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

Forums - Gaming - What is your most unpopular opinion about gaming?

Raviel said:
BraLoD said:
Teeqoz said:
Snoopy said:
curl-6 said:
That Sony's push towards "cinematic" games is a cancer that is degrading gaming as a medium.

This is why I don't like too many Sony first party games out side of naughty dog games (although you can argue TLOU). Same reason why I didn't care for Alan Awake and pretty sure I won't care for Qunatum Break.

You can't first say that of all Sony's games, you only like Naughty Dog's games, then say you think Sony's push towards cinematic games is a cancer to gaming, because the only Sony first party that makes anything that can be called "cinematic games" is Naughty Dog. You're contradicting yourself.

Pretty much.

The only other would be what? Guerrila with Killzone maybe? Already moving as well...

They could refer to The Order 1886, Until Dawn, David Cage *almost barfing while typing his name*, Killzone



Not to mention God of War, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Horizon (yes, it very much looks cinematic, just look at some of the battles).





"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Around the Network
Raviel said:
BraLoD said:
Teeqoz said:
Snoopy said:
curl-6 said:
That Sony's push towards "cinematic" games is a cancer that is degrading gaming as a medium.

This is why I don't like too many Sony first party games out side of naughty dog games (although you can argue TLOU). Same reason why I didn't care for Alan Awake and pretty sure I won't care for Qunatum Break.

You can't first say that of all Sony's games, you only like Naughty Dog's games, then say you think Sony's push towards cinematic games is a cancer to gaming, because the only Sony first party that makes anything that can be called "cinematic games" is Naughty Dog. You're contradicting yourself.

Pretty much.

The only other would be what? Guerrila with Killzone maybe? Already moving as well...

They could refer to The Order 1886, Until Dawn, David Cage *almost barfing while typing his name*, Killzone



 

Not first party, not first party, also not first party, not really cinematic, but suuuure. And if Horizon is a cinematic game, so is Halo.

And he's still contradicting himself, because he says that out of all Sony's first parties, he only likes Naughty Dog's games, but hates cinematic games. It's as if I'd say "I hate multiplayer FPSs, but I love CoD".....



Sony Santa Monica is better than Naughty Dog.
343i makes better Halo games than Bungie.
Rockstar North is the best open-world game dev.
BioShock is heavily overrated, not a even a good FPS IMO.
GTA IV is a great game & Liberty City is the best city ever made in a game.
Resistance is better than Killzone.
Most Japanese games suck.
MotorStorm is one of the best new series last-gen.
Quality is more important than content in a game.
MGS, Forza, GT are not fun.



Teeqoz said:
Raviel said:

They could refer to The Order 1886, Until Dawn, David Cage *almost barfing while typing his name*, Killzone



 

Not first party, not first party, also not first party, not really cinematic, but suuuure. And if Horizon is a cinematic game, so is Halo.

And he's still contradicting himself, because he says that out of all Sony's first parties, he only likes Naughty Dog's games, but hates cinematic games. It's as if I'd say "I hate multiplayer FPSs, but I love CoD".....

If the IP is owned by Sony than it is first party and yes Halo singleplayer campaign is cinematic.

The only company that never made a cinematic game is Nintendo (and I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I wouldn't mind seeing them make one, variety is the spice of life). Metroid Prime 3 is the closest thing they made to a cinematic game. Or maybe Metroid Fusion, it has the best Alien atmosphere of the entire franchise (the movie the franchise was inspired on).





"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Megadrive is better than the Super Nintendo
Nintendo should go 3rd party
Pokemon games are complete cobblers
Killzone 2 is one of the best shooters ever
MGS4 is the best game in the series


I got way more



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Around the Network
Alkibiádēs said:
Teeqoz said:

 

Not first party, not first party, also not first party, not really cinematic, but suuuure. And if Horizon is a cinematic game, so is Halo.

And he's still contradicting himself, because he says that out of all Sony's first parties, he only likes Naughty Dog's games, but hates cinematic games. It's as if I'd say "I hate multiplayer FPSs, but I love CoD".....

If the IP is owned by Sony than it is first party and yes Halo singleplayer campaign is cinematic.

The only company that never made a cinematic game is Nintendo (and I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I wouldn't mind seeing them make one, variety is the spice of life). Metroid Prime 3 is the closest thing they made to a cinematic game. Or maybe Metroid Fusion, it has the best Alien atmosphere of the entire franchise (the movie the franchise was inspired on).



 

There isn't a set definition for cases where a platform holder owns the IP but it's made by a 3rd party developer. And even so, you still can't claim that Sony's 1st party devs have a focus on making cinematic games, because the only Sony first party developer that does is Naughty Dog. What makes Halo (and Horizon) cinematic games? Is it because they have cutscenes? Actually, before we continue, can we establish what the hell a cinematic game even is?



To hell with 3rd party games being multiplat so that "more people can play the game". There's a business side to gaming. And making games exclusive is a part of that. It doesn't "screw over X million fans". It helps make your product better. If Big Macs were at Burger King, Wendy's, and Rally's, would you keep eating at McDonald's?

