[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games


View post   

File: 703 KB, 1767x1387, SLUS-00594-F-ALL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4592743 No.4592743 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.4592747
File: 102 KB, 804x743, 28CCE11A-D63C-4133-8ADD-DD88E3C3BDBF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4592747

Not even close.

>> No.4592756

>>4592743
I never played that game and I was born in 1990

>> No.4592759

>>4592756
underage pls go.

>> No.4592761

>>4592743
Sure, if you're a /v/ crossposter

>> No.4592763

>>4592759
>liking MGS
>calling others underage
LMAO

>> No.4592765

unironically the GOAT

>> No.4592772

I first played MGS in a gaming house (it's a place where you pay by the hour to play games). The save was shared by a bunch of kids. We didn't know English back then, so we just skipped all the cutscenes. I did most of the heavy lifting, but I didn't play the Hind D boss battle, someone else did.

>> No.4592778

>>4592772
How's life in the third world

>> No.4592780

<<4592743 (You)
Positive bait is the best kind of bait, because the mods won't delete your shitposts that way yet you still get delicious (You)'s.

>> No.4592785

>>4592743
Is pretty good, yeah.

>> No.4592810

>>4592761
/v/ thinks MGS3 is better...

>> No.4592819

>>4592810
/v/ likes the series in the first place lol

>> No.4592867

>>4592810
MGS3 is so overrated. MGS2 continues to be the best in the series.

>> No.4592876

>>4592867
>MGS2
Thats a funny way of spelling MGSV.

>> No.4592939

>>4592867
>>4592876
both /v/ opinions

>> No.4592941

>>4592939
Liking these at all is /v/-core

>> No.4592948

>>4592941
no. /v/ doesn't like MGS1 therefore it's /vr/

>> No.4592959

>>4592948
>/v/ doesn't like MGS1
[citation needed]

>> No.4592971
File: 400 KB, 1200x1200, 6ee86f_5922705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4592971

>>4592948
>no. /v/ doesn't like MGS1 therefore it's /vr/
Number 53. It's always one of those retro games that's praised by modernfags.

>> No.4593019

>>4592971
it's still a better game than mother 3, oot, chrono, ff6, super metroid, fallout 2 etc

>> No.4593025

>>4593019
I guess, why not. Not sure about etc. though.

>> No.4593028

>>4593025
i listed games that are ahead in the ranking

>> No.4593048

MGS1 is a pretty good game, I approve. The only part that isn't great is when you're fiddling with the temperature of the key card and you have to walk back and forth through the hanger a billion times.

>> No.4593053

>>4592939
>/v/
>liking MGSV
You have no idea how wrong you are. Go fuck yourself ;)

>> No.4593059
File: 230 KB, 800x1200, encino_man_xlg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4593059

Oh please. The crown jewel of the 90s wasn't even a video game.

>> No.4593063

>>4593028
As in you feel that it's better than all the games they ranked above it? That is a fair enough opinion, admittedly.

>> No.4593068

>>4592743
Can't disagree because FFIX is a 2000's game.

>> No.4593071

Played this several years ago for the first time as part of the MGS Legacy collection. I think it's the most overrated of the bunch, closely followed by MGS2. It gets full marks for cutscenes, story, voice acting, which were revolutionary for the time, but the gameplay is, and I think was incredibly dogshit. I would like to think that, had I played it when it was released, I would have recognized how inadequate it was compared to other 3D games, but now, the game is nearly unplayable and actually playing it was a chore. It's so bad, that people don't complain more about the gamplay when they talk about this game is baffling, not so much that I think people have shit taste, but I genuinely am curious how people can tolerate it, much less enjoy it.

>> No.4593074

>>4593048
That bit with the keykard was pretty blatant padding. I don't even know why they bothered, it's still a short game anyway.

>> No.4593081

>>4593074
MUH CONTENT AND LENGTH, it's one of the signs of modern game design.

>> No.4593093

>>4593081
The game was short by contemporary standards. Short and sweet, one might say, but it's definitely the case. Also, how would complaining about content not be a timeless criticism?

>> No.4593105

>>4593053
Eh, MGSV doesn't hold a candle to the other games in a lot of aspects, and it's a half-baked unfinished mess with one of the least satisfying endings I've ever played in a game, but it's still a damn fun sandbox and the core mechanics are really enjoyable. I had a good time with it.

>> No.4593108

>>4592971
Damn. I really liked VTM Bloodlines :(

>> No.4593110

If you're really interestered, http://culture.vg/reviews/awards/game-of-the-year.html

>> No.4593123
File: 21 KB, 700x700, DpQ9YJl.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4593123

>>4593068
I'll have to be that guy, but the year 2000 was actually the last of the 90s

>> No.4593126

>>4593093
Not "short and sweet" by arcade standards. And the "muh content" criticism is a modern gaymer thing, older games were designed to be beatable and fun in short bursts, a single short sitting. You didn't see people complaining that Donkey Kong needed one more level per loop and that it lacked "muh content" for that.
>>4593110
Fuck off, Icycalm
>>4593108
Notice how there are absolutely zero arcade games on the top 100, that's hilarious.

>> No.4593139
File: 5 KB, 140x185, 1407637990477.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4593139

>>4593126
>Only classic megaman is megaman 2
>Megaman x is behind megaman 2
>Only 8 good games
>No daggerfall

>> No.4593141

>>4593126
>Not "short and sweet" by arcade standards.
What kind of asinine point is that? This type of game is about as far removed as possible from what would be appropriate for an arcade. What do you mean by "modern," because it was legitimate criticism to make at the time, and certainly still is? Yes, I would allow that based on standards not relevant for its era, type of game, or platform, it's length was not an issue. Do we agree, are you going to insist on such a ridiculous way of judging games?

>> No.4593148

>>4593139
8 good dos games*

>> No.4593154

>>4593141
I'm just saying that the devs felt the need to pad the game due to how they were abiding by the new, modern gayming standards (I consider 5th gen around the time when modern games started, and MGS was one of the more modern-feeling games). They didn't have to, but they did, because if not then the game would have been criticized for "muh lack of content" from the rising modern audience, which as I've established is a thing that wasn't there in older times.

>> No.4593181

>>4593154
Okay. They could have made it shorter and its short length would have been more apparent. And the campaigns got longer and more varied as the series progressed, so it's not really a problem other entries had. Even during the fourth generation, developers were pressured to lengthen games, even by adding unfun busywork, a good example being The Lion King for the SNES. I'm not saying that Konami was right to add filler, but it was to alleviate a problem to meet standards that were rightfully developed when you pay $50, (actually much more taking inflation in account), for a game and play it in your home.

>> No.4593263

>>4593181
>standards that were rightfully developed when you pay $50, (actually much more taking inflation in account), for a game and play it in your home.
Not my fault that you have the bullshit modern mentality that games should be based on time+quality/price instead of quality/time.
I may spend 50 dollars on a game that "lasts" 30 minutes. However, those 30 minutes may be fucking amazing, to the point I enjoy replaying them from time to time, even within the same week.
However, padding just cheapens the experience. I'd rather have fun all the time rather than a game lasting longer. But nope, shit changed around the mid 90's as you pointed out.
tl;dr I prefer a good 30 minutes game than a not so good 30 hours game.
(And, in general, short games are much more tightly focused i.e. not padded to appease those casual ass bullshit demands from people that hop from easy game to easy game without any thought)

>> No.4593275

>>4593263
>quality/time.
I'm sure plenty of reviewers took that into account when reviewing the game, reviewing it better than plenty of games that were longer. But it's still a criticism that the game doesn't have as much content as many other games did. It would be one thing if were sold at a discount, but it's not. Portal I think would be in far fewer favorites list had it been sold alone at full price.
>However, padding just cheapens the experience.
If this is your point, I won't contest it, but it would be wrong to say people shouldn't criticize its lack of content, (which is still apparent, despite the padding), just because standards demanded long games. There's nothing wrong with saying it's a great game, with flaws, like its length.

>> No.4593289

>>4593275
I just disagree with those shitty standards, it just leads to crappy games (and has lead to that)
Quality/Time > All

>> No.4593294

>>4593289
Okay. I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but most people probably want games longer than MGS1 for full price, and most games cater to this preference, including MGS1's sequels.

>> No.4593302

>>4593294
RIP classic style games

>> No.4593309

MGS marked the begining of the end for video games. Two fourths of the game are just cutscenes, and one forth of the is Hideo Kojima trying to show you how clever he is to the detriment of the gameplay. The forth of the game that's actually a fucking video game is really good, but it's buried beneath a bunch of bullshit

Critics loved MGS because it was more like a movie than a game. After all; movies are respectable; video games aren't

This lead to the horrible trend of overproduced snoozefests like Uncharted where the graphics, music and story all take priority over gameplay

>> No.4593312

>>4593302
There are plenty of shorter games, mostly indie though. I'm sure there are people who don't play any multiplayer and wants all their games as long as Fallout, Zelda, Final Fantasy, etc. To me, it's obvious why early games were as short as they were, and modern, full-price games are expected to be much, much longer.

>> No.4593323

>>4593312
>mostly indie though
And indeed mostly very far from classic arcade standards.
>>4593309
This guy absolutely gets it.
Around 5th gen: "Games are better than ever now, they are becoming MORE than just games!"
Which means stopping being games and becoming movies or other stuff.

>> No.4593331

>>4592759
someone born in 1990 is pushing 30 years old. they're literally middle-aged adults.

>> No.4593334

>>4593331
/vr/ likes to do that cute thing where they pretend it's 2007 and 97 was only 10 years ago

>> No.4593336

>>4593059
This.

>> No.4593339

>BUT IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING SPECIAL
Like breaking the fourth wall in interesting and entertaining ways that no other medium could do, thus making it more "videogame-like" than many other games?

>BUT THE TOO MANY CUTSCENES
Codec calls are mostly optional and cutscenes are skippable, you can just play the game that way if you want.

>THERE'S TOO MUCH PADDING THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CONTENT
What about all of the VR missions that are nothing BUT gameplay?

>BUT MUH REPLAY VALUE
Multiple endings, multiple difficulty levels, nonfatal run...

The only reason to hate this game is because you're a dumb /vr/ contrarian. I don't think it's the best game ever, but you guys are super retarded about it.

>> No.4593340

>>4593323
What's next? DOOM is marked another end of videogames because it gave us the first taste of esports?

>> No.4593351

>>4593339
>Like breaking the fourth wall in interesting and entertaining ways that no other medium could do
This was a good point until...
>thus making it more "videogame-like" than many other games?
You added this shit out. How can breaking the fourth wall in an unique way to games me more gamey than... game mechanics themselves? At best it's AS gamey.
>>4593340
Nah, that's way too indirect. The game wasn't designed around that at all.

>> No.4593352

>>4593351
>way to games me more gamey than
be, not me*

>> No.4593356

>>4593323
>And indeed mostly very far from classic arcade standards.
Okay. This is little more than the classic complaint of, "It used to be a lot better." Somebody with the opposite desire, wishing games were much longer, would probably pine for the late 90s, early 2000 PC games.
>Which means stopping being games and becoming movies or other stuff.
If this is your gripe about modern games, the padding in MGS1 should be the least of your complaints. MGS1 combine the cliche, "cinematic" aspect of modern games aspiring to be movies, with the shortness of games of an era previous to when it was released.

>> No.4593379

>>4593356
Wishing games to be longer just for the sake of it is just retarded IMO, it's the mark of being a teenager with too much time. No matter the length, we should always put quality first (and, for me, it so happens that usually the shorter games are more tightly designed). Unfortunately, length / content / unlockables (just making the game NOT end, last as much as possible) or whatever have become more important than the moment to moment quality of the games for the average player, and thus game have suffered from it since consistent quality is no longer as demanded.

>> No.4593380

>>4593351
Sorry, maybe I didn't word that adequately. A lot of the arguments I see about """moviegames""" like MGS is that they don't do things that only video games can do, so they might as well not be video games. So for people who judge a game's "game-y-ness" by how many unique-to-the-medium things it does to say MGS isn't "game-y" enough, I say "how can that be the case when it does a handful of things that can ONLY be done in games." So if it has this particularly games-specific element in addition to its already very game-y elements, how can the result be "muh moviegame."

>> No.4593386

>>4593379
Game length vs. value is more debated than ever before because there's such a breadth of games available. Why would you pay $20 for an 8 hour long game when Steam has 100+ hour games on sale for five bucks? That's especially interesting for younger gamers and teens who don't have their own income and thus only get x games per year.

>> No.4593410

>>4593386
>Why would you pay $20 for an 8 hour long game when Steam has 100+ hour games on sale for five bucks?
Because, as I said, usually shorter games (arcade style, 15-60 minutes per loop) are much more fun and tightly designed than dozens of hour long bloatware. It's more fun to replay a fun short game than to slog through a very long game with maybe some cool parts but also plenty of boring filler just to make it longer (which is what happens almost every time).
Too bad younger people now feel this way and not value quality/time.

>> No.4593413

>>4593379
I'm not sure what you mean by "the sake of it." Sometimes, people are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity because perhaps the amount of entertainment on the whole they get is more. It's one of the advantages television has over movies, and some stories would be better told over long periods than short ones. Some style of games would barely work if they needed the quality and duration of an arcade game. The ideal is to increase duration without sacrificing quality. Later MGS games managed to increase their length without IMO decreasing quality.

>> No.4593417

>>4593410
>It's more fun to replay a fun short game
This mentality is probably what has inspired the incredibly short campaigns of shooters in the seventh generation. Would you say this is a positive development, or not?

>> No.4593420

>>4592743
P l e a s e .

Kojima is a ham and his games are embarrassing. Even when I love them. Snake Eater? Wonderful, heartbreaking game. Still, like everything he makes: tainted by stilted humour and creepy, juvenile and distracting lewdness.

Even FFVII is better than MGS, and I'll admit it's also overrated. But you know what that game's really about? Sakaguchi coming to terms with his grandmother's death. It doesn't get more heartfelt than that.

>> No.4593425

>>4592743
/org/

>> No.4593439

>>4593139
As probably the only other Daggerfall player in this thread, let us Knuckle-Chuckle together about the fact that not only /v/, but the greater gaming fanbase online in general, is completely ignorant to the fact that the pinnacle of both the role-playing and dungeon-crawling genres came out in 1996, for DOS, and ran in 320x240, complete with graphical and technical features like procedural rendering, per-pixel lighting, location persistence, and a game world no one has even rivaled in size to this day.

But /v/ and neogaf think it's a randomly generated asking for direction simulator. Let them stay ignorant, more good vidya for us I say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGOnI6P08Q

MGS1 is good and all, but the 5 best games of the 90s are PC games, one of them is Daggerfall, the others are the two are the two thief and system shock games.

I'm not even being pretentious when I say this isn't up for debate, you won't find a more influential set of games from the 90s. The only argument you could even make would be for something like Mario 64, not MGS1.

