I am sick of 3D games,,,

C

CHollman82

Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
531
Recently I have been playing old SNES and arcade games on emulator on my bigscreen with my girlfriend and I haven't had so much fun in a long time. I think that the developement of 3D games was a poison to the game industry. Now all that people care about are graphics, before 3D that really wasn't an issue. Games are not as fun anymore, and the ones that are fun get no publicity or respect because they don't have people getting blown in half and blood spattering all over the place. I need another first person shooter like i need a hole in my head. I find when I am playing these newer uber games (HL2, Doom3, BF2 etc.) the only reason I keep playing is to get through it, I find no enjoyment along the way I just want to finish it. I say down and played SMB3 the other day with my girlfriend taking turns per life and we made it to level 6 before having to leave and we didn't even bother saving or anything because that wasn't the point. We had fun playing, didn't matter how far we got or what score we got or anything, we found enjoyment in the act of just playing. I think that kind of enjoyment is lacking in most newer games. I was just playing Flat Out for PC and found myself spending a half hour on a track trying to destroy everything I could to get money from destruction bonus in order to upgrade my car. I realized well I was doing this that I was bored as hell, and the only reason I was doing it was to make my car faster. The only reason I was doing that was to get through the next race. I wasn't having fun playing the game I just wanted to get to the end... Anyways I know this has been a long rant but I just wanted to get some things off my chest so thanks for listening.
 
I completely agree... I have found that if you want newer games, ones for the recent portable systems like the GameBoy Advance and the Nintendo DS have a lot of "fun factor" in them while actually playing, not just the satisfaction of having gotten through a difficult encounter but the fun during the gameplay :). I just bought a NIntendo DS (I had a GBA for awhile) with Super Mario 64 DS, Need For Speed Underground 2 (very difficult racing game), Meteos (a very deep, highly replayable puzzle game with a few interesting twists), and Kirby: Canvas Curse (VERY innovative game using the touchscreen as the only control method, read a review, it's kind of hard to describe otherwise) and am having a blast with it. Plus, I can use all of my GBA games with it, too :). If you don't want to invest to try it out, see if a friend owns one and will let you try it for a day. I think you'll find what you're looking for!
 
I totally agree with your sentiments Hollman. No matter how many games I play that have the best graphics and the latest uber shaders, I still find myself playing Tetris :D Sometimes the simpler a game is, the more fun it is.......one of my all time favorite multiplayer games is tic-tac-toe :p
 
I believe you are partially correct. I had LOTS of fun with 2D games on the SNES/Genesis, and even in the 32-bit era; games like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night are some of the few I go back to play (mostly because the 3D offerings from the generation looked like absolute rubbish, :-I but that's why I believe graphics ARE an important part of the experience). However, there are some 3D games which I believe shouldn't be any other way. Everyone is welcome to agree on each example, but for all intents and purposes, I believe 3D DOES have it's place. The format simply hasn't been utilized as effectively for gameplay elements as 2D has.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Holy crap, I can not tell you how much I love this game. I know people are quite divided on this issue, so the reaction is love/hate. I'm sure a few can be inbetween, but in my experience they are a rarity. Yet I digress. Zelda is a great example of how 3D game worlds can be used as gameplay devices. A staple of Zelda's gameplay focuses around the exploration of dungeons, finding hidden treasures, and solving puzzles, while you just happen to be saving Hyrule. :) In 3D the aspect of exploration is dramatically improved. Scale, power, and immersiveness are all more vivid. I never felt reluctant to tackle a dungeon in Link to the Past, but Ocarina of Time had me a little anxious to see what is on the otherside of a door in a few instances (I am retarded). Furthermore searching for hidden passages, collecting heart containers and fairy fountains is much more rewarding. It isn't uncommon to see a perch and think to yourself "I wonder what is up there". Typically you find yourself rewarded with a few rupees. Largely worthless, but you accomplished something. Stumbling upon hidden areas in Link to the Past was more haphazard. Crack in the wall, bomb, rupees, repeat. There are a few instances where maps are cleverly designed to give you a peek at currently inaccessible portion of the world, but I found the experience more rewarding and involved with Ocarina of Time.

