Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Link is a fictional character and Zelda is a princess. You just said 2 things I've already known. You keep complaining about originality when you haven't played all the games. And like I said, name a few bosses in GOW that are original. 🙂

Same locations? Its always Hyrule so if the locations changed between games, wouldn't that be an inconsistency? Yes, Zelda is getting really uncreative. I suppose you haven't seen the trailer to Skyward Sword huh?

I can name at least 3 that he is not in. And again, I've not played the games. I'm sure someone who has could easily name more if there are any. Story progresses in Zelda as well because most the Link's are different and as such, they have different adventures. And the story does progress in games that have a clear place in the timeline.

It isn't the same hyrule every single time if events vary then locations can vary due to destruction, etc. Laughs.

Probably gameboy games. I know he wasn't in part 2 but for the most part he's pretty much in every one. hat's the point he is in the majority.

It's the same basic stuff as I pointed out not the same in gow. Things change fast and all the time in those awesome games.

Ganondorf has appeared in 9 of the 16 Zelda games, or 8 if you count the Oracles as one game and he only appears in one. That's 7 or 8 (fully half the series) whole games without Ganondorf.

The games have taken place in Hyrule in 10 out of 16 games, or 9 if you don't count New Hyrule, which is a different place. Again, 7 games without what you seem to think is always there.

Zelda herself has appeared 11 times out of 16. 5 games, the entirety of GoW, without the series namesake.

The Master Sword. 5 out of 16. Possibly 6 if the Magical Sword was retconned to the Master Sword. 10-11 freaking games without it.

None of these count Skyward Sword, as we don't know much about it, except that it takes place in Skyloft, not Hyrule.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Cronos is original, Hades is original, the Ares boss battle was original, the Zeus boss battles were original, the Sisters of Fate boss battle was original, the Poseidon boss battle was original, need I go on?

It isn't the same hyrule every single time if events vary then locations can vary due to destruction, etc. Laughs.

Probably gameboy games. I know he wasn't in part 2 but for the most part he's pretty much in every one. hat's the point he is in the majority.

It's the same basic stuff as I pointed out not the same in gow. Things change fast and all the time in those awesome games.

Now here comes the awesome part: I can go make a thread with Volvagia. How many threads can you make with the bosses you just mentioned? 😖hifty:

They aren't original because all the names you mentioned, like I said, are in greek mythology. Yes, why bother coming up with a boss when we can literally write down a bunch of names out of a text book and draw from a hat. We're so original!

Things change fast in those awesome games? You mean the people I'm currently cutting in half are changing. Not really all that special.

Originally posted by The Scenario
Ganondorf has appeared in 9 of the 16 Zelda games, or 8 if you count the Oracles as one game and he only appears in one. That's 7 or 8 (fully half the series) whole games without Ganondorf.

The games have taken place in Hyrule in 10 out of 16 games, or 9 if you don't count New Hyrule, which is a different place. Again, 7 games without what you seem to think is always there.

Zelda herself has appeared 11 times out of 16. 5 games, the entirety of GoW, without the series namesake.

The Master Sword. 5 out of 16. Possibly 6 if the Magical Sword was retconned to the Master Sword. 10-11 freaking games without it.

None of these count Skyward Sword, as we don't know much about it, except that it takes place in Skyloft, not Hyrule.

Hey look, someone who knows his stuff. Want to argue with him about how unoriginal Zelda is now? 😐

In gow 2 you are killed and go back in time and come after zeus the moment he was about to kill you. He then escapes so you go back and get the titans and lead an assault on olympus.

What about that is original? That's been done before, long before GoW. For example, PoP. Which is superior to GoW in every way, and to which GoW owes its existence, pretty much.

Fighting on a titan's back is not 'raising a bar', by the way. There have been boss battles of that sort in games before.

Originally posted by Peach
What about that is original? That's been done before, long before GoW. For example, PoP. Which is superior to GoW in every way, and to which GoW owes its existence, pretty much.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Except in gameplay. You know, the most important aspect of a game.

GoW's gameplay is better, you say? No, not really. I find it rather generic, personally.

The whole action-adventure/puzzle thing was pretty much invented by Zelda, and the platform/puzzle thing invented by PoP.

GoW would not exist if not for those two series.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Now here comes the awesome part: I can go make a thread with Volvagia. How many threads can you make with the bosses you just mentioned? 😖hifty:

They aren't original because all the names you mentioned, like I said, are in greek mythology. Yes, why bother coming up with a boss when we can literally write down a bunch of names out of a text book and draw from a hat. We're so original!

Things change fast in those awesome games? You mean the people I'm currently cutting in half are changing. Not really all that special.

Hey look, someone who knows his stuff. Want to argue with him about how unoriginal Zelda is now? 😐

Like I said gow is outdoing themselves in each game unlike zelda.

