What Fallout 4's base building system needed was a system from the old PS2 game Dark Cloud 2
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 12:16 AM PST
I realized today while playing Fallout 4 that a relatively small amount of work could have made a huge difference if they had based it off a system from a very old favorite of mine Dark Cloud 2.
See, what Dark Cloud 2's base building system had was a list of different rewards/criteria to enable certain changes (you set the criteria up in the past and then use an in-game mechanic to travel to the future and access the town that evolved from your small village).
It meant you had certain specific goals that allowed a greater change to occur, that you could fulfill in many creative ways.
How would it work in Fallout 4? Imagine that Spectacle Island had a certain requirement of wood structures to be built, then it unlocked a wooden pier that extended your build area over the water. If you connected enough power to a built in plug on the island you would light a lighthouse and boost your traders profit.
If you built enough concrete structures in Sanctuary Hills it would repair the bridge. Enough wood structures and you restore the fishing pier, providing extra food. Enough defense + the repaired bridge would give you a defended bridge and guaranteed victory from attacks even if you don't go to defend.
If you build a bed, 3 containers, and a work bench in Home Base you get a plug into the city power grid with unlimited energy. A couple more amenities and maybe you rent the bed out for 25 caps a night every night you don't sleep there. A extra layer of amenities upgrades your price to 50 caps a night.
Obviously with The Castle you have great rewards in repairing the walls (build X concrete structures near wall, they disappear and wall is fixed, increasing the mortar range (building a workshop), increasing flare response strength (building an armory) and range (building a watch tower), and a couple others.
Maybe some criteria could increase the population cap, provide free resources, either food, water, defense, or happiness. Some could extend the build area, or change it in some way, perhaps cleaning it up. The most interesting are probably the faction bases which give opportunities to upgrade the faction rewards. Imagine having a Railroad HQ you build on the surface where a workshop unlocks ballistic weave and you're attacked often by the institute but advance the railroad story by providing a safe, public place for runaway synths to find sanctuary.
The goal is to make each base unique and to give instant rewards to providing a good base, instead of how it currently is where each base is unique only in shape and the only rewards come slowly.
What do you guys think? Maybe something that future Bethesda games can take advantage of?
Edit: I may not have described the system well enough. Here is an example translated to fallout: Place 2 crafting stations with 10 decorations together within X range to qualify as a "workshop". Having that workshop would fulfill a criteria, say at The Castle, that would extend your mortar's range.
submitted by /u/Urbanscuba See, what Dark Cloud 2's base building system had was a list of different rewards/criteria to enable certain changes (you set the criteria up in the past and then use an in-game mechanic to travel to the future and access the town that evolved from your small village).
It meant you had certain specific goals that allowed a greater change to occur, that you could fulfill in many creative ways.
How would it work in Fallout 4? Imagine that Spectacle Island had a certain requirement of wood structures to be built, then it unlocked a wooden pier that extended your build area over the water. If you connected enough power to a built in plug on the island you would light a lighthouse and boost your traders profit.
If you built enough concrete structures in Sanctuary Hills it would repair the bridge. Enough wood structures and you restore the fishing pier, providing extra food. Enough defense + the repaired bridge would give you a defended bridge and guaranteed victory from attacks even if you don't go to defend.
If you build a bed, 3 containers, and a work bench in Home Base you get a plug into the city power grid with unlimited energy. A couple more amenities and maybe you rent the bed out for 25 caps a night every night you don't sleep there. A extra layer of amenities upgrades your price to 50 caps a night.
Obviously with The Castle you have great rewards in repairing the walls (build X concrete structures near wall, they disappear and wall is fixed, increasing the mortar range (building a workshop), increasing flare response strength (building an armory) and range (building a watch tower), and a couple others.
Maybe some criteria could increase the population cap, provide free resources, either food, water, defense, or happiness. Some could extend the build area, or change it in some way, perhaps cleaning it up. The most interesting are probably the faction bases which give opportunities to upgrade the faction rewards. Imagine having a Railroad HQ you build on the surface where a workshop unlocks ballistic weave and you're attacked often by the institute but advance the railroad story by providing a safe, public place for runaway synths to find sanctuary.
The goal is to make each base unique and to give instant rewards to providing a good base, instead of how it currently is where each base is unique only in shape and the only rewards come slowly.
What do you guys think? Maybe something that future Bethesda games can take advantage of?
Edit: I may not have described the system well enough. Here is an example translated to fallout: Place 2 crafting stations with 10 decorations together within X range to qualify as a "workshop". Having that workshop would fulfill a criteria, say at The Castle, that would extend your mortar's range.
