A Space Tragedy [Archive]

Geeves00

16 Nov 2008, 02:49

I sent this in an e-mail but I figured I would post it here also.

Developers/Producers/ANYONE,

I just had my copy of Worms: A Space Oddity delivered today. I got home from work ready to sit down and have some fun with one of my favorite series of games EVER (unlike most, I LOVED 3D). That said..... WHAT DID YOU DO TO THIS GAME?

Seriously....10 weapons. That's it? There's hardly any customization for multiplayer. The controls are gimmicky at best (when they work the right way) and the movement aspect leave a lot to be desired.

On a positive note, the graphics look like a great improvement. I love the fact that you went back to the 2D style game play. It's more fun that way in my opinion.

What happened to this game? I have play most of the worms games out there and by far this is the most disappointing. 10 weapons is just sad. Plus no ninja rope? Are you kidding?

Look back at some of the better games and realize what made them great. REPLAYABILITY. Worms: Armageddon has to be the best ever and that was for Playstation 1. I find it quite sad that the amount of content in this game doesn't match that of my daughter's Hannah Montana game.

More weapons....come on, you're on a next-gen system here. You're telling me you can't deliver more than 10 weapons? What happened to the screen full of destructive items you could unleash upon your foes!? You're telling me on something witht he disk capacity of the Wii you can't fit 50 weapons!? Have you SEEN how large of a game Zelda is?

Better control..... Granted the Wii has the new remote. That doesn't mean you have to fall victim to gimmicky controls. I would be happy turning the damn thing sideways and p[laying it old school if it meant my friends and I could play this game for house like int he old days of Armageddon. Plus bring back the Rope! That was one of the true aspects that set talented players apart from others, if you could master the rope you were a god among players. And what about Low Gravity?!

Customization....... Indoor and outdoor map generators, obstacles, Bridges, maxing out worms health! Go back to Worms World Party where you had the crazy additions (Do you have any idea it was to slam someone allll the way across the map with a baseball bat because you set low gravity to always be on???). Or add some new ones like Raining Health or weapons where health crates drope 2-3 per round or something. Be creative!

Sounds.... Honestly not as important as the rest. The sound packs are cool but still lacking, go all out on them or not at all. I created 2 profiles with different voice packs and after 2 matches I swear I heard the same things 10 times.

Graphics..... Love them in this version. But if that is what is sucking up all the disk space (which I doubt) then lower it a little.

You guys completely missed on this game..... This is the first time I have played a game, turned it off after 2 hours and placed it on E-bay.

I love the worms games. But this is an abomination.

What a let down.

Take one thing away from all this.........CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT. Go back to the roots and ignore the gimmicks. Relook at Armageddon and World Party (the two best in my opinion) and see what made them so great.

minute55

16 Nov 2008, 14:22

Shadowmoon

16 Nov 2008, 14:37

Yes, minute is right, for once. This game was to introduce players to the worms series. It wasn't meant for the big WA fans.

I actually rather liked the game, and I hope they create a sequel.

Also, tip for you, minute55: Don't quote the whole post if you are replying to the last post of the thread.

AndrewTaylor

16 Nov 2008, 18:04

I'm intrigued by the notion that what halts videogame development is when they run out of disk space. It's not. The weapons, levels, plot and so on are designed usually before a single line of code is written and it's made to fit on the disc or else more discs are added: media is cheap compared to distribution anyway and in any case modern discs are so needlessly gargantuan that there's effectively no upper limit on anything but FMV.

Ten weapons, sure, but most of them have secondary functions, don't they? So really there are twenty, which is more than enough. Chess only has seven, and that's still popular. The original Worms had about twenty, didn't it? Okay, so that ran on lower-spec machines, but again: the spec of the machine is rarely the bottleneck in terms of game design.

You just wanted a bigger game than this one. Which is fair, but it's not the EPIC FAIL you imply.

Geeves00

16 Nov 2008, 18:17

1.So,weapons?This is not for hardcore fans.It is for casual fans.

So are you saying "Casual Fans" (whatever that means) wouldn't enjoy more than 10 basic weapons? Are you implying that Casual Fans wouldn't have enjoyed Armageddon or World Party because the overflowing content would have deterred them or something? How do you think casual fans become hardcore fans? By being able to play a game like worms 1000 times and not getting tired of it, every fight can be different (be it landscape, weapons, other customization options). This has no replay value past a few fight because they are all pretty much the same.

2.Controls...Look,they might be tricky to use at first,but a while at using it and you will be very good at using them.

The controls weren't hard to get used to but I still find it gimmicky. Besides, why change something that has worked so well. Some of the movements were pretty cool (pressing the remote down for the plunger comes to mind) but it just seemed pretty poor overall in my opinion.

3.Customation:I can sum this up in a word.CASUAL!!!!!

Again with the Casual. You are implying that a casual player wouldn't want these things. Why wouldn't they want to be able to change their gameplay to something they would find more enjoyable? Or maybe change things up a little bit. It would also provide a nice randomization for playing with a few friends because each person could create a different game. I would love to know why this would deter a casual player?

4.Sounds?Well...um...You know,I thought that even if there was a lot,your style of play will result in the same results.

Like I said sounds don't matter too much. Most of the time my friends and I would be too busy talking or laughing about who just got screwed to really hear the sounds.

5.Graphics,they are great.For the wii,anyway.I can't argue with you on this one.

Agreed. The game looks fantastic.

Worms has been around for years! Why cater tot he casual player? Also, why assume casual players wouldn't want a full compliment of weapons and accessories? Is there a reason worms fans both casual and hardcore can't enjoy the same game?

Find a "casual" player and sit them in front this game for an hour. Then sit them in front of Armageddon or World Party (or one of the other great ones).

Which do you think they would return to after that hour?

