taffy2jeffmorgan Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Hi All. Has anyone had a chance to play this new release, if so, how would you rate it. Cheers. JM.
Feathered_IV Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I thought about it, but the digital version is an insane 45+ gigabyte in size. That would take 26 days minimum for me to download based on an optimistic 1.5gb per day when I can have my computer running. The disk version seemed sensible, but then I read that it required 10-13gb of download after installation. At that point I wrote it off.
Finkeren Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 The fact alone, that this is part of the original soundtrack, tells me, that it's worth getting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RVVHXdMmog 1
DD_bongodriver Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Classic! house of the rising sun oompah oompah! version.
79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Classic! house of the rising sun oompah oompah! version. Reminds me a bit of Max Raabe. absolutely smashing!
LLv34_Flanker Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 S! Just can't be bothered to play it. 1 man destroys a whole nation. Yep, right and all that. Even a game and fictional I just can not digest one man army killing more soldiers than lost in WW2 almost..
Rivet Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 S! Just can't be bothered to play it. 1 man destroys a whole nation. killing more soldiers than lost in WW2 almost.. Exactly. However, don't they usually say that: "One man CAN make a difference." But even in a game it's a bit of a stretch for that man to defeat a whole nation, even if he is the elite of the elite which he inevitably will be. Oh, here's your 9mm pistol and a couple of clips of ammo. Go to it Rambo :lol:
DD_bongodriver Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 isn't that the point of almost every fps shooter type game anyway? the odds are always impossible.
Rivet Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 You're right of course. It's always been so with that type of shooter.
Revvin Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Its ok, there are a few FPS cliché's like you know you're at a significant part when the area is swarmed with enemies and it takes you a few times to get through it just to prolong the gameplay, flashing objects just so you know you can pick them up etc. Its not completely linear, there is often more than one way to tackle a level, go in guns blazing or take a sneaky route and use stealth. One section in particular has three distinct pathways giving you options on how to tackle the area. Its not going to win any awards for innovation and it has no multiplayer but I bought it as a fan who played the Wolfenstein 3D many moons ago. Its just over the top action all the way shooting Nazi's and their contraptions as they get bigger, badder and more unbelievable as the game progresses. Its not meant to be a FPS documentary of WW2 its just a fun shooter which looks very nice in places and above average in others with some occasional "FFS how many bullets have I pumped into that soldier?!?!" moments. Some good cut scene's to tell the story and off you go again blazing your way through another level. I didn't buy it as a realistic shooter in the same way I don't believe some of the crap from Hollywood that some call realistic or true to life.
Rivet Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 It'd be a pretty boring game if it were meant to reflect reality. Yes I totally agree, but I never mentioned any expectations about reality. I was simply poking a bit of fun at the genre. in the same way most movies would be crap without their poetic license. Again I agree. Poetic license and a bit of fantasy is taken as read. However, there's poetic license and then there's extracting the urine. I cite the almost universally reviled U-571 as an example.
Dooga Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Yep same here, that game will be tons of fun - for 9.99€ at a steam sale, not for 50.
Rivet Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I wasn't attempting to start a war or anything. I know mate. Neither was I. It's all good here 1
Finkeren Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 To me it seems like the game is made with just the right amount of seriousness and respect for historical reality to be a good Wolfenstein game. That is: None
Finkeren Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) Raaaid, are you saying, you only started playing the first Wolfenstein game in 1992, more than a decade after it came out? And it still managed to impress you? Edited May 24, 2014 by Finkeren
MarcoRossolini Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 The game's great, worth every cent. Oi! Get back to work developing BoS! No free time for you! FPSs like that aren't exactly my cup of tea... though I believe that Wolfenstein created the FPS genre IIRC...?
DD_bongodriver Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 Indeed, it's the game that's attributed as popularising the genre. That and Doom I believe.
Finkeren Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 lol it was released in 1992 not 1982 Nope. The "first" Wolfenstein game (which is what raaaid said) was called "Castle Wolfenstein" and came out in 1981. Take a look at the screenies I posted. And yes, I know that wasn't what raaaid meant. I was just being a d*ck.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now