>> No.4593441

>>4593413
>The ideal is to increase duration without sacrificing quality.
Not to me but this is more of a personal preference now.
>>4593417
How dare you call Cowadudee arcade style. Those are "short" (still quite longer than arcade loops) cinematic no challenge garbage throwaway campaigns in games mostly bought for the multiplayer.
It's style over substance crap that doesn't last long because they're wasting a ton of budget on crap. You can't compare this to pure arcade challenge fun.

>> No.4593446

>>4593439
>the 5 best games of the 90s are PC games
The games you mention are cool. However, and I know you probably don't even play them, but you can't ignore the best 90's arcade games. They're amazing. Too many to count, really.

>> No.4593449

>>4593439
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpeettBUmF4

>> No.4593451

>>4593420
>creepy, juvenile and distracting lewdness.
?

>> No.4593463

>>4593451
Don't you know that enjoying sex is now C R E E P Y?

>> No.4593469

>>4593441
>Not to me but this is more of a personal preference now.
There's literally no loss if quality isn't actually decreased. If you don't want to keep playing, you just stop. Unless you have autism, nobody is going to have more fun playing the same campaign over and over again rather than playing a longer game with the same level of quality. Even if you have autism, as long as the game has level select, even you can be satisfied. Literally, the only benefit is you can say sooner you beat the game and you want to reach the end of games sooner and multiple times, and can't force yourself to only play a few levels. This is such a stupid, idiotic preference that you should really recognize the problem is with you, not with every else. It's extremely clear why early games were incredibly protracted, which was based on perfectly natural constraints and expectations. I bet someone can take your favorite game which follows your darling, yet antiquated standards, and say it's shit because it requires too much dedication compared his favorite game, Tetris, and even that's long compared to something like Pong.
>How dare you call Cowadudee arcade style.
I didn't, I didn't even mention CoD, but compared to the previous trend in shooters, it's clearly putting quality over quantity, certainly as far as cinematics are concerned.
>garbage throwaway campaigns in games mostly bought for the multiplayer.
If you look at the campaigns, that really isn't the case. You can say their short and terrible, but actually considering the resources put into them, that's really not the case. It would be much more accurate to say that of the Battlefield series, especially the earlier ones. The Call of Duty campaigns are like the Transformers of video games. Big, and loud, and not much substances, but clearly requiring a lot of resources, and I realize that's an ironic comparison because the Transformers movies are actually pretty long, but I think it's a valid comparison.

>> No.4593475

>>4593441
>You can't compare this to pure arcade challenge fun.
I really wasn't, just focusing on the quality of "shortness," and something that plenty of people would call "fun." I would say that what a lot of people want from campaigns, especially those who mostly play multiplayer, the campaigns of modern shooters deliver this in a more compact manner, which I don't think necessarily makes a better game.

>> No.4593476

>>4593463
See, it wouldn't be so bad if any of the characters in his games actually had sex. Eva and Snake at the end of Snake Eater is the only instance that comes to mind.

>> No.4593481

>>4593469
>There's literally no loss if quality isn't actually decreased.
There is. I like being able to beat satisfyingly challenging games in a sitting with no checkpoints at all. But again, this is a preference thing, I can still respect longer and still good games.

>> No.4593483

>>4593446
You assume too quickly! I've beat every game I mentioned. Daggerfall more than once, in two separate engines.

I also have a MAME/FBA setup hooked up to a Sony Trinitron.

I'll admit all those games are great, and they're all actually more fun to pick-up and play than any game I mentioned, but they weren't as important or groundbreaking. Every modern 3D game takes something from the games I mentioned, even Mario 64.

All those 2d arcade games with the amazing sprite art are the pinnacle of 80s game design and graphical technology, not 90s.

I'm aware that this isn't a popular opinion, but it's true in terms of what we ended up with.

>> No.4593485

>>4593481
>I like being able to beat satisfyingly challenging games in a sitting with no checkpoints at all.
Then turn checkpoints off and repeat the same levels on the hardest difficulty. That's all that's necessary. I see no reason why the vast, vast majority of gamers should have their preferences ignored when you can recreate the experience without even modding it. It's not like most people could just recreate the experience of a longer game by playing shorter games differently than intended.

>> No.4593494

>>4593485
Nah, man. Playing a game tightly designed around a nice 15-60 minute challenge is a very cool feeling to me, there's nothing else like it. You can't say playing a portion of a longer game is the same as that.
For me, I'd gladly have both type of games. I'm just sad that the ones I personally enjoy the most are disappearing; however, there are plenty of games like that to choose already so it's not such a big deal.

>> No.4593509

>>4593494
Okay. To me, this entire preference would be like somebody, born before the turn of the 20th century, really how films used to be short and more about humor and imagination than complex stories, and then The Birth of a Nation came and ruined everything, and now all movies are around an hour-and-a-half and everything sucks. Let's also assume he's still alive today and ignores all the short films that satisfy exactly what he wants, also ignoring that films only used to be how they were because of severe limitations and lower expectations from audiences.
> I'd gladly have both type of games.
You do. They're full price games and discounts games, namely indie and mobile games.

>> No.4593510

>>4593494
>hardcore 15-60 minute challenge
As someone who feels roughly the same, I will offer the advice that you never start Moba's or CS:GO, because that's why I'm addicted to them. Speedrunning old games is much more rewarding. Don't be me.

>> No.4593518

>>4593417
>This mentality is probably what has inspired the incredibly short campaigns of shooters in the seventh generation.

I'm so old I'm not even sure if the seventh generation is xbone of 360, and I can tell you this is total horseshit.

He's talking about games like contra, and sonic. Games that are well-designed throughout, have unique art and music for every stage, etc. These games are actually harder to make than, say making a bunch of game assets that every level uses, then building repetitive levels out of them. CoD gets that from games like Mario that recycle level themes ad nauseum to pad out gameplay time.

People on /vr/ are too out of touch with multiplayer gaming to know this, but since at least Black Ops the campaigns of CoD games have been nothing but a "preview" of the multiplayer mode and engine with a few "cool" set pieces. No one is buying for campaign. Less than 5% of the fanbase even cares, but that percentage of the fanbase is rabid and obsessed with the stupid throwaway CoD characters enough that they throw in a story still to keep them happy.

>> No.4593532

>>4593518
>CoD gets that from games like Mario that recycle level themes ad nauseum to pad out gameplay time.
I think this is an extremely tenuous notion. From a purely visual standpoint, it's easy to see that there's more recycling done in a game like Contra or Sonic than in a Call of Duty campaign, which is why the latter games are so much more costly to produce.
I don't think there's any validity to the comparison to Mario at all, unless the latter game is so immensely influential that every game comes from it, in which case it would be easy to see that Contra and Sonic, especially the latter, would resemble Mario more than CoD does, if only because they were released much closer to Mario. I was just making the point that shorter and more compact, which I absolutely think shooters in general in in the sixth generation were compared to previous generations, doesn't always mean "better."
> but since at least Black Ops the campaigns
I had campaigns in mind since Call of Duty 4. You and him might think they're "throwaway," but I have little doubt that they actually require an immensely larger portion of the budget than the multiplayer. If Call of Duty could have gotten away with having no singleplayer at all, they would have. Heck, if they could have gotten away with keeping the multiplayer as it was, and having campaigns as throwaway as Battlefield's, they would have.

>> No.4593546

>>4593509
>>4593510
I know you said not to, but what are the least shit mobile games to play?

>> No.4593553

>>4593546
Okay, you called my bluff: mobile games are garbage. Exceptions might be re-releases of classic games, which might be unplayable due to a shitty touch screen interface. Personally, I've spent a lot of time playing either math games, or Lumosity, which I've found incredibly addictive. I don't do this anymore because I use spare moments that I would otherwise be playing to study flash cards for something I'm trying to learn, like another language, which I found as challenging as any video game, yet something that obviously is going to feel more rewarding.

>> No.4593557

>>4593546
Moba means Dota 2, not a mobile game.

Most mobile games right now are essentially clicker RPGs that use a bad version of the SNES-era Final Fantasy game's combat. None of them are not shit.

The best "game" on google play is Retroarch, the multisystem emulator. I have no idea about iOS.

>>4593532
>I think this is an extremely tenuous notion.
Probably because it is.

I wanted to agree with you because that's a pretty good indictment of my personality, but again you're wrong. CoD is more costly to produce because it's fucking huge. Modern games are fucking huge. That said they reuse content to a degree unheard of in the era I'm talking about. There's little to no recycling in sonic or contra or castlevania, every level uses new graphics, only enemies and pickups are recycles, in sonic most enemies are actually even tied to the stage they're in so that's even less reuse.

We're thinking in different terms though, and should realize such before this argument continues further. Mario and Sonic are more similar than Mario and CoD visually, but I'm talking about design philosophy. When you sit down and make a game like sonic or contra, you are making an experience meant to be played from beginning to end that is designed as such. Mario back then, and CoD now are very much games where they designed a set of textures and enemies and then just started making content out of it with no general design document to encourage them to do or not do certain things.

>> No.4593562

>>4592743
beautiful, groundbreaking work of genius, but I would have to go with Resi 1 and 2 as superior

>> No.4593573

>>4593553
Ah, alright then. Never could do flash cards too well, but if I'm here, I probably have the time to learn how to do so and actually learn something useful.

>>4593557
>Moba means Dota 2, not a mobile game.
Whoops. Sorry about my ignorance with that. And yeah, from what little I've seen of them, that sounds about right, not to mention gatcha systems just sound strange to me. Shame, since a couple of them look nice to my tasteless self.

>> No.4593574

>>4593562
In an attempt to extend this thread, I will ask that you explain to me how Resident Evil 2 can be regarded as the best one, much less, better than 1 and 3. I've always preferred the pacing of 1 and 3. 2 felt like 90% of the game was in the police station even though it wasn't.

I replayed the original release of 1 recently, what a masterfully designed perfectly paced game.

>> No.4593578

>>4593557
>There's little to no recycling in sonic or contra or castlevania, every level uses new graphics, only enemies and pickups are recycles, in sonic most enemies are actually even tied to the stage they're in so that's even less reuse.
Again, I don't agree with you. If you consider the number of assets, regardless of how you measure them, that are used in both campaigns, it will be found that there are far more of them in a CoD campaign, even if the latter is actually shorter in length. NES games like Castlevania couldn't even fit on a cartridge unless there was a heavy amount of recycling used for the visual assets. I'm not splitting hairs, I just don't know what you're talking about. When the same spite is used dozens of time in a single screen and the entire level uses this screen in a very similar fashion throughout the level, that's what I would consider "recyling," something that's much more apparent with games like Sonic and Contra.
> Mario back then, and CoD now are very much games where they designed a set of textures and enemies and then just started making content out of it with no general design document to encourage them to do or not do certain things.
Not only do I think you're wrong in what you believe, but you're even if there's any validity t what you're saying, you exaggerate it so much, it becomes ridiculous. I think it's clear that the design of a Call of Duty game starts either with a very simple story, or they have locales in mind they want to have shooting in, so they build on that and start trying to make an impactful experience, either modifying the level design to fit the story, or vice versa. The number of assets involved in any modern game, including Call of Duty, is so massive, it would make no sense to develop design after all the assets have been developed.
(Cont)

>> No.4593583

>>4593573
Like I said, just grab Retroarch, read a guide on how to get it working, and find a 16-bit, 32-bit, or PSP RPG to play. There are tons. They are all massive time sinks. Most of them are deep. Avoid Final Fantasy, there are at least 10 other better series to play from the era.

All of these games play pretty good on a cell phone, retroarch will give you a digital touchscreen gamepad, and none of these games require inputs too complicated to enter on it.

Off the top of my head:
Famicom:
Final Fantasy 1-3 (the first 3 games are less stupid than the later ones)
Megami Tensei
Dragon Quest

Sega Master System:
Phantasy Star 1

Super Famicom:
Lufia series
Shin Megami Tensei series
Terranigma series (google it, i'm calling it the wrong name)
Live-A-Live
Chrono Trigger
Star Ocean
Tales Series
Dragon Quest

Mega Drive:
Shining in the Darkness Series
Shining Force
Phantasy Star 2
Phantasy Star 4

Mega CD:
Lunar 1
Lunar 2

PS1:
Dragon Quest
Suikoden series
Digimon World 3
Legend of Dragoon
Xenogears

PSP:
Persona 3
300 Weeab Games

>> No.4593587

>>4593557
I would say what you describe is similar to how Mario was designed, but very unfair and simplistic. I'm pretty sure the game was designed with simple, repetitive assets being the basis of the levels with limited styles, but the designs themselves being made on literal paper, (which I've seen evidence of), either before the assets were being made, or in tandem.
>I'm talking about design philosophy.
And I would say in design philosophy, absolutely Sonic is closer to Mario than CoD. The indifference to story is there, the sole reliance on a single character's playing style is there, (with a slight difference using Luigi), the single objective of getting to the end being the same, and I imagine that Sonic was probably mostly designed on paper like Mario, unlike CoD, meaning their workflow was much more similar to each other.
The only modern game that comes to mind where developing the assets first and then designing the game probably worked was something like Portal, which was fairly small, and had very similar assets in all its levels. I really don't get how you see that being the case in CoD.

>> No.4593589

>>4593573
>Never could do flash cards too well
I recommend using Anki, which is probably the best way to study a language outside of being constantly forced to speak it. The app on iOS is expensive, but I've found it to be worth every penny, and there's a free desktop version and web version you can use.

>> No.4593594

>>4593578
How old are you? And feel free not to respond if it'd get you banned.

No one above the age of 21 could be so ignorant to 2D games, old console technology, etc to think what you are describing and asking for of them is even possible.

You're entirely missing my point, and I'm not going to continue to argue with you because of this. The grass in Green Hill zone is designed. Someone had to sit down and think of how the fuck they'd make a limited number of colors look like 3D grass that sonic can run behind. That was groundbreaking work at the time. A texture artist working on call of duty is the 9,000,003rd person to design a favela wall texture that's supposed to look like Iraq. He is doing nothing but copying a photograph and modifying it to loop better, or touching up an existing texture.

You are talking about a game that has a campaign assembled of recycled multiplayer assets. almost none of the fanbase even cares about this mode, so the devs, I can assure you, don't give a fuck about it either other than adding some stupid press f to pay respects type features.

I am not talking about bytes on a hard drive, I am talking about design and human capital. How much WORK, from a creative perspective, went into the design. The designers of sonic had to conquer lots of challenges to even display the amount of colors on screen they wanted to display, and this is reflected in the game design.

CoD is only limited by the stupidity of its designers.

>> No.4593607

>>4593583
>>4593589
Thanks for the help anons, I'll keep these in mind. I know this has nothing to do with anything, but were either of you in that thread about scores? You seem kind of familiar. Feel free to not respond, since this is stupid to ask anyway.

