regardless if he doesn't finish the series, the first book alone was a masterpiece, containing one of the most emotional and saddest moments in storytelling ever.
Awakening is a good expansion. You're right, it does take some interesting turns with the talking darkspawn. A very deep story. Things like this just make Dragon Age II all the more disappointing. The story didn't have nearly the depth that even this expansion did.
I actually disagree, the expansion had an interesting story, sure, but I liked DA2's WAY better because they did something completely original with the wizards and templars theme and did it great. Along with the Qunari I felt they did much better with the story in the new game.
What was original about Dragon Age 2's story? Everything it did has been done in movies, books, and TV shows which you view as inferior to games.
I stand by my opinion that if the money and time wasted on DA2 was put behind Awakening that it would have been much more effective as a sequel.
Movies have barely even touched anything anywhere close to that, TV shows is a no and most book about fantasy stories are shit at best. What dragon age 2 did was finally get it fucking right in a very original way. Also, movies are inferior to videogames, I would rather consider videogames closer to books than the shit that is the movie industry. But let's not derail a topic like you wanted to.
someone obviously hasn't read enough fantasy. someone obviously didn't read 'a song of ice and fire' (of which there is an amazing hbo adaptation of the first book in the series - game of thrones) series, which is way more original than the dragon age series in the story itself and the author's execution of telling the story.
Creative bankruptcy does not exist on a macro level. Someone, somewhere, will always be doing some unique.
Again, not really. Someone, somewhere, will always have done it before you.
It is also possible that humanity exists elsewhere than because if the universe if infinite, there is only so many variables that can happen until they repeat. Did I blow your mind about a possible scientific fact? Again, people who agree with that dumbass Wong shouldn't be online, writing anymore, espically considering the man has made the exact same article three fucking times in a row. (Not joking in the slightest.) All the man does is whine whine whine. and I am afraid for anyone that agrees with him. Video games are a far more creative medium than movies ever will be, anyone who has ever played a single videogame should know this. DRM services are dying out due to steam and GOG, kinda a fact really. In terms of creativity, the video game industry is BEYOND creative, with indie devs and mainstream devs all doing amazing things with their craft I would say that they are far more creative than the movie industry ever has. (probably repeated myself there, but it's fucking true.) In terms of vision for the future, just look at the PC market, since PC power doubles every year there is literally no way you can tell where videogames are going, this is not a bad thing like the dumbass Wong says, but really, is a strength that other mediums don't have, due to the power of change and evolution in videogames, there is so much creativity each gen and it keeps on growing. Also, the definition of what a game is, is honestly, one of the DUMBEST things I have ever read in all my years of life. here is the most simple fucking explaination in the world that the dumbass Wong would never think about due to his extreme cynicism and pessimism, IF IT IS INTERACTIVE IT IF A VIDEO GAME! This includes heavy rain style games and fucking "True" games as he like to put it also in the same boat. it is obvious to anyone with a brain that isn't filled with extreme pessimism and dumbassery that this is how it works. sorry for insulting anyone but damn. David Wong is a dumbass and doesn't deserve a job
Interactivity allows for video games to be creative much more easily than movies though, so it's not really fair.
I am sorry, but you must not have been playing a lot of games back then. There were more than enough awful games to keep anyone playing just those for a lifetime. Just ask the AVGN, he has made a career off of them. IMO, I think the reverse is true. I think that today shitty games are less common (out of all the full retail games). On the Wii there are a ton of shovelware games, but that is pretty much it. I think the reason is that nowadays the cost of entry into the business of making video games is so high that you need to have a quality product in order to compete, or there is no way you are going to make your money back. Every now and then a cheap game will come along that appeals to the casual crowd, but that doesnt happen very often. Back in the day, though, there were about ten awful platformers for every Mario or Zelda. The old consoles definitely had their fair share of terrible titles.
If I may use your post as a starting point for my own, after reading the TC's first post, I too shared the same sentiments as you. After rereading his post, I think I get what he is saying. Yes, undoubtedly, there were more crappy games churned out back then, and the costs of entry were much lower. Therefore, in an environment of a market saturated with crappy games that was fostered by low costs of entry, for a game to really stand out and shine, it was imperative for a game to be of high quality - as measured by how polished it was (with respect to the standards back in the day) and most importantly how much it broke new ground, as well as various other intangible factors.
Yes, the barriers of entry are higher today and so it is still imperative to make a high quality game, but quality today is measured differently especially when viewing the development of video games from a business perspective. Back then, there wasn't much of a business mentality driving the development of video games. The really great games back in the day were driven purely by a desire to create something fresh, not maximize profit as it is viewed today. So, what do I mean 'high quality' today is measured differently? Well, as someone pointed out, it's mass appeal and depending on lowest common denominator to make sales. The high costs of entry in making video games today absolutely necessitates being on the safe side when analyzing cost-benefit calculations, thus creating an environment where taking the risk to break new ground can turn out to be even more costly than the costs accrued during development.
If you never played Chrono Trigger on the SNES, then get it for the DS!
for the PS2, I recommend: Shadow Hearts (and its sequel Shadow Hearts: Covenant) - however, both of these are pretty rare; I doubt you'll find them at GS.
360: you say you don't like sports game, but you do like sports game- check out Fight Night Champion, which features an engrossing story mode - it might be a good way to get into boxing games of the sports genre at least. Lost Odyssey Nier Record of Agarest War (will take you at least 100 hours to finish)
Log in to comment