What I'm trying to say is that if you actually think about it, every genre has so much variation that saying all games of it are the same, lack something, and so on is pointless. They're the exact same in certain aspects, but the way they approach it is different. Some are more linear and some are more open-world. But no matter what, the overall concept of the genre never changes. Shooters, both Tactical and Shoot 'Em Up, you shoot things. Platformers, both 3D and 2D, collect something or get to a certain point. RPGs, create a character and level up. Puzzles, you solve a puzzle. You see what I'm saying here? The scenario may change, the gameplay may change so radically it's not funny, the features may change, but it's really all the same. The cariety is no different from that of another genre regardless of what anyone says. If people are going to complain about the abundance of one genre without thinking about that, then they better criticize every single genre for the same thing.
Still not seeing it all too much. First off, Portal is a puzzle FPS, not a platformer. Platformers never take place in first person. Look at Half-Life, plenty of puzzles in there. What do you do in Platformers? You run, jump, and get to different places. Not much different in theory.
Shooters have all guns a' blazing ones like Call of Duty. Then you have tactical shooters, like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and the like. Do you shoot enemies? Yes. Can you run in and kill everything? Not even on the lowest difficulty. Your enemies can kill you with just a few hits, and you can't take them alone, hence your team. This makes them so wildly different from, say, Call of Duty. So different that fans of one may hate the other one for being unrealistic or simply for being realistic. Are you shooting enemies in both of them? Yes. Do they play the same? Oh, f*ck no! They play so different that it's just like the split between 2D and 3D platformers. Then take Portal, where you shoot things, walls mostly, and it's a puzzle that you get from point A to Point B. So much different from the others. Then you have stealth ones, like Hitman, Metro (if you play on the Ranger difficulties like I do, you have to use stealth), and Splinter Cell. May I also add shooter RPGs like Fallout and to an extent, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series (which isn't a full RPG, but has RPG elements). Not to mention survival ones like Fallout and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Or the variation of scenarios in each game?
I fail to see more difference between platformers of the same type because you're still running, jumping, and getting from one place to another, collecting something, and so on. Honestly, they're exactly the same in the way that there are so many of them and they change certain things to make new ones. What's different from 2D and 3D platformers? Mainly the freedom of where you can go, but the concept's the same.
I don't see how it's any more obvious. Please, give a true example on why they're more obvious, and perhaps I'll consider it.
New shooters offer new guns, characters, maps, plots, and features. Doesn't sound like anything different than an addition to any other genre to me.
He does have a good voice, but it's not like I'd say "I want to listen to that." I could go on about Vocaloids and why I hate them if you'd like.
I don't. Sounds a lot like shooters. And you don't like the multiplayer? Why? I know some games are ****ing hacklabs, but still. What sets these platformers apart? A minor change to the gameplay? Maybe a slightly new feature? Perhaps a different goal? Different levels or characters? Seems no different from the load of shooters out there. Platformers are the same way, but don't get unjustly torn apart for it. I'm by no means saying platformers are bad. I like them, and love some. I'm just saying that the overflow of platformers is no different from the overflow of shooters, yet nobody rips those things apart.
Of course! N.W.A. and Eminem are pretty good, but modern rap is the definition of ****. I only know Justin Timberlake of those two. While I'm not into his music, he's funny when on Saturday Night Live. Vocaloids, ugh. I hate them. I hate them so much. What do they do? They take singers and say, "We don't need you, computers sound much better." How I don't mind voice effects, heck they can help set the mood, Vocaloids have vioces that are jut annoying. Once my friend showed me some and I said, "Eh, they're not my thing," I end up seeing them almost everywhere, and that might be why I hate them. Because so many people like them when they take no talent to use or make. Singing, now that's difficult, being a singer, I can tell you that using a piece of software isn't hard when compared to using your physical voice to sound good. Sorry, personal rant. I tend to do that. ^^;
Similar? Yes. Same? Far from it. I mean, I understand if they're not someone's thing, but the average reasoning for why hey get so much hate is something I really complain about. I mean, multiplayer in shooters such as Battlefield is really fun. Basically, my point is that they don't deserve all the hate they get. It annoys the hell out of me. If it's because the market's so flooded with them, why don't people complain when a platformer game comes out? There's more of those than shooters!
No, you didn't. I was just explaining almost everyone's misconception. People often compare Cash's cover to the original NIN version, and I like them both. I think I prefer NIN's because NIN is just more my style. But Johnny Cash's cover is still really amazing. Hrm, interesting.
Now, music I don't like. Most rap, I will make the occasional exception, and actually love Rage Against the Machine's unique rap/rock genre, but modern rap is absolute ****. Same goes for pop. Hate the genre. Oh, and songs about heartbreak. Now, there are exceptions, like if the person was cheating, or they were abusive, but plain-old heartbreak songs annoy the **** out of me. It makes me want to say "Grow a pair and move on!" Oh, and may I add Vocaloids to the list of musical dislikes? God, I hate them.