Video Games

Consoles really didn't catch on here till the late 80's early 90's

In fact a double what the hell, even the mega-drive was out when I was 5. I remember owning both a master system and a mega drive at some point...

Clearly my parents decided to give me out of date consoles. F**kers.

JKLever wrote:I'm not quite that crusty Jonts!

Besides, Moon Cresta shat all over Space Invaders....

Never heard of it. I do remember being amazed at the first Space Invader machine I saw in 1980 - was the size of a telephone box. Everyone used to crowd round to watch anyone that was any good and try to get tips and techniques for zapping the aliens.
After that summer, the cafe that I went past on the way to school invested in an Asteroids and Defender machines and became, ironically, the reason for loads of kids going hungry, as they'd sunk their dinner money into one of the arcade attractions.

In answer to the original question I'm still playing Civ 4 at the moment (tried Civ 5 and thought it was watered down tripe for the masses). Still can't win a standard game at anything above monarch, despite what must be 5 years worth of play now...

I also have a rather irrational hatred of Napolean. From playing Civ I actually get irritated whenever I hear him mentioned on the TV.

Jontyh wrote:

Never heard of it.

Shocking, was the first game where it involved docking after a level!

I'm like old and stuff so can remember my Spectrum 128k, although I didn't seem to have the games most people remember. I remember half of them being almost unplayable such was their difficulty level\brokeness.

I'm also like young and hip so I've got an Xbox and am playing through Asassins Creed 3 at the mo. Once you get the knack, it gets you giggling like a girl as you climb your way up the Castel del Angelo and start putting wicked kill streaks together.

I'm mid way through Assassins Creed 2 - way better than the first one. Ridiculously long though...

Yeah it does go on a bit and I really don't like Ezio and the present day bits suck posterior on a massive scale. Still as fun as a barrel of monkeys.

Phurt, Assasins Creed 2 isn't ridiculously long at all. Pick up an old copy of Baldur's Gate 2, now that's a long game.

Ah, my friend Bob*'s teenage days of buying C64 games, 'cracking' the security on them, copying them off and selling the copies on the cheap to friends at school. Good times.

Loderunner was a favourite of mine. Especially because you could buikd your own levels.

The Ghostbusters game that someone posted a pic from was fun for about 10 minutes.

There was another one called 'Frantic Freddie', similar to Donkey Kong, and there was another one where you had to save cities from monsters, but I can't recaall the name at the moment.

Zat wrote: and there was another one where you had to save cities from monsters, but I can't recaall the name at the moment.

Buckaroo wrote:Operation Desert Storm.

Never "got" Ghostbusters. IIRC, it was the most repetitive game in the world. Drive around a bland grid. Stop off to catch a ghost. Drive around again.

Bustin' didn't make me feel good.

Yeah, fun for about 10 minutes.

Let's just say cricket games on computers started off bad and have always been shoite.

I've got a cricket game on my phone - just came with it. It's pretty rotten, but it's a good as any other cricket game I've ever played.

The sport just doesn't translate to video gaming. Perhaps someone should make it like a FPS.

Yeah, I once tried to play a test match on one of the Brian Lara games. After awhile you just think "fark it" and try to hit every ball for six.

I reckon a decent cricket manager game would be possible though.

vilkrang wrote:

I reckon a decent cricket manager game would be possible though.

Except it'd be hours of doing FA. In football management games, you control the in-game tactics, substitutions and such - you're involved when the action is going off.

What does a cricket manager do once the players cross the white line? Sits on the balcony with a cup of tea, reading the paper.

Dello wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

I reckon a decent cricket manager game would be possible though.

Except it'd be hours of doing FA. In football management games, you control the in-game tactics, substitutions and such - you're involved when the action is going off.

What does a cricket manager do once the players cross the white line? Sits on the balcony with a cup of tea, reading the paper.

Captain/Management maybe, letting you do all of the off-field stuff whilst also doing the on field tactics. I played a really basic game like that in the mid-90s (REALLY basic) that let you choose an 11 from either England or Australia and then let you control tactics on the field. So for example if your team was batting you would set your openers to "Defensive" when they first come out whilst if you were the opposing team you would have a few overs of your bowlers in "Attacking" mode, whilst still getting to set your fields, or choose from preset ones.

They already have the International Cricket Captain series, which is basically that.

It's pretty boring...

Michael Vaughan cricket manager was not bad, except you control all the tactics ball by ball. Which of course a manager can't do...

You were given the option to tell Samit Patel to gtfo of your club, which kind of made the game.

And at least the scoring was more realistic instead of the usual Brian Lara 80-6 off 5 overs

JKLever wrote:Michael Vaughan cricket manager was not bad, except you control all the tactics ball by ball. Which of course a manager can't do...

You were given the option to tell Samit Patel to gtfo of your club, which kind of made the game.

Was there an option to add more positives?

I'm playing Far Cry 2 for about the fifth time. I just love hearing those South African mecenaries talking about rigging cricket games with a Pakistani bookie.

vilkrang wrote:In answer to the original question I'm still playing Civ 4 at the moment (tried Civ 5 and thought it was watered down tripe for the masses). Still can't win a standard game at anything above monarch, despite what must be 5 years worth of play now...

I also have a rather irrational hatred of Napolean. From playing Civ I actually get irritated whenever I hear him mentioned on the TV.

I kind of feel the same as you. Civ V is a bit too focused on military for my liking. It's very easy to just start a war.

However i do enjoy the more tactical approach to combat unlike the 'stacks of doom' from before. And you have to admit, the game looks beautiful.

Speaking of long games, i still haven't finished Oblivion and i've had that for ages. I haven't even had a chance to play Fallout. I'm still midway between Assassins Creed II and Mass Effect because Civ and Football Manager 2011 has taken up too much of my time. Gah, too many games.

Civ V looks fantastic, it just doesn't have the character I feel and all the games I've tried have seemed the same. You can't forge any proper alliances because no matter how nice you are to any of the AI they will eventually declare war on you, but it's not really a problem because the AI doesn't seem to know how to play the game so you never lose.

It just doesn't seem fun anymore, particularly later in the game.

Yeah, that was my experience too. I usually like to go for the space race victory but it's much harder in this game in order to do that because more often than not you end up having to focus your resources on military units due to an annoying neighbour declaring war on you.

That's why i'm still keeping Civ IV on my computer as well.