The logic behind the rage for the "alienation" of Videogame series.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

rhizhim:

and from what perspective would you describe it?

whatever perspective you want...I'd describe it more as an RPG than a shooter since you really don;t need to shoot if you absolutely don;t want to

Infernai:

Fun Fact, i'd actually heard that originally Basch WAS supposed to be the main character. But, the guys at square thought that an FF game with an older protagonist wouldn't work so...we got lumped with Vaan instead.

i actually heard from a mate that it was due to western vs Jap idea of the hero that Vaan became the protagonist... at least i think it was that (was 2+ years ago that conversation).

Doom 3 had a "meh, ok i spose" reaction because the horror (what it had) was gone... walk in a room, lights dim, kill things, lights come back on, proceed through a corridor and repeat.
But chainsaw multiplayer was fun.

Resident evil.... well i dont know what they are doing, but i do know that they change them far too radically per game. if you change it too much (thinking 4 and 5) you just might as well change the name as well to "Not zombie-but zombish game type".

rhizhim:
TEXT

Well, yeah, the Doom 3 is still a FPS, but not the same as the old ones [Doom and Doom 2].
As I said before, Doom 3 is a diferent type of FPS, specifically a Horror driven FPS game.
That is a huge change for the Doom series.

The same goes for other games, the developers keep the same kind of game, but with some major changes.

Also about RE4, I didn't knew it got so much hate.

Vault101:

rhizhim:

and from what perspective would you describe it?

whatever perspective you want...I'd describe it more as an RPG than a shooter since you really don;t need to shoot if you absolutely don;t want to

except for 90% of the time you run into hostile critters and npcs. and they start to hunt you down across the map. plus you cant do shit without vats in the beginning.

that is something new vegas improved by adding critters whos goal in their pixelated life is not to 'fuck you up badly' the whole time.

you start in the first person perspective as a baby and a child and first person is default. later on you can switch it but nonetheless you start out by using the first person perspecive.

and it is primarily a shooter. you can barely compete with the endgame without the use of guns. sneaking is broken. and they kind of tempt you to use guns by making everything more gory and "awesome" in vats. plus there is no 'neck snap' option when you sneak up on people, you always have to rely on vats to do so.which is immersion breaking when you see your avatar just jumping up and take a huge swing on an enemy.

SweetShark:

rhizhim:
TEXT

Well, yeah, the Doom 3 is still a FPS, but not the same as the old ones [Doom and Doom 2].
As I said before, Doom 3 is a diferent type of FPS, specifically a Horror driven FPS game.
That is a huge change for the Doom series.

The same goes for other games, the developers keep the same kind of game, but with some major changes.

Also about RE4, I didn't knew it got so much hate.

yes the first two were damn arcade but doom 3's endgame came closer to its original.

you had to fight hordes of demons and undead with a huge arsenal of guns. and you were not limited to use only 2 guns, you still could keep the upper hand by using agility.

plus doom had for its time a lot of horror elements like walking into a room which floors and walls were mangled human corpses.

it may have been lost due the fact that you had to constantly dodge bullets but it still had gore and horror in it.

plus people also bitched about doom 3.

this lead to the developers handing out a patch where you could just tape that damn flashlight on your rifle. (see new hd releases)

doom 3 overall still remained in the same genre as their predesessors.

unlike duke nukem.

the 3rd game, duke nukem 3d was a doom clone where you could survive through agility and superior firepower. even if you were not that skilled you could still survive several shotgun blast (you were the bullet sponge) and it was clearly a parody on every action movie of the 80s and 90s.

duke nukem forever, however forced you to take cover like a pussy, limited your arsenal to 2 guns and just rehashed internet memes.
and since you lost ego instead of life you could assume that if he got hit several times he would just hide in a corner, cutting himself and crying how he lost faith in himself and the world.

they turned the duke into a lusty duchess. and the gameplay into just another 'hide behind the wall' shooter.

rhizhim:

and it is primarily a shooter. you can barely compete with the endgame without the use of guns. sneaking is broken. and they kind of tempt you to use guns by making everything more gory and "awesome" in vats. plus there is no 'neck snap' option when you sneak up on people, you always have to rely on vats to do so.which is immersion breaking when you see your avatar just jumping up and take a huge swing on an enemy.