>> No.4593614

>>4593594
>How old are you?
No need to answer this, but twenty-five.
>You're entirely missing my point, and I'm not going to continue to argue with you because of this. The grass in Green Hill zone is designed. Someone had to sit down and think of how the fuck they'd make a limited number of colors look like 3D grass that sonic can run behind. That was groundbreaking work at the time. A texture artist working on call of duty is the 9,000,003rd person to design a favela wall texture that's supposed to look like Iraq. He is doing nothing but copying a photograph and modifying it to loop better, or touching up an existing texture.
Okay, at least you're a bit clearer. I don't think it's fair to have expected me to understand by "recycling," you meant copying modelling and designing close to realistic examples. I don't see this as a proper use of "recyling" at all, unless any great painter is just "recyling" when using models as a basis for a part or a whole of their painting. You might say that painting of course much harder than modeling on a computer, but the principle is the same that's it's not just "recyling" something. If the same texture on a wall is recyled hundreds, if not thousands of times, that's "recyling," but then the texture had to made in the first place, which required in most cases considering the whole of what this texture would be apart of, and something similar happened in Sonic too I bet.
I think you are seriously understating the effort involved in designing levels with quasi-photorealistic graphics. If it were as easy as you suggest, a game as relatively small as Call of Duty in terms of assets, (compared to many other contemporary games), should be cheap to make, but it's not. Modelling might actually be more difficult with 2D images, but one might say the same thing about 2D animation versus 3D, and it wouldn't be fair to say CGI requires no effort. Also, this paragraph only deals with the visual aspect of the respective games' designs.

>> No.4593616

>>4593607
I'm the guy from the scores thread who mentioned Bubsy and coined Final Fantasy-itis.

That name is terrible, please refer to that concept as something else if you ever decide to reuse it. I have a very distinctive paragraph based, yet technical, posting style that you can only get from being an English major who switched to a Science major. I'm also the guy explaining hardware rendering in the Doom thread. You can spot my posts by the stupid linebreaks, I've been posting like this, and getting told i'm a newfag for posting like this, since 2009.

>> No.4593619

>>4592971
god the dick riding of super smash melee needs to end

>> No.4593624
File: 620 KB, 848x480, Sonic-Mania-Green-Hill-Zone-Re-Imaginated.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4593624

>>4593594
>You are talking about a game that has a campaign assembled of recycled multiplayer assets. almost none of the fanbase even cares about this mode, so the devs, I can assure you, don't give a fuck about it either other than adding some stupid press f to pay respects type features.
I'm not convinced this is actually the order of Call of Duty's development, but I might be wrong. In any case, the multiplayer maps still have to be made, and the single player levels always feature significant content in these levels not see in the multiplayer levels which were supposedly the basis of the single player levels, and that's content that has to be designed original as well.
>so the devs, I can assure you, don't give a fuck about it either other than adding some stupid press f to pay respects type features.
To me, this is like saying the makers of big, stupid, blockbusters don't have any passion for them, forgetting that these movies are very expensive even without the marketing budget and overpaid actors, meaning that a lot of manpower went into it from hundreds of people working full-time jobs. There are campaigns that clearly have less effort put into them, like the Battlefield campaigns, and some campaigns even have less effort than that.

Final thoughts: by saying twenty-one, you really underestimated how young I could be to be exposed to the games you're talking about. My first real console was a GameBoy Color, in which I probably played many games with this design philosophy you despise, and my next one was a Nintendo 64. I've never played a 2D Sonic game in my life, and I wouldn't be surprised if most people past twenty-one haven't either.

Also, looking at this image, I'm not particularly impressed, and see a lot of recyling in the level's assets.

>> No.4593625

>>4593607
No, but I'm such an egotist, I would like to read the person's posts who reminds you of me.

>> No.4593628

>>4593614
Well, you're right about me being vague, which is why I agreed with you that my original comment was rather hastily made.

Despite not saying it, I'm mainly talking about 2D art. Oddly enough, despite my opinions, I actually have tried my hand at modeling as well as making levels in source games. I will never ever say level designers aren't up to snuff, because as you said, that shit is hard. It took me hundreds of levels to make a TF2 level, and we're just talking first design pass in all orange textures. I never even got around to texturing the damn thing.

I'm mainly talking about visuals and texture design, two of the laziest areas of production in modern 3D games. And that's where I think games like CoD really falter.

Put very simply and bluntly, Sonic never used the same sprites between any of the mainline games on Sega Genesis. Even Sonic's movement code is slightly different between games. Every CoD game that uses the same guns as a previous CoD game reuses the model and animations, and some of them even reuse the textures.

I'm talking about acceptability of design. As in, how shitty does something have to be in CoD before someone higher up on the team tells you to go fuck yourself and remake the asset, and I have a feeling compared to other game companies, both modern and in the past, that doesn't happen as often.

Your point about CoD being a total shitshow in terms of asset size for a modern game, I feel, proves my point. The fact that we're continuing to disagree means we simply disagree about the connotation and denotation of words.

I sincerely apologize for the dressing down on age, I'm only 27 myself.

>> No.4593630

>>4593624
>and I wouldn't be surprised if most people past twenty-one haven't either.
I should say, most "gamers" now 21. You would probably be in your thirties to have been the target audience for Sonic at the time.

>> No.4593650

>>4593624
I'm going to resist the urge to insult your level of research, despite the fact that you posted a screenshot of Sonic Mania, a Windows game, from 2017.

This is going to sound pretentious and all, but I've had the opinions you've had before. It comes from a lack of experience with a wide number of games from a wide number of studios. The gameboy color is fine, but the Nintendo 64 is a trainwreck of a system, and anyone who grew up with it exclusively as their first console missed out on the best games in 9 out of 10 genres at the time. This has continued with every console Nintendo has released since. Nintendo's only good non-handheld console since SNES was Gamecube, and it had no fucking games compared to it's competition. That's hyperbole, but you know as well as I do that that console was a flop outside of Japan. The N64 on the other hand, was a flop everywhere. The only people who remember it fondly are gamers whose parents coddled them into not playing other consoles that were cheaper and had a better library of games because of Nintendo's reputation.

I have played all of the games and consoles I'm criticizing. I find Nintendo, Microsoft, and CoD games to be legitimately inferior to the libraries of Sony and Sega's consoles, as well as PC. I find people who defend these games to be overly defensive and obsessive.

My only answer is to PLAY MORE GAMES. You may not fit into all the groups I mentioned, but you definitely fit into one of them. I honestly don't understand how someone could even post on /vr/ without having played the original Sonic, Megaman 2, SMB3, etc. I know it sounds like I'm gating the community, but come the fuck on, all you have to do is download an emulator before you talk about something.

>> No.4593651

>>4593628
>I'm talking about acceptability of design. As in, how shitty does something have to be in CoD before someone higher up on the team tells you to go fuck yourself and remake the asset, and I have a feeling compared to other game companies, both modern and in the past, that doesn't happen as often.
I can understand finding the visual design of these games unimaginative, but I don't find them ugly or inadequate. It just has to look realistic, and if that's good enough for you, I think they're satisfactory. I could mention that they're under a somewhat limited polygon and effects count having to be 60fps on consoles, so that might explain why some parts of the game look comparatively small. It's like the assets in CS:GO bad. Well, not that silly.

>Put very simply and bluntly, Sonic never used the same sprites between any of the mainline games on Sega Genesis. Even Sonic's movement code is slightly different between games. Every CoD game that uses the same guns as a previous CoD game reuses the model and animations, and some of them even reuse the textures.
Okay. Even if I allow as much value on this as you seem to place this, I don't think general audiences value it as much. If companies could get away with developing games as cheaply as Sonic if it required the same level of innovation at that level, they would. But audiences clearly prefer "cinematic" games, for better or worse. You might think a work by Kubrick makes a work by Bay look worse than nothing, but it seems audiences prefer the works of the latter, and it's not accurate to say the latter's works requires no effort.

>> No.4593652

>>4593616
I figured as much. Don't worry, I definitely won't be using that term any time soon. There was just a question I asked someone, who I think is you, right as you left the thread, but it's unfair for me to ask you to go back or anything like that when you've already washed your hands of it, especially when it's just me being a fanboy. Sorry for bothering you like this.

>>4593625
They should be here and there around the start and end of it.

>> No.4593658

>>4593652
Ask what you want to ask, I'm here to help, until I decide to go work on my Bubsy 1 skills that is.

Me and the a guy I'm arguing with are a whole post behind each other, so I have time. Slow boards are comfy. I'll go look for the thread in the catalog.

>> No.4593667

I fucking love metal gear solid, I remember sitting like 2 feet from my TV with my Play Station playing the shit out of it

>> No.4593670

>>4593658
These here:
>>4593382
>>4593390
Like I said, just me being a fag getting his feelings hurt because a series he likes was said to be a great example of bad design choices and is considered a chore by some random guy who seems pretty smart.

>> No.4593679
File: 14 KB, 320x224, The_first_zone.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4593679

>>4593650
>I'm going to resist the urge to insult your level of research, despite the fact that you posted a screenshot of Sonic Mania, a Windows game, from 2017.
Okay, shows what I know. I'm pretty sure this is from the original. Hmm... I think it looks noticeably a lot worse.
>but the Nintendo 64 is a trainwreck of a system, and anyone who grew up with it exclusively as their first console missed out on the best games in 9 out of 10 genres at the time.
K. For whatever reason, I think I would have preferred what I played on N64 than contemporary games I could have played on the PS1. Exceptions would be MGS1, and various JRPGs, though I've tried to play those games and they play like dogshit and I think have aged very poorly.

>I have played all of the games and consoles I'm criticizing.
Okay. I'm not going to even say it's just your opinion, but that I don't agree with you from ignorance or whatever, and I'm not going to feel guilty. I don't consider "classic" games like these like classic art, something somebody has to experience before they can comment on modern productions.
>how someone could even post on /vr/ without having played the original Sonic, Megaman 2, SMB3, etc.
"Would" would be more appropriate here. I mostly go on /v/ these days. I asked a few questions about Game Center CX that I thought would be better answered here, and stuck around, bitching about MGS1 in this thread because I've played it and I wanted to express my opinion.
>all you have to do is download an emulator before you talk about something.
What are you suggesting? That I should have known that I had to play those games before I came here, that I should have anticipated that one of these game would be discussed and thus I should have played it to be more informed, or I should have started to play this game as soon as you mentioned it so I could be allowed to comment on it? Your comments on Nintendo systems were pretentious, but that last comment was pretentious and delusional.

>> No.4593684

>>4593670
You're cool man.

A lot of stuff you like about X4 is disliked by a lot of gamers, which is why you see less 32-bit platformers than you do 16-bit ones. Including the massive drought in the genre until indie games got big.

I personally loathe the way the battles are balanced. I have no nostalgia for megaman, I couldn't get through any level on any of them as a kid so I never bothered with it. I got into the series after I played megaman 9 when I was like 20. The classic games are great to me, I love that the robot masters have very simple patterns that have very small room for error, as in you can't just jump over the falling leaves, you have to jump and move in mid air and you have to time it right.

I feel like the patterns in X4 put too much emphasis on learning the boss, than learning to play the game as a whole or learning to play the levels. To be honest, I feel this way about X1-3 as well, but I feel like the jump to 32-bit gave them carte blanche to include even more unnescescary shit.

And I never liked wall jumping as a gameplay mechanic. Ninja Gaiden is probably the game I have the most controversial opinion about. I hate Ninja Gaiden on NES and could write a paper about why it's a terrible game.

Don't feel too bad though, you've motivated me to finish X4 (I stopped it before I even got past the 8 masters), and to actually try Zero for more than 5 minutes. Most of my Zero opinions are from watching a sonic and megaman let's player that I later realized was a hack. If by chance you're ClementJ from youtube, I'm sorry for calling you a hack.

>> No.4593687

>>4593619
What are you even on about here? Melee has established itself as one of the best multiplayer games and it's hardly surprising that it should appear in a top 100 list, though not even in the top 30. Are you pissed that it's put above all 'real' fighting games, or that multiplayer PC shooters aren't higher?

>> No.4593696

>>4593679
>Your comments on Nintendo systems were pretentious, but that last comment was pretentious and delusional.
It's delusional to expect you to have played a game you are criticizing? /v/ is worse than I thought these days.

Yes, Sonic looks worse on Genesis, that's the point, to even get all the colors you see in that image, something they did from a design perspective to compete with the SNES which couldn't do that many simoultaneous colors, they had to implement a complicated palette switching hack. They had to do all of this in Motorolla 68k assembly. If you've heard somewhere that games aren't written in assembly, the person who told you that is an idiot. The vast majority of games pre-PS1 had large parts of their code in native hardware assembly. In case you don't know what that means, the game engine dev on a modern game is writing a programming language, the developers back then had to write games in the actual instruction language of the hardware that is written into binary.

Anyway, there's no official designation of a fancy gaming man, the only thing you risk by talking about these games without playing them is guys like me thinking you're full of shit.

I'm arguing with you out of some old man delusion that I can convince you to play some great games that you haven't played. That's my only goal. I really don't care if I change your opinion. Game Center CX, AVGN, Jontron etc are all decent gaming shows, but if you haven't played the games in question it's very VERY easy to think those games are bad, when they aren't, and back in the day they were groundbreaking.

To use your movie metaphor, you can watch the new romantic comedy every month, or you can study It Happened One Night, the first romantic comedy. Different things appeal to different people. I claim no superiority over your lifestyle.

>> No.4593712

>>4592743
cinematic story driven cancerous crap (and the story itself is actually fucking retarded). this game was a fucking tumour.

>> No.4593717

>>4593712
*and the gameplay was shite, too. it had no idea how to actually be a 3D game. the core stealth mechanics rely on that 2D map where you can see the cones of the enemy vision. it's pretty much a copy-paste of the original gameplay mechanics in MG1&2. it's just a really fucking dumb game and incredibly overrated.

also anime is fucking gay and this game is made for virgin anime weebs

>> No.4593721

>>4593651
I wasn't gonna reply to this post too, but there's another point I want to make.

Kubrick to Bay is an Apples to Oranges comparison. Kubrick worked in a time when international distribution was smaller, and there were literally less people. Furthermore, neither Sonic nor CoD are Kubrick, nor are they trying to be. A better example, and I'll ignore population changes to stick to your original simile, would be comparing Sonic and CoD to Star Wars and Bayformers. All 4 things I've mentioned are pointless entertainment, not high art, but the original Star Wars and Sonic were so cohesive, well-designed, and well made as general entertainment that they developed into such huge franchises you could literally make a game or movie where Sonic or Darth Vader takes a shit, and sell it for $60.

In 20 years no one will be buying merchandise of any character from CoD or Micheal Bay's version of Transformers. No one will be rebooting them. None of the examples I'm using here are objective, these are all subjective arguments about quality, but I'd say most people would agree with me long term, even if they don't (about CoD) right now.

You could go your whole life not playing Sonic, but why not. It's fun. I haven't had fun with a CoD game since CoD 4, which is the last one that had all new animations.

