Originally posted by Smasandian
I have no doubt that Bioshock is better than System Shock 2, or Dues Ex, but it should be better. It had years to take in all the gameplay those games did and make it better. I dont consider that innovation. I just consider that being the norm. Every game that has ideas influenced by older games should be better. How is that innovating?
Whilst I think you're making a great point, though it's one I've already made, somewhere in there (About how people shouldn't just keep accepting bs, there's the means to make Bioshock level games and so it should be used), I disagree with your idea that every game should be better just cos everything has come before.
Without adding anything new there can be no innovation, or without creating from scratch. Halo was "influenced" by many previous FPS and it added nothing new, at all, now look at it. That's how your theory is a bit flawed. Bioshock is a very innovative game.
Originally posted by Smasandian
So, in that sense, a game like Half Life which turned FPS genre on its head, now, whenever a game that takes Half Life idea of showing the story is innovating because they created it better than Half Life. No, I dont think so.
What are you on about and how did you get that out of my post? Whilst Half-Life is given a lot of due credit, people give it credit for influencing ALL FPS, and that's not the case. Not all albums today are influenced by great bands that came before, it's equating antiquity with quality and influence. Goldeneye was the last best innovative FPS before Bioshock, because Half-Life 2 didn't really bring anything new gameplay wise (Thought it was an amazing game), but I don't go around saying "Every FPS since owes Goldeneye.", cos it doesn't.
Bioshock doesn't owe things just because games with similar features came before, it's doing a lot of shit on its own.
Originally posted by Smasandian
What's the difference between Dues Ex drinking beer to gain health and Bioshocks drinking beer to gain health and both distorting the view of the player for a short amount of time? Both happen the exact same way.
I never actually singled that part out as majorly different. It's harder to actually move and control the player in Bioshock while this happens, not so in Deus Ex.
Originally posted by Smasandian
The choices you make are exactly the same as the choices you make in Bioshock. The three major choices you make are choosing to harvest, or not to harvest Little Sisters, which reflect on how much ADAM you get, but in the grand scheme of things, doesnt really make an huge amount of difference because when I finished the game, I got all the upgrades, plasmids and tonics I could possibly get. The other choices are choosing what tonics and plasmids to get. But again in Dues Ex, you do the exact same thing. You choose what nano aug you want and the directly affects on how you play the game. I'll go even farther and say that Bioshock is more linear than Deus Ex.
Then perhaps I am remembering that aspect of Deus Ex differently, but even if I am, the fact remains that Bioshock is still an innovative game. Naturally people who don't see it will now start saying it's not innovative at all, just to compensate, but it's a remarkably innovative game. The gameplay, dynamic, combat system, character alteration system, environment interaction, enemy security system interaction, all done in a different way, setting and style than before. It's a game ahead of the times, it's an innovative game.
Originally posted by shin_gear
Spartan005, Halo isn't innovative it sucks and it's just a crappy generic FPS shooter that has a base of completely retarded fans.
Smartest thing you've said all day.
-AC
Originally posted by Shin_BlaxSERIOUSLY?!
Glad you finally realised it. Gouki's favouriet system is the Wii, ya know.
Man, I bet Gouki can finish LoZ:TP in one day while soloing the entire Halo universe with one hand. One hand is all that it would take to destroy the sacred rings and own entire fleets of covenant ships. Hell Gouki created the Halo universe, this universe, the Street Fighter universe and is the father of all other universes.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri.....................
Smartest thing you've said all day.-AC
I enjoy Halo but I'm not wild about it like my brother is. For goodness sake he played Halo 1 for like 4 years straight until Halo 2 came out. He's calmed down but he was obsessed with Halo! We still have the Metroid vs Halo argument every now and then.
But yeah; Halo doesn't add anything new to FPS but then again simplicity isn't a bad thing like I said before. But throwing out game after game that really doesn't add anything new isn't a good thing. I love hearing how Halo fanboys say all Nintendo does is release a Mario game despite Mario games actually changing the gameplay. Mario fans never seem to care when Nintendo changes the gameplay.
Heck Galaxy looks like it could be one of the greatest games of all time. But if Nintendo did what Halo did and just give Mario a few new power-ups but kept the gameplay to like Super Mario 64 then...I'm glad Nintendo has the balls to change.
