mrbobbins wrote:Love it on t'box, played it on PC, just didn't seem right, too slow or something, not sure, just wrong
Yeah, gearbox managed to fuck up a game that runs fast on a console that's basically a PC. My laptop is far superior to a Xbox, hardware wise, and yet it runs like a 2-legged dog.
Halo was fun, but it felt sluggish all the time, plus the multiplayer aspect sucks as the maps are designed for console controllers - and that means there's little vertical action to be had.
Yeah it runs ok performance wise, what I meant was that it's just a slow game (McChief does feel like he has lead shoes, although they're probably a fancy futuristic carbon-adamantium-diamond composite..)
I guess it's to give console thumbs time to react!!
Joose wrote:I found lotr ran quite nicely.
Shite game, though.
That's a shame - I just remembered about it today and wondered if I should get it. Then I saw they had announced a sequel - what was shit about the original that they could maybe improve upon in the second one?
weeeell, the base building was a bit basic (build everything. win.)
as for tactics, nce you had some decent horsemen it bascally boiled down to "charge em with horsemen. win"
or, if you have ents; "use ents. win"
all a little silly and dissapointing.
as for the sequel, ive just been reading about it. Apparently its going to be set up in the north, at the same time as the main events. It will focus on the battle between the elves/dwarves and the goblins in and around mirkwood.
Which basically means; it will be people we've never heard of in places we dont know fighting battles that were not important enough for the main story.
Joose wrote:
Which basically means; it will be people we've never heard of in places we dont know fighting battles that were not important enough for the main story.
This!
