What is an Xbox 360? A newer way to play SotN, that's what

[Baba O'Reily]

Quite frankly, I couldn't give a shit what any of you guys play, as it doesn't affect me. I will always be able to find a watered-down version of any decent game at some point, even if the market turns to complete shit. I am content with my shittastic ports and bland sequels. It's all gravy... congealed, fuzzy, smelly gravy.

Slightly back on topic, I rather enjoyed Aria, but one of the GBA games' coloring was too damn dark, and the other was irritating to the eyes.

[James McGeachie]

So on the semi-360 topic, has anyone here checked out the Dead Rising demo? I played it for a while earlier on a friend's 360 and it was certainly pretty fun, although I really can't see it lasting longer than a few days before the novelty of killing thousands of zombies wears off pretty much completely.

[Light Speed]

Yeah, I played it for a half hour or so and enjoyed the vast possibilities of zombie killing, but I am hoping the full game offers something more. I know there are going to be quests to help people, or let them die, take pictures to get your story or whatever, but it still seems like the crux of the game involves grabbing whatever you can find and killing zombies with it. I'm still going to buy it though, seems like it will be one of those games that'll be fun a year later when I am bored.

[Double-S-]

Every Ghost Recon and indeed every fucking Tom Clancy game ever made falls into the category of "formulaic genre games that affix themselves steadfastly to certain mechanical and aesthetic axioms that have and continue to prove successful sales-wise with their target demographic".

This statement could not be more wrong. You obviously never played any of the original Tom Clancy games. I mean the incredible, ground-breaking PC shooters back in the late 90's and early 00's, before the generic console crap Ubisoft made Red Storm start pumping out (the beginning of the end being Rainbow Six 3 on Xbox). They completely broke the mold of the first person shooter by going for something unheard of before: strict realism and tactics.

You could spend hours in the game without even loading a level, setting and perfecting your plan down to each single detail, then executing it. Getting the right kind of entry down, the right angles of cross-fire, the right cover, was the difference between finishing the mission or having to restart. From the beginning.

"Health" didn't exist. One well-placed shot was all it took for you to down your prey, or the opposite. Running and gunning would get you killed in 2 seconds. Every corner, door, or window you came to made you tense and ready to twitch at the slightest sign of trouble as you sliced across it. But then you had to hold your trigger finger because spraying could mean tagging a teammate, hostage, or a computer you needed. It was hardly formulaic. Pretty much every realistic shooter was born from the Tom Clancy games, so if anything, you can blame them for CREATING the formulaic genre that games affix themselves steadfastly to.

Nowadays, Rainbow Six operatives have health bars. And 3rd person view. The last "real" Tom Clancy game was Raven Shield, made back in '03. Everything from then on does not exist to me.

[Squirrelknight]

Aria of Sorrow is basically similar in style and substance to Dawn of Sorrow, minus the DS features (hooray no seal drawings, boo no onscreen map!). If you enjoyed DoS, you should definitely pick up AoS. It gives backstory to DoS and is really an excellent game. Plus by now it's probably about fifteen bucks.

Plus Aria of Sorrow doesn't have that ass-fugly made-for-Fox-Kids anime art style that Dawn of Sorrow employs.

[Green Gibbon!]

incredible, ground-breaking

Is that a fact, then.

[Baba O'Reily]

Dude, hop off of Tom Clancy's cock.

I enjoyed Dead Rising, but it seems a lot like I'll just end up playing through the game once, and then just killing zombies for about two weeks until I get bored.

[Double-S-]

incredible, ground-breaking

Is that a fact, then.

Yes.

Don't argue something if you don't know what you're talking about.


For the record, this is the kind of game I figure you're thinking of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn5Z_VYozDQ
Note the completely linear level design and run-and-gunning. The fact that this game carries the Rainbow Six name sickens me. You know, the kind of nausea like when you see footage of Shenmue Online.

This is somewhat what I'm talking about, although the guy behind the controls isn't particularly great, is obviously on the easiest difficulty where the terrorists take ages to aim, and is playing Terrorist Hunt mode where his only objective is to kill dirty terrorists (no hostages or bombs to worry about).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3zqdmcUnIo

Watching the video reminds me of the things that the Rainbow Six games innovated. The reticule accuracy system which almost every FPS nowadays uses (albeit on a much more forgiving scale... in R6 if you wanted to hit something further than 20 yards away then you'd stop moving), an actual clip system instead of the nonsensical "magic ammo pool" (every other FPS ever), no jumping, non-linear maps (entry point here, objectives inside the building, get to it through the front door, back door, basement, side, whatever works), having a reasonably realistic number of enemies in each mission (no more than 30... in the new games your kill counts can go to the hundreds for each mission), and more.

The original was released in 1998, with the much improved Rogue Spear in 1999, and it's still unlike any other FPS I've played. And one of my favorites.

