[PS3] Metal Gear Solid 4 *spoilers*

[inefficient]

This discussion reminds me of this comic.

link

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The game mechanics is a strength of the game, because it's sharper than most games outthere and a lot sharper than Uncharted (which was brought up as a comparison title).

Why the hell are you comparing MGS4 to Uncharted, they are completely different games, anything besides IQ discussions are largely irrelevant.

The varied range of moves and actions (CQC -> Grabing enemies, using them as human shields, interact with them, throws and attacks) that Snake can take do are not exactly few either.

Well, aside from CQC moves, its the same basic stuff that you can do with people in SC, i wouldn't say that having a decent selection of moves to mean that game mechanics are the strenght of the game however.

And as for not being able to climb 40cm tall ledges or boxes - why would you want to climb them anyway? It's not as if there's a reason why you'd need to in the game - and it's not like every other game limits you to an almost 2d grid. Games are built around bounderies, some just offer more so than others. MGS4 is no different in that matter. It doesn't let you climb boxes (that aren't ment to) because there's no reason to. It's not a platformer, it's an action/stealth game and climbing boxes isn't part of the game.

It has to do with immersion, the immersion is totally ruined when suddenly your planned path is blocked because there is a small box, or a 40cm high ledge infront of you. For example act 3 (i think) at one point there was a route where there was 50cm ledges at different "levels" (of high), you had to go around every one of them, which is ridiculous, why cant he climb the most basic things? Sometimes snake can climb (when its "meant" for him to climb), and 99% of the time he cannot.

Too bad. I wasn't talking about the cutscenes, I was refering to the fun gameplay engaging in the cat & mouse game with the enemies that the game so brilliantly enables.

You find it enganging, i find it to be pretty much as bland and boring as most other titles when it comes to "cat & mouse" game.

Playing it on the higher difficulty settings, where the AI not only is more complex, but where the setting is a bit more realistic as well with more enemies patroling the area

I play on the hardest difficulty setting, and its still horribly easy. The only thing that matter is still pacience and 10% timing, the AI are pretty much just moving in the same scripted paths.

The camo suit also doesn't make you invisible - it basically increases (or decreases) the level of awareness. Movement makes you more visible, as well as standing in the light or using an unappropriate camo for the scene you're in.

Your arguing semantics, Camo suit takes away all the challenges of this game, your practically invisible. Just lie down and stand still. If you got face camo aswell, then the enemies have to be very very very close to spot you. On "Big boss Hard" (or whatever is the highest difficulity avaliable from start) all i ever did near enemies was crawling around them, lying down whenever they came to close. Its not exactly particularly hard.

The challenge is sneaking from point A to point B without getting seen at all or trying to beat the game without killing a single enemy player.

And this is easily achieved by the use of the camo suit.

This might not be the fun way for you to play it - but if you're honestly wanting to play the game like some random first person shooter, than yes, the game isn't for you.

I love this. Every time i say something that can be taken as critisism towards MGS4, the reply is allways "it might not the fun the way you play it." Im not playing the game as a random first person shooter. Im playing the game like a stealth game, im not running around and shooting everyone. And when i play it like that, the gameplay is pretty much exactly the same as other stealth games.

Kojima did try to make the game as accessible as possible to all players (giving various options on how to play the game), but not all approaches give the same challenge, the same fun and there are bounderies as well.

.... I play the game LIKE YOUR SUPPOSED TO. Okay. Stop thinking that im not. Im playing it like im supposed to, however im not one to reload a scene if an alarm goes off. I think i had like 5 alerts and 4 kills or something on my first playthrough, that was on big boss hard, never playing a MGS game before. And the only reason i had 4 kills is because i dont like the tranqulizer gun and id rather shoot people with real bullents than sending them to sleep.

We are playing the same game, but as explained above, you might be playing it different to the norm or in a way it wasn't intended (you speak of running, which obviously doesn't lend itself well to this type of game) or we might simply have a different view on what is fun.

Your arguing scemantics again, i said "running" but its obvious your not doing that much running in a stealth game.

And your last sentance basically gives away you haven't attempted to play the game on medium let alone the higher difficulty settings.

Lol. I play all games on the highest possible difficulty setting.

A few direct hits by enemies and you're dead, so no, engaging in fire fights will not get you anywhere.

So what? The enemies are horrible in firefights, if you want to you can kill off everybody at any difficulty level if you try, you just have to be half decent at shooting stuff in games.

Playing it like a FPS (like you're obviously tried too) will perhaps work on the easier difficulty settings, but the game will hardly be rewarding or fun.

IM NOT PLAYING IT LIKE AN FPS!!!! But i have tried killing entire levels just because people like you run around talking about how complex and amazing the AI, and you know what? Its not particularly hard, its actually very easy. Mostly because you have unlimited ammo.


No, the cat and mouse game that you can engage in (if you want to) by playing with the AI by sneaking up on enemies, luring them away from there scripted patroling path etc. There are more than a few different ways to do this and is something that has been a trademark to the series since the beginning.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder how you tried to play this game.

Here we go again. It's not a running game...

Okay then, crawling from point A to B.

...and it most definately isn't a shooter either. If you got into fire fights, you're definately not doing things right.

Your ****ing amazing! Lol. YOU GAVE MGS4 CREDIT FOR BEING AN ACTION GAME NOT ME!!! I SAID IT SUCKED AS AN ACTION GAME

And you sound like a guy playing a tactical shooter/sneaking game like head-less chicken running around alone in a warzone engaging in firefights and then complaining about the lack of challenge/realism/point in the game.

Someone forgot to tell you it's (obviously) a sneaking mission... If you want to criticise the game, AT LEAST play the game how it was ment to be played.

LOl. MGS4 fanboys are freaking amazing. Since i didn't enjoy the game as much as you, obviously i must be doing something wrong!!! You think im a ****ing retard? I understand that in stealth games your not supposed to be seen. I try to follow that when playing stealth games. You just seem so scared that somebody

Strangely, you seem to be the only one in this discussion babbling on about cut-scenes and storyline and I certainly don't see any MGS fans talking about it I stated some of the games strengths and pointed out why and what makes them an impressive feat. Having you point out flaws in it when you obviously didn't even attempt to play the game as it was ment to, doesn't really hold up well, I'm afraid.

Again, this is pathetic. Your building your entire argument around something you have no basis to say, namely that im playing the game wrong, when im not. Stop making arguments based on this.

Im not just pointing out flaws, I SIMPLY REPLIED TO YOUR THOUGHTS, AND WHY I THOUGHT 95% OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU LISTED IS NOT STUFF THAT I FIND PARTICULARLY AMAZING IN MGS4. You simply cannot accept that some people dont find MGS4 amazing, some people actually find the gameplay average compared to other stealth games, and YES we do know how to play the game.

Perhaps this is the downfall of MGS4 - It's a game that can be played in so many different ways, but not all ways convey the strengths as well as others. If you want to get the best exerpience, you need to play it like a MGS game. The fact that it is possible to play it differently is perhaps it's greatest weakness.

... again im playing it as a stealth game.

This is the reason why IMO it's best to play it on the higher difficulty settings - it really forces you into the whole sneaking gameplay.

Again im playing it on hardest avaliable difficulty, AND IM PLAYING IT LIKE A STEALTH GAME. And to me, its completely average. It offers nothing that is done vastly better than what SC has


And now please stop trying that pisspoor argument, "im playing it wrong". Im not. Im not playing it on easy either, i played it on the highest difficuluty avaliable from start. That is Big Boss Hard or whatever. I play it as a stealth game, that doesn't mean that i haven't tried to see if i can kill all enemies on any given stage (which is EASY for me even at Big Boss Hard), it just means that i reloaded\didn't save after killing them.

and i find it absolutely amazing how you reply to some of my points, when you brough up MGS4 being an "action game" and i simply replied to how it was a poor game as an action game. Im happy to discuss this game, but the only argument you have made so far is a flawed one, based on me playing the game "wrong" and on low difficulty.. And youve used that argument about 20 times in this post. Its boring, and frankly, there is not much to reply to that, seing as ive allready stated a fair times that i play the game like its supposed to be played.

 

[inefficient]

And now please stop trying that pisspoor argument, "im playing it wrong". Im not.

The same argument applies both ways. You won't be able to convince us who had a good experience with the game and enjoyed it's mechanics and attention to detail that we are playing it wrong or being naive to it's flaws.

I think we just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The same argument applies both ways. You won't be able to convince us who had a good experience with the game and enjoyed it's mechanics and attention to detail that we are playing it wrong or being naive to it's flaws.

I think we just have to agree to disagree.

But im not saying that your playing it wrong! I simply gave my opinions about the game, i did not say anybody played it wrong or where naive to its flaws. I did not say that my opinions where the "correct" ones. Phil's arguments are about me playing the game wrong, my arguments where about how i felt that alot of the stuff he gave the game credit for is not particularly amazing compared to other games.

The difference is vast.

Im not trying to convince you of anything, all i tried to say is for people (like me) who doesn't follow MGS games, MGS4 does not stand out as a particular masterpiece. You may think differently, thats perfectly fine with me.

 

[inefficient]

But im not saying that your playing it wrong! I simply gave my opinions about the game, i did not say anybody played it wrong or where naive to its flaws. I did not say that my opinions where the "correct" ones. Phil's arguments are about me playing the game wrong, my arguments where about how i felt that alot of the stuff he gave the game credit for is not particularly amazing compared to other games.

The difference is vast.

Im not trying to convince you of anything, all i tried to say is for people (like me) who doesn't follow MGS games, MGS4 does not stand out as a particular masterpiece. You may think differently, thats perfectly fine with me.

Well I can't speak for everyone. But I think you essentially challenged us (MGS fans) when you said that MGS4 was not a masterpiece. To us that is like saying the Mona Lisa is not a masterpiece.

Is the Mona Lisa the best piece of art ever made? Probably not. Is it even technically better than other works of art that came before it? Probably not either. Does everyone universally be entranced by its imaginary. Certainly no.

But I think it's the ability of a work of art to create such strong emotions among the people who do "get it" that makes a masterpiece a masterpiece.

 

[vanquish]

The same argument applies both ways. You won't be able to convince us who had a good experience with the game and enjoyed it's mechanics and attention to detail that we are playing it wrong or being naive to it's flaws.

I think we just have to agree to disagree.

True, but his (and others) comments are important to me (and others who aren't in love with the series). They reflect a relatively unbiased point of view (Ostepop would hardly buy the game, if he knew he would dislike it), and to a person who seriously considered buying the game it is useful to have impressions that are untainted by hype or nostalgia.

And indeed more welcome than the outrageous lengths (ridiculous explanations, comparing the game to art) some on this thread have gone to defend the game, whilst giving Mormon doorknockers serious competition in the conversion business.

 

[GuestLV]

Why the hell are you comparing MGS4 to Uncharted, they are completely different games

Technically both corridor type games,and visually MGS4 looks outdated after Uncharted(IMO)

 

[inefficient]

True, but his (and others) comments are important to me (and others without a love history with the series). They reflect a relatively unbiased point of view (Ostepop would hardly buy the game, if he knew he would dislike it), and to a person who seriously considered buying the game it is useful to have impressions that are untainted by hype or nostalgia.

And indeed more welcome than the outrageous lengths some on this thread have gone to defend the game, whilst giving Mormon doorknockers serious competition in the conversion business.

Not saying that is not fair. But I am not a huge MGS fan either. I only played MGS2 prior to MGS4. And I don't even like MGS2 - aside from the tanker part. I ended up playing through MGS1 after playing MGS4.

Some of the dialogue might be a little weighted down with the baggage of the previous games. But emotionally, I feel it stands on it's own.

 

[Phil]

Why the hell are you comparing MGS4 to Uncharted, they are completely different games, anything besides IQ discussions are largely irrelevant.

I took Uncharted as an example for controls since it was mentioned before by others in relation to a graphics comparison, which IMO isn't exactly justified since both games are so different. You disagreed with my comment about game-mechanics and my reply to you was that game-mechanics extend to more than just a simplified argument covering some boxes that Snake can't climb. The game-mechanics and controls in MGS4 are top notch - they are smooth, they are precise and 99% of the time flawless. This can't be said for most other games sadly.

Well, aside from CQC moves, its the same basic stuff that you can do with people in SC, i wouldn't say that having a decent selection of moves to mean that game mechanics are the strenght of the game however.

Why does everything need to be compared to other games? No one said MGS4 is a masterpiece because of a singular point. I think of it as a masterpiece because it does well on so many levels, that including the wide array of moves combined with the whole experience ranging from production values (cinematics, story, complexity), freedom of what to do in the game, CQC, AI, varied enemies with different behaviour etc.

Nitpicking everysingle point doesn't take away of the sum that is when all of it comes together.

It has to do with immersion, the immersion is totally ruined when suddenly your planned path is blocked because there is a small box, or a 40cm high ledge infront of you. For example act 3 (i think) at one point there was a route where there was 50cm ledges at different "levels" (of high), you had to go around every one of them, which is ridiculous, why cant he climb the most basic things? Sometimes snake can climb (when its "meant" for him to climb), and 99% of the time he cannot.

...so in other words, you disagree with my comments because the immersion (illusion?) is broken because Ostepop can't walk around a few 40cm ledges and now his immersion into the game is broken...

Remind me next time I criticize a racing game for not letting me crash out of the track after driving into it with 100mph... I'm sure that'd make a really good point as to why that game obviously sucks.

I play on the hardest difficulty setting, and its still horribly easy. The only thing that matter is still pacience and 10% timing, the AI are pretty much just moving in the same scripted paths.

In which games aren't the paths more or less scripted? At least the enemies soldiers aren't bound to that path and can get off them (if they follow you) if the need requires. The scripted paths aren't much different to a guard patroling his area. Or do you stand in front of bars criticising bouncers of being scripted as well because they have to stand in front of the same door the entire evening? See how ridiculous this is getting?

Your ****ing amazing! Lol. YOU GAVE MGS4 CREDIT FOR BEING AN ACTION GAME NOT ME!!! I SAID IT SUCKED AS AN ACTION GAME

Where did I post it was an action game? I gave it credit for the action it had - I never said it was a action game. I did however mention espionage-action...

LOl. You MGS4 fanboys are freaking amazing. Since i didn't enjoy the game as much as you, obviously i must be doing something wrong!!! You think im a ****ing retard? I understand that in stealth games your not supposed to be seen. I try to follow that when playing stealth games. You just seem so scared that somebody

So now I'm a fanboy? With all due respect, it was you who started nitpicking my post away and replying to every sentance. Retard or not, you certainly come across as one.

Your arguing semantics, Camo suit takes away all the challenges of this game, your practically invisible. Just lie down and stand still. If you got face camo aswell, then the enemies have to be very very very close to spot you. On "Big boss Hard" (or whatever is the highest difficulity avaliable from start) all i ever did near enemies was crawling around them, lying down whenever they came to close. Its not exactly particularly hard.

Crawling around enemies on the highest difficulty settings? Care to prove this somehow? Anyone with the game is free to try this at home mind you - maybe you got the super exlusive dumbed down version from Konami, but in my retail copy, I most definately can't do this without getting seen...

so either, you haven't played on hard (let alone bigboss hard), you're getting something mixed up or you're not being very truthful here. Anyone who's attempted to play the game on hard or bigboss hard knows this much is obvious. It's certainly not an easy game under these conditions.

I openly admit, I'm not convinced at all you've played the game on the higher difficulty settings, which to be honest, makes all further talk a waste of time. You're not being all that constructive in your criticism directed towards the game but resort to your broken "immersion" because you can't walk around 40cm ledges and because shooting down enemies is so easy (despite the shooting being probably less than 10% of what the game trully offers).

Here's some advice: If you happen to disagree with someone, instead of nitpicking his entire post (which wasn't all that long to beginn with), why not post your experience with the game and what exactly disappointed you in an objective way, instead of going all confrontational. Your points would certainly come across more valid and would leave a lot more room for constructive discussion as to what the game offers and what it doesn't, because lets face it: No game outthere is perfect and gives room for nitpicking just about anything if you go looking for it. Does that make all games crap outthere? No of course not. And neither does it make MGS4 the crap game you're arguing here.

Think we can get along?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Actually, that is incorrect (as I've shown with "cellular memory" and robots balancing themselves). There is PLENTY science in MGS4.

You can find a 'scientific' rationale for pretty much anything!

However, certain liberties were taken that fall outside of science fiction or fact.

Right, but my point is that the designers did not start with science, design a game around a well researched scientific basis, and then take occassional liberties. They wrote a story, came up with funky ideas, and then after-the-fact created 'scientific explanations' for them. That's a maintay of Science-fiction, inventing your own plausible explanations . This is on the whole how the creative industries work. There may have been a designer or three with an interest in the sciences suggesting 'hey guys, I've just read about this such-and-such in Nature magazine! How's about we add some of that into MGS4?' Even then, the ideas are likely extended beyond what is realistically possible to make for a more entertaining game. eg. Nanobots repairing people, while the idea is broadly feasible on paper (nanobots could be built that could fix cells), it would require so much energy to do it in the time frames in operation here it just couldn't happen. I think you'll find what happened is the game wanted people with regenerative health, and the designers looked for an explanation that fitted in with their universe and grabbed nanobots. It you want something supernatural, you have two options for an explanations - some scientific marvel like mutations or technology, or spritual powers.

My point was for Vanquish to not pick at those aspects that don't necessarily make sense as a reason to not like the game when it exists in EVERY game.

That's very true! They are all created the same way, trying to make an entertaining game without worrying about Real Life getting in the way. With some exceptions, like race simulators and sports games

 

[vanquish]

You can find a 'scientific' rationale for pretty much anything!

Right, but my point is that the designers did not start with science, design a game around a well researched scientific basis, and then take occassional liberties. They wrote a story, came up with funky ideas, and then after-the-fact created 'scientific explanations' for them. That's a maintay of Science-fiction, inventing your own plausible explanations . This is on the whole how the creative industries work. There may have been a designer or three with an interest in the sciences suggesting 'hey guys, I've just read about this such-and-such in Nature magazine! How's about we add some of that into MGS4?' Even then, the ideas are likely extended beyond what is realistically possible to make for a more entertaining game. eg. Nanobots repairing people, while the idea is broadly feasible on paper (nanobots could be built that could fix cells), it would require so much energy to do it in the time frames in operation here it just couldn't happen. I think you'll find what happened is the game wanted people with regenerative health, and the designers looked for an explanation that fitted in with their universe and grabbed nanobots. It you want something supernatural, you have two options for an explanations - some scientific marvel like mutations or technology, or spritual powers.

That's very true! They are all created the same way, trying to make an entertaining game without worrying about Real Life getting in the way. With some exceptions, like race simulators and sports games

Thank you again Shifty, that was what I was getting at.

And GuestLV who posted screens comparing MGS4 and Uncharted above, might want to do some hasty re-editing... as those screens are from Uncharted 2 which is hardly fair.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Thank you again Shifty, that was what I was getting at.

That's what you were getting at, huh? I thought that was what I was mostly getting at (hence all the agreeing in his reply to my post).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Crawling around enemies on the highest difficulty settings? Care to prove this somehow?

Try for yourself. Go prone, then crawl your way slowly past enemies? Its not particularly hard, just make sure the camosuit reloads ever so often.

Anyone with the game is free to try this at home mind you - maybe you got the super exlusive dumbed down version from Konami, but in my retail copy, I most definately can't do this without getting seen...

so either, you haven't played on hard (let alone bigboss hard), you're getting something mixed up or you're not being very truthful here. Anyone who's attempted to play the game on hard or bigboss hard knows this much is obvious. It's certainly not an easy game under these conditions.

I did play on Big Boss Hard, and indeed, all i did was crawling from point A to point B. The only "challenge" was figuring out scripted paths (well, its challenging if your a retard), then lying still if enemies where very close, other wise just crawl away.

I suspect you just suck at games thought, considering that you find it impossible to kill all the enemies in MGS at higher difficulties, which really should be a piece of cake for anybody who is remotely decent at shooting games. Hell aspecialy when you have third person view that allows you to look around corners (somewhat)

 

[Jesus2006]

IMO that whole conversion is just about somebody trying to play down a game that is not out on his preferred console, so it's useless to discuss about this.

I think most agree (incl. reviewers) that MGS4 is just one excellent game, for some even GOTY 2008.

 

[BadTB25]

I have to agree with Ostepop on this one, although I admit to not having finished MGS4. I actually planned to play some of it this weekend and instead played a little bit of Left 4 Dead. I also didn't finish MGS2, but I did watch my bro-in-law complete it. I never played MGS3.

The gameplay does not offer anything significant different than past MGS games and the graphics while impressive does not strike me as genre defining.

