Black Ops or Halo Reach???

[Uiblis]

You have a point about cod. Personally I don't play cod much, but if people like it, whatever.

But play cod 2, and mw3, then tell me they're the same.

Yes, they have many similar aspects. But you have to expect that. They are in the same series, after all.

And if you're going to say that, technically ALL fps games are exactly the same functionally. They all involve pointing a gun at something and pressing a button.

They are milking their audience for so much money and all they are doing is re-releasing the same product basically twice a year.

Hardly the same. See above. Sure, they made the graphics look better. Would you rather them keep it the same quality as before? Sure, they have a lot of the same functions. Did you expect them to make a new console/button configuration for every single game they make? But each game is unique.

Halo was original. Halo was cool.

Halo is original. Halo is cool. The spin offs and new titles in the series are cool as well. They're based on the same series and the same setting. How much more original can you get? Making games is their job. They can't waste time and effort to think up absolutely new concepts for characters, plots, and settings all the time. But sometimes you like the old game.

Oh, the halo producers are so horrible because they released a new game that is based off of the old one. What did you expect? Did you think they were going to produce a single game in ten years that incorporated the entire plot of reach, halo ce, halo 2, and halo 3 all at the same time? If they did you'd say that Halo would still be original and cool. They broke it up into different games, released at different times, and they based the new games off the old ones. Yes, they did. So murder them.

And somehow I am a terrible person for pointing this out.

Never said that.

Please don't confuse my concern for your apparently low expectations for elitism. I genuinely feel bad for you. Not only are they convincing you to convince your parents to buy you a game that you will only play for 6 months, they are convincing you to convince your parents to do it twice a year. Thats $120 before Xbox live fees. With the money you convince your parents to spend on Call of Duty in one year, I could buy enough indie games from steam to keep me entertained until 2050.

You think that is ok?

You think it is right?

I don't buy games. I just borrow copies from friends. Or get free ones. I never need to convince my parents, and they don't spend any money on Call of Duty. Or xbox. And most indie games aren't very popular. I wonder why.

And I don't think it's necessarily okay, or necessarily right. But apparently you think it's wrong. And I think that some modern games are worth getting, and that's why they're popular.

If you want to take this argument in that direction, you could just say all games are completely worthless bs that waste time and effort and prevent people from truly contributing to making the world a better place.

Also, there is one game - a shooter - that breaks your entire argument.

Counter-Strike: Source.

Explain why source is still one of the most played games in the world.

It isn't different from Call of Duty.

Counter strike, like cod, is still based off a ton of other stuff, like the half life 2 engine, I think.

I'll say more tomorrow.

[Neobaron]

And if you're going to say that, technically ALL fps games are exactly the same functionally. They all involve pointing a gun at something and pressing a button.

I mean this is where I was going next but if you want to go ahead and bust my point then fine.

DooM or Wolfenstein over a LAN is practically identical to Call of Duty [insert naming convention here].

Hardly the same. See above. Sure, they made the graphics look better. Would you rather them keep it the same quality as before? Sure, they have a lot of the same functions. Did you expect them to make a new console/button configuration for every single game they make? But each game is unique.

And you can't tell me honestly that they improve the graphics that much every 7 months.

I dunno, I guess I just don't get the appeal of spending that much money to be able to see trees a little further or the creases in the face of the dead body I am teabagging.

I could do it in DooM just like I can do it in source or any version of CoD or BF.

---

Halo is original. Halo is cool. The spin offs and new titles in the series are cool as well. They're based on the same series and the same setting. How much more original can you get? Making games is their job. They can't waste time and effort to think up absolutely new concepts for characters, plots, and settings all the time. But sometimes you like the old game.

Oh, the halo producers are so horrible because they released a new game that is based off of the old one. What did you expect? Did you think they were going to produce a single game in ten years that incorporated the entire plot of reach, halo ce, halo 2, and halo 3 all at the same time? If they did you'd say that Halo would still be original and cool. They broke it up into different games, released at different times, and they based the new games off the old ones. Yes, they did. So murder them.

Melodramatic nonsense aside, I am willing to relent in the case of Halo. They release a new product on average once every 3 years. So what they lack in innovation, they at least make up for in storyline.

I don't mind games that continue a story. I love Starcraft. I love Elder Scrolls. I dropped like 80 hours of my life in the last week on Skyrim.

But there is a difference in plot driven gameplay with a side of MP and MP driven gameplay with a token single player campaign. You have to concede this point. Mostly because its irrefutable.

---

I don't buy games. I just borrow copies from friends. Or get free ones. I never need to convince my parents, and they don't spend any money on Call of Duty. Or xbox. And most indie games aren't very popular. I wonder why.

Please message me your source of free vidya.

---

If you want to take this argument in that direction, you could just say all games are completely worthless bs that waste time and effort and prevent people from truly contributing to making the world a better place.

This is a horrible line and you should be ashamed.

Don't ask why or get self-righteous.

