The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.grimsprice said:Souplex said:grrrCHILDREN!!!Flying-Emu said:grrr
" I like ____. So whats the deal with so many people not liking it? The _____ is great, the _______________________________ offers a very satisfying _______ experience. The stories are usually well told, with excellent ____________. I just don't get why people don't like it."Ok, so what is the difference between these two statements? , Whichever one represents what you said, and the one that takes the opposing viewpoint? Nothing. Why nothing? Because of these words..." I dislike _____. So whats the deal with so many people liking it? The _____ is horrible, the _____________________________ offers a very unsatisfying _____ experience. The stories are never told well, with horrendous ____________. I just don't get why people like it."
like / dislike
great / horrible
satisfying / unsatisfying
well / not well
excellent / horrendous
What do these words have in common? They're subjective. Do you know what subjective means? I'll tell you, it means they differ in definition from person to person. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to is entertainment. To deal with this strange phenomenon of "differing subjective meaning", the english language has a word that describes it perfectly.
o-pin-ion [uh-pin-yuhn]
-noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Now i ask you. My opinion on ______, does it matter to you? Does me, telling you my opinion influence you in any way? No? Then imagine how i feel. Your opinion doesn't matter to me either. Because i happen to know the difference between "subjective", and "objective".
This was not meant to be read in any angry tone. It was educational only. Have a nice night, (or day, where ever you happen to live).
I have now decided that this shall be saved in a word file on my desktop so i may cut and paste. Putting in the necessary subject matter whenever i need to. I hold no copyright or trademark on this educational work, you are free do do as you please with it. No rights reserved.
Have a nice day.
The thing is, it works against them. The fact that whenever you have a shoehorned in conversation with the most annoying support character in gaming history (I don't get why they focus on Alxy, because with Barney, and Eli they have proven they are indeed capable of writing good characters) and she says something along the lines of "What do you think Gordon?" and then there is a moment of awkward silence it takes you out of the experience. Whenever you look on the screen and notice that there is nothing more to you than hands, not even a goddamn pair of legs when you look down it also takes you out of the experience. Half Life 1 worked because it went for the Metroidvania isolation route. In two it was just stupid.Arcticflame said:That's the point. Gordon Freeman is you. The whole device of making him not speak is to immerse you as the character.Yes, but due to the lack of cutscenes, reflective surfaces, or legs when you look down, there is no in-game evidence that Gordon Freeman is anything more than a floating pair of hands that can pull guns out of nowhere. Therefore making him the most boring flat character ever conceived in a vidya game. Half Life is therefore more average than FEAR.
Actually the team @ VALVe is pretty small, and they do cross over to help with the shipping of other games, and partially the development.Trivun said:-huge snip-
The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.Arcticflame said:The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.
Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.
E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.
Yeah, you'd think that, except that every couple years Link to the Past is rereleased as a new game with a different title (except for Wind Waker) and people gobble that shit up. Ocarina of Time is stupidly viewed as one of the best games of all time, and Twilight Princess was adored for some idiotic reason. Your point has just been invalidated.grimsprice said:The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.Arcticflame said:The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.
Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.
E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.
No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.
Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.
Well hopefully Ep3 will be as long as if not longer than Half-life 2, otherwise I'm going to be pissed.OUTgunned said:Now that you mention it. Where the hell is episode 3? Could of sworn they said the entire concept behind shorter episodic games was that they would have a shorter development time...
Your assertion is about as valid as creationism. LOL.Jennacide said:Yeah, you'd think that, except that every couple years Link to the Past is rereleased as a new game with a different title (except for Wind Waker) and people gobble that shit up. Ocarina of Time is stupidly viewed as one of the best games of all time, and Twilight Princess was adored for some idiotic reason. Your point has just been invalidated.
Certain things age better than others. The Zelda formula ages like a fine wine, Half Life ages like milk in the sun.Jennacide said:This thread is completely original and I have never heard this complaint ever.
Yeah, you'd think that, except that every couple years Link to the Past is rereleased as a new game with a different title (except for Wind Waker) and people gobble that shit up. Ocarina of Time is stupidly viewed as one of the best games of all time, and Twilight Princess was adored for some idiotic reason. Your point has just been invalidated.grimsprice said:The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.Arcticflame said:The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.
Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.
E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.
No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.
Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.
So you're saying that eventually you have to stop liking a game because it doesn't meet today's standards. It'd be like saying the Evil Dead movies were good, but not anymore because the effects are outdated and was very silly at times, very much unlike today's movies. Yes, nostalgia can cloud the opinions of those who fail to think differently. That doesn't mean that old stuff is necessarily bad because it's old. I played HL2 not even a couple months ago from start to finish. It's the kind of game that could really hold my interest all the way through. Maybe it's because I don't play enough games, but I enjoyed it.grimsprice said:The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.Arcticflame said:The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.
Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.
E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.
No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.
Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.
No, of course you don't have to stop liking it. I still like a fist full of N64 games. I still consider it to be the console that kicked the greatest amount of ass in its day.thatstheguy said:So you're saying that eventually you have to stop liking a game because it doesn't meet today's standards. It'd be like saying the Evil Dead movies were good, but not anymore because the effects are outdated and was very silly at times, very much unlike today's movies. Yes, nostalgia can cloud the opinions of those who fail to think differently. That doesn't mean that old stuff is necessarily bad because it's old. I played HL2 not even a couple months ago from start to finish. It's the kind of game that could really hold my interest all the way through. Maybe it's because I don't play enough games, but I enjoyed it.
Yeah, and adding a big fat capitalized acronym makes you completely right. Oh wait. Maybe you need to look up what exactly a remake is, because Nintendo franchises are the epitomy of remakes. And Nintendo fanboys glorify Miyamoto for doing it.grimsprice said:Your assertion is about as valid as creationism. LOL.
Zelda hasn't aged at all. They reskin it with newer graphics, palette swap some characters, and repackage it with basically the same story and gameplay each time. What's even funnier, people idolize Ocarina of Time, even though it also coined a slang term for bad design "Water Temple."Souplex said:Certain things age better than others. The Zelda formula ages like a fine wine, Half Life ages like milk in the sun.
It is sad. We could always hang ourselves with our Ethernet cables. That shit is strong.iTeamKill said:I actually didn't buy L4D2 because I wanted them to finish half life first. Apparently I was in the minority of people who actually went through with it.
I got 6 other people to buy copies of TF2. but still...
Please finish your game. If you guys don't finish this series, I just might give up on video games all together. Fear 2 was such a miserable console port, I didn't even buy it. COD turned its back on Dedicated servers, Unreal pretty much is a console GoW developer only now... I can't stand using the xbox controller. If valve gives up on half life, I think I'll just quit all together.