Forum > Gaming Discussion > The Thread of Big Souless Productions and GTA 4 discussion
The Thread of Big Souless Productions and GTA 4 discussion
next
>>
Yep Steel only has one Ball, he lost one in the LHC accident!
Well Steel clearly won this discussion. 
See I even forget about these blogs, they are too hidden.
Anyway yeah GG I guess do agree on Zelda, the originality aspect is the example I was going for.
Great post GG, I think that goes along with what we are discussing on the weekly page. Its a weird gen to be sure, we have a ton of games which are basically reimagining of PS2 era games with better graphics and production values and at the same type a bunch of new stuff like take the resurrection of 2D games with Bionic Commando, Mega Man 9, Wario Land, Pixeljunk Eden, Braid and LittleBigPlanet. The beauty of this gen is that I do feel like whatever your tastes or wants you will find something for you.
On the production of big games its true that its really hard to get a voice across, to get something unique in there. Lets take a game I love dearly from this year Dead Space. I do think its a great game but I get no sense at all from who made it, there are no distigushing moments or gameplay signatures I can take from it. Play MGS4 and I felt the touch of Kojima throughout, I felt his love oozing for this game in every moment. Part of that wowed me, I do feel this is his ultimate creation, he maybe went a bit overboard at the end but its the end so why not. The best of the best are more noticable in this gen because with teams and budgets getting bigger and bigger you can still feel their touch. Take Mario Galaxy, you feel Miyamotos presence every step of the way. LBP, I dont really know who these guys are in Media Molecule but I sure as hell will from this point on, this game has a signature type of style, you feel the devs touch throughout. And just in case you did not notice those games I mentioned just so happen to be my personal favorites of this gen. Then take GTAIV which as large and great as it is I felt nothing, hell it almost felt like a new team was working on GTA.
So its interesting to look at. I do feel the large production values and bigger teams are helping those studios that never really made a good game before actually get something of quality out. I think since budgets are so high publishers are a lot more generous with the time, many times allowing a game to be pushed back rather than rushed cause they want to make the money back. So companies that normally make meh games are actually coming out quite good.
Ok I am rambling, I dont even know what my point is. Just yeah, interesting gen.
See I even forget about these blogs, they are too hidden.
Anyway yeah GG I guess do agree on Zelda, the originality aspect is the example I was going for.
Great post GG, I think that goes along with what we are discussing on the weekly page. Its a weird gen to be sure, we have a ton of games which are basically reimagining of PS2 era games with better graphics and production values and at the same type a bunch of new stuff like take the resurrection of 2D games with Bionic Commando, Mega Man 9, Wario Land, Pixeljunk Eden, Braid and LittleBigPlanet. The beauty of this gen is that I do feel like whatever your tastes or wants you will find something for you.
On the production of big games its true that its really hard to get a voice across, to get something unique in there. Lets take a game I love dearly from this year Dead Space. I do think its a great game but I get no sense at all from who made it, there are no distigushing moments or gameplay signatures I can take from it. Play MGS4 and I felt the touch of Kojima throughout, I felt his love oozing for this game in every moment. Part of that wowed me, I do feel this is his ultimate creation, he maybe went a bit overboard at the end but its the end so why not. The best of the best are more noticable in this gen because with teams and budgets getting bigger and bigger you can still feel their touch. Take Mario Galaxy, you feel Miyamotos presence every step of the way. LBP, I dont really know who these guys are in Media Molecule but I sure as hell will from this point on, this game has a signature type of style, you feel the devs touch throughout. And just in case you did not notice those games I mentioned just so happen to be my personal favorites of this gen. Then take GTAIV which as large and great as it is I felt nothing, hell it almost felt like a new team was working on GTA.
So its interesting to look at. I do feel the large production values and bigger teams are helping those studios that never really made a good game before actually get something of quality out. I think since budgets are so high publishers are a lot more generous with the time, many times allowing a game to be pushed back rather than rushed cause they want to make the money back. So companies that normally make meh games are actually coming out quite good.
