similar to cave story or the 2d metroids, in other words a game that can be completed in a few hours but has a lot of stuff adding replay value and since it doesn't require a lot of time to replay the player is more likely to do it.

I guess it might also be interesting to discuss the way developers spend their ever increasing budgets where the general tendecy seems to be to add people dedicated to making great gameplay enhancements such as burger and trashcan/bags props for that extra realism everyone wants... 

I thought it was good, but can't help but feel annoyed that it was far from as good as it could have been had id done a few things a little differently. My suggestions:

1. ditch the stupid mad scientist bullshit. Research going on, portal opens, satans minions start coming through and killing stuff. Why do you need more than that? The stupid betruger stuff just made the story feel b-movie and cheesy.
2. If you are going to make a horror game, try not to throw in too many stupid looking skeletons moving for no obvious reason followed by cheesy evil laughter. It isn't scary. Also, Hell was rather dissapointing, as it was pretty much exactly what everyone expects hell to look like. No original take on it or anything. Some cool visual touches in there, but nothing too special.
3. Don't save all the fun monsters right until the last 6 or so levels and leave all the boring imp/marine fighting for the levels beforehand.
4. More large monsters would have been nice.
5. The spider queen monster was shit.
6. The final boss was SO SHIT. Come the fuck on. They could have done so much more with that boss encounter. Why did they have to give THE Cyberdemon a gay looking tail?
7. I would have liked to have some more marines to fight alongside during the game, the same guys for a few levels, just so it feels like you are bonding with them, rather than them being faceless cannon fodder (with annoying floaty nametags) like in CoD. Fighting alongside the security bots was awesome whilst it lasted. Trying to escort the scientist was not awesome.
8. A bit more environment variety wouldn't have gone amiss.
9. Those crap invisible monsters could have been somthing more interesting.
10. I loved the end of the old e3 shakey cam footage when the hell knight eats the marines head. Why couldn't we have had that and more?
11. Then we have all the obvious gameplay improvements that people have beaten to death already.

It was fairly enjoyable, but I think I'm in the majority when I say it could have been so much better. 

9. Those crap invisible monsters could have been somthing more interesting.

Where? (Seriously :P) 

just make smaller 'sideways' or some alternate paths in parts of the map, it shouldnt drastically increase dev time but will enhance game experience

make it quake-non-linear, not real non-linear (like fallout or mororwind)

and don�t push player with those pesky npcs
that only pretend to be interactive
And don�t make unreachable areas that look like you could go there (HL2 had many of that, how many times had you stacked crates only to find there is clip all over the place?)

Or kind of HUB non-linear, where you need to complete all the parts, but have a choice what to do first. And hub being not just like start.bsp, but actually big map where you could do stuff (like a city in RPGs)

the bottom line: good game should have (some) freedom of choice and exploration (with reward) cause one of the reasons ppl play games is for 'being in another world' or as a sort of journey.
And it is worth spending dev money on, much more than modelling realistic trashcans.

Creating 'sense of place' and illusion of freedom of choice is worth much more than a futile attempts and mimicking reality

speaking of time - I dont want a game that takes long time to play (like some bloody RPGs) I have no time for those!
And I dont rush the games, I tend to look around alot and try to do different things

cybera: there is no way to beat supermetroid in 2hrs on the 1st try 

Speeds wrote: "speaking of time - I dont want a game that takes long time to play (like some bloody RPGs) I have no time for those!
And I dont rush the games, I tend to look around alot and try to do different things"

Couldn't agree more. Some games are just too hard-core time wise. A lot of Nintendo's major titles (Mario and Zelda games at least) take too long for me these days. I still play them, but I get a bit fed up with how much time they consume. At least the general experience in these games is good, and not some stupid random battle 500 times over 60 hours CRAP with fancy cg cutscenes and beautiful backdrops that probably consumed about 500 times more production time than the rest of the game added together. Basically, I hate most japanese rpgs...

Deus Ex... that's an RPG (role playing game - not stat building game).

