GGT 84 Bought Killzone 3 And Regrets It Like Last Night :(

[quote name='Chacrana']Rockstar doesn't write stories; they write poetry. The tale of Nico and people in the game was so emotional. I felt happiness, sadness, and fulfillment all at once. I can only hope that Grand Theft Auto V can top previous entries, and give us an even grander tale of some guy who does things and talks to people.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. It's a good thing Rockstar doesn't make movies, because they'd sweep the Oscars so badly, people would think it was rigged.
It is.

Seriously, the Grand Theft Auto series has pushed me to my emotional threshold time and time again, and then beyond, rocking me to my core and leaving me as a man broken by the realization that I have actually witnessed the real Greatest Story Ever Told. God prays at the Temple of Sam Houser and leaves a fat check as donation.
 
[quote name='distgfx']I was able to relate to the characters.[/QUOTE]


I related to men and women, gangsters and police, good people and black people.
 
[quote name='hankmecrankme']Agreed. It's a good thing Rockstar doesn't make movies, because they'd sweep the Oscars so badly, people would think it was rigged.
It is.

Seriously, the Grand Theft Auto series has pushed me to my emotional threshold time and time again, and then beyond, rocking me to my core and leaving me as a man broken by the realization that I have actually witnessed the real Greatest Story Ever Told. God prays at the Temple of Sam Houser and leaves a fat check as donation.[/QUOTE]

That check probably bounced because you're broke, as evidenced by the fact that you were eating a cheese sandwich.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']That check probably bounced because you're broke, as evidenced by the fact that you were eating a cheese sandwich.[/QUOTE]

That check wasn't to me. :booty:

Unless you're saying I'm god? Lies.

And yes, I'm super poor. But I have my GTA collection to keep my spirits up.
 
[quote name='hankmecrankme']OK, I'll sum up what you're saying:

1. Planescape Torment is fun because it's fun to read, but not fun to play. Perhaps Bethesda can inject some sweet gameplay into a true sequel someday.

Picture it. . .Planescape Torment's setting with Fallout 3 gameplay. . .:drool:[/QUOTE]
Well, leaving aside that stay the fuck away from PST Bethesda do you guys even have any writers on your staff what the fuck just give it to Obsidian it's theirs to begin with, and how much my hatred of the SPECIAL system taints my view of the otherwise awesome Fallout series...

PST is fun because it is fun to read and fun to explore, which is an enormous and oft-overlooked area where narrative and fun can combine for sexy, sexy results. Walking around in Half-Life 2, when suddenly giant, mechanical walls tear free from the ground and start trying to crush you? Mothafucka, you're having fun while learning more about the world in the game takes place. Desperately leaping from crumbling platform to crumbling platform in Sands of Time? Fun platforming, and conveying basic information about what is going on off-screen (that is, everything's going to shit). PST has that plenty. What is Annah, if not a constant reminder of the omnipresent war between the two hells and the inevitable and deadly spillover of this war into the lives of innocent people - and an enormous pair of tits, too?

It just isn't fun to actually fight in.

[quote name='hankmecrankme'] 2. Mario doesn't need a story. See Paper Mario Thousand Year Bore or any of the Mario and Luigi games for example. Too much talk. Super Mario RPG is the only good one.

The only way I'd truly accept a Mario game with story is if Nintendo made a spiritual sequel to Plumbers Don't Wear Ties but with Mario and Luigi.[/QUOTE]
Eh, this bit is mostly opinion. I loved Thousand Year and Mario RPG, was luke-warm on the other Paper games, and haven't played any of the portables.

But hell, both of the "good" games had a shitty story by any non-Mario standard. Mario RPG? Collect the seven magic pieces of bullshit in the different elemental themed dungeons to save the bullshit. Also, Mallow is 70% of all JRPG protagonist cliches stuffed inside a delicious campfire treat.

