The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Need others input. A debate of sequels...
burgerking
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So me and my roommate have been arguing about this lately, and we NEED some outside opinions in this debate.
Alright, so basically he loves GTA4, I love Half-Life 2.
What our argument is, is that I said I was tired of GTA because it's essentially the same game over and over with little features added here and there (and sometimes removed from newer games). I didn't feel like GTA was worth a purchase because it was full of features I already have played in previous titles and Saints Row.
His argument is that it's already a great game and so there isn't a lot needed to be improved on, just the addition of multiplayer, physics and HD graphics are sufficient to warrant a purchase. I argued that most of the new features in GTA (not including the minimal "features" like watching TV) were the same as Saint's Row.
I believe that a sequel should reinvent elements or completely change a sequel from a previous game (such as elements changing between the Elder Scrolls games, Guitar Hero to Rock Band, Resident Evil 4) these games knew their previous titles were getting tiresome and repetative and reinvented the gameplay. I used Half-Life 2 as my prime example. A new engine, manipulation of physics, new environments that pushed the boundaries of the new hardware, vehicles etc. I believe any game shouldn't stick to a formula which is why I'm much more interested in playing unique games like Little Big Planet or even Mirrors Edge, even if it failed, it's unique approach makes it a more fresh experience, to me.
My roommate countered by arguing that Half-Life 2 is essentially at bare bones, the same as Half-Life 1. He says you're still the same character, still in an HEV suit, still with a crowbar and with the same health system. Sure they changed the level design, but he argues the gameplay is still the same. He thinks that if you have a good game and add elements to it, it warrants a purchase, he cited Fable II which he thinks is vastly improved over the last, making it worth a purchase. He calls GTA4 his game of the year for including multiplayer and improving and adding elements like no load times or character physics that previous GTA games did not have.
I said that I was more interested in games like Crackdown that take this existing sandbox element that WAS original years ago with GTA3 and changed it up, adding new things that I've never played before. He believes that a GTA on a new platform is simply necessary, it has to come and with it the HD graphics and physics that new technology allows and will make a great game better. He said with this is mind, the leap from Half-Life to Half-Life 2 are the same (if not less due to the same characters) as GTA:SA to GTA4 because the technological leap is a given.
Sooo, what do you all think about this argument?
Alright, so basically he loves GTA4, I love Half-Life 2.
What our argument is, is that I said I was tired of GTA because it's essentially the same game over and over with little features added here and there (and sometimes removed from newer games). I didn't feel like GTA was worth a purchase because it was full of features I already have played in previous titles and Saints Row.
His argument is that it's already a great game and so there isn't a lot needed to be improved on, just the addition of multiplayer, physics and HD graphics are sufficient to warrant a purchase. I argued that most of the new features in GTA (not including the minimal "features" like watching TV) were the same as Saint's Row.
I believe that a sequel should reinvent elements or completely change a sequel from a previous game (such as elements changing between the Elder Scrolls games, Guitar Hero to Rock Band, Resident Evil 4) these games knew their previous titles were getting tiresome and repetative and reinvented the gameplay. I used Half-Life 2 as my prime example. A new engine, manipulation of physics, new environments that pushed the boundaries of the new hardware, vehicles etc. I believe any game shouldn't stick to a formula which is why I'm much more interested in playing unique games like Little Big Planet or even Mirrors Edge, even if it failed, it's unique approach makes it a more fresh experience, to me.
My roommate countered by arguing that Half-Life 2 is essentially at bare bones, the same as Half-Life 1. He says you're still the same character, still in an HEV suit, still with a crowbar and with the same health system. Sure they changed the level design, but he argues the gameplay is still the same. He thinks that if you have a good game and add elements to it, it warrants a purchase, he cited Fable II which he thinks is vastly improved over the last, making it worth a purchase. He calls GTA4 his game of the year for including multiplayer and improving and adding elements like no load times or character physics that previous GTA games did not have.
I said that I was more interested in games like Crackdown that take this existing sandbox element that WAS original years ago with GTA3 and changed it up, adding new things that I've never played before. He believes that a GTA on a new platform is simply necessary, it has to come and with it the HD graphics and physics that new technology allows and will make a great game better. He said with this is mind, the leap from Half-Life to Half-Life 2 are the same (if not less due to the same characters) as GTA:SA to GTA4 because the technological leap is a given.
Sooo, what do you all think about this argument?
burgerking on
0
Posts
Others like playing sequels and games with yearly updates.
Its really up to each person. Theres no objective answer to this argument.
Well that's what I was saying to him, that it practically invented physics based gameplay and that it's all from Valve since their engine is built ground-up, whereas GTA4 was taken from the pre-existing Table Tennis engine and Havok physics and that Force Unleashed physics thing. He says it doesn't matter where the physics came from. He doesn't care Saint's Row had physics before GTA cause he won't play Saint's Row so how does it affect him? He is just concerned about the fact that previous game didn't have it, and the new one does. Which he admits is a substantial part of the improvement of HL to HL2 yet he says it's no different from GTASA to GTA4. The physics improves elements of the game.
I said that HL2 based it's gameplay AROUND the physics and used them to solve puzzles opposed to HL1 using environment jumping puzzles etc. but GTA4 used it merely as a thing that looked cool when you hit people, only affecting you when you occasionally flew through the windshield (again was in Saints Row already so why is it so amazing that it was in GTA4)
HL2 is not a reinvention of HL1, far from it. Both execute brilliantly on an incredibly linear and scripted path of events. The advances in tech and physics for HL2 merely enhanced the core principles of the game that remained unchanged from the first game.