I wouldn't bet on this game.

I'm intrigued by the notion that what halts videogame development is when they run out of disk space. It's not. The weapons, levels, plot and so on are designed usually before a single line of code is written and it's made to fit on the disc or else more discs are added: media is cheap compared to distribution anyway and in any case modern discs are so needlessly gargantuan that there's effectively no upper limit on anything but FMV.

Not saying that space was an issue. Honestly i was kind of grasping at straws to try and figure out what happened here....

Ten weapons, sure, but most of them have secondary functions, don't they? So really there are twenty, which is more than enough. Chess only has seven, and that's still popular. The original Worms had about twenty, didn't it? Okay, so that ran on lower-spec machines, but again: the spec of the machine is rarely the bottleneck in terms of game design.

Come now. Chess? While I love Chess I doubt you would see people going out to buy it for a party game or even play some sort of 'story mode' with it. Not a very good comparison.

Older worms games had upwards of 40-45 weapons plus around 10-15 support items. So, no 10 weapons with some of them have alternate uses is not enough.

Plus I'm not saying the spec of the machine is the bottleneck. What i was saying is that after all these years and across multiple platforms you would think that the content of a game such as this (which really isn't a HUGE game by any means) would continue to increase. Instead the content of this game got cut dramatically.

You just wanted a bigger game than this one. Which is fair, but it's not the EPIC FAIL you imply.

Spot on, I was looking for a lot more out of this game. And I guess a lot of it was my own fault for going with an impulse buy instead of reading up on it first.

My thought process went something like this "WOAH! A new Worms for the Wii! On a next gen system I bet this is going to be awesome" *clicked and ordered the game*

A few friends of mine came over today to try it out. We used to spend hours upon hours with the old worms games having a blast screwing each other over and blowing each other up. After about 2 round each on this it was more like 'Meh, lets play Mario Kart.'

THAT is what makes this game a failure in my opinion.

Plasma

16 Nov 2008, 19:03

I still don't agree with using an expansion game as a basis for what a singular game should be like. And that's when you don't count W:A's updates.

Sounds.... Honestly not as important as the rest. The sound packs are cool but still lacking, go all out on them or not at all. I created 2 profiles with different voice packs and after 2 matches I swear I heard the same things 10 times.
Umm... am I the only one that reads that as "I used two speeckbanks and felt like I went through all of the speechbanks 10 times?" Because I really can't see what else it was supposed to mean.

Edit: Well, mabye, if he was complaining about sounds repeating. Not sure that's a very valid complaint though.

Are you implying that Casual Fans wouldn't have enjoyed Armageddon or World Party because the overflowing content would have deterred them or something?
Precisely.

Besides, why change something that has worked so well.
For the same reason that you thought a new Worms game would be worth getting: it's new, and not the same.

Edit again: Wait, you played two rounds? And decided that was enough to warrant you a good indication of the game as a whole?

Geeves00

16 Nov 2008, 19:35

Umm... am I the only one that reads that as "I used two speeckbanks and felt like I went through all of the speechbanks 10 times?" Because I really can't see what else it was supposed to mean.

Edit: Well, mabye, if he was complaining about sounds repeating. Not sure that's a very valid complaint though.

While there were a good selection of speech banks, what i was saying was that I chose two for the profiles I create and after just two rounds I felt as though i was hearing the same things over and over again. Didn't seem to me like there was much to them. But again, i don't play worms for the sounds, in fact I don't have much of a problem with them.

Precisely.

Either you're arguing for the sake of argument or you're just out of your mind.

How do you figure?

I seriously doubt a "casual" player would be turned off by excess content in a game like this. Maybe in a game such as Zelda or another RPG where the game can just drag on after a time, but even then......there aren't many games out there where you have people complaining that there is just too much to them. Too hard, sure. Bad story, yep. Missing something, sure. Too much content.... no.

For the same reason that you thought a new Worms game would be worth getting: it's new, and not the same.

Ok i can see that point. I'm not saying that a game shouldn't evolve. But even after playing the game for many hours the controls still feel lacking.

Edit again: Wait, you played two rounds? And decided that was enough to warrant you a good indication of the game as a whole?

No, i actually did play this for quite a few hours. I REALLY did try to enjoy it. Some parts of the game I did like but a lot was lacking. A few friends came over to play as well, they got bored of it after a few rounds because it was pretty much the same every time.

Also, if I recall Worms: Armageddon for the Playstation was a singular game. I never played it for PC so I never saw any expansions.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to start a flame war or pick a fight with anyone. If you like the game, great! If it happens to catch the attention of the 'Casual' gamer so they want to find another worms game to play more, awesome.

I just felt really disappointed with this game. And like I said in a previous post, it's my fault for acting on an impulse instead of reading reviews and other forum comments.

For me, this one was a huge miss and I was really expecting more. I hope the next one is better.

AndrewTaylor

16 Nov 2008, 19:50

So are you saying "Casual Fans" (whatever that means) wouldn't enjoy more than 10 basic weapons? Are you implying that Casual Fans wouldn't have enjoyed Armageddon or World Party because the overflowing content would have deterred them or something? How do you think casual fans become hardcore fans? By being able to play a game like worms 1000 times and not getting tired of it, every fight can be different (be it landscape, weapons, other customization options). This has no replay value past a few fight because they are all pretty much the same.
If I can just drag you back to Chess for a moment... there are more possible games of Chess than there are atoms in the universe, and even the smallest Worms demo version dwarfs that number by many, many orders of magnitude. Okay, so the rules don't vary, but the games do. Heck, the one-landscape demo of Worms2 had quite a following, and that offered exactly one possible starting setup, including fixed worm locations, options and mine locations. Variety can come from players as well as rules.

And yes, casual gamers can be put off by a menu of 60 weapons and an online arena where every game runs by different rules. It's not a ridiculous argument. A game like that has a very steep learning curve.