Ok I am rambling, I dont even know what my point is. Just yeah, interesting gen.
Don't have time to post a proper response at the moment. But just wanted to say that yeah, I find that unless blogs and new podcasts and stuff or reviews even are on the front page, I don't even know when there is new stuff to view. The site needs to perhaps highlight new stuff with icons and front page some things.
Instead of the little paragraph on the left, why not have new blogs/reviews etc?
I just wrote a blog on GTAIV. But not I don't know where to post it! 
Edited: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:30:50
Foolz said:I just wrote a blog on GTAIV. But not I don't know where to post it!
Are you asking how to post a blog entry here, Foolz?
If so, click "Actions" then "Write Blog."
Iga_Bobovic said:Yep Steel only has one Ball, he lost one in the LHC accident!
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileI suppose what you can say is that technology is getting better and when the tools improve it's easier for less talented developers to make better games. And that's in terms of function. Back on consoles like the N64 or PS2 you had to have more talent to make great games, to pull off something like RE4 on the GC for instance, that's huge. Ocarina on an N64, that's huge. But you also have the design skill to back up the technology, from masters of the industry who have been making games for years.
I don't know what it is about game design but sometimes I don't feel the tailored design anymore, like when you enter a Zelda dungeon and everything is perfectly designed and tested and balanced. Every room is different and yet everything works perfectly within the game system. Then you have a lot of modern games, almost set building rather than designing a game around gameplay. They build a virual set, set up some rudimentary AI routines, sometimes even with online fragging more in mind, and sort of say, hey look at our technology, here is our game.
So yes, production is getting better, but some games lose that magic. Well here we are talking about magic, that indefinable quality some games have and other lack, it's like Disney, you can't quite explain how and why they lost the magic, but it went away somewhere and I want it back.
In terms of visuals, I know it sounds weird but in this age games are almost expected to look wow amazing and the use of similar lighting and mapping does make most things visually look extremely similar to me. So I find myself being impressed by tech on lower systems just as much or more so, like turning on an amazing looking Square Enix DS RPG. It used to be on Xbox/GC/PS2 that when you saw a graphically great game, you could tell by that that the effort and talent was there and that the game could be pretty special, just by seeing some screens or video. Now every game looks like that and its harder for the consumer to distinguish between what is good or not.
Like I said before, you had a game like Assasins Creed which received mixed reviews, having huge megathreads and sales because it looked epic and looked like a lot of effort and marketing went into it.
And then you have other games which slip out and suprise everyone that no one picks up because they are seen as niche or don't have that epic blockbuster look. I personally don't understand how people can only watch blockbuster movies, there is so much out there that I find myself a curious gamer, I want to try everything and see for myself.
I do agree partially with Yo with what you guys were talking about on GGWeekly, I think that hype and graphics do have a big impact on reviews, but also the conditions of reviews too and how PR manages that. I wish someone could explain to me exactly how the Halo games continue to get 10/10s and fuck yeahs.
Also and I don't mean this as anti-american or anything - but the majority of games sites/mags etc are western centric and value sort of these american ideals of instant gratification, everything has to be BIG and explosive and instantly exciting. I feel that is what is valued and that's why a good number of blockbuster titles that directly appeal to a lot of western games writers tastes are reviewing so well in some cases.
Dvader you really said what you thought of Gears of War, I remember you saying that you didn't really get into it that much. I'm curious as to your impressions and what you thought before, during and after you played it.
I don't know what it is about game design but sometimes I don't feel the tailored design anymore, like when you enter a Zelda dungeon and everything is perfectly designed and tested and balanced. Every room is different and yet everything works perfectly within the game system. Then you have a lot of modern games, almost set building rather than designing a game around gameplay. They build a virual set, set up some rudimentary AI routines, sometimes even with online fragging more in mind, and sort of say, hey look at our technology, here is our game.
So yes, production is getting better, but some games lose that magic. Well here we are talking about magic, that indefinable quality some games have and other lack, it's like Disney, you can't quite explain how and why they lost the magic, but it went away somewhere and I want it back.
In terms of visuals, I know it sounds weird but in this age games are almost expected to look wow amazing and the use of similar lighting and mapping does make most things visually look extremely similar to me. So I find myself being impressed by tech on lower systems just as much or more so, like turning on an amazing looking Square Enix DS RPG. It used to be on Xbox/GC/PS2 that when you saw a graphically great game, you could tell by that that the effort and talent was there and that the game could be pretty special, just by seeing some screens or video. Now every game looks like that and its harder for the consumer to distinguish between what is good or not.
Like I said before, you had a game like Assasins Creed which received mixed reviews, having huge megathreads and sales because it looked epic and looked like a lot of effort and marketing went into it.
And then you have other games which slip out and suprise everyone that no one picks up because they are seen as niche or don't have that epic blockbuster look. I personally don't understand how people can only watch blockbuster movies, there is so much out there that I find myself a curious gamer, I want to try everything and see for myself.
I do agree partially with Yo with what you guys were talking about on GGWeekly, I think that hype and graphics do have a big impact on reviews, but also the conditions of reviews too and how PR manages that. I wish someone could explain to me exactly how the Halo games continue to get 10/10s and fuck yeahs.
Also and I don't mean this as anti-american or anything - but the majority of games sites/mags etc are western centric and value sort of these american ideals of instant gratification, everything has to be BIG and explosive and instantly exciting. I feel that is what is valued and that's why a good number of blockbuster titles that directly appeal to a lot of western games writers tastes are reviewing so well in some cases.
Dvader you really said what you thought of Gears of War, I remember you saying that you didn't really get into it that much. I'm curious as to your impressions and what you thought before, during and after you played it.
What the hell Yo? Is that real?
Is that real?
gamingeek said:What the hell Yo?
That the famous Monkey Steals Peach Technique from Ashida Kim, the grandmaster of Koga ryu Ninjitsu.
Seriously read the link above, so much fun!
Ravenprose said:Foolz said:I just wrote a blog on GTAIV. But not I don't know where to post it!
Are you asking how to post a blog entry here, Foolz?
If so, click "Actions" then "Write Blog."
Nah I'm wondering whether to post it as a blog or just in the thread! xD
Personally I still feel the magic in today's games. I don't think it's easier just to pump out big games at all. They are huge endeavors that take alot of manpower, time, and money to make. There is much more talent out there then ever before and rightfully so since gaming has expanded so much and there is much more interest in it. You can't just take something like Unreal Engine 3 and expect to whip out a game like Gears of War 2. Epic can make this mother sing which shouldn't be surprising considering it is their engine so they know all the in's and out's. The stuff in there is simply stunning.
Team Ninja and Itagaki are another group of extremely talented people. Ninja Gaiden II is a wholly intense and visceral experience. The graphics and gameplay are incredibly tight and when I am playing it I am the ninja badass Ryu Hyabusa.
I really don't know what else to say for the Halo games. They're pretty much just an excellent experience in a videogame. The graphics are always great, the gameplay is tight, I really like the premise and setting of the games, and I always have a great time in online multiplayer.
I'm just a big blockbuster kind of guy, it's my nature, it's what I enjoy. The very large majority of the ones I play are always top-notch quality in all aspects like graphics, sound, gameplay, story, etc. As the technology progresses I find these games draw me into them much more. When I'm playing Gears 2 and I'm taking cover with bullets flying overhead, bits of debris being blasted off things, in a highly detailed environment then someone shouts out "Incoming!" as I try to get away from mortar explosions I am there totally immersed in that very moment.
Team Ninja and Itagaki are another group of extremely talented people. Ninja Gaiden II is a wholly intense and visceral experience. The graphics and gameplay are incredibly tight and when I am playing it I am the ninja badass Ryu Hyabusa.
I really don't know what else to say for the Halo games. They're pretty much just an excellent experience in a videogame. The graphics are always great, the gameplay is tight, I really like the premise and setting of the games, and I always have a great time in online multiplayer.
