• 96 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

I just watched the Sonic 4 quicklook and got so aggrivated that I had to post something. If it wasn't aggrivating enough watching Jeff NOT-play Sonic the Hedgehog just to prove a bizarre poitn about how he doesn't like it (I have never even liked sonic, but I've played enough of it to see how he would frequently come to dead stops because he wasn't pressing right and get stuck on parts that anyone who had ever played sonic seriously would know how to navigate), I also had to listen to their bizarre philosophy on how games "evolve" and how sonic used to be fun and isn't anymore. 
 
Most speciifcally Brad makes a ridiculous point about how Sonic used to be fun because "that's all there was" and "nobody had figured out how to make a character action game". Videogame design isn't something to be "figured out". There isn't one right answer. Sonic The Hedgehog came out after Super Mario Brothers 1,2 and 3, Ninja Gaiden, Ducktales etc. PLENTY of other statements on 2d sidescrolling games had been made.  
 
Sonic's appeal was that it was easy and rather mindless. It WASN"T Mario brothers. It was faster than Mario and less complicated and that's why people liked it. I have no problem with anyone stating Sonic isn't fun. Afterall, as I said, I've NEVER liked Sonic. But the problem is not that Sonic has become "irrelevant" or "lost meaning". It was simply NEVER good game design. It was all fluff and no substance. That's why adults have such a problem with new sonic games while Sega still maintains that it's sonic games sell extremely well to children. 
 
Giant Bomb should look at games for what they are instead of trying to wax philosophical on how they fit into the larger "evolution of games". If a game design concept is fun, it will always be fun. You personally may grow tired of it, but there are other people for whom it is new.
#2 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

I disagree..  I can still go back and play Sonic 1-3 and enjoy them a lot.   I would have been just as willing to accept Sonic 4 if it weren't for the horrible physics, lack of momentum and atrocious level design.
The games still sell well, not because children necessarily like them, but because they like the character.

#3 Posted by RecSpec (3766 posts) -

As much as I hate to admit it, Sonic 4 is eerily a perfect continuation to the series.
You could see where it was starting to go with S3&K. And Sonic 4 took you there.

#4 Posted by CptChiken (1987 posts) -

I dont think they were being philosophical, they were making the point that reskining an old game doesnt always make it fun and exciting all over again. Also stop bitching that jeff was "playing it wrong".

#5 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

It was god damn painful seeing Jeff being unable to get out of that Casino bowl. Its been a feature since, Spring Yard Zone in Sonic 1- you're supposed to build up momentum. I knew to do that when I was five, why can't Jeff figure it out?

#6 Posted by Kiemoe (1055 posts) -

well from reading your post, it feels like you and the GB crew kind of agree with each other. Both of you guys think the underlying mechanics of Sonic are just too simple and don't translate into an intriguing gameplay experience. Do you just disagree with the part where they enjoyed the original Sonic's and you didn't? Because in my opinion, games do have the ability to age, and, in most cases, seem like worse games because of it. I don't think that all gameplay is timeless.

#7 Posted by Doctorchimp (4069 posts) -
@Kiemoe said:
" well from reading your post, it feels like you and the GB crew kind of agree with each other. Both of you guys think the underlying mechanics of Sonic are just too simple and don't translate into an intriguing gameplay experience. Do you just disagree with the part where they enjoyed the original Sonic's and you didn't? Because in my opinion, games do have the ability to age, and, in most cases, seem like worse games because of it. I don't think that all gameplay is timeless. "
This
#8 Posted by coreytn81 (53 posts) -

less than a minute in, Jeff explains how its "not for me" and that he's not able to care about Sonic any longer. Brad tries to clarify that "its just a matter of taste, right?" and Jeff agrees.  I don't think anyone is dismissing it as garbage and that no one will enjoy Sonic 4, and they even say that a lot of the latter titles were geared towards kids. I guess I'm not quite sure what your issue is with the quick look? I think part of the problem with Sonic games as some of them simply are poorly rushed games that have not identified their target audience. A lot of us grew up with Sonic, whether we had a Sega or had a friend that had one he was very much a character of our childhood. As adults, we have since moved on (this is a generalization, but I think it's fairly accurate). Since Sonic began to target kids, I think they failed at marketing it as such in that children are probably more attracted to what they know, like cartoon shows or known properties they are familiar with. I'm making a lot of general assumptions but a company that continually churns out games that play on the exact same game mechanic, begs the question of why create a new game that does the exact same thing, so many times. 
 