Just accept that this line of reasoning should make you feel bad about yourself.

---

Counter strike, like cod, is still based off a ton of other stuff, like the half life 2 engine, I think.

Nah, counter-strike is a remake of a previous counter-strike which came out in the late 90s IIRC.

5 years between CS1.6 and CSS. IIRC.

And if anything, CSS has inspired more things than it has been based off of. Just sayin.

[Gen. Volkov]

They can't waste time and effort to think up absolutely new concepts for characters, plots, and settings all the time.

I think Neo's point is, they should do this. Like Neo, I'll give Halo a pass, because the single player campaigns have always been fun, if a little short, and the universe they have built is a pretty interesting one. On the other hand, the Call of Duty and Battlefield games have beaten the FPS concept to death. There was no need to make MW3, heck there was no need to make MW2. They literally only exist to suck money out of the pockets of teenagers. Instead of making yet another Modern Warfare game, they could have been making a new, original game, that might actually be worth me plunking down 60 bucks for.(Like Portal) The last first person shooter I bought, that wasn't a Halo sequel, was Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. That was in 2003. I have not felt the need to buy a new one since then, because they literally all look exactly the same as MOH. Maybe prettier graphics, but functionally no different. If I want a game with modern weapons, I can boot up Counter-Strike.

[Shadow]

Vouch for wii continuing to be interesting. Though I think there are a few exceptions to the rule that a release every year is necessarily a bad thing. The Zelda series continues to release new and interesting titles. (Ever played Majora's Mask? Most creative game ever, hands down. Near impossible to beat without some sort of help, but really, really creative and cool). Twilight Princess was also pretty cool.

I still own a gameboy, and I have a pokemon yellow cartridge (currently my gf has a game on it though so I can't play it. Sadness).

My wii has all the old titles on it. Mario Kart 64, Smash Bros, etc.

Only real new games I have on there are Super Mario Galaxy 1. Not particularly impressed - the original super mario has comparable graphics and was much more mind-bending. Galaxy was a bit too linear.

For Xbox (not 360) Oddworld: Stranger's wrath was pretty cool. Xbox 360 games are more or less all the same as far as I can tell.

The only new games I would consider buying are Skyward Sword, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3. Unfortunately, my laptop doesn't have a dedicated graphics card and would instantly catch fire if I tried to put those on it.

[Uiblis]

But there is a difference in plot driven gameplay with a side of MP and MP driven gameplay with a token single player campaign. You have to concede this point. Mostly because its irrefutable.

Fine.

But if I recall correctly, you said all modern games suck.

As seeing as you play skyrim and starcraft, you can hardly back up that statement. You kinda twisted this into just Cod and fps games.

Please message me your source of free vidya.

Cracked/modded stuff, leave it at that.

This is a horrible line and you should be ashamed.

Don't ask why or get self-righteous.

Just accept that this line of reasoning should make you feel bad about yourself.  

Yeah, sorry. That was bad.

Vouch for wii continuing to be interesting. Though I think there are a few exceptions to the rule that a release every year is necessarily a bad thing. The Zelda series continues to release new and interesting titles. (Ever played Majora's Mask? Most creative game ever, hands down. Near impossible to beat without some sort of help, but really, really creative and cool). Twilight Princess was also pretty cool.

Zelda and smash bros. That's it.

I'm probably going to get skyward, but since I don't have the motion plus thingie, I'm going to have to spend money.

I seem to remember that skyward one of the last games to be made for wii though.

[Firetooth]

I CBA to get indepth, but I agree with Neo on this, at least in some ways; I dislike the huge emphasis on multi-player driven FPS titles. Hell, even Mass Effect 3 has a multiplayer component.

To an extent, I think multi-player is the main cause of lack of innovation. Earlier in the decade you would get both innovative single player and multi-player titles, such as Deus ex, Half-life 1+2, Halo, hell even the first modern warfare to an extent. Each brought something new and interesting to the table. Too many games are built on the same gameplay, design principles and settings. The diamonds in the rough, such as Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, Minecraft, Portal and even the latest Deus ex go to show creativity isn't gone though. I hear Rayman Origins, Uncharted 3 and the latest Zelda title (Skyward Sword? Is that right?) are all pretty outside the box, too. I'm ignoring any RTS's, because I find 90% of them (excluding age of empires and Rome total war, though that is also RTT) generally boring and similar...like most FTS's.

DLC is a separate issue. To be honest, I'd gladly play £5-£10 for quality DLC of a respectable length such as Lair of the Shadow Broker, Deus Ex: The Missing Link etc. Particularly if it supports a developer who's games I enjoy. It is often used as a cheap way to withhold content or charge for menial content knowing hardcore fans will buy it. (COD, EVE online, WoW, hey even Oblivion is guilty of this) Map packs are one of the biggest crimes as far as DLC goes.

I always enjoy extra content. I see DLC like expansion packs. Some are worth the money, some aren't. The morrowind expansion packs are horrible, for example, but I generally don't see people condemning expansion packs.