More importantly, now puzzles are in full 3D. Unfortunately this can over complicate some puzzles, and result in what we saw in the water temple. I thought it was one of the best dungeons of the game, but it was too much for some people. Admittedly, the dungeon did need more work, but that is also a result of a more complex puzzle format. Link to the Past started some of this with a few of it's dungeons. Tower of Hera was sort of a shoots and ladders setup, where you really had to consider layers of the dungeon layout collectively, rather than a flat maze. With Ocarina of Time moving to a 3D format these types of dungeons a little more intuitive since gamers can actively look about their environments instead of resorting to the map frequently. Pause functions in any games, I believe, serve only to break the continuity of a game world and degrade the overall experience. In the end I utilized the map in Ocarina of Time ONLY to check locations of chests, and bosses. Exploration and puzzle solving was all done entirely through the 3D interface. While it wasn't necessary to check maps in A Link to the Past, the nature of 2D tiled environments led to one place looking exactly like the next. Piecing a dungeon together by means of spacial logic alone was very difficult, since many rooms would also have the same shape and size. When this was all said and done I found the experience of exploration and puzzle solving vastly more rewarding than anything I encountered in a 2D Zelda game. I felt like I was solving them. I was interacting while I was thinking. The map of the dungeon was being drawn in my head, not on a status screen.

Nothing against A Link to the Past, it was a fantastic game, but I merely feel like the transition to a 3D format improved the experience dramatically.

Metal Gear Solid: I'll start off by saying I never play the original Metal Gear games on the NES. I gave them a shot not long after picking up MGS, but couldn't get involved. So I do have a bias, but I will make a more valid comparison with the next game. By taking the Metal Gear series into a 3D format Kojima presented a much more immersive experience. Being able to finally get into Snake's perspective and look around in first person really hightened the tension. Does that make it more fun...? Eye of the beholder, I suppose, but it is one of the only 3D PSX games I repeately go back to play. When it is all said and done; however, the game still controls like it is 2D. In some respects this only supports the initial arguement of the thread, so I am going to move on quickly to the next game.

Splinter Cell: Aye, I appreciate this series much more than the recent offerings of MGS. There are still elements to MGS I appreciate, but taking that damned camera out of the sky and putting in bahind your avatar changes things dramatically. I no longer felt like difficulty was increased because you are handicapped as the player (10-15 limited sight distance while moving, anyone?). Furthermore this made 3D environmental puzzles a valid option. Staying out of sight wasn't just a matter of running laps around objects with obstruct an AI's view. Ledges, pipes, ziplines, all of this fun stuff was fair game. A dynamic of keeping your eye out for the mundane was paramount (for anyone aiming to make it through levels without killing anyone). Unfortunately there are some problems inherent with this setup. It often becomes possible to bypass huge portions of a level without having the slightest risk of being spotted. Furthermore, since level design is all over linear (even Chaos Theory doesn't break the mold much), you never feel like you are applying creative problem solving. Instead, you are simply travelling what is painfully obvious to be the "stealth path".

For what the game aims to achieve, a hightened level of immersiveness and tension as you assume the role of a lone soldier conducting covert ops, Splinter Cell, in my opinion, trumps Kojima's offerings with MGS in spades, and it is the direct result of a fully 3D format.

To further support this, the Hitman series makes incredible use of 3D and problem solving. There are countless ways to make a hit, and many of the 'proffessional' methods require judicious use of a layered, three dimensional world. Now there are no defined paths to follow like we see in Splinter Cell. Given the open levels, even routes which are carefully choriographed by the devs to allow save passage aren't quite as obvious. The player feels more like they are incontrol of their success. Although I like the climbing and crawling involved in Splinter Cell, I go back to play games of the Hitman series even more often, because of it's open ended nature. "Made the hit using a kitchen knife last time. Now I'm going to try with poisoned fish!!"

