Comments that don't warrant a thread

[AlexPuma 0]

Why does a game have to be innovative to be a great game. The two things don't necessarily have to go hand in hand.

 

One thing: it doesn't. Super Mario World and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 are two of the greatest games of all time and they both are just direct sequels to SMB3 and Sonic 1 in gameplay.

 

The main reason of why I'm complaining is that "professional" reviewers takes points off some games, like Metroid Prime 3, for lack of innovation and then turns around and claims that Halo 3 is great and stays "true to its roots" when nothing new or innovative is added. Or in the case of BioShock, the game does nothing new that wasn't in the first two System Shock games, but the gaming media still calls it one of the most innovative FPS games ever made.

 

In other news, I made a topic saying pretty much the exact same as the above on GameFAQs and I got suspended for it.

[AndrewTS 0]

Likewise, Bioshock...which I absolutely *love*, and probably is my Game of the Year...got ridiculously high scores. 90s. 95s. I think an 100 here and there. I think it's a great game. The atmosphere, visuals, art design, controls were all great, but its core gameplay elements were very derivative. It was an outstanding game to be sure for lots of reasons, but it wasn't nearly as innovative as every review outlet gave it credit for. Maybe it deserved a more humble score for it...but nobody really gave it one, except for Edge.

 

Why does a game have to be innovative to be a great game. The two things don't necessarily have to go hand in hand.

 

It doesn't have to be.

 

However, a lot of the 9.5+ ratings were largely because of how "innovative" Bioshock was.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

This isn't a new thing though, the gaming review industry has always been bizarre and non-sensical. Remember when Super Street Fighter 2 received 98s and 5 faces and whatever else when it came out? Game reviews are a joke, it's not worth getting riled up over.

[World's Worst Man 0]

The myth that BioShock was innovative is just a product of people who don't have experience with the genre. That's fine for regular folk, but you'd think professional reviewers would do some research before making those kind of claims, especially when the comparisons to System Shock 2 were constantly being made before the game's release. But, I've long since come to terms with the fact that PC gaming doesn't reach an audience nearly as large as console gaming, so titles that are a "poor man's versions" (ie. not as good, and made in the same style) of older PC games (Halo, BioShock) will get praised as being original masterpieces.

[Ripper 0]

But they are more original masterpieces because developing a PC game is simple when compared to developing a console game.

 

I think that some reviewers know that thus the extra praise to console games. The ability to get certain levels of polish on a game on a console is amazing while on PC's, its just "go upgrade and you can get it to look like this".

 

I know people get pissed that the discrepency between the rating of PC games and console games but there is a very good reason for that.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

But they are more original masterpieces because developing a PC game is simple when compared to developing a console game.

 

...!!!

 

What? Come on Ripper, that's crazy. Where are you getting this idea from? I guarantee if you look at the development lifecycle of a PC game versus a console game, the amount of effort and general timeline should be pretty similar.

 

[Ripper 0]

But they are more original masterpieces because developing a PC game is simple when compared to developing a console game.

 

...!!!

 

What? Come on Ripper, that's crazy. Where are you getting this idea from? I guarantee if you look at the development lifecycle of a PC game versus a console game, the amount of effort and general timeline should be pretty similar.

 

 

No, not at all. Working with a console dev kit leaves you with so many limitations while PC developers work with alot less restraints. Basically, if you want a beautiful lush forrest in a PC game, you put it in there. Some computers might not be able to handle it but you just up the required specs and away you go. You want a lush forrest on a console game, you either better change your idea of lush or start thinking of some work arounds.

 

The reason PC games look so incredible is that they don't have to dumb down anything. Not animations, not the character models not textures nearly as much as console games do. Seriously, modeling something low res takes alot longer than just going all out and modeling the fuck out of it.

 

 

[The Man in Blak 0]

1. Many studios use third-party engines and other middleware tools, such as Unreal/Quake/whatever or Renderware, to mitigate the complications of dealing with limitations of a given platform. Distribution and testing are still more substantive hurdles for console development, sure, but they can be overcome with the right tools and allocation of money at the outset.

