|
Post by Blade Runner 07 on Nov 14, 2014 10:17:16 GMT -5
I've heard Halo 2 Anniversary has the same problem. Just watching reviews on my tv makes me wonder if maybe tv is dim but whenever I see the original graphics my tv is plenty bright. I wonder if a tv exists that makes those remakes look as vivid as the original.
On Call of Duty, I say World at War was the last true COD because it was a WW2 shooter like the original and it didn't relly on the now common "controversial level" that requires you to kill civilians or indirectly watch children die to hammer the "war is hell" point home. It was about more about bravery and honor than being an action hero. If they announced a COD set in WW2 tomorrow, I just might preorder.
|
|
Silent Sputnik
A Hind D!?
Posts: 568
Now Playing: Rocket League
Favorite Game: Warcraft III
|
Post by Silent Sputnik on Nov 14, 2014 12:56:13 GMT -5
On Call of Duty, I say World at War was the last true COD because it was a WW2 shooter like the original and it didn't relly on the now common "controversial level" that requires you to kill civilians or indirectly watch children die to hammer the "war is hell" point home. It was about more about bravery and honor than being an action hero. If they announced a COD set in WW2 tomorrow, I just might preorder. Hmm, as opposed to the majority of people who loved that CoD was finally moving out of that historical context.
|
|
|
Post by Blade Runner 07 on Nov 15, 2014 2:29:56 GMT -5
Yeah but now all the shooters either take place in present day or the future. I do think there still exists potential for an FPS that doesn't have ADS, sprinting, or regenerating health, and I think 60fps steadily becoming the standard will help make that happen. Always having to ADS before shooting and being rewarded with accuracy is a habit the genre needs to brake. It's just too fun to snipe a guy from 100 yards with a pistol because you kept your reticle on him. No ADS required.
|
|
|
Post by Blade Runner 07 on Nov 16, 2014 16:04:06 GMT -5
Flogging a dead horse here but I think Infinity Ward (the studio that created COD) wanted to leave Call of Duty name behind with Modern Warfare 2 but Activision forced then to keep the name for brand recognition. Imagine if COD stopped at World at War.
We see this in films based on books like Divergent, Hunger Games and Twilight. Marketing teams think we won't know know that Catching Fire is the sequel to The Hunger Games without actually putting "hunger games" in the title. Retrospectively destroying the meaning of the title. Why have unique titles at all?
Believe it or not there are tons of people who saw Star Wars: Episode I but couldn't tell me if they've seen The Phantom Menace. That's an arguable point but theirs a movie called Raiders of the Lost Ark. You might not know it by that name though.
|
|
|
Post by JMMREVIEW on Nov 17, 2014 4:38:38 GMT -5
We see this in films based on books like Divergent, Hunger Games and Twilight. Marketing teams think we won't know know that Catching Fire is the sequel to The Hunger Games without actually putting "hunger games" in the title. Retrospectively destroying the meaning of the title. Why have unique titles at all? I talked about this in my Resident Evil 4 video, the story is so far removed from the others and there are so few original characters why was it even called a Resident Evil game, why not call it " Haunted Spaniard Castle"
|
|
|
Post by Blade Runner 07 on Nov 17, 2014 12:48:57 GMT -5
Lol I forgot about that. I know this "rule" doesn't apply to all franchises but I keep saying that most series are only strong enough for three parts. Halo, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Resident Evil and the list goes on and on of series where nothing was as good after part 3. They need to stop franchises after part 3 and move on. That's just a theory. Yeah you could argue that then we wouldn't have COD4 but who says that needed to be a COD game.
Honestly, who really thinks Mass Effect 4 is gonna be the best yet? Who really wants to be THAT bold? If it's good it's still unlikely it Will alienate long-time fans with extreme changes in gameplay or story.
|
|
|
Post by JMMREVIEW on Nov 17, 2014 14:51:53 GMT -5
I think some games break free from the franchise, they almost become a genre of their own. The new, "Mario game" or "Zelda game" etc. Once you start changing a game too much (to the point where you change its genre) it should no longer be part of the series. If a new Star Wars movie comes out set in the present day and is a romantic comedy would it deserve the star wars title?
|
|
|
Post by Blade Runner 07 on Nov 17, 2014 16:23:24 GMT -5
Lol no it wouldn't deserve the name. I suppose you have a point with Mario and Zelda but those games arnt built the same. Zelda and Mario arnt like other games though. Each game tells the same story but evolves gameplay to keep it fresh while using remakes, ports, and the like to keep the classics available.
If Link dies in the next game he will be alive and well in the one after that. Same with Mario. Franchises that take themselves more seriously in story telling tend to make killing off characters a very dramatic and permanent thing. Then Part 4 comes out and the story becomes weaker.
As is the way of life, you're born, you live, you die, and in that experience you see for yourself, birth, life, death and learn to understand and appreciate it. If we had a part 4 we wouldn't know how to deal right away.
This might be looking into it too deep so ill just leave it be but since we're on Halo I'll just say, spoilers: I think by killing off most of the supporting cast in H3 and 343i neglecting the remainder of the established characters in Halo 4 they handled it in the worst way and what's worse is that there steadily leaving Halos roots as we see in Halo 5.
|
|