I dont actually mean the use of guns

I mean VATS itself can make it that you don't always have to "physically" shoot a person in first person or otherwise

Vault101:

rhizhim:

and from what perspective would you describe it?

whatever perspective you want...I'd describe it more as an RPG than a shooter since you really don;t need to shoot if you absolutely don;t want to

ah and i almost forgot:

fallout 1: you can convince the master trough dialouge to comit suicide.

fallout 2:
you could convince Dr. Curling, a to release the F.E.V in the Enclave and release your people.
you could convince tom Murray to shut down the reactor.

and you could convince an enclave squad to help you out in the fight against horrigan.
and you could talk with your end boss and hack the terminal so the turrets do the dirty job.

fallout 3:
you can talk with the enclave computer into commiting suicide.


after you accept to take his doomsday device.

but other than that: you want to talk? nope. fuck you!
just kill that dude with his minions and make a dumb decision or else you are a dick until we patch it.

fallout: new vegas:

rhizhim:

but other than that: you want to talk? nope. fuck you!
just kill that dude with his minions and make a dumb decision or else you are a dick until we patch it.
]

are you talking about Fallout 3?

Vault101:

rhizhim:

and it is primarily a shooter. you can barely compete with the endgame without the use of guns. sneaking is broken. and they kind of tempt you to use guns by making everything more gory and "awesome" in vats. plus there is no 'neck snap' option when you sneak up on people, you always have to rely on vats to do so.which is immersion breaking when you see your avatar just jumping up and take a huge swing on an enemy.

I dont actually mean the use of guns

I mean VATS itself can make it that you don't always have to "physically" shoot a person in first person or otherwise

i heard of fire, water wind and earth bending, but i would have never imagined to see argument bending.

so its not a shooter because you have a magic device that lets your character shoot stuff after you put in a 'shot that stuff for me' command in it and it zooms out to see how awesome the program works.

vats has a cooldown timer, you still need to shoot stuff from the i perspective. and still you run at least 60% of the time in the first person perspective.

------------------

fallout 1&2 also had shooter elements.
the difference was that you also had to rely on tactics to survive. (and it was more focused on dialogue and story)

going against multiple foes? you can pull that off. just shoot one in the groin and incapacitate him with some luck while you take on the rest.
you can even flank your enemies.

and you can even talk some people down and convince them to just do it your way, get information from your foes(Lara Tyler quest)or win them for your side.

fallout 3 just wants you to find a better gun and armour. and use plenty of vats time.

Vault101:

rhizhim:

but other than that: you want to talk? nope. fuck you!
just kill that dude with his minions and make a dumb decision or else you are a dick until we patch it.
]

are you talking about Fallout 3?

yes i am talking about fallout 3. my rage lies within fallout, not you.

rhizhim:
[snip.

my argument didn't bend, that's is what I meant all along.....

I was actually going to say "are the original fallout games shooters because they have guns in them?"

anyway I've always seen Fallout 3 a "jack of all trades, master of none" type game....my point is it doesn't have to be a FPS if you choose not to play it that way...whatever works best/whatever they focused on more is somewhat beside the point

Mr.K.:
Oh you people and exaggerations...

Anyway if people come in to your restaurant for the steak dinner then there is probably something they like about it, and if you plop down some tofu replacement next time they come... well you might get some complaints.

Exactly, and some people will then come back for the tofu. Restaurant income remains relatively the same, they don't change back. I think alienation is too strong a word, not everyone is going to like the changes that get made and as always its the loud minority which get remembered, not the silent majority who thought it was average-good and had no complaints.

If a game, on the other hand, doesn't work anymore, like some games when they go to 3D, then they fail, and the developer can either scrape the IP as not being worth the money anymore because it can't compete with its new 3D rivals, or it goes onto the iPad/steam for 5...so everybody wins!