Finally, Soul Calibur: The one and only true 3D fighting game in my microverse. :D Fighters went from button combo competitions, to dynamic dances of death. I had so many great matches in the Soul Calibur series that simply can not be matched by 2D fighters. A few include rolls, dashes, or parries, but all are nothing compared to the twisting turning and completely organic nature of Soul Calibur's 3D combat system. It is an oddity the even in the midst of incredibly intense bouts that someone can honestly, and with genuine awe, make the statement "NICE!!!" when a counter, evade, or carefully timed quick hit kicks the ass of whomever made the remark. I laugh my ass off with the beauty of the combat system every time someone hops over my low horizontal swing, or a vertical thrust is narrowly evaded by a sidestep manuever/attack. Being able to laugh and genuinely smile when you are losing is a rare feet in video games. Esspecially ones that are competitively oriented.

As I mentioned in the huge paragraphs detailing Ocarina of Time, 3D elements can greatly scale complexity. Consequently, this also scales accessibility. If executed improperly even gamers looking for all of the aspects a 3D format can provide will check out as soon as they get in the door. The scaled complexity of gameplay can detract from the overall fun of a game even when it IS executed correctly. This is most commonly an issue with casual gamers looking to kill an hour or two, or who don't want to think too hard and have some mindless fun. This is all well and good. I still love going back to play games like Secret of Mana, Tetris Attack, and Metroid.

For what it is worth; however, you make a very valid point. Devs, and/or publishers just aren't utilizing the 3D format as a gameplay device. Devs got creative with the 2D medium because elements of immersion were minimal. They were, for better or worse, mindless fun. Some of the biggest failures were movie rip offs that somehow intended to take the cinematic experience of Batman, or an Arnold Scharzenegger movie into a side scrolling beat 'em up. Needless to say, this became easier with the 3D format, but it also dominated the industry. Everything was becoming more and more cinematic, and immersive. More fantastical and overpowering. More realistic, and more overbearing. A few gems, like Katamari Damacy, give is the experience of mindless fun in 3D worlds, but they are extremely few and far between. Or at least we overlook them frequently. It is easier to market interactive media that we can immediately associate with than a bizzarre idea. The feature "Be action hero Jean-Claude Van Dam in 'Maximum Suckage'!!" communicates that we can expect to do slips all of the time and punch bad guys in the nuts. "Featuring ball-rolling and object-collecting gameplay" doesn't exactly communicate something we imagine as being very fun. It is something that has to be experienced to understand. Even if you see it in motion it isn't very easy to understand how it could be fun. In the end, it sounds like a children's game, and for some reason or another, even adults to CLAIM to like fun don't want to associate their fun with what a child enjoys.

I have gone on for long enough, and I'm sure most of the community has overlooked the entirity of this post. I appreciate everyone who did take the time, even if you were at work and didn't want to work. :D
 
I still get into mario/sonic when i get the chance. I liked platformers back in the day. But alot of 3d games are easy to pickup too. I love to play the football offerings every year and I find racing games very fun.

The most recent action/platformer ive played is god of war and for what its worth its a very good game.

I don't know about you but I've found games like HL2, UT2k4 very addicting.
 
CHollman82 said:
I realized well I was doing this that I was bored as hell, and the only reason I was doing it was to make my car faster. The only reason I was doing that was to get through the next race. I wasn't having fun playing the game I just wanted to get to the end...
Click to expand...

I've had experiences like yours before but I don't think that the games you mentioned being 3-D has anything to do with it. And using SMB3 (a classic) as an example of a 2-D game kind of makes it an unfair comparison.

I can name some 3-D games that I bet you would like to play just for the sake of playing. One would be Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast as well as any THPS game (preferably 2 or 3). Ninja Gaiden too. When playing Ninja Gaiden you don't even need an objective; just fighting and killing things is fun because it just has so much style and feels so damn good. Super Monkey Ball 1 and 2 would also work. It might be different for you but I play Halo over and over without caring about beating the game. It's just fun to play even without paying any attention to a story or goal.
 
Yea its the design of games that really matters, theres alot of games but only a few shine, although I do agree that alot of the games are more focused on graphics then gameplay these days, Hopefully we will see more games that are actaully pure fun.
 
