And people say AAA games don't innovate...

  • 120 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for ezekiel43
#101 Edited by Ezekiel43 (1616 posts) -

@XVision84: I'm probably even more amused that you think it's impossible for the majority to be wrong about something or that it's wrong to say something is bad based on one's own critical thinking. I didn't insult you. I only said the truth. You're a tool and a coward.

Avatar image for XVision84
#102 Posted by XVision84 (16252 posts) -
@jaydan said:
@XVision84 said:

@ezekiel43: Of course it's good, that's why it's in the top 2000. I don't like most of the top songs these days but clearly a lot of people do. People don't have shitty opinions, they just have opinions you don't agree with lol.

Aha, no. There is such thing as people having low-standards based off having a lack of explored taste, and that can be said for a lot of popular things ending up popular. As far as I can see, Suicide Squad was a massive financial success despite being a universally accepted pile of shit. It was just the popular thing to see. General populations do not seek the elevation of artistic reverence as much as they seek for what's trending in media. Trends in popularity =/= quality.

I agree with you to a certain extent. The bolded statements I agree with completely, but I have 2 things to add. Suicide Squad wasn't a massive success, otherwise it would be getting a direct sequel rather than a reboot. God of War didn't have any such mixed reception, it contained both critical acclaim and stellar sales.

Your last statement I partially agree with. I believe trends in popularity do indicate quality to a certain extent. If there were absolutely no redeemable qualities in the piece of work, it would not be so widely consumed. If you look at any trend, something was the hook. It did something right. I'm not saying the top 2000 IMDB works are masterpieces each. I'm saying they are good (aka not bad) because they hit the mark for a lot of people.

Listen, I strongly dislike Fifty Shades of Grey. It isn't well written, it isn't particularly nuanced nor does it deliver any meaningful themes. However, you can't say it didn't do something right. It appealed to many people, clearly filling some sort of void in their consumer need. That's a very controversial one though. God of War is a different scenario.

Jaydan, would you really think that a game which that much love/raving reception is terrible even if you didn't like it?

Avatar image for XVision84
#103 Posted by XVision84 (16252 posts) -
@ezekiel43 said:

@XVision84: I'm probably even more amused that you think it's impossible for the majority to be wrong about something or that it's wrong to say something is bad based on one's own critical thinking. I didn't insult you. I only said the truth. You're a tool and a coward.

It's hard for me to take you seriously with those kinds of statements, my dude. It just isn't a good look for you, not only personally, but in terms of debate credibility. One of the fastest ways to losing a debate is using ad hominems.

I didn't claim any of what you said in the first statement. Feel free to reread my earlier posts if you like since it seems you're missing my point entirely.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#104 Edited by Ezekiel43 (1616 posts) -

@XVision84 said:
@ezekiel43 said:

@XVision84: I'm probably even more amused that you think it's impossible for the majority to be wrong about something or that it's wrong to say something is bad based on one's own critical thinking. I didn't insult you. I only said the truth. You're a tool and a coward.

It's hard for me to take you seriously with those kinds of statements, my dude. It just isn't a good look for you, not only personally, but in terms of debate credibility. One of the fastest ways to losing a debate is using ad hominems.

I didn't claim any of what you said in the first statement. Feel free to reread my earlier posts if you like since it seems you're missing my point entirely.

Like calling the sky blue. It doesn't matter if you plainly said it or not; that's what can be understood from your flimsy argument.

Avatar image for XVision84
#105 Posted by XVision84 (16252 posts) -
@ezekiel43 said:
@XVision84 said:
@ezekiel43 said:

@XVision84: I'm probably even more amused that you think it's impossible for the majority to be wrong about something or that it's wrong to say something is bad based on one's own critical thinking. I didn't insult you. I only said the truth. You're a tool and a coward.

It's hard for me to take you seriously with those kinds of statements, my dude. It just isn't a good look for you, not only personally, but in terms of debate credibility. One of the fastest ways to losing a debate is using ad hominems.

I didn't claim any of what you said in the first statement. Feel free to reread my earlier posts if you like since it seems you're missing my point entirely.

Like calling the sky blue. It doesn't matter if you plainly said it or not; that's what can be understood from your flimsy argument.

So you're taking your incorrect interpretations as fact and running with it. It adds up with the general stance you're taking on this subject. You seem to be rather selfish intellectually and uninteresting to debate with since you don't have anything substantive to add.

I'm sure you'll come back with a typical snarky comment, but you're getting boring so I'll end it here.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#106 Posted by Ezekiel43 (1616 posts) -

@XVision84 said:
@ezekiel43 said:
@XVision84 said:
@ezekiel43 said:

@XVision84: I'm probably even more amused that you think it's impossible for the majority to be wrong about something or that it's wrong to say something is bad based on one's own critical thinking. I didn't insult you. I only said the truth. You're a tool and a coward.

It's hard for me to take you seriously with those kinds of statements, my dude. It just isn't a good look for you, not only personally, but in terms of debate credibility. One of the fastest ways to losing a debate is using ad hominems.

I didn't claim any of what you said in the first statement. Feel free to reread my earlier posts if you like since it seems you're missing my point entirely.

Like calling the sky blue. It doesn't matter if you plainly said it or not; that's what can be understood from your flimsy argument.

So you're taking your incorrect interpretations as fact and running with it. It adds up with the general stance you're taking on this subject. You seem to be rather selfish intellectually and uninteresting to debate with since you don't have anything substantive to add.

I'm sure you'll come back with a typical snarky comment, but you're getting boring so I'll end it here.

If you want a substantive debate, bring something substantive to the table. There's very little I can do with such a flimsy argument. Next time, argue your point of view instead of falling back on this lame accolades excuse.

Avatar image for flashn00b
#107 Posted by flashn00b (3632 posts) -

Whenever i see stuff about Call of Duty, i can't help but think that we live in an age where all the things that make up the gameplay of Doom 1 and 2 would look new and innovative in comparison: Carrying multiple weapons, maze-like level design, varied enemies with telegraphed patterns, etc.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#108 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

@pc_rocks: it's a verifiable fact that the game is shit? Damn, we better notify all the fans and the award shows. PC_rocks has something to say to them 🤣

Sony cancel the sequel!

Yup, it's a verifiable fact that GoW isn't first to do one shot but instead copied HL 2 decades later. It's a verifiable fact that the many reviewers who awarded it 10/10 didn't even play the original trilogy or much Hack nSlash as the example I quoted. It's a verifiable fact that it simply copied the Sony's template of games as Cory Barlog him self admitted because otherwise it wouldn't sell. It's a verifiable fact that Barlog included Atreus and changed the character of Kratos because he thought people will feel emotionally attached to a child after TLOU and didn't do it for gameplay. It's a verifiable fact that the story/character doesn't make any sense in new GoW compared to previous entries. It's a colossal failure in terms of character progression unless you consider this game in isolation which it isn't; that further cements that majority of critics didn't even know the franchise.

As for the gameplay part you're clinging to, well yes, in my opinion the game is trash and a step backwards from prequels however both Cory Barlog and the creator of original GoW agrees the franchise isn't anywhere close to HacknSlash greats like DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden etc. They only rely on presentation and story. Another verifiable fact is David Jaffe also said he stepped down from awards jury because they don't have any idea or standards to award games, they have no consensus on what is game direction or art is.

Now let's see if you can refute any of that apart from the critics said this. Funny many of you cows don't like it when said critics gave high scores to CoD/AC etc or when those franchises sell. They are still sh*t. Battlefront 2 comes to mind as well. Oh and still waiting for what did GoW innovate.

