Feel the atmoshpere in Metroid Prime: new pics. - Page 5

TheGame · 09-06-2002, 01:15 AM

I get that a lot

why do people like argueing with me for no reason

Angrist · 09-06-2002, 05:30 AM

my topic....

playa_playa · 09-10-2002, 01:38 AM

I am dismayed by the fact that some people are saying "Halo and Metroid Prime cannot be compared."

YES THEY CAN. It might not be the best, the most profound or the fairest comparison, but you can still draw analogous elements between the two.

Saying that you cannot is just dumb. It's a logical fallacy.

bobcat · 09-10-2002, 09:44 AM

volare.............whoa oooh.

cantare.........whoa ooh oh.

TheGame · 09-10-2002, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa_playa
I am dismayed by the fact that some people are saying "Halo and Metroid Prime cannot be compared."

YES THEY CAN. It might not be the best, the most profound or the fairest comparison, but you can still draw analogous elements between the two.

Saying that you cannot is just dumb. It's a logical fallacy.

Let's just compare GTA3 to Mario Sunshine, or Madden 2003 to WWF Wrestlemainia x8

They can be compared, yes, but there is no way to draw a conclusion from comparisions except which genre of game you like more.

Null · 09-10-2002, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheGame
They can be compared, yes, but there is no way to draw a conclusion from comparisions except which genre of game you like more.

lol.. i can.

(once i've played both that is)

playa_playa · 09-10-2002, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheGame
Let's just compare GTA3 to Mario Sunshine, or Madden 2003 to WWF Wrestlemainia x8

Let's do that: they're all videogames!

Is that a comparison? Yes. Is that fair or profound? No. Did I say that they have to be in order to qualify as a comparison? I don't think so. And as a matter of fact, I remember painstakingly pointing out the very fact in my post. Something which you obviously missed so masterfully. Brilliant, genius. Well, wait...no, more like retarded.

Quote:

They can be compared, yes, but there is no way to draw a conclusion from comparisions except which genre of game you like more.

Since this sentence says, "there is no way to draw a conclusion from [comparisons] except which genre of game you like more," I'll argue based upon the fact that you're saying that there is no way to draw a conclusion from comparisons in general except which genre of game you like more. Well, actually, I cannot because it's an obvious red-herring. So any comparison at all only allows conclusions that let's people to determine what kind of bias they have for games? So if I were to compare elephants to ants, that comparison would let you determine which genre of game you prefer? Sounds moronic, doesn't it?

But let me get back to my original point: we compare things that are totally different from each other all the time. And if you think about it, what's so stimulating about comparing two of the same things? If comparisons are made only to be centered around two of the same things, what the hell good is it?

Jesus Christ, is this so damn hard to grasp?

TheGame · 09-10-2002, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa_playa
Let's do that: they're all videogames!

Is that a comparison? Yes. Is that fair or profound? No. Did I say that they have to be in order to qualify as a comparison? I don't think so. And as a matter of fact, I remember painstakingly pointing out the very fact in my post. Something which you obviously missed so masterfully. Brilliant, genius. Well, wait...no, more like retarded.

What I was trying to say (which your dumb ass missed) is that anything can be compared... but... There is a point where comparisons become pointless due to too many differences.

The best comparisons are games that try to create the same image:

NFL 2k vs Madden
NBA 2k vs NBA Live
WWF No Mercy vs WWF WMx8
Mario 64 vs Mario Sunshine

The next Best are games that aren't trying to create the same image, but games that are in the same genre and have similar gameplay mechanics, game settings, or Level design.

Then there are the pointless comparisons. Yes, [b]anything can be compared[b], But some are just plain stupid. Games that have nothing to do with each other. Metriod and Halo fall under this category. The lack of similarities isn't the only thing that makes it unfair. Just think about it, comparing a game that isn't out to (arguably) the best home console FPS is in no way fair.

Just like the retards that used to say Mafia is a GTA killer... Just because Mafia doesn't live up to GTA it now can be classified as crap. If it wasn't compared to GTA 3 it wouldn't be crap, it would be it's own game. Let Metroid be it's own game.

Quote:

we compare things that are totally different from each other all the time. And if you think about it, what's so stimulating about comparing two of the same things? If comparisons are made only to be centered around two of the same things, what the hell good is it?

What's so stimulating abut comparing Apples to Oranges??? The way I see it, comparing things that have bigger similarities than it's label. Yes, they are both "games" just like Apples and oranges are both "fruits". It's a lot easier to compare the big orange with the brown spots to the small clean one then it will ever be to compare it to an Apple.

Use this example on games, Tetris vs Madden 2003... both games, how could a person write a comprehensive comparison???

"Well, Madden has a franchise mode and Tetris doesn't, Madden is better"

wtf?

It simply makes no sense. To me, if comparisons are this retarded, I like to just say that the can't be compared. Halo and Metriod can't be compared.

Have you even considered the fact that metroid isn't even out yet? They still can be compared? (keep in mind what I said was something that can't be compared) A couple demo's to a full blown HIT game? If you believe these can be compared, I will quit debating now, because this is simple disagreement, facts have nothing to do with it.

Quote:

Jesus Christ, is this so damn hard to grasp?

playa_playa · 09-11-2002, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Use this example on games, Tetris vs Madden 2003... both games, how could a person write a comprehensive comparison???

"Well, Madden has a franchise mode and Tetris doesn't, Madden is better"

Let's take that example and work with it to see if a valuable comparison could be formed between two things that you deem totally different. If such an attempt could be made and validated, wouldn't it prove that comparing two such distant phenomena can be gratifying?

Exhibit A -

Tetris features minimal amount of graphic prowess as opposed to Madden 2003. Whereas Madden 2003's gameplay itself is dependent on the visuals to create a realistic gameplay (since realistic experience would entail the most amount of graphic advances as possible).

Conclusion from A: The gameplay back in the generation of Tetris relied on abstract concepts of mental stimulation, filling the gap of missing realism from the obvious lack of graphic capabilities with imagination of the mind. Gameplay featured in the generation of Madden 2003 strives to create a near-perfect reconstruction of reality as opposed to stimulating the mind to imagine what the game is trying to portray.

Exhibit B -

The controls of Tetris remains simple (D-Pad and 2 buttons used). The way the movement of the blocks and the way of it falling are intuitively designed - meaning, left represents left, right represent right, down represent the fall of the block and so forth).
However, the controls of Madden 2003 present some unnatural tendencies as a means to dictate gameplay. That is Juke may be d-pad and x, pump fake may be R1+x and so forth.

Conclusion from B -

A realistic depiction in videogames inevitably leads to complicated schemes in control and player participation. Remember having to plug controller 2 for one of the boss fights in MGS? In order to portray the overall mood of the game during that fight, the creators had to conjure up a scheme that differed from just using the buttons on the controller. Hence, they added another method of controlling the game that the player had to learn.

Exhibit C -

Tetris is known to be impossible towards the end of the game. Madden can have a steep learning curve due to the exquisite control scheme, but can be mastered and conquered if the right amount of skill is present.

Conclusion from B

The limited amount of freedom in a videogame inevitably leads to physical limitations as a setting for difficulty. Whereas a more complicated game may feature a suave and refined control of the game mechanics as a measure of difficulty.

These comparisons aren't legitimate?

TheGame · 09-11-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa_playa

These comparisons aren't legitimate?

No, they were a waste of time.

Answer this, which game is better?

Quote:

They can be compared, yes, but there is no way to draw a conclusion from comparisions except which genre of game you like more.

Null · 09-11-2002, 12:26 PM

um, the game you like better is the better game.

if you like tetris better, does that mean you like puzzel games better? hell no you might hate puzzel games and love football games.

TheGame · 09-11-2002, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Null
um, the game you like better is the better game.

if you like tetris better, does that mean you like puzzel games better? hell no you might hate puzzel games and love football games.

ok then, let me re-phrase it

There is no way to draw conclusions from comparisions except which game is better compared to it's own genre, not to each other.

There is no way to directly compare Madden 2003 to tetris. Because some of Madden's strong points can never be used to improve tetris, and wouldn't make sense to be put in Tetris... just like some of tetris's strong points could never be used in a football game. Graphics and sound are the only things that can be compared cross-genre by showing point by point... But cross genre gameplay and features can't be compared reasonably.

playa_playa · 09-11-2002, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheGame

Answer this, which game is better?

By saying they were a waste of time and not providing reasons for your assertion, you've already lost your stupid argument.

In any case, how do you define better?

Shadow_Link · 09-11-2002, 06:26 PM

I think everyone knows it is easy to compare things, even when they aren't the same.

But when we talk about games, we usually compare games of the same type, hence making a fair comparison. Sure there can be comparisons made between Halo and Metroid Prime, but will they be fair? Ofcourse not, and that is the point that is trying to be made.

If you were to make a head-to-head comparison between Halo and Metroid from a FPS point of view, then Halo has won the comparsion already. Consider this. Someone can only afford one game, and it's between Halo and Metroid, yet he doesn't know much about either game. If someone compares the games from one point of view, categorising both games under the same genre (FPS), then I assure you that not only would Halo win the head-to-head, but it would also make Metroid sound like a bad game, as it doesn't really have the elements to make it a contender to other high calibur FPS's.

On the other hand, if both games were compared under the assumption that both games were FPA's, then Metroid would be the out and out winner. But since both games are totally different in more ways to one, comparing both games would be unwise.

Put it this way, would you recommend Metroid Prime to a hard core FPS fan? Or would you recommend Halo to an adventure freak? Thought not.

Null · 09-11-2002, 07:17 PM

most people would wait to actually PLAY the game before recommending one, or saying one wins or what not.

metroid could very well win a FPS comparason. or maybe it wouldnt. thing is you should wait to PLAY IT first.

i say its rather stupid to say ones a winner when the 2nd isnt even done yet.