Rickystickyman / Member

Forum Posts Following Followers
674 35 26

Rickystickyman Blog

Get Lucky by Daft Punk Review

daft-punk-get-lucky.jpg

I should've posted this earlier when the song actually was first released but I was a bit slow.

 

Years have gone by since Daft Punk has released a new music album, so with the announcement of Daft Punk's new album entitled Random Access Memories, a lot of people are pretty excited for this new upcoming album. Many people are already claiming that the album will no doubt be a success and a masterpiece. So Daft Punk finally released some teasers of their new single "Get Lucky" which only increased everyone's excitement for the song. Finally the song has been released and how does it reflect the hype that was built up to this song?

 

Well... it's okay.

 

I will say that I had some expectations for this new single, but I didn't have incredibly high expectations so I never expected a masterpiece or a new Harder Better Faster Stronger. The song feels like it was crafted in the 70s (just like almost every Daft Punk song) so for those of you who like a retro feel then this song might be for you. While the tune is arguably catchy, it has one pretty big flaw: it is incredibly repetitive. The song pretty much plays the exact same tune from the beginning to the end, no wait actually it does, so the song seems more like a constant loop of the same guitar riff, same keyboard notes, and the same bass line... over and over again. There is nothing wrong with repetition if it is done right, I mean just look at Phoenix or Around the World! Those songs are great though very repetitive, but they have variety, breaks, build-ups, and some minor changes. However "Get Lucky" has no diversity or real changes throughout the song. There is a classic Daft Punk guitar solo/voice effect ending but it lacks the intensity or raw power when Harder Better Faster Stronger used the exact same technique. While I don't have a problem with a more laid back Daft Punk song, I will say that I feel like the makers were also pretty laid back when making this song. The song's lyrics are also incredibly cheesy (as we expect from Daft Punk) but I almost expected some better lyrics for some reason.

 

 

Overall "Get Lucky" isn't a terrible song and isn't bad by any means. It lacks the creativity that is found in Daft Punk's older music and is overly repetitive. Hopefully Daft Punk's new album doesn't end up like this song, which is rather forgettable.

Top 5 Worst Games of Good Game Series I've Played

GU_poster.jpg

5. Godzilla Unleashed (PS2 version):

Why Godzilla Unleashed? Well to those of you who don't know, I love the Godzilla movies. They are cheesy, ridiculous, crazy, and just plain fun. Being a huge fan of Godzilla movies I found the first two Godzilla fighting games a LOT of fun. The games had everything I had wanted in a Godzilla game: large cities to crush, fighting titanic monsters, and best of all they had a large recognizable cast of Godzilla characters. The first two games were great fun for a Godzilla fan like myself. I put many hours of priceless fun into the first two games, mostly in Save the Earth though. Learning each monsters unique abilities and moves was better than I could've ever imagined. Personally I think they were heavily underrated because it takes some time to figure out that each monster works VERY different from another monster which means that mastering any monster is difficult. The most fun I have ever had in a fighting game came from Godzilla: Save the Earth.

godzilla-unleashed-screenshots-200701300

(Look at that beautiful HUD and particle effects)

HOWEVER along comes a sequel to the Godzilla fighting series. From trailers the game promises to be bolder, bigger, and more action packed than the earlier games. It even was supposed to contain some more unheard of monsters in it which got me very excited for it. Sadly the PS2 version is significantly stripped down of the monster diversity and has worse graphics. The funny thing is that the game's graphics SUCKED! They were the worst in the series and the makers said they stripped down the graphics to make the game to appear more graceful and run faster... however the graphics were so stripped down that the monsters looked blocky and chunky. To add to this the gameplay was much different from the other games and the "rage" moves were stripped down to nothing. An extreme disappointment and a bad game in general. It pretended to bring something new to the table by having slight RPG elements but ended up being boring and dull.

Spyro_-_Enter_the_Dragonfly_Coverart.jpg

4. Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly

Spyro fans out there! You remember this game! The first game in the series where the game was not developed by Insomniac. And boy I'm sure you were disappointed. The game lacked a lot of the great elements of the other games such as an interesting cast of characters, great level design, and a memorable story. Honestly I can hardly even remember the plot because it was so dull. If I do recall the game was very glitchy, such as the final boss not working several times, animations glitching with eyes popping out of characters' skulls and other strange things.

s_screen003.jpg

(Space Cows aren't the only things you can't stand)

The general gameplay was similar to the other games except you had a couple breath types, such as bubble breath which is used for capturing dragonflies (they are important to the plot... sort of). This was tedious, boring, and just plain frustrating. One of the most annoying things about this game was the absence of bonus worlds, arenas, or gametypes. The other games (mainly the second Spyro and the third one) had tons of bonus extras and different gameplay types just to switch up the mood and give the player some stuff to do when bored. Skateboarding was surprisingly in depth actually. But alas Spyro Enter the Dragonfly lacked any of the things that made the other games fun. Also on a side note it was the last Spyro game before they revived the series with a new plot... which they then revived once again for Skylanders. So you could think of it as the last game of the original series... such a depressing game.