In short Neo makes a good point like always, but (like always) is incredibly melodramatic, and he is so to such an extent that is painful to actually read his posts sometimes. Uiblis, I suggest you keep this in mind if you actually try arguing with him.

Also I appear to have struck a nerve.

Was it the blunt honesty or the blunt truth?

Your games suck, and I pity that you have such an awful selection. You can only name 3 titles. 3.

It isn't your fault. You were born into this. But at the same time, you have an opportunity to demand so much more and you choose to not do so.

If you want to continue to munch on the [poop] they shovel into your mouth, go nuts. But you have to accept that the games you play will forever be soul-less flavor of the month junk, and when it all boils down to structure, content, story, and actual gameplay, they are all exactly the same. And they all suck.

::)

You are like a less visible firetooth.

What, exactly, does that mean? :P

P.S. Before people accuse me of defending my generation, lots of my favorite games are old. I own every Deus Ex title, for example, but I don't own a single COD title.

[Sharptooh]

I'm a little late to the party.

I think you make a semi-valid point Neo, although you've got so much pent up rage about CoD and Battlefield that you neglect to see the innovative games with interesting stories coming out at the moment.

Mass effect is an amazing series, the third one will be amazing, Deus Ex was worth buying, and the DLC actually added a reasonable amount of content at a decent price, Skyrim sounds awesome, Fallout new Vegas was good too; and there are a few non-console strategy games I could name too, and I'm sure other people could name more than me (I admit to not being a massive gamer)

These games all have interesting and engaging storylines and innovative game play (in my opinion)

I think you needlessly bashed Halo slightly too (although you seem to have addmited the storylines always have thought put into them, something I was about to say)

But do you honestly expect Reach to be fundamentally different in every way to 3 or ODST? Because that seems like what you're trying to say.

But that's never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense; the series continues because the gameplay evolves and doesn't re-invent the wheel with every release; Reach was an evolution, 4 might be more of a revolution but by no means will it re-invent the wheel, what need to is there? And it would cease to become Halo in a semi-fundamental way.

Re-inventing the wheel never works, you waste time and resources, and the game will come out sub-par (read, DNF, Vista) people like what they're familiar with

Do you realize the Wii has visually comparable graphics to both the PS3 and the XBox360 while using 1/5th the processing and hardware power of the latter two machines? Do you understand the implications of that?

LOL, no, just no.

And whilst the Move may have been a sub-par product (I've never used it), Kinect certainly isn't, I've played with Kinect and heard people who helped make it give talks about it, the technology is amazing, the only reason it isn't as awe-inspiring as the Wii motion controller stuff is because games developers haven't had enough time to integrate Kinect features into their games.

And you can also never expect innovation on the level that it was at when the gaming industry was young, it's impossible to innovate that quickly and interestingly just because so much of it has been done before.
Example:

I know I'll make this awesome game with a first person view where you shoot other people with various different weapons, it'll be amazing!

30 years ago this would have been innovative, now it isn't; that realm has already been explored. It's much harder to innovate when various avenues have already been explored.

I could come up with something totally independent from anyone else, and it could already have been explored by someone else, back to the drawing board for me.

I can understand where you're coming from with CoD though, little storyline and innovation with regards to gameplay (at all) although I hear MW3's campaign is slightly better with regards to this.

7 months is way too short for a release cycle too, I'll agree on that, I'd want it to be at least 2 years before I considered looking into it.

I think you might be getting all nostalgic / old man too Neo, you're post boils down to

Better in the good old days

Which may be true, the games market isn't as good as it could be (and there are various contributing factors to this, the economy for one) but I certainly think you're needlessly bashing it in some respects.

[Firetooth]

Yeah, saying the Wii has comparable graphics is ridiculous. No excuses for that remark.

"Yeah, the N64 and PS3 have comparable graphics. They...both show people on the screen, right?"

Edit: Lookie here:



and here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bHIERf5YLw

Pretty similar, I couldn't tell the different were it not for the convenient names.

[windhound]

The Wii has nowhere near the horsepower of the 360 or PS3, but if the game is good will you notice?
Crysis has the reputation of having a beautiful world, but iffy as a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEge_2Vuft0&feature=colike
Was posted to reddit today, apparently the Gamestop reviewer had control issues -- but the short clip also shows you a bit of the game, it looks good.  Simple, clean graphics -- which is generally what you think of when you think Nintendo. 
Innovative game play too, its not just a button masher.
I think the thing being stressed here is game play over graphics

I'm generally a late adopter for games, Reach and Portal 2 are the only recent games I've bought on launch.  Picked up Dragon Age Origins a month or two back and noticed this in the review section: "Buying DA:O, its "expansion," and every piece of DLC at release would have cost you a grand total of $160."  -- Amazon.com
Now obviously most people aren't going to buy all the DLC, but the fact remains that, given the figure is right, you have to pay $160 for the full game.  That's pretty rough when they're still charging you a full $60 retail at launch.

