| happydolphin said: Geez, why are you so defensive? Look, it's just my opinion. M.U.G.E.N. actually played it and he says it's good. I appreciate that because it's hands on, then again he loves everything Sony releases so it's hard to take it completely seriously. I understand all your questions and concerns they make sense, but as you know, if you need to get something done, you usually can. Motion blur doesn't need to last forever, due to the power-ups and whatnot it can be tailored for this genre to be shorter. There is motion blur in Mario Kart if I remember correctly (when you use the mushroom). If it worked there, why not in TM? Driving and not being able to shoot forward? When did I ever say that? On the contrary, you want to be able to shoot as you drift, so a turret-like machine would be nice. See, there are ideas. But because for some reason you refuse to see it, you blame me and say I'm talking out of my ass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eLG22z41IM&feature=relmfu I don't know what nerve I hit, but it's my opinion. I agree with the reviewer it makes alot of sense to me. If it doesn't to you, as he said, all the power to you. Go and buy it! I wouldn't. As you can see, there are Sony games I am interested in, some I AM NOT. Simple. If the reviewer was not interested, it's his prerogative, and he explained why. You can have counter-points, but they are all theoretical obstacles and constraints, none of which have been tried yet so we can interpret that as lazy creativity, or failed trial and error. Which one it is, we don't know. But we can argue until we're red in the face, one thing is certain is that there are options we just don't know if they were possible or not. I would argue yes, you would no. Let's just leave it at that until we find some actual arguments for them (like the Mario Kart argument above). And your mario/cod genre crossing argument sucks, because this is a game about cars! Mario Kart is a battle-racing game, yet it does it swell. How is TM an exception, color me purple. I do get the game, I've played it in the past and it was fun. But that was the past. It seems super outdated given today's physics advancements. You say they don't work with the game's mechanics, I disagree. Granted it doesn't need to be a gross implementation, it can be tailored. But fact remains at 0% implementation the game remains the old physics which are sadly very outdated. You expect more from a modern game. People talking shit is ok. People talking shit every fucking time is not. Last time it was UC. We don't hear it as much from other people because Sony fans (and if your response is any indicator) are much more passionate about their exclusives. Look this is not an insult, it's just my understanding of what I see. |
It's not defensiveness. I'm pressing you to explain a bit more tangibly to give you a chance to show that you're not just a hater who is agreeing with someone who hates what they hate.
If that's who you wanna be, fine. At least I know where you stand.
Now to answer the rest:
There is a bit of motion blur in the game when you zip fast. It wasn't in the video you watched but there is a bit when you use the bike, and other times, where you get smacked by a big truck, or when you are the big truck you see it a bit.
An auto machine gun tracker? The machine gun is just a little damage that you use in addition to shooting your missiles. You make that auto-targeting, and you might as well remove it. When you are drifting and pointed at 8 other vehicles, it just doesn't make sense what you're saying. How do you pick which one to shoot at in the very short seconds you have actually fucking drifting? What is the point? I don't refuse to see it. I've thought about it, which is again, why I'm pressing you to tell me, because you're showing yourself to be someone who HASN'T thought of it, and is "blindly" agreeing.
"Mario Kart is a battle-racing game, yet it does it swell. How is TM an exception, color me purple."
What was it I said? "This sounds prefect fine for a RACING game, which TM is not". I know there is a racing level, but it's not even racing, it's a stage more akin to a beat-em up where you need to take out each car in order, in order to win. There's a difference.
And yes the game is about cars, but when you're talking RACING along a TRACK with VERY LITTLE OBSTACLES, compared to a giant city arena, where the buildings are destructible, and it isn't "on rails", you can't do the same things.
Your obstinance on this issue is baffling. How do you not see the difference? Blind agreement? I hope not.
"I do get the game, I've played it in the past and it was fun. But that was the past. It seems super outdated given today's physics advancements. You say they don't work with the game's mechanics, I disagree. Granted it doesn't need to be a gross implementation, it can be tailored. But fact remains at 0% implementation the game remains the old physics which are sadly very outdated. You expect more from a modern game."
I'm sorry.
sorry i wasted my time replying to you.
