That's because puzzles in FPSs, or worse, RTSs stopped making any sense years ago. If I'm playing an FPS I expect to be challenged on my combat skills, if I'm playing an RTS I expect to win or lose based on my strategies, *not* on my ability to guess what the level designer expected me to do to proceed. If I wanted to do that I'd play a puzzle or adventure game, which yes are still getting made. And also, there's only *so* many broken medallions with stallion engravings you can put in a game
DraekAlmasy
Out of the ones I've played, its tied between Europa Universalis 3 and EU: Rome. EU3's AI seems to be much more peaceful than that of Rome, but in general they're pretty good at making peace with you when it's in their benefit, then backstabbing you when you're unable to fight them without overextending your forces and/or driving your own economy to the ground. Though I haven't played GalCiv2 yet, which judging from the comments in this thread is a situation I should change ASAP ;)
Well, its also an issue of design: the games of yesteryear were made to be just about You vs The Level Designer, whereas newer games give the player more freedom in what to do and how, and with that comes the requirement of good AI that properly reacts to players' decisions while not being unfairly unbalanced (sniping with a pistol et al). Heck, just look at Mario or Castlevania: there was no such thing as AI, only a movement and an attack pattern stuck in an endless loop. Do that in Halo, fo
Yes. But as long as we get adjustable difficulty, I'm perfectly fine with it. But perhaps I'm alone in that I usually play through a game I like multiple times on each difficulty. Comes with being poor I guess ;)
Wolfenstein 3D, at the young age of 3. Ahh, those were the times, when floppies were actually floppy and your graphic cards didn't have more RAM than the computer itself.
I'll second the recommendations for the Total War series: they're turn-based strategy, but with a *very* deep real-time tactical model which is in fact the only reason to play the games since the turn-based part is seriously lacking in strategy. Personally I prefer Medieval II over Empire, both for performance as well as coolness of the setting ;) but from Rome onwards they're all worth playing. Also, Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-Earth II. Imagine Soulstorm, but prettier and u
I'd go with a PCMCIA Ethernet card, they're easier to find drivers for and you keep the USB port open for future use, plus laptops that age usually have a dead battery so if you're gonna keep it plugged in you may as well go wired for the internet as well. Though I'd install Linux on that computer or at the very least Windows 2000, 98 is ancient, insecure, crash-prone, and hell to find drivers for, and the same goes for any browser still compatible with it.
Warsow is the most fun deathmatch-oriented FPS I've played since UT2004, with gorgeous cell-shaded graphics and a rear-kicking soundtrack to boot. Also, PyChess gets brownie points for being the only freely-available chess engine I've tried that can be beaten by mere mortals, so if you like chess but get frustrated by GNUChess, Phalanx et al, it's highly recommended.
Darkside picked my interest yesterday while browsing the store, so I was debating whether to get it for $9.99 or not then BAM! weekend deal on both it, and its prequel Arklight Who cares about EA when there's indie shmup goodness available on the cheap ;) though I must admit Red Alert 3 looked somewhat interesting, except for the SecuROM and NA-only parts.