256px-Sonic_the_Hedgehog_Next-Gen_Box_Ar

3. Sonic The Hedgehog (XBOX360)

While technically this game wasn't awful or as bad as Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly, it was more disappointing to me. The Sonic Adventures games were great. Amazing. Outstanding! The developers knew how to make a good game and they did it successfully. Also the Chao garden was so in depth it could've been its own game (I spent a lot of time raising Chao... mine could instant kill all in Karate). Not to mention the boss fights were pretty good along with the soundtrack and story. Soooo imagine a bigger, bolder, more realistic, and story oriented Sonic game for a next-gen console... it couldn't be that bad... right?

sonic-the-hedgehog-20060527023947214.jpg

(It's rarely this exciting sadly)

Wrong! The game was bad! Unlike Spyro, it had TOO many things to do. The game was entirely unfocused and distracted. Sonic games are supposed to be about speed and blowing up robots, but this game focused on helping people move boxes or throwing fruit at targets. SERIOUSLY! To beat the game you needed to do boring, mundane tasks to get to the actual fun stuff! The game forced you to get so bored that you would quit. This wouldn't be so bad if the game could've at least run itself at a decent speed, sadly though the load times are frequent and LONG! Very long! What made things annoying is that you walk up to someone, he would give you a task and then there would be a loading screen, when it was done loading he would describe to you (in 20 seconds) how to complete the task, and then there would be ANOTHER loading screen just to complete the task... and if you failed this task... you had to go through a loading screen of failure... and then you would finally have to go through and ask the guy again. It was evil! The sad thing about this game is that the levels themselves weren't terrible (Except for the occasional glitch where you fall through the map and have to restart the level) but the levels were spaced so far apart from each other and were so few that you couldn't remember why you were playing the game. Bad game and it lead to a new low standard for Sega which would take years to heal the Sonic franchise.

DukeNukemForever.jpg

2. Duke Nukem Forever:

Some things are better off dead. You already know why. Duke Nukem Forever had high expectations, it had controversy in its development, it took 10 freakin' years to make, the original developers went bankrupt, and there was tons of promise that the game would be everything you wanted out of a Duke Nukem game. So you were probably a little bit excited when the game was finally going to be released, sure it had sub-par graphics but what makes a game fun? Graphics or gameplay? Well everyone who saw the game had an internal fear that the game would be... not good. Maybe not awful but not amazing... around a 6-7.5. However what was released was worse than what anyone could've expected. The gameplay was old, sluggish, broken, buggy, and just plain awful. The game seemed to have taken so long to develop because the game tries to steal many elements from other games... making jokes about Valve (probably right when Half-life became popular) and then making jokes about Halo (probably when Halo came around) and it was just... so... bad! I can't even begin on where they went wrong. And don't get me started about the turret sequences and the humor.

facesofevil.jpg

(Evil is right... this game IS evil)

1. Nintendo and CD-I games:

You knew this would show up haha. Not just one game, but SEVERAL! While Nintendo didn't make the games, they were still Nintendo characters. While fortunately this never crushed Nintendo or even seemed to do anything to damage the franchise it still comes as a surprised today that such bad games were ever released! The Zelda CD-I games were plain awful with busted gameplay, glitches, and terrible platforming.

ohno.jpg

(SCRUB THOSE FLOORS!)

Let's not even get started with the cut-scenes (MAH BOI!). Hotel Mario was bad but in a different sense. If was confusing, odd, and was nothing like a Mario game. It also had mind numbingly bad cut-scenes but they aren't nearly as infamous. You might as well just watch them on youtube if you didn't know of the existance already. It's funny and will probably make you day... and depress you.

Either way that's my list :D

zelda_1.jpg

The Last Guardian Soundtrack

Just an awesome thing I learned today. While I was listening to the Celtic Harp I recognized one of the tunes but I couldn't figure put where it was from... then it hit me! It was The Last Guardian! The tune is The Lament for Limmerick! Who would've guessed! It's things like this which make my day. It's a beautiful song by the way.

FPSs and their enemies

One of the greatest things about a first person shooter is that it feels like you are actually there and in the action. The realistic environments, and the fun of blasting away enemies is great... and identifying enemies is also part of the fun, but lately games are lacking this part of the fun.

The original First Person Shooters were Wolfenstein and Doom. They started the genre, and Doom specifically reached out to a broader audience. One of the best things I liked about Doom was the large cast of enemies, and the identity that each enemy had. Each enemy in the game had its own pros and cons, each one looked different (except for soldiers) and each one felt totally unique. This made killing enemies fun, and encounters with enemies fun as well. I feel like a lot of the fun in doom wasn't just how original it was for the time, but just how great its enemies were, and how almost no others games have been able to capture its sense of enemy diversity. When I played Doom when I was young I had nick names for every enemy... Imps were called Hissy-Fits, Lost souls were called Skullies, and the list goes on.

(oh snap...)

Quake was another step in the FPS genre and a pretty big one at that. Quake 1, and 2 were both great games and both featured a large diversity of enemies (though Quake 1 didn't have nearly as many as Quake 2) and this was also enjoyable. Quake was good because you had a diversity in weapons, and a great diversity in enemies. Quake 2 had an incredibly large cast, and whenever you encountered an enemy you would either say "Oh that looks really cool!" or "OH SH*T!" and again, the enemies practically made the game.

I am not saying other games haven't captured this mood, but none have captured it like Doom or Quake 2 has. Halo gets some credit for having several different species, and each one has a solid identity with a good name. Enemies with good names also make games fun, because it means you can quickly say what is going on in co-op or you can yell at the TV when that enemy attacks you. Identity is very important.

Left 4 Dead is another game that has captured the mood slightly. The fact that each of the enemies has a memorable, yet shot name allows players to quickly communicate, and for some reason it makes you feel slightly smarter. Imagine if boomers didn't have a name, that would be boring and Left 4 Dead would honestly be less popular. Imagine if none of the zombies were named with unique names, but were instead called "Exploding Zombie, Jumping zombie, Tongue Zombie etc.."

What I am getting at is that FPS need to let players identify with unique enemies. I dislike it when a game shows you all of its enemy types in the first level or two. What is fun is discovering throughout the course of the game what kind of enemies there are. Also some games only have few kinds of enemies like standard infantry, heavy infantry, and maybe some guy with a shield. Realistic shooters that are set in modern day of course cannot make random demons or monsters like that, but other games could at least try.

The problem with gamespot's GOTY

Now this isn't a problem with all of gamespot's reviews, but it is something that bugs me during the game of the year time zone. Gamespot always puts the best games up for their game of the year event, and will put the game with highest review for each category. Now this is good in a way, but isn't always good.

When gamespot gives a game a 7.0 this is when it stops being legible for being in the contest. This is the wrong way to do something. Take a category like best artistic design. Artistic design has nothing to do with gameplay. That means you could have a game with a rating of 3.0 but artistically it could still be the best in artistic design. There are a couple of games that didn't get the best reviews from Gamespot, but artistically they are still good. Take Dante's Inferno as an example. The game itself may not be the best, but you can't question its artistic design on landscape, and just how the interpreted the story into a game. There are other game lying around each year that do deserve to earn a special title for the GOTY contest, but don't make it because of their reviews.

Another problem Gamespot stumbles on is the early games of the year. Some games that come out at the beginnings of each year gamespot will overlook. This is also a problem with games that come out directly after GOTY because those games are technically the year before the next year. Like Battlefield Bad Company Vietnam is a 2010 game, but it is after the GOTY consest. Gamespot really needs to make the contest "Best Game Since Our Last Contest".

Well I might add some more categories, but I'm tired for right now.

Merry CHRISTMAS!!!!!!

Just had to say this. Merry Christmas to everyone! What games is everyone getting? I'm getting my brother Ico, and it was pretty hard to find. Do you realize that it hasn't gone down in price since 2001? Pretty rare. Any indie games that are interesting anyone? Please leave comment.

Concerning video game soundtracks

This is a topic that bothers mea lot when someone says a game has an awesome soundtrack, and that one game doesn't. The question isn't necessarily what game has good music, but is what is good music. Now some games that have gotten some critical acclaim for good music, really don't have good music. Here are some of the things people need to realize...

Epic doesn't mean good

This is something that a lot of people get mixed up with. If a game has a good soundtrack, then the music should be good. If a game has epic music, it doesn't mean it is good. Sort of like with movie trailers a few years ago. All trailers had opera music to sound epic. And it does sound epic. But that doesn't mean it is good. Good music is original, and good sounding, and does not depend on opera. This makes me annoyed when some people claim a game has really good music when all it is is generic opera music or just loud music.

Good means diversity

Some games have some really nice music. But what they forget to do is change tracks every once in a while. Shall I mention Red Dead Redemption? The game was given gamespot's best soundtrack award (that's balogna) for having a good soundtrack. Now it was good at some moments, but really it is the same generic western music, with this echoing guitar playing a couple notes briefly. This gets old quickly for me.

Don't let retro trick you

Retro music is always nice to here every once in a while (sort of an oxymoron) but it has to be good retro. This is something that Super Meat Boy achieved. It has retro sounding music, but kept to originality. For retro music to be good you have to create, and not copy.

Recreation

Whenever a game franchise has lasted for a very long time, and then it is rebooted, this can be a problem sometimes faced. I think Nintendo suffers from this the most. Nintendo does a great job of recreating their old soundtracks, so it is always (usually) fun to listen to the music. But when you think about it this means that Nintendo has stopped making originial soundtracks for the most part. When Nintendo remakes music the first couple times it interesting, but by the time we are playing the most recent version of Mario then we have heard the remake about 30 times. I'm just using Nintendo as an example so don't say I'm out to attack Nintendo. But this is something some games suffer from.

This is my list so far. I might update it some, but this is my opinion so far. Game developers need to make good soundtracks, and to make a good soundtrack you need originality mixed with some epic moments. The best video game music is the music that you actually BUY the soundtrack for like Super Meat Boy, Shadow of the Colossus, or Halo 3 ODST.And remember that violins are pretty, but don't support the games soundtrack with just a violin.

Indie Games: 3 categories

Me being an indie game fan, there is something that you can easily notice about XBIGs. The fact is that they are basically split up into 3 simple categories on what games are out there. Basically this blog post is just a reminder that xbox live indie games need to seperate from each others ideas, and make their own. Since indie games are so tightly packed (as in there is a lot of them) you will see that there are a lot of the same games because everyone is using everyone elses ideas. Here are the 3 (and a fourth one just because there is one small other group) categories.

#1

The Zombies

Most likely the biggest, and most well known game category in the indie industry. Zombies are big in movies, AAA games, and now in indies games. This all originated from I made a game with zombies. This game showed that having a game with a title that summarizes the entire game is funny, and original... well not until everyone else does it. Ever since that game came out there have been countless zombie games, and a lot of games with titles similar in nature. Zombies are fun when the first couple games come out. Example: Zombie Estate which perfected zombie slaying, and possibly another zombie defense game. After that zombies became pretty generic. The strange thing is that there is some awesome joy in killing zombies over and over again, but there is not joy playing zombie games over and over again. Either way you catch the drift that zombiegames are one of the largest categories out there.

Best Zombie games:

I made a game with zombies in it

ZP2KX (sort of has zombies)

Another Zombie Defense

Zombie Estate

Nuclear wasteland (fully 3D)

#2

TwinStick space shooters!

Yes this is a game category that you probably trip over a lot. The nice thing about space shooters is that they never get real old. There is always some joy in playing them if there is an upgrading system involved, or some sort of bonus. Without getting upgrades during gameplay, or any bonus then the game becomes very boring. Sadly some space shooters have done this, and have ended up very boring. The nice thing about space shooters is that they are usually well made, and there are a lot of them out there to choose from. After a while you will notice the similarities, but usually this doesn't cause too much problems.

Best Twin Stick space shooters:

Beat Hazard (a needed)

Score Rush (it's okay)

Operation: Joy Joy

Inferno (sort of a dungeon crawler though)

#3

The Avatars!

This is probably the most annoying one of them all. There is nothing more annoying (I said that already) than seeing a game advertise "Now with AVATARS!". This just screams that the game isn't that good, but you get the comfort of seeing yourself run around on a screen. What makes it even worse is that most avatar games are rip offs of really good indie games. Some of them are okay, but usually they are just dumb fun. The other problem with Avatar games is that they usually have very limited gameplay. The games either revolve around simulators, or pressing one button over and over again to perform different tasks. Watch out for these games.

Mediocre Avatar games:

Onslaught

Some ninja avatar game that I forget the name to (this is not is name)

Avatar drop

#4

The let's rip off of the hardest game ever!

This gets pretty lame. The hardest game ever was a great game because it was so simple, so addicting, yet just plain fun. It showed how you didn't need to go over the top to make a good game. However other people caught on to the idea and made rip offs... usually with avatars involved too. Rule 1 (which you may have learned by now): If someone makes a good game, don't copy it with avatars.

Best game in this category:

None. Only the original is good.

Conclusion: Basically I am trying to make a little cry out for indie game makers to spread away from each other, and think up of original ideas. Ever notice how the most original indie game is always the one that makes the most money? Maybe that is something indie game makers should try a little bit. Now I know for some people they are testing their very first games, so you can't attack every bad game. Like experiment 13 which was pretty bad, but it looked more like a first game. One thing everyone likes is: puzzle games, shooters, and platformers. ZP2KX already mixed shooter with platformer and it is so far successful!

So yeah. Thanks for reading.

P.S.: If you have any games that could go under the categories could you comment on what game should be there?

Thank goodness the game was dropped, but why the weapons?

The Halo MMO was thankfully canceled a loooooong time ago. When looking at the 64 or so images about the game you could tell nothing good would come out of this game. It was cartoony, stylized, and was everything Halo wasn't. Now I could go on and on about all of the horrible elements in the game, but there was one thing that I did like. The carbine picture really had me thinking. Why doesn't Halo have variations of one weapon?

Halo MMO Project Screenshot

These were some of the carbine weapons. I know in Halo, Bungie tries to make everything perfectly balanced, and that is why there aren't many weapons. BUT just saying in real life a military doesn't make just one kind of assault rifle, and just one kind of sniper rifle. So why did they not use weapons similar to the images above? I think they would've been fun for campaign, but maybe not used in matchmaking but could be used in forge or custom games.

What I think the guns did:

Purple one at bottom is a normal carbine.

Gold carbine would've been less accurate, and possibly have a shorter scope, but would have a higher rate of fire which would've been good for small firefight battles.

Blue carbine would've had a longer scope than the others, have great accuracy, but a slower rate of fire. Possibly slightly higher damage.

White carbine would probably been a bit more unique. I would guess slower rate of fire, but great damage, and it wouldn't have much of a scope OR it would've been like a carbine machine gun where its rate of fire increases the more you fire.

Red carbine would've been more sniper rifle like. Long range, great accuracy, a little bit more damage but not too much because it would be a sniper rifle, and slower rate of fire.

My opinion: I think for a halo game these weapons should've been placed in for campaign, and forge. I mean these things look awesome, and I can imagine similar stuff working for the battle rifle/DMR or for the pistol and such. One thing that bothered me with Halo Reach was the lack of weapons. What made Halo 3 so much fun was that you had a large diversity of good weapons. Halo Reach limits the weapons dramatically, but keeps gameplay balanced. I think Bungie limited Reach with weapons because they made Reach fun, but got rid of everything that made Halo 3 fun. Again my opinion is that Halo Reach should've had almost all the same weapons from Halo 3, plus new ones, but the Halo 3 weapons would be Custom Games only. I think the player should have the decision to have special item in custom games which what they did in Halo 3... but oh well...

An annoying debate that I hear: BFBC2 vs. CODmw

Note the nice scenary ^

Note: Whenever I say COD I mean MW2.

Well I have heard this debate quite a lot and I am putting my amazing judgement to the test, and will talk about these two games. The one thing I hear most about is "Dude BFBC2's graphics are epic" then a fanboi ses "No it's graphics suck, and MW graphics are much better."

Now let me just say something right here. If you ever... I MEAN EVER say BBC2's graphics suck you are making a fool out of yourself. I know a lot of people who say it has horrible graphics compared to any COD game and they are just making fools of themselves. BFBC2 has amazing graphics, but has a much different ****compared to MW. Battlefield seems to work a lot on lighting, and shadows which makes it a gorgeous game to look at. While COD seems to have this rigid, dull lighting. Just saying. The lighting on Battlefield is some of the best lighting I have seen in a FPS and is really nice. You can see light shining through leaves in a jungle, and there are many awesome moments where you want to just stand there and appreciate the work that went into the environment. Snow levels are also good with the amount of detail of how the snow flows over roads, and much of the lighting itself. Truly awesome affects.

Okay I explained lighting, but what about graphics. BFBC2 also has good graphics, but they are much different than COD's graphics. COD seems to have very rigid graphics that honestly hurt my eyes. The lines on objects seem pixelated, and a bit off. The game is also very gray, and kind of boring. Now here is where the comparison of graphics really comes in. COD has good textures, while BFBC2 has good textures, but not as good. This is where some people say COD is better. Now here is an analogy. Imagine someone has two masks, and let's say they are monster masks. One mask has a picture of a scary monster on it, and the picture is incredibly detailed. Though the mask itself is flat. The other mask is 3Dimensional and has a lot of details on it. Which one is better? Well one mask is detailed, but flat, while the other is actually life like. This is COD vs BFBC2. COD has good textures, but in the end what makes something life like is the fine details that go into it, and the things you can actually touch and see, not the things you can imagine are there.

Gameplay: Now this is all matter of opinion. COD of duty seems to be a bit more for people with short attention spans (this isn't an insult) while BFBC2 is for people who strategize. COD is by far one of the easiest games to get into which is why a lot of people like it. You can't really lose in it because the maps are so small, and there are so many enemies that combat is fast, and frequent. Though just saying from my opinion: this is kind of dull and reptitive. Just my opinion though. COD is good for playing quick games, and getting lots of kills. The maps are so-so and some weapons are pretty interesting (mention Black-ops and its new weapons). Now BFBC2 I have to say is the closest to movie action sequences as a game can get. The maps are HUGE. Miles long, and pretty epic. The nice thing that BFBC2 has is vehicles which is one thing COD hasn't picked up on. Then again COD is COD because it has no vehicles. Either way BF has many awesome moments where a tank comes rolling down a hill and starts knocking over buildings, but then a mortar strike hits it, but then an Apache swoops in and clears out all of the soldiers and snipers. The combat is fast paced, but not in the same sense of COD. Battlefield also has the option to customize on the fly. It doesn't sound like much, but it means you can constantly change your ****everytime you respawn which allows you to fight for different situations better.

Now I have played both games, and I do find them both fun to play, but BFBC2 seems to be the better game in my opinion. The combat is crazy epic, and there are things that happen in this game that remind you of only the coolest of movies. It is a well set up game, and the ****s are very even. The thing that really makes COD and BF different is the objectives. COD is for killing, while BF is objective based.

Sound: BF's sound effects are very life like. The guns sound very accurate, and the sound of missiles hitting near you sound very good. Explosions will sound differently depending on what material you are standing next to. If you are in an open battlefield it is a bit quieter, but it echoes. Inside a building it makes you virtually deaf and you will hear it echo for several seconds, while hearing the sound of bits of plaster hitting the floor. COD has some good sound effects as well, but whenver I play it I seem sort of distant as if I'm not really there.

Map: Now this is hands down to BFBC2. BF series has almost always had good maps and this game is no exception. The maps are very well designed, and everything in the maps are balanced. In one of the snow levels there are two buildings standing next to each other, and both are destroyable. Across from them is a short building also. This one part of the level, but it is set up so well but you don't realize it. The battles in this area are crazy because one building is defending while the other building will blow holes in the side of it, and can actually jump from one building to another. Hard to describe. Also since the maps are miles long it is like having 8 COD maps in one BFBC map. The battles are always different in one level because you constantly move around in the map to find more areas that are built for different kinds of fighting. Now again not trying to diss COD but COD maps are very small, and very simple. I have played a bit of COD myself and the maps always seem so simple, and kind of poorly designed. Again, just saying.

Physics: Now this is a short paragraph. Just saying BFBC2 has bullet gravity, and also there are some cool stuff with your clothing as well. Your clothing will actually depending on how you move. With the sniper, the fake grass on it moves very well. When you turn to the left it blows back to the right slightly because from you turning the air is hitting them, and pushing them back. But when you turn to the right they collapse because of the same reason. COD has some physics with it, but they seem realistic, and not realistic. The knife: yeah I'm sure knives do that. The rest of it is good though.

Animations: Again another hands down to: BFBC2. The animations in this game are very fluid, and go at a very nice frame rate. The animations on characters actually flow from one animation to another, instead of just jumping from one animation to another. This is the one thing that really makes me annoyed in COD is that when you see someone run by you they don't seem to run properly, move properly, or even look like an actual person. It confuses me to see other players in COD because they move irregularly.

Overall: This is just my opinion so no flaming. In my opinion BFBC2 is the better game. COD may be fun, but most fanboys seem to skip all of the problems with COD and call it a perfect game. BFBC2 isn't a perfect game, but certainly is a good game. COD is a good game too, but it is absolutely ugly to watch. So I guess it depends if you really care about how good looking your game is. So yeah. Done with my banter.

Battlefield bad company 2:

Modern Warfare 2

  • 14 results
  • 1
  • 2