Caltrops - Rants





	[quote name="FABIO"][quote name="curst"] Silent Hill 2 is... uh. Well, it's creepy from start to finish, doing a great job of keeping you on edge, but it never gets terribly scary aside from maybe one or two great (and all too brief) moments. It has a good story, but not so good that I want to replay the game four times to see all the endings, yet maybe I do because I got the really depressing ending and it was gloomy enough to make me want to do "better" next time. It has some neat ideas - such as the idea that you're just an ordinary guy shoved into a horrible situation where the odds are against you, yet that translates into a game where you do a LOT of running around since fighting is not a very wise option most of the time, and running around doing nothing isn't fun no matter how pretty the fog you're running through may look. I honestly can't tell if I like or hate this game. I do know that SH1 was much more of a mindfuckingly evil experience - maybe it allowed me to acclimate too much to the SH style to be surprised by much of SH2. [/quote] I think what got me was all the enemies were pretty much the same. They're all the slow, shuffling zombie type that can just be avoided. The only thing that really differentiates them is appearance. SH1 had those flying things that could swoop out of nowhere and dissapear back into the fog, plus those dog and ape things that could run <i>just as fast as you</i>. Forays into the later dark world had me constantly running with the sounds of a snarling pack just behind me; every one in awhile a dog would appear out of the darkness ahead and take a flying, snarling leap at me. The monkey children where technically just zombies, but they were so damn <i>creepy</i>. The only thing that comes close in SH2 is when those straight jacket monsters start scurrying across the ground shrieking. At least the boss fights were better in SH2. I'm really worried about SH3 after Fussbett's review. Phantom trains aside, is the creepy atmosphere there at least? [quote]Fabio is right about GTA3, and he's wrong about GTA:VC. They're just like Dynasty Warriors 3 and 4 - I can't tell which game is better, all I know is that they're both great. Maybe I'm such a pathetic child of the 80s that GTA:VC's intangibles allow me to overlook its flaws. [/quote] hey! So much for our perfect record of agreement. I'm wondering what people would think of Vice City were they not an 80's child. I was all of 10 years old when the 80's ended, so the magic of the atmosphere is a bit lost on me. I guess people in their mid twenties and up love it for the 80's flair and those 16 and under love it for the adolescent level humor. Meanwhile I'm stuck in between. Here's a litmus test to see which game you'd prefer: did you love the Bomb da Base mission in GTA3 (cover 8 ball with the sniper rifle while he blows up the freighter) and wish the whole game was like that? If yes, you'll like Vice City more. If you hated it, stick with GTA3. [quote]And based on my poor friend's experience with it, stay the everloving fuck away from Empire Of Magic. Not only does it just LOOK like a second-rate HOMM/Age Of Wonders clone, but we haven't been able to get the motherfucker to so much as load the main menu before crashing (and this is after patching it). And when this bad boy crashes it does some pretty crazy shit - such as all the text in your Windows menus disappearing (so all you see is underscores under the hotkeys) and disabling most of the features of your mouse so all you can use is the basic left and right buttons.[/quote] Was that the game that was an exact ripoff of HOMM only you COULDNT FUCKING MOVE AROUND IN COMBAT like some sort of final fantasy game? Played the demo, was amazed by the suck.[/quote]