Okay, you are probably right about that, it is mostly in the game design. I guess what I was trying to say is that I wish more 2D side scroller or platform type games were being made for the new consoles. It's just that once 3D came along 2D went right out the window and nobody uses it anymore. There are a few exceptions of course, like Smash Brothers Melee for gamecube (one of my top 10 favorite games ever). I just wish that game devs wouldn't automatically assume that there next game will be in full 3D. Why not make a hybrid using 3D models with all the nice lighting effects and everything in a side scroller? Very few games like this have been made but of the ones that have I haven't found one I didn't like.

Kiggles, you are right in that there are a lot of really well made 3D games. I wasn't saying that I hate all of them, just that I wish game devs considered 2D as an option still. OOT is a great example. I don't know if you've ever played the Ratchet and Clank trilogy but those are excellent 3D games also. In general though I find that most developers don't know how to effectively use 3D to improve gameplay, only to improve graphics.
 
After waiting for years (literally) to upgrade, I finally pulled the trigger, bought a bunch of games and got bored in a hurry. Part of the problem is that I like RPG's and bought FPS's.

So I switched to playing what I call 'small games' and I'm happy for now. Eventually I'll get back in the mood for 3D candy and finish everything.

Shooting for 100k wins with no losses in Freecell, I'm at 25 now. :D
 
The problem is way too much time is devoted to graphics and not enough to gameplay, because the uber graphics look soo good in the previews, and after a million copies sell they dont care if anyone actually liked the game.
 
I think this is what Nintendo has been trying to get across when talking about their next console. It's not as powerful as the reported xbox360, PS3 but Nintendo has been arguing that it's not about the hardware. I agree to a point.
 
I don't know about 2D/3D (seems like kind of a pointless thing to judge a game based on) but I know my favorite multiplayer games have always been the ones that you play with other friends, in the same room, on the same screen. That's why I'm disgusted by consoles increasingly being viewed as online-essential; Nintendo got a bunch of shit for being the only console without real online play, when in reality they were the only ones keeping it real. I want to play Mario Kart with my friends, not with anonymous 15 year olds.
 
finalgt said:
I don't know about 2D/3D (seems like kind of a pointless thing to judge a game based on) but I know my favorite multiplayer games have always been the ones that you play with other friends, in the same room, on the same screen. That's why I'm disgusted by consoles increasingly being viewed as online-essential; Nintendo got a bunch of shit for being the only console without real online play, when in reality they were the only ones keeping it real. I want to play Mario Kart with my friends, not with anonymous 15 year olds.
Click to expand...

Sometimes friends move, or don't live close enough to sit next to and play.
 
I downloaded COD on my cell phone. It looks like Contra but the gameplay is so much funner than the PC version. You have a team of a sniper, a infantry man, and an engineer. It is so cool.
 
I miss well designed 2D side scrollers too :(

I thought that too how 3D is a poison to games (and movies, I like traditional cell animation)

NOT to be confused because I do love 3D also, just wish the 2D aspect wasn't forgotten.

Take Castlevania for example..CLASSIC fun games. When they moved to 3D though, not as classic. I liked the last one for PS2 (Lament of Innocence) but no where near "classic" status. Shame that the only way to play 2D scrollers anymore really is on gameboy. And even there the portables are becoming powerful enough to have 3D games.
 
I also miss 2D games. I rarely find a newer game that is just as genuinely fun as many of those older ones where the focus wasn't so much on graphics. I wish hardware would hit a wall for a while so the focus could shift off improved graphics and to actual fun. But then again I don't think the focus will ever be mainly on fun. It's good for hardware manufacturers to be forcing new graphics cards and processors down our throats constantly. It's also good for the software companies to be able to make games easily rather than the more difficult task of making them good.
 
There were alot of awful 2d games during the SNES, Genesis era.

I think that we tend to remember all the great games from that era instead of remembering all the sh*tty titles.

I think that 3D games are just as fun as the 2D games. Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, MDK2, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, NOLF Series, are just as much fun as the 2D games from the past.

Unfortunately it is the Half-Life's, Doom's, Quake's, EA sports, and he GTA titles that are getting more press.
 
revgen said:
There were alot of awful 2d games during the SNES, Genesis era.

I think that we tend to remember all the great games from that era instead of remembering all the sh*tty titles.

I think that 3D games are just as fun as the 2D games. Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, MDK2, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, NOLF Series, are just as much fun as the 2D games from the past.

Unfortunately it is the Half-Life's, Doom's, Quake's, EA sports, and he GTA titles that are getting more press.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is though there are more CLASSICS in 2D that are still timeless as to 3D CLASSICS. Sure there are 2D crapfests :) But there is a charm to good 2D games that current games don't seem to have "it"

Like Doom 1 and 2 are classics. And they are 3D.
 
I think they make 3d games more and more like each other. How many games in the fps genre actually standout. We have so many WWII games. And the only one that was really and good was COD.

Just look throughout the genre not many standout.

BONUS: Theres a new Gauntlet game come out. Gauntlet: 7 Sorrows. I loved gauntlet for the N64 you and your friends could just pickup and play it was hours of fun.
 
revgen said:
Unfortunately it is the Half-Life's, Doom's, Quake's, EA sports, and he GTA titles that are getting more press.
Click to expand...

Yeah those games are rehashed boring tripe.
 
dissonance said:
Yeah those games are rehashed boring tripe.
Click to expand...
hey gta3 was fuckin sweet. i do hate ea sports though. i can see them releasing sports games twice a year or monthly to make more money.
 
ryanrule said:
hey gta3 was fuckin sweet. i do hate ea sports though. i can see them releasing sports games twice a year or monthly to make more money.
Click to expand...
You hate ea sports because it releases a new version of its' game with each new sports season, whatever.
 
ryanrule said:
hey gta3 was fuckin sweet. i do hate ea sports though. i can see them releasing sports games twice a year or monthly to make more money.
Click to expand...

I agree. GTA3 was sweet. But just like the other games listed earlier, once it got popular they then knew they didn't have to innovate anymore. Once it hits the mainstream the companies tell them to put out the same thing again repackaged and modified slightly.

And EA doesn't need to charge $50 every year for updated stats and some marketing gimmics. I mean "create-a-fan"? Wtf. Sega/espn charged me $20. I often wonder if they'd make more money if game price points dropped below $50. You'd think they'd sell more and could more easily build a following for a series. Plus it's not as tempting to go find a torrent and get everything cracked and working if you can buy it for a reasonable price. Imo BF2 isn't worth $50. I'd have picked it up for less but I find with a lot of online fps games now the biggest draw for me buying them is because there will be people playing them where as the older titles I'd have more of a problem. That's a lame reason.
 
machwireless said:
I downloaded COD on my cell phone. It looks like Contra but the gameplay is so much funner than the PC version. You have a team of a sniper, a infantry man, and an engineer. It is so cool.
Click to expand...

yeah 2D gameplay on phones is pimp. Just wish the controls were easier to use. :(
 
I like the new pirates remake tho...It can get repetitive after awhile but it held the allure of the original pretty well considering the age of the original game itself...
Sid Meier REALLY needs to remake more of his games imho (civ 4 notwithstanding lol)...Would love to see colonization remake...
 
I hear you man. There aren't a great many games that I just find FUN to play, where the experience itself is satisfying. The kind of games you play through multiple times even though you already know what's going to happen. Games that like a drug make you happy just playing them, and not at the end when you "win". A lot of older games had this quality to them because technology really didn't support the concept of game progression. Old school games like Pacman, Tetris and Asteroids are examples. And thankfully this idea lingered on even once games could support some sort of progression. But it definately died when games began to include other things like story, unlockables and levels. At first these things existed to enhance fundamental gameplay which comes from the interaction between the user and the stuff on the screen, but eventually it grew to overshadow it and be the driving force behind these games.

