If you want to boil it down as far as it goes, mega man is just call of duty with one less dimension. Final fantasy is DND with less customization. Pong is stale because it was preceded by all physical games before it. If you want to boil it down, every new game follows the same formula as the game released before it, "do X to win." There you go, no game can be original, because they are following the same formula. It's not 6 games, it is every single game that has preceded it.
You're oversimplifying things (pot calling the kettle black). Mega Man does not have the same formula as CoD. You can't wall jump and absorb enemies' powers in CoD.
NSMB vs 3D Land/3D World on the other hand, shares more similarities between them and aren't really distinct from each other in terms of mechanics. The characters play the same from game to game and rarely even differ from each other. The levels have the exact same objective and you progress the same way between them. Powerups work the same and many of them are shared from game to game. The only things they usually change between games are the powerups, other than that it's largely the same from game to game.
Now the collectathons vs. the linear platformers are more distinct from each other because they actually differ in terms of level design, game progression, and character moves and abilities, while still retaining the same core Mario gameplay. The collectathons in general are a much better example about how Mario games be handled really, each one (except for Galaxy 2, which is glorified DLC) is distinct from game to game and introduces unique abilities and gameplay mechanics, and actually feel like different experiences.
You've got to aim and shoot, defeat enemies, select the best weapon for the job, navigate obstacles, get to the end of the level. And you can take the enemies' powers in CoD, pick up one of their guns, there, you can use their powers. Hey you even have limited uses of those weapons until you pick up more energy/ammo for it. They're following the same formula.
There is no significant difference between Donkey Kong 64 and Bugs Bunny & Taz: Timebusters. Find collectibles, unlock new world, get new power, go back to previous worlds to access areas that you couldn't without the new power and repeat. All very much the same. I guess if I were to use your logic, all collectathons are the same, even the ones I haven't played.
No need to play any more collectathons people! 2D or 3D, they're all pretty much the same! They need an overhall! The mechanics need to be changed! Other wrong opinions about games I haven't played!
Well, you got me, I'm 13. Yep, totally a teen. Definitely wouldn't be creepy for me to spontaneously walk into a middle school. Lol, your assumptions are so off-base, man. I read Nintendo Power, I didn't even have a computer when I was younger and youtube didn't even exist.
Haru17: Male, 19, United States
You were 9 when youtube launched, you've grown up with this stuff around you. When I was a kid the only thing even remotely close to a lets-play video were clips on TV. Most of the information we got from games were from magazines. And I don't mean that magazines existed I mean that that was it. I'd get games purely based on what the screenshots on the back of the box looked like or word of mouth. That was it.
Your assumptions once again outpace your capabilities. Do tell me how I grew up with let's plays when I didn't have a computer until high school. Not to mention that let's plays didn't even exist until '08ish and weren't at all popular when they started. So show me the time machine and I'll tell you about how I grew up with let's plays.
As I said, you're not old enough to understand how little you know. That's not a slight on you, that's not me insulting you. That's just me telling you how it is. When I was 19 you can bet that I was precisely the same.
Do misquote adages concerning wisdom about freakin' video juegos. So let me 'tell you how it is' for a bit. You don't know 'how it is.' You know how you perceive 'how it is.' And your perceptions are wrong like mine are in areas, we just can't see the errors because they exist in our blind spots. Not that that even matters in this case, because we're talking about subjective matters so there is no 'how it is.'
And for the record, 'how it is' is that wisdom doesn't always come with age. See? I can vaguely disparage your intelligence too. It doesn't take much intelligence nor creativity and wit.
If you want to boil it down as far as it goes, mega man is just call of duty with one less dimension. Final fantasy is DND with less customization. Pong is stale because it was preceded by all physical games before it. If you want to boil it down, every new game follows the same formula as the game released before it, "do X to win." There you go, no game can be original, because they are following the same formula. It's not 6 games, it is every single game that has preceded it.
You're oversimplifying things (pot calling the kettle black). Mega Man does not have the same formula as CoD. You can't wall jump and absorb enemies' powers in CoD.
NSMB vs 3D Land/3D World on the other hand, shares more similarities between them and aren't really distinct from each other in terms of mechanics. The characters play the same from game to game and rarely even differ from each other. The levels have the exact same objective and you progress the same way between them. Powerups work the same and many of them are shared from game to game. The only things they usually change between games are the powerups, other than that it's largely the same from game to game.