Side scrollers became passe for awhile and made way for polygonal games and shooters. Those genres become tired as well and the market moves on. Side scrollers have seen a return on hand-helds and are doing well. Look at how Fighting games eventually became tired and are now seeing a renaissance. There was a time period of rest when you didn't see certain genres and specific games, but there has been no rest for Sonic.. just churning out the same tired formula without any sort of variance aside from going polygonal.

#9 Posted by Lifestrike (482 posts) -

I agree, they kind of did the same thing for Blazblue...

#10 Posted by kalmis (1558 posts) -

I agree that was not the best of quicklooks. Too much prejudice and poor Sonic skills.

#11 Posted by Taborlin (177 posts) -

I want Nightfire again.  
That is all.

#12 Edited by Tebbit (4449 posts) -
@MysteriousBob said:

" It was god damn painful seeing Jeff being unable to get out of that Casino bowl. Its been a feature since, Spring Yard Zone in Sonic 1- you're supposed to build up momentum. I knew to do that when I was five, why can't Jeff figure it out? "

Because the games physics are broken. He was trying to spin up the hill. If you do that in Sonic 4, momentum just doesn't work. What he was supposed to do is build momentum by running, rather than spinning. When you run, the game breaks its own physics engine and latches you on to whatever you're running on and you can reach ridiculous highs regardless of your momentum. It's a fucking joke. 
 
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's the games fault, not Jeffs. 
 
EDIT: 
 
@JazGalaxy: It's not that they are tired of the Sonic formula. It's that the Sonic 4 gameplay is not nearly as tight or compelling as Sonic 3s. Seriously, I wrote a whole review about it. I know these things! I think the quicklook was an accurate portrayal of the issues that are prevalent in the game..
#13 Posted by smitty86 (697 posts) -
@MysteriousBob: i always thought it was hilarious when people would write in comments for any video that they [Jeff or Ryan usually] where playing it wrong and i ever knew how people could get that into it. but when i saw him get stuck in that bowl, that same feeling that you would get when you where younger and you saw someone playing the game in some odd way "Look, just give me the controller and I'll do it". what he hell was he doing there?
#14 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Brad in general just isn't very knowledgeable about video games....he shows his ignorance often.

#15 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind said:

"I disagree..  I can still go back and play Sonic 1-3 and enjoy them a lot.   I would have been just as willing to accept Sonic 4 if it weren't for the horrible physics, lack of momentum and atrocious level design.
The games still sell well, not because children necessarily like them, but because they like the character. "


 

But the problem with the Giant Bomb Quicklook is that every point they make about why Sonic isn't fun has ALWAYS been the case. It's not fun because you just hold down right and occassionally press a button? Yeah. That's sonic. Always has been. It's not fun because you don't feel like you're playing? I said the same thing about sonic 1 back in 1990 or whatever. 
 
#16 Posted by BeachThunder (11716 posts) -

I agree with you on the "that's all there was" comment. I cringed when I heard that...

#17 Posted by CocoRodriguez--defunct (74 posts) -

1. Talking and playing a game at the same time causes someone to sometimes miss things that seem obvious to people who are giving the game their full attention. If you don't understand that than you need to rethink your view of Quick Looks.
 
