Ok I'll do my best to help people understand why, but note that I don't necessarily love any of these games.
snappydog said:
TheAbominableDan said:
Baskerville said:
Crispee said:
EVERYONE ELSE WHO SAID A POPULAR FPS
The reasoning behind anyone likes a popular FPS is cyclical and very much up to chance. It has almost nothing to do with quality and almost everything to do with popularity. Basically there's 2 types of FPS, and everyone is usually a fan of one game from each type. There's 'casual' FPS like Halo and TF2 (Hear me out before you freak out about Halo being 'not casual') and realistic FPS like CS and Battlefield. Casual shooters are easier for beginners and usually have more well rounded weaponry so noobs can also pwn sometimes too. Realistic shooters are usually more unforgiving and yet also more balanced.
Either way, a crapload of each type of shooter comes out every year, and people either
a. continue to play the old version of their favorite shooter until a new one comes out
b. buy the new version of their favorite shooter
c. switch shooters and buy the one with the most hype
you can say whatever you want about how the core gameplay of one game is better than another but it's really just a matter of whether it is casual or realistic (and sometimes whether it is oriented toward team play or individual play like in BF and CoD, respectively).
I don't really know if any of that makes any sense though, I'm tired lol.
Crispee said:
More specifically, possibly Ocarina of Time. I really enjoyed that game personally, don't get me wrong, but lots of people on the internet are under the impression that it's some sort of Gaming Bible for the amount of praise it gets, every 3D Zelda game since for me has been far superior. Better graphics, better story, more gameplay ideas, more interesting world to explore, etc.
Ocarina of Time is better than all of those games in the same way Goldeneye is better than all of the new James Bond games. EVERYTHING is better in the new James Bond games (except maybe the story), but it was the groundbreaking revolutionary gameplay that made people love it so much. Now all the new Zelda's just work off of the basic OoT formula, and the changes they institute aren't enough to instill that same -WOW- factor.
Monkeyman8 said:
Bioshock and Fallout 3, they're "sequels" to existing franchises but done horribly in comparison.
I can understand this, but I'll try to explain. Bioshock is loved almost entirely for the story. Fallout 3 is loved almost entirely for the gameplay. Both of these aspects far exceed previous titles in almost every way. With Bioshock, the story is much more action packed (and much easier to understand) than System Shock. The gameplay, however, ends up being much more boring and poorly paced than its predecessor.
With Fallout, the gameplay is enhanced. Sure some old school fans will prefer the old interfaces, but the core mechanics are still the same, just with a few things added. On the other hand, the story is stupid, cheesy, and pretty boring.
Choose a Username said:
Mass Effect...
That, and Morrowind!
Mass Effect: intensity of detail, incredible graphics, originality, and well designed RPG mechanics... Although the game can be boring at times...
Morrowind: Same old addictive western RPG mechanics... plus people love a fantasy setting.
tj236 said:
Guitar Hero/Rock Band - all of them.
Playing guitar myself, it's not that I think it belittles playing an instrument, it's just repetitive, and spawned an entire generation of people who got really good at pressing buttons quickly, just like flying in Mario!
I've played (and taught) guitar for a long time, and my fingering hand dexterity got a lot better from years of guitar hero. I personally liked the game because of that, I saw improvement in my actual guitar playing. But I kinda started on expert and just kept playing until I was really good. I think other people liked the game for a similar reason, but more along the lines of seeing improvement in how good they are at the game itself.
