Board Thread:Plants vs. Zombies/@comment-29123155-20190323030846/@comment-24275721-20190407174609

GamesterD wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote:

GamesterD wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote:

GamesterD wrote: IDontCareAboutHistory wrote:

TheGollddMAN wrote: Forgot to mention this before but the ONLY shooter that I personally think did something exponentially different by not being a military fucking shooter and still having its own identity (WHICH IS IMPORTANT) are the Serious Sam games.

I saw a guy play GW on twitch once. Looked like Team Fortress with plants and zombies instead. Yes, some people may have fun with it (people also had fun with that shit game Heroes) BUT that doesn't mean the game is good. That's your perception, not a reality. You've mentioned preference in your arguments, however, you dare say that your preference is a reality. What's your logic here, Gollddman?

How does a game not being unique make it bad? What matters is that it's fun. Yes, originality is always better, but the opposite doesn't make them bad at all. You just seem salty. This exactly. Even if a game is "unoriginal" as long as it is fun and has it's only charm in someway(Art style, music, characters, ect), it does not matter. It's just a video game meant for the enjoyment of players(And money for the company too I guess) If a game is unoriginal, how are you having fun? Fun is directly linked to a game being original. There HAS to be something new to the game otherwise, it feels stale. This is why the games died out quick; faster than the classic games that people STILL like. People didn't have fun with the GW games which is why the games are not talked about usually and devs ned to make similar sequels (like most currenct shooters out there) to get the attention of people (otherwse they'd forget the game even exists). That is my point, this fun you speak of is non-existent in the shooter genre mostly.

IDontCareAboutHistory wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote: Forgot to mention this before but the ONLY shooter that I personally think did something exponentially different by not being a military fucking shooter and still having its own identity (WHICH IS IMPORTANT) are the Serious Sam games.

I saw a guy play GW on twitch once. Looked like Team Fortress with plants and zombies instead. Yes, some people may have fun with it (people also had fun with that shit game Heroes) BUT that doesn't mean the game is good. That's your perception, not a reality. You've mentioned preference in your arguments, however, you dare say that your preference is a reality. What's your logic here, Gollddman?

How does a game not being unique make it bad? What matters is that it's fun. Yes, originality is always better, but the opposite doesn't make them bad at all. You just seem salty. The logic is that even when you like something, you have to know you are liking it for your own preference but the game in question stays shit no matter what and most of the times people liking a game likes it too much to even like others saying negative things about it.

That's exactly why it is bad, if it doesn't have an identity, how is it good? A game can be fun based off that, how a game has its own charm to lure you and make you have fun. What exactly is fun in GW 1 and 2? Shooting? Well you can shoot in other games so what is this "fun" in GW 1 and 2? Can you explain it to me? No you can't but I can for mine. Classic PvZ was a good game because it had its charm where the art style, the 2D tower defense gameplay, the progression intertwined to make a player have fun and theer was nothing like the sort at that time. What's unique in Garden Warfare? Nothing. You may as well play some other shooter and say I am playing GW. If there's no originality, why should I buy this particular game in the sea of shooter games? Not to mention, being salty doesn't apply here as there's nothing for me to be salty about. I see a person mentioning their awful preference, I just point it out to them. Simple. That first sentence (where you say you haven't played any shooter games before), that is where your preference becomes flawed. I mean no offense when I say this and I mean that but if your perception is limited to one game, you need to indulge yourself into shooters that actually had stuff going for them instead of these shameless cashgrabs, like Doom or Wolfenstein and then form an opinion. If that is "unique" to you, I don't have a problem with it but that statement becomes flawed as it is passed with a narrow sense of viewpoint. Maybe it's not your fault that you started with GW, but these games really don't have anything special to them at all.

As for PvZ 2, it is unoriginal but that Plant Food system is related to gameplay (as in how it is played) and that makes it original as nothing of sorts was done before. Weekly events in GW are just that, events. Those are not related to how you play the game and thus not unique as events in shooters has been done before and are still done. Different speed with bosses, character classes has been done before. The only thing you can sort of bring up in terms of uniqueness are the graphics and assets but since they have no identity, replace them with models from other games and nothing would be lost. Replace PvZ 2 plant sprites with something else and it won't fit as PvZ 2 has established its own identity, GW has not. Yes, you can try to defend it but you have to come up with actual things to mention against me. So you admit this is a terrible game in your opinion. OK. Yes, but I gave a reason behind that and didn't just say it off on a tangent. Plus, since I play / have played a variety of games, I have seen and played through a lot. So there's that.