painkiller, Age of Empires 2 and lately, Metal Gear Solid.

I'm going to play MGS2 soon.

This is my story of gaming. I don't hate new games, I would like to enjoy playing them, but I cannot, so it's not stuff for me. You can play remastered CD of Selling England on your Hi-fi machine. You can play new Transatlantic CD here as well. But you cannot play original Pacman cartridge, Transport Tycoon without DosBox, or Heavy Rain on your PC. Or old games on your PS3. There is strong un-compatibility and also new hardware is money consuming. Instead of spending my money this way, I spend them differently.

It's open statement, I'll leave it to your understanding. 

Marty McFly wrote: JLocke wrote: Marty McFly wrote: Not this modern stuff for PS2-3 or similar, but old good ones (that does not require buying new hardware, I hate that). 'Old good ones', as opposed to 'New bad ones'? Nah, nothing like that. No Walter-ish stuff. The fact is that I grew up on DOS games. No 80s stuff, just games from 1990-1994 since early 90s. Then I started to mess with Windows games, with my first serious game being Heroes of Might and Magic 2 in 2001. By that time, I also started playing on Playstation. I enjoyed this whole new 3d worlds. I slowly suffered on old computer and by that time, I wanted to play new games, but I wasn't able to. In 2005, I bought new computer and played games like GTA 3 & Vice City, Diablo 2 (yes, it was slow before), Far Cry and Half Life 2. My hardware threshold was F.E.A.R. & datadisks, while the second datadisk for FEAR burned my graphic card. I bought old computer and played DOS games again. Then in 2008, I acquired mini-notebook (netbook ?) and played some games. Including FEAR on it (I still wonder how). Now I have stronger laptop, but not too much. I can't play new games, so I enjoy playing Master of Orion 2, Painkiller, Age of Empires 2 and lately, Metal Gear Solid. I'm going to play MGS2 soon. This is my story of gaming. I don't hate new games, I would like to enjoy playing them, but I cannot, so it's not stuff for me. You can play remastered CD of Selling England on your Hi-fi machine. You can play new Transatlantic CD here as well. But you cannot play original Pacman cartridge, Transport Tycoon without DosBox, or Heavy Rain on your PC. Or old games on your PS3. There is strong un-compatibility and also new hardware is money consuming. Instead of spending my money this way, I spend them differently. It's open statement, I'll leave it to your understanding.

Yeah, and console emulation ultimately makes up for the difference. As long as you don't mind being a few years behind, you don't need a state-of-the-art $1200 beast, and that computer serves more functionality than just the games. Games that don't stand the test of time are weeded out by the time you play them. And they're cheap. The only disadvantage is really that you aren't in on recent jokes from new games (e.g. "the cake is a lie" and "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL").

TheProgtologist wrote: I really like free roam sandbox games so I hold Rockstar in the highest esteem.I just hope the next Grand Theft Auto game will be a little better than IV.I liked IV,but they concentrated so much on creating a very detailed,realistic world that in doing so sacrificed some of the fun elements from the past games.   I liked the 2 expansions,Lost & The Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony more than the game they are expansions of.   In RDR ,the world is realistic and very detailed but there are so many fun things to do besides the main story.I spent countless hours simply hunting in the game,I got really serious about it,and made quite a bit of money from skinning.I also really dug bounty hunting,gambling & playing horseshoes and such,collecting all the items you needed for different suits,along with all the countless other things you could do.Very deep game.

Jody, do you subscribe to Game Informer Magazine? They had an issue this month where one of their writers criticized RDR for being "too big", something I find pretty absurd. If you don't want to go hunting, gambling, or do side missions - you don't have to! You have freedom to do what you choose, and that's possibly my favorite thing about the game.

BTW, are there any other open-world games similar to GTA/RDR or Saints Row that you would recommend that's on 360, Xbox, Gamecube, or PS2?

Epignosis wrote: The only GTA I played was 2. "Damnation!  No donation, no salvation!"