2. Designs change with times and when something new is made it can make an old design not seem as fun. That doesn't mean the design was bad, but people just expect something else. Hell a great example in this can just be seen in the way games more or less abandoned the old "3 lives and 3 continues" design. Before that made the games more intense in a "I really need to be good during this difficult part", but as people realized that that was just arbitrarily held-over from the arcades it became redundant.  
 
3. The original Sonic games were awesome and most people loved both Mario and Sonic games. I feel like comparing the two would be similar to comparing Final Fantasy to Dragon Age, both are RPG's but they both follow different RPG designs. Some people might prefer one over the other but neither one is "bad".

#18 Edited by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -

I'm in accord with your rejection of the attempt to claim that there is some kind of 'evolution of gaming', which is an imprecise way of accounting for differences in taste and reception over time. I'm not convinced that changes in mechanics necessarily have to do with what is better: it is (perhaps more often) what sells and secondarily what works.
Not that I'm claiming games haven't improved - but the basic premise of platforming games is a sensation of movement and negotiation of the environment. I don't see how Sonic 4 has necessarily been superseded, as Sonic games capture quite well the appeal of moving really fast as well as balancing that with accompanying risk. It has more to do with questions of level design, creativity, presentation, and all the other humdrum things which are not "we don't make games like this anymore, Sonic was before we had 'genuine platform' games".

#19 Posted by Animasta (14650 posts) -
@smitty86 said:
" @MysteriousBob: i always thought it was hilarious when people would write in comments for any video that they [Jeff or Ryan usually] where playing it wrong and i ever knew how people could get that into it. but when i saw him get stuck in that bowl, that same feeling that you would get when you where younger and you saw someone playing the game in some odd way "Look, just give me the controller and I'll do it". what he hell was he doing there? "
he probably hasn't played a 2d sonic game since the 90's?
#20 Posted by SomethingClever (419 posts) -

The biggest thing to remember is that these are opinions.  As you point out " There isn't one right answer" and you are correct.  Personally I agree with them.  You don't.  That's cool.
 
The trick is figuring out what that means to you though.  Even if you don't agree with them it can still be very useful in helping you make game choices.  I have bought and loved games they've disliked specifically after reading their reviews.  I knew that even though they didn't like it, I would.  I don't have to agree with them or where they are coming from for it to be helpful. 
 
A fun game today may not be fun tomorrow.  Good design is a subjective term and can change fluidly. 
 
I had more to say but re-reading it I've decided it wasn't really necessary.  It basically boiled down to "our impressions are based on our experiences" so it would be nearly impossible to give a clinical review of an individual game without brining their experiences and knowledge to the table, for instance how they fit into the larger evolution of games.      

#21 Posted by Tebbit (4449 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind said:
" I disagree..  I can still go back and play Sonic 1-3 and enjoy them a lot.   I would have been just as willing to accept Sonic 4 if it weren't for the horrible physics, lack of momentum and atrocious level design.
The games still sell well, not because children necessarily like them, but because they like the character. "
Hello! I am quoting you, to emphasise the truth contained within your post.
#22 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

The advantage I feel Giantbomb has over other video game sites is because it is so personality driven, you know what the tastes of the guys are so when Jeff doesn't like Sonic 4, you should see why that is and relate it to how you feel about games. Just because I agree with them on this QL doesn't mean I agree all the time but that doesn't mean I bitch when, for example, Jeff wasn't into Red Dead Redemption.

#23 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -

I agree that a good game is a good game. Every time I hear someone say "this game hasn't aged well" I want to strangle them.

#24 Posted by notsonic (212 posts) -

i feel like anyone who compares sonic to mario and says mario is harder/more involved/etc. hasn't really played it since the 90s. 
 
mario, especially world, is easy. for every time someone says you play sonic by holding right, i think of how many times you could just fly over a level in mario.

#25 Posted by Chubbaluphigous (571 posts) -

I am outraged.  I am going to set this table on fire.