Now the collectathons vs. the linear platformers are more distinct from each other because they actually differ in terms of level design, game progression, and character moves and abilities, while still retaining the same core Mario gameplay. The collectathons in general are a much better example about how Mario games be handled really, each one (except for Galaxy 2, which is glorified DLC) is distinct from game to game and introduces unique abilities and gameplay mechanics, and actually feel like different experiences.
You've got to aim and shoot, defeat enemies, select the best weapon for the job, navigate obstacles, get to the end of the level. And you can take the enemies' powers in CoD, pick up one of their guns, there, you can use their powers. Hey you even have limited uses of those weapons until you pick up more energy/ammo for it. They're following the same formula.
There is no significant difference between Donkey Kong 64 and Bugs Bunny & Taz: Timebusters. Find collectibles, unlock new world, get new power, go back to previous worlds to access areas that you couldn't without the new power and repeat. All very much the same. I guess if I were to use your logic, all collectathons are the same, even the ones I haven't played.
No need to play any more collectathons people! 2D or 3D, they're all pretty much the same! They need an overhall! The mechanics need to be changed! Other wrong opinions about games I haven't played!
If you want to boil it down as far as it goes, mega man is just call of duty with one less dimension. Final fantasy is DND with less customization. Pong is stale because it was preceded by all physical games before it. If you want to boil it down, every new game follows the same formula as the game released before it, "do X to win." There you go, no game can be original, because they are following the same formula. It's not 6 games, it is every single game that has preceded it.
You're oversimplifying things (pot calling the kettle black). Mega Man does not have the same formula as CoD. You can't wall jump and absorb enemies' powers in CoD.
NSMB vs 3D Land/3D World on the other hand, shares more similarities between them and aren't really distinct from each other in terms of mechanics. The characters play the same from game to game and rarely even differ from each other. The levels have the exact same objective and you progress the same way between them. Powerups work the same and many of them are shared from game to game. The only things they usually change between games are the powerups, other than that it's largely the same from game to game.
Now the collectathons vs. the linear platformers are more distinct from each other because they actually differ in terms of level design, game progression, and character moves and abilities, while still retaining the same core Mario gameplay. The collectathons in general are a much better example about how Mario games be handled really, each one (except for Galaxy 2, which is glorified DLC) is distinct from game to game and introduces unique abilities and gameplay mechanics, and actually feel like different experiences.
You've got to aim and shoot, defeat enemies, select the best weapon for the job, navigate obstacles, get to the end of the level. And you can take the enemies' powers in CoD, pick up one of their guns, there, you can use their powers. Hey you even have limited uses of those weapons until you pick up more energy/ammo for it. They're following the same formula.
There is no significant difference between Donkey Kong 64 and Bugs Bunny & Taz: Timebusters. Find collectibles, unlock new world, get new power, go back to previous worlds to access areas that you couldn't without the new power and repeat. All very much the same. I guess if I were to use your logic, all collectathons are the same, even the ones I haven't played.
No need to play any more collectathons people! 2D or 3D, they're all pretty much the same! They need an overhall! The mechanics need to be changed! Other wrong opinions about games I haven't played!
I got two words: Virtual Reality
I don't think it would work with jumping, the sensation of falling wouldn't work for pits
I still want to participate in this thread for some unknown reason before the inevitable lock.
Let's Play videos are a giant waste of time: I want to play games, not watch other people play them - I mean I'm not going to listen to a commentary track without watching the film, am I (I have done this with Simpsons episodes, but then they often don't actually talk about the video)? When I was a kid and only had box art to go on to help me decide on whether to buy an Atari cart that would be one of the two I got in a year that would have been invaluable, but today you get demo vids, screenshots and reviews on sites like this.
Generally speaking I can see a trailer and know if a game is going to push my buttons (haha) or not; genre carries more weight for me than anything else. There's so many games out there I can easily afford to skip gems in the rough: life is too short to do the amount of research some are suggesting. If I was broke I'd deliberate more, but I'm not and there's only a few duds in my Wii U library so I'm doing okay.
As far as Nintendo franchises being stale, well I never played a lot of Nintendo games when I was younger, so they feel fresh to me and I'm enjoying them and so is my kid. I reckon Nintendo can afford to lose some "real" gamers that probably wouldn't buy their software anyway as long as a tiny percentage of people continue to spread the faith. Just go back to headshots on your Xbox or whatever and let those of us that appreciate good game design enjoy ourselves.
You've got to aim and shoot, defeat enemies, select the best weapon for the job, navigate obstacles, get to the end of the level. And you can take the enemies' powers in CoD, pick up one of their guns, there, you can use their powers. Hey you even have limited uses of those weapons until you pick up more energy/ammo for it. They're following the same formula.