>> No.4593724
File: 49 KB, 600x400, 1abdefacd9976da636dad9fa9bcc01f8-swan-seems-legit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4593724

>>4593059
da hell is this? Its setting off my horrible movie senses >_>

>> No.4593725

>>4593684
As you saw from my post, my love is more for Zero than X4. I enjoyed X4 when I played it, but that was way too long ago for my opinion to be reliable on it. Same could probably be said for the Zero series, but I have played them many more times and am getting around to replaying them again more seriously. I remember watching the first episode of that LP when I was bored and trying to find someone doing something fun with the series, and it was pretty painful to see, so I can't blame you there. Doesn't help that Z1 is definitely the weakest entry in the series, to the point that I've seen someone suggest to skip it and look up a synopsis instead. I hope I haven't caused you to have any increased expectations for the game from my posts, because of all the bias in them. Made even worse by the fact that I'm pretty okay with the story in the series, despite being one of those people who knows the game having a story or not doesn't really matter, so that's another thing potentially preventing me from making good judgements on it. At any rate, no matter what you end up thinking about them after you're done, I hope you at least get some entertainment out of them in one way or another. Also, you're talking about Woodman with the leaves, right? That was a pretty nice fight.

>> No.4593726

>>4593696
>It's delusional to expect you to have played a game you are criticizing?
You know that's not fair. At what point, was I supposed to say I've never played Sonic, and thus can't comment on it? Some of the things you were saying were so wrongheaded in my opinion, I could challenge them without having played Sonic, and I think I answered within my knowledge without bullshitting.
But to answer your question literally as it applies to this context, yes, it is delusional to expect me to have played this game just to criticize it, never mind the extremely general notion that you shouldn't criticize a game without playing it, (which isn't really fair to apply here), isn't always true. Otherwise, you couldn't criticize a game before it's released, or when it's released and has very controversial aspects, like excessive microtransactions.
>Yes, Sonic looks worse on Genesis, that's the point, to even get all the colors you see in that image, something they did from a design perspective to compete with the SNES which couldn't do that many simoultaneous colors,
This seems like a different argument, which speaks to how hard technically it was to make the game more than the ingenuity of the design itself. In which case, the argument could be made that designing games on even more primitive consoles was harder, and whose to say the technical accomplishments on modern games is less impressive? Sure, what would be extremely difficult using former methods of development is extremely easy today, but there are still incredible challenges to development today that are new, like multi-threading and advanced lighting systems.
>If you've heard somewhere that games aren't written in assembly, the person who told you that is an idiot.
I don't think I implied otherwise.
>when they aren't, and back in the day they were groundbreaking.
I would like to think similar games are made today, just accomplishing different goals. I really don't like Call of Duty (Cont)

>> No.4593732

>>4593725
Yeah, Mega Man 2 is my favorite in the series. I have the whole soundtrack memorized involuntarily, and most of the Mega Man 2 rap memorized, again involuntarily. Woodman and Airman are great examples of bosses in it that are really hard and interesting to fight with mega buster, despite the fact that they each only have 1 real attack pattern. It just so happens that that pattern is balls hard.

Don't be so defensive man. If I waste my own time I waste my own time, it is no one on 4chan's fault.

>> No.4593738

>>4593732
Am I being too defensive of myself or the games? I just don't want anything I say to potentially spoil someones experience of something I like, which is probably why I downplay things too much.

>> No.4593741

>>4593696
but just defending it after I think it was attacked a little unfairly, with my original point of modern shooter campaigns versus previous shooter campaigns being misunderstood.

>the only thing you risk by talking about these games without playing them is guys like me thinking you're full of shit.
I was going to say this before, avoiding doing so because I didn't think it was necessary, but here goes: I'm not that interested in spending however many hours playing those games just to be informed. I also don't think I would enjoy them very much. I also don't think I could see how groundbreaking they were because I would be playing them long after their time. It seems to me to be something you can only understand if you play them at release, but you seem to "get" it, if there's something to get, having played them while not being much older than I. As for being full of shit, I don't think I ever spoke beyond my knowledge at any point. I could play the game, come back, and probably just admit that I don't get it, meaning I wouldn't be much better than I am before.
>but if you haven't played the games in question it's very VERY easy to think those games are bad
What's a bad game? If somebody released a game as polished today as Sonic or Mega Man today, but was just as outdated, in terms of graphics, size, video quality, etc., and charged full price for it, could they get away with it? Would it be a bad game by today's standards? I don't know. I'm not saying they're bad, or that "Call of Duty" is good, but I just thought you were understanding the level of effort goes into a game like "Call of Duty."

>Kubrick to Bay is an Apples to Oranges comparison
The comparison I was making is one, by most critics's assessment, is one is much better than the other, but box office results make one much more profitable. Kubrick's films would probably be larger if they were made today, but I don't think they would be a profitable as Bay's. (Cont)

>> No.4593747

>>4593721
If I knew more about film, I could pick two contemporary directors. I thought of Star Wars, but critics actually quite like that one, so it would be a bad example. I just think something Call of Duty appeals to people generally better than something like Sonic, for better or worse, so more games are going to resemble Call of Duty than Sonic, because the former is much more profitable, if it's not better. That was my point.
>In 20 years no one will be buying merchandise of any character from CoD or Micheal Bay's version of Transformers.
A questionable, but plausible level of quality. I bet Minecraft nostalgia is going to be pretty big in a decade, so it's a double-edged sword.
> I haven't had fun with a CoD game since CoD 4
Ditto.

>> No.4593750

>>4593726
I'm gonna wrap my arguments because I don't want to leave you hanging, but I'll give you the last post and stick around to read your reply.

It's not so much that I expect you to have played a game before you criticize it as much as it is me telling you that me, and many many other people, both IRL and on the internet, aren't going to take your opinions very seriously of things you haven't actually played. I could immediately tell from the way you described sonic that you had never played it, and had likely never even watched more than a few seconds of video of it. I'm not condemning you. But you should know that some people would. I used to have the exact same opinion as you this, but I finally changed it over time because of people having the exact same reaction I'm giving you right now.

The sinking in moment for me was when I actually played Skyrim. For years, I'd criticized Skyrim as dumb casualized trash trying to "CoD"ify Elder Scrolls, because I watched a roommate play it and /v/ call it shit and didn't play it myself. I was right about it being bad, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, Skyrim is casual, but it's also terrifyingly boring and tedius, even for an RPG, to the point that I realized the only reason it sold well was marketing, and my criticisms were based on the marketing, not the actual game, which I assure you is terrible without mods, and a normie gamer would have had to force themselves to like.

Dev's today have to do more work, but there are enough more of them, and the job they do is so much easier per programmer that I find little excuses for them putting out boring games. I should explain that I'm a programmer, and I hold older programmers in great regard because I have no ability (and neither do any devs not at ID or Epic) to do the assembly wizardy they pulled off.

If I can admit you're absolutely right about one thing, we're in the golden age of level design. 2D levels were graph paper.

>> No.4593758

your last thread got like what, 1 reply? This, though, is how you do it. So boldly stating that such a controversial game is the greatest thing the 90's produced is quite the effective attention grabber.

>> No.4593768

>>4593750
>I could immediately tell from the way you described sonic that you had never played it,
Well, I wouldn't want to give a false impression so that's okay, but I think it took at least several posts before my ignorance was making my arguments weak.
>I used to have the exact same opinion as you this, but I finally changed it over time because of people having the exact same reaction I'm giving you right now.
Well, I'm more likely than not to try Sonic eventually because of this discussion.
>and a normie gamer would have had to force themselves to like.
Huh? This is perhaps the most bizarre thing you've said. Not even talking about the quality, you do realize the vast majority of people played this on consoles, vanilla, and there's no reason to believe they didn't like it? Or are you saying marketing forced normies to like Skyrim even though it's boring?

>> No.4593770

>>4593741
I lied about not replying again.

The game that got me into Megaman was Megaman 9, a NES styled PSN game that sold for the price of a PS1 or PS2 game on PSN. This would have been in 2010.

So it depends on if the license is well known. A good example of a modern game, built to the exact standards of a really mediocre and average third party Sega Genesis game, down to aping the sound chip and resolution, would be the Uriel's Chasm series on steam. The two games both have universally negative reviews. So it depends. A mediocre game with no license built to Genesis standards? Hated. A great game that is a sequel to a 20 year old classic series, built to NES standards. Critics and fans loved it.

>>4593747
I guess you're a few years too young to realize, and I'll admit I caught the tail end of it myself, but Sonic WAS Minecraft for people of a certain age who had Sega, which was half of America, to the point that Sonic's Fanbase in the late 90s and early 2000s was exactly as creepy, vaguelly sexual, and gigantic as minecraft is now that it's fanbase hit puberty. I've spent my whole life as a sonic fan sighing at terrible furry porn drawn in crayons. Those sonic gamers, at least the non-furries who ended up reproducing, have ensured even bad sonic games still sell over 1 million copies.

(cont)

>> No.4593778

>>4593768
>skyrim vanilla
Yeah, my argument is that any action or shooter gamer who bought into skyrim's bullshit bought into a terrible action rpg with super slow combat, where completing the game means spending at least 20 hours of your life reading menus and doing redundant fast traveling. The either fell for marketing, peer pressure, or the aesthetic. Skyrim has no inherent appeal to meatheads in terms of gameplay.

Another game like this is FF7. People who don't play other RPGs love that fucking game, but as someone else pointed out in a thread I saw earlier, FF7 is a no-challenge skinner box of unappealing anime bullshit that people only have fond memories of because of marketing around its cutscenes.

This is one of my least common opinions, so I don't find it odd that you think it's bizarre. I take far more interest in marketing than most people.

I could tell you hadn't played sonic from the first post btw, you said something about blocks arranged, that's mario. Sonic was one of the first games that arranged tiles into giant blocks to form complex non-square geometry. Sonic levels are very expressive and make heavy use of transparency (which no other console could do in 1989) to make you think they weren't made of tiles at all.

>> No.4593787

>>4593768
I'll stick around to read your reply, but if I can offer up a game you might genuinely like, check out Thief 2 if you haven't played it. I think you said something about /v/ not giving modern non-doom style maze shooters enough credit. Thief 2 is pretty much the high mark for the interception of old-school polish in modern giant vertical levels with multiple objectives ala goldeneye. It's the ultimate non-linear 90s stealth game. Since you said you liked N64 (goldeneye), and we're in a MGS1 thread (stealth), I figured it might be up your alley.

I'm out of here after I read your response. Don't leave here thinking I though you were dumb or something, I just kind of talk like an asshole. I enjoyed your perspective and feel for the plight of the poor long-suffering under-paid CoD Designer.
And what, quit the GAMES INDUSTRY?

>> No.4593789

>>4593770
>The game that got me into Megaman was Megaman 9
Okay. That wasn't a full-price game, meaning most people who highly praised it did it with different standards than they would have a full-price game. It was just a suggestion as to what would be a good way to judge how well games of the past have stood up.

I don't mean to depreciate games on the art vs entertainment issue, but I would say compared to so many clear forms of art, they seem to age worse. Take Tetris for example. Suppose it had never been released when it was, and no puzzle game ever really took it place. Could somebody release Tetris, the GameBoy version, one of the most addictive, most played games of all time, charge $60, and expect it to be well-received? Does that make it bad? Does that make it not timeless? I think it would be easier to release for the first time a "classic" movie for the first time over a "classic" game because the former would probably age better.
>The either fell for marketing, peer pressure, or the aesthetic.
But people liked it. I think you should have said the gameplay, normies could not like.
>I could tell you hadn't played sonic from the first post btw, you said something about blocks arranged, that's mario. Sonic was one of the first games that arranged tiles into giant blocks to form complex non-square geometry.
Okay.

>> No.4593791

>>4593787
>I'll stick around to read your reply, but if I can offer up a game you might genuinely like, check out Thief 2 if you haven't played it.
Okay. I'll write down Thief 2, Sonic, and MegaMan 2. I've already played a lot of SMB3, never beating it because of how hard it was, a lesson in how easy games have become.

>> No.4593971

>>4593791
Play the original Thief: The Dark Project first. It's arguable whether Thief 1 or 2 is better than the other. Yeah, actually OP, if you want proof of how much Metal Gear Solid isn't the crown jewel of the 90s play Thief. The first game came out the same year as MGS and it blows every stealth game before or since out of the water.

>> No.4594006

>>4592743
Never played this shit only the NES one and the one in the cube, is it really that good?

>> No.4594045

Hey, I'm back (last post: >>4593494 )
>>4593509
>Let's also assume he's still alive today and ignores all the short films that satisfy exactly what he wants
That's the issue, their equivalent in games is pretty much gone. Again, I can still enjoy a lot of games, but this is a fact. And man, I don't agree with the analogy much.
A game paced around being beatable in 15-60 with pure challenge and fun is very different from a longer game; they are designed in such intensity that would be unbearable in longer sessions, and to have a progression and climax during that time.
Again, I like longer games as well. But you can't compare playing 25 minutes of Mars Matrix (that's how much it lasts at best), which is one of the most amazing and joyous experiences I've had with games, with playing the first 25 minutes of a good longer game. It's absolutely not the same, and a valid different style of game I'm just sad to see gone. Movies are a passive medium, intensity of execution isn't there.
>indie and mobile games.
Mars Matrix and the like is so much above that it's ridiculous, by the way. Mobile games in particular are meant to play in short, easy, casual bursts (like in a train). And most indie titles just fall very flat to be comparable to the classic arcade standards.
>>4593510
I've tried them, and no.
20 minutes of Mars Matrix: you beat the fucker
20 minutes in a MOBA: you're fucking farming
>>4593712
And it spread fast!
>>4593778
>Another game like this is FF7. People who don't play other RPGs love that fucking game, but as someone else pointed out in a thread I saw earlier, FF7 is a no-challenge skinner box of unappealing anime bullshit that people only have fond memories of because of marketing around its cutscenes.
This is particularly ridiculous in Europe. MGS is another game loved by that crowd.
>>4593789
That Tetris thing is exactly why I dislike those modern standards and will always strive to value games via quality/time, no matter its length.

>> No.4594046

>>4592743
I like to think of some of the weird ass shit we could've gotten before mgs if Kojima was always the rock star he is now.

>> No.4594047

>>4594006
Play mgs3 instead.

>> No.4594062
File: 1012 KB, 490x314, gtfo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4594062

>>4593724

>> No.4594064
File: 76 KB, 1000x1000, chainlink.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4594064

>>4593059
JUST

>> No.4594112

>>4592971
>Fallout 3 in this list
Jesus.

Anyway it occurred to me that I might have played all 100 of these games if only I owned more Nintendo devices in the past.

>> No.4594115

>>4594112
It's a RPG and FPS (nothing against them, but way too many of them) fest with a lot of Nintendo stuff as well, yeah. Again, no arcade games at all is such a fucking disgrace, and this is from around 6 years ago, the list would probably worse now with today's /v/

>> No.4594126

>>4593619
it deserves to be even higher on the list

>> No.4594129

>>4592971
Why is triforce fish finder zelda in the top 100 and why is it actually high at 22.

>> No.4594150

>>4594129
It's /v/

>> No.4594809

>>4594045
>A game paced around being beatable in 15-60 with pure challenge and fun is very different from a longer game; they are designed in such intensity that would be unbearable in longer sessions, and to have a progression and climax during that time.
One would say films used to be "designed" differently based on their much shorter length.
>intensity of execution isn't there.
Questionable. I think people who probably love Kung Fu films would absolutely disagree.
>That Tetris thing is exactly why I dislike those modern standards and will always strive to value games via quality/time
I really doubt you would pay $60 for Tetris if it came out today, so I'm not convinced you're very principled in this.

