Official E3 Discussion Thread

[PrettyNier]

no i can't really see where you're coming from, because i'm not a petulant, superficial child

[DadNier]

i guess it'd be okay but my reaction to the game (the yarn game) being shown was "woah an original and cool idea that looks really nice [i guess you won't agree but I really like the game's graphics] i like this"

when I look at that kirby trailer, it just seems like Yet Another Kirby game
you know that really old zelda trailer from like early in the gamecube's lifespan? the one where link fights ganondorf with swords for a few seconds, and that was it? kinda realistic-y? it's kind of like that
it's just showing the same old stuff we've seen over and over again, except maybe now with better graphics, to make the fans of the series go "OH WOW" but if you actually sat down and had to think "what will make this one actually, you know, cool or different in the gameplay, where it really matters" you couldn't write a single damn word, no one could

you seemed to have chilled out tho and that's what i was hoping for i think we can agree now that the new kirby game isn't fucking stupid or anything, or at least not just because it's yarn and/or 2D, right?

e: and I say this as someone who grew up with kirby, my actual very first game ever was kirby's dreamland on the gameboy, that's right the first one, where sucking in enemies didn't even give you powers, and i've played superstar, air ride, 64, the DS remake of superstar, I bought 64 on my virtual console for wii
i mean seriously

[Boo]

no, they're not valid complaints - they are petty and ultimately superficial. who cares if it's yarn? doesn't it matter more how the game plays and what is done with the concept? who cares if its 2D? 2D or 3D has no bearing on the quality of the game, it is what is done with the dimension that matters. similarly, subject matter has no bearing on the quality of the game. the reason for this is that they are descriptors, and quality is determined not by what it's descriptors are, but how well these descriptors, these aspects, are dealt with and arranged

neither of these are ""important" as far as the quality of the game goes, or how inventive or interesting it is; by dismissing the whole game based on these two superficial aspects, you are rendering yourself little more than a petulant child

You gotta be the dumbest person ever... just because it's kirby some lower class of character without many games doesn't mean you can just do whatever ya want with the character and style. you basically just said "oh ya if they made a 2D string zelda game it would be the best thing eva and nobody would care about the change in art style.

I think about kirby 64 for THE FUCKIN N64 BACK IN THE DAY BRAH!! and then i think about KIRBY'S EPIC YARN!!!! ya it doesn't even do it justice.

Oh and with 3D there is A LOT more to explore and A LOT more to implement into the game if it is 3D, with 2D, you are limited with the amount of gameplay you can get

[PrettyNier]

sorry, you've calmed down a little i'll try to be nicer!

i don't really see where you're coming from - I mean, I understand why you feel the way you do, but I cannot at all relate. i care more about how good the game is, and how enjoyable it is, rather than "petty" things like what the subject matter is (yarn, pink fluff ball, mushroom kingdom, etc,) and what dimension its going to utilize
i have preferences in those categories, but i'm not at all going to let those get in the way, nor am I going to fallaciously consider them to be more important than the quality of the game itself

you basically just said "oh ya if they made a 2D string zelda game it would be the best thing eva and nobody would care about the change in art style.

hahahaha what, no
i said that those things are irrelevant to how good the game itself is
how can you misinterpret that so badly, jesus

Oh and with 3D there is A LOT more to explore and A LOT more to implement into the game if it is 3D, with 2D, you are limited with the amount of gameplay you can get

no, this
kind of depends a lot on the game itself, you know

[Boo]

i guess it'd be okay but my reaction to the game (the yarn game) being shown was "woah an original and cool idea that looks really nice [i guess you won't agree but I really like the game's graphics] i like this"

when I look at that kirby trailer, it just seems like Yet Another Kirby game
you know that really old zelda trailer from like early in the gamecube's lifespan? the one where link fights ganondorf with swords for a few seconds, and that was it? kinda realistic-y? it's kind of like that
it's just showing the same old stuff we've seen over and over again, except maybe now with better graphics, to make the fans of the series go "OH WOW" but if you actually sat down and had to think "what will make this one actually, you know, cool or different in the gameplay, where it really matters" you couldn't write a single damn word, no one could

you seemed to have chilled out tho and that's what i was hoping for i think we can agree now that the new kirby game isn't fucking stupid or anything, or at least not just because it's yarn and/or 2D, right?

ya, i agree completely, you don't want to be playing the same old bullshit every time. but when they approach a game like that, that might be similar they usually try to find what was best in the game and make it 10x better, they usually upgrade from what was bad and make it better, so most of the time it doesn't even feel like its the same old bullshit, it's just another story, another chapter.
just like paper mario and paper mario thousand year door, PRETTY MUCH the same bullshit but both are equally as fun. sometimes i even think thousand year door is better, and it probably is just because you can do more shit, and its a different story with different characters and different abilities.
thats what i enjoy in a game.

[Kite]

Like how Mario is the same bullshit each game, but with new mushrooms and level designs, yet there all classics.
Right?

