Rayman Pirate-Community

I certainly care about graphics, although they are not the most important thing. Minecraft is almost certainly my most played game of all time.
I think that more advanced graphics simply allows for different types of gaming experiences, and this is often what I'm looking for. I might go back and play Rayman 1 occasionally for instance, but if it were released now I wouldn't think much of it at all. So I think nostalgia is the only reason I would want to play a retro game.

With a co-op game I care more about gameplay, without a doubt, I usually skip cutscenes.

With single player, for me, story comes first along with gameplay, with a few rare exceptions. I wouldn't have put 60+ hours into the Mass Effect games if they had the exact same gameplay with a story I didn't care about.

Dark Lum Lord wrote:Keep in mind, they're called video games for a reason - gameplay is the most important aspect.

That's a fallacy stemming from their original purpose of creation fifty or so years ago, when you literally played things like pong and chess - staple games. I simply view it as interactive media to a varying degree, which basically is what it is. Of course for interactivity to be interesting, there should be some kind of challenge and the ability to fail or modify your outcome, but I fail to see why gameplay/mechanics must be the most important aspect. It could literally be a film that asks you to follow one of three paths every minute or two, using maybe a mix of guessing and wit, the outcome will always be different; in a situation like that, the majority of the experience would likely come through the storytelling and graphics, something which has the ability to draw you in just as much, but would also not be accomplishable in any other medium than as a 'video game'.

I'm not justifying how absolutely terrible the campaigns are for games like Battlefield 3 or Medal of Honor 3 where you feel like you're on a shock collar the whole time and you have no freedom whatsoever, simply that I don't believe gameplay mechanics are unconditionally the first priority depending on what you're doing. And that using the staple title of an activity to justify its modern-day purpose (video GAMES) is a really dumb fallacy when there are 9001 other, non-dumb arguments that could be used.

MrBadGuy wrote:I certainly care about graphics, although they are not the most important thing. Minecraft is almost certainly my most played game of all time.
I think that more advanced graphics simply allows for different types of gaming experiences, and this is often what I'm looking for. I might go back and play Rayman 1 occasionally for instance, but if it were released now I wouldn't think much of it at all. So I think nostalgia is the only reason I would want to play a retro game.

With a co-op game I care more about gameplay, without a doubt, I usually skip cutscenes.

With single player, for me, story comes first along with gameplay, with a few rare exceptions. I wouldn't have put 60+ hours into the Mass Effect games if they had the exact same gameplay with a story I didn't care about.

For a two-dimensional game, the original Rayman was beautiful, that and it's gameplay is great even if it can be frustrating with it's difficutly if you're not used to the game or games of that level. The graphics easily blew previous generation games out of the water, as did the soundtrack. Now, then there's also beautiful modern 2D games liek Rayman Origins, but most are on down that Flash road which I absolutely hate. I'd rather see a pixelated game like the first Rayman than the excessively cartoony artstyle Flash causes. It looks cheap.

Moving on, I defintiely skip cutscenes myself after seeing them anywhere from two to over five times, but they're always great the fisrt time and they've become such a part of gaming that the majority of games would not be the same without them. Cutscenes are typically scene at the start of a game and are used to explain the plot and without them we'd have even less than an excuse plot game. At least excuse plot games have some sort of plot.

But then again, I'm more or less lying here since before the 3D explosion most games had few cutscenes, most of which are short and some aren't quite cutscenes but are rather just dialogue boxes, like the introduction of A Link to the Past in which Zelda contacts Link. That, and jumping into a game right away like in early fifth generation and prior games is certainly not bad since it's fun to get right into the action.

Adsolution wrote:

Dark Lum Lord wrote:Keep in mind, they're called video games for a reason - gameplay is the most important aspect.