Avatar image for XVision84
#110 Posted by XVision84 (16252 posts) -

@pc_rocks: I'll break my reply down into pieces so it's easier to follow.

Half Life: Half-life isn't one shot, dude. It's a first person game and as far as I can tell there's essentially one camera view all game on purpose. Claiming half life is one shot is like saying Gone Home or the original Doom is also one shot. Anyone who looks at gameplay and cutscenes of GoW and Half Life can clearly tell the difference. GoW is a third person cinematic adventure, it's much more difficult to tell that kind of story without one camera cut. It isn't one static view, the camera has to pan. And EVEN IF half life was one shot, to say that GoW "copied" it being one shot is just ridiculous lol. That's like me saying "Kobe Bryant dunked a basketball. Then Lebron James dunked it! Lebron copied Kobe". There are many different ways to go about dunking, and there are many different ways to conduct a one shot scene. If they used the same technique, I would agree with you, but the two are clearly worlds apart.

Reviewers: Many might not have played the original trilogy, but many also have. I played all of them and I loved GoW. I know a lot of people who loved GoW and also played the original trilogy. At the end of the day, they loved the game (in fact even more so if they played the originals because of what happened partway through the game).

Sony template/TLOU: This has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard so far in this thread. Give me a link to Cory being scared his game wont sell unless he copied Sony games lol. I've seen many interviews and the documentary done on GoW's development. He has taken inspiration from other first party studios and was inspired by how TLOU told his emotional story. He absolutely did not just make Atreus because of Ellie lol. This is a story that was personal to him and many on the crew because they started having children in their lives. I assume you're referring to this link: https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/05/25/god-of-war-director-on-the-last-of-us-comparisons/ That's just one of the many times he references TLOU and is also very different from what you're claiming.

Gameplay: Dude, you're trying to push the fact that the gameplay is mediocre but a lot of people have fun with it. Again, link me to the part where the directors believe their game isn't close to the others (even though I would agree with you on that part). They're likely being humble, but besides that the gameplay was praised. Especially how great the Leviathan Axe felt which immediately garnered good reception from all sorts of sources. I'm talking long term fans like Easy Allies or SkillUp and even myself.

I would be very interested in seeing that Jaffe quote, but regardless Jaffe is a passionate person. He always does hot takes. One man does not speak for everyone. Furthermore, it doesn't account for the leagues of developers that spoke praise for GoW. Are you going to claim that people who develop games don't know what they're talking about too? Lol

I'm confused why you're so riled up about my argument that there is an outside world beyond your opinion. I'm also amused that you're calling me a cow. I didn't know cows gamed on PC and had a switch and xbox game pass. You learn something new every day :P.

CoD and AC are good games. They have a great foundation, but they were rehashed to oblivion (which looks to change). So whatever you mentioned isn't my opinion. It's funny how jaded you sound lol.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#111 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

@pc_rocks: I'll break my reply down into pieces so it's easier to follow.

Half Life: Half-life isn't one shot, dude. It's a first person game and as far as I can tell there's essentially one camera view all game on purpose. Claiming half life is one shot is like saying Gone Home or the original Doom is also one shot. Anyone who looks at gameplay and cutscenes of GoW and Half Life can clearly tell the difference. GoW is a third person cinematic adventure, it's much more difficult to tell that kind of story without one camera cut. It isn't one static view, the camera has to pan. And EVEN IF half life was one shot, to say that GoW "copied" it being one shot is just ridiculous lol. That's like me saying "Kobe Bryant dunked a basketball. Then Lebron James dunked it! Lebron copied Kobe". There are many different ways to go about dunking, and there are many different ways to conduct a one shot scene. If they used the same technique, I would agree with you, but the two are clearly worlds apart.

Reviewers: Many might not have played the original trilogy, but many also have. I played all of them and I loved GoW. I know a lot of people who loved GoW and also played the original trilogy. At the end of the day, they loved the game (in fact even more so if they played the originals because of what happened partway through the game).

Sony template/TLOU: This has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard so far in this thread. Give me a link to Cory being scared his game wont sell unless he copied Sony games lol. I've seen many interviews and the documentary done on GoW's development. He has taken inspiration from other first party studios and was inspired by how TLOU told his emotional story. He absolutely did not just make Atreus because of Ellie lol. This is a story that was personal to him and many on the crew because they started having children in their lives. I assume you're referring to this link: https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/05/25/god-of-war-director-on-the-last-of-us-comparisons/ That's just one of the many times he references TLOU and is also very different from what you're claiming.

Gameplay: Dude, you're trying to push the fact that the gameplay is mediocre but a lot of people have fun with it. Again, link me to the part where the directors believe their game isn't close to the others (even though I would agree with you on that part). They're likely being humble, but besides that the gameplay was praised. Especially how great the Leviathan Axe felt which immediately garnered good reception from all sorts of sources. I'm talking long term fans like Easy Allies or SkillUp and even myself.

I would be very interested in seeing that Jaffe quote, but regardless Jaffe is a passionate person. He always does hot takes. One man does not speak for everyone. Furthermore, it doesn't account for the leagues of developers that spoke praise for GoW. Are you going to claim that people who develop games don't know what they're talking about too? Lol

I'm confused why you're so riled up about my argument that there is an outside world beyond your opinion. I'm also amused that you're calling me a cow. I didn't know cows gamed on PC and had a switch and xbox game pass. You learn something new every day :P.

CoD and AC are good games. They have a great foundation, but they were rehashed to oblivion (which looks to change). So whatever you mentioned isn't my opinion. It's funny how jaded you sound lol.

Half Life is one shot. You don't even know what one-shot means. Not every FPS is one-shot. No, it isn't more easy/difficult to do one shot whether it's First or Third Person, perspective has nothing to do with it. And it's cute that I should take your word for it when the very own director of GoW admitted he did one-shot because of Half-Life as he was a dev at no name studio that released a flopped at the time of Half Life and couldn't believe a game could do that. There is no IF. And in Half Life it actually served a purpose because Gordon acted as an Avatar for a player unlike GoW and you were always in control of him, during cutscenes as well. There was no purpose in GoW, that's why they have to brag about it n multiple interviews and videos which Half Life never did. What you decsribed sounds like DC to me.

You or others loving the game wasn't my point. You called it a good game/innovative because reviewers gave it good scores. I already outlined why these reviewers have no idea what they are doing. The problem isn't they haven't played the originals, the problem was when they blindly declared it better than the previous games because of up close perspective. As for professional critics, holding weight, all those who worth a damn have left and now have their own channels. As for their worth, Danny O'Dwyer is on record saying he left GS, decided to do his own thing instead of joining other publications is because they were forced to chase clicks, only allowed to flow with the popular narrative etc.

Calling it one of the silliest things is actually one of the dumbest things. Not even the die hard cows I debated previously on this board denied it. There are multiple videos/interviews where said this. Hell every video of him pretty much talking about the story, emotions, etc. almost never the gameplay. How many times have you seen DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Sekiro devs hyping their stories or characters in interviews over gameplay? No I wasn't talking about the link you posted, it was a video, I believe where he said Sony isn't okay with GoW as the series didn't sell as many copies as UC/TLOU and they never believed it will if they continue the franchise without changing direction. He had to change the direction of GoW and to make it more personal/emotional.

