Post by: Shift Key on May 24, 2004, 11:34:52 PM
QuoteIf you want to be technical, a second party is not completely separate from their owner. They are wholly owned by Sony. Just because they are not an internal party like EAD is to Nintendo, doesn't mean they aren't in Sony's back pocket. Compare them to Camelot - they are a Nintendo second party, but get their projects and direction from Nintendo.
Furthermore it is not a Sony/Sega/Nintendo thing at all. Polyphony Digital is completely separate from Sony and is really a 2nd party.
QuoteI don't consider GTA:VC to be a new installment. Because
When I say GTA 5 I mean San Andreas, even though they're not numbering the games now it is still the 5th official installment (minus that London game which was essentially an expansion pack). Saying a game can't be that different from another because it uses the same game engine doesn't hold much to it. Many sequels use the same game engine and are vastly different.
1. It uses an enhanced engine from GTA3
2. It is much of the same premise as GTA3(run, shoot, steal repeat)
3. It might be a new city, but that's an obvious step for a sequel. MORE + BIGGER + FASTER != BETTER
4. Rockstar hasn't called it a sequel. Its GTA:SA to them. So why should you be different?
QuoteThat's nice
Entirely separate franchise are created using the same engines as others and both have succeeded. They have done a major overhaul to the engine, please read the Game Informer 10 page feature on GTA:SA if you're going to state viewpoints about the game since really nothing was none before that except 3 screenshots. And the other recent articles about it online barely touch the surface.
. I'd like to hear some facts in there regarding 'separate franchises' using the same engine. I have little interest in SA despite what you say. And imported magazines cost a lot more (despite the exchange rate being the reverse) and an imported magazine detailing a series I've had little interest in since the original is worth even less to me.QuoteDo we need a commitee or something? What on earth is stopping them?
He has said numerous times that car damage is something they're looking into.
QuoteProve it. Link me up. As far as I know, the problem is the power of the PS2 (IGN chat) and haven't heard your suggestion.
Obviously he wants to include it, is negotiating with the companies to, and has said he really hopes they will be able to include it in GT5.
QuoteYou remind me of someone.
As for GT4, knowing alot about the creator Kazunori Yamauchi, he lives and breathes cars and he would never dream of taking away the car licenses to include damage
Quote
Originally Posted by: OMGWHOCOULDTHISBE?:
Anyway, I've been a fan long enough to basically think like Capcom with their thoughts on Resident Evil.
Post by: boggy b on May 25, 2004, 03:26:05 AM
I mean really; what was the last REVOLUTIONARY game to be released? I'm not talking about ones that brought interesting or quirky ideas to an old genre, I'm talking about the creation of a new genre. The only one I can think of is Dance Dance Revolution, and that's nearly five years old!
But, is that to say that since DDR there hasn't been a single fun game, since none of them are revolutionary? Not at all! There are loads of great games that simply build on ideas and gameplay from previous titles.
Heh, sorry to but in. Just my 2 cents.
Post by: Shift Key on May 25, 2004, 03:32:33 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that games like GTA and GT are over-hyped. They are encouraging stagnation in terms of creativity in the industry, which is already swarmed with look-alike games as it is. When I hear people say that a sequel will revolutionise a series or a genre, I can't help but be annoyed. Becuase the majority of games borrow from their previous incarnations or rival products, and yet somehow they don't compare apparently according to the fans. That makes no sense at all. If the story goes in a new direction, its an evolution. If its more bonuses, its an evolution. If its updated visuals, its an evolution.
And I use the term evolution loosely.
Post by: Mario on May 25, 2004, 03:45:48 AM
Quote
I don't consider GTA:VC to be a new installment. Because
1. It uses an enhanced engine from GTA3
2. It is much of the same premise as GTA3(run, shoot, steal repeat)
3. It might be a new city, but that's an obvious step for a sequel. MORE + BIGGER + FASTER != BETTER
4. Rockstar hasn't called it a sequel. Its GTA:SA to them. So why should you be different?
Would you say the same thing about Majora's Mask?
