Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

New Comic Thread: Wednesday, April 29, 2009

12345679»

Posts

  • AMP'dAMP'd Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Also I loved the one guy who didn't try justifying his actions. He was like you, killing because it was fun.

    He wasn't like Altair, though. Altair wasn't the bloodthirsty guard-killer I could be.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer I'm Speed Racer and I drive real fast. I drive real fast, I'm gonna last.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    My reason for not solely using counter-attacks in AC is because it makes it a piss poor boring game. It might not be the most efficient from a mechanical game play stand point, but it is more fun.

    OK, that first sentence contains the critical flaw. "Doing what works makes the game boring." That right there means that it's a bad game. The player should not have to make up his own rules and/or play badly on purpose for the game to be fun.

    I half-agree with you, half-don't. On one hand you're definitely right, it speaks to bad game design if playing well breaks the game. On the other, if I have the choice of either bitching about how broken move is or just ignoring the move and playing the otherwise perfectly fine game, I'd go for the latter and I think it's a little ridiculous to do otherwise.

    That said I didn't think Assassin's Creed was all that great even when I ignored the counter, so whatever. Maybe the wrench in Bioshock would be a better example.

    I think you might actually more than half-agree with me. As I said, even if you ignore the bad combat, the majority of the game is spent grinding no-skill activities/running boring errands. The only interesting errand I ever had to run was killing people in the streets without getting caught and within a certain time limit. But that happened exactly twice in the entire game. The final boss fight was pretty good, too, although that fight made counters even more important because I think the last boss is the only guy in the game who can counter you (actually the second-to-last boss might also have counters, I forget), so making direct attacks is a super-dumb idea.
    Yeah I'm not arguing that Assassin's Creed is a good game at all. It was bland and repetitive and I quit about halfway through. All I was saying was that if some hypothetical game is fun as long as you don't use a broken strategy, you're better to spend your time not using the broken strategy than you are to use it and whine about how boring the game is when you do.

    In the short term, yes. In the long term, though, it means that the game doesn't have depth. Without depth, it isn't going to last, because you can't get better at it.
    What about, for example, Megaman 1? This isn't a great example since you can only use a broken strategy in a few areas, but you can suck the challenge right out of the hardest parts of the game by abusing an exploit with the electric weapon. In spite of that though you can still get better at playing without abusing the exploit, even to the point where you're doing just as well as someone who cheeses through with it.

    speedsig2_zps388d2098.jpg
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Here's what I don't get - how did the the developers think that all of this bullshit actually made the game any better? There was obviously a lot of money spent on making this product, and a lot of time went into the art assets, engine, and polishing the entire product.

    How do these fucking horrible game mechanics make it through the amount of playtesting and scrutiny that had to accompany a game this big? Really some of the content for the combat system doesn't even seem like it would be that difficult in terms of resources/effort to change, and most of the gameplay mechanics could simply be lifted from previous games that were critical successes anyway.

  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    In the short term, yes. In the long term, though, it means that the game doesn't have depth. Without depth, it isn't going to last, because you can't get better at it.
    What about, for example, Megaman 1? This isn't a great example since you can only use a broken strategy in a few areas, but you can suck the challenge right out of the hardest parts of the game by abusing an exploit with the electric weapon. In spite of that though you can still get better at playing without abusing the exploit, even to the point where you're doing just as well as someone who cheeses through with it.

    That's a good, nuanced example. I am not as familiar with Mega Man 1 as you apparently are, so I'm not sure of exactly what exploit you mean. Also, in calling it an exploit, you're saying it's a bug; a mistaken feature, one that wasn't supposed to be there. So you're labeling it a flaw already.

    You said that only a few areas can be exploited, so let's make a side note that this means that your special trick only breaks part of the game, so the whole rest of the game is unaffected.

    Let's look at just the affected areas. This is still less of a problem than AC because the exploit is less effective than really good playing. A similar example would be Maxi in Soul Calibur. Beginner players who just buttonmash with Maxi can often beat the crap out of other beginner players, and even players who are, by conventional standards, slightly more skilled. But once a player gets to the level where he can block, knows his favorite character's moves pretty well, and can land a few parries every now and then, the Maxi buttonmash bullshit stops working.

    So the problem with AC is that the overpowered nature of counters is:
    1) Not limited to one area like Mega Man 1; it's useful for the entire game, except for the first mission, and it's pretty much required for endgame battles.
    2) Very nearly optimal, if not optimal, in almost all cases. There are very few situations where you get a better combination of offensive or defensive power.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Rolo wrote: »
    Here's what I don't get - how did the the developers think that all of this bullshit actually made the game any better? There was obviously a lot of money spent on making this product, and a lot of time went into the art assets, engine, and polishing the entire product.

    How do these fucking horrible game mechanics make it through the amount of playtesting and scrutiny that had to accompany a game this big? Really some of the content for the combat system doesn't even seem like it would be that difficult in terms of resources/effort to change, and most of the gameplay mechanics could simply be lifted from previous games that were critical successes anyway.

    I suspect that they sunk a lot of time into the tech, and then didn't have time to finish the game and make it the way they wanted to. I think that they actually did want to have features like "social stealth" and a good combat system, but they were pressured to get it out by a set date and turn a profit on it, so they just put a hot chick out there and marketed the shit out of it because it's easy to go out and describe your ideal game, even if that's not the actual game you're gonna ship.

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer I'm Speed Racer and I drive real fast. I drive real fast, I'm gonna last.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    In Megaman 1 there's a glitch where if you shoot your electric-weapon, you can mash the start button to rapidly pause and unpause. Every time you unpause the weapon deals damage again, so you can just fire one shot at a boss and mash the start button to instantly kill them. You can use it anywhere you want, but it's only particularly useful or preferable to not cheating near the end of the game, when you're fighting large enemies with complicated attack patterns and big damage bars that don't move around very much. That doesn't really have any bearing on the points you made, I just figured I'd explain it real quick so that we were on the same ground.

    In the case of Assassin's Creed I'd say you're absolutely right, but more generally I think you can have situations where you can have a game that's deep and rewarding so long as you ignore something that completely tips the balance in your favor, if only hypothetically, which I only say because off the top of my head I can't think of a good example.

    speedsig2_zps388d2098.jpg
  • Mister LongbaughMister Longbaugh Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    i had fun with assassin's creed. but i didn't pay for it and i was playing it at the highest resolution possible on a 70 inch HDTV so that might have had something to do with it.

    blackstav.jpg
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous WALK 3X FASTER New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    i had fun with assassin's creed. but i didn't pay for it and i was playing it at the highest resolution possible on a 70 inch HDTV so that might have had something to do with it.

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: WaffleMous#1483
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender for a game that you dislike so much why did you play it so much?

  • ThatDudeOverThereThatDudeOverThere MY FINEST CREATION oh nevermind it's deadRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    usually if a game doesn't convince me that I like it within the first five minutes it goes right back into the gamefly envelope

    nHu0VJL.png
    My Youtube My Steam SMITE IGN: TDOTCRFH4 come SMITE with me
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Blaket wrote: »
    Defender for a game that you dislike so much why did you play it so much?

    Professional research. (Not joking.)

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    In Megaman 1 there's a glitch where if you shoot your electric-weapon, you can mash the start button to rapidly pause and unpause. Every time you unpause the weapon deals damage again, so you can just fire one shot at a boss and mash the start button to instantly kill them. You can use it anywhere you want, but it's only particularly useful or preferable to not cheating near the end of the game, when you're fighting large enemies with complicated attack patterns and big damage bars that don't move around very much. That doesn't really have any bearing on the points you made, I just figured I'd explain it real quick so that we were on the same ground.

    OK, thanks for explaining that.
    In the case of Assassin's Creed I'd say you're absolutely right, but more generally I think you can have situations where you can have a game that's deep and rewarding so long as you ignore something that completely tips the balance in your favor, if only hypothetically, which I only say because off the top of my head I can't think of a good example.

    I won't say that it's totally impossible. However, please consider that you're talking about something game-breaking that you always have at your disposal. So you never really get beaten; when you lose, you know it's because you chose to let the computer beat you by not using the broken move.

    So it might be possible, but it would be a lot easier if it were something irrevocable. Like if a certain player character class were broken, you could pick a different class at the start of the game, assuming the game never lets you change class, and then you can play the game without the broken crap. But if the power is always at your disposal, like counter in AC, then you know that you can always win, so instead of losing or being forced to find new ways out of tough spots (or just raise your skill level in general), you're always given the fallback option of "push the I WIN button."

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    i had fun with assassin's creed. but i didn't pay for it and i was playing it at the highest resolution possible on a 70 inch HDTV so that might have had something to do with it.

    It did look very nice. The framerate was kinda...butts. Still, it did look nice. How far through did you play?

    hello massa, I jar jar binks
    I've overheard someone say "Don't say something is retarded, its not cool to make fun of retards. Just say its gay."
  • Mister LongbaughMister Longbaugh Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    i had fun with assassin's creed. but i didn't pay for it and i was playing it at the highest resolution possible on a 70 inch HDTV so that might have had something to do with it.

    It did look very nice. The framerate was kinda...butts. Still, it did look nice. How far through did you play?

    admittedly i only played til, like, the 5th or 6th assassination. but the repetitiveness of the pre-mission shit didn't really bother me.

    blackstav.jpg
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ITT Defender doesn't understand that sometimes people do things because they are fun and/or awesome.

    chillaxton.jpg
    and I broke parole just to get to you
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender is basically the forum's retarded, robot little brother.

  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I didn't just stand there and counter because that's fucking boring. I would grab a guy and throw him into another then attack yet another to throw him off balance and I would counter when I'm attacked. If all you do is stand there and counter, of course it isn't going to be fun. This isn't something that anyone should have to be told, nor is it something that the game is at all responsible for.

    Defender's whole argument is essentially just like if you said that Michael Crichton is a spec-fic author, and then immediately stated that he sucks at writing spec-fic. It's silly to put a set of constraints on something that weren't there, and then holding the thing responsible for them. At no point in the game was some rule ever given that in any situation you have to do what is the "most effective", and even if it were, it could very easily be argued that any time you're standing there waiting for the enemy to attack, you are wrong. I'd say more but now I want to go play TF2.

    chillaxton.jpg
    and I broke parole just to get to you
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Shorty before you play TF2 you should ask Defender the best way to play it to maximise your fun.

This discussion has been closed.