Sometimes I find it amazing that people play WoW so much, but I guess that with online games there are other people to talk to, so it's ok. SP rpgs though... ffs. Can all this repetetive shit and let me feel like I have some part in the story, rather than just feeling like I am advancing a pre-determined story by completing tedious menu driven magic based random battles. 

On the subject of game length, I couldn't possibly disagree more. Games are becoming shorter and shorter whilst their price remains the same. Most new PC/console games cost 50-60 euro around here. If I am getting less than 20 hours of gameplay for that amount of money, I feel completely ripped off.

Many of these games are suffering the "Max Payne syndroma" (which I beat in less than 8 hours, loving every minute of it, never to touch it again). HL2 was another such case, was it a great game? Hell yeah. Was it worth 50 euro? FUCK NO. Pretty short, completely linear gameplay, zero replayability value and STEAM annoys the fuck out of me. I do admit that custom content and mods make HL2 worth the money, but "on it's own" it definately is not, hell it didn't even ship with a multiplayer mode.

I have this theory on why this is happening. Publishers want to increase sales, revenues and profits (like any normal business would). The problem is that the amount of people who buy computer games doesn't grow as fast as they'd like to. So in order to sustain continuous growth, they have to change the games to make them appeal to a broader casual gamer audience who want the games to be short (because many of them dont have a big attention span) and easy to get into (require little to no time to learn).

I am all for there being more PC and console gamers on this planet, but if that comes at the cost of game length and depth with the price remaining the same, I am pissed off big time.

Than:

Sometimes I find it amazing that people play WoW so much, but I guess that with online games there are other people to talk to, so it's ok. SP rpgs though... ffs. Can all this repetetive shit and let me feel like I have some part in the story, rather than just feeling like I am advancing a pre-determined story by completing tedious menu driven magic based random battles.

I am guessing you haven't played Morrowind? 

...I agree with, good ideas there. Not much to add except some approving nodding.

Jago....firstly if you are spending 50-60 E on a game you need to discover the joys of internet mail order. I don't think I've spent more than 40 E on a game in the last 3 years (and often a lot less when they aren't latest release games) - and the UK ain't exactly bargain bin. Secondly, you really think you are getting short changed if a game is under 20 hours? Say I spend �25 on a game and it lasts 15 hours, that's �1.60 per hour for what is likely to be jolly good entertainment. Cheaper than a lot of things. And many games offer more than that in terms of longetivity. 

Obviously �1.60 per hour is a decent deal, but it's not as good as I am used to. Why should I be queitly accepting the "inflation" of game hours per money unit? 

no inflation. about 10 hours is a standard for pc fps. rpg s are much longer of cource . dont compare them. hl 2 was proper length , it had CS included too :) 

no inflation. about 10 hours is a standard for pc fps. rpg s are much longer of cource . dont compare them. hl 2 was proper length , it had CS included too :) 

I don't think I ever wrote anything about super metroid being beatable in two hours on the first run but in any case it's shorter than your average sp game and at least metroid zero mission was really short. My point was that this doesn't have to be bad as long as it's good enough and have new challenges to offer like improving your time or finding all items. When you can play through a game in one evening you're far more likely to replay at least a couple of times and then ending up with a total playing time of a longer game you can't be bothered to replay a second time. 

I don't think I ever wrote anything about super metroid being beatable in two hours on the first run but in any case it's shorter than your average sp game

I don't think you and I have played the same Super Metroid. Metroid Zero Mission was kinda short, but Super Metroid was BIG. 

than: yeah, I dont dig j-rpgs for similar reasons. In chorno trigger it was done much better but it didnt get nearly as popular as FF, surprisingly ;/

bear: I would say, its better to have a (rather) short but quality game that has some depth and thus replayable,

rather than lengthy good game that just drags on, using repetitive sections, random-generated missions, locking player and swarming him (hi ssam) and other low-cost methods of prolonging the play time (that just make a game dull).

If the game is good and I like it - I dont mind it being short, I will replay it (on harder mode, in somewhat different way). And if the game is not my bag of shit, I jsut dont care if its long or not. I flush it after few playing sessions

But one evening (like 2-3 hrs?) I dont know, that sounds like a speedrun to me. For example you could beat fallout really fast, but that's skipping even large chunk of the main quest.

