>>1876218
This guy gets it.
>>1876433
>You're post was accusing the Sega CD of having "only" FMV games
No it wasn't. You don't speak English and didn't understand the post you were trying to read. There is no point in any of my posts where I said or even implied the Sega CD had only FMV games. You think someone on 8chan isn't autistic enough to love Sonic CD? But the Sega CD was well known for that genre of games, since it was the most popular hardware that could play that type of game during the brief period that that type of game was popular. This entire argument is based on you being a third world monkey that can't learn human language.
>You, see:>>1876079
<That's why your points about audio aren't relevant.
But here is the actual "quote" you made.
>"not at all important"
Those aren't the same phrases. That's not how quotation marks work, you subhuman nigger. And in this case, the two phrases don't even mean the same thing. Maybe if you spoke English, you'd realize that.
>That's why your points about audio aren't relevant.
Saying something isn't relevant isn't the same as arguing against it. Again, learn English. It's not relevant to the point or discussion at hand. Doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not relevant to the other point.
>you're zoning in on the fact that I mentioned FMV games and avoiding the fact that I brought up big-name stars like Mark Hamill.
Those things cross over significantly. Though Vice City stars Ray Liotta and San Andreas has you fight Samuel L. Jackson, I'd hardly blame PS2 GTA for modern "cinematic" games, despite those games being immensely successful and influential. Their styles and influences were very different.
>No, it's not. Not by the way you have been treating this argument, where you honed in on FMVs and ignored everything else that I said in the first place.
I was interested in FMVs, and then about other things that you didn't mention but I think are more relevant than things like audio, but still contribute to the argument that it isn't purely about FMVs, but rather about what sells a game.
>>1877254
>The real issue is when the game is trying to take the cinematic part, and plant it into the game part.
I disagree. While that is annoying, it's only one part of the problem. Another huge part is when you have to sit there and watch a (subpar) movie for a long time before you actually get to play the game (or between gameplay sections). I tried playing MGS3, but after about an hour of nothing but cutscenes and no real gameplay (maybe a few parts walking/crawling down an outdoor hallway for a few seconds before a new cutscene starts), I gave up. I remember being doubly annoyed because you couldn't even pause the cutscenes, which I could do in games like Jak & Daxter years earlier, even though that game (and its sequels, which do focus much more on story) doesn't make you sit through more than maybe two minutes of cutscenes at a time.
I don't even like MGS. Maybe I shouldn't be in this thread. But this discussion is interesting.
Half-Life is also important, in that it's clearly been influential, but MGS (and its sequels) seems more popular and more influential, and especially was more popular and more influential earlier, since it was on hardware with much larger install bases. I'd have to look up sales numbers from the time to confirm though, and I'm too lazy for that.
>>1877316
I don't think it's a great game. I think it's boring for not focusing on gameplay as much as story. But also, I do think it's interesting to look at good things and see how they influenced bad things later. Mario and Sonic led to tons of subpar platformers, including many that had to be animals with attitude. Sonic is clearly very responsible for Bubsy. GTA III is clearly very responsible for every game needing to become open world, which is not a trend I liked, even though I like GTA III. I referenced Jak & Daxter earlier, and I love Jak II, but I can see how that was the beginning of the end, of Naughty Dog selling out and heading down the path that eventually led to their modern games. Hell, I can trace it back to Crash Bandicoot 2, which might be my favorite game of all time. But they pussy'd out to an SJW exec and replaced Tawna with Coco. Now, Coco is mai waifu and everything, but they got rid of the big titties (even though they were clearly ironic titties, still making a lighter but still feminist point), and replaced them with some know-it-all cunt that exists just to show that girls are smarter than boys and boss you around the whole game. It's a straight line from that to The Last of Us II.
>>1877419
I don't think a game leading to bad influences later means it's bad. I also don't like MGS, but I didn't come into this thread intending to argue that. Even now, when I've been forced to state it, it's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't think it leading to worse games later is what makes it boring. I do think the same basic philosophy, though, that being story over gameplay, is present in it, and it's a significant problem.
Metal Gear 1 is a bit better, since it doesn't hit you over the head with the story, and lets you get straight to the gameplay, but I also think the stealth mechanics aren't actually very good in that game. But it's an originator of the genre, so I can understand and accept that. I gotta play Metal Gear 2, which I assume is much better, but I can't bring myself to suffer through the the first, even though I like the idea of it.