 

2. What bearing (if any) do graphics have to do with gameplay innovation to begin with?

[Ripper 0]

1: And it still is a bitch even when you utilize the middle ware tools or engines. The amount of texture, lighting, animation tweaking needed to make sure you aren't bogging down the render engine is alot more than with PC game development. Unless of course you are developing for a PC with very low specs which hasn't been done for a long time now. There is different level of expectation from PC games because they have been able to do so much for such a long time. Consoles will always be a step behind do to their inheriant limitation.

 

2: Because at the end of the day, console innovation usually comes down to either Visuals, AI or control. What makes it "innovative" is the ability to do and see what is on screen on a console, according to reviews at least. What was innovative about Halo? There was no FPS on a console that looked that good at the time and it was the closest thing to PC gaming you were going to get on the console. BioShock? It is beautiful and on a console. And innovations usually, more times than not, are the product of the third party engine which other companies use thus it doesn't look so special when 5 other games are doing the same thing. Thus its tough for a game to bring something new to the table.

 

The only thing you are going to see innovative on console FPS(or FPS's in General) is 1: How good can it look and still play smoothly or 2: How do you utilize alternative control methods. 3: Is the AI realistic?

 

 

Of course, this is coming from someone who graduated back in the "BRAND NEW UNREAL ENGINE 2!!!!" days and near the end of the Unreal Engine one days so maybe the new engines are easier and more forgiving on programmers and modelers trying to get something to work well.

[Ripper 0]

And before anyone asks, Muppet Babies.

 

I worked on a Muppet Babies game that never got finished. It was kinda awsome at the time though.

 

...

 

Okay, it probably wasn't that awsome but I was working on the "Indiana Jones" spoof level (would've been a pretty cool platforming stage is you were a kid) and the character models and ships on the Star Wars stage.

 

 

So yeah....muppet babies.

[The Man in Blak 0]

The only thing you are going to see innovative on console FPS(or FPS's in General) is 1: How good can it look and still play smoothly or 2: How do you utilize alternative control methods. 3: Is the AI realistic?

 

4: How is the multiplayer?

5: How many different ways can I play the game?

 

And Halo and Bioshock were lauded for the innovations that they brought to those respective elements on the console platform.

 

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

This isn't a new thing though, the gaming review industry has always been bizarre and non-sensical. Remember when Super Street Fighter 2 received 98s and 5 faces and whatever else when it came out? Game reviews are a joke, it's not worth getting riled up over.

 

I remember SSFII getting "more of the same" comments for the SNES but SSFII: Turbo getting rave reviews for the 3DO (obviously NOT the 32X).

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

But they are more original masterpieces because developing a PC game is simple when compared to developing a console game.

 

I think that some reviewers know that thus the extra praise to console games. The ability to get certain levels of polish on a game on a console is amazing while on PC's, its just "go upgrade and you can get it to look like this".

 

I know people get pissed that the discrepency between the rating of PC games and console games but there is a very good reason for that.

 

This makes no sense at all.

 

"Yeah, this PC game is great and all, but it was probably really easy for the developers to make. It's console cousin probably took hours more to make so it's a well crafted work or art and much better" - that's my interpretation of you statement.

 

I'm all for respecting the time it takes people to develop games but when I'm in the middle of playing it, the important part is whether I'm having fun with it and don't really care about development issues. This is ignoring the fact that you're also just assuming PC developers just randomly make games with insane specs without taking the time to consider how to make the game available to a broader amount of users.

[Ripper 0]

The only thing you are going to see innovative on console FPS(or FPS's in General) is 1: How good can it look and still play smoothly or 2: How do you utilize alternative control methods. 3: Is the AI realistic?

 

4: How is the multiplayer?

5: How many different ways can I play the game?

 

And Halo and Bioshock were lauded for the innovations that they brought to those respective elements on the console platform.

 

 

Halo, the first one, really didn't bring much to the table in either of those aspects and was lauded as innovative. The first game was hyped because of how it looked, and...well...yeah...It was a PC level FPS on a console.

 

Halo 2, yes, it was the multiplayer along with the game and the story that already had people pulled in.

 

I am not sure of what you mean by "How many ways I can play the game". If you mean multiple paths and branching, that is nothing new and was present in the Doom era FPS.

[AndrewTS 0]

This isn't a new thing though, the gaming review industry has always been bizarre and non-sensical. Remember when Super Street Fighter 2 received 98s and 5 faces and whatever else when it came out? Game reviews are a joke, it's not worth getting riled up over.

