Chefe said:Yea. Entrance into Heaven.
NOT!
Chefe said:I have "The Codex's Greatest Moments" on DVD.
I would offer "The Codex's Dumbest Posts" on DVD, but you're already familiar with them all.
Really? That's just your opinion. That wouldn't explain why I've replayed the entire game through several times (including a Speed Run). I hardly finish most games, so Half Life 2 definitely had a lot going for it.HardCode said:Once you play through HL2, there is no replay value. That makes it a shitty game. I could have bought 3 to 5 DVD movies that had re-watch value instead. I know there are mods, but that doesn't count, as we are talking "from the studio" here.
Have you even played Battlefield 2 or did you spend most of your time reading random complaints on the PlanetBattlefield forums? Yes, the game is buggy - or at least it was prior to 1.03, as I have yet to encounter any bugs in 1.03. As for the 'unbalanced' (I think you mean imbalanced), could you please specify what you are referring to?EvoG said:Should have been named, and is referred to by gamers, as BETAfield 2. Another DICE/EA rush job that is buggy as hell, unbalanced, and runs horribly on-line for many players. Sounds like a shitty game to me.
Oblivion isn't out yet. Speculation is not evidence.If I hear that Dunkin Donuts is going to put a 14K gold coating on their donut and remove the Boston Cream filling, I don't have to see it or eat it to know it will be shit. So much CORE gameplay was stripped from Oblivion that was present in MW, I can't be anything other than shit. Less weapons, less skills, less factions, more hand-holding ... all wrapped up in nice uber-1337 graphics. I believe that Oblivion qualifies from the evidence.
Good graphics gets people talking.Perhaps, but then again, it's good enough as is, polishing takes time, and the game is selling nicely as it is. Can't beat good word of mouth.
So every business to take in a profit or has the intent to make a profit is a greedy, shallow, sell-out that cares nothing about quality control? Too much cynicism can be a bad thing.They are a business. They make money. They make games to make money. Why does that come as a shock to you?
There's a big difference between Bethesda and Interplay. Morrowind may have had a ton of gameplay problems but we still liked it here at the Codex (with the exception of Saint), and most people here do like Daggerfall."Oblivion isn't out yet. Speculation is not evidence"
WTF man. Im sure you've used the whole "we can predict a game before it's out" thing when referencing FO:FOS or Tactics.
Now you're just sucking up to BethSoft.
I didn't say that every business that cares more about money than about releasing quality products is a greedy sell-out. It's just a different business model to me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It worked for MicroSoft. Needless to say, customers usually prefer quality products, but again, it's not like MS has problems selling one faulty Win version after another.Sol Invictus said:So every business to take in a profit or has the intent to make a profit is a greedy, shallow, sell-out that cares nothing about quality control? Too much cynicism can be a bad thing.They are a business. They make money. They make games to make money. Why does that come as a shock to you?
Not that it matters, but who else liked MW? Spazmo criticized it for a long time, I wasn't overly impressed with it either. Don't recall Ausir's opinion though. DF is a different story, but then again, liking Fallout has nothing to do with disliking FOT or FOBOS.There's a big difference between Bethesda and Interplay. Morrowind may have had a ton of gameplay problems but we still liked it here at the Codex (with the exception of Saint), and most people here do like Daggerfall.
What you are trying to say is "from what *I*'ve heard of the dialogue choices, gameplay and what *I*'ve seen with our own eyes - *I* think it actually looks and sounds fun". There are very few people here who are as impressed with what they've seen or heard as you are.Oblivion has some issues, mostly pertaining to the 'lack of (insert feature)', but from what we've heard of the dialogue choices, gameplay and what we've seen with our own eyes - it actually looks and sounds fun. This is in contrast to the blatant crappiness of FOBOS which looked crappy from a visual standpoint as well as gameplay. It was nothing more than a dumbed down spinoff of a beloved RPG series.
Good graphics get people talking a look, it's good gameplay that gets them talking.Good graphics gets people talking.
What is this mysterious "it"? Is that some sacred knowledge or a set of game design principles one must study for decades or something so amazingly awesome that it could only be described as "it" and shall not be named? Or maybe it's just something as simple and fucking trivial as making one quest for 2 factions to make player choose?ExMonk said:It may be easy for you, but it is not easy for most, which should be self-evident from the games released.
What was their holy benchmark then? A pretty but dumb game with a GOTY label?As for Beth, Daggerfall was not the game they wanted to make, so why would they view it as a holy benchmark?
Really? They did? Well, everyone knows that developers always tell the truth, so I guess you are right then.They wanted to create unique NPC's (ok, not a smashing success, but that was their goal), and they wanted to create a unique and handcrafted world, with unique quests and dungeons.
( Perhaps you weren't visiting Beth's forums on a regular basis like I was in the two years leading up to Morrowind. If you were, you would recall that the devs repeatedly stated this).
Proof? Where are interesting better-than-in-DF NPCs? Where are interesting better-than-in-DF quests? MW took quite a few steps back from the quality established in DF, but did a nice job with graphics. So, what does that tell you?My point is that iIt is simply not accurate to suggest that all they cared about in creating Morrowind was a game that was visually stunning.