Bertylicious:

SonicKoala:
No, you're right, MGS3 was "Snake Eater", a.k.a the one in the jungle. And it seems as though you are basing your "MGS3 was objectively rubbish" opinion on the feedback of 4 other people and you. From what I've seen in terms of both critical reception and fan reception, MGS3 was an enormous hit. It was a fresh departure from the "sneaking around bases" trope, it introduced an interesting new setting, an enjoyable and entertaining new game mechanic (the camouflage), and some pretty tight writing (for the MGS series), something which was very much welcome after MGS 2's labyrinthine plot. Plus, you had moments like the epic tank chase near the end, or the absolutely brilliant boss fight with "The End". Hell, all the boss fights were well-executed.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but saying it's "objectively" rubbish simply isn't true. Oh, and you sort of conflated your MGS titles at the end there. MGS 2 was subtitled "Sons of Liberty", whereas MGS 4 was subtitled "Guns of the Patriots". To be fair, though, I would play the hell out of "Guns of Liberty".

Ah well there we are then. I cede the point; I've gone and assumed a belief is truth which is proper numpty.

Still though, I am suprised you enjoyed the camoflage system. I found it very intrusive and unintuitive; you'd be crawling along some leaves and then you'd hit some different colour leaves so you'd have to stop, go into the menu system, change your camo, go back out of the menu system, wait for bloke to wander off, crawl another few meters to get to some different coloured leaves, stop, go back into the menu...

The whole experience was like riding a British train in the autumn.

...Then you played it wrong, good sir.

I have beaten the game quite a few times, all on the hardest difficulty and I had never had to change my Camo more than once in any given area. The times I did change my Camo were when I was exiting the leaves/entering into a new substance (AkA: Dirt into Sand).

Also, most MGS fans I know of enjoyed the third, despised the second, moderately liked the fourth, and loved the first. While this is only going off the testimony of around 25-ish people, It is a rather larger pool to gather info from than 4-ish people.

It's simple really. Every game or game series has it's Thing. It's not always same Thing for each game, but it's there. Sometimes it's setting. Sometimes it's mechanics. Sometimes it's art style. Sometimes it's several Things together. When a developer changes the game's Thing, people get mad (they also get mad at other things too, but let's not complicate things).

Some games have a more flexible Thing than others. Some games are lucky enough to be able to both change the Thing and not change the Thing at the same time. For example, Super Mario RPG, Final Fantasy Tactics. No matter what though, the Thing is there and it's important.

Now let's talk FF12 for a second.

Infernai:

I thought people hated 12 primarily because it's lead protagonist (Vaan) was completely and utterly pointless to the story (When you can take your main character out of the story and absolutely nothing will change: That character has utterly failed as a protagonist), and also an outright annoying as all hell character.

I never understood not liking FF12 because of Vaan. I mean, I understand not liking Vaan, he is mostly useless as a character. The thing[1] is, he's also not the main character/protagonist/whatever. And even if he technically is, he isn't as far as the story is concerned.

You start the game with him and he's your in-town avatar. That's pretty much the only thing that makes him a protagonist candidate. He gets swept up into something much greater than he could imagine and after that, he's just along for the ride. If anything, he's just a somewhat annoying window for us to watch the story unfold through.

[1] note: different from the Thing from above

Vault101:

rhizhim:
[snip.

my argument didn't bend, that's is what I meant all along.....

I was actually going to say "are the original fallout games shooters because they have guns in them?"

anyway I've always seen Fallout 3 a "jack of all trades, master of none" type game....my point is it doesn't have to be a FPS if you choose not to play it that way...whatever works best/whatever they focused on more is somewhat beside the point

my understanding of a shooter is that you can overcome/solve a confrontation/problem by using violence through (sometimes solely) firearms/firepower.

and yes, it somewhat fits into all the fallout games up to date.
and yes, fallout has shooter elements.

but fallout 3 tends to lean too much on the shooter side for me to be considered a 'jack of all trades, master of none'.

i wanted to post a video about modern warfare activision and EA but i cant find it. it somehow showed the following

you can choose to run past the enemies in modern warfare and after you hit a certain point new ones spawn and the ones 'behind' you just despawn. so you just basically can just run past them without to worry to die.


but since i cant find it i will post this speed run. other than occasionally shooting some people and throwing some flashbangs you can just run past them. its somewhat like a skinner box.
this works on almost every level.

so choosing how you play a game doesnt change the genre it was intended for.
and for me fallout 3 is focused the shooter side.

and 'whatever they focused on more is somewhat beside the point' is not beside the point.
it can alter the feeling of a game. and cause rage.

also:

--------------------------------

for those who know about which video i am talking about, please post it. it had a strange ending where he uses images of ea, activison and other business scemes while underlying it with a monologue form modern warfare.

