>wE LiVe iN Le g0LdEn agE oF gAymInG. >the age:

I don't think you understand my point. Fortnite could be a single player game you play with bots and the experience wouldn't change much, especially for kids. Just because it's "online" doesn't mean that it has any kind of meaningfully interactive multiplayer experience.

>literally just repeat what you said back to you
>BAD FAITH!!!!
lets try this again, so for the record, you truly believe chivalry and fc6 are on the same level as gta3 and mgs2 in terms of impact and innovation, right? thats FRICKING insane lol

>>RE: Village
>Massively influential in the subgenre of FPS Survival "Horror"
No it wasn't, it was about as popular as any other main RE, and its legacy will be Lady Dimitrescu porn.
>>It Takes Two
>Highly experimental
Yeah.
>and massively influential
No.

Who?
>>Loop Hero
Who?
Playtime
Who?

>Great argument, anon. Really proved me wrong.
nta but it's on you to substantiate your claim. any unsubstantiated claim deserves little more than a "nuh-uh".

>SF2, Lemmings, Animal Crossing, Melee, Halo, Conker's, and GTA III
No, not really. I mean, melee by technicality since it had a lot of broken mechanics but no.

>And the populus would disagree with you.
Argumentum ad populum doesn't change the fact that the games I picked are derivative, dull and generally mediocre compared to games of the past.

>You picked them because of the personal preference.
You can't say that because you have no idea what my references in video games are. You're just making the assumption that I only like old games.
>as you don't really play games.
Considering I'm playing a game right now I'd say otherwise.

>as both got popular because they were experimenting
The problem is that neither are particularly experimental. It takes two for example is multiplayer only where both players are required to work together to get to the end, along with a mishmash of other mechanics.
I mean, there are Mario party minigames based on a similar co-op concept. Adding more mechanics to it doesn't suddenly make it more experimental.
I'm pretty sure there was a game with you guys in jail that did something similar too.
Loop Hero on the other hand is just a basic deck builder style game but on a loop.

>is only "derivative" in the sense it's not the first ever game made in its exact format
In the sense that it's just 7 again with a new setting. It could be dlc for it.

>are not objective assessments in any form
Of course it is, none of these games try to do something new. They just throw things on top of a template that already exists, it makes for very predictable games.
I've played so many games where I need to shoot things from a distance so my partner can progress that it's laughable that anyone could see that as innovative.

>My personal opinion is the older games I listed were dull and mediocre as well
The problem is that you can't actually say why without saying you dislike the current games because they all use the older games as a foundation.

The problem here is that I'm from a different generation, we value unique gameplay, mechanics and content.
You value pretty lights.

>I can because you are trying to use assessments like "dull" and "uninspired". Those do not exist in objective form
Of course they do. The game can be considered dull and uninspired if it doesn't stand out in any significant way simply copying what worked from other games.
Just because you can't comprehend how they can be objective doesn't mean they can't.
>Shitposting on 4chins is not a game
Bold of you to say that
1) anyone who disagrees with you is shitposting
2) that it's impossible to play a game between posts.
But then again you do think most modern games are good so I'm not surprised you would be incapable of doing more than one thing at a time.
>Sounds pretty experimental to me.
They're examples off the top of my head, not the full extent, it's meant to show that the idea isn't original by any stretch of the imagination meaning it isn't experimental.
This isn't a difficult idea to understand.

>Is a unique take on a deck builder
You can't even describe what's unique about it other than the loop which frankly is just pointless.

>it does things differently.
The argue your point, you're trying to say that these games aren't just slop peddled out to the masses but you don't even know why you think they're good.

>That's not what "dull" and "mediocre" mean.
Yes, yes it is. I take it English isn't your first language if you're having this much difficulty.
But yeah, often stage design is predictable and mechanics are overused making the game dull and mediocre.

>I dislike GTA III because its story is generally uninspired and its gameplay is too repetitive
And are you going to explain how? Keep I mind that there are few major differences between 3, VC and SA as a game. The story is ultimately down to opinion.

>My "gaming generation" is NES.
Yeah, sure it is. How old are you really anon?

>they can be objective
That's just false, we're done with this one.
>Bold of you to say that
That's just you putting words in my mouth and being generally dumb and incapable of taking a joke.
>This isn't a difficult idea to understand.
There are plenty of things you might think you know only to realize you don't know anything.
An example could be how you've learned today the difference between "objective" and "subjective" assessments. I doubt that you will remember what you have learned, but that's a good example still.

Meanwhile, the idea that taking a set of mechanics that are normally relegated to being "side content that's there for flavor at best" or "a party mini-game" and making an entire game solely out of them is pretty fricking EXPERIMENTAL by definition should not be that hard to understand, yet here we are.
ITT is not the first game to do "coop to progress" to be the focus of the game. Trine did that, for example. It's just no game did it like ITT did before it. It's a new thing.

>the loop which frankly is just pointless.
If it's frankly pointless then you are frankly wrong. We're done here as well.

>just slop peddled out to the masses but you don't even know why you think they're good.
Cool buzzwords, really helps your argument.
Name me five more games like Village. Should be trivial if it's just mindless slop

>And are you going to explain how?
Anon, are you moronic? I just did.
>The story is ultimately down to opinion.
Holy shit, imagine understanding that!

>Yeah, sure it is. How old are you really anon?
Answer my question before asking yours.

>I just did.
No, no you didn't. You said it's story was uninspired and it's gameplay was repetitive.
This is so incredibly generic that I can slap it on to just about any game it would mean the same thing because you didn't go into any detail specific to the game itself.
Were there too many of one kind of mission?
Was there not enough side content?
Was the weapon variety too low?
Explaining isn't just
>because I said so!
It's the details that matter. You should have learned this in grade school.
>imagine understanding that!
And yet you don't, how's that for irony.

>Answer my question before asking yours.
It's as plain as day that I'm older than you are anon given I have a wider perspective on these matters and can actually speak objectively without resorting to fallacy after fallacy.

Case in point. You're seeing an out that I gave you and are taking it instead of arguing your point because you don't even like these games, do you.
You just defend them because they had a brief moment in the sun.

>I'm just tired of your stupidity
And now you know how we all feel about you when you make unsubstantiated claims.
>it's not something I can really respond to.
It is, you just need to make an argument.
Let me explain what you're doing your posts can be summed up as
>this is bad!
And nothing else.
To make an argument to need to describe your stance/issues/reasons and sometimes post evidence. In other words your posts need to be
>it's bad BECAUSE the you do too many of the same mission
>it inspired game X, Y and Z and here's an interview proving it
But you can't do that, because you don't like games like we do.
When we like games we go hard on it, we know directors and developers by name, you know information off by heart because it comes up a lot in conversation.

You're a casual. You play games because a YouTube does and drop them like a week later. I mean, what's your longest play time on a game, post it and prove me wrong.

>>HOW OLD ARE YOU HMMMMMM
>fixation you have only shows how insecure you are.
Now, I wonder who brought up the idea of someone being younger in the first place.
Let's just scroll up and... Oh would you look at that it was you

>You can't say that
I can because you are trying to use assessments like "dull" and "uninspired". Those do not exist in objective form, hence you are being subjective, hence you are speaking based on your preference. That's not rocket science.
>Considering I'm playing a game right now I'd say otherwise.
Shitposting on 4chins is not a game

>The problem is that neither are particularly experimental
And yet your best examples are, what? "Mini-games with a similar concept" and "there's that one game I think". Sounds pretty experimental to me.
>Loop Hero
Is a unique take on a deck builder. The "experimental" part is what made it unique, and that what made it popular.

>In the sense that it's just 7 again with a new setting. It could be dlc for it.
But that's false, though. It's not just "a new setting" - it does things differently.

>Of course it is, none of these games try to do something new
That's not what "dull" and "mediocre" mean. I have addressed your statement of "derivative" separately.
Now you are trying to shape the conversation like this assessment and that assessment is one and the same which they are objectively not.
You trying to sweep objective statements (even if invalid) and subjective statements under the same rug, trying to make your personal preferences a valid argument. That's not how it works.

>The problem is that you can't actually say why without saying you dislike the current games because they all use the older games as a foundation.
That's false, though.
Example:
I dislike GTA III because its story is generally uninspired and its gameplay is too repetitive. It's a sandbox lacking toys.
I enjoyed Vice City and San Andreas because they fixed those issues.

Maybe you are just bad at assessing games.

>The problem here is that I'm from a different generation, we value unique gameplay, mechanics and content.
>You value pretty lights.
You sound 20.
My "gaming generation" is NES. What's yours, anon?

>You sound 20.
>My "gaming generation" is NES.

Prime example of me using evidence to argue a point by the way.

>
I would have no issue answering your question about how in the year 2023 you are talking to someone who grew up playing NES on a mongolian basket-weaving forum
Then answer it. If nothing is stopping you and you aren't just projecting your youth you'll just say your age and be done with it.
Or are you just going to say "we're done here" for the umpteenth time?

>That's a reach and a moronic statement by the way.
And yet here you are still unable to say why you even like them.
At this point I'd think you're trolling but you're clearly too agitated for that.

Oh dear, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your forte, that or your anger has blinded you.
If you would please point out where I said which generation either of us were from?

>>AND I LIKE OLD GAMES
Ignoring the fact that I'm playing a fairly modern game at the moment.
Well, I say modern by Xenoverse 2 came out in 2015.

Either way, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

topic immediately
>Oh, would you look at that!
Huh?
Are you not aware that I posted this earlier?

Oh forgot my image, it's the game I'm currently playing.

You really don't pay attention do you.
>That last bit was damn hilarious though
For you? Strange sense of humor if you think being shown up is funny. I mean, you've dropped every point you had.

Anon, you couldn't call people out with a megaphone.
You lack the ability to argue and that's just an objective fact.

Do you even know what fallacy occurred?

So that's a no then.

>You picked them because of the personal preference.
You can't say that because you have no idea what my references in video games are. You're just making the assumption that I only like old games.
>as you don't really play games.
Considering I'm playing a game right now I'd say otherwise.

>as both got popular because they were experimenting
The problem is that neither are particularly experimental. It takes two for example is multiplayer only where both players are required to work together to get to the end, along with a mishmash of other mechanics.
I mean, there are Mario party minigames based on a similar co-op concept. Adding more mechanics to it doesn't suddenly make it more experimental.
I'm pretty sure there was a game with you guys in jail that did something similar too.
Loop Hero on the other hand is just a basic deck builder style game but on a loop.

>is only "derivative" in the sense it's not the first ever game made in its exact format
In the sense that it's just 7 again with a new setting. It could be dlc for it.

>are not objective assessments in any form
Of course it is, none of these games try to do something new. They just throw things on top of a template that already exists, it makes for very predictable games.
I've played so many games where I need to shoot things from a distance so my partner can progress that it's laughable that anyone could see that as innovative.

>My personal opinion is the older games I listed were dull and mediocre as well
The problem is that you can't actually say why without saying you dislike the current games because they all use the older games as a foundation.

The problem here is that I'm from a different generation, we value unique gameplay, mechanics and content.
You value pretty lights.

>You can't say that
I can because you are trying to use assessments like "dull" and "uninspired". Those do not exist in objective form, hence you are being subjective, hence you are speaking based on your preference. That's not rocket science.
>Considering I'm playing a game right now I'd say otherwise.
Shitposting on 4chins is not a game

>The problem is that neither are particularly experimental
And yet your best examples are, what? "Mini-games with a similar concept" and "there's that one game I think". Sounds pretty experimental to me.
>Loop Hero
Is a unique take on a deck builder. The "experimental" part is what made it unique, and that what made it popular.

>In the sense that it's just 7 again with a new setting. It could be dlc for it.
But that's false, though. It's not just "a new setting" - it does things differently.

>Of course it is, none of these games try to do something new
That's not what "dull" and "mediocre" mean. I have addressed your statement of "derivative" separately.
Now you are trying to shape the conversation like this assessment and that assessment is one and the same which they are objectively not.
You trying to sweep objective statements (even if invalid) and subjective statements under the same rug, trying to make your personal preferences a valid argument. That's not how it works.

>The problem is that you can't actually say why without saying you dislike the current games because they all use the older games as a foundation.
That's false, though.
Example:
I dislike GTA III because its story is generally uninspired and its gameplay is too repetitive. It's a sandbox lacking toys.
I enjoyed Vice City and San Andreas because they fixed those issues.

Maybe you are just bad at assessing games.

>The problem here is that I'm from a different generation, we value unique gameplay, mechanics and content.
>You value pretty lights.
You sound 20.
My "gaming generation" is NES. What's yours, anon?

>I can because you are trying to use assessments like "dull" and "uninspired". Those do not exist in objective form
Of course they do. The game can be considered dull and uninspired if it doesn't stand out in any significant way simply copying what worked from other games.
Just because you can't comprehend how they can be objective doesn't mean they can't.
>Shitposting on 4chins is not a game
Bold of you to say that
1) anyone who disagrees with you is shitposting
2) that it's impossible to play a game between posts.
But then again you do think most modern games are good so I'm not surprised you would be incapable of doing more than one thing at a time.
>Sounds pretty experimental to me.
They're examples off the top of my head, not the full extent, it's meant to show that the idea isn't original by any stretch of the imagination meaning it isn't experimental.
This isn't a difficult idea to understand.

>Is a unique take on a deck builder
You can't even describe what's unique about it other than the loop which frankly is just pointless.

>it does things differently.
The argue your point, you're trying to say that these games aren't just slop peddled out to the masses but you don't even know why you think they're good.

>That's not what "dull" and "mediocre" mean.
Yes, yes it is. I take it English isn't your first language if you're having this much difficulty.
But yeah, often stage design is predictable and mechanics are overused making the game dull and mediocre.

>I dislike GTA III because its story is generally uninspired and its gameplay is too repetitive
And are you going to explain how? Keep I mind that there are few major differences between 3, VC and SA as a game. The story is ultimately down to opinion.

>My "gaming generation" is NES.
Yeah, sure it is. How old are you really anon?

you guys eat a bible for breakfast or something?

>Games like
>>It Takes Two

>>The Forgotten City
Playtime
>>Loop Hero
2
>Are immensely influential though.
Are they really? I'll give you It Takes Two, but the rest are just meh as frick, and will be forgotten in 5 years.
>>RE: Village
>>Far Cry 6
>do push "technology for its time" forward.
In what way?

It Takes Two is some weird co-op game, but I don't think it was "immensely influential"
I think I got baited...

>Are immensely influential though.
They haven't influenced a thing though. Hell Poppy was influenced by FNAF if anything else yet you didn't even list that.

>do push "technology for its time" forward.
In what way? They're visually superior to previous entries but mechanically they don't do anything that couldn't have been done on a ps2.

>ITT caused a resurgence of proper coop games
So where are they? Most co-op games nowadays just tend to be Nintendo, Sega and other nip titles and they've been doing them for years.
>Inscryption is one of the bigger examples of recent ARGs and it has expanded the acceptable limits of game-to-player interactions among less-niche games
That's just describing the game, that's not saying how it's influential anon. Take Botw for example, elements similar to that game can be seen in games like genshin, immortals fenyx rising and that one indie game that showed up on a state of play that no one gave a shit about.
That's an obvious influence.
>resulting in an international spike of "cute things scary" merchandise popularity,
One problem though, that's been a consistent thing in media and merch for years. I mean, even Pokemon had that area covered with most ghost types, drifloon steals children and Mimikyu is so horrifying people pass out when they see what it really looks like and again, FNAF.
Tattletail was also a thing for a while.
>Most things are influenced by something.
Not really, not unless it's a long running series or they had a change of heart based on reception.
>It doesn't change the fact it's a massively influential game
Anon, they haven't influenced anything at most they've done nothing or are copycats themselves.

I don't even need to read the rest of your post if you haven't actually named any game influenced by them.

You read three quarters of the post?
Why don't you just admit you had no argument and be done with it.

>Why don't you argue in good faith?
You're the only one putting out bad faith arguments because the truth hurts dude.
>Why shouldn't I dismiss your disingenuous crap if you are dismissing my arguments?
There's a difference between arguing and dismissing you know. I mean look at what you're doing here
>For coop games google coop games released in 2022 and 2023. There are new ones. Devs are trying out stuff.
You're supposed to be proving what these games inspired right? How are you doing that by just going
>LOOK IT UP YOURSELF I'M RIGHT just do it ARRRRGH!
The whole point is to SHOW people why you see things the way you do. Also I can just say something like "there was never a surge of co-op games because they never died." and then rattle off a bunch of games with co-op that came out in the last 10 years and judging by what you're doing with the other guy you're just likely to bawl about it and say
>we're done here
Because you know you have no argument.
>BotW is a prime example of bringing literally NOTHING new to the table and everything copying it does so because it's a highly successful product
Yeah like the games you mentioned the difference is I gave examples of what BOTW inspired and you can't name any.
>I'm talking about what Poppy in fact achieve
You mean nothing? Because let's be honest outside of China and India exploiting everything they can get their hands on no one really gives a shit about it.
>Normalgays in second and third world countries
That explains it, you're a third worlds and these are the only things you can get your mitts on.

>What are we talking about here?
I'm not even surprised you can't even follow your own post.

That's not even a "no you"