Betrayal
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Ah, I remember Second Sight, t'was a great game. No gingerbread men or anthropromorphic ducks, as is/was Free Radical's custom. Unfortunately the copy that I got was borrowed from a friend, and I can't buy it myself, situated as I am in this rural village, without decent transport. How ironically bittersweet.
Then again, with a name like Atlas, something was immediately odd to me at the start of the game. But then I immediately forgot about that when the sub, supposedly containting his wife & kid(s) blew up, and I felt really sorry for him and determined that I would help him gain vengeance. I am THAT gullible.Jas0913 said:
I'm sure some day Tails will betray Sonic and Luigi will betray Mario. No one would see that coming!Nat3r said:ironically there's no betrayal in Sonic and mario games
Who says Peach didn't fuck Mario after he saved her? You know, in one interview, a representative from Nintendo was asked if Zelda and Link "hooked up" after TP, and the representative didn't deny the possibility. Instead he said something like "just because we didn't see it in the game doesn't mean it didn't happen." Could be the same thing with Mario games. The kiss on the nose might just be foreplay (I don't remember if she actually did that in Galaxy, but she has done it in a lot of games).
Yes, that would actually be a great plot twist, because the series doesn't seem like the kind where it would happen, so it would be quite a bomb, kinda like his Prince of Persia example, I guess - or like in Harry Potter (you should know which event I'm refering to).Madpotator said:I'm sure some day Tails will betray Sonic and Luigi will betray Mario. No one would see that coming!Nat3r said:ironically there's no betrayal in Sonic and mario games
SPOILER for Bioshock blabla
But I agree that I thought the game would end with ryan then eveything changes etc and it was a good move. So I'm 50/50
That first level was one of the best have ever played.
Yes! but only after I knew who Atlas was. Then I thought the ending etc was obvious and everything unravelled. I think it was ALL obvious but for some reason didn't pick up on it till about 5 minutes before he tells you. Wanted to hit myself in the face. I got really caught up in the game though to be fair - then that snapped me out of it.Jas0913 said:
But I agree that I thought the game would end with ryan then eveything changes etc and it was a good move. So I'm 50/50
That first level was one of the best have ever played.
Until reading the article I didn't realise how popular a mechanic betrayal is. I'm not too bothered by it because it usually works but, as Yahtzee says, it is easy to spot from a mile away. Except in the case of MW2, I actually did not see that coming at all, so I quite liked it, it was well done
Also... jesus christ Second Sight was an awesome game. I reeeally miss it now, gotta go find a 2nd hand copy asap!
Also... jesus christ Second Sight was an awesome game. I reeeally miss it now, gotta go find a 2nd hand copy asap!
I like these articles better than his reviews. Not to say I don't like his reviews, these articles are just SO good.
Caurus said:
Yes?... Yes you knew exactly what would happen after Atlas revieled himself... that's what you're saying?
The whole twist IS Atlas reveiling who he really is. Of course you knew how the ending would turn out after that, when doesn't the protaganist provail?
Jas0913 said:
I thought you found out about the mind control thing from Ryan AFTER you discover everything about atlas? I meant in between then but Im guessing I am wrong and thus should shut up lol.
Ok maybe my memory IS made out of mashed potato. Sorry!
I thought it was obvious the guy was from rapture from the start thou.
His point is more that the game shouldn't try to stand on multiplayer alone if it has a single player campaign. Besides, it would be more like playing poker against your buddies, compared to playing by yourself against a machine that also told a story as you played it. The mechanics of the game are the same, but the experience is vastly different.TheSYLOH said:
hmm. that's one thing i have notice about recent shooters, thier uneccesary plot tists... i mean you follow along a reasonable and marginly good solid story and then the mission derectives change completely.
*in short* Campaign is important, I think it (more than multiplayer) presses the gaming industry forward by forcing them to create new ideas that are integral to SP, and will get worked into the multiplayer. BUT, multiplayer has easily evolved enough now that it can often quite easily be considered it's own game.
I have often agreed with a lot of what Yahtzee writes, but I think he takes his avoidance of multiplayer too far really.
The mechanics of a multiplayer game versus it's campaign counterpart (while they CAN be similar) tend to have some pretty distinct changes. The fact alone that you're competing with/against real people, not an a.i is dramatic in itself. For example playing against real people often gets rid of (I believe he phrased it as) "Infinite laser-sight targeting fuck you vision" that enemy NPC's are sometimes blessed with so as to be able to remove your testicles.
Add that there are an infinite number of ways for any multiplayer match to pan out, but you can only play through a singleplayer game so much before you really ARE just knitpicking over which side of the hallway you're going to walk along to get to that door over there.
Singleplayer experience is important because it forces the developer to create a really developed (huzzah) system that relies on MORE than just more real people in a given space, shooting at each other. I think multiplayer continues to force the gaming industry to evolve to stay fresh and interesting, and these ideas begin to form the foundation for a stable multiplayer mode.
Because it's 4, and I'm tired, and it's the internet, I'm going to finish this with a paragraph lacking in detail and say *ahem* Multiplayer should also be looked at as a new game entirely. You really do yourself a disservice by avoiding multiplayer altogether.
I have often agreed with a lot of what Yahtzee writes, but I think he takes his avoidance of multiplayer too far really.
The mechanics of a multiplayer game versus it's campaign counterpart (while they CAN be similar) tend to have some pretty distinct changes. The fact alone that you're competing with/against real people, not an a.i is dramatic in itself. For example playing against real people often gets rid of (I believe he phrased it as) "Infinite laser-sight targeting fuck you vision" that enemy NPC's are sometimes blessed with so as to be able to remove your testicles.
Add that there are an infinite number of ways for any multiplayer match to pan out, but you can only play through a singleplayer game so much before you really ARE just knitpicking over which side of the hallway you're going to walk along to get to that door over there.
Singleplayer experience is important because it forces the developer to create a really developed (huzzah) system that relies on MORE than just more real people in a given space, shooting at each other. I think multiplayer continues to force the gaming industry to evolve to stay fresh and interesting, and these ideas begin to form the foundation for a stable multiplayer mode.
Because it's 4, and I'm tired, and it's the internet, I'm going to finish this with a paragraph lacking in detail and say *ahem* Multiplayer should also be looked at as a new game entirely. You really do yourself a disservice by avoiding multiplayer altogether.