User Avatar Image

The "whatever's on your mind" thread

posted by GuruGuru214 on - last edited - Viewed by 91.9K users

One of the things that's great about this forum is its randomness. Well, this is the epitome of it: a thread for whatever random thought happens to be passing through your mind.

For example, I've just been struck by the most random craving for Taco Bell nachos.

38.4K Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @thestalkinghead said: essentially every game on the NES and the mega drive was just basically the same 3 games reskinned into another game

    So, because the 8-bit console generation was heavily littered with side-scrolling platformers and top-down adventures, that means consoles suck? I'd say that's due more to limitations of the controller than lack of innovation. I mean, come on--the NES only had 2 face buttons and that was it. There's only so much you can do with a D-Pad, A, B, Select and Start.

    Besides that, I disagree. Mega Man, Castlevania, Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Wizards and Warriors, and StarTropics (to name a few) feel little to nothing like each other.


    i just think it is lazy and boring to just remake another game but with different art and story, there has to be something new and interesting about it else what is the point?I have had every set-top Nintendo console (except WiiU), a Dreamcast, and every iteration of Playstation and there is a hell of a lot of innovation going on. Nintendo even said that the reason why they made Zelda:Wind Waker, instead of a game similar to the realistic (for then) Spaceworld 2000 tech demo, was because they had Link doing the same old things as he did in Ocarina of Time, so they changed the art style to give themselves more ways to vary the gameplay.

    Further, it's no secret the the majority of good games for Nintendo's consoles are first-party games.


    Now you're going to hate on Nintendo for rehashing their old games, when what they're actually doing is keeping what people love about a game, and changing the rest up a bit to keep it fresh and new. People want Mario games and Zelda games to play the way they do, and that's why they love those franchises. When Team Ninja "innovated" with Metroid: Other M, people hated it. They don't want their bad ass female space hunter to be a whiny little girl; They want her to kick ass and take names.

    Innovation for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing. And respecting what people love about games and keeping faithful to fans of a franchise's (or, in the case of SCUMM, a genre's) roots is not necessarily a bad thing. Hell, people complain about new Tomb Raider being an Uncharted clone (though Uncharted takes heavily from older Tomb Raider stuff) but new Tomb Raider is still a very good game. It doesn't suffer from not being the epitome of innovation.


    EDIT: And, oh yes--The Wii Remote. How many people hate on Wii's motion controls? Quite a few people, I think. But hey, because 360 and PS3 fall back on standard controller schemes, their games suffer for it due to lack of innovation. Wait, no they don't.

  • @Chyron8472 said: So, because the 8-bit console generation was heavily littered with side-scrolling platformers and top-down adventures, that means consoles suck? I'd say that's due more to limitations of the controller than lack of innovation. I mean, come on--the NES only had 2 face buttons and that was it. There's only so much you can do with a D-Pad, A, B, Select and Start.

    Besides that, I disagree. Mega Man, Castlevania, Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Wizards and Warriors, and StarTropics (to name a few) feel little to nothing like each other.


    I have had every set-top Nintendo console (except WiiU), a Dreamcast, and every iteration of Playstation and there is a hell of a lot of innovation going on. Nintendo even said that the reason why they made Zelda:Wind Waker, instead of a game similar to the realistic (for then) Spaceworld 2000 tech demo, was because they had Link doing the same old things as he did in Ocarina of Time, so they changed the art style to give themselves more ways to vary the gameplay.

    Further, it's no secret the the majority of good games for Nintendo's consoles are first-party games.


    Now you're going to hate on Nintendo for rehashing their old games, when what they're actually doing is keeping what people love about a game, and changing the rest up a bit to keep it fresh and new. People want Mario games and Zelda games to play the way they do, and that's why they love those franchises. When Team Ninja "innovated" with Metroid: Other M, people hated it. They don't want their bad ass female space hunter to be a whiny little girl; They want her to kick ass and take names.

    Innovation for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing. And respecting what people love about games and keeping faithful to fans of a franchise's (or, in the case of SCUMM, a genre's) roots is not necessarily a bad thing. Hell, people complain about new Tomb Raider being an Uncharted clone (though Uncharted takes heavily from older Tomb Raider stuff) but new Tomb Raider is still a very good game. It doesn't suffer from not being the epitome of innovation.