There is no significant difference between Donkey Kong 64 and Bugs Bunny & Taz: Timebusters. Find collectibles, unlock new world, get new power, go back to previous worlds to access areas that you couldn't without the new power and repeat. All very much the same. I guess if I were to use your logic, all collectathons are the same, even the ones I haven't played.
No need to play any more collectathons people! 2D or 3D, they're all pretty much the same! They need an overhall! The mechanics need to be changed! Other wrong opinions about games I haven't played!
You're still oversimplifying those specific games. This is why I look at things at an action/ability level, because if you boil things down that much the only differences you have left are between genres, whereas if you look at what kinds of actions the players can perform and what kinds of abilities the characters have the gameplay feels more distinct between games. The entire problem is that the recent Mario games don't have much at the action/ability level that define them. The gameplay is largely running, jumping, and using powerups, it's generic platformer gameplay (even DK has more than that with more distinct abilities like rolling and hand slapping, although frankly I don't find DK's core mechanics to be particularly exciting either IMO), so that's about all you can even say about the linear platformers. The collectathons, on the other hand, have more defining gameplay mechanics like the various moveset additions in 64, FLUDD in Sunshine, and the antigravity in Galaxy at the action/ability level, so they feel more unique.
As far as Nintendo franchises being stale, well I never played a lot of Nintendo games when I was younger, so they feel fresh to me and I'm enjoying them and so is my kid. I reckon Nintendo can afford to lose some "real" gamers that probably wouldn't buy their software anyway as long as a tiny percentage of people continue to spread the faith. Just go back to headshots on your Xbox or whatever and let those of us that appreciate good game design enjoy ourselves.
The problem with that being that Microsoft and Sony do even worse in that area as well as genre variety. None of the major game developers are good at keeping their IPs fresh, there's more of a tendency nowadays to recycle gameplay ad nauseum. Nintendo is supposed to be the innovators, so stale gameplay is pretty much a failure by their standards.
Says the second most dense person in this thread. :/ And I can't believe Bolt_strike just downplayed the rules of freakin' chess. Yes, you can understand the basics without playing it, but people have written whole books on the minutia of Chess. There's a lot more to it than most rulebooks manage to cover. He pretty much debunked his own argument right there.
I didn't downplay the rules of chess, I downplayed the experience. And just because people have written books on it doesn't mean you need to play them to understand it, in fact that actually supports the idea that you don't. Experiencing the game simply gives you the opportunity to apply the theories and strategies presented.
The entire point is that you don't need to experience certain elements to form an opinion on them, and gameplay mechanics is one of those elements. Gameplay is something that can be easily marketed through videos and advertisements, so you can easily pick up on it before even starting the game.
I disagree. When I watched Hyrule Warriors videos, I didn't think the game was that appealing. When I actually played the game myself, my perception did a complete 180. I loved the game so much that I clocked over 120 hours into it. This is just one example of several where playing a game is different from watching it.
Now to be fair, there are exceptions like 2D Mario.
Wonderful, detailed example you have there. I didn't like the videos, then I played them and I did. Yep, that sure makes a compelling case for playing a game before forming an opinion.
Thing is, if there's a game I'm not sure about I make sure to do plenty of research on it. I watch gameplay videos, I play the demoes, I look up movesets and gameplay mechanics, I don't tend to write off games without knowing what I'm talking about. So when the game is lacking in an element that I can easily observe, such as gameplay mechanics, there's no need to experience the game to support my decision, it has nothing to do with the issue.
You seriously think you can fully understand a game without playing it, when the most experienced grand masters of the game that have been studying it for decades using experience from players gathered over centuries still aren't sure whether white or black is the advantageous option? Seriously?! You've crossed the line from dense to arrogant.
Secondly, go ask any researcher worth their paycheck, and they're almost certainly going to tell you that no amount of sitting in a lab looking up records will ever match the progress made by going out in the fields and actually STUDYING THE ANIMALS, THEMSELVES. You know, much like how no amount of research, gameplay video, or review will ever beat out the amount you learn just by popping the game in or heck, even playing a demo.