Worms has been around for years! Why cater tot he casual player?

Because there are more of them and they have more money. Because videogames sell better on consoles and almost all 'hardcore' Worms fans play it on the PC, so they're automatically not in the biggest market.

Older worms games had upwards of 40-45 weapons plus around 10-15 support items

Sure, some of them. W1 had a two rows of chunky icons. There can't have been more than 25 in total, including ones that replaced other ones (eg. you couldn't hold a banana bomb and a cluster bomb at once). And some of those were almost identical to each other. The massive arsenals of W2-WWP were there only when the series had been established and people were used to it. The XBLA version was back to basics, as was the PSP version. W3D had a reduced weapon set compared to WWP. If the basic game's been done, then you need to add a load of extra stuff. You don't need to do that for the first iteration on a platform, and it may put people off.

Plus I'm not saying the spec of the machine is the bottleneck. What i was saying is that after all these years and across multiple platforms you would think that the content of a game such as this (which really isn't a HUGE game by any means) would continue to increase. Instead the content of this game got cut dramatically.

No, you would think that. I would think that coding 60 weapons into a new game on a new platform and designing all the sprites and sounds for them is as big a job as it was to make them in the first place -- bigger, since the resolution's increased -- and an exponentially increasing development time is not tenable. You can't always keep everything from the old games. That's not practical.

Spot on, I was looking for a lot more out of this game...

A few friends of mine came over today to try it out. We used to spend hours upon hours with the old worms games having a blast screwing each other over and blowing each other up. After about 2 round each on this it was more like 'Meh, lets play Mario Kart.'

THAT is what makes this game a failure in my opinion.

Fair enough. But I think that after a certain point adding more weapons would start to detract from the core gameplay. The genius of Worms, to me, was the strategy and tactics. For others it was the rope. For others, it was just fun to turn everything to maximum and blow stuff up. The small number of weapons in W1 was plenty for me.

Geeves00

16 Nov 2008, 20:10

If I can just drag you back to Chess for a moment... there are more possible games of Chess than there are atoms in the universe, and even the smallest Worms demo version dwarfs that number by many, many orders of magnitude. Okay, so the rules don't vary, but the games do. Heck, the one-landscape demo of Worms2 had quite a following, and that offered exactly one possible starting setup, including fixed worm locations, options and mine locations. Variety can come from players as well as rules.

I understand what you are saying. But in this case I don't feel there is really enough variety.

And yes, casual gamers can be put off by a menu of 60 weapons and an online arena where every game runs by different rules. It's not a ridiculous argument. A game like that has a very steep learning curve.

Ok I can see your point there. But that is why customization is so important The people who feel overwhelmed by a screen full of weapons and accessories can easily turn to a different mode and work up to it. Plus some of the older Worms titles had training modes that would help the players learn how to use the items. Granted the dev costs and all other costs associated with it would increase so like you said, it might not always be practical.

Because there are more of them and they have more money. Because videogames sell better on consoles and almost all 'hardcore' Worms fans play it on the PC, so they're automatically not in the biggest market.

There is nothing I can argue against there. It always comes down to money and that is how things work. Point taken.

Sure, some of them. W1 had a two rows of chunky icons. There can't have been more than 25 in total, including ones that replaced other ones (eg. you couldn't hold a banana bomb and a cluster bomb at once). And some of those were almost identical to each other. The massive arsenals of W2-WWP were there only when the series had been established and people were used to it. The XBLA version was back to basics, as was the PSP version. W3D had a reduced weapon set compared to WWP. If the basic game's been done, then you need to add a load of extra stuff. You don't need to do that for the first iteration on a platform, and it may put people off.

I can see what you're saying there. And I hope with the next one the game gets expanded in a big way. But just because a game hasn't been establish on a platform doesn't mean the name won't draw it attention. For example, if Bungee decided to port Halo over to PS3 do you think they would reduce the content back to the way it was in Halo 1?

Now, that's not really a fair example. Team17 obviously doesn't have resources that Bungee would have (not a slight against Team17, just a statement of fact). But you get the point.

No, you would think that. I would think that coding 60 weapons into a new game on a new platform and designing all the sprites and sounds for them is as big a job as it was to make them in the first place -- bigger, since the resolution's increased -- and an exponentially increasing development time is not tenable. You can't always keep everything from the old games. That's not practical.

You're right. I'm not going to even assume to know what goes into developing games like this. I'm sure it is very time consuming and costly. In this case I really hope this game does well and gets a good 'casual' playerbase out of it. That way the fundamental game is there and the next one can really deliver what I was hoping to get out of this iteration.

Fair enough. But I think that after a certain point adding more weapons would start to detract from the core gameplay. The genius of Worms, to me, was the strategy and tactics. For others it was the rope. For others, it was just fun to turn everything to maximum and blow stuff up. The small number of weapons in W1 was plenty for me.

I don't think it would detract from the gameplay, in most modes you got a set of weapons that you had to work with. each mode presented new tactics. And sure you can gave some really tough battles with a combination of the 10 weapons. But the more weapons there are to choose from, the more combinations you have to work with.

If this game was just a foundation of what is to come, great. Like I said above, I hope the next one really delivers.

AndrewTaylor

17 Nov 2008, 00:02

Okay, then.

It's probably worth mentioning of course that I've yet to play this game, since I already own more Worms games than I could possibly find the time to play and this one seems to have people quite angry. But most of the actual things they're angry about seem off to me. I can't tell if that's because the angry people are mostly trigger happy dullards who just like lots of exploding fruit and farm animals or if it's because something else is wrong and they've misdirected their anger like the slew of threads every time Microsoft upgrade Windows from people who assume that's why their game won't work and won't accept 'it works for everyone else, have you checked it's plugged in?' as an answer.