That's a fallacy stemming from their original purpose of creation fifty or so years ago, when you literally played things like pong and chess - staple games. I simply view it as interactive media to a varying degree, which basically is what it is. Of course for interactivity to be interesting, there should be some kind of challenge and the ability to fail or modify your outcome, but I fail to see why gameplay/mechanics must be the most important aspect. It could literally be a film that asks you to follow one of three paths every minute or two, using maybe a mix of guessing and wit, the outcome will always be different; in a situation like that, the majority of the experience would likely come through the storytelling and graphics, something which has the ability to draw you in just as much, but would also not be accomplishable in any other medium than as a 'video game'.

I'm not justifying how absolutely terrible the campaigns are for games like Battlefield 3 or Medal of Honor 3 where you feel like you're on a shock collar the whole time and you have no freedom whatsoever, simply that I don't believe gameplay mechanics are unconditionally the first priority depending on what you're doing. And that using the staple title of an activity to justify its modern-day purpose (video GAMES) is a really dumb fallacy when there are 9001 other, non-dumb arguments that could be used.

Point taken, I didn't think in-depth about it at the time.

The console you choose to buy will probably be used by you every single day of your life for the next five or six years, so don't worry about that small difference, because whatever you pick, it will be more than worth it.

In my case, that's not probable at all. Sometimes there have been periods of time where I have gone months without playing many video games at all, and it's even more often that I might go a long while without using a particular console much.

The most important thing for me is the games that come out. For someone like me, who doesn't always have the time to play video games, I want a console that has games worth playing whenever I do get the time to play. This is why I have been satisfied with the Wii U - the games may have came along slow at first, but considering how this year has been extremely busy for me, and my rate of catching up with games I'm interested in has been very slow - from my perspective, the Wii U has had enough games for me to enjoy. This does not mean I think the Wii U had an objectively good launch though (I think it was abysmal). It was just good enough for me.

The reason I have no interest in the Xbox One is because it doesn't even seem like it will satisfy my really low release rate standards, and I have no reason to think it will catch up, because the Xbox 360's entire exclusive library was less interesting to me than the Wii U's current exclusive library. At least with Sony and the PS4, I have faith in their IPs, as the PS3 had a FANTASTIC library of games by the time it finished. And PS Plus!

And while we could argue about the quality of Microsoft's exclusives, it doesn't mean anything - me personally, they were just not interesting. I'm not debating their actual quality, and that has no bearing on whether or not I purchase a system, personally.

So yeah, essentially, the Xbox One is not worth my money, at all. Certainly not worth more than I would pay for a PS4.

They want to promote innovative control. Sure, it may be a bit stubby on the 360, but Kinect 2.0 is already supposed to be much, much more precise and responsive, and then only imagine how the technology can improve from there through feedback and revision.

Gotta love the taste of PRingles.

To me, it seems like your main point is that you just don't like the idea of moving past a controller for whatever purpose the tool may serve. Kinect is part of your controller (metaphorically). You don't have to use all the buttons (metaphorically), but they exist as a means of expanding interactivity and doing things that you cannot do with button-based controller, or doing many things better than you would be able to with a controller.

I'll have you know I played the shit out of Wii Fit, and thought the Wii Balance Board was actually pretty neat. I also love light gun games, and many arcade experiences - and hey, I don't mind looking like a fool while using the gyroscope on my 3DS or Wii U GamePad. And I actually have enjoyed one or two Kinect titles (Rabbids TV Party is hilarious fun). :V

The problem with Kinect is that it's never going to be precise enough for most fully fledged gaming experiences. Imagine playing a platformer SOLELY with Kinect. Imagine playing a hack and slash SOLELY with Kinect. Imagine playing a sports game SOLELY with Kinect. Now compare these experiences to the traditional version of those (and in the case of sports, the real life version), and try to tell me you don't see at least a few things there that Kinect would fail to deliver in relation to making these experiences function properly.

I really can't comprehend why people are against this integration, it's fucking fullbody motion control, every kid who grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s dreamed of this sort of thing (Back to the Future, anyone?), and now that it's for the very first time being seriously, functionally and successfully integrated into a console (or amything for that matter), you're passing it off as a gimmick that should remain as an ignorable external peripheral? Yeah, fuck technological advancement, right?

