Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shuma, your viewpoint somehow manages to be entirely too basic and far too abstract at the same time. I concede, simply because I know this isn't going to get anywhere, no matter how much effort I expend trying to make my own views clear. You win.

Cop out. My views are fairly plain and they were explained technically where such language was applicable.

We've managed to drag this thread pretty far off it's intended topic. All apologies.

But then it's back to a 360 v ps3 thread! Thats the worst kind of thread D: .

halonachos wrote:I will also add that I enjoy the Dynasty Warriors series even though they are all the same game more or less.

Dynasty Warrior's is money well spent on good simple fun. It just doesn't get as old as fast as you'd think it would

No one will ever miss chromehounds.

Nope. I only logged 80 hours on CH because I always enjoy something with giant robots XD

Cop out. My views are fairly plain and they were explained technically where such language was applicable.

r

Your views are entirely based in technicalities, and for the most part, are so simple that they have become abstract. It's not a very legitimate argument when you boil every single point I make down to it's base form, even though I know that you're intelligent enough to understand the implications of what I'm saying. Sure, you become practically irrefuteable with this standpoint (as would anyone), but the argument holds no weight anymore, and it doesn't get us anywhere. I know you don't need painstaking specifics from me to understand my point, but you expect them, simply because it makes things far more difficult than they should have to be.

But then it's back to a 360 v ps3 thread! Thats the worst kind of thread D: .

Agreed, but there is room for a general MMO thread elsewhere.

It hasn't gone off-topic yet! This still has potential to be a really good Halo argument thread! We all know that's what PS3/XBOX threads are really about anyway.



Call of Duty, not Medal of Honor, featured a regenerating mechanic in a modern FPS... that might be where the previous confusion came from. That was two years after Halo. If we go back to Faceball, a SNES/Megadrive game from the early nineties... oh look, same thing. Plenty of platform games have used the idea too. Halo moved it to a shield, and kept the classic health bar.

Unreal (1998) supported co-op play, through its massive and revolutionary 'single player' mode, which did a lot more for 3D rendering and gameplay mechanics than Halo did. The multiplayer was also extremely good, so much so that it inspired a purely multiplayer franchise of four successful games (three and a half at minimum - UT3 didn't do as well as its predecessors).

Three years later, Bungie released a very popular and well-polished FPS called Halo. It is kind of fun to play. The AI is pretty good but merely a refinement. Like Half-Life three years before it, Halo uses a similar node-based AI system. When they tried to emulate the squad mechanics used by other titles in Halo 3, the AI arguably became worse.

I've played Halo a lot (it's easy to pick up, which is a pro for the wider audience), but don't own it. The community misunderstanding about it being 'revolutionary' has always... well, excluded me from the Halo community.

Now Dynasty Warriors... there's a franchise I can burn away weeks on.

Your views are entirely based in technicalities, and for the most part, are so simple that they have become abstract. It's not a very legitimate argument when you boil every single point I make down to it's base form, even though I know that you're intelligent enough to understand the implications of what I'm saying.

Your arguments are overtly simplistic and founded on spurious logic that doesn't up up under scrutiny. I could either refute you by saying "No you are wrong" or by using technical terms and explanations.

Sure, you become practically irrefuteable with this standpoint (as would anyone), but the argument holds no weight anymore, and it doesn't get us anywhere. I know you don't need painstaking specifics from me to understand my point, but you expect them, simply because it makes things far more difficult than they should have to be.

I understand what you are saying perfectly. The issue is that your opinions are wrong concerning certain issues (such as all MMOs being the same). If you are arguing from pure hyperbolic opinion then I can accept it, but thats not a legitimate opinion or discussion then. I accepted your opinions on fallout, but your opinions concerning things like MMO design are seemingly based on design qualifications and experience but then fall apart when scrutinized under the same.

I don't need specifics, I need your opinions to stop being wrong concerning the areas of our dispute.

Nope. I only logged 80 hours on CH because I always enjoy something with giant robots XD

I logged a good bit of time in as well, but mostly just because I love making robots. The gameplay was deplorable (putting on armor made you MORE vulnerable).