Post by: Shift Key on May 25, 2004, 03:51:07 AM
QuoteIt told a completely different story, and the game was played at a varying pace. A gaming tangent to the Zelda story, if you want an analogy.
Leave OoT and MM on their own, because they work so well together on their relationship that they don't really relate at all, just linked by a few common features.
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 25, 2004, 03:53:54 AM
I'm looking forward to GTASA (moer liek GTASS), but it won't be that groin rumblingly different that it will set consoles on fire (well except ps2's am i rite mario (think NFSU)).
Post by: Mario on May 25, 2004, 04:01:44 AM
Post by: Shift Key on May 25, 2004, 04:12:06 AM
QuoteAgreed. But at the moment its looking like being GTA3.11 for Workgroups (FAT-O-METER? ahahahaha that's gold, we can all be members of the Big Kev Mafia), so meh.
If the developers of GTA still have more ideas to put into a game i say let them do it however they want.
No news ain't good news.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 25, 2004, 04:14:16 AM
If the game is fun to play, why the hell should anything else matter?
I am sick of all these self appointed know it alls who think they know what is best for the gaming industry. Especially when their only point of referance is their own personal opinion.
Since when does a game have to be revolutionary, evolutionary?
Just play the darn games for what they are. If you like em, play em, if you dont, then dont play em.
Just for the love of god, stop thinking that because you dont like a game that it must be crappy, especially whne the game is months from being played.
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 25, 2004, 04:17:08 AM
Quote
I am sick of all these self appointed know it alls who think they know what is best for the gaming industry. Especially when their only point of referance is their own personal opinion
I'm sick of you too
Post by: Infernal Monkey on May 25, 2004, 04:17:37 AM
Additional lol note, Gran Turismo is anything but 'the real racing simulator' or whatever its tag has been. YEAH I'M DRIVING AT 300 KM/H AND I HIT A WALL, THE CAR BOUNCES A BIT AND I SPEED OFF AT THE SPEED OF ZOOOOOOM!
Post by: Shift Key on May 25, 2004, 04:18:50 AM
QuoteWhen I start hearing about a game being better than sliced bread, despite it not being actually released or even showed in playable form, is when it matters, cubed.
If the game is fun to play, why the hell should anything else matter?
Post by: boggy b on May 25, 2004, 04:25:38 AM
Quote
Wario Ware comes to mind as a genre unto itself. Or is that not mainstream enough for you?
Hmmm, I don't really see it as making an entirely new genre since it was just a collection of minigames (something which Sid Meir's Pirates! did nearly ten years ago). It was a pretty refreshing idea, though.
Quote
The point I'm trying to make is that games like GTA and GT are over-hyped. They are encouraging stagnation in terms of creativity in the industry, which is already swarmed with look-alike games as it is.
Tell me, just quickly, do you Nintendo games such as the new Legend of Zelda and Metroid Prime 2 as encouraging no creativity? It will help me get a better understanding, depending on what your answer is.
Quote
When I hear people say that a sequel will revolutionise a series or a genre, I can't help but be annoyed. Because the majority of games borrow from their previous incarnations or rival products, and yet somehow they don't compare apparently according to the fans.
I can't really answer this until I hear your answer to the above question.
Quote
That makes no sense at all. If the story goes in a new direction, its an evolution. If its more bonuses, its an evolution. If its updated visuals, its an evolution.
Depends on where you draw the line. Like I pointed out earlier, it's stupid to only think revolutionary games will be good, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there are none about if you talk about truly revolutionary games. Secondly, time and time again, 'evolutions' of old products have turned out to be just as fun, if not better, than other products in the field.
Quote
And I use the term evolution loosely.
Evolution isn't the word I'd use at all. Improvement is a much better one, IMO.
Post by: Shift Key on May 25, 2004, 04:31:57 AM
Quote
Tell me, just quickly, do you Nintendo games such as the new Legend of Zelda and Metroid Prime 2 as encouraging no creativity?
