The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This is the thread for general chat.
Tell us how your day was, say hello or just introduce yourself if you're new to the site.
Post edited by Hmmm... on 29/12/2018 at 18:19.
Tell us how your day was, say hello or just introduce yourself if you're new to the site.
Post edited by Hmmm... on 29/12/2018 at 18:19.
Page:
Games, Games, Games...
If only there was a Games Chat forum! :¬P
I appreciate I'm massively out numbered here!
If only there was a Games Chat forum! :¬P
I appreciate I'm massively out numbered here!
[s]Hmmm...[/s] 
pb wrote:
But BF3 is great online. It's not a case of simply getting in to your first game, though. You need to build up your weapon loadout by staying with certain weapons to upgrade them and then work as a team to get the job done. Far more tactical than Modern Warfare. BF3 does require learning of skills though rather than instant gratification.
Sorry pete, but I'm going to have to join pb's team on this one. He's perfectly correct in what he says. Weapons do upgrade every so often and also have their own unlocks, which happen every 10 kills. But as pb has pointed out, sticking with one weapon is the way to go as with 'additional kit'. Did at first think that some of the maps were 'sniper/camper heavens' but it depends entirely on who is playing. Last night, one game of Conquest lasted nearly two hours ... constant action ... very exhausting but excellent:¬) The co-op missions are extremely entertaining and run along side the single player campaign. All in all, extremely good value for money .... 3 playable games.
But BF3 is great online. It's not a case of simply getting in to your first game, though. You need to build up your weapon loadout by staying with certain weapons to upgrade them and then work as a team to get the job done. Far more tactical than Modern Warfare. BF3 does require learning of skills though rather than instant gratification.
Sorry pete, but I'm going to have to join pb's team on this one. He's perfectly correct in what he says. Weapons do upgrade every so often and also have their own unlocks, which happen every 10 kills. But as pb has pointed out, sticking with one weapon is the way to go as with 'additional kit'. Did at first think that some of the maps were 'sniper/camper heavens' but it depends entirely on who is playing. Last night, one game of Conquest lasted nearly two hours ... constant action ... very exhausting but excellent:¬) The co-op missions are extremely entertaining and run along side the single player campaign. All in all, extremely good value for money .... 3 playable games.
Davidm4 wrote:
@GhostKiller
I would have raged at him. Although, I think Zelda has a lot of room to improve on, I am more about single player than multiplayer. A COD campaign has nothing on a Zelda adventure, even if that isn't a fair comparison.
Too many COD fans so I was outnumbered haha. The way I look at it, Skyward Sword looks like it has been rethought and reworked to make a truly unique adventure. I think it's been in development for three or four years. Modern Warfare 3 on the other hand (while I'm sure is still good fun) doesn't look entirely different from two or one. I understand people want that but how much longer can Activision do this before even these people stand up and say "We want something more!"
That's why I'd prefer Skyward Sword or Rayman Origins. They look unique and will offer me something unpredictable. COD won't surprise me as much.
But that's just me :)
@GhostKiller
I would have raged at him. Although, I think Zelda has a lot of room to improve on, I am more about single player than multiplayer. A COD campaign has nothing on a Zelda adventure, even if that isn't a fair comparison.
Too many COD fans so I was outnumbered haha. The way I look at it, Skyward Sword looks like it has been rethought and reworked to make a truly unique adventure. I think it's been in development for three or four years. Modern Warfare 3 on the other hand (while I'm sure is still good fun) doesn't look entirely different from two or one. I understand people want that but how much longer can Activision do this before even these people stand up and say "We want something more!"
That's why I'd prefer Skyward Sword or Rayman Origins. They look unique and will offer me something unpredictable. COD won't surprise me as much.
But that's just me :)
I have both BF3 and MW3 sat at home (bought by flatmate) and haven't bothered playing either yet. I'm just not that interested.
I'm much more interested in Skyrim and AC:Revelations*.
*Still need to finish Brotherhood first...
I'm much more interested in Skyrim and AC:Revelations*.
*Still need to finish Brotherhood first...
I really did give the BF3 multiplayer beta a fair try pb, as did another 3 of my mates. We decided it just wasn't for us and have all bought MW3. The main thing I really didn't like about it was that everyone on it was just far too serious, didn't have the heart to tell them it wasn't actually real. You could actually picture them in their bedrooms playing it in full camo gear. I can see why some people like it, but it's definitely something of an acquired taste IMO.
I am of course comparing it to COD games where you get repeatedly stabbed, shot and blown up by annoying potty mouthed 12 year old's who have no problem whatsoever pointing out that you ''suck'' and how much of a ''homo'' you are!
Do you think it might be time for me a try a new genre? :)
I am of course comparing it to COD games where you get repeatedly stabbed, shot and blown up by annoying potty mouthed 12 year old's who have no problem whatsoever pointing out that you ''suck'' and how much of a ''homo'' you are!
