I really can't enjoy this game. After years of playing Smash Bros. I can't help but draw comparison, and this doesn't compare favorably. The engine is very limited, the interplay is shallow, and there's really no emergence. I doubt this game will have a strong competitive following, because the gameplay just isn't very good.
depends on the genre
i blame activision
Bonus points for mentioning the how PHENOMENAL the opening theme is, which is "Finale" by Madeon.
No Spyro? That... actually hurts me.
Let's bring up Mass effect. And hell, any bioware game, really. The main force of any bioware game is the story and characters. Personally, (Meaning you can't tell me I'm wrong on this) if I play a game and the characters are all unlikable and the storyline is haphazard at best, I put the game down. In my opinion, the order of importance goes Story, Characters, mechanics, interactivity, then graphics.
I'll have to disagree with you. Games with a lack of story are actually the main thing holding the Game Design field back. Story may be the most important drive in a game, because if you don't have an emotional goal, you won't get nearly as much out of the game, If story wasn't important in Gears of War, we wouldn't have felt so bad for people like Dom, the Carmines, and Marcus. Story is the main foundation of any game.
Yes it should have a story. The most acclaimed fighting game made, Super smash bros (Still maintains 95% reviews) has a fantastic story mode. You can't get more "Party style fighting game" than SSB.
Its a fun game all in all maybe some DLC can add more modes and playable characters but it feels nice seeing some old school games fight new school.
would of been a great review if wiz and boomstick were there
meh I am sticking with ssb
I said that you didn't need a story, but it would all around be better to have a story. If you don't know what you're doing, or trying to achieve you would be feeling a little less satisfied. (As I stated before)
Now, the mechanics can go ahead and be all around sh*t for all I care. You do, however, need to be immersed in the world in some way. That way it doesn't feel like a "screen saver" (As you stated) but an interactive environment. You are looking at Video Games (or games, as you state them) like normal games.
Video Games are much more than board games or something like rock-paper-scissors, Video Games are sending you to a whole new place to move around in. They don't need to have an objective, technically speaking, or even a story; but they do however need to send you to a new and more unique place.
Mechanics have nothing to really make a Video Game, a Video Game, but more or less making the game move accordingly to how they want it to move, it's everything else that makes the art. I can say that interactivity is something that will make it more like art, but old school Video Games didn't have much interactivity so I will not.
P.S.: A comment on the unlock-able things in Halo 4...ya, all that reduced customization for the player and reduced the interactivity of the over-all game.
Misleading at best. Mechanics and interactivity are essential. Technology yes, for crafting video games requires it. Story isn't essential; this is just outright, objectively, verifiably incorrect.
If a story is included, it definitely is essential to ensure it either ties into the game's mechanics (e.g., Final Fantasy 6) or at least stays out of the way (e.g., Jamestown's stays out of the way, Other M's is so deplorable it actually hurts to sit through despite MovieBob's accusations of strawman arguments while perched atop his mountain of strawmen).
But its presence isn't essential. You can tell yourself otherwise, but it doesn't matter.
I disagree: LA Noire's main draw is being a key player in that narrative, and the interactivity with which you engage that world. Without that, you'd be watching a film. And if a game dev is more interested in telling a story than making a game, well, there are mediums for that (novels, films, television, etc.).
And no, for reasons already stated, an excellent game doesn't need a story. An excellent game can have one -- and that story can itself be excellent, or it can even be so bad as to overshadow the mechanics -- but it's not necessary. As I told the other guy, if you need an "excuse plot" to justify playing a game, you're doing the gamer thing wrong.
As for your last paragraph, here's the thing: I don't feel every opinion is worthwhile, nor do I feel every opinion stated as such as actually one. Maybe this'll rub you the wrong way, but if I think you're saying something that's either a) objectively wrong or b) subjectively but poorly thought out, I'm likely not going to reply in a manner you'll enjoy. Just a thought.
Allow me to be equally blunt, but, unlike you, also right: you are wrong. Let's talk about why.
First off, I said games are art for their mechanics and interactivity. I didn't throw visuals in there, because I don't have to; the visuals have to either support the mechanics and interactivity or just not get in the way. As games are challenges with rules and goals, the whole idea that what defines them is "absurd" is itself monstrously absurd.
This isn't to say a game can't immerse you in a visually beautiful, engaging environment. But if all a game is doing is presenting some sort of mildly interactive screen saver, it's failing as a game.
To presume gamers need some sort of virtual "cookie" to encourage them to play is Shinx levels of stupid, sorry to say. Actually I'm not sorry: it's Shinx levels of stupid. Don't be Shinx levels of stupid; that has to cause some sort of chemical imbalance in one's brain.
Well made games, games where the interactivity, where the mechanics, where the whole act of taking your on-screen avatar -- regardless of its shape -- and overcoming hurdles while testing the boundaries of those rules is thoughtfully engaging; those games are rewarding in and of themselves.
The idea you need some aesthetic payoff is the reason Halo 4 has "grinding for perks," the reason there are actually gamers who think unlockable characters in fighting games is good design, the reason achievement whoring exists. And yes, all of those are Bad Things™.
If you need a narrative to make a game satisfying, you're doing the "gamer" thing wrong. Disclaimer: that doesn't mean a narrative in a game can't have a satisfying payoff, as you're no doubt about to assume I'm saying.
yeah but Metal Gear for the NES was pretty bad port from what i've heard... it was on MSX II. and twin snakes was just a graphical enhancement of the original which was on ps1. it was still fun don't get me wrong but it really didn't change anything.
I love this game, but I feel it's 1 Bandicoot away from complete awesomeness!
Nice review Ben, I kinda want to get this game now....
I will say this as bluntly as possible, because saying that Video Games are art because of only visuals and mechanics is just...absurd. You are wrong. That being said, Video Games are an art style now because they are one of the only things that stimulate almost all of your senses. You can practically feel the environment that you are in, and you can see the beauty or grotesqueness of it. You can hear the sounds of these worlds, and you can now even talk in these worlds. Although it is still prototype stages, it still counts. The only sense I could possibly think of that doesn't get stimulated in a good game is smell, and they are working on 7D games already so I won't be surprised if it get's to that soon.
What you say though is partially right though, Video Games do not need stories. But stories help give you reasoning behind your actions. Say you beat the last boss in the game and you know you saved a world by doing this, you should feel pretty proud of yourself. You did it, good job, go get a cookie. This helps people in a psychological level feel accomplished that they did something of great importance. It's what drives most gamers to play a game, and without a story behind to give you reasoning, it wouldn't be as satisfying.
Grrr....I wanted to response to this WHOLE...list of responses, but NOOOOOOOO. I have to pick just one. I really don't think anyone else complained about this because it wasn't really a problem. Same for me. Until now. Make note Screwattack, but don't take it to top priority if you honestly feel it's not a major issue. Again, I just realized this at this very moment.
Anyways, while I will agree that gameplay comes first, the story can still be the central...star of the game. Using a more modern example, L.A. Noire's main draw is the excellent story. Or so they say, as I haven't played it. Still, even if the actual story isn't strictly necessary, what IS more or less required for an excellent game is at the very least context. I'm talking about setting and scenario. Create an excuse plot if you must, but at the very least provide some sort of "Why". Some of the greatest games of all time live of with only the most minimum amount of context, and it umps them to the top. The only exception I can think of is Tetris. That's gameplay in its purest form, right there.
Anyhow, about the agree to disagree thing (See? This is why I wanted this response to be on multiple replies. Oh well.), how does that solve anything? Especially with the way you worded your response, you talk as if they were facts, and anyone else that "disagrees" (in your eyes) is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!?