Or hey, let's take an actual analogy that won't fall apart into account. I can go look up movesets and special mechanics and even advanced techniques for any character in Smash 4. However, that won't make me suddenly good at playing Ness or Zelda or even Marth. I'd have to sit down and practice those characters so I can actually get a feel for how to use them instead of flailing about pathetically on the stage trying to get a hit in. Just like you can't know what 3D World is like just because you played 3D Land, I can't know what Fox plays like just because I played Wolf in Brawl. Heck, that doesn't even cover me knowing how Fox played in any Smash since 64 despite finding him to be my best character in 64. (For the record, I've tried. I hate Fox in every Smash barring the original, but that's irrelevant.)
Your assumptions once again outpace your capabilities. Do tell me how I grew up with let's plays when I didn't have a computer until high school. Not to mention that let's plays didn't even exist until '08ish and weren't at all popular when they started. So show me the time machine and I'll tell you about how I grew up with let's plays.
In '08 you were what, like 12? We have very different definitions of what "growing up with" means. Makes sense given that you're still young but still. Hell, I'm still young. I think of things that happened when I was 17 still part of "my childhood".
As I said, you're not old enough to understand how little you know. That's not a slight on you, that's not me insulting you. That's just me telling you how it is. When I was 19 you can bet that I was precisely the same.
Do misquote adages concerning wisdom about freakin' video juegos. So let me 'tell you how it is' for a bit. You don't know 'how it is.' You know how you perceive 'how it is.' And your perceptions are wrong like mine are in areas, we just can't see the errors because they exist in our blind spots. Not that that even matters in this case, because we're talking about subjective matters so there is no 'how it is.' And for the record, 'how it is' is that wisdom doesn't always come with age. See? I can vaguely disparage your intelligence too. It doesn't take much intelligence nor creativity and wit.
When you're a teenager and even into your early 20s you think you know everything. Once you hit your mid 20s you'll realise how little you know. I'm not insulting your intelligence by pointing this out. I'm not trying to say that I'm more wise than you because I'm older. All I'm doing is pointing out your massive blind spot. It is, without a doubt, how it is.
I'm not seeing how Nintendo titles are "stale," but I think their main strength is the breadth and depth of their catalogue - Nintendo doesn't just make platformers - that may have been largely true in the 8-bit era, but we're a long way from there.
Wait wait. 3D World is just like NSMB? Did you even play 3D World?
Again, in terms of the gameplay formula it is (although as I established in my last post, that's largely because the gameplay of both is incredibly simplistic). Both are linear platformers that have you run, jump, and collect powerups as you find the flagpole. Both have similar playing characters with the same movesets. Both have you progress through the game similarly. The only thing that usually changes from game to game is the powerups, and that's not quite enough because of how infrequently they show up. Compare that to the collecthathons and you'll see a lot more distinction because those games make an actual attempt to distinguish themselves gameplay wise instead of making every game Generic Mushroom Kingdom Platformer 17.
Wait wait. 3D World is just like NSMB? Did you even play 3D World?
Again, in terms of the gameplay formula it is (although as I established in my last post, that's largely because the gameplay of both is incredibly simplistic). Both are linear platformers that have you run, jump, and collect powerups as you find the flagpole. Both have similar playing characters with the same movesets. Both have you progress through the game similarly. The only thing that usually changes from game to game is the powerups, and that's not quite enough because of how infrequently they show up. Compare that to the collecthathons and you'll see a lot more distinction because those games make an actual attempt to distinguish themselves gameplay wise instead of making every game Generic Mushroom Kingdom Platformer 17.
Bold 1: Isn't even correct yes in both games you run and jump but each Character in 3D World has distinct things they excel at whether speed, floating, fluttering or delayed additional jumps/attack.
Bold 2: They aren't even in the same dimension so no you don't progress in the same fashion.
Edit: The amount some people here are generalising is just baffling and could be applied to practically every game released these days and in the past.
˄ Can't the same be said about most, if not all games though? Gears of War and Halo both involve running around shooting enemies but the experience is very different. Outrun and Gran Turismo both involve driving a car but play very differently.
All games are similar is one way or another.
I'm not familiar with those games in particular, but I will say that in shooters you can look at what kinds of weapons are available and compare based on that. Racing games do tend to be similar mechanic wise though. At any rate, there's no reason for platformers to be that shallow, there's all kinds of mechanics they can attach to a platformer.
Bold 1: Isn't even correct yes in both games you run and jump but each Character in 3D World has distinct things they excel at whether speed, floating, fluttering or delayed additional jumps/attack.
Most of those things aren't abilities though, they're minor differences in physics. And those things aren't particularly significant because they don't make you think or act very differently.
Forums
Topic: Is the Wii U a failure?
Posts 381 to 400 of 460
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.