Ego certe laboro hic et laboro in meipsoL factus sum mihi terra difficultatis et sudoris nimii. "Assuredly I labor here and I labor within myself: I have become to myself a land of trouble and inordinate sweat."
I like you, JK, but I think you'd have to be so fucking stupid to think you were going to get good gunplay out of Mirror's Edge. I mean I didn't even know guns were in the game at all until I played the demo. And then 80% of the demo is basically constructed around telling you "hey, you should run" and "sticking around to shoot people is fucking dumb you fucking dumb dumbfuck."
So really, I think any complaints about Mirror's Edge's gameplay are completely baseless. If you were required to duke it out with 120 guards at the end of the game with guns or something, that's one thing. But I'm assuming that's not the case here. So, being a mere "option" without forcing you to putz around with the gunplay, there is no valid complaint.
This isn't an excuse for it to be bad though. Guns are weak? They slow you down too much? Maybe there's even no reloading because you can't pick-up clips? Those are fine design choices. Bad design, however, is not nothing.
I remember Assassin's Creed. Complaining that the combat was poorly implemented was a valid complaint, even though the game was very much billed as a game of stealth and exploration. And I loved Assassin's Creed.
I like the gunplay in fall out 3, because if blowing an enemies head into shiny bits with a bolt action rifle is wrong. I don't wannabe right.
Also fuck game trilogies, jesus tell one story good and then we'll talk about a sequel you assholes.
The trilogy thing definitely pisses me off.
I get the impression the idea is that if the game fails, you've hedged your bet, and if it succeeds you'll get triple the cash. Only, in neither of those cases do I get any benefit.
I like the gunplay in fall out 3, because if blowing an enemies head into shiny bits with a bolt action rifle is wrong. I don't wannabe right.
Also fuck game trilogies, jesus tell one story good and then we'll talk about a sequel you assholes.
The trilogy thing definitely pisses me off.
I get the impression the idea is that if the game fails, you've hedged your bet, and if it succeeds you'll get triple the cash. Only, in neither of those cases do I get any benefit.
Yeah that's the way I see it, if its a bad game or doesn't sell well, I never get a full story. If it's a decent game I get one story spread across 3 60 dollar chunks.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah AC had some very cool looking combat animations, just the combat itself was fairly bland.
And it forced you into a large battle at the end. That was bad. Not that you could do it. But that you had to. If the game had you storming a castle, where the combat was an option, but sneaking was as well, it would have been infinitely fucking better. I even might have done it both ways. But the lack of choice? Especially when it was a lack of choice that forced you into a gameplay element that felt lacking, and was the exact opposite of what was initially billed?
What does parkour mean? I looked it up, and it doesn't seem to jive with how you guys are using it.
The city exploration, building hopping, climbing, etc.
The game was built around the idea of running rather than gunning. But you still can gun. Guns are still part of the game. There are pages in the Mirror's Edge design document dedicated to guns.
And those pages were scribbled by a drunk guy with his non-dominant hand.
Yeah AC had some very cool looking combat animations, just the combat itself was fairly bland.
And it forced you into a large battle at the end. That was bad. Not that you could do it. But that you had to. If the game had you storming a castle, where the combat was an option, but sneaking was as well, it would have been infinitely fucking better. I even might have done it both ways. But the lack of choice? Especially when it was a lack of choice that forced you into a gameplay element that felt lacking, and was the exact opposite of what was initially billed?
Tsk tsk.
Or like the gunplay in condemned 2. Man that game started out mediocre and ended poor. Dark is a visual choice, unable to see for shit is bad design.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
If it's a decent game I get one story spread across 3 60 dollar chunks.
Erm... Halo? I can't think of another successful trilogy.
And even then story wasn't a selling point in halo. I think we've reverted to 80s game design in a way. Gameplay is becoming more important then telling a coherent story.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
as a gaymo I can't imagine anything less thrilling than not being able to establish a phallic signifier
what... does this mean?
Basically, Lacan says that society is obsessed with the phallus not just because it's a penis, but that men have a drive to establish a system of binary signifier's to state purpose. E.g., men view sex as penis/orafice, climax, and purely genital based, whereas women tend to view it as experiential, corporeal, and enduring.
Look than, what makes you think any girl that Keenan would stick his love sausage into could get any kind of hot lesbian sex?
All any lesbian needs is a good deep dicking. By proxy, of course, lesbians are intuitively, subconsciously attracted to wherever my penis has been.
So what you're saying is, girls go lesbo after dating you?
DeShadowC on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
What about the gunplay in Mirror's Edge makes it bad?
There is a difference between implementing a feature poorly, and giving a gun poor accuracy or limited ammunition on purpose in order to deemphasize the role they play in the game. Which is this situation most similar to?
I like you, JK, but I think you'd have to be so fucking stupid to think you were going to get good gunplay out of Mirror's Edge. I mean I didn't even know guns were in the game at all until I played the demo. And then 80% of the demo is basically constructed around telling you "hey, you should run" and "sticking around to shoot people is fucking dumb you fucking dumb dumbfuck."
So really, I think any complaints about Mirror's Edge's gameplay are completely baseless. If you were required to duke it out with 120 guards at the end of the game with guns or something, that's one thing. But I'm assuming that's not the case here. So, being a mere "option" without forcing you to putz around with the gunplay, there is no valid complaint.
This isn't an excuse for it to be bad though. Guns are weak? They slow you down too much? Maybe there's even no reloading because you can't pick-up clips? Those are fine design choices. Bad design, however, is not nothing.
I remember Assassin's Creed. Complaining that the combat was poorly implemented was a valid complaint, even though the game was very much billed as a game of stealth and exploration. And I loved Assassin's Creed.
I disagree with you, and I'll explain why.
Have you played No More Heroes? I think No More Heroes was an excellent game with one massive, obnoxious flaw. The "sandboxy" world that forced you to motorcycle from mission to mission was a glitchy, annoying piece of shit. Someone made the argument that Suda51, the developer, made it like this as a commentary on shitty, sparse overworlds like this.
I argued back that I didn't really care because I was forced to traverse this glitchfest to play the other parts of the game.
Now, as to Mirror's Edge, I conclude the exact opposite, because you are not forced to use gunplay at all. The game actively tries to dissuade you from engaging in gunplay. I think it is not only alright, but perhaps even smart, to make the gunplay bad so as to dissuade you from engaging in it. The developers do not want the game to be thought of as an FPS. The gunplay is not required to experience the entire game except, I assume, in very limited doses. Therefore, why is it not completely valid to push gamers away from it, if the thrust of the game is to be a runner. That is the entire point of the game. To be a runner. Not a shooter. So I think it is entirely valid to make the gunplay bad on purpose. I'm not sure that's what they did (i.e. if they did it on purpose rather than it being bad design), but I support that decision if that's what they did. And if it's just bad design, then I have no problem with that either, considering the nature of the game.
What you have to remember is that game design, even now, consists mainly of relating abstract relationships to the gamer. Take hit-points for example. Do hit-points make any sense to you? They are an abstract relating the concept of "health" to a player, while elevating the player slightly from his frail "get-hit-with-a-sword-once-and-die" reality so as to provide an entertaining experience. And so a game like Mirror's Edge which is meant to provide a "free running" interactive experience for the player is wholly right to dissuade the player from using gunplay.
However, the reason gunplay was not entirely excised, I imagine, is because that would not make sense either. What you have to understand about Mirror's Edge is the "us-versus-them" theme. There is a clear demarcation between the player's organization and the enemy corporates you encounter, and the guns serve to illustrate that in a very basic, familiar way. You don't have a gun, by default. Your entire philosophy is designed around getting from point A to point B in the quickest, least bloody way possible. The inclusion of guns, though, forces the player to realize that he is up against a different type of philosophy. This philosophy is the antagonist in the game.
So they put in some parkourish stuff on disarming enemies, because it is thematically consistent. And, yes, you can fire these guns. But I think they were smart to make it so players would not want to hold a gun. The game is about running, escaping, not shooting.
What about the gunplay in Mirror's Edge makes it bad?
There is a difference between implementing a feature poorly, and giving a gun poor accuracy or limited ammunition on purpose in order to deemphasize the role they play in the game. Which is this situation most similar to?
I was afraid someone would bring this up.
Honestly?
I don't know. I haven't played Mirror's Edge. I'm going on second-hand accounts here.
My one saving throw was that I wasn't really arguing the specifics of the gameplay implementation, but the theory that if it's not the focus, it doesn't have to be good.
And even then story wasn't a selling point in halo. I think we've reverted to 80s game design in a way. Gameplay is becoming more important then telling a coherent story.
A lot of people say this, but considering the Legendary Edition came with the videos from the first two games "remastered" on a DVD, as well as the existence of all the Halo books and shit like that out there suggests that many people were interested in its shitty story.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
What about the gunplay in Mirror's Edge makes it bad?
There is a difference between implementing a feature poorly, and giving a gun poor accuracy or limited ammunition on purpose in order to deemphasize the role they play in the game. Which is this situation most similar to?
I was afraid someone would bring this up.
Honestly?
I don't know. I haven't played Mirror's Edge. I'm going on second-hand accounts here.
My one saving throw was that I wasn't really arguing the specifics of the gameplay implementation, but the theory that if it's not the focus, it doesn't have to be good.
Was my throw successful?
Nope. Critical failure. Every bone in every finger twists and breaks as you type and you die from blood loss.
People are saying the gunplay is bad, but how is it bad? This is important. I mean someone might be angry because you only get one clip of ammunition, but that is a legitimate restriction placed on guns by the developers.
And even then story wasn't a selling point in halo. I think we've reverted to 80s game design in a way. Gameplay is becoming more important then telling a coherent story.
A lot of people say this, but considering the Legendary Edition came with the videos from the first two games "remastered" on a DVD, as well as the existence of all the Halo books and shit like that out there suggests that many people were interested in its shitty story.
Or people just like buying the more expensive editions.
DeShadowC on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Posts
I'm not taking offense exactly. I'm arguing a silly point of logic.
Also fuck game trilogies, jesus tell one story good and then we'll talk about a sequel you assholes.
pleasepaypreacher.net
what... does this mean?
He said you worship the cock?
pleasepaypreacher.net
This isn't an excuse for it to be bad though. Guns are weak? They slow you down too much? Maybe there's even no reloading because you can't pick-up clips? Those are fine design choices. Bad design, however, is not nothing.
I remember Assassin's Creed. Complaining that the combat was poorly implemented was a valid complaint, even though the game was very much billed as a game of stealth and exploration. And I loved Assassin's Creed.
I get the impression the idea is that if the game fails, you've hedged your bet, and if it succeeds you'll get triple the cash. Only, in neither of those cases do I get any benefit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah that's the way I see it, if its a bad game or doesn't sell well, I never get a full story. If it's a decent game I get one story spread across 3 60 dollar chunks.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And it forced you into a large battle at the end. That was bad. Not that you could do it. But that you had to. If the game had you storming a castle, where the combat was an option, but sneaking was as well, it would have been infinitely fucking better. I even might have done it both ways. But the lack of choice? Especially when it was a lack of choice that forced you into a gameplay element that felt lacking, and was the exact opposite of what was initially billed?
Tsk tsk.
Think of moving around in AC, leaping from building to building not following a street path.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The city exploration, building hopping, climbing, etc.
The game was built around the idea of running rather than gunning. But you still can gun. Guns are still part of the game. There are pages in the Mirror's Edge design document dedicated to guns.
And those pages were scribbled by a drunk guy with his non-dominant hand.
Or like the gunplay in condemned 2. Man that game started out mediocre and ended poor. Dark is a visual choice, unable to see for shit is bad design.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Advent Rising
Erm... Halo? I can't think of another successful trilogy.
What do you want, Pony-Land bright hallways? Effervescent fountains of rainbow hues?
Dark is the focus!
And yet your rhythm is supposed to have been composed by Philip Glass.
So screw it.
And even then story wasn't a selling point in halo. I think we've reverted to 80s game design in a way. Gameplay is becoming more important then telling a coherent story.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Being able to see would have been nice. Oh and a non retarded story I mean come on what the fuck was that shit?
pleasepaypreacher.net
It loops a lot.
All any lesbian needs is a good deep dicking. By proxy, of course, lesbians are intuitively, subconsciously attracted to wherever my penis has been.
I'm Jesus cubed.
Basically, Lacan says that society is obsessed with the phallus not just because it's a penis, but that men have a drive to establish a system of binary signifier's to state purpose. E.g., men view sex as penis/orafice, climax, and purely genital based, whereas women tend to view it as experiential, corporeal, and enduring.
and just about everything about dudes
Halo was like a modern version of 80's movies. An over-the-top, cheesy consumable story of overall average quality.
I admit to liking it a bit.
Wittgenstein
So what you're saying is, girls go lesbo after dating you?
There is a difference between implementing a feature poorly, and giving a gun poor accuracy or limited ammunition on purpose in order to deemphasize the role they play in the game. Which is this situation most similar to?
Whatever you say
I disagree with you, and I'll explain why.
Have you played No More Heroes? I think No More Heroes was an excellent game with one massive, obnoxious flaw. The "sandboxy" world that forced you to motorcycle from mission to mission was a glitchy, annoying piece of shit. Someone made the argument that Suda51, the developer, made it like this as a commentary on shitty, sparse overworlds like this.
I argued back that I didn't really care because I was forced to traverse this glitchfest to play the other parts of the game.
Now, as to Mirror's Edge, I conclude the exact opposite, because you are not forced to use gunplay at all. The game actively tries to dissuade you from engaging in gunplay. I think it is not only alright, but perhaps even smart, to make the gunplay bad so as to dissuade you from engaging in it. The developers do not want the game to be thought of as an FPS. The gunplay is not required to experience the entire game except, I assume, in very limited doses. Therefore, why is it not completely valid to push gamers away from it, if the thrust of the game is to be a runner. That is the entire point of the game. To be a runner. Not a shooter. So I think it is entirely valid to make the gunplay bad on purpose. I'm not sure that's what they did (i.e. if they did it on purpose rather than it being bad design), but I support that decision if that's what they did. And if it's just bad design, then I have no problem with that either, considering the nature of the game.
What you have to remember is that game design, even now, consists mainly of relating abstract relationships to the gamer. Take hit-points for example. Do hit-points make any sense to you? They are an abstract relating the concept of "health" to a player, while elevating the player slightly from his frail "get-hit-with-a-sword-once-and-die" reality so as to provide an entertaining experience. And so a game like Mirror's Edge which is meant to provide a "free running" interactive experience for the player is wholly right to dissuade the player from using gunplay.
However, the reason gunplay was not entirely excised, I imagine, is because that would not make sense either. What you have to understand about Mirror's Edge is the "us-versus-them" theme. There is a clear demarcation between the player's organization and the enemy corporates you encounter, and the guns serve to illustrate that in a very basic, familiar way. You don't have a gun, by default. Your entire philosophy is designed around getting from point A to point B in the quickest, least bloody way possible. The inclusion of guns, though, forces the player to realize that he is up against a different type of philosophy. This philosophy is the antagonist in the game.
So they put in some parkourish stuff on disarming enemies, because it is thematically consistent. And, yes, you can fire these guns. But I think they were smart to make it so players would not want to hold a gun. The game is about running, escaping, not shooting.
I dunno, it was kind of a mishmash for me. I think MC was just the most boring character so the story didn't sell me.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I was afraid someone would bring this up.
Honestly?
I don't know. I haven't played Mirror's Edge. I'm going on second-hand accounts here.
My one saving throw was that I wasn't really arguing the specifics of the gameplay implementation, but the theory that if it's not the focus, it doesn't have to be good.
Was my throw successful?
A lot of people say this, but considering the Legendary Edition came with the videos from the first two games "remastered" on a DVD, as well as the existence of all the Halo books and shit like that out there suggests that many people were interested in its shitty story.
Nope. Critical failure. Every bone in every finger twists and breaks as you type and you die from blood loss.
People are saying the gunplay is bad, but how is it bad? This is important. I mean someone might be angry because you only get one clip of ammunition, but that is a legitimate restriction placed on guns by the developers.
Or people just like buying the more expensive editions.
Does not compute.
The single player is Call of Duty-ish. Which is to say ancient conventions and pretty terrible and frusturating but also nice looking.
The multi-player was a stroke of genius.
Man if you're one of those PC dudes I don't want to hear it