Nobody complained about games being exclusive during the SNES/Genesis days. Nobody complained about games being exclusive to PS1 and PS2. It wasn't until 360 blew up and made Xbox a competitive brand that people were like "hey, what about us?". But, then, you forgot about the business side of things that allowed Sony and Nintendo to be great gaming companies in the first place, and just fall back on "why make Game Y exclusive? They're missing out on millions of gamers!". And it's a mindset affecting all gamers, now. I, along with others, thought the whole Tomb Raider ordeal was seedy (because of the way they handled announcing it. Claiming exclusivity months after the reveal instead of right then and there to avoid confusion) but, at the end of the day, as a business move, it was smart (releasing same day as Fallout and soon after CoD and Halo, though, was foolish). 

Anyway, exclusives are good for the industry. Screw your entitlement. A console could have 200 million users, but so what if a game is exclusive to the console with 10 million. Deals were made to make that 10 million console more attractive so that IT CAN SELL MORE! Ridiculous, I know. And, vice versa when the console with the high amount of users and gets exclusives despite the competition having a "sizeable" amount of players that the 3rd party would "miss out on". Exclusives help keep momentum going, which, at the end of the day, make the product better and better



BMaker11 said:

To hell with 3rd party games being multiplat so that "more people can play the game". There's a business side to gaming. And making games exclusive is a part of that. It doesn't "screw over X million fans". It helps make your product better.

How exactly get the games better by arbitrary exclusivity?

BMaker11 said:

Nobody complained about games being exclusive during the SNES/Genesis days. Nobody complained about games being exclusive to PS1 and PS2. It wasn't until 360 blew up and made Xbox a competitive brand that people were like "hey, what about us?".

Nostalgic distortion field? Of course people complained back then when 3rd party games went exclusive for... reasons. The only difference was that not so many console owners had access to the internet.

BMaker11 said:

 A console could have 200 million users, but so what if a game is exclusive to the console with 10 million. Deals were made to make that 10 million console more attractive so that IT CAN SELL MORE! Ridiculous, I know.

Do you really think that games like GTA (IV, V, VI), Call of Duty, Diablo 3, Assassin's Creed, The Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect and many more would have sold more with going/staying exclusive on only one platform? Unless 3rd party developers/publishers get payed for (timed) exclusivity, they choose multiplatform... I wonder, why?



BraLoD said:
Teeqoz said:
Alkibiádēs said:

If the IP is owned by Sony than it is first party and yes Halo singleplayer campaign is cinematic.

The only company that never made a cinematic game is Nintendo (and I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I wouldn't mind seeing them make one, variety is the spice of life). Metroid Prime 3 is the closest thing they made to a cinematic game. Or maybe Metroid Fusion, it has the best Alien atmosphere of the entire franchise (the movie the franchise was inspired on).



 

There isn't a set definition for cases where a platform holder owns the IP but it's made by a 3rd party developer. And even so, you still can't claim that Sony's 1st party devs have a focus on making cinematic games, because the only Sony first party developer that does is Naughty Dog. What makes Halo (and Horizon) cinematic games? Is it because they have cutscenes? Actually, before we continue, can we establish what the hell a cinematic game even is?

Don't even try to reason, just stop here it's better for you.

First comes one which examples are not even Sony developed games, then comes another where half the examples are Naughty Dog whoch already shows he is not even reading what is been written, and the other half is a hack and slash game and the other is a rpg game that is not evwn released yet.

It's not worth, just move on.

I read what was written, I just see no reason to exclude Naughty Dog.

Since when can a hack & slash game not be cinematic? The game tells a story the way a movie or tv show would. It has a fixed camera to increase the cinematic experience and it has quick time events to fill the game with action packed scenes like you see in movies. Take away Naughty Dog and Santa Monica Studios and you take away Sony's two best studios and you're left with almost nothing. Horizon also has a very action inspired combat system which comes across as very cinematic. The judge is still out on how the story will be told, but I'll bet it will be cinematic as well. Infamous also has cinematic combat and story telling. You could turn all these franchises into movies very easily. Good luck turning something like Zelda in a movie considering Link is a muted character and watching someone solve puzzles in a dungeon would be boring. The same goes for Metroid, it doesn't rely on voiced cutscenes to tell a story: you're playing as a silent protagonist on a hostile alien planet trying to survive on your own. It wouldn't translate into a very good movie (Metroid: Other M is the best example of that). You know which Sony games aren't cinematic? ICO and Shadow of the Colossus. They don't rely on fixed cameras, flashy combat sequences through quick time events, voiced cutscenes or any other technique that tries to convey cinematic experiences in games.

And if it's not worth your time yet you still responded then I guess your time is worthless.





"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

PC gaming is much more expensive than consoles if you want to have the advantages of a pc.
buying a pc just a little bit more powerful than a console isn't worth it.