Do you think it might be time for me a try a new genre? :)
pete_21 wrote:
Dragonlance wrote:
[i]Not an unsurprising observation really ... MW2 good, CoDBOps mediocre ... MW3 'the same' :¬)
I still really like Black Ops DL. It had good maps (most of which were not at all camper friendly), fairly evenly matched guns (with no unfair crap like bloody heartbeat sensors!!!) & wager matches with your mates were always a laugh.
MW3 seems good enough but I hoped Sledgehammer might have thrown in a few new things to liven up the series a bit. Instead last night I found myself being continuously killed by campers and level 30,000 dudes with ridiculously upgraded weapons. I don't think MW3 is pants, I was just hoping for something a little bit more than a rehash of the same old thing.
The main compliant I heard from players on MW3 last night was that it was ''so unrealistic''. They were obviously comparing it to previous COD games which clearly brought home the true horrors of war in a way you may have been forgiven for thinking was simply not possible in a video game.
MW3 is alright though, it's certainly more fun than BF3 IMO. But so far it just can't escape the ''been there, done that'' feeling for me.[/i]
But BF3 is great online. It's not a case of simply getting in to your first game, though. You need to build up your weapon loadout by staying with certain weapons to upgrade them and then work as a team to get the job done. Far more tactical than Modern Warfare. BF3 does require learning of skills though rather than instant gratification.
Dragonlance wrote:
[i]Not an unsurprising observation really ... MW2 good, CoDBOps mediocre ... MW3 'the same' :¬)
I still really like Black Ops DL. It had good maps (most of which were not at all camper friendly), fairly evenly matched guns (with no unfair crap like bloody heartbeat sensors!!!) & wager matches with your mates were always a laugh.
MW3 seems good enough but I hoped Sledgehammer might have thrown in a few new things to liven up the series a bit. Instead last night I found myself being continuously killed by campers and level 30,000 dudes with ridiculously upgraded weapons. I don't think MW3 is pants, I was just hoping for something a little bit more than a rehash of the same old thing.
The main compliant I heard from players on MW3 last night was that it was ''so unrealistic''. They were obviously comparing it to previous COD games which clearly brought home the true horrors of war in a way you may have been forgiven for thinking was simply not possible in a video game.
MW3 is alright though, it's certainly more fun than BF3 IMO. But so far it just can't escape the ''been there, done that'' feeling for me.[/i]
But BF3 is great online. It's not a case of simply getting in to your first game, though. You need to build up your weapon loadout by staying with certain weapons to upgrade them and then work as a team to get the job done. Far more tactical than Modern Warfare. BF3 does require learning of skills though rather than instant gratification.
Dragonlance wrote:
Not an unsurprising observation really ... MW2 good, CoDBOps mediocre ... MW3 'the same' :¬)
I still really like Black Ops DL. It had good maps (most of which were not at all camper friendly), fairly evenly matched guns (with no unfair crap like bloody heartbeat sensors!!!) & wager matches with your mates were always a laugh.
MW3 seems good enough but I hoped Sledgehammer might have thrown in a few new things to liven up the series a bit. Instead last night I found myself being continuously killed by campers and level 30,000 dudes with ridiculously upgraded weapons. I don't think MW3 is pants, I was just hoping for something a little bit more than a rehash of the same old thing.
The main compliant I heard from players on MW3 last night was that it was ''so unrealistic''. They were obviously comparing it to previous COD games which clearly brought home the true horrors of war in a way you may have been forgiven for thinking was simply not possible in a video game.
MW3 is alright though, it's certainly more fun than BF3 IMO. But so far it just can't escape the ''been there, done that'' feeling for me.
Not an unsurprising observation really ... MW2 good, CoDBOps mediocre ... MW3 'the same' :¬)
I still really like Black Ops DL. It had good maps (most of which were not at all camper friendly), fairly evenly matched guns (with no unfair crap like bloody heartbeat sensors!!!) & wager matches with your mates were always a laugh.
MW3 seems good enough but I hoped Sledgehammer might have thrown in a few new things to liven up the series a bit. Instead last night I found myself being continuously killed by campers and level 30,000 dudes with ridiculously upgraded weapons. I don't think MW3 is pants, I was just hoping for something a little bit more than a rehash of the same old thing.
The main compliant I heard from players on MW3 last night was that it was ''so unrealistic''. They were obviously comparing it to previous COD games which clearly brought home the true horrors of war in a way you may have been forgiven for thinking was simply not possible in a video game.
MW3 is alright though, it's certainly more fun than BF3 IMO. But so far it just can't escape the ''been there, done that'' feeling for me.
I do indeed, terrible/awesome 80's music is my forté. I'd suggest some Terence Trent D'arby
Morning.
Still doing the 80s/early 90s music for the bus ride in. Currently T'Pau, remember them?
Still doing the 80s/early 90s music for the bus ride in. Currently T'Pau, remember them?
Not an unsurprising observation really ... MW2 good, CoDBOps mediocre ... MW3 'the same' :¬)
Page: