@Hexadecimal
Again same. The graphic style will often get me interested in the game. To use your example, Mad World, had the graphic style of a joke. "What's black, white and red all over" (That's how I saw it). Awesome graphics, BUT, the gameplay itself reminded me of Smash TV. It was a great game that sold horribly. Compared to a game like El Shaddai where the graphics got me into it, the controls weren't bad but nothing special and the story was arse. Still worth playing. Also, +1 to you for Catherine.

@Xannidel
Not really related but give Gray Matter a try (it's on Xbox and PC)

@A Zombie Riot
Minecraft is a lazy half-arsed game with poor programming and nothing to do.....but it's sheer simplicity is what makes it good. The only objective in Minecraft is survive and you can fulfill that task within 10 minutes and "win". It's more about building mechanisms and buildings now. The way see Minecraft is more of a virtual programming machine. Red Stone adds a whole level of depth to a game that isn't quit obvious at first. I love the graphic style for Minecraft and I love how simple it is to play, but the Red Stone building and Building structures is also a plus. It's something for everyone that I can't really falter. What's bad about it? No idea, it has no direction and can't really be placed into a genre. Oh but I really effin' hate watching Minecraft videos (unless it's a group video) because damn are they boring.
Animal Crossing is also the same kind thing. I enjoy playing those but it still feels a tad empty at times.

I wonder if that McDonalds lady has ever heard of "griefing" before and how much more annoying that can be than any spawn killer in CoD.

She was talking about her grandchildren. So, I don't know if they really play online or not. Plus, Minecraft 360 you can only play with your friends and can/'t allow friends of friends. So yeah, it's basically perfect for kids.

(11-04-2012 08:52 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:  Minecraft is a lazy half-arsed game with poor programming and nothing to do.....but it's sheer simplicity is what makes it good. The only objective in Minecraft is survive and you can fulfill that task within 10 minutes and "win". It's more about building mechanisms and buildings now. The way see Minecraft is more of a virtual programming machine. Red Stone adds a whole level of depth to a game that isn't quit obvious at first. I love the graphic style for Minecraft and I love how simple it is to play, but the Red Stone building and Building structures is also a plus. It's something for everyone that I can't really falter. What's bad about it? No idea, it has no direction and can't really be placed into a genre. Oh but I really effin' hate watching Minecraft videos (unless it's a group video) because damn are they boring.
Animal Crossing is also the same kind thing. I enjoy playing those but it still feels a tad empty at times.

I wonder if that McDonalds lady has ever heard of "griefing" before and how much more annoying that can be than any spawn killer in CoD.

I agree with this, kids should be more introduced to this then CoD. It is cheaper and also allows them to be creative (assuming they know what everything does) because it sort of teaches them a few things. But then again a game is a game and unlike a coloring book or an empty artbook, Minecraft is still very limited to what you can make.

(11-04-2012 09:19 AM)A Zombie Riot Wrote:  She was talking about her grandchildren. So, I don't know if they really play online or not. Plus, Minecraft 360 you can only play with your friends and can/'t allow friends of friends. So yeah, it's basically perfect for kids.

True true. (Y)

@Xannidel
Agreed. I honestly think that schools should install Minecraft for the kids to play with. When i was younger we had the BBC Micro to use, which is a games console. Minecraft can be seen on the side of "mindless entertainment" but that's only if you see it that way and not let kids explore the creative side of Minecraft. It's really the same as kids drawing 'mummy and daddy' in art class (and art classes are a waste of time anyway so adding Minecraft as a reward/playtime even isn't going to hurt). Minecraft is limited sure but it doesn't stop people building a fully functioning 16 bit calculators. A calculator is nothing special but the programming/building is fun.

from what I can tell i think its like comparing the title into consoles

Sony = Graphics
Microsoft = Graphics
Nintendo = Story + Graphics + Gameplay

I know this looks stupid but everytime I see Sony or Xbox games, they show strong graphics but horrible gameplay experience. Playing with Nintendo in my opinion, I guarantee that any game you get for Nintendo, its sure to be fun

(11-06-2012 02:28 AM)Artwark Wrote:  I guarantee that any game you get for Nintendo, its sure to be fun

They did really good with the DS, and the 3DS already has some nice titles, but I have to strongly disagree with you when it comes to the Wii, which is why it's basically a paperweight for me and it'll be a looooong time, although probably never, until I get a Wii-u.

Even with the games that should be fun that damn Wii controller can screw things up so bad that it's more frustrating than anything. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I purchased Epic Mickey, which was an exclusive for them. That game is anything but "fun".

(11-06-2012 02:28 AM)Artwark Wrote:  from what I can tell i think its like comparing the title into consoles

Sony = Graphics
Microsoft = Graphics
Nintendo = Story + Graphics + Gameplay

I know this looks stupid but everytime I see Sony or Xbox games, they show strong graphics but horrible gameplay experience. Playing with Nintendo in my opinion, I guarantee that any game you get for Nintendo, its sure to be fun

Yes but. What you say about Sony and Microsoft is completely untrue and well, pretty uneducated. The Wii most definitely doesn't have the best graphics; and by best graphics I mean, graphical display capabilities. Madworld, No More Heroes, Okami, Muramasa have amazing graphics but are butchered by the Wii's horrid graphical limitations.
A perfect example below (Of games with amazing graphics, story and gameplay).




Another example of how the Wii butchers games:
Zelda on a Dolphin Emulator (Watch the video in fullscreen on 1080p)




The comment about Sony and Microsoft though. Exclusives like Uncharted are heavily focused on the story whereas Gears has a stronger emphasis on gameplay. However the graphics and story/gameplay are also top notch. Not to mentioned games like Mass Effect, Alice: Madness, Catherine, Journey, Splosion Man, Portal pretty much the entire fighting game genre(to name a SMALL amount) are games only found on Xbox and Playstation. Meanwhile the Wii is given Imagine Babies and Cheggers party quiz.