I'll continue to push the gameplay is mediocre narrative because that's my take on it and very rightly so. It does everything that hurts a HnS game. For starters I said go watch both videos of TheGamingBritShow on it because he already covered a lot of ground. As for the directors, yes they did. For Cory, browse his Twitter feed on DMC 5 and as for David Jaffe, it was a video interview. Both openly admitting DMC has far far superior gameplay. I wouldn't be so harsh on new GoW but then Cory Barlog at one instant said he made GoW because he wanted to prove Japanese devs wrong about western devs not been able to make good HnS game (likely referring to Kamiya's comment.)

Go ahead and watch the Jaffe's video on The Game Awards nominees. It's not one man, but the reason he stated and so far no one has came forward to deny what he said. As for developers giving priase, you're likely talking about AAA industry and even then developers also talk highly of CoD, AC, BF, Battlefront etc. Most people don't want to burn their bridges or try to get into controversies.

You derailed the argument, not my fault. I wasn't the one who brought gameplay, reviewers, awards etc. I agree we have diverted from the main point which was you claiming it innovated. Well, none what you claimed as innovations were true, neither one-shot, not the story. Well I don't even begin to think how could a story be considered an innovation unless they told it it in a way never been done before which again wasn't the case. The story was hot garbage when you think it as a continuity from original trilogy. It doesn't make an iota of sense.

AC and CoD are bad games, period at this point in time. The new coat of paint don't make it interesting. Anyway, again we're drifting away from the point, what did GoW innovate?

Avatar image for XVision84
#112 Edited by XVision84 (16252 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:
@XVision84 said:

@pc_rocks: I'll break my reply down into pieces so it's easier to follow.

Half Life: Half-life isn't one shot, dude. It's a first person game and as far as I can tell there's essentially one camera view all game on purpose. Claiming half life is one shot is like saying Gone Home or the original Doom is also one shot. Anyone who looks at gameplay and cutscenes of GoW and Half Life can clearly tell the difference. GoW is a third person cinematic adventure, it's much more difficult to tell that kind of story without one camera cut. It isn't one static view, the camera has to pan. And EVEN IF half life was one shot, to say that GoW "copied" it being one shot is just ridiculous lol. That's like me saying "Kobe Bryant dunked a basketball. Then Lebron James dunked it! Lebron copied Kobe". There are many different ways to go about dunking, and there are many different ways to conduct a one shot scene. If they used the same technique, I would agree with you, but the two are clearly worlds apart.

Reviewers: Many might not have played the original trilogy, but many also have. I played all of them and I loved GoW. I know a lot of people who loved GoW and also played the original trilogy. At the end of the day, they loved the game (in fact even more so if they played the originals because of what happened partway through the game).

Sony template/TLOU: This has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard so far in this thread. Give me a link to Cory being scared his game wont sell unless he copied Sony games lol. I've seen many interviews and the documentary done on GoW's development. He has taken inspiration from other first party studios and was inspired by how TLOU told his emotional story. He absolutely did not just make Atreus because of Ellie lol. This is a story that was personal to him and many on the crew because they started having children in their lives. I assume you're referring to this link: https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/05/25/god-of-war-director-on-the-last-of-us-comparisons/ That's just one of the many times he references TLOU and is also very different from what you're claiming.

Gameplay: Dude, you're trying to push the fact that the gameplay is mediocre but a lot of people have fun with it. Again, link me to the part where the directors believe their game isn't close to the others (even though I would agree with you on that part). They're likely being humble, but besides that the gameplay was praised. Especially how great the Leviathan Axe felt which immediately garnered good reception from all sorts of sources. I'm talking long term fans like Easy Allies or SkillUp and even myself.

I would be very interested in seeing that Jaffe quote, but regardless Jaffe is a passionate person. He always does hot takes. One man does not speak for everyone. Furthermore, it doesn't account for the leagues of developers that spoke praise for GoW. Are you going to claim that people who develop games don't know what they're talking about too? Lol

I'm confused why you're so riled up about my argument that there is an outside world beyond your opinion. I'm also amused that you're calling me a cow. I didn't know cows gamed on PC and had a switch and xbox game pass. You learn something new every day :P.

CoD and AC are good games. They have a great foundation, but they were rehashed to oblivion (which looks to change). So whatever you mentioned isn't my opinion. It's funny how jaded you sound lol.

Half Life is one shot. You don't even know what one-shot means. Not every FPS is one-shot. No, it isn't more easy/difficult to do one shot whether it's First or Third Person, perspective has nothing to do with it. And it's cute that I should take your word for it when the very own director of GoW admitted he did one-shot because of Half-Life as he was a dev at no name studio that released a flopped at the time of Half Life and couldn't believe a game could do that. There is no IF. And in Half Life it actually served a purpose because Gordon acted as an Avatar for a player unlike GoW and you were always in control of him, during cutscenes as well. There was no purpose in GoW, that's why they have to brag about it n multiple interviews and videos which Half Life never did. What you decsribed sounds like DC to me.

You or others loving the game wasn't my point. You called it a good game/innovative because reviewers gave it good scores. I already outlined why these reviewers have no idea what they are doing. The problem isn't they haven't played the originals, the problem was when they blindly declared it better than the previous games because of up close perspective. As for professional critics, holding weight, all those who worth a damn have left and now have their own channels. As for their worth, Danny O'Dwyer is on record saying he left GS, decided to do his own thing instead of joining other publications is because they were forced to chase clicks, only allowed to flow with the popular narrative etc.

Calling it one of the silliest things is actually one of the dumbest things. Not even the die hard cows I debated previously on this board denied it. There are multiple videos/interviews where said this. Hell every video of him pretty much talking about the story, emotions, etc. almost never the gameplay. How many times have you seen DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Sekiro devs hyping their stories or characters in interviews over gameplay? No I wasn't talking about the link you posted, it was a video, I believe where he said Sony isn't okay with GoW as the series didn't sell as many copies as UC/TLOU and they never believed it will if they continue the franchise without changing direction. He had to change the direction of GoW and to make it more personal/emotional.

I'll continue to push the gameplay is mediocre narrative because that's my take on it and very rightly so. It does everything that hurts a HnS game. For starters I said go watch both videos of TheGamingBritShow on it because he already covered a lot of ground. As for the directors, yes they did. For Cory, browse his Twitter feed on DMC 5 and as for David Jaffe, it was a video interview. Both openly admitting DMC has far far superior gameplay. I wouldn't be so harsh on new GoW but then Cory Barlog at one instant said he made GoW because he wanted to prove Japanese devs wrong about western devs not been able to make good HnS game (likely referring to Kamiya's comment.)

Go ahead and watch the Jaffe's video on The Game Awards nominees. It's not one man, but the reason he stated and so far no one has came forward to deny what he said. As for developers giving priase, you're likely talking about AAA industry and even then developers also talk highly of CoD, AC, BF, Battlefront etc. Most people don't want to burn their bridges or try to get into controversies.

You derailed the argument, not my fault. I wasn't the one who brought gameplay, reviewers, awards etc. I agree we have diverted from the main point which was you claiming it innovated. Well, none what you claimed as innovations were true, neither one-shot, not the story. Well I don't even begin to think how could a story be considered an innovation unless they told it it in a way never been done before which again wasn't the case. The story was hot garbage when you think it as a continuity from original trilogy. It doesn't make an iota of sense.

AC and CoD are bad games, period at this point in time. The new coat of paint don't make it interesting. Anyway, again we're drifting away from the point, what did GoW innovate?

