Why Metal Gear Rising was Awful.

[dumbseizure]

broken might be hyperbole, no fun learning a flimsy and specific system that makes me want to pull my hair out, dark souls rewarding amd fun mg r not. refer to my previous posts about the jump attacks and unblockable offscreen attacks

Okay, all that established was that you, in particular, do not like how the game plays. That does not make it a bad game. As stated previously, I enjoyed learning how the game worked and watching myself get better, (I was this close to beating Mistral with no damage, the other day.)

I'm not saying MGR is a perfect game, some of your complaints are valid, but I defy you to find me a single game that is perfect. No matter what way you slice it (haha, ahhh...see what I did there?) this whole thread just comes down to you personally not liking the game, and has very little in the way of objective criticism about the games actual quality.

If you don't like the game then that's your choice, I'm not telling you should like it just because I do, but don't swoop in here, spoiling for a fight, and trying to tell us why we're all mistaken for thinking MGR is fun to play and that the mechanics work well because we bothered to get to grips with them instead of calling shanaynays the first time a Hammer Bro turned our robotic spine into a concertina.

I wasn't please refer to my op about blockstun and a recap post about the parry system its poorly made and rough at best and that's not my opinion its a result of compariosn to more solid fighting games. God hand people ... god hand

Oh. My. God.

IT ISN'T OBJECTIVE!

That is the thing, anything involving DESIGN, as in HOW THE PARRY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED ISN't OBJECTIVE, IT IS SUBJECTIVE!.

Want to know why? Because it was designed by other people, and it is not a FACT.

2+2=4 is correct, objectively.

The parry system being "poorly made and rough" isn't Objective. Even compared to another game, that doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY poor, that just makes it SUBJECTIVELY WORSE than that other game.

Please learn how to use the word OBJECTIVE correctly.

my argument isn't about MY (the subjects opinion) its about the object and how it doesn't work and how another similar object does...this is all irelevant to the discussion anyway... the analysis is mine (so I see where u are coming from) but its not based in my thought its based on my observations objective observations we all see what happens at 26:50 in the video right? and that was a horrid moment for anyone playing the game, a problem non existant in a fixed camera game

Stop changing subject.

In that EXACT post I quoted, you said the parrying system was "objectively bad".

No matter you "opinions", something that is designed by someone else that is not a scientifically (or otherwise 100% proven FACT) can not be objective.

And no, we aren't talking about an "object", we are talking about a SYSTEM, a system designed by 1 or many other people, and something of that nature can not be 100% objectively bad, because OPINIONS.

You can not talk about the parry system, then when I point that out you go "BUT BUT CAMERA ANGLE", I haven't spoken of the camera angle, I was speaking of the parry system.

So you can observe all you like, you saying the parry system is bad doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY bad, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY bad, because I and many other people happen to like the parry system and think that it works.

OPINION BOY AWAY!

It is bad as in it doesn't work all the time it fails...only you are interjecting your opinion. my statements are yet to be proven false look at the recap post and see how ham handed and unrealiable the system is when we break it down. compare to sf 3rd strike the parry which always works against every attack is objectivly better..

ALLLRIGHT.

Let me break this down.

1. I AM interjecting my opinion. Want to know why? Because this subject matter is subjective, not objective.

2. Your statements are all over the place. First it was about the parry system not working, now it is about the camera, and now...I don't even know. So if you are going to state something, please make it precise because I honestly don't know whats going on.

3. THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN!

The word objective can't be you "check and mate" in every situation, because the word objective CERTAINLY does not apply in this situation.

Once again, OBJECTIVE IS PROVEN FACT, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF BIAS OR OPINION!

In the case of this, with many people having VARYING opinions, IT CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

My god.

last post was anout the party system as you did catch my switching subjects... the presence of different opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter in this case I'm saying you are wrong and my observations are correct objectivly... if I thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make math subjective and please calm down

in essence
me:mgr+parrying=suck and I show proofs
you: splitting hairs and distracting the issue

No, differing opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter.

What makes this a subjective matter is the medium that this is in.

Things like music, books, movies and games can not be objectively anything, because it is a matter of opinion, that is why reviews on games have varying results, it isn't something is OBJECTIVELY bad, it is that there isn't a 100% way of factually proving it is bad, so it is an opinion.

and no, if you thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make maths subjective, it does however make you something else.

and no, I am not wrong, and your observations are not objectively correct, because because it is all opinions, because there is no way to factually prove or deny.

no you are crazy for not accepting my proofs of mgr being bad the problem is in you... same logic see. I believe games can be objectivly discected if you don't that's ok but if you want to argue show some evidence or make a compelling argument please..

That......is hardly the same logic.

I am saying that an aspect of a game can not be objectively bad because it is opinion based.

You logic is "YOUR CRAZY YOUR THE PROBLEM CRAZY MAN".

I don't even see how those 2 logics are the same.

And you "proofs" are comparing it to other games, which by the way, are still opinion based.

So what does that leave us with boys and girls?

Thats right, subjective.

you said if I think 2+2=3 it says something about me (I.e I'm nuts or ignorant) same thing with you and the ignorance of my points. its good you figured out my analysis method by comparison (temp is objective but for something to be hot we need to compare it to that which is cold) . to specify I deal not with enjoyment but with functionality and for the reasons stated above the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games. if you or anyone else cannont break down myargument without saying I the subject just like it fuck you and your thoughts then my theory is correct. earth was once flat for all intensive purposes until one guy with a better methods disproved a fact. he nor I never said... I just think or imo this is the way it is...we backed it up with logical conclusions and what do we get?
objectivity

I really REALLY wish you would stick with the one argument.

What IS your argument?

Because I thought your argument was that the parry system was "Objectively broken". But now you say that "the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games."

So what are you here to discuss? The parry system being broken (subjective)? or how other games are better at one feature then somehow they are a better game over all?

if a toaster doesn't function and another does one is objectivly a better tosster mg r3rd parry system is broken those games' systems arnt. it follows mgr is a worse game than all of those.. due to it being a less functional toaster...or broken otherwise..

That is the thing!

You are speaking of a toaster that is COMPLETELY BROKEN, IT DOESN'T FUNCTION IN THE SLIGHTEST! IT DOESNT HAVE ANY OF ITS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FUNCTIONALITY!

It isn't like Metal Gear Risings parry system is fundamentally broken! it is working, with it's original intent of use still in place!

I DONT UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT!

You are arguing that it is broken, but it is working!

 

[zerkocelot]

Its an epistemological stance, either you agree or disagree, its really a whole different discusion but facts are all derived from comparison so in terms of functionality there is objective differences.. if I'm wrong prove it... this has derailed the post lol

 

[zerkocelot]

broken might be hyperbole, no fun learning a flimsy and specific system that makes me want to pull my hair out, dark souls rewarding amd fun mg r not. refer to my previous posts about the jump attacks and unblockable offscreen attacks

Okay, all that established was that you, in particular, do not like how the game plays. That does not make it a bad game. As stated previously, I enjoyed learning how the game worked and watching myself get better, (I was this close to beating Mistral with no damage, the other day.)

I'm not saying MGR is a perfect game, some of your complaints are valid, but I defy you to find me a single game that is perfect. No matter what way you slice it (haha, ahhh...see what I did there?) this whole thread just comes down to you personally not liking the game, and has very little in the way of objective criticism about the games actual quality.

If you don't like the game then that's your choice, I'm not telling you should like it just because I do, but don't swoop in here, spoiling for a fight, and trying to tell us why we're all mistaken for thinking MGR is fun to play and that the mechanics work well because we bothered to get to grips with them instead of calling shanaynays the first time a Hammer Bro turned our robotic spine into a concertina.

I wasn't please refer to my op about blockstun and a recap post about the parry system its poorly made and rough at best and that's not my opinion its a result of compariosn to more solid fighting games. God hand people ... god hand

Oh. My. God.

IT ISN'T OBJECTIVE!

That is the thing, anything involving DESIGN, as in HOW THE PARRY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED ISN't OBJECTIVE, IT IS SUBJECTIVE!.

Want to know why? Because it was designed by other people, and it is not a FACT.

2+2=4 is correct, objectively.

The parry system being "poorly made and rough" isn't Objective. Even compared to another game, that doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY poor, that just makes it SUBJECTIVELY WORSE than that other game.

Please learn how to use the word OBJECTIVE correctly.

my argument isn't about MY (the subjects opinion) its about the object and how it doesn't work and how another similar object does...this is all irelevant to the discussion anyway... the analysis is mine (so I see where u are coming from) but its not based in my thought its based on my observations objective observations we all see what happens at 26:50 in the video right? and that was a horrid moment for anyone playing the game, a problem non existant in a fixed camera game

Stop changing subject.

In that EXACT post I quoted, you said the parrying system was "objectively bad".

No matter you "opinions", something that is designed by someone else that is not a scientifically (or otherwise 100% proven FACT) can not be objective.

And no, we aren't talking about an "object", we are talking about a SYSTEM, a system designed by 1 or many other people, and something of that nature can not be 100% objectively bad, because OPINIONS.

You can not talk about the parry system, then when I point that out you go "BUT BUT CAMERA ANGLE", I haven't spoken of the camera angle, I was speaking of the parry system.

So you can observe all you like, you saying the parry system is bad doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY bad, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY bad, because I and many other people happen to like the parry system and think that it works.

OPINION BOY AWAY!

It is bad as in it doesn't work all the time it fails...only you are interjecting your opinion. my statements are yet to be proven false look at the recap post and see how ham handed and unrealiable the system is when we break it down. compare to sf 3rd strike the parry which always works against every attack is objectivly better..

ALLLRIGHT.

Let me break this down.

1. I AM interjecting my opinion. Want to know why? Because this subject matter is subjective, not objective.

2. Your statements are all over the place. First it was about the parry system not working, now it is about the camera, and now...I don't even know. So if you are going to state something, please make it precise because I honestly don't know whats going on.

3. THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN!

The word objective can't be you "check and mate" in every situation, because the word objective CERTAINLY does not apply in this situation.

Once again, OBJECTIVE IS PROVEN FACT, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF BIAS OR OPINION!

In the case of this, with many people having VARYING opinions, IT CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

My god.

last post was anout the party system as you did catch my switching subjects... the presence of different opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter in this case I'm saying you are wrong and my observations are correct objectivly... if I thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make math subjective and please calm down

in essence
me:mgr+parrying=suck and I show proofs
you: splitting hairs and distracting the issue

No, differing opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter.

What makes this a subjective matter is the medium that this is in.

Things like music, books, movies and games can not be objectively anything, because it is a matter of opinion, that is why reviews on games have varying results, it isn't something is OBJECTIVELY bad, it is that there isn't a 100% way of factually proving it is bad, so it is an opinion.

and no, if you thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make maths subjective, it does however make you something else.

and no, I am not wrong, and your observations are not objectively correct, because because it is all opinions, because there is no way to factually prove or deny.

no you are crazy for not accepting my proofs of mgr being bad the problem is in you... same logic see. I believe games can be objectivly discected if you don't that's ok but if you want to argue show some evidence or make a compelling argument please..

That......is hardly the same logic.

I am saying that an aspect of a game can not be objectively bad because it is opinion based.

You logic is "YOUR CRAZY YOUR THE PROBLEM CRAZY MAN".

I don't even see how those 2 logics are the same.

And you "proofs" are comparing it to other games, which by the way, are still opinion based.

So what does that leave us with boys and girls?

Thats right, subjective.

you said if I think 2+2=3 it says something about me (I.e I'm nuts or ignorant) same thing with you and the ignorance of my points. its good you figured out my analysis method by comparison (temp is objective but for something to be hot we need to compare it to that which is cold) . to specify I deal not with enjoyment but with functionality and for the reasons stated above the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games. if you or anyone else cannont break down myargument without saying I the subject just like it fuck you and your thoughts then my theory is correct. earth was once flat for all intensive purposes until one guy with a better methods disproved a fact. he nor I never said... I just think or imo this is the way it is...we backed it up with logical conclusions and what do we get?
objectivity

I really REALLY wish you would stick with the one argument.

What IS your argument?

Because I thought your argument was that the parry system was "Objectively broken". But now you say that "the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games."

So what are you here to discuss? The parry system being broken (subjective)? or how other games are better at one feature then somehow they are a better game over all?

if a toaster doesn't function and another does one is objectivly a better tosster mg r3rd parry system is broken those games' systems arnt. it follows mgr is a worse game than all of those.. due to it being a less functional toaster...or broken otherwise..

That is the thing!

You are speaking of a toaster that is COMPLETELY BROKEN, IT DOESN'T FUNCTION IN THE SLIGHTEST! IT DOESNT HAVE ANY OF ITS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FUNCTIONALITY!

It isn't like Metal Gear Risings parry system is fundamentally broken! it is working, with it's original intent of use still in place!

I DONT UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT!

You are arguing that it is broken, but it is working!

sure , broken is an expression for badly functioning, no?

 

[dumbseizure]

broken might be hyperbole, no fun learning a flimsy and specific system that makes me want to pull my hair out, dark souls rewarding amd fun mg r not. refer to my previous posts about the jump attacks and unblockable offscreen attacks

Okay, all that established was that you, in particular, do not like how the game plays. That does not make it a bad game. As stated previously, I enjoyed learning how the game worked and watching myself get better, (I was this close to beating Mistral with no damage, the other day.)

I'm not saying MGR is a perfect game, some of your complaints are valid, but I defy you to find me a single game that is perfect. No matter what way you slice it (haha, ahhh...see what I did there?) this whole thread just comes down to you personally not liking the game, and has very little in the way of objective criticism about the games actual quality.

If you don't like the game then that's your choice, I'm not telling you should like it just because I do, but don't swoop in here, spoiling for a fight, and trying to tell us why we're all mistaken for thinking MGR is fun to play and that the mechanics work well because we bothered to get to grips with them instead of calling shanaynays the first time a Hammer Bro turned our robotic spine into a concertina.

I wasn't please refer to my op about blockstun and a recap post about the parry system its poorly made and rough at best and that's not my opinion its a result of compariosn to more solid fighting games. God hand people ... god hand

Oh. My. God.

IT ISN'T OBJECTIVE!

That is the thing, anything involving DESIGN, as in HOW THE PARRY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED ISN't OBJECTIVE, IT IS SUBJECTIVE!.

Want to know why? Because it was designed by other people, and it is not a FACT.

2+2=4 is correct, objectively.

The parry system being "poorly made and rough" isn't Objective. Even compared to another game, that doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY poor, that just makes it SUBJECTIVELY WORSE than that other game.

Please learn how to use the word OBJECTIVE correctly.

my argument isn't about MY (the subjects opinion) its about the object and how it doesn't work and how another similar object does...this is all irelevant to the discussion anyway... the analysis is mine (so I see where u are coming from) but its not based in my thought its based on my observations objective observations we all see what happens at 26:50 in the video right? and that was a horrid moment for anyone playing the game, a problem non existant in a fixed camera game

Stop changing subject.

In that EXACT post I quoted, you said the parrying system was "objectively bad".

No matter you "opinions", something that is designed by someone else that is not a scientifically (or otherwise 100% proven FACT) can not be objective.

And no, we aren't talking about an "object", we are talking about a SYSTEM, a system designed by 1 or many other people, and something of that nature can not be 100% objectively bad, because OPINIONS.

You can not talk about the parry system, then when I point that out you go "BUT BUT CAMERA ANGLE", I haven't spoken of the camera angle, I was speaking of the parry system.

So you can observe all you like, you saying the parry system is bad doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY bad, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY bad, because I and many other people happen to like the parry system and think that it works.

OPINION BOY AWAY!

It is bad as in it doesn't work all the time it fails...only you are interjecting your opinion. my statements are yet to be proven false look at the recap post and see how ham handed and unrealiable the system is when we break it down. compare to sf 3rd strike the parry which always works against every attack is objectivly better..

ALLLRIGHT.

Let me break this down.

1. I AM interjecting my opinion. Want to know why? Because this subject matter is subjective, not objective.

2. Your statements are all over the place. First it was about the parry system not working, now it is about the camera, and now...I don't even know. So if you are going to state something, please make it precise because I honestly don't know whats going on.

3. THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN!

The word objective can't be you "check and mate" in every situation, because the word objective CERTAINLY does not apply in this situation.

Once again, OBJECTIVE IS PROVEN FACT, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF BIAS OR OPINION!

In the case of this, with many people having VARYING opinions, IT CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

My god.

last post was anout the party system as you did catch my switching subjects... the presence of different opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter in this case I'm saying you are wrong and my observations are correct objectivly... if I thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make math subjective and please calm down

in essence
me:mgr+parrying=suck and I show proofs
you: splitting hairs and distracting the issue

No, differing opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter.

What makes this a subjective matter is the medium that this is in.

Things like music, books, movies and games can not be objectively anything, because it is a matter of opinion, that is why reviews on games have varying results, it isn't something is OBJECTIVELY bad, it is that there isn't a 100% way of factually proving it is bad, so it is an opinion.

and no, if you thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make maths subjective, it does however make you something else.

and no, I am not wrong, and your observations are not objectively correct, because because it is all opinions, because there is no way to factually prove or deny.

no you are crazy for not accepting my proofs of mgr being bad the problem is in you... same logic see. I believe games can be objectivly discected if you don't that's ok but if you want to argue show some evidence or make a compelling argument please..

That......is hardly the same logic.

I am saying that an aspect of a game can not be objectively bad because it is opinion based.

You logic is "YOUR CRAZY YOUR THE PROBLEM CRAZY MAN".

I don't even see how those 2 logics are the same.

And you "proofs" are comparing it to other games, which by the way, are still opinion based.

So what does that leave us with boys and girls?

Thats right, subjective.

you said if I think 2+2=3 it says something about me (I.e I'm nuts or ignorant) same thing with you and the ignorance of my points. its good you figured out my analysis method by comparison (temp is objective but for something to be hot we need to compare it to that which is cold) . to specify I deal not with enjoyment but with functionality and for the reasons stated above the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games. if you or anyone else cannont break down myargument without saying I the subject just like it fuck you and your thoughts then my theory is correct. earth was once flat for all intensive purposes until one guy with a better methods disproved a fact. he nor I never said... I just think or imo this is the way it is...we backed it up with logical conclusions and what do we get?
objectivity

I really REALLY wish you would stick with the one argument.

What IS your argument?

Because I thought your argument was that the parry system was "Objectively broken". But now you say that "the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games."

So what are you here to discuss? The parry system being broken (subjective)? or how other games are better at one feature then somehow they are a better game over all?

if a toaster doesn't function and another does one is objectivly a better tosster mg r3rd parry system is broken those games' systems arnt. it follows mgr is a worse game than all of those.. due to it being a less functional toaster...or broken otherwise..

That is the thing!

You are speaking of a toaster that is COMPLETELY BROKEN, IT DOESN'T FUNCTION IN THE SLIGHTEST! IT DOESNT HAVE ANY OF ITS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FUNCTIONALITY!

It isn't like Metal Gear Risings parry system is fundamentally broken! it is working, with it's original intent of use still in place!

I DONT UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT!

You are arguing that it is broken, but it is working!

sure , broken is an expression for badly functioning, no?

But it isn't badly functioning, it is working as it was developed and intended to......

 

[rob_simple]

It was similar for me, it dook me until after Monsson to fully get how to counter. Before that i was just simply holding the stick in the attack direction and wondering why it wouldn't block. Only after Monsoon did it occur to me to put it back into neutral position and flick it into the attack direction

Yeah, Monsoon is a real baptism of fire for getting the parry down, but again I learned through experimentation that EM grenades really mess him up at certain points in the fight. I really think this game would have benefited from a much more thorough tutorial --I'd already beaten the game before I even found out how to access the move list!-- but that's the beauty of the Youtube age; there are always people making their own tutorials.

 

[zerkocelot]

broken might be hyperbole, no fun learning a flimsy and specific system that makes me want to pull my hair out, dark souls rewarding amd fun mg r not. refer to my previous posts about the jump attacks and unblockable offscreen attacks

Okay, all that established was that you, in particular, do not like how the game plays. That does not make it a bad game. As stated previously, I enjoyed learning how the game worked and watching myself get better, (I was this close to beating Mistral with no damage, the other day.)

I'm not saying MGR is a perfect game, some of your complaints are valid, but I defy you to find me a single game that is perfect. No matter what way you slice it (haha, ahhh...see what I did there?) this whole thread just comes down to you personally not liking the game, and has very little in the way of objective criticism about the games actual quality.

If you don't like the game then that's your choice, I'm not telling you should like it just because I do, but don't swoop in here, spoiling for a fight, and trying to tell us why we're all mistaken for thinking MGR is fun to play and that the mechanics work well because we bothered to get to grips with them instead of calling shanaynays the first time a Hammer Bro turned our robotic spine into a concertina.

I wasn't please refer to my op about blockstun and a recap post about the parry system its poorly made and rough at best and that's not my opinion its a result of compariosn to more solid fighting games. God hand people ... god hand

Oh. My. God.

IT ISN'T OBJECTIVE!

That is the thing, anything involving DESIGN, as in HOW THE PARRY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED ISN't OBJECTIVE, IT IS SUBJECTIVE!.

Want to know why? Because it was designed by other people, and it is not a FACT.

2+2=4 is correct, objectively.

The parry system being "poorly made and rough" isn't Objective. Even compared to another game, that doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY poor, that just makes it SUBJECTIVELY WORSE than that other game.

Please learn how to use the word OBJECTIVE correctly.

my argument isn't about MY (the subjects opinion) its about the object and how it doesn't work and how another similar object does...this is all irelevant to the discussion anyway... the analysis is mine (so I see where u are coming from) but its not based in my thought its based on my observations objective observations we all see what happens at 26:50 in the video right? and that was a horrid moment for anyone playing the game, a problem non existant in a fixed camera game

Stop changing subject.

In that EXACT post I quoted, you said the parrying system was "objectively bad".

No matter you "opinions", something that is designed by someone else that is not a scientifically (or otherwise 100% proven FACT) can not be objective.

And no, we aren't talking about an "object", we are talking about a SYSTEM, a system designed by 1 or many other people, and something of that nature can not be 100% objectively bad, because OPINIONS.

You can not talk about the parry system, then when I point that out you go "BUT BUT CAMERA ANGLE", I haven't spoken of the camera angle, I was speaking of the parry system.

So you can observe all you like, you saying the parry system is bad doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY bad, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY bad, because I and many other people happen to like the parry system and think that it works.

OPINION BOY AWAY!

It is bad as in it doesn't work all the time it fails...only you are interjecting your opinion. my statements are yet to be proven false look at the recap post and see how ham handed and unrealiable the system is when we break it down. compare to sf 3rd strike the parry which always works against every attack is objectivly better..

ALLLRIGHT.

Let me break this down.

1. I AM interjecting my opinion. Want to know why? Because this subject matter is subjective, not objective.

2. Your statements are all over the place. First it was about the parry system not working, now it is about the camera, and now...I don't even know. So if you are going to state something, please make it precise because I honestly don't know whats going on.

3. THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN!

The word objective can't be you "check and mate" in every situation, because the word objective CERTAINLY does not apply in this situation.

Once again, OBJECTIVE IS PROVEN FACT, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF BIAS OR OPINION!

In the case of this, with many people having VARYING opinions, IT CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

My god.

last post was anout the party system as you did catch my switching subjects... the presence of different opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter in this case I'm saying you are wrong and my observations are correct objectivly... if I thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make math subjective and please calm down

in essence
me:mgr+parrying=suck and I show proofs
you: splitting hairs and distracting the issue

No, differing opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter.

What makes this a subjective matter is the medium that this is in.

Things like music, books, movies and games can not be objectively anything, because it is a matter of opinion, that is why reviews on games have varying results, it isn't something is OBJECTIVELY bad, it is that there isn't a 100% way of factually proving it is bad, so it is an opinion.

and no, if you thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make maths subjective, it does however make you something else.

and no, I am not wrong, and your observations are not objectively correct, because because it is all opinions, because there is no way to factually prove or deny.

no you are crazy for not accepting my proofs of mgr being bad the problem is in you... same logic see. I believe games can be objectivly discected if you don't that's ok but if you want to argue show some evidence or make a compelling argument please..

That......is hardly the same logic.

I am saying that an aspect of a game can not be objectively bad because it is opinion based.

You logic is "YOUR CRAZY YOUR THE PROBLEM CRAZY MAN".

I don't even see how those 2 logics are the same.

And you "proofs" are comparing it to other games, which by the way, are still opinion based.

So what does that leave us with boys and girls?

Thats right, subjective.

you said if I think 2+2=3 it says something about me (I.e I'm nuts or ignorant) same thing with you and the ignorance of my points. its good you figured out my analysis method by comparison (temp is objective but for something to be hot we need to compare it to that which is cold) . to specify I deal not with enjoyment but with functionality and for the reasons stated above the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games. if you or anyone else cannont break down myargument without saying I the subject just like it fuck you and your thoughts then my theory is correct. earth was once flat for all intensive purposes until one guy with a better methods disproved a fact. he nor I never said... I just think or imo this is the way it is...we backed it up with logical conclusions and what do we get?
objectivity

I really REALLY wish you would stick with the one argument.

What IS your argument?

Because I thought your argument was that the parry system was "Objectively broken". But now you say that "the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games."

So what are you here to discuss? The parry system being broken (subjective)? or how other games are better at one feature then somehow they are a better game over all?

if a toaster doesn't function and another does one is objectivly a better tosster mg r3rd parry system is broken those games' systems arnt. it follows mgr is a worse game than all of those.. due to it being a less functional toaster...or broken otherwise..

That is the thing!

You are speaking of a toaster that is COMPLETELY BROKEN, IT DOESN'T FUNCTION IN THE SLIGHTEST! IT DOESNT HAVE ANY OF ITS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FUNCTIONALITY!

It isn't like Metal Gear Risings parry system is fundamentally broken! it is working, with it's original intent of use still in place!

I DONT UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT!

You are arguing that it is broken, but it is working!

sure , broken is an expression for badly functioning, no?

But it isn't badly functioning, it is working as it was developed and intended to......

What did I say? By comparison (the only thing that tells us the difference between round and flat) we can conclude it functions poorly as a game. I compare and list faults abscent in other games..

 

[zerkocelot]

faults of functionality not of subjective qualities such as aesthetic charm or fun factor... work or don't work

 

[dumbseizure]

broken might be hyperbole, no fun learning a flimsy and specific system that makes me want to pull my hair out, dark souls rewarding amd fun mg r not. refer to my previous posts about the jump attacks and unblockable offscreen attacks

Okay, all that established was that you, in particular, do not like how the game plays. That does not make it a bad game. As stated previously, I enjoyed learning how the game worked and watching myself get better, (I was this close to beating Mistral with no damage, the other day.)

I'm not saying MGR is a perfect game, some of your complaints are valid, but I defy you to find me a single game that is perfect. No matter what way you slice it (haha, ahhh...see what I did there?) this whole thread just comes down to you personally not liking the game, and has very little in the way of objective criticism about the games actual quality.

If you don't like the game then that's your choice, I'm not telling you should like it just because I do, but don't swoop in here, spoiling for a fight, and trying to tell us why we're all mistaken for thinking MGR is fun to play and that the mechanics work well because we bothered to get to grips with them instead of calling shanaynays the first time a Hammer Bro turned our robotic spine into a concertina.

I wasn't please refer to my op about blockstun and a recap post about the parry system its poorly made and rough at best and that's not my opinion its a result of compariosn to more solid fighting games. God hand people ... god hand

Oh. My. God.

IT ISN'T OBJECTIVE!

That is the thing, anything involving DESIGN, as in HOW THE PARRY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED ISN't OBJECTIVE, IT IS SUBJECTIVE!.

Want to know why? Because it was designed by other people, and it is not a FACT.

2+2=4 is correct, objectively.

The parry system being "poorly made and rough" isn't Objective. Even compared to another game, that doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY poor, that just makes it SUBJECTIVELY WORSE than that other game.

Please learn how to use the word OBJECTIVE correctly.

my argument isn't about MY (the subjects opinion) its about the object and how it doesn't work and how another similar object does...this is all irelevant to the discussion anyway... the analysis is mine (so I see where u are coming from) but its not based in my thought its based on my observations objective observations we all see what happens at 26:50 in the video right? and that was a horrid moment for anyone playing the game, a problem non existant in a fixed camera game

Stop changing subject.

In that EXACT post I quoted, you said the parrying system was "objectively bad".

No matter you "opinions", something that is designed by someone else that is not a scientifically (or otherwise 100% proven FACT) can not be objective.

And no, we aren't talking about an "object", we are talking about a SYSTEM, a system designed by 1 or many other people, and something of that nature can not be 100% objectively bad, because OPINIONS.

You can not talk about the parry system, then when I point that out you go "BUT BUT CAMERA ANGLE", I haven't spoken of the camera angle, I was speaking of the parry system.

So you can observe all you like, you saying the parry system is bad doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY bad, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY bad, because I and many other people happen to like the parry system and think that it works.

OPINION BOY AWAY!

It is bad as in it doesn't work all the time it fails...only you are interjecting your opinion. my statements are yet to be proven false look at the recap post and see how ham handed and unrealiable the system is when we break it down. compare to sf 3rd strike the parry which always works against every attack is objectivly better..

ALLLRIGHT.

Let me break this down.

1. I AM interjecting my opinion. Want to know why? Because this subject matter is subjective, not objective.

2. Your statements are all over the place. First it was about the parry system not working, now it is about the camera, and now...I don't even know. So if you are going to state something, please make it precise because I honestly don't know whats going on.

3. THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN!

The word objective can't be you "check and mate" in every situation, because the word objective CERTAINLY does not apply in this situation.

Once again, OBJECTIVE IS PROVEN FACT, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF BIAS OR OPINION!

In the case of this, with many people having VARYING opinions, IT CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

My god.

last post was anout the party system as you did catch my switching subjects... the presence of different opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter in this case I'm saying you are wrong and my observations are correct objectivly... if I thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make math subjective and please calm down

in essence
me:mgr+parrying=suck and I show proofs
you: splitting hairs and distracting the issue

No, differing opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter.

What makes this a subjective matter is the medium that this is in.

Things like music, books, movies and games can not be objectively anything, because it is a matter of opinion, that is why reviews on games have varying results, it isn't something is OBJECTIVELY bad, it is that there isn't a 100% way of factually proving it is bad, so it is an opinion.

and no, if you thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make maths subjective, it does however make you something else.

and no, I am not wrong, and your observations are not objectively correct, because because it is all opinions, because there is no way to factually prove or deny.

no you are crazy for not accepting my proofs of mgr being bad the problem is in you... same logic see. I believe games can be objectivly discected if you don't that's ok but if you want to argue show some evidence or make a compelling argument please..

That......is hardly the same logic.

I am saying that an aspect of a game can not be objectively bad because it is opinion based.

You logic is "YOUR CRAZY YOUR THE PROBLEM CRAZY MAN".

I don't even see how those 2 logics are the same.

And you "proofs" are comparing it to other games, which by the way, are still opinion based.

So what does that leave us with boys and girls?

Thats right, subjective.

you said if I think 2+2=3 it says something about me (I.e I'm nuts or ignorant) same thing with you and the ignorance of my points. its good you figured out my analysis method by comparison (temp is objective but for something to be hot we need to compare it to that which is cold) . to specify I deal not with enjoyment but with functionality and for the reasons stated above the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games. if you or anyone else cannont break down myargument without saying I the subject just like it fuck you and your thoughts then my theory is correct. earth was once flat for all intensive purposes until one guy with a better methods disproved a fact. he nor I never said... I just think or imo this is the way it is...we backed it up with logical conclusions and what do we get?
objectivity

I really REALLY wish you would stick with the one argument.

What IS your argument?

Because I thought your argument was that the parry system was "Objectively broken". But now you say that "the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games."

So what are you here to discuss? The parry system being broken (subjective)? or how other games are better at one feature then somehow they are a better game over all?

if a toaster doesn't function and another does one is objectivly a better tosster mg r3rd parry system is broken those games' systems arnt. it follows mgr is a worse game than all of those.. due to it being a less functional toaster...or broken otherwise..

That is the thing!

You are speaking of a toaster that is COMPLETELY BROKEN, IT DOESN'T FUNCTION IN THE SLIGHTEST! IT DOESNT HAVE ANY OF ITS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FUNCTIONALITY!

It isn't like Metal Gear Risings parry system is fundamentally broken! it is working, with it's original intent of use still in place!

I DONT UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT!

You are arguing that it is broken, but it is working!

sure , broken is an expression for badly functioning, no?

But it isn't badly functioning, it is working as it was developed and intended to......

What did I say? By comparison (the only thing that tells us the difference between round and flat) we can conclude it functions poorly as a game. I compare and list faults abscent in other games..

Thats it, im done.

Your argument seems to be changing.

First it was that the parry system is "objectively poor".

then it was "broken"

and now it "functions poorly as a game".

No more replying from me, you can't get your points straight.

 

[rob_simple]

Its an epistemological stance, either you agree or disagree, its really a whole different discusion but facts are all derived from comparison so in terms of functionality there is objective differences.. if I'm wrong prove it... this has derailed the post lol

I think you really think you are Sherlock Holmes. There is little to nothing objective when it comes to game design, because what works for some people won't work well for others.

Let's take the remake of Devil May Cry as an example: Ninja Theory's fighting system is nowhere near as robust as 3 and 4's was. That is a fact and it is indisputable: there simply isn't as much room for variation in the combat. Does that make it objectively worse, as a game? No, it does not.

I prefer DmC's fight system to DMC's because I don't have the reflexes necessary to excel at games like that; therefore, subjectively speaking, DmC is the better game to me. People who are good at DMC's fight system will obviously be disappointed at the lack of challenge in DmC's fighting system, so they will prefer the older games. Does that make the older games better? No, it does not.

None of this is objective, it all comes down to personal preference. If the MGR team had come out and said, 'our parry system is the best ever' then you might have a point, but as far as I'm aware they did not; they made the game they wanted to and the parry system works the way they intended it to.

The entire crux of your argument is based on an assumption that all games are tied to some infallible set of objective rules, and anything that transgresses against them is automatically sub-par, but by that criteria all 8-bit games should be wiped off the face of the Earth, because, 'objectively', they don't look as good as 16-bit ones.

 

[zerkocelot]

broken might be hyperbole, no fun learning a flimsy and specific system that makes me want to pull my hair out, dark souls rewarding amd fun mg r not. refer to my previous posts about the jump attacks and unblockable offscreen attacks

Okay, all that established was that you, in particular, do not like how the game plays. That does not make it a bad game. As stated previously, I enjoyed learning how the game worked and watching myself get better, (I was this close to beating Mistral with no damage, the other day.)

I'm not saying MGR is a perfect game, some of your complaints are valid, but I defy you to find me a single game that is perfect. No matter what way you slice it (haha, ahhh...see what I did there?) this whole thread just comes down to you personally not liking the game, and has very little in the way of objective criticism about the games actual quality.

If you don't like the game then that's your choice, I'm not telling you should like it just because I do, but don't swoop in here, spoiling for a fight, and trying to tell us why we're all mistaken for thinking MGR is fun to play and that the mechanics work well because we bothered to get to grips with them instead of calling shanaynays the first time a Hammer Bro turned our robotic spine into a concertina.

I wasn't please refer to my op about blockstun and a recap post about the parry system its poorly made and rough at best and that's not my opinion its a result of compariosn to more solid fighting games. God hand people ... god hand

Oh. My. God.

IT ISN'T OBJECTIVE!

That is the thing, anything involving DESIGN, as in HOW THE PARRY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED ISN't OBJECTIVE, IT IS SUBJECTIVE!.

Want to know why? Because it was designed by other people, and it is not a FACT.

2+2=4 is correct, objectively.

The parry system being "poorly made and rough" isn't Objective. Even compared to another game, that doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY poor, that just makes it SUBJECTIVELY WORSE than that other game.

Please learn how to use the word OBJECTIVE correctly.

my argument isn't about MY (the subjects opinion) its about the object and how it doesn't work and how another similar object does...this is all irelevant to the discussion anyway... the analysis is mine (so I see where u are coming from) but its not based in my thought its based on my observations objective observations we all see what happens at 26:50 in the video right? and that was a horrid moment for anyone playing the game, a problem non existant in a fixed camera game

Stop changing subject.

In that EXACT post I quoted, you said the parrying system was "objectively bad".

No matter you "opinions", something that is designed by someone else that is not a scientifically (or otherwise 100% proven FACT) can not be objective.

And no, we aren't talking about an "object", we are talking about a SYSTEM, a system designed by 1 or many other people, and something of that nature can not be 100% objectively bad, because OPINIONS.

You can not talk about the parry system, then when I point that out you go "BUT BUT CAMERA ANGLE", I haven't spoken of the camera angle, I was speaking of the parry system.

So you can observe all you like, you saying the parry system is bad doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY bad, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY bad, because I and many other people happen to like the parry system and think that it works.

OPINION BOY AWAY!

It is bad as in it doesn't work all the time it fails...only you are interjecting your opinion. my statements are yet to be proven false look at the recap post and see how ham handed and unrealiable the system is when we break it down. compare to sf 3rd strike the parry which always works against every attack is objectivly better..

ALLLRIGHT.

Let me break this down.

1. I AM interjecting my opinion. Want to know why? Because this subject matter is subjective, not objective.

2. Your statements are all over the place. First it was about the parry system not working, now it is about the camera, and now...I don't even know. So if you are going to state something, please make it precise because I honestly don't know whats going on.

3. THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN!

The word objective can't be you "check and mate" in every situation, because the word objective CERTAINLY does not apply in this situation.

Once again, OBJECTIVE IS PROVEN FACT, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF BIAS OR OPINION!

In the case of this, with many people having VARYING opinions, IT CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

My god.

last post was anout the party system as you did catch my switching subjects... the presence of different opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter in this case I'm saying you are wrong and my observations are correct objectivly... if I thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make math subjective and please calm down

in essence
me:mgr+parrying=suck and I show proofs
you: splitting hairs and distracting the issue

No, differing opinions doesn't change something into a subjective matter.

What makes this a subjective matter is the medium that this is in.

Things like music, books, movies and games can not be objectively anything, because it is a matter of opinion, that is why reviews on games have varying results, it isn't something is OBJECTIVELY bad, it is that there isn't a 100% way of factually proving it is bad, so it is an opinion.

and no, if you thought 2+2=3 that doesn't make maths subjective, it does however make you something else.

and no, I am not wrong, and your observations are not objectively correct, because because it is all opinions, because there is no way to factually prove or deny.

no you are crazy for not accepting my proofs of mgr being bad the problem is in you... same logic see. I believe games can be objectivly discected if you don't that's ok but if you want to argue show some evidence or make a compelling argument please..

That......is hardly the same logic.

I am saying that an aspect of a game can not be objectively bad because it is opinion based.

You logic is "YOUR CRAZY YOUR THE PROBLEM CRAZY MAN".

I don't even see how those 2 logics are the same.

And you "proofs" are comparing it to other games, which by the way, are still opinion based.

So what does that leave us with boys and girls?

Thats right, subjective.

you said if I think 2+2=3 it says something about me (I.e I'm nuts or ignorant) same thing with you and the ignorance of my points. its good you figured out my analysis method by comparison (temp is objective but for something to be hot we need to compare it to that which is cold) . to specify I deal not with enjoyment but with functionality and for the reasons stated above the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games. if you or anyone else cannont break down myargument without saying I the subject just like it fuck you and your thoughts then my theory is correct. earth was once flat for all intensive purposes until one guy with a better methods disproved a fact. he nor I never said... I just think or imo this is the way it is...we backed it up with logical conclusions and what do we get?
objectivity

I really REALLY wish you would stick with the one argument.

What IS your argument?

Because I thought your argument was that the parry system was "Objectively broken". But now you say that "the parry systems in tekken, dark souls third strike and heck ys 7 are more functional than mgr making them better games."

So what are you here to discuss? The parry system being broken (subjective)? or how other games are better at one feature then somehow they are a better game over all?

if a toaster doesn't function and another does one is objectivly a better tosster mg r3rd parry system is broken those games' systems arnt. it follows mgr is a worse game than all of those.. due to it being a less functional toaster...or broken otherwise..

That is the thing!

You are speaking of a toaster that is COMPLETELY BROKEN, IT DOESN'T FUNCTION IN THE SLIGHTEST! IT DOESNT HAVE ANY OF ITS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FUNCTIONALITY!

It isn't like Metal Gear Risings parry system is fundamentally broken! it is working, with it's original intent of use still in place!

I DONT UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT!

You are arguing that it is broken, but it is working!

sure , broken is an expression for badly functioning, no?

But it isn't badly functioning, it is working as it was developed and intended to......

What did I say? By comparison (the only thing that tells us the difference between round and flat) we can conclude it functions poorly as a game. I compare and list faults abscent in other games..

Thats it, im done.

Your argument seems to be changing.

First it was that the parry system is "objectively poor".

then it was "broken"

and now it "functions poorly as a game".

No more replying from me, you can't get your points straight.

all the same thing... you sure like to split hairs....

 

[zerkocelot]

Its an epistemological stance, either you agree or disagree, its really a whole different discusion but facts are all derived from comparison so in terms of functionality there is objective differences.. if I'm wrong prove it... this has derailed the post lol

I think you really think you are Sherlock Holmes. There is little to nothing objective when it comes to game design, because what works for some people won't work well for others.

Let's take the remake of Devil May Cry as an example: Ninja Theory's fighting system is nowhere near as robust as 3 and 4's was. That is a fact and it is indisputable: there simply isn't as much room for variation in the combat. Does that make it objectively worse, as a game? No, it does not.

I prefer DmC's fight system to DMC's because I don't have the reflexes necessary to excel at games like that; therefore, subjectively speaking, DmC is the better game to me. People who are good at DMC's fight system will obviously be disappointed at the lack of challenge in DmC's fighting system, so they will prefer the older games. Does that make the older games better? No, it does not.

None of this is objective, it all comes down to personal preference. If the MGR team had come out and said, 'our parry system is the best ever' then you might have a point, but as far as I'm aware they did not; they made the game they wanted to and the parry system works the way they intended it to.

The entire crux of your argument is based on an assumption that all games are tied to some infallible set of objective rules, and anything that transgresses against them is automatically sub-par, but by that criteria all 8-bit games should be wiped off the face of the Earth, because, 'objectively', they don't look as good as 16-bit ones.

you are refering to subjective thinks like aesthetics and charm... I'm refering to functionality... different. More robust is better than shallow or are you backwards?

 

[rob_simple]

you are refering to subjective thinks like aesthetics and charm... I'm refering to functionality... different. More robust is better than shallow or are you backwards?

No, you are referring to what you consider to be optimum functionality. There is a huge difference. MGR is perfectly functional, it just doesn't play the way you want it to.

And more robust is not always better than streamlined, (yeah, your bias doesn't show at all when you call it 'shallow' rather than simplified.)

 

[Skops]

Its an epistemological stance, either you agree or disagree, its really a whole different discusion but facts are all derived from comparison so in terms of functionality there is objective differences.. if I'm wrong prove it... this has derailed the post lol

I think you really think you are Sherlock Holmes. There is little to nothing objective when it comes to game design, because what works for some people won't work well for others.

Let's take the remake of Devil May Cry as an example: Ninja Theory's fighting system is nowhere near as robust as 3 and 4's was. That is a fact and it is indisputable: there simply isn't as much room for variation in the combat. Does that make it objectively worse, as a game? No, it does not.

I prefer DmC's fight system to DMC's because I don't have the reflexes necessary to excel at games like that; therefore, subjectively speaking, DmC is the better game to me. People who are good at DMC's fight system will obviously be disappointed at the lack of challenge in DmC's fighting system, so they will prefer the older games. Does that make the older games better? No, it does not.

None of this is objective, it all comes down to personal preference. If the MGR team had come out and said, 'our parry system is the best ever' then you might have a point, but as far as I'm aware they did not; they made the game they wanted to and the parry system works the way they intended it to.

The entire crux of your argument is based on an assumption that all games are tied to some infallible set of objective rules, and anything that transgresses against them is automatically sub-par, but by that criteria all 8-bit games should be wiped off the face of the Earth, because, 'objectively', they don't look as good as 16-bit ones.

you are refering to subjective thinks like aesthetics and charm... I'm refering to functionality... different. More robust is better than shallow or are you backwards?

Just leave it dude. You haven't convinced anyone here that MGR was 'awful', or that it's parry system didn't work properly. MGR was a fine game, a lot of people here enjoyed it, myself included.

 

[zerkocelot]

Theres another way to prove objectivity in games, 8 bit games are simpler (less pixels) therefore worse reflect real life. So 8bit games are objectivly less realistic than anything higher resolution. Objective fact.

 

[TehCookie]

What I've read was it was awful because you couldn't parry. The difference between walking and parrying is holding down the stick in a direction or tapping the stick in a direction. I was annoyed at it at first because I couldn't parry either, I had to look up tips on how to actually do it. Once I got it down the game was great fun. Oh and if you need to end your attack animation to parry, blade mode cancel it.

Also if you know/aim your attacks, use lock on, and/or stop mashing buttons you don't zoom around everywhere. You complain there's no strategy, but you just refuse to use it. However the game doesn't tell you anything, you have to find it on your own. The stinger attack (forward, forward heavy) is a great attack to close distance, so while it does send you zooming it helps you control the battlefield. When you do a stinger if you dodge afterwards it cancels the ending animation and moves you out of harms way making the stinger a much better attack. I suck at air combat so I can't say much about it, but there's another strategy.

Yes the game is annoying since you have to be able to parry to play it properly, but if you're mashing buttons and refusing to learn the systems because it's not like another game, that's you. Not the game. Yet it still may not be your cup of tea, but you shouldn't ignorantly criticize it.

Pretty much this.

Many people have played through the game, and while you really do need to learn everything yourself, once you learn the ins and outs of parrying, dodging, blade mode cancels etc the game becomes quite fun.

And yeah, you really don't zoom around everywhere if you stop spamming buttons, and start linking combos and using specific attacks.

Plus, I don't know what you mean by "3000+ hours in fighting games", but if your talking about something like street fighter, yeah nah, completely different genres.

That would be like me saying "I can't play CoD even thought I have 3000+ hours in Starcraft 2."

Fighting games and action games with a block are very similar utilizing the blockstun/hitstun concepts.. also how can you call me ignorant when you can't deny the amount of randomly decided forward movement on most attacks and the stinger strategy would be slow and still allow for the problems of direction facing and parrying. The parrying was poorly executed it's very hard to deny that. Anyone know the difference between white flashing attacks red flashing attacks purple flashing attacks gold flashing attacks or blue flashing attacks? Which ones can I parry which are unblockable? It's poor, was fun for a bit but lazily put together not just in the lack of a tutorial but also in practice... Don't call me ignorant when I PLAYED THE GAME, it makes me as equally qualified as you...

I called you ignorant because you obviously don't understand it. I play fighting games, I beat the story mode in the first two Blazblue games and P4A, but that doesn't make me understand all the mechanics. I'm pretty shit at fighting games because I have trouble holding combos together and don't use any strategy beyond button mashing (or spamming Jin's ice car). So am I just as qualified as you to talk about fighting game mechanics because I played them? I'm pretty sure my ignorance could make your bang your head against a wall to escape it.

The game uses colors to tell you what you can and can't parry so you don't parry impossible attacks. Red is parryable, yellow is not, and blue is if the enemy counter parries if I recall correctly. That's why I called you ignorant. You don't know what the colors mean and whine that you don't know which attacks can be parried when it's right in front of you.

Since you're a fighting game fan, only using the stinger strategy is like only using hadouken. You work it into your combos and there's some attack you do after to keep from being hit right to make the move safer right? That's what it is. As for your direction problem, that's why I said aim. You can use knowledge from previous games to help you (like crates contain items) but don't expect it to play exactly like something else.

A lack of a good tutorial is a valid complaint. I'm not saying the game is perfect, so at least complain about the actual faults.

 

[zerkocelot]

Its an epistemological stance, either you agree or disagree, its really a whole different discusion but facts are all derived from comparison so in terms of functionality there is objective differences.. if I'm wrong prove it... this has derailed the post lol

I think you really think you are Sherlock Holmes. There is little to nothing objective when it comes to game design, because what works for some people won't work well for others.

Let's take the remake of Devil May Cry as an example: Ninja Theory's fighting system is nowhere near as robust as 3 and 4's was. That is a fact and it is indisputable: there simply isn't as much room for variation in the combat. Does that make it objectively worse, as a game? No, it does not.

I prefer DmC's fight system to DMC's because I don't have the reflexes necessary to excel at games like that; therefore, subjectively speaking, DmC is the better game to me. People who are good at DMC's fight system will obviously be disappointed at the lack of challenge in DmC's fighting system, so they will prefer the older games. Does that make the older games better? No, it does not.

None of this is objective, it all comes down to personal preference. If the MGR team had come out and said, 'our parry system is the best ever' then you might have a point, but as far as I'm aware they did not; they made the game they wanted to and the parry system works the way they intended it to.

The entire crux of your argument is based on an assumption that all games are tied to some infallible set of objective rules, and anything that transgresses against them is automatically sub-par, but by that criteria all 8-bit games should be wiped off the face of the Earth, because, 'objectively', they don't look as good as 16-bit ones.

you are refering to subjective thinks like aesthetics and charm... I'm refering to functionality... different. More robust is better than shallow or are you backwards?

Just leave it dude. You haven't convinced anyone here that MGR was 'awful', or that it's parry system didn't work properly. MGR was a fine game, a lot of people here enjoyed it, myself included.

You convinced me bro. you held me back from getting in a street fight outside a bar.. thanks for being here.

 

[zerkocelot]

you are refering to subjective thinks like aesthetics and charm... I'm refering to functionality... different. More robust is better than shallow or are you backwards?

No, you are referring to what you consider to be optimum functionality. There is a huge difference. MGR is perfectly functional, it just doesn't play the way you want it to.

And more robust is not always better than streamlined, (yeah, your bias doesn't show at all when you call it 'shallow' rather than simplified.)

Not optimum (like i decided whats best) its solely MG R < other games. You lack comprehension as well me and that dumb seizure guy went through this and I've established my position.

 

[zerkocelot]

What I've read was it was awful because you couldn't parry. The difference between walking and parrying is holding down the stick in a direction or tapping the stick in a direction. I was annoyed at it at first because I couldn't parry either, I had to look up tips on how to actually do it. Once I got it down the game was great fun. Oh and if you need to end your attack animation to parry, blade mode cancel it.

Also if you know/aim your attacks, use lock on, and/or stop mashing buttons you don't zoom around everywhere. You complain there's no strategy, but you just refuse to use it. However the game doesn't tell you anything, you have to find it on your own. The stinger attack (forward, forward heavy) is a great attack to close distance, so while it does send you zooming it helps you control the battlefield. When you do a stinger if you dodge afterwards it cancels the ending animation and moves you out of harms way making the stinger a much better attack. I suck at air combat so I can't say much about it, but there's another strategy.

Yes the game is annoying since you have to be able to parry to play it properly, but if you're mashing buttons and refusing to learn the systems because it's not like another game, that's you. Not the game. Yet it still may not be your cup of tea, but you shouldn't ignorantly criticize it.

Pretty much this.

Many people have played through the game, and while you really do need to learn everything yourself, once you learn the ins and outs of parrying, dodging, blade mode cancels etc the game becomes quite fun.

And yeah, you really don't zoom around everywhere if you stop spamming buttons, and start linking combos and using specific attacks.

Plus, I don't know what you mean by "3000+ hours in fighting games", but if your talking about something like street fighter, yeah nah, completely different genres.

That would be like me saying "I can't play CoD even thought I have 3000+ hours in Starcraft 2."

Fighting games and action games with a block are very similar utilizing the blockstun/hitstun concepts.. also how can you call me ignorant when you can't deny the amount of randomly decided forward movement on most attacks and the stinger strategy would be slow and still allow for the problems of direction facing and parrying. The parrying was poorly executed it's very hard to deny that. Anyone know the difference between white flashing attacks red flashing attacks purple flashing attacks gold flashing attacks or blue flashing attacks? Which ones can I parry which are unblockable? It's poor, was fun for a bit but lazily put together not just in the lack of a tutorial but also in practice... Don't call me ignorant when I PLAYED THE GAME, it makes me as equally qualified as you...

I called you ignorant because you obviously don't understand it. I play fighting games, I beat the story mode in the first two Blazblue games and P4A, but that doesn't make me understand all the mechanics. I'm pretty shit at fighting games because I have trouble holding combos together and don't use any strategy beyond button mashing (or spamming Jin's ice car). So am I just as qualified as you to talk about fighting game mechanics because I played them? I'm pretty sure my ignorance could make your bang your head against a wall to escape it.

The game uses colors to tell you what you can and can't parry so you don't parry impossible attacks. Red is parryable, yellow is not, and blue is if the enemy counter parries if I recall correctly. That's why I called you ignorant. You don't know what the colors mean and whine that you don't know which attacks can be parried when it's right in front of you.

Since you're a fighting game fan, only using the stinger strategy is like only using hadouken. You work it into your combos and there's some attack you do after to keep from being hit right to make the move safer right? That's what it is. As for your direction problem, that's why I said aim. You can use knowledge from previous games to help you (like crates contain items) but don't expect it to play exactly like something else.

A lack of a good tutorial is a valid complaint. I'm not saying the game is perfect, so at least complain about the actual faults.

Ok maybe I am, but there are still more technical problems I encountered even when I executed something correctly, meaning not a fault of my own but of the game. I would argue a lot of people are justifying their purchase by defending the obviously poor mechanics. Theres still more I've listed as problems which you can address, but yes i concede I cant deny my ignorance of the array of colors and their largly unexplained properties.

 

[rob_simple]

you are refering to subjective thinks like aesthetics and charm... I'm refering to functionality... different. More robust is better than shallow or are you backwards?

No, you are referring to what you consider to be optimum functionality. There is a huge difference. MGR is perfectly functional, it just doesn't play the way you want it to.

And more robust is not always better than streamlined, (yeah, your bias doesn't show at all when you call it 'shallow' rather than simplified.)

Not optimum (like i decided whats best) its solely MG R < other games. You lack comprehension as well me and that dumb seizure guy went through this and I've established my position.

Except you haven't been saying MGR isn't as good as other games, you've been saying MGR is a bad game. It isn't. There are games that are better than it, I'm sure, just like there are hundreds which are worse.

But let me ask you this: If you've already established your position --and made it extremely clear you won't budge from your way of thinking-- what was the point in your thread?

Did you think that all of us simple-minded folks what done enjoyed MGR would read your massive wall of text and suddenly realise all the fun we'd been having with the game was just imaginary and go burn down Platinum's studio? If you didn't want help understanding how to be better at the game, then did you just come here to boast about your totally cool 'I've sunk 3,000 hours of my life into fighting games' accolade?

Also, please don't be rude about other members of the board; it's not a great way to enamour yourself to anyone.

 

[zerkocelot]

you are refering to subjective thinks like aesthetics and charm... I'm refering to functionality... different. More robust is better than shallow or are you backwards?

No, you are referring to what you consider to be optimum functionality. There is a huge difference. MGR is perfectly functional, it just doesn't play the way you want it to.

And more robust is not always better than streamlined, (yeah, your bias doesn't show at all when you call it 'shallow' rather than simplified.)

Not optimum (like i decided whats best) its solely MG R < other games. You lack comprehension as well me and that dumb seizure guy went through this and I've established my position.

Except you haven't been saying MGR isn't as good as other games, you've been saying MGR is a bad game. It isn't. There are games that are better than it, I'm sure, just like there are hundreds which are worse.

But let me ask you this: If you've already established your position --and made it extremely clear you won't budge from your way of thinking-- what was the point in your thread?

Did you think that all of us simple-minded folks what done enjoyed MGR would read your massive wall of text and suddenly realise all the fun we'd been having with the game was just imaginary and go burn down Platinum's studio? If you didn't want help understanding how to be better at the game, then did you just come here to boast about your totally cool 'I've sunk 3,000 hours of my life into fighting games' accolade?

Also, please don't be rude about other members of the board; it's not a great way to enamour yourself to anyone.

It's been established why I compared MGR and why that proves its status as bad or good. I posted for intelligent discussion and was totally open to the idea of being wrong about the game... but of course I encountered people indirectly responding attacking me directly, not comprehending or reading previous posts, telling me to drop it, and Not knowing what they were getting into. I can budge you just need to provide some proof free of "I just think...etc." Tehcookie was the closest to stumping me and I had a few nice discussions. You think me evil simply because I hold an opposing stance...pro tip.. don't please I mean you no harm.