+1
Sometimes you get a few of those together, and what looks like a totally legit gap you can go through, you get stuck on some invisible corners.
Games cliches that really annoy you
- Thread starter Flammy
- Start date
+1
Sometimes you get a few of those together, and what looks like a totally legit gap you can go through, you get stuck on some invisible corners.
man there are so many annoying things in games for me, for example your playing a FPS and suddenly the enemy AI knows your there, it was looking away from you and your making no noise but it knows! thats ridiculous so most programmers deserve to be shot for that. another one is FPS that insist on having your gametag (halo 3 being prime example) or the crosshair changing colour when point at you, thats annoying as hell and i don't see the point to be honest! may as well continue while im here, ridiculous weapon damage in FPS, take COD4 for example (needlessly loved for its multiplayer excellence, when the multiplayer is infact not excellent) i shot some dude in the thigh with a barrett .50 and he turned around and one shotted me with an M4, the fact a .50 like that would sever your entire leg seems to elude game developers! IDIOTS! another COD4 gripe, stupid, pointless, retarded 'martyrdom' crap, everybody uses it and its so pathetically pointless its insulting! and finally a gripe with people, crysis (played, completed, enjoyed, so sue me) people hate that because its 'trendy' to hate it, its the thing to do for some reason? it has brilliant visuals, the sound is great (if its not on your system you must have bad speakers or something), the enemy doesn't immediately know where your are so you can actually hide, like you could in reality, the interface is nicely done and flawless, it is also very smooth and quick to use the suits functions and the story is as good as any other FPS story, yet it gets flamed to hell? and people worship COD4 and its radical ultranationalists killing innocent villagers
Whoah, capital letters and paragraphs are your friends, don't be afraid to use them !
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
A Cliche that annoys me is when people say it's all about graphics and that graphics are what makes a game. Gameplay is much more important. Classics such as pacman, space invaders, astroids, Duke Nukem, Command and Conquer, Counterstrike 1.6, the list goes on, hardly have excellent graphics do they? but are all still regarded as classics. The gameplay is what is important, however I'm not saying that graphics should be ignored. Yes, the graphics are important, I personally prefer css to cs1.6 becasue it looks so much better and is more fun to play, probably for that reason, but the good graphics have to be backed up by some good gameplay. Awesome gameplay + poor graphics I can forgive the game, but poor gameplay and awesome graphics...nah.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 1,249
When people say a game dosen't run, even though it runs just fine ableit not at max settings.
I can flip that around: people saying you need a high-end card (eg ATI Radeon HD4850) for gaming, which isn't always true...
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 1,249
no one says that people do say graphics make a difference though, and I believe them. Sure it dosen't have to look like crysis, but if HL2 looked like HL1 I don't think it would be nearly as good.
what the hell? why bring that up? don't preach about using correct English, does my **** in when people who say crap like that, then use words like 'Whoah' which last time i check doesn't exist in the English dictionary, damn i hate it when people try to make themselves seem more 'intelligent' than someone else by critising such things
what the hell? why bring that up? don't preach about using correct English, does my **** in when people who say crap like that, then use words like 'Whoah' which last time i check doesn't exist in the English dictionary, damn i hate it when people try to make themselves seem more 'intelligent' than someone else by critising such things
Wow. Welcome to the OcUK forums. I see you must be new!
I agree with what he was saying. If I'm honest that paragraph just looked like one big, painful to read, blob. It's not exactly hard to use capitals and correct punctuation where appropriate. I take back the bit about capitals if you don't have a left little finger or similar ailment.
Also I'd say "Whoah" is perfectly acceptable in conversational English, even if it's not in the dictionary.
i hate it when people try to make themselves seem more 'intelligent' than someone else by critising such things
I don't think intelligence comes into it really, it's more a case of why not type properly if you know how?
Back on topic, I agree with the Oblivout 3 cliche.
Last edited:
what the hell? why bring that up? don't preach about using correct English, does my **** in when people who say crap like that, then use words like 'Whoah' which last time i check doesn't exist in the English dictionary, damn i hate it when people try to make themselves seem more 'intelligent' than someone else by critising such things
Easy tiger, my intention wasn't to rattle your cage, z0mbi3 said it best, the structure of your post made for difficult reading that's all
damn i hate it when people try to make themselves seem more 'intelligent' than someone else by critising such things
It's actually 'criticising'
I loved the way Serious Sam subverted this though, by reducing it to the bare essentials. Enter a room. The door locks behind you. The room is empty apart from a power-up in the middle. Now, what do you suppose will happen if I take it?
And people like to label Fallout3 as "Oblivion with guns" because a) they think it makes them look knowledgeable (they forget that just about everyone knows that it's the same developer, not some arcane piece of information) and b) it saves them having to do any actual thinking when describing/criticising Fallout3.
M
A few things:
World War 2 Games; Just why? MoHAA did it well. So did the SH expansion. CoD1 came along and sat on it. CoD2 came along and sat on all of them. But it's past it's prime now, WW2 games have had more time spent on them than the actual damn war lasted. (Company of Heroes excepted, as it's amongst the few truely great RTS's of late)
Stupid, unbalanced multiplayer. General rule; rifles (slow firing, high accuracy, high damage) and SMGs (High rate of fire, low accuracy low-mid damage depending on ROF) should have no advantages/disadvantages over each other if used correctly. Weapons should be balanced (See; Day of Defeat), not fail (See, CoD:W@W). If I have a rifle, I should have the advantage of being able to fight much better at longer distances, I shouldn't be going down due to the fact that SMGs somehow shoot 100% accurately.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. When companies like Treyarch prove that they're not good at doing a certain game (See, CoD3), WHY THE HELL are they then given the reigns to one of the most highly anticipated games, especially when it's nearly the same! (See, W@W)
Mr. Gritty and Mr. Realism, when introduced to places they shouldn't be. Go get GTA4. Now tell me it was as fun as 3/VC/SA.