Ooh Robert... GTA 1 and 2 are the worst ones. Do you have any of the systems capable of experiencing the newer games? I like 1 and 2 moderately, but they just aren't even close to GTA3, IV, or San Andreas.

J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: The only GTA I played was 2. "Damnation!  No donation, no salvation!" Ooh Robert... GTA 1 and 2 are the worst ones. Do you have any of the systems capable of experiencing the newer games? I like 1 and 2 moderately, but they just aren't even close to GTA3, IV, or San Andreas.

Zebedee wrote: JLocke wrote: Zebedee wrote: Demon's Souls (PS3) Is that any good? I hear it's frustrating as hell. Keep in mind, I adore the Ninja Gaiden series, so frustrating isn't exactly bad for me as long as it's a good kind of frustrating. Strangely, it's frustrating in a good way. The game is more hardcore than anything ever released on a disc, yet you keep dying and retrying over and over again.

Yeah I picked up Demon's Souls a while ago because my brother was raving about it.

It is great game but indeed frustrating and difficult are understatements!

It's odd how nobody here likes GTAIV... I thought that was one that everyone loved. 

J-Man wrote: It's odd how nobody here likes GTAIV... I thought that was one that everyone loved.

I love GTAIV, although it is far and away the weakest of the serious IMO. 8/10 for me, whereas San Andreas, Vice City and 3 are easy 10's. The one thing GTAIV suffers from is trying to be too serious, IMO. The gun mechanics became more realistic, although I think they got a lot less fun. They also removed some great stuff from San Andreas like muscle/fat/weapon stats, as well as bikes and planes. I've only played the base GTAIV build, none of the DLC's, so I can't speak for them.

JLocke wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: The only GTA I played was 2. "Damnation!  No donation, no salvation!" Ooh Robert... GTA 1 and 2 are the worst ones. Do you have any of the systems capable of experiencing the newer games? I like 1 and 2 moderately, but they just aren't even close to GTA3, IV, or San Andreas. San Andreas is pretty much the be-all, end-all GTA experience. IV pales in comparison. In terms of current-gen sandbox chaos games, Infamous, Prototype and Saints Row 2 are all much more fun for me. But San Andreas rumps them all!

Agreed, you can't beat San Andreas IMO. Saint's Row is fun from what I've played, and magically stems far enough from seeming to be a carbon copy.

J-Man wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: I really like free roam sandbox games so I hold Rockstar in the highest esteem.I just hope the next Grand Theft Auto game will be a little better than IV.I liked IV,but they concentrated so much on creating a very detailed,realistic world that in doing so sacrificed some of the fun elements from the past games.   I liked the 2 expansions,Lost & The Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony more than the game they are expansions of.   In RDR ,the world is realistic and very detailed but there are so many fun things to do besides the main story.I spent countless hours simply hunting in the game,I got really serious about it,and made quite a bit of money from skinning.I also really dug bounty hunting,gambling & playing horseshoes and such,collecting all the items you needed for different suits,along with all the countless other things you could do.Very deep game. Jody, do you subscribe to Game Informer Magazine? They had an issue this month where one of their writers criticized RDR for being "too big", something I find pretty absurd. If you don't want to go hunting, gambling, or do side missions - you don't have to! You have freedom to do what you choose, and that's possibly my favorite thing about the game. BTW, are there any other open-world games similar to GTA/RDR or Saints Row that you would recommend that's on 360, Xbox, Gamecube, or PS2?

Yeah, RDR is in my top 10 games ever, I think. Probably will be my game of the year too. I don't know how any one can critcize the game for being to big; everything is optional and you're never forced to go hunting, other than 2 or so missions late in the game, and alot of the other minigames/activities are optional. The game size is a gift, and the map does a  really good job of spacing everything apart and blending it perfectly at the same time, like how the landscape changes from America to Mexico are flawless and then up north the transitions into snow are believable and come on smoothly.

The game also makes farming activities enjoyable, which is pretty amazing I've done about 3 play through now, and still haven't even started treasure hunting yet. Awesome game.

GTA 1 was the sh*t, whatchoo talkin' about?

The problem with GTA is that they try to tell a story.