@R_Champ: I think Jim effing Sterling Son summed that game up perfectly. It is Square Enix of 2015 that are remaking this classic game that 90's Square made, and in that near 20 year passage of time along with the merger, this company has transformed into one that now, allegedly, holds board meetings on how they can get away with cutting up a single game's content and selling it in pieces. Hence the episodic FFVII remake 'announcement'. Also they thought Final Fantasy all the Bravest was a good thing. So yeah, even though I'm not a Final Fantasy fan I am keeping my expectations in check.
Am I the only one that realizes that an 8 out of 10 is still a good score? 8 out of 10 means a game is great, and yet so many gamers are offended when a game that they were waiting for gets an 8 out of 10. Not even companies like EA or Ubisoft is concerned when a game gets even a negative review score, and yet the fans always whine like toddlers when a highly anticipated game gets an 8 out of 10 or less.
"I'll take a potato chip... AND EAT IT!"
Light Yagami, Death Note
"Ah, the Breakfast Club soundtrack! I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff!"
Phillip J. Fry, Futurama
@DarthNocturnal Funny you say that scores are dumb on a site that uses scores. I do think though that a lot of people fail to recognize that a review score is not an accurate representation of the critic's opinion, but a TL;DR.
"I'll take a potato chip... AND EAT IT!"
Light Yagami, Death Note
"Ah, the Breakfast Club soundtrack! I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff!"
Phillip J. Fry, Futurama
@DarthNocturnal Funny you say that scores are dumb on a site that uses scores. I do think though that a lot of people fail to recognize that a review score is not an accurate representation of the critic's opinion, but a TL;DR.
The reason most people hate number scores is because they're inaccurate and too subjective. That alone is the reason why The Completionist and GameXplain word ratings work so much better: they are clear, clean, and to the point. "Good" is clearer than 8-7/10 since apparently 8 or 7/10 means drastically different things to different people due to a skewed understanding of what average actually is.
1) assuming your critiques as facts for a moment, we understand that Smash as a series is stale due to its lack of change in mechanics and also limitd in scope by its small number of modes, that's right? So if that is the truth (as arguable as it gets), I guess the problem is elsewhere, since the problems you've described don't have anything to do with the word "generic". English is not my native language so I tend to be cautious with the terms I use in order to avoid misunderstandings, but I guess you don't.
It does actually. A generic game doesn't have a lot of thought and effort put into it, as if a robot came up with the idea for the game. Something that has no change in mechanics or few extra modes fits that bill, if all you're doing is adding in new characters and stages, then that's not terribly creative. We always get that kind of content anyway so it's not surprising when we get them.
First you have 3D Land, which shakes up the Mario formula by mixing together its two "identities", creating at the same time a third variation which estabilishes itself as another way of playing Mario
Did it really though? It threw away the core tenants of the 3D games in favor of the 2D mechanics, and 3D gameplay mainly saw gimmicks transferred over to the new formula. Technically it is a mix, but it's 90% 2D gameplay and 10% 3D gameplay, and at that point I'd call it more a 3D adaptation of the 2D gameplay than a proper mix of the two formulas.
and then you have 3D World, which takes the core gameplay as it is from Land and refines some aspects while adding new "gimmicks" (as you like to call them) and throwing in a multiplayer mode.
That sounds exactly like every sequel ever, doesn't it? Being 3D World basically a sequel, what did you expect from it? To reinvent again the mechanics of a 3D Mario? I guess you're looking in the wrong direction. If that is what you're looking for, you should totally be fine with 3D Land, though, since it marked the first time in 6 years (since Galaxy, basically) the core Mario gameplay got rethought and rebuilt. In a world that gets a new COD, AC & co. each and every year (and each with their own season passes), I think we can still live well and be fine even if two Mario games in a row share their core gameplay.
Also, taking a broader perspective: how many franchises can be said to actually change so radically every such few years? SM64, SMS, SMG/SMG2, SM3DL/W and the 2D games are very different from one another while retaining the same core concepts, so I tend to consider each of them apart from the others, but even if you don't, you can't deny the differences between them that affect the whole gameplay (as you like to point out). The FLUDD, the planets, the fusion with the 2D mechanics...each of these features goes on to play a huge role in the core gamplay elements, and as a result, each of these "groups" of experiences feel different from one another.