Perspective has absolutely everything to do with it, it's one of the most important aspects of camera work. It is significantly harder to do one shot in third person because you don't have the luxury of relying on a natural first person perspective of the character. I never claimed that every FPS is one shot, I gave you a few examples of what would also be considered one shot given your statements. Not only that, but half life also had cuts in the form of loading screens (which was admittedly a limitation of its technology but regardless bodes true of the experience). Even if it inspired Barlog (which I have yet to see evidence for), GoW being one shot is vastly different from what Half Life did. In GoW it was to deliver a more immersive experience and to attempt something that isn't done by other games of its ilk. One pattern I'm noticing in your arguments is that you're making big assumptions on their intentions, I would love to see a quote where they said "There was no purpose to GoW being one shot." This is also apparent in your statements regarding their intentions to put Atreus in the game. It wasn't just to copy TLOU, I stated (and linked) in my previous post one reason why they did it.

You are the one who said the gameplay isn't very good. If the gameplay wasn't very good and the game wasn't fun to play, then people aren't obligated to love it. The reviewers I named are independent reviewers who have played the originals and loved the gameplay. Even disregarding reviewers, there is a big following of fans behind the game who love the gameplay. Denying that the gameplay is good requires you to deny all evidence of people having fun with the game (which is indicative of good gameplay). I did not say that the game is good or innovative because people gave it good scores. I said that the great reception and sales are INDICATIVE of it being a good game (no mention of innovation there, not sure where you got that from). If you aren't aware of the difference, here is an example. Blue litmus paper is used to identify if a solution is acidic, once it's placed in an acidic solution it turns red. The solution is not acidic because the paper turned red, the paper turning red is just indicative of it being acidic. The concentration of hydrogen/hydronium ions is what makes the solution acidic.

Just calling my statement dumb isn't an argument. Cory didn't just add Atreus because he wanted to copy TLOU and he was afraid his game wouldn't sell. I linked you quotes explaining why he did both of those things. Just because he went into lengths talking about the story, it doesn't mean he doesn't care about the gameplay. God of War does not have the depth that the other games you mentioned do, but that's because the game wasn't designed just for gameplay. DmC, Bayonetta, and Sekiro are not focused on selling you a moving narrative. This doesn't mean gameplay is shafted in GoW, it means that they are trying to do both as selling points. The other action games are bought for gameplay first. In the glowing early previews that BOTH independent gamers and media giants adored, they were actually playing the game (not the story), which means they had plenty of gameplay-centric showings.

I would love to see this video where Sony isn't okay with the GoW series. Kratos is a Playstation icon and GoW is one of the best selling series on the platform. They were not okay with the most recent GoW games that flopped because it was just more of the same, but that's not the statement you are making. I'm not going on a wild goose chase for all these links, if you want me to look it over then link it. I'm not skimming through Cory's twitter feed for this, I have other things I'd rather do. As I said in my post, I agree that DmC has superior gameplay (since thats like 90% of the selling point for the game) but I don't believe that the developers trashed the gameplay on their own game, more likely just being humble about it. However I would more than welcome a link showing otherwise.

I never explicitly mentioned The Game Awards. In fact, the raving reception I'm referring to is widespread beyond large media outlets. You look at any Let's Play, look at any independent reviewer, look at many user reviews, and people love the game. To criticize one media outlet is understandable, but to say that leagues of people just have bad opinions is asinine. Developers of course praise CoD and AC because they know all the work that goes into it. Just because some jabroni on whatever game forum has a hyperbolic opinion of a certain game, it doesn't mean that holds weight in the developer's eyes. I'd love to live in this world you're creating where garbage products are widely adored and bring in heaps of cash. Everybody would be rich.

I said very plainly why I thought GoW was innovative. It was the entire game being one shot and the different direction they took in terms of story relative to what they had before. The gist of what you're saying to counter it is "the story is shit" and "it being one shot doesn't matter". Both of which are your opinion (which you seemingly pass off as fact) and neither of which are true in actuality. Why isn't it true? Because you don't connect with this many people by telling a bad story. I would know, I'm a writer. It's easy to sit at home browsing on a game forum and just throw words around, it's hard as hell to tell a good story. The fact that it gained this much love means that it did many many things right.

You're heavily misconstruing my argument in that you think I'm using the reception it received as the sole means to determine its quality. I'm using its reception as evidence that your hyperbolic statements are contradicted by the greater public experiences with the game. If the story was "hot garbage" then people would not identify so strongly with it, because there would be no redeemable quality to identify with. If the gameplay was trash, then people would not find it fun because there would be nothing fun about it. My main issue with your arguments and the other dude is you're taking your opinions as absolutes. I'm enjoying this debate though, you can hold your own instead of the other clown.

You bring up good points that I enjoy countering and hopefully its likewise. It would be better if you can use concrete links/examples because it seems like you're using a lot of interpretation in your points. Also it's better to refrain from using silly statements like "You cows ____" or "You don't even know what one shot means". That just comes off as immature and doesn't reach any kind of conclusion in a debate.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#113 Edited by Ezekiel43 (1616 posts) -

Using an over the shoulder camera for the purpose of presenting an action game with a single camera shot is so goddamn stupid. Why am I supposed to care that it is all done with one shot? At least the cutscenes in the old God of War games moved the story along nicely. I'd rather have a camera that is ideal for the kind of game I'm playing. This camera is not ideal. Your perspective is so limited that you need verbal warnings from the NPC and warning indicators on the screen. You're manipulating the camera so much, it feels like pulling teeth. Several times, Kratos also auto-targeted the wrong enemy. If Devil May Cry pulled this shit, the fans would have a field day, but because this is Sony and people expect emotional storytelling before gameplay, almost no one complains. I'm certain most of the people who love this game barely played the old ones, if they played them at all.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#114 Edited by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

Perspective has absolutely everything to do with it, it's one of the most important aspects of camera work. It is significantly harder to do one shot in third person because you don't have the luxury of relying on a natural first person perspective of the character. I never claimed that every FPS is one shot, I gave you a few examples of what would also be considered one shot given your statements. Not only that, but half life also had cuts in the form of loading screens (which was admittedly a limitation of its technology but regardless bodes true of the experience). Even if it inspired Barlog (which I have yet to see evidence for), GoW being one shot is vastly different from what Half Life did. In GoW it was to deliver a more immersive experience and to attempt something that isn't done by other games of its ilk. One pattern I'm noticing in your arguments is that you're making big assumptions on their intentions, I would love to see a quote where they said "There was no purpose to GoW being one shot." This is also apparent in your statements regarding their intentions to put Atreus in the game. It wasn't just to copy TLOU, I stated (and linked) in my previous post one reason why they did it.

You are the one who said the gameplay isn't very good. If the gameplay wasn't very good and the game wasn't fun to play, then people aren't obligated to love it. The reviewers I named are independent reviewers who have played the originals and loved the gameplay. Even disregarding reviewers, there is a big following of fans behind the game who love the gameplay. Denying that the gameplay is good requires you to deny all evidence of people having fun with the game (which is indicative of good gameplay). I did not say that the game is good or innovative because people gave it good scores. I said that the great reception and sales are INDICATIVE of it being a good game (no mention of innovation there, not sure where you got that from). If you aren't aware of the difference, here is an example. Blue litmus paper is used to identify if a solution is acidic, once it's placed in an acidic solution it turns red. The solution is not acidic because the paper turned red, the paper turning red is just indicative of it being acidic. The concentration of hydrogen/hydronium ions is what makes the solution acidic.

