Bioshock versus Mario Galaxy

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

SMG is polishing up any old mario game they took the sereis in a different direction your making it seem as if nintendo just slapped a new coat of paint on a mario platformer and called it a day.

Why not have innovation like mario galaxys and deep graphical immersion like bioshock at the same time there no need to choose. :)

Bioshock is innovative. Mario isnt...

Mario is kiddy/casual. Bioshock is deep, complex.

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

JohnGerstmann

What do you mean by "mature"? If you are trying to make the case that shooters and dark games are 'mature' and Mario is kiddy, then YOU are the one who is immature, sir. Anyone who believes the types of games they play defines them as human beings is too immature and ignorant to be taken seriously in my opinion. I have no respect for these people and they are not gamers. They are posers, more concerned with their friends validation than actual gaming. More concerned with their insecurities than anything else. Grow up and then come talk to me about games.

If you mean "mature" as in pushing gaming forward...I think they are equal. Both games take old and tired genres and breath new life into them.

[QUOTE="JohnGerstmann"]

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

ZIMdoom

What do you mean by "mature"? If you are trying to make the case that shooters and dark games are 'mature' and Mario is kiddy, then YOU are the one who is immature, sir. Anyone who believes the types of games they play defines them as human beings is too immature and ignorant to be taken seriously in my opinion. I have no respect for these people and they are not gamers. They are posers, more concerned with their friends validation than actual gaming. More concerned with their insecurities than anything else. Grow up and then come talk to me about games.

If you mean "mature" as in pushing gaming forward...I think they are equal. Both games take old and tired genres and breath new life into them.

Bioshock is innovative. Mario isnt...

Mario is kiddy/casual. Bioshock is deep, complex.

krp008

why elses would it sales be so good ? Just because its s shooter dosent means its "hardcore" automatically SMG is a great mix of both hardcore elements and casual play (the co-op) so calling it "kiddy" is just your excuse to why you think the game is just "casual"

Bioshock is innovative. Mario isnt...

Mario is kiddy/casual. Bioshock is deep, complex.

krp008

The whole argument about the mature content coming from the Nintendo fans is laughable. Bioshock is a title that does not force a lot of violence on the player in an 'in your face' kind of way. It merely exists in the game as a means of amplifying the terror going on around you. It's well done and really adds to the gameplay experience. "Bu, bu, teh mature games are really for immature, insecure people..."

What a joke of a statement that is. :lol:

Why are wii owners getting all upset? I didn't say or mean anything negative about mario galaxies. I enjoy it. you guys seem a bit over sensitive about videogames. sheesh.JohnGerstmann

Your making it seem like mario galaxy is a new coat of paint and thats its while praising bioshock for its "graphical immersion". Both games have amazing graphics and immerse you in the atmosphere so you should of just put them in the same category.

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

JohnGerstmann

What's so innovative about BioShock? I don't know about you, but randomly finding snippets of text or speech here and there doesn't constitute "storytelling" to me.

I think concentrating on story is the WRONG thing for developers to do. Storytelling is NOT a strength of gaming. Rather, it's a weakness. Game stories can never be as good as those in books or even in movies, so why are game developers spending so much time trying to emulate movies? Games should get their emotional strength mainly from GAMEPLAY, not story.

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

JohnGerstmann

Both direction are great.

Both are pretty easy and not challenging at all, from what I have played.

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

TekkenMaster606

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

killtactics

Terrible art style? Hey, we can go back and forth arguing our personal opinions all day long. Fact of the matter is that as a whole, the gaming press and gamers everywhere have praised the wonderful art direction and art style implemented by 2K Boston and Bioshock. It's more atmospheric than Metroid Prime, IMO.

[QUOTE="JohnGerstmann"]

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

mjarantilla

What's so innovative about BioShock? I don't know about you, but randomly finding snippets of text or speech here and there doesn't constitute "storytelling" to me.

I think concentrating on story is the WRONG thing for developers to do. Storytelling is NOT a strength of gaming. Rather, it's a weakness. Game stories can never be as good as those in books or even in movies, so why are game developers spending so much time trying to emulate movies? Games should get their emotional strength mainly from GAMEPLAY, not story.

Bioshock is innovative. Mario isnt...

