Re: Year in Review: 2004

On 18/03/2024 02:23, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The Games:
----------
* Half Life 2
     Honestly, "Half Life 2" left me underwhelmed - both in 2004
     and to this day. I know it's well renowned, as far as I was
     concerned it didn't really do anything in FPS games I hadn't
     seen before. Sure, it was done with more polished than a
     lot of other games, but it felt too tightly scripted, its
     gormless hero was dull as dishwater, and it had a lot
     of uninteresting segments. Sure, the gravity gun and
     Ravenholm were neat... but they couldn't carry the game
     by itself. IMHO.
 

I really liked it and every few years I tend to have a HL:2 + episodes marathon. Was it as good as HL:1, no but then again FPS'es had moved on quite a bit since then. Something that I think both it and HL:1 do really well is each level has a different feel to it so it's almost like you're playing a new game every hour or so. Is it scripted, hell yeh and even more so than HL:1. Personally though I can't say it bothered me.

 * Farcry
     Not just "Half Life 2" and "Doom 3", but "Farcry" also
     came out in 2004. I told you this was a year of note!
     Sure, the latter half of the game faltered after the
     introduction of the mutants, but between the solid
     first half fighting mercenaries and the awesome visuals
     and giant, detailed open-world, "Farcry" was a fun game
     and a great technology demo.
 

It was probably the first open-world game I played and I love it to bits. Excellent visuals and level design. The mutants I didn't mind but even so I kinda struggled with the last couple of hours. Shame the franchise turned to shite after that!

* Call of Duty United Offensive
     My absolute favorite game in the franchise, "United
     Offensive" is the forgotten expansion to the original
     "Call of Duty". It has some of the best maps in the entire
     series, and some of the best-paced action as well.
     Compared to this, all the rest of the games in the
     franchise were let-downs.
 

I enjoyed both this and the original. Basically take MoH and do everything better. The MP was rather fun as well before everything seem to go down the must be competitive route. Cod:2 I liked but it already felt that it was leaning more into a more cinematic style. CoD:MW I thought was ok but it was the last of the franchise i played. I did think about getting CoD:WWII but it honestly feels like the are still taking the pee with the price after all these years.

* Total War: Rome
     The third game of the Total War series, "Rome" didn't
     really do too much new, but its solid production values
     and good mechanics kept me playing. I never mastered the
     combat but enjoyed it mostly as a 4X strategy game
     (admittedly, missing the whole point of the series).
     Still, its massive battles were fun to look at.
 

Unfortunately for me the cracks in the battles (the reason I liked the game) had already become apparent in that it appears to be a tactical wargame but scratch the surface and you realise there very little depth to it, almost rock-paper-scissors, and often the best strategy is just to get all your units and rush forward. My favourite of the series though, the expansion TW:Viking Invasion probably because the campaign map is pretty small and the focus is more on the battles.

* Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines
     I loved this game's predecessor - "VTM: Redemption" - so
     I had high hopes for this one. But it's setting (modern-
     day Los Angeles) and the vast number of bugs made for a less-
     than-stellar experience. Still, it was an ambitious game
     and even though I didn't enjoy playing it, I nonetheless
     respected the game for what it was trying to do. If only
     the developers hadn't tried to race Valve to be the ones
     to release the first "Source Engine" game...
 

I very much enjoyed it but yes, fairly buggy. Wasn't it someone on this group who was a key to the fan made patch?