| uber said:
well i guess i was right. you do not know the definition of innovation. now moving on...
if you saw my post on the play of halo3 you would have seen i gave up on it after 15 minutes due to boredom. so you are right, i don't have a ton of experience with the sp.
your last couple of points don't really address my point at all. fps of old were all twitch shooters. halo is a finely tuned twitch shooter. this gen has shown that shooters can also set new standards and directions in immersion. at this point i am just repeating myself. i really don't understand why halo fans have such a hard time conceding this. they just want to throw numbers and sales around....as if that means anything. all it shows is that there is a huge market for twitch shooters...which is good to know given that that's how shooters got so popular to begin with. the fact that you want to speak of mario kart and gran turismo 5 in the same sentence really shows that the subtlety of this point is beyond you. good day. |
The point of the Mario Kart to GT5 comparison was to show that even if we accept the premise that realistic = immersive (which I don't even fully believe) that it still doesn't equate to fun, which is the point of video games.
You have been trying to equate innovation to something that can't even be properly defined like immersion, while failing to recognize that different people find different things immersive, it just doesn't work. I was pretty immersed in a game of Castle Crashers last night, does that mean that Castle Crashers is innovative?
Also, get over yourself. You're treating everyone who disagrees with you like idiots, and only making yourself look like a huge ass.
