graphics are more important than some sheep think

when playing a game, the one thing i want more than most others is a good story. one which can draw me in the same way a film does. the prettier the graphics, the more cinematic the experience, and in my opinion, the better the story becomes.

in games like gears of war, the graphics are good, and so is the story, but do you think the story would be anywhere near as engrossing if the graphics were sub standard?

the same can be said about things like rainbow six vegas and oblivion. these games just wouldnt be the same if played on the wii.

to me, it seems like the wii is good for pick up and play games, party games and puzzle games, but i am yet to play a game on the wii with a story that is as cinematic as a lot of the things on the ps3 and 360.

of course this is just my opinion, and by arguing you are only really making a fool of yourself. id just like to hear your views in the most mild manner possible.

So you're saying without flashbang graphics Gears wouldn't be that good.

That really says loads for the gameplay.

that may be your opinion but you clearly haven't actually played or looked into the development of many wii games. making your opinion based on ignorance.

Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.martin_f

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

Gameplay matter more than grapchis, though grapchis do matter not as much. - sheep

cows said the other way...

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.Dr_Neptune

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

If it was 600 dollars it woulda been less attractive to everyone, including myself, and sales would be *ahem* PS3 level.

We can all sit here and cry about our hurt ZOMG HARDCORE egos being hurt, but Nintendo is still banking on their plan.

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.Dr_Neptune

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

:lol: KID YOU GOT NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE ON THAT. NOT ONE

causals could care less about grapchis

...weren't Gears and Oblivion bashed because they had too little story? :?Hewkii

not oblivion but Gears was and thats when the TC lost credibility, Gears has no story, its "okay here's a gun, no aim for the head, okay Marcus?"

[QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.wavebrid

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

:lol: KID YOU GOT NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE ON THAT. NOT ONE

causals could care less about grapchis

are you saying 'kid' based on my gamespot level? i believe the soul reason the wii is selling well is the low price, and the new audiences it is targeting.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]...weren't Gears and Oblivion bashed because they had too little story? :?CQCmasta

not oblivion but Gears was and thats when the TC lost credibility, Gears has no story, its "okay here's a gun, no aim for the head, okay Marcus?"

[QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.wavebrid

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

:lol: KID YOU GOT NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE ON THAT. NOT ONE

causals could care less about grapchis

Casuals do care about graphics. Non-gamers, like grandparents, housewives etc don't. What we call casuals are the guys that have a console but don't make it their first priority.

Anyway, the more we get to more detailed graphics, the less room for imagination it breathes. Remember playing Doom? Your imagination filled in the gaps that your MS DOS computer could not.

And quite frankly, games like Shadow of the Colossus gave a more "cinematic" experience than games such as, say, Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox did.

[QUOTE="CQCmasta"]

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]...weren't Gears and Oblivion bashed because they had too little story? :?Hewkii

not oblivion but Gears was and thats when the TC lost credibility, Gears has no story, its "okay here's a gun, no aim for the head, okay Marcus?"

Just compared to Morrowind, Oblivion was nothing. Kinda stereotypical actually.

ArtstyIe >>> Fancy graphicsfoxhound_fox

Which is why I find Heavenly Sword and Bioshock more visually impressive than Crysis.

[QUOTE="CQCmasta"]

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]...weren't Gears and Oblivion bashed because they had too little story? :?Hewkii

not oblivion but Gears was and thats when the TC lost credibility, Gears has no story, its "okay here's a gun, no aim for the head, okay Marcus?"

Not Oblivion, it was nominated for story of the year, the story is pretty good in Oblivion trust me.

[QUOTE="wavebrid"][QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.Dr_Neptune

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

:lol: KID YOU GOT NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE ON THAT. NOT ONE

causals could care less about grapchis

are you saying 'kid' based on my gamespot level? i believe the soul reason the wii is selling well is the low price, and the new audiences it is targeting.

No the leve means nothing,

If it was the reason wouldnt Gamecube would of OUTSOLD THE OTHERS IT DIDNT!

the reason wii is selling

wii sports

vc list

wiiremote

games...

those are the soul reason of course the price has factor not as much.

causal walks into gamestop.... we got a ps2 game in ps3 system (as the system will only take demo games)

and the guy gose look at those ps3 grapchis. WHEN IN FACT IT IS A PS2 GAME.

that is what you call a casuals.

