I think the discussion is delving a bit too deep for what it originally was, and now it's a discussion of logic vs experience. I think it's probably best that all of you stop at least this certain discussion, because it is one that can go on forever, and does not even involve this forum's main topic.
Can't look it up online if I don't know about it, I'd only seen bits and pieces of the game so at no point did it tell me.
If you're not sure, watch a full playthrough. Then you'll know everything you need to.
You're confusing being unsure with not knowing, the former acknowledges the possibility, the latter doesn't know of the possibility. If I want to experience a game, I will play it, because that's how I will know if the game is an enjoyable experience or not.
Also by your logic someone should be able to fly a plane just by having someone show them a video about the mechanics of a plane.
"It's okay, I can compensate fort wind currents, drag, resistance and all that because the video told me about it!"
If they know the theory behind all of those things they're in good shape. The theory is much, much more important to their understanding of how to fly a plane than the practice.
I really shouldn't acknowledge the stupidity of this statement. I'd place my safety in the hands of someone with 100 hours of training in a plane rather than someone with 100 hours of watching videos. They might land the plane safely, IF they are lucky, however they are still more likely to crash and burn than someone who has actually practiced flying a plane.
Just because you push the fact that you haven't played the game to the side does not mean that it's not a valid reason to disbelieve your argument when in the face of someone who HAS actually experienced the game.
Not true. Logic trumps experience every time, you can't just throw away the logic if it's correct, that's ignorant.
Good thing your logic isn't correct then. Have you actually gone outside in your life?
I really shouldn't acknowledge the stupidity of this statement. I'd place my safety in the hands of someone with 100 hours of training in a plane rather than someone with 100 hours of watching videos. They might land the plane safely, IF they are lucky, however they are still more likely to crash and burn than someone who has actually practiced flying a plane.
Then your analogy fails because the practice is more important in flying a plane. In gaming, the theory is more important. Because in a game, people don't just want their games to be mindless entertainment. They're looking for mental stimulation.
Logic often relies on experience and never trumps it, nor the other way around. Throwing out either one is ignorant. (Literally, as ignorant describes the act of ignoring something, which is what you do in either situation, but that's besides the point.) You cannot say "my logic disagrees with your valid experience, therefore your experience is invalid." You have to figure out WHY your logic disagrees. All I have to do to validate my experience is to go do it again and see how the second time stacks up. If logic tries to lock everything down, one dissenting experience throws all of the logic into question. That's basic Science.
I really shouldn't acknowledge the stupidity of this statement. I'd place my safety in the hands of someone with 100 hours of training in a plane rather than someone with 100 hours of watching videos. They might land the plane safely, IF they are lucky, however they are still more likely to crash and burn than someone who has actually practiced flying a plane.
Then your analogy fails because the practice is more important in flying a plane. In gaming, the theory is more important. Because in a game, people don't just want their games to be mindless entertainment. They're looking for mental stimulation.
You mean like solving the game for yourself rather than watch someone else do it? Experiencing the story without some idiot, who you can't ask to be quiet, jabbering away in the background? Having your brain stimulate the nervous system allowing you to press the buttons? By watching a video of a game you are turning it into mindless entertainment by taking away everything that could stimulate you.
Playing the game you HAVE to think if you want to win. Watching someone else do it, you don't.
Logic often relies on experience and never trumps it, nor the other way around. Throwing out either one is ignorant. (Literally, as ignorant describes the act of ignoring something, which is what you do in either situation, but that's besides the point.) You cannot say "my logic disagrees with your valid experience, therefore your experience is invalid." You have to figure out WHY your logic disagrees. All I have to do to validate my experience is to go do it again and see how the second time stacks up. If logic tries to lock everything down, one dissenting experience throws all of the logic into question. That's basic Science.
And I did figure out why my logic disagrees. And you still ignored it.
You mean like solving the game for yourself rather than watch someone else do it? Experiencing the story without some idiot, who you can't ask to be quiet, jabbering away in the background? Having your brain stimulate the nervous system allowing you to press the buttons? By watching a video of a game you are turning it into mindless entertainment by taking away everything that could stimulate you.
Playing the game you HAVE to think if you want to win. Watching someone else do it, you don't.
Not necessarily. When you're watching a game, you can also think about how you would solve the problem as the player is solving it. That's what I do whenever I watch, I think about what I would do if I was playing and what I would do differently from the player. Playing the game yourself is certainly ideal, but not necessary. That's like watching a math tutorial online and saying you can't solve the problem yourself. There's nothing stopping you from working out the steps yourself.
And really, if I wanted to play the game myself, I would. But I don't, and don't need to.
If you think that Mario Kart 8 having anti-gravity tracks makes it much different from the last game in the series and is a game that pushes it far, I don't agree with you.
I'm mostly just trying to tackle this idea that Mario Kart is always the same just because there is Mario and Karts. It's not really true at all. If you go through from 64, DD, DS, Wii, 7 and 8? A lot has changed. At it's core it's still Mario Kart but it's not really the same game. Even Mario Kart 7, which 8 is closest to, feels far more compact and nowhere near as ambitious. Which makes sense given it's a portable version but still. Saying it's the same game all the time is like saying every Zelda is just another Zelda.
