Smidlee said: I still find more complex and hardcore games on the first PS than any other console. It's sadden me for example that games like Vagrant Story was too much for most gamers to handle so there wouldn't be another one to follow.

 What makes a game complex and hardcore?

tehsage said: Smidlee said: I still find more complex and hardcore games on the first PS than any other console. It's sadden me for example that games like Vagrant Story was too much for most gamers to handle so there wouldn't be another one to follow.   What makes a game complex and hardcore?

Developers learn real quick if a game is too hardcore and complex for the general public as in my "Vagrant Story" example. 

Smidlee said: tehsage said: Smidlee said: I still find more complex and hardcore games on the first PS than any other console. It's sadden me for example that games like Vagrant Story was too much for most gamers to handle so there wouldn't be another one to follow.   What makes a game complex and hardcore? Developers learn real quick if a game is too hardcore and complex to the general public as in my "Vagrant Story" example.

 I've never played that game. Mind explaining?

tehsage said: Smidlee said: tehsage said: Smidlee said: I still find more complex and hardcore games on the first PS than any other console. It's sadden me for example that games like Vagrant Story was too much for most gamers to handle so there wouldn't be another one to follow.   What makes a game complex and hardcore? Developers learn real quick if a game is too hardcore and complex to the general public as in my "Vagrant Story" example. I've never played that game. Mind explaining?

Most gamers never look or read the manual thus most didn't understand that big part of VS combat system was to design and level up a weapon to combat each groups of enemies. (at least have 2-3 weapons for the 6 different groups) Because of this most was trying to use the same weapon to do everything which in turn made the game extremely difficult. (I call it toothpicking an enemy to death because I was only doing one point of damage with each swing) For example I had a sword to attack humans and a spear to attack huge dragons. Also VS had a timing combat system where if you had your timing was right you can get 10-20+ attack chain, this was very important since boss often did huge amounts of damage. Thus the combat was a lot more complex than the simple "dumb down" FF combat.Once you learn the more complex battle system the game was easier and a lot rewarding.

The problem with the concept of a contrary column is that is forces the writer to lose perspective. It is like most 14 year olds attempt at critique - they do not have the skills to be objective and can only write a list of what they don't think they like about the game.

Uncut Magazine ran a similar feature a few years ago called "Sacred Cows" which put up clasic albums for the same treatment; it didn't last very long. It did however get reactions in the letters pages very similar to this thread which is perhaps the whole point.

It's a wind-up, not a critique!

"We explain why Nintendo's spectacular brawler is dead on arrival."

Okay, just from that it became obvious that this was meant to get a rise out of people. Is this IGN's "solution" to orgasming over Brawl since it was announced? Getting a psuedo-intellectual to prattle on with an opinion the polar opposite? Or is this an early April Fools?

Final Fan-"I'm sure that many people buy SSB games due to the fanservice and Nintendo name, but if they truly didn't like the gameplay they wouldn't play the game for very long now would they?"

If you really believe there aren't people here that are so Nintendo die-hard to fully enjoy Brawl because of the fan service then you're not here enough. When asked in a topic what everyone's favorite fighter was, over 50% of all votes went to Soul Calibur II and Super Smash Bros. Melee, and guess what console they were probably playing them on, the Gamecube, which was the majorities favorite console last gen when asked in a seperate topic. I'm not taking away from how great the series is, I like it very much. I think the gameplay is top notch, but I can see through the posts and understand that this game could have played half as good but if it still had Nintendo mascots would have been highly recieved by fans but if the gameplay held up and the characters were taken out those same people would have played this game for half as long if that and barely one person here would be calling it the greatest fighter ever. Not everyone, just those certain people that I'm sure you see around these forums and in life too.

Also Smash Bros. is built on the backs of the fighters that came before it, so anyone that can like Smash and not like the fighting genre probably has a huge bias towards Nintendo fan service instead of gameplay. 

Smidlee said: The sum up this article in one sentence would be: For games to appeal to the masses games has a more "dumb down" feel to them. I find this true with even many PC games. As I get older I'm realize more and more games are no long aimed toward those like me who been a long time PC gamer. Even the Total war series seems to get a little more "dumb down" as the series continues. Thankfully for many pc games there are mods. I still find more complex and hardcore games on the first PS than any other console. It's sadden me for example that games like Vagrant Story was too much for most gamers to handle so there wouldn't be another one to follow.

Well, you get points for liking Vagrant Story, but you lose them for not reading the entire article. He doen't say Brawl is dumbed down, in fact, he says that he feels the game is too difficult, due to the controls, for himself to become skilled at(paraphrasing) and that the argument of "you just suck" means the game wasn't designed correctly, for the target audience, the casuals.(He claims the control sucks and the single player sucks, and the game is a "shiny object" of fanservice for an evil corporation, basically, those are his main and sole arguments)

 

Overall though, very little of the article, or any article relating to this game, describe it as a "dumbed down" anything, and I think you should re-examine those assumptions about the game, instead of attempting to infer them from any negative press the game may recieve, no matter how abstract.

 

Of course, you're not the only one who made this mistake, your just the first one to single it out and make it the point of your post.

Also, I believe if Brawl was made with new, made up characters that had nothing to do with Nintendo, it wouldn't sell as well, but I believe critics would hail it as a second coming to fighters, and it would probably be the top rated and reviewed game of all time.

No game that offers as much as Brawl does, could receive a poor rating, and someone implying that "it's only good because it has Nintendo characters" can't see the game from an unbiased perspective, imo.

This game is so huge, polished, and refined, at every level, that if this were actually, say, a new Sony IP with new characters, it would be the killer app for the PS3 right now. I know that's my opinion, but every once in a while I have an opinion that boarders on natural law, and this is one of those times.

Onyxmeth said: Final Fan-"I'm sure that many people buy SSB games due to the fanservice and Nintendo name, but if they truly didn't like the gameplay they wouldn't play the game for very long now would they?" If you really believe there aren't people here that are so Nintendo die-hard to fully enjoy Brawl because of the fan service then you're not here enough. When asked in a topic what everyone's favorite fighter was, over 50% of all votes went to Soul Calibur II and Super Smash Bros. Melee, and guess what console they were probably playing them on, the Gamecube, which was the majorities favorite console last gen when asked in a seperate topic. I'm not taking away from how great the series is, I like it very much. I think the gameplay is top notch, but I can see through the posts and understand that this game could have played half as good but if it still had Nintendo mascots would have been highly recieved by fans but if the gameplay held up and the characters were taken out those same people would have played this game for half as long if that and barely one person here would be calling it the greatest fighter ever. Not everyone, just those certain people that I'm sure you see around these forums and in life too. Also Smash Bros. is built on the backs of the fighters that came before it, so anyone that can like Smash and not like the fighting genre probably has a huge bias towards Nintendo fan service instead of gameplay.

OK.  I never meant to deny that people would genuinely enjoy the game more simply because of the Nintendo stuff, but I meant to say that (A) if they otherwise would dislike the game that would wear off after a while for most people, enough for it to not be one the most (if not the most) sought-after used games; and (B) your point that people not liking fighters but liking Brawl must be due to the Nintendo stuff is obviously utterly flawed due to the fact that SSB games play completely differently from those other fighters and do so in such a way that is much more accessible to unskilled/untrained players. 

So yes, Brawl would be less revered and less insanely popular if not for all the Nintendo stuff, but it would still be revered.  And insanely popular.  Which is more impressive than it seems at first glance because the Nintendo stuff is so much more than just the characters fighting and level themes. 

By the way, does this mean you agree with or have no answer to the rest of what I said?