Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Video Games' started by John, Jun 1, 2012.
But, but, BEYOND, AND THE LAST OF US, AND STUFF.
I'm well aware of the fact that the nature of a sequel is to play upon the successes of its predecessor(s), but I feel as if the Halo franchise has been particularly guilty of milking the success of the original. There was a lot of revolutionary innovation that Combat Evolved brought to the table, at least to the extent that Halo was able to popularize and reinvent some standards of the genre. I'll even admit to having a lot of adoration for the advances in gameplay and multiplayer aspects of Halo 2. After that, however, I feel as if all subsequent games have come under the label of merely repackaging the content of the previous titles with more appealing graphics and superficial gameplay enhancements. Save for the lackluster, predictable, and altogether hallow campaign experience that Halo 3 offered, the game could have quite easily been a balance update and map pack. The items that you seem to be lauding as an achievement in the development of the multiplayer metagame was truthfully the only thing that Halo 3 did substantially different from its predecessor, and even that wasn't all that substantial. Three quarters of the maps were basically remodeled versions of the ones from Halo 2. If that's not a pretty disappointing example of skirting on the success of one's predecessors, I'm not entirely sure what is.
I also find it exceptionally hilarious that you're arguing Halo's originality based on its willingness to incorporate new worlds, level designs, weapons, enemies, and a change in the metagame of its multiplayer. That should be an expected development rather than a prestigious liberty. These things set the basis very genuine innovations in the implementation of a sequel. But these are examples of why Halo isn't even more guilty of sameness inbetween its games rather than how it exceeds expectations. What the hell are you going to have in a sequel if a developer doesn't recognize the need for these things? That's the essential crux of a sequel -- something that builds from an already established foundation. Unfortunately, Halo's improvements over the years have been, at best, scarce. So one game demonstrates linearity and another a more open-world structure, and a third a combination of these two. Big deal. That offers only a slight change to mindlessly wandering from one meaningless objective to another while fighting troves of enemies that come in indiscernible hordes.
You guys brought up Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty. While I'd agree that these are both a bit formulaic (though no less, I would argue, than any sequel might be), they certainly make leaps and bounds in terms of quality inbetween sequels. There was so much untapped potential with Reach. We're being placed in a scenario where we know the outcome. We know where the story is going to end, and precisely how. Reach is destroyed. The bad guys win. And yet, here we were, forced from one meaningless objective to another while we had to listen to faceless soldiers crack a bunch of inside jokes with one another that offer the player no emotional attachment or involvement.
I'll play Halo 4 only because my younger brother is a fanatic and I know he'll buy the game and want to play with me. But I'm just expecting the same thing the thirty first time that I experienced the first thirty -- troves of enemies trying to stop me from reaching some random goal that I as a player have zero investment in.
Are you defending Call of Duty while bashing Halo 4?
AFAIK, many claim Call of Duty is spiraling down in quality AND the rehashing is becoming more and more obvious.
a lot of games have predictable storylines. hell, some of them dont have a story at all. in the end, it's the gameplay that counts.
I will have to respectfully disagree about gameplay counting the most.
I'm going to assume you think story is more important? If so, then I disagree. For example, Super Mario Bros. The game is pretty fun to play but it had a pretty basic story. HOWEVER, if it had a good story, it would make the game even more legendary than it originally was. If a game had shit gameplay then it can't just depend on the story unless the story is so goddamn amazing I find myself spending hours and hours through monotonous, mind-numbing gameplay just to see what happens next. But what happens when I've seen everything? If the replay value of a game depends solely on the story, then that's not enough. I'm not wasting hours and hours on shit gameplay again just so I can get to the cutscenes. I'd rather just watch them on youtube/download them.
Just compare a game with bad gameplay and good storyline to a game with bad storyline and good gameplay. Which one will you find yourself playing the most?
Gameplay has simply always been secondary for me, especially considering the fact that I usually only play a game once and rarely indulge in it more than that. There are very few exceptions, and most of those are born from an adoration for the story rather than anything else. Suikoden 2 is a pretty spectacular example of this.
Journey. The highest-selling PSN game of all time that is heavily focused on story. The gameplay is only used as a tool to guide the player through the 2 hour world and yet it's one of the greatest games I've ever played.
Not trying to disprove anything. Just want you to play it. ._.
EDIT: there is no definitive mechanic that makes a game a good game.
2 hour world? well, if you're going to pay 15 bucks for that then fine I guess. There has to be much more to justify me buying it, especially since im poor.
Looking forward to DDD, Borderlands 2 and Elder Scrolls online today. Hopefully we'll see some actual gameplay from the MMO, but it may be too early to release anything substantial.