1. They are headline franchises - of course they are going to be creatively limited by what they can do.
2. Remember last years E3? The outcry from the connectivity focus (THAT'S CREATIVITY) probably pushed Nintendo to focus on these games because it was what that fans want.
3. There are games on other systems which are pushing the creativity (Four Swords, MP: Hunters).
QuoteI am not talking about fun at all. That is irrelevant. I am talking about the future of games, and the flooding of sequels (good and bad).
Depends on where you draw the line.
I haven't been hyping up the new Zelda. Hell, I've been hyping up Reggie more. I'm still a little skeptical of how this game will differ from OoT, so I'm waiting for new details and the like. And DK:Jungle Beat owns you also.
QuoteThat makes no sense. More creation by using the same ideas? Riiiiight.
if anything it's encouraging MORE creation since the developers have to squeeze every teensy weensy bit of fun out of the same ideas.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 25, 2004, 04:34:03 AM
Again I ask, WHY?
I doesnt affect you in any way, shape, or form.
Either you will like it when it is released or you wont. Nothing else really matters.
"I'm sick of you too"
DrZoidberg, considering your opinion means as much to me a mole on Reta Mc Neils arse, I say boo hoo to you.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 25, 2004, 04:36:05 AM
GTA3 was DEFINITELY a revolutionary game for the time, and in terms of the series (GTA2 being top-down.
Was Mario 64 revolutionary? Hell yes. Was Mario Sunshine? Hell no.
As of now, I really don't see the point of trying to argue the bad points of the Grand Theft Auto franchise anymore, cause it's always gonna do well because of the violence and the name brand recognition alone.
Gran Turismo? Well, thats just plain shite nowadays
People are moving toward streetracing games like NFSU and SRS, because of that whole culture.
I'll bet you ANY money that GT5 will include some sort of illegal street racing element in it.
And people will be calling it revolutionary.
And surely, if companies allowed car damage in Project Gotham, then damage in GT would be allowed too. But nope.
Hahaha. Realistic my ASS!!!
Post by: boggy b on May 25, 2004, 04:40:13 AM
Quote
I haven't been hyping up the new Zelda. Hell, I've been hyping up Reggie more.
But does hyping up Zelda annoy you? Or is it just hyping of PlayStation and XBOX games that annoys you?
Quote
And DK:Jungle Beat owns you also.
Not really. It looks a bit gimmicky if you ask me.
Quote
That makes no sense. More creation by using the same ideas? Riiiiight.
In some ways, yes it is. Obviously, in some ways (creation of gameplay etc.) it isn't. But in others, such as refinement, it is.
Post by: Shift Key on May 25, 2004, 04:54:42 AM
Quote
But does hyping up Zelda annoy you? Or is it just hyping of PlayStation and XBOX games that annoys you?
Hype in general annoys me. If I get excited over a game, then I'll join in. But the last game that did that for me was Metroid Prime (Super Metroid was a looooooong time ago). And unfortunately I'm not aboard the hype bandwagon at all right now.
QuoteUnfamiliar concepts usually are looked at as gimmicky. Give it some time and wait for more news. From the hands-on I've heard, its a lot of fun.
Not really. It looks a bit gimmicky if you ask me.
Post by: BigHit30 on May 25, 2004, 10:37:43 AM
Post by: joeamis on May 25, 2004, 02:14:09 PM
QuoteThat's nice
Originally posted by: Shifty
Ok, this thread continues on from here
They are wholly owned by Sony.QuoteI don't consider GTA:VC to be a new installment. Because
When I say GTA 5 I mean San Andreas, even though they're not numbering the games now it is still the 5th official installment (minus that London game which was essentially an expansion pack). Saying a game can't be that different from another because it uses the same game engine doesn't hold much to it. Many sequels use the same game engine and are vastly different.
1. It uses an enhanced engine from GTA3
2. It is much of the same premise as GTA3(run, shoot, steal repeat)
3. It might be a new city, but that's an obvious step for a sequel. MORE + BIGGER + FASTER != BETTER
4. Rockstar hasn't called it a sequel. Its GTA:SA to them. So why should you be different?
. I'd like to hear some facts in there regarding 'separate franchises' using the same engine. I have little interest in SA despite what you say. And imported magazines cost a lot more (despite the exchange rate being the reverse) and an imported magazine detailing a series I've had little interest in since the original is worth even less to me.QuoteProve it. Link me up. As far as I know, the problem is the power of the PS2 (IGN chat) and haven't heard your suggestion.
Obviously he wants to include it, is negotiating with the companies to, and has said he really hopes they will be able to include it in GT5.
By your logic any game that uses an enhanced engine of a prior game in the franchise is not a new installment then? So the new Zelda is not a new installment of the franchise because it uses the Windwaker engine? Zelda also uses the same premise as the earlier games (you're Link, you fight with swords, etc) Heres a quote from the GI feature: "Like the Final Fantasy series, each new GTA is a fresh start for the franchise: new worlds to conquer, new stories, and new experiences." So I guess none of the Final Fantasy games are new installments either too? Look at a thesaurus for the word installment and you will find the word: chapter. A few lines down from that first quote in the GI feature there is this quote: "Then, after it was officially confirmed that the next chapter would be named GTA:SA, rumor soon spread that the title would take place in a fictionalized Los Angeles."
Separate franchises using the same engine? Okay: Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Kart 64 used the same engine. The new MMORPG Vanguard: Saga of Heros is the latest game to use the Unreal Engine. Quote: "The Unreal Engine has been instrumental in bringing dozens of titles to market on multiple platforms with fast, clean, and polished production value." Postal 2 uses the Unreal 2 Engine. Splinter Cell uses the older version of the Unreal 2 Warfare engine. Dues Ex 2 uses the Unreal Warfare engine except for the physics engine is Havoc. Spider Man for N64 used the engine from Tony Hawk 64. Heretic used the Doom engine. Half Life used a modified Quake engine. Half Life 2 uses the Havoc engine used in DX2 I stated above for it's physics engine as well. There are tons more examples and much better examples that I read about over the years but can't remember. I'll post more later perhaps.
Since you've had little interest since the first game in the series as you say, then you really haven't read much about it, so you really shouldn't argue about it, especially when there's only a few small paragraphs with close to no information about the changes that have been made from the online sources (who are the only ones outside of GI to report about the game yet).
Onto GT4 regarding car damage, well I'll let Kazunori himself respond to your argument. LINKY: Kazunori Interview
If you watch atleast half of that interview you will hear him say that BOTH the limits of the PS2 and the car companies are why there is no damage effects in the game.
Gran Turismo hasn't encouraged stagnation, it redefined racing games and made the benchmark so high noone has even equaled their past efforts yet. I guess if it never came out, then things would be better playing the latest Need for Speed or Test Drive games which both rely so much more on flash than GT with them focusing the only cars being Super cars or tricked out to the fullest street racers. Hell in GT start off driving the cars you actually own (and used as well), whats so flashy about that?
One thing about GTA causing stagnation... What is the biggest gameplay feature of GTA? Absolute freedom in a large living city. Even Miyamato liked that about the game. I guess it would be better if all games continued to be strictly linear? GTA has made strides to change that. I'll post alot more about GT4 and GTA:SA soon. Also since you don't believe games can be better without a new game engine, you should know that GT4 game engine has been rebuilt from the ground up and the separate physics engine has been rebuilt. The reason there is stagnation is because of the other developers who can't come up with original ideas who just try to milk off other people. So blame them.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 25, 2004, 02:56:41 PM
Gran Turismo redefined racing games. Gran Turismo 2-4 encouraged stagnation.
My main "rule" with sequels (or spin-offs or prequels or installments or whatever) is that every game has to have a creative reason in terms of gameplay to exist. One of the reasons I became a Nintendo fan was because (at least in the past) every game they made had a reason to exist. Not every seqeul has to be completely original but they have to offer something unique that isn't in previous installments. Something like Tomb Raider 3 for example has no real reason to exist because it's just more of the same. If you played Tomb Raider 1 and 2 there's no real need to play TR3. SSBM on the other hand plays very similar to SSB but it add so many new game modes and improves upon nearly everything that it does have a reason to exist even though it isn't too original.