Metroid Prime 3 didn't really change Metroid or change the gameplay from Metroid Prime or Echoes but it did give you a new way to play with the motion sensors. And the motion sensors really made the game a lot more fun because really the Wii has had FPS shooters before but none of them perfected it as well as Corruption has.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSeems very similar to saying...
Improving graphics actually takes no guts, simply because nowadays that's enough to make a game sell to most idiots. Even if the graphics aren't actually amazing.-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Changing gameplay actually takes no guts, simply because back then or now that's enough to make a game sell to most idiots. Even if the gameplay isn't actually amazing.-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whilst I think you're making a great point, though it's one I've already made, somewhere in there (About how people shouldn't just keep accepting bs, there's the means to make Bioshock level games and so it should be used), I disagree with your idea that every game should be better just cos everything has come before.Without adding anything new there can be no innovation, or without creating from scratch. Halo was "influenced" by many previous FPS and it added nothing new, at all, now look at it. That's how your theory is a bit flawed. Bioshock is a very innovative game.
What are you on about and how did you get that out of my post? Whilst Half-Life is given a lot of due credit, people give it credit for influencing ALL FPS, and that's not the case. Not all albums today are influenced by great bands that came before, it's equating antiquity with quality and influence. Goldeneye was the last best innovative FPS before Bioshock, because Half-Life 2 didn't really bring anything new gameplay wise (Thought it was an amazing game), but I don't go around saying "Every FPS since owes Goldeneye.", cos it doesn't.
Bioshock doesn't owe things just because games with similar features came before, it's doing a lot of shit on its own.
I never actually singled that part out as majorly different. It's harder to actually move and control the player in Bioshock while this happens, not so in Deus Ex.
Then perhaps I am remembering that aspect of Deus Ex differently, but even if I am, the fact remains that Bioshock is still an innovative game. Naturally people who don't see it will now start saying it's not innovative at all, just to compensate, but it's a remarkably innovative game. The gameplay, dynamic, combat system, character alteration system, environment interaction, enemy security system interaction, all done in a different way, setting and style than before. It's a game ahead of the times, it's an innovative game.
-AC
I guess I just disagree with you on what we call innovation. I take an more drastic degree of view with innovation while you dont.
I personally a game being innovating by introducing an new gameplay mechanic that hasnt been done before. I dont see improving, or changing an gameplay mechanic to fit the game as innovating.
I didnt see Bioshock doing anything different than what Dues Ex, or System Shock 2 has done. This doesnt make it a bad game though because I felt it was incredibly well done, great narrative and incredible presentation to boot. I just dont think it was anything different than Ion Storm, and Irrational Games before it. ( And I thought it was a tad bit long, thus making my experience I had a bit boring later on in the game)
Lastly, I dont agree with you about Halo on how it didnt add anything new to the genre. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Halo brought more tatical gameplay to the standerd shooter with the introduction of only allowing two guns during the game, the health system (which has been copied many of times) and the ability to quickfire grenades, which is almost essential to intense shooter games. This doesnt save the game from having the most horrid level design ever put into a game. Holy shit, its that bad. Bungie can create excellent AI, and action, but they have to hire an new level design, and maybe art director because the whole neon lighting is complete shit.
Originally posted by shin_gear
Seems very similar to saying...
Totally different.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I guess I just disagree with you on what we call innovation. I take an more drastic degree of view with innovation while you dont.I personally a game being innovating by introducing an new gameplay mechanic that hasnt been done before. I dont see improving, or changing an gameplay mechanic to fit the game as innovating.
That's not up to you, the definition defines what the word means, Bioshock fits it. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I didnt see Bioshock doing anything different than what Dues Ex, or System Shock 2 has done. This doesnt make it a bad game though because I felt it was incredibly well done, great narrative and incredible presentation to boot. I just dont think it was anything different than Ion Storm, and Irrational Games before it. ( And I thought it was a tad bit long, thus making my experience I had a bit boring later on in the game)
You don't feel that way because you think if anything done has come before to ANY degree, it's not innovation. That's false, entirely.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Lastly, I dont agree with you about Halo on how it didnt add anything new to the genre. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Halo brought more tatical gameplay to the standerd shooter with the introduction of only allowing two guns during the game, the health system (which has been copied many of times) and the ability to quickfire grenades, which is almost essential to intense shooter games. This doesnt save the game from having the most horrid level design ever put into a game. Holy shit, its that bad. Bungie can create excellent AI, and action, but they have to hire an new level design, and maybe art director because the whole neon lighting is complete shit.
