Rayved posted...I never liked god of war. It's just a copy of Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed and the likes.
I meant the genre and gameplay of these games, not the games themselves.
Kentaro21 posted...Rayved posted...I never liked god of war. It's just a copy of Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed and the likes.
Oh. Not so ironic then.
GoW a AC or PoP clone?
yeah, I don't see that at all
what it is is a Devil may Cry clone, and not a good one at that.
Waiting for golden Sun 3DS
2 things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. I'm not sure about the Universe, though -Albert Einstein
rajin_donuts posted...God of War = Boring and uninspired. I suppose the God of War games are worth playing if you don't pay more than $10 for one of them. But then again, you play one God of War game, you've played all the God of War games.
I posted this in response to someone who said almost the exact same thing a page or two ago:
-Perhaps. But I think there is enough variation between most Zelda games to hold your point moot.-
i've played both games and i can say that zelda is far better. god of war gets EXTREMEMLY boring! it's like one of them games where you finish the story once and you're like, "that's it, i'm done. pretty cool game" then the game just sits there covered in dust with the rest of your other boring games you don't play. THAT'S ME! lol
so yeah zelda is more of a fun game. there's alot more you can actually do. and you get alot of upgrades and such. and not to mention zelda is free roaming! which makes it more awesome! god of war is like the legend of spyro games, finish a level and you never go back to it AT ALL! (even though i actually really love spyro) it just continues with the story. moving on. games like that can get boring (unless it's pretty good...)
then again, i've played that sleeping dogs game for xbox 360 which was free roam....jeez....i don't know....THAT was also a really boring game....*sigh*
I am really into mythology, namely as I am a "Pagan", but I have never been drawn to play 'God of War' as I am not sure I like the character. I do like Zelda, even though, I think it could be deeper than it is and has it's problems like the fact it's getting stale. The same dungeons and it's always has a mention of or has Gannon in the game. Otherwise, I would say that Zelda is a better game that really isn't aimed at a niche audience like God of War.
Thanks to my dislike of Final Fantasy XIII, I looked back on ALL Final Fantasy games and now which one I like for what reason. Angry blame XIII.
Is piss better than wine?
Zelda is like a fine wine, and it gets better with age (to some degree, cough, skyward sword)
But in 20 years, no one's gonna care about GOW. Hell, not many people care now.
If by some miricle GOW is still around in 20 years, then you can post this topic, and I won't think you're an idiot, but by then, i guess you'll be 30 yrs old, and your gaming tastes will have changed....
trollhunter2 posted...rajin_donuts posted...God of War = Boring and uninspired. I suppose the God of War games are worth playing if you don't pay more than $10 for one of them. But then again, you play one God of War game, you've played all the God of War games.
actually nope. Its still the OOT formula, just on different landscapes. But why should gow or zelda innovate, when the formular is almost perfect
Official Alundra of PSASBR Board
just add me psn: Naijaplaya
They're two different types of games entirely. Not comparable in the slightest beyond having some similar items and a mythological/fantasy setting. Might as well compare Final Fantasy IV to War Z because both have zombies in them. Buuuuuttt....
I say yes. God of war has way better combat, better weapons, a character that talks, gore, WAY better boss fights, better puzzles
First off, what is 'better'? You can like one thing more than another, but 'more' doesn't mean 'better'. Ever. I can say CoDMW3 has a stronger graphics card, but that doesn't mean it's better by default than FFVII whose graphics looked like Legos. I can say, objectively, that Action 52 takes more time to beat than Portal on average. Doesn't mean Action 52 is better. More =/= better.
God of war has way better combat,
God of War's combat is highly action-based with a focus on mini-QTE's. Zelda's combat tends to be tactical item-based with a focus on defense and openings. You can see this difference blatantly in how they defend. Kratos relies mostly on rolls while dodging high-powered attacks. Link relies largely on his shield and anticipating an enemy move before responding so he can access an opening. The two are entirely different.