What I like, is when you can play any level of a game on its own if you just want a quick blast (loading map from a console for example, and getting all the needed items there) 

Like speeds says, the length of a game is not really relevant, it's how much you play it that counts, and that includes replayability, multiplayer etc. I also think that the right price is important. All games aren't equal. I don't think charging 30 quid for an old snes game converted to GBA is fair, and if I had know how much I would get from Quake, I would probably have been prepared to pay a LOT more for it.

I seriously didn't mind how short MP2 was. I replayed it on all the skill levels (but gave up on new york minute because by that time I was a bit bored). Then again, I'll admit that I just played a copy at work, rather than buying it myself. 

and if I had know how much I would get from Quake, I would probably have been prepared to pay a LOT more for it

If I had known how much fun I would be getting from Quake and the metric shitload of custom content made for it, I would've probably been ready to pay 200 euro for the game, if not more. 

At the rate of �1.50 p / hour as we mentioned before, say 2 E p / hour.....I'd be looking at paying 5000 E ? Or more? 

If I was being charged by the hour for quake, I probably wouldn't have played as much. Thank god id isn't Microsoft, who seem to want to move all the Office apps to an online subscription model, where you don't ever own the software and have to keep paying to keep using. 

NFS most wanted

Man, this game looks great. Awesome detailed cars (and not just asian ricers, you get real supercars now)
Very impressive seamless large city that runs without lags. Many destroyable objects and shortcuts/different routes.
The post processing is rather nice (excessive bloom but you can turn it down) Motion blur is a bit too strong (and you cant switch it!)

Cop mode is well done and reminds carmageddon, rather than racing game. And you have the whole city to fight the cops in!

But the normal racing is rather boring due to easy rubberband ai - computer cars slow down to let you catchup or run as fast as you if you are doing great (stil too easy).
You can even use slowest car in career mode and win no problem beating much better cars
(well, about 10th spot on the list you would have to use better car, cause some tasks, like speedcheck and racing against time become more demanding).

I dont like rubberband ai\dynamic difficulty change for apparent reasons, esp done so blantantly and being so easy like in this game. Caring for the console 'casuals' eh?
nfs underground 1 ai was done better (and more challanging too).
Too bad there is no difficulty settings in NFS MW and 'catchup' is switchable only in custom races :( 

no replays :((( 

I remember when I played midtown madness at a cousin's place - was quite a fun game. That was 6 years ago.
You had to race against the traffic on the left lane of a highway etc.. And the city was pretty cool.
It didn't bother me that you couldn't hit pedestrians (they'd always jump sideways high speed). I also never liked carmageddon at all. 

I finished DooM3 yesterday night... I'm again very late compared to you guys, and many things have been already said on this forum.. I will not restart to enumerate all good and bad points of the game, it's useless, but I would like to give my final personal impression..

Well, globally I enjoyed to play it, just for the ambiance.. it was really frightening, the most in "Hell" level... .. Exactely what I was expecting since the very beginning (i.e taking also into account what were first DooM games... it follows very well the evilish progression of the serie... >D ...)... The only thing I really have to complain is CyberDemon weakness... How deceiving I was to defeat CyberDemon so easily at the end... BFG9000 for standard monters, and Soul Cube against CyberDemon... it was too much obvious... The Soul Cube guardian was much more difficult to kill IMHO... Anyway...

Well, I will try to replay DooM3 in Nightmare skill, just to have a real challenge this time....

Bah, now it's time to install Call Of Duty 2... and regarding all the trailers I already saw... it sounds to be a real good game, like Medal Of Honor... Maybe I will give you feedback in... 6 months... ;P 

I picked it up for very cheap. I started playing and it reminded me of the invisible snipers in MOHAA. Is this a game of find the enemy after you die (via the post death flyby) or is this a good game? 

The first Vietcong is fucking brilliance, if mainly for the excellent coop mode. If you find the 6th sense servers, you can have a really enjoyable game there with some really great people. However, now the sequel has been released, I think the community has become divided and the servers might not exist anymore.

