I am a very laid back guy. Almost nothing gets me upset enough to rage... Nothing but three things....

1: People saying the Infected in the movie 28 Days Later are Zombies, ZOMBIES CAN'T STARVE YOU R-TARDS!!!

2: Raging Gnome.... ITS A BAD CARD. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE, Should be $ .25 not 25$

3: God Of War.... This is the biggest Rage for me. Its a BAD GAME, Every one of them are mirror coppies of one another. How many times is he going to "KILL THE GODS" Holy christ. I am sorry to say anyone who likes that series has poor taste in games.

Itachi Uchiha said:

I liked it better when it wasn't a retelling of Zeus' story, only with more tattoos and chains and EMO.

Few series I dislike more than GoW.

Itachi Uchiha said:

Agreed on all points.

It angers me even more when people called "the horde" on left 4 dead ZOMBIESS!!!!!

UGH

1. potato tomato. still a food.

2. it's not a bad card. it's a chase card. there is a difference. supply and demand.

3. ... explain why GoW is a bad game.

GouHadou said:

I can answer for myself but not for this guy.

God of War the first was partiuclarly good. It had a decent length for an action game, had a storyline that really recalled the Greek epics of the time, and Kratos was believable as a a hero of said times. The atmosphere was very well done, to the point where even the soundtrack (which I should have obtained when I had the chance) had this right feel to it.

In short, David Jaffe nailed it on the first try. You'd think that the second one would be even better, the storyline more epic in grandeur and the moves even more gory. I mean, after all, the development studio took a run-of-the-mill action game and turned it into a exclusive juggernaut for the PlayStation brand, right?

I never bothered finishing the second one. But why? First, the storyline - Kratos is a god, but he gets busted down to mortal using a sword made to kill gods... all so he can get the titans behind him and get another war between the two. I won't bother you with the differences between standard greek myth and this, but the undertones are too easily seen. Replace Kratos with Zeus and Zeus with Chronos and it's the same goddamned story with a few details missing (Chronos wants to swallow Zeus, Zeus stabs Kratos so he has to ascend to godhood again). This is my main gripe on the first game. Plus, it ends with a cliffhanger from what people/Youtube told me. The tone of the story, while still entrenched deep in Greek myth, lacks the charm and the believability (if such a term can be used) of the first. The presentation just... wasn't there. God of War 2 was simply lacking in most aspects, whereas sequels tend to build upon a solid foundation, it's like they knew that the second one wasn't gonna be on PS3 so they just phoned it in. And phoning it in is bad because it makes bad games.

HOWEVER, if they haul ass and make God of War 3 as good as the first one was... 2/3 ain't bad and the series' reputation will rise up in my eyes.

gow is not about the story, it's about the orange cards. and that game plays alot of orange cards. it's just a fun beat em up. i wish games would lay off the story more now-a-days any way. get back to the classic **** like, metroid, super mario 64 etc. just pure fun gameplay. it's so hard to find that nowadays.

Scott Gaines said:

You know I actually agree with you on that. TO a DEGREE. I mean no story and you have God of War and too much Story you have Final Fantasy, Both of which are HORRIBLE serie's. Now a classic game like Metroid with just fun game play was great! But with people creaming over the aspect of Re-making an old series to death I fear that there will never be another good series.

I'm probably in the majority on this one, when it comes to my video games I I like explosions, I like violent deaths, blood, gore etc... A great story is a big plus, but sometimes I just want to have fun and not think about why my char is doing what hes doing. With that said I still love Bioshock and mass effect for their stories. Bioshock is a **** near perfect game in my book. Speaking of books, thats where I'll go when I want a compelling story.

p.s. Shut up you sillly homo (I mean that with love but not in a gay way)

bloodocean said:

Thing is, a good hack and slash is interesting in terms of mechanics. GoW, however, isn't one. If they rein in the QTEs, especially on bosses, maybe, but knowing that my character won't be able to do crap until event number X happens is... guh not very good. Then again, it may be because we've been oversaturated with hack and slash games lately, to the point where none of them particularly stand out, especially with the "get points charge level in ability get better." model they seem to have.

Scott Gaines said:

Your simplicity amazes me. There are games like that still around, by the way.

yeah there are, but they are failure, nothing wil ever, ever compare to playing a metroid game for the first time, mario etc.

it will just never be the same.

Dude, if you don't want storyline and just want mindless gameplay, you can...

1 - Play any XBox 360 game, because XBox is famous for making the most ****-tastic games known to mankind, but are filled with nothing but piss-n'-vinegar gameplay

2 - Play any Grand Theft Auto game. Why play for a story when you can just kill cops and pedestrians?

3 - Play any FPS, because FPSes will never matter

etc

Yeah, believe me, I remember Metroid Fusion, and all the other stuff you were inevitably alluding to. Iuno, I love story personally, and the more depth the happier I am. If you want timeless, mindless gameplay, may I advise playing Pokemon competitively.

Pokemon has experienced some changes (physical and special attack split, IVs, natures, etc), but it's still the same gameplay, and competitive Pokemon has always been a blast (especially since Hypnosis' accuracy is now 60, making Gengar the most high-risk high-reward Pokemon in the game, as opposed to LOLBROKENSAUCE as he has always been before).