Also,

Mass effect is an amazing series so far, the third one will be should be amazing

ftfy
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.  But I agree, Mass Effect is fun, and I have hopes for 3

Kinnect has been out for a year now, and I don't think there's been any must-have games that use it.  And I don't really think there will be.  Its cool hardware, but if gamers arn't forced to use it like they are the Wii controls I don't think they will.  Game companies are loath to make games that require optional equipment, as it lowers their numbers of potential buyers.
Fun fact -- Rare, the company behind "titles such as Donkey Kong Country, GoldenEye 007 and Banjo-Kazooie" (-wikipedia) did the software end for the Kinnect, so hey.  There may yet be a decent game made for it.

[Firetooth]

Oh, I'm not too bothered about graphics, as long as they're reasonable and allow for the aesthetics to shine through. (eg. Deus ex Human Revolution. Average graphics but great aesthetics) I prioritize gameplay over graphics for sure, hence all the old games I have.

The dragon age series isn't that good tbh. One of Bioware's weaker efforts.

[Neobaron]

As seeing as you play skyrim and starcraft, you can hardly back up that statement. You kinda twisted this into just Cod and fps games.

Neither Skyrim or Starcraft are modern games.

I'll let you, Sharpy, and Firetooth blow your heads about that one RQ i'll just sit here and laugh.

---

Cracked/modded stuff, leave it at that.

You do not have any right to be posting in any thread that concerns the appreciation of any game. If you appreciated them, you would buy them.

Now please gtfo this thread and do not return.

---

The diamonds in the rough, such as Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls,

Neither of these games did anything original though. I assume you're talking about Oblivion anyways. Morrowind was new and exciting. Oblivion was eventually patched to be acceptable.

Minecraft, Portal

These are actually original.

and even the latest Deus ex go to show creativity isn't gone though.

Now this is just a personal plug by you. After the first deus ex, the series went in the tank. The first deux ex was decent and new. The second was consolized and pandered to the kiddies playing xbox. The series will not recover.

---

DLC is a separate issue. To be honest, I'd gladly play £5-£10 for quality DLC of a respectable length such as Lair of the Shadow Broker, Deus Ex: The Missing Link etc. Particularly if it supports a developer who's games I enjoy. It is often used as a cheap way to withhold content or charge for menial content knowing hardcore fans will buy it. (COD, EVE online, WoW, hey even Oblivion is guilty of this) Map packs are one of the biggest crimes as far as DLC goes.

I always enjoy extra content. I see DLC like expansion packs. Some are worth the money, some aren't. The morrowind expansion packs are horrible, for example, but I generally don't see people condemning expansion packs.

These are awful reasons for supporting DLC. "The content isn't enough to justify a regular game so we're gonna charge only 1/4th the price for a regular game for it and call it good."

poo that isn't patch or expansion worthy should not be sold seperately. It should be included at release or made an optional download. Like it used to be before they released they could squeeze money out of their playerbase.

Also, the WoW DLC isn't game breaking. Its vanity pets. That's like buying a hood ornament for your car. As for EVE - and i know you only included those two words to piss me off - the DLC shop in eve was just added in the last expansion, and the public protest against it was so widespread that not only did 2500 players unsub over it, we as a community managed to get the entire design team behind the last expansion fired and forced the company to abandon their next project in order to focus on making eve decent again. The efforts of the community will culminate in the winter expansion that will hit on the 28th, and if the game lives up to the patch notes, it will be the best eve expansion since 2009.

Its also worth mentioning that EVE has released 15 expansions since release in 2003 - every single one of them free. If nothing else, this should tell you that whenever you buy DLC or an expansion pack, someone is ripping you off.

---

In short Neo makes a good point like always, but (like always) is incredibly melodramatic, and he is so to such an extent that is painful to actually read his posts sometimes. Uiblis, I suggest you keep this in mind if you actually try arguing with him

In short, Firetooth usually makes decent points but, like always, is incredibly longwinded in his delivery of very basic points, and his pseudo-intellectual use of words like 'melodramatic' of which he has a slim grasp of the definition and practical use, kind of make most of his posts embarrassing to read.

Seriously. There is a difference between my posts which force someone to look at their reasoning for supporting something and a post which is intentionally written from the perspective of butthurt that is designed to literally abuse logical fallacies rather than attempt to defend a position.

:-\

---

Mass effect is an amazing series, the third one will be amazing, Deus Ex was worth buying, and the DLC actually added a reasonable amount of content at a decent price, Skyrim sounds awesome, Fallout new Vegas was good too; and there are a few non-console strategy games I could name too, and I'm sure other people could name more than me (I admit to not being a massive gamer)

But none of these games are original. They are aesthetically appealing rehashes. Mass Effect is Neverwinter Nights. In Space. Deus Ex is just-another dystopian cyborg flick. Even the original one wasnt really special.

Bioshock is just a reimagination of System Shock, which i'm sure none of you ever played.