Mario is kiddy/casual. Bioshock is deep, complex.

krp008

ah... how little you know.

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

killtactics

wow, there's something i've never heard before.:shock:

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

TekkenMaster606

Terrible art style? Hey, we can go back and forth arguing our personal opinions all day long. Fact of the matter is that as a whole, the gaming press and gamers everywhere have praised the wonderful art direction and art style implemented by 2K Boston and Bioshock. It's more atmospheric than Metroid Prime, IMO.

even I would agree to that.

SMG is polishing up any old mario game they took the sereis in a different direction your making it seem as if nintendo just slapped a new coat of paint on a mario platformer and called it a day.

Why not have innovation like mario galaxys and deep graphical immersion like bioshock at the same time there no need to choose. :)

Gh0st_Of_0nyx

So? Bioshock is nothing more than a polished up System Shock 2.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

TekkenMaster606

Terrible art style? Hey, we can go back and forth arguing our personal opinions all day long. Fact of the matter is that as a whole, the gaming press and gamers everywhere have praised the wonderful art direction and art style implemented by 2K Boston and Bioshock. It's more atmospheric than Metroid Prime, IMO.

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

killtactics

Terrible art style? Hey, we can go back and forth arguing our personal opinions all day long. Fact of the matter is that as a whole, the gaming press and gamers everywhere have praised the wonderful art direction and art style implemented by 2K Boston and Bioshock. It's more atmospheric than Metroid Prime, IMO.

genetic mutations due toan overdose of ADAM, did you not understand the game??? :?

The GotY's come down to these two games for me, but the initial post may be insulting to SMG. For me platformers are the most realistic games, but that's off-topic.

Jeff Gerstmann, Ricardo Torres, Shane Shatterfield, Andy McNamara, and Dan Hsu were on the VGA panel. The editors in chief of GameSpot, Game Informer, and EGM, with three or four current or former GameSpot editors. They gave it to BioShock, and before that Britain gave it to BioShock (BAFTA awards). Tonight is X-Play's GotY.

Personally I want BioShock to win, but it's two for two, and I hope SMG starts winning some. I don't see how anyone can have a personal GotY; for me they can just have their preference or favorite. GotY has to be some sort of legitimate award, and you're either right or wrong predicting a game will win or can't win, which is nice because it's one of the few chances to prove people wrong. :)

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="JohnGerstmann"]

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

killtactics

What's so innovative about BioShock? I don't know about you, but randomly finding snippets of text or speech here and there doesn't constitute "storytelling" to me.

I think concentrating on story is the WRONG thing for developers to do. Storytelling is NOT a strength of gaming. Rather, it's a weakness. Game stories can never be as good as those in books or even in movies, so why are game developers spending so much time trying to emulate movies? Games should get their emotional strength mainly from GAMEPLAY, not story.

Here's an analogy for you to chew on:

Do authors try to add illustrations to their books to make it better? No, because illustrations are not the strength of the literature art style. Likewise, do filmmakers try to improve their plotlines in their movies? Sometimes, but not really, because plotlines that are too complex can hurt a movie more than it can help it.

Most if not all art styles also draw upon other art styles to enhance the final product, but they don't focus on those other art styles. Art styles have their own techniques to draw upon. This is why video games can't be considered an art style yet: developers rely way, WAY too much on film techniques rather than GAMEPLAY techniques to improve their games.

And no, MGS can NOT be put up with the best books, or even the best movies. I wish people would stop saying that, seriously. The only reason people praise MGS's story is because 2/3 of the game is composed of cutscenes, which basically DOES make it a movie. Basically, MGS practically proves the notion that the only way for a video game to deliver a good storyline is to make it so much like a movie that it practically stops being a video game. Same with JRPGs. The best MGS has is a load of background information, but I would never call its story "amazing."

a tough question TC. there both class games. they have also brought alot to the industry in there own way.

galaxy has raised the bar for clever level design and tight controls in its genre. its basically taken the whole industry back to school, the game is a master piece. this is not a poke back for a spit and polish, galaxy is a step foreward in basic game mechanics and its something every dev should get around to playing and learning from. even games like halo and, yes, bioshock could learn alot from this sucker. galaxy is an update in gameplay 101.

