I don't think it has anything to do with 'improving' gameplay
|
Quote:
The point is, those games are trying to move in another direction
|
Then these two things don't correlate. You previously said they do "interesting things" with gameplay, and I realize this is boxing you into that statement, but it begs the question... what kind of gameplay is a different presentation? Nothing they've done in this game, hasn't been done in other games. No, innovation isn't the mark of quality. Nor are all innovative things great because they are innovative. I just think this kind of statement always eventually leads to:
Quote:
and ending up with videogames as a real medium for entertainment
|
Think REALLY hard about what you're saying here. I love video games. I realize that's a personal statement, but I think it bears repeating when this kind of statement pops up. They are a "REAL" medium for entertainment. They are already versatile, already interesting, already thought provoking... in their own way. Ninja Gaiden on the NES? That was the dawn of cinematic games, the idea started there. It's only changed with presentation as technology gets better. Not a bad thing at all. Video games don't need validation, some of the fanbase just needs to realize that these aren't movies, aren't stories, and aren't books. Video games are interactive entertainment. Like any other game you've played, electronic or not.
They are a real form of entertainment already. If you think there needs to be lengthy exposition, cinematic flair, and thought provoking messages for this to be an entertainment form... then I guess you were never here for the game in the first place. At least that's how I feel about.
You're right, these games are different, the ones you've listed. But they borrow elements from other games and make them their own. That's why they're different. Some I feel succeed... others don't. I think you feel the same. The FAILURES are what bother me, because some idiot out there thinks their awesome plot summary provides an entertaining game. They want to write books instead of design and understand what makes a good game. That's what I mean when I say "Lost on the way to film school" or something similar. Their presentation is (generally) well thought out, stories that actually hold up. It's always been the game that I've pulled into question. I think the first Metal Gear Solid title I enjoyed playing was Metal Gear Solid 3. It is the best Metal Gear Solid prior to Metal Gear Solid 4 from a gameplay standpoint. I'm pretty upset that we had to wait that long for it to happen, personally.
Oh well.
Quote:
Well, I'm not sure what's up with switching weapons, but in the previous games you could skip the cutscenes and just get all information pertinent to gameplay proper by using the codec later. If that's not possible in MGS 4 and you can actually miss some critical gameplay information due to skipping cutscenes, then I guess that's a problem. Not for me, since I like watching all cutscenes anyway, but I can see how it could be annoying.
|
There aren't as many codec channels this game. The game relies more on the player piecing the story together, but a lot of pertinent information is laced in 3-4 cutscenes back to back to back. It's more of a first playthrough thing to be honest, as a I said. Once you know how to win, the cutscenes are a matter of whether or not you want to be passively entertained. This is cool.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?