#26 Posted by Jimbo (9775 posts) -

We got old is what happened.  I'm sure if you gave Sonic 4 to a 5-10 yr old today they'd still like it well enough.  Same applies to old skool Mario - it's every bit as mindless as Sonic was, but I'm sure kids still get something out of it.

#27 Posted by Gamer_152 (14054 posts) -

Look, just because Jeff made a slip up or two in the video is no proof that he is lying about having had proper experience of the Sonic franchise, nor is it any proof that his playing ability is getting in the way of him being able to evaluate the game. You also refer to the concept of games evolving as a "bizarre philosophy" and say it's a "ridiculous point", it is not, it is one of the most basic concepts of the video game industry. Someone comes up with a new idea or technology, people like it, other games copy it and so people expect it in their games and it becomes the norm, that's how it works, heck, to an extent that's how every industry works. In a lot of ways video game design is something to be "figured out" and while games can be enjoyable on their own merits you still become accustomed to seeing features in other games that have made those games better and when a game doesn't take advantage of all those mechanics that we know improve the quality of a game what you usually end up with is a game that doesn't stand up to all the competition in terms of quality.
 
There are now 18 years standing between us and the release of the original Sonic the Hedgehog and the issue is that Sonic the Hedgehog 4 does appear a very simplistic game alongside its competitors, it hasn't taken from the last couple of decades of platform development. Sonic game was a simple game even for its time so when it tries to stand up to platformers in 2010 it's going to appear to a lot of people that it is simplistic to the point of being flawed. Oh and don't try and say the "all-flash, no substance" approach of the original Sonic games is the reason why adults who originally loved Sonic have a problem with today's games, the Sonic we know today is a very different beast from what it was when Sonic was first released.

Moderator
#28 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@CocoRodriguez said:
" 2. Designs change with times and when something new is made it can make an old design not seem as fun. That doesn't mean the design was bad, but people just expect something else. Hell a great example in this can just be seen in the way games more or less abandoned the old "3 lives and 3 continues" design. Before that made the games more intense in a "I really need to be good during this difficult part", but as people realized that that was just arbitrarily held-over from the arcades it became redundant.    3. The original Sonic games were awesome and most people loved both Mario and Sonic games. I feel like comparing the two would be similar to comparing Final Fantasy to Dragon Age, both are RPG's but they both follow different RPG designs. Some people might prefer one over the other but neither one is "bad". "
 
I disagree. Design TRENDS change with the times. That does not mean that good design changes with the times. This is true for every single aspect of design, from graphic design, to fashion design, to interior design to archetecture. 
 
When you're buying anything, from a new shirt to a new house, a good designer will advice you to never buy anything too trendy because, while you may appear ultra stylish for a few minutes, you will look dated extremely quickly. Instead, htey will advice you to buy solid well designed concepts that are eternal. Buy your car in black or white, not lime green. Don't buy a house with a wet bar like what was trendy in the 70's because nobody will want one now. Don't buy a house with a half story bathroom like what is popular now because nobody will want that in 15 years. Don't buy excessively wide or narrow ties because style will change in a year. Etc. 
 
Yes you can turn a few heads if your game design features a few "of the moment" choices, but if you rely too heavily on those, your game will wind up feeling dated quickly. 
 
Sonic was EXTREMELY  "of the moment". It was a trendy game. that's why it feels so dated now. Mario, however, has always stayed very true to classically good design and as such, manages to be fun regardless of the decade his games are released in.
#29 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -

They just go with whatever the fad is. People like MW2 so they're going to jump on it. People hat Medal of Honor so they're going to hate also. It's just the way this world is.