>> No.4594841

>>4592759
>people born in 1990 are literally 28 years old now, have finished schooling, are settled into their careers, and are probably starting families

2007 was a long time ago man.

>> No.4594856

>>4594841
>2007 was a long time ago man.
Are you literally me?

>> No.4594870

>>4594809
I'd rather pay €60 for Tetris than for some "long" le open world meme or whatever.
And yeah, action movies can get intense, but it's nowhere close to the degree of exhaustion you get by beating stuff like Mars Matrix. Have you tried? Do you know what I'm talking about?

>> No.4594903

>>4594870
>I'd rather pay €60 for Tetris than for some "long" le open world meme or whatever.
But I don't think you would, which I think makes you a hypocrite.
>but it's nowhere close to the degree of exhaustion you get by beating stuff like Mars Matrix.
And then a hardcore chess or Go player can rightfully say you're little hobby is baby shit compared to an intense mind sport. Fuck off with your pretentiousness.

>> No.4595028

>>4593339
This was actually a really impressive and logical rebuff to the typical complaints. nice

>> No.4595030

>>4594903
>But I don't think you would, which I think makes you a hypocrite.
This is just bullshit, in fact I have. Arcade ports for the 360 were pretty much the only thing I cared about during those years. They were fully priced and they lasted for less than an hour.
Chess and Go are cool, in fact I play those, particularly Chess. They are hardly comparable to Mars Matrix, though; they aren't twitchy games at all, the challenge is different (timed Chess can get hectic, but still).

>> No.4595049

>>4595030
I have little doubt which is more mentally demanding, and something like bullet Chess is twitchy, and if you want to have an actual test of reflexes, play Ping Pong, which, at a competitive level, makes arcade games look like nothing.

>> No.4595083

>>4595049
>bullet Chess is twitchy
Haven't gotten into that, sounds cool!
Again, I'm not pretentious. I'm just saying stuff like Mars Matrix and other arcade games are a unique experience to me like no other, and one I particularly enjoy.
Those physical games you mention are cool but require other players to be the most fun (to me at least), when I want to chill alone I like arcade games quite a bit.
And it's just a bit sad to see them pretty much gone now, it'd be nice if they could co-exist profitably with modern games now.

>> No.4595091

>>4595030
Did you buy the 360 for the ports?

>> No.4595117

Again, >>4593110

>> No.4595118

>>4595091
Yes. It's the best way to play them here, they aren't well emulated and the arcade machines stayed in Japan.
I also had a stick to play those games. I dislike the controller and most of the console's library, but those games were very enjoyable.
Raiden IV in particular was the one I had the most fun with, even if the game is a bit unpolished (I'm just a sucker for Toaplan style games)

>> No.4595125

>>4595117
Again, fuck you, Icycalm.

>> No.4595130
File: 179 KB, 1440x900, duke 3d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4595130

>>4592743
Incorrect

>> No.4595158

>>4595083
Okay. Know that's it's entirely based on the natural development of games that they've become longer, more cinematic experiences, and more story-driven. I could keep on mentioning things, like fighting games, or multiplayer games that definitely rely on fast reflexes, but what's the point: you're just going to say it's not what you want, as if adaption is impossible for you. I pretty much don't play any games at all because there isn't a single one that gives me what I want, and I'm not bitching too much because I recognize nobody is going to make my ideal game because it would probably please fewer people than what would be required to generate enough sales to make the game successful.

>> No.4595174

>>4595158
>development of games
>games
>more cinematic experiences
>games
>more story-driven
>games

I like fighting games, however most recent ones are too tailored towards spectating; they feature stuff like overpowered comeback mechanics as to force more of that for spectator hype, at the expense of the enjoyment of the players. These are still largely fine, I just prefer older ones. Arcade fighting games are nothing new.

>> No.4595175
File: 150 KB, 803x1024, 5911761655_b441458607_b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4595175

You're all a bunch of taffers.

>> No.4595194

>>4595174
Green text isn't an argument. This is entire threat was originally about a game that pretty much started every quality I mentioned that apparently triggers you. If you want to go ahead a say it's a not a game, go ahead. I don't think anybody gives a shit. Again, if you really can't find a single game released these days that's a good test of reflexes, I think it's more likely the problem is with you, not with other people, and you'll just make up reasons nothing it good enough for you. One of the benefits of living after when things were good enough, regardless of what it's about, you can always look backwards and find something you want. If you're convinced you've exhausted all the games from the past that please you, it's a complaint most people can't sympathize with, and you can only blame yourself that you're so hard to please.

>> No.4595224

>>4595158
>I pretty much don't play any games at all because there isn't a single one that gives me what I want
What do you want anon?

>> No.4595241

>>4593110
>>4595125
1999 - SHENMUE ISSHOU: YOKOSUKA
Runner-ups: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Planescape: Torment

1998 - METAL GEAR SOLID
Runner-ups: Baldur's Gate & Rittai Ninja Katsugeki Tenchu

1997 - AGE OF EMPIRES
Runner-ups: Fallout & Total Annihilation

1996 - BIO HAZARD
Runner-ups: Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu & Command & Conquer: Red Alert

1995 - PHANTASMAGORIA
Runner-ups: Heroes of Might & Magic & Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness

1994 - MASTER OF MAGIC
Runner-ups: UFO: Enemy Unknown & Jagged Alliance

1993 - SAMURAI SPIRITS
Runner-ups: Merchant Prince & NBA Jam

1992 - DUNE II: THE BUILDING OF A DYNASTY
Runner-ups: Dune & Super Mario Kart

1991 - SID MEIER'S CIVILIZATION
Runner-ups: Street Fighter II: The World Warrior & Sonic the Hedgehog

1990 - WING COMMANDER
Runner-ups: Super Mario World & The Secret of Monkey Island

>> No.4595245

>>4593110
>1996
>no Mario 64 or Quake mentioned
this is contrarianism right?
and then he becomes a poptimist at the end when he gives PUBG and honorable mention

>> No.4595252

>>4595194
>Green text isn't an argument.
True, but my argument has been done to death. No I really need to repeat how CINEMATIC elements are not a game mechanic and not something special to the medium?
>This is entire threat was originally about a game that pretty much started every quality I mentioned that apparently triggers you. If you want to go ahead a say it's a not a game, go ahead. I don't think anybody gives a shit.
MGS is still largely a game. I personally don't like it, and I also despise its legacy for helping turn modern games the way they became (like you mentioned, less like games and more like lightly interactive movies)
>Again, if you really can't find a single game released these days that's a good test of reflexes, I think it's more likely the problem is with you, not with other people, and you'll just make up reasons nothing it good enough for you.
Why are you ignoring the 360 ports I said I enjoyed? If you want more recent stuff, then Nex Machina, my favorite game from '17.
>One of the benefits of living after when things were good enough, regardless of what it's about, you can always look backwards and find something you want. If you're convinced you've exhausted all the games from the past that please you, it's a complaint most people can't sympathize with, and you can only blame yourself that you're so hard to please.
But I've said here before a couple of times that it's still fine due to the fact that I have plenty of stuff to look back to, just that it's a bit sad that these games are dying.

Dude, stop exaggerating my opinions. You're too defensive and confrontational for some reason. What's so hard to understand that an anon can enjoy arcade games the most and, while there are plenty of them to be pleased with, it's always a bit sad to see something you like go? Not unbearable, I'd just prefer they could still have a place in the modern gaming landscape, and coexist with all the movie games, progress system games, etc.

>> No.4595254

>>4595241
>0 arcade games other than the first and worst version of SFII
FUCK Icycalm

>> No.4595283

>>4595241
>1995 - PHANTASMAGORIA
Hahahahahahaha.
Hahaha.
Haha.

Oh man.

>> No.4595326

>>4595254
It's almost as if simpler people like simpler games and can't move on from them.

>> No.4595330

>>4595224
I want an RPG, (because it would give more flexibility have more a passive, yet demanding type of play), that's designed to be a perfect test of concentration, mastery of the mechanics of the game, memory, and mental speed. The gameplay would be something like n-back tests, but maybe designed in a way where it's more motivating to keep going. It would be closer to the n-back tests on Brain Age for the 3DS, where you're inputting what you saw before rather than a binary choice, and you can play as fast as you want. It would be based on memorizing either numbers, shapes, colors, or a combination, and somehow inputting them, but in the context of RPG battles. There would be so many options, that every turn would require using both your thumbs, and both of either your index, or middle finger, but only using each finger once so you can go as fast as you want without having to double tap, or go through menus for attacks, so any attack could be selected with a sequence of individual uses of the fingers and thumb. In practice, this would mean your thumbs have the options of the d-bad and face buttons, and your index or middle finger would press one of the shoulder buttons, and it's the combination of which pressed each turn in what order what would determine your attack. Adaptive difficulty would be there, but to give everyone the best challenge, not to make things excessively easier.
Music would either draw directly from orchestral works, or be neo-classical.
Graphics a combination of Persona 5 and Bloodborne, maybe combing the general style of the former with the grittiness of the latter, (I've played neither game BTW). I also really enjoy the cinematics in modern FF games, so something on that level in terms of production.
Design would be sort of what I think Persona 5 is.
(Cont)

>> No.4595348

>>4595224
>>4595330

Writing would be something that constantly challenges the player to understand, written in a highly elevated style, like something from the 18th Century. Ideal is something like Samuel Johson, possibly as polished as his play, Irene, but maybe not too far. The point is to make people feel smarter and more refined while reading it.
The big challenge is creating an RPG system that naturally incorporates n-back into something that fits in the world, as well as adding other mechanics so it's not as shallow as most n-back games, (though shallow certainly does not mean easy in this case).
It would be a game that you have to constantly dedicate time to if you want to master, and combat and understanding the story would challenge you to your limits. Also, there would be a fast forward button and slow down button with 0.1x increments for every scene except combat, because that's how I watch movies, shows, YouTube, etc.

>> No.4595357

>>4595326
Simple is perfectly fine, this is a completely different kind of bad.

>> No.4595359

>>4595326
Arcade games have simple controls (other than fighting games) due to how they have to be made immediately understandable. However, they have among the most complex and interesting enemy and stage design in gaming, particularly the better ones.
I also like other games that aren't arcade style and have more complex controls such as Freespace 2; stop projecting, anti-arcade faggots.
>>4595330
>I want an RPG
SURPRISE (Disclaimer: I like them)

>> No.4595373

>>4595252
>No I really need to repeat how CINEMATIC elements are not a game mechanic and not something special to the medium?
That's like saying good music in film isn't a special to its medium, so silent films are clearly purer in that regard. And then, if you remove everything that's found in photograph, painting, and literature, you're left with nothing. I could explain to you how all those elements naturally belong to games as they reach a wider audience, but there's no point.
>MGS is still largely a game.
Compared to so many arcade games, using your standards, no it's not. This is besides the point that, there are so many shitty games that are clearly more "games" than MGS, and thus have to be better "games." This is besides the fact that the gameplay in MGS is dogshit and the only real draw is the elements you seem to despise or place no value on.
>Why are you ignoring the 360 ports I said I enjoyed?
You're complaining, it seems, so I just assumed that somehow wasn't good enough for you. To me, it's extremely obvious looking at such games why people want almost the exact opposite of this in games.

I'm confrontational because I think your standards are terrible, as you made some pretty blanket statement about quality/time that I think would make very ridiculous judgments about the quality of various games and I'm very glad developers have moved pass this mentality that a game just has to hook people for several minutes as long as it's really fun, even if it may lack staying power. This is the mentality that perfectly fit arcades, but is extremely and I think appropriately obsolete for modern audiences, and I think that's been the case since the NES.

>> No.4595412

>>4595373
Except that you can clearly have a great game without cinematic elements? They don't "add" anything, they just create a different style of game (a much more passive / lightly interactive one). Bad analogy.
And yes, MGS is still largely a game, as argued nicely by this anon >>4593339
It's just not an style of game I personally enjoy.
And yes, there are more "pure" games that are worse than MGS. No one is arguing MGS is a 0/10 affair.
I'm not an arcade fanboy, stop trying to make me seem like one.
>To me, it's extremely obvious looking at such games why people want almost the exact opposite of this in games.
Why can't you understand that some people may be into those? The audience is smaller these days but it's there, and you're talking to one.

Man, not everything needs to be a lengthy RPG (which you mentioned is your preferred game style here >>4595330 ) for it to be better. I want those lengthy games to co-exist with arcade style ones, they haven't made those obsolete in the slightest, it's an entirely different experience.

>> No.4595436

>>4595412
I see no reason why those elements don't add any more to film than any of those elements add to a game. A film is a film because it has moving picture. Sound adds nothing to its inherent nature.
>Bad analogy.
You didn't really explain why this was the case. Try again. '
>And yes, MGS is still largely a game,
Yes, a shitty one at that, at least if you remove every one of those elements you despise.
>And yes, there are more "pure" games that are worse than MGS.
Strictly speaking, using your logic, they are better as games qua games because once you remove those unessential elements from MGS, it becomes extremely apparent how shallow it is as a game.
>Why can't you understand that some people may be into those?
Again, it would be like somebody who would be into movies before they lasted more than an hour and were little more than diversions, preferring them before they became a real art form.
>Man, not everything needs to be a lengthy RPG (which you mentioned is your preferred game style here >>4595330 (You)
You sort of missed the point of that post, which was my description of my ideal game, for me.

I would say based on >>4593289 and >>4593154, it rises above a mere preference and goes to a level of pretentiousness. I personally have never played a game that lasted thirty minutes and I thought was worth $50, as was claimed to be your preference.

>> No.4595439

>>4595436
I see no reason why those elements add any more to film*

>> No.4595464

>>4595436
Okay, I'll explain.
A film is not interrupted to feature a soundtrack.
However, cinematic elements such as cutscenes are segregated from the game part. You go from "movie part" to "game part". Thus, a cinematic game is not really a richer game, just a game that features lots of interruptions, or is even the contrary: it's mostly cutscenes and the game parts interrupt the cutscenes.
>Yes, a shitty one at that, at least if you remove every one of those elements you despise.
Which is why I don't like it personally, but I'm not arguing it isn't a game or something like that.
>once you remove those unessential elements from MGS, it becomes extremely apparent how shallow it is as a game.
Well, that's true, but it's still better than some of the worst games that are more pure game mechanics, like a lot of the Atari 2600's library. You're trying to make me seem stupid here for some reason.
>and were little more than diversions
So you're one of those that thinks games have become better when they stopped being "just games" and became "more than a game"?
You also said you don't play them, and your favorite genre is RPGs... You really sound like a /v/ poster. You guys just hate arcade games, it's a known fact.
And yes, those standards have lead to crappy padded games. Doesn't mean that there are still good long games, I've never argued against that.

