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.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
I've tried playing several different Final Fantasys, and found them all dreadfully boring.
I also can't stand sports games that don't involve the threat of death or severe injury.
MMORPGs, including WoW, are terrifyingly repetitive snoozefests to me.
But I guess the "everyone has different likes and dislikes" thing has been run into the thread's floorboards at this point.
Halo is popular because a lot of people like it for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the media told them to, or perhaps they find one of the characters attractive and hope one day he/she/it will become real. All kinds of crazy reasons are available.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that the majority of people who like Halo like it because it's fun to them, not because of the media or anything else. The media/marketing might be part of the reason why they bought/played the game to begin with, but after that the game has to be fun. Judging by how many people play Halo games online, I'd say it has a bit more to do with fun than marketing hype. The thing about people wanting Halo characters to be real one day doesn't really make sense.
Congratulations on finding things in my post that aren't there!
A spectacular feat.
edit: I think somehow you're finding that I've criticized any of those games. This is not the case.
I'm pretty sure that is what you are doing not me. I bolded the part of your post I was replying to. I was telling you that I'm fairly certain people like/play those games because they are fun, not because "the media told them to" or any other reason. I also said that the media may be part of the reason people BUY those games, but they wouldn't keep playing them day after day if they didn't enjoy them.
Also, I'm fairly certain that calling a game "a repetitive snorefest" or "dreadfully boring" IS criticism. In fact, it's pretty much the very definition of the word.
Hypernetic on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I've tried playing several different Final Fantasys, and found them all dreadfully boring.
I also can't stand sports games that don't involve the threat of death or severe injury.
MMORPGs, including WoW, are terrifyingly repetitive snoozefests to me.
But I guess the "everyone has different likes and dislikes" thing has been run into the thread's floorboards at this point.
Halo is popular because a lot of people like it for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the media told them to, or perhaps they find one of the characters attractive and hope one day he/she/it will become real. All kinds of crazy reasons are available.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that the majority of people who like Halo like it because it's fun to them, not because of the media or anything else. The media/marketing might be part of the reason why they bought/played the game to begin with, but after that the game has to be fun. Judging by how many people play Halo games online, I'd say it has a bit more to do with fun than marketing hype. The thing about people wanting Halo characters to be real one day doesn't really make sense.
Congratulations on finding things in my post that aren't there!
A spectacular feat.
edit: I think somehow you're finding that I've criticized any of those games. This is not the case.
I'm pretty sure that is what you are doing not me. I bolded the part of your post I was replying to. I was telling you that I'm fairly certain people like/play those games because they are fun, not because "the media told them to" or any other reason. I also said that the media may be part of the reason people BUY those games, but they wouldn't keep playing them day after day if they didn't enjoy them.
Also, I'm fairly certain that calling a game "a repetitive snorefest" or "dreadfully boring" IS criticism. In fact, it's pretty much the very definition of the word.
Holy hell.
Why did I even step out of Flippy's thread?
I wasn't commenting on the games. At all. The games were not anywhere near the larger point.
I've tried playing several different Final Fantasys, and found them all dreadfully boring.
I also can't stand sports games that don't involve the threat of death or severe injury.
MMORPGs, including WoW, are terrifyingly repetitive snoozefests to me.
But I guess the "everyone has different likes and dislikes" thing has been run into the thread's floorboards at this point.
Halo is popular because a lot of people like it for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the media told them to, or perhaps they find one of the characters attractive and hope one day he/she/it will become real. All kinds of crazy reasons are available.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that the majority of people who like Halo like it because it's fun to them, not because of the media or anything else. The media/marketing might be part of the reason why they bought/played the game to begin with, but after that the game has to be fun. Judging by how many people play Halo games online, I'd say it has a bit more to do with fun than marketing hype. The thing about people wanting Halo characters to be real one day doesn't really make sense.
Congratulations on finding things in my post that aren't there!
A spectacular feat.
edit: I think somehow you're finding that I've criticized any of those games. This is not the case.
I'm pretty sure that is what you are doing not me. I bolded the part of your post I was replying to. I was telling you that I'm fairly certain people like/play those games because they are fun, not because "the media told them to" or any other reason. I also said that the media may be part of the reason people BUY those games, but they wouldn't keep playing them day after day if they didn't enjoy them.
Also, I'm fairly certain that calling a game "a repetitive snorefest" or "dreadfully boring" IS criticism. In fact, it's pretty much the very definition of the word.
Holy hell.
Why did I even step out of Flippy's thread?
I wasn't commenting on the games. At all. The games were not anywhere near the larger point.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
They're even better console shooters than Halo on the N64 like Turok, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark. Halo belongs in the line of other average shooters like Resistance 1/2. Killzone 2, BioShock, Far Cry, and Crysis. Halo isn't a bad game but its not in the same league as Call of Duty, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Doom, No One Lives Forever, and most of all Half-Life.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
Crysis was way beyond mediocre. It was really an awesome game, single player wise, except for the ending, which was horrible. (kind of like Bioshock)
This whole argument is so stupid though, I mean what one person considers to be mediocre could be considered amazingly awesome to another person. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who consider "classic" games (games that are widely viewed as classics, like Zelda or Mario) to be complete garbage. And as many of us know, there are games that are widely viewed as garbage that a lot of people love too (like advent rising, for example).
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
He was just making an example, and you keep drilling the same point.
You know, I could make a post talking about how great and fresh Halo felt, as a PC gamer, when I came home from college and played it through after finding a spare xbox in my room. I didn't know a damn thing about Halo and it was an amazing play through. Certainly not the best shooter I had ever played, but the atmosphere and gameplay was very enjoyable.
No, that doesnt convey what made this game great. Now, I went up to visit a friend in Jackson, MS that same summer and we went to a local mall. In this mall there was a comic and card shop that happened to have 4tvs and 4xboxes setup for "rent." As I browsed through some old 2e Forgotten Realms stuff, I noticed the owner grab one of the dozen or so kids playing in his backroom and bolt with him for the main hallway.
I thought the kid had done something horrible or I was witnessing a child abduction. No, not that. The owner soon related to my friends and I that he frequently has to pull kids out because they will literally shit their pants while playing the game in his store. In all my years of gameplaying, I've never heard or seen someone so enthralled with a game that they shit their pants... but Halo has done it.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
You didn't disagree with what I said. I pointed out the perceptions I got from those games, then said it was normal for people to disagree just as I had. This is, as far as I can tell, the thing you are saying.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
He was just making an example, and you keep drilling the same point.
What point? That people play games "because the media told them to"? I think that's a big deal because it basically says anyone who plays these games lacks free will.
As for the comments he made about the games he thought were boring, I really don't care about that. I was merely pointing out that he did indeed criticize them and comment about them. I don't care if he likes those games or not, nor do I care if he criticizes them. I do care that he is pretending he didn't, when he did.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
He was just making an example, and you keep drilling the same point.
What point? That people play games "because the media told them to"? I think that's a big deal because it basically says anyone who plays these games lacks free will.
As for the comments he made about the games he thought were boring, I really don't care about that. I was merely pointing out that he did indeed criticize them and comment about them. I don't care if he likes those games or not, nor do I care if he criticizes them. I do care that he is pretending he didn't, when he did.
I said it was one of many crazy (crazy in a positive way) reasons people play games. I use crazy in this manner.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
You didn't disagree with what I said. I pointed out the perceptions I got from those games, then said it was normal for people to disagree just as I had. This is, as far as I can tell, the thing you are saying.
See you keep bringing up the point about the games you said were boring, which is not what I'm even addressing. I'm addressing what you said about the media telling people what games to play. If you are now agreeing that people play these games because they have fun playing them and not because "the media told them to" then forget it, otherwise I have no idea what you are even arguing anymore.
edit: So you think people play games day in and day out because of the media? They could be thoroughly bored with the game, but they keep playing for the sake of the media? I don't get that. I don't think that's "crazy in a good way" either. If you are blindly following the media and doing whatever they tell you to do, that is a very bad thing indeed.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
You didn't disagree with what I said. I pointed out the perceptions I got from those games, then said it was normal for people to disagree just as I had. This is, as far as I can tell, the thing you are saying.
See you keep bringing up the point about the games you said were boring, which is not what I'm even addressing. I'm addressing what you said about the media telling people what games to play. If you are now agreeing that people play these games because they have fun playing them and not because "the media told them to" then forget it, otherwise I have no idea what you are even arguing anymore.
I never said this in any way, shape or form. You misread.
Are you arguing that marketing doesn't come into play when people buy a game.
No, not at all. In my original reply (and subsequent replies) I said the media is part of the reason why people might BUY the game. What I'm arguing is that once the purchase is made, if the game isn't fun people won't keep playing it. Games like Halo and WoW (since he brought it up) have millions of active players, which I seriously doubt keep playing the game because the media and not because it's fun.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
You didn't disagree with what I said. I pointed out the perceptions I got from those games, then said it was normal for people to disagree just as I had. This is, as far as I can tell, the thing you are saying.
See you keep bringing up the point about the games you said were boring, which is not what I'm even addressing. I'm addressing what you said about the media telling people what games to play. If you are now agreeing that people play these games because they have fun playing them and not because "the media told them to" then forget it, otherwise I have no idea what you are even arguing anymore.
I never said this in any way, shape or form. You misread.
I've tried playing several different Final Fantasys, and found them all dreadfully boring.
I also can't stand sports games that don't involve the threat of death or severe injury.
MMORPGs, including WoW, are terrifyingly repetitive snoozefests to me.
But I guess the "everyone has different likes and dislikes" thing has been run into the thread's floorboards at this point.
Halo is popular because a lot of people like it for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the media told them to, or perhaps they find one of the characters attractive and hope one day he/she/it will become real. All kinds of crazy reasons are available.
Are you arguing that marketing doesn't come into play when people buy a game.
No, not at all. In my original reply (and subsequent replies) I said the media is part of the reason why people might BUY the game. What I'm arguing is that once the purchase is made, if the game isn't fun people won't keep playing it. Games like Halo and WoW (since he brought it up) have millions of active players, which I seriously doubt keep playing the game because the media and not because it's fun.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
You didn't disagree with what I said. I pointed out the perceptions I got from those games, then said it was normal for people to disagree just as I had. This is, as far as I can tell, the thing you are saying.
See you keep bringing up the point about the games you said were boring, which is not what I'm even addressing. I'm addressing what you said about the media telling people what games to play. If you are now agreeing that people play these games because they have fun playing them and not because "the media told them to" then forget it, otherwise I have no idea what you are even arguing anymore.
I never said this in any way, shape or form. You misread.
I've tried playing several different Final Fantasys, and found them all dreadfully boring.
I also can't stand sports games that don't involve the threat of death or severe injury.
MMORPGs, including WoW, are terrifyingly repetitive snoozefests to me.
But I guess the "everyone has different likes and dislikes" thing has been run into the thread's floorboards at this point.
Halo is popular because a lot of people like it for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the media told them to, or perhaps they find one of the characters attractive and hope one day he/she/it will become real. All kinds of crazy reasons are available.
Did you think I was offering a dichotomy there? I'm sorry you see that. Those were two random examples, like "pie or cake" when discussing the widely varying preferences for snack food.
edit: Let me chop this up a bit so you can understand it.
Halo is popular because a lot of people like it for whatever reason. Maybe it's because the media told them to, or perhaps they find one of the characters attractive and hope one day he/she/it will become real. All kinds of crazy reasons are available.
I love when people talk about Crysis being completely mediocre, because that perception popped up before the game was released because most of the marketing and info about it was on the incredible graphics, so people assumed that there would be nothing else there for some reason.
Then it was released, and it is a great game with a really B action movie plot, but a well-done B action movie plot, fun multiplayer, really fun singleplayer, great scaling of AI, it's just in general fun, but everyone had already cemented in their mind that it was a shitty game that just looked pretty.
Anyways, if you list any games that are released after Halo as proof about how middle of the road Halo is, then you need to take a step back and think about it. I think a lot more RPGs in the future will use the mass effect radial conversation system. If you start looking at Mass effect 10 years down the line, it'll look like an uninspired mediocre conversation system. The reason that it seems mediocre now is because everyone copied it. Of course, because that's the logical thing to do. We're only now seeing a lowering of big FPS titles because it made so much money as an FPS franchise that everyone wanted on the cash cow, and not all of those games were just rushed out shit-fests. Regenerating health, for instance. That wasn't an FPS standard when Halo was released. Also Halo was really the first game to make FPS controls really just feel right on a console. Sure, Perfect dark, goldeneye, Turok, they all were FPSs on consoles, but with only one stick they really weren't very comfortable about it.
Halo is really well done. That doesn't mean everyone will have fun with it, that doesn't mean it's a great game, it's a game polished to the extreme. Something we don't see all too often these days. It's a polished, solid experience all through the game and in multiplayer.
Did you think I was offering a dichotomy there? I'm sorry you see that. Those were two random examples, like "pie or cake" when discussing the widely varying preferences for snack food.
No, and I never said you did. Regardless, you DID use it as an example. Whether it's an example representing 1% of the total examples or 99% it's still an example YOU SAID. Again, I'm going to say that I don't think ANYONE plays a game continuously because of the media. There is no way someone would keep playing a game, day after day, that wasn't fun for them simply because "the media told them to".
Also, your "pie or cake" example is wrong as an analogy to what you said previously. You weren't listing games people prefer, you were listing reasons WHY they prefer them. So a better analogy would be "people like cake BECAUSE X" or "people like pie because Y" not "cake or pie".
I love when people talk about Crysis being completely mediocre, because that perception popped up before the game was released because most of the marketing and info about it was on the incredible graphics, so people assumed that there would be nothing else there for some reason.
Then it was released, and it is a great game with a really B action movie plot, but a well-done B action movie plot, fun multiplayer, really fun singleplayer, great scaling of AI, it's just in general fun, but everyone had already cemented in their mind that it was a shitty game that just looked pretty.
Anyways, if you list any games that are released after Halo as proof about how middle of the road Halo is, then you need to take a step back and think about it. I think a lot more RPGs in the future will use the mass effect radial conversation system. If you start looking at Mass effect 10 years down the line, it'll look like an uninspired mediocre conversation system. The reason that it seems mediocre now is because everyone copied it. Of course, because that's the logical thing to do. We're only now seeing a lowering of big FPS titles because it made so much money as an FPS franchise that everyone wanted on the cash cow, and not all of those games were just rushed out shit-fests. Regenerating health, for instance. That wasn't an FPS standard when Halo was released. Also Halo was really the first game to make FPS controls really just feel right on a console. Sure, Perfect dark, goldeneye, Turok, they all were FPSs on consoles, but with only one stick they really weren't very comfortable about it.
Halo is really well done. That doesn't mean everyone will have fun with it, that doesn't mean it's a great game, it's a game polished to the extreme. Something we don't see all too often these days. It's a polished, solid experience all through the game and in multiplayer.
Also, did you seriously call Bioshock average?
I agree with most of this. I've gotten all kinds of flak in the past for saying what you just said. Halo really did a lot of things that were new (or newer) to FPS games whether they were on PC or not. Another thing Halo did that was largely unheard of outside of more "realistic" games like Rainbow Six was limiting the number of weapons you could carry to a realistic number (two). Even Half-Life, which was very revolutionary in many aspects, was also very "backwards" in other aspects. Even Half-Life 2 still adheres to the same numerical health system and "carry whatever weapons you can find" philosophy first introduced in Wolfenstein and Doom.
And yeah, his list of "mediocre" FPS games is garbage. Pretty much all of them are way beyond mediocre, including Far Cry.
Obviously "two weapon limits," regenerating health," and "separate weapon buttons for melee attacks and grenades" are not truly innovations. My mistake.
Like I said in a previous thread, correct me if I'm wrong, but no console shooter before Halo had these, and I'm fairly certain no PC shooter had them either.
Also, sorry if someone already posted this. Just kinda glanced at the thread.
Halo has a reputation for whiny kids ruining multi because they're jackasses. Maybe they're jackasses because the media hyped them to ask for the game for christmas/birthday/whatever. They don't have jobs and all that, so they have basically halo to play. So eventually they get so bored, but because of the hype can't think of anything else to do but go online to annoy people who just want to play some skilled competition.
Genius!!!
eternalbl on
0
LokiDon't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Obviously "two weapon limits," regenerating health," and "separate weapon buttons for melee attacks and grenades" are not truly innovations. My mistake.
Two weapon limits and a separate button for grenades were done before Halo. Melee and regenerating health instead of numerical health, I'm not sure.
That's why I think one of the most atmospheric games with an incredibly well-done departure from typical video-game storytelling themes and plots is a good game.
It's really bad arguing to bring something up that you have absolutely know knowledge of, e.g. whether people who liked Bioshock just haven't played System Shock 2.
Obviously "two weapon limits," regenerating health," and "separate weapon buttons for melee attacks and grenades" are not truly innovations. My mistake.
Like I said in a previous thread, correct me if I'm wrong, but no console shooter before Halo had these, and I'm fairly certain no PC shooter had them either.
Also, sorry if someone already posted this. Just kinda glanced at the thread.
The issue some people have is that they don't see those features as true innovations. Those features you named worked for Halo, but because of Halo's success, some other developers just sort of shoe-horned those "innovations" into their FPS games whether or not it was actually an improvement for their particular game.
Also because you asked, the earliest game I can think of that had a grenade button was Team Fortress Classic. In fact they had two grenade buttons.
Obviously "two weapon limits," regenerating health," and "separate weapon buttons for melee attacks and grenades" are not truly innovations. My mistake.
Two weapon limits and a separate button for grenades were done before Halo. Melee and regenerating health instead of numerical health, I'm not sure.
I thought Call of Duty had the regenerating health.
Most games with a cover system refer to it as a "Gears of War Cover system". Gears is generally considered by a lot people as pretty much the game that really kicked off Cover systems in shooters. This isn't the case at all, but Gears was the first big name game that did cover right while having everything else about the game being really solid.
Something were around before Halo, sure, but it really brought them to the front.
Also, about innovation, it really doesn't matter who does something FIRST. What really matters is who makes something popular.
For example, I could discover the secrets of the universe and cure all diseases, but if I don't tell anyone about it, who cares? It won't change anything, help anyone, or matter at all to anyone besides myself. In the same light, if I make a game with a revolutionary new feature, but relatively nobody plays it or knows about it, I'm not going to get credit for creating it outside of a few small circles of people.
Most games with a cover system refer to it as a "Gears of War Cover system". Gears is generally considered by a lot people as pretty much the game that really kicked off Cover systems in shooters. This isn't the case at all, but Gears was the first big name game that did cover right while having everything else about the game being really solid.
Something were around before Halo, sure, but it really brought them to the front.
What about killzone? That game was badass. First time I had ever seen blind fire and I loved it.
edit: hmm maybe killzone isn't the game I was thinking of...
Most games with a cover system refer to it as a "Gears of War Cover system". Gears is generally considered by a lot people as pretty much the game that really kicked off Cover systems in shooters. This isn't the case at all, but Gears was the first big name game that did cover right while having everything else about the game being really solid.
Something were around before Halo, sure, but it really brought them to the front.
What about killzone? That game was badass. First time I had ever seen blind fire and I loved it.
First time YOU saw it, but not the first time the majority of gamers saw it. Wasn't kill.switch or w/e that game was called the first to have the "gears style" cover system?
Posts
I'm pretty sure that is what you are doing not me. I bolded the part of your post I was replying to. I was telling you that I'm fairly certain people like/play those games because they are fun, not because "the media told them to" or any other reason. I also said that the media may be part of the reason people BUY those games, but they wouldn't keep playing them day after day if they didn't enjoy them.
Also, I'm fairly certain that calling a game "a repetitive snorefest" or "dreadfully boring" IS criticism. In fact, it's pretty much the very definition of the word.
I'm not sure if this is to support my theory or debunk it.
Holy hell.
Why did I even step out of Flippy's thread?
I wasn't commenting on the games. At all. The games were not anywhere near the larger point.
Which is why it's weird that you keep talking about them instead of addressing "the larger point". The one that I disagreed with by saying "people play these games because they are fun for them, not because of the reasons you gave".
By the by, when you call a game a "snorefest" or "boring" you ARE commenting on the game. I'm not sure what kind of retarded world you live in where directly naming a game and then making a statement about it directly afterward is not "commenting on the game", but in the real world it is.
Sorry, you got these two mixed around.