[link] [comments]
Skyrim Special Edition, random events and improvements for next games
Posted: 20 Dec 2016 07:50 PM PST
So, this is my third Skyrim purchase. (Skyrim PC, Skyrim PS3 and now Skyrim Special Edition). I have put in at a least 100 hours on each one with hundreds of hours on the PC version. And it really has me thinking about what it means to play an open world game. Skyrim is open world but is pretty different from Witcher 3 and a completely different genre from GTA5 open world.
What draws me to Skyrim, maybe Witcher 3 is close, I like knowing that the universe is completely unpredictable. Or, at least it seems unpredictable. There is a lot of 'canned/scripted' randomness, where a NPC delivers a message to you and launches some completely unexpected quest. Or, maybe you are walking along and then suddenly you portal into some strange land. There is a lot of that, but I like it when maybe you make a mistake and then everyone is attacking you. Normally you might restart the game, but in Skyrim, it happens all the time that you might be randomly attacked, I just go with it. Walking into a random house or just running into a random NPC seems to initiate interesting or not-so interesting quests. Or if the dragons attack and you let them scorch the town around you. With Skyrim, it seems like my play through is going to be completely different than another players and that just adds to the immersion factor.
And sure, a lot of open worlds have this, but it seems that every NPC has a quest or most of the NPCs or dungeons are associated with a quest. I hope other games take advantage of unexpected scenarios.
I see some improvements as well, Skyrim could have removed the main quests all together. I have put in about 15 hours just on the Volkihar Vampire Clan set of quests alone. That is a complete main quest. And then the Mage's quest kind of stands alone. Sure, you don't need to follow the Dragonborne main story but some players may end up completely that and then not finishing the other side quests. It is clear the joining the vampires is a side quest, maybe you aren't as pressured to finish. That is one improvement I would suggest.
I also wish, your side quests and the clans you join had more of an impact on the world around you. If you become a vampire, the Dawnstar Guard will randomly attack you ("those are those unexpected events") and NPCs will comment on how pale you are, but it doesn't seem to really impact your game. I don't know, if you are a vampire, it seems like you can't buy a house outside of Volkihar or adopt kids. I know the Bethasda developers thought about how your story may impact the world but it doesn't seem like enough.
submitted by /u/berlinbrown What draws me to Skyrim, maybe Witcher 3 is close, I like knowing that the universe is completely unpredictable. Or, at least it seems unpredictable. There is a lot of 'canned/scripted' randomness, where a NPC delivers a message to you and launches some completely unexpected quest. Or, maybe you are walking along and then suddenly you portal into some strange land. There is a lot of that, but I like it when maybe you make a mistake and then everyone is attacking you. Normally you might restart the game, but in Skyrim, it happens all the time that you might be randomly attacked, I just go with it. Walking into a random house or just running into a random NPC seems to initiate interesting or not-so interesting quests. Or if the dragons attack and you let them scorch the town around you. With Skyrim, it seems like my play through is going to be completely different than another players and that just adds to the immersion factor.
And sure, a lot of open worlds have this, but it seems that every NPC has a quest or most of the NPCs or dungeons are associated with a quest. I hope other games take advantage of unexpected scenarios.
I see some improvements as well, Skyrim could have removed the main quests all together. I have put in about 15 hours just on the Volkihar Vampire Clan set of quests alone. That is a complete main quest. And then the Mage's quest kind of stands alone. Sure, you don't need to follow the Dragonborne main story but some players may end up completely that and then not finishing the other side quests. It is clear the joining the vampires is a side quest, maybe you aren't as pressured to finish. That is one improvement I would suggest.
I also wish, your side quests and the clans you join had more of an impact on the world around you. If you become a vampire, the Dawnstar Guard will randomly attack you ("those are those unexpected events") and NPCs will comment on how pale you are, but it doesn't seem to really impact your game. I don't know, if you are a vampire, it seems like you can't buy a house outside of Volkihar or adopt kids. I know the Bethasda developers thought about how your story may impact the world but it doesn't seem like enough.
[link] [comments]
Is there any merit to using the Dungeons and Dragons rules on a computer game these days, like some old RPGs used to do?
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 01:31 AM PST
During the late 90s and early 2000s there were a bunch of RPGs that attempted to adapt the rules of Dungeons and Dragons to a computer game. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment used rules heavily based on AD&D 2nd Edition, Neverwinter Nights 1 then used D&D 3rd Edition and Neverwinter Nights 2 went a step forward to D&D 3.5. After that it fell out of favor though, and I've never seen a game since then using literal dice rolls to define damage and such (e.g. where a spell would deal 2 to 12 damage, instead the game said "2d6")
Was there any merit to using pen and paper rules in a computer RPG? Would a modern RPG using D&D 5e rules be any fun?
submitted by /u/claralann Was there any merit to using pen and paper rules in a computer RPG? Would a modern RPG using D&D 5e rules be any fun?
