Games you are playing

[Twat]

[scy]

... It is a 2D side scrolling action game. Not a 2D side scrolling turn-based RPG or brawler. By virtue of it being an action game, it denotes a certain style of combat much like a brawler or RPG denotes a certain style of combat.

[spoiler]Yeah yeah RPG elements in Castlevania zOMG DIFFERENT COMBAT NOW[/spoiler]

[Twat]

[scy]

Again, I'm not saying they're exact clones (I even SAY THEY'RE DIFFERENT) I'm saying the basis of it are the same (I suppose I should use similar but fuck it doesn't matter). I'm saying they're closely related to the point you wouldn't call them two separate genres of gaming. Metroid games and Castlevania games fall under the 2D side-scrolling action genre. If you hate Metroid with an undying passion for how the game plays out, you'll probably hate Castlevania. Note the probably.

And, again, you're getting lost in the specifics. I'm merely saying the root combat system are similar. Much like comparing two turn-based RPGs you'd still say "they're turn-based" even if it's say, an ATB versus the SMT Press-turn system. Or the various Tales of games Action RPG combat system vs Star Ocean. If you had to describe them, you'd say "turn-based" for the ATB/Press-turn and "action RPG" for Tales/Star Ocean. They then can differ from each other enough to make you like one but not the other but they're still the same sub-genre of RPG.

[spoiler]Ironically, no matter how different they are, people here still hate FPS/TPS with a passion. Then again, all the big name blockbuster ones are all SUPERTOUGHSPACEMARINE so yeah ... But I like FPS for some twitch-based fun so ... yeah.[/spoiler]

Edit: This is so interrupting my watching of Fringe.

[spoiler]Anna Torv is so the voice of Nariko from Heavenly Sword ... they sound the same (and shit, similar looks too).[/spoiler]

[Twat]

[scy]

Probably a giant misunderstanding but I believe I get your point. I'm talking about the level PRIOR to the details you keep bringing up. The details change things (such as the panic mechanics you bring up) yes but that difference is relevant because there's a similarity in the two to makes that detail matter.

I'm saying by virtue of the same genre, you can say "they play similarly BUT..." The differences exist and set them apart. I've said that. I'm saying they are similar enough to compare them by saying "The Castlevania games are like the Metroid ones BUT..." and you can go from there. Like your post explaining the differences. They are different mechanically and the goal of the different tools given to you in the games but it works off the fundamental basic premise of the 2D sidescrolling action game. To explain these differences, you're working off the very point I'm making: they're similar to a point.

You've been going on and on about the differences between them but the differences STEM FROM their similarities. Yes, if we want to break it down enough we can pull things back enough to the very fundamental levels of gaming (they're the same because you move a bunch of pixels and interact with other pixels) but it's rather absurd. I'm saying that they're within the same (sub)-genre and have a host of similarities. If you hate those fundamental aspects you'll probably hate other games within the same genre. There's a lot of mights/maybes in there since, as we've both said, the small differences can make or break a game to a person.

Yeah, I can give you Final Fantasy III and Rhapsody and they play differently in the end. But if someone who is a staunch hater of turn-based RPG games in general asked for a suggestion, you'd know to suggest neither. You can try and, "...but it does it differently!" but it still starts at the same point: a turn-based RPG. It is merely a quick way to get them into thinking of a certain type of game.

The genre / sub-genre / sub-sub-genre / JESUS CHRIST ALREADY have an impact because the labels have prior knowledge associated to them. If I say "open-world" you know what type of game to think of; platformer, FPS, TPS, Real-time Strategy, Sim, Sports, etc. They're used to give a basic outline of a game where you can then go on about the finer details that alter gameplay (the look, feel, and so-forth of the game).

Edit: If nothing else, I think it just stems from the fact I still believe that "genres" still have a meaning to people. The majority of players are still of the mindset of disliking some games in a certain genre (or just one game in it) means they'll dislike them all. It's an unfortunate thing but, sadly, still true. I mean, some of them make sense (wouldn't recommend Silent Hill to someone easily frightened or Mirror's Edge to someone who gets vertigo) but there's still a lot of "JRPGs/FPS/Platformer/PIE/etc. suck" people out there.

[spoiler]For all I say, I very much sit on the "you don't like X game type but Y game does X differently so you should try it!" I don't really believe in disliking a game merely due to the genre; I'll perhaps be wary of it but I'm not going to flat out ignore it due to it not being something I already have enjoy (and, as such, I now enjoy pretty much every genre for different reasons).

However, that doesn't mean I won't use genre/sub-genres/etc. to describe a game quickly so people can get a feel for it. It isn't an end-all label. It is the STARTING point of game description.[/spoiler]

[Twat]

[ZetaBladeX13]

[scy]

[Twat]

[scy]

[Twat]

[scy]

[Twat]

[Vapour Trail]