---

These games all have interesting and engaging storylines and innovative game play (in my opinion)

I think you needlessly bashed Halo slightly too (although you seem to have addmited the storylines always have thought put into them, something I was about to say)

But do you honestly expect Reach to be fundamentally different in every way to 3 or ODST? Because that seems like what you're trying to say.

But that's never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense; the series continues because the gameplay evolves and doesn't re-invent the wheel with every release; Reach was an evolution, 4 might be more of a revolution but by no means will it re-invent the wheel, what need to is there? And it would cease to become Halo in a semi-fundamental way.

Re-inventing the wheel never works, you waste time and resources, and the game will come out sub-par (read, DNF, Vista) people like what they're familiar with

I think you guys might be confusing my acceptance of games with a storyline as passable for some kind of acceptance of games in general.

For me, the generation ended in ~2005. SotC was basically the last game that my generation produced.

Just because a game has a story does not make it acceptable for companies to shamelessly poo out extensions every few months. Starcraft is the best example. I love Starcraft. I hope that Blizzards next project, titan, is World of Starcraft. I love the lore. I love the storyline, I enjoy the fiction around the generic RTS.

But that does not make it acceptable for Blizzard to break up starcraft into 3 games and release them as individual games just because they can. Despite Blizzard selling out and giving themselves fully to Bobby Kottick, I still owe them some tribute for their nearly 2 decades of bucking the system and defining genres. Every time you play a generic RTS, you are playing a reimagined starcraft. Starcraft literally set the tone for every RTS that came after it. For this, blizzard will get a few more dollars from me. But my patience is thin, and I don't think that after the toss incarnation of SC that I will be buying from Blizzard again.

Bethesda started the whole DLC craze with the horse armor. I was first in line for the horse armor. I was also one of the first people to say "wat did i just spent 10 dollars on" when I realized that the horse armor did literally nothing. For this, Bethesda has lost some respect from me and a lot of old school gamers. But they also defined the open world genre, and will continue to get my money out of respect for still being an independent entity and still producing more or less quality - if rehashed - products.

But both of these companies also understand what they are doing, and they are not blatantly doing it. Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm will have unique gameplay. It will have unique interfaces. It will have new units. It will have a different story. Likewise, Skyrim has an entirely rebuilt (albeit frustrating console-designed) interface. It has unique gameplay and levelling. It has new concepts, like dual wielding and custom arsenals. It has random events that make the game literally endless.

Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3 are identical outside of a token 10 hour single player campaign.

That is the difference, and why I give storyline games a pass. Not because thye are new and exciting, but because they have a story.

---

LOL, no, just no.

firetooths entire next post after the one im quoting from sharpy

BECAUSE SPECULAR LIGHTING MAKES THINGS MORE REAL LOOKING RIGHT? AM I RIGHT?

AND YOU CAN TOTALLY SEE MORE THAN 30 FRAMES RIGHT BROS?

LOL LOOK AT THIS NOOB THINKING THE INFERIOR SYSTEM ISNT AS INFERIOR AS WE MAKE IT OUT TO BE.

---

I think you might be getting all nostalgic / old man too Neo, you're post boils down to

Quote
Better in the good old days

I have a new endearing hatred for you now, Sharpy. :3

But not really, you're awesome.

[cloud]

Holy wall of text by Neo.

Recently I've been so underwhelmed with new releases that I've been playing my SNES/PS1 ROMs for about the last 6 months.

I won't buy either MW3 or BF3 because they're pretty much just MW2+ and BF:BC3. I know a ton of people over here (Afghanistan) that have bought MW3, and the storyline is only like 6 hours long. Sorry, but I'm not paying $60 for a 6 hour campaign and 5% better graphics.

As far as piracy is concerned, I only do it when I have an utter hate for a company and want them to burn in **** (EA, Ubisoft, ect), or it's because they require an internet connect to activate the game which I've only had for 2 out of the last 4 years, which makes things complicated.

I feel that the industry has been punishing PC gamers by requiring online activation while their console counterparts do not.  The ironic part is that they think online activation combat piracy, but it doesn't because there's almost always a cracked release days before the actual release, and in turn it's forcing some people (like myself) who would normall purchase the game, but don't have the means to connect, or stay connected in the case of some games, to an internet line.

If it wasn't for deployments this would be a non-issue for me anyways, though, because 90% of the games I play when I have an internet connection are multiplayer games. Once I return to the States next year I plan on solely playing DOTA 2, GW2, and Tribes Ascend.

[Gen. Volkov]

The only new games I would consider buying are Skyward Sword, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3. Unfortunately, my laptop doesn't have a dedicated graphics card and would instantly catch fire if I tried to put those on it.

I have Starcraft 2. Get this game. Half the reason I bought a new computer was because I wanted to be able to play Starcraft 2. There is a mission on there that I still have not been able to beat without using cheats. Starcraft 2 makes me ashamed of my RTS skills. It is amazing.

Bioshock is just a reimagination of System Shock, which i'm sure none of you ever played.

