[Locked] I hate that one phrase...

You don't know shit about video games, which is apparent by your love of gamegrumps and and Penny-arcades "Extra Credit".

All [good, bad, long, short, fragrant, pungent...] things must come to an end. Not sure if 'must' is the right term to it but time doesn't care about our summer vacation, romances, favorite films, songs or a stunning piece of cheesecake. As beautiful as the idea of reliving or extending our greatest memories may seem, if we were to actually do it, we wouldn't find any new ones and, paradoxically, it would end. Think about it like this, if the 'good thing' that happened to you, say, five years ago didn't end, the good thing that, I'm guessing, ended a while back wouldn't even have existed.

It was well-ended. Got no complaint here.

Hell, ending is way better than indefinitely dragging the series on, like the oh three great stars of shonen jump.

You don't know shit about video games, which is apparent by your love of gamegrumps and and Penny-arcades "Extra Credit".


I'm sorry I have different opinions and we like different things, dear.

They're not fundamentally the same.

You shoot guys in Army of Two and in Cock of Dooky. You still race when you play a racing game in first person or in third person.
You still do the same thing, changing the camra doesn't make it much different.

How do you think I feel? I'm a Gundam fan.
Thats a shitload of my favorite series. They all end. It kills me every time.

So short sighted.

How does thinking a game doesn't need a completely new genre because of the camra angle classify me as "short sighted"?

Why don't you fags go argue on Skype so you aren't clogging up a thread?

Good idea, actually.

Because you're asking me a loaded question.


@Antw0n
Shut up Narutard.

Opinion. This is just my opinion, I'm open for changing it. But saying I'm an idiot for liking certain things that you don't and calling my short sighted isn't really a valid argument.

Edit - Shhh, just pretend this is on Skype.

There's no difference between dead and living people. They're made of the same matter and are subjected by the same forces of nature, so we shouldn't categorize them as different things.

See how that retarded that analogy is.

Your question wasn't genuine and filled with assumptions, i.e a loaded question.

Considering those are literally the exactly opposite...



In terms of video games, the "mechanics" serve as the rules of the game. They define what you can and cannot do in a game. A game with simple mechanics would be Space Invaders, or Centipede. A game with complex mechanics would be Third Strike, or Utopia.

No they're not. The only differences are irrelevant because I say so and it's my opinion. They're fundamentally the same.


And that's all that matters.


See how disingenuous that is? Of course there's a difference between the living and the dead, even though there's a huge amount of similarities.

If you want to be honest just call them "shooters", but then you would have to include rail shooters, shoot em ups, etc. etc. etc., simply because you shoot things.

Okay...
Star Fox and R-Type are both Shoot 'em ups. Apples and Grapes are both fruit.
Why can't Kane and Lynch and Day of Defeat both be just Shooters?

So the living and the dead aren't just a collection of matter in one state a certain time? Don't see how they're opposites.


As for the fruit analogy, it would be more like oranges to tangerines.
They're really similar, but ultimately not the same thing.

The "Okay..." was just a segway into the Star Fox and R-Type analogy. Bad formatting on my part.