Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Are great games their own downfall?

Author
Message
Asteric
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2008
Location: Geordie Land
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 14:54
So, i was sitting on the pc yesterday, thinking about all of the great games i have played over the past years, and i just realised how all of the truly epic games such as Halo, Fable, and possibly SWKOTOR was all great games, but had disappointing sequels and/or prequels. What do you think, are the most epic games their own downfall as a franchise?

SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 15:04 Edited at: 16th Feb 2009 15:08
Quote: "What do you think, are the most epic games their own downfall as a franchise?"


That seems worded oddly to me.

I don't think there is a lack of great games (that won't fail themselves). You just don't know where to look. The big commercial games on the shelves of wall-mart may not be the best place.

Look for some good indie games - that's where the action is at.
Ones like Cortex Command and Battle for Wesnoth and games at the IGF are the games you should go for. They are the most creative and some of them are really superb.

Commercial games usually get run into the ground with sequels and a greedy desire for money. Indie developers have the sense to realize that making a sequel won't work out (or they are broke) so they don't do it.

Join team [logo] - The most epic logo creation team out there! Click below...

Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 15:24
@Asteric: Fable 2 disappointing? I really thought it was better.



Asteric
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2008
Location: Geordie Land
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 15:32
It wasn't disappointing, it was a good game, but for me didn't compare to the first

Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 15:39
I know alot of people complained about the ending of Fable 2.



Asteric
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2008
Location: Geordie Land
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 15:44
well it wasn't just the ending, i dont know, it just didnt feel like the old fable, could be me though

Darth Kiwi
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 16:03
I guess it depends on whether the devs/creative directors (or whatever they'd be called) have the same vision and ability as those that worked on the first game. I'd argue that the Hitman games have improved since they've stuck to their original mantra, and that System Shock 2 was, while different to SS1, a move in a different direction (and a very effective one as well) rather than a letdown. But you are right, too many franchises seem to have succumbed to the allure of big bucks and become disappointing.

Secretary of Unknowable Knowledge for the Rock/Dink administration '08
Asteric
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2008
Location: Geordie Land
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 16:08
Take The Halo Series into account, they had the same company work on every game, whilst i still play halo 3 on xbox live, the campaign was a huge letdown for me, too short and tedious

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 16:29
I think a lot of it depends on which game you play first. If I play a game and love it, I will almost never like the sequel better. But, if I played the sequel first (i.e. Space Quest 3), I will prefer it over the earlier games. We always carry expectations that are too high for sequels, and we can seemingly never get them met.

For example my friend didn't enjoy Fallout 3 as much as 1 or 2, yet Fallout 3 was the first Fallout I had played, and I preferred it over 1 and 2 when I tried them afterward.

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 16:38
I thought Fable2 was enormous fun, but yeah, that ending was kinda like a damp squid - no major fight, may have well be a Soduko challenge at the end.

I liked all the Halo games, and always feel myself disregarding peoples opinions about them. If anything, I'd say the second Halo was the weakest, the first Halo had the best story, and the third seemed to drag the player through the story instead of letting them play. But they are still better than most other games, what they do right, they do RIGHT!. I think H2 and H3 are victims of H1's success - H1 introduced so many ideas, hell it validated consoles as proper FPS platforms and PC owners took notice for once. Before that we had things like mice and keyboards being released for PSX and DC - ridiculously bad ones at that. With Halo, it was ok to FPS with a joypad, and EA have never looked back since.

There's always a new generation though, little-uns who's first taste of Halo might be the third installment - I wonder how much opinions would be affected if the order in which you played Halo was reversed. I must admit that the first console FPS I fell in love with was Unreal Tournament on the DreamCast, that was incredible, probably played 3 player co-op mode, more than any Halo game.


Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 17:10
I actually prefer Halo 2 over Halo 1--- I guess I'm one of the few

Sid Sinister
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 17:26
Quote: "I think a lot of it depends on which game you play first. If I play a game and love it, I will almost never like the sequel better. But, if I played the sequel first (i.e. Space Quest 3), I will prefer it over the earlier games. We always carry expectations that are too high for sequels, and we can seemingly never get them met."


