Well it isn’t. Sitting in a chair staring blankly into space is about as far from music as you can get.
Food doesn’t need taste.
TV’s don’t need sound.
Humans don’t need smell.
We don’t need containers for drinks.
TV shows don’t need story, just something pretty to look at.
You REALLY suck at debating.
A game with a has a story becuase it is supposed to keep the player engaged. Are you honestly saying that the only selling point should be gameplay? HA.
Once again, cutscenes tell stories. It gives the game creators a chance to tell the story in much greater detail then. People don’t even care about ccutscenes, they are mostly somthing to look at while the game loads.
You also seem to dodge around the fact that they PROMISED A STORY. Of course people are going to disappointed.
You are simply butthurt becuase not everyone thinks the game is as great as you. Had you been in charge of reviewing, then you would have been biased as hell. Because when someone reviews a game, they have to review the GAME. Not the just gameplay, but everything the game has to offer, and they decide whether it is worth your money. The story, the graphics, the gameplay, the online, and the extra modes. But apparently, you can only use old man logic on this one. So I am out.
Anemone’s tastes> Everyones tastes.
How much artistic background do you honestly have because it is clearly showing that you are incredibly lacking.
The song and movie I posted are both incredibly important, incredibly well respected, and incredibly well established works of art.
Why do these have to be seperate? Gameplay in an interactive medium, and games can tell a story without a single written line and purely gameplay. I have work tommorrow and don’t have time to go into detail, so I’ll just link someone else describing this
The Escapist : Video Galleries : Extra Credits : Narrative Mechanics
I suppose if you are a bad game designer than yeah. Whoever can’t tell a story without a cut scene shouldn’t be making games, Valve has done it for years.
Subjective qualities are irrelevant. You can respect a work of art without finding it enjoyable at all.
“period” … that doesn’t counter my comment at all… still haven’t responded to any of the other commentary either. I’m really interested to see how you can possibly equate an artistic decision with mvc3 lacking spectator mode or good netcode. Is bad netcode supposed to be some observation on the human condition? 
edit: And normally I’d agree on the “it’s a fucking fighting game get over the fact that it doesn’t have a coherent plot”… but Capcom/Marvel dug their own grave here.
When a game is multiplayer centric, there are some things people expect to be in it which the developer doesn’t need to add such as leaderboards, some system of measure to compare with others and stat keeping. These don’t need to be in but we expect to be in because we’re accustomed to having these things.
SSF4 having A B and C doesn’t mean MvC3 needs A B and C, but we expect it to have it anyway because we figure “If SSF4 has it, MvC3 should have it too” or our opinion is that it is essential. This is even worse when Joe Everyman reviews a game because he puts every part of the game to the same value, not weigh one aspect of this game heavier because this is the primary goal of the game. Like a review might knock BioShock for no multiplayer because he thinks all FPS games = multiplayer oriented or CoD has a bad and short story because he thinks FPS games should be like BioShock.
People base future expectations on past experiences, that was music and that was a movie. Because you thought it was bad or lacked something that other movies have that you find essential doesn’t make it any less of a movie or music. Whether it was good or bad is subjective. I mean, I think Heavy Rain is just an extended interactive cutscene, doesn’t make it any less of a game.
I have already equated these to being separate from the gameplay, and focusing on these to the extent seen in the video is the equivalent of judging a movie for having few delete scenes or no or lacking direct commentary. You state that the game NEEDS this, these features that are seperate from gameplay itself and thus when they tack on these features that you NEED and then they are poorly put together, you cry in outrage. When we review a movie, we only review the core content, and it should be the same with games.
The online play is core content.
It’s an expected addition for games not called MMOs.
:rolf:
You are being really dense right now.
The problem with this argument is that you seem to think that they should all be removed from games entirely.
Dodged that line about cutscenes being something to look at while game load?
Lmao at you contradicting your self about not being able to tell a story. Capcom shouldn’t be making games then?
So… what exactly is your point? That all songs should be silence?
That all movies shouldn’t have stories (Main selling point of movies BTW)
Simply becuase you do not like these thing does not mean that they need to be removed, you shifted the argument entirely from the main one becuase you knew you were wrong.
Until you can prove " Capcom promised story mode" Wrong, this is pretty much a pointless debate.