But this is accepted, and arguably as it should be, because that's the nature of Mario, and changing it would... well, it would just be changing Mario completely.

[quote name='hankmecrankme'] 3. Worms is to Canadians what Starcraft is to Koreans.

Might add some more after I eat my cheese sammich.[/QUOTE]
Worms 2 was the one I played the most.

Rope + dynamite was bitchin'. Switch over to sheep when you run out of dynamite, 'cause they do the same damage, even if they are harder to aim. Super sheep were all kinds of awesome, though. I was awesome with those things.

EDIT: GTA IV was actually fairly solid, writing-wise... but was utterly fucked over by the gameplay and by our expectations of what a GTA game should be (see: can't change Mario).

Nico is a fundamentally good man who has done horrible things in the past? Cool. He's trying to escape his violent origins and live honestly, cleanly, and peacefully - but he just can't let go? Cool. There's a bit where he finally catches the man responsible for so much of the pain in his life, and you get to choose whether he succumbs to his inner demons or overcomes them and lets the man live? Cool.

Except... how the fuck do you have inner demons about that when you ran over fifteen people on your way to this cutscene, Nico or Niko or whatever the fuck the spelling was?
 
My brother brought GT5 home, let me borrow a car from his profile. Beat the game in about 2 hours. Pretty fun game.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']Lol, I hated The Club so much. I played the demo and was like "God, this is fucking awful." The gunplay was so shoddy and wasn't satisfying at all. The only thing I remember about the full game was that I was sent a review copy for PC. I installed the game, tried to play it, but it wouldn't even start. I tried it on 3 computers, and none of them would run the damn game. I told my managing editor I couldn't review the game because it wouldn't even work, and he was like "oh... okay."[/QUOTE]

Thats a smart computer.
[quote name='j-cart']Oh man I played the crap out of The Club demo on XBL.

Resident Evil 5 Versus mode is basically the same thing. Really want someone to make a solid arena shooter/point chase with the likes of RE Mercenaries and The Club. Improve on the sluggish controls and I'll play all day.

It could very well be called The Running MAN![/QUOTE]

I wasted 10 dollars on that game... and I remember, is that I ran around like a jackass: The running man. After I bought the game, Wombat (via Cagcast) talked about how as a 10 dollar game, its like a download title, and as a DL title, its good.... and I was like NOPE.. still a crappy game.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I would not, so long as you remember that "fun" is an enormous god damn category. Worms is fun. Serious Sam is fun. Bulletstorm... I haven't played, but let's pretend it's fun. None of those types of fun would fit in Planescape Torment (which, while riddled with problems, is still, ultimately, pretty fucking fun).

The fun of Planescape Torment is more like the fun of Advance Wars or Axis & Allies or one of the Total War games or some ungodly abomination hybrid of those three with some Half-Life 2 (or The Dig, or, sure, Bioshock, or a good episode of The Outer Limits or anything else where a lot of the fun comes from exploring an utterly alien and vaguely-to-explicitly hostile environment) mixed in because fuck yeah. And there is no point at which making those fun parts better weakens the game. Hell, making the gameplay more fun can enhance the narrative, if anything, and I can't think of a single narrative-driven game where this ain't true. Improving the AI of your teammates makes fighting less frustrating and much more fun - and it also improves the narrative by making you feel like yes, mothafuckas are dangerous. If, in a line of dialogue, the haunted piece of armour with the enormous battle axe is portrayed as a dangerous motherafuckera, then seeing him get stuck behind a floating skull and just sit and sit and sit and wait and watch while a giant worm pecks away at your succubus for half a minute is both fun and narrative killing.
[/QUOTE]

While I agree that "fun" is an extremely general and hard to define word, I don't think a game about, say, The Holocaust for instance (SCHINDLER'S LIST: THE GAME, BESTSELLER :lol:) would be considered fun by most people's definition of the word. And making it fun would take away from the point of such a game. The same is true for any other art form. Some of my favorite movies are not actually fun to watch. Same with books. And even if fun does enter into the equation potentially in some aspects, it might still be limited by the plot. A good survival game, for instance, wouldn't necessarily be entirely fun. It would have aspects that should be fun, but overall it's "fun potential" would be limited by nature of the design.

