First of all, no, I did not assume you said it was great beause of that, I was simply pointing out that it was a. not innovative and b. none the worse for it, as you had earlier implied I was speaking against the game which I was not.
Secondly, no, not because they disagree with me- though seeing as my psition is based on simple and sensible logic, reasonable people won't so disagree- but because they can only say it was innovative if they don't realise it has already been done. Something that has already been done cannot be innovative. Not knowing it has been done is ignorance.
it is completely irrelevant whether the ideas have been commoinly repeated througout the FPS market because that has bugger all to do with something being innovative. being innovative involves being new- not being identical to what was done ten years ago. Again, this is very simple.
And after ten years (and that's only since the last one), and after having been used in other games, so, you cannot even vaguely call them innovative. They are not innovative. They have been seen and done before. Your attempts to try and twist the fact that when the franchise started- before some people who post in this section were born- it was innovative to try and say therefore Bioshock still is... is feeble. Childish rebellion eh? Simple statement of fact. Childish is trying to stretch the defintion of 'innovative;' into something entirely different.
I don't care hopw boring you think it is. Turth is boring sometimes, but it's still the truth. And as ever... I don't really care what you thnk at all. You've been completely caught out trying to say something is innovative when it is identical in gameplay to its decade-old predecessor. You are now trying to talk otu of it but you really only look more feeble as you do so. The technique of being right when I am right... is one you may see a heck of a lot from me, especially when you are so wrong. Sorry if you don't like that, but fact rather smacks your views around the face on this one.
To criticise halo 3 as a sequel on grounds of innovation but to praise Biposhock is simple and pure hypocrisy.
My point well made, I have no further interest in debating on the matter. Reply or rant all you like, AC, I won't read it.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Something that has already been done cannot be innovative? Aren't you supposed to be a teacher?
By definition; Bioshock is an innovative game. It is ahead of its times, in the current gaming climate, it is above and beyond, pushing all kinds of boundaries. Lots of innovative musicians utilise techniques invented decades ago, but nobody calls them innovative for using said techniques, just either using them in new ways, or when compared with their peers, using them at all, if such a thing is not widely done or known.
This is what Bioshock is doing for FPS.
Innovation isn't specifically about being entirely new, as I've had to illustrate to you time and time again. Originality is not intrinsic to being innovative.
The definition of "Innovative" is as I posted earlier; one of the definitions being "Ahead of the times.". Bioshock is, it is a game with gameplay and aesthetics that people in the current time will be playing catch up with for a very long time. That qualifies as being innovative.
I've not been caught out at all, if I had said it was original and didn't know the previous games existed, you'd have a point, but I didn't say that, and as a result, you don't have a point.
You can keep saying that all you like, but quoting the definition of the word, when half of it agrees with me in the first place, and the other half that you argue from is still applicable to my argument, doesn't do anything to demean by argument at all. You are the one trying to stretch the definition to apply to what YOU are saying. I'm not the one sitting here saying it's original, you are the one sitting here saying it's not an innovative game, when by definition, it is. So either ignore the definition, or accept it.
You make points as well as you understand points, Ush.
Halo, from the first and probably to the last, has brought nothing new to the FPS genre, the "Shock" franchise has, and with Bioshock, continued to be ahead of contemporaries and ahead of its time, making it an innovative game.
Tool are an innovative band, they're far from original, though. They use techniques in music used before, but do so in original ways. Spawning new techniques is a way of innovation, using existing ones in new ways is also innovative, which Bioshock does.
Gender: Male Location: In Your Heart Building a Station.
Account Restricted
I love this part right here, just in general. PROFILED.
With that said, it would be MARVELOUS to get the talk in this HALO 3 thread strictly back to being about HALO 3.
Ush, as moderator, you should be ashamed to have been such a big part of the derailment of this thread and whomever Moderates this Games Forums should be ashamed as well for letting it go on like this and possibly being a part of it as well.
People just can't handle having Halo 3 critiqued civilly, so people with Master Chief sigs, calling themselves "Spartan" come in and call you retarded.
Thank you god... the discussion is not about bioshock, its about Halo. And I think everyone here agrees that Halo is not innovative. Congratulations AC, you have proven your point. *cough*BUTITSSTILLAGREATGAMEANDKICKSTHESHITOUTOFBI
OSHOCKANDGEARSOFWARCOMBINED*cough*
You're just one of those guys who can't be proven wrong. Even if you are wrong you will never admit to it becasue you have to be right. Thats just the way it goes isn't it? I already ended the discussion two posts ago AND admitted that you were right... but no lets continue to argue about it.
I love bioshock but maybe the genre isn't quite my style. I know its technically an FPS but its kind of a horror survival shooter at the same time and from what I've played it doesn't seem like the characters are as good as in Halo.... thats also coming from a demo so who knows but whatever I'll wait until I beat the game and then post back. Gears is a fantastic game, I was thrilled about it but you have to understand that in 6th grade Halo was the greatest thing in the world to me and my best friend (beowulf on this forum) I remember the day it came out in school I looked down at my notebook and saw Halo written on 4 pages straight all over. So Gears was great but Halo is pretty much my favorite game ever invented. Plus you have to admit that STORY wise, Halo tops gears by a mile. Goldeneye was also awesome.. I forget the map but I remember having a blast with those proximity mines... good times. But that was based off of a movie and came out on a different console at a different time so its very hard to compare.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. In this case, in the discussion we had, I was right, so why should I admit otherwise? You hold a silly opinion of why Halo's GAMEPLAY is good, considering it has nothing to do with the gameplay; citing voices, guns and music as reasons, but that's up to you. You're not "wrong" or "right", neither am I.
You are one of those guys who just gets upset when Master Chief and Halo aren't preferred as the best anything.
Exactly, you love the game so you overrate it for no logical reason, silliness.
Halo's story wasn't better than Gears, in my opinion. It was boring, too drawn out and way too mismatched. The story they present doesn't match the characters, enemies and settings they use. Gears suits its story.
AHHH I said you were right... YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT HALO NOT BEING INNOVATIVE!!!!!! I still love the game though... thats it.
And yes I love the game but no I don't overrate it because it is a great game with great weapons, environmetns etc. A game doesn't have to innovative to be great. look at "Prey" for example. That game had more innovation than any 360 game to date.... you could walk up walls and on ceilings, go into a spirit form to unlock passages etc. but it was not a great game... far from it IMO.
And that last paragraph clearly tells me that you just either
A. Hate Halo
B. Love Gears
C. Don't want to be wrong
because if you look at nearly ANY review on Gears of War, they will tell you that the story lacked a lot. If you look at ANY review on Halo, they will tell you that the story is awesome.
Lets compare... In gears aliens emerge from underground and a big battle goes on. You race to get a bomb that will blow up their base underground. If you think thats simplified then please explain your version.
In Halo A race of Aliens named the covenant attacked Earths last military planet without knowing the location of earth. A group of genetically enhanced supersoldiers held them off but only one escaped on a ship named the pillar of autumn. When they jumped into space they discovered an ancient ring world and crash landed the ship on it. Soon they discovered that it was actually a weapon used to destroy all life in the galaxy due to a virus being contained below its surface. The virus named the flood becomes unleashed and the last spartan makes the decision to set off the pillar of autumns fusion reactors in order to destroy the weapon.... plus all of the other little sub plot things inbetween.
I mean come on at least admit that Halo's story is better because that is not even a matter of opinion... its a fact.
Reviews are opinions. So nobody can tell me anything about the story and whether it was bad or good as a fact, cos such a thing doesn't exist. Reviews saying Halo's story is awesome doesn't make it any more a fact than saying the game itself is awesome, it's all opinion, and in mine, the story is generic and doesn't suit everything else.
Gears' story is pretty generic too, but it's better put together in my opinion.
So what your reply tells me is:
A) You're just buried in Master Chief's airlock.
B)...just A.
I can over-complicate Gears' plot just like you did with Halo, but I wouldn't, because essentially they both carry a similar, played out story. I don't love Gears for the story, but I feel it was better combined with the game than Halo was.
It's not a fact, it's entirely opinion. You prefer Halo's story, some reviewers prefer Halo's story, it's preference, opinion, not fact.
Typical Halo fan, and that is proof that you overrate this game far too much. You're actually claiming it factually has a better story because some reviewers agree with you.
innovative
1. ahead of the times; "the advanced teaching methods"; "had advanced views on the subject"; "a forward-looking corporation"; "is British industry innovative enough?".
2. being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before; "stylistically innovative works"; "innovative members of the artistic community"; "a mind so innovational, so original.".
Bioshock is the first one. It doesn't need to be brand new, never done before to be innovative.
Do you consider Tool an innovative band, Lana? You have said you do before. So either you've only just learned what one definition of the word means, or you're agreeing with someone for the sake of it.
The Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries agree with me, though, and I trust those over dictionary.com which isn't exactly considered to be the most reliable.
Key phrase there. "New ways". NEW. Not done before.
And something can't really be considered ahead of its time if the exact same thing was done before...just no one really knew about it the first time around.
No, that's you defining it how you wish. There are "NEW WAYS" of playing OLD TECHNIQUES in music, the people that do this are considered innovative because they are. Doing things ahead of their time, ie; the current climate.
Bioshock is ahead of its time, there isn't an FPS or really a game in general out right now, competing with it, that is doing anything close.
You dodged my question; do you consider Tool an innovative band anymore? You've repeatedly said they are, with a measure of conviction in the music forum, multiple times.
Bioshock really isn't ahead of it's time. SS or SS2, when they came out 10-15 years ago, certainly yes. What Bioshock does should be the norm in gaming now and this just goes to what I said earlier about games stagnating and all turning about to be the same thing. Blame the people who whine about any little change and thus scaring developers into sticking with the same old thing just because it works.
Old techniques in new ways...sure...but that's not actually the case here. If SS and SS2 didn't exist then yes. As Ush said, it would have been SS3 if not for licensing and such. Frankly, System Shock/Bioshock is as guilty of the "it's not broke so don't fix it" thing as Halo.
And I've actually never once said that, at least not on KMC. Even searched the forums to be sure. I don't have enough technical knowledge of music to state any such claim knowledgeably anyway.
Just because it should be the norm doesn't change a thing. The fact is, it's not the norm, and nobody around is doing anything close. It's bringing old ideas back in new ways. It is ahead of the current climate, unless you now believe that every game is equal to it.
Yes, you and a million others have said that. That's one of the praises Bioshock has been receiving, the fact that it's not one of those games. These are people who write about, review, critique and enjoy games for a living. It's their opinion of the quality, sure, but do you think they are unaware of SS? No, they just recognise that it doesn't stop the game being innovative.
So then clearly you just went back on the idea that something has to be entirely new to be innovative, by agreeing that old things in new ways, if it still pushes boundaries, is innovative. In today's current gaming climate, Bioshock is an innovative, if unoriginal, game.
Bioshock is quite obviously not as guilty for that as Halo is, and most of your posts prior have alluded to such. I honestly thought you were more independent than to be so influenced by one person's opinion on a game, but I'm not infallible.
Ok, here's a better example. Rage Against the Machine; politcally charged music is no new thing, but they are considered one of the 90s most innovative bands, because they did an old thing in a new way. Not even drastically new, message wise, but new in terms of the climate they were in and the content. The same as Bioshock's gameplay.
The very existence of plasmids etc, someone took an OLD idea and used a NEW technique to express that old idea. That's innovative, but definition. Plasmids were not in System Shock, they invented a new way to express similar techniques.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 5th, 2007 01:09 AM