Zer0 doesn’t even listen lol. I argued for games to have that kind of freedom within the critical realm. Not that everything should be like that. Also, cutscenes themselves have to load silly. The game isn’t sitting there loading up the next moment of gameplay.
I’ve also established that I believe that this game does have a fleshed out narative in the form of the gameplay itself conveying that narative.
No that’s not what I mean by core, I mean how the game actually plays itself. How it feels, how it moves, how the charecters interact, how the player controls the game, etc.
You seem to be mistaking what I’m getting at and putting “important” as a synonym. Online play may be considered an important part of the game, but it is more of a bonus than anything else outside of cases where a game is made around online such as World of War. Without playing online, you can still enjoy and experience every part of the actual game itself, as compared to say Monster Hunter, where playing offline greatly limits your experiences. Online play on this is clearly a tack on and nothing more, as it sadly is to most games these days, and on these such games I look at is as nothing more than a bonus feature.
Because movies have so much to review? What else are we supposed to review, the online of the movie, the gameplay of the movie.
The core content of the movie is practically it’s only content, which is why it is reviewed, however in games, there is so much to consider. The gameplay is great, but the online ain’t so great, or the story is lacking. Games have so much to consider when being put into development, **especially when they advertise them to be lighting fast or to have an actual story mode. ** You pay what, 19.95$ to buy the movie, all you really get is the movie. However, when buying a game, which costs 60$ mind you, you expect them to have delivered, especially if we have to pay this much for games with MUCH more content then this game has to offer. MvC3 is not the same worth as, or rather was not, SFIV.(2009) Because as much as this is the game that is cool to hate, it delivered. MvC3, however, did not, and it got the reviews it deserved.
These reviews are completely irrelevant to us, why do you even care.
I understand that. But in my opinion, in this era, such features are not merely bonuses, they’re very important. While gameplay is still king, when extra features are notably missing or poorly executed, it’s definitely within reason to analyze them and mark a game down for them.
I disagree that it’s always unfairly done too, I didn’t see many people seriously marking down RPGs or some of the story driven FPSes for not having a fully fleshed out multiplayer. But when the game is multiplayer centric - like a fighting game or most FPSes… - then it’s a valid criticism. Similiar for the story thing…
Plus, the movie comparison falls through because video games are interactive media. Alternate modes, netplay, don’t really come into play when discussing a book or movie or song.
What is a tack on is survival mode, or story mode.
Online however, is required now for multilayer games, especially for those with out a community. For those who want to play others without spending the extra cash of driving far (gas money) or flying just to play with others, and then there is the average joe. You argue as though your opinion=fact, when it doesn’t. Online is the obvious best choice for everyone, so capcom should have the sense to make it worth your money, especially in the year 2011. Online sucking is pretty bad for some people believe it or not, but you seem to be close minded on online and seem to think that everyone is filthy rich and actually wants to travel to play people in a video game, when they could be spending their time doing something much better.
I won’t even get into this one with you becuase you can never seem to back up your arguments about online.
P.S. Who the hell expects cutscenes/story mode? Capcom advertised story mode, and sold a game with a 40$ or less worth for 60$, and got the reviews they deserved becuase of their empty promises, and lack of content. It is entirely up to the developer whether they want to add cutscenes or not.
" I am taking 2 points off for the lack of cutscenes." The only way this would happen is if the developer does not have the ability to suck you into the story without one.
And now you are complaining about me complaining about you complaining. Hypocrisy is a fickle friend. Now we can continue to have this cute back and forth about who’s complaining, or you can realize we’re having a debate and get over it. Either way is fine with me. Just let me know dear. Though it does compliment your tendency to nitpick.
His complaints are, for the most part, inane. If you’ll look at my response to his video, which by the way can be found early in this very thread, I brought up a response to all of his points. Smart people? Oh you cad you. I’ve debated each and every point he made, but you’re a “smart guy” and already got that figured out right? Well I’m comforted to know it’s in your capable hands.
An idiot? Well it’s good to see you’re addressing this situation with all your wits. I agree that things should move along and advance, but you demand utter perfection in a video game, something which you will never see. Now I find out you’re and expert on netcode across the world for the past 10 years? My, my, my, your talents know no bounds do they? I’ve had no issue with the netcode. The game plays very well when I go online.
Hmmmm, I don’t recall saying the game was an arcade perfect port. Oh wait, that’s because I never did. I know you’re in a bit of a nerd rage, but I suggest you re-read my original comment. Aw hell, I’m feeling charitiable so I’ll do it for you:
“So now we’ve got an arcade perfect game”
I’ve had this phrase analyzed by a trained team of forum experts and none of them have found the word ‘port’ within. I stated it’s an arcade perfect game meaning it plays like an arcade game should. Thanks for taking the effort of putting words in my mouth. You really do care. Asshat? Yet more name calling. Classy.
Oh snap, youz is gansta gansta. Thanks for the update on your street cred.
Up to three. Keep 'em coming. They truly show the depth of your knowledge.
Dumbass? Ya know, my interest seems to wain after about the fourth childish put down.
If you knew anything about displays you’d realize there has yet to be a technology (sans maybe the newly released LED TVs) that matches the brightness, contrast, and black levels of a CRT. I’ll put my Sony 970 1080i CRT up against any set on the market today. By the way, what the hell does old display technology have to do with MvC3? It certainly allowed you to go on a spirited rant, but like most of your post, turned into drivel by the end.
My favorite aspect of the word stupidest is that it’s not an actual word. It’s even more entertaining when someone such as yourself tries to use the word to inform me that I have made the most stupid point. This in turn makes you look stupid because you have no grasp of the English language or your own words. And that’s what we call irony boys and girls.
I’ll end by giving just a little background on me (since you’ve so graciously given me your “gansta” video game history). I was in debate and forensics in high school and college (I know, lulz what a dork). I was pretty decent at it if I do say so myself. One of the things I found was people who have weak points or are insecure with themselves usually resort to mud slinging or calling others names (of which you’ve done plenty). Your argument was invalidated the second you started resorting to childish banter. But please, don’t let me stop you. It’s entertaining to see you flounder about like a fish out of water gasping for air.
I’d try to find a put down or call you a name, but you’ve already made a joke of yourself by your own actions. No need for me to put salt on the wound.
Joe can be a bit opinionated at times, but here he is spot on and I agree with him. even if stuff like Full animation character endings is asking too much.
I would have loved to see WHY the characters are fighting without having to buy the special edition for that shitty comic.
The comic barely explains anything either.
I’m sorry but I agree with him, the game does feel unfinished and bare bones. I was expecting more; I’m lucky as a hardcore gamer to appreciate what’s there an even luckier as a fighting game enthusiast to already understand what’s going on, because otherwise I wouldn’t have a fucking clue… Menus are horrible, artwork looks placeholder, tutorial and online modes are lacking both thought and execution. The game is bare fucking bones, no doubt about it…
Anemone is making an interesting argument but he’s missing something: not all pieces of art are equivalent, because not all pieces of art are experienced in the same way.
For instance, take music or painting: these are experienced passively. They make an aesthetic impression and are complete in themselves; i.e., they require no action on the part of the audience. Rahter, they exist purely for the aesthetic impression they create.
Now let’s take a video game, which is experienced in quite a different way. A video game is actively experienced–it has a use or utility component lacking in high art. As such, it requires some practical design–it must operate in an efficient way, with features that facilitate it being enjoyed, if it is to succeed as a piece of art.
So a video game that intends to be an enjoyable online or offline competitive fighter needs to have features which facilitate that intention. On the other hand, a video game which makes its intended use difficult, frustrating or impossible fails as a piece of art.
The intentions of MvC3’s creators, at this point, are only partially realized. It has been marketed in a certain way; its audience expects certain features as a result. Moreover, mvc3 is in a genre which has established norms, much as poetry or painting of a given school or time period come with certain expectations.
We can judge MvC3 according to the criteria established above to be a less than stellar work.
(pardon me if that’s difficult to follow. it’s past my bedtime!)
The artwork on the menus is fucking pathetic like, no doubt. It looks like something that was quickly photoshopped and slapped on there at the last minute, pure cut and paste job. The average digital artist could do better in an hour. What I want to know is why they even bothered moddeling the title screen as you only see it for like, two seconds. I would rather look at that… Morrigans tits…