StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I forgot to mention Halo. No reason other than it's rediculously fun to play at a LAN party. I think playing online, not having that face time, takes alot out of a gaming experience. Having a microphone can make it more fun, but it's usually (much like these boards) just a means for juvenile dickheads to run their mouths unchecked.
Halo was the first game I played out of the X-box/Playstation 2 consoles and the scene when you first get out of your drop pod was incredible. The needlers especially were just awesome. Single player impressed me up untill the Flood showed up, then it just reminded me of boring zombie shooters.
Playing over a couple x-boxes all in the same room where you can laugh and have a good time with a few beers and your good buddies is worth dusting off my x-box any time. I don't think trash-talking a stranger compares to throwing popcorn at your best mate. I know there are alot of other titles this could have been done with, but Halo was the one we all happened to have and so could all play 4v4v4 in the same room.

I really think a games memorable times come down to the interaction you have with everyone else playing it. I don't reminise about the time I managed to outwit an AI system, or when I managed to ge a warthog all the way to the elevator, just to have it clip through. I do think about the time Glenn and I did it together, or playing Liero and nuking everything but still losing. I still hope that when I get to visit everyone in Canada again that we'll dust off the x-boxes and have another LAN party and play Halo or Starcraft with everyone again.

The sequels were decent, in ODST it was cool just to see how long we could last, but the original is still a LAN party staple.

And to quickly adress the last post;

General Zod wrote: Instead of whining about it you could point out where my points are flawed. Otherwise kindly fuck off and stop playing hall monitor.

There is no reason to. I did not disagree with the points made, some of which were actually good. I disagreed with the existence of the entire shitfit. It didn't belong, and was unfounded. The instigation and continuation of the argument was immature, people were just stating why they enjoyed a particular game.

I doubt 10 year old Norade gave two shits about pushing the boundaries of video game technology I do believe he somewhat had a point. I don't think it's an issue of Super Mario having done more with less, I think it's mainly that modern games feel like that's their entire reason for existance. You know that they are only attempting to push technological boundaries, that everything in that game has been created in a board room. The older, unpolished, simplistic game felt more like interactive art than hard science. For that I maintain that Donkey Kong Country, many of the old sidescrollers like Ninja Turtles for the NES (no I don't remeber which one, I was 5) and other cartoony games were the best for me.

Kheitain wrote: There is no reason to. I did not disagree with the points made, some of which were actually good. I disagreed with the existence of the entire shitfit. It didn't belong, and was unfounded. The instigation and continuation of the argument was immature, people were just stating why they enjoyed a particular game.

In that case you can take your back seat modding and shove it up your ass, and while you're at it you might want to actually read over the board rules.

Anyone who wants to 'rekindle a relationship with' a NES is fuvking wierd and should just go get an emulator (and incidentally realize how easy, short and repetitive old games were).

Stark wrote:Anyone who wants to 'rekindle a relationship with' a NES is fuvking wierd and should just go get an emulator (and incidentally realize how easy, short and repetitive old games were).

That's incredible guy, the way you just sort of missed the entire point. It's actually impressive.
Sometimes, the rediculous is actually rediculous. Nobody needs to rekindle a relationship with a piece of electronic equipment. The piece of electronic equipment is a nostalgic means of interacting with a person you otherwise have difficulty sitting in the same room with. If you have or had an estranged family member of some kind you might appreciate the sentiment.

It gets wierder; an old NES is actually how you deal with your parents separation! Or ... something... perhaps something even relevant.

I frankly don't see how you can have 'nostalgia' for something that isn't lost. The past, the 60s, youth; it's all gone and you can only muse about it. Old games? Right there pal, load em up, finish them in two hours, move on.

One of my best "gaming experiences" was Paper Mario 2, because I found it genuinely fun in a hilarious way, and it stayed away from the micromanagement of character stats and other annoying things that many other RPGs indulge in. All pretentious dicks talking about "games today" should play it, but since it is six years old now, maybe it counts as retro or something.

Kheitain wrote:people were just stating why they enjoyed a particular game.

No, people made objective claims about qualitative differences between "games today" and old games, and the motivations behind them, even though these people clearly don't remember much from the days when the old games were new, if they were at all born and conscious then.

Kheitain wrote:I don't think it's an issue of Super Mario having done more with less, I think it's mainly that modern games feel like that's their entire reason for existance. You know that they are only attempting to push technological boundaries, that everything in that game has been created in a board room. The older, unpolished, simplistic game felt more like interactive art than hard science.

You should go back to 1987 and tell everyone how their unpolished, simplistic games feel

I have to say BG 1 and 2. I never spent as much time with any other game than those two and no other game has still stayed on my HDD.

Thanas wrote:I have to say BG 1 and 2. I never spent as much time with any other game than those two and no other game has still stayed on my HDD.

What does that stand for?

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

Thanas wrote:I have to say BG 1 and 2. I never spent as much time with any other game than those two and no other game has still stayed on my HDD.

I can echo this. While I keep Fallout 2 along with it, these games are still some of the best I've experienced. And I swear Bioware's programmers want to relive those days, all but the D&D 2nd ED combat system.

Some of the story, dialogue mechanics, romance bits, and much of the underline is echoed in their current games.

Let's see...

I love(d) playing Aztec on the Commodore 64. Not 'Aztec Challenge', but Aztec. Basically, you start at the top of a temple, and Indian Jones you're way into lower levels to find a golden idol. Simple, but fun. And some nice glitches that were funny as hell to use.

I also loved playing Bruce Lee on the Atari Home PC. Navigate the board, and fight the Green sumo and Black Ninja. Bonus points for kicking them off something and making them disappear during the fall.

I also loved playing 'the Last Starfighter' (Yes, I had a copy of the prototype that called itself that), on the Atari. now I'm going to have to break it out to play it.

On the Atari 2600, I loved Star Raiders and Star Master.

On PC - To many to count, but I still play the Civilization series, and occasionally break out old Dos games. Battle Chess kicks but.

On Nintendo (franchie) - One word; Metroid.

X-Bow 360: I really enjoyed Red Read Redemption and Batman Arkham Asylum. I loved Force Unleashed as well.
Also, Castle Crashers is funny as hell.

Imperialism 2. The only game I was allowed to play for a long time, and a pretty good historical sim.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Thanas wrote:I have to say BG 1 and 2. I never spent as much time with any other game than those two and no other game has still stayed on my HDD.

I can echo this. While I keep Fallout 2 along with it, these games are still some of the best I've experienced. And I swear Bioware's programmers want to relive those days, all but the D&D 2nd ED combat system.

Some of the story, dialogue mechanics, romance bits, and much of the underline is echoed in their current games.

I think what set BG 1 and 2 apart from say, NWN or any of the current stuff, is the following:

- atmosphere. I have not seen an RPG that allows you this freedom of movement while introducing believable sidequests. Even more, you actually find stuff where it makes sense, like not much in the houses of peasants and valuable books in the palaces of aristocrats.
- a good progression from "guy who cannot kill a single wolf by himself" to "hero who can kill dragons". Unlike most games where you go from "nobody" to "god of war" in seconds.
- the style of the game. Sure, it is 2D, but it is wonderfully drawn, with a lot of attention to detail that put many of today's games to shame
- characters. From Imoen to Khalid, nearly every single character is well drawn and articulated (except for in BG2, where they kinda screwed the pooch with Aerie and Imoen). Even better, this is not confined to main party characters. Even one-note characters get a fleshed out backstory (Delainy/Durlyle, for example in the BG1 expansion).
- A definite end to the storyline, with details where the characters end up. Not something like "oh, we're gonna make a sequel so let us introduce bad guy X at the end", no you feel they had a definite story and managed to go where they wanted to go with it.
- Ambiguity in quests, something that got lost in later games. For example, in BG1, you get to make the choice whether to help the storm goddess or fishermen. Both make valid points - the fishermen are sick of storms, the priestess points out that the fisherman killed people etc. Unlike in later games, where it degenerated into "You get to choose between comically good and comically evil. If you chose the latter, merchants will glower at you".

And while it is unrelated to the games themselves, the fanbase has cranked out many outstanding mods over the years, nearly all of which are excellent.

