ID:An IGN editor claims that opinions are facts and that his coworkers are hypocrites

People see things differently cause they're looking from different perspectives

Really now... where did I say which is better? The subject at hand was gameplay features; I pointed out a standout feature of Gears which is also a standout feature of another game.

Are you insane? 'Cause you seem to be reading sentences that aren't there.

I find your definition of "revolutionary" to be quite curious. Does this mean the wiimote wouldn't be revolutionary if fewer people knew about it? Does it mean it's not revolutionary if none of the other console manufacturers imitate it?

I haven't come up with my own definition of revolutionary, but I will say there's nothing revolutionary about a feature I've been exposed to for a year.

edit: I hope Gears makes use of cover more common. Use of cover and the tactical challenge of planning your moves is far more interesting to me then the twitch reflexes of circle strafing.[/edit]

That's a good point regarding AI. For all practical purposes, Red Orchestra doesn't have any. The simplistic ai is only good for target practice or when you're running around to learn the map.

The same could be said of Red Orchestra... but it's definately not an average shooter. But, perhaps because I've been playing Red Orchestra for a year, the cover gameplay mechanic of Gears didn't make as big an impact of me as it did on many others.

One side effect of playing games since circa 1980 is that everything reminds me of a game I've already played.

 

Would you consider Sega's 32X, Sega CD or the N64 Disk a revolutionary feature? We first had the Wiimote and now the six axis. There is probably a good chance that the next console controller out of MS will contain similar functionality. So, if that feature set becomes common, we will all point to the Wiimote as the source of a major innovation in user input.

"Revolutionary" means more than "new". Its also means "change". If a game that takes little known features and through its popularity bring those features to the spotlight, which in turn leads inclusion to the point of those features becoming common, I would surmise that its safe to call that game, "revolutionary".

LOL, you too. But believe me, Ive played Killswitch and other games that incorporate cover (haven't had the pleasure of playing RO) but Gears transitioning mechanics (in and out of cover and cover to cover) is very well thought out while being simple to use. Its probably the main reason why Gears gets such kudos for its cover mechanism.

 

A. Game of the Year is, and always will be, opinion. Regardless of what corporation throws their name out there.

B. There's a difference between choosing a GOTY for one's self (as the IGN guys did) and bashing games that you haven't really played. (also what the IGN guys did)

I would say that Twilight Princess is my pick for GOTY, and I own and completed Gears of War. That's me, though. I don't own a PS3 or PS2 so I missed out on all of the contenders that were Sony-exclusive, but out of the games I did play, Zelda is clearly the best. Lots of runners up, though.

2006 was a great year.

 

I never claimed Twilight Princess was "revolutionary." I simply said that there are other Nintendo franchises that have changed a lot less since their inspiration. You obviously don't play Nintendo games, or you'd realize that the games I've listed are little more than expansion packs to their original franchise titles. Twilight Princess has far more new gameplay elements over the original NES games than the other titles I listed. And if I recall correctly, Ocarina of Time was hailed as revolutionary, not more of the same.

Battalion Wars is not an official part of the Famicom Wars turn-based strategy franchise. Advance Wars DS is the latest game in the series. And no one said "major US-release franchise." The fact is, Fire Emblem is a Nintendo franchise.

 

What about TP in comparison to OOT??? There is what, a 10 year gap here? What changes to the gameplay have they added in that decade, and is it a signifigant step forward IYO, considering the decade between games?

 

Well there is the whole shape shifting thing that wasn't there in OOT. Running around as a wolf for example is going to change the game play pretty significantly.

Shape shifting did appear in Majora's Mask, but the creatures you turn into were quite different.

 

That may be an innovation in Zelda, but not in games in general. The shapeshifting part isn't a large part of the game anyway.

 

No they aren't actually, Mario 64 was a totally knew experience from the Mario games before it. Metroid Prime was very different to all Metroid games before it. Even iterations of the series like Wind Waker to Twilight Princess have so much added/changed (other then graphics) and so many new twists and experiences that they stay fresh. Unlike Gears IMO which just felt 'been there done that' to me.

By the way you say you got sick of the Mario games by the time Mario 64 came out because they were all just the same?... How on earth can you call Mario 64 the same experience as the 2D Mario games?!.. t sounds more like you stopped playing because you got sick of the characters themselves rather then the actual gameplay, which is just as strange, again in my opinion..

 

I'm 20h inside TP, somewhere in the third dungeon (OMG, spoilers ...) , and the game feels very much like OOT. The wolf part are very well done, but I would not count this as a revolution. The game, as for now, looks like "what we could have done with OOT if the N64 was a GC"

Majora Mask was revolutionnary / OOT in pretty much all aspects and execution, so this seems more like a safe move with no risks (many people did not like MM also).

 

Zelda is a good game but the thing that makes is what hinders it. No matter how one cuts it its still just Zelda. I enjoyed the game but all the way through it has the been there done that scenario.

Gears is a great game. Groundbreaking well not in gameplay but definetely graphics. This is the first game that I have turned on and seen a leap in visuals, everything else just seems to be small increments. This coupled with very solid gameplay and online gameplay and you have game of teh year. Gears simply set a milestone for every game released for Nov. on, like it or not thats the reality of it.


Its all opinion but I dont see how a redone title for the last 2 decades deserves game of the year (well not counting the switch to 3d).




----This is excluding Oblivion which would be neck and neck with Gears IMO

 

Is oblivion more than just morrowind 1.5 ??

Anyway, game of the year is just a marketing term.

 

Graphically, I don't think Oblivion compares to Gears, and I've got Oblivion on the PC where I can really crank up the settings.

Anyhow, I personally thought gears had rather refreshing gameplay, it was quite different from any other shooter I've played before. The pacing is definitely altered, and using cover isn't just a good idea, it's essential to the gameplay. I've played games that liked to emphasize the use of cover before, but none of them have ever required it as a critical gameplay element, most games can still be played as a standard FPS if you eschew cover; gears can't.

 

Not liking Zelda, Mario and the like is all fine and dandy, but not for the reasons you listed. "Once I hit puberty" what the hell? Disliking a game because you feel you're too old for it is rather shallow and stupid.

Also, I really don't see how Okami is any more for big peoples than Zelda. Really, if you think about it, Okami was basically a Godsend to the people that liked Zelda gameplay but had their grudges for whatever reason against Nintendo. Now they could have their own Zelda on their own console. And really, the only thing that set Okami apart was it's graphical style. I think it's pretty much agreed that other than that, Okami had worse dungeons and sidequests than TP.

As for what Matt said, everything would have been fine if he kept it down to "imo". The way he presented it as fact was pretty stupid, and I'd think he'd at least be smart enough not to phrase it in such a way.

 

This is a simple yet exellent observation. Many people dont consider this and they should.

With games like Oblivion, Okami, Zelda, relesed in 2006 is hard to pick GoW as game of the year. Also, why Rainbow Six: Vegas has been ignored completly?

True. And my friends, dungeons and side quest are key elements of adventure/action RPGs. Not to mention the combat mechanics are better in Zelda than in Okami.

I most admit i feel kind of stupid. I said this because nobody has considered Zelda aplication of motion controls. Yes, it is a shallow aplication of the Wii controler but it made the game more inmersive (to me at least). Thats something not any other of the candidates had.

Having played all the big name games among others not so famous and trying to be as objective as i can, i believe zelda was the best game of 2006.

Btw, i would have liked more nominations for Splinter Cell: DA and watch some publications go crazy and give some love to Hitman Blood Money also

 

Fox5's claim wasn't about Ocarina of Time. It was about the inception, i.e. the NES Legend of Zelda. And I never claimed that TP is revolutionary. In comparison to OoT, it's pretty similar. The plot is a little richer, and there are some new gameplay elements...but I think OoT basically perfected the genre. There really isn't much you can do to revolutionize the solo action-adventure and keep it accessible.

Edit: I don't know that I would give TP game of the year. It's great, but it's way too freakin' easy (on the last 3 bosses, I lost no more than half a heart per boss), and it desperately needs voices for the non-Link characters. The silence really kills some of the cutscenes. I'd say it's a 9.0 game, not a 10.0 like some people give it. But maybe there weren't any other games this good released in 2006.

 

hardcore TES fans will say its actually Morrowind 0,5 with a graphics update. Mostly due to the ridiculus leveling system for npcs.