Vault101:

Zhukov:
What are you talking about? Fallout 3 was first person.

Well, okay, you can put it in third person mode if you really want Bethesda's terrible animation rubbed in your face.

I'm not calling it first person unless first person is mandatory...much like calling it a shooter....its an RPG

Whether it was first or third person is irrelevant, the point is that it wasn't from an isometric viewpoint or turn based like it's predecessors.

People rage when devs miss the point of a series completely and ruin it by changing it. But when a dev makes a change to a longstanding series and manage to improve it, people usually give them a pass.
I would have thought that the relationship between how bad the adaptation is and how people react would be quite obvious, but apparently not...

depends if the fan base is a vocal one. when mass effect 3 was released people where screaming and threatening with complaints by institutes. around that time SFXTK was released where a important function was not in the xbox 360 version and would never come. even though it was advertised. this was truly perplexing for me. so yeah, fan bases are weird.

Well, I think that people who were with the series from the start, invested both money and time into the game have the right to complain about changing the very core of the game.

Look at it from this side.
If not for the fans, the game would be dead. They financed the game in hope for getting another squeal of THAT game. Not a spin-off (is that how you write it, my brain is full of fuck at this moment about this word :S). Not a different game, but that game they bought.

Of course they will feel betrayed by the developer. If not for them, the developer probably wouldn't even have a chance to developer the second game.

That being said, I don't support the rage, I just understand where it's coming from.
The developer have no obligations to do anything for the fans. They made a product, you liked it and bought it. They didn't make any promises.

Umm, were you around when Doom 3 came out? Because I seem to remember it taking a huge amount of flak at the time for various reasons, although I still found it pretty enjoyable.

OT:Nowadays we have far more access to information than we ever did before. I remember when I had to wait to get my Nintendo Official Magazine every month to hear any new details about the Gamecube; in 2012 we know everything about the WiiU as soon as it happens which is why months in advance of it's actual release there have already been several threads insisting it's going to fail.

This is the real problem: knowing everything instantly means that the less composed among us are far quicker to dismiss new ideas as being a failure (as demonstrated by the 'Boycott Devil may Cry' thread that popped up a few months ago) before the games even have a chance to get their foot out the door.

When like-mminded people like that meet on forums such as these and spew their ill-informed bullshit together it gives the illusion that these games are hated when in actual fact most of us ar e still content to wait it out and test the finished product before we reach for the pitchforks and flaming torches.

It's the same reason that there's maybe two or three threads on the Escapist devoted to 'Games you love and why' and a deluge of threads popping up every day along the lines of 'X sucks and heres why' or 'X isn't as good as everyone says.'

BiH-Kira:
Well, I think that people who were with the series from the start, invested both money and time into the game have the right to complain about changing the very core of the game.

Look at it from this side.
If not for the fans, the game would be dead. They financed the game in hope for getting another squeal of THAT game. Not a spin-off (is that how you write it, my brain is full of fuck at this moment about this word :S). Not a different game, but that game they bought.

Of course they will feel betrayed by the developer. If not for them, the developer probably wouldn't even have a chance to developer the second game.

That being said, I don't support the rage, I just understand where it's coming from.
The developer have no obligations to do anything for the fans. They made a product, you liked it and bought it. They didn't make any promises.

But what about the videogames series that was away from a long time and suddendly the a publisher decided to bring back this title again?
Like X-com or Syndicate for example. For very long time these series was dead and only reason the publisher wanted to bring them back is either they knew the old games still have their fans [X-com series] or either though an idea they could use with the concept of a old game [Syndicate and X-com].