[link] [comments]
When do you feel that you've been given "enough" for the price that you payed for a game?
Posted: 20 Dec 2016 12:32 PM PST
My question was inspired by a post in another thread where a user said that at one time, a 20 hour single player experience justified the $49.99 asking price. For me, that expectation hasn't really changed with $59.99 games.
I thought about my recent completion of Uncharted 4. In my play through, it took me longer than any of the previous Uncharted games to complete at almost 25 hours. It felt like a worthwhile experience for me even if I had paid full price for it, and that wasn't even considering the multiplayer that I've been having fun with even if it's kind of shallow/repetitive. To me, the combination of insanely good presentation, lengthy by my standards story, bonus offline content, and multiplayer have made this game well beyond worth it since I paid $39.99. This game would have satisfied my expectations at full price.
Now compare this to a game like GTAV, which can keep you busy in single player for a hundred hours if you want to complete all the missions and some side quests, plus keep you busy for another hundred hours in GTA: Online, and you could say that GTAV is even more worth it because it is crammed to the brim with content for the same price tag.
Or you could look at RPGs like The Witcher 3, Skyrim, etc. and say that those games give you hundreds of hours of a quality single player experience. Plus the benefit of multiple paths/endings (I'm assuming here, never played them) so you're getting more bang for the buck there too.
Now compare that to maybe an arcade racing game like Need for Speed (a hypothetical good iteration since there isn't a real good recent example of a quality arcade racer), and some might say that since you can complete this hypothetical game in 15 hours, it's not worth full price even though it has multiplayer and the single player experience was great. I would be one to say it is worth it if the racing is really fun and that might be because I like racing games.
From my perspective, I don't think there's really a way to compare an arcade racer and an RPG based on the price-to-fulfillment ratio because in my head, an RPG is supposed to be dozens of hours while arcade racers that I always enjoyed could be completed (everything unlocked) in less than 20.
Now this goes back to my prompt of what makes a game "worth it"? For me, because I tend to like single player action/adventure games and some racing games, a game is worth it when it has a decently lengthy story and is a fun experience to complete. But to someone who prefers playing RPGs, are they predisposed to look at a game like Uncharted or Gears of War and think, "Well I got way more game out of The Witcher 3, this isn't worth full price"? What do you look for in a game that you'd consider fulfilling based on the price you paid?
submitted by /u/shoveazy I thought about my recent completion of Uncharted 4. In my play through, it took me longer than any of the previous Uncharted games to complete at almost 25 hours. It felt like a worthwhile experience for me even if I had paid full price for it, and that wasn't even considering the multiplayer that I've been having fun with even if it's kind of shallow/repetitive. To me, the combination of insanely good presentation, lengthy by my standards story, bonus offline content, and multiplayer have made this game well beyond worth it since I paid $39.99. This game would have satisfied my expectations at full price.
Now compare this to a game like GTAV, which can keep you busy in single player for a hundred hours if you want to complete all the missions and some side quests, plus keep you busy for another hundred hours in GTA: Online, and you could say that GTAV is even more worth it because it is crammed to the brim with content for the same price tag.
Or you could look at RPGs like The Witcher 3, Skyrim, etc. and say that those games give you hundreds of hours of a quality single player experience. Plus the benefit of multiple paths/endings (I'm assuming here, never played them) so you're getting more bang for the buck there too.
Now compare that to maybe an arcade racing game like Need for Speed (a hypothetical good iteration since there isn't a real good recent example of a quality arcade racer), and some might say that since you can complete this hypothetical game in 15 hours, it's not worth full price even though it has multiplayer and the single player experience was great. I would be one to say it is worth it if the racing is really fun and that might be because I like racing games.
From my perspective, I don't think there's really a way to compare an arcade racer and an RPG based on the price-to-fulfillment ratio because in my head, an RPG is supposed to be dozens of hours while arcade racers that I always enjoyed could be completed (everything unlocked) in less than 20.
Now this goes back to my prompt of what makes a game "worth it"? For me, because I tend to like single player action/adventure games and some racing games, a game is worth it when it has a decently lengthy story and is a fun experience to complete. But to someone who prefers playing RPGs, are they predisposed to look at a game like Uncharted or Gears of War and think, "Well I got way more game out of The Witcher 3, this isn't worth full price"? What do you look for in a game that you'd consider fulfilling based on the price you paid?
[link] [comments]
Your Favorite Simulation Games, and Why
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 08:03 AM PST
This can be any type of simulation, whether it's a business simulator or just a virtual pet. It can be on any platform (PC, console, mobile) It can be Triple A, Indie, or even just a flash game. The only things I ask you to keep in mind when choosing are: 1. How complex are the systems? 2. Do these systems and mechanics do a good job at translating real-world experiences into game play? 3. How would you rate the games replayability? 4. Would you consider it a learning tool?
submitted by /u/codycantdie [link] [comments]
What game have you played the most and how many hours did you put into that game?
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 06:24 AM PST
For me it's an old classic, seeing as how I myself also am an old classic: netrek. I probably put close to 5000 hours into that game. No one plays it anymore, but there are still servers up and running. For more information, see playnetrek.org.
submitted by /u/knockoutpill [link] [comments]
A lot of people blame Bethesda games's jank and bugs on their engine and or lack of QA when the real culprit is team size
Posted: 17 Dec 2016 02:21 PM PST
The thing that some people don't seem to understand about bethesda is that at their core they are a very midsized developer made up of about 100 people. For a frame of reference CD project RED who made the witcher 3 had nearly twice the developers working on it. Also to touch on fallout 4's graphics yeah they do look somewhat out of date but you know what it makes sense considering the games practically been in development since 2012 and was most likely originally intended for last gen systems. I may sound like a bethesda apologist but I do agree with anyone who says that they should've hired on a lot more people after making so much money on Skyrim.
Still one reason I am kind of excited about whatever their next project is that it does seam that they're listening to this criticism considering that they've actually opened a completely new studio to help them out
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/12/10/bethesda-game-studios-montreal/
I mean say what you will about Bethesda but I do think that there fairly good at listening to criticism. Like for instance everyone criticized their combat systems so in order to improve they took advice from ID software to develop the combat of fallout 4. If they put the same amount of effort into developing the technical polish I'd imagine that they're next big game will have at least decent technical polish by the time it comes out.
submitted by /u/A_Good_Game Still one reason I am kind of excited about whatever their next project is that it does seam that they're listening to this criticism considering that they've actually opened a completely new studio to help them out
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/12/10/bethesda-game-studios-montreal/
I mean say what you will about Bethesda but I do think that there fairly good at listening to criticism. Like for instance everyone criticized their combat systems so in order to improve they took advice from ID software to develop the combat of fallout 4. If they put the same amount of effort into developing the technical polish I'd imagine that they're next big game will have at least decent technical polish by the time it comes out.
[link] [comments]
When difficulty levels add objectives. Where does this work well and where could it be done more?
Posted: 15 Dec 2016 11:44 PM PST
One thing that I always really liked about the original Goldeneye for the N64 was the way higher difficulty levels introduced additional objectives for the player to accomplish. These weren't just adding numbers of kills, but objectives that also added to the story of what you were trying to accomplish.
Here's an example from the first level. The difficulty levels scale up from Agent to 00:
To get to the meat of the difference I notice in these games, I'd like to contrast mission objectives in GTA V as they're interesting, but not quite the same. In GTA V, getting silver and gold rankings on a mission depends on meeting additional objectives that are usually more about finesse or style. An early mission has additional objectives like finishing without scratching the car or making it through a movie studio in part of the chase without running over any aliens. Many of the goals are varied and interesting, but they don't really change the overall approach or tell you any more about the story. However, they do a good job of making additional degrees of difficulty about things other than just metrics, like time or head shots (even though those are there as well).
With that introduction, what are your guys' thoughts on difficulty systems that add additional objectives? What other games have done this well and where do you think it could be done more?
submitted by /u/BrobearBerbil Here's an example from the first level. The difficulty levels scale up from Agent to 00:
Agent: Bungee jump from platform.The Thief series also did this in requiring the player to steal a greater number of special trophy pieces within a level and meet a higher gold amount in loot stolen. The objectives themselves didn't have much story in the description, but finding the trophy pieces usually required a lot of narrative and observation in terms of reading notes or eavesdropping on NPCs. You might hear guards talking about something valuable in their lord's bedroom and then have to read a scrap of paper somewhere to find out which guard kept the key.
Secret Agent: Neutralize all alarms, Bungee jump from platform.
00 Agent: Install covert modem, Intercept data backup, Neutralize all alarms, Bungee jump from platform.
To get to the meat of the difference I notice in these games, I'd like to contrast mission objectives in GTA V as they're interesting, but not quite the same. In GTA V, getting silver and gold rankings on a mission depends on meeting additional objectives that are usually more about finesse or style. An early mission has additional objectives like finishing without scratching the car or making it through a movie studio in part of the chase without running over any aliens. Many of the goals are varied and interesting, but they don't really change the overall approach or tell you any more about the story. However, they do a good job of making additional degrees of difficulty about things other than just metrics, like time or head shots (even though those are there as well).
With that introduction, what are your guys' thoughts on difficulty systems that add additional objectives? What other games have done this well and where do you think it could be done more?
[link] [comments]
[Discuss] IAPs go against artistic integrity
Posted: 16 Dec 2016 01:05 PM PST
If you think of a game as its own thing, not as a product you need to commercialize, there's no situation in which adding in-app purchases benefits the game itself, no matter how optional it is or how unobtrusively it is presented. Someone would only make an in-app purchase if they think that it will improve their playing experience, therefore, the game would be better if it didn't have that paywall there. An IAP will in no case benefit the game as a work of art.
More so, an IAP has to form part of the work itself; it has to be integrated into its UI, tainting the artistic work in a tangible way. A premium payment, on the other hand, exists outside of the game and has no intrinsic relation to it.
Therefore, adding IAPs is against artistic integrity and makes you a "sell out". I don't necessarily mean this in a derogatory way; making games for the money is a valid option, but adding IAPs is an assertion that you are putting money before art; you are tainting your work so you can make it more profitable.
Do you agree with all I just said or did I get something wrong?
Also, how much do you value your artistic integrity? Would you be OK with selling out even if in small doses? Is it enough to say "without money I can't do games" to justify artistic betrayals? Should it not really matter if you want to make a living developing video games?
submitted by /u/v5ro4 More so, an IAP has to form part of the work itself; it has to be integrated into its UI, tainting the artistic work in a tangible way. A premium payment, on the other hand, exists outside of the game and has no intrinsic relation to it.
Therefore, adding IAPs is against artistic integrity and makes you a "sell out". I don't necessarily mean this in a derogatory way; making games for the money is a valid option, but adding IAPs is an assertion that you are putting money before art; you are tainting your work so you can make it more profitable.
Do you agree with all I just said or did I get something wrong?
Also, how much do you value your artistic integrity? Would you be OK with selling out even if in small doses? Is it enough to say "without money I can't do games" to justify artistic betrayals? Should it not really matter if you want to make a living developing video games?
[link] [comments]
How would you design real-time combat for the Pokemon series?
Posted: 15 Dec 2016 03:48 PM PST
First off, assume several things happen:
So basically you find another trainer, challenge them to a battle, toss out your first pokemon and then it's all real-time combat (including switching) from there.
How would you design the combat from there?
My initial thought was something akin to kingdom hearts. Although, you'd only have four usable moves (in traditional pokemon fashion).
Certain melee attacks (e.g. scratch, vine whip, slash) function as a standard (press x to swing) melee move. Depending on the stats of the pokemon, you can combo between them up to a certain maximum number of hits. The speed of each attack is determined by the speed stat.
Other melee attacks (e.g. tackle, body slam, flame wheel) require you to manually sprint your pokemon at your opponent and have to make contact. If it's a "special" melee attack (like flame wheel) then you have to hit the button corresponding to flame wheel, pay the PP, and then you would have a window during which you can slam into the enemy and do damage to them.
Special attacks would function like spells, draining a certain amount of PP per use, capable of initially launching at a locked on target, but also capable of being manually aimed.
My friend suggested a DOTA style approach, where each attack is on a cooldown, and the stats of the pokemon, as well as the power of the attack, determine the cooldown of each move (as well as movement speed, among other things).
I've also mulled around the idea of a gambit style system, where the AI is the primary controller of the pokemon, but you can adjust its tendencies/strategy (and add new ones through training). In addition, a pokemon's nature would determine its initial options and, in battle, the player can override the attack commands the pokemon has, as well as provide it with strategic advice (e.g. play defensively or keep your distance and used ranged attacks).
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought about this. Assuming you had to design a real-time combat system for pokemon, how would you do it?
Edit: Guys. Come on. It's a hypothetical exercise. It's not would you or would you not. The idea is to discuss how real time combat could best be implemented in pokemon. Not if you would do it or not. Don't be that guy.
submitted by /u/runningblack - Nintendo decides to make a "proper" home console Pokemon. This game is intended to make full use of the power/docked capabilities of the upcoming Nintendo switch from a graphics/gameplay perspective.
- This game somewhat resembles an MMO. You can find pokemon roaming in the wild on the field. You can also find players wandering around and challenge them to battle.
- Despite this game being an MMO, everyone has a perfect connection and there's no input lag.
- All battles take place in the same world. There's no separate instance that you go to when you battle someone.
So basically you find another trainer, challenge them to a battle, toss out your first pokemon and then it's all real-time combat (including switching) from there.
How would you design the combat from there?
My initial thought was something akin to kingdom hearts. Although, you'd only have four usable moves (in traditional pokemon fashion).
Certain melee attacks (e.g. scratch, vine whip, slash) function as a standard (press x to swing) melee move. Depending on the stats of the pokemon, you can combo between them up to a certain maximum number of hits. The speed of each attack is determined by the speed stat.
