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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why GTA4 blows OoT our of the water.

TheRealMafoo said:

So if I am hearing this right from everyone flaming me....

If you were going to be sent to the Moon, never to come back to earth, and could only take one video game with you, you would take OoT?

I would not take GTA4, but it's about 100 games ahead of OoT on my list.

This is my last post in this thread, because I hate being flamed :p

 

EDIT: I would probably take UT3 for the PC, or NeverWinter Nights, so I can keep moding it forever. 


I would easily take OoT before GTA4. I would take the OoT cartridge with no way to play it over all the GTA games ever made. It just isn't my style of game honestly. Of course I would probably take some platformer over all of that. OoT would probably be just a bit above the middle of the pack.

 Oh and if you don't want to be flamed then don't post flamebait.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
Bodhesatva said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Bodhesatva said:

Personally, I think Chess and Go are better than both of these games. My favorite game released in the last 2-3 years is Portal, a game that hardly pushes the envelope in terms of graphical or technical complexity.

In short, games do not get better as the graphics or even the tech get better. Games likely will not be better in 10 years, just as games were not worse 10 years ago, or 100. If that weren't the case and the level of fun actually was increasing, then people who lived 50 years ago would have been having much less fun than us and people who lived 200 years ago would have died of boredom/antifun before they died of Cholera.

This isn't to say that GTA IV isn't a better game than Ocarina of Time, by the way. I haven't played the former and the latter wasn't my favorite game to begin with. Instead, I'm just pointing out that games aren't getting any better than they were, and the perception that they are is entirely that; a perception.


Yep. Games haven't gotten better at all. That's why no one buys consoles and we all sit around playing Chess and Go.

Oh wait...


Lots of people do sit around playing Chess and Go. In fact, I'd wager they're still more heavily played than any Console game on earth. Check out Yahoo Chess' statistics alone, let alone the numerous tournaments, leagues, and hobby shops dedicated singularly to Chess. Go has the same reputation in the East.

Add to the fact that those two games have been played for centuries, or in the case of Go, millenia. Have any console games been played by a large population for more than, say, 5 years? No? Then they fail. Chess and Go winn.


People spent many centuries walking behind bushes to pee and poop. Does that make the bush better than a modern toilet because it has been used longer? Of course not, it's an entirely absurd thought.

Your comparison fails for the same reason the comparison of GTA4 and OoT fails. Different times. I'd wager if all those people who were playing those games for millenia had the alternatives we have today that they would not be playing them.



Oyvoyvoyv said:
@ WoW

I've probably played chess on my more than any console game. I might have played Pokemon Red more than chess, but I don't know.

I've played bridge more than chess too, and don't say that's not normal, because chess + bridge players who play regurarily (no idea how much that is) exceed 180M about now (according to my dad's bridge magazine). That's about the same as the consoles sold last gen, and I doubt all of them were played regularily.


Yes, but my keen powers of observation tell me that you are posting on a video game forum and not a Chess forum.  Very interesting.

And how about Chess versus all video gaming?   



Bodhesatva said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Bodhesatva said:

Personally, I think Chess and Go are better than both of these games. My favorite game released in the last 2-3 years is Portal, a game that hardly pushes the envelope in terms of graphical or technical complexity.

In short, games do not get better as the graphics or even the tech get better. Games likely will not be better in 10 years, just as games were not worse 10 years ago, or 100. If that weren't the case and the level of fun actually was increasing, then people who lived 50 years ago would have been having much less fun than us and people who lived 200 years ago would have died of boredom/antifun before they died of Cholera.

This isn't to say that GTA IV isn't a better game than Ocarina of Time, by the way. I haven't played the former and the latter wasn't my favorite game to begin with. Instead, I'm just pointing out that games aren't getting any better than they were, and the perception that they are is entirely that; a perception.


Yep. Games haven't gotten better at all. That's why no one buys consoles and we all sit around playing Chess and Go.

Oh wait...


Lots of people do sit around playing Chess and Go. In fact, I'd wager they're still more heavily played than any Console game on earth. Check out Yahoo Chess' statistics alone, let alone the numerous tournaments, leagues, and hobby shops dedicated singularly to Chess. Go has the same reputation in the East.

Add to the fact that those two games have been played for centuries, or in the case of Go, millenia. Have any console games been played by a large population for more than, say, 5 years? No? Then they fail. If you think Chess and Go are dying or something, then you clearly don't know the world we live in, or just don't run in the right circles. It would be like me insisting that no one likes Rock anymore because I don't personally know anyone still listening to it (I seriously don't have any friends who do).


I agree. Games are not getting more fun and in many cases, have actually taken a step back in that regard over time. What technology offers is different ways of communicating an idea. Sometimes that technology is used to move the industry forward. Often times, it's used poorly and actually moves everything back a little. While technical prowess of developers have definitely improved over time, the other necessary requirements needed to truly move things forward (storytelling, pacing, controls) have remained rather stagnant. Tetris today is just as much fun as it ever was, as are SMB3 and Fallout 2. Other games haven't fared so well. Why? I think it's because more focus was put into the technical side of things while the developers forgot to ask themselves the ever-important question of "is this enjoyable?" As the videogame industry matures (please God, let this start happening soon), we will see games that will continue to be played by later generations because they stand out as true monuments of the industry, much like old movies today.

BTW, Chess is probably a bad example to compare to videogames because it's quite possibly the greatest, most complex, and deep game ever created. That's a pretty damned high bar to set for anything else. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:

BTW, Chess is probably a bad example to compare to videogames because it's quite possibly the greatest, most complex, and deep game ever created. That's a pretty damned high bar to set for anything else.



I notice you left "fun" off the list.  Well played.

Around the Network

There have been many movies with better special effects since The Wizard of Oz came out in 1939. The Phantom Menace has superior technical effects to A New Hope. The English language has changed since Shakespeare. Instruments have been invented since Beethoven. Graphics have improved since Tetris and Pac-Man.

An "all-time classic" 1) has little to do with the technology that produced it -- true classics are timeless, and 2) cannot be determined at the same time that they are released.

Shakespeare was not considered the greatest playwright ever when he was putting his plays on; in fact, it was felt that some of his contemporary rivals were even superior. "Teh greatest evar!!!" will have to wait for a while, when we can look back on things. River City Ransom, overlooked at release (though not by me :), rated a 9 from IGN in its recent VC release. That's how we do it.

So far, OoT has stood the test of time. GTA4 may do the same, but it's too early to really know.



Words Of Wisdom said:
rocketpig said:

BTW, Chess is probably a bad example to compare to videogames because it's quite possibly the greatest, most complex, and deep game ever created. That's a pretty damned high bar to set for anything else.



I notice you left "fun" off the list. Well played.

Well, fun is pretty subjective.

Personally, I think Chess is loads of fun. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

And, for the record? Chess is fun.



I've learned my lesson, stay away from X game is better than Y game threads, as the person who started the thread is usually special.

My last tid bit - to many FF7 was the best to others FF6 to the ones later FF10, but we all know FFtactics was the best ;)

But with that aside even withing succession you can't compare them in general as each had it's strong points, except FFtactics for the PSX that one was sheer perfection and whoever was the script writer needs to revisit the industry.

I wonder if it was like this when Halo 3 came out or Brawl >.> What did some special person compare Halo to?

I don't remember Brawl being compared to FF7 or OoT, but I do remember some blokes comparing it to Halo XD. fanboys



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

dib8rman said:

I wonder if it was like this when Halo 3 came out or Brawl >.> What did some special person compare Halo to?

At one point or another on these forums, I'm pretty sure it was likened to The Messiah.

Or maybe even Bruce Campbell. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/