Interesting... maybe this is why Star Wars came out 4,5,6,1,2,3? Seems like a logical explanation to me!

"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" - Isaac Newton
-Computer Animation Major @Baker.edu-
Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 17:31
Halo 2 and 3 are FAR superior to Halo 1 in my opinion.

MISoft Studios - Silver-Dawn Gorilda is lost!

Vickie
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 17:40
I read an article in PC Gamer some time ago about how developers are making game so high tech and life-like that the player are losing interest. It had something to do with the separation of real life and fantasy. The article talked about how player’s toon looks similar to life-like manikins with dead eyes. The guy in the article said it’s just becoming creepy and he is not alone in his opinion. He went on to quote the drop in sales of these high tech games and the increase in the more playful fantasy type games. It was a good article; it really made me think about the direction I want to take my games. I mean have you ever really looked into the science of why WOW is so popular? I love this stuff, great post Asteric

Always~
Vickie

Dragon Knight
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jan 2007
Location: Newcastle
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 17:45
Two sets of games that seem to keep up their standard,

Westwoods C&C games, yea yea i know E.A. took over for em but i still love those games.

Nova Logic's Delta force games each one was better and better, heck i couldn't believe how GREAT DF:Black hawk down:Team Sabre was in campaign mode. AWESOME!

bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 18:07
Quote: "The guy in the article said it’s just becoming creepy and he is not alone in his opinion. "


But most games don't have unmoving eyes. Look at Tomb Raider, her eyes glance at different stuff if you look at her face. L4D, same, (they used white, unmoving eyes for the zombies, which did make them just that much creepier). GTA4 is a good example, cuz you're looking at a lot of faces in that game, the eyes are definately spot on there. When they're begging for your life, their eyes are looking around for an escape...

"I acctually quite like this site. And noone will know because this is a secret..." - Anonymous
Shhdb.com
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 18:15
Quote: "I think a lot of it depends on which game you play first. If I play a game and love it, I will almost never like the sequel better. But, if I played the sequel first (i.e. Space Quest 3), I will prefer it over the earlier games. We always carry expectations that are too high for sequels, and we can seemingly never get them met.

For example my friend didn't enjoy Fallout 3 as much as 1 or 2, yet Fallout 3 was the first Fallout I had played, and I preferred it over 1 and 2 when I tried them afterward."


This is probably a fair point, though I've not played the first 2 fallouts, I look at them on the shelf and ask myself 'Am I attracted to this game?' It's interesting because Final Fantasy VII I think was the best and it was the first Final Fantasy I played. Also, it seems the same for Morrowind vs Oblivion, I prefered Oblivion.

Though I wonder, Half Life 2, better or worse than the original? Personally, I'd say better.

Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 18:30 Edited at: 16th Feb 2009 18:35
<slightly off topic>
Quote: "maybe this is why Star Wars came out 4,5,6,1,2,3? Seems like a logical explanation to me!"