It frustrates me because I can't tell if I'm missing out or cannily saving myself money.

yakuza

17 Nov 2008, 08:18

Geeves, don't bother, seriously. I couldn't agree more with most of the things you say but you shouldn't get in an argument with these people, specially when their main argument is "but this game is for casuals", what they're really saying here is that this game can only be really enjoyed by people that expect very little from a videogame, and it seems they also believe that you're not allowed to complaint about it.

Apparently, because this game is for casuals, we're not allowed to ***** about its mediocrity.

If I can say, you should get Worms Armageddon for the PC and join WormNet for endless fun, the game is still being patched by great people and is as active as ever.

It frustrates me because I can't tell if I'm missing out or cannily saving myself money.

Number of negative reviews: a bunch by different people
Number of positive reviews: Plasma and Shadowmoon

I'll let you decide.

Plasma

17 Nov 2008, 11:45

It's probably worth mentioning of course that I've yet to play this game, since I already own more Worms games than I could possibly find the time to play and this one seems to have people quite angry. But most of the actual things they're angry about seem off to me. I can't tell if that's because the angry people are mostly trigger happy dullards who just like lots of exploding fruit and farm animals or if it's because something else is wrong and they've misdirected their anger like the slew of threads every time Microsoft upgrade Windows from people who assume that's why their game won't work and won't accept 'it works for everyone else, have you checked it's plugged in?' as an answer.

It frustrates me because I can't tell if I'm missing out or cannily saving myself money.
As far as my theory goes, it's not so much a lack of weapons, but a combination of a lack of superweapons and that weapons don't launch worms like they used to.
Probably your biggest mistake was thinking the Average Joe plays Worms as a strategy game.

Number of negative reviews: a bunch by different people
To point out, those people are people you don't know. And Yakuza.
Who also never got the game.

yakuza

17 Nov 2008, 11:58

To point out, those people are people you don't know. And Yakuza.
Who also never got the game.

I give a chance to people I don't know. You've more than proven I can't take you seriously hence any random person on the internet deserves more credibility than you do.

I never got the game because I played it, and I know that limits my criticism, I couldn't tell you which mode is better but I can tell you the game sucks, is that some really hard concept to grasp?

It's funny you mention though since you get involved in WA discussions for grown ups and you haven't even finished bazooka trainning nor set foot in WormNet.

_Kilburn

17 Nov 2008, 18:39

That "casual fan" argument sucks. I'm going to bet many of us started the Worms series with Worms 2 or Worms Armageddon. Worms 2 has, if my calculations are correct, 12x4=48 weapons, minus Skip Go and Surrender. It even had an awesome weapon editor. Which doesn't make it hard to play, at all.

So anyone thinking 10 weapons and poor customizability are enough for casual gamers, is also implying that casual gamers are utterly retarded. That's it.

Same for the "playing with friends on the same console is funnier than playing online durr" argument. We all know that, it has been proven since the first Worms games. The only problem is friends don't always live in our house, and it may happen that we don't have any friend who likes Worms.

And yes, I've played the game. It's actually better than what I expected, but I sure won't be playing it long after completing all the missions.

Shadowmoon

17 Nov 2008, 18:50

I don't play it anymore. Recently completed the missions with all the special crates, and now, basically, there is really nothing to do.

I did think it was good though, but not as good as Worms: 4 Mayhem, WA, WOW 2, Worms 3D, and WWP.

I feel less positive about the game now. Just to clarify, I wrote the review when I had only played it for a few days.

Muzer

17 Nov 2008, 19:11

Just FYI, W:A has 13*5 + 1 weapons and utilities (+1 for the super sheep and aqua sheep both being on the F6 row) = 66

AndrewTaylor

17 Nov 2008, 19:14

That "casual fan" argument sucks.

That's true (in most cases, anyway). Unfortunately, the "ten weapons aren't enough" argument sucks just as much, and don't get me started on the second paragraph of your post.

So so far I have pretty well no sensible opinion at all on which to base a purchasing decision, which is what I should probably expect since more-or-less my only source of information about it is you lot.

Number of negative reviews: a bunch by different people
Number of positive reviews: Plasma and Shadowmoon

I'll let you decide.

Evidence you read my post: none.

I'll let you work out if you're being helpful.

_Kilburn

17 Nov 2008, 19:36

Unfortunately, the "ten weapons aren't enough" argument sucks just as much

Not when the only weapon you keep using is the impact grenade (or whatever it is called) because it is always the most efficient one. (as far as I know, it is the weapon that causes the most damage, other than the gun-thingy at close range)
There isn't any secret weapons either, or anything that may actually give a chance to the losing team to win.

minute55

17 Nov 2008, 20:01

Not when the only weapon you keep using is the impact grenade (or whatever it is called) because it is always the most efficient one. (as far as I know, it is the weapon that causes the most damage, other than the gun-thingy at close range)
There isn't any secret weapons either, or anything that may actually give a chance to the losing team to win.

Drop ship is more powerful,not secret,but it gives the losers a chance to win.

AndrewTaylor

17 Nov 2008, 20:14

Not when the only weapon you keep using is the impact grenade (or whatever it is called) because it is always the most efficient one. (as far as I know, it is the weapon that causes the most damage, other than the gun-thingy at close range)
That doesn't even make sense. If only one weapon is ever used, surely the number of other, unused ones is totally irrelevant. What you really mean is that the weapon selection is unbalanced, which is not the same as it being too small. This is what I mean about misdirected anger: people know they don't like the game, but they don't really know why. They assume it's because there are so few weapons because that's an easy and obvious difference and it seems (but isn't) logical that more weapons is always good, but a little scratching at the surface has revealed that actually you think the problem is that the Impact Grenade is overpowered.

There isn't any secret weapons either, or anything that may actually give a chance to the losing team to win.
There's 'playing better'.

Plasma

18 Nov 2008, 00:07

Same for the "playing with friends on the same console is funnier than playing online durr" argument. We all know that, it has been proven since the first Worms games. The only problem is friends don't always live in our house, and it may happen that we don't have any friend who likes Worms.
I don't think I've really seen that point come up here. Mostly because Spadge already commented on it.
Said comment can be roughly summarised into "it'd be bad business".

Not when the only weapon you keep using is the impact grenade (or whatever it is called) because it is always the most efficient one. (as far as I know, it is the weapon that causes the most damage, other than the gun-thingy at close range)
Kilburn...

Are you even aware you just said "the Bazooka is overpowered"?

I'm not kidding here; you actually said the Impact Frag, which is the exact same as the standard bazooka, is too powerful! Which makes me pretty damn sure you have never owned, played, or even seen the game! Ditto goes for your 'no superweapons' comment, because the Dropship is quite that (the W:ASO equivilent of a Concrete Donkey, only not as destructive and game-breaking, and is sometimes survivable.)

Heck, even Yakuza had at least a somewhat reasonable indication of what the game is like. You... ugh!

yakuza

18 Nov 2008, 08:14

That's true (in most cases, anyway). Unfortunately, the "ten weapons aren't enough" argument sucks just as much, and don't get me started on the second paragraph of your post.

So so far I have pretty well no sensible opinion at all on which to base a purchasing decision, which is what I should probably expect since more-or-less my only source of information about it is you lot.

No, you actually know the game sucks, you're just angry because we're not writting an essay with scientific proof of its suckage.
But continue the farce of the devil's advocate, thinking you have an amazing argument because 10 weapons could be so awesome that would be enough. We all know this ain't the case.

Evidence you read my post: none.

I could have told you that if you asked.

The funniest bit of all of this is that us worms super pros from the future who have mastered the most demanding Worms scheme Elite, which is the most allaround balanced strategic scheme out there in any worms game ever, we barely use 20 weapons in that scheme. And it's the newbies, or the casuals how they're called today, that play all this crap fullwormage and yabadaba with 66 super powerful weapons. So the argument that noobs are overwhelmed by high amounts of weapons is so stupid that it could only fit in an argument in this forum.

_Kilburn

18 Nov 2008, 20:14

Are you even aware you just said "the Bazooka is overpowered"?

I'm not kidding here; you actually said the Impact Frag, which is the exact same as the standard bazooka, is too powerful! Which makes me pretty damn sure you have never owned, played, or even seen the game! Ditto goes for your 'no superweapons' comment, because the Dropship is quite that (the W:ASO equivilent of a Concrete Donkey, only not as destructive and game-breaking, and is sometimes survivable.)

Heck, even Yakuza had at least a somewhat reasonable indication of what the game is like. You... ugh!

Nope, I've got the game. And I didn't say that the Bazooka and the Grenade were too powerful, I meant that they are actually the most efficient weapons in the whole inventory, and since you will usually find an infinite amount of those in almost every mission, you can guess what's next.
Especially with the new aiming system that tells you where the grenade will hit.

And that Dropship isn't powerful at all, I have seen it in action and even used it several times, 5 hits just isn't enough for massive killing.

Plasma

18 Nov 2008, 20:28

Nope, I've got the game. And I didn't say that the Bazooka and the Grenade were too powerful, I meant that they are actually the most efficient weapons in the whole inventory, and since you will usually find an infinite amount of those in almost every mission, you can guess what's next.
Especially with the new aiming system that tells you where the grenade will hit.
About half do, I believe. A lot of the missions were themed based or puzzle based.

Especially with the new aiming system that tells you where the grenade will hit.
See, that's a valid complaint! And I felt the same way too; some missions were far too easy because you had unlimited laser guide for the missions.
But that's worked around by just not using the laser guide.

Oh, and for non-W:ASOs, that's missions and beginner and set schemes only. For regular deathmatch schemes, the laser guide is a utility and only lasts for one turn on use.

And that Dropship isn't powerful at all, I have seen it in action and even used it several times, 5 hits just isn't enough for massive killing.
5 hits? What? It does far more hits than that.
Unless you suck at following instructions.

Shadowmoon

18 Nov 2008, 20:54

5 hits? What? It does far more hits than that.
Unless you suck at following instructions.

It does 6 hits.

Plasma

18 Nov 2008, 20:57

Okay, I'm loading up the game again to check for myself! I could've sworn it was somewhere in the region of 10, average.

Edit: 8 blasts each from the two shots I saw. Which was sufficient to change the top of the map into a waterhole. And of course pulversied the target worm.

Not destructive enough my foot!

Shadowmoon

18 Nov 2008, 21:02

Sorry, I got 9 hits.

Unless you suck at following instructions.

Nope, doesn't say the number of hits in the manual, and it doesn't say them in the Drop Ship training either.

Plasma

18 Nov 2008, 21:57

Shadowmoon

19 Nov 2008, 07:26

I meant following the "move Wiimote as shown" instructions. The one to make the Dropship actually work.

The number of holes it makes isn't a set figure, as how long the weapon lasts is based on time.

Yes, so _Kilburn would make 5-7 hits with that because if you wait for it to go down again after each shot, 5-7 hits would be the number of times you hit the ground.

AndrewTaylor

19 Nov 2008, 20:28

No, you actually know the game sucks, you're just angry because we're not writting an essay with scientific proof of its suckage.
But continue the farce of the devil's advocate, thinking you have an amazing argument because 10 weapons could be so awesome that would be enough. We all know this ain't the case.

No, you're making a case that makes no sense. I can't tell if you're right but bad at expressing it, or wrong. The two look identical.

I could have told you that if you asked.