GTA: SA has every reason to exist if it has enough new stuff to give the game a reason to exist. And these changes have to add to the gameplay. Superficial stuff like new cars and new levels and a new story don't mean anything if the game plays exactly the same. The "reason to exist" rule is what seperates games that the designers wanted to make and games that were made purely for money.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 25, 2004, 03:00:30 PM
Quote
Again I ask, WHY?
I doesnt affect you in any way, shape, or form.
Either you will like it when it is released or you wont. Nothing else really matters.
Why do YOU care what he thinks or cares about, cubed? It doesn't affect you at all, does it? No.
[/cubed mocking]
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 25, 2004, 03:28:55 PM
Atleast I dont start pointless threads about it.
Post by: joeamis on May 25, 2004, 03:35:02 PM
Racing games are sports games. Do you see sports games drastically altering their gameplay every single installment no. You can't expect simulations to always drastically alter their gameplay with every new installment, it's not in their nature to. Anyways if you try out each car they all control differently, some of them so drastically differently it's nothing short of amazing. If adding over 400 cars from the last game (with that in mind) in the series isn't a change in gameplay then nothing is. Also if you utilize the new G-force meter in GT4 that changes the gameplay even further... I wouldn't be surprised to see such a feature in a real racecar because it would help you race better.
If you saw the development building of Polyphony Digital then you would understand why I said Kazunori Yamauchi lives and breathes cars. He loves cars, he just bought a 2004 Ford GT, only the 33rd one ever made. The entire building is designed like a high tech parking garage, it even has columns labeled like a parking ramp, and an elevator that can deliver full size cars to any floor of the building. All around the offices you can see bits and pieces of racing culture: shocks lying on the ground, racing fire suits hung up with the coats, dozens upon dozens of car models in each and every cube. The hang out room has a gigantic collection of racing videos, and there is a parking garage on the roof of their development house where they keep cars for referencing while they make the game.
If you think they're not doing everything possible to make the game as realistic as possible you're just biased or uninformed. They use so many parameters that they're able to get all 500+ cars in the game to match the AVERAGE lap time of the same car in real life down to less than a 1 second difference for the average lap times. Over 30 parameters per car with over 500 cars... that's a helluva lot of programming just for the cars alone. They have a 15 person development team just for making the tracks alone. They take 30,000 photos per track to get it as realistic as possible, now multiply that by the number of tracks in the game, 50. That's 1,500,000 photographs just for the tracks... They then use tape measures, helicopters, and even cranes to capture the design of each course. When asked how many parameters per track they said too many to count. They even measure the width and length of the road stripes, height of railings, and building measurements. When it comes to cars they take 200 photos per car, 200 times 500+ cars is atleast another 100,000 photos right there. Some manufacturers even give them their own CAD data for their cars. They also even use Global Positioning Satellite imagery. You have to atleast respect how much work they do just for a game. It's no surprise they will have only released 2 games within the last 5+ years.
Post by: akdaman1 on May 25, 2004, 09:49:36 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 25, 2004, 10:06:26 PM
Drink or Beverage?
Post by: Shift Key on May 25, 2004, 11:53:34 PM
Quote
Atleast I dont start pointless threads about it.
"Ok, this thread continues on from here" Huh?
QuoteWhy I rarely buy sports games...
Do you see sports games drastically altering their gameplay every single installment
QuoteLOL. I haven't seen how this meter is implemented in the game yet, but YOU CAN FEEL THE G-FORCES in real life, which kinda makes it redundant. The meter simulates it in GT4 to tell you how the car is responding because its a game.
Also if you utilize the new G-force meter in GT4 that changes the gameplay even further... I wouldn't be surprised to see such a feature in a real racecar because it would help you race better.
QuoteYou compare screenshots. They use the same engine, yes, but the implementation of the engine separates the games by much more.
So the new Zelda is not a new installment of the franchise because it uses the Windwaker engine?
I think most people wouldn't notice that the change from pseudo-3D, cel-shading cartoon to a full 3D visual style was made from the same graphics engine.
QuoteWell the Unreal engine is popular, because it is highly customisable platform for gaming development. Its also one of the oldest ones around (development started in 1995). Unreal and Quake are two of the major engines for PC games at the moment, so its no wonder there have been hits made with them. It comes down more to what they put in the games that makes them worthwhile.
"The Unreal Engine has been instrumental in bringing dozens of titles to market on multiple platforms with fast, clean, and polished production value."
QuoteThis reminded me of Rare, and seeing their output after they moved to MGS doesn't make me miss them at all. Luckily these guys have Sony's full backing with this game, so they can afford to throw all the detail they can amass into it.
You have to atleast respect how much work they do just for a game. It's no surprise they will have only released 2 games within the last 5+ years.
I have that interview sitting on the computer now and wi'll comment on that as soon as I get around to watching it.
Post by: The Omen on May 26, 2004, 02:16:59 AM
Post by: boggy b on May 26, 2004, 03:28:22 AM
Quote
1. They are headline franchises - of course they are going to be creatively limited by what they can do.
The GT series and GTA are also headline franchises.
Quote
2. Remember last years E3? The outcry from the connectivity focus (THAT'S CREATIVITY) probably pushed Nintendo to focus on these games because it was what that fans want.
Why can't Rockstar and Polyphony do the same? GTA:VC is the best selling PS2 game to date, and people were still complaining that some bits weren't as good as they should be. Ultra-hardcore GT supporters complained that GT3 wasn't actually as good as GT2. GT4 is giving them what they want.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that some developers are in it for the fun of making games whereas some aren't. They're ALL in it for making money.
Quote
3. There are games on other systems which are pushing the creativity (Four Swords, MP: Hunters).
I wouldn't really call either of those games vastly creative (sure, they've got some quirks) but that's a different matter.
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 26, 2004, 03:56:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: akdaman1
Joeamis - You really have impressed me. You went all out. Theres noway anyone can argue with you now.
I can
Post by: joeamis on May 26, 2004, 03:09:54 PM
It doesn't matter if everyday gamers can tell if a game uses the same engine or not, how many everyday gamers could tell that Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Kart 64 used the same engine? Your comments about the Zelda game engine uses actually strengthen my point. I agree it comes down to more of what they put into the games. That's why people shouldn't say how can the game be any different if it uses the same engine. And that doesn't change the fact that different successful game franchises actually use the same game engine as eachother. Yes it reminds me of Rare too (both the old Rare on N64 and the new Rare). Luckily Rare also has full backing on their games from Microsoft, I mean MS does own Rare afterall.
Note I never said GTA:SA is revolutionary in terms of games for the industry. I said GTA:SA will revolutionize the GTA series of games based on what I've read. I could be wrong about that because the final product is 6 months away, anything could happen, they could screw up things or not include the things they said or not do them as good as the impressions they gave. And I never said that GT4 is revolutionary. EDIT: Another game mag/site has called GTA:SA the next installment of the series as well, heres the quote from IGN, "The Grand Theft Auto series is, of course, still very much alive, with the next chapter now in development." Read my earlier post for clarification (chapter is a synonym for installment).
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 27, 2004, 02:15:15 AM
But how do YOU know it's like that?
Have YOU ever driven the brand new 2004 Ford GT? Do you know what it feels like to floor one on a designated race course or on a windy mountain road in scenic Italy? Then how do you know it's 'realistic'? Cause Polyphony said so?
A G-Force meter is nothing innovative nor special. Sure it might say 2 Gs, but do you feel it? There's nothing quite like going at such a high speed - the adrenalin rush is totally awesome, and bloody hell, this is only at 130km/h+ in my friend's car on the freeway.
But I've never felt it at 2Gs in real life. Thats why I go for super-fast racers like F-Zero X/GX or Extreme G. Sure I might not be good at it, but I play them anyway. The thing about 'real life' racing sims is that going at 300km/h at Bathurst in V8 Supercars just doesn't feel like that at all in the game. To me, it looks like you're going at 60kms, with only the speedo telling you its 300. Thats why i prefer going at '2000km/h' in F-Zero GX, cause it feels faster and more tense. So, F-Zero is more 'realistic' to me than GT.
I also prefer 'arcade' handling to 'realistic' handling, cause having to brake when turning sucks ass.
ANYWAY, what I'm saying is that all manner of trying to make it as realistic as possible won't do it much difference, cause there's NOTHING like actually doing it. And if games are meant to be an 'escape from reality', then perhaps this is the wrong way to do it. But then games are also something where you can do things that you couldn't normally do, so I guess this will just have to do.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 27, 2004, 02:27:38 AM
Kudos dude!
Post by: BigHit30 on May 27, 2004, 06:01:03 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 27, 2004, 06:42:44 AM
Ohhh, so you have already played it?
"Sadly, though, casual gamers will eat this up so much that games better on all platforms, like the new LOTR for PC, Half Life 2, Halo 2, MP 2, or MGS 3 will get ignored because so many casual gamers will get this. I know there are a lot of people that like GTA, but it gets old and tiring."
Ummm, pardon me? I believe that GTA3 and Vice city got a ton of praise from numerous HARDCORE gamers and gaming sites as well. GTA vice is still IMO one of the most fun games I have ever played, I bet I have nearly 100 hours into that game.
The games you use as example just dont fit the bill, as they are not even similar in style to the GTA series. So I am not sure how they would even relate.
AS far as I am concerned, all the GTA bashing that goes on on this forum is a result of it not making its way to the cube. The same thing was going on on many X-box forums, and now oddy enough, it has gone away.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 27, 2004, 06:50:02 AM
"Why I rarely buy sports games..."
I could care less if sports games drastically alter their gameplay. In fact I would frown upon it. I dont want to have re-learn the damn thing every year. I play sports games because they give me a chance to play a certain sport the way I could only dream of. I want it to be realistic, tough, and accurate in data and detail. Minor changes every year that update rosters, improve upon graphics, and incorporate improved moves that mirror the minor changes that occur in real sport every year is all I ask for.
Sports games will generally be loved by those who love sports, we see no need to re-invent the wheel here, and we dont mind shelling out a $50 every year for the update, because the amount of use we get out of it greatly out weighs the cost.
Those who hate sports, shouldnt bitch about saports games, because the reason for their dislike is quite obvious.
Post by: The Omen on May 27, 2004, 12:36:27 PM
Quote
Sports games will generally be loved by those who love sports, we see no need to re-invent the wheel here, and we dont mind shelling out a $50 every year for the update, because the amount of use we get out of it greatly out weighs the cost.
Those who hate sports, shouldnt bitch about saports games, because the reason for their dislike is quite obvious.
I have to agree with Cubed here. If you don't like sports, then why bother stating the obvious? You dont like the constant updates? Well I do. And hopefully, nobody starts the 'go out and play the sports for real' argument. Pro athletes play them all the time, because they love the sport.
But anyway, I think the new GTA looks and sounds pretty cool. I'll probably buy it for PC at some point. I'm in no hurry however. As for Rev vs Ev. I'd say play it first and find out.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 27, 2004, 09:35:51 PM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 28, 2004, 01:57:41 AM
I DONT CARE!!! I dont want to manually change all that crap. I dont mind paying $50 a year. Christ when will some of you get it.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 28, 2004, 03:25:44 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 28, 2004, 04:06:07 AM
The f'in games sells 4+ million copies a year. So it is quite apparent that a LOT of people dont mind paying $50 a year for the convenience and tweaks. The only people who seem to bitch are the whiners who wouldnt play the games in the first place.
Go bitch about the third Mario Party game that came out in the last 2 years instead.
