Hell Kitty

Why is the story 18+? Is it because Officer Brian Reaper gets his freak on?

Ha, first time I've ever been accused of being a Bio fanboy. I have no idea what the deal with ME is, but lots of games don't support alt-tabbing, and if the user keeps trying to do it and it doesn't work, then yes it's the users fault. And Volourn is right, alt-tabbing is a "use at your own risk" feature. If it works, great, if it doesn't, that sucks, but it's stupid to bitch about nasty developers not polishing their game. Indeed, it seems quite pointless explaining that alt-tabbing doesn't always work when people seem to have such an emotional attachment to the feature. Also, offering a list of games that can use alt-tab is as worthless as offering a list of games than work on your system and then complaining when game x doesn't work. Like the folks on the Vampire board complaining that Bloodlines was so slow even though HL2 ran so fast on their systems.

[quote name='H

I remember back when it was Morgoth calling people "console kiddies". They grow up so fast. Actually I think I'd go with five, because at least then I'd have five different experiences rather than just one. I agree with the delightful Ms Caliban: "The bigger something is, the more prone it is to bloating, to the creator getting bored or going insane, to the pace hitting dead spots. In truth, two 400 page books will likely be better than one 800 page book." I'd much rather ten different 10 hour RPGs (or perhaps an episodic RPG series where I get to take a single character through a series of unrelated stories) that feature smaller, more intimate stories, than one huge 100 "epic". Maybe I'm just sick of "you are the sole hero who can save the land from the world destroying thingamyjig", which is the type of stuff I've come to expect from RPGs that advertise themselves as being x hours long. Except no one is saying they like or dislike a game because it is 100 hours long, they are simply stating that the length of the game may increase or decrease their interest in a game, and there is nothing silly about that. If I was to say I don't have time for a 100 hour game, it would mean that I am unwilling to put that much time into one thing when I don't feel it's worth it. Like when I tell folks selling religion door to door that I don't have time for them, I guess I could make the time, but it's not worth it too me. Unless the story and characters in an RPG are of a sufficiently high quality, I'm simply not going to want to spend 100 hours with them, and you know what they say about games and the quality of writing. There's also that thing about not being able to get back into a game that Hurlshot mentioned. If I'm playing a game for a hour or two night after night, sure, but if enough time goes by without playing, it can be hard to get back into the game. That was certainly the case for me with Persona 3, a game I know I'll never ever finish, because it's so damn long, and while I enjoy it, it's not compelling enough to keep slogging through. MC mentioned still playing modded Medieval TW2, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. I've probably put far more than 100 hours into games like Thief, or Deus Ex, but these are not 100 hour games. When RPG developers advertise their game as being x hours long, I've always assumed they mean that's how long it would take players to see everything the game has to offer. Not that it takes 100 hours if you replay it 10 times or increase its lifespan with mods.

Saints Row 2. It was on 360, but according to wikipedia it's out on PC today.

Have you ever played Masq? It's got sex in it if that helps.

Never trust a girl with a chimp. That's how I lost my virginity.

I'm arguing against the general idea that a new version of a story "ruins" the original (or and older) version. "OMG this RPG ruins Greek Mythology!!!" is really no different than "OMG this American horror movie ruins the Japanese original!!!". It's people being precious about their own favourite version of a fictional story, with the version they prefer being RIGHT and anything different being WRONG. Er, that's what this thread is about. That a new version of a story (an CRPG) has "butchered" an older version of a story (Greek Mythology). Both you and Wals have claimed that yes, this new version of the story (Rise of the Argonauts) damages the old version (Greek mythology), but so far only Wals has given a reason, that being damage by association. Which I think is wrong, because if one dismisses an original product because of an inferior copy without having experienced the original, that's their own failing, not a failing of the copy. And of course if you are going to use the argument that the new version might turn people off the old version, you can't ignore all those who develop an interest in the old version after experiencing the new. For example, how many kids in the 80s went down to the local library to look up Greek mythology after watching Clash of the Titans for the first time? Kaftan was the one that brought up Disney, but I was simply carrying on from those discussing fairy tales. Disneys versions are probably far more well known than the stories than inspired them, and it's possible that one day those versions may be forgotten, they haven't been "damaged" or "ruined" or "butchered". As long as whatever version of the story you prefer exists to be experienced, it cannot be ruined.

