2012 Spike Video game Awards

Originally posted by ares834
[B]Only hold two weapons, grenades without needing to switch weapons, recharging health, a new control scheme that almost all current FPSs are based on, customizable multiplayer, etc...

Hmm... fair enough. Still nowhere near as innovative as other franchises but I guess it did do some stuff new. Though the real problem with it imo, isn't so much about the first entry, it's that each new entry adds virtually nothing to it. The stories are never good or ever switch things up, it's basically the same kind of campaign each game, virtually indistinguishable from each other.

No. A question such as which is better is purely subjective.

Only to a certain extent. By same token we can claim that it is purely subjective over who is the better film director, martin scorcese or michael bay, but at the end of the day objective considerations reign supreme, and mass effect only gets the same kind of critical acclaim and fan reception that mgs does because videogames are still a young, immature and unrefined medium, and if they ever enter the same level of artistry as somwthibg like films, with real journalists and critics and scholars, it wouldnt be the case. Mass effect simply appeals to the sci-fi geek in us who liked to feel like we are commander shephard. But by almost any objective criteria MGS is far superior.

MGS isn't the "Father of Innovation". Not nearly.

Did it spawn a genre? Yes, it did. Is it an excellent game? Of course. It's one of the best games ever made.

But it, like any games, had a few pretty notable flaws.

You try to tear holes out of Mass Effect's saga just because someone dared to compare it to your holy grail of MGS?

Honestly, get over it. There's enough space for ME and MGS on the gaming mountain, and NEITHER is top of it.

Originally posted by Nephthys
In a world where innovation does not equal quality.

Quality that stands out is relies on being different, and innovation certainly helps.

Originally posted by TheOneOfMortis
Only to a certain extent. By same token we can claim that it is purely subjective over who is the better film director, martin scorcese or michael bay,

It is.

😐

Yes. I would think anyone who claims Bay is better than Scorcese is an utter dumb ass. But that doesn't mean their opinion is wrong.

Plus that's a pretty extreme example. It's not like we are saying that Uncharted is better than MGS. 😖hifty:

Originally posted by -Pr-
MGS isn't the "Father of Innovation". Not nearly.

Did it spawn a genre? Yes, it did. Is it an excellent game? Of course. It's one of the best games ever made.

But it, like any games, had a few pretty notable flaws.

You try to tear holes out of Mass Effect's saga just because someone dared to compare it to your holy grail of MGS?

Honestly, get over it. There's enough space for ME and MGS on the gaming mountain, and NEITHER is top of it.

What would be the most innovate franchise of all time if not MGS? It didn't just create a gameplay genre, it pioneered a change for the way stories were told and seen as in videogames, told a groundbreaking, original story, and creates numerous moments of genius with integrating the story and player actions with the gameplay and hardware (from the psycho mantis battle, to the battle with the sorrow, the end dying of old age etc). And it is consistently innovative with every main series installment.

Pacman. estahuh

Originally posted by TheOneOfMortis
Quality that stands out is relies on being different, and innovation certainly helps.

No it doesn't. Mass Effect didn't have anything different, as you said, yet it stood out. 🙂

It is different, but only superficially. It stands out because gaming is an immature, young medium, that doesnt have the same refinement of other mediums. Those superficial differences appeal to shallow, shallow gamers and fanboys.

Originally posted by TheOneOfMortis
What would be the most innovate franchise of all time if not MGS? It didn't just create a gameplay genre, it pioneered a change for the way stories were told and seen as in videogames, told a groundbreaking, original story, and creates numerous moments of genius with integrating the story and player actions with the gameplay and hardware (from the psycho mantis battle, to the battle with the sorrow, the end dying of old age etc). And it is consistently innovative with every main series installment.

Not with every installment, no. At least, not in any huge way. Sure, some of the games did add new elements that were pretty good, but you're overstating it just a little, tbh.

Originally posted by TheOneOfMortis
It is different, but only superficially. It stands out because gaming is an immature, young medium, that doesnt have the same refinement of other mediums. Those superficial differences appeal to shallow, shallow gamers and fanboys.

You really need to cut out this snarky attitude.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Pacman. estahuh

I know you're probably joking but yes Pacman at the time was innovative, in the same way Tetris is, and for that it deserves respect. But the scale is completely different. MGS is innovative in multiple areas, multiple aspects, and in a far bigger scale.

No it isn't. Pacman has it beat easily.

It really is. Some elements remain the same of course, but there are drastic changes in general gameplay, from controls to camera, changes in the capability of enemy A.I., changes with certain items and the way certain systems work.

But of more significance, are the variances to the core stealth/action gameplay that each installment introduces. In MGS2 a large part of the game revolves around bomb disposal, the end of the first chapter culminates in a photography based mission, each boss battle fills like its own unique entity, you have the swimming sections, you have escort missions, there's a segment where you have to be on sniper duty etc. Level design and scenarios add to create completely different kinds of gameplay segments, such as the end of the tanker chapter when you have to get through the conferance hall without being spotted. One thing that's so impressive about MGS is how they combine story and level design with other key videogame mechanics and elements to create an experience. The sense of a meaningful experience trumps everything else. It is not a game that tries to tell a story and uses the gameplay to accomodate that, it is not a game that adds a story on to the end of a game, it is not a game that seeks to create a specific genre. It values all components, and creates an experience that's fresh and varied.