---

Also, the Mario and Luigi handheld series is fantastic. The plot is extremely funny and the gameplay is fun.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']Also, the Mario and Luigi handheld series is fantastic. The plot is extremely funny and the gameplay is fun.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree I love those games so much, I've beaten them all. :hot:
 
[quote name='icebeast']I totally agree I love those games so much, I've beaten them all. :hot:[/QUOTE]

Same. Bowser's Inside Story was my favorite of the bunch, followed by Superstar Saga and then Partners in Time.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']While I agree that "fun" is an extremely general and hard to define word, I don't think a game about, say, The Holocaust for instance (SCHINDLER'S LIST: THE GAME, BESTSELLER :lol:) would be considered fun by most people's definition of the word. And making it fun would take away from the point of such a game. The same is true for any other art form. Some of my favorite movies are not actually fun to watch. Same with books. And even if fun does enter into the equation potentially in some aspects, it might still be limited by the plot. A good survival game, for instance, wouldn't necessarily be entirely fun. It would have aspects that should be fun, but overall it's "fun potential" would be limited by nature of the design.[/QUOTE]

I think when most people are talking about "fun" in games they probably mean their enjoyment of it. I think regardless of art form one would say that the only way something could be a favorite (for instance you mention movies) would be if they enjoyed some aspect of it, this aspect need not be that the plot is enjoyable to watch but could instead be that the depth of the messages being conveyed are enjoyable or that the imagery used is enjoyable. I think almost nobody could like something that they found no aspects of what so ever enjoyable.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']Same. Bowser's Inside Story was my favorite of the bunch, followed by Superstar Saga and then Partners in Time.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm they all felt really close to me but I'd probably say that I liked Bowser's Inside Story and Partners in Time a bit more than Superstar Saga (I still like all three a lot though); mainly because I felt like the DS games in the series tried a lot of really interesting ideas, and managed to execute all of those ideas in a really enjoyable way.
 
[quote name='icebeast']I think when most people are talking about "fun" in games they probably mean their enjoyment of it. I think regardless of art form one would say that the only way something could be a favorite (for instance you mention movies) would be if they enjoyed some aspect of it, this aspect need not be that the plot is enjoyable to watch but could instead be that the depth of the messages being conveyed are enjoyable or that the imagery used is enjoyable. I think almost nobody could like something that they found no aspects of what so ever enjoyable.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure that I agree with the idea that fun means that though. I feel like for most people, fun is associated with happiness or entertainment. And if you are going to say fun means enjoyment, then that leads into the discussion of what enjoyment even means. I feel like that word is associated with pleasure. I think a slightly better way to decide if something is your favorite is by the amount of overall satisfaction it gives you. To me, that word encompasses a wider variety of emotions than the word fun or enjoyment, athough I still don't think there is really a concrete word to describe why people like the things they do, so ascribing that to fun only oversimplifies things.
 
[quote name='Jesus_S_Preston']Its really difficult to watch Rugrats in Paris online.[/QUOTE]

Stop watching shit and play Dead Space 2.
Also, remove the MGC thing from you signature. They went tits up. :p
 
[quote name='corrosivefrost']Stop watching shit and play Dead Space 2.
Also, remove the MGC thing from you signature. They went tits up. :p[/QUOTE]

But I just fixed mine and put it back there! Also I don't wanna play video games anymore, just wanna watch rugrats and insult my roommate's ethnic heritage.

