[PPOTW #32] Who had the best E3?

[Tom Bombadildo]

What in the dilly damn fuck do you mean only one will be playable? :|
They're all going to be playable with EVERY fucking multiplayer map, EVERY original halo level from EVERY game, playlists for the games, why do you even need Backwards comparability when you have fully remastered Halo at 60 FPS 1080p..?
And 4000 Gamerscore is 1000 for each game.
Yknow
1000 for halo 1
1000 for halo 2
1000 for halo 3
1000 for halo 4
Wow
Can't believe It
How did I not see dat

Pretty sure he means it's the only good one that's "playable". Silly chavo.

Which he's still absolutely wrong about.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought E3 was complete shit this year.

 

[chavosaur]

Pretty sure he means it's the only good one that's "playable". Silly chavo.

Which he's still absolutely wrong about.

Nah he says the only thing playable outof the collection IS the first one which I assume he means the remastered combat evolved game. Either way, the rage is real

 

[Foxi4]

So instead of addressing BC at all, Xbox One people will instead get the Master Chief Collection... of which the only game even somewhat playable out of the lot is the first one.

Microsoft has already addressed the backwards compatibility "problem" - they released a budget Xbox 360 which you can pick up for peanuts if you really want to play 360 games, there is no "problem". Bottom line is that if you have 360 games in your collection, chances are that you also have a 360. Play them on that. If you don't have a 360 and want to play 360 games, you'd probably want to pick one up. Backwards compatibility is not a must nor is it an industry standard - it's a welcome feature, but it's anything but necessary.

 

[Nathan Drake]

Nah he says the only thing playable outof the collection IS the first one which I assume he means the remastered combat evolved game. Either way, the rage is real

On a related note, now that your post has really made me think about it, I think I would love that Halo collection. The first two Halo games were amazing, and the third wasn't half bad either. After that, it became a little meh in my personal opinion, but at the least, the first three games make for one heck of a playing session. Being able to play them all in completely remastered, glorious 1080p will be the icing on the cake. It won't make me consider an Xbox One by itself, but it's a step in the right direction towards convincing me down the line.

 

[Hells Malice]

Nintendo showed a couple interesting things, but mostly just trying to ruin the new Smash Bros, a few games already shown before, blah blah. Wasn't that interesting.

Sony's was the best, but overall they all sucked.

 

[codezer0]

What in the dilly damn fuck do you mean only one will be playable? :|
They're all going to be playable with EVERY fucking multiplayer map, EVERY original halo level from EVERY game, playlists for the games, why do you even need Backwards comparability when you have fully remastered Halo at 60 FPS 1080p..?
And 4000 Gamerscore is 1000 for each game.
Yknow
1000 for halo 1
1000 for halo 2
1000 for halo 3
1000 for halo 4
Wow
Can't believe It
How did I not see dat

Says the chav that doesn't get it.

Only Halo 1 was actually worth playing, with a campaign that knew what it was doing and did it right. Halo 2 was... okay. Halo 3 was such a complete betrayal, it killed my interest in the franchise completely. Halo 4 is also probably just as full of stupid, as well.

Seriously, where are the smart shooters with campaigns? Why are we not buying stuff like Bioshock Infinite more but then a jew like Bobby Kotick gets to rake in the billions on annualizing Call of Duty? When did multiplayer become a "get out of making a good campaign for free" card?

I'm still burned up about the crap I had to go through with Halo 3 to get its original 1000 gamerscore, and the kind of utter backstabbing that the bonus ending footage for beating it on Legendary got me.

I stand by my opinion that Halo 1 was the only one with a campaign worth playing, period.

Microsoft has already addressed the backwards compatibility "problem" - they released a budget Xbox 360 which you can pick up for peanuts if you really want to play 360 games, there is no "problem". Bottom line is that if you have 360 games in your collection, chances are that you also have a 360. Play them on that. If you don't have a 360 and want to play 360 games, you'd probably want to pick one up. Backwards compatibility is not a must nor is it an industry standard - it's a welcome feature, but it's anything but necessary.

That still doesn't make sense, especially considering that Microsoft went through the trouble of securing the IP to the silicon within the 360, unlike the original Xbox which was the legal reason that they couldn't make a full-BC capability for Original Xbox games on the 360. So technically, there is no legal reason to stop them from implementing some proper BC, with all the bragging about how much more powerful the new system is, and with the marketing to say that it's supposed to be your all in one destination... which it just isn't at this point. The fact that not even digital stuff from the prior consoles works on the new systems is ridiculous.

Annoying as it is, the only even half sensible purchase choice out of the three still at this point is still the WiiU, if only because Nintendo didn't directly invalidate everything I've accumulated for the Wii thus far.

 

[Gahars]

Seriously, where are the smart shooters with campaigns? Why are we not buying stuff like Bioshock Infinite more but then a jew like Bobby Kotick gets to rake in the billions on annualizing Call of Duty? When did multiplayer become a "get out of making a good campaign for free" card?

>Bioshock Infinite
>Smart

Whatever you have to tell yourself, buddy.

 

[BORTZ]

I wonder how many of these are votes from members who like nintendo, who didnt even watch E3, and are just voting out of fanboyism.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Seriously, where are the smart shooters with campaigns? Why are we not buying stuff like Bioshock Infinite more but then a jew like Bobby Kotick gets to rake in the billions on annualizing Call of Duty? When did multiplayer become a "get out of making a good campaign for free" card?

...You're joking, right? I mean, don't get me wrong, I played Bioshock Infinite and mostly enjoyed it while I did, but the quality was all in the story, and not the gameplay. With the exception of the vigors (which were cool, but not always that useful) and the skyhook (which was cool, but really, it was just one thing), everything about the gameplay was vanilla FPS material. It was one of those games where I played through it, saw the ending... and that's it. The game was over for me. I'm even having trouble getting through the Burial at Sea DLC, because the story just isn't as intriguing to me as the main game, and the gameplay isn't really any better.

Whereas all five mainline Halo games are games whose campaigns I can have fun with over and over again. Even Combat Evolved and 4 (my least favorite ones) have garnered multiple playthroughs from me over the years. I don't even buy Halo for the multiplayer, because I don't really care for multiplayer matchmaking in shooters.

>Bioshock Infinite
>Smart

Whatever you have to tell yourself, buddy.

Perhaps he meant "faux hipster masquerading as smart"?

 

[codezer0]

Okay, so infinite wasn't the best example. But it is still better than the shlock that passes for campaigns in shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor... Half Life would be a far better example. Yes, I get gabe is hoping for technology to finally improve enough to make the full on Half Life 3... but he's gotta be seeing the shlock we're getting now and realizing he's probably in the unique position to save us from the dreck that gets shoved on people now.

On little more than a dare, I rather annoyingly pushed myself to slog through the campaign of MW3, which I only partially wanted to do to see how it would tie back to CoD4, intentionally avoiding spoilers or any media about it until then. The amount of sheer stupid the game expects us to believe one can and can't get away with and the lowering of standards is honestly depressing, for something that started out so brilliant. I could/should do a write-up for GYSB about it. I'd probably have a write-up of a few pages just on the amount of issues that have never been addressed between games. Yes, it's an annual 'franchise' now, but that doesn't give them the excuse to basically print a new game for a new multiplayer and charge another $60+DLC for this kind of crap.

 

[Taleweaver]

I wonder how many of these are votes from members who like nintendo, who didnt even watch E3, and are just voting out of fanboyism.

The last two years, I would have agreed with that question...but now they actually did well. I mean...I didn't expect Angry Joe to come to that conclusion (the guy doesn't even have a wii or wiiu) but he did and IGN even put Zelda on top of their most wanted list.

 

[Arras]

Nintendo showed a couple interesting things, but mostly just trying to ruin the new Smash Bros, a few games already shown before, blah blah. Wasn't that interesting.

Sony's was the best, but overall they all sucked.