Star Wars was released like that because the technology necessary to do justice to 1, 2, & 3 didn't exist when 4, 5, & 6 came out.
I mean, episode 1 was great, but really, it was mainly George Lucas saying "HEY! Look at my CGI! ITS AWESOME!"
I mean, think about Yoda from episode 4; a puppet, and compare him to Yoda from episode 3; pure almighty CG awesomeness.
There was too much in episode 1 that couldn't be done well enough with puppets and masks and the technology that existed at that time.
Think about episode 2: hundreds of millions of Clone troopers running around a battle field. It would've been financial suicide to pay that many extras to appear in the movie.
</slightly off topic>
<on topic>
As for games' sequels being let downs compared to the originals: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. With LoZ, its been essentially the exact same plot:
1. Find 3 magic stones
2. Get the Master Sword
3. Seven more dungeons, usually done to awaken sages
4. Defeat Gannondorf/Gannon. (Except in the case of Majora's Mask and Phantom Hourglass.)
5. ???
6. Profit!
But many, including myself, love the LoZ series! If you find a formula that works, run with it! The trick is, knowing when to stop running. Many dislike the LoZ series because its the same thing over and over again, just slightly re-done.
While I agree that Nintendo has milked this one plot too long, I also agree that it IS a good plot, in and of itself. The big problem is, they essentially trapped themselves in a corner; because in order to make a truly original storyline, they'd have to break away from what has already been established as true for the LoZ universe; they'd have to break cannon!
Lets look at FF12:
I absolutely loved the game, couldn't find much of anything bad to say about it. The sequel, FF12: Revenant wings (For DS) was good in its own right, but it simply could NOT compare to the original FF12.
How could it? The power of the PS2 VS the power of the DS alone is almost enough to ensure that Revenant wings couldn't be as good as the original FF12.
You really can't take an epic tale with awesome graphics and sweet music, and compress it onto the DS. It simply wont be the same.
In contrast, they did almost the exact same thing with LoZ: Wind Waker, when they made Phantom Hourglass; they compress one of the best games in the series from a console to a hand held.
But in this case, Phantom Hourglass didn't suffer at all. One of the main reasons being, WW already had cartoon-y graphics to begin with. So, when it made the move to DS, its graphics quality barely suffered at all. Plus, the excellent use of the stylus controls in WW made it an awesome game, both as a sequel and by itself.
It really depends entirely upon the game that is being sequel-ed, and HOW it is being sequel-ed.Games like FF12 really lose their awesome-ness when taken to a smaller platform, but others don't lose anything.
I think just about any game can be made into a sequel, its just a matter of the developer knowing whether it SHOULD be.

If the good lord had intended us to go outside or have a social life, he wouldn't have invented the internet.
www.threeswordsproductions.com
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 18:32
Quote: "But most games don't have unmoving eyes."


I think he was referring to the "look" of the eyes, rather than how they look around. There's a term for eyes in games that is on the tip of my tongue but I can't recall. Modern games are just starting to figure out how to make characters look less dead through their eyes.

NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 21:10
It's definitely true that if a game releases a sequel without completely reinventing itself it can usually only go downhill. Fallout 2 was far inferior to Fallout, but Fallout 3 was just fantastic. Driver changed between 1 and 2, but not much afterwards. I think the issue is stagnation. If sequels are very different it makes you drop your expectations that it will be better.

What good is knowledge without a degree of understanding?
Pus In Boots
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2005
Location: S.M.I.L.E. industries
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 22:22
Quote: "Are great games their own downfall?"


Nope.

...and on the seventh day, Pus rested.
RalphY
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2004
Location: 404 (UK)
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 22:52
I don't know - I can think of too many exceptions. I preferred Max Payne 2 to MP1, Silent Hill 2 in my opinion is far better than SH1, Half Life 2, GoW2, RB2, Morrowind (not the first ES game), GH2, Monkey Island 3, Fallout 3, GTA4, Civ4, BG2, Myst 3, Thief 2, FFVIII, RS2, DK2... OK getting bored now.

KOTOR 2 was inferior to KOTOR 1 in part because the publisher never gave the developer time to finish the game. I think that highlights the real reason why some sequels never live up to the original, because once they have a proven success they tend to rely on that where they couldn't the first time round.


Oh boy! Sleep! That's when I'm a Viking! | Super Nintendo Chalmers!
AlexI
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 22:59
Call of duty 5 was worse than 4. It was just copy of 4 with a few different maps and guns, nothing new really

Pus In Boots
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2005
Location: S.M.I.L.E. industries
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 23:33
Quote: "Call of duty 5 was worse than 4. It was just copy of 4 with a few different maps and guns, nothing new really"


Thankyou! I'm sick of all my mates hailing that game as their own personal God. CoD4 knocks the 100% cottons off world at war!

...and on the seventh day, Pus rested.
Tom J
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2005
Location: Essex, England
Posted: 16th Feb 2009 23:33
This reminds me of a little debating thread I started up in GDT - although it is pretty dead now (see sig link). There was a similar theme to start with there about whether games in series are better with big changes between games, or are better sticking to the same themes / gameplay elements.

Quote: "It was just copy of 4 with a few different maps and guns, nothing new really"


The latest COD is a sequel to COD4 in the same respect that Vice City/San Andreas is a sequel to GTA III, as far as I can see. Although it was a game in its own right, it was also like an "expansion" on the same engine, with fewer big changes.

