Saturned

[Dark Crow]

Oh, the original Bug wasn't that bad, not when it was brand new, anyway. I think it might technically be the first genuine 3D platformer ever, and there must certainly be something to say for that.

Sonic Heroes is possibly the first genuine team based platformer, but that still doesn't excuse it from sucking. Whatever gameplay advances STI are responsible for with the world's first 3D platformer is irrelevant, because of the fact that the level design in Bug! was so completely linear (painfully so), and screwing up one jump would more-or-less result in your death. Just like Sonic Heroes.

I never said one was better then the other for any reason of the sort. What I said was "An FPS without a sniper rifle, I cannot take seriously." And Half-Life 2 has no multiplayer so who gives a shit about it anyway?

I took that comment in the context that you believed Half-Life shouldn't taken seriously, and I know how much you like Halo.

Also, Half-Life 2 does come with multiplayer (CS:S and Deathmatch), but I think it's the ability to create a cohesive and interesting single player mode that's really important in games.

[chriscaffee]

Single player mode is always secondary in an FPS. An AI can never challenge you as much as a human player can.

[Green Gibbon!]

Sonic Heroes is possibly the first genuine team based platformer, but that still doesn't excuse it from sucking. Whatever gameplay advances STI are responsible for with the world's first 3D platformer is irrelevant

Hey, you have to cross A before you can get to B. The original Street Fighter sucked, but it's still important. If it crossed the line, it's worth taking notes over. I'm not totally sure it did, though, because Jumping Flash, I believe, came out at about the same time.

Also, Sonic Heroes is not the first multi-character anything, platformer or otherwise.

[Dark Crow]

Single player mode is always secondary in an FPS. An AI can never challenge you as much as a human player can.

But in single player you can allow for expansive levels that force the player to complete certain scenarios that wouldn't be feasible when playing against human opponents. That and the fact that there is no real plot emersion in multiplayer games; it will inevitably be either a random deathmatch, or a “capture the flag/locationâ€￾ type of game. I think only UT2004 allowed for objective-style games I'm interested in for multiplayer, but the level size obviously has to be small to retain player interest.

Hey, you have to cross A before you can get to B. The original Street Fighter sucked, but it's still important. If it crossed the line, it's worth taking notes over. I'm not totally sure it did, though, because Jumping Flash, I believe, came out at about the same time.

I'd rather play a derivative game done well than a game that has original concepts executed horribly. The game had the same problems that most good 2D platformers easily avoided. When compared with a 3D equivalent, Jumping Flash can be generally seen as being superior to Bug!, because it was more expansive, more fun to play, and having a likeable hero to play as (the robot rabbit is cool, the bug is not).

Also, Sonic Heroes is not the first multi-character anything, platformer or otherwise.

Really? Then what was the first team based 3D platformer where you could switch the characters instantly?

[Cuckooguy]

When you get down to it, is it really "team-based"?

[j-man]

Really? Then what was the first team based 3D platformer where you could switch the characters instantly?

You never specified 3D platformers when GG! made his reply. Lost Vikings, Norse By Norsewest and 3 Dirty Dwarves spring to mind as examples of team-based platformers, and Lost Vikings was out in like 1992 or 1993 or something like that.

[Dark Crow]

I honestly thought I implied it well enough. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that Sonic Heroes was inspired by The Lost Vikings. Not that it matters too much, I just thought of The Adventures of Cookies and Cream being released prior to Sonic Heroes, which was 3D, had proper team based gameplay for 2 players, and not much substance either.

[Baba O'Reily]

Single player mode is always secondary in an FPS. An AI can never challenge you as much as a human player can.

Dude, stop being a dickhead.

[Timestones]

Single player mode is always secondary in an FPS. An AI can never challenge you as much as a human player can.

Just because a game is labeled a FPS doesn't mean it's gameplay has to revolve entirely around gunslinging action to be good.

[Segaholic2]

This year's BAFTA awards, winners announced just yesterday.
http://www.bafta.org/interactive/announce.htm

Half-Life 2 won 6 (Action/Adventure Game, <B>Online & Multiplayer</B>, Animation, Art Direction, PC Game, and Best Game). Halo 2 won 1. Guess which category.

[Double-S-]

Single player mode is always secondary in an FPS. An AI can never challenge you as much as a human player can.

Yeah... as much as bunny-hopping, 12 year olds with no schoolwork who play 15 hours a day can challenge. Whoo boy, that gets me pumped.

[chriscaffee]

The point of an FPS first and foremost is to shoot things. It's more entertaining to shoot a creative dynamic foe then a static AI. And Baba, I fail to see how such a veiwpoint is "being a dickhead." More like understanding the point of the genre.

Of course you can mix other elements into the game. FPS is just a lable anyway is pretty meaningless in and of itself. That said, I buy games to shoot people.

Don't even bring up small multiplayer levels because that is a laugh and a half. While modern engagement distances often take place at less then 200m, there is hardly a game out there that allows you to engage a foe much further beyond that in single player or multi. In fact, 200m in most games is sniping territory despite the fact that any assault rifle and some SMGs can reach that far. Hell even a shotgun would be decent up to 91m. So until games accurately reflect large scale, long range combat of any kind, it's pretty irrelevant whether it's a shootout at 100m or 30m.

As for your awards NT, who gives a fuck? I could counter that just by saying the following: chriscaffee gave Halo 2 one million awards and Half-Life 2 none. See how easy that was? It doesn't reflect my opinion, but let's just say it did. How is BAFTA's opinion any more relevant then mine? And here I thought you were arguing that numbers in reveiws (which would be similar to awards since you are just saying "I like it" or "I like the graphics") were pointless.

I never got into the original Half-Life, I played the Coop version on the PS2 after I had already played and owned Halo. That said, Halo was just a more interesting game to me and I didn't feel like exploring Half-Life at all. Having no background in the original, the sequal meant nothing to me as well. I'm sure it's a fine game, but I'm not going to go all fanboy over it and buy a fancy rig just so I can play one game.

[Segaholic2]

I was merely pointing it out to show that a large group of people liked Half-Life 2 a lot better than Halo 2, not that I actually think the BAFTAs are relevant.

Also, you sure do type a lot for someone who doesn't "give a fuck".

[chriscaffee]

Way to take a quote out of context. The idea was "who gives a fuck" what BAFTAs opinion on the subject is. As in what relevance does it have? If your only point was that there are people - a lot of people - that prefer Half-Life 2 to Halo 2, then I think your post was pointless since it's sort of a given. Especially since you and Popcorn have already expressed that opinion.

[Segaholic2]

Have you even played Half-Life 2?

[chriscaffee]

No I haven't, but I haven't made any judgments about it either. So it's wholly irrelevant, just like your last post.

[Segaholic2]

No I haven't, but I haven't made any judgments about it either.

And Half-Life 2 has no multiplayer so who gives a shit about it anyway?

<IMG SRC="upload/files/hugerolleyes.png">

[chriscaffee]

That's not a judgment. That's a lack of caring. I have to have an opinion about something to care about it. If I don't give a shit about it, it doesn't mean I don't like it. So a failure is you.

[Ash Holt]

That's not a judgment. That's a lack of caring. I have to have an opinion about something to care about it. If I don't give a shit about it, it doesn't mean I don't like it. So a failure is you.

You already lost, faggot.

[chriscaffee]

How can I lose an argument about my own Goddamn opinion? Even if you somehow "won," I could always say "I changed my mind since that quoted post." and you would lose by default.

[Ash Holt]

The judges' decision is final.

I'm sorry, there's always next year.

[Knuckles Dawson]

Note how Netaku simply ignores how he is proven wrong and tries to hide it by attempting to be humorous.

[Baba O'Reily]

I'm being gay.

I'm being gay too.

Now you see the world... THROUGH BABA VISION!

[chriscaffee]

Baba vision seems awfully irrelevant to the topic. Perhaps it could go look at something that it was interested in instead of just posting bullshit - "witty" - commentary about a topic he doesn't care about... or not.

[Baba O'Reily]

Anal secks, posthaste.