Why Metal Gear Rising was Awful.

[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

 

[zerkocelot]

I played bayonetta loved it as blocking and dodging was more conventional.

Really? Because because blocking an attack in Bayonetta required you to do the same thing you do in Metal Gear Rising. You can't even block in Bayonetta unless you have the right item equipped, hardly what I'd call conventional.

tbh I don't remeber... lol my bad ...but the dodging?

 

[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!

Edit: and by the way, this isn't about the system not working, this is about how you THINK the system is not working, once again, opinions.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why would you use cod and sc2 as a comparison those are completely different genres sf and mgr are at least both fighting/action games (admittedly different anyway)...

The point he/she was making was that fighting and action games are just as different as an FPS and an RTS. The fact that both have blocking in them doesn't make them similar any more so than the fact that there is shooting in both the FPS and RTS. While the concepts are the same, the mechanics are different.

You imply that the skill is transferable when it is not. They are quite different creatures. Hell... playing Mortal Kombat well doesn't mean you can play Street Fighter well.

I have no issues when I'm trying to play MG:R, Bayonetta, DmC, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden or any other 3rd person action game but I suck at fighting games. The mechanics in MG:R actually work really well but if you're expecting the tightness that a restrictive 2D game like Street Fighter can provide in a 3D action game then you will be let down repeatedly.

Im sorry you cannot admit that they both have blocking and combos 2 ckncepts that need to have the same mechanics and call them different. where as shooting in sc2 is only a sound and application of dmg in an fps it involes aiming...very diffeeent blocking and combo ing in dmc and sf fsirly similar but still different...

And I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between concept and mechanics. And you really need to stop saying things are similar but different as a retort. That is exactly what I said. Concept same, mechanics different. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare the mechanics of a fighting game to the ones of an action game. The problem is that you are looking at this one aspect and not all the other stuff that goes into it. Movement and targeting are key aspects in how these games are different and are inherently involved in the fighting system but you seem to want to analyze one aspect without consideration of how the rest of the game works.

More importantly, you seem to think that the skills used in 2D one on one fighting should be directly transferable to 3D one on many combat. Even 3D fighting games such as Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive are really 2D games since you are always lined up against your one enemy. The mechanics of MG:R have to feel sloppy compared to SF because 3D combat requires more precision and awareness on the part of the user than a 2D fight with an always on screen opponent.

Does it suck getting hit from behind by some cheap ass enemy? Yes. But guess what... if the fight were actually happening, you would get smacked from behind too.

 

[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..

 

[Hazy]

The roll system is replaced with the dodge cancel. On the PS3 it's Triangle and something else, I think circle, but you attack and shift to the side of an enemy.

My biggest problem with this game? Those fucking Mastiffs in the elevator right before Sundowner. Those pair can go fuck themselves.

That, and it was too short.

 

[Able Seacat]

snip

Snip

Snip

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

You can't point at that one bad camera angle moment in that video and go 'see awful game'. You praised Dark Souls in your OP, are you saying this game doesn't have any faults?

 

[zerkocelot]

Why would you use cod and sc2 as a comparison those are completely different genres sf and mgr are at least both fighting/action games (admittedly different anyway)...

The point he/she was making was that fighting and action games are just as different as an FPS and an RTS. The fact that both have blocking in them doesn't make them similar any more so than the fact that there is shooting in both the FPS and RTS. While the concepts are the same, the mechanics are different.

You imply that the skill is transferable when it is not. They are quite different creatures. Hell... playing Mortal Kombat well doesn't mean you can play Street Fighter well.

I have no issues when I'm trying to play MG:R, Bayonetta, DmC, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden or any other 3rd person action game but I suck at fighting games. The mechanics in MG:R actually work really well but if you're expecting the tightness that a restrictive 2D game like Street Fighter can provide in a 3D action game then you will be let down repeatedly.

Im sorry you cannot admit that they both have blocking and combos 2 ckncepts that need to have the same mechanics and call them different. where as shooting in sc2 is only a sound and application of dmg in an fps it involes aiming...very diffeeent blocking and combo ing in dmc and sf fsirly similar but still different...

And I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between concept and mechanics. And you really need to stop saying things are similar but different as a retort. That is exactly what I said. Concept same, mechanics different. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare the mechanics of a fighting game to the ones of an action game. The problem is that you are looking at this one aspect and not all the other stuff that goes into it. Movement and targeting are key aspects in how these games are different and are inherently involved in the fighting system but you seem to want to analyze one aspect without consideration of how the rest of the game works.

More importantly, you seem to think that the skills used in 2D one on one fighting should be directly transferable to 3D one on many combat. Even 3D fighting games such as Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive are really 2D games since you are always lined up against your one enemy. The mechanics of MG:R have to feel sloppy compared to SF because 3D combat requires more precision and awareness on the part of the user than a 2D fight with an always on screen opponent.

Does it suck getting hit from behind by some cheap ass enemy? Yes. But guess what... if the fight were actually happening, you would get smacked from behind too.

yourre wrong in soul calibur the third dimension is always present (side stepping). all I was saying was the analogy was weak not explicitly wrong but weak...it did seem bipolar the last way I worded it. awarness doesn't matter if you are in blockstun then hit by an unblockable thats inescapable..

 

[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.

 

[zerkocelot]

snip

Snip

Snip

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

You can't point at that one bad camera angle moment in that video and go 'see awful game'. You praised Dark Souls in your OP, are you saying this game doesn't have any faults?

No it just has a more solid fighting system with depth and a learning curve...that camera angle problem happened to often to me especially agaisnt the second last boss with the rocks in the area its just one of the aspects that adds up...

 

[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 about the parry system as you did catch me 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

 

[BarkBarker]

Just playing the demo, it gets really unenjoyable for me really quickly because the parry requires there to be an attack oncoming, or that was what I gathered from my experience, and I see the bloody attack being prepared, but I press the command and it is really unnecessarily finicky, they definitely lose points for putting context sensitive controls in a video game, since castlevania gamers have never been happy about context sensitive controls, because context can change from the slightest prod too far in the direction, overall the game feels like a game that has gone what I call "Too Platinum", when platinum games just up everything so fucking much without care or consideration for the joy of the actions themselves, and they do it in a lot of the things they do, the smallest thing is fucking dramatic, yet it still works like a game in that it doesn't do much, I don't feel like a god in a world of gods, I feel like we just chuck too many particles effects at each other and frankly a bit of a pansy.

 

[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.

 

[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..

 

[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.

 

[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 the game, 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

 

[natster43]

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..

But you still are not objectively analyzing a game by saying the parry system in another game is better than the parry system in MGR and giving reasons, that is all opinion. I could easily just say and think that Street Fighter has a worse parry system ever and give reasons for me believing it and it would be as equally valid as you saying it isn't bad and thinking MGR's parry system is worse. Objectively dissecting a game would mean that you are only pointing out facts about the game, not arguing that things are better or worse than something else.

 

[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?

Edit:

But you still are not objectively analyzing a game by saying the parry system in another game is better than the parry system in MGR and giving reasons, that is all opinion. I could easily just say and think that Street Fighter has a worse parry system ever and give reasons for me believing it and it would be as equally valid as you saying it isn't bad and thinking MGR's parry system is worse. Objectively dissecting a game would mean that you are only pointing out facts about the game, not arguing that things are better or worse than something else.

Thank you! I knew someone else had to know what was going on!

 

[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 toaster. mg r'sparry 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.. its not for no reason...comparison is essential to knowledge (hot and cold analogy).

 

[lapan]

It's perfectly possible to get through things without knowing anything --hell I could probably walk into a garage tomorrow and work on cars for a few hours before anyone noticed I didn't know what I was doing-- what I'm saying is your problems stem from the fact you didn't learn anything.

I, similarly, made it all the way to the last boss without learning even the fundamental parts of the game mechanics, but I couldn't beat the last boss until I Youtubed it and learned where I'd been going wrong. Then I started watching other videos to learn more about the game and started experimenting with different tactics, myself, and now I'm about a million times better at it.

If you just refuse to learn where you're going wrong and assume it's all the games fault for being broken, then of course it stands to reason you will never improve, but if the game was really broken then no one would be able to get good at it; and there definitely wouldn't be people getting all S Ranks and 'no damage' runs.

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