#30 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@owl_of_minerva said:
"I'm in accord with your rejection of the attempt to claim that there is some kind of 'evolution of gaming', which is an imprecise way of accounting for differences in taste and reception over time. I'm not convinced that changes in mechanics necessarily have to do with what is better: it is (perhaps more often) what sells and secondarily what works.
Not that I'm claiming games haven't improved - but the basic premise of platforming games is a sensation of movement and negotiation of the environment. I don't see how Sonic 4 has necessarily been superseded, as Sonic games capture quite well the appeal of moving really fast as well as balancing that with accompanying risk. It has more to do with questions of level design, creativity, presentation, and all the other humdrum things which are not "we don't make games like this anymore, Sonic was before we had 'genuine platform' games". "

I agree. I think you may be saying more accurately what I am trying to say.
#31 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@notsonic said:
"i feel like anyone who compares sonic to mario and says mario is harder/more involved/etc. hasn't really played it since the 90s. 
 
mario, especially world, is easy. for every time someone says you play sonic by holding right, i think of how many times you could just fly over a level in mario. "

That's a really good point actually.  
 
Maybe more intricate should be the word? I mean, afterall Super Mario World had puzzles and an overworld. Multiple exits to find. Objectives to complete etc. You could do some strategic planning for how you wanted to attack certain levels and heck, even Mario could make more direct actions than Sonic could.
#32 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -

I only agree with the Jeff part.
Must be me, but lately he's shown little restraint for things, or just a lack of interest/skill maybe, but then let someone else review/quicklook it.

"UGH I HAVE TO USE BUTTONS TO PLAY THIS GAME? HOW LAME!"

#33 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@Gamer_152 said:
" You also refer to the concept of games evolving as a "bizarre philosophy" and say it's a "ridiculous point", it is not, it is one of the most basic concepts of the video game industry. Someone comes up with a new idea or technology, people like it, other games copy it and so people expect it in their games and it becomes the norm, that's how it works, heck, to an extent that's how every industry works. In a lot of ways video game design is something to be "figured out" and while games can be enjoyable on their own merits you still become accustomed to seeing features in other games that have made those games better and when a game doesn't take advantage of all those mechanics that we know improve the quality of a game what you usually end up with is a game that doesn't stand up to all the competition in terms of quality.   
 
The problem with what you're saying, though, and the problem with the concept of gaming evolution as a whole, is that a game that sells better is under no circumstances a BETTER game. And when games are constantly chasing the highest sales, as you state, they're not necessarily chasing the best game design, they're chasing whatever trend is hot on the sales charts. 
 
That's how you wind up with a sonic who is running around talking to people in a mall like Sonic Adventure. 
 
For games to "evolve" they would have to be consistently becoming better and shedding what doesn't work. Instead we see games consistently shedding things that work in favor of things that are more trendy. I mean, regardless of what you think about Metroid Other M, who wasn't WTF about it when it first appeared? And for many, the biggest problems with the game are the shedding of what has always made Metroid great in favor of what's trendy right now.
#34 Posted by 234r2we232 (3181 posts) -

Because it is so unlike Brad to criticize something he hasn't played or knows little about.

#35 Posted by Shasam (468 posts) -

From looking at Sonic 4, it seems like they are trying to capture something that doesn't exist any more. The zones are the same. Well, not literally, but more than just in spirit. That game play is old hat now, and the whole "if it was fun once then it will be forever" isn't true in the slightest. Expectations do move on, as does society. Mario moved on over a decade ago and has tried new things over and over again. Sonic moved on, tried new things and failed SEVERAL times. Going back to what people liked 15 years ago does not make a good game, as evidenced by this. 
 
Also, I will admit that Jeff is not the best Sonic player, but that doesn't disqualify him from taking a look at the game. Also, as far as I could tell, the game created a lot of the dead stops by having jump pads that propelled you in to walls or asking you to swing from one vine to another that's off screen. I can easily see why this game would not entertain someone, I can't easily see how someone might enjoy it. That's rare for many games I think, especially one with such a high profile. 
 
Oh, and I loved the Sonic Rush games. I think they updated that 2D game play in to something fantastic. In my opinion, they should have taken more cues from them, instead of Sonic 1.

#36 Posted by CocoRodriguez--defunct (74 posts) -
@JazGalaxy: 
 
You're being nitpicky. Just because something is trendy doesn't mean it was bad, and it's also hard to predict if something is going to fall out of favor. You're basically saying because I think this design is better that means this other design sucks.
 
Most FPS's nowadays use regenerating health instead of health packs. When it was first introduced it was considered a new thing that I'd wager you'd call trendy. But it's quickly becoming what's expected by gamers and if FPS's keep evolving like they do they will quickly become the norm while health pack FPS's will be "retro" or "trendy".  What that means is that it is a more popular design than health packs, doesn't mean that health packs were bad, but that consumers consider regenerating health "better".
 
Also the original Sonic games design is still solid and fun. The reason the Sonic series has gotten so lambasted is because Sega tried to move away from that original solid design. Saying that you hold right and occasionally jump can be said of ever 2D platformer ever made (with the exception of any that have you go left). The real "Trendy" thing about Sonic is his character design falls into the early 90's Extreme Bright-Colors character design that was popular at the time.
#37 Posted by ShaunassNZ (2128 posts) -
They say it themselves, "A review is an opinion" even though it isn't a review this is directly their opinion about the game.
#38 Posted by SPACETURTLE (1622 posts) -

That's kinda interesting. I've never been into the Sonic games. I mean, not at ALL! But I get what you're saying about the guys in the basement and their "twisted" view on how certain game designs should or should not be. Mostly I think the guys brings on some very righteous opinion on games, but occasionally there is some nonsense as well -- as expected.

#39 Posted by BionicMonster (1032 posts) -

I don't think Jeff hates Sonic, just what Sonic has come to stand for , which is a game company desperately grabbing for sales while never actually improving or even trying to make the series better.

#40 Posted by EpicSteve (6479 posts) -

Some games and their mechanics age poorly. A game can be fun today, doesn't mean it will be worth a damn in eight years.

#41 Posted by huntad (1930 posts) -
@Lifestrike said:
" I agree, they kind of did the same thing for Blazblue... "
Exactly. Can they not get over themselves for one second and experience the gameplay before making judgements solely based on appearance? It's a bit juvenile. (Speaking on BlazBlue)
#42 Posted by SuperfluousMoniker (2907 posts) -
@JazGalaxy said:
"Sonic's appeal was that it was easy and rather mindless. It WASN"T Mario brothers. It was faster than Mario and less complicated and that's why people liked it. I have no problem with anyone stating Sonic isn't fun. Afterall, as I said, I've NEVER liked Sonic. But the problem is not that Sonic has become "irrelevant" or "lost meaning". It was simply NEVER good game design. It was all fluff and no substance. That's why adults have such a problem with new sonic games while Sega still maintains that it's sonic games sell extremely well to children.
I can't begin to explain how wrong this paragraph is.
#43 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@CocoRodriguez said:
" @JazGalaxy:   You're being nitpicky. Just because something is trendy doesn't mean it was bad, and it's also hard to predict if something is going to fall out of favor. You're basically saying because I think this design is better that means this other design sucks.   Most FPS's nowadays use regenerating health instead of health packs. When it was first introduced it was considered a new thing that I'd wager you'd call trendy. But it's quickly becoming what's expected by gamers and if FPS's keep evolving like they do they will quickly become the norm while health pack FPS's will be "retro" or "trendy".  What that means is that it is a more popular design than health packs, doesn't mean that health packs were bad, but that consumers consider regenerating health "better". Also the original Sonic games design is still solid and fun. The reason the Sonic series has gotten so lambasted is because Sega tried to move away from that original solid design. Saying that you hold right and occasionally jump can be said of ever 2D platformer ever made (with the exception of any that have you go left). The real "Trendy" thing about Sonic is his character design falls into the early 90's Extreme Bright-Colors character design that was popular at the time. "

You're absolutely right that I would consider recharging health to be trendy. The problem with it is that, while gamers and developers like it  because it helps to keep the pacing of tightly scripted action games high, it empirically takes away a number of game design elements from the table to create a game out of.  Concepts like risk/reward and inventory management are eliminated because there are no more pickups to attain. The jury will be out for a long time as to which is "better" but I will say that we can look at fighting games for a clue as to how this could pan out. 
 
