Originally posted by Peach
Sorry, but no. Things breaking when you hit them is not interacting with the stage. That's picking things up, being able to use them, being able to actively do something it. Not an effect from something else you've done. Those are all completely passive things. You factually cannot interact with the environment in SCIV.And I'm pretty sure that it was obvious that it's my opinion that fighting games are boring.
Don't know about that. Almost every mag review about the game ive read prerelease said that the environments were interactive. they called them "interactive stages". (Cause they are.)
You interact with the background. You certainly influence it when you willingly slam an opponent into it and cause injury. And besides, can you tell me of a fighting game that's used the type of interactivity your talking about?
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Don't know about that. Almost every mag review about the game ive read prerelease said that the environments were interactive. they called them "interactive stages". (Cause they are.)You interact with the background. You certainly influence it when you willingly slam an opponent into it and cause injury. And besides, can you tell me of a fighting game that's used the type of interactivity your talking about?
Why are you not understanding this?
You are not directly interacting with the background at all. You cannot actually pick up or use or do anything with any of the background elements. All you can do is break something by throwing someone else into it. That is not actually interacting because that is all done passively. It's an effect from something else.
And no, I couldn't, because as I said before, I do not play fighting games. They bore me because if you play one you've played them all.
And video game magazines say a lot of things that aren't necessarily true. They call Halo and Bioshock innovative, when there's nothing new in Halo and while Bioshock is different, it's completely identical to two previous games that were not mainstream. Just because it's in a magazine doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Absolutely nothing is interactable in SC4? Have you played the game before?, (no seriously..)SC4’s environments are immensely interactive. And they haven’t pushed the bar graphically? Do you know of a better looking fighting game? That’s ever come out, ever? That matches SC4 visually? If not then they’ve set the bar. (again)
Soul Caliber 4 is proof that all the graphics in the world won't save a game from being shit if the controls are more stiff than someone trying to get obese on viagra. Tekken 4 had more arena interaction than Soul Caliber 4, and that's a PS2 game.
It's not the best game, graphically. It's just polished. It's certainly not as good as Crysis in that area, or Bioshock.
With that said, I downloaded the demo of this game (The Force Unleashed) out of boredom, and being someone who enjoys the original trilogy of movies no more than quite a bit, I didn't expect to enjoy it. So imagine my surprise when I had a load of fun. It's especially satisfying being able to use the force to slam people around any way you desire.
That said, I get the feeling that if you've played the demo you've essentially played the game, and I would be immensely let down if I bought it and it was nothing but repetition.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Soul Caliber 4 is proof that all the graphics in the world won't save a game from being shit if the controls are more stiff than someone trying to get obese on viagra. Tekken 4 had more arena interaction than Soul Caliber 4, and that's a PS2 game.
Arena interaction doesn't make a game fun. I'm not a big fan of fighting games (really only one I play is Smash Bros) but I really liked Soulcalibur IV and that's pretty much the only fighting game I played that I actually liked (again besides Smash Bros but it's mainly because you don't have to learn all these combos).
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Soul Caliber 4 is proof that all the graphics in the world won't save a game from being shit if the controls are more stiff than someone trying to get obese on viagra. Tekken 4 had more arena interaction than Soul Caliber 4, and that's a PS2 game.
... you found the controls to be stiff?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Soul Caliber 4 is proof that all the graphics in the world won't save a game from being shit if the controls are more stiff than someone trying to get obese on viagra. Tekken 4 had more arena interaction than Soul Caliber 4, and that's a PS2 game.It's not the best game, graphically. It's just polished. It's certainly not as good as Crysis in that area, or Bioshock.
With that said, I downloaded the demo of this game (The Force Unleashed) out of boredom, and being someone who enjoys the original trilogy of movies no more than quite a bit, I didn't expect to enjoy it. So imagine my surprise when I had a load of fun. It's especially satisfying being able to use the force to slam people around any way you desire.
That said, I get the feeling that if you've played the demo you've essentially played the game, and I would be immensely let down if I bought it and it was nothing but repetition.
-AC
?
Sc4's controls are tight as hell. Your controller's the one that might be stiff.
And i'll always be the first one to say graphics don't matter if a game's sh*t. I'll never deny that.
And Crysis is the only game that comes real close to Sc4's graphics but "Bioshock"? Sc4's character models, especially facially, are photorealistic. Don't remember Bioshock looking photorealistic. Half Life 2 looks better than Bioshock and that came out what 3 years ago..Doom 3 looks better. And Sc4 looks way better than both..
And Sc4's open world scenery outshines all of "Bioshock's" enclosed and clausterphobic graphics. And gamewise "Bioshock" is good but I beat it in a week. On hard. And I didn't wanna play it again. Why.. I accomplished everything you could in it. There was no more to do and nothing else to get.
Not the case with Sc4, though. In fact it's the opposite.
And I bet you did have fun with "tfu". So did I. Cause that's exactly what it is. "a fun a*s game" as I wrote while I dl'ed the demo and during the 1st day it came out when I got it, after I played it for a couple of hours.
And you palyed the demo but didn't game the game seemingly. (you could get the graphic novel. It's the exact same thing down to every last sentence.)
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And I bet you did have fun with "tfu". So did I. Cause that's exactly what it is. "a fun a*s game" as I wrote while I dl'ed the demo and during the 1st day it came out when I got it, after I played it for a couple of hours.And you palyed the demo but didn't game the game seemingly. (you could get the graphic novel. It's the exact same thing down to every last sentence.)
My point was, if the game is just the demo's gameplay repeating itself, then I'm not interested, i.e: run along, kill some people, do something.
-AC
Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
...That's not even a matter of opinion, that's simply not true.
As far as I'm concerned, it is. I'm not interested in the sort of game style that fighting games is.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My point was, if the game is just the demo's gameplay repeating itself, then I'm not interested, i.e: run along, kill some people, do something.-AC
It can be repetitive, yeah. And it's obvious that they tried to avoid that by adding in all these combos and making enemies that can only be killed certain ways, but in reality there's no need to use any of the combos beyond one or two of them, and a lot of the enemies are just really cheap because they can only be killed certain ways.
At least it's entertaining repetition, and you can still have fun with it. Feeding stormtroopers to a sarlacc and a rancor is certainly entertaining, as is launching them off into space or freezing them with carbonite or throwing them into the Death Star's firing beam...
Originally posted by Peach
As far as I'm concerned, it is. I'm not interested in the sort of game style that fighting games is.
Then you don't like fighting games as far as the genre they are, that doesn't mean that if you've played one, you've played them all. That's not true. Tekken, Soul Caliber, Street Fighter, they're all different. However, they are all fighting games, and if that's where your problem with them lies, then it's more the fact that they're fighting games, than all of them being the same.
Although, to sort of agree with you, I don't see the point in fighting games now. Like, Tekken I'd still play because, to me, it perfected fighting games, and continued to each time. I wouldn't play any other football game besides Pro Evolution Soccer, I wouldn't play a multiplayer FPS besides Goldeneye. If you hit upon a willing formula in a genre full of games that use the same idea (Fighting for example), then it's hardly going to be bettered.
Originally posted by Peach
It can be repetitive, yeah. And it's obvious that they tried to avoid that by adding in all these combos and making enemies that can only be killed certain ways, but in reality there's no need to use any of the combos beyond one or two of them, and a lot of the enemies are just really cheap because they can only be killed certain ways.At least it's entertaining repetition, and you can still have fun with it. Feeding stormtroopers to a sarlacc and a rancor is certainly entertaining, as is launching them off into space or freezing them with carbonite or throwing them into the Death Star's firing beam...
That's why I'd probably only enjoy the demo when I'm bored. It's fun, but if I essentially did the same thing over and over again, I'd get terrible bored. Although, I'm not against fun repetition.
Most people would find the Hulk game as boring as I'd find this, but to my tastes, running around a city being repetitive as Hulk doesn't stop being fun. Then...you finish it and realise there's nothing left to do, and you've just spent money on a game with almost zero replay value. That's what I find bad about games like this/that.
That aside, I don't have time for many single player games now.
-AC
Oh, I still play Tekken 3 all the time. No other fighter will come close to that, as far as I'm concerned. I just haven't found any other one interesting enough to really differentiate itself from the bunch and thus to me, they all meld together into the same thing.
Yeah, it's definitely fun repetition. But as I've said before in this thread, it's not worth the full $60 (or whatever standard price new release 360 games are in other countries). It's very short, and the game is so glitched that the quality testers for it should be ashamed they let this get a pass from them. I'd say you should play it, but wait a bit until the price goes down a bit and until they patch it.
I'd say there is some replay value, in that there's two endings to it and if you're a completist, there's different difficulties and collecting everything...plus it's just fun to wreck everything. DLC should help, too.
Singleplayer would be 95% of what I play, though.