Thanas wrote: I think what set BG 1 and 2 apart from say, NWN or any of the current stuff, is the following:

- atmosphere. I have not seen an RPG that allows you this freedom of movement while introducing believable sidequests. Even more, you actually find stuff where it makes sense, like not much in the houses of peasants and valuable books in the palaces of aristocrats.
- a good progression from "guy who cannot kill a single wolf by himself" to "hero who can kill dragons". Unlike most games where you go from "nobody" to "god of war" in seconds.
- the style of the game. Sure, it is 2D, but it is wonderfully drawn, with a lot of attention to detail that put many of today's games to shame
- characters. From Imoen to Khalid, nearly every single character is well drawn and articulated (except for in BG2, where they kinda screwed the pooch with Aerie and Imoen). Even better, this is not confined to main party characters. Even one-note characters get a fleshed out backstory (Delainy/Durlyle, for example in the BG1 expansion).
- A definite end to the storyline, with details where the characters end up. Not something like "oh, we're gonna make a sequel so let us introduce bad guy X at the end", no you feel they had a definite story and managed to go where they wanted to go with it.
- Ambiguity in quests, something that got lost in later games. For example, in BG1, you get to make the choice whether to help the storm goddess or fishermen. Both make valid points - the fishermen are sick of storms, the priestess points out that the fisherman killed people etc. Unlike in later games, where it degenerated into "You get to choose between comically good and comically evil. If you chose the latter, merchants will glower at you".

And while it is unrelated to the games themselves, the fanbase has cranked out many outstanding mods over the years, nearly all of which are excellent.

That's only because you've never played Yakuza 3.

Don't play Console games and I do not like the artwork, sorry.

Thanas wrote:Don't play Console games and I do not like the artwork, sorry.

I'd say it pretty much trumps virtually any rpg out there for believable sidequests. From meeting with a government official to prevent the destruction of some buildings to helping some guy not commit suicide and fix his debts to stopping groups of counterfeiters. And the main character never becomes bullet proof or invincible to anything. Beating a rival yakuza boss only to get knifed by surprise afterword and nearly killed by a bitter enemy added a nice touch of believability to it.

General Zod wrote:I'd say it pretty much trumps virtually any rpg out there for believable sidequests. From meeting with a government official to prevent the destruction of some buildings to helping some guy not commit suicide and fix his debts to stopping groups of counterfeiters. And the main character never becomes bullet proof or invincible to anything. Beating a rival yakuza boss only to get knifed by surprise afterword and nearly killed by a bitter enemy added a nice touch of believability to it.

*Shrug*
Won't comment on it, except to say that the same pretty much applies to BG and more. But let's not turn it into a dick-waving context, okay?

Thanas wrote:

General Zod wrote:I'd say it pretty much trumps virtually any rpg out there for believable sidequests. From meeting with a government official to prevent the destruction of some buildings to helping some guy not commit suicide and fix his debts to stopping groups of counterfeiters. And the main character never becomes bullet proof or invincible to anything. Beating a rival yakuza boss only to get knifed by surprise afterword and nearly killed by a bitter enemy added a nice touch of believability to it.

*Shrug*
Won't comment on it, except to say that the same pretty much applies to BG and more. But let's not turn it into a dick-waving context, okay?

I just take issue with statements like this

I have not seen an RPG that allows you this freedom of movement while introducing believable sidequests.

when it's clear you don't play that many games, since you're referencing a 10 year old game.

General Zod wrote:I just take issue with statements like this

I have not seen an RPG that allows you this freedom of movement while introducing believable sidequests.

when it's clear you don't play that many games, since you're referencing a 10 year old game.

Oh yes, Zod, you know how many games I play. For your information, I have played nearly every (with the exception of Dragon's Age) RPG game that was released to the PC, including DSA and Gothic. So yeah, I think I am kinda qualified to make that statement.

Now, of course you can say "not having played number 3 game in a series of 4 console games" completely invalidates that but a) I was talking about PC games and b) I do not own a console.

Jesus Christ, do I have to start every sentence with "The expressed opinion may not take into account obscure game X from another platform".

Now, enough nitpicking?

Eldar scrolls oblivion whould be my best game i've ever played that i still remember well. I spent the longest run on that game then anyother: one month! Most games i've ever had were won after at most 79 hours of owning it, then i just sit on a shell for a few months and play it again. Then maybe mass effect 2, I really liked it's story, to date i've probably beat it something around 7 times.

Kheitain wrote:I forgot to mention Halo. No reason other than it's rediculously fun to play at a LAN party. I think playing online, not having that face time, takes alot out of a gaming experience. Having a microphone can make it more fun, but it's usually (much like these boards) just a means for juvenile dickheads to run their mouths unchecked.
Halo was the first game I played out of the X-box/Playstation 2 consoles and the scene when you first get out of your drop pod was incredible. The needlers especially were just awesome. Single player impressed me up untill the Flood showed up, then it just reminded me of boring zombie shooters.
Playing over a couple x-boxes all in the same room where you can laugh and have a good time with a few beers and your good buddies is worth dusting off my x-box any time. I don't think trash-talking a stranger compares to throwing popcorn at your best mate. I know there are alot of other titles this could have been done with, but Halo was the one we all happened to have and so could all play 4v4v4 in the same room.