Although I wouldn't really put cod in the generic category. It's still quite good. Just not amazing gameplay wise.
Steam // Secret Satan
This is what I said!
This is what I mean by the larger point. You treated the examples as islands meant to be explored independently, and that is not what they are at all.
edit: And I just realized you're trolling. Whoops.
This whole argument is so stupid though, I mean what one person considers to be mediocre could be considered amazingly awesome to another person. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who consider "classic" games (games that are widely viewed as classics, like Zelda or Mario) to be complete garbage. And as many of us know, there are games that are widely viewed as garbage that a lot of people love too (like advent rising, for example).
That isn't what you said at all, you said people played those games "because the media told them to" or because "they want the characters in the game to be real one day".
How am I trolling? If anything you are. I disagreed with something you said and all you have done is skated around it and made ridiculous accusations.
He was just making an example, and you keep drilling the same point.
No, that doesnt convey what made this game great. Now, I went up to visit a friend in Jackson, MS that same summer and we went to a local mall. In this mall there was a comic and card shop that happened to have 4tvs and 4xboxes setup for "rent." As I browsed through some old 2e Forgotten Realms stuff, I noticed the owner grab one of the dozen or so kids playing in his backroom and bolt with him for the main hallway.
I thought the kid had done something horrible or I was witnessing a child abduction. No, not that. The owner soon related to my friends and I that he frequently has to pull kids out because they will literally shit their pants while playing the game in his store. In all my years of gameplaying, I've never heard or seen someone so enthralled with a game that they shit their pants... but Halo has done it.
That good sir is why it is a great game.
You didn't disagree with what I said. I pointed out the perceptions I got from those games, then said it was normal for people to disagree just as I had. This is, as far as I can tell, the thing you are saying.
Well that has absolutely nothing to do with console gamers, now does it?
What point? That people play games "because the media told them to"? I think that's a big deal because it basically says anyone who plays these games lacks free will.
As for the comments he made about the games he thought were boring, I really don't care about that. I was merely pointing out that he did indeed criticize them and comment about them. I don't care if he likes those games or not, nor do I care if he criticizes them. I do care that he is pretending he didn't, when he did.
I said it was one of many crazy (crazy in a positive way) reasons people play games. I use crazy in this manner.
See you keep bringing up the point about the games you said were boring, which is not what I'm even addressing. I'm addressing what you said about the media telling people what games to play. If you are now agreeing that people play these games because they have fun playing them and not because "the media told them to" then forget it, otherwise I have no idea what you are even arguing anymore.
edit: So you think people play games day in and day out because of the media? They could be thoroughly bored with the game, but they keep playing for the sake of the media? I don't get that. I don't think that's "crazy in a good way" either. If you are blindly following the media and doing whatever they tell you to do, that is a very bad thing indeed.
I never said this in any way, shape or form. You misread.
No, not at all. In my original reply (and subsequent replies) I said the media is part of the reason why people might BUY the game. What I'm arguing is that once the purchase is made, if the game isn't fun people won't keep playing it. Games like Halo and WoW (since he brought it up) have millions of active players, which I seriously doubt keep playing the game because the media and not because it's fun.
Yes, you did.
Did you think I was offering a dichotomy there? I'm sorry you see that. Those were two random examples, like "pie or cake" when discussing the widely varying preferences for snack food.
edit: Let me chop this up a bit so you can understand it.
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpOVKbM7vlA&feature=related
Perhaps not so awesome just listening to it, but perfect within the context of the game.
Then it was released, and it is a great game with a really B action movie plot, but a well-done B action movie plot, fun multiplayer, really fun singleplayer, great scaling of AI, it's just in general fun, but everyone had already cemented in their mind that it was a shitty game that just looked pretty.
Anyways, if you list any games that are released after Halo as proof about how middle of the road Halo is, then you need to take a step back and think about it. I think a lot more RPGs in the future will use the mass effect radial conversation system. If you start looking at Mass effect 10 years down the line, it'll look like an uninspired mediocre conversation system. The reason that it seems mediocre now is because everyone copied it. Of course, because that's the logical thing to do. We're only now seeing a lowering of big FPS titles because it made so much money as an FPS franchise that everyone wanted on the cash cow, and not all of those games were just rushed out shit-fests. Regenerating health, for instance. That wasn't an FPS standard when Halo was released. Also Halo was really the first game to make FPS controls really just feel right on a console. Sure, Perfect dark, goldeneye, Turok, they all were FPSs on consoles, but with only one stick they really weren't very comfortable about it.