Just calling my statement dumb isn't an argument. Cory didn't just add Atreus because he wanted to copy TLOU and he was afraid his game wouldn't sell. I linked you quotes explaining why he did both of those things. Just because he went into lengths talking about the story, it doesn't mean he doesn't care about the gameplay. God of War does not have the depth that the other games you mentioned do, but that's because the game wasn't designed just for gameplay. DmC, Bayonetta, and Sekiro are not focused on selling you a moving narrative. This doesn't mean gameplay is shafted in GoW, it means that they are trying to do both as selling points. The other action games are bought for gameplay first. In the glowing early previews that BOTH independent gamers and media giants adored, they were actually playing the game (not the story), which means they had plenty of gameplay-centric showings.

I would love to see this video where Sony isn't okay with the GoW series. Kratos is a Playstation icon and GoW is one of the best selling series on the platform. They were not okay with the most recent GoW games that flopped because it was just more of the same, but that's not the statement you are making. I'm not going on a wild goose chase for all these links, if you want me to look it over then link it. I'm not skimming through Cory's twitter feed for this, I have other things I'd rather do. As I said in my post, I agree that DmC has superior gameplay (since thats like 90% of the selling point for the game) but I don't believe that the developers trashed the gameplay on their own game, more likely just being humble about it. However I would more than welcome a link showing otherwise.

I never explicitly mentioned The Game Awards. In fact, the raving reception I'm referring to is widespread beyond large media outlets. You look at any Let's Play, look at any independent reviewer, look at many user reviews, and people love the game. To criticize one media outlet is understandable, but to say that leagues of people just have bad opinions is asinine. Developers of course praise CoD and AC because they know all the work that goes into it. Just because some jabroni on whatever game forum has a hyperbolic opinion of a certain game, it doesn't mean that holds weight in the developer's eyes. I'd love to live in this world you're creating where garbage products are widely adored and bring in heaps of cash. Everybody would be rich.

I said very plainly why I thought GoW was innovative. It was the entire game being one shot and the different direction they took in terms of story relative to what they had before. The gist of what you're saying to counter it is "the story is shit" and "it being one shot doesn't matter". Both of which are your opinion (which you seemingly pass off as fact) and neither of which are true in actuality. Why isn't it true? Because you don't connect with this many people by telling a bad story. I would know, I'm a writer. It's easy to sit at home browsing on a game forum and just throw words around, it's hard as hell to tell a good story. The fact that it gained this much love means that it did many many things right.

You're heavily misconstruing my argument in that you think I'm using the reception it received as the sole means to determine its quality. I'm using its reception as evidence that your hyperbolic statements are contradicted by the greater public experiences with the game. If the story was "hot garbage" then people would not identify so strongly with it, because there would be no redeemable quality to identify with. If the gameplay was trash, then people would not find it fun because there would be nothing fun about it. My main issue with your arguments and the other dude is you're taking your opinions as absolutes. I'm enjoying this debate though, you can hold your own instead of the other clown.

You bring up good points that I enjoy countering and hopefully its likewise. It would be better if you can use concrete links/examples because it seems like you're using a lot of interpretation in your points. Also it's better to refrain from using silly statements like "You cows ____" or "You don't even know what one shot means". That just comes off as immature and doesn't reach any kind of conclusion in a debate.

Perspective has nothing to do with it, your assumptions without any technical or historical knowledge has no merit. I'll take the game's director word over yours for that. Oh and HL is completely one-shot unlike GoW even with loading screens. The game display a loading symbol when entering the new area but it 's still connected and the same shot which modern games now cover with cinematic/forced walking. GoW isn't one shot because it fades to black when you travel between realms. And yes, I stand corrected, one-shot didn't serve any purpose in the game. Feel free to point out what purpose did it serve apart from bragging. If it served any purpose they wouldn't have to hype it prior to release unlike HL which just did because Gordon is supposed to be an avatar for the player and you were constantly in control of him, seeing and experiencing the story from his eyes. It didn't serve any purpose in GoW because Cory Barlog admitted why he did one-shot in the HL video I talked about as well as in another of his interview where he said waned to do one-shot Tomb Raider back when he was at Crystal Dynamics. So yeah, he's just fascinated with HL and ever since wanted to do it:

Loading Video...

That para on gameplay is just a whole lot of but the critics said and it sold hence better. Sorry, bad products can sell and can have good reviews as the examples I mentioned. None of that prove it's a quality product. The game is forgotten already and people have already moved on. No one will remember it after a decade unlike the genre's greats like DMC, Ninja Gaiden etc. which stood the test of time.

3rd para is again seems like DC for gameplay. You just contradicted your own post, if it was such a great game why shouldn't it be compared to the genre's greats? Why should it be given an exception? Thank you for conceding that crictics/awards don't make a game good. Cory did sacrifice gameplay for it, all that videos are a proof where the focus was. You just admitted GoW wouldn't get a second look if we strip away the presentation. The funny thing is story is also total crap for the reasons I listed multiple times as it's completely different from the prequels. Keep hiding behind critics when the game director is exclusively talking about his supposed story, emotions, including child etc.

Yup, Sony said exactly that if we goes by Cory's own words. He added Atreus, changed the direction, perspective etc. to chanse the TLOU/UC crowd. No two ways about it. All of that is scattered in multiple interviews, videos etc. athat it isn't possible to link all but the ones I can found I'll link below this para. And yes, both game directors did exactly say that. Cory saying DMC has the best gameplay in the genre and David Jaffe saying their battle systems/gameplay isn't as deep or mechanically sound than DMC. They are not being humble, it's called accepting their short comings.

Sony wanted to give God of War a much longer rest after previous entry Ascension disappointed critically and commercially. The latest issue of Game Informer reveals that the company needed serious convincing in order to give the franchise another shot. “A lot of people throughout the organisation wanted [God of War] to sleep and rest,” Sony Santa Monica boss Shannon Studstill told the magazine.

....

God of War has been a perennially popular property in the United States, but it’s never done particularly well in Europe. It’s also been eclipsed by some of Sony’s other big first-party franchises, like Uncharted and The Last of Us. Barlog believes that this entry will make the series bigger than it’s ever been before. “I want this to reach a lot of people; I want this to be on the level of the Uncharteds and the Assassin's Creeds,” he said. “We want to grow this franchise big time.”

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/01/sony_didnt_really_want_another_god_of_war_game

I tried to search for both the tweet of Cory and video of David Jaffe admitting DMC having better mechanics/gameplay that but couldn't find it now. @Jag85 can you help me out here. I have seen you posting it a couple of times?

You keep repeating the same thing again and again. Sorry, I gave explicit examples from the industry people why these awards or critics can't be objective or are good at their jobs. Comme up with a better excuse than it won awards/good scores. News flash, bad products do get sales as well as critical acclaim and some times even good games flop both in sales and scores but the passage of time always sepeartes gems from crap. GoW will be forgotten like all bad products do, actually it's already forgotten and people have moved on. None is saying that there's effort that goes into games like these but that doesn't make it less crappy because people have worked on it. Developers have praised multiple bad products/games/services and practices.