[QUOTE="wavebrid"][QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.Dr_Neptune

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

:lol: KID YOU GOT NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE ON THAT. NOT ONE

causals could care less about grapchis

are you saying 'kid' based on my gamespot level? i believe the soul reason the wii is selling well is the low price, and the new audiences it is targeting.

pretty wrong actually, some post e3 reporting i read said only 10% of wii purchases were made by people that did not own a video game system last generation. the appeal to casuals, as stated repeatedly by nintendo, lies in the passerbys that see the wii, and then want their own.

ArtstyIe >>> Fancy graphicsfoxhound_fox

amen to that.

[QUOTE="wavebrid"][QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.FrozenLiquid

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

:lol: KID YOU GOT NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE ON THAT. NOT ONE

causals could care less about grapchis

Casuals do care about graphics. Non-gamers, like grandparents, housewives etc don't. What we call casuals are the guys that have a console but don't make it their first priority.

Anyway, the more we get to more detailed graphics, the less room for imagination it breathes. Remember playing Doom? Your imagination filled in the gaps that your MS DOS computer could not.

And quite frankly, games like Shadow of the Colossus gave a more "cinematic" experience than games such as, say, Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox did.

:roll: if causals were paying attetion to grapchis XBOX would of won cube in second and ps2 in thrid THATS NOT THE FACTOR.

so you are wrong. GET USE TO IT.

it is still on another console a port from last gen game... why do you want it?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]ArtstyIe >>> Fancy graphicsXerlaoth

amen to that.

when playing a game, the one thing i want more than most others is a good story.Dr_Neptune

Really? You play games for the story? You've chosen like the worst possible medium for story telling. You're lucky to get one game a year with an ok story, let alone a good story. Games suffer from terrible plots, cliche and amatuer dialog, and terrible voice acting (if there even is voice acting).

Games can get cinematic with their use of camera, graphics, and sound.. but the stories are generally terrible. You need only look at the terrible game-based movies to see what happens when a game has to rely on it's story.

Sorry, but graphics do nothing to make a game more fun, or to make the sotry more interesting. FFIV does a fine job of telling a story without having realistic graphics.

[QUOTE="Xerlaoth"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]ArtstyIe >>> Fancy graphicshaols

amen to that.

so you rather have no great story... but great grapchis :?

anyways though thats just you.. people dohnt like art****sometimes in games and thats fine. as long as you explin why you dislike it. as you did above me.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="wavebrid"][QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]

[QUOTE="martin_f"]Why didn't Nintendo make the Wii back in 2002-03 Its got the same Tech capabilities,
They should have moved forward, not brought out a gimmick.wavebrid

the wii would be incredible if it had graphics on par with the 360 or PS3. it would also have been more attractive to casuals. would have been good if nintendo had done that.

:lol: KID YOU GOT NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE ON THAT. NOT ONE

causals could care less about grapchis

Casuals do care about graphics. Non-gamers, like grandparents, housewives etc don't. What we call casuals are the guys that have a console but don't make it their first priority.

Anyway, the more we get to more detailed graphics, the less room for imagination it breathes. Remember playing Doom? Your imagination filled in the gaps that your MS DOS computer could not.

And quite frankly, games like Shadow of the Colossus gave a more "cinematic" experience than games such as, say, Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox did.

:roll: if causals were paying attetion to grapchis XBOX would of won cube in second and ps2 in thrid THATS NOT THE FACTOR.

so you are wrong. GET USE TO IT.

it is still on another console a port from last gen game... why do you want it?

Go watch MTV and see a clip of Chris Brown talking about his most favourite game GTA. He says one of the reasons why he likes it are "great graphics" :roll:

Also, I mix with the casual crowd. All my friends are casuals. The boys just won't stop talking about the graphics on the PS3 or 360. Sure, games like WoW are an exception to the rule, but to outright say that they don't care about graphics is actually pretty stupid.

[QUOTE="Xerlaoth"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]ArtstyIe >>> Fancy graphicshaols

amen to that.

I'd like to see it, but that doesn't mean it would fit, and doesn't mean the game would be better.

[QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]when playing a game, the one thing i want more than most others is a good story.Skie7

Really? You play games for the story? You've chosen like the worst possible medium for story telling. You're lucky to get one game a year with an ok story, let alone a good story. Games suffer from terrible plots, cliche and amatuer dialog, and terrible voice acting (if there even is voice acting).

Games can get cinematic with their use of camera, graphics, and sound.. but the stories are generally terrible. You need only look at the terrible game-based movies to see what happens when a game has to rely on it's story.

Wrong.

The reason why game-movie adaptions fail is because story telling in games is far different than story telling in films and other literature. It's an interactive experience.

As for all games not having a good story -- some do. Quentin Tarantino is looking at Half Life. Peter Jackson, Halo. Hollywood's got Hitman under production. And being fans of all those games, their stories are pretty darn good.

[QUOTE="haols"][QUOTE="Xerlaoth"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]ArtstyIe >>> Fancy graphicsXerlaoth

amen to that.

I'd like to see it, but that doesn't mean it would fit, and doesn't mean the game would be better.

Go watch MTV and see a clip of Chris Brown talking about his most favourite game GTA. He says one of the reasons why he likes it are "great graphics"

Also, I mix with the casual crowd. All my friends are casuals. The boys just won't stop talking about the graphics on the PS3 or 360. Sure, games like WoW are an exception to the rule, but to outright say that they don't care about graphics is actually pretty stupid."

the only people who watch mtv - spoil rotten brats.... :| and thats not going to tell me since ONE PERSON buys gta for the grapchis.

when in fact you look at the console markets since nes, snes, ps1,n64,dreamcast,ps2,cube,xbox

which one sold the best. the ONE WITH THE WORST GRAPCHIS ALL THE TIME.

Note: didnt bother adding sega sorry

all my firends are causlas too :roll: yay i lied!!!!

somehow im not trusing you on this :lol:

[QUOTE="Skie7"]

[QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]when playing a game, the one thing i want more than most others is a good story.FrozenLiquid

Really? You play games for the story? You've chosen like the worst possible medium for story telling. You're lucky to get one game a year with an ok story, let alone a good story. Games suffer from terrible plots, cliche and amatuer dialog, and terrible voice acting (if there even is voice acting).

Games can get cinematic with their use of camera, graphics, and sound.. but the stories are generally terrible. You need only look at the terrible game-based movies to see what happens when a game has to rely on it's story.

Wrong.

The reason why game-movie adaptions fail is because story telling in games is far different than story telling in films and other literature. It's an interactive experience.

As for all games not having a good story -- some do. Quentin Tarantino is looking at Half Life. Peter Jackson, Halo. Hollywood's got Hitman under production. And being fans of all those games, their stories are pretty darn good.

Yeah, because story telling in games generally revolves around gameplay. The stories aren't great, the gameplay is. You want to know how boring a video game story is? Record a game from start to finish and then have people watch it. If you want to make it cinematic, cut it down to 2 hours. I doubt you could get anyone other than an avid gamer to sit through it.

the only people who watch mtv - spoil rotten brats.... :| and thats not going to tell me since ONE PERSON buys gta for the grapchis.

when in fact you look at the console markets since nes, snes, ps1,n64,dreamcast,ps2,cube,xbox

which one sold the best. the ONE WITH THE WORST GRAPCHIS ALL THE TIME.

Note: didnt bother adding sega sorry

all my firends are causlas too :roll: yay i lied!!!!

somehow im not trusing you on this :lol:

wavebrid

Right, so you're implying I'm a spoilt rotten brat and implying I'm some sort of geek by your last comment. A weird combination if I ever saw one. I'll explain it for your benefit after I address the argument at hand.

The number one reason all those consoles won was because of games. I will never argue that enjoyable games take precedence over enjoyable graphics. But have you ever wondered why casuals say Halo 2 is so much better than Halo 1? Or why casuals can never go back to playing their PS1s et al?

Now, as for my position:

I'm an aspiring film maker, script writer and possibly actor. Perhaps you could have seen that by looking at my sig of a Hollwood actress or looking at the first and only post of my blog on my profile. Naturally, I'd be attracted to the potential of video games as a medium of which to express ideas that are in movies and the like.

