But in reference to your first post, you said Tony Hawks is terrible because it is ridiculous and unrealistic, but tony hawks has never tried to be realistic, hence the entire of this discussion.Kanova said:
So when did Tony Hawk games stop being good?
- Thread starter LilithSlave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ahaha I love this topic. Classic example of the Activision Effect.
Basically Activision did to Tony Hawk Pro Skater exactly what it did to Guitar Hero and is now doing to Call of Duty. So yea, yearly releases, not enough time to polish the games, games getting stale, etc. Then a worthy competitor belonging to EA (Skate) comes around and sucker punches it out of existence.
Hmm, now lets see, what happened to Guitar Hero? Oh yea, yearly releases, not enough time to polish the games, games getting stale, etc. Then a worthy competitor belonging to EA (Rockband) comes around and sucker punches it out of existence.
With Call of Duty, we already have the yearly releases, not enough time to polish the games, games getting stale, etc. All we're missing is the worthy competitor belonging to EA (which is currently being developed by West & Zampella).
Come to think about it, it's no wonder Activision is trying to sue EA over the West and Zampella thing..
But to answer the OP...I'd say it was after THPS4 that the series really started tanking. Underground was ok-ish and I played a little bit of American Wasteland but they were pretty meh...Which truly was a bummer because THPS4 was amazing (Along with 2 and 3, never got around to playing 1).
Basically Activision did to Tony Hawk Pro Skater exactly what it did to Guitar Hero and is now doing to Call of Duty. So yea, yearly releases, not enough time to polish the games, games getting stale, etc. Then a worthy competitor belonging to EA (Skate) comes around and sucker punches it out of existence.
Hmm, now lets see, what happened to Guitar Hero? Oh yea, yearly releases, not enough time to polish the games, games getting stale, etc. Then a worthy competitor belonging to EA (Rockband) comes around and sucker punches it out of existence.
With Call of Duty, we already have the yearly releases, not enough time to polish the games, games getting stale, etc. All we're missing is the worthy competitor belonging to EA (which is currently being developed by West & Zampella).
Come to think about it, it's no wonder Activision is trying to sue EA over the West and Zampella thing..
But to answer the OP...I'd say it was after THPS4 that the series really started tanking. Underground was ok-ish and I played a little bit of American Wasteland but they were pretty meh...Which truly was a bummer because THPS4 was amazing (Along with 2 and 3, never got around to playing 1).
I agree, though I belive the onyl reason battlefield isnt gonna be that cod beater is because EA are starting to do the same thing with that as activision with COD, Battlefield 2 was amazing, and had the potentialk to last several years. As soon as battlefield 3 was out EA announced battlefield 4, and is trying to rush out DLC.Jingle Fett said:
They're really doing that with BF3? I hadn't heard about that, but yea I agree that BF3 isn't the one that will finish off CoD. I think whatever West and Zampella are doing will likely be the one that finishes off CoD. I mean they're the former head guys at Infinity Ward, they invented CoD.LightningBanks said:
And Medal of Honor for that matter...
With their new game, they'll do all the stuff Activision didn't want them to do and it will probably be awesome.
I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I still place Street Fighter 2 as the perfect balance of fighting games, there's enough complexity, without having to actually think about how to do one of a hundred different special moves or remember massive strings of inputs.
After SF2, for me it all just got too much about tag teams, hyper combos, and flashy specials, SF2 had an art to it that I feel was lost in the evolution of fighting games.
For me, same goes for Tony Hawks, I think the addition of analog controls and some other things made it too complex to be a game you react to without having to remember controls, if that makes any sense. The original and the PS1 era games had a simplicity to them but still enough depth to make them enjoyable.
After SF2, for me it all just got too much about tag teams, hyper combos, and flashy specials, SF2 had an art to it that I feel was lost in the evolution of fighting games.
For me, same goes for Tony Hawks, I think the addition of analog controls and some other things made it too complex to be a game you react to without having to remember controls, if that makes any sense. The original and the PS1 era games had a simplicity to them but still enough depth to make them enjoyable.
I think the last one I really liked was 2 or 3. They started getting really silly, and I stopped liking them.
I said it is shit now. It was fine then because it is all I had, now I wouldn't come near it. Because of Skate. Let me try and make my first post a bit more clear.LightningBanks said:
It was the only good skating game back in the day, so I played that. When Skate came out, I realized how much shit Tony Hawk was. So I believe that Tony Hawk games stopped being good when Skate come out, because that is how it was for me and people I know. So, not speaking for everyone, just a few people and I have to assume since there are us, there is bound to be more people who share similar views. Better?