Post by: The Omen on May 28, 2004, 06:36:47 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on May 28, 2004, 06:58:25 AM
What a novel approach.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 28, 2004, 07:33:23 AM
Well actually a repetitive series like Mario Party does affect me because Nintendo and Hudson could use the time spent working on yet another Mario Party doing something else like creating a new game. Repetitive sequels are also bad for the industry if they sell really well because it encourages other developers to do the same. This then stagnates the entire industry and limits creativity and innovation. I suppose if you just want more of the same forever and ever it doesn't concern you (and it probably doesn't concern a lot of people) but it concerns me so thus I b!tch about it.
Post by: The Omen on May 28, 2004, 09:31:33 AM
Quote
I suppose if you just want more of the same forever and ever it doesn't concern you (and it probably doesn't concern a lot of people) but it concerns me so thus I b!tch about it.
Well, sadly that logic concludes I buy every Mario Party, which I don't. Which most people dont. Ian, tell me how many people you think own every MP title? Hardly any. They pick and choose which versions to buy. I, myself have 2 incarnations of MP. Am I mad they release one every year? No. You know why? I don't have to buy it. Quoting Cubed, What a novel approach.
Quote
Repetitive sequels are also bad for the industry if they sell really well because it encourages other developers to do the same.
Yes. Like Zelda? Oh God, the horror of buying another great game in a series of great games. You're making it too black and white, Ian. Bad games that sell sequel upon sequel i'll agree they're garbage. But some sequels do have merit. If the dconsumer buys garbage so be it. Thats the way of a free world. As much as I despise it...
Post by: joeamis on June 01, 2004, 09:16:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin
I just can't get into racing sims. They are nothing like real life (except the graphics i guess). You say that Polyphony live and breathe cars, that they are going all out to make sure that every car handles like it would in real life? Ok.
But how do YOU know it's like that?
But I've never felt it at 2Gs in real life. Thats why I go for super-fast racers like F-Zero X/GX or Extreme G. Sure I might not be good at it, but I play them anyway. The thing about 'real life' racing sims is that going at 300km/h at Bathurst in V8 Supercars just doesn't feel like that at all in the game. To me, it looks like you're going at 60kms, with only the speedo telling you its 300. Thats why i prefer going at '2000km/h' in F-Zero GX, cause it feels faster and more tense. So, F-Zero is more 'realistic' to me than GT.
I also prefer 'arcade' handling to 'realistic' handling, cause having to brake when turning sucks ass.
ANYWAY, what I'm saying is that all manner of trying to make it as realistic as possible won't do it much difference, cause there's NOTHING like actually doing it.
They don't take 200 photos of every car and incorporate atleast 30 parameters per car because they're not doing as much as they possibly can to make it realistic? How do I know it's like that? Because I've raced a car I own in real life, in the game and it was identical in control and performance. Same with my brother and he's a gearhead who doesn't like videogames. I don't understand how you can say F-Zero is more realistic just because it's faster. Breaking when turning is all part of the fun related to how far you can push the car to its limits, how many people like games where you just hold down your thumb the whole time. You can argue that there's nothing like actually doing it for any game in existence.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 01, 2004, 09:50:40 AM
Zelda is not a repetitive series. The games are released fairly spaced apart and they all play reasonably different from each other and every title is unique enough that every title is essential. A repetitive series is something like Tomb Raider or Mega Man where the sequels have virtually no differences other than new levels and there's no need to play every game because there's no difference in the experience.
Post by: The Omen on June 01, 2004, 11:49:45 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 01, 2004, 11:57:44 AM
Quote
I agree Zelda isn't, but to people who hate Zelda, it may be.
Eh, I'm all for everyone being entitled to their own opinion, but if someone honestly thinks every Zelda game is the same then they either haven't played any of them or are just plain stupid. It's not really a matter of opinion- each Zelda game has been built around an entirely different concept, and I think that's one reason the series has held up so incredibly well over the years. Some people may not like the concepts in particular, or the Zelda style in general, but you can't say all Zelda games are the sames.
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 01, 2004, 12:19:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
I agree Zelda isn't, but to people who hate Zelda, it may be.
Because ignorance is bliss, right?
Post by: joeamis on August 27, 2004, 09:26:21 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 27, 2004, 11:49:02 PM
