[QUOTE="Toriko42"][QUOTE="Chutebox"]That review states the obvious. The only thing NG has over GoW series is gameplay. GoW exceeds it in every other way.Chutebox

Most important, but the "everything else" makes up for it.

What's the "everything else" that makes up for it for the gulf in gameplay depth between GoW and NG. Is it the simplistic revenge story that everyone deems epic because it involves a cliche-ridden struggle between humanity and the gods?

I don't even know why GoW is in this conversation. It's sort of funny. NG and DMC are far more comparable to each other, as their combat is absolutely leagues ahead of GoW.

GoW is far more comparable to Heavenly Sword in terms of what it offers than it is those two.

If you mean the Nes version of Ninja Gaiden 2, then I would agree with you. Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2 for the Nes have yet to be rivaled in greatness. But the new ones? They have great controls/combat mechanics, but everything else is horrid. The camera has always given me serious problems. Which usually makes or breaks a game for me. The level design is awful, backtrack galore. Enemies popping out of thin air. And the worst part? The game is too damn frustrating. There's a big difference between difficult, and frustrating. Take the original Nes versions for example. But the series is better then GoW IMO. Never liked that series much. Maybe it's because Kratos is the dumbest looking guy in video game history. I hate thinking of how many stupid gamers grew there chin pubes out to look like Kratos. Disgusting! dr-venkman

Backtracking was an issue in the first Ninja Gaiden. There's virtually no backtracking in NG2.

Think about it this way:

From the 70's to the 90's most people thought, or probably thought, that war movies had been done. That you really wouldn't see anything to breakthrough. But then came Saving Private Ryan. That opening scene changed war movie making forever. And although it was a war already seen before, a battle already seen before, with a story like something you've seen before, it still amazed you at what you were a witness to.

Not saying this next CoD will be as genre changing as Private Ryan. But if they bring the heat, it won't feel like the same old thing.

The_Crucible

A good recent example of this in gaming is Company of Heroes. It took the WW2 setting and did something special with it.

I didn't think CoD3 was that bad, but I don't really think Treyarch is up to the task.

Shake on it?heretrix

Agreed. :P

Adventure games, tactical shooters, twitch PC shooters and space sims.

Bring 'em all back NOW.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

heretrix

Yes, referring to someone as "elitist" in broad strokes without backing any of it up isn't insulting at all. That entire post I wrote was to explain how being down on Fallout 3 isn't an elitist mentality, and I explained why and brought up the example of a stellar franchise ruined by a lackluster sequel as a way to reinforce it.

And what do you respond with? "You're elitist". Of course. You somehow take my anti-elitist post, and try to twist it around into something that somehow becomes elitist. Only on the Internet.

I never called you an elitist intially.Read the thread CAREFULLY.

I wasn't responding to you specifically calling anyone elitist, but rather in general, since it's impossible to have a discussion on the game without the word being thrown around liberally. The reason I quoted yours and Verge's posts was to use them to openly wonder why people think it's such a terrible thing that people question the direction of this game.

You replied to that by telling me I should stop forcing you to try to hate the game, which I was never doing. I was explaining why some of us do. It was really as simple as that. I'm not sure how it ballooned up to this.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

heretrix

Yes, referring to someone as "elitist" in broad strokes without backing any of it up isn't insulting at all. That entire post I wrote was to explain how being down on Fallout 3 isn't an elitist mentality, and I explained why and brought up the example of a stellar franchise ruined by a lackluster sequel as a way to reinforce it.

And what do you respond with? "You're elitist". Of course. You somehow take my anti-elitist post, and try to twist it around into something that somehow becomes elitist. Only on the Internet.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

heretrix

Look, that's nowhere near the point I was trying to make. I refuse to have to justify why I like a goddamn game to anybody. I love the first two Fallout games and I hoping that this game will be good. I rather do that than to piss all over it before I get a chance to play it.

I don't care to explain that and it IS elitist for someone to call me a shallow fanboy because I wish to see the franchise continue giving a new creative team a chance. INTERPLAY IS DEAD. You aren't getting another Fallout game from them. Keep waiting for that Fallout MMO if you want, but that isn't likely to happen.

If the game is bad, THAT WILL SUCK. But I don't know that yet and I'm tired of hearing people blowing a gasket about it.

My point is that people like you need to look at it from the other perspective, rather than make smarmy comments and simplistically conclude that people must be elitist.

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

[QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="scottiescott238"]

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

mjarantilla

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

YEAH, let's change everything into run & gun!!!1

ANYTHING ELSE SUCKZORZ!!11

BOOYAH!!!!11

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

Strategy trumps action any day.

That's another one of the messed up things about Fallout 3, is it doesn't even seem to work as an action game. Some of the previewers have commented that the gunplay comes off as awkward. You basically pull off a move or series of moves, and then it goes into a non-interactive cinematic where it depicts it, sort of like in a JRPG. That basically defeats the entire purpose of real-time gameplay. Why not just make it fully turned-based then?