When 3d fighting games were a big deal, gamers said 2d fighting games were dead and nobody wanted to play them anymore. Flash forward to 2010 when the big news in gaming is Street Fighter 4, Mortal Kombat and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. 
 
Nothing was wrong with 2d gaming. The trend just swung one way and now it has swung back.  
 
I will eat my hat if a game doesn't come out that uses health pack correctly and suddenly we're back in an age of health packs and inventory management.
#44 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

I've come to terms with the fact long ago that the GB's crews opinions are no more valid than anyone else's (including mine) and in many cases are way more flawed from a logical perspective.

#45 Posted by Mmmslash (2166 posts) -

I have no idea what you are talking about. Games are not timeless, I'd even argue that they age more poorly than any other form of media.

#46 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@EpicSteve said:
"Some games and their mechanics age poorly. A game can be fun today, doesn't mean it will be worth a damn in eight years. "

But, then, was that game every good to begin with? 
 
I mean, take a game with a license that people buy because the movie or comic book is hot. If, in ten years, nobody cares about the movie anymore and thusly don't care about the game, was that ever really a "good" game? 
 
A well designed game should be no more subject to age than the game of kickball. Take something like Tetris and introduce it to a kid who has never played it and he will probably be just as interested in it as you were when you were a kid. Maybe not pea green tetris on the gameboy, but tetris in concept. Now take a game like Afterburner, which was extremely "of the time" and who's success depended on things OUTSIDE it's game design, and suddenly you have a product that does indeed feel very dated.
#47 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5250 posts) -
@RsistncE said:
" I've come to terms with the fact long ago that the GB's crews opinions are no more valid than anyone else's (including mine) and in many cases are way more flawed from a logical perspective. "
Hey there we go!
#48 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@RsistncE said:
"I've come to terms with the fact long ago that the GB's crews opinions are no more valid than anyone else's (including mine) and in many cases are way more flawed from a logical perspective. "

I have no problem with that except in quicklooks. I feel like they have some responsibility to play a game as intended in a quicklook because people are using it to see if a game is fun or not. If I fire up Half Life 2 and never go where I'm supposed to, constantly look in the wrong direction, and stop randomly for periods of time, I can probably make it look like an incredibly boring game that isn't work anyone's time. 
 
That seems unfair.
#49 Posted by TripMasterMunky (2402 posts) -

Giant Bomb, particularly Jeff, has always been very opinionated. Their weekly exaggeration of games on WiiWare/DSiWare comes off as a little childish, and there's many quick looks where they have shut the game down already before even starting it.
 
I remember on an E3 podcast when Johnny V said Goldeneye looked cool, Jeff went on a little bitch-fit asking how he can like such a game. Fast forward to a recent quick look of the game where Jeff is hanging with the developers and has nothing negative to say.
 
Yes, it's annoying, but as another poster said, their opinion is no more validated than your own.

#50 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -
@TripMasterMunky said:
"Giant Bomb, particularly Jeff, has always been very opinionated. Their weekly exaggeration of games on WiiWare/DSiWare comes off as a little childish, and there's many quick looks where they have shut the game down already before even starting it. I remember on an E3 podcast when Johnny V said Goldeneye looked cool, Jeff went on a little bitch-fit asking how he can like such a game. Fast forward to a recent quick look of the game where Jeff is hanging with the developers and has nothing negative to say.  Yes, it's annoying, but as another poster said, their opinion is no more validated than your own. "

Yeah the Goldeneye quicklook was interesting to me as well for that very same reason. 
 
It goes to show that good game design holds up. Just because trends change, a good game will still be a good game.