Isnt Wolfenstein Released today???

reflux said:
£15-20 probably - I've only seized upon it because there's nothing else to play atm. It's one of those 'save it for a rainy day' games that is OK for a blast but nothing amazing.

The shield power is very cool though :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, well maybe as you say, worth getting for a rainy day situation.:)
 
So how does this game compare to Necrovision? Since that's another game about fighting Nazi zombies that's based on a 5 year old engine (personally I loved that game, tempted to get this)
 
Lum said:
So how does this game compare to Necrovision? Since that's another game about fighting Nazi zombies that's based on a 5 year old engine (personally I loved that game, tempted to get this)
Click to expand...

Haven't yet played Wolfenstein but I have played the demo of Necrovision and I think you'll find Wolfenstein has less of a system demand to run it at the max settings.
 
Well, yeah, it's the Doom3 engine, right? ;) Necrovision ran fine for me on max settings anyway.

I was actually on about quality of game.
 
I'm on my second play through now and it's rare for me to play through a FPS title more than once these days.
I think this is the only FPS that I would consider to be 'very good' since the amazing stuff we had in 2007 like Bioshock and STALKER.
Although Wolfenstein isn't good enough to compare to these two in particular, it certainly beats the mediocrity we've had in the form of Crysis, HL2 Ep 2, FEAR 2 and especially Far Cry 2.
 
D3lirious said:
I'm on my second play through now and it's rare for me to play through a FPS title more than once these days.
I think this is the only FPS that I would consider to be 'very good' since the amazing stuff we had in 2007 like Bioshock and STALKER.
Although Wolfenstein isn't good enough to compare to these two in particular, it certainly beats the mediocrity we've had in the form of Crysis, HL2 Ep 2, FEAR 2 and especially Far Cry 2.
Click to expand...

Mediocrity in HL2 and Crysis? Uh huh. You can have the others but those are were not mediocre thank you very much.
 
reflux said:
Mediocrity in HL2 and Crysis? Uh huh. You can have the others but those are were not mediocre thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Each to their own. That's my opinion of the games.

Strip away the graphics of Crysis and you're left with a bland, fairly lifeless game that added nothing to the genre. The first half of the game before reaching the alien ship was passable, but no Far Cry. The second half was just boring. It felt like the developers were just focussed on achieving the best visual impact they could come up with, with no regard whatsoever to how the game played. I think they just wanted to produce an advert for their engine.

HL2's 'averageness' is a bit more subtle to describe.

I think it had a lot to live up to because Half Life 1 was such an incredible game. I was really excited about the sequel, and the E3 trailer that came out had me convinced it was going to be the next coming. However, it just didn't feel all that fun when I eventually got to play it.

The weapons seemed to lack any feeling of impact - the combine soldiers just seemed to stand there like cardboard cut-outs whilst you fired at them - then they would just drop to the floor. The gunplay can make or break a shooter and, for me, HL2 just felt very wooden and didn't succeed on that level.

Then there was the whole 'scripted experience' thing. I think the scripting and set-pieces were what made the first game so ground-breaking and so Valve obviously wanted to continue in the same vein; but in trying to take it to the next level it was almost like they tried to pull off too much.
They clearly had some great ideas but it just felt like they tried to cram in one set piece after another, then polished it all up so much that the experience lacked that raw, gritty gameplay factor that has made other games play so much better.
I think at the end of the day HL2 was just a victim of over-engineering and although I certainly wouldn't class it as a bad game, I was left with no particular desire to play through it again like I have done with other, better games.
 
I played it a bit yesterday and got me thinks motion sickness thing which only ever happened to me by playing very few titles. The game feels very slow as well, especially moving character.
 
D3lirious said:
Each to their own. That's my opinion of the games.

Strip away the graphics of Crysis and you're left with a bland, fairly lifeless game that added nothing to the genre. The first half of the game before reaching the alien ship was passable, but no Far Cry. The second half was just boring. It felt like the developers were just focussed on achieving the best visual impact they could come up with, with no regard whatsoever to how the game played. I think they just wanted to produce an advert for their engine.

HL2's 'averageness' is a bit more subtle to describe.

I think it had a lot to live up to because Half Life 1 was such an incredible game. I was really excited about the sequel, and the E3 trailer that came out had me convinced it was going to be the next coming. However, it just didn't feel all that fun when I eventually got to play it.

The weapons seemed to lack any feeling of impact - the combine soldiers just seemed to stand there like cardboard cut-outs whilst you fired at them - then they would just drop to the floor. The gunplay can make or break a shooter and, for me, HL2 just felt very wooden and didn't succeed on that level.

Then there was the whole 'scripted experience' thing. I think the scripting and set-pieces were what made the first game so ground-breaking and so Valve obviously wanted to continue in the same vein; but in trying to take it to the next level it was almost like they tried to pull off too much.
They clearly had some great ideas but it just felt like they tried to cram in one set piece after another, then polished it all up so much that the experience lacked that raw, gritty gameplay factor that has made other games play so much better.
I think at the end of the day HL2 was just a victim of over-engineering and although I certainly wouldn't class it as a bad game, I was left with no particular desire to play through it again like I have done with other, better games.
Click to expand...


Think I pretty much agree with all of what You said, thats at least 2 of us who put gameplay above graphics ;)
 
apatia77 said:
I played it a bit yesterday and got me thinks motion sickness thing which only ever happened to me by playing very few titles. The game feels very slow as well, especially moving character.
Click to expand...

There is a Console command to turn off player "bob", check out official Wolfenstein forums, I did try it but You really need to be able to reduce it as without it You just sort of "Glide" along which also feels strange !, but will help Your Motion Sickness though
 
Problem with that console command is it stops the sniper scopes from working later in the game.

Also, I have an issue where the game keeps minimising randomly, usually while reading intelligence, navigating the menus/map or starting a cutscene, but it will sometimes just do it randomly for the hell of it. Really annoying. Any ideas?
 
Something in the background that only affects Wolfenstein? Hmmm.

Been doing a bit more googling and it seems that the common factor is having a multiple monitor setup. I guess it's not constraining the mouse to the game window or something stupid like that.

Also it's a fairly fresh Win7 RTM 64 install, so shouldn't have any spyware yet.
 
Yes, there You go, the opperating system is dropping the focus, I would doubt the game was ever tested with Win 7 as it's not mainstreem yet. You could try running the game in xp mode
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom