guess what I found at Blizzard?

Message

Q12321 · #31 Post by **Q12321** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:16 pm

Terran has always been the strongest race with me. I'm equally bad with toss and zerg, although I'm not that great in the first place.

#32 Post by **palmboy5** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:19 pm

You're beginning to annoy me, celebrate.

Q12321 · #33 Post by **Q12321** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:33 pm

#34 Post by **palmboy5** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:35 pm

2005 · #35 Post by **2005** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:37 am

Im a huge fan of the RTS genre.... aside from sports and FPS is about all I play. Because of the countless hundreds of hours Ive invested across the madden games, it puts them in my most played category. Then because of the simple fact that the common RTS game (Im not talkin story line mode, im talking a player vs a comp) takes half an hour to play it puts them in second on my most played list. FPS's fall dead last just because the average FPS can be completely finished in 10-15 hours... a meer 3 days for the casual gamer. Some RTS's, such as AOE or AOM had me playing an hour +, where as some of my online matches on WC3 can be over in as little as 10 min if the ops a noob or I can rush good. I've heard of AOE 3 and another RTS that look really good, I may have to get them.

#36 Post by **palmboy5** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:42 am

.. what about online FPS..? what do you mean 10-15 hours? stop whenever you want... and other games single player should take longer than that too anyway..

2005 · #37 Post by **2005** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:30 am

Online FPS is basically just a frag fest, and while that provides additional hours of fun... it gets mindless after a while, espically coupled with the cheaters out there. The average FPS... be it DOOM3, HALO2, UT2005, and games of that nature can be finished easily under 20 hours, with the second tours of duty being much shorter sometimes twice as fast. RTS games story lines take longer because as I stated above each round lasts half an hour and each mission is basically a restricted and more goal oriented version of a player vs computer match up. Games such as SC and WC could take as long as 40+ hours of gameplay unless you get it right the first time. Then online expands the gameplay quite a bit, even moreso then with FPS... man y more scenarios, combinations, strategies and on and on. Sports games are repetition agints a CPU that plays basically the same way every time... online is different adding again a ton more of gaming time. When I buy a game I look for something I can play on and off for at least a year.... so far Ive been getting much more out of them. WC3 is going on its 4th year for me, Diablo2 and its expansion have been there at least 4 years for me. Never got into SC but my bro played it 2 years +. Each madden game has lasted me around a year, but in that year hundreds of hours were wasted on the gridiron. Now I for some reason bought Duke Nukem for the PC... finished it in about 3 days and left my 40 some dollar investment sit on a shelf for a few years. Countless SNES and Sega titles were finished in sometimes a few hours after I got them home... I remember my mom bought me some power rangers game (I was like 8 ) and I finished the whole thing in 3 hours. A waste of 50 bucks IMO...

Alot to think about, but I agree a game shouldn't be so hard that you need to devote your lift to it... but longevity of a title is what really hits home for me. Check out www.ageofempires3.com but you cant use Firefox for some reason... it wont load correctly. I had to use IE to get it to work. I cant wait for AOE3 now and it should be within next few months. For any followers of the series, you will know how the vast improvements can make the fellow vertren cream in his pants. Looks like a game that will have years of play time. They even were as bold to say that just about nobody would be able to play the game at full quality at launch time. Look at the screenies, espacially the ones with the water and shadows on them.

Q12321 · #38 Post by **Q12321** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:16 am

I agree with you on how single player shooters get old fast, but that's why the multiplayer aspect is there. There are some games that are online that kick ass. Wolfenstein for example. RTCW is 3 years old now, and still has a huge fan base, along with a larger one for ET.

Not all FPSs are frag fests. Unreal is the main one, but there is also Assault and Onslaught, as well as bombing run for Unreal 2k4. They all take some team work, and are much more popular than the deathmatch games.

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is very team oriented. I know that a team of nothing but covert op's that aren't even doing recon for their team never won anything.

True, RTS and such live much longer for many people, but I love the FPS and racing genres, and they will always be first for me.

2005 · #39 Post by **2005** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:34 pm

I agree, and while I play both FPS and raceing games... I just went through the FPS's way to fast. Finished all of the DOOM games way to easily, and with nothing but really a death match to go online with it was the end of the road. I like alot of diff games, its just the ones I play the longest I tend to like more.

Directive · #40 Post by **Directive** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:12 pm

Well I happen to like FPS games. I want to get my hands on Riddick butchers bay but I can't seem to find it around me on CD (no, I dont have a DVD rom yet ;P).

Halflife 2 was good but the ending sucked. The graphics are very good. I only have about 2-3 hours per day to spend on a game, so they take me long enough.

Q12321 · #41 Post by **Q12321** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:56 pm

I've played HL2 at a friends for about 5 hours. We got to the part where that guy with the strange accent gives you the shotgun, then I had to head home for dinner. I don't know how it ends, but it was sweet. We had the detail cranked all the way up at 1280X1024, still had about 70FPS. It was awesome.

Guest · #42 Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:05 pm

HL2>All

#43 Post by **palmboy5** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:39 am

*sigh* HL2 > my PC

oh well ^^

2005 · #44 Post by **2005** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:04 am

Even with the video card, the 7200 rpm drives and the 1 gig ram???

#45 Post by **palmboy5** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:40 am

my CPU sucks. it was an AMD back when AMD was getting owned by intel, where the most accurate comparison by a longshot was the 3200+ (AMD's best) vs the 2.8C... the CPU sucks. and my motherboard sucks as well, cant get 200fsb. not that it woulda mattered like i saw back when i used the barton and the original 235-capable mobo.

major CPU bottleneck. my 3dmark scores arent bad for my video card. but if you use like.. aquamark. that virtually tests the entire aspect of the PC. horrible. horrible score

its PLAYABLE of course. but tahts like 1024x768 with no to moderate eyecandy. sure it has 100s in fps at some points when im staring at a fucking wall not moving. but any real action spot and you sometimes see 20fps. its not so bad in CS:S since the CPU isnt extra loaded simulating bot movements.

oh btw, what does the HD have anything to do with it? and 7200 was the standard since like what.. 1998?

hopefully gonna get a new PC this Black Friday (friday after thanksgiving)

probably not though... the sales are really cheap and all, but theyre always on mainstream products. not good enough.