By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MontanaHatchet on 25 January 2009
Edit Thread
Malachi said:
MontanaHatchet said:
bdbdbd said:
@Axumblade: I doubt GT5 would outsell MKWiis 2009, basically PS3 is lacking the installbase and a lot of GT fans have turned to 360 and Forza. Then PS3 also has other driving games to compete.

@Montana: The games you mentioned are actually really good. It's only your personal preferences talking.

Personal preference, yes. I thought Nintendogs and Brain Training were great but not incredible games. Munkeh was asking if the game was really "THAT GOOD," and I was explaining that you don't need a game on the level of Call of Duty 4 to sell incredibly well. That is unless you believe that Nintendogs and Brain Training are as good as Call of Duty 4.

 

Hell no, they are much better. Are you seriously saying that one of the 1000th realistic FPS produced since Counter Strike is an incredible game? Your standard must be real low if that the case. I am sure that it do some small stuff better but in the end it's the exact same thing just with more polish.

What is the more incredible, a whole new idea(talking Brain Trainning here, the other is pretty much a Tamagotchi(sp?) on speed) or a game that been done a thousand time before?, Starcraft or one of it's clone?(let not kid ourself, while extremely well balanced pretty much everything else been done with more polish in other RTS), Civilization or it's copy set in space?

Pfff, and then gamer got the gut to say they want something new and innovative, yet they call the same old thing incredible, the fact is that all they want is the same thing again and again but in a new package while they attack anything that is actually new. What a fucking joke.

 

Call of Duty 4 is an incredible game, whether your pre-set bias would agree or not. So what if it's another realistic shooter? Should I claim that Counter-Strike isn't an incredible game because Doom came before it? Maybe Super Mario Galaxy isn't a great game because there were DOZENS of games before it in the series with many similarities. Not every game needs to innovate to be a great game, and not every game that innovates is immediately great. All 3 games are great (Nintendogs, Brain Training, and Call of Duty 4), and millions agree.

So you think that every game that does something new is somehow incredible? Katamari Damacy innovated quite a bit and did a lot of different things, but I don't think anyone is claiming it as one of the best games ever. Quality is subjective, sure, but let's not act like Brain Training is so innovative. Even a quick search would bring up Brain Games for the Atari 2600, Rayman Brain Games for the Playstation, or the bajillion rip-off school applications that were advertised endlessly in the 90s. Maybe not the same as Brain Training, or as polished, but let's not kid ourself.

And are gamers supposed to reject old formulas just because they want something new as well? I could list dozens of examples why that doesn't make any sense, but I'm sure you've already thought of them as well. And if you're going to go off on a completely unrelated rant, watch your mouth unless you want to get f***ing banned.