View Single Post

Default 

June 6th, 2013, 07:51
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
If were talking only from a technical perspective, then yeah, those games were the first to be created with their respective graphics engines.
I specifically mentioned that it was technical
In terms of overall impact, I'd say they were all very close. In terms of the single player experience, I think Half-Life destroyed them.
I think Unreal was fantastic considering time of release and the sheer visual impact - which made for some truly wonderous exploration.

Also, some of the levels were simply awe-inspiring - like Sunspire.

But I agree that Half Life was overall a better and much tighter shooter. The opening tram ride still stands as one of those special moments in gaming. But I have to be honest and say that Unreal left a much more powerful mark on me. The moment where you step out of that crashed spaceship and the music starts - that was just magical to me, at the time.

Quake was boring to me in singleplayer - and I think I only completed the shareware levels.

I don't think Half Life "destroys" any of them - but we can agree that it was just a more focused shooter which seemed more like a game and less like an engine demonstration.

I don't have a problem with reviewers saying those things as they're not necessarily untrue. It's easy to understand how the majority would see Doom II as being "smoother and prettier". Doom II did have a certain kind of flow that SS lacked in regards to movement. It was also released before the CD version of SS, and iirc the original release of SS was limited to 320x200 resolution.
Both games had the same low resolution and high resolution System Shock was completely unplayable even on the most powerful rigs (I had the most powerful "home" PC possible at the time - pretty much). But the CD version had full voice-overs which made for a huge difference.

Oh, I have no problem with them speaking the truth - just as long as they get the whole truth out there. That they didn't is my problem.

If you focus on the negative truths and ignore the positive ones - then your review sucks balls.

Well, as I see it.

But it's not like I don't understand why - and it's not exactly a shock (no pun intended) - that critics didn't know what they were playing. It looked like a shooter much like Doom - and it came out within a few weeks (IIRC) of Doom 2. It had a similar sci-fi atmosphere.

It's only natural that inexperienced people would review it as just another shooter. To be fair, it was something unlike anything else. It mostly resembled a cross between Doom and Ultima Underworld - and I can appreciate why the average gamer or critic wouldn't expect or even like the last half of that equation.

So yeah, Doom II did have certain advantages even if the game itself was much smaller in scope and ambition. Those advantages may have been superficial to gamers like us, but I can see why critics would mention them.
I agree, it's no mystery that critics are ignorant.

I just don't like it when it hurts developers like Looking Glass.

But that's my own problem, so there
Last edited by DArtagnan; June 6th, 2013 at 08:04.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#129

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,589