Alright System Wars, lets all come together for a fun activity. The rule is simple, list as many games series IPs that are considered big-budget but haven't strafed away from their roots. This is to shine a sort of positive light when it comes to big budget games and their dumbing down process many of them go, to appeal to wider audience. --------------------- Here is my example. All of the Assassin's Creed games have played similar to one another. The story, game mechanics, and target audience has been quite similar. Sure multi-player has been added after Brotherhood, but the single player and lore has remained the same.
Assassin's Creed may have stuck to its roots, but it's god awful anyway. Virtua Fighter is my answer. They don't let you pay to win, they don't sell characters as DLC, they don't release buggy or unbalanced games. Just pure, perfect fighting every single time.
Really? AC is easier with every release.TheGuardian03
None of them were ever difficult in any sense of the word, unless tedium counts as difficulty. The combat is insanely shallow, the movement is mostly automated, the enemy AI is terrible, there is no risk/reward involved with the stealth because you can just button mash your way out of any situation.
Uh, GTA IV absolutely took a giant crap on the series' roots. I thought the game at least handled the open world aspect nicely, and a well paced story like the previous entries.
Fallout,while undergoing some radical changes over the years(transition from overhead view to FPS/TPS view),still managed to preserve its original spirit,and still hasn't abandoned it's roots.In fact,I like Fallout 3/New Vegas more than Fallout 1&2(I played them all)...
GTA,also had some changes with GTA4,but still manages to cater to the original audience.It may have streamlined and removed some features from San Andreas(which I consider a better game),but it still has plenty of things that made GTA series great and popular.The roots haven't been abandoned...
[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="TheGuardian03"]Really? AC is easier with every release.TheGuardian03
Saying Assassin's Creed was even remotely hard. The games have been easy since AC1. Where in my post did i say it was hard? It is easier with every release, no ? They are about the same. It might just become more and more easier since not much has changed. You become better as you are more experienced with the same thing.
Gow and um.......... GT (I was going to put Froza too, but then Horizon happened), Cod (yes BLOPS 2 looks different, but the gameplay is still the same from COD4).... uh.....
Gow and um.......... GT (I was going to put Froza too, but then Horizon happened), Cod (yes BLOPS 2 looks different, but the gameplay is still the same from COD4).... uh..... Nengo_Flow
Gears God of War Halo Call of Duty These have all stayed in their zone consistently, Call of Duty even has had the same graphics since COD4, if not COD3.
Why do people mention COD? The first 3 games felt pretty different to the others. I'd say Mario Party hasn't really changed much.. same with handheld Pokemon games.
Looking at some of the answers is actually quite funny. There is a small gap that separates not abandoning their roots and screwing up the franchise or not doing enough.
For instance take Halo, Battlefield, and Call of Duty. I like all 3 games and that is why I am using this example. Cows claim Halo is the same game. Playing all 3 I would say Halo has changed the most. Plus people are tired of yearly Call of Duty releases but I think they change more than the Battlefied games do. Of course Battlefield does not get the yearly updates but still.......You never really see Battlefield get burned on here to often.
People can be d*cks all they want, I agree. The industry has evolved a lot since DII, so it's good to see that the heart of Diablo gameplay has been maintained while adjusting to the standards. Something to consider here is how deep those roots are. Assassins Creed? Sh*t started four years ago, its hardly an old series. Big budget titles are often that way because they choose not to take risks.
Why do people mention COD? The first 3 games felt pretty different to the others. I'd say Mario Party hasn't really changed much.. same with handheld Pokemon games.Mr_Cumberdale
The campaigns have been generally similar but the multiplayer has seen some pretty vast changes over the years.
Idk....similar to Diablo 3, Civ 5 was changed a lot.It did, as did Civilization Revolution, but they both stuck pretty close to the established formula.
Fallout,while undergoing some radical changes over the years(transition from overhead view to FPS/TPS view),still managed to preserve its original spirit,and still hasn't abandoned it's roots.In fact,I like Fallout 3/New Vegas more than Fallout 1&2(I played them all)...
Rocker6
Fallout 3 and even New Vegas dumbed down the RPG elements that 1 and 2 had.
[QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]Why do people mention COD? The first 3 games felt pretty different to the others. I'd say Mario Party hasn't really changed much.. same with handheld Pokemon games.AcidSoldner
The campaigns have been generally similar but the multiplayer has seen some pretty vast changes over the years.Generally similar? Yeah, maybe. Except CoD 1+2 boasted 12 hours of campaign time while recent installments have about four.
[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"][QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]Why do people mention COD? The first 3 games felt pretty different to the others. I'd say Mario Party hasn't really changed much.. same with handheld Pokemon games.NAPK1NS
The campaigns have been generally similar but the multiplayer has seen some pretty vast changes over the years.Generally similar? Yeah, maybe. Except CoD 1+2 boasted 12 hours of campaign time while recent installments have about four. In length yeah, but I'm talking about the core design.
Idk....similar to Diablo 3, Civ 5 was changed a lot. Civ has evolved but its still essientally exactly the same game, some of the mechanics are different and computing power has allowed the devs to do much more.
All series have to change with the time. The gameplay conventions back in the day don't work today. Games aren't pumped up by artifical difficulty so they last for more than 20 minutes, we don't have to put up with a lot of manual labor in games because the systems do a lot of the BS work for us.
[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"][QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]Why do people mention COD? The first 3 games felt pretty different to the others. I'd say Mario Party hasn't really changed much.. same with handheld Pokemon games.NAPK1NS
The campaigns have been generally similar but the multiplayer has seen some pretty vast changes over the years.Generally similar? Yeah, maybe. Except CoD 1+2 boasted 12 hours of campaign time while recent installments have about four.
You can beat CoD 1 in 3 hours. Easily. It's just that the first time through you didn't know the levels or where the enemies were going to spawn, so your first playthrough was much longer because of the trial and error.
There is more content in modern CoD games than CoD 1 and UO.
[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"][QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]The campaigns have been generally similar but the multiplayer has seen some pretty vast changes over the years.AcidSoldner
Generally similar? Yeah, maybe. Except CoD 1+2 boasted 12 hours of campaign time while recent installments have about four.
You can beat CoD 1 in 3 hours. Easily.
Damn. I've never seen it done but I'll take your word for it.
[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"][QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]Generally similar? Yeah, maybe. Except CoD 1+2 boasted 12 hours of campaign time while recent installments have about four. NAPK1NS
You can beat CoD 1 in 3 hours. Easily.
Damn. I've never seen it done but I'll take your word for it.
I can vouch for that time. When I was playing the game for my game times blog, I beat the game roughly around the 3 hour mark and I didn't rush. Was rather surprised that it was that quick. That said however, I'd say the past few CoDs felt generally similiar in the SP department. The first 3 still feel different to me when compared to MW and on.
no, no, no 
Log in to comment