There is nothing wrong with being the first to do something. Halo was highly enjoyable for what it wanted to do. Same with Call of Duty 4. Same with Metal Gear Solid. Same with Gears of War. They weren't "bad" games by any estimation for doing what they did. The fact that other developers added in elements from those games without understanding how they fundamentally compromised their own games is their own fault. I know most of the world prefers having a scapegoat, and just blaming that one scapegoat, but reality is any stagnation in any genre
Be it survival horror post Resident Evil 4 or the FPS genre post Halo is entirely the fault of the people making the games. Resident 4 was a fantastic game. Not that games fault that Silent Hill proceeded to suck dick after 3, RE shit the bed after 4, and the rest of the genre needed the indie scene save it. Same goes for the FPS genre. I'm not disagreeing with the notion that those games influenced certain business models, but ultimately if the first game did it right, you can't really hate on that game. The real blame goes on the followers for being incompetent sheep.
Blaming a certain game or developer for bad trends is absolutely ludicrous. No one forced every post-Halo FPS to use the regenerating health mechanic. Bungie built the entire game with that mechanic in mind, and it shows. Managing your health was still important, and the game was still challenging. Other developers took the mechanic, but they didn't understand what made it work. They didn't build the game around it.
In that same way, no one is forcing developers to make action games instead of survival horror titles. The fact that everyone decided to copy Resident Evil 4 (and do it poorly) is not Capcom's fault.
@foxhound_fox said:@Vaasman said:
So it's more Ocarina of Time?! Sign me up!
Majora's Mask is better than Ocarina. Wind Waker is better than Ocarina. Twilight Princess is better than Ocarina.
I haven't played Skyward Sword, but I bet it probably is better than Ocarina.
A Link to the Past is the best Zelda game. Most of Ocarina's content is just A Link to the Past in 3D. Much like how Metroid Prime was mostly just Super Metroid in 3D.
Who has taught you these lies?
not as much as before...long development time and not being an exclusive anymore does that
Why does that even matter? It's not like game suddenly get worse when they release on multiple consoles.
@kuu2 said:@KungfuKitten said:@kuu2 said:
Nintendo is dead and no fresh coat of paint on Mario will change that.
So many dumb people hahaha
Yes because those that actually owned a Nes should want to see Mario be remade for the last 30 years and not want something more. I would be the first to scream from the rooftops if Nintendo had a great new IP. Unfortunately they don't. Can you imagine Disney putting out a different Mickey Movie every 5-7 years instead of new material like Toy Story, Cars, Wall E, or Incredibles?
Some of us expect more of Nintendo you don't.
Because there's been no new Nintendo IPs since the NES. Right.
@StrifeDelivery said:@redskins26rocs said:
@StrifeDelivery: I thought after the long boring beginning the game got great. The big problem with it IMO is it lacks that immersion in an interesting world due to the linearity and lack of cities and exploration. The characters, story, and combat system were very good though.
FFXIII-2 now that was just a mediocre game that was far from being a quality FF and it made the story far to complex and now it makes no sense
i haven't started 13-2 yet. I do agree that the game was incredibly linear, but in a way it made sense for that particular setting. And as you near the end of the game, there are tons of things that open up that are available to do. Also agree that the characters, story, and combat system were pretty good; particularly character dynamics and combat system.
Oh my God, there's more of us.
And yeah, the linearity is a result of the setting and the story. It makes sense, but it does hurt the game.
@DarkLink77: That's how it was to me, but one of the issues in the game were the "wall" bosses... Where you'd just need to get lucky to win. I got to one very late in the game, like I said, and I haven't touched it in... Quite a long time. Well over a year. Just started playing other things.
Which fight was it? Was the one where he became a giant face? If I'm not mistake, there's several fights with him.
It was the first one. He was a big face with huge shoulders.
@DarkLink77: Oh I totally agree, I'm just saying I was surprised that you liked it :P
Surprisingly, the only character I can't stand is Snow, simply because his story is that he has a hero complex. Vannille, while obnoxious, actually has a great story behind her character. Everyone else had their own reasons for fighting, too, aside from Snow, who, like I said, has a hero complex. But yeah I dig the combat, although I'm stuck on chapter 12... I suppose I should go back and try to finish the game soon, it's been a while since I played it.
I like Snow for two reasons.
1. Troy Baker.
2. His character arc is interesting to me. Yeah, he's got a hero complex, but the game constantly throws that back in his face because he fails so much over the course of the story. So it's interesting watching him try to adapt to that. I haven't heard him use the word "hero" in a while.
I haven't finished it either. I just beat Bathandelus, but I want to keep playing. It's got me hooked.
@DarkLink77: Wait you did? Really?? You of all people liked FF13? That surprises me, to say the least.
Literally every problem that game has is due to its linearity. Every single one. No towns, which hurts the pacing, so you're in combat all the time, which makes it hard to tell the story without resorting to the datalog to explain things. In addition, no downtime for the characters means less development, and more of it has to come in small moments scattered along the way.
That said, if you approach the game and accept it for what it is, it's pretty fun. Excellent combat system, a decent cast (I really like Sazh, Lightning, Fang, and Snow), and it's gorgeous and has an interesting setting. And the music is really good.
It's not perfect, and it's definitely not in the top tier of FF titles, but it's a solid game in its own right.
The dip in quality for AC seems to be more of Ubisoft's "throw the entire kitchen sink in" mentality.
This, too. The series hasn't felt really focused in a long time.
It should probably be said: Japanese developers handle long run franchises better.
@XVision84 said:@charizard1605 said:@XVision84 said:@charizard1605 said:
@XVision84: You would have had a point about Assassin's Creed if IV did not exist. But it does, so you do not.
It doesn't change anything though. My point still stands, Assassin's Creed IV is the same thing we've seen 6, 7, 8 times already. You're basically polishing the same idea and milking it over and over again.
Except it's not. This is something you would know if you had played the game, instead of making faulty presumptions. Then again, as I said in that other thread, ignorance is bliss.
Tell me what Assassin's Creed IV does different. As far as I know, the base idea, the parkour, and the combat, exploration, are all mostly the same. You have improvements like ship battles, animation, graphics, some gameplay improvements, etc. but nothing that changes it from being Assassin's Creed. It's not a fresh experience, it's a sequel.
It feels more like a pirate game than an Assassin's Creed game, to be honest.
Which is good since, as you pointed out, Assassin's Creed is extremely played out.