 

I remember SSFII getting "more of the same" comments for the SNES but SSFII: Turbo getting rave reviews for the 32X.

 

There is no SSFII: Turbo for 32X...

 

You're thinking of the 3DO, which got good reviews, but cautioned with "the controller sucks, buy the special offer capcom pad or a stick!"

 

However, that was because it was offering a near-arcade-level port in an era where heavily compromised 16-bit translations were the norm.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

I was thinking of the 3D0 and made a typo. One of those things where I typed "3" for the name of a console and automatically typed "2X" as a follow-up. My error.

[AndrewTS 0]

I was thinking of the 3D0 and made a typo. One of those things where I typed "3" for the name of a console and automatically typed "2X" as a follow-up. My error.

 

No problem. You're only mistake was mixing up two awful mid-90's game systems.

 

And it is 3D*O*, the letter. Besides the obvious 3D in the name, it is supposed to stand for "3 Dollars only," the licensing fee for publishers per game disc. You're welcome for this stupid and useless bit of trivia.

[AlexPuma 0]

All this talk of "Innovation" makes me wonder if half the people here know what innovation is. Halo was just an average PC FPS game that was built ground up for the Xbox. BioShock was pretty much System Shock 3 in gameplay and was made specifically for the 360, even though there is a PC version too. And if you think that the only innovation that FPS can get is graphics, AI, and controls, I highly doubt you should be in the video game industry at all.

 

[Ripper 0]

Thanks for listing the innovative ideas in the genre of FPS.

 

You just came in and didn't add a goddamned thing. If you are going to make a post, say something.

 

And obviously you don't know what innovative means.

 

Innovate - the process of making improvements by introducing something new

 

Halo was innovative on the console because it was on the console. If no other game had done on that level what Halo had done at that time on a home console, that is very innovative. I know you have this irrational hate for the game and all, but when Halo was released, what other PC level FPS was available on home consoles? It brought a PC FPS to the console. Graphics wise, AI wise, story wise, it was innovative. Hell, the way it controlled was different at the time.

 

Control wise, outside of Metroid Prime(which created this hybrid of a FPS)and a few games that have utilized RPG elements in the FPS genre, what the hell innovations have their truely been in FPS?

 

At the end of the day its a first person view and you shoot the enemies on the screen with various weapons. How is that any different than Wolfenstein 3D? There will always be cool gimmicks like in the Darkness, or TimeShift, Halo, they will all have their gimmicks that make the game different.

 

The FPS genre, like it or not is defined by its graphics, its level of control and the AI of the combatants. There will be different story elements, sure, and new little gimmicks and that will make the game more fun, but nothing that is changing the genre any time soon.

[AlexPuma 0]

Thanks for listing the innovative ideas in the genre of FPS.

 

I'm not in the industry, am I? Me listing ideas would be like starting a fantasy booking thread in General Wrestling. It would get nothing accomplished.

 

Halo was innovative on the console because it was on the console.

 

Quoted for pure stupidity. Halo was not innovative in the least bit. It was "Marathon on a console". Personally, I think Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was more important than Halo when it came to "innovating" FPS on a console. Hell, even Turok 2 had weapons unique to the series like the Cerebral Bore and the Shredder, something Halo cannot active.

 

Control wise, outside of Metroid Prime(which created this hybrid of a FPS)and a few games that have utilized RPG elements in the FPS genre, what the hell innovations have their truely been in FPS?

 

Which is exactly my point. The FPS genre is getting very stagnant. But there were plenty of innovations before the "Halo era".

 

The improvements Doom made over Wolfenstein. Duke Nukem 3D proved the genre didn't need to take itself seriously. Quake, while very generic today, was the first real successful pure 3D FPS. System Shock / BioShock and Deux Ex have unique takes on the genre. Turok proved the genre could work on consoles. Goldeneye was the first successful multiplayer on a console FPS. The Half-Life series is still considered by some to be the epitome of FPS gaming, but I've never played it so accurately judge. All these games did more individually than the entire Halo franchise ever did aside from sales.

 

And the Metroid Prime series are not First Person Shooters, aside from Hunters.

