Page 4 of 5

Author:  8_Bit_Brad [ Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Haven't been here in awhile, but sorry to say Dragon, I have played Halo 3 and its the same pace as the other Halos. Fast but not super fast.

As far as this Haze game goes. Graphics look great. Game seems like a mashup of Crysis and Fear. I'm sure somebody has already posted that but I Didn't feel like reading 40 some post.

Author:  Karate Explosion [ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:49 am ]
Post subject: 

I like PC games more, the mod factor. I figure y spend $50 on a console game when you spend the same for a PC and get a few mods which add more. When mods can come on console and X-Box Live is free then consoles for the win

Author:  Dragonathan [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

-ATHF-FryLock wrote:
Dragon, the only feature MGS had going for it was wall hugging, which allowed you to change the camera angle to view around corners. Other wise, every thing else was done. Tenchu had that, but instead of getting on the wall you pressed a button and it changed your view. Furthermore, the camera wasn't fixed, so you could change your direction to see.

see your starting to admit bit by bit, first you didnt wanted to admit that wallhugging was invented by kojima,

dude.. tenchu didnt had the same features like MGS1, keep in mind that MGS1 was much longer in development than tenchu, hideo kojma started working on MGS1 on the ps1 in the late 1994, i saw sneak previews of MGS1 pictures of features like neck snapping and wallhugging in late 1996 in a game magazine called EDGE. do the math,

Author:  -ATHF-FryLock [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Putting youself on a wall to change the camera angle is like changing the graphic on a gun from another game. You did the exact same thing, just MGS made you put your back on the wall, while Tenchu had no reason to why you should be able to change your view.

Tenchu was in development as well, just MGS could afford to be hyped long before it's release. Tenchu wasn't a large budget and didn't expect to be a smashing success, and if I remember correctly, it wasn't. Though, Tenchu is still making new games, but they are not big titles.

If you keep looking at MGS as the first game, which I have give enough proof to show that its not, then you will all ways see it that way.

Ignorance is Bliss, I'm sure you heard the phrase.

Author:  Dragonathan [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

again, ive played tenchu on the very first p1, i havent noticed any features that were used in MGS1,

the only feature that is used in lots of games before MGS1 came, is the hanging on ledges feature,

Author:  -ATHF-FryLock [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

The way I see it is a lot of the mgs features are just a pretty version of things before it. Tenchu, as I said before, had you press a button you let you see around corners. MGS made you get on the wall. Granted it made the game a lot better, it improved game play a lot, and gave the game a more in depth feel to it, but how I see it it is just a pretty version of what Tenchu did. Sneaking from behind and killing people was in Tenchu, and in games before. Tenchu had various ways of killing from behind. MGS did breaking necks as the sneaking kill. It looked better and seemed more sensible than slitting throats stabbing in the back and other Tenchu features. (Slitting a throat isn't a silent death, there is a lot of gurgling, failing, and moaning). Crawling through vents and under various things sounds like a plat former to me and already done before sneaking concepts. Golden Eye had a lot of what was in MGS, the difference was Golden Eye was first person and didn't allow you to have the freedom and mobility as MGS.

Read through that, and look at how stealth games developed. MGS had the most features out of all the sneaking games that came out before and after, but those features were not created by MGS. MGS was the big one, if you notice the games that came out before it were not the type of game that could afford to be hyped before its release, which is why some of them went unnoticed. You turn a blind eye to Halo, which I see why, it isn't any thing special, but you know it got big because of hype. Well, MGS kinda did the same thing, except MGS series had a lot more going for it that halo did.

Hype is one of the things that make a game become great. It doesn't make the game good, instead it creates a community that wants the game and talks about it. A preexisting community before the game is released has people talking about it and ignoring the competition. That is why games Like Halo get so big, it's competition was ignored. That's why so many good movies get cast aside. that is why good music goes unnoticed. That is why good art goes unseen. This goes for games as well. It is another media where things get ignored simply because they were out advertised.

Look at Chronically of Riddik: Escape from Butcher Bay. The game made it where you could see in the dark, but you were blind in the light. This made for interesting game play. However, it picked a bad time to come out because the Halo hype wasn't over. It got great reviews from a lot of magazines and Tv shows, but sold bad because people were glorifying Halo.