The hallmarks of Half Life are an illusion of freedom and a clever awareness of space and movement.
Piling shit up to lift a ramp is an interesting novelty but in no way the reason for HL2s success.
I'd like to point at Dynasty Warriors 6 as another example of a disastrous attempt to change a series. I've played damn near every DW/SW/WO game and realize they need to reboot the series, but the changes they made were terrible. They changed it from the two button combo system (ST, SST, SSST) to just mashing a single button for their 'Renbu' system. Also, they changed a number of generals with unique weapons to being generic spear wielding generals in the name of being more faithful to history. Overall, they made the game even more repetitive even though the repetition was what people complained about the most for previous games.
Ultimately, I don't care whether a developer reinvents the wheel or attempts to find a new method of transit, I just want to play a good game. If they can do that, then they'll have my money.
Your argument fell apart as soon as you suggested the objective value or worth of sequels such as GTA4. There is no such thing as objective value or worth. You may not feel GTA is worth a purchase for you but you really can't say whether or not it's worth it for your roommate. "Worth" and "value" are entirely subjective.
So, basically, your roommate is right. He likes what he likes, and whatever metric you are trying to apply to his concept of value is pretty much irrelevant.
I'm interested to know what you think the reasons for HL2 success were. It was always the epic sense of the game in addition to the new powerful engine that made it a classic in my mind. But if you believe the physics puzzle were just a novelty, what do you think made it a great sequel?
Well, yeah, I'm going to say "no don't buy this because it's not an original sequel" if he likes it good for him. I am talking in terms of quality and what makes a great sequel. He wants to argue that a sequel like Fable II or GTA4 is a superior sequel more so than something like a MGS or Half-Life sequel.
If you're to say it's subjective like that then why do game critics exist? If we all form our own opinions, their opinion of value or worth would be meaningless to us individually.
The immersion and storytelling coupled with a progressive learning gameplay mechanic characterized by 'gates' and a clear sense of pacing and theme.
All of which HL1 was praised for heavily back in 1998. Physics and the gravity gun were not gimmicks, but they didn't propel the game to greatness on their own.
You've just hit upon the reason people are losing faith in critics, especially in video games. It's entirely subjective. The reason they exist, though, is because a lot of people put faith into a numerical score. But how can you say objectively that Metal Gear Solid 4 is a better game than, say, Forza 2? They can't be rated on the same scale, but you can look at the numerical values 8.8 and 9.0 and say that one is better than the other, when they're both subjective on how well you like to watch movies or play racing sims.
What I've settled on is going through a variety of reviews and trying to get down the solid facts of the game: length, technical proficiency (how well it runs on the hardware - is there stuttering and graphics pop-in on 360?), and an idea of what the gameplay is like. If all of those things - which are all objective and can't be tainted by subjective opinions - click into something I know I would like, I check the game out. Otherwise, I give it a pass.
I'm not entirely sure why critics exist. I wrote game reviews on and off for about five years and I can't really answer this question. I frankly think the entire review industry - in every medium - wanes between pretentious superfluity and corrupt harmfulness.
Oh there are many sound arguments in favor of the critique industry, sure. Some argue that it increases the overall quality of what is produced, and I suppose that might be a part of your argument as well, that publicly holding developers to a certain standard improves quality. And it's a valid argument.
Fundamentally, though, what a person likes, a person likes, and value is wholly personal. This is one thing I absolutely loathe about the (art/entertainment) review industry. It pretends that artistic value and/or entertainment value are objective qualities...but they never will be.
I largely agree with what you are saying, however, to go on a tangent for a sec, when you can interact in the criticism to make a debate, it becomes more interesting. My roommate and I were debating, although we will never change each others minds, yet we continued to counter each others points for far longer than we should have. So really debates like this, which is part of why forums exist, are pretty unproductive because we'll never change our opinions because of someone else, then again we'll gain new insight and perspective. Something I was trying to do by sharing our viewpoints here.
Guess it's just human nature, and I'm getting a headache from it all
One of the reasons I adore the series is that it has never depended on engine technology to support its design. The design is cohesive throughout all the games, and the tech is simply an asset to express it to the player.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
Hey, don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with discourse. It's just that I don't think there's much to "debate" - the purpose of debate is generally to try to convince the other person, or to convince a third party that you are right, neither of which is possible when you are talking about "value" because there is no correct answer and because convincing someone they don't like something is not really possible unless you actively manipulate them.
Nothing wrong with talking about it though.
The one thing I would argue here is that the Source engine allowed Valve to take a game that was originally very contained and make the sequel feel epic. Suddenly, it's not just this facility being over run, it's the whole friggin world! Stepping on to the streets for the first time or driving a dune buggy through vast terrain definitely made HL2 feel bigger and like a blockbuster movie to me. So, in that way, the Source engine, I believe, amped up the memorability of HL2 over the first title. You could always look up at the citadel to see what was going on with the Combine as they grew continuously frantic searching for you and the uprising, and the later levels with Striders rampaging through the streets made the sequel look "huge", something which the first game was never able to do. Instead, it had the less epic, more curious exploration of the alien world.
1. Take elements from the previous game that fans enjoyed and improve on them.
2. Introduce new elements that complement previous elements and change the experience.
3. Build upon a previously told story.
In this regard, HL2 fails to deliver on points 1 and 2. It is essentially the same game with new content and graphics. This isn't really a sequel to me so much as it is an expansion. It can be very difficult to mix the old with the new in order to keep your fans happy while drawing in new fans and also making sure things don't become stale, but I feel it's necessary. An old game with a new coat of paint a sequel it does not create.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.