Write a Brief Dissenting Opinion About a Popular Title Thread.

[zomg]

[ QUOTE ]
u may as well say "the time i spent on assassin's creed i could have spent learning to become an assassin"

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP..

Also, I never liked God of War.. played through two levels, didnt find pressing square over and over again in different directions entertaining. Hated the "amazing combos" just pressing circle and random combos in slow motion to do some arbitrary move

[2218]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Civ 4 was very disappointing because it substituted complexity for depth, and tacked on a ruinously bad combat system that was vastly worse than games that came out more than a decade earlier.

The thing is, parts of it were wonderful.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly did you hate so much about the combat that was different from Civ III? The only differences I remember are that you can see the strengths when attacking in Civ IV, the promotions, and the lack of heroes.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
u may as well say "the time i spent on assassin's creed i could have spent learning to become an assassin"

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP..

Also, I never liked God of War.. played through two levels, didnt find pressing square over and over again in different directions entertaining. Hated the "amazing combos" just pressing circle and random combos in slow motion to do some arbitrary move

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go. I finished the whole game and still felt that way. Two-thirds of it I finished on Normal difficulty, then finally in one annoying fight that I had to re-try a bunch of times I let the game switch me down to Easy.

People say how "you're not getting the full experience" if you don't use the massive combos...but you can do perfectly well in the game without ever using them (at least on Normal through 2/3rds of the game). It's not my fault that I can play it the boring way without using combos, it's the game's fault.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Civ 4 was very disappointing because it substituted complexity for depth, and tacked on a ruinously bad combat system that was vastly worse than games that came out more than a decade earlier.

The thing is, parts of it were wonderful.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly did you hate so much about the combat that was different from Civ III? The only differences I remember are that you can see the strengths when attacking in Civ IV, the promotions, and the lack of heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't play Civ 3, only Civ 2 and Civ 4.

Basically, the combat system is extraordinarily shallow. You have ancient horsemen bringing down helicopters etc., as well. It really feels like some student put it together as an afterthought and somehow managed to sneak it into a potentially very good game. Going over from regular gameplay to the battle should be a highlight of a game, either dominating a game or able to compete with the rest of it. Going into the rudimentary combat model of Civ 4 was like stepping back into the 80's, and for me was a gigantic disappointment that made the game almost unplayable. A game building up to intervals of that was something I dreaded.

[goofyballer]

[ QUOTE ]
You have ancient horsemen bringing down helicopters etc., as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "fortified phalanx in a fort on a mountain taking down a battleship" from Civ 1 is a reason why the team tried to address the combat system in subsequent games. It's pretty much been the same system throughout the lifetime of the games but tweaked to address situations like this.

But who says that some old-school archers that have basically perfected their technique can't put some well-placed arrows into a helicopter that's already pretty busted up? WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT, HUH!??!!? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

What do you think would be better? Bonuses for units against other units from previous eras? That wouldn't be unreasonable but it would kinda create a "rich get richer" situation where more technologically advanced civs have an even easier time crushing their opponents than they already do by virtue of having better units.

[Dire]

Realism be damned! In a video game if I get chopped in the head by a claymore, I want it to take at least a few chops before I die. I have a silk beanie of defense on after all!

Same thing for civ. Making combat realistic seems like it'd unbalance the game quite a bit since there'd be an obvious 'best way' to play, just military tech rush.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: Oblivion combat.

I love RPGs, especially JRPGs with turn based or semi-interactive combat. But I also think Oblivion's combat really needs to be overhauled. It's not 'deep'/strategic enough for turn based fans and it's not interactive enough for action based fans. It just kind of leaves both sorts of players feeling disappointed imo (does anybody really like Oblivion's combat?)


[/ QUOTE ]
I have only played about an hour and a half, and I can say I don't like the combat at all. You pretty much sum up why right here.

[Jack of Arcades]

Oblivion sucks because of the levelling system.

[2218]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Civ 4 was very disappointing because it substituted complexity for depth, and tacked on a ruinously bad combat system that was vastly worse than games that came out more than a decade earlier.

The thing is, parts of it were wonderful.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly did you hate so much about the combat that was different from Civ III? The only differences I remember are that you can see the strengths when attacking in Civ IV, the promotions, and the lack of heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't play Civ 3, only Civ 2 and Civ 4.

Basically, the combat system is extraordinarily shallow. You have ancient horsemen bringing down helicopters etc., as well. It really feels like some student put it together as an afterthought and somehow managed to sneak it into a potentially very good game. Going over from regular gameplay to the battle should be a highlight of a game, either dominating a game or able to compete with the rest of it. Going into the rudimentary combat model of Civ 4 was like stepping back into the 80's, and for me was a gigantic disappointment that made the game almost unplayable. A game building up to intervals of that was something I dreaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe my friend was playing Civ II when he spent all his time and effort building a nuclear submarine, only to have it be taken down by an Inuit canoe. He unintalled the game immediately.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Oblivion sucks because of the levelling system.

[/ QUOTE ]just played again, it sucks because of the combat. Its atrocious.