in first person shooters you are either seeking revenge or are the savior and most of the time both. third person usually entails story and more unique characteristics and are either going to be espionage being a savior character or a swordplay type game whole way through. when it all boils down to it. you portray some person mindlessly killing the exact same person who has apparently self replicated enough to create an army, kill the top dog who can only die by hitting one part of their body. and thus you win.
i myself play many different types play all action gamesof action video games and i cant understand why (apart from some bull story or wild graphics, because people dont play games for that. not that they arent nice, but thats what movies are for) people think one game (including myself) find one shooter/action game better than another. you have a grudge/reason. you have a weapon. and you kill the person responsible after killing everything you see up until that point.
just a thought for discussion. i know video game companies probably have an exact answer. i myself refuse to spend more than 5 dollars on play all action gamesany game. but they must have a pure unbiased answer otherwise they would be a video game company and people wouldnt chuck 60 bucks out the window for a few hours of pretend interaction.
phone lines are open, back to the question. why, when they are all essentially the same, are shooter/action games better or worse than another?
It has to do with the plot being engaging or not, the genre preference (do you like Western stuff? Aliens? Military?) also the gameplay, etc. Many games are similar but it's the small things that differentiate them.
No comments:
Post a Comment