MGS3 of course introduces the survival system and camoflage clothing system, takes place mostly outdoors which introduces a bunch of changes in how the stealth plays in the game, a segment where you have to impersonate someone and pose as him while infiltrating the base, and yes, battles like the one with the end and the sorrow are among the finest boss battles in videogame history and further add to how avried the games are.

MGS4, I already mentioned a lot of the stuff, you got the tracking mission, the following mission, allying yourself with PMCs, moments such as the shadow moses recreation, the microwave hall scene, movie length cutscene, etc.

The series innovates heavily with each installment.

Originally posted by Nephthys
No it isn't. Pacman has it beat easily.

How?

Let me give you an example.

If I describe a Halo game to you, it's basically as follows:

progress forward during level - fight enemies - activate switch, watch very brief cutscene, ride around on ground vehicule - fight enemies - ride flying vehicle - fight enemies- progress forwards - utilise a variety of weapons on your way.

That's basically all it ever has to offer in all honesty.

MGS offers an actual experience to play through.

Originally posted by TheOneOfMortis
It really is. Some elements remain the same of course, but there are drastic changes in general gameplay, from controls to camera, changes in the capability of enemy A.I., changes with certain items and the way certain systems work.

But of more significance, are the variances to the core stealth/action gameplay that each installment introduces. In MGS2 a large part of the game revolves around bomb disposal, the end of the first chapter culminates in a photography based mission, each boss battle fills like its own unique entity, you have the swimming sections, you have escort missions, there's a segment where you have to be on sniper duty etc. Level design and scenarios add to create completely different kinds of gameplay segments, such as the end of the tanker chapter when you have to get through the conferance hall without being spotted. One thing that's so impressive about MGS is how they combine story and level design with other key videogame mechanics and elements to create an experience. The sense of a meaningful experience trumps everything else. It is not a game that tries to tell a story and uses the gameplay to accomodate that, it is not a game that adds a story on to the end of a game, it is not a game that seeks to create a specific genre. It values all components, and creates an experience that's fresh and varied.

MGS3 of course introduces the survival system and camoflage clothing system, takes place mostly outdoors which introduces a bunch of changes in how the stealth plays in the game, a segment where you have to impersonate someone and pose as him while infiltrating the base, and yes, battles like the one with the end and the sorrow are among the finest boss battles in videogame history and further add to how avried the games are.

MGS4, I already mentioned a lot of the stuff, you got the tracking mission, the following mission, allying yourself with PMCs, moments such as the shadow moses recreation, the microwave hall scene, movie length cutscene, etc.

The series innovates heavily with each installment.

I could take parts of your posts and easily apply them to the Mass Effect series.

I'm amazed that anyone can call the Mass Effect games immature, though. That said, you didn't play them, so I guess that explains why.

Originally posted by TheOneOfMortis
How?

'The game is regarded as one of the most influential video games of all time,[56][57] for a number of reasons: its titular character was the first original gaming mascot, the game established the maze chase game genre, it demonstrated the potential of characters in video games, it opened gaming to female audiences, and it was gaming's first licensing success.[56] In addition, it was the first video game to feature power-ups,[58] and it is frequently credited as the first game to feature cut scenes, in the form of brief comical interludes about Pac-Man and the ghosts chasing each other around during those interludes,[54] though Space Invaders Part II employed a similar technique that same year. Pac-Man is also credited for laying the foundations for the stealth game genre, as it emphasized avoiding enemies rather than fighting them,[59] and had an influence on the early stealth game Metal Gear, where guards chase Solid Snake in a similar manner to Pac-Man when he is spotted.[60] Pac-Man has also influenced many other games, ranging from the sandbox game Grand Theft Auto (where the player runs over pedestrians and gets chased by police in a similar manner)[61] to early first-person shooters such as MIDI Maze (which had similar maze-based gameplay and character designs).[62][63] Game designer John Romero credited Pac-Man as the game that had the biggest influence on his career;[64] Wolfenstein 3D was similar in level design[65] and featured a Pac-Man level from a first-person perspective,[66][67] while Doom had a similar emphasis on mazes, power-ups, killing monsters, and reaching the next level'

Originally posted by -Pr-
I could take parts of your posts and easily apply them to the Mass Effect series.

I'm amazed that anyone can call the Mass Effect games immature, though. That said, you didn't play them, so I guess that explains why.

lol. Are you kidding? Mass Effect = talk to people/fight things, with the only segway being riding in your mako and collecting minerals.

Originally posted by TheOneOfMortis
lol. Are you kidding? Mass Effect = talk to people/fight things, with the only segway being riding in your mako and collecting minerals.

That honestly comes across as you just trolling, tbh. Yes, and I meant to say "honest/honestly" twice.

Ok, let's cut this down now. Get back to topic. TheOneofMortis, stop trolling, and that's the only warning you get before I ban you.

Folks in general- best not to respond to people obviously being deliberately provocative.

I wasn't going to come back here anyway.

How am I trolling however? I think that deserves some kind of explanation, as I was just debating a topic. Tzeenth and Neph would better fit the bill of trolling.

It's not up for discussion, and if you make a post like "I wasn't going to come back here anyway" again I'll ban you for spamming.