It isn't clunky, but it takes a long time to master.Lightsaber combat is clunky as fuck.
... Are you referring to JK1? Because while in Outcast it is moderately complex and requires some skill, in 1 it is super basic and definitely clunky as fuck.It isn't clunky, but it takes a long time to master.Lightsaber combat is clunky as fuck.
No, I was talking about JK2/JA.... Are you referring to JK1? Because while in Outcast it is moderately complex and requires some skill, in 1 it is super basic and definitely clunky as fuck.It isn't clunky, but it takes a long time to master.Lightsaber combat is clunky as fuck.
No, I was talking about JK2/JA.... Are you referring to JK1? Because while in Outcast it is moderately complex and requires some skill, in 1 it is super basic and definitely clunky as fuck.It isn't clunky, but it takes a long time to master.Lightsaber combat is clunky as fuck.
Yes the level design is one of my primary concerns. It's not terrible so far but certainly not classic 90s stuff.
Since when was a game's requiring you to play it a bad thing?I don't know, I disagree about the level design. Don't get me wrong, it's often good, but it's very rarely great.
The best levels do definitely have some non-linearity, but they often end up empty and leave you scratching your head as a result. Take mission 6, for example; it's the first level in the game that offers you some freedom in how to approach your goal (getting into the tower), but it also is basically a giant empty courtyard filled with copy-pasted mooks, and there are certain things you have to do to accomplish your goal.
Half-Life and Sin and Unreal, games where the main interest is all this worthless, peripheral, superficial stuff like story and interactivity and atmosphere rather than muh classic Dewm level design, so unless you think those games are also underwhelming, what's wrong with Dark Forces 2?
If Half-life was all walking sim nobody would have batted an eye. Its legacy is owed to its ulterior elements as much as it is its gameplay, just faggots such as yourself (and there's many of your kind) like to pretend otherwise for whatever deluded reason. I think it's in shame and self-loathing that they're playing video games at the crux of the matter. It's very common to see people go all-in immersion/atmosphere/story/themes while disregarding the importance of gameplay, which is pathetic and a disservice to the art they're analyzing.
It was exactly after level 6/7 that I started really to enjoy the game.Take mission 6, for example; it's the first level in the game that offers you some freedom in how to approach your goal (getting into the tower), but it also is basically a giant empty courtyard filled with copy-pasted mooks, and there are certain things you have to do to accomplish your goal.
1. I care about all aspects of a game, of which gameplay is only one. It is true that it comes first, but the other aspects are required as well. If one fails, the rest suffer for it. Though which aspects end up mattering most depends to some extent on the kind of game.Half-Life and Sin and Unreal, games where the main interest is all this worthless, peripheral, superficial stuff like story and interactivity and atmosphere rather than muh classic Dewm level design, so unless you think those games are also underwhelming, what's wrong with Dark Forces 2?
1. Nobody said all that was worthless, just that gameplay comes first.
2. Interaction in any form is gameplay.
3. Those elements may be the "main interest" to you, but not to me. Those games still have pretty good gameplay and gameplay-centric design, otherwise they wouldn't get a second glance from me. After the initial walking sim intros (with some cool interactivity) they're each non-stop "Run Shoot Think Live" action, perhaps with the occasional 30 second interlude (talking to a scientist, watching a setpiece, optionally reading a log).
If Half-life was all walking sim nobody would have batted an eye. Its legacy is owed to its gameplay as much as it is its ulterior elements, just faggots such as yourself (and there's many of your kind) like to pretend otherwise for whatever deluded reason. I think it's in shame and self-loathing that they're playing video games at the crux of the matter, as well as thinking that because those elements have long-established academic merit and gameplay does not then gameplay is not worth talking about if they want their psuedo-intellectual cred among their peers. It's very common to see "critics" and "fans" go all-in immersion/atmosphere/story/themes while disregarding or ignoring the importance of gameplay, which is pathetic and a disservice to the art they're analyzing. Gameplay is what gives games their unique form of engagement and expression as a medium.
4. Are you an Errant Signal fan by any chance (see above)?
I played this to level 3 or so, found the experience underwhelming in comparison to every other 90s FPS classics. Does it get better? Star Wars dweebs do not comment, you already have shit taste. I want to hear from hardcore gamers.