MarcoPulleaux said:

Shinji post.

bleh, **** XBox. I'm so glad they continue to sell-out and reproduce the same game over and over again, but give it a new title, some new chars, and release it under the guise that it is a new game.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Shinji post.

MarcoPulleaux said:

that good sir, is a matter of opinion. While I am not someone who will go say "Sit in your room and play FPS's online and act like a total ******." I can say that I have always had the most fun playing FPS's. Why? LAN parties, LAN centers, or dicking around with friends. UT2k4 and Team Fortress are utter genius when it comes to making the complex simple. Left 4 Dead is by and far, the best co-op game in existance and if you've never played 4v4 versus mode with 8 people in the same room, you've missed a valuable gaming experience. Things like Halo and Call of Duty? Not my cup of tea (well, I like Call of Duty, I just know it's a bad game). While I would never say they rate among my favorite video games of all time (hello Beyond Good and Evil, Starcraft, and Prince of Persia) if I'm with a group of people and want to play video games with them, nothing compares to epic matches in a FPS.

I don't mention fighting games because doing 1v1 in a big group is bad, and I hate Mario Party, which is also a matter of opinion. If you don't have a LAN center to go play these games well... too bad, we have 2 within a 3 minute walk of each other

Also, FPS are only good on computers. I can't understand anyone who would want to play something on a controller instead of keyboard and mouse.

good game for mindless gameplay = inFamous as Evil.

My problem with FPS is that it's a genre with virtually no room to make it innovative, new, or different from other FPS. GoldenEye was my first FPS, and while I've enjoyed Perfect Dark and Timesplitters 2, all I've ever needed is GoldenEye. I've played every other FPS to come out since GoldenEye, and it's like, wow, all I see is the gun, and all I do is kill people.

It's simply repetitive, and the fact that they continually churn-out new FPS after new FPS is embarrassing. It only reflects the simplemindedness of its consumer base =/.

But I do appreciate you for not being an online ****** =)

fighting games are not repetitives. not at all.

Admiral Ren said:

they are funny though

Homme Chapeau said:

oh yes. they do.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I 100% agree with Shinji here, FPS are same-woman different-dress for me as well.

Mind you, any game genre can arguably be repetitive, and someone mentions fighting games. The thing with fighting games (at least to me) is that they are like a game of chess but with Orange cards <as Gaines puts it>. Position, choices, and some technical skill is required to pull of combos but the mano e mano precision of it all is what keeps you coming back for more.

Yes, I know FPS are arguably the same thing, but they aren't nearly as 'twitch'. There quickly becomes a best strategy for a given map, or a best weapon, etc. Wheras in fighting games, even ones plagued with horrible balance problems, there always seems to be the ability to play intuitively and win with split-second decisions (counters) and mind games (granted both players are on the same lvl and playing with the same tier character).

Eh, definately 100% opinion here in all 100% seriousness of course

- dut

Admiral Ren said:

Dut said basically all that was needed, but I guess I'll also comment.

FPS is simply grab a gun (and more often than not, there's only 1 best gun, the rest are useless throwaways used in story mode), and know the map well so you can screen-watch.

Sure, pretty much any 2D fighting game involves QCFs and HCBs and 360s, and 3D fighters generally follow the same formula as well.

But in fighting games, more often than not, you can actually pick favorites, not just based off how good they are in the game, but their background, appearance, etc, something that simply cannot be done in FPSes.

Also, fighting games have found room for evolution. Hell, simply look at Street Fighter.

SFII to Turbo
Turbo to New Challengers
New Challengers to Alpha
Alpha to Alpha 3 (groove systems? Win)
Alpha 3 to 3S (parry, selecting super, EX moves, etc)
3S to 4 (FA, ultras)

Fighting game is not just about the player, it's about their character.

FPS is pretty much all player, if even, really. Simply grab a gun, aim at a character, and hold down the trigger button. Not a lot of skill when compared to fighting games, which are truly all skill.

Itachi Uchiha said:

First of all Zombies could starve if that's what the writer intended for them to do. Sort of like in Twilight, vampires aren't supposed to sparle in the sunlight. And in Day of the Dead when the zombies were incredibly strong. ZOMG ZOMBIES AR3N'T SUPOSED TO BE STRONG!!!111!1 You can take some thing that someone else created and make them into what you want.

And for your info zombies were based off of the voodoo zombies. Where voodoo zombies were thought to be dead but actually were alive. So zombies could starve to death.

Basically Zebra, when one person popularizes their version of something, the rest of us use it as our standard.

The standard vampire, thanks to Bram Stoker and various other writers, dies in the sunlight. Sure, Twilight wrote that they sparkle (gay, btw), and that's their creative writing at work, but to the rest of us, it's a travesty compared to every other vampire, who ought to die.

Similar to zombies. I don't know who first popularized zombies, but they are simply the dead re-animated, and are generally thought to feast on the flesh of the living to make up for their own deteriorating body. As zombies are dead, they can't starve. They can be killed, according to Chief Bryan Irons:

"Either by putting a bullet through the brain...or by decapitating completely."

MarcoPulleaux said:

first off, I'm just gonna start out with the obvious ones. If you play games like TF2, or even bad ones like Halo/Call of Duty, there are obvious differences to a player who is skilled and a player who is not. I think that is not what you were implying, which was that fighting games require more skill then FPS's, which is true, but yes, there is a decent chunk of skill and tricks involved in real FPS's.