This is why Nintendo fans are so awful.

[the_randomizer]

The older Final Fantasies were better anyway. Same with the Zelda series.

 

[Fear Zoa]

Hay guys whats going on in here? Still going on about nintendo?

 

[the_randomizer]

Not me, just the other trolls.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I guess the Halo, Call of Duty, Fallout, Final Fantasy and Resident Evil series never get old and/or repetitive.

The later two actually have more change and variety than Zelda.

As for the first three, well, that's a bit of an opinion I guess. And Fallout has had quite a bit of change over its lifetime, from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3 is a huge leap. New Vegas is a rather large improvement over F3 as well despite playing mostly the same. It jives a lot better canonically than F3 which many people complained about and it's a lot more open ended. I mean in F3 you go with one side of the conflict, that's it. In NV, you have a whole bunch of people to go with. Mr. House, NCR, Cesar's Legion, Brotherhood of Steel, or even no one if you wanted to. Also you could mod guns, play it more survivalist (with that super hard difficulty and make items that aren't just stimpacks useful), etc.

Zelda has sadly been formulaic since its OoT years and even Skyward Sword felt too safe. A lot of what it brought to the table was just half assed. Like item upgrading. Great, that's something that's been in similar action-adventures for a while now, Zelda finally gets it! Except now you have to grind for dumb items. Who the fuck wants to grind in a Zelda game? Who the fuck ever wants to grind? I mean it had some "nonlinearity" but it was basically just two separate temples in the same place. Like instead of creating six diverse locations for six diverse temples they just realized "Fuck it, we can't think of six locations so make three and they have to go back to them." It felt more like a lazy design choice than trying to integrate Metroidvania nonlinearity into a game, and even then, Zelda is fine with linearity.

srs discussion in eof guys?

 

[Foxi4]

Starting from Wasteland (because let's face it, Fallout is the extension of the Wasteland serious that only got a different name to avoid a lawsuit due to EA's IP hogging), the "Fallout" series have greatly evolved. The center of the games which remained relatively unspoilt was and always has been the world - its integrity and "feel", perhaps except of Fountain of Dreams, which was EA's way of re-creating the success of Wasteland after the original team got pissed off and left. This is what keeps the series together - it's believable to the player that everything's occuring in the same time-frame and the same world. There are no poorly-made connections to the past, and that's done on purpose - those games were not "planned sequels", they're just different stories in the same "world", even if we squint our eyes when we look at Wasteland, from which Fallout had to differ significantly to avoid legal issues.

---snip---

No, y'know what? That wasn't why I don't like Zelda all that much nowadays. Truth to be told, I don't like it because its painfuly boring. //Zelda trololo

 

[chavosaur]

Needs moar Metroid. Metroid has been pretty consistent with good games.
Until other M... That ruined many years of a good formula...

 

[Foxi4]

Needs moar Metroid. Metroid has been pretty consistent with good games.
Until other M... That ruined many years of a good formula...

Other M (Mother? ) was different, it certainly wasn't bad. I for one enjoyed it thoroughly.

 

[Gahars]

Other M (Mother? ) was different, it certainly wasn't bad.

Now who's to say that "different" and "bad" are mutually exclusive?

 

[chavosaur]

Other m to me was different, but just not in a way I particularly liked. And not because of the portrayal of samus like everyone else complains about, because I actually kind of enjoyed that. It finally showed her to be more human then just an emotionless being that never speaks or reacts unless she's hurt. Just the layout of the game, how it's played, certain other aspects I can't put my finger on, are what drove me from the game.
Srs eof post is srs

 

[Foxi4]

Now who's to say that "different" and "bad" are mutually exclusive?

They're not mutually-exclusive, no. I just don't find it bad.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Other m to me was different, but just not in a way I particularly liked. And not because of the portrayal of samus like everyone else complains about, because I actually kind of enjoyed that. It finally showed her to be more human then just an emotionless being that never speaks or reacts unless she's hurt. Just the layout of the game, how it's played, certain other aspects I can't put my finger on, are what drove me from the game.
Srs eof post is srs

If by "more human" you mean "an awful character" then yes, it does that.

Just because it adds character to her doesn't mean it's good character. I'd rather have a blank slate than a slate with awful pictures on it. Even then, Samus was characterized in the last games, just not through such obvious exposition as Other M was. We knew Samus was strong, independent, and almost a loner. We didn't need some awful cutscene going "SAMUS IS SUCH A LONER LOOK HOW SHE'S THE ONLY ONE TO GIVE A THUMBS DOWN TO ADAM SO INDEPENDENT."

 

[emigre]

What the fuck has happened to this thread?

 

[Gahars]

What the fuck has happened to this thread?

Nintendo fans happened.

 

[emigre]

Nintendo fans happened.

I like Nintendo but I fucking hate their fans.








Yeah, I joined the wrong forum.

 

[Annieone23]

Other M was a fine game, made terribly. The controls, graphics, and gameplay were tight/unique between the side scrolling and FPS switches. IT was the story, voice acting, believability (refusing to disobey orders and use your weapons when everything has obviously gone to pot? Yeah right.), and lack of metroid-esque style really hurt it in my eyes.

I could even put aside the awful story if they had just increased the good gameplay. It was muccccch too linear for a Metroid game. There was hardly any backtracking and almost no collectables (and the few there were, were incredibly easy to get/find). I think the fact that they squandered so much awesome potential is what ruined the game the most for me. It could have been awesome, it had potential, it just threw it all away.

As for Zelda being too formulaic and SS not innovating enough. Disagree. Not some sweeping argument to prove you wrong, just that I feel the opposite about what you said. I thought that SS's new features felt fully baked and interesting, from the sprinting to the crafting. I also rather enjoyed the returning to different areas and the overall world design. I loved how the puzzles felt more naturally incorporated into every location. Not just squirrelled away in the dungeons like previous titles. I will say though that the flying overworld felt incredibly under-realized and half-baked. I enjoyed flying, and I enjoyed the little floating puzzle rocks to an extent, but otherwise flying felt like a chore. There wasn't really much to do up there, and only felt like a means to an end. Stuff like how they give you a flying minigame at the beginning of the game, and then never do it again or expand upon that with more flying races or challenges felt like they were going to add stuff like that and then just cut it out, rather noticeably. Overall though SS is still a 10/10 in my book, despite its flaws.

 

[emigre]

I never thought I would every say this but I prefer the usual unfunny shit EoF shit over this serious discussion. We have a general gaming discussion section for this shit.

Shame on all of you for this.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Holy shit.

When then fanboyism become a fucking epidemic? I don't remember it being this bad.

 

[Foxi4]

I like Nintendo but I fucking hate their fans.

Well, can't say "No" to that, really...

 

[Veho]

I like Nintendo products but I hate Nintendo.

 

[Castiel]

What the fuck has happened to this thread?

To be fair, it is pretty accurately portraying the title of the thread.