Sujet : Really Random thread

When people tell you you should get an Xbox One because it has more exclusives:

So, who wants their childhood ruined twice today?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBQJ2bqyfZ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-31DKJrFbA&feature=iv&src_vid=jBQJ2bqyfZ4&annotation_id=annotation_598428519

So I saw this:


Couldn't help but add this:

And where did you find the first two?

The first one is from Into the Nexus, and the second one is from Jak II. They are pretty similar, actually.

As a Ratchet & Clank fan, I would have expected you would know where the first two were more than the third. Unless you wonder where the actual images came from, in which case they are probably not that hard to find if you Google Image search for "Ratchet & Clank Mr Eye" and "Metal Kor"

So I saw this:


Couldn't help but add this:

Missing the original.

Well it looks a little like Mr Eye, but if you were to simply compare it to Metal Kor, I wouldn't see that many similarities.

Sorry, I haven't played ItN. Not that interested, to be honest.

I thought it was pretty good, myself. Far better than A4O and FFA.

I rate games based on what they are, not what they aren't. A40 is an easy 4 out of 5, but FFA and ITN are missable 3 out of 5s. ITN does have the best gameplay mechanics though.

I rate games based on what they are, not what they aren't.

I have no idea what you mean by this. If something isn't one thing, that must mean it must be another thing. For example: If a game is bad, it isn't good. Or if a game has boring and repetitive gameplay that means it doesn't have interesting and ever-changing gameplay.

I thought ItN had much funner combat mechanics than A4O and FFA, because it was more focused on the traditional and simple formula we all loved with the earlier games. A4O goes in a different direction by having a fixed camera, and therefore a very different feeling of control over the character. Not only this, but it has combat mechanics that rely largely on co-operation between team members to deal larger amounts of damage. This makes it work well as a fun multiplayer game, but it distances itself from fans of the traditional formula.

I appreciate the game for what it is, but get distracted by the poor replay value and lack of traditional leveling systems. It's new formula restricts the ways we can interact with the world far too much for my tastes. It's linear game design doesn't appeal to me that much, and I found myself unable to enjoy the co-operative gameplay, as it is unplayable online, and I can't play games with friends locally. Despite all of this, I enjoyed that game quite a bit. Not as much as all the other R&C games though.


FFA though, is a game I thoroughly enjoyed. While I enjoyed the new mechanics introduced in the game quite a lot, I would still prefer the old-school formula more. I liked my adventures to be a little less predictable and have a bit more discovery in them. This is why I like the first two games more than any other.


ItN was a return to the gameplay formula we enjoyed about the games before A4O, and features some pretty cool looking worlds. It's quick little story was a bit of a let down, and the grand finale didn't feel very grand, but besides this, I thoroughly enjoyed playing this.

I consider the new PS4 game to be a combination of current HD graphics, the original game's setting, and ItN's combat system. So if you didn't like ItN, you probably won't like the new game that much… unless it was the story and graphics that put you off ItN so much.


EDIT: Another downside about A4O and all the games that follow, is that their writing feels rather crappy and childish.

What I mean is I don't rate games by what they don't have, but by what they do have. If All 4 One is trying to be a 4-player co-op game, then I will rate it by that, not by "well, it's not like the other games, so it's bad." My top 3 favorite RaC games are all different, but they are good at what they are trying to represent.

Yes, and as I explained I see it the same way. But I accept the fact that a lot of people come into it expecting "Ratchet & Clank", and are disappointed to get something radically different.

But the way I look at the game, whatever it is trying to achieve, it fails to impress me. It is not my style of game, as it is too linear, and there are very few incentives to ever replay any of the missions. The only optional paths are little areas where you can find hidden Hero Bolts, and they are not far from the narrow path that needs to be followed. The gameplay was very repetitive, and it restricts itself with it's own design. It does not introduce many new gameplay mechanics besides moving around, locking onto things, and firing at them together, as a team. For this reason, I did not enjoy it so much on my own. But to test how fun the multiplayer would be, I forced my brother to play with me from start to finish, and I still left unsatisfied with our experience. We had much more fun playing Rayman Origins and LittleBigPlanet.

It still has really nice graphics, and okay story, crappy dialogue, a great soundtrack, and some fun little moments. But it does feel too drawn out, and without mixing up the formula or allowing us to stray far from the designated path, it is more difficult to enjoy. It is not much of a Ratchet & Clank game, it isn't much of a singleplayer game due to it's sheer tediousness, and it's co-operative gameplay doesn't help it much at all. I would class it in a similar category of games as Rayman Origins, Rayman Legends and LittleBigPlanet, but it is nowhere near as good as those games are.

Well it looks a little like Mr Eye, but if you were to simply compare it to Metal Kor, I wouldn't see that many similarities.

Well the point is, another lookalike for mr. Eye I found the first image while googling "Mr. Eye".

Oh right! Yea, you're right. Mr. Eye looks like Kor and that purple eel thing had a kid.