22nd December 2004, 11:34 AM
Quote:It was popular with some people because it isn't your standard futuristic racing game. It has no weapons, boost strips, etc... just racing. So it's a 'purer' racing game than most futuristic ones. It's also got a ridiculously large track variety (once you download all of them, well over 40), awesome track designs, internet play via an online service (a rarity in a game released in 1997! Though sadly Ubisoft shut it down in 2002, it still has splitscreen, LAN, modem, IP, etc), lots of downloadable cars, a good level of challenge, a nice intro video, ghost races (with some websites that had times) and more... very few racing games of the period had half of what Pod offers for options and variety. Oh, and the racing is fun too.
Correction: Burnout 3 is fun. Pod is poo.
Quote:Yes, I disliked the gameplay. Yup. That's why I said it was a good game that would get a B to B+. Oh wait... yeah, like usual it's you wrongly taking my criticism to mean dislike, and like usual you are very, very wrong. Criticism doesn't necessarially mean dislike! I wonder if you'll ever understand that simple fact... it means I don't think the game is perfect, that's all! Yes, it means that I don't like it as much as you do. But it most definitely does not mean that I dislike the game. That would not be true. (expects point to be ignored just like it was all through the Morrowind argument)'
You've only said bad things about BG&E. You have a very interesting way of praising a game! I feel sorry for your future girlfriend.
Quote:Yes, we've been through the "I'm better than you and know more than you and you are stupid and dumb and clueless so I am right and you are wrong" arguement before and it's just as stupid now as it was then. One does not have to do creative writing to be able to appreciate and criticise it and similarly one does not need to do whatever you seem to think to be able to know what stories you like and which you do not. My opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours is. You just can't handle the fact that anyone could possibly disagree with you so as usual you cover it with insults...
What I care about most is the story it tells. Presentation is one thing, but the actual story that is told is more important. For games that tell stories I look at the story, and the quests, and the writing, and the pacing (how far between story bits (and how consistent it is on that factor) -- one place where Baldur's Gate I is flawed)... presentation? That too, but it's just one factor, not the controlling theme. You clearly disagree, but I just do not look at it the same way you do and you need to learn to cope with it... it has nothing to do with me not understanding storytelling. It has to do with me focusing more on different aspects when I consider how a game told its story. And in my opinion, it's a better approach than yours which focuses so much on the presentation...
Now you say "but what about games with really simple stories that you like, those don't have good stories!" My answer is obvious: When I talk about that I'm talking about it for games where story matters. Story does not matter in Gauntlet or Gradius. Story matters a bit in Diablo, and it is decent and told well enough to keep me playing. Story is told well and is interesting in, say, Ocarina of Time or Link's Awakening. Or Torment. Or Baldur's Gate II (I is not quite on this level).
Now, decent story can't save a game if the gameplay is boring (see Dungeon Siege -- not a fantastic story, and definitely cliche, but I like fantasy so it's good enough that I'd like to see more of it... if the game wasn't so dull. Or Star Fox Adventures, where the story isn't great but has more potential than it shows ingame (just like the rest of the product!), but is still a decent Rare-style adventure storywise).
Oh yeah, and you complain about BG being full of cliches but not about BG&E? How strange... because to me it felt very cliche-driven. Yes, it has some more unique aspects, but barely... the whole story is a very standard sci-fi story. I've seen it many times before. There is certainly nothing special about the story it presents... and I definitely felt the lack. I also, as I said before, really noticed the simplicity of the world... it feels like they read some sci-fi books, decided to make a game based on them, and dropped all of the complexity. Now that Stargate SG-1 episode about the aliens that peacefully took over Earth and many years later the team learns that they actually have a long-term plot to destroy humanity (and have to stop it by sending back in time a message to not contact those aliens), now that I liked...
Now, you say that 'it's well told and that is the most important factor (going along with presentation)'. Well... as I've described before I just did not feel that way overall. Oh, it's a perfectly deI saw in some reader reviews people who said that they liked how as you progressed there got to be protesters against the government because it seemed like you were changing things. I didn't, as I've explained before, because it is another aspect of that cartoonish simplicity which sadly falls into a world with so much more potential and depth of background than that. I mean, I understand that as a console game this isn't trying to compete with the truly great game stories of all time, but they could make SOME effort... look, this is a brutal dictatorship! Anyone expressing opposition should be crushed. The government should be actively trying to infiltrate resistance cells -- I mean, you have a direct line to the governor's mansion, and to a scientist, and have this big base under a bar, and walk around and are seen in restricted areas but in the future the government does not keep a record of insurgents?? I mean, if you aren't seen it's one thing, but if you're seen and they have your picture in some restricted areas they should be searching for you in the streets not happily ignoring you as you walk right past the guards... it's silly and simplistic and it didn't have to be that way. That's the key issue, that it didn't have to be this way... it could have been more and was not. That is why the story aspects are somewhat dissapointing.
I never said anything about BG&E's story being original or complex, I said that it was told exceptionally well.
You see, ABF, what you may come to realize one day is that some of the greatest stories every told are ones with fairly simple plots that are told very well. The Woman in the Dunes, King Lear, The Lord of the Rings, To Kill A Mockingbird, Ikiru, The Grand Illusion. All simple stories that are presented in a way that makes them exceptional. You see, it's not all about complexity, it's about presentation, it's about storytelling methods. That's what seperates the Baldur's Gate from the ICO's and Beyond Good and Evils. ICO, for instance, has an extremely simple plot that is told through almost zero understandable dialogue. The reason why the story is so captivating is because of how it tells its story. There's more emotion packed into ICO's story than any other game ever made. BG&E isn't up to ICO's level, but it is above 90% of the games out there. I find it both sad and funny that you think SFA's horrible story is better than BG&E's.
It's too bad you'll probably never be able to realize this. Go on living in your narrow-minded and confused world, ABF. I suppose that's all you can do.