That's just it though, I wouldn't say the 4 NSMB games, 3D Land, and 3D World are radically different from each other. There's a LOT of similarities between those games including linear gameplay requiring you to reach the flagpole, a map screen that forces you to beat levels in order to progress, the exact same movesets from game to game, characters that change little more than speed and jump height, a castle at the end of each world, generic platformer settings with no unifying theme, and a minimalist kidnapping plot that serves as little more than an excuse for Mario to go through the game's levels. The other Mario games don't share nearly that many similarities. At any rate, I wouldn't say they're all distinct, I would group them into the following:
NSMB and 3D World
64
Sunshine
Galaxy 1 and Galaxy 2
If that's your definition of "generic", then I still fail to see how you consider Smash to be "generic".
Generic things are uncreative, and keeping the game with the same mechanics and just adding in characters (which they do every game) is definitely uncreative. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, I can't explain it any simpler than that.
If that's your definition of "generic", then I still fail to see how you consider Smash to be "generic".
Generic things are uncreative, and keeping the game with the same mechanics and just adding in characters (which they do every game) is definitely uncreative. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, I can't explain it any simpler than that.
Not changing the mechanics of a successful fighting game is uncreative? Okay, that's your opinion and I'm stepping out of this.
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky
If that's your definition of "generic", then I still fail to see how you consider Smash to be "generic".
Generic things are uncreative, and keeping the game with the same mechanics and just adding in characters (which they do every game) is definitely uncreative. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, I can't explain it any simpler than that.
Not changing the mechanics of a successful fighting game is uncreative? Okay, that's your opinion and I'm stepping out of this.
Whether or not it's successful is irrelevant. If you repeat the mechanics long enough, then people will get bored of them and it won't be quite as successful.
@Bolt_Strike: If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that Melee and Brawl are completely different games. There is a completelty different "metagame" to each that has isolated competive smash players for years. Also, I really think you are using generic really losely and it loses its definition when you use it.
@GamecubeMan: it's just one of many buzzwords this guy's throwing around to try and (looks like unsuccessfully) make some sort of point. When you use words like 'generic', 'gimmick', 'iconic', 'emotional' etc as the basis of your arguement, you just lose focus straight away as what one person defines as generic will be different to the next, hence why by this guy's standards Smash is generic but it is not to ours. I for example consider Uncharted generic, generic guy uses generic guns to generically go on a generic hunt for a generic treasure or two whilst shooting generic grunts doing likewise in the head. Generically. Does that mean Sony and the PS4 are trash in my eyes because by me definitions I consider their flagship franchise to be generic? No, of course not, it's just that I'm not interested in that one game series, cool for those that are though. The world's not gonna change because I consider Uncharted to be generic, likewise with Bolt Strike's opinion of Smash. He thinks it's generic? So what? Don't play the game then. And don't whine about it k?
@VeeFlamesNL: well the people who use that word tend to be not worth anyone's time debating with. At least with the others that I mentioned, they're at least trying to make a point, they just don't understand those words when they use them or don't use them in the right context. When the attention turns to trying to rile the other(s), you're best to just drop it in my opinion.
@Bolt_Strike: woah this guy throws random percentages and invents personal definitions of pre-existing words, he MUST be right! How stupid I am for trying to point out the fallacies of his argumentations!
Besides the fact I'm still trying to figure out what question you were answering by saying "it actually does", your point just doesn't hold up, simply because you're using the wrong words. I guess the definition of "game that only adds something to the existing mechanics of its predecessor" would be more something like "safe sequel", rather than "generic". A game can be both, do you realize that? If an original, unique game gets a sequel, what is its sequel then? Let's pretend a game like The World Ends With You is getting a sequel; if you've ever played it, you sure can't deem it "uncreative" or "unoriginal".
So, this hypothetical TWEWY 2 is going to have the same core mechanics that previously were exclusive to one game; does this reduce the originality of said mechanics just because they are used in two games instead of one? If your answer is "yes", then you're looking for "unique" games, not "original" ones.
That's simply because "generic" indicates characteristics adopted by a majority of things (games, songs, films, books, etc.), so what is not generic is what sets itself apart from the majority by trying something different.
The first Smash Bros. did this. Then came its sequels. So now 4 games share those unique traits. Is it going to diminish their uniqueness? No, when you count 4 games among thousands and thousands of other games. Are these 4 games a minority that do things differently? Yes, they are. Point proved.
@clvr: but he doesn't like it, therefore it must be generic. It has to be, there's no other explanation. In fact, there's no need for a debate, it fits his definition of generic, and for him that's the only one that matters. Therefore, Super Smash Bros is definitely 100% generic.
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 3,641 to 3,660 of 12,964
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic