Quake3World

I haven't had the time to work through the practicing offline yet. it's on my list of things to do, but since I'm only playing games in 20 or 30 minute blocks when I have the time I've not even sat down to try getting the details worked out yet.

Home projects + the weather finally getting nice enough to work outside == not a hell of a lot of time.

tnf wrote:I haven't had the time to work through the practicing offline yet. it's on my list of things to do, but since I'm only playing games in 20 or 30 minute blocks when I have the time I've not even sat down to try getting the details worked out yet.

I recommend you try either the "Objective" mode (in which you play a map once...good for 10-20 minutes of playtime) or Stopwatch (you complete a single map against the clock, then swap teams and try to beat the first team’s time...good for 20-30 minutes) if your gaming time is limited.

Both modes also allow you to become more familiar with a specific map and try new strategies.

bork[e] wrote:I'm looking forward to what it's going to do to current sales of consoles... other than that, meh.

you're looking forward to that? lol not much happening with you these days?

Remember all the hype for Assassin's Creed and what a shit pile that was?

I'm actually disappointed in the GTA games since GTA I. GTA III and all the various renditions of it left me a bit "meh".

The original GTA owned because of the people who designed it, real nice guys and active in the user community, now it's Whore*'s baby project for milking people for money.

What Deji said. Except without nearly as much hostility towards GTA3.

GTA3 and Vice City were rock solid, I loved the story mode, I loved the sandbox freedom shit. Hell when I couldn't be fucked to do anything in particular, I'd sometimes just turn on some good music and DRIVE for the sake of driving. And I loved it.

By San Andreas I was pretty jaded, it didn't tickle my prostrate.

So I'm really eager to see what they can pull off with a new version. Having said that, I've not read up on it at all, not seen screenshots/movies etc. Intentionally. Just to see if they can surprise me. Get the FEEL back in the game.

Multiplayer sounds like fun though!

They're sticking to one city in IV, right? Not 3 or whatever like there were in SA?

Those of you that liked Vice City but didnt' like SA - aside from obvious storyline differences, they felt like the same game to me - just that SA was so much bigger and seemed to have a lot, lot more to do and explore. So what happened from one to the other that made you start disliking it? I liked them both - the 80s feel of Vice City was good for nostalgia, and the huge world in San Andreas was fun for base jumping, flying, racing and everything else.

Dunno, for me personally I think I just got tired of the same old stuff again. Aside from the larger scope of the gameworld (and useless stuff like haircuts and excercising I mean WTF) there wasn't much more than the old games. And it was a new and unfamiliar world. A new and unfamiliar world that would have taken time to learn and love. Just never clicked for me.

No idea about the one city thing.

Big Kahuna Burger wrote:multiplayer info- http://kotaku.com/376220/hands-on-with- ... y-of-chaos

Holy fuck I hope it comes out for PC.

Deji wrote:I'm actually disappointed in the GTA games since GTA I. GTA III and all the various renditions of it left me a bit "meh".

The original GTA owned because of the people who designed it, real nice guys and active in the user community, now it's Whore*'s baby project for milking people for money.

that's weird that thats the only reason you state. would a book own if the author was a real nice guy?

tnf wrote:They're sticking to one city in IV, right? Not 3 or whatever like there were in SA?

Those of you that liked Vice City but didnt' like SA - aside from obvious storyline differences, they felt like the same game to me - just that SA was so much bigger and seemed to have a lot, lot more to do and explore. So what happened from one to the other that made you start disliking it? I liked them both - the 80s feel of Vice City was good for nostalgia, and the huge world in San Andreas was fun for base jumping, flying, racing and everything else.

quality vs quantity. San Andreas had so much to offer nothing of it was really fleshed out. also, it's "huge" world wasnt all that big, it was acres and acres of nothingness. which didnt help most missions i might add, shit where you had to follow or escort someone, fall off your quadbike and be stuck in the middle of fucking nowhere.

and the flying was one of the nine rings of hell. way to overcomplicate things

I don't care about it till they confirm a PC release.

meh, mainstream pap

GONNAFISTYA wrote:GTA 4 will get all the press and a million fan boys will defend it to the death and talk about how great it is to anyone within view. Of course might suck, but that won't change the fact that it'll somehow live up to massive expectations.

Yeah, it's definitely no Total Overdose.


BTW, I had to google "mexican third person shooter" to remember the name.

I'm not shitting on GTA 4. I'm just sayin that the GTA franchise is so huge in popularity it will be successful in sales and hype no matter what. Same thing with WoW or HL.

IMHO Halo 3 wasn't worth its asking price but "the buzz" was that it's the greatest thing since birth control.

I'm inclined to agree with cock nose tbh.

halo 3 turned out to be shit imo. that's why i threw it away.

halo 3 is that bad really? i was wondering why no one really talks much about it.

Overrated.

Overrated since before a number followed its name.

red vs blue is the only good thing to come out of halo.

Halo 3 was shit, I know this because I played it and because all my students think its the greatest thing since sliced bread so it really did hit its target audience...an audience who, by and large based on my observation, loves shitty stuff.

Dr_Watson wrote:red vs blue is the only good thing to come out of halo.

more info http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3167410&p=4