Does that stop me from having casual friends? Of course not. I could tell you accurately the reaction of a casual friendseeing next gen graphics right off the bat, but due to your skepticism, I guess you wouldn't believe me. Of course, the people outside my "best friend" circle look at me weirdly when I sound off more than I should know about video games.

As for my unusually high post count withinone month, I've been staying up all nightwriting scripts, and when I hit a writer's block, what better tojust go on forums for 10 minutes or so before plowing back through writing?

My comment was only regarding the graphics. haols

Well, what I'm saying is, (i'm gonna use MP3 as my example) if Metroid Prime 3 was developed for PS3, it would have crazy sweet graphics, I'm totally willing to admit that, and I'd get the game, because I love the series. But I wouldn't want it to happen, because as an old PC FPS fan, I can say for absolute certain, dual analog for FPSs is god awful, and the Wii FPSs so far, those work for me. Not perfect, but better, and from what most critics are saying, MP3 perfected it.

Obviously better graphics are better than not better graphics, lol. what i'm saying is, if a game doesn't rely on awesome graphics and can still be an amazing game, those should be appreciated just as much, if not more.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="Skie7"]

[QUOTE="Dr_Neptune"]when playing a game, the one thing i want more than most others is a good story.Skie7

Really? You play games for the story? You've chosen like the worst possible medium for story telling. You're lucky to get one game a year with an ok story, let alone a good story. Games suffer from terrible plots, cliche and amatuer dialog, and terrible voice acting (if there even is voice acting).

Games can get cinematic with their use of camera, graphics, and sound.. but the stories are generally terrible. You need only look at the terrible game-based movies to see what happens when a game has to rely on it's story.

Wrong.

The reason why game-movie adaptions fail is because story telling in games is far different than story telling in films and other literature. It's an interactive experience.

As for all games not having a good story -- some do. Quentin Tarantino is looking at Half Life. Peter Jackson, Halo. Hollywood's got Hitman under production. And being fans of all those games, their stories are pretty darn good.

Yeah, because story telling in games generally revolves around gameplay. The stories aren't great, the gameplay is. You want to know how boring a video game story is? Record a game from start to finish and then have people watch it. If you want to make it cinematic, cut it down to 2 hours. I doubt you could get anyone other than an avid gamer to sit through it.

See what I mean?

Watch Doom 3 being played by a friend. Then play Doom 3 by yourself. Big, big difference. Interactivity is the biggest factor.

Elder Scrolls is quite possibly the most richest unwritten fantasy universe ever written, and seemingly the most original of "high fantasy" since JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

Halo has seemingly come out of nowhere to be one hell of a sci fi story. You won't find many other space faring sci fi stories as rich or as captivating as Halo is. That's why it works so well underso manymediums -- like Star Wars.

Game-movie adaptions lie under the very same principle as film-game adaptions. If you look at video games based off a film, they're hardly better in story in any way than an original game IP. The reason that most of them suck though is that, once again, most developers hit the barrier which requires a translation in the way the story is told.

Right, so you're implying I'm a spoilt rotten brat and implying I'm some sort of geek by your last comment. A weird combination if I ever saw one. I'll explain it for your benefit after I address the argument at hand.

The number one reason all those consoles won was because of games. I will never argue that enjoyable games take precedence over enjoyable graphics. But have you ever wondered why casuals say Halo 2 is so much better than Halo 1? Or why casuals can never go back to playing their PS1s et al?

Now, as for my position:

I'm an aspiring film maker, script writer and possibly actor. Perhaps you could have seen that by looking at my sig of a Hollwood actress or looking at the first and only post of my blog on my profile. Naturally, I'd be attracted to the potential of video games as a medium of which to express ideas that are in movies and the like.

Does that stop me from having casual friends? Of course not. I could tell you accurately the reaction of a casual friendseeing next gen graphics right off the bat, but due to your skepticism, I guess you wouldn't believe me. Of course, the people outside my "best friend" circle look at me weirdly when I sound off more than I should know about video games.