Unreal (1998) supported co-op play, through its massive and revolutionary 'single player' mode, which did a lot more for 3D rendering and gameplay mechanics than Halo did. The multiplayer was also extremely good, so much so that it inspired a purely multiplayer franchise of four successful games (three and a half at minimum - UT3 didn't do as well as its predecessors).

Halo set a standard for bump and normal mapping in that generation. Unreal was great looking, but it was pretty cookie cutter in the old trop of "bigger environments, higher res textures". Halos true accomplishment was being the first majorly successful console FPS and building in vehicles from the ground up to function in engine without seeming tacked on. For a time it was (and still in my opinion is) the best vehicle implementation in any FPS game.

Three years later, Bungie released a very popular and well-polished FPS called Halo. It is kind of fun to play. The AI is pretty good but merely a refinement. Like Half-Life three years before it, Halo uses a similar node-based AI system. When they tried to emulate the squad mechanics used by other titles in Halo 3, the AI arguably became worse.

The programming methodology (node vs overarching tiered for instance) doesn't really make an ai system better or worse. Many would argue that the AI functions much better in halo (keep in mind squad based AI combat is an abstraction that is difficult to experience) then in comparable AI environments. In the end it depends on how it feels, and halos AI feels smart due to the vast number of unique AI routines it runs.

I've played Halo a lot (it's easy to pick up, which is a pro for the wider audience), but don't own it. The community misunderstanding about it being 'revolutionary' has always... well, excluded me from the Halo community.

It was revolutionary. Far more so then unreal, slightly less so than half life, far more so than anything with the word quake in it. Revolutionary is an opinion as there is no objective standard to game quality. Halo did many things quite well to the degree where it could be considered revolutionary and it's sequel "revolutionized" the console online gaming space.

Now Dynasty Warriors... there's a franchise I can burn away weeks on.

I never understood the draw personally.

stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.


The last console I purchased was a dreamcast, and it was neato. I am fine with my pc, but I WOULD buy a PS3 for Killzone 3 and Tekken 6. If I had the extra monies.

stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.

If you don't like it you can go back to reddit!

that'd be to easy for you.

IG_urban wrote:that'd be to easy for you.

You kidding? I love our little talks. Every time we do it you get all huffel puffel and I go away thinking you might just have learned something. They're great!

IG_urban wrote:stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.

Throwing out supposedly classy insults as usual I see, Urban.

The last console I purchased was a dreamcast, and it was neato. I am fine with my pc, but I WOULD buy a PS3 for Killzone 3 and Tekken 6. If I had the extra monies.

...
You purchased a Dreamcast?

You sir, should exit this thread hanging your head in shame. Paying money for a Dreamcast...

Hey, the dreamcast had Shenmue and... That one dragon game.. Also dialup connections!

Kanluwen wrote:

IG_urban wrote:stinking the place up with your douche-baggery as usual I see, Shuma.

Throwing out supposedly classy insults as usual I see, Urban.

yeah, why not? you, shuma, and a few other users on this site are know-it-all troll basterds are always in a pissing contest to determine who is more of a master of the universe.

The last console I purchased was a dreamcast, and it was neato. I am fine with my pc, but I WOULD buy a PS3 for Killzone 3 and Tekken 6. If I had the extra monies.

...
You purchased a Dreamcast?

You sir, should exit this thread hanging your head in shame. Paying money for a Dreamcast...

Your arguments are overtly simplistic and founded on spurious logic that doesn't up up under scrutiny. I could either refute you by saying "No you are wrong" or by using technical terms and explanations.

How simple a point in an argument can manage be is a testament to it's resounding truth.

My logic may be a bit over-exaggerated at times, but it's never flawed to the point of being factually wrong. I may use connotations of words as opposed to literal, defined meanings of words, but that doesn't make my point any less valid. And your scrutiny is the equivalent of this:

'I hate Halo'
'Well, Halo shares similarities to Half-Life, so that must mean you don't like Half-Life, either'

It's incredibly frustrating, based in nothing, and is completely circular logic that gets you absolutely nowhere. It forces me to discuss complete trivialities with you that should have no place in an intelligent debate. I assume that you can understand the meaning of a statement without me having to hold your hand throughout the entire discussion.

I understand what you are saying perfectly. The issue is that your opinions are wrong concerning certain issues (such as all MMOs being the same). If you are arguing from pure hyperbolic opinion then I can accept it, but thats not a legitimate opinion or discussion then. I accepted your opinions on fallout, but your opinions concerning things like MMO design are seemingly based on design qualifications and experience but then fall apart when scrutinized under the same.

I don't need specifics, I need your opinions to stop being wrong concerning the areas of our dispute.

It is hyperbolic. I don't expect you to take 'exactly the same' literally. That was simply a matter of emphasis. I feel that MMOs are now far too similar to WoW for me to enjoy them (And saying that every shared aspect is an absolute requirement of the genre is utter crap; the genre could easily branch out in different directions but does not due to conscious development decisions). You feel that they are not. Good for you; I'm incredibly envious of you if this is really the way you feel. Perhaps I'm too picky or demanding, but there's not much I can do to sway my own dissatisfaction. Ultimately, it's a hopeless situation for me, as I'm not willing to adopt the viewpoint that exceedingly minor differences are enough to differentiate MMOs from one another.

It's incredibly frustrating, based in nothing, and is completely circular logic that gets you absolutely nowhere.

It's not circular, it's just actual logic. When you state that champions online is just like WoW it precludes logic at all. They are not exactly the same. They are not even very similar. You dislike my call to specifics because when you speak in generalities and make hyperbolic statements that are clearly against the grain of even popular public sentiment (let alone actual factual reality) it's all I can do. The trivialities of game design are exactly what you are discussing, you just don't want to discuss them. You want to talk about how they "feel" without using examples. Could it be because there is a disconnect between the reality you are experiencing and your opinions? Humans are very prone to confirmation bias, and I strongly suspect that if you just delved a little bit into the design theory behind games you would find that there are significant differences.

It is hyperbolic. I don't expect you to take 'exactly the same' literally. That was simply a matter of emphasis. I feel that MMOs are now far too similar to WoW for me to enjoy them (And saying that every shared aspect is an absolute requirement of the genre is utter crap; the genre could easily branch out in different directions but does not due to conscious development decisions). You feel that they are not. Good for you; I'm incredibly envious of you if this is really the way you feel. Perhaps I'm too picky or demanding, but there's not much I can do to sway my own dissatisfaction. Ultimately, it's a hopeless situation for me, as I'm not willing to adopt the viewpoint that exceedingly minor differences are enough to differentiate MMOs from one another.

I see, then we simply disagree on what constitutes a minor difference and this discussion is entirely based on personal preference and not the logic behind those preferences. Ok. Cool. Argument done then. We will not reach consensus here.

ShumaGorath wrote:The gameplay was deplorable (putting on armor made you MORE vulnerable).

And don't forget movement speed! You could go slow as a snail, or so fast that a pebble will stop you cold if you so much as glance it, and going fast still felt like you were a snail-bot

I never understood the draw personally.

It's mindless fun. The basics of the game are so simple that only a total idiot could screw it up. They make up for the lack of gameplay depth with lots of replay value.

That said, you'd think that after a decade they'd do more with the sequels than put up new wall paper. Still fun though.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Unreal (1998) supported co-op play, through its massive and revolutionary 'single player' mode, which did a lot more for 3D rendering and gameplay mechanics than Halo did. The multiplayer was also extremely good, so much so that it inspired a purely multiplayer franchise of four successful games (three and a half at minimum - UT3 didn't do as well as its predecessors).

Halo set a standard for bump and normal mapping in that generation. Unreal was great looking, but it was pretty cookie cutter in the old trop of "bigger environments, higher res textures". Halos true accomplishment was being the first majorly successful console FPS and building in vehicles from the ground up to function in engine without seeming tacked on. For a time it was (and still in my opinion is) the best vehicle implementation in any FPS game.

