Viewing Thread:
"Do not reward the biased like grix reward the open minded like Ant, Arty and Dan"

come on SR. Cop yourself on!

The topic did have something to do with FMV originally though, as apparently I was biased for saying I hated FMV.
Which I do.
(As do I.)
Glad we agree on something. I think it is much more involving in saaayy, Half-Life, when all important things happen when you are playing.
For Example: You walk around the corner, you notice that the swinging bridge, which now is shown in front of you, looks rather unsafe. You tap the forward key a few times, and then decide to run and jump for it. You spurt across, and the bridge can be heard crashing beneath you, you jump off just in time, and quickly save.

You walk around the corner, the games switches from real time to FMV. You see the character looking at a bridge. He runs across it, and it collapses soon after he makes it across.

Which one is more exciting?

Getting back to the original topic...
If you don't have biased opinions, disscusions are a bit boring. Surely if everyone was 'open minded' they would all agree, and then there would be no debate.

Anyway, lets try and get this topic up to 100 messages. Its possible.

Metriod, Waverace - FMV
Zelda, Mario, Luigi, Pokemon, everything else - Realtime.

You know, I've just thought, has anyone checked to make sure that the GameCube demo wasn't just FMV.
It would be a shame if it was (although I doubt Nintendo would be so shallow!)

I think music is the type of thing that makes a difference in games, from the good, to the excellent. It makes games seem like epics if the music is really thrilling, like Jedi Knight, Freespace 2, and up and coming Shenmue.

I think we should try and make this forum to 100 replies.

I think those week old pringles are getting to me, I feel funny again. (Don't go dieing on me again, I find it hard to type when you are lying on the keyboard.)

Yes I did, just to see if everyone had stayed on the original topic. There's only one way to solve this debate - we all need to get together and have a really big fight!

Did you REALLY scroll all the way down here to read this?

Grix and Grix both have a valid point, if you had to rate these five categories for a game, what order would they come in?
Music.
Playability.
Sound.
Graphics.
Genre.
For me it would be:
Playability- Top Priority.
Genre ------- RPG/Adventure/Strategy/Driving/Sport.
Graphics ---- Have to be excellent.
Sound ------- Not vital, but for 40 nicker better be good.
Music ------- Last priority, but Final Fantasy have shown how important this can be in some cases. Not vital to me though.

Why? Should I be covering my eyes or something? (Tut.)
I never said we shouldn't have graphics, I said they are... what did I say? Hang on.
I said: "Graphics aren't everything anyway, but its nice to be able to play a slick-slidingly smooth game (slick-slidingly?) with crisp detail and graphics."

But. Gameplay is MUCH more important. And we are paying £40 for it, because any old b****r can make the game look nice, but to make it play amazingly so people are still playing it after six years, then that's really what we are paying for.
Saying that though, I wouldn't buy the GB game, as graphics are lovely to have, and I have trouble parting with money. (That would be mostly my fault...)

If some game producer that had a really big name and deserved to up the prices of their games decided to take a chance and make a 2D game with no colour, almost like an old GB game, and made you pay around £40 for it, it might not have graphics but it will more than likely have loads of levels which get boring after you see the same person for the first 20 levels, but it will have gameplay, but we shouldn't have to pay for that, we pay for graphics and technology.
If you thought that letter was easy to read, you gotta be doing something wrong.