However, in GoW, you can rely almost entirely on your default blades and whip out any unique weapons ONLY for special occasions. This is reflected in the game where upgrades are assigned by the player to specific weapons. Zelda games are not the same. Yes, you can play through only using the basic sword, but the game pushes you to becoming a full-spectrum warrior. Upgrades are acquired through various events and not through bonus-assignment. Two players can have wildly different playstyles and be statistically identical. Someone who uses the bow in combat won't have more arrows than someone who ignores it entirely and may even have less without exploration. This makes combat very different as Zelda games rely on the player exploring despite a growth-system that will not be reflective of the player. God of War allows the player to focus only on certain things and disregard others with 0 consequence.
Both have a varied selection of weapons. However, most of Kratos's are geared towards one, single, purpose and are largely useless outside of that one purpose. When you don't have an enemy to freeze Medusa's head is simply worthless. Poseidon's fury doesn't do much outside of killing off gathered weaker enemies, and so-forth. The weapons in the Zelda games tend to be highly varied and need to be used in tandem in order to be effective. Chucking bombs does little unless the enemy is stunned with the boomerang for example. Additionally, the Zelda weapons tend to have many, many, non-combat uses. One could even claim that their combat uses are an after-thought to their utility uses. God of War simply does not have that. Winner: Zelda.
a character that talks,
Talking doesn't make a character more relatable. If it was, Navi would be the best character ever. There are many ways to tell narrative in a game and explore character. Talking is just one of them. Want proof of this? Imagine Kratos talking with a stereotypical southern drawl. No line-changes, just an accent one.
Yea. No. Gore does not make a game better. Simple as that.
WAY better boss fights,
Subjective at best. I will simply agree that someone can like the boss fights in GoW more than Zelda without problems.
GoW puzzles tend to revolve around one thing. Pushing crates or, maybe, a leaver if you're lucky. That simply isn't true for Zelda as has been shown by the number of people stumped by the water temple. Unless 'better' means 'easier', no. Just no.
Math with Vi!
My 2 fists - 1 of your face = 1 dead foe.
From: Newave | #040I'm not a fan of GoW, I only really liked Chains of Olympus on PSP of the ones I've played (haven't played Ghost of Sparta yet, so I might like that one as well) and I kind of like Link to the Past, Link's Awakening and Oracle of Seasons, but story, characters, settings, designs, controls, puzzles etc. are all infinitely superior in the GoW games, there's no point denying that.
Please don't misunderstand, just because the puzzles in GoW are generally better doesn't mean they're good, like you said, both are straight forward and easy to solve, literally the opposite of what makes a good puzzle, both games lack good puzzles but the ones in Zelda games are as a rule aimed toward a younger audience and thus even worse.
And I never said you CAN'T deny it, I just said there's no point in doing so.
Take Link as a character for example, he's completely void of a personality, he just follows the script as an avatar for the player, he's literally as deep as a SIMS you made by pressing the random button.
Now compare that to Kratos, an annoying douche he may be and his story doesn't interest me at all but he's got tons of personality and a very deep story explaining a lot about him and his life regardless of my taste regarding it.
So in Zelda games you play as a general avatar for you, the player, and it applies to anyone so it can't be deep because the more depth the less generally applicable it becomes, versus in GoW where you take on a very specific role of a fully fleshed out character.
Sure, one may argue that it's "better" having a generic no-character as the main character so the player can more easily identify and take on the role as the character, and I would agree if it was done well, in Zelda games however they don't let you do that properly, they just keep Link as a shallow character but act as if he's a very specific one in the rest of the game, the game never changes because the person playing Link does, it just keeps everything vague and shallow from beginning to end, in every single game, making every game significantly more shallow and lacking of necessary depth that GoW has tons of, and not just for a hack n' slash but for games in general it has a lot of depth in the story and main character and isn't something worth denying for the sake of denying.
I have: NES, GB, GBA(3), PSX(5), DC, PS2, PSP(2), GC(2), Wii, XB(2), XB360
I want: GBP, GBL, GBC, SNES, MD, MCD, 32X, SS, PS3, PSV
Add user to Ignore List after reporting