And on the graphics thing, all the graphics need to do, is fit the situation. Mirror's Edge doesn't have jaw-dropping visuals in the typical sense, but they fit the scenario perfectly. The idea is that the city is sterile and boring to Faith's eyes when it's seen from a normal standing, but when allowed to run free it's beautiful and energising, and the visuals convey that spot on. Also, go play Uplink. That game has no visuals. It's just text and coloured boxes. It's also one of the most fun, stimulating and innovative games there are.
World War 2 Games; Just why? MoHAA did it well. So did the SH expansion. CoD1 came along and sat on it. CoD2 came along and sat on all of them. But it's past it's prime now, WW2 games have had more time spent on them than the actual damn war lasted. (Company of Heroes excepted, as it's amongst the few truely great RTS's of late)
Stupid, unbalanced multiplayer. General rule; rifles (slow firing, high accuracy, high damage) and SMGs (High rate of fire, low accuracy low-mid damage depending on ROF) should have no advantages/disadvantages over each other if used correctly. Weapons should be balanced (See; Day of Defeat), not fail (See, CoD:W@W). If I have a rifle, I should have the advantage of being able to fight much better at longer distances, I shouldn't be going down due to the fact that SMGs somehow shoot 100% accurately.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. When companies like Treyarch prove that they're not good at doing a certain game (See, CoD3), WHY THE HELL are they then given the reigns to one of the most highly anticipated games, especially when it's nearly the same! (See, W@W)
Mr. Gritty and Mr. Realism, when introduced to places they shouldn't be. Go get GTA4. Now tell me it was as fun as 3/VC/SA.
And on the graphics thing, all the graphics need to do, is fit the situation. Mirror's Edge doesn't have jaw-dropping visuals in the typical sense, but they fit the scenario perfectly. The idea is that the city is sterile and boring to Faith's eyes when it's seen from a normal standing, but when allowed to run free it's beautiful and energising, and the visuals convey that spot on. Also, go play Uplink. That game has no visuals. It's just text and coloured boxes. It's also one of the most fun, stimulating and innovative games there are.
it says cliches not glitches
ROFL, I did realise this after about my 3rd post in the thread
I've been ill and not sleeping properly so I will use that as my excuse
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
One game that is the exact definition of a game with great graphics and poop gameplay (in my opinion) is Crysis. The game looks great but the gameplay really sucks. This is why I think games like HL2 are pure genius, they have the perfect balance of gameplay and graphics, for me.
Some of us really don't - I still play in 1024*768 with no AA or effects. Sure they're nice toys to have, but if I'm completely involved in a game, I'm not taking the time to stop and admire the lack of jaggies on a fake wall.
I also still regulary play ancient games like Xcom and Elite, which by your standards are completely worthless as games, when they're some of the most involving games of all time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
I think when it comes to graphics vs gameplay, there are valid arguements on both sides.
Yes, gameplay is obviously a critical component of any game and it is true that no matter how good a game looks, if the gameplay is pants, so will the game be in general. Some of my favourite games of all time don't have very pretty graphics by todays standards and in some cases, they didn't really have impressive graphics when the came out.
BUT ... I disagree with people who see impressive graphics as merely a novelty feature or purely candy for the eyes. Graphics have moved on leaps and bounds over the years and combined with new audio and physics technologies, things like atmosphere, ambience and immersion within the gameworld have reached levels games developers could only dream of before. Games like, Stalker, Doom 3, Silent Hill series, Fear, Condemned, Darkspace, Fallout 3, etc, simply would not be half as immersive, were it not for the immensely rich graphics and audio.
Yes, gameplay is obviously a critical component of any game and it is true that no matter how good a game looks, if the gameplay is pants, so will the game be in general. Some of my favourite games of all time don't have very pretty graphics by todays standards and in some cases, they didn't really have impressive graphics when the came out.
BUT ... I disagree with people who see impressive graphics as merely a novelty feature or purely candy for the eyes. Graphics have moved on leaps and bounds over the years and combined with new audio and physics technologies, things like atmosphere, ambience and immersion within the gameworld have reached levels games developers could only dream of before. Games like, Stalker, Doom 3, Silent Hill series, Fear, Condemned, Darkspace, Fallout 3, etc, simply would not be half as immersive, were it not for the immensely rich graphics and audio.
I loved the way Serious Sam subverted this though, by reducing it to the bare essentials. Enter a room. The door locks behind you. The room is empty apart from a power-up in the middle. Now, what do you suppose will happen if I take it?
I always had that down as a homage to the 'booby trapped' keycards in Doom(2), a game which clearly influenced it heavily. I don't mind that because it is part of the essence of the cartoon-style game.
The problem in RTS games is that often you get 'punished' for completing an objective, either by the enemy launching a massive assault, or a timer starting (one of the later missions in C&C3 was absolutely appalling for this, completing an objective too soon made it virtually impossible to win, because it triggered a countdown timer which would cause you to automatically lose if it expired)