Forum - View topic

The X Button - Idiot Wind

Maybe because Biohazard's story is better than Gears of War's? More memorable characters, villains, and execution. After all, Gears is mainly a multiplayer shooter. The story campaign is bare bones because it's not the focus; online leaderboards and progression are. It's like critiquing the story in a non-RPG Mario game, or Call of Duty. Sure, technically there is one but... it's not really the point.

RyanSaotome wrote:

How is this a "problem", exactly?

It's not the dating-sim that's the problem, but the "unsettling" and "escapism" descriptors. Many dating-sims that I've seen or, on rare occasions, played leave me with a foul taste in my mouth. Sure, some are relatively staid or inoffensive, but there's an inherent creepiness to these constructed worlds and characters since they are developed and created to act as a romantic proxy for set-upon young men. They're supposed to be "sims", yet there's nothing particularly realistic about them. Instead, they're all about reducing otaku fetishes down to simple characters and/or archetypes and letting players manipulate them without complicated things like "emotions" or "personalities" getting in the way. Also, the dearth of innovation in the genre doesn't help.

As far as the issue of self-seriousness in American AAA titles is concerned, I think a lot of that has to do with Americans in general having a hard time grasping or accepting camp. Sure, it does happen every once in a while, but camp is typically reduced to cult fare. Movies like "Drive Angry 3D" or "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" (just to use two recent examples) have a difficult time finding an audience in America because, I believe, many Americans just don't know how to react to them. Yes, they're silly and ridiculous, but that's because they're supposed to be. So Japanese games with high levels of camp often fail to jive with the sensibilities of a good many American players.

TitanXL wrote:

Maybe because Biohazard's story is better than Gears of War's? More memorable characters, villains, and execution. After all, Gears is mainly a multiplayer shooter. The story campaign is bare bones because it's not the focus; online leaderboards and progression are. It's like critiquing the story in a non-RPG Mario game, or Call of Duty. Sure, technically there is one but... it's not really the point.

Having played both games, you are so wrong. Resident Evil's storyline is an incoherent mess. Say what you will about Gears of War, it isn't oscar level storytelling but you can at least follow it.

Why critique Gears of War for it's story at all then? If Resident Evil is so focused on story, how come it isn't judged harshly for it?

Though I'm not sure why I replied to one of your comments, I'll likely only recieve responses that say anything made in Japan is teh best evah.

But yet shooting people in the face or looting and stealing cars, etc doesn't leave a foul taste in your mouth?

But yet shooting people in the face or looting and stealing cars, etc doesn't leave a foul taste in your mouth?

Okay I'll give it shot then, gears of war is just a typical post Apocalypse future where space marines have to fight aliens to win earth back, halo did this better.

Biohazard/Resident Evil 1-3 is focused on a evil corporation that has full monopoly control over people that make them like they have control on something they buy. They willingly experiment on people with the t/g virus in order to progress their company and to extend their company far beyond that of simple drug company should be with mercs and bio weapons. Blah blah I like resident evil better because I'm anti corporatism and this is just a exrattged example of what could happen if one company grew to powerful cough wal-mart cough.

Cecilthedarkknight_234 wrote:

Okay I'll give it shot then, gears of war is just a typical post Apocalypse future where space marines have to fight aliens to win earth back, halo did this better. Biohazard/Resident Evil 1-3 is focused on a evil corporation that has full monopoly control over people that make them like they have control on something they buy. They willingly experiment on people with the t/g virus in order to progress their company and to extend their company far beyond that of simple drug company should be with mercs and bio weapons. Blah blah I like resident evil better because I'm anti corporatism and this is just a exrattged example of what could happen if one company grew to powerful cough wal-mart cough.

The problem isn't the plot itself, afterall who cares if something is original or not?

The problem is execution, and Resident Evil has a poorly executed and haphazard plot. The developers know the story they are trying to tell, they just don't do it in a way that's conducive to video games. Gears of War doesn't have a good story, I don't like any of the 3 games in the series, but at least I can follow the story in those games.

Then again you are talking about 1-3 which are the easiest to follow, the later games are increasingly terrible in terms of story execution.

I like the Assassin's Creed games, but his saying such things just brings him down. I don't follow numerical ratings - I look at the review to see if the author has similar tastes as I do. Who cares if a game is critically acclaimed - if you aren't going to enjoy it, why buy it? If the product is good and is worth my time, I will hear about it and play it, regardless of what Metacritic says. So he should just focus on making a good product and not whining about Japan.

The West say whatever about silly Japanese game stories getting a pass among critics, but nothing beats the silliness of The Curse of Monkey Island!
(Too bad they don't make games like that anymore.)

Having played both games, you are so wrong. Resident Evil's storyline is an incoherent mess. Say what you will about Gears of War, it isn't oscar level storytelling but you can at least follow it.

Why critique Gears of War for it's story at all then? If Resident Evil is so focused on story, how come it isn't judged harshly for it?

nhat wrote:

But yet shooting people in the face or looting and stealing cars, etc doesn't leave a foul taste in your mouth?

Because it's fictional. It's a f*cking video game you over-reactionary contrarian.

You sound just as bad as those who dismiss JPN games as "kiddy anime crap". Semper Fidelis.

But yet shooting people in the face or looting and stealing cars, etc doesn't leave a foul taste in your mouth?

Not saying that ALL dating-sim games need to be deep, introspective works of interactive art, but diversifying the genre would certainly help its reputation.

Because it's fictional. It's a f*cking video game you over-reactionary contrarian.

Chagen46 wrote:

Because it's fictional. It's a f*cking video game you over-reactionary contrarian.

So fictionally shooting someone in the face: Fine

Becoming emotionally invested in a fictional character: Not Fine

Glad we cleared that up Chagen.

But if you want to actually engage in a sexual relationship with one, or seriously wish that they were your GF/BF or something similar, I'm sorry, but you [insults removed]