Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

Best Game of the year:

F1 2003. (F1 racing game for PS2 by Sony)
(maybe that is, if I could play it)

Worst marketing descision of the year:

Sony's descission not to release game in North America and their exclusive deal with the FIA meaning no one else can make an F1 PS2 game either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

Medieval Total War runs great on my machine, a 2.4 GHz P4 with a mid-grade GeForce4, it just took up a lot of space that I needed for other things. I'm sure I'll put it back on when I get a new, larger SCSI hard drive.

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

My favorite game of the 2003 was definitely GalCiv. I didn't buy that many games Last year to have a dis-favorite game, although it sounded like MOO3 wins hands down from just about everybody.

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree. What if Aaron decided to hide data files inside the .exe file like other dudes do ? Than the SAME change will be regarded as a "new hard-code feature, not just changed data sets".

It is a testimony to the MM greatness and a shame on the major games developers that incrediably radical game play change can be so easily ridiculed by you ! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Umm... there was not even a trace of any form of ridicule in my post. Not sure where you got that from... Aaron has included changes to the data sets in patches. That is what patches are for. The point of an expansion is to expand the game in ways that can only be done by the developer. Of course, when you have games that are unmoddable, changes to the data sets are hidden as just being that, and so they often get marketed as expansions, but most expansions still have some hard-code changes. And, naturally, changes to the data sets are perfectly reasonable (and expected) in expansions, as long as the entirety of the expansion is not something that could be achieved through modding alone.

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

Best:
If we are including downloads than it would have to be the Star Trek Mod, I had gotten pretty bored of SE4G then I downloaded and played the most wonderful mod I have ever set hands on. For those who don’t think it should count than I would have put my vote on GT3 for the PS2. I know it is an old game but I just picked it up (for my son no less) and have not been able to get it out of my hands since then (January). I would even drive (pun intended) my wife nuts staying up till the wee hours just to complete one more series. I love that game, sigh.

Worst:
Sorry to say it but it would have to be StarFury, I have not purchased the full game because, despite a heroic attempt by Aaron neither one of use can get the game to run on my machine. It is the only program I have ever had this problem with. I have even gone so far as to send him very detailed specs on my machine, searched the forum for StarFury advice, I even downloaded and installed a test patch Aaron sent to me via email, no luck.

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

Grrrr, I just bought the February edition of PC Gamer and it had a demo of Deus Ex:Invisible War and the dang thing won't run on my system. When I launch the game I hear the tell-tale sound of a 'Ping' and I'm facing a black screen.

alt-tab shows me there is an error window but I can't switch to it. I did a ctrl-alt-del and pressed 'End Task' for Deus Ex:IW and got a quick look at the error window.

???..t support v1.1 pixel shading.

My guess is that it's trying to tell me my graphics card does not support v1.1 pixel shading. (and it's true, I have a GForce2 MX) But nowhere in the readme or system requirements does it mention that a graphic card that supports pixel shading is required.

Grrrr, and I wanted to try it real bad, grrrr.

Well, the chances that I'll buy the game now are nil. Heck If I can't run the demo, I probably won't be able to run the full game.

Oh well, C'est la vie.

Sorry for ranting, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Edit: I just went to Eidos site and found this text..

Unfortunately, unless your video card has the physical components to support Pixel Shader 1.1, Deus Ex: Invisible War simply will not work. Unless you are running an Nvidia GeForce 3 ti, 4 ti, or FX, or an ATI Radeon 8500, or Radeon 9xxx series card, this game will not run. Please remember, none of the Nvidia GeForce MX, or GeForce 2/GTS/GO video cards are supported. Neither is any ATI Radeon card other than those listed on the game package. On-board Intel (82810, 82845, 82845G) video chips are NOT supported, as they lack nearly all the required hardware for Deus Ex: Invisible War.

Duh! I think they could have put this in the readme file. It's kind of important.

Nuf said. Cheers again, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 09, 2004, 20:13: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

Best Game of 2003: Freedom Force - good design, enjoyable storylines...there's nothing better than being a superhero. For Freedom!!!

For the PS2, Smackdown: Here Comes the Pain is just too much fun. Return of the King is beautiful to watch while playing. I'm not that masterful a button-pusher yet for this game.

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">best or worse? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Best!


Worst game is just silly. If you have taste, then you just ignore most of the crud games.

PvK

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">best or worse? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Best!


Worst game is just silly. If you have taste, then you just ignore most of the crud games.

PvK </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL Thanks man, that hurt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Game of the Year for 2003/Good & Bad
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ouch. At least Civ III ws playable.

[edit: 2 != 3] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So? There are a lot of horrid games that are "playable." And besides, part of the problem with Civ 3 is the evil marketing BS they pulled with it, splitting the game into 3 parts so they could milk more money without adding ANY meaningful features in any of the expansions. Civ 3 + 2 expansions at their best almost equal Civ 2 Gold at its worst, save some really stupid things like removing the hit point/firepower system of Civ 2 that helped tremendously over Civ 1. No comparison at all to Civ 2 ToT. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fyron and I are on the same page when it comes to Civ 3. In fact I think it was how we started talking. You should do a search for Civ 3, Civ III or something like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif