Evergrace - Metacritic - 59 I also really enjoyed Tales of Destiny, which I don't remember being well received by critics at all (GameSpot gave it a 4.9 ouch)
Edit: just looked up Tenchu Z on metacritic and it has a 56. Holy shit that isn't right. No way in hell does it deserve to be rated lower than Evergrace. Tenchu Z is at least a fully functional game unlike Evergrace...
I voted for steam since I find it easier to access my games (especially on the go) and games on steam usually don't have some retarded form of DRM like boxed copies do.
Great first post. I agree with you on Crash and Tony Hawk. I always felt that Crash had been milked to death by the end of the PS1. He really should be laid to rest. Tony Hawk got it right with Tony Hawk 2, but they just keep making more of them and after RIDE I really wish they would stop.
Metal Gear Solid I'm not sure I agree with you on. I am fine with Peace Walker as it's a prequel and we already know how it begins and ultimately ends. Rising on the other hand I'm not so sure about. If it's a Gaiden that takes place after MGS 2 and before MGS 4 and tells the story of how Raiden became the badass ninja that he is in MGS 4 then I am fine with it. However, if it's the start of a new Metal Gear franchise and takes place after MGS 4 effectively making it MGS 5 I will not be happy at all.
As far as Halo goes, I'm sort of on the fence. I do feel that Halo has failed to innovate and keep up with rest of the modern shooter scene. It's trapped in the last gen, but there is always hope that it might one day catch up with the competition. I think that 343 Industries might be the ones to do this and bring Halo up to par, but they also might not and if they don't then I completely agree that there shouldn't be any more Halo games after Reach. I do think we will see a division within the Halo community between people that are just happy to have more Halo and the purists who feel that any Halo not made by Bungie isn't a real Halo. It'll be the same thing that happened in the Call of Duty community when Treyarch started making Call of Duty games.
To me epic has more to do with feel than numbers. You don't need a crazy number of guys on screen to get the feel of an epic battle. Regardless of how many guys you have screen, if you don't have the feel right then you are left with nothing. Too few and no feel feels unimpressive. A lot of guys on screen with no feel is just chaos. So I guess to answer your question, I am looking forward to bigger battles in Reach provided they get the feel right.
" @Cerza: I thought Tomb Raider was action-adventure? "
The originals on PS1 were classified as such, but as far as I know they are just action today. It's my understanding that any sort of adventure sub classification was dropped, because just about everything fits it today. The OP is correct in calling out Tomb Raider as important, because it was immensely important, but what he is calling it out for is wrong, which is why I called him out on it.
" 10 years ago there were games that were deep story telling experiences such as metal gear solid and deus ex that I think were more memorable and enjoyable. I don't see what bioshock really does that sets it apart, it's got to be the most over thought of game of the decade perhaps along with Half-Life 2. Mass Effect is imo a better choice for pivotal moment, but I think this generation's games are worse than the last 2 as they have been getting substantially smaller worlds. Mass effect is really quite small for an RPG, and Final Fantasy XIII is an order of magnitude smaller than Final Fantasy VII in terms of content (despite still being the same length). GTAIV is lacking content that San Andreas had so many were disappointed with it and even MGS4 was pretty small and lacking gameplay wise. It's no longer feasible to make large games in HD when a 10 hour one sells for the same price. "
I completely agree.
@ahoodedfigure said:
" The titles we love now may be reduced to a few facts about their contributions much later, assuming they're remembered at all... "
This. Primal readily comes to mind as an example here. There was a lot of marketing and hoopla when it came out . It was an amazing game. It did many things extremely well (some of which like the UI are still better than how they are done today) and was easily a generation or two ahead of its time. Yet no one seems to remember it. You never hear anyone talk about it, or compare it to the greats of today. It's like it's been completely forgotten. Whose to say Bioshock won't suffer the same fate.
Also, I feel the need to point out that all the credit the OP is directing towards Metal Gear Solid 2 really belongs to Metal Gear Solid 1. MGS 2 was little more than a refinement of what was done with MGS 1. It really didn't do anything differently other than pull a bait and switch with the protagonist a quarter of the way through the game and deliver a far more convoluted and nonsensical plot.
Log in to comment