By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Sure, the intentions were not that it is bad, but only bad if the game is not fun, but trying to be real. What's the point if it's not 'fun' (whatever the meaning may be). If the game isn't creative, say a Wii game that doesn't really do anything with the Wiimote, then effort wasn't really given. And if a player can not get past the concepts of imagining themselves in the game, then the player will never truly be in the game either way.

It's just the general audience and gamers that are, well, more attracted to Eye Candy, Technology and Realism, then I find myself wanting to go back to real life instead of a game that's inserting real life for me... it's not real, still, regardless. Killing people on Halo, to some, is like they think they're killing real people. This doesn't make sense... to me, the strategy (Halo 1), the interaction with room mates, and the control scheme I enjoyed (dual analogs felt very good on the game) is more important than Eye Candy (Halo 2), Technology (multiplayer support with audio and different irrelevant options for games), and Imagination - doing something different to make the game more fun, like editting game types so they're harder, not easier, or more team-friendly instead of self-promoting.

I'm rambling, but it's just the direction of some games these days is.... just not as fun, because NO, I don't want an alternate reality. I want a fictional world to enjoy, not live... or replace my life.


In this sense, I still and always will believe that FF7 is only heralded because the 'newcomers' played FF7 before any other FF game. Whoopie. In ten years, when FFXV comes out, and ushers in new 3D technology that envelops the audience in wonderful realism, the new audience will deem FFXV the best FF ever, without playing FF7 or any other FF before XV.

It's a circle. While I missed the Atari era, I throughly enjoyed the 'old' system at my Grandma's house playing pitfall, space invaders and a few others I probably didn't get to really dive in to. Pitfall was great. I'd play it today still.

Fifteen years from now it will be 'uncool' to play the XBox360 anymore and publishers/developers will probably do what most do best, take that in to consideration and figure out the 'trend', good or bad. It has to sell.

Except, that's why I love Nintendo..... even if they get heat for making a system only for its own games first, and others second, at least we have a 'spiritual guidance' that takes up some roots. They don't always work out... not every Nintendo is a success. But it keeps people, developers, and artists in check of what the original intent was.

If people wander astray too far, we forget where we've been.

I go back probably once every few months to play Dark Forces (Doom style DOS game), Chrono Trigger, TIE Fighter and any Sim City I have, to keep myself in check.



Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players

Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability

Therefore, Checkers > Halo

So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.