Three years later, Bungie released a very popular and well-polished FPS called Halo. It is kind of fun to play. The AI is pretty good but merely a refinement. Like Half-Life three years before it, Halo uses a similar node-based AI system. When they tried to emulate the squad mechanics used by other titles in Halo 3, the AI arguably became worse.

The programming methodology (node vs overarching tiered for instance) doesn't really make an ai system better or worse. Many would argue that the AI functions much better in halo (keep in mind squad based AI combat is an abstraction that is difficult to experience) then in comparable AI environments. In the end it depends on how it feels, and halos AI feels smart due to the vast number of unique AI routines it runs.

I've played Halo a lot (it's easy to pick up, which is a pro for the wider audience), but don't own it. The community misunderstanding about it being 'revolutionary' has always... well, excluded me from the Halo community.

It was revolutionary. Far more so then unreal, slightly less so than half life, far more so than anything with the word quake in it. Revolutionary is an opinion as there is no objective standard to game quality. Halo did many things quite well to the degree where it could be considered revolutionary and it's sequel "revolutionized" the console online gaming space.

Now Dynasty Warriors... there's a franchise I can burn away weeks on.

I never understood the draw personally.

Then a matter of opinion it remains!
The original Halo had great AI, vehicles and was very well executed overall, but it remains far from my personal favourite FPS games to play. If I was set out to play FPS games I wouldn't be talking about consoles anyway.
I have to admit that I formulated my opinion of Halo based largely on my experience playing the original PC version, which had not implemented the mapping seen later... I'll certainly grant you that one. The concept of mapping was not original, but like most everything else, it was implemented well. Your point is a good one - Marx never started a revolution so much as he invented bump mapping... or something.


As was the topic of a thread I started recently, I'd like to get a PS3 so I can get BlazBlue. Now I know that people will have bad things to say about that franchise, if they've heard of the related series at all.

It's not circular, it's just actual logic.

Unnecessary logic.

When you state that champions online is just like WoW it precludes logic at all. They are not exactly the same. They are not even very similar.

I stated that Champions Online is a mashup between City of ____ and World of Warcraft, which I feel is an incredibly accurate description. If you did a side-by-side comparison of WoW and CO, all of the points I mentioned comparing the two would be ridiculously obvious. Instead, you resorted to using incredibly generic statements to disprove me. Sure, any two things can be compared when you pick them apart as you have, but all of the similarities are blatant plagiarism. All of the aforementioned elements share the same visual design, down to the way that the menus are organized. You justify this as 'requirements of the genre'. Plagiarism is a requirement of the genre? I don't think so. Inspiration, possibly, but not plagiarism.

You dislike my call to specifics because when you speak in generalities and make hyperbolic statements that are clearly against the grain of even popular public sentiment (let alone actual factual reality) it's all I can do.

You can't tell the difference between an obvious overstatement used for emphasis and what is believed to be truth? You must think I'm fething slowed, because I use hyperbole a lot for that purpose exactly, especially when I'm frustrated. I speak in generalities because they get my ideas across when I don't want to spend a lot of time picking apart points that I don't feel are important. I'm not going to go into specifics with every single MMO you mentioned, for instance, because I don't care about them enough to do that.

The trivialities of game design are exactly what you are discussing, you just don't want to discuss them. You want to talk about how they "feel" without using examples. Could it be because there is a disconnect between the reality you are experiencing and your opinions? Humans are very prone to confirmation bias, and I strongly suspect that if you just delved a little bit into the design theory behind games you would find that there are significant differences.

When the significant differences are buried under the surface of the game that's presented to you, why does it matter? If a game makes me feel as if I was playing WoW in a different setting, intricate knowledge of the inner workings of a game and it's design are completely inconsequential to my enjoyment of the game. I can recognize that there are differences between them, but I can also recognize that there could be much greater differences than there currently are. If you don't think it's due, in part, to developer's fear of failure and need to cash in on a successful formula, then you're focusing too much on the intricacies of a game's design and you fail to see the bigger picture and the potential of the genre.