You have to be prepared for a seriously full-on experience if you join a VC coop server. The goal of 6th sense and true teamplay servers is to encourage real teamwork and play at a slow pace for an immersive experience. If you die, you might be waiting 40 minutes for another game, so be careful.

As for the SP game, first make sure you patch it up to 1.6, then play, it fixes a lot of serious bugs. Even with the patch there are problems, but it becomes much more enjoyable.

The game is supposed to feel quite realistic, which is why you get picked off quite often if you aren't careful. Luckily, if you use your pointman, then you will almost always know when it is dangerous to move forward, and you certainly get picked off a lot less. Make effective use of cover and the crouch/aim mode and it is great when you are under fire.

There are a few really shitty levels (the boat mission, some of the tunnel rat sections and one of the last FA missions (stealth), but stick with it, because it's fun and the final level (of fist alpha/purple haze) is really cool.

Anyway, despite the game being rather rough, I much prefer it to games like CoD and Battlefield. It feels a lot more authentic and immersive, and you don't feel so much of a loner surrounded by completely scripted, braindead cannon fodder. 

I'm partway through the second SP mission and I'm liking this game. I do like the go slow, keep an eye out and use cover and prone shooting for progressing. Haste is punished.

I installed and progressively patched to 1.6 right away.

Note: I really have only just begun this game.

Highs:

Jungle looks, sounds and feels like a jungle. Good foilage and lots of it. Critters are well done. Good outdoor feel.

Traps that keep you on the alert. They can be disarmed.

Limited weapons that you can carry. I like this as it prevents clutter and redundancy. It makes you chose your preferences (I'm a single shot Mosen user.)

Good backstory on missions so far. Diary in bunker fleshes out story.

Enemies seem realistic but I've really only begun.

Performance and load times are acceptable on my P4 1.2GHz with Radeon 9600 Pro. That is a modest system these days.


Lows:

Some awkward clipping and can get stuck on terrain. Not always smooth but not too bad considering.

Dead enemies that protrude from terrain - clipping problems.

NPCs can get hung up. My commanding officer got very stuck walking me to my bunker.

My squadmates sometimes get in my way. They rush into battle and kill more VCs then me. But they save my ass too.



The autosaves have the benefit of creating suspense but replaying sections can get repetitive. It's a good/bad feature.

BTW, there's a Vietcong 2 or are you talking about a mission pack for Vietcong? If this is a good game, I'll look for the other one.

Any opinions on other Vietnam war games? (Single Player) 

There is Vietcong, Vietcong: Fist Alpha (expansion) and Purple Haze (pack including Vietcong and FA). REcently, Vietcong 2 was released, but I'd steer clear for now, as I am told by my super hard-core VC loving friend that it sucks. We have quite similar taste in games so I trust his opinion. The release of VC2 was also blighted with problems and the Pterodon (creators) forums were ablaze with people complaining about all the issues with the game, and also how much of a letdown it was for them. Only a handful seem to like it :(

There are issues with VC, but once you get used to them, they tend not to be a problem. When I played, I don't think I had one show stopping bug where I had to revert to a save. Of course, I did notice a lot of smaller bugs, with my teammates getting confused.

Also, don't you think that Nhut sounds like he's saying "me wait for Arthur"? He is actually saying "me wait for other (men)" but it sounds really odd.

My teammates never got many kills actually. This kind of spoiled things for me, because hornster is supposed to be some kind of hard-ass raving pscyho, but at the end of each mission, I would see that I got 40 kills and he got 5.

The bits in the bunker between missions are really cool I think. I like the authentic feel of the game. The music is really nicely done too.

Got to admit that the graphics generally suck, but some of the FA missions (with grass) look rather nice.

By the way, if you play online, try and find a teamspeak coop server playing no-respawn vietnam mode coop (6th sense). Usually before the mission begins, all the players split into squads, assign squad leaders, point men, medics etc. and discuss how they will do the mission. It's really cool, and one of the nicest things is that when they speak, their in-game character is speaking. If you get too far away, you can't hear them. It really helps immerse you in the game.

ambush coop is amazing (if you don't die in the first 10 mins).