[quote name='idhadfg']Yes.[/quote]

No:

two-half-men-179.jpg
 
[quote name='ihadFG']I'm not really sure that I agree with the idea that fun means that though. I feel like for most people, fun is associated with happiness or entertainment. And if you are going to say fun means enjoyment, then that leads into the discussion of what enjoyment even means. I feel like that word is associated with pleasure. I think a slightly better way to decide if something is your favorite is by the amount of overall satisfaction it gives you. To me, that word encompasses a wider variety of emotions than the word fun or enjoyment, athough I still don't think there is really a concrete word to describe why people like the things they do, so ascribing that to fun only oversimplifies things.[/QUOTE]

I mean yes we can argue about what makes people like the things they do, but my point was and what other people are pointing out, I think, perhaps could be better described by looking at it from the opposite point of view. Namely:

If one completely hates something, they can't possibly like it.

Basically what I'm trying to say is when people say a game is "fun", regardless of what we want to say that word means (and I think often it isn't the typical way of looking at that word in this case), it in-fact means that one does not hate some aspect of the game.
 
[quote name='icebeast']I mean yes we can argue about what makes people like the things they do, but my point was and what other people are pointing out, I think, perhaps could be better described by looking at it from the opposite point of view. Namely:

If one completely hates something, they can't possibly like it.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. My point is just that fun isn't the only thing that makes you like something or what makes something good.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']I agree with that. My point is just that fun isn't the only thing that makes you like something or what makes something good.[/QUOTE]

Basically what I'm trying to say is when people say a game is "fun", regardless of what we want to say that word typically means, in this case it in-fact means that one does not hate some aspect of the game.
 
[quote name='icebeast']Basically what I'm trying to say is when people say a game is "fun", regardless of what we want to say that word typically means, in this case it in-fact means that one does not hate some aspect of the game.[/QUOTE]

If that's what you mean by "fun" then I completely agree. :D

I'm just saying that I don't think that's what most people mean by the word fun, especially when talking about games.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']I'm just saying that I don't think that's what most people mean by the word fun, especially when talking about games.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that when you ask for a recommendation for a game you don't ask, "Is this game fun?" Because it might be misconstrued?

Or do you ask that question and expect an answer like, "No this game isn't fun at all, but you'll like it."

Because I can honestly say I hear that question all the time, and I've never heard the response.
 
[quote name='icebeast']So you're saying that when you ask for a recommendation for a game you don't ask, "Is this game fun?" Because it might be misconstrued?

Or do you ask that question and expect an answer like, "No this game isn't fun at all, but you'll like it."

Because I can honestly say I hear that question all the time, and I've never heard the response.[/QUOTE]

I don't only ask recommendations based on "Is this game fun?" though. Sometimes I am looking for that, but sometimes I ask entirely different questions. If someone asked me if Passage was fun, I would say no, but I would still wholly recommend it. But seeing as games at this point in time do usually involve fun, I would say that "Is this game fun?" isn't an unreasonable question to ask. For movies though, I would far less often ask a question like that.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']But seeing as games at this point in time do usually involve fun, I would say that "Is this game fun?" isn't an unreasonable question to ask. For movies though, I would far less often ask a question like that.[/QUOTE]

Which leads to the point, that what the term fun implies for movies is different from what it implies for games. When someone asks "Is this game fun?" they usually mean "Is this game good?" If I were to apply that same question to a movie, "Is this movie fun?" my assumption would be that we must be talking about a kids or animated movie, because those are the movies most often to be classified as fun.
 
[quote name='icebeast']Which leads to the point, that what the term fun implies for movies is different from what it implies for games. When someone asks "Is this game fun?" with regards to games they usually mean "Is this game good?" If I were to apply that same question to a movie, "Is this movie fun?" my assumption would be that we must be talking about a kids or animated movie, because those are most often the types that I hear people say are fun.[/QUOTE]

But that's because when people play games, good = fun most of the time. I'm saying that not every game has to be held to those standards, so asking "Is this game fun?" isn't applicable to all games. Games are evolving and there are some games nowadays that are concerned with other things than just fun, so asking "Is this game fun?" could lead to some more complex answers for certain games. Like I said, I wouldn't say Passage is fun by any means, but I would still say it one of my favorite indie games.