As for my unusually high post count withinone month, I've been staying up all nightwriting scripts, and when I hit a writer's block, what better tojust go on forums for 10 minutes or so before plowing back through writing?"

If i really told you what i think of mtv i would be banned :|

2. it didnt do as well as first.and it wasnt a great game people werent pleased with it... and if grapchis were important that i say that xbox SHOULD OF WON.. it didnt therefor casuals dont care for grapchis.

3. i just dont not believe everyone online.... you know its kindof hard with cows,sheep,hermits,lemmgins... lie all the time.. so you can trust things on the interent that well can you?

4. i could care less what you do written or staying up all night...

If i really told you what i think of mtv i would be banned :|

2. it didnt do as well as first.and it wasnt a great game people werent pleased with it... and if grapchis were important that i say that xbox SHOULD OF WON.. it didnt therefor casuals dont care for grapchis.

3. i just dont not believe everyone online.... you know its kindof hard with cows,sheep,hermits,lemmgins... lie all the time.. so you can trust things on the interent that well can you?

4. i could care less what you do written or staying up all night...

wavebrid

Oh, MTV is trash, I agree. Most annoying channel ever.

Once again, may I say, graphics are of not the utmost importance. But that doesn't mean to say now that casuals with a 360 will go back and play Halo 1. I have a family friend, a group of brothers who are addicted to games but are as casual as they come (Note they're family friends, not really mine :lol:). They're the ones that play 50 Cent Bulletproof and all those other craptastic casual trash that comes out. I remember they stopped playing Vice City because Driver 3 came out or whatever, and it was apparently "newer" and more improved. They just said it was hard. They couldn't see that it was broken :lol:

Understandable that you don't believe everyone online. Rule #1. You just get better at picking out the liars however, they usually act really immature and say that have 80" HDTVs and a comfy couch to play on. As for what I do at night, it was just what someone else tried to use against me, so I said that in precaution. Although I should get of SW though, it's becoming an addiction.....

Tim Mcgraw, is that the guy that's married to Faith Hill?

[QUOTE="Skie7"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Wrong.

The reason why game-movie adaptions fail is because story telling in games is far different than story telling in films and other literature. It's an interactive experience.

As for all games not having a good story -- some do. Quentin Tarantino is looking at Half Life. Peter Jackson, Halo. Hollywood's got Hitman under production. And being fans of all those games, their stories are pretty darn good.

FrozenLiquid

Yeah, because story telling in games generally revolves around gameplay. The stories aren't great, the gameplay is. You want to know how boring a video game story is? Record a game from start to finish and then have people watch it. If you want to make it cinematic, cut it down to 2 hours. I doubt you could get anyone other than an avid gamer to sit through it.

See what I mean?

Watch Doom 3 being played by a friend. Then play Doom 3 by yourself. Big, big difference. Interactivity is the biggest factor.

Elder Scrolls is quite possibly the most richest unwritten fantasy universe ever written, and seemingly the most original of "high fantasy" since JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

Halo has seemingly come out of nowhere to be one hell of a sci fi story. You won't find many other space faring sci fi stories as rich or as captivating as Halo is. That's why it works so well underso manymediums -- like Star Wars.

Game-movie adaptions lie under the very same principle as film-game adaptions. If you look at video games based off a film, they're hardly better in story in any way than an original game IP. The reason that most of them suck though is that, once again, most developers hit the barrier which requires a translation in the way the story is told.

Yeah, and the story in Doom 3 really doesn't matter. All that matters is I'm some guy with a gun and a flashlight and creepy things are trying to kill me. Occassionally, due to event triggers the creepy things will scare the piss out of me. The story itself is laughable.

Halo, again, I'm a guy with a gun and I'm killing aliens. The story, at least in the first (only one I played), was painful. It's a good thing there was some solid gameplay or there would've been little point to the single player. And, we all know Halo's strong point was the multiplayer.

It sounds more like you're praising the settings. Because Halo has no where near as good of story as Star Wars (even Phantom Menace).

The best move game developers have made is moving to interactive cutscenes. There is nothing worse than having to watch one, two, five, 10, or 15 minutes of a terribly written cutscene. I'm currently playing through RE4, for the first time, and the dialog combined with voice acting of the telephone (I have no idea what they're talking on) conversations is painful. The conversations actually reduce my overall gaming experience.