To even say Microsoft and Sony are graphic is laughable. Games like Deadly Premontion could run on the Wii with the graphics of that game but the story is incredible (Xbox and PS3 only).

Gameplay is first for me. There's no way I would have enjoyed Bulletstorm had it not played so well. The story sucked and the graphics were so-so.

Story is second, because I enjoy a good story.

Graphics are last. Because you can polish a turd....but in the end it's still a turd.

(11-06-2012 02:28 AM)Artwark Wrote:  from what I can tell i think its like comparing the title into consoles

Sony = Graphics
Microsoft = Graphics
Nintendo = Story + Graphics + Gameplay

I know this looks stupid but everytime I see Sony or Xbox games, they show strong graphics but horrible gameplay experience. Playing with Nintendo in my opinion, I guarantee that any game you get for Nintendo, its sure to be fun

I disagree, you make it sound like any game with good graphics and not Nintendo is bad in terms of gameplay. Games like Uncharted and Crysis beg to differ. And besides, Sony and Microsoft themselves generally don't develop their own games, they would publish them. Nintendo does both, and really knows their way around the consoles to make the game as good as possible.
And Nintendo graphics can really go either way, because of the Wii (and previous consoles)graphics processing, they relied on really stylized graphics for games. A good example is Wind Waker, super stylized graphics that still seem good to this day.

Ok so I agree on that but still.... Nintendo somehow convinces me to play their franchises. And yeah some few Sony and Microsoft games do have good stories. But look at it this way, you get games with better graphics with more price than getting games with standard graphics for less price. I mean think about PSP and DS. The DS was a lot better than the PSP because of three things. Price, Games and long battery life.

(11-06-2012 09:01 PM)Artwark Wrote:  Ok so I agree on that but still.... Nintendo somehow convinces me to play their franchises. And yeah some few Sony and Microsoft games do have good stories. But look at it this way, you get games with better graphics with more price than getting games with standard graphics for less price. I mean think about PSP and DS. The DS was a lot better than the PSP because of three things. Price, Games and long battery life.

Prices, games list and battery life have nothing to do whether the games have a decent amount of content in all sectors though.... Also Wii games are the same price as Xbox and PS3. TO use my example above, if I saw No More Heroes on Xbox and Wii for the same full £40($60) price, I would buy the Xbox version. The controls being slightly more fun on Wii but I wouldn't but motion controls over better graphics and delivery.

Question: Do you actually have an Xbox 360 or PS3?

(11-06-2012 10:57 PM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:  Question: Do you actually have an Xbox 360 or PS3?

PS3 =]

(11-06-2012 10:57 PM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:  

(11-06-2012 09:01 PM)Artwark Wrote:  Ok so I agree on that but still.... Nintendo somehow convinces me to play their franchises. And yeah some few Sony and Microsoft games do have good stories. But look at it this way, you get games with better graphics with more price than getting games with standard graphics for less price. I mean think about PSP and DS. The DS was a lot better than the PSP because of three things. Price, Games and long battery life.

Prices, games list and battery life have nothing to do whether the games have a decent amount of content in all sectors though.... Also Wii games are the same price as Xbox and PS3. TO use my example above, if I saw No More Heroes on Xbox and Wii for the same full £40($60) price, I would buy the Xbox version. The controls being slightly more fun on Wii but I wouldn't but motion controls over better graphics and delivery.

Question: Do you actually have an Xbox 360 or PS3?

U really think prices aren't the most part of the games? What about the games for Iphone? isn't 25 cents for an awesome game worth it?

Also I'm more into Nintendo cause I got so used to the brand cause the games are understandable, affordable and easy to play.

>not being Idort masterace

(11-07-2012 01:34 AM)Artwark Wrote:  

(11-06-2012 10:57 PM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:  

(11-06-2012 09:01 PM)Artwark Wrote:  Ok so I agree on that but still.... Nintendo somehow convinces me to play their franchises. And yeah some few Sony and Microsoft games do have good stories. But look at it this way, you get games with better graphics with more price than getting games with standard graphics for less price. I mean think about PSP and DS. The DS was a lot better than the PSP because of three things. Price, Games and long battery life.

Prices, games list and battery life have nothing to do whether the games have a decent amount of content in all sectors though.... Also Wii games are the same price as Xbox and PS3. TO use my example above, if I saw No More Heroes on Xbox and Wii for the same full £40($60) price, I would buy the Xbox version. The controls being slightly more fun on Wii but I wouldn't but motion controls over better graphics and delivery.

Question: Do you actually have an Xbox 360 or PS3?

U really think prices aren't the most part of the games? What about the games for Iphone? isn't 25 cents for an awesome game worth it?

Also I'm more into Nintendo cause I got so used to the brand cause the games are understandable, affordable and easy to play.

But games on the Wii cost the exact same as they do on Xbox and PS3. Again what?

Also, no(!) the price doesn't factor into the game because the price doesn't justify the content of the game. "I guess I bought a £40 game called Gears of War which must be bad, but I spent £40 on Zelda so it must be good".
The relation between price and content isn't there. There games on the PSN Store/XBLA like Fez, Journey, Unfinished Swan, Double Dragon Neo which are around £15 but again, the price has no relation to the content. When were Wii games cheaper?

Also, iPhone games are cheap because that's the price that they want to sell them at. I guess if they sold Angry Birds at £40($60) that would be good/bad?

Lastly, whether Wii games are "easy to play" is debatable (at launch time). Pressing a button was a standard but having to swing your arm in a certain direction takes a new level of learning. Also, Skyward Sword was NOT easy to play. It's was a chore and had the worst controls of a Zelda game.