Its all about the fanbase, the fanbase of the Civ series won't be as upset about changes, (even though they should be) as some other fanbases would.

Some fanbases are rational and calm people willing to experience their beloved franchises through all of the changes and live and let live.

Then you have other fanbases.. and.. well..

Vault101:

NiPah:

A good developer will not say these things, the changes will speak for themselves. Valve made several changes to make Portal 2 more accessible to the casual gamer, but they didn't cheapen the core game play for the experienced fan, and through it all the only reasons they gave was "we're making an awesome game".

what changes did they make? I mean I heard some people say the puzzles were a little easy (but me being a dumbass and sucking at puzzles didnt notice)

I mean they "expanded" Portal 2 to make it a stand alone game (as in worth full price) I don;t see how that's making it more accessible

I was thinking about changes like the HUD display of the previous portal and lessoning available portal space, they are minimal but help beginning players not get stuck. There was also the addition of paints, a huge new element of gameplay, and instead of valve talking about how the gamer will love these changes they showed gameplay videos on how players interacted with the paint making everyone look forward to Portal 2.

I think it's similar to what Rockstar does with GTA, if they had made a press release saying "We're shifting our focus to be much more realistic to get more fans" there would have been a shit storm, but they just showed some very realistic trailers and people were fine (at least until they played the game).

burningdragoon:
About FF12

I actually never understood all the hate FF12 seems to get at all. I kind of liked it, it had an interesting world, a somewhat more grownup feel to it's characters and the story seemed interesting and political. However, I dont know if it was due to the original director getting ill and dropping off the project, but there is a notable drop in quality in the story in the last 30% of the game and that really breaks it for me. Its still a really fun game to play and I would love to get a HD-version for the PS3, but for me the story is what makes an FF-game memorable and there is simply no payoff to the promising beginning of the story in FF12. Compared to FF13 (which is the first regular FF-game since FF3 I haven't finished) FF12 still feels like a proper FF-game, although slightly lackluster. FF13 is just a mess.

SweetShark:

Why we don't see this kind of rage in some other Videogames that they as well changed a lot from the original games?

Why for example they didn't raged about the Doom 3? Doom 3 is a very good example of alienation of the original game. Doom 3 have a different look, the monsters doesn't exacly the same, diffeent type of action, the horror elements etc, etc...
But yet, the fan of the series [like me] didn't make it something so serious that believed it will "murder" the series.

Another example is Resident Evil 4. Seriously, the developers make the biggest alienation and stick with it in the others titles cause it had success. They made the Resident Evil series from a pure horror series, to a Fast-Third Person-Action B-movie series.
But again, never I saw a serious negative reaction for this game.

Go figure, the two games that you chose to single out were two of the biggest examples of this particular topic that I did rage about back in the day.

I raged about Doom III because it tried to wear far too many hats. They tried to make the game a Run-and-Gun shooter like the original games, while simultaneously trying to make it a Survival Horror FPS in the same vein as something like System Shock 2. Rather than doing one of those things REALLY well, it instead did both of them with a stunning amount of mediocrity. The end result was a Run-and-Gun FPS with too few enemies to mow down and guns only slightly more powerful than your average Airsoft rifle, and a Survival Horror game where all of the scares are completely scripted and predictable to the point of tedium. The worst part is that I really like the old Run-and-Gun Doom games, and I LOVE System Shock 2... so I should enjoy Doom III... but really, all it did was make me realize how much truly better those older games were at their respective genres, in my opinion anyway.

I raged much, much less about Resident Evil 4... but there was still a little bit of rage. I hated that they decided to change course away from the Romero "...of the Dead" style slow shambling zombies that the entire series was propped up on. I hated that they turned Leon Kennedy, a fairly normal if maybe slightly dopey police officer, into a stereotypical 1980's action movie one-liner-spewing action hero. I hated that they decided to spam the hell out of quick time events. I hated spending four hours obsessively organizing my suitcase only to die and then have to spend another four hours obsessively organizing my suitcase (I need serious psychiatric help about that, I think!). The reason why I raged about Resident Evil 4 less than I raged about Doom III is because at the end of the day, at least Resident Evil 4 ended up being a good game. It did a ton of stuff that made me angry (and even angrier now that the Resident Evil series seems to be ditching Survival/Horror entirely and veering off into the Action/Shooter direction for the foreseeable future thanks entirely to RE4), but it at least did those things really, really well. So it succeeded at being a fun game to me, but it failed miserably at being a Resident Evil game. Well... it failed at being a main-series Resident Evil game, anyway. It's still leaps and bounds better at being a Resident Evil game than, say... Gun Survivor.