You pretty much pointed out the problem for me right there - we're not against the concept of full body motion control. We're against the way Kinect handles it. The concept is great, but the execution is terrible.
And yeah, I did dream of VR experiences as a kid.....Kinect isn't what I had in mind though. At all.

No, technological advancement is great - but you can't go mindlessly placing it everywhere. Personally, I think Microsoft have the right concept regarding Kinect (providing virtual reality experiences). They just have the entirely wrong market. They'd be better off pursuing arcades, or theme parks, with this kind of experience. It would have much more room to flourish, and would be better accepted there.

So yeah, forcing something like Kinect on me, but not being able to utilise it properly because you're pursuing the wrong market, is a terrible business decision, especially when it puts the price of your console significantly higher than your competitors.

You depress me.

Chin up, you're starting to sound like Zor.

You are putting PS Plus as positive? It's horrible and it is the most negative feature of PS4. Pay for online monthly? One of the reasons why I chosed my Xbox 360 to be modding machine and sacrifice online is because no matter how good service was, it required paying monthly. Steam has free online. PS3 had free online since start. Ever since PS Plus was announced I hated it. Sure it gives free games if you pay for PS Plus. But whe membership expires, you can't play downloaded games you got with PS Plus
Only way PS Plus could have been good is if you could launch downloaded game you got with PS Plus when membership expires.

sonicbrawler182 wrote:You pretty much pointed out the problem for me right there - we're not against the concept of full body motion control. We're against the way Kinect handles it. The concept is great, but the execution is terrible.

You've yet to explain what about Kinect or its execution is 'terrible' though. It's a basic system that detects your body, and very well at that (especially Kinect 2.0). You can pretty much do whatever you want with that, the quality of its 'execution' is almost entirely reliant on how well game developers code for it, and optimising the detection functionality over time.

sonicbrawler182 wrote:The problem with Kinect is that it's never going to be precise enough for most fully fledged gaming experiences.

You literally have no proof for this whatsoever, you completely made that up and are somehow using it as an argument - you need an argument too, as logic will tell you that you're wrong, and I am willing to bet you a human life that you are wrong as well. There is literally no way you couldn't be; there is no conceptual limitation that Kinect exhibits. If it's improved over time through better internal coding and better game coding, it will become precise enough create fully-fledged gaming experiences. It's not like we don't have the technology to do this, we just need to experiment with the idea in the forefront to do so in the best and most efficient way possible. Why is this an exception? It never, ever has been in the past for literally anything else.

sonicbrawler182 wrote:No, technological advancement is great - but you can't go mindlessly placing it everywhere. Personally, I think Microsoft have the right concept regarding Kinect (providing virtual reality experiences). They just have the entirely wrong market. They'd be better off pursuing arcades, or theme parks, with this kind of experience. It would have much more room to flourish, and would be better accepted there.

There's a reason arcades aren't exactly a thing like they used to be, and banishing a feature to a poor fate like that is really quite low, and roughly the exact opposite of giving it 'room to flourish' - no, they would not have more room to flourish in an arcade. Nobody goes to arcades anymore.

sonicbrawler182 wrote:So yeah, forcing something like Kinect on me, but not being able to utilise it properly because you're pursuing the wrong market, is a terrible business decision, especially when it puts the price of your console significantly higher than your competition.

20% isn't exactly what I would call 'significantly higher'. Besides, the One literally has more features than the PS4 aside from Kinect, so the higher price is fully justifiable, and like said before, will give people more of a reason to pick a console aside from the game library and fan loyalty. I'm very, very glad that the PS4 and Xbox One are distinguishable now, unlike the previous generation.

What market do you think they're trying to or should pursue? The main market would obviously be the best (and only choice) if they want the idea of full motion control freedom to flourish and become a thing. I reiterate: Unless it is brought to the forefront, it will not advance or improve nearly as much. It's not even intrusive or being forced in your face either, as it's quite clear that while it's fully integrated into the system, you still have a fully-fledged controller to play and do everything you normally would on a console.

Bit of bias on my part, since I haven't trekked deep into the seventh generation yet and I'm a retrogamer at heart, so might want to keep that in mind if you actually read the walls of shit previously typed. Or, well, kept in mind in general.

OldClassicGamer wrote:You are putting PS Plus as positive? It's horrible and it is the most negative feature of PS4. Pay for online monthly? One of the reasons why I chosed my Xbox 360 to be modding machine and sacrifice online is because no matter how good service was, it required paying monthly. Steam has free online. PS3 had free online since start. Ever since PS Plus was announced I hated it. Sure it gives free games if you pay for PS Plus. But whe membership expires, you can't play downloaded games you got with PS Plus
Only way PS Plus could have been good is if you could launch downloaded game you got with PS Plus when membership expires.

In general, paid services are better than free ones, thus why so many people (including myself) are willing to pay the ~£30 a year fee for Xbox Live.
Not a huge amount of money but a great service that hardly ever has issues compared to the free PSN.

Agreed with mostly all of that but...

Dark Lum Lord wrote: Honeslty, Nintedo died in my eyes when Rare left because Rare is what kept the Nintendo 64 from being a complete failure, along with a smaller chain of non-Rare games, which is probably why I never got into the GameCube.

Yes, lets forget about Ocarina of Time, Paper Mario, Majoras Mask, Kirby 64, Mario 64, etc.
I love Rare A LOT, one of my favorite companies back in the day, no doubt, but I think Nintendo still pulled off good sales with the n64 even without the help of rare.

Here's Kotaku's review on the Xbox One: http://kotaku.com/the-xbox-one-the-kota ... 1467960010

In the midst of an awful generation like this one, I'll have to wait and see if the new consoles decide to bring anything fun, different, and interesting (but without the gimmicks) to the table. But so far though the Wii U's still gimmicky and entirely underwhelming and the Xbone's more focused on being a set-top box if the announcement said anything at all, so the PS4's pretty much already my last hope for the generation, and even that has yet to show anything really convincing.

At this rate I'd much rather pick up some nice Android console than any of them. Or a portable Super Nintendo clone console. Probably that.

Master wrote:Here's Kotaku's review on the Xbox One: http://kotaku.com/the-xbox-one-the-kota ... 1467960010

Interesting, and I'm honestly quite glad with the news as a whole, in that none of the problems there were to be had can't be fixed with optimisation and software updates.

Indeed, I think there's some interesting ideas in there, but some work is obviously needed.
I couldn't help but giggle a little also at that image where they've obviously got a Wii U hooked to it.

It is of vital importance that everyone watch this. I am now a true Xbox lover, I hate Sony and Nintendo. This has changed me as a person, and more importantly, as a woman:

The video has changed me. Fuck Sony and Nintendo.

#Xbox4lyfe

#stickerconfirmed
#fuckups4fags xD
#wiiuisgay!!!!!
#swege
#smokweedevryday

Rayfist wrote:Agreed with mostly all of that but...

Dark Lum Lord wrote: Honeslty, Nintedo died in my eyes when Rare left because Rare is what kept the Nintendo 64 from being a complete failure, along with a smaller chain of non-Rare games, which is probably why I never got into the GameCube.

Yes, lets forget about Ocarina of Time, Paper Mario, Majoras Mask, Kirby 64, Mario 64, etc.
I love Rare A LOT, one of my favorite companies back in the day, no doubt, but I think Nintendo still pulled off good sales with the n64 even without the help of rare.

Dark Lum Lord wrote: chain of non-Rare games

Anyways, of course the Nintendo 64 had a group of very amazing non-Rare games, but if Rare never created games for the console I probably wouldn't have gotten an N64 in the first place since Rare is what got me hooked on the console. That, and without the Rare games the already small library would have been even smaller.

Meh, the N64 was never a console I knew much about in my childhood, I got my PS1 during the transition to the PS2.

Had the PS1 first and preferred it over the N64 until I actually got an N64. But they're both very excellent consoles.

I didn't actually know the N64 existed until that era was well over and done with, as a kid, you know a lot less than you think.