CS1.6 does not have official bots, only third party ones and it is the most popular Counter-Strike version. CZ and CSS have an official bot. There are no official bots for Day of Defeat: Source, don't know about the original. TFC did not have bots, only user created ones.

However, this argument is almost pointless because nobody (except me) seems to realize their explanation for why there were no bots as well as the difference between good bots (CZ and CS:S) verses terrible bots (BF2) that offer no type of challenge at all as well as actually limit you by restricting your map sizes and such. In fact, if you wanted to explore and check out the vehicles in BF2, you would actually have to start a multi-player game without bots so you can create a 32 or 64 player map or just play online.

IllegalPaladin said: CS1.6 does not have official bots, only third party ones and it is the most popular Counter-Strike version. CZ and CSS have an official bot. There are no official bots for Day of Defeat: Source, don't know about the original. TFC did not have bots, only user created ones. However, this argument is almost pointless because nobody (except me) seems to realize their explanation for why there were no bots as well as the difference between good bots (CZ and CS:S) verses terrible bots (BF2) that offer no type of challenge at all.

 thanksfully you actualy understand my arguement, and realize that you have to be Epic Games to be able to create bots that would actually be able to function correctly in a game like Warhawk since if no one has noticed the bots in BF have no idea what they are doing. They attempt to fly, they either fly the same pattern or crash, not really good AI, UT's bots atleast have AI which they do things correctly. Plus AI would jack the size of the file up a pretty good amount. And $40 is still way worth it for a game like Warhawk.

 

but yea, lets end this as this isnt going to get anywhere as we are going to be arguing the same things in a giant loop.  

Honestly sounds like they couldn't figure out how to code smart AI on the PS3 which became a big reason why they took out single player.

ceres said: Honestly sounds like they couldn't figure out how to code smart AI on the PS3 which became a big reason why they took out single player.

 No, I'm sure they had their singleplayer AI, but something like that wouldn't work for multiplayer. The reason they said is that what they had done wasn't good enough for everything you could do in the Warhawk maps. Those things are the full sized maps are large, there are lots of cars, lots of tanks, and lots of warhawks as well as combat on foot. They said they had trouble getting the AI to work with all of the options so they just dropped it. 

Im confused.. PSM gave heavenly sword a 10/10

how are they biased in anyway? Also warhawk is only online, thats why they probably gave it a 6.5 since it doesnt have a single player. Lai still getting bad reviews, while heavenly sword gets impressive reviews.

ceres said: misterd said: misteromar said: I cant help but laugh, because lair was meant to be one the PS3's killer games. Iam surprised because factor5 made great games for Nintendo. Not many of them. Just how many "system selling" games were there last gen? Not many that I can recall. But I know more than a few EXCELLENT games that didn't sell well on their own, let alone move consoles (Eternal Darkness, Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, Jade Empire, Burnout 3 all spring to mind). The idea that Sony would introduce 3 completely new IPs (Lair, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword) that would all excel in quality and improve console sales was far fetched in the extreme. Well, they may not have made many but generally the games they did make were worth getting. It's a small studio that doesn't have 50 different teams to work on 25 different games and the various platforms. That doesn't make the existing titles any less worthwhile. I don't think he's trying to say the title really ever was a system seller. But many fanboys have been touting these games with no proven demographic and praising them as huge console selling titles just because they are exclusives. Everytime a game comes and goes (or the release is set back), another one is brought up as being the the release that will completely turn PS3 sales around. And when that game comes out, there's a slight sale bump that quickly drops 1-2 weeks later. Of course, this isn't exclusive to Sony fanboys. I've seen plenty of delusional expectations for Wii games. Lair will probably have decent first week sales and then drop off fast if the reviews are proven to be true (IGN hasn't reviewed yet but the comment that has been made by the editor is that it's "painful, repetitive and not very fun"). Warhawk will have decent #s but online only will loose many potential customers on an already small user base. Heavenly Sword will probably end up being the PS3s fastest seller until the actual proven franchises come out.

IMO, the only "worthwhile" game F5 put out last gen was Rouge Leader. RS 3 pales by comparison. The prior generation you had Rouge Squadron, but also Battle for Naboo and Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine. So by my count, you had 2 decent games and 3 mediocre-poor games over 2 generations. That's not a track record to inspire confidence. My critique was aimed at those same fanboys of any system who have tried to claim these titles as system sellers. I've basically been singing the same song from the beginning.

leo-j said: Im confused.. PSM gave heavenly sword a 10/10 how are they biased in anyway? Also warhawk is only online, thats why they probably gave it a 6.5 since it doesnt have a single player. Lai still getting bad reviews, while heavenly sword gets impressive reviews.

thats why im confused too, i dont think they are completely biased. I believe they were a little harsh on warhawk review, but lair is sounding like a letdown so i dont see them being biased against that.

And yes HS is looking pretty good

HS- Great Game, unbiased review
Warhawk- Arevage Game, somewhat biased review
Lair- Mediocre Game, unbiased review