-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Matt-IGN on Halo2 and GTA:SA
- Thread starter SantaC
- Start date
radioheadrule83
Banned
demon said:
Firstly, I disagree because the quality of the games is rediculously high, and if you disagree fair enough...
But I don't think thats the point. I think he meant if they were pushed by pro-Sony and MS outlets respectvely as a title to buy on the system in the same way that games like Halo, GTA, Killzone and Fable were... then they would be lapped up by the fanboys on this board who currently bash it. And I think he's right.
After Mortal Kombat 2, the games were selling mostly on the recognition of the franchise. The first Mortal Kombat shocked people and has been famous after that. And because of the fatalities too.
The blood thing was pretty new too. This game was pushing foward the limit for gore in games.
This whole thing is not a good analogy anyway. People are shocked just one time and as a matter of fact, each and every "son of Mortal Kombat" games that came out after didn't receive the same praise.
The blood thing was pretty new too. This game was pushing foward the limit for gore in games.
This whole thing is not a good analogy anyway. People are shocked just one time and as a matter of fact, each and every "son of Mortal Kombat" games that came out after didn't receive the same praise.
belgurdo said:
:lol
You just proved his point. Both True Crime and State of Emergency sold extremely well, even though they were shitty games. However, I don't think it's exactly the same as GTA. Does some of GTA's sales primarily come from it's violence? Yes. Does a lot of GTA's game sales com from it being a really good game? Yes. I think GTA:SA and GTA3 are two of the best games this generation (sorry but I thought Vice City sucked). Violence does help GTA sales, but definitely isn't the sole reason for them.
Mike Works
Member
It may not be the ONLY reason it's popular, but GTA would be an average as hell game if it didn't have any violence.SolidSnakex said:
What would you DO? Every time you run over someone, the game ends. There aren't any weapons, and if there are, every time you use one against someone, you automatically get arrested. Are any of the missions- save for the racing ones- not based around violence?
Without violence in GTA
SA), all the game (world) would be is one giant HUB for getting from race to race.You've got to be insane if you think GTA would be even as close to how popular it is right now if the violence was removed and it was made an E game. That, or you have to really be stretching just to counter one fucking guy's opinion on the game.
truesayian
Banned
I agree with everything he says 100%
He's absolutely correct about Halo. The single player game is not all that great like the first title (maybe it is on Legendary and co-op, but I haven't done that nor do I intend to), but the multiplayer is an absolute blast. Seriously, it never gets old. I much prefer System Link/splitscreen modes to Xbox Live personally, but one thing I love to do is watch people play on Xbox Live -- I think it has a very solid spectator appeal that is also present for splitscreen games.
As far as GTA goes, it definitely isnt perfect but I'm personally having a great time with it and find it to be far and away the best title in the series (and also the easiest, but that isnt a complaint per se). Yes it has some graphical glitches and yeah there are still flaws with targetting and the like, but the missions are so well executed and the cutscenes are just an absolute joy to watch. The liberal use of foul language helps A LOT as well -- it's like watching a cop show on NBC after The Shield, it just isnt the same. Overall though, his assessment of both titles is for the most part pretty spot on.
And it sounds like his position on DMA titles hasnt changed much since Body Harvest.
As far as GTA goes, it definitely isnt perfect but I'm personally having a great time with it and find it to be far and away the best title in the series (and also the easiest, but that isnt a complaint per se). Yes it has some graphical glitches and yeah there are still flaws with targetting and the like, but the missions are so well executed and the cutscenes are just an absolute joy to watch. The liberal use of foul language helps A LOT as well -- it's like watching a cop show on NBC after The Shield, it just isnt the same. Overall though, his assessment of both titles is for the most part pretty spot on.
And it sounds like his position on DMA titles hasnt changed much since Body Harvest.
Mike Works
Member
Since we're at it, SolidSnakeX was contesting Matt's point that, should the game be given an E rating, it would become much less popular. You're right, of course, as is Matt. And myself.Wyzdom said:
Just not SolidSnakeX.
Mike Works
Member
Removing the violence would remove level design/gameplay elements.etiolate said:
Well obviously it's ridiculous to actually remove the violence from the game. What he's saying is that the violence itself isn't why the game is popular. The press make out that everyone buys it because you can kill prostitutes, unaware that the games have unmatched world detail and amazing mission design.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
etiolate said:
...and you could change "jumping from platform to platform" into "climbing stairs and riding escalators"
soundwave05
Member
Good point with Spider-Man 2.
What I don't get lately is this originality "hype". Or was it always there, maybe?
Why can't Halo 2, or Prime 2 for that matter, be fucking great just because it has a similar prequel?
I don't see the point. If you want a radically different game, why don't you get a, uh, different game? I want me some more of the same -- that's the entire reason for me even caring about the sequel at all. Shouldn't it be?
Seriously, I don't get it and it's been bothering me lately with all these big sequels coming out. What's the reasoning behind this train of thought?
Why can't Halo 2, or Prime 2 for that matter, be fucking great just because it has a similar prequel?
I don't see the point. If you want a radically different game, why don't you get a, uh, different game? I want me some more of the same -- that's the entire reason for me even caring about the sequel at all. Shouldn't it be?
Seriously, I don't get it and it's been bothering me lately with all these big sequels coming out. What's the reasoning behind this train of thought?
etiolate said:
Well, Spiderman is not a good game as GTA. The gameplay is less diverse. You can get bored or webbing around as it's almost you only way of transportation. The mission are also more repetitive because of a less diverse gameplay choices and interactivity.
Your example is not good, Spiderman is game that DESERVES TRULY a less good score sorry.
JasoNsider
Member
aku:jiki said:
Games like Majora's Mask prove that a sequel that tries completely new things is sometimes very rewarding. I also agree that people might get hung up on the sequel hate. However, with that being said, some of my absolute favorite sequels were games that tried something completely new with familiar characters and items (Super Mario World 2, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker to a lesser extent, etc.)
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Since when does a games violence become a bad thing?
Oh its teh violent and my motherland is floundering so lets write up why this game is only ok but those "casual gamers *guffaw chortle snort* buy it becuase its got blood and get gots better ratings too1 fuckinsg hackerz!"
People like cool in things and violent is cool and in right now (has been for a decade I think)
hence GTA sucess Its violent, has alot of pop culture in it, and has decent (AT WORST) gameplay. This means it sells a shitload, makes a shitload of money, and being that gaming is now pretty much mainstream whatever sells a SHITLOAD is what will be mimicked, like it or not the "in the closet playing mario 1 days" of gaming are long gone. The industry will crash or severly shrink (as people move on) before those days come back imo. Some people just have alot of sour grapes.
Oh its teh violent and my motherland is floundering so lets write up why this game is only ok but those "casual gamers *guffaw chortle snort* buy it becuase its got blood and get gots better ratings too1 fuckinsg hackerz!"
People like cool in things and violent is cool and in right now (has been for a decade I think)
hence GTA sucess Its violent, has alot of pop culture in it, and has decent (AT WORST) gameplay. This means it sells a shitload, makes a shitload of money, and being that gaming is now pretty much mainstream whatever sells a SHITLOAD is what will be mimicked, like it or not the "in the closet playing mario 1 days" of gaming are long gone. The industry will crash or severly shrink (as people move on) before those days come back imo. Some people just have alot of sour grapes.