Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
Most uninspiring game......
What game in your memory, was just a big dissapointment AFTER you played it?
I'll start off by saying God of War. Its fun and worth a rental, but was too simplistic and repetitive, just a bunch of polish, controversy, and hype. I go outside of the box with my games.
hmm... uninspiring.. I must say I've had quite a few disappointments over the years of gaming and I have to give that award to dungeon seige.. its just.. the controls are terrible.. the pacing is excrutiatingly slow.. and not only does it rip off every game ever made before it.. it does it worse
and with that said I dont expect much more from the sequel
Fighting games. They all tend to suck. The same idea, over and over again. New characters, some new type of guard counter, a new kind of combo, even cheaper bosses. Yawn.
There's like one or two fighting games worth playing. Things haven't progressed beyond Street Fighter II enough.
GTA3 was the first proper sandbox game in a sprawling 3D setting. Give it some credit. People think the Driver series did it first - which is utter rubbish because it wasn't sandbox at all. GTA3 got it right first, so it was inspired.
Last edited by Red Superfly on Jul 11th, 2005 at 01:37 PM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
It was a dissapointment, and you must realize that fighting games have easy replayibility at its highest. The games are quick and ideal for people who play on the go or like skill in their games. Fighting games take the most skill and millisecond timing.
Shooting games its more of, the person who knows the map, once you get past the lousy controls, its more of the person who knows the environement, fighting games are the ones who show the rookie from the best at its maximum. SF3, SFA3, and capcom vs SNk2 were excellent games.
That being said, games like GTA, and Half life2 are overrated. EXCELLENT games, but the hype can remove the experience, as you are expecting more, and eventually all shooting games become boring, no matter the polish, much like halo.
The fighting game formula as it stands now is starting to become uninspired.. as it is constantly 2 energy bars, time limit, and the side view.. I think if the energy bars were masked... the view was over the shoulder split screen and there was no time limit , it could make for some fantastic fighting
The lesson here is to not beleive the hype. ANyone that beileves hype is an idiot. I don't, so I fully enjoyed them all. Half-Life 2 exceeded my expectations in fact.
Not all shooting games becomes boring either. Goldeneye is still, to this day, one of the best multiplayer games out there, along with the original Halo. Also, a rookie in a game like counter-strike will get b!tch slapped by a pro everytime, sure a rookie can get lucky, but I'd say 95% of fighting games allow a rookie to get a lucky win over a pro too.
Shooting games have progressed. They incorporate sound into actual gameplay, movement and stealth. Fighting games are still a visual old school experience. They are fun, but to compare the fighting genre innovations to the innovations in other genres is rediculous. If it's so hard to leave the 2D staple, then try innovations elsewhere, like interactivity, intuitiveness and sound.
Last edited by Red Superfly on Jul 11th, 2005 at 02:38 PM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
Yes but people who appreciate gameplay over graphics like fighting in the second diemension. For the fighting itself, I like the 2d as it controls the best, but it makes the improvements at the same or faster rate than shooters. They make the same WW2 games and Vietnam games, and Space ones over and over no differently than fighters.
The only new type shooters have been the psi ones, and ragdoll physics being the only real innovation for some time.
I love all types of games, not just one type, but many games stay near the same with better tech upgrades, if it isn't broken, why fix it?
They should introduce new fighting mechanics into fighting games, like technical fighting. Work on specific areas of the body, wear them down, and those areas, when hit, start to take more and more damage with each hit. A few of the wrestling games (yes, I said WRESTLING) games on the N64 had some brilliant ideas that would translate quite well, particularly intuitive context-sensitive combat and the use of the environment in a well balanced fighting engine.
I think with the next genertaion we may actually see the leap that the fighting genre needs. I'm talking about physics. Not just ragdoll and flashy, but implemented into the game. Soon, animations will be determined by physics, so characters will animate depending on certain factors (pain, muscle power, weight, stamina etc). It may be the first time the fighting genre has to escape it's shackles.
I think the first person genre is guilty of putting out the same tired old crap too, don't get me wrong, but look at the best FPS comparred to the best fighting games. The fighting games have progressed at a snails pace in comparison.
I hope one day I'll play a fighting game that re-invigorates the fighting genre that Street Fighter II did all those years ago.
Last edited by Red Superfly on Jul 11th, 2005 at 04:14 PM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
I guess but not as much as it seems, considering the only thing really new and innovative is ragdoll.
Now in 2d fighters, there hasn't been much, but fighting games don't need the gimmicks of shooters. You will be to focused on gameplay and mechanics to be concerned about a new this or that. I just want my fighters to be fluid, and consistent, I'm a gameplay man.
MKD has done some new things with innovation, but the gameplay was somewhat lacking and hollow, thats the reason why gameplay comes first.
I totally see your point. I know what you mean, i'm exactly the same, I'm all for gameplay, but I can't justify shelling out full price for these games over and over when I have a dusty old Street Fighter II which is still just as good.
What?! The only thing new and innovative in shooters is ragdoll?!
Alright, let's go back a few steps to, say, Doom or Quake, right where shooters first took off. Now let's go to, say, Halo or Half-Life.
You take a good long look at those two.
Now let's go back to the Street Fighter series. Brilliant game, no doubt, but look at modern fighting games. Sure, there are some enhanced graphics, combo generators, and multi-teired levels. What Red is tring to say, I believe, is when you take a close look at modern shooter's and their origins, compared to modern fighters, and their origins, shooters have improved far more than shooters, in the way of (obviously) graphics, sound, overall ambient mood, physics, destructable environments, expanded interactivity, etc.
Hopefully, the next-generation consoles will have fighters that truly take the games to the next level.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
I agree that sf has become repetitive, but also see that destructable environments are not new, the true new thing is ragdoll.
I like all the games I'm not being biased at all, but shooters NEED, those to stay interesting, because they get boring faster.
Old sf2 is still playable by all ages and people never get tired of that, the sound doesn't make fun factor.
Which is also why older games are sometimes, more often than not, better than new. Old mario and other games are simply appreciated mroe, IMO the SNES was and still is the best Nintendo system. Thats why I liked playstation, it was the less tech wise, but it offered better gameplay.
I disagree. Old games seem to be fun because of gameplay but when you actually go back and play them, you'll find the experience completly different and generally boring.
There are a few games back in the day that were loads of fun and can still play well today, but generally alot of them arnt that good. Buy an Arcade Treasure game, or a Classic compliation game and you will see that most of them get very old quickly.
Playstation better gameplay? Thats your opinion but there is no way that PS was that much better than N64. Both had good games even though some of N64's games really came out, considering Goldeneye and Mario 64 revoultionized its genre.
Rag Doll physics is old. The new thing for shooters is intergrating reallife physics.
I do agree that bad shooters are boring as hell. But you can say the same thing about bad fighters, bad platformers, bad puzzle games, bad driving games, bad RTS, bad Turn base strategies, bad RPG's and etc.etc. They're all boring if they suck.
But if you take HL2, you would see that it offered so many different areas and types of gameplay that it never got boring, well to me of course.
And for a boring game, try Joint Ops. that game is crap.