leombruno said:
"For those who have absolutely no clue as to how game series come about."
Thanks. That was about as meaningless as the rest of your venom. Back story minutes and details are the basis of any good game series. Take zelda for instance.
Thanks, that was as meaningless as the rest of your mental diarrhea of pathetic dodge attempts. Next time, also learn how to use the quote function unless you're too mentally vacant to understand the tags.
It's weak to use a console game with little backstory. Your poor mind could only come up with that? Now just imagine if Resident Evil and others, where the setting and story matter (and oddly enough is an important thing in CRPGS), were not handled well at all. The fans wouldn't be too receptive of it, as would say...pretty much like how others destroy their games with skewing the backstory or setting. If it's something non-sequitur like Final Fantasy, where the sequels are not usually meant as story sequels, that is one thing. When you're using a continuation of the universe, it doesn't make much sense to throw away the aspects you've set before.
Or is that too much for you to comprehend? It doesn't have to take much to see you have no idea of composition of literary and theatrical works, of which gaming neatly shares a few aspects with. One of which is that the audience prefers continuity. Crank that through your dictionary if you need help understanding the concept.
Game series are also made by making a world and drawing people in. What is important to constructing a game world? A rich setting and detailed history.
No, you just set your mind to "meaningless ignorance" and let the bullshit fly. Put a lid on that, kid.
"Adhering to the setting is hardly an "easter egg". It's called "part of the setting". Guess why most game series fail? Because they do not adhere to the setting because some other developer got ahold of it and did their own shit."
To have ecological position of supermutants in the fallout world in game one dictating what role they should have in game two logically doesn't equate to instant imersion for me, I guess it depends on a persons expectation of a sequel I'll give you. To me it would preferable to reinvision the universe as neccisary and be as liberal as neccesary to create the game, story and scenarios the developers wanted to do. As long as RP, imersion can match or beat the original why is the main criteria to visit the precise same dusty imaginary world??
Because there's something called "the game world" to take into account. Nothing cheeses off fans like toying with the game world.
Sorry, most people. You and your species are not counted as you don't understand the harm in changing the backstory. Even the simplest of writers could tell you that isn't a bright thing to do in middle of a series. Then again, you're proving you're just like Taoreich in being able to use a thesarus but otherwise have absolutely no idea of what you're trying to talk about.
Best wishes for the day you don't have to wear your helmet and pads anymore.
"You post something this unbelievably stupid,
AFTER the release of F
OS?
Wow...I have no words to describe how utterly stupid you just made yourself to be."
I was able to ignore and thus get over F
OS, and that's nothing but some irelevant strawmaning, plus weak ad hominem.
No, that's called dodging under weak pretenses. I was drawing a parallel for you to hopefully understand why these things are reviled, but I can see how you can be too stupid to understand why F
OS didn't do too well. It wasn't just because of the pathetic gameplay.
Next time, if you're going to claim straw man arguments, you might want to make sure your accusation has some merit to them instead of your weak dodge attempts to recover from the unbelievably insispid comments you have made. You show that you have no clue about game design. There's no use in denying that.
In my opinion a series of games is a different animal from a series of novels or in your example movies, continuing a single broad story arc. Though that would one way to go, another would be not milking a story that's already been told with as many installments as the public can choke down.
Look up the word "sequel" and learn exactly how retarded you've made yourself to be with the above bullshit. People wouldn't buy a game in the setting, which uses the setting name, and is depicted in the setting, if they didn't like the setting. Changing the backstory is perhaps the most suicidal thing any storywriter, written, movie, or game writer could do.
Perhaps you're also too young to remember the old pick your own path adventure books, or for that matter P&P games. Solamnic Knights of the Sword Coast!
I'd like to see you try to use this argument in regards to Forgotten Realms on the BioWare forums. It would be worth it to see you ripped apart by them for that.
Funny you selected the matrix, probably the weakest available example for your arguement.
It was the best I could do, with your obvious ignorance I couldn't have used much else. I could have used something else, but since you've obviously not achieved a third grade ability in writing composition and have no hope of understanding setting design, then I'd doubt you'd be old enough to be familiar with Ultima 8 and 9 and why those were loathed and flopped. Hint: It's not just because of the control system.
I don't remember the marvelous story making the FO a kick ass game, variance of paths/methods and the game recognizing/allowing and responding to a wide variety character archtypes was what I got from it.
Maybe you need to go back through again without just seeing how you can finish the game. Pay attention to the setting this time. It's not surprising you missed the backstory due to your negligent attitude towards continuity.
Playing Final Fantasy will do that to you, kid. I'm sorry to see you brainwashed into thinking it was the norm.
Sure buddy. I'm confident you can tell me much of game design and writing.
I'm not going to bother wasting my time on someone as hopelessly naive as yourself. You use weak arguments and straw men (or for that matter, no argument at all) to argue that the story isn't important, yet you've shown no indication of seeing where the exact same arguments of yours have led to games being reviled and eventually failing as a franchise. Maybe your problem is that you're too young to have seen why Ultima died, and why games that skew the universe in which they are in are just as disliked.
