Halo 3!

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher

How is that a contradiction?

A game can have high sales, but it can die off in online play pretty quickly. There is no contradiction, just a critical failure in your analytical abilities.

Online popularity (eg, how many people keep playing it in the days after they buy it) and sales (word of mouth sales, for instance) do go a long way in factoring into how good the game's multiplayer is. They are not the only factor, but they are part of it. Your statement implied that I only used popularity to determine how good it is.

As I said, Warhawk is mediocre at best across the board.

You said you were not basing you opinion off popularity, then said you were basing 2/3 of your opinion on online activity and sales, both of which are measures of how popular a game is.

And Metacritic assigned absurd scores to negative Halo reviews. Mid 80s is not mediocre, it is "generally favorable."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Why do you go by popularity to determine whether something is good? That is bull****.

Exactly.

Halo 3 is the Britney Spears of shooters. Games like GOW (a 360 exclusive) and GRAW have a much more thoughtful approach with better use of cover and serious tactical play (GRAW multiplayer sucks in this regard because it doesn't use the cover system).

Bioshock (another 360 exclusive) is a much better game than Halo 3.

[Asher]

Sounds to me, Agathon, that you are confusing tactical shooters with first-person shooters. It's a common mistake with people who don't know the games.

[Wiglaf]

Wow, Asher.

IGN gave Rainbow 6 vegas its best FPS of the year award.

It involves shooting from the first person.

It is not okay for Halo to be brain dead just because you think the entire genre should be brain dead. A lot of clever FPSs exist.

[Agathon]

The two aren't mutually exclusive categories. Or at least they aren't if you understand that it's not a logically impossible thing to have a first person tactical shooter.

Like everything in video game lore, these are somewhat arbitrary categories.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


The 360 has what, one good RPG? And a couple good racing and sports games. The real innovation -- and the sales and the astronomical reviews -- come in the shooter genre. Go trudge up another bizarre google docs study and report back.

Why wouldn't this be the case. The xbox, 360, ps2, and ps3 all have violent games where you shoot people as their top sellers. This doesn't mean there isn't a variety of good games to play on the 360. Americans just prefer violent shooters.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You said you were not basing you opinion off popularity, then said you were basing 2/3 of your opinion on online activity and sales, both of which are measures of how popular a game is.

Wiggy. Think about what multiplayer gaming is and how this works as a function of popularity.

Also, this was largely your own reading comprehension problems: popularity is not the only metric, but it's very good for multiplayer games.

Warhawk is mediocre in every sense of the word. Simple as that.

(You haven't even played it -- so what would you know?)

It seems to me that you've not played, nor do you have any intention to play, Halo 3 but you have a huge axe to grind with it. So do us all a favour and take your nonsense elsewhere.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Wow, Asher.

IGN gave Rainbow 6 vegas its best FPS of the year award.

It involves shooting from the first person.

But in the Asherverse, if something is from a first person perspective, it cannot, by the force of logic, involve tactics.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Wow, Asher.

IGN gave Rainbow 6 vegas its best FPS of the year award.

It involves shooting from the first person.

It is not okay for Halo to be brain dead just because you think the entire genre should be brain dead. A lot of clever FPSs exist.

You don't understand the difference between tactical FPS/TPS games and oldschool FPS games? Then why bother even talking with you?

Halo would be ruined with a Rainbow 6 or GRAW or even GOW-like system. Those games are all excellent and the gameplay mechanics work well for those games, but they don't belong or fit in a Halo game.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
But in the Asherverse, if something is from a first person perspective, it cannot, by the force of logic, involve tactics.

In the gaming universe, there are different styles of FPS games.

There are the Quake/Halo/Unreal type FPS games.
There are R6/GRAW/GOW type FPS games.

You've indicated a clear preference for one style over another, but to assert one is fundamentally superior to the other like you are implying is simply stupid.

In the "Asherverse", I draw a distinction in what kind of game something is beyond the perspective the game is played in. But hey, all FPS are the same in the AggieWiggieVerse.

[Wiglaf]

Not all FPS's involve simply running and gunning from A to B. Some have clever plots or mechanics (Bioshock). Some have tactical elements (Rainbow 6, GoW, GRAW). The ones that are just "shoot whatever moves" are the crap FPSs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Not all FPS's involve simply running and gunning from A to B. Some have clever plots or mechanics (Bioshock).

This is the third time I've asked you to elaborate. So do so -- what is so clever about the mechanics of Bioshock? The plasmids? That's been done before in many games, some call it magic, others call them equipment, etc.

The ones that are just "shoot whatever moves" are the crap FPSs.

You call them crap, other people disagree. Dismissing them all as "crap" is not conducive to any kind of real argument, so if you want to discuss how some games are utterly crap because they don't use a cover system, then I suggest a new thread where Agathon can jerk off about Warhawk's innovative gameplay(cough) and you can continue to spout rhetoric without substantiating.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Not all FPS's involve simply running and gunning from A to B. Some have clever plots or mechanics (Bioshock). Some have tactical elements (Rainbow 6, GoW, GRAW). The ones that are just "shoot whatever moves" are the crap FPSs.

Yeah. It's been a long time since DOOM. Every FPS game should include some decent cover mechanic.

If we just wanted to shoot stuff, we could play Duck Hunt.

[Wiglaf]

This is the third time I've asked you to elaborate. So do so -- what is so clever about the mechanics of Bioshock?

Story. Atmosphere. The entire plasmids system. Customizing weapons. Etc.

You call them crap, other people disagree. Dismissing them all as "crap" is not conducive to any kind of real argument, so if you want to discuss how some games are utterly crap because they don't use a cover system, then I suggest a new thread where Agathon can jerk off about Warhawk's innovative gameplay(cough) and you can continue to spout rhetoric without substantiating.

Name a good FPS aside from Halo that involves simply running and gunning from point A to B? Seriously, they're a dead breed because they suck.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah. It's been a long time since DOOM. Every FPS game should include some decent cover mechanic.

If we just wanted to shoot stuff, we could play Duck Hunt.

Oh cool. So your argument that is every game played from a first person perspective that doesn't use a cover mechanic is not a good FPS game.

That's your judgment -- it's certainly not mine. I enjoy some variety in how FPS games play, I don't think all FPS games should include identical gameplay mechanics.

If you prefer Gears of War-style mechanics, then play Gears of War franchise games.
If you prefer Halo-style mechanics, then play Halo franchise games.

Variety is good. You and Wiggy keep whining about limited variety, then you want all games to play the same. Whatever, it's not like we should expect critical thought from the lot of you.