Thrik

Well, that's the funny thing about Worms. It's one of those rare games that most people agree is pretty much perfect as it is, and I too would find it hard to imagine anything beyond a technical overhaul I'd want from the series. Obviously Team 17 thought going 3D was the next step. They were wrong. ; I loved Armageddon but the same old look and sounds definitely got old, not to mention its many technical quirks (and ultimately complete breakage) as it's aged. Even if this doesn't have everything Armageddon had (which was a LOT due to community patches), it's a step in the right direction — a new 2D Worms on the PC!

No, this is a completely new engine that has support for things like zooming and the effects are GPU-powered and much prettier (water, explosions, smoke, etc). The numbering scheme is confusing, but these XBLA/PC Worms games are nothing to do with the original PC ones. It's essentially a new Worms series that was called 'Worms' and 'Worms 2' on XBLA, the latter of which is coming to PC but renamed to 'Worms Reloaded' due to the obvious confusion that could occur. If you watch this old video of what has evolved into Worms Reloaded it should be fairly apparent how it differs if you played the PC versions much: Personally I like what I see, being one of the biggest former Worms addicts ever. Zooming in particular I approve of.

Er, what's the problem with it being an extended PC-optimised version of the console Armageddon? That game looks awesome. Team 17 did actually say right when the console ones came out a PC version was in development, so I guess this is just a rebranding. I've been looking forward to it since then whatever the case. I thought even the original console Worms was pretty awesome to be honest. It's just impossible to do the same kind of ninja tricks without a keyboard, which is why I didn't play it too much.

Haha. Later revisions starting with the G5 changed that weird texture to hardened plastic stuff, which grips better and doesn't get slippy/sweaty. The later versions look about the same but they do make them a bit better.

No chance! That would compromise some of the hilarious chain reactions you sometimes get. Back when we used to play regular Mojo games there'd often be someone with like one worm with one health, and despite our best efforts to keep him in the game there'd invariably be some insane fluke of physics that'd result in him dying, such as a worm self-destructing after death knocking a mine down a cliff into another worm which gets blown over and takes him into the water with him. :tup: As I see it the earlier 2D worms were essentially perfect, simply needing a technical overhaul.

I have. The feet got arseholed.

I have to say, this whole DPI thing has really gone over my head too. I've always ran on my Logitechs on their default 600 dpi or whatever because anything higher is just too sensitive for me, yet I've never had a problem genuinely kicking ass in just about any game I've played. Anything over like 1000 dpi seems way overkill. My SideWinder goes up to 4000 dpi or something mental and it's like one centimetre flick takes me across my whole 1080p screen.

Logitech really do make extremely good mice. I currently use a Microsoft SideWinder due to Logitech not doing a comparable wireless mouse at time of purchase, and while it's pretty good it just doesn't have that same quality feel as all my Logitech mice. Things flex a little where they shouldn't and it just generally doesn't feel like it'd survive a good hit. There's definitely something about Logitech's materials and production process, which I guess is why they've pretty much been using the same shape as their primary gaming model since I got an MX510 years ago (latest iteration is the G500 I think). My favourite part about the G5 (v2) and G9 I currently own is the materials used for the top. It's made of some weird material that seems to never get sweaty or even warm, no matter how much you grip it. It feels a bit like matte paint when rubbed.

Well, I guess that's where our contrast is then. If you didn't enjoy Fahrenheit then you're probably not seeing the same enjoyable aspects I saw in the Heavy Rain demo. The reason I can't sit here and lambast David Cage is because I actually enjoy his work despite its flaws. I know quite a lot of people who similarly enjoyed Fahrenheit though, and I suspect anyone who could tolerate Fahrenheit's silliness will enjoy Heavy Rain considerably. I think the QTE-style gameplay is something you either hate or don't mind, with people used to games like Metal Gear Solid probably being particularly tolerant of them. And it's not like the game is constant QTEs as the demo seemed to have equal measure of non-QTE play just like Fahrenheit did, instead going for adventure game-esque exploration/investigation type gameplay. As I say though, it's something different. As arrogantly as Cage put it, I would prefer something like this than another shooter — it's nice to have something different. I'd put it in a similar category to games like The Path, which aren't necessarily games but can delivery interesting experiences.

It's not like Cage made Heavy Rain by himself, though. I doubt Quantic Dream is full of talentless assholes. Like I said earlier I actually really enjoyed Fahrenheit apart from the ridiculous story during the last third, and I did succumb to playing the Heavy Rain demo and enjoyed that too — seems like a casual adventure game that has a chance in hell of appealing to the masses. I personally don't get all the contempt for him and his skills. The story writing may not be the finest in the world in Heavy Rain's case (not that I know), but it's not exactly bad is it? Seemed pretty decent from what little was seen in the demo, anyway. I dunno, just seems like a lot of pre-emptive hate for this game and I can't work out why as all they seem to be trying to do is do something different that may or may not work out. But as I say, I don't pay any attention to industry figure comments and just take the game at face value.

I can't completely disagree with what you're saying Kroms, but I think you're letting your opinion of Cage influence your opinion of the game a bit too much. It's like actors like Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe are often dicks in real life, but I still admire their acting tremendously. You seem to be criticising a few too many things based on emotion and speculation. I think you'd have a less stressful time if you just stopped following what Cage says like I did with pretty much every significant industry figure years ago. They always get overly passionate and slightly arrogant when talking about their work — it's the nature of the business that every auteur wants their work to revolutionise the industry. Same goes for films — director interviews can be truly cringe-worthy. This is probably why I absolutely loved games like Fable, because I was completely oblivious to all the outlandish stuff Molyneux had been saying.

Yeah I agree. Sony has always been a bit like this though, sinking huge amounts of money into 'creative risks'. It's why I've always maintained a healthy level of respect for them despite the criticism they've (justifiably) attracted during this generation.

To be fair, despite Fahrenheit committing many of the same gameplay atrocities if it hadn't gone completely mental with the plot I'd most likely have given it a similarly high score.

Heh, interesting. I'm going to skip the demo though, because Fahrenheit's was awesome but not particularly representative of how the entire game would play. I'm just taking a leap of faith on this. I do really like how the 24-esque split-screen effect is used again, though. When it was used in Fahrenheit it genuinely added a lot of dramatic tension — the only other game I can think of that's used it reasonably well is Metal Gear Solid 4, but it wasn't used much.

Haha. See, this is another reason why the Conquest game mode is superior. Because it's not really based on the concept of there being strict attackers and defenders, if you camp somewhere you'll just end up alone once that capture point has been taken. And if you do choose to camp, you'll be defending it. But for fast, aggressive gameplay Rush certainly seems to fit the bill. I can see people loyally sticking to both.

I think Conquest will go some way towards encouraging better teamplay and really highlighting the vehicle/infantry relationship, not just because of the nature of the mode but also because of its requirement for bigger, more open mas. I've not played BC2 that much but I'm not too impressed by the Rush game mode and will likely not play it that much, just like I rarely played the Titan game mode in BF2142. For me the proper Battlefield experience is literally reliant on Conquest.

I think in Battlefield's particular case a bit of streamlining was warranted. To be fair Battlefield 2142 did the class reduction before BC2, and it worked really well in that game — the unlock complexity more than made up for it, effectively turning each class into multiple classes. The squad system was really good in BF2 and BF2142 so I'm not sure how I feel about the changes. It tended to work really well having squad commanders as the members would kind of just go wherever he said, so even if the squad commander was a bit shit at least they were properly coordinated. I'd imagine the new system requires more discipline from each member to be effective. I've never been that keen on the commander role so I'm kind of pleased to see that gone. I experienced far too many moronic/shit/useless commanders in Battlefield 2 and 2142, which to be honest was worse than having no commander at all. It also made stealth gameplay a bit less interesting when you kept being 'spotted' by the more observant commanders.

Oh, and I'm way more looking forward to the traditional Conquest game mode which is going to be in the final game. Much bigger maps combined with TF2-style area capture.

Battlefield has changed quite a bit over time, although it's been very iterative so if you just jump into any they'll all seem quite similar. For example Battlefield 2 put a lot more emphasis on squad/overall command and how they interact with each other, then Battlefield 2142 went ahead and massively expanded the unlock system. Both obviously refined things — I much prefer the feeling of vehicles and gunplay in 2142 over 2 over 1942. Main things that I can see BC2 has done are removing the dedicated commander role, going mental with the unlocks, refining a lot of the mechanics, and of course introducing the destructible environments.

That cover is really nice. I hope that is genuinely the European version. Bit weird how the US seems to get these random shitty covers and retitles. I mean, what the fuck are 'Indigo Prophecy' and 'Circle of Blood'?

Haha, yeah I got a bit obsessive about the notoriety thing. The only time I got notorious was when the game forced it on you, otherwise I was pulling sheets down whenever they came up. However then I realised if a guard sees you doing that it adds some more, so I ended up just going for bribes once I had a billion florans.

I don't think I agree with your gameplay criticism, though. Maybe it's a difference in platform or controls or something, but when I played it on the 360 I thought the controls were extremely fluid and was constantly making personal notes about how impressive it is I'm able to seamlessly thunder across this complicated environment with hardly any slip-ups. With that said, my first few hours were pretty frustrating as knowing how to combine the three seperate levels of movement (walking, running, free running) takes some skill to ensure you don't constantly go off ledges and shit. But once you get it — which may be very difficult with a keyboard — it works almost perfectly IMO. Initially I just tried to constantly free run and this proved disastrous. And I absolutely loved the 'Prince of Persia' sections which require particularly considered and precise movements. The only gameplay criticism I'd really have is that I could've used more of those sequences, and perhaps some with more involvement of enemies to take out via stealth.

Haha Moelman, yes the story is definitely a bit far-fetched. I do like it though, in that how exactly certain things happen is questionable but the actual events themselves are extremely compelling to experience. I found it pretty interesting seeing roughly what the scenario presented in the game would be like, as I've never really seen it depicted before. I think where you are now I didn't rate it that much beyond the original Modern Warfare miffy, but once I'd finished the game I definitely thought as an overall piece it's superior. Not only is the storytelling better IMO with more genuinely exciting set pieces, but the gameplay is more refined — albeit shorter — and didn't infuriate me as much with ridiculously unbalanced bottlenecks.

Yeah, I heard about the porting issues so I opted for the 360 version — technologically it was quality in every way. I finished it last week and the only games I'd put above it in 2009 are Assassin's Creed 2 and Uncharted 2. Don't expect the scripting up the arse to stop as it's like that all the way through, but then that's kind of what you expect from Call of Duty. However this does result in some pretty spectacular set pieces later on and the environments are mixed up so constantly it's probably the finest game of that type since Half-Life 2.

I loved Opposing Force when it came out. Totally defined what an expansion pack should be. Never played the others.