Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
weirdly enough, perhaps in terms of impact or sales. i might agree. while many might disagree (rightly) on the lasting effect of motion controls. at the TIME it was revolutionary, and there is reason the wii sold so well. there was nothing quite like it, at the time. video games that appeal to both gamers (such as mario, zelda, metroid) and "normies" (wii fit, wii sports, other party games). i actually am not sure any console (or pc) has come close since to replicating this. the appeal of both gamers and people who do not play much games.
And what are your reasons for all these games why they supposedly are better than Half-Life? You can leave out Medal of Honor, which you could not have played in 1998, because it came out almost exactly one year later in 1999.
Many are posting just their opinion and not really hot takes if you haven't noticed it
I played all games besides the multiplayer and the first 2 Zelda games >.>
Why are those better than HL?
Well, I could make a long, detailed list but instead I'll just ask you one question:
In Half-Life, can enemies throw grenades back at you?
That's just one example of how advanced MoH was for its time. It was released in 1999, so one year after Half-Life but whatever, I don't think that makes a huge difference.
So MoH, a game that came out 1 year after 1998, which you specifically claimed, had already better games than HL1, is a better game than HL1 simply because enemies could throw back grenades. Ignoring anything, that HL pioneered. Especially the fact, that HL1 was praised back then for its AI, since Grunts could actually flank you and dynamically react to the player.
How about you stop shifting the goal posts and list in detail, why games like Quake II, Turok and GoldenEye are better than HL. The fact that you didin',t makes me a bit suspicious...
i suppose so. i guess i just dont agree then, i think maybe the nintendo ds zeldas, or the spinoff games like hyrule warriors and such, are worse than botw and totk. i am agreeing with you btw. in terms of mainline zelda games, botw and totk are some of my least favourite. i dont actually think they are bad games (i have hundreds of hours in these games) but its more, they are perhaps just not for me. i prefer zelda more structured, more linear. linearity has a bad reputation today in the video game world, but sometimes it is better. a more refined, well designed level rather than something more procedural generated or open world, this is something i prefer.
Nah, it's not just because of that. I told you that's just one example of superior game design, if you're going to ignore what I write guess debating with you is a waste of time. Have a nice day.
Okay, so you conceded, that you can't actually explain, why those games are supposed to be better. So you lost here.
"I could explain it, but I won't" = "I can't explain it"
Oh I can, I just have better things to do with my time. Whatever I say you'll think Half-Life is the best fps.
But you do not think it is a waste of time to reiterate multiple times, that you won't waste your time, defending your position, when challenged. I call BS. You simply can't explain, why Quake II is better than HL. Period.
Hey I can see having an honest discussion of GoldenEye might be on the same level or even better than HL (I disagree, but at least somebody could actually make a point here), but claiming that Quake II is better than HL without giving ANY reasons, is just not plausible. You just listed a couple of well-received games at that time, when challenged, without actually reflecting if your claim might hold up to scruitiny.
And to make one thing perfectly clear: I played all if the games that have been listed here, besides of Blood. But Blood is essentially Duke Nukem/Shadow Warrior in a different setting. And I played those.
Right, there are many other reasons for me. Unfortunately these games are popular, so they will probably continue like that.
well, i am thinking you are right, but i hope that at some point zelda will return to a more structured experience. the links awakening remake and echoes of wisdom are more appealing to me personally than botw and totk. at the very least, i hope they continue to make games like the latter
I want a melancholic Zelda game again. Something like OoT or MM