The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Has to be the flamethrower. I hate it personally. Whether you're trying to use a little hand-held thrower to fry 'things' in, erm. The Thing, or whether you're frying Nazis with a 20-gallon capacity jet propelled 50ft range thrower, or even if you're toasting monkeys in TimeSplitters 2, they never seem to give that same satisfaction that comes with putting a bullet through someone, or stabbing them, or letting rip with a minigun.
Even the crossbow is more fun, as you get the satisfying click/squelch sound of firing/impact. But with a flamer it's just WHOOOOMPH and if you were lucky to hit anything it turns to charcoal, or runs about a bit then turns to charcoal. Quite often your flaming target runs straight into you and turns you to charcoal as well.
Flamethrowers just don't have that 'game dynamic', that 'pick up and play' ease of use. You have to judge trajectories, arcs, ranges, remaining napalm levels etc., so going from minigun to flamethrower during a level completely changes your approach in most games. Instead of a continuous all-out blast-fest you have to suddenly adopt a more cerebral approach to your targetting, which goes against the grain in a great many cases.
2nd worse is the grenade. Grenade launchers are fine. But hand thrown grenades are just so fidgety trying to get the range right, the blast radius down pat and the fact that you're trying to hit a moving target that's firing back at you at the time doesn't really help, because using a grenade generally exposes you more. Medal of Honour: Frontline is a good example of where grenades can actually be used properly, but try throwing them under pressure, hitting your target, and not taking damage yourself.
In the grenade's favour, which makes it rank 2nd worse, is that you know exactly how many you've got left at all times, and when they DO actually hit your intended target they tend to create some neat results, like body parts flying in lots of general directions accompanied by appropriate screams of agony from the wounded. (This is assuming that you didn't drop the first grenade at your feet by accident and lived to see the result).
All they'd need to do to make the grenade a much handier weapon is revamp the control system. Instead of the 'press X and hope all goes well' technique that most games currently have, why not just have a crosshair appear which indicates 'when you press X, THIS is where you're grenade is gonna end up'. Much simpler. Much less cerebral. Much more prospect for carnage there.
3rd worse weapon ever is the butt. Whoever thought that you could defeat enemies by bouncing on their heads with your butt should be shot. Since the dawn of history, I don't think there has ever been a recorded scenario of 'death by butt'. So just where did that idea come from? Does Max Payne do it? Does Solid Snake do it? Does Duke Nukem do it? No. So why have it? Why not substitute it with a foam hammer that you can whack things with in an effort to appease the ELSPA ratings?
Even the crossbow is more fun, as you get the satisfying click/squelch sound of firing/impact. But with a flamer it's just WHOOOOMPH and if you were lucky to hit anything it turns to charcoal, or runs about a bit then turns to charcoal. Quite often your flaming target runs straight into you and turns you to charcoal as well.
Flamethrowers just don't have that 'game dynamic', that 'pick up and play' ease of use. You have to judge trajectories, arcs, ranges, remaining napalm levels etc., so going from minigun to flamethrower during a level completely changes your approach in most games. Instead of a continuous all-out blast-fest you have to suddenly adopt a more cerebral approach to your targetting, which goes against the grain in a great many cases.
2nd worse is the grenade. Grenade launchers are fine. But hand thrown grenades are just so fidgety trying to get the range right, the blast radius down pat and the fact that you're trying to hit a moving target that's firing back at you at the time doesn't really help, because using a grenade generally exposes you more. Medal of Honour: Frontline is a good example of where grenades can actually be used properly, but try throwing them under pressure, hitting your target, and not taking damage yourself.
In the grenade's favour, which makes it rank 2nd worse, is that you know exactly how many you've got left at all times, and when they DO actually hit your intended target they tend to create some neat results, like body parts flying in lots of general directions accompanied by appropriate screams of agony from the wounded. (This is assuming that you didn't drop the first grenade at your feet by accident and lived to see the result).
All they'd need to do to make the grenade a much handier weapon is revamp the control system. Instead of the 'press X and hope all goes well' technique that most games currently have, why not just have a crosshair appear which indicates 'when you press X, THIS is where you're grenade is gonna end up'. Much simpler. Much less cerebral. Much more prospect for carnage there.
3rd worse weapon ever is the butt. Whoever thought that you could defeat enemies by bouncing on their heads with your butt should be shot. Since the dawn of history, I don't think there has ever been a recorded scenario of 'death by butt'. So just where did that idea come from? Does Max Payne do it? Does Solid Snake do it? Does Duke Nukem do it? No. So why have it? Why not substitute it with a foam hammer that you can whack things with in an effort to appease the ELSPA ratings?
Page:
OMG NOW I KNOW WHY I HATE NINTENDO!
ty Grix :)
ty Grix :)
Interestingly, with the butt thing, Mario's only other way of attacking is with fireballs...
Shadow Knight wrote:
> what about bricks :)
Throwing bricks at zobies in a Chineese hotel place is funnnnn.
> what about bricks :)
Throwing bricks at zobies in a Chineese hotel place is funnnnn.
The grenades in Max Payne are a pain to measure up accuracy with, but can be quite funny if you hit some junkie in the back of the head...
I too hate flamethrowers in games. No fun whatsoever.
Grenades are annoying too (especially in Half Life) and go largely unused by myself whilst playing, except in Medal Of Honour online and BF1942, they're great for taking out an entire room of men.
Soldier Of Fortune and Futureshock/SkyNet had the right idea, you could lob a grenade any time you wanted, without selecting them as a weapon (you must have a third arm, since most guns use both hands, maybe you're a T-1000?) They'd fly in an arc towards where you aimed, but, unlike most games, you couldn't select how far they went (by holding down the button or whatever) or select a different time or whatever. Still, better than in Half Life.
