Quake , 4th amongst Top Ten CNet Games!

[Mindf!3ldzX]

http://www.cnet.com/4520-11136_1-6310088-1.html

I think its bs that HalfLife,StarCraft,and The Sims beat out Q1. Half Life? Yea,k...plausible. Star Craft? WTF EVER, WarCraft had this Genre locked down way before SC was even thought of. And The Sims? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

yea,okay,I wont even begin to comment on such a gay genre of gaming.What a waste of time.

Q1 > all of those games based in FPS genre.

Edited Note : When I say Gay Genre, im refering to Sim "People" , NOT Sim City,Sim ANT,or any of the prior Sim-? franchise games,Those I found quite popular and played SimCity quite a bit as a youngin.

[Canadian*Sniper]

Starcraft and Quake are my favourite competitive games. But it's also obvious that Quake is no longer viewed by the general public and Counter Strike has taken its place. Starcraft has been dieing gradually for the past 2 years (funny that's when blizzard stopped patching it). Of course Koreans would disagree with me on that.

It is apparent that Starcraft > Warcraft because of it's immense strategy capabilities and intense micro/macro skill set.

Warcraft 2 to someone who plays Starcraft is like Doom to someone who plays Quake.

And Warcraft 3 is a joke compared to Starcraft.

[scar3crow]

Half Life was a total conversion with a big budget and no replayability that sicophantically found success via Quake. It lied about the ai and the game world, and was devoid of any promised story, and lacked the polish that allows a game to more gracefully age. I consider it to be a mediocre game from a mediocre company with a large budget (yay mid 90s Microsoft stocks). Nice job CNET using an image from Half Life:Source with the year 1998 by the name, not a false impression at all.

Half-Life offered gamers an amazing story-based experience. Playing as Gordon Freeman, Half-Life felt more like taking the lead role in a well-written action movie. If not for Half-Life, one could say that we wouldn't have had other great story-based shooters, such as Medal of Honor and Call of Duty.

An amazing story based experience calls for a story you douchebag, and Doom's story with "Oh no, soldiers dont like us!" twist, isnt a story - particularly when you reveal that twist a year before the games release, and mention it every single time you can so as to make sure we know its coming as to congratulate you when it happens. Well written action movie? There is no writing here, heres what happens - PhD has a job where he pushes carts, cart contains funky cole medina and aliens come in, aliens kill people, government comes in to kill aliens and thinks its easier to kill everyone as a whole, you kill aliens and government, you go through a teleporter and kill a bigger alien. At some point you launch a rocket which isnt nearly as cool as it sounds (func_train with a particle emitter at the bottom, as seen through a 4" slit). I know I know, some fan came up with a site explaining the "detailed story", but thats all backwritten, and most of it takes place between or before the games - the storyline is taking place in the game just as little as it does in Quake. Dont even get me going on CoD or MoH - fun games for a single run through if youre willing to pay that much for a single run game, but dont credit them for story either, it just feels like a cheapened version of Ambrose's well done documentation and Spielberg's stories. Only they dont directly credit.

StarCraft had some unique touches, but it always felt like I had jack and shit when it came to unit variety, dunno... just didnt like the units. Good setting though. Dont hurt me South Korea.

Im yet to see Sims used as either a clothing toy, or sexcapades (that was one weird girlfriend). It isnt as much of a game to me as it is a graphical Yahoo chat, with better conversation. The Sims franchise, particularly SimCity should be in this place instead.


Sorry, I saw "Valve" and "best" mentioned and my KillAllThatFuckingStupidShit'o'meter went into the red.

[Alc]

Woah. I really enjoyed Half-life. Must've completed it at least 6 times straight through, probably visited each place more than twice or three times that amount just from firing it up and playing from a fun bit. Your critique about the overly-emphasised storyline is justified, although I think what people were getting at is that the world in Half-life is clearly "alive", in that it responds to an overall progression of plot, as threadbare as it may be. Quake is a pretty disconnected series of levels, albeit great levels with internal coherence.

Half-life 2 did the "show, don't tell" storyline thing a lot better, but there was too much open ground; I prefer tight spaces and claustrophobic locales in my games. As long as they're reasonably lit, id.

[Phenom]

You think HalfLife2 had to much open ground? Try playing FarCry. Nothing but a whole chain of islands to run around on!

[Alc]

My exact problem with the game. Played about an hour of it before getting tired and never going back. There's something about just walking around like that which switches me off completely.

Player movement was too sluggish and it had a boring premise, too. I'm pretty sick of most FPS games these days for similar reasons.

[Phenom]

Sounds like you didn't play it right.

I didn't go through Half Life2 looking for secrets or at all the pretty graphics. I just ran through trying to survive. I seldom stopped to check something interesting out.

Then again HalfLife2 was meant to be played like that, running through like its a non stop action movie which I honestly feel it did quite well unless you occasionally couldn't find the exact way to go.

Quake and Half Life are different games however. Quake is more of a corridor shooter and Half Life2 tries to be more of an adventure and explore FPS.. Of course comparing Half Life 2 to Quake isn't fair

P.S I don't know what you mean about sluggish, maybe your CPU/Video card wasn't up to par or not configured right when you played?

[Canadian*Sniper]

After 2 hours of playing HL2, I realised how it was meant to be played. You play for the moment. So I restarted the game and just played without looking back. I never looked around from med-kits or ammo; I just continued on. I'm thankful that I played HL2 that way because it was the best single player experience I've ever had.

Oh ya, I never saved once either. HL2 had a smart autosaving system so I never worred about it.

Here's a perfect example on how I played HL2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IvGpwe4BTY

[Alc]

P.S I don't know what you mean about sluggish, maybe your CPU/Video card wasn't up to par or not configured right when you played?

I was referring to FarCry, and it wasn't due to performance issues. It might just have been because of all the hauling ass you have to do around the place, but it just felt like it wasn't that responsive. Probably had to spend a few too many frames of animation moving the legs so they looked real, if I had to guess. Sacrificing responsiveness for realism in an FPS is not something I'm really up for.

[Phenom]

Uhm, FarCry ran fine for me once I ran it on a decent PC

It was actually very responsive so I don't know what your referring to.

P.S

Oh you mean sluggish as in gameplay? lol ok, you weren't playn that game right either then, that game was ment to be a mix of stealth, ambush, and full on action. so it had different areas that played different unlike HL2 or Quake. FarCry was good for it's strategical aspect, or, "How am I going to take out this next patch of enemies without alarming the whole building/area"

Also, Farcry offered a huge playing field but also made apparent the actual path so if you wanted to you could wander off and explore, so its your fault for getting lost! I played FarCry like I played Half Life 2 only I had to compromise for the multipule paths/opportunities for a given situation.