I never said that. It's just that people spend way more time whining about the mere existence of a new version of a story then they do explaining why the original version (or rather, the version they hold up as the One True version of the story) is important. So a story cannot be altered on retelling unless there is a need to change it? What does this even mean? A work of fiction doesn't ever need to be told, whether it's an original story or not. As an example, what harm has Disney done with it's popular retelling of old fairy tales? Shouting down alternate versions of a story doesn't suggest an interest in range.

The real problem is how precious people are when it comes to their own favourite version of a fictional story.

When I was talking about the self inflicted silliness I wasn't referring to the comic relief bits, but rather to the oh-so-serious plot and writing which seemed really kind of awful. If you're going to criticize something for taking itself so seriously, you can't just ignore all the times it doesn't, and MGS isn't a serious series with the occasional comic relief moment, it's chock full of standard cartoonish comic book stuff. Deus Ex, with it's hodge podge of conspiracy theories, plays it straight the whole time, MGS does not. Do you really think the combination of seriousness and cartoonishness and juvenile humor and breaking of the fourth wall is some kind of accident the creators aren't aware of? In a time when developers strive to hide the fact that their games are games all in the name of immersion, MGS happily accepts the fact that it's just a game, and pokes fun at this fact. At times MGS takes itself far more seriously than most, but it also takes itself far less seriously than most. Ultimately I think labeling something as "unaware of how silly it is" is a worthless criticism, because it relies on knowing how the creator/s feel about their own work.

The MGS series has always mixed deadly seriousness with extreme goofiness, but that's pretty common in Japanese stuff rather than being specific to this one series, and it's easy to see why people wouldn't like this. If you think that MGS is playing it straight the whole time, what with it's pants-pooping characters, then you're just plain wrong. If you ignore all the intentional silliness, and just offer up the opinion that the story is silly, well sure, that true of most games (and comic books).

Rise of the Argonauts damages Greek mythology? Wow, I didn't realise a mediocre game was so powerful.

If you're going to criticize something at least know what the hell you're talking about. MGS is full of itself, but it's also very aware of the silly. Might as well claim NOLF isn't aware it's not a serious depiction of the business of spying. Oh, and neither MGS or DX or AP are remotely like NOLF. H

Weren't you a part of American McGee's butchering of Grimm's Fairy Tales?

What is the cause of those deaths? What is it you think makes those death more newsworthy than Iraq?

Apart from a few colourful characters we really haven't seen anything to suggest this game will be campy. It doesn't look remotely close to NOLF.

It's not at all condescendingly arrogant to dismiss the beliefs of all those who think a certain way, right? Because anyone who believes x cannot possibly have come to that belief themselves, they must have been brainwashed by group y. When one has a decent argument to make, one doesn't need to resort to such dismissals.

So he'd be an emo ninja pirate?

Games today seem to be more about being an experience to enjoy than a game to be beaten. That's certainly the Valve philosophy of game design, that every player should be able to see everything the game has to offer in one playthrough. Do they? With gaming becoming more popular over time, I think there are going to be far more people who just want an entertaining experience, more people wanting to spend a small amount of time having fun than a large amount of time learning how to beat a game. Same goes with movies or books, or hell, the artwork they hang on their walls at home. Most people just want something that looks nice and matches the decor, they don't want to be challenged by the themes put forward by the artist. In others words, I think you're completely wrong, most people don't want a challenge. I think you're being a bit dramatic here. The only thing a person can do is put time into the game, time to learn how to play, time to increase their skill, and the more time needed to complete the challenge the less it's going to be worth it for most people, because the reward for completing games is pretty small compared to the "reward" one can get from other, more important activities. There are professional gamers in the world who beat games and other players for money, but they are surely a tiny percentage of all the folks in the world who play computer and video games.

Anyone who didn't play Saint's Row 2 obviously hates games.

Explain how this is true without using specific titles (because that's when people just pointlessly list games they like). This is a common complaint amongst gamers, and I suppose it's true to an extent, but it's important not to confuse a limitation with a choice.

And those RPGs of old you say are better, they are streamlined and easier to play than even older ones. So I guess you're right, things are getting worse, but it didn't start with modern games. But what you're missing is that RPGs of yesterday weren't like PST either.

This is from the first post: There have been a few really good rpgs since then, but there seem to be fewer and fewer with each coming year. It's like if less people are growing apples, and more are growing pears, and you eat those pears but insist they are bad apples.

Of course if we compare those old games to even older games as well as current games, we'll see that they are anomalies, rather than typical of older games. It's not like old games all had writing of the same quality as PST. The genre never had that level of quality, and thinking it did is pure nostalgia.