GDT DEBATES - GO AND CONTRIBUTE [href]http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=142248&b=19[href]
tha_rami
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 01:08
Quote: "I think a lot of it depends on which game you play first. If I play a game and love it, I will almost never like the sequel better. But, if I played the sequel first (i.e. Space Quest 3), I will prefer it over the earlier games. We always carry expectations that are too high for sequels, and we can seemingly never get them met."

I just realized that that is absolutely true in most cases. If you play a game that you find worthy to buy a prequel or sequel, you'll most likely be disappointed to find some things have changed. Mmm.

I'm not certain, the Uncanny Valley does hardly apply to videogames to me. I personally think that the more realistic games are becoming, the more immersive they can] be, although, naturally, gameplay is most important to immersion.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 01:22 Edited at: 17th Feb 2009 01:23
I find that the cartoony people are kinda freaky. Like that singer in Guitar Hero 3. Dude's got a huge mouth :S



"I acctually quite like this site. And noone will know because this is a secret..." - Anonymous
Shhdb.com
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 01:33
It's his chin that's the most out of proportion.

What good is knowledge without a degree of understanding?
Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 01:47
lol, that singe dude always scared the crap outta me.

If the good lord had intended us to go outside or have a social life, he wouldn't have invented the internet.
www.threeswordsproductions.com
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 01:50
What terrified me most was his amazing ability to pull off Metallica and then switch straight to the Kaiser Chiefs. What a vocal range! Wow!

What good is knowledge without a degree of understanding?
Phaelax
DBPro Master
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 01:54
There was an article on slashdot a few months ago discussing that great demos was the downfall of the full products.

[url="http://dbcc.zimnox.com"][/url]
Drew Cameron
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 02:15 Edited at: 17th Feb 2009 02:15
Quote: "I mean, think about Yoda from episode 4; a puppet, and compare him to Yoda from episode 3; pure almighty CG awesomeness."


You could not be MORE wrong on this matter, lol.

P.S: regarding topic. Of course sequels can be inferior to the original. Happens in books, too.

Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 02:32 Edited at: 17th Feb 2009 02:36
Quote: "You could not be MORE wrong on this matter, lol."

O...K? What is wrong about saying that episode 3 Yoda is better done than episode 4 Yoda?

EDIT:
Episode 4 Yoda:


Episode 3 Yoda:


...pretty clear that episode 3 looks better than episode 4.

If the good lord had intended us to go outside or have a social life, he wouldn't have invented the internet.
www.threeswordsproductions.com
Drew Cameron
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 02:45
Yes, I absolutely am saying that Episode 4 Yoda looks better.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 02:57 Edited at: 17th Feb 2009 02:59
Quote: "Call of duty 5 was worse than 4."


COD:WAW is not COD 5. COD 5 is still coming out. I was just playing WAW today and several times I was taken aback by how amazing it looks.

Quote: "pretty clear that episode 3 looks better than episode 4."


Are you serious? Most people would probably agree that the old puppet/animatronic special effects in the original Star Wars destroys the fake looking CG characters in the modern ones. Why do you think the fans were so angry when George Lucas replaced some of the original models from Episodes 4-6 with CG?

Puppets have a certain "weight" quality to them that CG just can't deliver, or hasn't yet. There are many modern movies that still use puppets and makeup, even though it's more expensive and more tedious.... because it looks better. Watch Pan's Labyrinth.

Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 03:17 Edited at: 17th Feb 2009 03:19
Quote: "Yes, I absolutely am saying that Episode 4 Yoda looks better."

ok, WOW.
Well, that's your opinion, and your entitled to it. But I still think you're out of your mind. The puppet looks SO obviously, completely fake, its ridiculous. The CG one looks infinitely better, IMO. But, whatever... different people, different views.
Quote: "Are you serious?"

Yes, I am.
Quote: "Most people would probably agree that the old puppet/animatronic special effects in the original Star Wars destroys the fake looking CG characters in the modern ones."

No one I know/have heard of would. And how can you even say that the CG looks fake? It looks much, MUCH more realistic than the puppets EVER did, that's for sure.
Quote: "Why do you think the fans were so angry when George Lucas replaced some of the original models from Episodes 4-6 with CG?"

