My only concern at the moment is that SP will not carry the same weight as previous titles. I heard someone made a comment that the story for God of War Ascension is much shorter than previous titles. That has me worried because God of War has always been about ultra steller story telling. Now with the MP portion if the comment is true than SP might not have the same impact? The PSP games were shorter due to memory issues due to the UMP only had about 2 MB of storage. So the stories were pretty much straight forward.
GoW was never about this. A good presentation for a passable (by Action standards) story, sure, but the point was the cinematic, linear/guided experience spoon-fed to the player. Any depth chaps like me find is often enough accidental/unintended, but we are in it for gameplay (as is proper for the genre).
GodModeGOD wrote:
>about ultra stellar story telling
GoW was never about this. A good presentation for a passable (by Action standards) story, sure, but the point was the cinematic, linear/guided experience spoon-fed to the player. Any depth chaps like me find is often enough accidental/unintended, but we are in it for gameplay (as is proper for the genre).
I disagree here, slightly. While the quality of the stories may not be on par with something like a Final Fantasy title (who would expect this, anyway?), I still think they often do a fantastic job at keeping the player engaged. Before I played any of the games in the series, I was rather skeptical. However, after having gone through God of War for the first time and then eventually every other game in the series multiple times, I have to say, the stories are rather strong. In other words, "passable" is a little harsh whereas "ultra stellar" is a little extreme. I would simply say the stories are very solid/great.
Actually, I would say that the gameplay is even a little weaker than the narratives. I love the God of War series to death (over the years, I've flip-flopped between it and other series as being my all-time favorite), but the gameplay isn't quite as strong as it is for other titles in the genre. For example, once I played Arkham Asylum, I was truly blown away by how in-depth the combat was. I spent hours of additional time with the game in the challenge rooms in order to learn the strengths and weaknesses of enemy types, memorize every single move I had at my disposal, figure out how to use the environments around me to aid me in each fight, and overall perfect my technique. To this day, the Batman series possesses by far the deepest and best combat in any game I've ever played.
God of War, on the other hand, is less about depth and more about shock value, "big" moments, extremes, etc. For one, there aren't too many combinations in regard to move sets. I don't really see how anyone could disagree here. Hell, look at another series in the genre: Devil May Cry. I've never been a huge fan of it but the combat gets absolutely insane. It's one of those titles that people go to YouTube for in order to view other gamers who have truly mastered the combat. The same goes for other titles like Bayonetta.
God of War, though? People just want to see blood and more blood, which is definitely not something I view as a negative for the series. Such a point simply illustrates that the combat is not quite as deep as other titles. On that note, I guess I'd put the combat on-par with a series like Kingdom Hearts. Both titles are more concerned with fluidity and "pick up and play" gameplay styles. Another way of putting it would be saying that titles like Bayonetta and Arkham Asylum are more sophisticated.
Basically, God of War is like checkers and Devil May Cry and Arkham Asylum are like chess. Games like the latter two truly require practice and refinement in the pursuit of battlefield mastery. This is not as applicable for the former.
Also, I don't see how any depth "is often enough accidental/unintended." Developers "accidentally" spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours of time to make something deep? I just don't understand how that works or where you're going with that statement.
I wouldn't even say the majority of those are any good. The best nod I'd give to a game in a similar vein to GoW is Soul Reaver/Blood Omen (Legacy of Kain). Games aren't really terribly griping by and large. The interactive part (gameplay) is neat though.
>keep us engaged
Compared to other Action games? Certainly. Very low bar set. Though the quality in the series has been dipping in this regard as well. GoWII did fine aside from time travel (and arguably the father arc inclusion). GoWIII comes off as a disaster. CoO raped continuity. GoS didn't help (using the brother arc just angers me). GoW1 was fine.
>harsh
Maybe so.
>I would say
Would you now? Do tell.
>in-depth
>AA
Hidden depth in a simple system is what both do. Neither are a Bayonetta.
Perhaps I should teach you more of the GoW system so you can better assess it. Speaking of which, your run history would be (highest setting cleared for each entry *Easy-Very Hard*, challenges, Plats, etc.)?
>did various
And yet you didn't do this with GoW, I'm sure. That is what I have done and shall continue to do with GoW:A. Indeed, I do this and more as a series vet among vets.
NOTE: The 'depth' you speak of can't compare to more hardcore games that are built as such. Though I know the GoW system well enough to understand facets about it even those that qualify as vets don't quite grasp, I also know it to not be as deep as some other Action games (nevermind extending it a bit beyond to other games from similar genres).
>more about shock value
It is more about simply making the player feel powerful on some 'epic' quest with cinematic moments. A blockbuster adventure with brutal action. Fun. That's "Normal" talking. I have no regard for lower settings just as the creators seem to have little regard for higher settings (just sort of letting them go untested).
