sharinganerror wrote:Gildermershina wrote:Not surprising really. You probably hate Legend of Zelda too. Part of that Xbox generation that missed all the proper gaming fundaments in favour of wave after wave of shooter.
Dude, how the fuck old do you think I am, and how dare you assume I'm of the xbox generation. To be specific I was of the gamecube and ps2 generation, moreso nintendo-esque for a great portion of my life but now leaning towards sony. I loved the zelda series, every single game I've played to be exact. I just hate mario games, there seems to be no real improvement in that series of platformers just like how Sega's sonic series ended up, repetitive and boring.
I apologise for my assumption, I obviously skewed you as a Microsoft gamer, when actually you're Sony. Yet, I must add several caveats. Firstly, how you can claim that Super Mario Galaxy is not a departure from Super Mario 64, or from Super Mario Bros 3, is completely beyond me. Secondly, the fact you are part of that generation, regardless of specific console allegiance tells me a lot about your understanding of video games, particularly in reference to the gameplay at the core of all games. For example:
sharinganerror wrote:
Actually I was referring to pretty much all of them graphically and storywise because they've all pushed the limits of what each of their systems could accomplish, storytelling that few games could shake a stick at(halo=suck) and gameplay which, I hate to inform you, throws splinter cell out of the water in the latest installment, being that it focuses on stealth in an actual battlefield. I don't think Sam Fisher ever had to deal with anything more but an urban surrounding at best in his missions.
Yeah, but I bet Solid Snake never had a gravity gun. What's your point? The actual gameplay of the MGS titles, contrary to your crass Halo dismissal, has generally been considered rigid and inflexible, tied to series tradition, and often simply too clunky by modern standards. Halo on the other hand has consistently been the benchmark for console first person shooter control and overall gameplay, not to mention multiplayer (which we'll get to). Also, different games are different games. Big whoop.
sharinganerror wrote:I doubt you've ever gotten the Big Boss rank, which means that you have to go through the game, get all unlockables and not put a single harm on an enemy without no alerts at ANY given time at all on the hardest difficulty. That, my friend is true gameplay.
Playing through a game multiple times is not gameplay so much as longevity. And since you're more or less forced to repeat the game to get such a rank, it's a little bit of artificial longevity. Not that it's bad or anything, it's just that there is no way playing the game in that manner is anything other than repeatedly frustrating. The reward is such a play-though not the gameplay, but the eventual sense of pride in the achievement. It's pure endurance. That's one trait from 80s I'm glad to leave behind.
sharinganerror wrote:Also while I'm at it, the gameplay really shines in MGO, where you'll have to take all of what you've learned in MGS4 and throw it out the window, because now you've entered the real battlefield, where everyone has better aim and skills than you.
Having a seperate not-all-that-great-by-most-accounts online component is not really much of a unique bonus, considering most action games have exactly that. Hell, most games now survive by having multiplayer to keep new consumers coming and old players buying new DLC.
The problem I'm getting at the MGS is that the whole thing is skewed towards an audience who enjoy just as much the unfolding of the ridiculously complex story of the franchise, while the gameplay itself struggles to keep up with the ambition of the storytelling. So some of what you're classing as gameplay, I'd consider to be entirely different concerns.
