Location: in a van under the I-80 bridge, down by the missouri river
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by E Huntington
I suppose you guys are right. I don't play multiplayer at all really. Coop sometimes, but mainly it's all solo play. Is that the direction games are moving in? Short story with the main focus on multiplayer? I'd always assumed it'd balance out. I felt short changed by Gears, Halo 3, Gears 2 and CoD 4. I guess I just need to re-evaluate. I'd always thought multiplayer was sort of the extra feature, not the draw. Ah well. I still stand by my opinions, but I guess I'm the one who's out of touch.
not out of touch, just 'old fashioned' like me i'm in the same boat as you. although i'm a bit older than you, my excuse is that i grew up with solo gaming, i.e. that's all that they had 'back in the day'. the same as with the whole mouse/keyboard vs controller debate. i grew up with the former and its second nature to me. the newer kids are growing up with the controllers being second nature to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyrm
Gaming has always been a social hobby for me, so I don't really understand this mode of thinking. Games like Gears of War, especially, that are designed from the ground up to be played with another person, even in the single player campaign, should not be experienced alone. The experience is not the same.
per the above, you're young, so gaming has always been a social thing to you. i think for most of us older gamers, gaming has been more about the story/escape factor than the competition/lan thing that it seems to be these days.
granted, i'm sure there are plenty of older gamers that are hardcore lan/coop now, but by and large, i think we still prefer a real good 30+ hour story over a 10 hour action spurt.
that being said, i did enjoy halo3/gears and probably will enjoy gears2 when i unwrap it eventually, but i will never touch the mp/coop of any of them. mostly because there's too many other good games out there for me to want to waste the time playing the same thing over and over and over....
__________________
ROFLAPP: rolling on floor laughing and pissing pants
i think for most of us older gamers, gaming has been more about the story/escape factor than the competition/lan thing that it seems to be these days.
Yeah because the stories of Atari 2600's games were so captivating! I'm afraid the argument you're using to make your point works against it. Old games were nothing but a social experience. They all had a high scores list and the whole point was to beat your buddies. These days there are tons of games about deep story telling and immersion.
Oh, and LAN parties were all the rage 10 years ago, by the way.
__________________
Xbox Live: MrGreen
PSN: MrGreenPSN
Wii: 4859 2... oh fuck it.
Yeah because the stories of Atari 2600's games were so captivating! I'm afraid the argument you're using to make your point works against it. Old games were nothing but a social experience. They all had a high scores list and the whole point was to beat your buddies. These days there are tons of games about deep story telling and immersion.
Oh, and LAN parties were all the rage 10 years ago, by the way.
Yea, but ~20 years ago, at least for me computer gaming enabled me to get my game fix, without other people, with out set up, and with out spending tons of money on equipment, Star Fleet Battles at the time was the bomb.
My original gaming consisted of RPGs, Space Sims, and other tactical type games.
__________________
Things percieved as real, are real in their consequences!
Wizards First Rule "People are stupid"
It is not how long it is that matters, it is how many times you have to run back and forth over the same territory. 3 hours can be a lot of gaming, if it is all new. On the other hand, 6 hours with multiple runs over the same geometry is excruciating.
3 times for some levels in Halo 3. Frickin' infuriating. Some of the worst level design of the 21st century, imo. Who told them that running back and forth in a level is "FUN"? Tell me?
It is not how long it is that matters, it is how many times you have to run back and forth over the same territory. 3 hours can be a lot of gaming, if it is all new. On the other hand, 6 hours with multiple runs over the same geometry is excruciating.
3 times for some levels in Halo 3. Frickin' infuriating. Some of the worst level design of the 21st century, imo. Who told them that running back and forth in a level is "FUN"? Tell me?
For fuck's sake. They made 2 sequels after the Library level. A level that took about 15 minutes of your life for crying out loud.
__________________
Xbox Live: MrGreen
PSN: MrGreenPSN
Wii: 4859 2... oh fuck it.
For fuck's sake. They made 2 sequels after the Library level. A level that took about 15 minutes of your life for crying out loud.
Did I say anything about the Library level or Halo:Combat Evolved?
I was talking about Halo 2 and especially 3 and my criticism was very specific. They make you repeat/run back across the same geometry more than once. In some levels, as many as 3 times. To me, that is unacceptable both in story-telling and gaming. I would rather Bungie simply made the game shorter. I have never, in any forum, complained about the length of a game.
i'm in the same boat as you. although i'm a bit older than you, my excuse is that i grew up with solo gaming, i.e. that's all that they had 'back in the day'. the same as with the whole mouse/keyboard vs controller debate. i grew up with the former and its second nature to me. the newer kids are growing up with the controllers being second nature to them.