Bertylicious:

Zhukov:

Sixcess:
a new take on a series is most likely to be accepted if the original series is technically obsolete - [...] or isometric rpgs in Fallout. People didn't resent breaking away from the old styles as much because the old styles in those cases were already effectively dead.

Freeze! Nitpick police!

Fallout 3 being 3D and first person actually pissed off quite a few people. Hell, you can still find folks moaning about it to this day.

Van Buren would have been ace, man. Way better than Fallout 3 was.

WAAAAHHH!

I think the Metal Gear franchise is an interesting one to contemplate for this. MGS1 was amazing. MGS2 was good but a bit weird. MGS3 was objectively rubbish (it really was) but fans loved it up the bum. The rest of the series was inscrutable but adored by fans.

It's the opposite scenario where the franchise grows inferior but the fanbase more devoted.

From that I reckon it all comes down to perceived sincerity of the creators. If they are perceived as sincere by the fanbase then they will embrace a change of direction.

Bertylicious:

Zhukov:

Sixcess:
a new take on a series is most likely to be accepted if the original series is technically obsolete - [...] or isometric rpgs in Fallout. People didn't resent breaking away from the old styles as much because the old styles in those cases were already effectively dead.

Freeze! Nitpick police!

Fallout 3 being 3D and first person actually pissed off quite a few people. Hell, you can still find folks moaning about it to this day.

Van Buren would have been ace, man. Way better than Fallout 3 was.

WAAAAHHH!

I think the Metal Gear franchise is an interesting one to contemplate for this. MGS1 was amazing. MGS2 was good but a bit weird. MGS3 was objectively rubbish (it really was) but fans loved it up the bum. The rest of the series was inscrutable but adored by fans.

It's the opposite scenario where the franchise grows inferior but the fanbase more devoted.

From that I reckon it all comes down to perceived sincerity of the creators. If they are perceived as sincere by the fanbase then they will embrace a change of direction.

I thought MGS3 was fantastic, and really don't see how you can claim it to be 'objectively rubbish'...

Bertylicious:

SonicKoala:
No, you're right, MGS3 was "Snake Eater", a.k.a the one in the jungle. And it seems as though you are basing your "MGS3 was objectively rubbish" opinion on the feedback of 4 other people and you. From what I've seen in terms of both critical reception and fan reception, MGS3 was an enormous hit. It was a fresh departure from the "sneaking around bases" trope, it introduced an interesting new setting, an enjoyable and entertaining new game mechanic (the camouflage), and some pretty tight writing (for the MGS series), something which was very much welcome after MGS 2's labyrinthine plot. Plus, you had moments like the epic tank chase near the end, or the absolutely brilliant boss fight with "The End". Hell, all the boss fights were well-executed.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but saying it's "objectively" rubbish simply isn't true. Oh, and you sort of conflated your MGS titles at the end there. MGS 2 was subtitled "Sons of Liberty", whereas MGS 4 was subtitled "Guns of the Patriots". To be fair, though, I would play the hell out of "Guns of Liberty".

Ah well there we are then. I cede the point; I've gone and assumed a belief is truth which is proper numpty.

Still though, I am suprised you enjoyed the camoflage system. I found it very intrusive and unintuitive; you'd be crawling along some leaves and then you'd hit some different colour leaves so you'd have to stop, go into the menu system, change your camo, go back out of the menu system, wait for bloke to wander off, crawl another few meters to get to some different coloured leaves, stop, go back into the menu...

The whole experience was like riding a British train in the autumn.

