Thread: Really Random thread

I've already said my disilike for Ratchet's death scene before.
It's very similar to how I feel about Sully's death in UC3 aswell. I think that if they wanted to make it so nonsensical then they should've at least stuck to their guns.
What we have now is simply there for shock value just to get people talking about the game. It doesn't even add anything to the story, in fact they even had to add a stupid and contrived rule to the way the Clock works just so they could have that scene.
It's stupid and I'm glad TJ's not writing for the series anymore…

Incidentally, I wonder if anything happens if you take more than six minutes to get to the chamber after Azimuth kills Ratchet…

This is pretty stupid too and it breaks the immersion like nothing else. I know that rule is already nonsensical but they could've at least made it consistent with the gameplay. Although having a time limit and then a player who doesn't know of the "twist" exceed the time limit could kill the moment, so I get why they didn't do it.

That's like saying Ratchet died in the middle of a game level, but he just respwaned.

What I mean is to have your controllable character killed in a cutscene or even gameplay in a meaningful way that has you required to continue as another character, with the knowledge that the former controllable character is dead in the universe. It is when this happens that you can feel sad that the character is died… that is until he comes back and turns out to be alive.

Really dying ingame and respawning is only good for frustrating people, in never really makes a person sad like games such as The Last of Us, inFamous and even Metal Gear Solid.

The Last of Us SPOILER

EDIT:

I've already said my disilike for Ratchet's death scene before.
It's very similar to how I feel about Sully's death in UC3 aswell. I think that if they wanted to make it so nonsensical then they should've at least stuck to their guns.
What we have now is simply there for shock value just to get people talking about the game. It doesn't even add anything to the story, in fact they even had to add a stupid and contrived rule to the way the Clock works just so they could have that scene.
It's stupid and I'm glad TJ's not writing for the series anymore…

I see your point, and I too don't like when games can't stand by their decisions to kill off characters. Uncharted 3 really pulled me in when Sully died, and it did piss me off a fair bit, so I went pretty easy on the game for bringing him back… so I guess that one fooled me, but I understand your frustration, and if Sully stayed dead it would have made the game more meaningful, although less happy, which is why Ratchet & Clank could never really kill off any characters.

Just seeing Cronk and Zephyr living as ghosts at the end is really trying to lighten the mood and say "look, they've died, but we can still get a few laughs in and show how they're doing in the afterlife, like they're still alive in a way!"

That's overthinking it.

Regarding Cronk and Zephyr's deaths… well I don't like it either.
ItN makes a pretty big deal about Cronk and Zephyr dying, but when you think about it the only meaningful interactions Ratchet has with them is a few one-liners in A4O, it's hard to believe he'd care so much, so why should we?
Their deaths, much like Ratchet's, are there simply for shock value.
They couldn't kill off Talwyn (despite that being much more emotional) since she's a main character, so killing off a few disposable characters just to say "Hey, ItN is very edgy since meaningful characters die, truly the pinnacle of storytelling" was the ideal solution.

Also does anyone remember Qwark's death in UYA? I do, because it didn't suck. It managed to have meaningful character interactions between all members of the Q-Force but it still had a tongue-in-cheek attitude because it recognised we shouldn't really care about Qwark since Ratchet shouldn't care either. That's why I don't mind it when he comes back but I do when Ratchet or Sully do.

Anyway, that's my rant for today unless someone cares enough to reply.

Your rant is acceptable. It could be worse. Someone gave ITN a fail simply because of RatchetXTawlyn moments!

As one of the ACiT fans… I would say this: do you hate us that much?

I am completely confused as to what that is implying out of context.

EDIT: Oh, you've edited it to take the name out and identify the quote as your own… well I guess now my comment is slightly less relevant.

We don't hate you and we don't hate ACiT (at least I don't), but we notice some big flaws in it's story.

I usually don't pull games apart as much as some people around here do

I simply enjoy them for what they are, and while I notice a lot of the flaws people point out, I'm quite good at ignoring them… which is what makes me like so many games, and have such meaningless opinions :oui:


…well, not like there was ever such a thing as a meaningful opinion loljk

I simply enjoy them for what they are, and while I notice a lot of the flaws people point out, I'm quite good at ignoring them… which is what makes me like so many games, and have such meaningless opinions :oui:

Exactly. Overthinking fiction just ruining the entire thing for yourself. Sometimes a writer sacrifises logic to make something nice out of it. You think that Fixman didn't see those flaws. He's nose deep into the story himself.

Sometimes a writer sacrifises logic to make something nice out of it.

I would polemize

I usually don't pull games apart as much as some people around here do

I simply enjoy them for what they are, and while I notice a lot of the flaws people point out, I'm quite good at ignoring them… which is what makes me like so many games, and have such meaningless opinions :oui:

Me too! I ignored the flaws from Ace Combat: Assault Horizon, until someone said the storyline is too Call of Duty influenced and that the helicopter gameplay was too un-Ace Combat, and since then, my love of the game goes down, but not until to the point I hate it.

But, there is one game with flaws that I couldn't ignore: Damage Inc.: Pacific Squadron. The levels were hard to be beaten, and it has an annoying glitch: it froze after a cutscene. So, after halfway through, I decided to bail out and not playing it (though maybe I would continue playing it later)

Sometimes a writer sacrifises logic to make something nice out of it.

I would polemize

What? You didn't like any of the events in ACiT?


Great example of a small flaw is Mass Effect Trilogy. There's humans and multiple alien races. Each race carries a translator around which clarifies why everyone speaks English. But when everyone actually speaks a different language and the English is something only you can hear…. then how do their lips synch? Don't know, don't care.

What? You didn't like any of the events in ACiT?

No, I liked Clank, I liked Qwark and Nefarious, I liked all these various species you get to meet, I loved the Space Radio ads… But in my opinion, TJ tried to be so 'epic' and 'dramatic' way too much.

I simply enjoy them for what they are, and while I notice a lot of the flaws people point out, I'm quite good at ignoring them… which is what makes me like so many games, and have such meaningless opinions :oui:

Exactly. Overthinking fiction just ruining the entire thing for yourself. Sometimes a writer sacrifises logic to make something nice out of it. You think that Fixman didn't see those flaws. He's nose deep into the story himself.

The problem here is that he didn't create anything nice out of the plot holes.
I'm not overthinking it, I'm simply pointing out very obvious flaws. I would be able to look past these flaws if what they had created was interesting in any way, but it isn't.
The only parts of ACiT's story I enjoyed were Qwark and the space radio stations, which coincidentally are the least impactful thing on the story.

I can describe how I felt about ACiT in a word: pretentious.
It thinks it has this fantastic story and is trying to make a big deal out of nothing. How am I supposed to take a game series about an anthropomorphic tiger thing and his metal back pack seriously?
This is why I love the PS2 games' story so much. They're simple and entertaining. If TJ had been there since the beginning do you really think we would have Clank parodying James Bond?
The reason I fell in love with the series was how its simple story managed to entertain me so much for 12 years.

ACiT didn't do that for me, and I've got the feeling that if the movie ends up being good then it's probably because the first game was already great to begin with.