Goldeneye had double guns before Halo did.
Also, it doesn't have any tactical difference to those games. For all the realism Bungie claim the game has, you still end up strafing around one another in multiplayer because the combat system is shit. I've seen people at Halo championships do this, so it's not about who I've seen play.
Goldeneye had quickfire mines, even Alien Trilogy had quickfire grenades on the pulse rifle.
Excellent A.I? Like what? Running from grenades?
-AC
Originally posted by ESB -1138That's supposed to be known.
...we know you just changed the repost to replace graphics with gameplay. If you click on the (post) it'll show you the original.
Originally posted by ESB -1138flol
No he meant that you could only have two guns at a time like a sniper and a battle rifle.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
I enjoy Halo but I'm not wild about it like my brother is. For goodness sake he played Halo 1 for like 4 years straight until Halo 2 came out. He's calmed down but he was obsessed with Halo! We still have the Metroid vs Halo argument every now and then.But yeah; Halo doesn't add anything new to FPS but then again simplicity isn't a bad thing like I said before. But throwing out game after game that really doesn't add anything new isn't a good thing. I love hearing how Halo fanboys say all Nintendo does is release a Mario game despite Mario games actually changing the gameplay. Mario fans never seem to care when Nintendo changes the gameplay.
Heck Galaxy looks like it could be one of the greatest games of all time. But if Nintendo did what Halo did and just give Mario a few new power-ups but kept the gameplay to like Super Mario 64 then...I'm glad Nintendo has the balls to change.
Metroid Prime 3 didn't really change Metroid or change the gameplay from Metroid Prime or Echoes but it did give you a new way to play with the motion sensors. And the motion sensors really made the game a lot more fun because really the Wii has had FPS shooters before but none of them perfected it as well as Corruption has.
I guess I'm not your average halo fanboy then becasue I'm obsessed with mario... I own a DS with mario kart, super mario 64, New Super mario brothers and Mario World 2 Yoshi's island. Plus I own an N64 and SNES with probably a good 7 more mario games. But I'm very curious, what do you mean by halo not adding in anything new every game. Becaues its obvious that they always add more weapons, vehicles, etc. so what do you think they should add? And by the way Mario doesn't exactly have the greatest story... infact its always about a plumber trying to save a princess from a turtle so I think they have a bit more leverage when it comes to changing the gameplay...
And AC, its very obvious that you've come into this thread to bash Halo which is fine if thats your opinion.... and if I can't convince you that its an awesome FPS then thats alright, but we heard your opinion and we get the point.... so if you can click the white X in the upper right corner of your monitor at this time then that would be greatly appreciated. =)
Who cares about changing the gameplay when it's already fun? Oh right, picky and b*tchy people who either can't stay away from what they hate, or are really hard to satisfy. To those, go b*tch to Bungie, not people who find Halo a fun game with many great elements.
Originally posted by Spartan005Yes, much.
And AC, its very obvious that you've come into this thread to bash Halo which is fine if thats your opinion.... and if I can't convince you that its an awesome FPS then thats alright, but we heard your opinion and we get the point.... so if you can click the white X in the upper right corner of your monitor at this time then that would be greatly appreciated. =)
Technically, Bioshock itself is not a hugely innovative game as everything in it had been done before in System Shock 2. The two games are identical with just a different setting and a huge graphics and AI upgrade. Even the plot is near-identical. If you don't believe me, go ask Ush.
But very few people have even heard of SS2, let alone played it. And the things done in those two games had never been done before in a shooter before SS2, nor had ever been done since until Bioshock came along.
It's just the "why change what isn't broken" and "if they change the fans will be mad" attitudes that annoy me. Video games are starting to stagnate and all become the exact same thing due to these sorts of attitudes. **** what the handful of hardcore fans think, they're not actually the ones making money for Bungie and MS - people will still buy the game if gameplay is changed. And the majority who WILL still buy a game far outnumber the handful who'd flip their lid or the teeniest change.
But the fact of the matter, with Halo...it's all been done before. Sure, it's done well, I WILL give the game that much, but it's not new. Nothing about it is new. My opinion on the only reason it sells so well is because the original was a launch title for the Xbox and the games have been advertised to hell and back, because as far as FPSs go, there are better out there.
And guys...this isn't the "praise Halo 3" thread. People are allowed to have, hold, and post dissenting opinions if they wish.
Oh, and Smas...it's "Deus". Not "Dues".