I'm just a big blockbuster kind of guy, it's my nature, it's what I enjoy. The very large majority of the ones I play are always top-notch quality in all aspects like graphics, sound, gameplay, story, etc. As the technology progresses I find these games draw me into them much more. When I'm playing Gears 2 and I'm taking cover with bullets flying overhead, bits of debris being blasted off things, in a highly detailed environment then someone shouts out "Incoming!" as I try to get away from mortar explosions I am there totally immersed in that very moment.
gamingeek said:I suppose what you can say is that technology is getting better and when the tools improve it's easier for less talented developers to make better games. And that's in terms of function. Back on consoles like the N64 or PS2 you had to have more talent to make great games, to pull off something like RE4 on the GC for instance, that's huge. Ocarina on an N64, that's huge. But you also have the design skill to back up the technology, from masters of the industry who have been making games for years.
I don't know what it is about game design but sometimes I don't feel the tailored design anymore, like when you enter a Zelda dungeon and everything is perfectly designed and tested and balanced. Every room is different and yet everything works perfectly within the game system. Then you have a lot of modern games, almost set building rather than designing a game around gameplay. They build a virual set, set up some rudimentary AI routines, sometimes even with online fragging more in mind, and sort of say, hey look at our technology, here is our game.
OMG yes, I feel exactly the same way. Genius way of describing it.
On Gears, I only played it for like 4 hours at my brothers house one time. I enjoyed it a lot. It wasn't like RE4 or something where I was instantly in love and needed to play the whole game right away. It was clearly an excellent game in the style I love, just one that felt so similar to other shooters. It felt like a solid 9.0 game, something that is excellent but won't leave much of a lasting impact on me.
Dvader said:It felt like a solid 9.0 game, something that is excellent but won't leave much of a lasting impact on me.
Wait, that is your definition of a 9.0 game? Sound more like an 8 or a 7!
Iga_Bobovic said:Dvader said:It felt like a solid 9.0 game, something that is excellent but won't leave much of a lasting impact on me.Wait, that is your definition of a 9.0 game? Sound more like an 8 or a 7!
A game that excells in all areas, very well polished and above all provides an extremely engaging fun gameplay experience. It can be similar to other games, but the quality of the title stands out. And thats what I got from Gears, it controls beautifully, the gameplay was fun and polished, its got the looks, it had fun online, it basically did everything very very well.
Dvader said:Iga_Bobovic said:Dvader said:It felt like a solid 9.0 game, something that is excellent but won't leave much of a lasting impact on me.Wait, that is your definition of a 9.0 game? Sound more like an 8 or a 7!
A game that excells in all areas, very well polished and above all provides an extremely engaging fun gameplay experience. It can be similar to other games, but the quality of the title stands out. And thats what I got from Gears, it controls beautifully, the gameplay was fun and polished, its got the looks, it had fun online, it basically did everything very very well.
Well this sound more like a 9.0 game.
"I'm not online on 360 so I can't comment on that. But I disagree with the GTA 3 comparison, in that as Edge thinks, GTA 3 was still fun, whilst this new game is perhaps just too serious at times and too repetitive at other times. "
I think I know what Dvader's getting at though. That, like GTA3, GTA4 (4.....LOL) kind of sets the stage for improvements in the next games. But yeah, the difference is GTA 3 was totally revolutionary and really deserving of the hype. GTA 4...not so much.
Great game, but there were plenty just as good this year that got about 1% of the hype.
When it comes to hype though, I know not to take it serious when it comes to huge mega blockbusters like GTA and Halo. They get what I call stupid hype.....hype that can never be matched unless Jennifer Love Hewitt and Penny Flame came in while I was playing, rode the shit out of me, and agreed to be with me in a 3 way marriage for the rest of our lives.
I think I know what Dvader's getting at though. That, like GTA3, GTA4 (4.....LOL) kind of sets the stage for improvements in the next games. But yeah, the difference is GTA 3 was totally revolutionary and really deserving of the hype. GTA 4...not so much.
Great game, but there were plenty just as good this year that got about 1% of the hype.
When it comes to hype though, I know not to take it serious when it comes to huge mega blockbusters like GTA and Halo. They get what I call stupid hype.....hype that can never be matched unless Jennifer Love Hewitt and Penny Flame came in while I was playing, rode the shit out of me, and agreed to be with me in a 3 way marriage for the rest of our lives.
Archangel3371 said:Personally I still feel the magic in today's games. I don't think it's easier just to pump out big games at all. They are huge endeavors that take alot of manpower, time, and money to make. There is much more talent out there then ever before and rightfully so since gaming has expanded so much and there is much more interest in it. You can't just take something like Unreal Engine 3 and expect to whip out a game like Gears of War 2. Epic can make this mother sing which shouldn't be surprising considering it is their engine so they know all the in's and out's. The stuff in there is simply stunning.
Team Ninja and Itagaki are another group of extremely talented people. Ninja Gaiden II is a wholly intense and visceral experience. The graphics and gameplay are incredibly tight and when I am playing it I am the ninja badass Ryu Hyabusa.
I really don't know what else to say for the Halo games. They're pretty much just an excellent experience in a videogame. The graphics are always great, the gameplay is tight, I really like the premise and setting of the games, and I always have a great time in online multiplayer.
I'm just a big blockbuster kind of guy, it's my nature, it's what I enjoy. The very large majority of the ones I play are always top-notch quality in all aspects like graphics, sound, gameplay, story, etc. As the technology progresses I find these games draw me into them much more. When I'm playing Gears 2 and I'm taking cover with bullets flying overhead, bits of debris being blasted off things, in a highly detailed environment then someone shouts out "Incoming!" as I try to get away from mortar explosions I am there totally immersed in that very moment.
I don't mean that it's easier to fart games out easily. I mean that firstly, gaming is getting old now, there are a wealth of other games and developers who did get it right and the pack feasting nature of modern game design means that developers can simply imitate, pick and choose the bits they want from other games that work, the games that took real talent to make and design in the first place and feed off that. When you see success these days everyone is out there trying to duplicate certain aspects that worked.
Secondly tools are better. Compare Internet Explorer version 1 to version 7. Compare various photo editing and creation packages. With better hardware and tools, it's easier for an artist to create a decent looking character model, click a drop down menu and shine some HDR on it, or select a normal mapping model or change colour saturation etc. In terms of production it's easier to make something better looking, whereas in the past, it took real talent to do something with superb technical production.
Dvader said:gamingeek said:I suppose what you can say is that technology is getting better and when the tools improve it's easier for less talented developers to make better games. And that's in terms of function. Back on consoles like the N64 or PS2 you had to have more talent to make great games, to pull off something like RE4 on the GC for instance, that's huge. Ocarina on an N64, that's huge. But you also have the design skill to back up the technology, from masters of the industry who have been making games for years.
I don't know what it is about game design but sometimes I don't feel the tailored design anymore, like when you enter a Zelda dungeon and everything is perfectly designed and tested and balanced. Every room is different and yet everything works perfectly within the game system. Then you have a lot of modern games, almost set building rather than designing a game around gameplay. They build a virual set, set up some rudimentary AI routines, sometimes even with online fragging more in mind, and sort of say, hey look at our technology, here is our game.
OMG yes, I feel exactly the same way. Genius way of describing it.
On Gears, I only played it for like 4 hours at my brothers house one time. I enjoyed it a lot. It wasn't like RE4 or something where I was instantly in love and needed to play the whole game right away. It was clearly an excellent game in the style I love, just one that felt so similar to other shooters. It felt like a solid 9.0 game, something that is excellent but won't leave much of a lasting impact on me.
I would actually have Gears as an example of a game I found lacking in personality. I think that gamers and reviewers sometimes add things together like, great graphics, awesome sound, solid gameplay = great game. But when I want to know why its special I can rarely find a decent explanation. I'm all about feeling, how is it special, why does it make you feel that way? That's why my impressions are always quite detailed. Maybe I latch onto something that speaks to me personally and blockbuster games can feel impersonal to me because of their huge all encompassing nature?