I did! That was a great game.

I hope that Blizzards next project, titan, is World of Starcraft.

If they do, you do know it will dominate the MMORPG industry for the next 10 years, just like WoW dominated for the last 10. Blizzard will be using backhoes (figuratively) to rake in all the money they will make off WoS.

[Firetooth]

Neither Skyrim or Starcraft are modern games.

I'll let you, Sharpy, and Firetooth blow your heads about that one RQ i'll just sit here and laugh.

Skyrim...released in, what, 2011?

The design principles aren't necessarily modern, but the game itself is. Just stop it, lol. Your point that all modern games suck when you poured about 4 days plus into a game released what, two weeks ago, shows how broad and false your point is. Your post isn't funny, clever or even valid.

mod·ern
   [mod-ern] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.
2.
characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.

You are twisting the way you define how modern a game is into something it isn't. Objectively, Skyrim and Starcraft ARE modern games.

You do not have any right to be posting in any thread that concerns the appreciation of any game. If you appreciated them, you would buy them.

Now please gtfo this thread and do not return.

The thing is, I know you're being sarcastic but I agree with that point. If you don't pay for a game, you have no right to complain about it or criticize it.

Neither of these games did anything original though. I assume you're talking about Oblivion anyways. Morrowind was new and exciting. Oblivion was eventually patched to be acceptable.

Was more referring to Morrowind (which I own, to clarify) but Oblivion still applies. Also, two points should be said here.

• Originality is not the be all and end all of video game development.
• Mass Effect introduced some of the best cinematic dialogue and cut scenes without the use of pre-rendering. It's focus on powers and classes also makes it quite different to most current popular F/TPS's. Oblivion was less original, but it was a sequel so that goes without saying, and it improved in the areas of graphics (hugely) character models (hugely) and combat (minorly). It also has a great character creation system for the day.

These are actually original.

Glad we agree on something. <3

Now this is just a personal plug by you. After the first deus ex, the series went in the tank. The first deux ex was decent and new. The second was consolized and pandered to the kiddies playing xbox. The series will not recover.

I agree the second deus ex is poor...I haven't even finished it. But the latest installment shipped 2 million copies in a short period, so I think the series will recover, at least financially. In terms of gameplay, human revolution is actually quite similar to the first Deus EX. It has some strong characters, an engrossing storyline of decent length, an interesting world, great aesthetic design, a good soundtrack, and plenty of choice.It still isn't as good as the original Deus Ex, but it is very very different and, yes, original compared to the majority of shooters today.

These are awful reasons for supporting DLC. "The content isn't enough to justify a regular game so we're gonna charge only 1/4th the price for a regular game for it and call it good."
[poop] that isn't patch or expansion worthy should not be sold seperately. It should be included at release or made an optional download. Like it used to be before they released they could squeeze money out of their playerbase.

Also, the WoW DLC isn't game breaking. Its vanity pets. That's like buying a hood ornament for your car. As for EVE - and i know you only included those two words to piss me off - the DLC shop in eve was just added in the last expansion, and the public protest against it was so widespread that not only did 2500 players unsub over it, we as a community managed to get the entire design team behind the last expansion fired and forced the company to abandon their next project in order to focus on making eve decent again. The efforts of the community will culminate in the winter expansion that will hit on the 28th, and if the game lives up to the patch notes, it will be the best eve expansion since 2009.

Its also worth mentioning that EVE has released 15 expansions since release in 2003 - every single one of them free. If nothing else, this should tell you that whenever you buy DLC or an expansion pack, someone is ripping you off.

Depends on the price, as I say. £10 for a DLC of 4-6hours, like the latest Human Revolution's one? Some games story "mode"'s are that long. I'd rather spend £10 on that content, that was made separately from the game, to enrich my experience and support the devs, then on something menial.  Why should the devs spend resources, time and money they could devote to a new game on free content? Even then, some do. See the Mass Effect 2 cerberus network.

Also, the vanity DLC is bad. No purpose, just there for money. DOesn't enrich the story or universe, add new characters, add new gameplay etc.

In short, Firetooth usually makes decent points but, like always, is incredibly longwinded in his delivery of very basic points, and his pseudo-intellectual use of words like 'melodramatic' of which he has a slim grasp of the definition and practical use, kind of make most of his posts embarrassing to read.

Seriously. There is a difference between my posts which force someone to look at their reasoning for supporting something and a post which is intentionally written from the perspective of butthurt that is designed to literally abuse logical fallacies rather than attempt to defend a position.

:-\

mel·o·dra·mat·ic
   [mel-uh-druh-mat-ik] Show IPA
adjective
1. of, like, or befitting melodrama.
2. exaggerated and emotional or sentimental; sensational or sensationalized; overdramatic.

You honestly think those don't apply to your posts?

Also I appear to have struck a nerve.

Was it the blunt honesty or the blunt truth?

Your games suck, and I pity that you have such an awful selection. You can only name 3 titles. 3.