So now we have the way things are today. Gameplay has barely moved beyond what it was 10 years ago, and it's all about getting to the next level, collecting the next uber-item or getting to the next cutscene, even though the gameplay is boring at best to get through. Developers need to drastically rethink how they make games. They need to start with fundamentally fun gameplay, and make sure thats a keeper, that they can play for hours even before they add anything else. Just a room, and enemies or whatever is appropriate for that type of game, and then let 'er rip. And if they can play that for hours straight without getting bored, THEN they can add levels, and unlockables, and story, and compelling characters and those things that give people a sense of progression in a game.
 
3d destroys some games, but also adds a lot to many.

First off, it gave life to the FPS genre. What would the world be without Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Half-Life, The Max Payne Series (god damn those games are cool), Tactical Ops and Quake? Less than it is right now.

Secondly, I agree with everything the guy with the enormous post said. You should submit that post to a gaming conference or something.

Then, there are the adventure games (not point and click, though Monkey Island 4 and Grim Fandango proved that besides shitty controls, they were just as good as the classics).

However, I agree as well that some franchises should keep their hands of 3d. Everyone saw the Civ4 screenshots, right? Well, they look like shit. If they had just made highres versions of the old Civ2 Units, Terrains and cities, the game would look a lot better. Also, way to sell out to the masses and add RTS elements to my beloved Civ series, assholes.

A genre that works in both ways is Jump and Run. Mario 64 kicked ass. As did Jak & Dexter / Ratchet & Clank.

Think of 2d driving games and how horrible they were. The original Mario Kart doesn't count. That game was 3d, even though it looked 2d.

Next up, the shmup. Works both ways. I loved Ikurage (wasnt really 3d though). I also love Panzer Dragoon. StarFox64 ruled, as do the Arwing parts of StarFox Assault. Rez is in my all-time Top5 of games where I plan to spend 10 minutes and end up spending 10 hours.

Conclusion is, while 2d has had many classics, 3d, if done right, can too. However, the developers should think this way:

1. What do I want to do?
2. Does that work better in 2d or 3d?

not the other way around.
 
I agree on you with a few things.

1. Old games you could pick up, play for a while, and put them down again. No saving, no upgrading etc. Just plain fun, like the SMB games, Contra etc. You could come back to them and hour, week, month later and just have fun.

2. Yes, many new games such as Doom 3, focus only on graphics. There wasn't an ounce of fun gameplay in Doom3. Just an interactive techdemo. Boring as shit, but I put my 20 hours in to beat the damned thing. (If I pay for a game, I beat it.)

However, I grew up playing the Dragon Warrior series, Zelday, and Final Fantasy 1. So even in those days I was striving for one more level, the next best weapon/armor/magic spell. This made the game addictive to me. I remember many Saturday mornings setting out on quests to get to Cantlin to buy the flame sword, or trying to get the Floater in FF, or getting the magic sword in Zelda. These games really pulled me in, and solidified me as an RPG enthusiast.

Now you mentioned Flat-Out. I agree that when you're going through the circuit it's a race to get the next part, the faster car. However, once I unlocked all the bonus courses, I have a blast playing those. So some games still offer mindless fun. :)

Also, I agree that most new games are about a single story line, that's what the game is. Playing more so you can finish the story. Old games had such stupid stories it didn't really matter if you finished them. It was all about the gameplay.

There are still some diamonds in the rough. I was very pleased by Morrowind, KOTOR 1&2, Flat-Out, and HL2/CS:S. Granted they aren't the pick'em up, set'em down games, but gaming has really evolved past those. Now people want to be entertained by a grand hollywood type production.

There are still many games I look forward to. However it looks like the games are only going to get more intricate and more focused on graphics. Keep in mind that the only thing the consoles have against each other is that they think they have superior graphics over the other. So expect to see more of the same in future titles.


PS. I'm playing through FF1 again. I'm just about to make a run at Lich. That game is sooooooo fun! :D
 
I agree to an extent with the OP.

However, I really enjoy the graphics of the new "uber" games. I play Half Life2: DM, and UT2k4 all the time. I think, along with others, that the engineering and all the good stuff behind these games are remarkable.

Now for the part about me agreeing :D. The part that makes me feel like all I want to do is get to the end and finish it is the huge drawn out storylines. I don't personally find that fun for more than a couple of days. I mean, a movie is only 2 hours long and I have enough trouble sitting through one of those. After this time i would rather just mess around with the game.

That's where deathmatch and the like come in. This is really the only espect of games that I enjoy and can play for years. Hell, I still play UT Gotye on occasion. You have freedom to do whatever you want and don't have to walk down a path that's already been highlited for you. You get to play against real people, and it's never the same.
 
I still kick up the emus from time to time. Just played through Ninja Gaiden 2 (NES) and had a blast-damn game is still HARD. But really, no matter what comes out for PC or console, I find myself beating /getting bored and going back to 2 games:

Street Fighter 3 and Quake 3.

Street Fighter 3 is 2D fighter perfection. Quake 3 offers a level of control and speed 100% skill based-more so then any other FPS. Been playing the Threewave Mod (ctfs) for the last 2 years. Rocket Arena rules with turn based attack/defend CTF=damn fun
 
GoldenTiger said:
I completely agree... I have found that if you want newer games, ones for the recent portable systems like the GameBoy Advance and the Nintendo DS have a lot of "fun factor" in them while actually playing, not just the satisfaction of having gotten through a difficult encounter but the fun during the gameplay :). I just bought a NIntendo DS (I had a GBA for awhile) with Super Mario 64 DS, Need For Speed Underground 2 (very difficult racing game), Meteos (a very deep, highly replayable puzzle game with a few interesting twists), and Kirby: Canvas Curse (VERY innovative game using the touchscreen as the only control method, read a review, it's kind of hard to describe otherwise) and am having a blast with it. Plus, I can use all of my GBA games with it, too :). If you don't want to invest to try it out, see if a friend owns one and will let you try it for a day. I think you'll find what you're looking for!
Click to expand...


and i totaly disagree, how can u not call bf2 fun for example? that game is soo fun and exciting for me man.. ds is crap, what FUN games is their? IMO kiddy games are not fun at my age of 20's
 
jonneymendoza said:
and i totaly disagree, how can u not call bf2 fun for example? that game is soo fun and exciting for me man.. ds is crap, what FUN games is their? IMO kiddy games are not fun at my age of 20's
Click to expand...
fun is fun. what is a kiddy game? unlesl your playing barbie or sumthin, its not a kiddy game just because it dont have uber killing.
 
jonneymendoza said:
and i totaly disagree, how can u not call bf2 fun for example? that game is soo fun and exciting for me man.. ds is crap, what FUN games is their? IMO kiddy games are not fun at my age of 20's
Click to expand...


LOL... BF2 is supposed to be terribly bugged and poorly performing, plus I didn't like BF1942 so I doubt I would like BF2.

DS isn't "crap"... it is FUN. Who cares what colors the game uses, so what if it's red hat with blue clothes instead of all black, and the characters don't use brass knuckles to knock out their foes? There are more serious games on the DS too, I am in my 20's and love my DS. It already has about 8-10 truly good, triple-A games on it, with many more coming down the pike unlike the PSP, and the games are designed for both short and long playtime sessions whereas the PSP has them set up like console games (long play sessions only). I don't see why you would care about what the game's characters are (cutesy or serious) unless you're very insecure with your adulthood. As was said in the post before this, who the heck cares if it doesn't have bloody, gory, body-part-strewing action if it's fun? I totally agree, unless you're playing Barbie-Fun-Dress-Up-Dolls on whatever system, you're not playing a "kiddie" game.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I don't see why you would care about what the game's characters are (cutesy or serious) unless you're very insecure with your adulthood. As was said in the post before this, who the heck cares if it doesn't have bloody, gory, body-part-strewing action if it's fun? I totally agree, unless you're playing Barbie-Fun-Dress-Up-Dolls on whatever system, you're not playing a "kiddie" game.
Click to expand...

He's just at a lower evolutionary gaming point. First you really enjoy those types of games, then you think you've grown up and are too cool for them, and finally you realize what gaming is really about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top