Other melee attacks (e.g. tackle, body slam, flame wheel) require you to manually sprint your pokemon at your opponent and have to make contact. If it's a "special" melee attack (like flame wheel) then you have to hit the button corresponding to flame wheel, pay the PP, and then you would have a window during which you can slam into the enemy and do damage to them.
Special attacks would function like spells, draining a certain amount of PP per use, capable of initially launching at a locked on target, but also capable of being manually aimed.
My friend suggested a DOTA style approach, where each attack is on a cooldown, and the stats of the pokemon, as well as the power of the attack, determine the cooldown of each move (as well as movement speed, among other things).
I've also mulled around the idea of a gambit style system, where the AI is the primary controller of the pokemon, but you can adjust its tendencies/strategy (and add new ones through training). In addition, a pokemon's nature would determine its initial options and, in battle, the player can override the attack commands the pokemon has, as well as provide it with strategic advice (e.g. play defensively or keep your distance and used ranged attacks).
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought about this. Assuming you had to design a real-time combat system for pokemon, how would you do it?
Edit: Guys. Come on. It's a hypothetical exercise. It's not would you or would you not. The idea is to discuss how real time combat could best be implemented in pokemon. Not if you would do it or not. Don't be that guy.
[link] [comments]
Has this console generation been a resounding rejection of unconventional game controllers?
Posted: 16 Dec 2016 01:19 AM PST
PS4 went the most conventional route with their controller and maintained a good lead over the two competitors for a while. Xbox One tried to make the Kinect an integral part of the console, but had to jettison it to lower the price because no one wanted it. Wii U had a tablet controller but it sold badly and the tablet market made it look less unique by comparison. And Valve's mouse-pad like controller isn't gaining traction.
the Wii was a mega-success, but Wii Sports was a brilliantly innovative game that hit the market by storm and can never be replicated.
But I don't think this gen was necessarily a full-on rejection. Moreso it's a message of: Don't make a unique controller unless you can immediately convince customers of its utility.
the Wii U, for example, is an unfortunate case. Nintendo Land was average at best, and New Super Mario Bros U didn't use the controller much.
If only Super Mario Maker was the launch title of the Wii U. consumers could've immediately seen that games could exist on the Wii U that no other console could intuitively play.
submitted by /u/standalonethanfall the Wii was a mega-success, but Wii Sports was a brilliantly innovative game that hit the market by storm and can never be replicated.
But I don't think this gen was necessarily a full-on rejection. Moreso it's a message of: Don't make a unique controller unless you can immediately convince customers of its utility.
the Wii U, for example, is an unfortunate case. Nintendo Land was average at best, and New Super Mario Bros U didn't use the controller much.
If only Super Mario Maker was the launch title of the Wii U. consumers could've immediately seen that games could exist on the Wii U that no other console could intuitively play.
[link] [comments]
Does gameplay uniqueness guarantee long-term, or some, financial success?
Posted: 16 Dec 2016 12:49 PM PST
EDIT: I forgot to put in "regardless of quality"
I was looking through sales charts on nearly every major platform and noticed one thing, no two games categorized in the same genre are too similar to each other.
For the FPS market, there's the hero-based Overwatch, there's the hardcore Counter-Strike, there the mech-based Titanfall, and there's the stealth-based Dishonored. For third person games, there's the complete sandbox Grand Theft Auto, the adventurous Uncharted, the hacker-based Watch Dogs, and the parkour-based Assassin's Creed. For RPGs, there's the sandbox of Bethesda's games, the consequence-focused Witcher, the cRPG Divinity: Original Sin, the story-based Final Fantasy, and the hardcore Dark Souls. For RTS games, there's the grand strategy of Total War, the relaxing, turn-based Civilization, and the fast-paced Starcraft. For racing games, there's the racing simulation Assetto Corsa, the arcade of Need for Speed, the open world Forza Horizon and the track-based nature of Forza Motorsport. And then, there's Rock Band and Rocksmith doing their own things in their corner very well.
submitted by /u/FightingChances I was looking through sales charts on nearly every major platform and noticed one thing, no two games categorized in the same genre are too similar to each other.
For the FPS market, there's the hero-based Overwatch, there's the hardcore Counter-Strike, there the mech-based Titanfall, and there's the stealth-based Dishonored. For third person games, there's the complete sandbox Grand Theft Auto, the adventurous Uncharted, the hacker-based Watch Dogs, and the parkour-based Assassin's Creed. For RPGs, there's the sandbox of Bethesda's games, the consequence-focused Witcher, the cRPG Divinity: Original Sin, the story-based Final Fantasy, and the hardcore Dark Souls. For RTS games, there's the grand strategy of Total War, the relaxing, turn-based Civilization, and the fast-paced Starcraft. For racing games, there's the racing simulation Assetto Corsa, the arcade of Need for Speed, the open world Forza Horizon and the track-based nature of Forza Motorsport. And then, there's Rock Band and Rocksmith doing their own things in their corner very well.
[link] [comments]
[No Spoilers] Dishonored 2 has reminded my of why Freeman-esque "silent protagonists" are actually a good thing.
Posted: 15 Dec 2016 12:48 AM PST
Don't get me wrong, Dishonored 2 is a great game (about equal to its predecessor). But one thing that has really bugged me throughout the whole campaign is the consistent voice-overs of the player characters.
Now, I'm not talking cutscenes here (there aren't really any to speak of in DO2), but during actual gameplay. Emily/Corvo (depending on who you pick to play as) will consistently comment on things you see or interact with, or actions you take.
I found this really grating since--while I understand this isn't a role-playing game and we are controlling a specific defined character--it consistently "took me out of the moment" and would sometimes literally interrupt my own thoughts about something. Even though it isn't a role-playing game proper, it's a still a game with choices, so you are roleplaying to a certain extent.
Dialogue in cutscenes or in dedicated conversations make sense, since that's their main purpose. I personally feel like Gordon Freeman may have been slightly too far on the other end of the spectrum (did he have his tongue ripped out? why are you not saying anything Gordon?!) and some voiced responses to NPCs during conversations would have improved HL2.
However, it's far too distracting when I'm sneaking along a rooftop, see a wall of light and start planning how to get around it, then 30 seconds later when I reach an arbitrary distance, Emily suddenly belts out something like "That's the wall of light. I should probably look for a way around it." Not only is it patronizing, it's also immersion breaking (I'm a sneaky assassin who is for some reason loudly talking to herself).
Obviously DO2 is far from the first game to do this, but because it happens so often I wanted to talk about it somewhere (not to mention the voice acting for Emily isn't that good, so that definitely didn't help).
Thoughts? Solutions? Was the level of Gordon Freeman's silence actually a completely good thing? Are there games you would say hit that happy medium between Gordon Freeman and characters like Emily Caldwin?
submitted by /u/elguapo1991 Now, I'm not talking cutscenes here (there aren't really any to speak of in DO2), but during actual gameplay. Emily/Corvo (depending on who you pick to play as) will consistently comment on things you see or interact with, or actions you take.
I found this really grating since--while I understand this isn't a role-playing game and we are controlling a specific defined character--it consistently "took me out of the moment" and would sometimes literally interrupt my own thoughts about something. Even though it isn't a role-playing game proper, it's a still a game with choices, so you are roleplaying to a certain extent.
Dialogue in cutscenes or in dedicated conversations make sense, since that's their main purpose. I personally feel like Gordon Freeman may have been slightly too far on the other end of the spectrum (did he have his tongue ripped out? why are you not saying anything Gordon?!) and some voiced responses to NPCs during conversations would have improved HL2.
However, it's far too distracting when I'm sneaking along a rooftop, see a wall of light and start planning how to get around it, then 30 seconds later when I reach an arbitrary distance, Emily suddenly belts out something like "That's the wall of light. I should probably look for a way around it." Not only is it patronizing, it's also immersion breaking (I'm a sneaky assassin who is for some reason loudly talking to herself).
Obviously DO2 is far from the first game to do this, but because it happens so often I wanted to talk about it somewhere (not to mention the voice acting for Emily isn't that good, so that definitely didn't help).
Thoughts? Solutions? Was the level of Gordon Freeman's silence actually a completely good thing? Are there games you would say hit that happy medium between Gordon Freeman and characters like Emily Caldwin?
[link] [comments]
What games are actually fun to explore? How is this accomplished?
Posted: 14 Dec 2016 03:42 PM PST
I'm very attracted to the idea of exploration in a game, but still have yet to find a game where I really enjoy exploring.
I've often heard that Bethesda games like Skyrim and Fallout are fun to explore, but I generally disagree. They do a good job of making me want to explore, but I don't actually enjoy doing it. I may optimistically set off in a random direction in Skyrim, but secretly know that I won't find anything interesting. There will be a cave, but it will have the standard bandits and loot. I might find a cool environment or NPCs, but there's rarely a way to interact with these things in any engaging way. If I find a quest, I never find myself doing it out of curiosity, but because it's a quest and because I should probably be doing something. I might find a note talking about someone's story, but if I follow the breadcrumb trail it leaves, I'm usually doing so for gear it might leave behind. I never feel satisfied after exploring in Skyrim, just grind through large spaces while collecting gear until I get bored enough to stop.
No Man's Sky's original appeal was in its randomness; thinking about how even the developers of a game had not seen all that was out there really gave me a reason to explore, because I would be finding something completely new. It fell short because procedural generation has a hard time making things that are actually interesting.
I spent a while thinking about what would make a game actually fun to explore, and drew a blank. I imagine that there would have to be genuinely interesting things placed everywhere, but I can't think of much that's interesting for its own sake, worth spending an hour looking for, or that wouldn't just become another thing to grind through. What's the clear difference between a game that's worth exploring and a game that's just stretched across a large map?
submitted by /u/angerispoison42 I've often heard that Bethesda games like Skyrim and Fallout are fun to explore, but I generally disagree. They do a good job of making me want to explore, but I don't actually enjoy doing it. I may optimistically set off in a random direction in Skyrim, but secretly know that I won't find anything interesting. There will be a cave, but it will have the standard bandits and loot. I might find a cool environment or NPCs, but there's rarely a way to interact with these things in any engaging way. If I find a quest, I never find myself doing it out of curiosity, but because it's a quest and because I should probably be doing something. I might find a note talking about someone's story, but if I follow the breadcrumb trail it leaves, I'm usually doing so for gear it might leave behind. I never feel satisfied after exploring in Skyrim, just grind through large spaces while collecting gear until I get bored enough to stop.
No Man's Sky's original appeal was in its randomness; thinking about how even the developers of a game had not seen all that was out there really gave me a reason to explore, because I would be finding something completely new. It fell short because procedural generation has a hard time making things that are actually interesting.
I spent a while thinking about what would make a game actually fun to explore, and drew a blank. I imagine that there would have to be genuinely interesting things placed everywhere, but I can't think of much that's interesting for its own sake, worth spending an hour looking for, or that wouldn't just become another thing to grind through. What's the clear difference between a game that's worth exploring and a game that's just stretched across a large map?
[link] [comments]
Death of a Game: Star Wars Galaxies
Posted: 14 Dec 2016 08:40 PM PST
Hey everyone, Nerdslayer here and I thought I would bring this discussion concerning SWG and it's death as an MMO to this forum (where I typically find good discussions).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N33z6Wjicyk&feature=youtu.be
This video is part 1 in a series I am doing where I take a look at certain games and franchises, and talk about the history of them and then possible reasons (in my opinions) as to why the game or franchise failed. This video is concerning Star Wars Galaxies, as I said above. Though I will do future ones (to be decided).
So first points of discussion are... Did you play Pre-Cu, and did you think the game was perfect or close to? And then, did you play NGE and either dislike it or end up changing your opinions on the changes?
If you guys know SWG then you have likely heard of Pre-Cu, CU, and NGE. I explain these in the video, but they are basically patches in the game that change the gameplay (Pre-cu is post any of those patches). I have noticed some people think the patches weren't needed (something I try to dispel in my video), while others treat the NGE as Hitler's reign in gaming. I find a small percentage of players ACTUALLY like the changes, especially right away.
I found myself enjoying the NGE after a year or so of the developers adding more features/content to the game. I think people have this misunderstanding that the NGE was ALWAYS bad, I don't think so. Sure it started bad, and it was a change that gutted a lot of the professions and simplified the progression system.
Do you guys think a change of that magnitude is possible to be successful? Or like Raph Koster (dev of Ultima Online) said, changes of that magnitude are destined to fail? I am talking mostly of multiplayer games, specifically MMOs.
What are some examples of other games that had such large changes?
submitted by /u/exforce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N33z6Wjicyk&feature=youtu.be
This video is part 1 in a series I am doing where I take a look at certain games and franchises, and talk about the history of them and then possible reasons (in my opinions) as to why the game or franchise failed. This video is concerning Star Wars Galaxies, as I said above. Though I will do future ones (to be decided).
So first points of discussion are... Did you play Pre-Cu, and did you think the game was perfect or close to? And then, did you play NGE and either dislike it or end up changing your opinions on the changes?
If you guys know SWG then you have likely heard of Pre-Cu, CU, and NGE. I explain these in the video, but they are basically patches in the game that change the gameplay (Pre-cu is post any of those patches). I have noticed some people think the patches weren't needed (something I try to dispel in my video), while others treat the NGE as Hitler's reign in gaming. I find a small percentage of players ACTUALLY like the changes, especially right away.
I found myself enjoying the NGE after a year or so of the developers adding more features/content to the game. I think people have this misunderstanding that the NGE was ALWAYS bad, I don't think so. Sure it started bad, and it was a change that gutted a lot of the professions and simplified the progression system.
Do you guys think a change of that magnitude is possible to be successful? Or like Raph Koster (dev of Ultima Online) said, changes of that magnitude are destined to fail? I am talking mostly of multiplayer games, specifically MMOs.
What are some examples of other games that had such large changes?
[link] [comments]
Post a Comment