[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"][QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]

*Scurries back to EA headquarters with the information*

rragnaar

Anyways, back on topic, listening to your ideas for a game made me a bit more enthusiastic for Assassin's Creed. Although my main concern is with this one-button combat issue. Are all hardcore games going the Bioshock/Oblivion route now? Where for the most part it is a gamer's game, but then throws in some non-gamer element like deaths with no penalties and fast travel?

[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]

*Scurries back to EA headquarters with the information*

rragnaar

[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]And what would happen when the army arrived? Would the gameplay switch to action and turn into a war game, being easier for you and your allies based on what you did with your time before? Or would it just pick an ending cutscene based on whether you hit a certain killcount/compromised enough munitions?rragnaar

*Scurries back to EA headquarters with the information*

The game is 39.99 thsi week at Circuit City, Plus go to BK and get a coupon so when you purchase something 39.99 and over. You get a free 10dollar gift card. So it is 29.99 this weekShinoto

[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]A similar thing has happened to me as well. Although my game turned out to be Left 4 Dead. It is a completely linear version of what I had in mind, but it is very similar nonetheless.rragnaar

I was hoping this generation would have the technology to do such a game.

By the way, did your game take place in present day time or medieval? Because it sounds interesting.

I actually really want Assassin's Creed to come out and surprise everybody. My friend and I sat down and outlined a game that is very similar to what Assassin's Creed has turned out to be, we even had some concept art, and maps drawn out, detailed ideas about how the game would control, and then we realized that there is no way either of us would ever get to make the game. Assassin's Creed is different from what we outlined, but it is the closest I will ever get to playing that game.

In our game you were a cat-like Assassin sent by your country to 'soften up' an enemy kingdom before your armies arrived. You had a limited number of hours to complete your objectives before your army arrived, somewhere around 24 hours of gameplay probably. The game would be completely open in how you accomplished your goal of weakening the enemy's forces. You could hide in the forrests and attack patrols, whittling down their forces through guerilla warfare, you could seek out and assassinate commanding officers, capture the ruler of the kingdom and force the army to surrender, or do more subtle things like attacking supply convoys, and poisoning the water supply.rragnaar

[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"][QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"][QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"]

So it basically just comes down to style over substance with you.

dvader654

It comes down to fun over balance or "substance" or whatever claim it is you want to make that "proves" VF is the best 3D fighter in existence.

I am for the pure, visceral thrill and overall fun that a fighting game can provide. Not how balanced it is or how long the moves list is. End of story. And right now, VF does not do that for me on the same level as other 3D fighters have been able to. Not a bad game by any standards, and no arguing against it's supposed substance, but a bit dull in comparison to some of the other options.

Right there you give some reasons why you perfer DoA over VF5, thats cool thats your opinion, but what is with the whole bashing of anyone that thinks VF5 is better. You really believe that anyone that likes VF5 more is just a blind fanboy or something, maybe they like fighting games for a different reason than you, maybe they are looking for a deeper fighting system rather than visceral thrill. You are entitiled to your opinion but your constant attacks at the VF fans are disturbing.

Every time you start a paragraph it begins with something like "VF fanboys", I'm all for game debate but I hate it when people try to catergorize those with the opposing view into simple generalizations.Its not just you happens a lot around here, and believe me I know some members are hard to have a discussion with. The way I see it, if you do want to express your opinion on how DoA is better than VF5 do it with actual examples, preferably of gameplay, your not going to change anyones mind though but its better than just name calling.

[QUOTE="Robnyc22"]

The same thing was said about Wind Waker in 2003.

If SMG turns out to be an excellent game that appeals to a large audience and offers a great experience for the money and turns out to be an innovative title with some original game design, which according to early reviews it seems to be just that, what would be so shocking about it winning GOTY.

dvader654

Well that was Zelda, of course its going to win. :P

The GS of back then does not feel like the GS of now to me. Back then Zelda winning was not shocking, at least to me it wasn't, if it was this GS though, yes it would be shocking.

.............and uh, it isthe same GS, dude. They haven't gone anywhere. Perhaps you should be looking at the creator's of your favorite franchises for being too stagnant and dropping in quality over the years rather than GS's tastes all of a sudden changing. I know I have felt almost exactly the same as they have. For instance, OoT is my favorite game ever, yet I would'nt have given either of the lasttwo Zeldas the GOTY. Heck, I would'nt have even nominated the last one.