    EDIT: And, oh yes--The Wii Remote. How many people hate on Wii's motion controls? Quite a few people, I think. But hey, because 360 and PS3 fall back on standard controller schemes, their games suffer for it due to lack of innovation. Wait, no they don't.



    people can like what they want, and if they like the same old thing they can buy the same old thing if they want, but i like new things.

    to me nintendo has just been selling the same games my whole life while i moved on to new things, also i would say innovation for innovation's sake is actually an oxymoron.

    if as you say the games were all just clones of themselves because of the limitations of the controller why do they keep making the same game? (retro)

    to me tomb raider was an evolution of platformers and i was glad to leave mario behind.

    i hate the motion controller not because it was innovative, but because it isn't the way i want to play games, flicking my wrist around isn't innovative or interesting, the technology may be innovative but the games that use it aren't, it is just a gimmick.

    and i gave an example of HL to HL2 which i think was good and that should have been clear that i don't think continuing a franchise is a bad thing, just that rehashing the same old thing without any "new" in it is just pointless.

    i think if there are problems with certain types of games game developers should be thinking of new ways to solve those problems not just ignore them thinking "people like the old games and they had problems lets just keep ignoring the problems and make another game just the same" which is the attitude that many point and click adventures seem to be made by, don't get me wrong i have been defending point and click games for years saying that they aren't dead, but i also haven't been just ignoring all the bad things about them, i want them to be improved not just rehashed.

    also i don't think everything ninteno has done is bad, but just not enough good things for me to buy it

  • But if, by your standard, games should always innovate or else not be worth playing (much less making), then what you're really saying is that Point and Click adventure games should die, because they are old and only the new matters. Hey, let's innovate adventure games by taking out the hard puzzles and replacing exploration with QTE's. That's innovation, isn't it?

    So, by rights, Jurassic Park and Back to the Future are new and fresh and therefore better and more worthy or your time than Day of the Tentacle or Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.

  • @Chyron8472 said: But if, by your standard, games should always innovate or else not be worth playing (much less making), then what you're really saying is that Point and Click adventure games should die, because they are old and only the new matters. Hey, let's innovate adventure games by taking out the hard puzzles and replacing exploration with QTE's. That's innovation, isn't it?

    So, by rights, Jurassic Park and Back to the Future are new and fresh and therefore better and more worthy or your time than Day of the Tentacle or Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.



    no, lets not have a semantic argument.

    i would say that jurassic park sucked because of the QTE's i hate all QTE's (this may start another semantic argument because QTE is a broad term) i want to play the game not be told what to press on a second to second basis which to me is essentially the game playing me (QTE's to me are just rhythm games and i hate them) i can't even think of what QTE you are referring to in back to the future.

    and i would say that comparing monkey island to the walking dead is like comparing Half life to supreme commander, to me they are different genres that try to achieve different things, i like puzzle based point and click games and i don't want them to die, i just want them to be improved

  • To be honest all you're arguing is that certain things sucked because you didn't like them. Which is fair, from an entirely subjective perspective. But Mario Galaxy is not Super Mario Bros.

  • I would argue that "better" is subjective. Different is the point. You're saying if games aren't different from each other, then they're not worth your time because, effectively, if you've played one you've played them all. If you've played Metroid, you therefore have no reason to play Kid Icarus and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night; if you've played Uncharted, you've played Tomb Raider; and further if you've played Full Throttle, you've played Curse of Monkey Island--nevermind if any of these are any good.

    Back to the Future doesn't have QTEs, but it is easy as crap, favoring a "cinematic" quality. That doesn't make it better. It's just different--and because you say different is good, then it is more worth your time. You also made no original distinction about what qualifies as "better" and what doesn't--merely that games which are similar are pointless. That means games should be different, regardless of whether or not they are better. You also apparently couldn't care less about, say Zelda for example, because all Zelda games are similar, nevermind if the reason why is because "if it's not broke don't fix it".