Gears takes various elements from other games, sci fi space marine generic setting, RE4 perspective, Killswitch controls, it set designs and drops you in. It's distracting me with visuals but not compelling me in gameplay. That was my personal view of the first game, but I will get my hands on the second soon too. Again I always point out that I don't think its a bad game or anything I would have it as an 8/10 for me, it's just that whole Dead Space soul issue you brought up.
edgecrusher said:"I'm not online on 360 so I can't comment on that. But I disagree with the GTA 3 comparison, in that as Edge thinks, GTA 3 was still fun, whilst this new game is perhaps just too serious at times and too repetitive at other times. "
I think I know what Dvader's getting at though. That, like GTA3, GTA4 (4.....LOL) kind of sets the stage for improvements in the next games. But yeah, the difference is GTA 3 was totally revolutionary and really deserving of the hype. GTA 4...not so much.
Great game, but there were plenty just as good this year that got about 1% of the hype.
When it comes to hype though, I know not to take it serious when it comes to huge mega blockbusters like GTA and Halo. They get what I call stupid hype.....hype that can never be matched unless Jennifer Love Hewitt and Penny Flame came in while I was playing, rode the shit out of me, and agreed to be with me in a 3 way marriage for the rest of our lives.
Can you do that though? I mean can you make a game whose function is to set up technology for the next title? GTA IV is a huge production so I would have assumed that with all the work that went into it, they could have more of a vision as to how it played out. Like Bully gives you this whole back to school vibe culminating in that fight with your nemesis.
And why Penny Flame? There are plently hotter.
gamingeek said:And why Penny Flame?
Hmm, good question! Let me do some research!
Any more questions?
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
SupremeAC (8m)
We were having a good discussion in Darth's GTA IV blog and wanted to continue it here.
http://www.thevgpress.com/blogs/grand-theft-amiss_148.html
DARTHOMER SAID:
"So how 'bout that GTA IV huh? That perfect 10, "oscar worthy" experience that has been hailed, lauded and pretty much akin to gaming nirvana...
Ah screw it, I can't keep this up.
I'm sorry, but I can't see the brilliance in GTA IV. I really can't. This is not the game of the year. It's not even close."
GG SAID:
"Well thank god that there are good number of people I know that feel similar to me. Phantom, you, Edgecrusher, Foolz and myself. I thought I was some sort of freak for not gushing with hype from all those crazy reviews. Crazy reviews are the order of the day in these crazy times.
I saw a letter on a website from some guy who said that after falling for the hype on numerous occasions, he thought he would give up on the blockbuster games and that is how I feel after notably playing a good number of hyped games and not finding them as good as the reviews say.
The random missions were a pain. You want to save and instead receive a phone call and you cant.
But this GTA was technically a big improvement, controls were better, visuals were wonderful, but it just had no kind of variety, invention or more importantly, humour. And it had a number of frustrating design decisions too. I guess my biggest complaint would be the repitition. You get a mission which is the same thing, go from point A to B, shoot person X.
Substitute shoot person X for steal car Y. It's the same damn thing virtually.
I should say I don't think it's a bad game at all, technically its very competent, but I feel the same as Bugs in that I find some of these blockbuster games fairly uninventive and even boring at times."
IGA SAID:
"But GG games should be technically fun. If it is not, than it not good, as far as I am concerned. I played the game a little, it was alright."
GG SAID:
"I think Dvader hit the nail on the head a few months back when he made a blog about how games had improved so much in production values and were generally a better quality. These days virtually every game is expected to look good in high def, where in the old days there were very few that acheived a high level of visual polish. Developers are more experienced and there is more of a history to imitate so gameplay is becoming more standardised, like FPS controlling the same and people taking bits and pieces from different games.
So using all this, borrowing concepts and improving the production values is leading to better games, but sometimes I just feel like they are missing the fun."
DARTHOMER SAID:
"It is a huge improvement GG. Taxi's are the order of the day, and in general, there is fun to be have. And on a technical level, it's great. There's just too much damned frustration where there shouldn't be.
Great points lads."
DVADER SAID:
"GTA is a perfect case study for the type of games this generation has brought out. It is a very well made game (sure it has issues but its a massive game). It improves the controls, handling, shooting, IMO driving mechanics of GTA. It takes all those improvements and puts you into the most engrossing city in any GTA game. Yes it fails where it probably needs to be at its best, the actual design of the missions and lack of quality side missions.
It was a step back from SA, hell from VC. But the way I look at it, GTAIV is the GTA3 of this gen, its starting anew and as the sequels come I am sure the variety and awesome levels will come with it. Lets not forget the online which is overlooked all the time. Yes its nearly broken to get on, but it was a big leap for the franchise and it will be perfected as time goes on. Overall GTAIV is an incredible game, one of my favorites of the year. Yet it did not live up to the hype and it fell into that category of games that are trying to be perfect in its production values but lacking a soul or are borrowing the soul of its last gen predessor.
So the question becomes how tolerant are you of games like I described above. I enjoy quality games, even if its the same stuff I played before if its done well, if its fun throughout I will enjoy it. Zelda TP is the best example of this, that game was basically old Zelda games glued together but it was the perfect package. So yeah I am the type of guy to take quality over innovation if I had to choose one, obviously the best is when the two mix, which is why I believe Little Big Planet is the game this generation desperately needed."
GG SAID:
"You can't even use taxis on certain missions darth as you have to steal a 4 door car, then pootle along listening to the same repeated dialogue over and over again, then get into a mission, die and have to do the same thing again.
Dvader I agree, they improve the controls, maybe the handling of the vehicles is a little too heavy though and its just not as fun as it was in VC et all pulling handbrake turns and driving around at super speeds. But even though they improved control functionality, it still isn't anywhere close (apart from vehicles) to the control in other games. It's a jack of all trades control and that was okay in past games which had humour and character to paste over the mundane nature of it all. Here, there just isn't that rousing entertainment of past games for my money.
I agree with you on the missions. Really at the planning stages they should start with the crazy missions and then design the city around that rather than vise versa. It's the repitition that kills the game for me, it probably doesn't help that I came off Bully earlier in the year which was just hilarious from start to end.
I'm not online on 360 so I can't comment on that. But I disagree with the GTA 3 comparison, in that as Edge thinks, GTA 3 was still fun, whilst this new game is perhaps just too serious at times and too repetitive at other times.
Whenever I criticise a game it always sounds like I hate it and I'm trying to tear it a new asshole, but I dont think that. It's a really solid, well made game. I would give it 8/10 because personally I rate games by the fun I have.
I absolutely agree with you when you say "it fell into that category of games that are trying to be perfect in its production values but lacking a soul or are borrowing the soul of its last gen predessor."
I see so many games like that, maybe its because more is expected on the production side, maybe the teams are bigger and bigger and its harder to get a more individual voice across like Kojima or the crazy antics of Suda 51. It must be a monumental task making a huge game, so must much be dedicated to getting the tech and art together that I sometimes wonder how the gameplay is worked on.
I remember reading how retro made the metroid prime games. They build the levels in wireframes and gameplay tested everything before an artist even touched it. With nintendo they build gameplay tech demos like mario bounding about in 3-D before a game is even considered and titles can come about years after concepts.
With Twilight Princess I can't really draw a comparison with GTA. You see GTA is the same game, in a different city. I mean that literally the game of GTA is having a city with traffic and the only thing apart from the scenary which changes is the missions. And in the past the actual responsiveness of controls hampered it. It has a story to provide a motivating factor but all of it is a basic excuse to repackage a concept of an open city in which you drive about and kill people. Once you get over the amazing open scope of a full city there really isn't much to do. You have a drink, watch a cutscene, play bowling, poorly, don't enjoy it. Buy a hotdog which amounts to pressing A and watching an animation.
As an adventure game Twilight Princess had a lot more changes and deviation then GTA has even acheived between games. And I'm not knocking GTA for that, I own 4 of them and really enjoyed them for the most part. "
STEELATTACK SAID:
"I have no balls"