>> No.4595501

>>4595464
>A film is not interrupted to feature a soundtrack.
Begging the question. Neither is a game, as I maintain, because it's still a game regardless of such "interruption." If you want examples of films where the film ceases to be a series of moving images while music is being played, I can mention them. There are a whole lot of them.
>However, cinematic elements such as cutscenes are segregated from the game part.
By this logic, if a film was actually stopped often enough for music, (as in, there was a still image), it would cease to be a film, which I don't allow.
>it's mostly cutscenes and the game parts interrupt the cutscenes.
Despite this meme, their are extremely few games that do this. It also raises the question of what this entity of cutscenes dispersed with game segments would be, as you're not allowing to be a game.
>but I'm not arguing it isn't a game or something like that.
You are arguing implicitly that it becomes less of a game by having these elements, when the actual case is it's a game through and through that happens to have large sections that are not interactive.
>Well, that's true, but it's still better than some of the worst games that are more pure game mechanics, like a lot of the Atari 2600's library.
Why? It seems like qua games, all of those games are better because there are no parts that aren't games. By you're logic, you could literally make a cut where only the interactive elements of MGS remained and this would somehow make it better, when it would clearly make it worse. To me, it's obvious that all of MGS's strengths lie in its uninteractive parts and it's a great game because of them, because they would only work within the context of a game, which is so often the case with games these days.

>> No.4595513

>>4595464
You were the one who seriously implied that MGS wasn't a game with >>4595174. You can backpeddal if you want, but that's a necessary conclusion from that post. Even if you allow that MGS is a game despite that post, you are completely failing to explain at what point what most people would consider a game fails to become a game.
>So you're one of those that thinks games have become better when they stopped being "just games" and became "more than a game"?
Considering that's happened almost as soon as consoles were invented, yes. Even Pac-Man had cutscenes. To say something is becoming "more than a game," is begging the question because I maintain it's still a game.
>You also said you don't play them, and your favorite genre is RPGs.
I said I don't play games now, period. and that wasn't me who said my favorite genre was RPGs.
>Doesn't mean that there are still good long games, I've never argued against that.
In my opinion, it's like comparing films now to how they were when the movie camera was invented. The first originators of the art get full marks for innovation, and maybe their films satisfy some curiosity, but their creations are nothing compared to what's made today, or even in the last century.

>> No.4595519

>>4595501
Eh... a cutscene is not a game. If the whole experience were cutscenes, it would become a CGI movie and would no longer be a video game at all. They aren't interactive. And since they are segregated from the parts where you are interacting with the game, they are interruptions of said interactive parts.
You have game parts, and movie parts. By adding movie parts you are not adding to the game, other than providing some aesthetic context or whatever.

No, man... If something is entirely music, then it's music. If movies had parts where no footage was shown and you only listened to music, then yes, those would be musical parts interrupting the movie parts, and it's not the same concept as a soundtrack, which is music that plays in the background of a movie.

You're right, there aren't many games that are so cutscene heavy. Didn't claim there were, though. They would be very cutscene heavy games, as in, movies with some interactive game parts (usually not very deep or challenging since it's not the point to software of that kind)

As a whole it becomes less of a game, since when you are watching cutscenes you aren't playing a game. However, we can judge MGS's game parts against other pure games that suck and see how they are still superior, even if they are shallow and not good still.

>all of those games are better because there are no parts that aren't games.
You're making this up, it's not my argument. I dislike that games focus less and less on game mechanics now, but saying that a bad pure game is better than a better game that happens to feature lots of interruptions would be fucking ridiculous. Again, you're trying to make me seem stupid. Stop.

>> No.4595535

>>4595513
That wasn't my point there.
My point is that games haven't developed by incorporating cinematic or story driven elements, they've just changed their focus to become multi-medium.
Which is a shame to me since that makes them less special to me, I come to games to enjoy what makes them special: the game part. If I wanted a movie or a book or whatever I'd have that. Most of those modern games seem like a diluted experience to me; not as satisfying as their individual, separate mediums (like pure games, or pure books, or pure movies). This is me, though, and again, I'd gladly have these as well as pure games. I'm only sad to see pure games going by the wayside, since they are my personal favorite video game experiences (NOT THE OBJECTIVE BEST, DON'T EXAGGERATE MY POINTS, PLEASE)

You seem to be mad at me for liking arcade games, as if I was sick or something. Why not have both even if you don't play them, do they harm you that much? Again, I just want them to co-exist, and they are a different experience so they could.

>> No.4595549

>>4595519
>Eh... a cutscene is not a game. If the whole experience were cutscenes, it would become a CGI movie and would no longer be a video game at all. They aren't interactive. And since they are segregated from the parts where you are interacting with the game, they are interruptions of said interactive parts.
>You have game parts, and movie parts. By adding movie parts you are not adding to the game, other than providing some aesthetic context or whatever.
Once again, this wholly uninteractive game you describe does not exist, and if it does, then I would allow it's not a game, but such an irrelevant entity that there's not point signalling it out.
> If something is entirely music, then it's music. If movies had parts where no footage was shown and you only listened to music, then yes, those would be musical parts interrupting the movie parts, and it's not the same concept as a soundtrack,
Fine, but the film does not cease to be a film at that point, and a game does not cease to be a game parts that are uninteractive. You are doing a very poor job justifying the implications in this post >>4595174.
>Didn't claim there were, though.
Then, again, then this post >>4595174 really doesn't make sense, unless you were being a meming dumbass. Despite what you clearly implied before, but are now backpeddaling from because I actually challenged you, games today are still made, even if they have become more cinematic experiences and story-driven, and in my opinion, they are all the better for it.
>As a whole it becomes less of a game
Questionable. By this logic, at every point a film doesn't have moving images, it becomes less of a film. That is how asinine your logic is.
>they've just changed their focus to become multi-medium.
This sentence doesn't make sense. The medium is still that of a game, which is what it is. It would only a require a split second of lack of interactivity for this change to have happened, which applies to some of the earliest video games.

>> No.4595554

>>4595535
> Again, I just want them to co-exist, and they are a different experience so they could.
They do co-exist, but apparently, that's not good enough for you, and your preferences extend to the production of games that are obsolete in design. Your entire initial argument of "quality/time" reveals how small-minded you are in the appreciation of what games can be,

>> No.4595567

>>4595549
It's relevant. If an element by itself would make something not a game if there wasn't anything else, then it's not a game element.
You can have a game without any cutscenes. You can't have a game with ALL cutscenes.
And cutscenes interrupt the interactivity. How is this so hard to understand, do you have such a hard on for cutscenes?
>but the film does not cease to be a film at that point
It's a film with some weird parts that are only music. Again, if the whole experience was just a black screen with music, would you call that a film?
I'm not saying games are no longer games when they feature some interruptions. I'm just saying those interruptions aren't game mechanics, and I personally prefer games without said interruptions and thus don't like the direction games have taken to include so many these days.
>games today are still made, even if they have become more cinematic experiences and story-driven, and in my opinion, they are all the better for it.
There are still good games of my style coming out, like Nex Machina. They're just becoming scarce. We don't share that opinion on the cinematic stuff, that's all.

>> No.4595574

>>4595554
>They do co-exist, but apparently, that's not good enough for you
They are disappearing, that's not co-existing, man.
But it's still fine, I still have all the older games I enjoy.
>obsolete
Okay, we just disagree here. I think arcade design is still a valid and different experience, not comparable to cinematic games and thus not worse.
And even cinematic games are better if they follow a quality/time focus (as in, making every part as good as possible, not pad it out just to make it longer for the sake of being longer, etc.)

>> No.4595592

>>4595567
This would be like be moaning about a "game" that was entirely interactive, and had no story or any sort and complaining the fact this is released today means gaming is being ruined. I don't think such a game is released today, and even if it were, it's irrelevant. You are complaining.
> If an element by itself would make something not a game if there wasn't anything else, then it's not a game element.
I guess graphics aren't a game element then because they don't as such make a game. So basically, the equivalent thing of which you complain, which doesn't exist, would be a game that has no story, cutscenes, graphics, or sound, because none of these by themselves are games.

I think you really fucked yourself hard here and mispoke. The descent and smart thing would to admit it. If not, I'm going to keep hounding you until you because it was an incredibly idiotic thing to say.
>And cutscenes interrupt the interactivity.
And? You have not proved this is somehow a problem.
>It's a film with some weird parts that are only music.
Again, your original implication was that they were becoming less than games, so this is backpeddaling. I don't see how I should have to explain how sometimes, for artistic reasons, still images might be appropriate at times in a film and it doesn't become any less of a film for having this element, and games don't become any less game by having parts that aren't interactive.
>I'm not saying games are no longer games when they feature some interruptions.
So you were being a meming dumbass with >>4595174, because it sure fucking sounds like you implied something, but are backpedalling because it's an incredibly dumb idea.

>> No.4595605

>>4595567
>I'm just saying those interruptions aren't game mechanics
But just as sometimes, it might be appropriate to not have moving images in a film and just have music, the same thing might be said of games, and you sound just as ridiculous complaining about games in the same way as one would be complaining about movies in the same way.
>They are disappearing, that's not co-existing, man.
Something being made less of because it's not that popular is not "disappearing." I would say they exist exactly as much as the demand for this warrants. I don't think throw-back games will cease to exist any time soon. If you don't like how unpopular your darling sort of game is, tough, and consider widening your taste, or getting a new hobby, maybe something actually challenging, which isn't video games I assure you.
>>4595574
>Okay, we just disagree here.
If the purpose if a video game is to make as much money as possible, then it's obsolete by the intention. I would say the sort of films made when the genre was new is equally obsolete.

>> No.4595610

>>4595592
>This would be like be moaning about a "game" that was entirely interactive, and had no story or any sort and complaining the fact this is released today means gaming is being ruined. I don't think such a game is released today, and even if it were, it's irrelevant. You are complaining.
Where did I say that? lol And I even mentioned a new game I absolutely love that's just like how you say, Nex Machina.
Graphics are a game element, you need to see the game to play it. Don't get so desperate, man. And yes, you can have a video game with only mechanics and the a basic graphical interface, it's the core part of the medium (they existed in the early days). The aesthetics and interruptions aren't, you can't make a game just out of them. They can be nice and stuff, but they don't add to the game directly. To do so, you have to improve the game part, the mechanics.
>And? You have not proved this is somehow a problem.
Interactivity is what makes a game that, a game. Watching a cutscene is not the act of engaging with game mechanics.
And no, not meming. Cutscenes = Not game elements. They don't make the game parts inside the whole of the experience any less of a game.

>> No.4595615

>>4595605
They are disappearing at a very fast rate recently, at least the truly arcade inspired ones, not just any kind of cheap indie retro game. You'd know if you were into these and looked for new releases like I do (and discover cool ones like Nex Machina)

>> No.4595625

>>4595174
>at the expense of the enjoyment of the players.
fuck fighting games and their players. this sounds like an improvement haha

>> No.4595628

>>4595610
>Where did I say that?
I'm saying that's how irrelevant is your description here >>4595519
>If the whole experience were cutscenes, it would become a CGI movie and would no longer be a video game at all.
When that doesn't exist.
>Graphics are a game element
Here we go. Trying to change what you said. You said,
> If an element by itself would make something not a game if there wasn't anything else, then it's not a game element.
Literally, graphics "make something not a game if there wasn't anything else, then it's not a game element." If you want to explain to me how something would be a game with just graphics, by all means, go ahead. I'm sorry I dared to interpret you literally. This is the point where you say you misspoke.
>. And yes, you can have a video game with only mechanics and the a basic graphical interface, it's the core part of the medium (they existed in the early days).
That's not what a game with only graphics would be. It would actually be totally uniteractive because anything beyond the graphics, such as fail states, AI, a scoring system, etc. would not be graphics. You can keep insisting what you said made sense as you wrote it, but I'm going to insist otherwise. I don't even mind being a hardass or a smartass, because the more you avoid what you literally wrote and make ad hominems like calling me desperate, the more you deserved to be skewered for misspeaking.
>Interactivity is what makes a game that, a game.
And moving pictures make a film, but that doesn't means some films should sometimes not have moving pictures.
>And no, not meming.
So, you were literally implying that those elements mean it's not a game? Maybe you're new to 4chan, but if I wrote.
>you
>somebody who's not a complete dumbfuck and can properly express themselves
I'm clearly implying that you are a ccomplete dumbfuck and can't properly express yourself.

>> No.4595629

>>4595615
>>4595615
I would say they're probably more popular than they've been for a long time, possibly due to how popular nostalgia is, and how common they are in proportion to their demand. I'm not convinced there's going to be a point where they don't exist. There might not be enough for you, which is a different satte entirely.

>> No.4595634

>>4595628
Man, what the fuck. You need graphics to make a video game function, how else can you interact with the machine then? It's a minimum requirement to make a game. And sure, you're right, you can't make a game only out of graphics, but you can't with mechanics either. You need some sort of way to display them, these two are interconnected elements and both make the game part.
All the other ones are optional. It should be easy to see this.

Anyway, this whole CINEMATIC GAMING VS ARCADE GAMING argument we're having can me summed up like this:

You think games have improved by becoming cinematic experiences.
I think arcade games are still valid and are not obsolete.

We could go on and on, but we aren't going nowhere, this is just a fundamental difference in opinion.

>> No.4595640

>>4595629
Do you really think "nostalgic" pixel indie games are up to classic arcade standards? I know you don't play this stuff so it's only natural to think so, but I'm telling you, they're far from being that good.
Pure arcade stuff like Nex Machina is becoming VERY rare now.
http://www.housemarque.com/arcade-is-dead/

>> No.4595649

>>4595634
Once again, literally interpreting what you said, graphics, because they would not "make something not a game if there wasn't anything else, [they're] not a game element."
>You need graphics to make a video game function
This is actually false. It wouldn't be hard to make a game without graphics. Something like Simon would not require graphics.
>>4595640
Oh, so now it's not enough that they exist, but they have to be good enough for you? The larger developers that could possibly afford to make that polished are, rightly, in my opinion, focusing on what games have evolved into. A big problem is that the market for the games you want just isn't large enough, so your complaint basically is that there aren't more people with your tastes who are willing to vote with their wallets, or developers don't make arcade-like games at a loss.

>> No.4595665

>>4595649
OK, you can make a very simple video game with no graphics but sound effects instead I guess. You're just nitpicking my point that stuff like cutscenes aren't game mechanics which should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

>but they have to be good enough for you?
It's not just "good", it's featuring the arcade design philosophy. Do you think that any game that is 2D and features pixel graphics is an arcade game? It's these particular kinds of games the ones that are disappearing, as you can see in that blog entry by the creators of Nex Machina; I'm not making this stuff up. Metroidvanias or whatever aren't arcade games.
>so your complaint basically is that there aren't more people with your tastes who are willing to vote with their wallets
You're right for once! At last, you're truly getting me. But it's not really a complaint, just a sad realization. I will still be fine with all the games available right now.

>> No.4595673

>>4595665
>You're just nitpicking my point that stuff like cutscenes aren't game mechanics which should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
And I'm willing to bet that even in your favorite games, there are more instances of uninteractivity, (literally any moment when you aren't supposed to be making inputs), vs the absolute earliest of games, like Pong, which had graphics as barebone as possible to make the game playable.

