I honestly didn't even read the whole thing after he managed to embarass himself in the introduction... Let me quote:
Quote:
|
But what happens in them? Well, most of the time you have a view from behind the hero. You follow the hero as he travels down one passageway, looks around a corner, travels down another passageway, then shoots at something. And that’s it! That’s all that happens! Over and over again! Of course, it’s very realistically drawn and you feel like you are almost there. But so what!
|
And exactly after that he says:
Quote:
|
What’s really depressing about video games is they used to be pretty good. I hope there are those of you who remember the games of the 1970s and 1980s—games like Berserk, Q-Bert, Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Tetris, and the brilliant Chip’s Challenge.
|
So basically he complains about today's games being repetitive, right? Did ANY of you guys ever see much variety in different levels of Pacman, Q-Bert or Donkey Kong? Didn't you have to do the same actions over and over again AND the levels looked pretty much all the same? Yes, we all (at least the people that played those games in the past) did it over and over again, took it like men (or women if there's any reading this - which i highly doubt) and yet managed to have loads of fun with it. So I don't know how "past repetitive gameplay with minimalisyic graphics" is better than "new repetitive gameplay with realistic graphics", I think he lost me right away... One bad argument can often invalidate overall well balanced ten pages of writing.