Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by R.Graves, Oct 1, 2017.
BotW did need more variety in dungeons though.
Dark Souls>Demon's Souls
If you ignore the half waypoint in the game where it kind of becomes mix of good to awful (I love Tomb of Giants, New London Ruins was meh but Four Kings as a boss is my favorite in the series but fuck Lost Izalith and Duke's Archives)
Personsly I felt it vastely improved the gameplay in terms of balance to where is as completely not game breaking like it was in some parts of Demon's Souls don't get me wrong pvp is still a mess but at least is somewhat durable with how you can not be infintly stunlocked to death by the smallest of weapons like curved swords even though it still does happen sometimes.
Fallout New Vegas>Fallout 3
Don't get me wrong is still got lots of Fallout 3's god awful gameplay and shooting but at least Obsidian gave us iron sights?
Seriously though I'm amazed with what they managed to do with what little time they had in terms of the story and freedom of choice (Not even talking about the 4 dlc's since is my favorite part about the game.)
Dead Space 2>Dead Space
It felt odd at first with seeing Isaac talk but I think Gunner Wright (The actor) did a good job of portraying a man who's seen some terrible shit, his crew getting murded and one even betraying him and is unwilling to let go of his dead girlfriend till the ending.
Gameplay was very much improved especially with using stasis to grab projectiles and shooting them back at enemies I remember it being very wonky and inconsistent in Dead Space but that was back in 2008 so I might be fuzzy on details.
Only thing I think Dead Space holds up is the atmosphere of being inside a literal dead space station feeling more like Alone In The Dark or Resident Evil compared to the very action oriented vibe from Dead Space 2 which I still like even if is different.
WarCraft franchise a showcase of each sequel being a superior game to the previous title - in other words WarCraft 3 and its expansion being the pinnacle of the series.
Of course, that is without the travesty that is WoW.
The Gunplay in New Vegas also feels meatier because the guns weren't just huge airsoft toys, even if it was only aesthetic the change to reload animations and speed between guns was always a present concern, specially early game, I remember getting a COwboy Repeater off a Dead Raider, and then getting all trigger happy because of the DPS, then quickly get killed in a real fight because I didn't factor in the reload loop.
it doesnt take much to be better than fallout 3. hell skyrim is better than fallout 3. still i'd say that new vegas debatably even surpasses the original. its definitley a better sequel than 2 was thats for sure.
This is perhaps true in every sense except for gameplay, which obviously has little to no connection to the original.
And given that this is a video game series, where the way the game is played is what actually matters the most, FNV is not and cannot be a better sequel to FO than FO2. It is, at the end of the day, closer in its DNA to TES than FO. Sadly.
Storywise I think it's superior to FO2, but let's be honest, it's not that hard to surpass the disjointed mess of FO2's plot.
wrong. here's why. i look at fallout more as a setting than a video game. its got its own rules, lore and tone. fallout 2 fails so hard at tone that its almost a parody of the original. new vegas is more in line with the originals vision for themes, tone, and story concepts. fallout goes way beyond just "how it plays" besides outside of combat new vegas did an amazing job at emulating an rpg. and besides combat was always fallouts weakest link.
Is probably my favorite aspact of the guns and even some of the energy/explosive weapons is due to the interchangable ammo types and the fire/reload animation's probably my favorite is either the hunting shotgun or anti matrial rifle, the sounds just feel lot more meaty as you say compared to fallout 3's sound effects.
Not to mention there are more perks that have intresting effects like And Stay Back! Sending Deathclaw's flying in the air always feels good with dinner bell.
I never played the orginals so I couldn't say much on that subject but I can say Fallout New Vegas is at least more of a rpg then anything Bethestard could ever make again since Daggerfall or Morrowind.
This is the part where you are wrong, the core of the issue upon which your logic is built and broken.
Fallout was, is and forever will be a video game, first and foremost. It was intended as such and created as such.
The setting in it is devised to support the game, not vice-versa (or rather, they were created simultaneously, but bear with me). That doesn't mean the setting is without value, far from it, but it is, along with the story, art, music etc. the secondary aspect. Primary aspect in video games is gameplay. That's why they are called games.
You can go on and create a game with an idea to support a very specific narrative and that is fine, but unless that game has good gameplay, it cannot be considered a fun game. And game with no fun is a bad game (in 99,9% of cases).
If you are analyzing and comparing games from a narrative standpoint (and setting, lore, characters etc. would fall into this category), that is fair and in that regard I do agree that FNV is better than FO2, but the problem is, as I've pointed out, is that narrative and setting are never as important as actual gameplay.
Besides, it is unfair to video games as medium to be primarily judged by their narrative qualities rather than gaming qualities. Games are a unique medium because unlike other art forms (I do consider games to be art, but that is irrelevant at the moment) they require the interaction and urgency of the player in order to fulfill their role - unlike a book or a film where you, while reading, are still a passive observer of a completed work.
Games are meant to be played. Not read, not listened to, not gazed at - played.
To use colloquialism from PnP/wargaming communities, there is "crunch" and there is "fluff".
Crunch is the central aspect and mechanics of the game - that is how the game is played. Fluff, on the other hand, is what "fills the spaces" - lore and setting, characters, events etc.
Crunch also includes the basic elements of the setting - in this case a post-apocalyptic world (or a high/low fantasy, sci-fi etc.) and certain core elements of it (such as Mutants, Vaults etc.) but the finesse and detail fall in the realm of fluff.
Nonetheless, the core of the crunch, and therefore of the actual game, are its mechanics. And when it comes to mechanics and the core of the game, Fallout set a standard which FO2 followed. No other game in the series did. Some of the marginal, superficial stuff - that is, fluff - were done (way) better in other games than in FO2, but no other game was a proper sequel in its core.
You can play a game, including a (good) RPG without fluff, but you cannot play it without crunch.
And you, Graves, are focusing on fluff rather than crunch. And therein lies the error.
I've Just finished Bioshock and Bioshock 2 and I honestly Think the second is better than the first
Fury Road is better than 3.
Rambo (4) was pretty fucking gnarly.
It was better than 3 for sure.
Also better than the 2nd.
Does Red Dead Redemption count (was it even really a true sequel to Red Dead Revolver)?
System shock 2, Mass effect 2, Wasteland 2, Aliens and now to be extremely controversial Wolf a new order and DOOM 2016.
Also I still say fallout 3 is better than 4, coming from someone who doesn't have a seething hatred for bethesda and the newer games.
edit: Dark souls, God of war 2018, witcher 3 to name a few others
and the rest of the stalker sequels are meh compared to SoC
edi 2: now to really piss people off HR>the original. While the original has a lot of historical and innovative value for immersive sims and FPS/RPGs its not very playable these days imo.
No fucking way. Just the sheer modding potential behind Wolf 3D and Doom II alone bitch slaps NuDoom so hard it rips through time and space. You simply cannot compare NuDoom to old Doom. Wolf 3D you might be able to argue is not as good as the new Wolfenstein...maybe. The maze like design is quite unique though. I can hammer out a several page article detailing why you are wrong, with corresponding pics, but I won't waste my time with such blatantly controversial statements that are false. Good day sir.
Warcraft II is better than Warcraft in almost every way.
Predators is better than Predator 2.
Told you Id rustle some feathers with that opinion
Oh yeah and AVP2 is better than AVP1 by a good measure (avp1 is good but very dated and plays more like doom if anything)
Also agreed Predator 2 was meh last I watched but Predators was far far better
edit: I dont think alien or aliens are superior to each other, I value both for different reasons.
Compare Doom 4 to Doom 1/2 and claim 4 is better than 1/2? statement as such is like compare soda to tea and claim soda is better.
Doom 4 plays like painkiller in normal/easy difficulty, lots of arena with point of no return and too much of ammo pickups around the level, you restore your health when killed a enemy instead have to search for health and armor(yet there are still abound of health and armor around which make the game even easier), chainsaw is not a melee weapon but press to kill one enemy and give you lots of ammo(while there are already lots of ammo pickups around already), and need to use upgrade system to unlock more armor and health limits is just slow things down.
Doom 1/2 you have to scavenge your supplies around the level or you have to face the consequences, no hand holding health restore system and chainsaw works as endless close range weaklings(sometimes more dangerous enemy) dispatch machine as intended, and when you get blue armor or megasphere, you have 200% of your armor or both your health and armor, no upgrade needed, the only "upgrade" in Doom 1/2 is a big pack to carry more ammo and that's about right, while it could be uneasy for many folks to play through, but what's the fun if everything is just too easy?
Doom 4 is quite easy to get into and surely will left some impression for a whie, but it won't last very long, the lack of modding theme only make it have less value for the player.
Doom 1/2 being around for 20 years and more, most old players still have fine memory of it and go back to it every once a while, it could be hard to get into if you play with default control(although the control actually could works nicely if you are skillful enough), but nowadays everyone play it with mouse and keyboard so even you do every level with pistol start it still won't be too hard, and it have modding theme that been around since day one and still going strong.
But like i said, doom 4 is like a new brand of soda that come out fairly recently and there surely will be some fellows enjoy it, while Doom 1/2 is like a special tea that been around for many years and have lots of folks still drinking it daily since day one.
You don't compare both and claim which one is better, it will be just purely stupid.
Er I like doom1/2 as much as the next guy (I actually spent most of math class junior year playing it while I was bored out of my fucking mind) but I think your over blowing it a bit much. DOOM 4 is certainly much harder on its higher settings obviously but like doom1/2 is really not that hard or challenging on the regular difficulties either. It not some super deep survival horror sim. Also the weapon upgrades add variety to the combat they're not pointless RPG upgrades and they have tactical use if anything. If anything you seem hell bent on discrediting alot of the smart mechanics in NuDOOM simply because you like the older one more. Im afraid tot ell you its not some heresy. Also mods have no bearing on a vanilla games quality, they just make it last longer.
Both are good games, I like the newer one more its not that deep dude.