I could tell you that I made a pie out of chocolate and puppies, but it wouldn't make it so. (Also, please assume 'read' means 'read and understood'.)

The funniest bit of all of this is that us worms super pros from the future who have mastered the most demanding Worms scheme Elite, which is the most allaround balanced strategic scheme out there in any worms game ever, we barely use 20 weapons in that scheme. And it's the newbies, or the casuals how they're called today, that play all this crap fullwormage and yabadaba with 66 super powerful weapons. So the argument that noobs are overwhelmed by high amounts of weapons is so stupid that it could only fit in an argument in this forum.

Sure, for the purposes of mindlessly blowing stuff up. I like to think that most people get a bit more out of Worms than that. And if a newbie plays Worms and only enjoys it as a mindless explode-em-up then they're not going to keep playing and buy the full version/sequel/t-shirt, are they?

minute55

22 Nov 2008, 16:34

i am also confused.Please tell us,yakuza,what you mean.

48Prong

25 Nov 2008, 18:27

Dang! I thought I would hop on this here forum, which I haven't checked out in quite a while, to see if I couldn't find some info on a new Worms game. I was shocked to see this thread, arguing the same points, with no new arguments, and the exact same content (and mainly same posters) as the threads talking crap about this game when it came out OVER 8 MONTHS AGO!

I'll throw in my two cents on the matter while I am here, since the argument is still going strong. It is 8 months since the release of Worms: A Space Oddity. And in retrospect, my opinion is still - the game sucks.

minute55

30 Nov 2008, 10:19

...this is the first hate post i've seen that does not even SAY online play.

Metacooler

7 Dec 2008, 15:06

If I can just drag you back to Chess for a moment... there are more possible games of Chess than there are atoms in the universe

think before you post,please...

thomasp

7 Dec 2008, 15:32

think before you post,please...
I realise this is off topic, but I can't see what's wrong with Andrew's statement...

The number of possible games in chess tends to infinity due to the stupidly high number of powers involved. However, the universe is an infinitely large area which is more or less a vacuum (with the odd planet dotted around), and vacuums by definition have nothing inside them, so the number of atoms in the universe is, mathematically speaking, zero.

Zero is quite a bit less than infinity, therefore Andrew's point is true.

cyph3r

8 Dec 2008, 09:27

Just because the universe is mostly vacuum doesn't mean there are less atoms in it. There are a ridiculously huge number of atoms in the universe. I don't know what the current estimate is for the total mass of the universe (with huge error bars no doubt) but if you divided that by the weight of a hydrogen atom ( 1 over avagadro's number grammes I think) you'd get roughly the number of atoms in the universe. Which is, I believe a greater number than there are possible combinations of placement of chess pieces on a board.

I could be wrong, it has been about 3 years since I did my degree in Theoretical Physics, but I'm sure this is all besides the point anyway, just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in :)

Edit: a quick bit of maths gives an estimate of 1.8e+79 atoms in the *observable* universe (note that this is less than actually in the whole universe)

thomasp

8 Dec 2008, 10:03

Apparently the number of possible games in chess (not moves but games) is 10^(10^(50)) [source (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chess.html)]. When I punch this into Matlab it tells me that the answer is infinity. The closest real number I can get before it goes to infinity (which would appear to be anything above a power of 999) is 10^(10^(2.4889)) = 1.77e+308.

That's quite a few orders of magnitude bigger than a very conservative estimate at the number of atoms in the universe.

And for the record, my earlier approximation of the number of atoms in the universe comes from Douglas Adams for those who didn't realise!

Paul.Power

8 Dec 2008, 10:39

Engineers and matlab. 10^10^50's just 10^100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000, nothing to be scared of. It's a lot less than a googolplex, after all.

A lot bigger than the number of atoms in the known universe, though. I'm trying to think if you could write 10^100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000 down in full now, actually. Maybe if you used binary and if every subatomic particle was assigned 1 for spin up and 0 for spin down...

AndrewTaylor

8 Dec 2008, 20:06

Plasma

8 Dec 2008, 20:20

I agree with Cyph3r, the universe is only mostly vacuum. Therefore, Andrew was only mostly right.
Now, we just need to consider the thought: what game is most like chess? Checkers, of course! Ergo, there are more possible games of checkers than there are atoms in the universe.

Now that's something you didn't know before!

In sensical terms though, Andrew was tecnhically correct as chess possibilities are circular: two pieces can be moved continuously back and forth without any progress; meaning that there are indeed an infinite number of possible games. Had he said moves, it would've been different.
........oh god, I'm turning into a lawyer!

And for the record, my earlier approximation of the number of atoms in the universe comes from Douglas Adams for those who didn't realise!
We realised. It's about the third time you've used that joke now.

AndrewTaylor

8 Dec 2008, 20:29

In sensical terms though, Andrew was tecnhically correct as chess possibilities are circular: two pieces can be moved continuously back and forth without any progress; meaning that there are indeed an infinite number of possible games. Had he said moves, it would've been different.

Actually, that results in a tie game.

Plasma

8 Dec 2008, 20:33

Actually, that results in a tie game.
That's only if there's just two kings left. In any other situation, it results in both players being kicked out of the chess club for bufoonery.

AndrewTaylor

8 Dec 2008, 21:30

That's only if there's just two kings left. In any other situation, it results in both players being kicked out of the chess club for bufoonery.

What? If there are two kings left then it's a draw automatically because checkmate is impossible. There's no need to wait for them to start repeating.

I looked it up, though, and it turns out that if they're feeling perverse both players might choose not to claim a draw when the game is repeating, in which case it can permissibly continue forever, but I suppose that depends if you're counting sensible games or legal ones.

In any case, the 'official' rules change now and then so the number of allowed games isn't a constant.

