cexantus

@The_Nubster:

Exactly, and that's what's so frustrating about fanservice in general. It reduces any female characterization to that of being mindless sex dolls; they're there solely as fankwankery for its male audeince and nothing else. In an age where porn and sex can be found at the click of the button, I just find pointless fanservice to be, well, pointless.

@Animasta: Thanks. I've heard mixed things about it, but I'll give it a watch.

@Animasta: True. But it's like the WW2 shooter--or I guess the military shooter, in this case. There's so many of them--do I really need to delve into another one?

I guess I'm just bummed out because, when I was younger, i used to believe that anime was a place of creativity, something that separated itself from the western cartoons that I used to watch. But now I feel like the medium has grown stagnant and is just going through the same crap over and over again. Granted, I'm willing to accept any and all suggestions because I do believe in the potential of the medium; but it's that same potential that makes me highly critical of what I watch.

@Viking_Funeral said:

How do you make gender relevant in 4 square? Or in a game of tether-ball?

At some point, people have to concede the fact that games are primarily an entertaining mix of mechanics, with narrative being tertiary. Some of the best and most defining games in video game history have absolutely minimal narrative, and are mostly driven by their gameplay. Sure, a good narrative can improve the overall package dramatically, but a lousy story doesn't necessarily detract from good gameplay.

I actually disagree with this. Keep in mind: the novel was once considered mindless entertainment as well, little more than something bored housewives would read to keep themselves busy when they weren't playing moms. In fact, many of what we now consider to be high-art began life as spectacles solely to entertain the masses. It was years before anyone thought that film or art or literature could actually have something to say on an intellectual level.

So what makes video games any different? I'd say that with the dawn of the indie developer, we're getting more and more games that are for more personal than something like Call of Duty. That's not to say there isn't a place for those type of games, but I think video games are soon coming into an era where it can be considered more as an artistic medium.

Edit: Also, I really think we should expect more from gaming on an narrative level as well. As games become more complex and ape film thematically, we should hold game's narrative in higher regard. What's the point of shelling $60 for a video game when I don't give a shit about what's going on or the people I find myself in contact with?

@TobbRobb said:

@Sesiras: Darker than Black isn't really Noir or detective, there are elements of that, but I'd put it close to a darker X-Men, or Batman.

Man, I would fucking dig an honest-to-god noir anime. Though the closest I've ever seen is Cowboy Bebop or Big O

I don't know; maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I've slowly been getting tired of the medium myself. I mean do we really need another series set around highschool featuring a group of highschool girls?

@Clonedzero:

heh heh. Never change Internet, never change.

And it all goes right back to the problem with attaching scores to reviews. I think sites like Giant Bomb should just get rid of the 5 star or 100 point scale and let the review speak for itself. The problem here is of the implication that "X game that gets an average of 80% is just as good as Y game that also received an 80%, which is why so many forum posts are filled with "CALL OF DUTY GETS THE SAME GRADE AS *insert favorite game here*? THAT'S BIAS!!!!!!" I mean, what exactly does a four-star rating or a perfect score even mean? Game criticism, or any criticism for that manner, is such a wildly subjective field that attempting to deduce game reviews to a percentage is absolutely crazy.

@Sunjammer:Yup. Seriously, calling out one of the more popular of this generation is a surefire way to make sure people nerd rage all over this thread.

@Laurentech said:

@Shinmaru007 said:

@ArbitraryWater said:

I figure this is the best outlet to ask this question: if I were to watch one of the Fullmetal Alchemist series, would I watch the 2003 series or Brotherhood?

I think Brotherhood's superior. The 2003 version does some interesting things, but the final villain is beyond awful, and the ending isn't so great. It's still worth watching, but Brotherhood is better.

I watched the original when it came out, and I'm going to watch Brotherhood soon. Seems like most people say Brotherhood is superior. I thought the original was good, so hopefully Brotherhood is even better. My understanding is that they both start out roughly following the manga (thus there is some overlap between the two series), but the original branches off, whereas Brotherhood sticks to it.

I've never watched the original series, but I'm currently going through Brotherhood on Netflix. It's pretty fucking great. I consider myself picky when it comes to anime--I believe 90% of anime is mostly terrible junk made for children, idiots and perverts--but Brotherhood is a really great example of an anime that fulfills all of that potential of the medium. It's really engaging and, most importantly, really fun to watch. So watch Brotherhood.

@TheHBK:

I'd say that the original promo trailer certainly implies a similarly serious tone; when did that become such a bad thing? Personally, if Rockstar decided to return to the tone set by the original trilogy in some kind of misguided attempt to capture Saints Rows audience, I would take that a complete step back for GTA. I say let THQ and Rockstar do their own thing.

@Manhattan_Project: Agreed. Max Payne 3's shooting was so damn good.

I'll probably preorder this, continuing my trend of feeling that Rockstar's output of titles are the only thing worth paying full price for nowadays.