this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
32 points (90.0% liked)

Gaming

19942 readers
139 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think they did. The genre could do that all by itself regardless of Halo or CoD. It also feels like there can only be so many creative weapons. Ratchet & Clank reused the same handful of templates after only a handful of entries.

[–] frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

We used to have flak cannons, tri-barreled rocket launchers, railguns-a-plenty, and rifles that straight-up shot everything from super-heated(and occasionally explosive) circular saw blades to literal lightning bolts. What do we have now? Licensed out dime-a-dozen replicas of the same like 30 weapons that keep spilling innocent blood in the hands of irl barbarians; I refuse to believe that would've just been 'the end game anyway' assuming a world without military spectacle as a genre. Not knowing how much Pentagon money goes into military spectacle.

At least Halo tries to look like it didn't jump off the weapons rack at your nearest military outpost's armory. Fails about half the time, but it at least tries.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

The sci-fi games that didn't just jump off the weapons rack gave us assault rifles with chainsaws on the end of them. Ratchet & Clank has no connection to the military industrial complex and gave us the same handful of templates within only about 5 years of the franchise. There's just only so much you can do with a weapon that's essentially a gun. Maybe you get one really unique-feeling weapon every game, but you can't get an entire arsenal of that every game.