The one shot you're talking about has been done before and better. You're now clinging to Third Person perspective after being proven wrong by some how saying it's more difficult to do without any basis. Sorry that's not how it works. It isn't my opinion because there are already games that did one-shot which you clearly didn't know about and have caught up in marketing hype. Yes, the story is complete and utter trash. You saying you're a writer wouldn't make it any less so. If you're a writer do tell me why did Kratos suddenly changed from being a villain in GoW 1-3 to a caring human being in GoW 4 all of a sudden? No, him being a father or losing his wife isn't one. He was already a father in GoW1 and was still a scumbag. He lost both his wife and child in GoW1 and made him even more of a scumbag. What did the new GoW tell us about this change? Nevertheless Story don't make any game innovative. What did GoW innovate?

Yup, that's all you did in this entire thread, hiding behind critics and awards. You're doing that even in this paragraph. Sorry as has been established multiple times, critics, sales or awards have been given to bad products. Oh and none of it's hyperbolic, I have gone into much details about the gameplay faults as well as story faults multiple times in numerous threads with cows. The funny thing is in all these threads me and Ezekiel always end up writing pages on it. I just don't feel like repeating it which I already did hint part of it in above paragraph. That's why I'm trying to now restrict it to the original argument about what did it innovate?

I tried to link as much as I can or I was able to found. I already asked the person to share the video/link because he has posted those in other threads. The point is all of this couldn't be possibly linked unless I dig into all the videos, tweets, interviews that Cory and David did and compile them in a single video. The information is spread across many videos/interviews and tweets and many of it has been shared in such debates with cows in other threads on gameplay and story. The reason I said you don't know about one-shot is because you don't. A continuous shot is a continuous shot and perspective has nothing to do with it. I would even say that FP is tougher to do because you don't have the luxury to rely on cinematic angles in TP, hence the reason many FP games do their cutscenes in TP. you already made me wrote multiple paras even though I didn't want to so from now on I'll just keep it to the original point, what did it innovate after the examples you listed are clearly not innovations in any way, shape or form?

Avatar image for XVision84
#115 Posted by XVision84 (16252 posts) -

@pc_rocks Let's dig a little deeper into this then. First off, you said you want to take the game developers word for it rather than mine. Splendid, here you go: https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/god-of-war-single-shot-camera-1202793441/

“When we set out to tell this story, we knew we wanted to make it incredibly personal,” “God of War’s” lead writer, Matt Sophos, tells Variety. “Using a one-shot camera kept everything feeling intimate because we couldn’t use camera cuts to jump around in the scene and take the focus off of what Kratos and Atreus were going through. In previous games, we would often use things like wide-angle establishing shots or even camera fly throughs in the environment to show players the large expanse of area they needed to traverse. Eliminating that language and keeping Kratos in the shot prevented players from ever disconnecting with the main characters—always getting a window into how Kratos and Atreus felt about what they were witnessing, not just what the level looked like.”

...

“The idea came from our game director, Cory Barlog. There was a mountain of challenges without industry precedence that needed to be proven out; experientially, visually and technically."

...

“A traditionally written script does not lend itself well to a no-cut camera. Most narratives are subconsciously thought through in cuts. The writers [Sophos and Rich Gaubert] and I needed to work more closely together to avoid ‘painting the camera into a corner’, or calling for an impossible movement.”

What can we surmise from that direct quotation? 1) The perspective of the camera was a critical piece of information taken into account in the development of the game (note how special mention was given to what the player can/can't see and in reference to objects in the game world, suiting the definition of perspective: "sense of depth or spatial relationships between objects, along with their dimensions with respect to the viewpoint (camera lens or the viewer)"). 2) The one shot camera was not, as you claim, for no reason: "feeling intimate", "preventing...disconnecting with the main characters", "always getting a window into how Kratos and Atreus felt". These are the developers own words so I'm curious how you'll now again claim they did it just for kicks. 3) There were unique challenges in the development of this game that are not apparent in other games (notice the "without industry precedence" and "traditionally written script does not lend itself well to a no-cut camera").

Next, on to your Half Life video. I have looked at the scenes where Cory is talking. Not once did Cory say he did one shot just because it was done in Half Life. Not once did he even say Half Life is one shot. He said Half Life had no cinematics, ergo all gameplay, ergo essentially like every other first person game without cinematics. In order to remove all shadow of a doubt, I will break down the most relevant aspect of the video found at 16:05. Cory Barlog: "They are the originators of having no cinematics...that affected me so strongly that even with God of War what I wanted was no camera cuts but also no cinematics."

Let's dissect that. 1) From the first sentence we see that Cory was impressed by the game not having cinematics and how it handled that. 2) It acted as an inspirational factor in Cory wanting to make the one shot camera. Note that this varies considerably from your claim that Cory wanted the one shot camera BECAUSE of Half Life. Nowhere is this stated and, as I stated in my previous post, this is an assumption made by you. We know why the one shot was done in GoW because I have both quoted and broken it down for you above.

Making statements like "it's not about perspective" and "that's not how it works" is not how you disprove another's argument. You must present your own argument to show why the other is incorrect, as what I have done above. This ties into your views on sales and reception, which will be addressed later on.

Next you claim that GoW is not one shot because it cuts to black? Which is entirely new because your previous point was that GoW isn't the only game that's one shot? So now you believe it isn't one shot? Stick to one stance dude. Yes, it is one shot, there are no camera cuts. Realm travel does not involve cuts, video evidence is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee9wYlhRpLE feel free to point out any cuts you see in realm travel.

Next we move on to your points regarding gameplay and the game's reception. I will repeat, statements like "Sorry, bad products can sell and can have good reviews as the examples I mentioned" are not valuable in a debate. You are merely stating your opinion and that is not enough to disprove an argument. The games you mentioned (Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty) are not bad just because you say so. I have repeated my arguments multiple times because you have failed to address them. You have yet to prove to me how a story can be bad when many people identify strongly with it. You have yet to prove to me how GoW's gameplay can be bad when many critics and fans find it fun (and praise its gameplay might I add). I am not the one on the defensive regarding this point, you are. I have given my logical proofs, you have not, all you have done is state your opinion. If you have to ask what those logical proofs are, you can read my previous posts. It's the very statements you say that I am repeating yet still cannot disprove.

On to the next paragraph, I have not contradicted myself in the slightest. Nowhere in my post did I state "God of War is not as good as DmC or Bayonetta". I stated that God of War is not as centered around its gameplay systems as DmC or Bayonetta are. This is not inherently a good or bad thing, it is simply a difference in vision. There is no need to give GoW any exception and can readily be compared to any action game of your choosing (which we are doing right now). Your next statements show even more assumptions you are making. I never said that GoW wouldn't get a second look if you got rid of the presentation. In order for that to be true, I would have said something along the lines of "God of War has bad gameplay but its only redeeming features are its presentation qualities". I said that GoW has good gameplay, but is also focused on other areas of the game. Get rid of the presentation, and the game is still fun (which you may disagree with, but the game's success suggests otherwise). Just because there is promotional material surrounding the story, it doesn't mean gameplay was shafted. You are making big assumptions without evidence again by claiming they sacrificed gameplay. The gameplay fits in rather nicely with the game and evolves naturally based off previous GoW's gameplay systems. I also never claimed that critics make a game good to begin with, as per my litmus paper example. I am not hiding behind any such things, I have provided clear evidence to back up my arguments. Stating "I don't care about critics" does not disprove anything. That's like saying "I don't care about the sun" and expecting it to disappear.

To address your TLOU quote. It is a huge assumption to claim Sony just wanted something like TLOU and Cory was scared so he made GoW like that (which is in line with your previous assertions). All we can muster from that quote is GoW was in a bad position due to the poor performance of Ascension. The brand was falling behind Uncharted and TLOU in some respects. That's it. We know exactly why GoW has Atreus in it and I have outlined this clearly in previous posts. In fact, a big portion of God of War's documentary "Finding Kratos" revolved around the developer's families and changing lives as catalysts for the change in direction.