Grenades are annoying too (especially in Half Life) and go largely unused by myself whilst playing, except in Medal Of Honour online and BF1942, they're great for taking out an entire room of men.
Soldier Of Fortune and Futureshock/SkyNet had the right idea, you could lob a grenade any time you wanted, without selecting them as a weapon (you must have a third arm, since most guns use both hands, maybe you're a T-1000?) They'd fly in an arc towards where you aimed, but, unlike most games, you couldn't select how far they went (by holding down the button or whatever) or select a different time or whatever. Still, better than in Half Life.
what about bricks :)
They should be called exothermic-lasers and shoot narrow streams of super hot beams of fire. That'd be more interesting.
I disagree with your point on grenades though, they can be easily mastered once you get the general feeling of throwing them.
I disagree with your point on grenades though, they can be easily mastered once you get the general feeling of throwing them.
Flame throwers in games usually have no sizzling effects, and due to the lack of good enough particle technology, the flame looks like lots of red pixels. Everyone thought that the wolfenstein flamethrower (new sell out wolfenstein)was brilliant, but it was pathetic, it just looked mildly pretty.
Has to be the flamethrower. I hate it personally. Whether you're trying to use a little hand-held thrower to fry 'things' in, erm. The Thing, or whether you're frying Nazis with a 20-gallon capacity jet propelled 50ft range thrower, or even if you're toasting monkeys in TimeSplitters 2, they never seem to give that same satisfaction that comes with putting a bullet through someone, or stabbing them, or letting rip with a minigun.
Even the crossbow is more fun, as you get the satisfying click/squelch sound of firing/impact. But with a flamer it's just WHOOOOMPH and if you were lucky to hit anything it turns to charcoal, or runs about a bit then turns to charcoal. Quite often your flaming target runs straight into you and turns you to charcoal as well.
Flamethrowers just don't have that 'game dynamic', that 'pick up and play' ease of use. You have to judge trajectories, arcs, ranges, remaining napalm levels etc., so going from minigun to flamethrower during a level completely changes your approach in most games. Instead of a continuous all-out blast-fest you have to suddenly adopt a more cerebral approach to your targetting, which goes against the grain in a great many cases.
2nd worse is the grenade. Grenade launchers are fine. But hand thrown grenades are just so fidgety trying to get the range right, the blast radius down pat and the fact that you're trying to hit a moving target that's firing back at you at the time doesn't really help, because using a grenade generally exposes you more. Medal of Honour: Frontline is a good example of where grenades can actually be used properly, but try throwing them under pressure, hitting your target, and not taking damage yourself.
In the grenade's favour, which makes it rank 2nd worse, is that you know exactly how many you've got left at all times, and when they DO actually hit your intended target they tend to create some neat results, like body parts flying in lots of general directions accompanied by appropriate screams of agony from the wounded. (This is assuming that you didn't drop the first grenade at your feet by accident and lived to see the result).
All they'd need to do to make the grenade a much handier weapon is revamp the control system. Instead of the 'press X and hope all goes well' technique that most games currently have, why not just have a crosshair appear which indicates 'when you press X, THIS is where you're grenade is gonna end up'. Much simpler. Much less cerebral. Much more prospect for carnage there.
3rd worse weapon ever is the butt. Whoever thought that you could defeat enemies by bouncing on their heads with your butt should be shot. Since the dawn of history, I don't think there has ever been a recorded scenario of 'death by butt'. So just where did that idea come from? Does Max Payne do it? Does Solid Snake do it? Does Duke Nukem do it? No. So why have it? Why not substitute it with a foam hammer that you can whack things with in an effort to appease the ELSPA ratings?
Even the crossbow is more fun, as you get the satisfying click/squelch sound of firing/impact. But with a flamer it's just WHOOOOMPH and if you were lucky to hit anything it turns to charcoal, or runs about a bit then turns to charcoal. Quite often your flaming target runs straight into you and turns you to charcoal as well.
Flamethrowers just don't have that 'game dynamic', that 'pick up and play' ease of use. You have to judge trajectories, arcs, ranges, remaining napalm levels etc., so going from minigun to flamethrower during a level completely changes your approach in most games. Instead of a continuous all-out blast-fest you have to suddenly adopt a more cerebral approach to your targetting, which goes against the grain in a great many cases.
2nd worse is the grenade. Grenade launchers are fine. But hand thrown grenades are just so fidgety trying to get the range right, the blast radius down pat and the fact that you're trying to hit a moving target that's firing back at you at the time doesn't really help, because using a grenade generally exposes you more. Medal of Honour: Frontline is a good example of where grenades can actually be used properly, but try throwing them under pressure, hitting your target, and not taking damage yourself.
In the grenade's favour, which makes it rank 2nd worse, is that you know exactly how many you've got left at all times, and when they DO actually hit your intended target they tend to create some neat results, like body parts flying in lots of general directions accompanied by appropriate screams of agony from the wounded. (This is assuming that you didn't drop the first grenade at your feet by accident and lived to see the result).
All they'd need to do to make the grenade a much handier weapon is revamp the control system. Instead of the 'press X and hope all goes well' technique that most games currently have, why not just have a crosshair appear which indicates 'when you press X, THIS is where you're grenade is gonna end up'. Much simpler. Much less cerebral. Much more prospect for carnage there.
3rd worse weapon ever is the butt. Whoever thought that you could defeat enemies by bouncing on their heads with your butt should be shot. Since the dawn of history, I don't think there has ever been a recorded scenario of 'death by butt'. So just where did that idea come from? Does Max Payne do it? Does Solid Snake do it? Does Duke Nukem do it? No. So why have it? Why not substitute it with a foam hammer that you can whack things with in an effort to appease the ELSPA ratings?
Page: