Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 765

moviefreakedmind said:

My problem is that another thing that I kind of liked back in the day, first-person shooters in a historical setting, has been ruined.

Historical setting =! historical accuracy. If you like historically accurate shooters, play those shooters and not the ones that are not.

I love the Zelda games. I replay those from time to time.

moviefreakedmind said:

I love the Zelda games. I replay those from time to time.

So what do you think about them turning The Legend of Zelda into an Assassin’s Creed/Shadow of Mordor style sandbox? Ruining the franchise, or going back to its roots?

JEDIT: For the record, my opinion is:

chyron8472 said:

chyron8472 said:

Okay, I’ve played plenty of Breath of the Wild by now and…wait for it… I can’t say it’s my favorite Zelda game.

It’s sooo different from the other games. I know people who complain about previous 3D Zeldas being too formulaic, but because this Zelda game so different in style, scope, and difficulty, et al., that comparing Breath of the Wild to Twilight Princess or Wind Waker is almost completely unfair. It’s almost a completely different genre of game.

I’ve been playing this game for several dozen hours now. I don’t recall how many. So much so that I’m addicted to it.

I love this game. It’s fantastic. But the catch is I’ve played several other open world games before, and so certain aspects feel derivative. Yes, the towers in BOTW are better than those in Assassin’s Creed. Yes, the open world action swordplay is better than in Shadow of Mordor. Yes, this game takes solid gamplay mechanics, improves them, adds fantastic story and dialogue, and rolls them into one amazing experience. But sometimes I’m playing the game and I feel like I’ve done these things in other games, even though this does it better.

This is in contrast to other Zelda games, where no one else does it quite like Zelda. If any other game copies Zelda gameplay, it’s them copying it–not it copying them. It’s as though Zelda basically wrote the book on action adventure games. But Breath of the Wild is largely consolidating and improving on existing mechanics from other properties. There are movies that I love that do this–like Star Wars. I love Star Wars. But I haven’t seen the films and serials from which it was derived, and so I don’t compare it to them.

So that’s why I’m perplexed about where Breath of the Wild sits on my personal list of favorite Zelda games. It’s wonderful, but it’s derivative; while the other 3D games are original but formulaic. And I don’t mind the formula because it just works.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

My problem is that another thing that I kind of liked back in the day, first-person shooters in a historical setting, has been ruined.

Historical setting =! historical accuracy. If you like historically accurate shooters, play those shooters and not the ones that are not.

I’ve played them many times. I wanted one that takes advantage of modern technology but it looks like that won’t happen because stupid people have ruined it just like they’ve ruined everything else. World at War was, to my knowledge, the last game to actually take the setting seriously. The campaign in that one was beautifully done.

Possessed said:

This is the wrong thread for this, but I haven’t been able to force myself to play breath of the wild for more than an hour or so total. I don’t really like open world games. I have to have a clear objective. I don’t even really do the side quests in the other games and this game is like all side quest.

I don’t have it, but I agree with you. I like open world stuff, but I need to know where to go and the like. Games like GTA are great because it’s always clear what you are supposed to do next to progress the game.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I love the Zelda games. I replay those from time to time.

So what do you think about them turning The Legend of Zelda into an Assassin’s Creed/Shadow of Mordor style sandbox? Ruining the franchise, or going back to its roots?

I haven’t beaten a Zelda game since Windwaker and haven’t played one since Twilight Princess.

JEDIT: For the record, my opinion is:

chyron8472 said:

chyron8472 said:

Okay, I’ve played plenty of Breath of the Wild by now and…wait for it… I can’t say it’s my favorite Zelda game.

It’s sooo different from the other games. I know people who complain about previous 3D Zeldas being too formulaic, but because this Zelda game so different in style, scope, and difficulty, et al., that comparing Breath of the Wild to Twilight Princess or Wind Waker is almost completely unfair. It’s almost a completely different genre of game.

I’ve been playing this game for several dozen hours now. I don’t recall how many. So much so that I’m addicted to it.

I love this game. It’s fantastic. But the catch is I’ve played several other open world games before, and so certain aspects feel derivative. Yes, the towers in BOTW are better than those in Assassin’s Creed. Yes, the open world action swordplay is better than in Shadow of Mordor. Yes, this game takes solid gamplay mechanics, improves them, adds fantastic story and dialogue, and rolls them into one amazing experience. But sometimes I’m playing the game and I feel like I’ve done these things in other games, even though this does it better.

This is in contrast to other Zelda games, where no one else does it quite like Zelda. If any other game copies Zelda gameplay, it’s them copying it–not it copying them. It’s as though Zelda basically wrote the book on action adventure games. But Breath of the Wild is largely consolidating and improving on existing mechanics from other properties. There are movies that I love that do this–like Star Wars. I love Star Wars. But I haven’t seen the films and serials from which it was derived, and so I don’t compare it to them.

So that’s why I’m perplexed about where Breath of the Wild sits on my personal list of favorite Zelda games. It’s wonderful, but it’s derivative; while the other 3D games are original but formulaic. And I don’t mind the formula because it just works.

I liked it but I didn’t have the Gamecube version, so I didn’t get as into it. If I go back I’ll need to order a GC copy.

Warbler said:

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

Exactly.

Warbler said:

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

MFM’s problem is the ones inbetween. The ones that are just kinda sorta maybe somewhat accurate.

I don’t agree though that adherence to historical accuracy need be binary. I do agree that people are stupid, and that corporations market to stupid people because stupid people have money, but it’s the stupid people who are ruining society not the entertainment made for them.

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

MFM’s problem is the ones inbetween. The ones that are just kinda sorta maybe somewhat accurate.

I don’t agree though that adherence to historical accuracy need be binary. I do agree that people are stupid, and that corporations market to stupid people because stupid people have money, but it’s the stupid people who are ruining society not the entertainment made for them.

It’s cyclical since the video game market apparently has shifted to desire ahistorical crap so obviously the entertainment will reflect that, but I blame the entertainment too. I think it’s done in this case for PC points. The reception to the trailer was largely negative.

My point is, if you want to make a game about a weird awesome lady with a cybernetic arm and blue face paint that fights Nazis, then make an Inglourious Basterds type game that throws historical accuracy out the window. That would be great and I’d probably buy it, but don’t do a WWII setting that’s just faithful enough to the time period to make it somewhat grounded in reality and then add shit that makes it totally ahistorical. It’s stupid. It’s lazy.

moviefreakedmind said:

The reception to the trailer was largely negative.

The reception was negative because actually-it’s-about-ethics-in-games-journalism (see also: misogyny in gaming culture). I would say there are women in the game because there are women gamers who want to play as women.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

How did we get into a video game discussion in the politics thread?

Anyway, I think there should be some WWII games that do it accurately and some that do imaginary WWII stuff.

MFM’s problem is the ones inbetween. The ones that are just kinda sorta maybe somewhat accurate.

I don’t agree though that adherence to historical accuracy need be binary. I do agree that people are stupid, and that corporations market to stupid people because stupid people have money, but it’s the stupid people who are ruining society not the entertainment made for them.

It’s cyclical since the video game market apparently has shifted to desire ahistorical crap so obviously the entertainment will reflect that, but I blame the entertainment too. I think it’s done in this case for PC points. The reception to the trailer was largely negative.

My point is, if you want to make a game about a weird awesome lady with a cybernetic arm and blue face paint that fights Nazis, then make an Inglourious Basterds type game that throws historical accuracy out the window. That would be great and I’d probably buy it, but don’t do a WWII setting that’s just faithful enough to the time period to make it somewhat grounded in reality and then add shit that makes it totally ahistorical. It’s stupid. It’s lazy.

It’s a fucking fictional game. Get over yourself. Why does it have to be one thing or the other? Why can’t it just be?

You seem to not understand how I view things. If I don’t like something, then everyone who likes that thing can go fuck themselves. If I like something, then everyone who doesn’t like it can go fuck themselves. In my world, I’m the arbiter of what’s good and what’s bad. Everyone else feels this way, but I at least have the decency to just admit it and not pretend otherwise. If that bothers you then don’t worry, I’m sure I’ll be dead soon anyway.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The reception to the trailer was largely negative.

The reception was negative because actually-it’s-about-ethics-in-games-journalism (see also: misogyny in gaming culture). I would say there are women in the game because there are women gamers who want to play as women.

I don’t believe that’s the case. There are a lot of misogynists, but I doubt that’s why the reaction to the game is poor. I hate the trailer because it’s an embarrassing pile of crap that seems to point towards the game being wasted potential. If women want women in the game, then make it realistic and have it make sense. There were women in old WWII games also. Women did fight in WWII after all, it makes sense for them to be there in the right context. It doesn’t make sense for Braveheart women with blue face paint and bionic arms to be fucking around doing stupid shit. As for gaming culture, it’s just like every single other culture. It’s full of fucking stupid people, just like everything else. Stupid piles of shit are every fucking where. They’re not going anywhere. I don’t get why motherfuckers think that we’re ever going to be without stupid people. Stupid people outnumber us and are never going to stop plaguing this world. The trailer sucks. Deep down, everyone knows it. I’m right. They’re wrong. Fuck this.