Wait, what ruined it? Unless you think adding Miis for playing against friends is ruining the game?

 

[Gahars]

Okay, so infinite wasn't the best example. But it is still better than the shlock that passes for campaigns in shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor... Half Life would be a far better example. Yes, I get gabe is hoping for technology to finally improve enough to make the full on Half Life 3... but he's gotta be seeing the shlock we're getting now and realizing he's probably in the unique position to save us from the dreck that gets shoved on people now.

It's funny because Black Ops 2 has a far better written take on the rich/poor divide and the nature of revolutions than Bioshock Infinite. Not only that, the game handles player choice far better, as it actually allows the player's actions, rather than button prompts, to determine the course of the story. Plus, it offers the benefit of non-craptastic gameplay and multiplayer, which is nice.

 

[Taleweaver]

Another interesting view on bioshock infinite not being exactly a smart shooter...but I do think that "smart shooter" is pretty much an oxymoron. In the end, it all comes down to shooting people, and player choices are superfluous at best. Nearly all shooters I've played* are simple entertainment that at best has good atmospheric to go with it. Usually, it's almost that gameplay and the cutscènes are two separate parts that hardly form anything complete (I'm currently playing hard reset. It's not too shabby...but I swear they're making up the story as they go along).



*spec ops: the line is the only exception, thus far. And that's because the setup and atmosphere actually influence how I go about playing the game (or rather: attempt to. The player choice isn't larger than on average with these kinds of games).

 

[Gahars]

Another interesting view on bioshock infinite not being exactly a smart shooter...but I do think that "smart shooter" is pretty much an oxymoron. In the end, it all comes down to shooting people, and player choices are superfluous at best. Nearly all shooters I've played* are simple entertainment that at best has good atmospheric to go with it. Usually, it's almost that gameplay and the cutscènes are two separate parts that hardly form anything complete (I'm currently playing hard reset. It's not too shabby...but I swear they're making up the story as they go along).



*spec ops: the line is the only exception, thus far. And that's because the setup and atmosphere actually influence how I go about playing the game (or rather: attempt to. The player choice isn't larger than on average with these kinds of games).

You could break down any genre to its simplest elements and claim that makes it dumb. Dumb shooters are common, sure, but that doesn't mean that shooters are inherently dumb, just that dumb shooters are popular (probably because they're so easy for people to pick up and play).

There's plenty out there - there's the Half-Life franchise, STALKER, System Shock, the original Bioshocks, Singularity, Arma, etc. are all varying degrees and types of "smart," and that's just the first person perspective. Hell, the original Modern Warfare, before Infinity Ward descended into Red Dawn masturbation mode, has a smartly written and told story.

Bioshock Infinite is nothing more than a dumb, pretentious mess that thinks its smart (courtesy of Ken "I like stories that make me feel stupid" Levine). It's hardly indicative of the genre as a whole.

 

[TripleSMoon]

You could break down any genre to its simplest elements and claim that makes it dumb. Dumb shooters are common, sure, but that doesn't mean that shooters are inherently dumb, just that dumb shooters are popular (probably because they're so easy for people to pick up and play).

There's plenty out there - there's the Half-Life franchise, STALKER, System Shock, the original Bioshocks, Singularity, Arma, etc. are all varying degrees and types of "smart," and that's just the first person perspective. Hell, the original Modern Warfare, before Infinity Ward descended into Red Dawn masturbation mode, has a smartly written and told story.

Bioshock Infinite is nothing more than a dumb, pretentious mess that thinks its smart (courtesy of Ken "I like stories that make me feel stupid" Levine). It's hardly indicative of the genre as a whole.

Took the words out of my mouth. Just because dumb shooters happen to be what's popular doesn't mean that shooters are dumb by their very nature.

That said, I think "dumb" is an unfair word to use. Simplistic or straightforward or vanilla, yeah. And I think there are many shooters that match those descriptions, that I wouldn't call "dumb" (Halo being a great example). It would be like calling Super Mario Bros. "dumb" because it's straightforward and simplistic.