  • @DAISHI said: To be honest all you're arguing is that certain things sucked because you didn't like them. Which is fair, from an entirely subjective perspective. But Mario Galaxy is not Super Mario Bros.



    well i gave a reason why i don't like QTE's, but entertaimnet is mostly subjective, but i think saying i don't want to be told what to do on a second to second basis because if feels like the game playing me is as objective as i can be, i think i can give reasons for everything i don't like about point and click adventure games, but to really get that done i would have to write an essay about it

    @DAISHI said: I would argue that "better" is subjective. Different is the point. You're saying if games aren't different from each other, then they're not worth your time because, effectively, if you've played one you've played them all. If you've played Metroid, you therefore have no reason to play Kid Icarus and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, nevermind if they're good.

    Back to the Future doesn't have QTEs, but it is easy as crap, favoring a "cinematic" quality. That doesn't make it better. You also made no original distinction about what qualifies as "better" and what doesn't--merely that games which are similar are pointless. That means games should be different, regardless of whether or not they are better. You also apparently couldn't care less about, say Zelda for example, because all Zelda games are similar, nevermind if the reason why is because "if it's not broke don't fix it".

    i don't think every new game should be an new genre or that continuing a franchise is a bad thing, or that if something isn't broke you should fix it anyway, but i would say that a lot of adventure games are broke

    also i don't think back to the future is better than Day of the Tentacle or many other great point and click games, that is just you thinking that is what i mean, innovation is improving which has to mean different just cus it does

  • @thestalkinghead said: i would say that a lot of adventure games are broke


    Because they are similar? Because they are hard?

    Telltale's adventure games (S&M and TOMI) are innovative, but that doesn't make them inherently superior to older adventure games.

    Certainly the Sierra adventure games were punishing because of obscure puzzle solutions and the ability to dead-end oneself, but that speaks nothing to why you think modern SCUMM-style games (ie. retro adventure games) aren't worth your notice.


    EDIT: Now, if you said "I don't play games which are similar to each other because I really don't play many games, so I want to keep my experience well-rounded and not concentrate on any one particular style; I just wish they'd innovate more to keep my experience changing" then that would be a valid point, because it would be more a matter of gaming preference than a critique about a game's innovation.

  • @Chyron8472 said: Because they are similar? Because they are hard?

    Telltale's adventure games (S&M and TOMI) are innovative, but that doesn't make them inherently superior to older adventure games.

    Certainly the Sierra adventure games were punishing because of obscure puzzle solutions and the ability to dead-end oneself, but that speaks nothing to why you think modern SCUMM-style games (ie. retro adventure games) aren't worth your notice.



    no they are broke because of certain recurring problems in many point and click games.

    the SCUMM system is essentially pointless because when am i ever going to open a person (except that one puzzle that i will get stuck on because i didn't think to open a person) why not just have icons for the possible action pop up around the mouse cursor that you can select with your mouse wheel, that way the verbs at the bottom wouldn't limit the actions you could perform or get you stuck because you can't read the mind of the creator of the game and select open man, i would say it is because people are lazy and cant be bothered to invent their own system and would rather rely on a broken system.

    and then there is all the items in our inventory (i enjoy combining and using them just to get that straight) this system works most of the time, but when i play adventure games now whenever i find a new item i just try and combine them all for no narrative reason, because i know i will have to and because of the amount of times i have been stuck in a game because i haven't combined the correct items, this is clearly not a good thing for me to just do things totally out of contexts of the game because of an essential problem with combining things, i think they should just tell you what to combine to get it over with at the correct time narratively.

    also there is a big problem that there is only one solution to every problem, and if you aren't in the exact mindset that the developer intended you end up just using everything on everything until you get to a puzzle that makes sense, i often find myself thinking why couldn't i have used this other similar item to do the exact same thing, because in real life you could, why not have multiple solutions to problems? it is because of laziness and because of an "other games don't do it so why should i in my game attitude"

    these are just the problems of the top of my head that i dont see any attempt to solve and using the SCUMM system just promotes this "don't bother fixing it" attitude because it doesn't need innovating just rehashing

This discussion has been closed.