Pure Originality has faded. Now is the time to make things pretty. Soon games will be left in the dust.

Author:  Dragonathan [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

-ATHF-FryLock wrote:
Look at Chronically of Riddik: Escape from Butcher Bay. The game made it where you could see in the dark, but you were blind in the light. This made for interesting game play. However, it picked a bad time to come out because the Halo hype wasn't over. It got great reviews from a lot of magazines and Tv shows, but sold bad because people were glorifying Halo.

Pure Originality has faded. Now is the time to make things pretty. Soon games will be left in the dust.

MGS1 was the first one that had nightvision, and heatvision,
nightvision and seeing in the dark are similar to me,

top developers wont say nonesense things especially if its hyped,
my question to you is, are all the top developers that claimed that MGS1 changed the gaming scene and was revolutionary and innovative wrong?

Author:  XenoKiLLer [ Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Being innovative isnt wrong for games. Actually innovation is what we have a lack of today. The only thing new we get in a majority of games today is graphics, prices, and system requirements (PC only duh).

If innovative games were given the attention games like Halo and GTA had, it would certainly be a more entertaining gaiming scene. This is where the Scratchware manifesto comes in. It is somewhat like a code or guideline that some indie developers (modders included) choose to follow inorder to bring back the quality and fun aswell as innovation in games aside from the current capitalism and mass produced style today.

So in conclusion, innovation and new things arent wrong, however we have a lack of that these days. Uping the graphics and system req is not an innovation in anyway, its just new paint and polish on a Ford Model T.

Author:  -ATHF-FryLock [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Xeno said it good. There really hasn't been anything that is innovative in a long time. Every thing, including MGS, was a polished game. It was a very good game, but it isn't really innovative. The real people who made the innovations get over looked because of companies with more money hype up their game and over shadow the smaller games. You'd be surprised how many mods are the real inventors of new content. The problem is, there just a group a modders with out enough money to properly advertise. MGS had a several year long ad campaign, all of them did. Because of that other games/mods were over shadowed and unnoticed.

The top developers are going with what makes the consumers happy. If top Xbox people said MGS blew balls, then they'd lose a lot of customers. So, they say the game is what people say it is. People see the hype of a game, and a majority fall for it. Top developers from most companies say Halo was a innovative game. Same thing goes for FF7, Ever Quest, Kingdom Hearts, as well as many other titles. If they said any thing bad, then it would be bad for them. People say that God of War and Devil May Cry were innovative, but in reality they were generic hack and slash games.

Heavenly Blade will be seen as innovative, Kill Zone 2, and Halo 3 as well. It is just the way things work. People miss use the word innovative. It doesn't mean good, it doesn't mean polished game play. The wii and the DS are the only innovative things in a while. Does that make it good? Not if you like graphics. If you want to play with a whole new game concept it is, but not if you like what you already have.

This is why I like the PC and wii. PC comes with mods that bring whole new things I've never seen before. The wii is new, granted it will lose its charm, but for now it rocks. I've played a lot of games, I'm sick of the same old shooters, I'm sick of getting polished games that play much like the one before. I've been losing interest in games over time, the only thing that really kept me playing was finishing series of games. I played the first Xenogear, which is loosely connected to xenogear, and I played the Metal Gears and MGS, so I basicly got the PS2 for MGS2-3 and the three xenosagas. Just about the only games I played on it, other than Grand Torismo and Kill zone.

I mainly played PC games because it was on top of every thing, and always jumped ahead of consoles shortly after. To top it, the games had mods that were new and unique, but even mods are getting repetitive. Innovation has reached it's cap until more consoles adopt the idea of making their next system more than a stronger version of the last. The consoles and PC are the ones that have to change so that games can change.

I still like MGS, it was a great game, but hardly deserves the title innovative seeing as how all it did was make every thing look sexy. Night vision in a game isn't new. I remember some old SNES and Saga games you you use night vision goggles or spells to let you get past an area. MGS night vision was the same thing, just in 3d.

Author:  it [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:32 am ]
Post subject: 

StarFox was innovative (first use of real-time 3d graphics in a game that didn't slip into anonymity) Wolf3D was innovative (birthed the first person shooter genre) doom was innovative (modmaking became mainstream, and has massive longevity (community is STILL active and very much alive))

MGS was, in my eyes, not. did it add features? sure. but it wasn't the first, and it wasn't the first popular one.

in the game industry, innovation is just another buzzword like online multiplayer was a few years ago. As fry said, the only real innovations in gaming are the DS and wii for introducing new ways of playing games. The cell processor is just another processor, be it faster than the competition or not. even the online stores for games aren't innovative, online game stores have been around for years on the PC.

Author:  XenoKiLLer [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:12 am ]
Post subject: 

Games were meant to be fun. Many of them are but most of them are just getting old.

This is the Scratchware Manifesto

It is basically a compilation of what indiegame development is suppose to be about and in general what all game development is supopose to be about - and no it isnt money.

BTW you can get tons of free games from them - no those arent explicitly illegal games those are freeware games.

We will see in a few years what will happen here. Just as you said, I too am losing interest in games. Currently I am playing Tomb Raider Anniversary, and like I said: there's nothing new just repolished graphics. It is still moderately fun just frustrating at times.

I don't know about those Halo fans but there really is nother innovative about Halo nor any game in the top list to date.

Okay here is what we do, next week, after exams are finished I suppose all of us are done, let us compile a timelime. We first start with 1 modern game, lets say Haze for example, list down its features. Then list down examples of games a year back that had the same or similar feature (similar meaning there was change improvement or not). Then again for 5 years ago. Again for 10 years ago. Dare I go 15 or 20, I doubt it.

In the end we hope to find the roots of the gameplay features. From this research will can prove that no so-called innovative top notch retail game sold by either of the top publishers to date are really innovative. These include EA, VUG, Sony etc... (Dont use Nintendo's Wii clearly we want to discuss software changes not hardware and hardware usage such as graphics and controllers)

edit: Just to emphasize that free games are now the way to... here is what Sony plans to do: Link

Looks like an act of desparation as many games are going free2play... 2Moons for one, a top MMO is Korea going free in NA. This is how the world works.....
capitalists... :evil:
edit: fixed the link so it doesn't cause my screen to go wonky

Author:  Dragonathan [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

frylock, do realise that top developers give critics often you know...
for example i forgot his name but he developed lots of hit titles, and he said that viva pinyata is the most dumbest game ever made, i remember he said that in gametrailers on "interviews"

dont forget that lots of top developers also have said that they were inspired by MGS1, some of them also said if it wasnt for MGS!, my games would never looked the way it look today
even the developers of splintercell admitted that they were inspired by MGS,

if your inspired by 1 particular thing than that particular thing is something that wasnt invented before, thats logical

@Xeno is 2moons allready open?

Author:  XenoKiLLer [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well why do you even want to listen to those critics? They are just people they are not gods no matter how high they are in the development hierarchy. Simply because one person's opinion, scholarly or not, means nothing to a majority. its what the public thinks that matters, as a whole.

Its not who inspired who but who can think of something totally new to bring to players. Real innovation is with something new not a remake of something old with new polish.

In the research i said we can do next week, we hope to find some games that introduce something that is totally new and was not inspired from past games - put emphasis on games, only games, if it was inspired from reallife it does not count from either.

No 2Moons is still under preopen. Estimated release date is July 30, earlier or later.

Sony + desparation = Free Realms: my god they admitted it.

Author:  Dragonathan [ Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:27 am ]
Post subject: 

XenoKiLLer wrote:
Its not who inspired who but who can think of something totally new to bring to players. Real innovation is with something new not a remake of something old with new polish.

well i can assure you that MGS is most definitely innovative,
i mean features like hiding dead body's so the guards wont see it and call up an alarm is just innovative to the fullest, and those features were allready in late 1997, imagine how revolutionary MGS1 was,

Author:  XenoKiLLer [ Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:31 am ]
Post subject: 

I never said MGS isnt. I am simply elaborating on innovation in games. Also.. as I said earlier, anything we can do in real life when translated into games shouldnt really be considered an innovation. It should be something we cna never experience in the limited fabric of reality. Things such as bullet time, flying (without machines) such and such.

Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group