I agree totally, my best online gaming experience still does'nt beat my worst LAN experience. Halo is ideal because just about anybody with an xbox has a copy, it's a game just about anybody can pick up and play quickly, and it is quite fun.

Ocarina of Time is probably always going to have a special place in my heart, as far as my favorite game goes.

My favorite gaming experience is probably very different. My brothers and I, over the course of about two to three months, played all the way through Tales of Symphonia and Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. Even though neither game's really "great," although I contend that they're both awfully underrated, the social experience that we had and the shared story was really what made it so awesome. Cheering my brother on when he soloed the final boss in FFCC was a lot of fun, moreso than beating a game alone.

Stark wrote:Anyone who wants to 'rekindle a relationship with' a NES is fuvking wierd and should just go get an emulator (and incidentally realize how easy, short and repetitive old games were).

QFT.

While I had fun with them as a kid, today I find them incredibly limited, and find myself quickly becoming board when I go back and play them on an emulator.

That's not to say all NES games were this way. For instance, I still enjoy going back to play Crystalis and Solar Jetman.

My favourite video game experiences are playing games like Tekken 6 and Mortal Kombat VS DC Universe with my fiancée. Even though she beats me 80% of the time, I still can't get enough.

A second was probably playing BF1942 on a LAN with my friends, if only because it broke Counter Strike monotony. Of course, it was mostly because it was friend interaction.

There you have it, I'm a social video game player. I'm neither hardcore nor leet.

Single player wise, one moment that I will always remember was one from Hellgate: London. Hes, the game overall was...less than ideal, but it had it's moments. For me, it was a mission in Templar Station, specifically from the glory-obsessed Arch Templar Maxim. He's learned -from the players exploits and discoveries- that the means exist to not only battle the demonic invasion to a stalemate, but to throw them off Earth completely. However, more needs to be learned and set in place before anything can be done.

Maxim wants to hear none of that though, and he immediately starts enacting a plan to etch his name in glory for all time, just as his brother did at the beginning of the invasion with his gallant last stand at the mouth of the Hellgate to buy the rest of humanity time. The character is give orders to deliver two messages; one to the First Sword -the greatest fighter in all the Templar, and really the whole resistance Hunters and Cabalists included- and a young idealist name Aeron. The other message is meant for Maxim's right hand, and one of the greatest Templar to ever live, Brandon Laan. Both men have unbreakable ties of loyalty and honor to Maxim's house, and will follow his orders unto death. Both men are also ones that have expressed a certain admiration for the player character's bravery and all out gall, and more worried where Maxim's vaniglory will lead them all. Regardless, they are loyal to a fault.

Maxims orders are, of course, to gather their forces, the entire Templar Order, and assault the Hellgate and it's creator, Sydonai, one of the First demons born of the Elder. The key to victory hasn't been discovered yet, only hinted at, and humankind is by no means ready, but Maxim doesn't care, as he believes he finally has a chance to oust his fallen brother from the position of the greatest Templar to ever grace the earth.

The moment that sticks in my mind is when you give Brandon Laan his orders. After deeply thanking the player for saving his life, one of the few shows of emotion anyone has ever gotten from the stern -but fair- knight, he explain that he knew these orders were coming. He Maxim isn't worthy to lead, but had no route to either challenge or oust him, so instead focused on being the best leader and warrior he could be to hopefully counterbalance the stupidity and vainglory of his commander. "Showing his men neither fear, nor doubt, as a leader should" as he puts it.

He then charges the player with saving live as (s)he can, to be the leader Maxim isn't and he could not be, and even if the character is a Templar, giving orders to return to another base of operations to salvage as much of the resistance as possible, and hopefully rebuild the Templar Order from the ashes.

And finally, one line is one I'll always remember; "Me, I am a soldier still, and so I must obey." Then he turns to fearlessly lead his men into a hell he knows none of them will escape, because he and every one of them gave their solemn word to do so.

As much as I know that kind of loyalty is all but suicidal, there is a part of me in the back of my mind that wishes I could be that unflinching.