Halo is really well done. That doesn't mean everyone will have fun with it, that doesn't mean it's a great game, it's a game polished to the extreme. Something we don't see all too often these days. It's a polished, solid experience all through the game and in multiplayer.
Also, did you seriously call Bioshock average?
No, and I never said you did. Regardless, you DID use it as an example. Whether it's an example representing 1% of the total examples or 99% it's still an example YOU SAID. Again, I'm going to say that I don't think ANYONE plays a game continuously because of the media. There is no way someone would keep playing a game, day after day, that wasn't fun for them simply because "the media told them to".
Also, your "pie or cake" example is wrong as an analogy to what you said previously. You weren't listing games people prefer, you were listing reasons WHY they prefer them. So a better analogy would be "people like cake BECAUSE X" or "people like pie because Y" not "cake or pie".
I agree with most of this. I've gotten all kinds of flak in the past for saying what you just said. Halo really did a lot of things that were new (or newer) to FPS games whether they were on PC or not. Another thing Halo did that was largely unheard of outside of more "realistic" games like Rainbow Six was limiting the number of weapons you could carry to a realistic number (two). Even Half-Life, which was very revolutionary in many aspects, was also very "backwards" in other aspects. Even Half-Life 2 still adheres to the same numerical health system and "carry whatever weapons you can find" philosophy first introduced in Wolfenstein and Doom.
And yeah, his list of "mediocre" FPS games is garbage. Pretty much all of them are way beyond mediocre, including Far Cry.
Like I said in a previous thread, correct me if I'm wrong, but no console shooter before Halo had these, and I'm fairly certain no PC shooter had them either.
Halo has a reputation for whiny kids ruining multi because they're jackasses. Maybe they're jackasses because the media hyped them to ask for the game for christmas/birthday/whatever. They don't have jobs and all that, so they have basically halo to play. So eventually they get so bored, but because of the hype can't think of anything else to do but go online to annoy people who just want to play some skilled competition.
Genius!!!
Two weapon limits and a separate button for grenades were done before Halo. Melee and regenerating health instead of numerical health, I'm not sure.
Yeah I've obviously never played System Shock 2.
That's why I think one of the most atmospheric games with an incredibly well-done departure from typical video-game storytelling themes and plots is a good game.
It's really bad arguing to bring something up that you have absolutely know knowledge of, e.g. whether people who liked Bioshock just haven't played System Shock 2.
The issue some people have is that they don't see those features as true innovations. Those features you named worked for Halo, but because of Halo's success, some other developers just sort of shoe-horned those "innovations" into their FPS games whether or not it was actually an improvement for their particular game.
Also because you asked, the earliest game I can think of that had a grenade button was Team Fortress Classic. In fact they had two grenade buttons.
I thought Call of Duty had the regenerating health.
Edit: Nm, looks like that was 2003.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Most games with a cover system refer to it as a "Gears of War Cover system". Gears is generally considered by a lot people as pretty much the game that really kicked off Cover systems in shooters. This isn't the case at all, but Gears was the first big name game that did cover right while having everything else about the game being really solid.
Something were around before Halo, sure, but it really brought them to the front.
pfff, obviously like me you never played System Shock 2 if you think people can like Bioshock.
Also, about innovation, it really doesn't matter who does something FIRST. What really matters is who makes something popular.
For example, I could discover the secrets of the universe and cure all diseases, but if I don't tell anyone about it, who cares? It won't change anything, help anyone, or matter at all to anyone besides myself. In the same light, if I make a game with a revolutionary new feature, but relatively nobody plays it or knows about it, I'm not going to get credit for creating it outside of a few small circles of people.
What about killzone? That game was badass. First time I had ever seen blind fire and I loved it.
edit: hmm maybe killzone isn't the game I was thinking of...
First time YOU saw it, but not the first time the majority of gamers saw it. Wasn't kill.switch or w/e that game was called the first to have the "gears style" cover system?