IGN awards of 2004

[DrSpike]

I'd say so too.

[Solver]

Well, technically, it would be a different release. Now, out of curiosity, that could probably even be brought to court for lawyers to argue about what constitutes a different game.

But now that you've mentioned Atari, I'm glad that the buggers have nothing to do with Civ4 .

[Sava]

Asher. CS: Source is the same as upgrading Half-Life to Half-Life 2... it's a completely new physics engine and everything. It is a new game!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
Asher. CS: Source is the same as upgrading Half-Life to Half-Life 2... it's a completely new physics engine and everything. It is a new game!

No dice.

CS: Source is the same as playing Half-Life: Source (which is also available). Half-Life: Source should not be running for any awards as a 2004 game, either.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Sava
Source is just a pretty face lift. No need to change the gameplay when the gameplay is the greatest multiplayer ever conceived. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And at least now, I can have fun shooting all the little items and watch them fly.

From my short experience with CSS:

AK seems to function completely different from how i remember.

Difference in movement speed seems to have been greatly toned down or virtually non existant.

and etc that i dont remember.

Were these all changes in old CS?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Solver
According to me, both CS and UT2k4 can be nice as long as there is real teamplay and no need to be a good player in order to enjoy yourself - which means, decent public servers. Going into a public DM server and getting creamed 1-18 isn't fun, it's frustrating. Which is my problem with DM usually - it's hard to find servers that are acceptable for casual players and are not full of people who play every day and are therefore superior.

yeah well, unfortunately in competitive VS games, one of the biggest and most important requirement to play a good VS game is for you to be competent enough.

No one wants to play chess with an idiot. Same thing with any Competitive VS game. Nothing agst people that doesnt know how to play, but it just isnt playing the game at all if ur playing with n00bs.

So its up to n00bs to learn how to play competently if they want to jump in and enjoy along with those "superior" players.


EDIT: Oh and frustration? and getting cream? Heh. Try playing Marvel VS Capcom 2. Not only did I get interested in this game late wen everyone was a 9999 combo hitting wizards while i was a n00b, but fighting games in general has a real high learning curve and very unfriendly toward n00b attiude in the community.... During the first few weeks, I was getting owned by even the local 12 yr old arcade scrubs... You start with 3 characters in that game. It took me weeks to finally not lose with all 3 opponent's character still alive... Now THAT was frustrating...

but isnt getting frustrated a part of the fun in competitive VSgame play? You're constantly trying to **** the opponent while hes trying to resist and **** you instead.... If you think frustration isnt fun, then while you're having fun, youre opponent probably isnt... and vice versa.

[Solver]

but isnt getting frustrated a part of the fun in competitive VSgame play? You're constantly trying to **** the opponent while hes trying to resist and **** you instead.... If you think frustration isnt fun, then while you're having fun, youre opponent probably isnt... and vice versa.

Not if I want some quick fun, then I want fun. I don't perhaps want to be competitive at all!

[DrSpike]

Ah but the satisfaction when you beat someone that *really* cares about it is just so delicious.

[Solver]

Ahh yes, that is true .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Asher

No dice.

CS: Source is the same as playing Half-Life: Source (which is also available). Half-Life: Source should not be running for any awards as a 2004 game, either.

well, you are sort of right... only that playing Half-Life Source is the same as upgrading to Half-Life 2... it's the same game engine... just a different story. Source is the HL2 engine.

But by your logic... all sequels should not be considered for awards. Because the gameplay is the same.

But the good thing is that innovation or new gameplay isn't a factor in GOTY awards.

CS: Source is new... it's not the same CS I've been playing for years. If you can't understand that, you have a problem, iMO.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
But by your logic... all sequels should not be considered for awards. Because the gameplay is the same.

No, if the gameplay is different, it's a sequel.

If the gameplay is completely identical, it's an expansion pack or patch or mod...

[Solver]

By that logic, Doom3 doesn't really qualify as a sequel. The gameplay was absolutely taken from the original Doom, even though the engine, graphical and such enhancements are tremendeous. However, the gameplay in Doom3 is essentially the same as in Doom1/2, except for a few very rare occasions where you solve short puzzles.

[Asher]

Not true, even fundamental things like the flashlight are new in DOOM3.

[Solver]

I'm not going to disagree because of how much I love Doom3 .

[Zero]

Originally posted by Solver
However, the gameplay in Doom3 is essentially the same as in Doom1/2, except for a few very rare occasions where you solve short puzzles.

Doom3 doesnt play in anyway similar to doom2. Doom3 is more for single player story-fantasy-game immersion factor. Older doom relied more on map designs rather than actual story plots or the scare factor.

Not if I want some quick fun, then I want fun. I don't perhaps want to be competitive at all!

Cant have fun in a competitive game without being competitive. How boring would a non competitive chess or poker be?