Originally posted by Peach
What about that is original? That's been done before, long before GoW. For example, PoP. Which is superior to GoW in every way, and to which GoW owes its existence, pretty much.

Fighting on a titan's back is not 'raising a bar', by the way. There have been boss battles of that sort in games before.

That's your opinion.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I have played Okami. Brilliant game, at least on PS2.

Really? I heard that it looked slightly better than the PS2 version and was pretty much the same, bar the removal of the credits, and the awful control scheme.
Or were you referring to the originality it had on the PS2?

Also, what was your reaction when Ammy used wind to spin a distant galaxy? 😛

Originally posted by mechagoomba
I played it, lost my PS2 verson. So I wasnt able to finish it, but I bought it again for the wii. Still need to finish it though lol.

That sucks. I'd rather play it on the PS2 than the Wii any day.

Originally posted by Phanteros
Death in DI wasn't even impressive. Infact he was featless.

Dude, don't you know? It's Death, who's like this uber being in some other works of fiction, and so therefore, must uber in DI as well...

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
YouTube video

5 internets to you for reminding me of the awesomeness that is Darkwing Duck.

Originally posted by Peach
GoW's gameplay is better, you say? No, not really. I find it rather generic, personally.

The whole action-adventure/puzzle thing was pretty much invented by Zelda, and the platform/puzzle thing invented by PoP.

GoW would not exist if not for those two series.

Neither would a myriad of other series. Yet that does not mean that any of the successors are incapable of surpassing those two.

Originally posted by quanchi112
That's due to the rules in this particular part of kmc. The bosses are original and just because they are based off of something else doesn't make them unoriginal. A giant spider to me is unoriginal.

Like I said gow is outdoing themselves in each game unlike zelda.

It does though, in every way. Giant spiders are unoriginal because some guy with a fear of spiders thought they'd make a good boss in a game. Or maybe that's not how it started and I'm just reasoning that. Regardless, its just taking something, making it slightly different, and putting it in a game as a boss. lol Ganondorf is original but you seem to ignore him. Whereas God Of War is characters picked out of a text book.

How is God Of War outdoing themselves and Zelda is not? Explain that now. 😐

Originally posted by quanchi112
That's due to the rules in this particular part of kmc. The bosses are original and just because they are based off of something else doesn't make them unoriginal. A giant spider to me is unoriginal.

Like I said gow is outdoing themselves in each game unlike zelda.

Why isn't gow original? GOw blows POP out of the water.

That's your opinion.

Um, something being based on something else is the very definition of unoriginal.

And it's up to you to prove that GoW is original. You're not doing a very good job doing so.

GoW blows nothing out of the water, unless you're talking about some stagnant little pond.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
It does though, in every way. Giant spiders are unoriginal because some guy with a fear of spiders thought they'd make a good boss in a game. Or maybe that's not how it started and I'm just reasoning that. Regardless, its just taking something, making it slightly different, and putting it in a game as a boss. lol Ganondorf is original but you seem to ignore him. Whereas God Of War is characters picked out of a text book.

How is God Of War outdoing themselves and Zelda is not? Explain that now. 😐

Originally posted by Peach
Um, something being based on something else is the very definition of unoriginal.

And it's up to you to prove that GoW is original. You're not doing a very good job doing so.

GoW blows nothing out of the water, unless you're talking about some stagnant little pond.

I see these boss battles as being anything but unoriginal.

I can tell you don't like gow but it's recognition, fan popularity say otherwise. POP doesn't even come close to Gow in terms of either.

Don't ever use popularity to support your argument. Because popularity makes mistakes.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Don't ever use popularity to support your argument. Because popularity makes mistakes.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Dorf is original I will give you that. I see the boss battles are being more original though than the zelda boss battles I have been through.

Based on something is just based on something that doesn't mean whether it's original or not it depends on the gameplay itself.

I see these boss battles as being anything but unoriginal.

I can tell you don't like gow but it's recognition, fan popularity say otherwise. POP doesn't even come close to Gow in terms of either.

Oh, so we've gone from bosses being original to the boss battles being original. Nice to see you change things when you make a bad point. And I don't see the boss battles as being that original either for that matter. Zeus uses lightning like you'd expect, Poseidon uses water and horses(nice touch admittedly), Hades tries to steal your soul, etc. Each one follows what you'd expect them to do from their original counterparts.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It doesn't hurt your argument. If something is popular it usually doesn't suck.

Zelda?ermm

Quan, you fail.

Original means new, unique, something that hasn't been done before. Such as the Phantom Ganon fight in OoT, or Stallord in TP.

Not the GoW gods, who are by their very purpose in the game derived from existing material, vis a vis, Greek mythology. The whole point of GoW was to craft a hack'n'slash game out of references to Greek mythology.

Also, for the record, your "but you fight on a Titan's back and that's completely new and creative" argument is void. Shadow of the Colossus did that idea, and better, a full two years before GoW2 came out.

And don't even get me started on PoP. The setting, characters, plot, characterization, pacing, gameplay, creativity, and character interaction of PoP is a whole different plane, far above where GoW sits.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It doesn't hurt your argument. If something is popular it usually doesn't suck.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Quan, you fail.

Original means new, unique, something that hasn't been done before. Such as the Phantom Ganon fight in OoT, or Stallord in TP.

Not the GoW gods, who are by their very purpose in the game derived from existing material, vis a vis, Greek mythology. The whole point of GoW was to craft a hack'n'slash game out of references to Greek mythology.

Also, for the record, your "but you fight on a Titan's back and that's completely new and creative" argument is void. Shadow of the Colossus did that idea, and better, a full two years before GoW2 came out.

And don't even get me started on PoP. The setting, characters, plot, characterization, pacing, gameplay, creativity, and character interaction of PoP is a whole different plane, far above where GoW sits.

Hi there, Twilight.

The fight with the phantom one from the pictures was hardly original or cool to me. Maybe at the time it came out but playing through this game now it just seems lame.

I feel the way gow presented itself was new and original you can disagree all you want.

Iyo but most fans disagree. The sales of both series say which game the fans enjoy more. Money talks and gow far eclipses pop. How terrible did that movie do again?

Iyo it sucks but money talks like I said. That's what these things are done for to make money and those that do are a success. Most people enjoy twilight. I don't think they are terrible. I myself enjoy true blood which is another popular vampire show.

Originally posted by Peach
GoW's gameplay is better, you say? No, not really. I find it rather generic, personally.

The whole action-adventure/puzzle thing was pretty much invented by Zelda, and the platform/puzzle thing invented by PoP.

GoW would not exist if not for those two series.

GoW utilizes a simple combat engine with relatively few attacks, but the ability to chain them together seamless combinations, giving the combat a sort of flow. Also, although the series is not the first to utilise QTEs, it is the one that made them popular (Which admittedly is not always a good thing) and does them well.

Also do note that I am not saying GoW as a series surpasses Zelda, even in my opinion is that not true, although I have never personally cared for Prince of Persia.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The boss battles were unique in gow. Just bceause it's based off of mythology doesn't mean it isn't. it doesn't follow the events of mythology either.

The fight with the phantom one from the pictures was hardly original or cool to me. Maybe at the time it came out but playing through this game now it just seems lame.

I feel the way gow presented itself was new and original you can disagree all you want.

Iyo but most fans disagree. The sales of both series say which game the fans enjoy more. Money talks and gow far eclipses pop. How terrible did that movie do again?

Iyo it sucks but money talks like I said. That's what these things are done for to make money and those that do are a success. Most people enjoy twilight. I don't think they are terrible. I myself enjoy true blood which is another popular vampire show.

For the other parts of your post, you are blatantly ignoring fact for personal opinion and complete disregard for logic, and I can't debate that.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The boss battles were unique in gow. Just bceause it's based off of mythology doesn't mean it isn't. it doesn't follow the events of mythology either.

The fight with the phantom one from the pictures was hardly original or cool to me. Maybe at the time it came out but playing through this game now it just seems lame.

I feel the way gow presented itself was new and original you can disagree all you want.

Iyo but most fans disagree. The sales of both series say which game the fans enjoy more. Money talks and gow far eclipses pop. How terrible did that movie do again?

Iyo it sucks but money talks like I said. That's what these things are done for to make money and those that do are a success. Most people enjoy twilight. I don't think they are terrible. I myself enjoy true blood which is another popular vampire show.

Oh...wow. I really can't believe this.

How can you argue that something that is directly taken from something else is original, when that is the very definition of unoriginal?

Okay, you don't like the Phantom Ganon fight. However, that is irrelevant. Yes, games have done that sort of thing since. When OoT came out? Nothing of that sort had been done. That is the point. It was original, because it was brand-new and never done before when it came out.

The Prince of Persia actually holds a very high amount of critical acclaim and recognition. It basically created a new genre, and as such has influenced the game industry in ways that GoW could never hope to.

What video game movie has ever done exceptionally well? None, but the PoP movie has the distinction of having been the best one made to date by a long shot, and it was in fact a success. Also, I wouldn't pay much attention to critic reviews, since if you actually do some research, popular opinion is that most of the reviewers did not actually watch the movie.

GoW sells better because it appeals to the teenaged-minded boys that revel in senseless gore and violence, as opposed to the gamers that prefer something a bit more sophisticated and intelligent.

And yes, I would say that anyone that likes Twilight is a terrible person that doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, because ye gods is it horrible shite.