And I don't think fun necessarily means kids stuff in movies. I find big action movies or comedies to be fun as well. But that's just a side note.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']But that's because when people play games, good = fun most of the time. I'm saying that not every game has to be held to those standards, so asking "Is this game fun?" isn't applicable to all games. Games are evolving and there are some games nowadays that are concerned with other things than just fun, so asking "Is this game fun?" could lead to some more complex answers for certain games. Like I said, I wouldn't say Passage is fun by any means, but I would still say it one of my favorite indie games.

And I don't think fun necessarily means kids stuff in movies. I find big action movies or comedies to be fun as well. But that's just a side note.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that you can't interpret things differently, simply that when one talks to another they are most likely to interpret something in the way it is most often interpreted first.

For instance if I say "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." You probably assume I mean the idiom not a literal horse.

So in this case my assumption when we are talking about games is to assume that fun and good are synonymous. If further clarification is needed for special cases (like the indie games you mention), then you can follow with a further explanation; but my initial assumption is those words are interchangeable with regards to games.
 
A game being "fun" or not is a pretty oldschool mindset. It's just a term though, and can easily be replaced by others adjectives. Heavy Rain is intense, engrossing etc... for example.

No sense getting caught up on a term, as long as you know what the person is trying to say.
 
[quote name='icebeast']I'm not saying that you can't interpret things differently, simply that when one talks to another they are most likely to interpret something in the way it is most often interpreted first.

For instance if I say "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." You probably assume I mean the idiom not a literal horse.

So in this case my assumption when we are talking about games is to assume that fun and good are synonymous. If further clarification is needed for special cases (like the indie games you mention), then you can follow with a further explanation; but my initial assumption is those words are interchangeable with regards to games.[/QUOTE]

I don't think those words are necessarily synonymous though even for games. They are used interchangeably because traditionally, a good game has to be fun by most people's standards. But I'm saying that hypothetically, there could be a huge number of good games that people wouldn't call fun. If more of these games existed, I don't think people would still be asking if the game was fun.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']A game being "fun" or not is a pretty oldschool mindset. It's just a term though, and can easily be replaced by others adjectives. Heavy Rain is intense, engrossing etc... for example.

No sense getting caught up on a term, as long as you know what the person is trying to say.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I agree.

But a lot of people do argue that all games should be fun by its ordinary definition, and with that I disagree.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']I don't think those words are necessarily synonymous though even for games. They are used interchangeably because traditionally, a good game has to be fun by most people's standards. But I'm saying that hypothetically, there could be a huge number of good games that people wouldn't call fun. If more of these games existed, I don't think people would still be asking if the game was fun.[/QUOTE]

And when and if that day does come the term might change with respect to game, but for now I think it has a meaning fairly close to how I've described it.

But this GGT is getting way to serious so time for some (not so?) random music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFcSBLP_4n4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULIDVodM4Kw&feature=related
 
[quote name='Jesus_S_Preston']I hope you all die[/QUOTE]

Look on the bright side. This discussion is bringing us closer to the end of the GGT, which means you will have a chance at making the next one.
 
Eh, but you know what they mean. I hate definition arguments. If someone wants to make the case that every game should be "fun", then use context to understand what they mean, it's how language is supposed to work anyways.

It's like if I called chess a sport, and you have that douchebag who acts like you just insulted his mother by calling chess a sport -- when any reasonable human being would perfectly understand you're just trying to describe a competitive activity.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Eh, but you know what they mean. I hate definition arguments. If someone wants to make the case that every game should be "fun", then use context to understand what they mean, it's how language is supposed to work anyways.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. And I'm saying that I disagree with their contextual assertion that all games should be fun. It's not an argument of definitions. It's an argument about what kind of games should be made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top