Some of the strong points that its fans would argue are a real turn-off for me (eg. long cut-scenes, convoluted and complex story-lines, AI pattern memorization). In the end, I think it comes down to matter of taste. I was really hyped for the game when it came out, but was really disappointed in the end.

My opinion may change if I ever finish it.

 

[obonicus]

I have to agree with Ostepop on this one, although I admit to not having finished MGS4. I actually planned to play some of it this weekend and instead played a little bit of Left 4 Dead. I also didn't finish MGS2, but I did watch my bro-in-law complete it. I never played MGS3.

The gameplay does not offer anything significant different than past MGS games and the graphics while impressive does not strike me as genre defining.

You can say that it doesn't offer much over other shooters on the market and I'll agree. But the gameplay, particularly the shooty bits is very, very different, mainly because it's no longer painful to go through. Combat depended on using the pressure sensitive buttons, in stopping and switching to FPS mode to aim precisely (with no moving in FPS mode -- both sticks control the camera!) This terrible combat is essentially why combat in the previous games wasn't an option -- enemies were deadly, but you were hobbled in your ability to fight back (other stealth games use similar 'tricks', damn the designers' black souls).

 

[joker454]

I play on the hardest difficulty setting, and its still horribly easy.

Personally, I'm glad the game was easy. I'm a big fan of the main character Snake, and I mostly wanted to see what was gonna happen to him without getting bogged down by having to redo sections of the game over and over again. I know that doesn't help you any, but for me the difficulty was just right, and I was able to finish the game without pain.

 

[Nesh]

I have to agree with Ostepop on this one, although I admit to not having finished MGS4. I actually planned to play some of it this weekend and instead played a little bit of Left 4 Dead. I also didn't finish MGS2, but I did watch my bro-in-law complete it. I never played MGS3.

The gameplay does not offer anything significant different than past MGS games and the graphics while impressive does not strike me as genre defining.

Some of the strong points that its fans would argue are a real turn-off for me (eg. long cut-scenes, convoluted and complex story-lines, AI pattern memorization). In the end, I think it comes down to matter of taste. I was really hyped for the game when it came out, but was really disappointed in the end.

My opinion may change if I ever finish it.

I doubt you will like it if you didnt put some dedication on the other games of the series. This is a game that takes a totally different approach than other games. Whereas in other games your aim is to kill and avoid being killed, this one is trying to tell a story and provide a different interactive experience. MGS isnt trying to create enjoyment by killing and offering a challenge in doing war. It wants you to enjoy it by playing hide and seek. I personally never enjoyed an MGS by killing like I do in Gears, Uncharted, or any other shooter. Whenever I did that I got bored and didnt feel satisfaction. I enjoy it by hiding and playing with the enemy AI. The challenge for me is to finish the game by not getting killed while not killing anyone.

I personally dont consider MGS a game. I consider it an interactive novel using games as its medium of communication.

 

[BadTB25]

Most of my frustrations are from what I deem as trial and error type game-play. I guess I just don't have the patience for these kind of games. It's probably the same reason I don't play open world games like Oblivion, Fallout and the GTA games.

Additionally, the long cut-scenes really turn me off. I'm not giving up on the game (at least not yet) and I fully intend to finish it some day--I said the same thing about MGS2, but was more than satisfied watching my bro-in-law finish it. I have a few days of for the holiday break and hopefully will get some quality time in with it.

What I'm trying to say is I understand where Ostepop is coming from. This game while gold to some, is not for everybody. I'd argue that it's much more of a niche title than mainstream regardless of its sales success.

 

[2real4tv]

Most of my frustrations are from what I deem as trial and error type game-play. I guess I just don't have the patience for these kind of games. It's probably the same reason I don't play open world games like Oblivion, Fallout and the GTA games.

Additionally, the long cut-scenes really turn me off. I'm not giving up on the game (at least not yet) and I fully intend to finish it some day--I said the same thing about MGS2, but was more than satisfied watching my bro-in-law finish it. I have a few days of for the holiday break and hopefully will get some quality time in with it.

What I'm trying to say is I understand where Ostepop is coming from. This game while gold to some, is not for everybody. I'd argue that it's much more of a niche title than mainstream regardless of its sales success.

Okay now this is getting a little ridiculous...if it was niche their wouldn't have been 5 sequels and that doesn't include portable titles and SE's. Iam fine with u don't like it but come on now lets be logical.