Huh, now that I think about it, I can totally understand where you're coming from with the camouflage system. In some areas, I remember constantly having to switch my camo back and forth so as to keep it above 80%. In the "industrial" areas it didn't matter, but I can see your point about how it really interfered with the flow of gameplay. Despite that, I still enjoyed the game, though, so I guess it didn't bother me enough for it to be a deal breaker.

NiPah:

I was thinking about changes like the HUD display of the previous portal and lessoning available portal space, they are minimal but help beginning players not get stuck. There was also the addition of paints, a huge new element of gameplay, and instead of valve talking about how the gamer will love these changes they showed gameplay videos on how players interacted with the paint making everyone look forward to Portal 2.

I think it's similar to what Rockstar does with GTA, if they had made a press release saying "We're shifting our focus to be much more realistic to get more fans" there would have been a shit storm, but they just showed some very realistic trailers and people were fine (at least until they played the game).

I don't really see how thats changing it to "suit a broader audience"

people have called Portal "basically a turorial" and I think those things you mentioned are an example of how good Valve are at easing you into the gameplay...and the gel is a gameplay inovation/somthing new..thats got nothing to do with reaching a bigger audience

now if Valve had given us enemies to shoot in the "traditional" sense (pow! pow! youre dead!) then that would have been an obvious attepmt at "broadening the audience" but Valve are to classey for that

canadamus_prime:
Whether it was first or third person is irrelevant, the point is that it wasn't from an isometric viewpoint or turn based like it's predecessors.

rhizhim:
[quote="Vault101" post="9.380836.14984500"][quote="rhizhim" post="9.380836.14984479"]snip.

really all were arguing about are definitions

I just don't like calling it a FPS because due to all the baggage attatched to that word I feel it does the game a disservice...I guess you could call it a FPS but I'm more comfortable with RPG...I guess I could be wrong

on another note anyone who calls Mass Effect or Gears of war a FPS needs to be shot in the face

Vault101:

canadamus_prime:
Whether it was first or third person is irrelevant, the point is that it wasn't from an isometric viewpoint or turn based like it's predecessors.

really all were arguing about are definitions

I just don't like calling it a FPS because due to all the baggage attatched to that word I feel it does the game a disservice...I guess you could call it a FPS but I'm more comfortable with RPG...I guess I could be wrong

on another note anyone who calls Mass Effect or Gears of war a FPS needs to be shot in the face

Yes I realize that. Definitions which were really beside the point entirely.

And I understand what you're saying about calling it an FPS, but if I recall his original post, he didn't call it an FPS, he just said it was in first person, which is true. However lots of games are in the first person that aren't shooters, hell Myst is in first person and that sure as hell isn't a shooter. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim are also in the first person, but they're not shooters (yes, I know they also have a 3rd person mode too, but it isn't the default).

Vault101:

canadamus_prime:
Whether it was first or third person is irrelevant, the point is that it wasn't from an isometric viewpoint or turn based like it's predecessors.

rhizhim:
[quote="Vault101" post="9.380836.14984500"][quote="rhizhim" post="9.380836.14984479"]snip.

really all were arguing about are definitions

I just don't like calling it a FPS because due to all the baggage attatched to that word I feel it does the game a disservice...I guess you could call it a FPS but I'm more comfortable with RPG...I guess I could be wrong

on another note anyone who calls Mass Effect or Gears of war a FPS needs to be shot in the face

i think that the problem is that you have interconnected/associate the word/perspective 'first person' with shooters.

okay, fallout, in my opinion just relies too much on its shooter elementa so i do not consider it a real or good fallout title.

look back at my posts, i told you that fallout 3 is the worst in the fallout series since it relies too much on its shooter elements.

i even told you that all fallout titles have shooter elements.

but the first 2 and somewhat new vegas are well balanced and you can cleary see that the story is better, there are different paths to solve a problem and put more details and love in the world. and they even bothered to evolve the wasteland with its factions.

for example in every fallout title made from the original devs you have to fight against different enemies.

fallout 1 - the master and mutants (black isle)
fallout 2 - the enclave(black isle)
fallout 3 - (lazy) enclave (bethesda)
fallout new vegas - NCR, the legion and excentric genius. (obsidian former black isle)

in recap: i told you that fallout 3 plays in the first person perspective(default)
and its a piece of shit.(subjective)

thats all.
---------

and why would someone call mass effect or gears a FPS? are there really people who dont know the difference?
image
third person TPX -----------------------------------------------------------first person FPX

is it so hard to differentiate?

next example

a first person puzzle platformer
image

a third person puzzle platformer
image


do people need more examples?