Cory saying DmC has the best gameplay in the genre is not him admitting his own game has shitty gameplay. It's him respecting the accomplishments of another game. David Jaffe is also a developer who hasn't even been associated with GoW development for a very long time. However, I agree with his sentiments. That is, again, due to DmC being heavily focused around gameplay and is not proof that GoW's gameplay is poor. Just because something isn't as deep, doesn't mean it isn't good (or, as you said, leagues apart). If you said DmC had better mechanics I would agree with you. You aren't just saying that, you are saying GoW has mediocre gameplay. That is something entirely different.

I will repeat, stating your opinion is not proof. I broke down your previous examples and dissected why that's incomplete in my last post. You simply passed it off as repeating the same thing. Arguments don't disappear because you don't want to address them. I even explicitly stated that the praise goes beyond mainstream media into the userbase and let's players and cosplayers and all sorts of fans. If you're going to contend my points, at least fully read them first otherwise it just looks silly. You have yet to prove to me how a bad product can succeed in a competitive business environment. You just repeat the same thing "bad games get good sales and reviews" with 0 justification. Everything happens for a reason, success isn't based on blind luck.

One shot has not been done "before and better". Refer to my Half Life paragraph in the beginning of this post. You are the only human being I have come across to claim such things about Half Life. You're stating things that aren't even in the documentary. You also seem to be mixing up arguments a lot. Me being a writer does not make GoW a good story, this is another strange assumption you're making. I said making a good story is hard as hell to do, I would know, I am a writer (this is paraphrasing). This means I have personal experience in the making of stories and can vouch for the blood sweat and tears that go into achieving what GoW did. You can say whatever you want about the story, it made people cry, it made people happy, it made people upset, and it made people love it. That's a good story and no random hater on the internet can change that.

God of War 4 was all about him coming to terms with his past and learning to become a better father. This was not done all of a sudden. Small hints of this were in the previous trilogy but never fully realized. People change over time. Having a second chance with a second family can easily change someone. He didn't take this one for granted like he did last time. You aren't a plot genius that can somehow see gaping plot holes that other people who love the script (including professional writers who learn from and dissect the plot, unlike myself who writes as a hobby) somehow are missing. I can tell that you know very little about writing and this is based on how readily you pass the story off as shit. It's very easy to do such things when you aren't aware of what goes into it nor the moving pieces of the final product. It's ironic too because you are claiming my arguments aren't based off technical merit when 1) you are making statements without such merit and 2) my arguments were backed up exactly so by the developers themselves.

Rather than ask me the same question you asked me multiple times and which I have answered multiple times, I suggest you read my arguments more carefully. You are making very big assumptions and you are mixing up many different things. Some arguments you're just entirely ignoring. If you're going to try and call someone out for hiding behind things or not knowing what they're talking about, first make sure you are not doing such things yourself.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#116 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

Looks like another GS revision and I can't quote you. Let me try by manually linking you. @XVision84

It's at 16:06, where he says they are the creators of no cinematics and if you listen to all his talk you can clearly see his influence. He repeatedly told you how awesome HL was and how the story was told at you not to you. He also agreed that one-shot in HL actually served a purpose because Gordon acted as an avatar for the player. Now that's out of the way, let's address your concerns:

I just read your quote, don't know in what way it contradicts with what I said. They are hyping their one-shot, what else. Where did it prove they are the first or TP is difficult than FP? You're desperately seeing things when they aren't there. They only said traditionally written script, HL wasn't a traditionally written script as can be seen from the video I posted and in Cory's own words. It served no purpose in GoW apart from hype, them doing PR talk about it and how world-changing it's doesn't change that. Again HL never had to brag about it, it was just there serving its purpose.

Yes, he did it because of HL. Cory also said he wanted to do TR in one-shot when he was at Crystal Dynamics and TR also cam out fine. No one would have noticed/or missed one-shot in that game. He was just obsessed with accomplishing that because he has seen HL doing it and again none of what you quoted remotely proven that perspective has anything to do with that. Desperately posting random PR statements isn't a proof. Present to me the technical reasons why FP/TP is more difficult/easier than the other. If anything FP is always a more trickier to work with because of extra animations, multiple perspectives and if you want to have same models/animations, it's even more difficult (ala Star Citizen, go check the entire documentaries on that).

My entire point was it wasn't the first nor better. Other games did it better, go check my original comment. And then I said, now I think about it, GoW isn't completely one-shot because when you travel to realms the camera cuts to black which I admit I remembered it wrong. The camera didn't cuts just the background appears to change. Nevertheless none of that changes the original point, wasn't the first and definitely wasn't better. No innovations there.

Same old, the critics called it good. Ignore!

Yup, calling it isn't gameplay centric is conceding the ground and that's what all cows do. You said critics awrded it 10/10 and GOTY, hence it's best, how can it be best when their are better games in its own genre. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Thanks for agreeing that it only won because of its presentation and supposedly emotional story having a child. Gameplay is what separates this medium from other passive mediums like novels and movies. There's no way you can get out of this. Take away the GoW's presentation and it wouldn't get a second look, not from the die hard cows. That's my last word on it.

Sounds like you're looking for excuses and giving PR quotes as the reason for change when the actual reason was apparent. The game is already out and we have already seen what audience did it target from the reviewers example I quoted as well as Sony's direction and the devs own plethora of interviews. Not even the die hard cows denied what they were gunning for.

This para is also conceding to my point but rather than outright admitting you're trying to dance your way out of it by saying presentation, passive elements etc. matter. None of that dancing will be needed if the gameplay was good. The funny thing is the director and the devs themselves needed to hide behind it that's why they almost always exclusively talked about story and sh*t.

People are idiots and cry/laugh for stupid things, none of that proved GoW story is anything to write home about. Its your standard run of the mill story, my assumption is that you haven't watched any good movie or read a good novel to know what a good story is.

Big whoop, devs says they have a great story hence I should believe it is. Sorry that's not how it works. All you said are excuses, everyone that knows a even a slightest thing about story telling knows that you just can't make assumptions or change characters without explaining it. None of the sudden change in Kratos' character is explained, none at all and it's failure in terms of character progression. It's hilarious when people shill for GoW by making such ridiculous excuses. How owuld you all feel if Drake in UC suddenly portrayed as a psychopath in the beginning of UC5? Yeah, that's how disconnected new GoW is from the old trilogy. Again that's last word on it, I don't have the patience to repeat the the same thing over and over again because you people are continue to shill for that and make excuses.

So back to the topic, what did it innovate? One-shot was clearly wasn't as HL did it decades ago and did it much better as well as other games without ever had to brag about it. Story is in no way, shape or form can be considered an innovation even if it had a good story. So unless you can prove it did something new apart from the laughable claim that TP is innovative/difficult that debate is done for.

Avatar image for XVision84
#117 Posted by XVision84 (16252 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:

Looks like another GS revision and I can't quote you. Let me try by manually linking you. @XVision84

It's at 16:06, where he says they are the creators of no cinematics and if you listen to all his talk you can clearly see his influence. He repeatedly told you how awesome HL was and how the story was told at you not to you. He also agreed that one-shot in HL actually served a purpose because Gordon acted as an avatar for the player. Now that's out of the way, let's address your concerns:

I just read your quote, don't know in what way it contradicts with what I said. They are hyping their one-shot, what else. Where did it prove they are the first or TP is difficult than FP? You're desperately seeing things when they aren't there. They only said traditionally written script, HL wasn't a traditionally written script as can be seen from the video I posted and in Cory's own words. It served no purpose in GoW apart from hype, them doing PR talk about it and how world-changing it's doesn't change that. Again HL never had to brag about it, it was just there serving its purpose.

