:
|
I think that most games are pretty repetitive no matter the genre. Probably one of the reasons I have trouble finishing a lot of them.
|
Precisely, the trouble with these games is that they become so dull that they aren't worth finishing. Also, when you're on the battlefield you don't just pull a trigger and aim a gun, there are tons of other things to do. I don't care about some shitty definition of the genre "shooter" either, the fact of the matter is that plenty of other games have been called "first person shooters" and had many things to do besides just gunning things. It's attitudes like that which causes these shite games in the first place Sligster, perhaps you ought to wait till you're in the industry and actually know what you're talking about before you go making claims about genre definitions? It's true that a shooter involves shooting, but it doesn't have to be the main method of progression or even a method of progression at all. Look at Splinter Cell for instance, that's a Third Person Shooter, and yet the game designers made it possible to play through the whole thing without ever shooting your gun.
Fact of the matter is, above all, these "gunonly" games (as I like to call them) are boring. Nobody likes to do the same old shit over and over and over, so most people will give it a break after a while (unless they truely have no taste). Especially if it's lame to begin with. What games need is a number of things to do at any given time, and also a number of different methods of progression. A good game is one that is so open ended, you can literally play it how YOU want.
Games shouldn't be a goddamn chore.