Not trying to discredit that or anything, but can you give a link to where you found this? Because I cannot understand the reasoning behind that move at all and would be interested to see how 2DS made them want to stop developing for it.
I wish it was too. Though in the industry's defense, it's a lot less noticeable to you since Bethesda and Bioware are the ones really pumping out great DLC. Oblivion actually had strong DLC before L&D, but they promoted that as an expansion while Rockstar promoted it as DLC. You see how Fallout and Skyrim differed on it after and GTA IV's influence is clear. Bioware can get a little pricey with theirs, but Shadow Broker is probably ME2's best mission and the Citadel DLC is so good it's a GOTY contender with me, something no DLC can claim.
Actually I'd say 2DS looks much better. Since it has a much better library now and many more games announced for the future.
I hope it does well. I would love for it to mean more Vita owners to buy its software. But personally, I could not want this thing any less. Vita's so software deprived at this point I'm wanting to Vita version of indie games just to play something on the hardware. Without the hardware, I'd rather just play on my PS3/360/PC.
I wouldn't say it even made 3D platformers important again. Last gen gave us three installments from Jak and Sly and four from Ratchet. This gen, Jak is gone, Ratchet's turned into more of a shooter (though that started last gen), and Sly got just one. Meanwhile Nintendo's making 2D platformers, with the rare 3D one from Mario. Then Banjo was doing something different and no one really offered another 3D platformer. Platformers were doing just fine in 2004 and it felt more like a brief lull in 2005-6 (though there was Psychonauts and Sly 3), then 2007 hit with Mario followed by nothing but okay to terrible Sonic games.
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of GTA IV, but can't help but admire what its DLC did for gaming. Braid, I can't stand it as a whole and am not a fan of these pretentious art games that came after it. Yet I do like how it gave XBLA more importance which helped downloadable games I actually do like get made. Modern Warfare I actually thought was great, but I haven't played a single good FPS imitating it and that includes later CoD's.
Can you leave the dough, a spoon and a lighter instead?.....I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM
Thanks. That is a good point about Gears 2 also, a lot of games love their horde modes.
How is something that influences so many future games not important? I'm honestly baffled by that. I think you're being kind of a hypocrite for acknowledging Kotor's importance even though there were WRPGs before it but saying Gears doesn't matter because a game introduced cover before. It put cover on the map, which like it or hate it makes it important.
You really come off as just trying to discredit Gears for aesthetic reasons, you say Uncharted added verticality, but did any game take it up on this? No. They were like Mass Effect adding RPG elements and squad mechanics, Deus Ex HR adding stealth and RPG elements, Vanquish turning the whole genre on it's head, but they all did so because Gears started the cover fad. Any game that affects so many future games is important regardless of quality or artistic merit which you're so hung up on. The idea that Gears of War is not an important game is just plain ridiculous no matter how much you act like the characters, world, and style suck. It still changed everything and shaped this entire console generation.
What you said on KH isn't even true either as Marvel vs Capcom/X-Men vs Street Fighter did that same thing years before and was popular enough to be a hit. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Square got the idea from Capcom. The industry would be a little different but not that different if KH never existed. PS2 might have a slightly smaller fanbase or Square might have gone in a slightly different direction. But like I said before if a game is fresh but doesn't affect gaming in the slightest, it hasn't made any impact. And if everything's the same whether or not a game exists, how can that game be important?
What you're thinking of is not important, it is essential. You are thinking of games which developers need perspective on to play in order to fully understand the industry. Those games are the ones people should play, but important is not the right word to categorize them. You're the one confused on the words here.
I already looked. Saw something about how you need to play Gone Home and included something about how Dear Esther sucked. Dear Esther bashing is highly Greenman approved