as for bioshock. well its not a great shooter imho, its basically like doom 3....just running down corridors and shooting stuff. so in terms of gameplay theres not alot to learn from it (basically nothing, other games like deus ex do a far better job). however (and its a big however) bioshock has really pushed foreward on the story tellng and atmosphere front. it doesent try to tell the story like a movie( like halo does say...halo has game play followed by in game cinematic where the camera behaves liema movie), it tells it in a way that for more suitable for games. for years the industry has been looking for better ways to tell its tales, a way that could be unique to games and play to its strengths. well bioshock is the beginning of this and it has set the standard of what we should expect. it hasnt solved all the problems (what if its a strategy games....how can that progress on the story telling front) but its a big step up. as for atmosphere, again devs can learn much from it. the attention to detail in bioshock is just fanrtastic, not just in visuals but also in the sound (a very important element of games thats sadly neglected).

which is more important? in the end i think the advancement of gameplay and game mechanics is the most important element, whether it means going back to the basics and doing a twist on em or coming up with something brand new on the gameplay side. in the end this is paramount and it should be the top priority of every dev. if this element stands still then its going to make the industry stand still.

but the advancement in other areas is also very important. at the mo, when it comes to story telling, the games industry is trying to become like the movie industry. it has already largely succeeded but its also backfiring badly. games are not movies. there not like movies, they have very litle in common with movies and the industries attempts to try and become interactive movies was a bad mistake. its a rut that the industry needs to get itslef out of now so it can find its own way to tell a story or to have an adventure.

the best games though are the ones that push foreward on all those fronts. alot of games only push tech and graphics and it shows. the best game ever made (DE1 on PC) was the first game to successfully merge RPG and FPS gameplay (with a hint of stealth for good measure). so gameplay was pushed foreward. story telling: well DE1 did use cutscenesfor conversations butit kept them short and the player was always in control. it told its tale in its own way though. even games like MP and bioshock owe some of there success in story telling to DE1. level design: open plan with multiple routes to solving a problem. this is actually something that very very few games actually do and its a terrible shame imho. i could go on.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="JohnGerstmann"]

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

JayPee89

What do you mean by "mature"? If you are trying to make the case that shooters and dark games are 'mature' and Mario is kiddy, then YOU are the one who is immature, sir. Anyone who believes the types of games they play defines them as human beings is too immature and ignorant to be taken seriously in my opinion. I have no respect for these people and they are not gamers. They are posers, more concerned with their friends validation than actual gaming. More concerned with their insecurities than anything else. Grow up and then come talk to me about games.

If you mean "mature" as in pushing gaming forward...I think they are equal. Both games take old and tired genres and breath new life into them.

Prideful Ego confirmed......

If calling Wii owners sensitive, Labeling games as kiddy/casual will make you all feel mature..... then go ahead my friends and let your egos grow, whatever makes you feel better. An object is not mature forif you look/listen to the ratings it says "17 FOR mature, E FOR everyone, etc" All the nonsense, tacky, and just plain stupid online ramblings confirm that 17+ != maturity

I haven't played BS so I not going to critique it much, but from what I heard it has a very good storyline which I like to have for games like that. It still aFPS competing in a generation plague withthem but so far it seems to have the best story.SMG is one of the few platformers here, and yet it does uses a lot of shperical and gravitational physic elements to be considered different even though it is the same (get the stars) plot.

Too much thought in too who push what in the future. Publishers makes games and hopes we play them. Play the game. Enjoy!

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="JohnGerstmann"]

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

JayPee89

What do you mean by "mature"? If you are trying to make the case that shooters and dark games are 'mature' and Mario is kiddy, then YOU are the one who is immature, sir. Anyone who believes the types of games they play defines them as human beings is too immature and ignorant to be taken seriously in my opinion. I have no respect for these people and they are not gamers. They are posers, more concerned with their friends validation than actual gaming. More concerned with their insecurities than anything else. Grow up and then come talk to me about games.

If you mean "mature" as in pushing gaming forward...I think they are equal. Both games take old and tired genres and breath new life into them.

Am I wrong? Seriously...as I wrong. And I'm not a sheep, I'm a GAMER. Both games are great and have received a TON of widespread critical praise. That is praise from people who are both real gamers AND mature. Are they less mature than the tc because they love Mario Galazy?

