Board Thread:Plants vs. Zombies/@comment-29123155-20190323030846/@comment-24275721-20190407161234

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.