Yeah, and the story in Doom 3 really doesn't matter. All that matters is I'm some guy with a gun and a flashlight and creepy things are trying to kill me. Occassionally, due to event triggers the creepy things will scare the piss out of me. The story itself is laughable.

Halo, again, I'm a guy with a gun and I'm killing aliens. The story, at least in the first (only one I played), was painful. It's a good thing there was some solid gameplay or there would've been little point to the single player. And, we all know Halo's strong point was the multiplayer.

It sounds more like you're praising the settings. Because Halo has no where near as good of story as Star Wars (even Phantom Menace).

The best move game developers have made is moving to interactive cutscenes. There is nothing worse than having to watch one, two, five, 10, or 15 minutes of a terribly written cutscene. I'm currently playing through RE4, for the first time, and the dialog combined with voice acting of the telephone (I have no idea what they're talking on) conversations is painful. The conversations actually reduce my overall gaming experience.

Skie7

Ok, now you're arguing just for the sake of not losing face.

Try watch F.E.A.R. Then play F.E.A.R. Not as scary, don't you think? That's the point I was getting across. IMO watching people play games isn't the same as playing it yourself.

You just dissed Halo's story? You just opened yourself a whole big......

Ok firstly, do you know anything about sci fi stories? Halo's story: run away from aliens, don't give them the coordinates to Earth. Stumble upon a ringworld. Get flustered as the aliens want something from the unknown planet, and you're just going to beat them to it for god knows what they want. Find out Halo is a weapon of some sort -- get scared as you think the aliens want to use it against humans. Find out that Halo has a connection with the human race. Find out it was containing a parasite infestation -- parasite breaks out. Realize that Halo is used to stop the Flood. Almost activate Halo and realize it wipes out the Flood's food source (every organic, edible being), not the Flood itself. Race to stop a maniac from destroying all life, by destroying Halo itself (Covenant are not a priority anymore). Escape and be the last person to survive. End.

Not such a story with "a guy with a gun killing aliens" now, is it? And omg.... you just dissed the greatest sci fi movie ever by saying that -- Aliens! (If you don't think Aliens is good, or if you just say it sucks to fit your argument, don't comment on movies. Ever.)

Oh, Halo has a mythology you probably don't even know about since you don't read the books or the comics. Star Wars mythology extends far beyond the movies as well. Oh yeah, and Knights of the Old Republic has a far better story than any of the prequels. And did you just say Halo doesn't have a good story as the Phantom Menace? Looks like you're not being truthful anymore. You'rejust trying to smite me.

No, the best move developers have done is, at the very least, made stories for the context of video games. Half Life and Half Life 2 are cinematic without even moving out of the first person view.

And just so you know, RE4 is a Japanese game. Of course it's going to have bad English dialogue. It's natural.

I've said it before:
Graphics are the first thing we notice but the last thing we remember after we've played it.
I'm a designer, aesthetics are VERY important to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean that something that is simple is bad. That is the biggest mistake people make when it comea to visuals.Svarthek

Bingo.

Visuals have never decided a console war.

[QUOTE="Skie7"]

Yeah, and the story in Doom 3 really doesn't matter. All that matters is I'm some guy with a gun and a flashlight and creepy things are trying to kill me. Occassionally, due to event triggers the creepy things will scare the piss out of me. The story itself is laughable.

Halo, again, I'm a guy with a gun and I'm killing aliens. The story, at least in the first (only one I played), was painful. It's a good thing there was some solid gameplay or there would've been little point to the single player. And, we all know Halo's strong point was the multiplayer.

It sounds more like you're praising the settings. Because Halo has no where near as good of story as Star Wars (even Phantom Menace).

The best move game developers have made is moving to interactive cutscenes. There is nothing worse than having to watch one, two, five, 10, or 15 minutes of a terribly written cutscene. I'm currently playing through RE4, for the first time, and the dialog combined with voice acting of the telephone (I have no idea what they're talking on) conversations is painful. The conversations actually reduce my overall gaming experience.

FrozenLiquid

Ok, now you're arguing just for the sake of not losing face.