>blood
Come now. If you're going to make this jest, you could at least complete it with the talk of "pointless and immature" use of nudity along with the gore.
>KH
Not that I expect you to be a vet of that series (or even B:AA really). I'd leave its defense to SBK. I have no love for it.
>pick up and play
Casual. Like B:AA. Like DmC will be. Like NG3 was. Action is being assaulted, perverted, corrupted, etc.
>checkers
>chess
I'm tempted to glove slap you, friend.
>DMC
You a vet of this series by any chance? At any rate, it is inferior to Bayonetta (the true top of the Action genre for now).
>not applicable
I shall have to teach you much it would seem. When should you like to begin?
>don't see
Then pay closer attention, chap.
>accidentally
Come now. Don't be simple.
>where I'm going with it
Simply put, they don't intend for most of the antics the vets are up to, balance for VH or really do much of anything but pander to the crowd that can't appreciate the game beyond casual play before they return their rental.
~Your move, Yugi.
- Perhaps I should teach you more of the GoW system so you can better assess it. Speaking of which, your run history would be (highest setting cleared for each entry *Easy-Very Hard*, challenges, Plats, etc.)?
- Not that I expect you to be a vet of that series (or even B:AA really).
- I shall have to teach you much it would seem.
- Then pay closer attention, chap.
You're a bit arrogant and condescending, aren't you? It isn't fair to make assumptions. You act as if my knowledge of nearly every series I mentioned is borderline in its infancy. This isn't the case. I have multiple Platinums in the God of War series, have gotten the Platinum for Arkham Asylum, spent four years waiting for a sequel to Kingdom Hearts and then continued to play it like mad when it finally released.
Who really cares, though, right? In my opinion, the moment people decide whether someone is a "veteran" of a series simply by play-times and Platinum count, they lose their credibility slightly. The passion for a game is not always measured in such concrete numbers. Someone could have gone through God of War once and "taken in" more if it than someone who went through it three times. Perhaps such a person only played an hour of the game every other night and stopped in order to post about what they had just experienced. Maybe they also did a lot of reading and research (sifting through Wikis, discovering various articles, watching interviews, etc.) while going through the game. This person may not have even come close to the Platinum but I would look at them as more of a "veteran" than someone who went through the game three times just to get some Trophies and then immediately forgot about the game right after having finished it for the last time.
Again, though, who really cares? Because, ultimately, the definition of who is a "veteran" and who isn't is extremely subjective. It's one of those topics that could be debated for years and no one would ever pinpoint a concrete definition or an agreed-upon set of criteria, which is why when I see someone boasting about how much they know about a series and that they can "teach" other people about it, it makes me a little wary. Where one stands on the videogame food chain very often has little to do with the topics at hand. Hell, if we all were in such an elitist world, I would boast about how I'm easily a "veteran" above everyone else because of my MVP status. I hope our community never falls to that state.
To put it in perspective, I could say, in response to one of your statements:
- The best nod I'd give to a game in a similar vein to GoW is Soul Reaver/Blood Omen (Legacy of Kain).
I don't expect you to be a veteran of any of those games but here's something I can teach you...
It isn't very polite; I'm making assumptions, I'm adopting a teacher versus student attitude. I, of course, don't know how familiar you are with such games so I'm therefore not going to throw out statements like the one above. It's rude.
Anyway, I've gotten a bit off topic but conversations like these excite me. It shows that series like God of War have a rich fan-base. It's encouraging to know that games can elicit such debates. We may not agree on everything, or anything, but we all can say we enjoy playing these titles.
Ah, yes. This should be fun.
>a bit arrogant
>a bit
Only just? Rest assured, it is not without good reason. Well earned, I'd dare say.
>and condescending
You needn't play at phrasing it as a question.
>isn't fair
Contend with it.
>infancy
You're free to prove otherwise. I've no doubt you take B:AA more seriously than I, but then there is DMC where you could just be a know-nothing relatively on the same level as myself.
With GoW, there is absolute certainty you've got a lot of make-up work ahead of you (and I'm just the authority for the job).
It is as you've said. I'm somewhat "harsh". This I concede freely. I trust that won't be a problem.
>isn't the case
Isn't it?
>multiple Plats
>not all
Even with all Plats, you will not have impressed a single vet as GoW has mostly progression based and joke trophies to its name. They're practically selling points. Very rarely curtailing casual antics (using Easy for most cases, never having to go beyond Hard, etc.).
Encourage higher level play? Never. Even their 'speedrun' for GoW1 was an absolute joke with such a large time limit. This even when considering the forgiving standards at TUGOWU (03:00:00 for VH fairplay).
As a qualifier, this is particularly weak. At the very least this implies you cleared Hard and the challenges. Now for the matter of VH. You have cleared at least that much for each entry, yes? You didn't really note which among them that you payed either.
Vanilla VH is just the start. You could play it a hundred times (or just very many times on said setting doing the same things over and over) and just not know that much about the game (or even the combat system).
I seek to address this issue. I'm quite willing and able to help you, help yourself as such. Don't believe in yourself, believe in me, who believes in you.
>B:AC Plat
Riveting. But wouldn't you consider it more impressive to show off 'good marks' with the Leaderboards aside from doing some nice manly challenges in the campaign (preferably on Hard), a speedrun, glitching/exploiting, etc.?
>spent four years waiting
Relevance? This is a rather bizarre addition that doesn't really attack my claim in the slightest for KH (which I'll mostly steer clear of). You should be bragging about knowledge of combat mechanics (various OP set-ups, tactics, etc.), challenges overcome, etc. This talk of yours is ill-suited to our exchange, you shall find.
>who cares
For starters, me. But then, you didn't have to ask about that much.
>simply by
>listed nonsense
What's all this now? Your criteria is highly questionable.
>passion
You going to go on about how many times you did the same sort of casual things with a given game, how many toys you bought concerning the series, how many other games you own, etc. while you're at this? Because none of that really addresses my claim.
I'm basically calling you a casual in this series (and likely in general). Do you confirm or deny this?
>some one could
Sure. And that chap will still know next to nothing as compared to those with specialized testing, runs, etc. Indeed, just playing a bunch or the one-time as a remarkably skilled, attentive, sophisticated, etc. sort of gent...will make little difference.
>wikis
>interviews
>articles
Good God. *glove slap*
Do you imagine any of this will really allow for some 'green' casual to join the ranks of the vets? Even the skillful can be found lacking in overall knowledge and most can't make the boast of being 'that **bleep** good'. Their tactics tend to be awful. I've seen it for myself more than once. Especially among those showing off VH in vanilla runs (even some challenge runs). Terrible tactics that would be a real problem for those watching to emulate.
>would look to them as more of a vet
And what do I have to my name? What do these great many things make me? A vet among vets like I've said. My history in the community is exceptionally long. Shall I go over it at length? I'm sure I could pull up some copypasta. You can imagine I would thoroughly enjoy the chance.
I don't consider the trite you note as even a regular vet. In the past we were more lenient and allowed even vanilla VH to be regarded as such (a mere survivor that most were rather than a master of the setting). You have some strange notions in your head it would seem to me.
There is no disagreement to be voiced regarding disdain for those who just get the Plat and move on (as I'm quite sure you have *feel free to prove me wrong*).
>subjective
And the weight of an opinion is governed by subjective criteria as well. What is objective would be my track record along with those recognized as vets (of varying degrees). Surely no one would deny the likes of TazOne1 as a "vet". Based on his feats, he simply must qualify (more than that I should say).
>concrete definition
We know what it isn't (a casual's fair weather fancy). That helps. Self-imposed challenges met and overcome on the highest setting? Couldn't hurt.
>boast
Just so. Just not an empty one. Not in the slightest.
>teach
And teach I have. Teach I shall continue to do. One of my roles in the community (among many).
>wary
Oh? Do tell.
>topic at hand
Dear boy, are you evading the matter after such a reply as this? Perhaps you would prefer to prove yourself in private then? This suits me fine.
>elitist
You like it. Don't lie.
>MVP
It wouldn't help you much with your being a casual, but it is a neat sticker to have by your name. Like "Game Expert". Ah, Jumbo. He was the best of us.
>never falls
It would be an improvement.
>various
Empty words. Why do you flee, friend? It is not a difficult thing to clarify. State yourself as casual or deny it. With the latter, you may attempt to prove otherwise. The easiest path would be to stick to GoW (our common ground to be sure), yes? If you wish to tell me of your DMC feats, I'm all ears.
So then, we are back to the question of your run history. Being that I can safely assume it is lacking, I offer you my services again. How about it?
NOTE: The whining is rather silly. You may dispense of it. This aside, prove me wrong if you are able. Shouldn't be too difficult, yes?
>but
You forget a comma.
>excite
I'm sure. You'll find it only gets better with time.
>rich
Mostly casuals and fair weather fans.
>encouraging
Is that how it is?
>such debates
Better strap yourself in. It only gets better from here.
~Have at it.
Why don't you start another Topic and just call it GodModeGod VS ArgetLam battle it out in Ascension! I can grab some popcorn and enjoy the Grammar Warrior and the InyourFace MVP. We can make bets and make wagers to see who can last the longest?