[Popcorn]

You'll find that most of the middle-aged white housewives who stand in line at the mall to have their Thomas Kinkade paintings retouched know absolutely nothing about the history of the medium or the social contexts of various art movements and generally harbor no desire to learn (which constitutes, by definition, ignorance). In such a case, an art historian is probably more qualified to pass final critique on a Thomas Kinkade painting (and I don't think he'd be standing in line to have one touched up).

I've gone away and thought about this some more, and it still doesn't satisfy me. Doesn't the capacity to be more or less qualified to critique a painting infer the existence of some absolute scale-- a scale the expert has a better grasp of than the ignorant? How is it possible to be 'more qualified' to judge something when your judgement still has no bearing on any knowable scale?

[Baba O'Reily]

But his analogy is just so damn cool that it doesn't matter that expertise isn't technically a quantifiable skill!

Besides, I do enjoy watching you vainly defend your poinnt when the outcome of the arguement holds little to no weight outside of this topic.

[Popcorn]

Besides, I do enjoy watching you vainly defend your poinnt when the outcome of the arguement holds little to no weight outside of this topic.

What in God's name are you talking about?

[Delphine]

Man, why do people watch TV?

[Frieza2000]

My knowledge of the subject is most likely meager. It's the result of the teaching of two English and one Music Theory professors, but it's my understanding that in most art forms there is indeed such a scale. Its boundaries aren't as strictly defined as a scientific scale because of the interpretative nature of their subjects but there are, according to these analytical guidelines, good and poor examples of the art. I know that music and certain forms of literature are solid examples. If you majored in either of them in a 5 or 6 year program, you'd come out with a firm grasp on the 'rules'.

I'm not sure where these guidelines came from. A large part of it has to do with the level of talent required. I think the rest is just the collective consensus of the scholars throughout history.

[Dash]

I know very little about the Rainbow Six franchise but this new one got my attention. It looks a little linear and it doesn't show off a whole lot of things you can use your team for, but if this is just some kind of introductory mission I'm excited to see how the whole game pans out.


This whole discussion on what is or isn't a crap game seems kind of silly to me. Good games come in all different flavors. If one game is just a well-made version of what came before it with a similar atmosphere, so be it. Those who want it will seek it out. It's not like anyone is forcing you to play it.

I prefer games that have magnificent art direction and a real sense of creativity, but because my gaming itch yearns to be satisfied more than 1-2 times a year I sometimes branch out to games that are more mass market friendly. Are they equivalent experiences to games like Psychonauts and Shenmue? Certainly not, but sometimes I enjoy the simple pleasures of landing a huge combo in Tony Hawk or smashing some cars in Burnout 3. I don't consider myself shallow for that however I completely understand why someone might want to avoid them all together.

[Locit]

I'm in the same category as Dash. Of course if every game were as fulfilling as Shenmue or Ico it would be great, but that just can't be the case. I'm not saying I'm a proponent of mediocrity, but that the good (but not great) games sort of fill a void of "enjoyment" rather than "fulfillment". Obviously you can choose to only to play the top-tier games, but a cheap thrill here and there isn't going to make you the gaming equivalent of a redneck, whose backwards ways and moonshinin' antics prevent his progress in normal society, and who can't appreciate the finer things in life.

[Baba O'Reily]

Besides, I do enjoy watching you vainly defend your poinnt when the outcome of the arguement holds little to no weight outside of this topic.

What in God's name are you talking about?

It's just that I fail to see the point of arguing when in about a week someone will bitch about some other terrible, grave injustice and someone else will be consumed with refuting that point. It the long term, there's no real winner, because the outcome means shit.

[Popcorn]

Besides, I do enjoy watching you vainly defend your poinnt when the outcome of the arguement holds little to no weight outside of this topic.

What in God's name are you talking about?

It's just that I fail to see the point of arguing when in about a week someone will bitch about some other terrible, grave injustice and someone else will be consumed with refuting that point. It the long term, there's no real winner, because the outcome means shit.

This isn't some "vain" attempt to defend a point: I am genuinely interested in hearing what Gibbon has to say. There isn't a competition going on. I can't help but interpret this as nothing less than tired trolling.

[Double-S-]

Just to throw my opinion out there, I don't really agree with Gibbon. Yes, games can definitely be good or bad on technical terms, but "artistically" it's easily debatable. Just because a game may be a formulaic genre game doesn't mean it can't pull it off really, really well. Granted, most don't, but there are a few.

Also, Rainbow Six Vegas still looks like all the other console versions: a linear and scripted romp. Also that whole cover system is about as arcadey as you can get.

[Baba O'Reily]

I'm a dirty dirty little whore for drama.

[Omni Hunter]

Just because a game may be a formulaic genre game doesn't mean it can't pull it off really, really well. Granted, most don't, but there are a few.

Agreed, there will always be some games that are shit and some that are better.

Looking at Gibbon's point, an art expert may be, in theory, more qualified to judge a piece of art. But surely, in that context, there is no greater person qualified than the actual artist him/herself.

You have to bear in mind that in most cases, games are not created to have relevance to the feelings of the creator like a picture to the artist. They are created to appeal to a certain market that does not usually consist of people akin to art experts.