Maybe take a second to think about what I've said and whether or not I am right, instead of just shooting your mouth off and making fanboy assumptions.

The whole argument about the mature content coming from the Nintendo fans is laughable. Bioshock is a title that does not force a lot of violence on the player in an 'in your face' kind of way. It merely exists in the game as a means of amplifying the terror going on around you. It's well done and really adds to the gameplay experience. "Bu, bu, teh mature games are really for immature, insecure people..."

What a joke of a statement that is. :lol:

TekkenMaster606

I think the joke is your inability to understand a very simple point.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

samusarmada

Terrible art style? Hey, we can go back and forth arguing our personal opinions all day long. Fact of the matter is that as a whole, the gaming press and gamers everywhere have praised the wonderful art direction and art style implemented by 2K Boston and Bioshock. It's more atmospheric than Metroid Prime, IMO.

genetic mutations due toan overdose of ADAM, did you not understand the game??? :?

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

TekkenMaster606

System Shock 2 says hi.

I think Bioshock is a great step forward for the FPS genre as a whole. It's innovation and leaps don't really mean much to other genres...

Except for the fact that a developer other than Epic got the Unreal Engine looking spectacular. :lol:

TekkenMaster606

What innovation? there is none.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="JohnGerstmann"]

Ok, before you jump to conclusions, I am not talking about comparing those two games in the literal sense.

I am talking about which direction do you think is more important for helping the game industry to mature. Do you think going back and polishing up a retro / old-school platformer franchises is the more important direction, or do you think the industry should concentrate on new, more mature themes, graphical immersion and advanced storylines and plots? Which is helping the industry advance the most?

mjarantilla

What's so innovative about BioShock? I don't know about you, but randomly finding snippets of text or speech here and there doesn't constitute "storytelling" to me.

I think concentrating on story is the WRONG thing for developers to do. Storytelling is NOT a strength of gaming. Rather, it's a weakness. Game stories can never be as good as those in books or even in movies, so why are game developers spending so much time trying to emulate movies? Games should get their emotional strength mainly from GAMEPLAY, not story.

Here's an analogy for you to chew on:

Do authors try to add illustrations to their books to make it better? No, because illustrations are not the strength of the literature art style. Likewise, do filmmakers try to improve their plotlines in their movies? Sometimes, but not really, because plotlines that are too complex can hurt a movie more than it can help it.

Most if not all art styles also draw upon other art styles to enhance the final product, but they don't focus on those other art styles. Art styles have their own techniques to draw upon. This is why video games can't be considered an art style yet: developers rely way, WAY too much on film techniques rather than GAMEPLAY techniques to improve their games.

And no, MGS can NOT be put up with the best books, or even the best movies. I wish people would stop saying that, seriously. The only reason people praise MGS's story is because 2/3 of the game is composed of cutscenes, which basically DOES make it a movie. Basically, MGS practically proves the notion that the only way for a video game to deliver a good storyline is to make it so much like a movie that it practically stops being a video game. Same with JRPGs. The best MGS has is a load of background information, but I would never call its story "amazing."

I would actually have to say that mario galaxy is far more inovative than bioshock... as i played bioshock a few years back... it was called system shock 2 then and it was in space not underwater.

as for galaxy i had never played anything like it before. it is so far removed from the typical platformer while bioshock is system shock 2 with a new coat of paint.

not to say bioshock is not a great game. is it and i love it. but where i played bioshock through once and i am kind of playing it through again off and on. i played galaxy through twice. once as mario and once as luigi.

i wish bioshock let you load a save file to start the game with all your plasimids. i probably would have played through it a second and third time by now if they had that. it is the reason i played masseffect through a second time.

illustrations are't important or needed.... storys in games are...MGS games are not 2/3 (way to make things up to prove a point) cutscnses...and the gameplay in MGS games are very well done... MGS2 had one of the breatest twists in a game ever, i never experianced anything like it in a movie or book... MGS3 had one of the greatest endings ever.... killtactics

First, I was exaggerating about the cutscenes, but you cannot deny that MGS has a terribly high proportion of cutscenes to actual gameplay compared to other games.