 

[Taleweaver]

You could break down any genre to its simplest elements and claim that makes it dumb. Dumb shooters are common, sure, but that doesn't mean that shooters are inherently dumb, just that dumb shooters are popular (probably because they're so easy for people to pick up and play).

I didn't say shooters are dumb. I know that "not smart" sorts of assumes it, but it's just halfway the spectrum between 'dumb' and 'smart' on each end. It's just that the core mechanics teach you things like reflexes, hand-eye co-ordination, sense of spatial direction and similar things that are more often referred to by muscle memory than actual thinking on a higher level (and I know that doesn't sound any less insulting, but that's how it's called).
There sure is plenty out there. But while games like half life and the original bioshock do a good job of mixing things up (like the racing games...or the pipe dream puzzles), it doesn't touch the core mechanics. In fact...in the games where it DOES that, people argue whether it actually still is a shooter (deus ex is a good example. and I've heard the same of system shock). And nobody is calling portal a shooter either (despite it being 3D and you wield something that shoots...stuff).

And besides...sorry, but you're just wrong in that observation. If I break down a game like tetris to its simples elements, I get "rotating images in your mind" (if you can't do that at a decent pace, there's no way you will press the correct button in time). That's pretty much literally an aspect of intelligence. Civilization comes down to reasoning and planning. RTS'es have resource management. And so on. Again...I don't mean to look down on shooters in general (fuck! I like playing those games too), but I do call it like it is.

(note: I haven't completely played through system shock -> bioshock infinite, but from what I see, it's like it gets less complex with each iteration)

 

[kakashi919]

Rainbow 6 won E3 for me...

 

[Gahars]

I didn't say shooters are dumb. I know that "not smart" sorts of assumes it, but it's just halfway the spectrum between 'dumb' and 'smart' on each end. It's just that the core mechanics teach you things like reflexes, hand-eye co-ordination, sense of spatial direction and similar things that are more often referred to by muscle memory than actual thinking on a higher level (and I know that doesn't sound any less insulting, but that's how it's called).

There sure is plenty out there. But while games like half life and the original bioshock do a good job of mixing things up (like the racing games...or the pipe dream puzzles), it doesn't touch the core mechanics. In fact...in the games where it DOES that, people argue whether it actually still is a shooter (deus ex is a good example. and I've heard the same of system shock). And nobody is calling portal a shooter either (despite it being 3D and you wield something that shoots...stuff).

Again, you could apply that standard to quite a lot of video game genres. Are third person action games not smart because you're just hitting things? The central mechanics of Dark Souls are "Hit enemy with weapon" and "Jump out of the way," but if the player does those things mindlessly, they're not going to get very far. The game demands that the player strategize and study the enemies.

As with shooters, it's all about implementation.

And besides...sorry, but you're just wrong in that observation. If I break down a game like tetris to its simples elements, I get "rotating images in your mind" (if you can't do that at a decent pace, there's no way you will press the correct button in time). That's pretty much literally an aspect of intelligence.

Visualizing a simple block is so low on the intellectual spectrum that you'd have to be brain dead to be unable to do that. Most mammals can do this. This isn't exactly a good example of "smart" mechanics on your part.

Civilization comes down to reasoning and planning. RTS'es have resource management. And so on. Again...I don't mean to look down on shooters in general (fuck! I like playing those games too), but I do call it like it is.

By this standard, Call of Duty multiplayer is smart. After all, it also comes down to reasoning and planning. A successful team will have to carefully plan ahead, choosing the optimal weapons and killstreak loadouts. Once the match begins, they'll have to apply their knowledge of the map to take control of the chokeholds and other advantageous locations. Communication is also fundamental; if they cannot coordinate, a good opposing team will easily overwhelm them. Resource management comes in the form of ammunition.

Strategy games, though? Well, you just click and pump out units, then send them to hit other units. Whoever gets the most units or the best units beats up the guy's stuff until he dies. What's so intellectually demanding about a Zerg rush?