MuraRengan
Banned via Warnings
Recently, Guiness had a poll for the best game series of all time. With about 13,000 votes counted, Zelda lost to Halo and CoD, taking third place.
I still annoys me that Zelda, which had been a gaming icon years before both of these titles, could lose out to two FPS's. However this was a poll, and people's opinions will be what they are.
However the principle of the matter still stands: Zelda should never have lost to CoD or Halo because their fame came only through multiplayer, which takes far less effort in creating a game that people will play. Zelda achieved what both those series did without the aid of multiplayer long before either of those titles were on the map because of the effort put into making the game a "quality" gaming experience.
So I took the matter to one of my friends, and we discussed it. He's a rather new gamer (first console was PS2,) and he defended Halo and CoD's worth as "quality" games. His position is that the quality in those games is in the innovative implementations of the multiplayer, and that, as a whole, games that survive on multiplayer should not be discounted in consideration of "quality" gameplay.
I still disagree with this and feel that the Zelda series and other non-multiplayer based series which are acclaimed as great games (Metroid, MGS, FF, ToSeries, etc.) should always take priority over multiplayer FPS's when it comes to what a good game is. What games like this do is appeal to a part of the person that is on a more personal level. For all FPS's, the enjoyment is always associated with other people, there is nothing to personally enjoy.
To that point, he brought up the GTA series, to which I replied that the series garners most of it's attention though childish desires to go on rampages and such, not actual attention to the story. He disagreed saying that there is a large portion of people who play GTA for the story.
Even still, the topic is up to one's preference. I'd like to see what other people feel about this. It seems to me that true quality is going to the wayside.
I still annoys me that Zelda, which had been a gaming icon years before both of these titles, could lose out to two FPS's. However this was a poll, and people's opinions will be what they are.
However the principle of the matter still stands: Zelda should never have lost to CoD or Halo because their fame came only through multiplayer, which takes far less effort in creating a game that people will play. Zelda achieved what both those series did without the aid of multiplayer long before either of those titles were on the map because of the effort put into making the game a "quality" gaming experience.
So I took the matter to one of my friends, and we discussed it. He's a rather new gamer (first console was PS2,) and he defended Halo and CoD's worth as "quality" games. His position is that the quality in those games is in the innovative implementations of the multiplayer, and that, as a whole, games that survive on multiplayer should not be discounted in consideration of "quality" gameplay.
I still disagree with this and feel that the Zelda series and other non-multiplayer based series which are acclaimed as great games (Metroid, MGS, FF, ToSeries, etc.) should always take priority over multiplayer FPS's when it comes to what a good game is. What games like this do is appeal to a part of the person that is on a more personal level. For all FPS's, the enjoyment is always associated with other people, there is nothing to personally enjoy.
To that point, he brought up the GTA series, to which I replied that the series garners most of it's attention though childish desires to go on rampages and such, not actual attention to the story. He disagreed saying that there is a large portion of people who play GTA for the story.
Even still, the topic is up to one's preference. I'd like to see what other people feel about this. It seems to me that true quality is going to the wayside.