It isn't your fault. You were born into this. But at the same time, you have an opportunity to demand so much more and you choose to not do so.

If you want to continue to munch on the [poop] they shovel into your mouth, go nuts. But you have to accept that the games you play will forever be soul-less flavor of the month junk, and when it all boils down to structure, content, story, and actual gameplay, they are all exactly the same. And they all suck.

Also, that ego of yours is dangerous, lol. Your posts really don't contain as many intellectual thoughts and argumentative devices as you think they do. You are yet to "force" me to re-evaluate any position I've ever had, ever.

But none of these games are original. They are aesthetically appealing rehashes. Mass Effect is Neverwinter Nights. In Space. Deus Ex is just-another dystopian cyborg flick. Even the original one wasnt really special.

Bioshock is just a reimagination of System Shock, which i'm sure none of you ever played.

See my Earlier point on Mass Effect.

Deus Ex? Not special? Branching storylines, great levels of choice in how you play, a rich universe? Generally considered the best PC game of all time? You're right, not too special. ::)

Never played Bioshock or System Shock, but I've heard System Shock inspired Deus Ex and would play it if I could find a cheap copy.

I think you guys might be confusing my acceptance of games with a storyline as passable for some kind of acceptance of games in general.

For me, the generation ended in ~2005. SotC was basically the last game that my generation produced.

Just because a game has a story does not make it acceptable for companies to shamelessly [poop] out extensions every few months. Starcraft is the best example. I love Starcraft. I hope that Blizzards next project, titan, is World of Starcraft. I love the lore. I love the storyline, I enjoy the fiction around the generic RTS.

But that does not make it acceptable for Blizzard to break up starcraft into 3 games and release them as individual games just because they can. Despite Blizzard selling out and giving themselves fully to Bobby Kottick, I still owe them some tribute for their nearly 2 decades of bucking the system and defining genres. Every time you play a generic RTS, you are playing a reimagined starcraft. Starcraft literally set the tone for every RTS that came after it. For this, blizzard will get a few more dollars from me. But my patience is thin, and I don't think that after the toss incarnation of SC that I will be buying from Blizzard again.

Bethesda started the whole DLC craze with the horse armor. I was first in line for the horse armor. I was also one of the first people to say "[What The Ferret] did i just spent 10 dollars on" when I realized that the horse armor did literally nothing. For this, Bethesda has lost some respect from me and a lot of old school gamers. But they also defined the open world genre, and will continue to get my money out of respect for still being an independent entity and still producing more or less quality - if rehashed - products.

But both of these companies also understand what they are doing, and they are not blatantly doing it. Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm will have unique gameplay. It will have unique interfaces. It will have new units. It will have a different story. Likewise, Skyrim has an entirely rebuilt (albeit frustrating console-designed) interface. It has unique gameplay and levelling. It has new concepts, like dual wielding and custom arsenals. It has random events that make the game literally endless.

Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3 are identical outside of a token 10 hour single player campaign.

That is the difference, and why I give storyline games a pass. Not because thye are new and exciting, but because they have a story.

Valid point. But I think you miss our point.

Video games aren't just games. In the same way music isn't just music. Video games are a form of art.

The universe, storylines and characters of some video games are simply phenomenal. The sense of scale, the lore, everything.  Bioware games are a good example, but even games famous for innovation, such as Deus Ex and Half-Life 1 and 2. Would Half-Life 2 be the same without ALyx Vance? Would Half-life 2 be as fun with COD's setting  but the same gameplay it currently has? Would Deus ex be nearly as interesting and powerful if it were set in a modern atmosphere?

The answer is no.

Games are evolving (or some are) beyond just games. The reason I love Mass Effect is not the combat, or graphics, or much gameplay related at all. I love Mass Effect because of the experience. The way you learn to like and hate characters, how you watch characters grow, how you can influence that characters growth. The storyline, and how you are involved in the storyline, the universe itself. The way events can make you feel on an emotional level. Mass Effect 3 could be an isometric, turn-based game for all I care, if it has the same winning formula as Mass Effect 1 and 2, it will be a great game.

One thing that sets Mass Effect 1 and 2 above most games is the way they challenge you morally. To give an isolated example out of context, in Mass Effect 2 there is a race of evil robots called the geth, except only a small percentage is evil, where as say 90% is harmless. You have the choice to either "rewrite" the bad geth to become good, or destroy them.

At face value the choice seems simple; the right thing to do is to rewrite the geth. But when you put more thought into it, you realize it is more or less brain washing. SO which is better? Brainwash an individual (or group of, in this case) so it doesn't die, or kill it because of it's sins? I personally went for the latter, but the decision took a long time to make, and it did for most gamers, because it challenges you. The same thing can be said of games like the latest Deus Ex. Should we eliminate natural talents and abilities with artificial limbs, or should we integrate technology with our bodies to allow us to overcome obstacles?

So yes, gameplay is important, and should not be side-lined. One reason I do prefer ME2 to ME1 is the gameplay itself is definitely more enjoyable, however at the end of the day, if a game has an uninteresting story, or weak characters, a generic score, a bland universe, then I just can't make myself interested into it.

BECAUSE SPECULAR LIGHTING MAKES THINGS MORE REAL LOOKING RIGHT? AM I RIGHT?

AND YOU CAN TOTALLY SEE MORE THAN 30 FRAMES RIGHT BROS?

LOL LOOK AT THIS NOOB THINKING THE INFERIOR SYSTEM ISNT AS INFERIOR AS WE MAKE IT OUT TO BE.

Lighting has a huge impact on gameplay. Try playing Deus Ex human revolution without the lighting. The whole aesthetic style is build on black gold lighting.

And calm down, slightly...melodramatic, maybe, post? The WII is a terrible system processing wise, but it has a ton of good games and is an innovative concept. I don't dislike the Wii. We have one ourselves, and actually got it before the 360, or even Mass Effect 1. My point is you were wrong comparing the Wii's graphics to the 360's or PS3's. If you thought you were right, you would've tried going for a rebuttal other then a FULL CAPS RAGE POST. ;)

Finally, addressing cloud.

I feel that the industry has been punishing PC gamers by requiring online activation while their console counterparts do not.  The ironic part is that they think online activation combat piracy, but it doesn't because there's almost always a cracked release days before the actual release, and in turn it's forcing some people (like myself) who would normall purchase the game, but don't have the means to connect, or stay connected in the case of some games, to an internet line.

I agree. DRM is bad. IIRC, didn't Capcom limit people to one save to reduce piracy or something?

[Neobaron]

You do not read posts. You read words.
You do not absord content. You absorb what you want the content to be.
You cannot understand nuance. You define words as you see them for a to be convenient.

In short, you are the literal definition of an ignoramus; willfully ignorant.

Everyone else who has read these posts - even people I have linked in to make sure I am not just being biased - has pointed out the unsettling lack of regard you have shown for the actual act of comprehending what you read.

While I am disappointed in you on a certain trivial, content appropriate, level, I am more disappointed in you on a personal level. I am not ready to accept that you are just a stupid individual, as you come from the same background as Sharptooth who I know to be level headed and very reasonable. However, it would be useful for you to read things as a whole rather than disjointed groupings of words meant to meet their own goals. For me, forums, threads, and especially posts are intricate. They are created and live to serve the purpose of tying together ideas and thoughts, and to be truly effective, they should do this well. I feel I do an excellent job ensuring consistency and continuity from post to post within a thread, and from thread to thread within a forum. If a concept or idea is mentioned - by anyone - on page 2, then that concept or idea is still relevant for the duration of the value of that concept or idea. Each post should accomplish not only the intended goal of the post, but also retroactively accomplish the goals of every post that came before it. Each post should be simple enough to have a face value, but complex enough to require a reader to have to absorb an entire discussion rather than a single post or line. I am sorry I have failed you in this way. For me, a single post does not exist without the context in which it exists.

For you, a post exists only insofar as you think you understand it, and once you reply to that post in particular, you are done with it to wait for the next post.

I respond to threads.
You respond to posts.

The prime example, and the last thing I am going to address in this horribly disappointing and depressing thread is the disregard for the intended and apparent meaning of something I said earlier in the thread.

My original statement regarding the Wii was not that the graphics were superior, similar, on par, or even the same as the other two consoles. I said they were visually comparable.

Visually is a pretty simple word. It is an adverb that means of vision - of the eyes.
Comparable is also a simple word. Is is an adjective that indicates the quality of being usable for comparison.

Apart, these words are amusingly basic concepts that are more or less broad. Together, they say a very specific thing.

When someone says something is visually comparable as opposed to simply stating the visual qualities or stating that something is 'comparable' it implies that to the human eye, and in the interaction between the eye and the brain, there is very little that is going to be missed from frame to frame. That isn't to say that there is a rather apparent gap between the Wii and its competitors on study, that is to say that as the player advances at an appropriate pace and absorbs, defines, and acts upon information being received in real time, almost nothing of the after effects is going to be missed, nor the lack thereof perceived. I am fully aware that the graphics of the Wii are technically inferior to all of its competitors. However, this does not become apparent until a visual comparison is made between any or all of the competitors, putting the Wii on a level of being visually comparable to the Xbox, PS3, and PC.

---

The most beautiful part of words is also the most difficult thing about them to master.

Using words is easy. In modern society, the formation and use of words is literally the first thing we are taught that isn't natural to us.

Mastering the use of words and reading them as they are intended to be read is another thing altogether, and it is something that you would be well served to learn both here and, more importantly, in the real world.

There is also something to go with that about seeing an interpersonal interaction from a meta viewpoint and shifting perspective in particular situations and at particular times to prevent bias on what are more or less sub-points to the main body of an argument or proposal, but that is horribly complicated and is well beyond what is most immediately useful to you.