Yes, he did it because of HL. Cory also said he wanted to do TR in one-shot when he was at Crystal Dynamics and TR also cam out fine. No one would have noticed/or missed one-shot in that game. He was just obsessed with accomplishing that because he has seen HL doing it and again none of what you quoted remotely proven that perspective has anything to do with that. Desperately posting random PR statements isn't a proof. Present to me the technical reasons why FP/TP is more difficult/easier than the other. If anything FP is always a more trickier to work with because of extra animations, multiple perspectives and if you want to have same models/animations, it's even more difficult (ala Star Citizen, go check the entire documentaries on that).

My entire point was it wasn't the first nor better. Other games did it better, go check my original comment. And then I said, now I think about it, GoW isn't completely one-shot because when you travel to realms the camera cuts to black which I admit I remembered it wrong. The camera didn't cuts just the background appears to change. Nevertheless none of that changes the original point, wasn't the first and definitely wasn't better. No innovations there.

Same old, the critics called it good. Ignore!

Yup, calling it isn't gameplay centric is conceding the ground and that's what all cows do. You said critics awrded it 10/10 and GOTY, hence it's best, how can it be best when their are better games in its own genre. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Thanks for agreeing that it only won because of its presentation and supposedly emotional story having a child. Gameplay is what separates this medium from other passive mediums like novels and movies. There's no way you can get out of this. Take away the GoW's presentation and it wouldn't get a second look, not from the die hard cows. That's my last word on it.

Sounds like you're looking for excuses and giving PR quotes as the reason for change when the actual reason was apparent. The game is already out and we have already seen what audience did it target from the reviewers example I quoted as well as Sony's direction and the devs own plethora of interviews. Not even the die hard cows denied what they were gunning for.

This para is also conceding to my point but rather than outright admitting you're trying to dance your way out of it by saying presentation, passive elements etc. matter. None of that dancing will be needed if the gameplay was good. The funny thing is the director and the devs themselves needed to hide behind it that's why they almost always exclusively talked about story and sh*t.

People are idiots and cry/laugh for stupid things, none of that proved GoW story is anything to write home about. Its your standard run of the mill story, my assumption is that you haven't watched any good movie or read a good novel to know what a good story is.

Big whoop, devs says they have a great story hence I should believe it is. Sorry that's not how it works. All you said are excuses, everyone that knows a even a slightest thing about story telling knows that you just can't make assumptions or change characters without explaining it. None of the sudden change in Kratos' character is explained, none at all and it's failure in terms of character progression. It's hilarious when people shill for GoW by making such ridiculous excuses. How owuld you all feel if Drake in UC suddenly portrayed as a psychopath in the beginning of UC5? Yeah, that's how disconnected new GoW is from the old trilogy. Again that's last word on it, I don't have the patience to repeat the the same thing over and over again because you people are continue to shill for that and make excuses.

So back to the topic, what did it innovate? One-shot was clearly wasn't as HL did it decades ago and did it much better as well as other games without ever had to brag about it. Story is in no way, shape or form can be considered an innovation even if it had a good story. So unless you can prove it did something new apart from the laughable claim that TP is innovative/difficult that debate is done for.

From your 2nd paragraph it's clear you are incapable/unwilling to carry a productive debate. You aren't comprehending my points and are either trolling or unbelievably obtuse. I couldn't have possibly spoon-fed you the information in a more clear and explicit way. I was honestly joking when I said you'd still claim that one shot was for no reason, the fact that you actually are still claiming that is both sad and funny. The rest of your post is just icing on the cake. There used to be so many great debates on SW, it's a shame all that's left is this.

It's unfortunate to see you repeat the same mistakes repeatedly despite me pointing them out to you clear as day. Debate is a good opportunity to learn and grow, but you have no desire to do so which is disappointing. If you'd like your questions answered, feel free to read my previous posts more critically. Or continue to ignore my points because you don't feel like addressing them, it's all the same to me since you are only hurting yourself in the end. I will not be wasting any more of my time on you.

Avatar image for Gamerno6666
#118 Posted by Gamerno6666 (6807 posts) -

Da fuk is up with all the essays in this thread? Abandon thread.

Avatar image for XVision84
#119 Posted by XVision84 (16252 posts) -
@Gamerno6666 said:

Da fuk is up with all the essays in this thread? Abandon thread.

It's all about System Wars spirit! :P

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#120 Edited by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

From your 2nd paragraph it's clear you are incapable/unwilling to carry a productive debate. You aren't comprehending my points and are either trolling or unbelievably obtuse. I couldn't have possibly spoon-fed you the information in a more clear and explicit way. I was honestly joking when I said you'd still claim that one shot was for no reason, the fact that you actually are still claiming that is both sad and funny. The rest of your post is just icing on the cake. There used to be so many great debates on SW, it's a shame all that's left is this.

It's unfortunate to see you repeat the same mistakes repeatedly despite me pointing them out to you clear as day. Debate is a good opportunity to learn and grow, but you have no desire to do so which is disappointing. If you'd like your questions answered, feel free to read my previous posts more critically. Or continue to ignore my points because you don't feel like addressing them, it's all the same to me since you are only hurting yourself in the end. I will not be wasting any more of my time on you.

Not on the topic. You can't rewrite history with unrelated PR statements which sounds exactly like the link I posted in my OP. So back to what did GoW innovate as you claimed? One-shot wasn't because HL, HL2, HL Ep1 and HL Ep2 are all one-shot and did it decades earlier with actual purpose without ever have to brag about it perfectly in line with show, don't tell.

Story definitely can't be considered an innovation and definitely not the story that GoW told as it was a complete 180 from the established prequels. So what now? Until you can refute these, oh wait...you can't. You accepted you were wrong that's why you tried to bring in the laughable excuse of perspective and people crying for the story.

Avatar image for Jag85
#121 Posted by Jag85 (13535 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:

I tried to search for both the tweet of Cory and video of David Jaffe admitting DMC having better mechanics/gameplay that but couldn't find it now. @Jag85 can you help me out here.

Jaffe: Bayonetta Blows the Doors Off God Of War

Responding to a commenter called Matthew Emirzian who had pointed out that, "...to this day God of War series is mired in clunky, poorly automated combat (dodge on the right analog stick lol) and anyone with a clue considers Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, or Ninja Gaiden to have far superior controls and combat mechanics," Jaffe takes up the slack.

"Matheww, you miss the point", he says. "We were not trying to go head to head with those games. ANYONE can see the pure technique involved in those games- or games like Bayonetta- blows the doors off GOD OF WAR. They are SUPPOSED to! In GOD OF WAR our goal was to get the player to feel like they were on an adventure that was easy to play, had cool scenarios, puzzles, platforming,etc.

"The goal was NEVER to be some amazing combat simulator. Your reaction proves my point: you may not LIKE GOD OF WAR but you don't even stop to think that perhaps there are other goals and ways of doing things, not JUST the ones you like.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#122 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

@Jag85:

That's even better but I was thinking of a video from 2005 where he laid out the character of Kratos as a villain and then admitting there battle systems aren't as good as DMC.