 

The FPS genre, like it or not is defined by its graphics, its level of control and the AI of the combatants.

 

And that is why I usually never play the genre outside of TimeSplitters.

[Ripper 0]

Halo was just an average PC FPS game that was built ground up for the Xbox.

 

Once again, it was the first PC level FPS that was built ground up on a console. You basically said Halo wasn't innovative and then listed how it was innovative.

 

Your argument is like saying that the guy that built Xbox360 wasn't innovative because Laptops already existed.

 

Halo through its dual analog control scheme and full scope of the game brought the PC FPS to consoles. THAT IS innovation. Nearly every first person shooter controls like that now.

 

Yes, on the PC, when Halo came out it would have been a pretty average FPS. But it wasn't a PC game. As a matter of fact, fuck the PC altogther. THis is a console game. What other game did what it pulled off in 2001?

 

Look, I know you don't like the game. I don't like it. I don't enjoy playing it. I didn't enjoy playing Halo 2. I probably won't get Halo 3 for a LONG time. ANd I probably won't enjoy it that much. But taking away what the game did is just silly. Its like me ignoring Karl Malone is a hall of fame PF because I think he is a dick.

 

And FPS aren't GETTING stale. They are the action movies of the video game industry. Yeah, you can have a better story, and your explosions can be prettier and bigger, but at the end of the day, its still a action movie.

 

 

Oh, and no matter what Nintendo chooses to call it, Metroid Prime is a FPS.

[EricMM 0]

Did you even play Deus Ex?

[Ripper 0]

a few games that have utilized RPG elements in the FPS genre,

 

It gets included here.

[AlexPuma 0]

Once again, it was the first PC level FPS that was built ground up on a console. You basically said Halo wasn't innovative and then listed how it was innovative.

 

Halo through its dual analog control scheme and full scope of the game brought the PC FPS to consoles. THAT IS innovation. Nearly every first person shooter controls like that now.

 

Yes, on the PC, when Halo came out it would have been a pretty average FPS. But it wasn't a PC game. As a matter of fact, fuck the PC altogther. THis is a console game. What other game did what it pulled off in 2001?

 

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter. It even had the control scheme down before Halo was even conceived. I hate to give Acclaim credit for anything, but they did it first.

 

And FPS aren't GETTING stale. They are the action movies of the video game industry. Yeah, you can have a better story, and your explosions can be prettier and bigger, but at the end of the day, its still a action movie.

 

You're right. They are just as stale as the "shock horror" movies that plague the theaters today or the "big explosion" action movies in the mid-90s.

 

Oh, and no matter what Nintendo chooses to call it, Metroid Prime is a FPS.

 

Is Super Metroid the same genre as MegaMan or Contra?

[AndrewTS 0]

Was the recharging shield in any console FPS before Halo? Any FPS?

[AndrewTS 0]

Video reviews of crappy pirate/cheap ripoff game consoles: http://www.youtube.com/user/ashens

 

Gamestation:

"I give it a 7/10, the least you can give a game before a publisher pulls their advertising."

 

POPstation:

 

Neo Double Games:

"Ryu and Ken don't live here."

 

[Ced 0]

"I give it an 8 out of 10 because it was made in China and I'm afraid of their government."

 

I get a kick seeing flimsy knockoffs whenever I decide to browse the flea market for some older-gen games. Maybe 5% of the time I get a reasonable deal, but most of the time I'll only see things like the POPStation. Then again the flea market I go to is 95% used junk, knockoffs, and Spanish mariachi CDs.

[AndrewTS 0]

Was the recharging shield in any console FPS before Halo? Any FPS?

 

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...?

 

I just finished God of War 2. After the demo left a bad taste in my mouth I passed on it, but after getting it for 20 bucks I have to say it's amazing how much the overall feel and basic mechanics of the game has seemed to improve. There's more solid platforming, combat isn't so much of a chore, and naturally there's no Hades section. I tire of the QTE stuff, but, eh, it's not that common.

[AlexPuma 0]

Was the recharging shield in any console FPS before Halo? Any FPS?

 

The recharging shields added to the gameplay of Halo as much as gunplay added to the gameplay of Shadow the Hedgehog.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

I disagree. The lifebar / shield mechanics of the Halo series is probably my favourite series innovation.