I see, then we simply disagree on what constitutes a minor difference and this discussion is entirely based on personal preference and not the logic behind those preferences. Ok. Cool. Argument done then. We will not reach consensus here.

Even though you've gotten me all riled up again.

Even though you've gotten me all riled up again.

Hey, at least Urban isn't stalking you now too!

ive got both PS3 and 360 and i just like the 360s online and library better (Love party chat and Halo ) But ps3 is good too i just like xbox better

360 for me. The PS3 just doesn't have any exclusive titles I'm interested in. The graphics of either console look equally terrible on my 30-something year-old television anyways.

i had to go for the Xbox 360 for the followin reasons:

1. Better games(Oblivion being the best atm (Sorry Fable 2 although gd, you wernt gd enough))
2. Better online capabilities
3. All my friends had 360s

in my 3 yearsish of owning an xbox iv owned 3 different xboxes. the 1st 1 i got was actually preowned and worked for about a year till my warranty with gamestation ran out then it gubbed up... my 2nd one i got at christmas gubbed up 2 days after gettins it D: , laser wouldnt work, sent it off tho and it was fixed..... not too long ago it done the same thing so sent it off but it had been replaced not fixed

minor inconvieniences, but worth it

btw there is a ps3 in the household but gets used alot less than the xbox lol

Xbox...

I play PS3 all the time, and both are on HD TV's, and let me tell you all this, "PS3 has better graphics" I don't think is true, they both look the same to me...

People say ohh PS3 has free online, but it has no requirements, which promotes lag...

I think the poll says the facts to...

Xbox...

I play PS3 all the time, and both are on HD TV's, and let me tell you all this, "PS3 has better graphics" I don't think is true, they both look the same to me...

The PS3 does not actually have better graphics, its GPU is weaker then the 360s while it's cpu is more powerful. This allows the PS3 to perform more advanced physics and particle operations but fewer shader operations with lower resolution or number of textures. There is an artifact of compression in 360 games though, the ps3 due to it's BD drive is able to pack far more high res textures into a game then the 360 is, even if it's not as capable of displaying them. Thus it will have fewer high res textures at once but they will appear much more often. Most multiplatform games look better on the 360, while a few notable first party ps3 games look better than comparable first party 360 titles (killzone v halo for instance).

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

Farmville is an MMO.

Farmville also has quests.

To build a barn you must aquire wood, nails, hay, etc. There's also the quests to grow certain kinds of fruits/vegetables in a certain time limit. These quests also have co-op as your neighbors can try to help you.

My previous revision stands.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

Farmville is an MMO.

Farmville also has quests.

To build a barn you must aquire wood, nails, hay, etc. There's also the quests to grow certain kinds of fruits/vegetables in a certain time limit. These quests also have co-op as your neighbors can try to help you.

My previous revision stands.

Don't all games have those?

Hmmm... all games do have goals to reach, but not necessarily quests. Brain Age has goal while Professor Layton has quests, both are brain teasers.

The quests in Farmville are not goals because they are set demands you must reach or you fail the quest. In Brain Age you don't fail, you just perform poorly or perform great.

I think he means like WoW quests, not plant 200 crops and you get to post some dumb banner on your wall bragging about it.

I mean the plant so and so vegetables because a school needs them in this time limit to get rewarded.

Not all quests are epic, just look at runescape and some other games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Mass Effect 2 is packing its bags and moving to the PS3. So Microsoft has Forza, Gears of War, Halo, and Fable still.

halonachos wrote:I mean the plant so and so vegetables because a school needs them in this time limit to get rewarded.

Not all quests are epic, just look at runescape and some other games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Mass Effect 2 is packing its bags and moving to the PS3. So Microsoft has Forza, Gears of War, Halo, and Fable still.

It has quite a few more exclusive titles then that.

I believe it does, but I can't even remember all of the PS3 exclusives off of the top of my head, so if you remember the 360 ones go ahead and lay them down.