The ease with which arcade games can be developed explains how frequent they were about thirty years ago, despite the market for video games being smaller. For me, there's more arcade games already developed to last me a lifetime even if I were as passionate about them as you apparently are, and I'm glad they are disappearing, if you really think that's happening, because I think that sort of game has been done to death and enough of them have been made, and it's better that as many resources as possible be put into games that are evolving the medium.

>> No.4595681

>>4595673
This is one of my personal GOATs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvJwfkK5rcE
The game stops like a couple of seconds after killing each boss and that's pretty much it.
But I don't like it just for that, I find the mechanics amazing (such as the dash and how the enemies are designed)

>I think that sort of game has been done to death and enough of them have been made
Man, stop saying ignorant stuff. Some genres ended abruptly when they were developing in interesting ways, such as arcade beat 'em ups. Arcade sidescrolling platformers were barely explored. Etc. I don't expect you to know this stuff since you aren't into these, but man, no need to disrespect these games that way.

>> No.4595690

>>4595681
Five initial seconds of no interactivity, never mind that it seems you can coast the initial part of the game doing little more than pressing X. I'm convinced Pong is still more hardcore.
>Arcade sidescrolling platformers were barely explored
I would say they've been more explored than several very popular genres of today, like third-person action games in 3D, especially if you eliminate the incredibly mediocre ones. Again, maybe there's plenty of untapped potential in whatever films were before The Birth of a Nation, but I'm glad both films and games have gone beyond that and 2D arcade shooters respectively.

>> No.4595698

>>4595690
>Five initial seconds of no interactivity
The arcade machine is booting up, are you insane? And once you are given control, again virtually no interruptions after that. Anyway, that's not what makes the game good to me exactly as I've said already
>I'm convinced Pong is still more hardcore.
You're just shitposting now, man... I guess I'll just ignore this part.
>I would say they've been more explored than several very popular genres of today
You're confusing home style platformers with arcade style platformers. While home style platformers are much closer to arcade games than cinematic games, they are still not designed in the same way.
Again, I don't expect you to know this, but there are actually surprisingly few ARCADE platformers, it wasn't a popular genre in that environment. I know it's weird, but it's true.
(Arcade Ghouls and Ghosts has a different structure and design than, say, Super Mario World)

>> No.4595708

>>4595698
>The arcade machine is booting up, are you insane?
I'm just following your criticism of lack of interactivity.
>You're just shitposting now, man... I guess I'll just ignore this part.
Not an argument. An intense game of Pong allows no down time, which isn't the case with the came I saw you posted.
>You're confusing home style platformers with arcade style platformers.
Oh, I just didn't read closely what you wrote and thought you were referring to 2D shooters. In any case, I'm sure I could think of a genre, like mental training, (perhaps not a single good game in this category), which is what I would want, which I don't think has been explored as much as arcade platformers, but I'm not going to complain about it because I clearly see why this isn't consistent with popular taste.

>> No.4595712

>>4595708
>I'm just following your criticism of lack of interactivity.
You honestly think a couple of seconds is comparable to constant interruptions via cutscenes that last for minutes, to the point they become the focus of the experience and not the game part? You're, again, mocking my argument by taking it to the extreme. What's next, you're gonna say that if there's 0,01 seconds of downtime somewhere it's no longer a pure game? Stop, please.

I'm not complaining. Just saying I'd prefer that there were more people into these so they could co-exist with modern games is not complaining, man.

>> No.4595719

>>4595712
I would say somebody who played games with even less instances of lack of interactivity would be just as right to look down on your games. Something like bullet chess, has extremely little interactivity. Even when it's not your turn, you have to subconciously consider your opponent's moves, and personally, that game you posted looks like casual shit compared to an intense chess match. The advantage, however, that your darling game and video games in general have is the pretty graphics and sound that's totally lacking with much more intense games like chess, so people who play real mind sports would be just as justified as attacking your favorite games as you are in attacking modern games.

>> No.4595720

>>4595712
Oh, and btw, those initial easy seconds are there as a warm up so you can get used to the game before it gets serious. Because, you know, fair design and stuff.

>> No.4595728

>>4595719
Try beating Dogyuun then if you think it's so baby.
Anyway, stuff like Chess is hardly comparable since their strength lie in how you are interacting with another person. If you were comparing Chess with fighting games then I guess, but this is a different type of challenge, as I said earlier. It's a more visceral and twitchy challenge; and I play timed Chess too, Chess is of course more intellectually demanding.
When I want a challenging solo game when chilling alone, arcade games are fun to me, I've already said this. I'm not saying these are the hardest things ever in life or whatever; stop exaggerating my point.

>> No.4595729

>>4595720
I would say this is still a very casual approach compared to proper mind sports. Even the openings of chess games are basically tests of memorization of as many openings as the player can retain, which becomes very challenging to execute at higher speeds, and then if you're strategy is based heavily on what you know about the other player, you have to think about what would be the best approach among a number of memorized plays to respond to what they've played that you might have not expected, but you anticipated it, which is why you find players pausing even in openings.

>> No.4595739

>>4595729
Read: >>4595728
Please stop comparing single player arcades to intense mind games. What happens if I'm alone and I want a cool single player challenge in the form of a video game? It's not as strong as something against another human being, but why bring this up in the first place. I'm not considering arcade games the best and hardest shit available ever, wtf.

>> No.4595747

>>4595728
>Try beating Dogyuun then if you think it's so baby.
I'm pretty sure there are games with this cinematic nonsense you dislike which would be challenging as well.
>Anyway, stuff like Chess is hardly comparable since their strength lie in how you are interacting with another person.
Their "strength" is the challenge they pose, which you could recreate by playing against an AI, in which case they are no worse than the games you like, except no pretty graphics and sounds.
> What happens if I'm alone and I want a cool single player challenge in the form of a video game?
Play chess against an AI. Wtf, that was easy. I don't see any valid argument that somehow, chess loses its appeal when you aren't challenging another human. And if it somehow doesn't count, the same applies to your GOAT. It's still against an AI.

>> No.4595754

>>4595747
>I'm pretty sure there are games with this cinematic nonsense you dislike which would be challenging as well.
Yeah, when did I say otherwise? Thought they usually aren't.
>which you could recreate by playing against an AI
You know full well a Chess AI is still no match to the real deal. Anyway, stuff like 2D shooters don't even have AI, they are just static / aimed patterns to dodge; even if we were comparing them to playing chess against an AI, it's not the same deal. Not the same appeal. I like both. I don't think arcades > chess. How's that so hard to understand?

>> No.4595757

>>4595754
Though, not thought*

>> No.4595758

>>4593420
ffvii is a crap, so ugly. rpg's are ruined by triangle graphics because they have very little going for them.

>> No.4595760

>>4595625
Why do you feel this way?

>> No.4595763

>>4595754
>Yeah, when did I say otherwise? Thought they usually aren't.
Okay, then whether I can beat it is irrelevant to whether it's less interactive compared to other challenges.
>You know full well a Chess AI is still no match to the real deal.
That's your problem, buddy, and entirely in your mind. Even Garry Kasparov thought in his match against Deeper Blue, he was playing against a human. If you need another player, than single-player games as such should be inadequate. If you don't need one, then I go back to the point of how people who play by comparison, actually challenging games can look down upon your favorite games in the same respect.

>> No.4595775

>>4595763
Why does it matter that arcade video games are JUST BARELY less fully interactive than some higher forms of gaming, like intense mind games between humans? Doesn't change the fact that they are more fully interactive than cinematic games, since they feature more interruptions. No need to keep going with this, we agree, I just don't see the point and it doesn't invalidate me.
I don't mind them looking down upon my favorite arcade games. This changes nothing about my point. You're admitting I'm right or something and are now mocking my favorite game by putting them below some higher forms of games; however, you are putting cinematic games WELL below both of them by doing so. Anyway, this is just stupid, just stop, OK?

>> No.4595783

>>4595760
because I would much rather watch a fighting game than play one.

>> No.4595784

>>4595775
icycalm was wrong about molesting kids but right about arcade gaming

>> No.4595785

>>4595783
Hey /v/

>> No.4595789

>>4595784
(Disclaimer: This is not meant to be an argument)
Fuck Icycalm

>> No.4595794

>>4595789
icycalm was wrong about using other people's dumpsters to save money
but he was right about arcade video games

>> No.4595801

>>4595794
Still fuck Icycalm

>> No.4595802

>>4595775
I think the level of skill and mental acuity involves in mind sports and gaming is also vastly different. I think it's about the same as the arcade games you love and the casual modern games you despise. Furthermore, with the one advantage arcade games having being the graphics and music, which don't as such make a game, over mind sports, arcade games are about as far from the pure challenge given by mind sports as modern games are from arcade games. A hard-core chess player, could make basically the same criticisms of your favorite games form his position as you could of modern games, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it.

>> No.4595805

>>4595802
Why does it matter that arcade games are less complex than mind sports, again? I'm not saying they aren't, and I don't mind admitting it.
Moving the goalposts, much?

>> No.4595812

>>4595802
real sports are better though. i'd rather watch boxing than street fighter. boxing isn't a bunch of preordained limitations thought up by programmers, it's the chaos of reality barely restrained by a few rules. People die in boxing and red gloves can't prevent that.

>> No.4595814

>>4595794
What was his argument about them again?

>> No.4595816

>>4595805
Then I don't see how the differences between arcade games and modern games matter.
>Moving the goalposts, much?
Nope :)

>> No.4595824

>>4595816
We were comparing video games, you're the one to bring mind sports to the conversation lol
Anyway, if said difference matters, then you yourself are considering modern games as lesser experiences compared to arcades (even if arcades themselves would also be lesser experiences compared to mind sports).

However, this is not my point. To me, both arcade games and modern games, as well as mind sports have a very different appeal, and are thus valid games to exist at the same time, not something that makes the rest obsolete.
I personally enjoy both arcades and mind sports, while not modern games, and just find a little sad that arcade games are disappearing.
Is it time to stop already?

>> No.4595826

>>4595814
Developers had the incentive to create better, more fun games because it costs only a quarter and you can leave at any moment.

>> No.4595836

>>4595824
>We were comparing video games
Well, I'm glad you've dropped any pretense of implying modern are somehow not games, which you previously implied. Anyway, you can play chess as a video game, either against people who are sure to beat you eventually, or against an AI which can be tailored to be the perfect challenge and most extreme challenge for you, so this is very moot point.
>then you yourself are considering modern games as lesser experiences compared to arcades (even if arcades themselves would also be lesser experiences compared to mind sports).
I would say it's a lesser experience just as so many of your favorite games as lesser experiences to mind sports, and video games that perfectly recreate these mind sports in digital forms, and are valid video games in their own right.

>> No.4595846

>>4595826
Sounds like a fair enough stance to have.

>> No.4595847

>>4595836
>Well, I'm glad you've dropped any pretense of implying modern are somehow not games
What pretense? What the fuck. Saying they are less focused on game mechanics (and they undeniably are) is not the same as saying they aren't games. God.

Good, then let's wrap things up: these are games with different appeals and are valid to exist, which is why it shouldn't trigger you so much to see someone that enjoys arcade games lament to see they go, even if he can live with it due to how many good ones there are already. Let's agree with that and just move on, OK.

>> No.4595856

>>4595847
Once again, that's the literal implication this post >>4595174

And somebody who wants more games in the vein of Othello, Go, Chess, etc., would just be right to say that since those games even more purely focus on game mechanics, it's a shame that people are more interested in developing video games as such, including arcade games, and comparing those games to arcade games, on a pure basis of game mechanics, I would have to agree with that person, The advantage actually is that even the simplest arcade games are more "cinematic," can have stories, music, or a personality that's really not necessary for the game itself, which mind sports lack.

>> No.4595865

>>4595326
*polished

>> No.4595868

>>4595856
Cinematics and stories =/= Game mechanics
That's my implication; nothing more.
I agree with the second paragraph, actually (but don't put them in a spectrum, really; these are all games with different appeals to begin with). I'm into board games as well.

>> No.4595871

>>4595326
I doubt you could even learn the controls to a game like Cataclysm.

>> No.4595872

>>4595330
play df you fag

>> No.4595876

>>4595868
Then your green texting didn't make sense. You could have put ">game mechanics," but you didn't. Besides, that would have been irrelevant to my post, because these are definite ways GAMES have been changing, and the are still games even if they have many elements which aren't strictly game mechanics.
> I'm into board games as well.
Well, using your premises, you should be entirely into them because they're a more pure instance of game mechanics than are arcade games.

>> No.4595881

>>4595876
>Well, using your premises, you should be entirely into them because they're a more pure instance of game mechanics than are arcade games.
Cataclysm is like a complexificated board game. You should be into that game and Metal Slug. Then you can enjoy FFVI for its cool retro monster graphics that really complement the awful gameplay.

>> No.4595882

>>4595876
Okay, sorry to no make it clear enough. To me, game mechanics are synonymous with games, but I guess for guys into cinematic games like you I could see how that could seem confusing.
And no, I play board games and arcade games for different reasons. The first for the mind game aspect, the latter for the nice rush of execution based stuff.

>> No.4595890

>>4595872
>df
?

>> No.4595903

>>4595882
>To me, game mechanics are synonymous with games,
Which is an incredibly idiotic equation, like saying film is literally the movement of pictures, disregarding all the elements that go into it, like sound, angles, story, themes, acting, etc.
>The first for the mind game aspect, the latter for the nice rush of execution based stuff.
Well it just so happens people largely play games as a form of escapism, meaning that rush isn't so essential, and it's a form of escapism that really only happens in games, meaning it's just valid use of medium as your arcades. If you could recreate the same effect in movies or whatever, equating games with games mechanics would be valid, but there are so many more aspects to games besides mechanics that really only work in that medium. This is besides the fact that are games that present a more pure form of this demand of execution, but not having nice graphics and other shit, they're not as poplar among people who play video games more than board games, and I see this placement of other elements that aren't strictly game mechanics just as unpure as preferring cinematic games to what you like. BTW, I never even said I was into cinematic games, even admitting I don't even play games any more. Pretty much the only games I've played in years are mobile games are extremely simple in presentation, probably even simpler than what you enjoy.

>> No.4595905

>>4595903
>To me
Look, just accept that there are people like me that don't care for any other stuff in games other than the game mechanics, or at least that value game mechanics the most. It's not idiotic, it's a different taste. I don't care about story, cutscenes or whatever in games. Is this so hard to accept?
>Well it just so happens people largely play games as a form of escapism
Yeah, and I described how I enjoy games myself. Wow.

>> No.4595908

>>4595903
This is the type of ceo mindset that puts 12 oz. mouse on television.

Yes, the defining aspect of a medium should be privileged in that medium, for fucks sake. You execute the other things with utmost proficiency but always to embellish the core aspect of the medium.

>> No.4595910

>>4595905
> just accept that there are people like me that don't care for any other stuff in games other than the game mechanics
I would say that's bullshit, because there are games with a more pure reliance on game mechanics, deeper to, that just don't happen to look or sound as good as arcade games.
>Yeah, and I described how I enjoy games myself. Wow.
Okay, well my point is you're completely unjustified in equating game mechanics with what makes a game a game when people satisfy a need from games that would only work in that medium. That was your original, failing pretentiousness, which I'm still attacking.

>> No.4595920

>>4595908
>This is the type of ceo mindset that puts 12 oz. mouse on television.
Elaborate? '
>Yes, the defining aspect of a medium should be privileged in that medium, for fucks sake.
Why? What's the defining aspect of film? Movement of pictures? Does that mean we should privilege films more with movement of pictures? Furthermore, that would make the games with the most privileged aspects those that are little more than video game versions of classic board games. I'm not sure what you mean by "privileged."
>You execute the other things with utmost proficiency but always to embellish the core aspect of the medium.
I'm not convinced this is best done through arcade games. There should basically be more, extremely simple games being made that place almost no emphasis on graphics, which describes almost no arcade game.

>> No.4595921

>>4595910
>because there are games with a more pure reliance on game mechanics, deeper to, that just don't happen to look or sound as good as arcade games.
And I already said I liked them as well, just for different reasons (again, ones for the interesting mind games, others for the fun of twitchy execution)
Those "escapism" games are fine, man. For the umpteenth time, I'm fine that they exist for other folks. I'm just saying that it would be better for me if arcade games could co-exist with them.
Stop making me repeat the same shit as if you are conveniently ignoring the stuff I say.

>> No.4595939

>>4595921
Well, on the one hand, you're saying you don't care for X aspects in games, then say you like games with X aspects. It's like if I said I'm actually more hardcore than you when it comes to preffering game mechanics over everything else, but loved me my Uncharted and The Last of Us, specifically because what game mechanics they had make up for all their superfluous aspects.
It goes beyond that when you actually started depreciating all the other aspects in games to the extent that they're actually made games in this post >>4595174. It's like if I started shitting on arcade games because of my preference of board games, explaining how the only differences between them is shallower gameplay, and a reliance on things which strictly speaking aren't game mechanics.

>> No.4595943

>>4595920
>I'm not convinced this is best done through arcade games. There should basically be more, extremely simple games being made that place almost no emphasis on graphics, which describes almost no arcade game.

But you want to feel the mechanics. Action games, VIDEO games especially benefit from using animation principles communicate to the player what it is exactly they are doing. You want to feel the recoil on your weapon. One of the downsides of simple tile based, text graphics games, even when have enormous complexity, is they don't signal these things to you. You aren't appreciating the mechanics if they're presented to you too abstractly.

>> No.4595948

>>4595943
A nice way to put it, thanks.
>>4595939
Again, not shitting on story or cutscenes, just saying they aren't game mechanics. Stop.

>> No.4595960

>>4595943
>But you want to feel the mechanics. Action games, VIDEO games especially benefit from using animation principles communicate to the player what it is exactly they are doing. You want to feel the recoil on your weapon. One of the downsides of simple tile based, text graphics games, even when have enormous complexity, is they don't signal these things to you. You aren't appreciating the mechanics if they're presented to you too abstractly.
Agreed. But you can make the same extension to more "cienematic" games.
If you say, "I like X over Y because it has Z quality more than Y, which I prefer over W quality," you can be open to inconsistency if you don't entirely like V, which has Y quality to an even greater degree, but less of W quality.

>> No.4595965

>>4595960
I have nothing against cinematic games until the go too far. At some point, the game mechanics are just a piece of shit getting in the way of the movie I'm trying to watch. Like, Heavy Rain is forcing me to interactively pee on the toilet, wtf?

>> No.4595969

>>4595948
Then this post >>4595174 never made any sense, which was just explaining how these aspects which you place so little personal value on would naturally become more important to games. Your post did make sense if you're trying to imply that games somehow become less games by placing so much importance on these qualities, but that's a notion I strenuously object to, and I think you're backpedalling from that because of how ridiculous a notion it's been shown to be.

>> No.4595976

>The most important part about books, to me, is the text: the narrative. It's what makes them special compared to, say, movies or music
>But I like the cover art!
>Well, I mostly care about the text. The cover is cosmetic stuff that's not needed.
>But are you saying the cover art is not part of a book?!
>No, I'm just saying the point of a book is the text, not the cover.
>But what if I like covers? Do I not like books automatically?
>Man, if you only have a cover, it's not a book anymore, it's just a piece of artwork. However, if you only have text, it's still a book.
>But that absurd thing doesn't exist, therefore your argument is wrong

Ad nauseam

>> No.4595986

>>4595976
Actually, a better analogy would be depreciating every genre except the books with the most amount of text, depreciating light novels, as somehow lesser in nature, and then you produce a post as asinine as
>fewer than 300 pages
>books
>written at eight grade level
>books
And then I mentioned reference books, or large-scale monographs as the purest form of this and pretty much making your darling novels look like light novels in comparison, and basically you backpedal and say it's more about your personal preference

Nice try, though.

>> No.4595992

>games somehow become less games by placing so much importance on these qualities
When we get to stuff like Heavy Rain as previously mentioned by another anon then yeah, you can see the game mechanic part of the experience is being severely compromised compared to the cinematic elements. You just enjoy stuff like Heavy Rain more than Dogyuun, that's fine. I don't, game mechanics are the stuff I play games for, and it's not nice to see how they have been de-emphasized over the years in games in favor of elements that aren't exclusive to video games, such as movies (cutscenes).

>> No.4595995

>>4595986
>written at eight grade level
Now you're just shitting on arcade games. I am being respectful to your beloved cinematic stuff.

>> No.4595998

>>4595995
No, you ass. It wasn't clear I was mocking your post >>4595174? I only brought it up like six times. Holy, fuck.

>> No.4596002

>>4595998
Saying that cutscenes and stories aren't game mechanics is not insulting games that feature that. They are just games that focus less on game mechanics due to having a focus on those cinematic, plot driven elements.
I personally don't like them since I prefer games based more purely on game mechanics myself. No insults here. And I'm repeating myself here.

>> No.4596006

>>4596002
>Saying that cutscenes and stories aren't game mechanics is not insulting games that feature that.
Although, what are widely considered some of the best games try to avoid that to some degree. Half Life never took you out of the game for a cutscene, and it was praised for that.

>> No.4596009

>>4595992
I would say something like Heavy Rain is really something where it's so clearly cinematic and uninteractive, even compared modern games, that it begins to seriously cross the line into something that's more passive than interactive. It's actually a better counterargument than I've seen yet, but gulf between that an modern games is actually much larger between modern games and arcade games. Something like Heavy Rain has pretty much zero test of skill, which isn't the case with any modern game really, as much as the implication might be. I guess if modern games really started resembling something as passive as Heavy Rain, my position might be completely proven wrong and I might be in the opposite position, railing at how non-games are modern games, but I think something like Heavy Rain will always be an anomaly, and modern games, while still being cinematic and having large parts of not being interactive, will always feature some test of skill, which I can safely say it not the case with Heavy Rain.
If you were really unfair, you could have equated Heavy Rain with all modern games in terms of interactivity compared to arcade games, but then that would have been easy for me to attack.

>> No.4596010

>>4596006
Well, I don't care about what's "widely considered some of the best games", anyway.
Stuff like the very beginning of that game is pretty much a cut-scene wherein you can move but not do anything else, though. Your point still stands for most of the game, however. I'm not fond of Half Life myself, I find it too slow paced for my tastes.

>> No.4596013

>>4596009
Heavy Rain is an extreme example that makes it very easy to see. However, most modern single player games aren't that far off from that; at least that's how they feel to me.

>> No.4596014

>>4596002
Again, within the context of this discussion, that's not what was being discussed. Game mechanics were not mentioned. I was just explaining how game have naturally developed in placing emphasis on stories and cinematics, (which was even the case during the golden age of arcade games), and then you come in and imply those somehow aren't games by saying >games. Oh, that's right, you meant game-mechanics, even though that had nothing to do with the discussion!
BACKPEDALING

>> No.4596020

>>4596014
I already explained this to you. I said I personally consider games and game mechanics synonyms, which is why I wrote that post the way I did.
Just imagine I did this instead:
>development of games
>development of game mechanics
>more cinematic experiences
>game mechanics
>more story-driven
>game mechanics
Sorry if my wording seemed confusing for a cinematic player that's not used to see games this way.

>> No.4596024

>>4596013
>However, most modern single player games aren't that far off from tha
Well, that's bullshit. Play Call of Duty on Veteran, and it will be a challenge. I don't think it's a very good one because you can beat the game easily by moving very slowly, but there will be some challenge. And then speedrunners can go through those modes extremely quickly because of how much effort they've put into mastering the campaign. There's no such comparative quality to Heavy Rain, and there would be nothing impressive in speedrunning that. The level of interactivity is not only extremely limited, but clearly tacked on. It's literally closer to the action of "Press F to pay respects," than what you're usually doing in a Call of Duty campaign.

>> No.4596025

>>4596024
Call of Duty on Veteran is VERY far from arcade games. Speedrunning is a self-imposed challenge. Indeed, Heavy Rain is far from that, but, again, to me they still feel dull by comparison in terms of how their game mechanics are built (you even admit this by saying it wouldn't be a good challenge, as in it would be relatively boring). You're REALLY getting desperate now.

>> No.4596027

>>4596020
That explanation doesn't make sense. Nobody was talking about game mechanics as separate from games. I was talking about the evolution of game development compared to how they previously were, and then you use the word "games" in a completely different way from how you were using it.

I'm sorry arcade game player are so incredibly inarticulate and moronic, they interchangeably and inconsistently use "games" to mean "game-mechanics" even when it doesn't make sense in context, and then blame someone with better taste in games than they do, while assuming their preferences.

>> No.4596031

>>4596027
>and then blame someone with better taste in games than they do
lol the shitposting is real

Yes, it makes sense. If games focus more on cinematics and plot, they focus less on pure game mechanics.

>> No.4596036

>>4596025
>Call of Duty on Veteran is VERY far from arcade games
Okay? I never said otherwise. And arcade games are very far from mind games, meaning I can go back to the same comparison, which is that arcade games are about as passive compared to mind games are arcade games are to mind games.
>You're REALLY getting desperate now.
Really? Ironic, considering you basically attacked a position I didn't utter, and bizarrely characterized modern games as being similar to Heavy Rain.

>> No.4596041

>>4596036
Keep reading. Read the whole post. After the Indeed part. Thank you, Mr. cinematic mobile (non?)gamer.

>> No.4596042

>>4596031
>lol the shitposting is real
Good to know that stung. inb4 you deny it
>If games focus more on cinematics and plot
This questionably described modern games. Again, you were using "games" in your previous post to not refer to "game-mechanics," meaning it makes no sense to then use it a different sense when game-mechanics as such were not being discussed, and then blame me when it's clearly your fault for being inarticulate.

>> No.4596045

>>4596041
I did. I should have pointed out your inconsistency in saying Heavy Rain is far from this, after saying "However, most modern single player games aren't that far off from that." This is either a blatant inconsistency, or you're implicitly praising Call of Duty on Veteran versus the single player of most modern games.

>> No.4596051

>>4596042
I'm not used to having to distinguish the word "game" from the concept of something you interact with due to how modern games are so cinematic and less like pure interactive stuff (which is what I usually call "games" myself), that's all. I don't have cinematic stuff in my mind when I use the word game, can you blame me? I guess I'm too old fashioned for you guys. However, I fail to see how someone that doesn't like to play games, defends cinematic games so adamantly and only plays mobile stuff nowadays even browses /vr/ in the first place, but that's not really relevant.

>> No.4596056

Good storytellers don't let the audience take over.
Good storytellers don't let bad storytellers tell the story.
Good storytellers DON'T. MAKE. GAMES.

>> No.4596078

>>4596045
Just FYI, this guy >>4596056
isn't the same you've been arguing against this whole time, which is me. I don't really give a shit about the stuff he's talking about.

>> No.4596082

>>4596051
Again, you're speeding a lot of time trying to defend a post by claiming you have a very inarticulate and ridiculous approach to terminology. It makes perfect sense to distinguish with terminology a game, and a game mechanic, as they are very different things even for games you apparently approve of, like a good arcade game having multiple game mechanics, but apparently, this arcade player is assuming my preference in games because I dared to assume he was more articulate than he actually was.
> I don't have cinematic stuff in my mind when I use the word game, can you blame me?
Considering how outdated this mentality is, yes. which is no better than somebody using game to refer to board game, and I can blame you when you mistakenly use "games" to refer to "game mechanics."

If in some sense something can not be a game because you're not interacting with it, and be a game in the sense that modern games are games, then it shows there's an inherent contradiction in your terminology, and the problem was entirely your fault that you were misunderstood. This is besides the fact that the post I was responding to didn't mention game mechanics at all, but mentioned games, and my post didn't mention game mechanics, and then you posted >>4595174, and "games" was supposed to mean "game mechanics," when that wasn't discussed in the post you which you were responding to, or in your previous post.

I think you're being unfair to your fellow arcade player in suggesting they would be as inarticulate as you would be, so take that as a concession. Being inarticulate I understand isn't easy for you to admit, as you still haven't admitted that based on >>4595567, you should think graphics aren't a game element, which I basically dropped because I felt bad for you, but I'm bringing it up again because you're blaming me for your inability to be clear.

>> No.4596090

>>4596082
>outdated
Yet again with this "arcade games are obsolete" crap. Can't we just get along? I just wish that all these games can co-exist.
Yeah, my terminology was not science-proof, I admitted that already and apologized for making stuff seem confusing to you.

>> No.4596091

>>4596078
This was actually an argument in defense of cinematic games. Fuck player choice beyond shooting things on rails or something fuck players.

>> No.4596092

>>4596090
>I admitted that already and apologized for making stuff seem confusing to you.
You did it in a pretty insulting fashion, so I thought I would return the favor.

>> No.4596180

>>4592971
>Deus Ex at number 1

Deus Ex is the most overrated game of all time. It doesn't do anything particularly well, and everything that it does do has been done better by games that have come after it. When it came out, sure, it was unique and unprecedented in how many disparate gameplay elements it combined into a single experience, but come on guys, Mass Effect 1 does everything it wanted to do but better.

>> No.4596185

>>4592743
Does anyone have that image of developers from konami shitting on kojima saying that he was making a movie but not a game?

>> No.4596270

>>4596180
>Mass Effect 1 does everything it wanted to do but better.

>> No.4596727

>>4596180
If you observe how games have developed (open world games are pretty much the epitome of "you can do anything but everything you can do is very shallow), Deus Ex just seems like a precursor to that, so it's understandable it's overrated, since it resembles how later games would become.
>>4596185
Too bad "movie games" eventually won.

>> No.4597370

>>4596185
Well, that's not really a problem with his last game, which was apparently was the last straw for Konami.

>> No.4597378
File: 1.16 MB, 480x358, 1509654525142.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4597378

>>4592867
fuck no

>> No.4597381
File: 499 KB, 1492x1000, Age-of-Empires-II-The-Conquerors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4597381

>>4592971
this is the best game of all times