CJH

6 Jan 2009, 16:51

What? If there are two kings left then it's a draw automatically because checkmate is impossible. There's no need to wait for them to start repeating.

I looked it up, though, and it turns out that if they're feeling perverse both players might choose not to claim a draw when the game is repeating, in which case it can permissibly continue forever, but I suppose that depends if you're counting sensible games or legal ones.

In any case, the 'official' rules change now and then so the number of allowed games isn't a constant.

I take it you havent heard of Stalemate.

When there are very few pieces left, and the king has nowhere to move without being caught, he must force a Stalemate, because otherwise the game would become pretty stale, mate.;)

Alternitively, you can skip playing chess, and play Worms instead.

Yeah, I like Worms, And I like Chess...But which is better?

Plasma

6 Jan 2009, 17:39

When there are very few pieces left, and the king has nowhere to move without being caught, he must force a Stalemate, because otherwise the game would become pretty stale, mate.;)
We were talking about when both sides can move, but they keep repeating the same moves over and over again because the only other possibility is that the player who changes move is screwed.

yakuza

12 Jan 2009, 18:01

hay guys let's chat about this game from the team17 factory of games.

NO SHUT UP IT'S QUANTUM PHISICS TIME.

Plasma

12 Jan 2009, 18:54

Umm...
Did Andrew just delete a bunch of off-topic posts right now, or did Yakuza just bump an inactive thread to tell people who who weren't talking anymore to shut up?

yakuza

12 Jan 2009, 18:58

Umm...
Did Andrew just delete a bunch of off-topic posts right now, or did Yakuza just bump an inactive thread to tell people who who weren't talking anymore to shut up?

You can ask me directly, don't be scared.

thomasp

12 Jan 2009, 19:30

Umm...
Did Andrew just delete a bunch of off-topic posts right now, or did Yakuza just bump an inactive thread to tell people who who weren't talking anymore to shut up?
Nope, CJH bumped it 6 days before yakuza's post.

Metacooler

4 Jul 2009, 00:56

I started a bit of a mess in this thread :/

Consider it from a logical standpoint; there isn't enough materials in the universe to create the amount of chessboards and pieces necessary to play enough games to outnumber the amount of atoms in the universe. SO there isn't, in fact, more possible chess games than atoms.

Same goes for materials to manufacture computers and and keyboards and worms discs in order to play more games of worms than there is atoms....

I'll be back in a few months, everyone punch down more seemingly clever arguments and counter-arguments while i'm gone ^^

Mr Church

6 Jul 2009, 06:16

Holy mother of God! Enough about chess and physics. This is about the tragedy that is Worms: A Space Oddity. It was the first worms game I'd ever played, and I thought it was pretty fun. If it's an introductory game, you should love it. I mean, it wouldn't have hurt Team 17 to put in a few more weapons, but it was a pretty nifty game. If they made a version of it for the 360 with online play, I would consider buying it, although I have Worms and W2:A. More weapons would have helped, but overall the game is still Worms. The gravity got me time and time again, but it added a new element of strategy.

DexxaWorm2

6 Jul 2009, 22:48

WHAT DID YOU DO TO THIS GAME?

Think of it as 'My First Worms Game'.

Plasma

7 Jul 2009, 20:14

Cooler, you seem to have forgotten that multiple games can be played on the same computer/chessboard. And since material eventually recycles (essentially. probably.), there'll always be enough material.
And that's all ignoring the possibility of an infinitely recursive universe.
Plus you need to consider th-
Holy mother of God! Enough about chess and physics.
Ah, sorry.

If they made a version of it for the 360 with online play, I would consider buying it
You pretty much described Wxbla. The entire thing about W:ASO was that it used Wii controls and was low-budgeted enough not to have online play. And that it gave the teamsters a chance to make fun of Sci-Fi stuff.

Mr Church

7 Jul 2009, 22:34

I have WXBLA, W2AXBLA. I don't see how it could have been so low budgeted not to have hardly any weapons, and no online play. They even advertised online play.

Plasma

7 Jul 2009, 23:03

Well, "low budgeted" wasn't the right phrase, this isn't a movie after all. I really should've said Low... Low... Low........

Either way, it was seen that since its a game designed for people who don't play Worms normally, the cost of adding online play wasn't seen as worth it compared to how little extra copies it would sell so they kept it out, and loads of weapons falls partly into that and partly into that it would just be confusing for new people.

Shadowmoon

8 Jul 2009, 21:30

Played this game again months ago, 5 minutes later turned off the wii and sold it a few hours later.

Can't believe I even liked it a while back.

A sequel would be awesome though.

Plasma

8 Jul 2009, 21:50

Can't believe I even liked it a while back.
Honestly Shadowman, you tend to go through that a lot with all worms games. Like them when they come out, think they're the best of the best... then about two months later you go from adoring them to detesting them in about a week.
Its sorta creepy.

Shadowmoon

9 Jul 2009, 11:54

Honestly Shadowman, you tend to go through that a lot with all worms games. Like them when they come out, think they're the best of the best... then about two months later you go from adoring them to detesting them in about a week.
Its sorta creepy.

All? an overstatement isn't it Plasmoon? :p still playing Worms 2 Armageddon for the same ammount of hours I do every day, not bored of it yet, and its gone a week too!

Once the campaign on WASO was completed, there was lack of anything to do, had it had online play, this game would have being good.

Yes, it does make a difference, if you disagree- look at the popularity of Worms XBLA.

Metacooler

10 Jul 2009, 22:18

Plasma: "Cooler, you seem to have forgotten that multiple games can be played on the same computer/chessboard. And since material eventually recycles (essentially. probably.), there'll always be enough material."

Of course multiple games can be played on the same boards! But after a few billion games, the pieces and boards would wear away to unrecyclable nothingness or dust or whatever. Do that with every board that the human race have the capacity to make, and your tally would sill be peanuts compared to the number of atoms there are. :p

Mr Church

11 Jul 2009, 09:51

Actually, since there are a set amount of spaces, and a set amount of pieces, eventually you would run out of games of chess. It would take a long time, a really long time, but eventually you will run out of options.

It's just WASO has not enough options and it turns into the kind of game you would expect to see on a Game Boy, not on your Wii.

Muzer

12 Jul 2009, 11:20

Mr Church

13 Jul 2009, 23:56

Yes, but there wil still be more games than atoms in the universe.
Mate, you're an idiot. Do you have any idea how many atoms are in the universe? A whole ****ing lot. Do you know how many atoms make up your body? Billions. And that's not even a fraction of a decimal of a percent of a fraction of a fraction of one percent of how many atoms are in the universe. Every single thing that has ever been any form of tangible is made of atoms. Those atoms are still around. Atoms do not just disappear, so we have all the atoms in the history of the universe still floating around. There are not more possible games of chess. Period.

yakuza

14 Jul 2009, 07:39

Mate, you're an idiot. Do you have any idea how many atoms are in the universe? A whole ****ing lot. Do you know how many atoms make up your body? Billions. And that's not even a fraction of a decimal of a percent of a fraction of a fraction of one percent of how many atoms are in the universe. Every single thing that has ever been any form of tangible is made of atoms. Those atoms are still around. Atoms do not just disappear, so we have all the atoms in the history of the universe still floating around. There are not more possible games of chess. Period.

How about different routes from A to B in the whole game of Zelda OOT compared to atoms in earth?

How would that compare?

MrBunsy

14 Jul 2009, 07:44

Shadowmoon

14 Jul 2009, 09:53

Look up the forum rules too.

MrBunsy

14 Jul 2009, 16:59

Incidentally I looked up estimates for the number of possible games of chess and atoms in the universe. There's about 10^42 times more games of chess according to wikipedia (10^123 vs 10^81), more than I'd expected to be fair.

Metacooler

21 Jul 2009, 11:51

Don't forget my post outlining that it's not possible to actually play that many games of chess!"

And Mr Church, you wouldn't run out of moves because you could just move a pawn each and then slide the queens back and forth as many times as you wanted. But my previous point still stands :p

Also i don't know how anyone would go about estimating the number of atoms in existance - in fact i'll confidently say that whatever figure is on wikipedia is almost certainly wrong..

MrBunsy

21 Jul 2009, 17:22

Also i don't know how anyone would go about estimating the number of atoms in existance - in fact i'll confidently say that whatever figure is on wikipedia is almost certainly wrong..

Why? You take a reasonable guess at the mass of the universe and what that mass is made up of, then you can get an estimate for the number of atoms.

Plasma

21 Jul 2009, 18:10

Bunsy, people don't guess the mass of the universe, you clutz! Nowadays, we use the Divine Inter-Galactic Weighing Scales for precise measurement. Get with the times!

Metacooler

21 Jul 2009, 19:31

Why? You take a reasonable guess at the mass of the universe and what that mass is made up of, then you can get an estimate for the number of atoms.

Guess the mass of the universe? You make it sound so easy! How's that supposed to be done?

MrBunsy

21 Jul 2009, 19:37

Guess the mass of the universe? You make it sound so easy! How's that supposed to be done?

I'm no physicist, but the little I know of Physics suggests it's not impossible.

Here's how wikipedia does it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Mass_of_the_observable_univers e)

Sure it's based on more assumptions than you can shake a stick at, but so's the design of your computer and that still works.

Metacooler

26 Jul 2009, 18:55

Didn't it turn out there was a planet behind pluto or something like that that was only found recently? I seriously doubt that any accurate estimates can be made based on the hubble telescope's view of the universe...

My computer may be based on this and that, but it works without a doubt! The mass of the universe is incomplete guesswork in my opinion...

MrBunsy

26 Jul 2009, 20:24

Didn't it turn out there was a planet behind pluto or something like that that was only found recently? I seriously doubt that any accurate estimates can be made based on the hubble telescope's view of the universe...

It'll have a huge error, yes, but it'll probably be roughly in the right order of magnitude.

Metacooler

26 Jul 2009, 21:50

Bah.

Astrophysicists can't even agree on whether the universe has edges. The human race will probably be extinct by the time an accurate number for the atom question can be obtained.

Chess will also go down the tubes. What a terrible loss. x)

Vader

1 Aug 2009, 17:03

How do you control the camera?

I had a go on a mate's copy and I could rarely see what I was aiming for. I tried loads of button combos but I guess I either missed the one I was looking for or the function doesn't exist. No zoom, no camera panning, not even a smidgeon of movement without moving your worm...

If there is no camera control, that strikes me as a pretty epic design failure.

Plasma

1 Aug 2009, 17:19

Pressing the plus button zoomed in, and holding the 2 button allows you to pan the camera while changing the cursor to a camera image. Or it could be the other way round, I haven't played it in a while. Either way, both camera control buttons were only one button each.
I'd say that its pretty bad that you missed them when there's only 6 buttons on the controller, but then again Paul managed to completely miss out that the instructions were a step-by-step thing and kept ignoring the follow-up instructions.

JSMCAG

1 Aug 2009, 17:27

To change the zoom, press the + button...
To move the camera, point at the screen, press and hold the + button and move the cursor...

The 2 button is used to show/hide the step-by-step instructions, it has nothing to do with the camera... ;)

Vader

1 Aug 2009, 17:30

I'm sure I tried that. Never mind, I reckon it'd be fairly playable with that knowledge. Not great but playable.

Plasma

1 Aug 2009, 17:31

Oh whoops. I could've sworn that was the 1 button.

Either way, I haven't played it in a while.