Where do usually get your reviews anyway? Lets plays?Reactor wrote:(this is why I never read gaming articles in newspaper, and rely more on actual reviews made by real players)
Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
- insightguy
- Posts: 1730
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:54 pm
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
- zrrion the insect
- Posts: 2411
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:58 pm
- Location: Time Station 1: Moon of Glendale
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
I'd love to see Netstorm: Islands at War get another go. It was a super tight game when it released and I still play it from time to time if I can get people to play over LAN.
I think it is owned by Activision, so maybe they'll let blizzard remake/reboot it (Highly doubtful, but Blizard's aesthetic sensibilities and history with successful online franchises would make them well suited to the task)
I think it is owned by Activision, so maybe they'll let blizzard remake/reboot it (Highly doubtful, but Blizard's aesthetic sensibilities and history with successful online franchises would make them well suited to the task)
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
Mostly yes, "Let's play" videos - with an able video creator of course. A five minute video with a background music or endless rant with constant cussing is hardly acceptable. Usually when I desire to find out more about a certain game, I watch playthroughs of a few levels, with or without audio commentary, and this makes it very easy to decide whether or not my tastebuds find that game yummy enough so I'd want a bigger bite out of it. Downloading a demo is also a viable option, though I would rather not install something on my hard drive which would serve no real purpose.
This is also an excellent way to find out more about indie or unofficial games (Doom wads, too) which'd never make it inside a gaming magazine. When Rachael mused about how our community product should be presented to the public, invictus or Trance suggested Youtube video playthroughs
This is also an excellent way to find out more about indie or unofficial games (Doom wads, too) which'd never make it inside a gaming magazine. When Rachael mused about how our community product should be presented to the public, invictus or Trance suggested Youtube video playthroughs
- SouthernLion
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:45 pm
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
I don't think Duke Nukem Forever deserves a "second chance." I think it was an absolutely FANTASTIC game the first time through.
No, it isn't as good as 3D. And yes, you can see some flaws in it, such as the 2 weapon (later patched) and historically late punch lines against Master Chief.
But you shot aliens in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun, had boobs in your face, and then drank some beer. That is literally what Duke Nukem is. What the hell game did you think you were playing, Call of Duty? Those three things are the sign of a good day, if you ask me. lol
No, it isn't as good as 3D. And yes, you can see some flaws in it, such as the 2 weapon (later patched) and historically late punch lines against Master Chief.
But you shot aliens in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun, had boobs in your face, and then drank some beer. That is literally what Duke Nukem is. What the hell game did you think you were playing, Call of Duty? Those three things are the sign of a good day, if you ask me. lol
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
I miss the tons of Easter Eggs and pop-cult references hidden in a Duke Nukem game then it'd be perfect! I mean...nowadays, there's the Internet. Literally thousands of famous events, uproars and memes happened, the game really should have include them here and there. This was one of Duke Nukem 3D's biggest charms - the egg hunt. THX-1138 reference, Star Wars reference, Caddyshack reference, Doom and Quake references, O.J. Simpson reference, and so on. Absolutely loved it!
But otherwise, you're right. Duke Nukem Forever isn't a horrendously bad game, it's just took too long to develop, and during that time, other franchises have conquered the gaming market, and new game heroes emerged to kick ass and chew bubble-gum.
But otherwise, you're right. Duke Nukem Forever isn't a horrendously bad game, it's just took too long to develop, and during that time, other franchises have conquered the gaming market, and new game heroes emerged to kick ass and chew bubble-gum.
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
I'd be more willing to forgive Duke Nukem Forever's flaws if Randy Pitchford had never been anywhere near the game and therefore given it the benefit of the doubt.
I have trouble recommending any course of action that rewards anything that Gearbox does anymore.
Anyway, even if Thief: Deadly Shadows has its flaws gameplaywise, I can recommend it to Thief and non-Thief fans just for the Shalebridge Cradle level. <shiver>
I have trouble recommending any course of action that rewards anything that Gearbox does anymore.
Anyway, even if Thief: Deadly Shadows has its flaws gameplaywise, I can recommend it to Thief and non-Thief fans just for the Shalebridge Cradle level. <shiver>
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
The entire Klonoa series needs to be rebought by people. Only as of now is the series getting even more attention than it did back in it's hayday.
- 0mrcynic0
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:59 pm
- Location: The corner of "screw off" and "none of your business."
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
I think Realms of the Haunting deserves another look. A cult classic that was overlooked due to Quake coming out at that time as well as the decline of 2D FPS games in that period.
- Dr_Cosmobyte
- Posts: 2755
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:07 pm
- Location: Killing spiders.
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
Since the thread was bumped up, i want to write Blood II: The Chosen on the list.
I am not defending it for its story or difficulty or even bugs. But everybody knows how many games were turned down due to the immense success of Quake 2. I still find it a nice game to play and i think it should deserve another go.
I am not defending it for its story or difficulty or even bugs. But everybody knows how many games were turned down due to the immense success of Quake 2. I still find it a nice game to play and i think it should deserve another go.
- insightguy
- Posts: 1730
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:54 pm
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
One of the games where I genuinely think where it would have been better done today then back then, too ambitious for it's time IMO.0mrcynic0 wrote:Realms of the Haunting
It would get a second chance by me if it wasn't so HITSCAN UP THE ASS. Seriously, I got sniped 3 floors away by some mook, cheats are pretty much a must.GAA1992 wrote:Blood II: The Chosen
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
Realms was technically inferior of the time, probably 'cos it must have taken years to develop due to the ambitious scope of it all plus it was very expansive apparently. Majority of the props were actually designed and made for real. Books, papers, objects, the lot. Even a sequel was planned but due to poor sales, it never happened.0mrcynic0 wrote:I think Realms of the Haunting deserves another look. A cult classic that was overlooked due to Quake coming out at that time as well as the decline of 2D FPS games in that period.
I would love to see a remake or hell, even a re-master which fixes a lot of the issues would bring a smile to my face. Because, sadly, it DOES have a lot of issues which are more noticable today.
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
This. This. This this this! I'd love to play that game again, I enjoyed it so much.wildweasel wrote:Wolfenstein from 2009. The Raven Software one. It got a poor reception because it was misunderstood; it went out with little marketing (beyond a trailer stitched into the PS3/360 release of Wolfenstein 3D) up against Activision's own Modern Warfare 2, with a poorly tacked-on multiplayer aspect that never had the chance to improve since its development team was fired when the game launched. And when id Software came to be owned by Bethesda, Wolfenstein '09 was among the few games that flat-out vanished from store fronts, seemingly never to return. I don't know why it hasn't come back. I just want people to be able to buy it again, and experience it with a clear context.
Also, I'd really to see the Silent Hill games as well as the early Resident Evil games (the original 1-3) to be released on GOG/Steam, since each of those games already had a PC port (except for SH1, I think).
Unfortunately, we might never see Silent Hill games getting such release, because Konami is Konami and Konami is the worst. As for Resident Evil, who knows what Capcom is up to.
- Dr_Cosmobyte
- Posts: 2755
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:07 pm
- Location: Killing spiders.
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
There's also the problem of the supposed "losing" of SH2&3 source code, which resulted in the great HD collection for PS3.
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
No more room in hell, It's a coop zombie shooter based on some old zombie movies like night of the living dead.
I really like these movies and I love what they did with the weapons, they're all very statisfying to use.
I had a pretty good time just hopping into servers that give you infinite ammo and shooting zombies with the winchester for the rest of the day while listening myuu or some 80's music.
I really like these movies and I love what they did with the weapons, they're all very statisfying to use.
I had a pretty good time just hopping into servers that give you infinite ammo and shooting zombies with the winchester for the rest of the day while listening myuu or some 80's music.
Re: Games that deserve a "2nd chance"
I'll give you a game who doesn't really deserve a second chance, but compassion.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial on Atari 2600.
Yup, the infamous "Worst Game of All Time" has quite a sad story, one that only make you think about the actual state of the VG industry. Please be warned that this story come from an interview of the Lead Dev of the game Howard Scott Warshaw in Pix'n'Love #21.
So, June 1982, the Spielberg movie destroy everything and it doesn't take long before Warner CEO - who had bought Atari a few month beforehand - want a game. The EP is bought for $25...millions... Atari CEO, Ray Kassar, and Atari Head Dev Howard S. Warshaw, are both put on the project, at the dawn of July 1982, and they must code, draw, market and ship 5 millions copies of the game for Christmas of the same year. The time estimation of Kassar was 6 month to do all this, at best.
Steve Ross, Warner CEO, gave them six weeks.
Here the challenge: 6 week to code the game so it can be shipped in september. And since there where a bunch of negociations and meetings, they lost nearly a week in useless banter. At least, they had to meet Spielberg himself. On the 8KB cartridge, Howard wrote 6.5KB of code, the last 1.5K where written by one of his best friend, Jerome Domurat, graphic designer at Atari. If you ever wondered why the gameplay of E.T. was so weird, Howard had to spend two whole day making it, with inspiration of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (game he also made), and no playtest from external contractors. Sleep deprived, our guys managed to get the game in the insane time limit imposed by Steve Ross. Everyone in the higher spheres where confident. The movie had been a worldwide success, atari was the leader in family entertainment, and even if it was awfully bad, they still sold 7 millions copies of Pac-Man. What could go wrong?
You know what happened next. Near El Paso, New-Mexico, dozen of trucks came at night, burying unsold copies of E.T., consoles, and other games. And at the dawn of 1983, E.T. became the symbol of an industry placing profit before fun, and the first game to die in the '83 Crash.
So today, plaese, do not look at E.T. as a bad game, look at him as someone who didn't had a chance from the start. Whenever you look at it, think of all the workers in the industry stuck in near permanent crunch-time, awful managers, entitled "gamers" who want always more. Because no game exist without the people of skill and talents behind them.
Still, they managed to sell 1.5 millions copies of this crap! At, like, 60$ in 1982, that like buying your game 155$ today!
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial on Atari 2600.
Yup, the infamous "Worst Game of All Time" has quite a sad story, one that only make you think about the actual state of the VG industry. Please be warned that this story come from an interview of the Lead Dev of the game Howard Scott Warshaw in Pix'n'Love #21.
So, June 1982, the Spielberg movie destroy everything and it doesn't take long before Warner CEO - who had bought Atari a few month beforehand - want a game. The EP is bought for $25...millions... Atari CEO, Ray Kassar, and Atari Head Dev Howard S. Warshaw, are both put on the project, at the dawn of July 1982, and they must code, draw, market and ship 5 millions copies of the game for Christmas of the same year. The time estimation of Kassar was 6 month to do all this, at best.
Steve Ross, Warner CEO, gave them six weeks.
Here the challenge: 6 week to code the game so it can be shipped in september. And since there where a bunch of negociations and meetings, they lost nearly a week in useless banter. At least, they had to meet Spielberg himself. On the 8KB cartridge, Howard wrote 6.5KB of code, the last 1.5K where written by one of his best friend, Jerome Domurat, graphic designer at Atari. If you ever wondered why the gameplay of E.T. was so weird, Howard had to spend two whole day making it, with inspiration of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (game he also made), and no playtest from external contractors. Sleep deprived, our guys managed to get the game in the insane time limit imposed by Steve Ross. Everyone in the higher spheres where confident. The movie had been a worldwide success, atari was the leader in family entertainment, and even if it was awfully bad, they still sold 7 millions copies of Pac-Man. What could go wrong?
You know what happened next. Near El Paso, New-Mexico, dozen of trucks came at night, burying unsold copies of E.T., consoles, and other games. And at the dawn of 1983, E.T. became the symbol of an industry placing profit before fun, and the first game to die in the '83 Crash.
So today, plaese, do not look at E.T. as a bad game, look at him as someone who didn't had a chance from the start. Whenever you look at it, think of all the workers in the industry stuck in near permanent crunch-time, awful managers, entitled "gamers" who want always more. Because no game exist without the people of skill and talents behind them.
Still, they managed to sell 1.5 millions copies of this crap! At, like, 60$ in 1982, that like buying your game 155$ today!