Always? Neither Fallout, not BG, nor Diablo, nor DF were substandard graphically. You really do believe everything they say, don't you?Their attitude at the time was, "Why do rpgs always have to be substandard graphically?"
Have you played MW by any chance? Have you played Daggerfall? Well, compare the two and you will see your answer in big fucking letters. It should say something like "LESS OF EVERYTHING, BUT IT SURE LOOKS GOOD". Then take a look at Oblivion and you there would be another sign: "WE REMOVED EVERYTHING THAT WASN'T NAILED DOWN, BUT WHAT'S LEFT LOOKS AWESOME!!!"Did they improve the visuals so that the game would sell more copies? I'm sure they did. And there is nothing wrong with that. What you have yet to prove, is that they chose graphics over your notion of gameplay.
DarkSign said:Did he just pull the Sarvis dumbfuck "Codex mentality" argument out? I think he did.
Compliments will get you nowhereExMonk said:You really are a piece of work, VD.
First, you refuted nothing, except for my belief that you are smart enough to use real arguments :wink: Your entire proof of me being wrong was "but the developers said so". Laughable. There are many, many cases where developers lied and deceived because they wanted to sell the game and create favorable impressions.I refuted your constant affirmation, that all Beth cared about in developing Morrowind was pretty graphics. I referenced that the devs repeatedly stated that they wanted unique and handcrafted npcs, quests, dungeons, and world--as well as pretty graphics--on the forums and interviews back in 2001. Your response? "Devs lie", and by implication, "Anyone who believes what they say is naive."
Goes without saying, so?The Morrowind I played was a mixed bag. So was Daggerfall. Both had good points and bad points.
Really? What are they?You have an extremely narrow-minded notion of what "good game-play" is and what a "good rpg" is.
Proof? Shouldn't be difficult to find a quote, should it?And anyone who disagrees is treated as a kind of rpg heretic or infidel.
Try convincing scientists to accept Intelligent Design theory. Those guys are way more fundamental than us. So close-minded...I've seen more fundamentalism here than I have in many religious discussions I've been involved in. Unbelievable.
ExMonk said:The Morrowind I played was a mixed bag. So was Daggerfall. Both had good points and bad points. If I seem reactionary at times, it is because you and others on this board come across as rpg fundamentalists.
You have an extremely narrow-minded notion of what "good game-play" is and what a "good rpg" is.
And anyone who disagrees is treated as a kind of rpg heretic or infidel. I've seen more fundamentalism here than I have in many religious discussions I've been involved in. Unbelievable.
Excellent!ExMonk said:And anyone who disagrees is treated as a kind of rpg heretic or infidel.
I don't believe he was using speculation as evidence. He has evidence that there will be fewer skills, fewer factions, etc. And because of that, his speculation is that the game will not be enjoyable to him. It's a subtle distinction, but it makes his thinking logical.Sol Invictus said:Oblivion isn't out yet. Speculation is not evidence.If I hear that Dunkin Donuts is going to put a 14K gold coating on their donut and remove the Boston Cream filling, I don't have to see it or eat it to know it will be shit. So much CORE gameplay was stripped from Oblivion that was present in MW, I can't be anything other than shit. Less weapons, less skills, less factions, more hand-holding ... all wrapped up in nice uber-1337 graphics. I believe that Oblivion qualifies from the evidence.
I didn't like Morrowind, and I never played Daggerfall. Of course, I rarely post, so I'm hardly representative of the Codex.Sol Invictus said:Morrowind may have had a ton of gameplay problems but we still liked it here at the Codex (with the exception of Saint), and most people here do like Daggerfall.
obediah said:Are you suggesting that a forum dedicated to rpg's is full of people with strong feelings about rpgs? That's preposterous. If that was the case I could expect to find foodies and chefs at egullet.org, Morrowwind fans at bethesda's site, and baseball fans at baseballforum.com. I would perhaps even be insulted if I was to go and suggest that all food tastes the same, or that oblivion sucks, or that basketball is the real american past time.
Rat Keeng said:ExMonk, You're a crazy gibbering Jesusfish.
I think most of the Elder Scrolls forums' population is very much in favor of Oblivion and Morrowind, and would be somewhat piffed if you were to question those "fantastic" games. I'm sure the official Star Wars forums wouldn't take too kindly, to having their beloved movies/games critisised. Now, time and time again, i've heard people say things like "It's that game developer's forum, of course they'll like those games!" Well, this is the RPG Codex, a "hardcore" RPG site, presumably one where people from various places congregate, due to similar opinions on what a proper RPG should be like. Is that so strange?
ExMonk said:blah
Vault Dweller said:First, you refuted nothing, except for my belief that you are smart enough to use real arguments :wink: Your entire proof of me being wrong was "but the developers said so". Laughable. There are many, many cases where developers lied and deceived because they wanted to sell the game and create favorable impressions.
Bioware assured us that NWN is a Fallout-like game with deep dialogue skills and choices that matter, Obsidian insisted that KOTOR 2 was not rushed, Reflexive repeatedly stated that the Lionheart demo doesn't represent the game and Lionheart is actually awesome, etc.
Point is, let's pay less attention to what developers are saying and more attention to what they actually produce. MW clearly shows where the focus was and wasn't. Open your eyes.