Try watch F.E.A.R. Then play F.E.A.R. Not as scary, don't you think? That's the point I was getting across. IMO watching people play games isn't the same as playing it yourself.

You just dissed Halo's story? You just opened yourself a whole big......

Ok firstly, do you know anything about sci fi stories? Halo's story: run away from aliens, don't give them the coordinates to Earth. Stumble upon a ringworld. Get flustered as the aliens want something from the unknown planet, and you're just going to beat them to it for god knows what they want. Find out Halo is a weapon of some sort -- get scared as you think the aliens want to use it against humans. Find out that Halo has a connection with the human race. Find out it was containing a parasite infestation -- parasite breaks out. Realize that Halo is used to stop the Flood. Almost activate Halo and realize it wipes out the Flood's food source (every organic, edible being), not the Flood itself. Race to stop a maniac from destroying all life, by destroying Halo itself (Covenant are not a priority anymore). Escape and be the last person to survive. End.

Not such a story with "a guy with a gun killing aliens" now, is it? And omg.... you just dissed the greatest sci fi movie ever by saying that -- Aliens! (If you don't think Aliens is good, or if you just say it sucks to fit your argument, don't comment on movies. Ever.)

Oh, Halo has a mythology you probably don't even know about since you don't read the books or the comics. Star Wars mythology extends far beyond the movies as well. Oh yeah, and Knights of the Old Republic has a far better story than any of the prequels. And did you just say Halo doesn't have a good story as the Phantom Menace? Looks like you're not being truthful anymore. You'rejust trying to smite me.

No, the best move developers have done is, at the very least, made stories for the context of video games. Half Life and Half Life 2 are cinematic without even moving out of the first person view.

And just so you know, RE4 is a Japanese game. Of course it's going to have bad English dialogue. It's natural.

Yeah, but it's the gameplay and setting in F.E.A.R. that scares you. You prove my point by saying playing the game is scarier than watching the game. It's the fact that playing the game some scary stuff could happen at any moment. The story driving the game isn't even secondary. Gameplay, then atmosphere, then a whole slew of things before we get to the story.

Yeah, Halo's plot is cliche and generic sci-fi. It has nothing on any Star Wars movie let alone countless sci-fi novels. In fact, Halo's story isn't even one of the best sci-fi stories in gaming.

I'm not sure how I dissed Aliens. If you're saying Aliens is "a guy with a gun killing aliens" then you're wrong. That may be the gist of the plot, but there's a lot more to the story. And, if the story wasn't told well, people would simply walk out. There's an emotional response. There's character development and good character interaction. In contrast, Master Chief is a one dimensional character. And, he's about the only character - not that the other Halo characters are all that interesting either.

What does it matter what mythology Halo has if it doesn't come through during gameplay? We're talking about the story in the game and that's what Halo, and most games, are lacking.

when playing a game, the one thing i want more than most others is a good story. one which can draw me in the same way a film does. the prettier the graphics, the more cinematic the experience, and in my opinion, the better the story becomes.

in games like gears of war, the graphics are good, and so is the story...

Dr_Neptune

Stopped reading right about there and fell on the floor laughing. Can't think of a reply that can top that one.

Yeah, but it's the gameplay and setting in F.E.A.R. that scares you. You prove my point by saying playing the game is scarier than watching the game. It's the fact that playing the game some scary stuff could happen at any moment. The story driving the game isn't even secondary. Gameplay, then atmosphere, then a whole slew of things before we get to the story.

Yeah, Halo's plot is cliche and generic sci-fi. It has nothing on any Star Wars movie let alone countless sci-fi novels. In fact, Halo's story isn't even one of the best sci-fi stories in gaming.

I'm not sure how I dissed Aliens. If you're saying Aliens is "a guy with a gun killing aliens" then you're wrong. That may be the gist of the plot, but there's a lot more to the story. And, if the story wasn't told well, people would simply walk out. There's an emotional response. There's character development and good character interaction. In contrast, Master Chief is a one dimensional character. And, he's about the only character - not that the other Halo characters are all that interesting either.

What does it matter what mythology Halo has if it doesn't come through during gameplay? We're talking about the story in the game and that's what Halo, and most games, are lacking.

Skie7

Ok, so list me the "slew of things" before we get to the story. Btw I don't think the story in F.E.A.R is that great. It's like watered down *** horror.

Ok, so tell me how Halo is generic and cliche. Because I can tell you boy we're going to go into hell and back for you to tell me what makes Halo generic and cliche. I have a whole list of cliches in sci fi and quite frankly, I'm ready to throw them at you at any moment's notice. So please, enlighten me on Halo's generic unoriginality. I can tell you though, that someone tried this before, and he had to cop out by saying he was kidding the whole time. So if you want to tell me what really makes Halo generic, go ahead.

You mocked Aliens by saying "a guy with a gun killing aliens", which is what Aliens essentially is. Oh, so now there's a lot more to the story? Wow... how could you not see that in Halo?

What does it matter what mythology Halo has? Because if anyone actually followed the story, they'd pick up hints to a whole widespread history of the Forerunner, the Covenant, and the Humans relationships with both of them.

And it looks like you conveniently ignored Knights of the Old Republic as having a better story than the Star Wars prequels, but nevermind that.

C'mon Skie, tell me what makes Halo so generic. I promise you by the end of the argument you won't know what to say.

Ok, so list me the "slew of things" before we get to the story. Btw I don't think the story in F.E.A.R is that great. It's like watered down *** horror.

Ok, so tell me how Halo is generic and cliche. Because I can tell you boy we're going to go into hell and back for you to tell me what makes Halo generic and cliche. I have a whole list of cliches in sci fi and quite frankly, I'm ready to throw them at you at any moment's notice. So please, enlighten me on Halo's generic unoriginality. I can tell you though, that someone tried this before, and he had to cop out by saying he was kidding the whole time. So if you want to tell me what really makes Halo generic, go ahead.

You mocked Aliens by saying "a guy with a gun killing aliens", which is what Aliens essentially is. Oh, so now there's a lot more to the story? Wow... how could you not see that in Halo?

What does it matter what mythology Halo has? Because if anyone actually followed the story, they'd pick up hints to a whole widespread history of the Forerunner, the Covenant, and the Humans relationships with both of them.

And it looks like you conveniently ignored Knights of the Old Republic as having a better story than the Star Wars prequels, but nevermind that.

C'mon Skie, tell me what makes Halo so generic. I promise you by the end of the argument you won't know what to say.

FrozenLiquid

Well, a big factor in good storytelling is character development. Halo doesn't have any character development. The dialog consists of mission briefings that occassionally provide minute details about the setting. The characters have little to no personality. They try to inject some personality into the computer image character, but she's a flat character (not as bad as Master Chief though). There's no emotional connection to anything. The only motivation for keeping Master Chief alive is so that you don't have to replay a section of the game. So, what you end up with is a plot tied together by mission briefings.

Generic space marines are battling generic higher tech aliens. Then introduce the no-tech swarming aliens. Well, lets see, that seems pretty close to StarCraft for one. And, we all know StarCraft stole a lot from Warhammer 40k. Not to mention it's pretty similar to having space marines, aliens, and predator thrown together (which has been done plenty of times). So what is it that makes Halo's setting so unique?

Yeah, the plots if you take them down to the bare bones are the same. Just because two stories have similar plots doesn't mean they're equally good stories. The movie Leviathan is a creappy rip-off of Alien. So, Alien is good and Leviathan is crap and the plots are very similar so what makes one better than the other? Oh that's right, the level of storytelling. So, we learn that Aliens is a better story than Halo even though both consist of a "a guy with a gun killing aliens". The funny thing is I even gave reasons in my previous post as to why Aliens is better than Halo.

KotOR is one of the few games, recently, to have a good story. But, RPG and adventure games tend to have a bit more going for them in the story department. Who would want to deal with the terrible combat mechanics in most RPGs if the story didn't motivate you? Halo would've been a terrible game if it's combat system was the same as KotORs. Which just helps to prove my point that Halo's story is not good.

WHen I buy a system, the deciding factor is graphics. If I only cared about gameplay I'd never buy a new system and just play a dreamcast all day. CyanX73

Not if you wanted new games to play, you wouldn't.