[DadNier]

I can understand the idea that not every game has to be a huge change, and if it were like, I dunno
like only 2 kirby games that did the whole "look, it's kirby, he jumps on platforms and eats enemies and it's cutesy" i could understand
but kirby's been running that since the gameboy and NES
I am just fine with them radically changing it up
you gave the example of paper mario, I love paper mario
the fact that the thousand year door wasn't drastically different was okay, it was just the second game in the series (although I would've been fine if they DID drastically change it)
but let's say they get up to like, Paper Mario 7, and it's still the same kind of thing
I think by then we would or should be asking for a breath of fresh air
e: and even then I'm not saying a new kirby game like that would be BAD, just the one they're doing now is cool too?? i mean what if they consider this like a sidestory game or something, even mario has done WAY different stuff in "side" games (paper mario is a good example!!! compared to super mario bros. and such)

[PrettyNier]

why do you place so much importance into the most superficial of things
how much stuff in a game has nothing to do with how good a game is

you honestly don't really understand that much about game design, do you

[DadNier]

basically what i'm trying to say is that we gotta get the order straight, this is a sort of chicken and egg problem
in the beginning of this, you were assuming that because it was different, it will probably be bad
but that may not be true, in fact we found reasons where the game might be BETTER for being different
but then you also pointed out games like paper mario and its sequel, which aren't too differentn
but they're also good
I guess the lesson here is that what makes a game good doesn't have to do with whether it's the same or the different
one of them comes before the other

[Kite]

why do you place so much importance into the most superficial of things
how much stuff in a game has nothing to do with how good a game

you honestly don't understand that much about game design, do you

Not true, it does have something to do with how good a game is.
When you run out of things to do the game becomes boring, but when there is more items to find or new levels to unlock you can get more out of it and there's more of a challenge.
It doesn't necessarily define the game but it is important.

[Boo]

sorry, you've calmed down a little i'll try to be nicer!

i don't really see where you're coming from - I mean, I understand why you feel the way you do, but I cannot at all relate. i care more about how good the game is, and how enjoyable it is, rather than "petty" things like what the subject matter is (yarn, pink fluff ball, mushroom kingdom, etc,) and what dimension its going to utilize
i have preferences in those categories, but i'm not at all going to let those get in the way, nor am I going to fallaciously consider them to be more important than the quality of the game itself

you basically just said "oh ya if they made a 2D string zelda game it would be the best thing eva and nobody would care about the change in art style.

hahahaha what, no
i said that those things are irrelevant to how good the game itself is
how can you misinterpret that so badly, jesus

Oh and with 3D there is A LOT more to explore and A LOT more to implement into the game if it is 3D, with 2D, you are limited with the amount of gameplay you can get

no, this
kind of depends a lot on the game itself, you know

I know what you mean, you just care about it being a good game and ya thats exactly what I want to, and Im not saying this is going to be a shit game, or that its going to be bad at all, but the only things I don't like are the title (because of the word epic... i honestly think that word should not be used in a game title) and that it isn't the style of Kirby 64 or something if that nature, because in my eyes that style of game would be a lot more entertaining then what there showing for the new kirby game.

I would have loved a kirby game that has graphics like mario and zelda and with similar gameplay like super mario sunshine or zelda windwaker. meet characters, get abilities, partners, helping other charatcers/quests or something, and then like a main story while your playing, fighting bosses and shit. idk that would be interesting for me.

[PrettyNier]

Not true, it does have something to do with how good a game is.
When you run out of things to do the game becomes boring, but when there is more items to find or new levels to unlock you can get more out of it and there's more of a challenge.
It doesn't necessarily define the game but it is important.

that only matters when there is too little stuff. in that case, though, it's generally a much deeper problem then that.

it does not, however, affect how good the stuff in the game itself is. how long a game is has nothing to do with how good it is.

[Boo]

why do you place so much importance into the most superficial of things
how much stuff in a game has nothing to do with how good a game

you honestly don't understand that much about game design, do you

Not true, it does have something to do with how good a game is.
When you run out of things to do the game becomes boring, but when there is more items to find or new levels to unlock you can get more out of it and there's more of a challenge.
It doesn't necessarily define the game but it is important.

this too. more shit to do in a game means more gameplay, long lasting and more entertaining. why do you think theres 10th prestige in call of duty ahahaha, because once you get there or dont get there they have already come out with another way better call of duty. it lasts just as long as a new one comes out because theres a lot of shit to do.

[Kite]

Not true, it does have something to do with how good a game is.
When you run out of things to do the game becomes boring, but when there is more items to find or new levels to unlock you can get more out of it and there's more of a challenge.
It doesn't necessarily define the game but it is important.

that only matters when there is too little stuff. in that case, though, it's generally a much deeper problem then that.

it does not, however, affect how good the stuff in the game itself is. how long a game is has nothing to do with how good it is.

I didnt say a good game needed lots of stuff, or that fact along decides what makes a good game just that it makes a different.
Tho it does if the game is an rpg, but in this case were talking about kirby.

[Maxpphire]

OH MY LORD AHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA i can't believe you think im raging about this, i was just giving my opinion about this game and you guys go completely overboard ahahaha and im not bashing it at all haha, i'm just saying it would be a lot better if it was a little more like what it showed on gamecube.

I just want to know guys. When you watched the E3 and Kirby came up, you were pretty excited right? And then the title comes up and my jaw instantly dropped and I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

KIRBY'S EPIC YARN

My god, what a dumb fucking title, especially once they already use Epic for that gay ass Mickey game.

I was expecting the most mind blowing epic Kirby game of all time, AND THEN IT SHOWED SOME STUPID YARN GAME WITH A KIRBY ATTACHED, WHAT THE FUCK HAS THIS WORLD COME TO, HONESTLY..

To be completely honest, it'll probably be a decent game, BUT WHAT THE FUCK. They show these awesome Kirby Adventure pictures for an upcoming Gamecube game in like what 2005? Thought they were going to make a decent Kirby game for the Wii sooner and then they come out with KIRBY'S EPIC YARN.

I hate Nintendo because there stupid fucks, but augg... they still make me wanna play a few select games. pissed me off the most when they came out with a kirby yarn game.

I HONESTLY thought it was a fucking joke when they played the clip for the game, I could of swore it was a joke, and then 10 seconds later they would have the real kirby adventure game that would be 20x better but no.. the video kept playin and I was stunned. stunned..

Yeah doesn't sound /rageful/ at all, now stop backpedaling and shut up.

Seriously just shut up. Enough with the argument.