Rpruett said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Do you actually believe that game reviewers are "professionals of the industry"? It's just a bunch of uneducated bloggers getting tons of free swag and gawking at polygon-boobies, telling me what they like, but that has no effect whatsoever on what I like. These "professionals" are the same uneducated morons claiming GTA4 has "Oscar-worthy dialogue." I really hope that your preferences aren't determined by Metacritic scores and graphics.
Their review scores are opinions, just like ours, and do not get to be used to support any sort of truth. All that Metacritic review scores prove is the preferences for a very small group of game reviewers. At Metacritic, the top 2 PS2 games (tied at 97) are Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 and GTA 3. Tony Hawk only had 34 reviews and GTA 3 only had 56 reviews. I'd rather trust one person with similar tastes (saying something like "If you like X and Y, you'll love Z") than trust 34 people with different tastes (telling me what is the best and what is the sux). Since I prefer Katamari way more than either Tony Hawk or GTA, does that mean that my opinion is somehow wrong because 34 jackasses on the internet thinking Tony Hawk is better somehow makes that "a qualitative truth"?
It's sheer lunacy to suggest the PS2 had an inferior lineup in it's first 27 months to the Nintendo Wii. Sure some people might disagree, but as a whole a majority would say you are clearly wrong. In terms of sales, metacritic ratings, etc. You can always find SOMEONE to support your opinion. That doesn't suddenly mean it's a viable one.
So you could move in more than 4 or 8 directions, and thanks to pressure-sensitive tilting in all directions, you could have much more control over speed as well. It would have been very helpful in Robotron or Smash TV back in the day. If you've played those games and then played Geometry Wars, you can tell how much an analog joystick really helps 2-D games.
I got every single star in Mario 64 with a joystick, and again in Mario 64 DS, with the D-Pad.
Which is precisely why the joystick is less necessary than 3d graphics. Thank you for furthering my point.
If you could ONLY have one innovation, would it be 3-D graphics without analog joysticks, or would it be analog joysticks without 3-D graphics? Let's pretend we're in 1995, so we don't have 3-D motion sensing controls yet.
Well considering that 3d graphics were released using this :
I would easily give the nod to 3d graphics and all the hundreds upon hundreds of great games developed using them since.
|
|
First bolded part: No, it's not sheer lunacy. It's my opinion. And the Wii is trouncing the PS2 in sales in the same time frame, so I don't know why you listed that there. Your argument is that reviewers' opinions are more important than mine, or that because my opinion is in the minority it is not viable. But that argument is based on... your opinion. You can not quantify the worth of somebody's opinion and tell me mine is bad.
You keep asking for people to support or prove their opinions, which is impossible. I gave 7 reasons why I believe the Wii's library is better than the PS2's library, and you said my opinion is lunacy because reviewers disagree with me. I have supported my opinion. Why do YOU (not reviewers) think the PS2's library is better than the Wii's? (Note: You can't actually ENJOY review scores.)
Second bolded part: I was just avoiding your trap, since you were trying to force me to say that 3-D was a real innovation in gaming and that an analog stick was required by 3-D gaming. I believe that 3-D games can be played with a D-Pad, so the joystick was not necessary. However, it gave people more control over their movement, which was a huge leap forward in controls for 2-D gaming and 3-D gaming. In a similar way, the Wii remote is a huge leap forward for both 2-D games and 3-D games. I will always think that enhancements to the way we play games is more important than enhancements to the way games look, including the jumps from 2-D to 3-D or SD to HD.
This point isn't as important though, and we'll always disagree on which was more important, so I'll drop this whole argument if you will. But I'd like to talk more about the first point up above.
Also, according to Metacritic, GoldenEye 007 has a 96 and Crysis has a 91. That is according to the professional reviewers. However, if you ask the users, GoldenEye 007 is at 95 and Crysis is at 77. So I guess everybody is in agreement that GoldenEye 007 is awesome, but only reviewers like Crysis while everybody else thinks it's mediocre, and all the graphics in the world can't save a mediocre game. So dare I say... GoldenEye 007 >>> Crysis?