I also think that saying Star Wars Battlefront is Battlefield with a Star Wars skin and saying that it seems like an original game is contradictory.
Indeed. It's definitely not that original. And even so it's still one of the most original AAA tier games on the horizon. Which is why I think it's a load of crap that people are still hammering Nintendo for this. It's an industry wide thing and if anything Nintendo, outside of New SMB, has had one of the more original set of releases. Splatoon being the example I'd cite.... but I'm sure you guys will ignore that and keep pointing to the fact that I think Mario Kart 8 isn't that bad
@skywake: 7 wasn't ambitious with its kart customization? I definitely don't agree with you there. I don't get how 7 feels compact because each game is a racing game where you're on one linear track at a time. Do you mean compact in terms of content? I wouldn't agree there either, but it's just my personal opinion.
You also repeatedly contradict yourself with Star Wars Battlefront.
I think you're very biased. You just defend the games you like and say they're the most original.
TylerTheCreator
3DS Friend Code: 1633-4674-8666 | Nintendo Network ID: Shock-T
I'm mostly just trying to tackle this idea that Mario Kart is always the same just because there is Mario and Karts. It's not really true at all. If you go through from 64, DD, DS, Wii, 7 and 8? A lot has changed. At it's core it's still Mario Kart but it's not really the same game. Even Mario Kart 7, which 8 is closest to, feels far more compact and nowhere near as ambitious. Which makes sense given it's a portable version but still. Saying it's the same game all the time is like saying every Zelda is just another Zelda.
I wouldn't exactly say that compactness is a legitimate reason to call a game a different experience. It's basically just the same gameplay on a smaller scale. Now I do agree that the Mario Kart games are different, but I would point to things like two racer karts, tricking, gliding and swimming, and antigravity as what sets the various games apart more than anything else.
I think you're very biased. You just defend the games you like and say they're the most original.
Well ignoring the fact that the games I listed as being derivative included a bunch of games that are pretty great. For example I like the Batman games but really, it's the same thing every time. Same deal with Assassin's Creed even though I really love that series. I'm a bit burned on both because of them screwing over PC gamers but still. Not bad games. And Mirror's Edge, Doom? I'm actually pretty hyped about them even though I'm sure there's nothing that original. Same deal with Bloodborne which I'm not that interested in and have heard is pretty derivative but I'm sure is great
Even with Nintendo stuff. I said that the New SMB series is the most stale series Nintendo has. Every one is basically identical to the last, more than any other game Nintendo makes by a country mile. It's still a good game and I've ended up getting every single one. This has nothing to do with which games I do and don't like. All I'm saying here is that Nintendo are far from the most "guilty" dev in terms of not coming up with original content. I only cited Mario Kart because it seems to be one of the games which is targeted the most..... which I think is BS given how different each entry is.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
Over the past couple days, I've learned that literally everything is a rehash.
Seriously though, I'm sick of seeing this word, now.
If you're looking for games that aren't, the Mario collectathons and the Metroid Prime trilogy are good examples. The first games in the series established an entirely new gameplay style and then the sequels added big, game changing twists to the core gameplay. That's the problem, many of the games this generation are lacking in those types of twists.
Mario games are rehashes as well, Mario 64? That's just Mario in 3D, and Mario Galaxy didn't even have FLUDD, that game hasn't even caught up to the franchise. Mario Sunshine, was a glitchfest and only introduced FLUDD, that's not innovation, that's adding a simple shooting and hover mechanic, the fact that they had to resort to levels without FLUDD, shows that even Nintendo wasn't a fan of this mechanic. Metroid Prime is Metroid x FPS, don't get me started on that. MP2 and 3 are more of the same. You're just very biased.
Every game is flawed.
Every sequel is derivative of the previous games/series.
You don't need ideas to be fresh.
You can't judge a book (completely) by its cover, as doing so misses out on what elements can only be experienced first hand.
Mario games are rehashes as well, Mario 64? That's just Mario in 3D
No, it's not just Mario in 3D. 3D Land and 3D World are Mario in 3D. Mario 64 has entirely different mechanics from the Classics, the NSMB line, and the 3D line.
and Mario Galaxy didn't even have FLUDD, that game hasn't even caught up to the franchise.
No they're not. They actually added significant twists to their games. Metroid Prime 2 had the light/dark world system which changed the way you explored the level. Metroid Prime 3 had the PED suit which made you balance your health and combat ability.
Plus, Metroid games are more inclined to change than other IPs since the powerups are essential to the gameplay. A new powerup in Metroid goes farther than it does in Mario where they only see use once in a while.
@Bolt_Strike:
Freshness doesn't mean new ideas, it just means creating a new experience.
More often than not, taking an old idea and putting it in a different context is enough to create a new experience.
Mario Maker is fresh because takes the context of Mario game and presents it in level editor form, Wooly World takes Yoshi's Island and puts it in yarn, the Super Mario 3D series is built entirely on the concept of putting classic 2D Mario in a 3D space which actually works pretty well.
This is all I care about really, and I enjoy what I get.
I don't care about X being from Y, as long the full package feels different enough from Y, I'll enjoy what I get.
If you can't enjoy something because you've seen something in it from somewhere else, that sounds like a you problem personally.
Forums
Topic: Wii U is safe from the NX!? Seems to be true
Posts 561 to 580 of 582
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.