Umm... I don't think fans were angry with that. Everyone I've heard loved it, and thought the CGI was a huge improvement, and I agree.
Quote: "Puppets have a certain "weight" quality to them that CG just can't deliver, or hasn't yet."

Yes, but what's the point of the "weight", if the puppets movements and appearance are so ridiculously artificial, it takes away from the scene?
Quote: "There are many modern movies that still use puppets and makeup, even though it's more expensive and more tedious.... "

There are also many modern movies that have high school students spontaneously breaking into song and dance, but NOT getting admitted to mental hospitals... that doesn't mean its good.
Quote: "because it looks better."

That's a matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree.
Quote: "Watch Pan's Labyrinth."

I might if I can find the time. (Which is highly unlikely...)

If the good lord had intended us to go outside or have a social life, he wouldn't have invented the internet.
www.threeswordsproductions.com
Drew Cameron
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 03:24 Edited at: 17th Feb 2009 03:28
Question 2: Did the CGI stormtroopers look better too?

Pratical FTW!!!!

EDIT I actually cant be bothered talking about this

Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 03:28
Quote: "Did the CGI stormtroopers look better too?"

Yeah.

Look, lets not hijack this thread with a Star Wars CG argument. Lets drop it and keep to the original topic.
Agree to disagree.

If the good lord had intended us to go outside or have a social life, he wouldn't have invented the internet.
www.threeswordsproductions.com
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 03:52
Quote: "COD:WAW is not COD 5. COD 5 is still coming out"

Which one is COD 5? On Wikipedia I can only find COD:WAW and COD:MW2.

Asteric
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2008
Location: Geordie Land
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 03:57
How about banjo kazooie? is the new game a letdown or a work of genius?

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 06:00
@omega - Because of your insane past, I can't be bothered to argue with you of all people on this forum.

Quote: "Which one is COD 5? On Wikipedia I can only find COD:WAW and COD:MW2."


What I meant was it is still arriving, but it hasn't been announced yet.

Robert F
User Banned
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 06:12
Quote: "Thankyou! I'm sick of all my mates hailing that game as their own personal God. CoD4 knocks the 100% cottons off world at war!"


Your crazy out of your mind... Maybe in Single Player, but nobody cares about that...


Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 06:19
Quote: "@omega - Because of your insane past, I can't be bothered to argue with you of all people on this forum."


I just said, in my last post:
Quote: "Look, lets not hijack this thread with a Star Wars CG argument. Lets drop it and keep to the original topic.
Agree to disagree."


If the good lord had intended us to go outside or have a social life, he wouldn't have invented the internet.
www.threeswordsproductions.com
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 08:21
Quote: "Your crazy out of your mind... Maybe in Single Player, but nobody cares about that..."


I do...I quite like playing single player games and doing something more in depth, multiplayer is just something on the side for me.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 08:40
Quote: "I do...I quite like playing single player games and doing something more in depth, multiplayer is just something on the side for me."


I feel exactly the same way. I almost never play multiplayer games

AlexI
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 10:00 Edited at: 17th Feb 2009 10:10
Quote: "COD:WAW is not COD 5"


Well it might not be called that but its the 5th game in the COD series so I will call it 5

Edit: Oh I didn't see there was 2 pages

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 10:04
Not to be pedantic, but it isn't the 5th COD game either It'd be like saying GTA 4 was the 4th GTA game, it sounds silly I know, but that's the way they seem do it.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 16:38
Quote: "Well it might not be called that but its the 5th game in the COD series so I will call it 5"


No it's not What about COD: Finest Hour, COD: Big Red One, and COD: United Offensive?

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 17:48
Quote: "Maybe in Single Player, but nobody cares about that..."


Clearly the developers thought otherwise - they spent hundreds of hours to create an SP campaign. Why would they do that if 'nobody cares'?


09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Asteric
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Jan 2008
Location: Geordie Land
Posted: 17th Feb 2009 17:59
To be honest, i think single player is equally important as multiplayer, if both of these are good, you have a grea game

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-06-07 15:43:03
Your offset time is: 2025-06-07 15:43:03