And I'm sorry, but if you're talking about the twist in MGS2 being Liquid living inside Revolver Ocelot, then you've GOT to read more books. Not to read more twists like that, but to gain some perspective so that you can realize that twists like that are absolute and utter CRAP.

A good plot twist is one that makes sense, but flies in so well under the radar that when it hits, you're smacking your head in disbelief that you didn't see it coming.

Second, you're right, stories are much more important to games than illustrations are to books. But how important are stories to films? Not very; acting performance, scriptwriting, and directorial skill are far more important than actual plot. In general, movie plots are so simple you could encapsulate them in a 15-20 page short story. In fact, some of the best movies WERE short stories (Blade Runner and Minority Report come to mind). The same should be true for video games, because with video games, GAMEPLAY should be paramount. Not story.

[QUOTE="killtactics"]

illustrations are't important or needed.... storys in games are...MGS games are not 2/3 (way to make things up to prove a point) cutscnses...and the gameplay in MGS games are very well done... MGS2 had one of the breatest twists in a game ever, i never experianced anything like it in a movie or book... MGS3 had one of the greatest endings ever.... mjarantilla

First, I was exaggerating about the cutscenes, but you cannot deny that MGS has a terribly high proportion of cutscenes to actual gameplay compared to other games.

And I'm sorry, but if you're talking about the twist in MGS2 being Liquid living inside Revolver Ocelot, then you've GOT to read more books. Not to read more twists like that, but to gain some perspective so that you can realize that twists like that are absolute and utter CRAP.

A good plot twist is one that makes sense, but flies in so well under the radar that when it hits, you're smacking your head in disbelief that you didn't see it coming.

Second, you're right, stories are much more important to games than illustrations are to books. But how important are stories to films? Not very; acting performance, scriptwriting, and directorial skill are far more important than actual plot. In general, movie plots are so simple you could encapsulate them in a 15-20 page short story. In fact, some of the best movies WERE short stories (Blade Runner and Minority Report come to mind). The same should be true for video games, because with video games, GAMEPLAY should be paramount. Not story.

and lol no i was not talking about revolover ocelot, i was talking about the part where you learn about the 13 patriots and how they control America and the S3 project (turly some very unique stuff there)... also any human who played MGS3 has to see how wonderfull the ending was... you were forced to kill big boss, then later you learn what a scarfice she made... it almost made me tear up

lastly i must say i could not dissagree more... the most important thing in a movie is a good story and acting... after all a movie is simply a different way of telling a story as aposed to reading a book... i really have no idea where you are comming with this, unless you think all movies need is guns and explosions....

The whole argument about the mature content coming from the Nintendo fans is laughable. Bioshock is a title that does not force a lot of violence on the player in an 'in your face' kind of way. It merely exists in the game as a means of amplifying the terror going on around you. It's well done and really adds to the gameplay experience. "Bu, bu, teh mature games are really for immature, insecure people..."

What a joke of a statement that is. :lol:

TekkenMaster606

Anyone can give an insta-rebuttal to a perfectly valid argument by putting "bu bu bu," in front of it and throwingin a few "teh"'s. How about you actually address his point?

Its not the mere enjoyment of "mature" games that makes one insecure, it's the knee-jerk aversion to anything "kiddy" (i.e. colorful and non-violent). Many so-called "hardcore" gamers will deliberately shun the Wii for the exact same reason they won't be seen eating a banana in public; to do either would, in their minds, severely damage their macho outward image.

Yes, these are bold statements, but I feel they are proven when I see SW littered with such statements as "True gamers stay as far away from the Wii as possible". "True gamer" status is not defined by what they play, but why what they avoid playing.

I'm not saying you're one of these people, but I don't think anyone can honestly deny their widespread existance.

Bioshock (albeit a good game) hasn't reinvented the FPS, general game design, or anything.

It told a relatively fresh story very well, added some features with weaponary,(like plasmids or whatever there called), and focuses on a strong single player instead the other 75% of the 360's library.

Super Mario Galaxy reinvented itself, and platformers. As you can see the effect it had on other games in its genre like R&C.

Thing is honestly, the only really new ideas in video games recently, that even came close to complete originality is games like Okami.

I don't think anyone will win a arguement ( a long arguement that is) that Bioshock has effected the FPS formula more than say, Half-Life 2.

Face it, no matter how cool Bioshock is, no matter how succsessful it may be. People, and I mean Devs. and consumers don't want it as much as they want to push out ripoffs. How Bullet Witch, Hour of Victory, Dark Sector, Fracture are trying to copy from Resident Evil 4, Halo, and Call of Duty respectively.

Metroid Prime is considered one of the greatest games of all-time but do you see Vivendi or EA making clones?

No, coz its too hardcore for the masses to get into and though it is a great game they don't want to always make a generally great game coz great games don't always sell.

Bioshock got traded in at the store I work at by dozens of customers just the week after it came out not because it was bad, but they said they couldn't get into it and didn't like its style.

And these are the same people who play Halo 3, Gears of War online all the time. (BTW i'm noticing this same trend for Mass Effect and it saddens me)

I think 360 customers are getting pretty fickel, or at least pigeon-holed coz the ones I meet, the "casuals" if you will only appreciate things that have online deathmatches and not Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Orange Box.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="killtactics"]

illustrations are't important or needed.... storys in games are...MGS games are not 2/3 (way to make things up to prove a point) cutscnses...and the gameplay in MGS games are very well done... MGS2 had one of the breatest twists in a game ever, i never experianced anything like it in a movie or book... MGS3 had one of the greatest endings ever.... killtactics

First, I was exaggerating about the cutscenes, but you cannot deny that MGS has a terribly high proportion of cutscenes to actual gameplay compared to other games.

And I'm sorry, but if you're talking about the twist in MGS2 being Liquid living inside Revolver Ocelot, then you've GOT to read more books. Not to read more twists like that, but to gain some perspective so that you can realize that twists like that are absolute and utter CRAP.

A good plot twist is one that makes sense, but flies in so well under the radar that when it hits, you're smacking your head in disbelief that you didn't see it coming.

Second, you're right, stories are much more important to games than illustrations are to books. But how important are stories to films? Not very; acting performance, scriptwriting, and directorial skill are far more important than actual plot. In general, movie plots are so simple you could encapsulate them in a 15-20 page short story. In fact, some of the best movies WERE short stories (Blade Runner and Minority Report come to mind). The same should be true for video games, because with video games, GAMEPLAY should be paramount. Not story.

and lol no i was not talking about revolover ocelot, i was talking about the part where you learn about the 13 patriots and how they control America and the S3 project (turly some very unique stuff there)... also any human who played MGS3 has to see how wonderfull the ending was... you were forced to kill big boss, then later you learn what a scarfice she made... it almost made me tear up

lastly i must say i could not dissagree more... the most important thing in a movie is a good story and acting... after all a movie is simply a different way of telling a story as aposed to reading a book... i really have no idea where you are comming with this, unless you think all movies need is guns and explosions....

First, if you don't watch the cutscenes in MGS, what does that leave you with?

Second, good. I haven't played MGS2, so I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I don't see how it's that great of a twist, but w/e.

Third, film is a very, very compact story format. Like I said, most movies barely have enough plot to fill up a short story. That doesn't mean their stories aren't good, but it does mean that movies do not focus on their stories because they never have much time to develop them. Like I said, in general, acting performance and direction are far more important to a movie's overall quality than the actual plot. There are exceptions to the rule, but they're just that: exceptions.

so basically your asking if in the future we should make a sequal to a game, change the name, then make it heavily watered down and add pretty graphics to appeal to casuals? versus a game that gets a review like this?

When all is said and done, the thing that really makes Super Mario Galaxy such a standout game isn't the fact that it's another Mario game, but the fact that it doesn't even need to be a Mario game to be successful. Sure, it's got all the nostalgic flavor Mario fans would want, with the updated soundtrack, familiar foes, and various other Mario-related bric-a-brac scattered throughout the adventure, but the game never leans on these nostalgic aspects as a crutch. It instead puts the whole of its focus on its gameplay design, and with good reason. You could probably swap in just about any other characters from practically any other franchise, and this would still be a phenomenally fun game. That it layers all these memorable characters and components on top of that phenomenal design just makes it all the sweeter. If ever there were a must-own Wii game, Super Mario Galaxy is it.