SweetShark:
Many times in the past and of course now recently, we saw many Videogame series get alienate for many different reasons.
Some developers say they wanted to try to make the series more darker and more serious that the previous games [Bomberman Zero], some others said they wanted to tell a different story than the original had [Devil May Cry 2012], some others wanted to change the gameplay entirely and make it a different style of game [Xcom 2012, the FPS], etc, etc...

When something like that happen, many people start rage to the developers for not trying to make the make like the original.
They rage for the new look of the main character, they rage for complete change of the gameplay, they rage for some tiny details that maked the game unique and the list go on...

With that said.....
Why we don't see this kind of rage in some other Videogames that they as well changed a lot from the original games?

Why for example they didn't raged about the Doom 3? Doom 3 is a very good example of alienation of the original game. Doom 3 have a different look, the monsters doesn't exacly the same, diffeent type of action, the horror elements etc, etc...
But yet, the fan of the series [like me] didn't make it something so serious that believed it will "murder" the series.

Another example is Resident Evil 4. Seriously, the developers make the biggest alienation and stick with it in the others titles cause it had success. They made the Resident Evil series from a pure horror series, to a Fast-Third Person-Action B-movie series.
But again, never I saw a serious negative reaction for this game.

Of course there are many, MANY examples I can say [The Anime like Lost Planet, Metal Gear Solid Card game, etc...], but why we see this rage in specific games and not in some other game even they clearly changes a lot of things?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF_OtG3vDmY

If you like a game, you like a game. If you don't like one, you don't. Who cares what "alienation" is made. All that matters is if it's fun or good or not.

rhizhim:
[snip?

I wasn't arguing about how good/bad Fallout 3 was..just its def-

you know this is getting pointless

and some people do..they think shooter and FPS are the same thing...or "close enough" again...same thing there

SweetShark:
Another example is Resident Evil 4. Seriously, the developers make the biggest alienation and stick with it in the others titles cause it had success. They made the Resident Evil series from a pure horror series, to a Fast-Third Person-Action B-movie series.
But again, never I saw a serious negative reaction for this game.

Resident Evil was getting stagnant as hell after RE 3, and Resident Evil 4 cleaned house and got rid of all that convoluted bullshit the series had become. Plus, it was one of the best games ever made.

Not that a lot of people weren't still complaining about it though.

Vault101:

rhizhim:
[snip?

I wasn't arguing about how good/bad Fallout 3 was..just its def-

you know this is getting pointless

and some people do..they think shooter and FPS are the same thing...or "close enough" again...same thing there

AWGODINTHEHEAVENS!
image
-----------
i never thought i would see a person so stubborn....like me.

okay lets change the discussion.

do you think gearbox will do something good with the duke nukem IP?

do you think they will ever release the xcom shooter and will we get more realistic foes than cubes, rectangles and liquids you, hold you horses, can shoot dead.

rhizhim:

Vault101:

rhizhim:
[snip?

I wasn't arguing about how good/bad Fallout 3 was..just its def-

you know this is getting pointless

and some people do..they think shooter and FPS are the same thing...or "close enough" again...same thing there

AWGODINTHEHEAVENS!
image
-----------
i never thought i would see a person so stubborn....like me.

okay lets change the discussion.

do you think gearbox will do something good with the duke nukem IP?

do you think they will ever release the xcom shooter and will we get more realistic foes than cubes, rectangles and liquids you, hold you horses, can shoot dead.

wait...what are we talking about again?...

just for clarification I didn't mean I think shooter is "close enough" to FPS as far as descriptions of games go....I hate that, some people disregard the F in FPS...but not me

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked