Sony's first party games - all flash and no substance?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] :lol: I'm an engineering major, and even I find the level of demands for quantification in this thread ridiculous :PthepwninatorI have a BS in economics, and I think that if your going to universalize your opinion, IE forward it as actually Representative of reality you had better be ready to back up your claim. If your claim involves comparisons then you had better be able to empirically judge it. I've read many papers about claims about the nature of the world, and non of them involve just stating your opinion. And that's what he's doing-stating his opinion. He never said that his word was the be-all-end-all, did he? When he's allowed to say "this game is alive and well" and "this game is dead" and we aren't allowed to do the same then yes he's implying that he's the final word on the subject. And when asked to clarify what he means by saying those games lack substance and that they are no longer in the mind of gamers we gives no explanation than thread creator can only blame himself for the mess of a thread he's started and now he's complaining that no one understands him or wants to "discuss" his factual facts with him.
The guy is flip-flopping. Terrible, just terrible. And how do you turn on sig?NoXboxGamerPreferences - Forums - Check always use User signatures.
[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] He never said that his word was the be-all-end-all, did he?thepwninatorYa, then why is he really upset when no one agrees with his opinion. He has been fighting for his opinion. Because it turned into an attack by wave after wave of fanboys, which isn't quite what he wanted. The analogous discussion over in Avant Game was only a few posts long, but there was far more insight in that short quote chain than in all of the responses to this thread. Oh well. Attack from fanboys? LOL. I can't even BEGIN to discuss a thing with him until he can tells me what he means by what he said. Wave after Wave? lol. I think most of us just want to know what on earth he's even TALKING about before we can even begin to "attack" him. TC has backed himself into a corner and now he's playing the victim. Over and over again I'm asking him to state some simple things that would clear everything up. He clearly refuses. And TC has too high of a post count for this kind of nonsense.
[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] He never said that his word was the be-all-end-all, did he?Ninja-HippoYa, then why is he really upset when no one agrees with his opinion. He has been fighting for his opinion. Please dont think i'm really upset about anything that happens here. :lol: It hasn't been the case that nobody agrees with my opinion. It's been the case that people like you, and many others, have been trying to turn this thread into something it never was; a contest of who has the most long-lasting appeal in their first party games, sony or microsoft. That's just system wars for you. Discussion no longer exists here i guess, and i'll certainly never attempt it again. Want proof of that? The simple fact that this very topic has been discussed on Avant without the slightest problem. Bring it here, and the places implodes. I would ask you to never attempt this again. You are clearly very bad at it.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="GundamGuy0"] Ya, then why is he really upset when no one agrees with his opinion. He has been fighting for his opinion. GundamGuy0Please dont think i'm really upset about anything that happens here. :lol: It hasn't been the case that nobody agrees with my opinion. It's been the case that people like you, and many others, have been trying to turn this thread into something it never was; a contest of who has the most long-lasting appeal in their first party games, sony or microsoft. That's just system wars for you. Discussion no longer exists here i guess, and i'll certainly never attempt it again. Want proof of that? The simple fact that this very topic has been discussed on Avant without the slightest problem. Bring it here, and the places implodes. I just want to know your critera... your making it sound like I care about Sony VS. Microsoft when it's about your opinion vs my reaction to your opinion... and your not backing your opinion up... I guess its too much to ask. He was the one who brought up that Halo 3 is alive and well. He backed up his claim by saying that because its #1 on the XBL live charts that proves the game is alive and well. So since PSN lacks such a chart. None of its games are ever being played.
[QUOTE="OldSkoolGamer04"]No, i disagree, because at the first sign that somebody said that i was very quick to say 'no, that's not the case here. It's no about that' and even edited the first post for clarification. People ignored it though. Why? As others have said, system wars has become far too much about 'winning' for anyone to even realise that the original post wasn't even an arguement.But the problem is that you established a quantitative base for your argument, then claimed that that base wasn't part of your argument.
This is the reason GS scores and sales are used so much here. While it's fun to just simply state our feelings from time to time, this is also a place for heated debates. It's hard to have good debates, however, without some solid facts to fall back on. The critic's scores are popular weapons because they're constant among all of us (you can argue their merit, but we all read 10 on MGS 4's Web page.) What you did, despite if you knew it or not, was to introduce support that could be objectively observed as the basis for argument that everything else you claimed was rooted in. And for you to say that people who brought up arguments that were drawn from the very basis you yourself established is just a flawed argument.
Ninja-Hippo
And that is exactly the problem. Saying "that's not the case here" doesn't change the fact that you very clearly establish in your original post that it is. Your edit doesn't do anything but try to clarify your opinion. It has no bearing on your attempt to quantify what constitutes a lasting impression. You should either remove that, or stop brushing off people who use your own words against you.
The Godfather, even today, is revered as one of the greatest movies ever made. I'm sure a bunch of other great movies were released that year. Awesome ones, even. But nothing which had the impact that movie had. Over the years, there will be literally hundreds of movies people will watch and enjoy but will be completely forgotten about in a short period of time. Heck, critics will often point out the fact that a movie will be forgotten about in a couple of months time. I think Sony have a similar problem with their first party lineup, in that while their games aren't BAD by any means, they're not leaving any major lasting impression on the gaming community. They're solid, they're entertaining, but then they kinda fizzle out into a distant memory as people move onto whatevers next. And the reason i think that's the case is because of their emphasis on graphical quality perhaps detracting from other areas which, with the right amount of work and energy, could make the games something really special rather than just a fun adventure game which is easy on the eyes, or a graphical powerhouse of a first person shooter which doesn't really blow you away in any other department. That was my opinion, in fact that's pretty much an exact repeat of what i said in the first place. I really dont get your problem to be honest. :P Well using that example I think maybe Sony's games are more like the movie Scarface. A movie that was bashed and pretty much ignored in the theatres but overall found its audience when released on tape and has influenced many movies and games since. It was the underdog that just had the lasting power. I think your expectations are waaay waay to high. Games always look better looking back. You have yet to see the future affects of Sony's exclusives because we are still in this gen. and they havent been around long enough to influence future franchises. But just looking at KZ2, MS felt the need to promise that its future games would beat that one in appearance. As for "substance", thats just subjective. Let's be real about what our hobby is, its mere entertainment and overall looking back at previous games that influenced gaming today substance isnt somthing you would say they brought to the table. Most of the time it was a cool effect, gameplay, or control scheme. There are a FEW standout games that have amazing stories that stick with us but they will ALWAYS be the minority and most of the time they are cult favorites. Not games that as you say, maintain alot of buzz. They are talked about by certain people in certain situation and thats pretty much it. I love MGS, SOTC and ICO but I have TONS of friends that don't know about those games.[QUOTE="OldSkoolGamer04"]
I've read everything. I simply want to know why the crux of your argument seems to be that the PS3 games lack substance because, in your mind, there isn't much "buzz" about them anymore. How is that an accurate measurement? It's not a rhetorical question, either.
And did you see my first post, which was the first reply to your message? I was being honest. I even took it a step further. I'm not defending anything except the people you've disagreed with for using evidence that you say doesn't represent your stance, when in fact you used the very same type of evidence yourself in support of your position.
Ninja-Hippo
CLIFF NOTES because i'm tired of people posting aggressively toward me having not bothered to even read the post:
1) Sony's first party games almost always feature state-of-the-art technology powering them, but the gameplay seems to have a lower benchmark. (2) Not to say that any of Sony's games are bad - far from it - however i feel the emphasis on making their games a showcase for the PS3's graphical capability (3)is selling them short in terms of really innovative, outstanding gameplay and design. (4)Instead, they release consistant and 'solid' games which garner good reviews and are generally enjoyed by those who play them, but which quickly die down in terms of general enthusiasm and interest in the game, much like a summer action-flick at the movies which, while fun to watch, leaves no lasting impression on the viewer.
Ninja-Hippo
How about this then?
1) I disagree. I think Sony games have a very high benchmark for gameplay.
2) I disagree. I think their emphasis is on providing a high quality product that appeals to a wide audience as possible.
3) When promoting and advertising a game, you can't show gameplay. The only way to experience how the game plays is to actually have a controller in your hand and PLAY it. So in that regard, every game ever made was promoted and advertised based on nothing more than graphics. You have to wait for reviews to find out what the gameplay is like, and ultimately only sales over the long term will determine staying power.
4) I guess the question is which would you rather have as a movie lover? A whole bunch of summer blockbusters all year round...or one single memorable hit a year (or more if we are comparing to consoles) and nothing else? I know I would greatly prefer a bunch of something I love way more than a single thing. I know I would gladly move from one really good, entertaining movie to the next, even if it means I forget those movies 10 years down the road.
The Godfather, even today, is revered as one of the greatest movies ever made. I'm sure a bunch of other great movies were released that year. Awesome ones, even. But nothing which had the impact that movie had. Over the years, there will be literally hundreds of movies people will watch and enjoy but will be completely forgotten about in a short period of time. Heck, critics will often point out the fact that a movie will be forgotten about in a couple of months time. I think Sony have a similar problem with their first party lineup, in that while their games aren't BAD by any means, they're not leaving any major lasting impression on the gaming community. They're solid, they're entertaining, but then they kinda fizzle out into a distant memory as people move onto whatevers next. And the reason i think that's the case is because of their emphasis on graphical quality perhaps detracting from other areas which, with the right amount of work and energy, could make the games something really special rather than just a fun adventure game which is easy on the eyes, or a graphical powerhouse of a first person shooter which doesn't really blow you away in any other department. That was my opinion, in fact that's pretty much an exact repeat of what i said in the first place. I really dont get your problem to be honest. :P Well using that example I think maybe Sony's games are more like the movie Scarface. A movie that was bashed and pretty much ignored in the theatres but overall found its audience when released on tape and has influenced many movies and games since. It was the underdog that just had the lasting power. I think your expectations are waaay waay to high. Games always look better looking back. You have yet to see the future affects of Sony's exclusives because we are still in this gen. and they havent been around long enough to influence future franchises. But just looking at KZ2, MS felt the need to promise that its future games would beat that one in appearance. As for "substance", thats just subjective. Let's be real about what our hobby is, its mere entertainment and overall looking back at previous games that influenced gaming today substance isnt somthing you would say they brought to the table. Most of the time it was a cool effect, gameplay, or control scheme. There are a FEW standout games that have amazing stories that stick with us but they will ALWAYS be the minority and most of the time they are cult favorites. Not games that as you say, maintain alot of buzz. They are talked about by certain people in certain situation and thats pretty much it. I love MGS, SOTC and ICO but I have TONS of friends that don't know about those games. If you say that Killzone 2 was treated in a manner analogous to being "ignored in theaters", all I can say is that I'm pretty sure you haven't been on System Wars for the past 3 years :P[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
[QUOTE="OldSkoolGamer04"]
I've read everything. I simply want to know why the crux of your argument seems to be that the PS3 games lack substance because, in your mind, there isn't much "buzz" about them anymore. How is that an accurate measurement? It's not a rhetorical question, either.
And did you see my first post, which was the first reply to your message? I was being honest. I even took it a step further. I'm not defending anything except the people you've disagreed with for using evidence that you say doesn't represent your stance, when in fact you used the very same type of evidence yourself in support of your position.
Javy03
Um, no. If you say something and somebody else misinterprets it, it makes perfect sense to clarify things so people know where you stand. Your opinions aren't legally binding once you hit submit. I wasn't attempting to quantify anything. It was an example of how something is long-lasting and well-received. One of an infinite number of others. Why not stop trying to pick apart a post to bring it down? Is it not easier to just accept it for what the TC says it's meant to be, as opposed to arguing with him over what his own words are?And that is exactly the problem. Saying "that's not the case here" doesn't change the fact that you very clearly establish in your original post that it is. Your edit doesn't do anything but try to clarify your opinion. It has no bearing on your attempt to quantify what constitutes a lasting impression. You should either remove that, or stop brushing off people who use your own words against you.
OldSkoolGamer04
I have the sneaking suspicion that Naughty Dog set out to make an immersive , fun , and memorable summer action flick game for ps3 owners. If they succeeded on that , then it can have substance like a movie of that type can. The graphics helped make it immersive which helped make it more memorable .... although that was just one small element of many factors which helped it for many. Same with Heavely Sword.
You don't have to compare a different type of game with different goals to slight it.
[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] I guess its too much to ask. He was the one who brought up that Halo 3 is alive and well. He backed up his claim by saying that because its #1 on the XBL live charts that proves the game is alive and well. So since PSN lacks such a chart. None of its games are ever being played. Ninja-HippoNo, i wasn't backing up a claim, i was using one of many examples of how a game has legs. ;) So LBP has legs because new levels are being made. KZ2 has legs because the multiplayer is loaded with players. Resistance 2 has legs because any time of the day you can find an 8 player co-op game or a 60 player death match. I guess Uncharted doesn't have legs because Naughty Dog didn't attach a useless multiplayer component. Even though I spent some time getting all of the treasures in that game.
Capital letters doesn't make you sound any more valid. :) You really want me to repeat myself again? Really? Game 1 is awesome. Everyone loves it. It gets awesome reviews, sells well, and is fondly played and followed for years to come, unless a sequel comes out and the gaming community moves along to that one. The gaming community as a whole gets behind it in a long-term manner, eg Half Life, Counter Strike, Warcraft, Halo, MGS4. Games which remain relevant long after their release. Games you'd mention as a reason to buy a console even years after it came out. Game 2 is also pretty great. Gets great reviews. Sells respectably. People have fun with it, but then it's forgotten. People almost immediately move onto the next thing. It's pretty likely to be traded in for another game, if you're into that. It falls off the radar. After several months or so, many people forget about it entirely. I think a lot of Sony's 1st party games are more like Game 2. Nothing WRONG with them; well-made, enjoyable, good reviews, but they just dont have the legs. And i think that's because Sony puts more emphasis on making their games graphical showcases. People enjoy them, are wowed at the graphics, but they forget about them, much like people will forget about a summer action flick but will re-watch and appreciate truly awesome movies for years to come. The response to this was not, 'i see what you mean', or 'i disagree, the way i see it....' - generally anyway. Rather it was 'compared to microsoft Sony games are way better!' Or 'link!?' or 'how do you back up these claims!?' or 'how do you quantify this so i can compare sony games to xbox games and own you'. :)Ninja-Hippo
I explained previously why a game may be big while another may not. I explained a theory on why Halo is huge on 360 but a similar game on PS3 may not...and you wrote off the entire post because you said I am turning this into a Sony vs MS arguement...which I wasn't.
Going back to your original example, there is no indication that SOny console, for whatever reason, appeals to the shooter audience. I would assume it is because the original Xbox drew in the PC gaming crowd and had way more FPS than the PS2. But how do we know that if Halo 3 would have been on the PS3, instead of Xbox, that it would have had the same level of success.
Clearly the market for a console, the audience, the fans that support it, have as much to say about the long-term success of a game as the game innovation, design itself. However, you want to strip away context as being irrelevant which makes this discussion very much impossible to have logically. Without proper context, there is no logical way to debate this issue.
[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"] The other points of view are that your wrong. Discussion over? Ninja-HippoNo, because that's a lame discussion. And thank you very much sir for proving my point that you and the other posters like you were incapable of approaching this topic with anything other than a 'you're wrong, i win' approach. ;) It's not a your wrong or I win... but your not saying why you think that these games are forgotten, or have no legs, or anything... so we can't discuss with any depth. All we can say is "no it's not" because your not providing any grounds for discussion.
[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"] People are still playing WarHawk, Uncharted, Killzone 2... how are they forgotten... Or to make this more simple for you... why did you think they were forgotten... what makes you think that? Ninja-HippoI dont think the fact that people still play a game means it hasn't become irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. :)
What is the grand scheme of things?
[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]Game 2 is also pretty great. Gets great reviews. Sells respectably. People have fun with it, but then it's forgotten. People almost immediately move onto the next thing. It's pretty likely to be traded in for another game, if you're into that. It falls off the radar. After several months or so, many people forget about it entirely. _____________ How on earth do you know if a game has fallen into this category? I can argue all day long that most of the games you listed infact do not fall into that category. Heavenly Sword. Sure. Uncharted. No. Resistance. No. LBP. No. If you are referring to those few rare BIG GIANT GAMES like Gears, Halo, or MGS4 than guess what...those are rare big giant games and most games don't fall into that category. I'd say Bioshock. Mass Effect, Left 4 Dead, and many Xbox games don't either. So it is my opinion that many XBox games are flash in the pan with no substance and don't have a long enough life span in the eyes of the gaming community.Ninja-HippoOnce again, you're trying to make this into Sony vs Microsoft. :lol: I have all the consoles. I could give a rats butt about one machine versus another. Nice job ignoring all my points with one ignorant blanket statement.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] I guess its too much to ask. He was the one who brought up that Halo 3 is alive and well. He backed up his claim by saying that because its #1 on the XBL live charts that proves the game is alive and well. So since PSN lacks such a chart. None of its games are ever being played. Bread_or_DecideNo, i wasn't backing up a claim, i was using one of many examples of how a game has legs. ;) So LBP has legs because new levels are being made. KZ2 has legs because the multiplayer is loaded with players. Resistance 2 has legs because any time of the day you can find an 8 player co-op game or a 60 player death match. I guess Uncharted doesn't have legs because Naughty Dog didn't attach a useless multiplayer component. Even though I spent some time getting all of the treasures in that game. You can find an online match at any time of day in practically any online-enabled game this gen. Once again, the fact that people PLAY games does not = game with a lasting impression like MGS4 or Half Life. :)
Um, no. If you say something and somebody else misinterprets it, it makes perfect sense to clarify things so people know where you stand. Your opinions aren't legally binding once you hit submit. I wasn't attempting to quantify anything. It was an example of how something is long-lasting and well-received. One of an infinite number of others. Why not stop trying to pick apart a post to bring it down? Is it not easier to just accept it for what the TC says it's meant to be, as opposed to arguing with him over what his own words are?[QUOTE="OldSkoolGamer04"]
And that is exactly the problem. Saying "that's not the case here" doesn't change the fact that you very clearly establish in your original post that it is. Your edit doesn't do anything but try to clarify your opinion. It has no bearing on your attempt to quantify what constitutes a lasting impression. You should either remove that, or stop brushing off people who use your own words against you.
Ninja-Hippo
Nothing was misinterpreted. You used specific examples, others responded defying those examples, you shifted focus into "it's how I feel" territory because you don't want to debate things that could cause you to admit you were wrong.
And I'm sure it's ok if I pick apart a post if I disagree with something in it. You're basically telling me not to dispute what you say because you shouldn't have to defend yourself. That's ludicrous.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] I guess its too much to ask. He was the one who brought up that Halo 3 is alive and well. He backed up his claim by saying that because its #1 on the XBL live charts that proves the game is alive and well. So since PSN lacks such a chart. None of its games are ever being played. Bread_or_DecideNo, i wasn't backing up a claim, i was using one of many examples of how a game has legs. ;) So LBP has legs because new levels are being made. KZ2 has legs because the multiplayer is loaded with players. Resistance 2 has legs because any time of the day you can find an 8 player co-op game or a 60 player death match. I guess Uncharted doesn't have legs because Naughty Dog didn't attach a useless multiplayer component. Even though I spent some time getting all of the treasures in that game.
I would argue that single player games have legs because they have enough success/following to merit a sequal.
I have all the consoles. I could give a rats butt about one machine versus another. Nice job ignoring all my points with one ignorant blanket statement.Bread_or_DecideJust because you dont care who wins doesn't change the fact that you're incapable of discussing a topic which is in no way a contest unless there's some sort of i win/you lose mechanic between one side or another, be it TC and poster or microsoft and Sony. And you didn't have any othe rpoints. It was the same tired stuff over and over and over again which ive replied to dozens of times and i'm sick of repeating myself.
I'm not stating anything as facts, so when you stop trying to disprove something which cannot be disproven i'll reply to that point, mkay?
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
CLIFF NOTES because i'm tired of people posting aggressively toward me having not bothered to even read the post:
1) Sony's first party games almost always feature state-of-the-art technology powering them, but the gameplay seems to have a lower benchmark. (2) Not to say that any of Sony's games are bad - far from it - however i feel the emphasis on making their games a showcase for the PS3's graphical capability (3)is selling them short in terms of really innovative, outstanding gameplay and design. (4)Instead, they release consistant and 'solid' games which garner good reviews and are generally enjoyed by those who play them, but which quickly die down in terms of general enthusiasm and interest in the game, much like a summer action-flick at the movies which, while fun to watch, leaves no lasting impression on the viewer.
ZIMdoom
How about this then?
1) I disagree. I think Sony games have a very high benchmark for gameplay.
2) I disagree. I think their emphasis is on providing a high quality product that appeals to a wide audience as possible.
3) When promoting and advertising a game, you can't show gameplay. The only way to experience how the game plays is to actually have a controller in your hand and PLAY it. So in that regard, every game ever made was promoted and advertised based on nothing more than graphics. You have to wait for reviews to find out what the gameplay is like, and ultimately only sales over the long term will determine staying power.
4) I guess the question is which would you rather have as a movie lover? A whole bunch of summer blockbusters all year round...or one single memorable hit a year (or more if we are comparing to consoles) and nothing else? I know I would greatly prefer a bunch of something I love way more than a single thing. I know I would gladly move from one really good, entertaining movie to the next, even if it means I forget those movies 10 years down the road.
That's a bit more like it, I feel :P
1) They definitely have a very high benchmark for gameplay, but, with the obvious exception of LBP, they tend not to take particularly big risks. To me, the gameplay tends to feel manufactured and then very well-polished rather than crafted lovingly.
2) High quality can mean either being bold and taking risks that pay off, or playing it safe but doing what already exists very well. Sony tends to fall into the latter category from what I've seen, again with the obvious exception of LBP, though that one is actually arguable.
3) Sales aren't the only thing that determine staying power-another thing, arguably even more important, is whether or not the gamer still plays it almost as often as when he/she first obtained it. If he/she never touches it again after beating it (this can mean getting a few unlockables as well), it doesn't have much staying power, does it?
4) This one is more a matter of personal preference than anything else...
That's a fair point, particularly with Uncharted. I think interest in it kinda picked up when they announced the sequel.I would argue that single player games have legs because they have enough success/following to merit a sequal.
ZIMdoom
[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"] People are still playing WarHawk, Uncharted, Killzone 2... how are they forgotten... Or to make this more simple for you... why did you think they were forgotten... what makes you think that? Ninja-HippoI dont think the fact that people still play a game means it hasn't become irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. :) You will never see the lasting legacy of any game until at least a few years down the line. So it would be impossible to say Uncharted left no lasting legacy because in twenty years we could be referring to it as the gold standard in platform,shooter hybrid adventure games. The same way it was compared to Lara Croft at its release. But that kind of stuff takes time. You want to know if any of these games will remembered well we can't know until the next gen comes around and see if people are saying "well this game is no Uncharted" Heck even games that GAMERS themselves ignore like Psychonauts remain alive and well but you wouldn't have known it at the time.
Um, no. If you say something and somebody else misinterprets it, it makes perfect sense to clarify things so people know where you stand. Your opinions aren't legally binding once you hit submit. I wasn't attempting to quantify anything. It was an example of how something is long-lasting and well-received. One of an infinite number of others. Why not stop trying to pick apart a post to bring it down? Is it not easier to just accept it for what the TC says it's meant to be, as opposed to arguing with him over what his own words are?[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
[QUOTE="OldSkoolGamer04"]
And that is exactly the problem. Saying "that's not the case here" doesn't change the fact that you very clearly establish in your original post that it is. Your edit doesn't do anything but try to clarify your opinion. It has no bearing on your attempt to quantify what constitutes a lasting impression. You should either remove that, or stop brushing off people who use your own words against you.
OldSkoolGamer04
Nothing was misinterpreted. You used specific examples, others responded defying those examples, you shifted focus into "it's how I feel" territory because you don't want to debate things that could cause you to admit you were wrong.
And I'm sure it's ok if I pick apart a post if I disagree with something in it. You're basically telling me not to dispute what you say because you shouldn't have to defend yourself. That's ludicrous.
No i did not shift focus to 'it's how i feel', i shifted focus to 'no guys, it's not about that, it's not a who has the most online player and which game gets the most threads a day'. I've repeated that a bunch of times but you keep harping on about it. Tells you what, hows about rather than arguing endlessly telling somebody else what they did/didn't say, you instead let the person who SAID the things you're arguing about determine what they said? It makes an awful lot of sense.It's actually mostly interesting, enlightening discussions with users over at Avant, GUFU and off-topic. You should try it. It's better than the non-stop circle logic and i win/you lose 'discussion' i've encountered here today.It is probably this kind of nonsense that has allowed his post count to get this high in the first place.
ZIMdoom
[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] No, i wasn't backing up a claim, i was using one of many examples of how a game has legs. ;)Ninja-HippoSo LBP has legs because new levels are being made. KZ2 has legs because the multiplayer is loaded with players. Resistance 2 has legs because any time of the day you can find an 8 player co-op game or a 60 player death match. I guess Uncharted doesn't have legs because Naughty Dog didn't attach a useless multiplayer component. Even though I spent some time getting all of the treasures in that game. You can find an online match at any time of day in practically any online-enabled game this gen. Once again, the fact that people PLAY games does not = game with a lasting impression like MGS4 or Half Life. :) Wow. If people play it that doesn't mean it has made a lasting impression. Thats gold right there. Games like MGS4 are one game per generation buddy. You are likely not going to get more than one or two games like that per gen. Your asking for something that is very rare.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment