Making Barons more expensive would fix it. If they cost 300 to build, players would not be able to churn out multiple squads as quickly. All factions can reasonably handle 1 baron squad. Slowing down the production rate would be an adequate nerf.
Lucascraft on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I suggested increased cost by 50, build time by 8-10 seconds, or reducing the number of barons per group by 1.
Note that I was speaking of one of those options being needed, certainly not 2 or 3 of them.
So was anyone else completely unsurprised when Yahtzee pretty much hated the game? Or at least disliked it or something?
I'm starting to wonder why I think this game is absolutely fucking awesome when so many people just plain don't like it. Every reviewer/critic/journalist/webcomic artist that I admire or hold respect for tends to hate this game, and finding myself in a gaming minority like this when I see such a brilliant game in front of me is beginning to be irksome.
Yahtzee's schtick has gotten really really old, and really, Jack Black was the problem here? The lack of tutorial and shortness of the single player are valid complaints (we are so used to tutorials being a given in today's games that when it's not there it is weird), but in this world Jack Black makes it work.
The whole first half of a game is a tutorial. People who are bitching that there is no tutorial are stupid. Those early game "adventure missions" are there to teach you how to control your dude. Everything leading up to the Pleasure Gardens is a tutorial given in a piecemeal fashion, to teach you ultimately how to play the Stage Battles.
Lucascraft on
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
The whole first half of a game is a tutorial. People who are bitching that there is no tutorial are stupid. Those early game "adventure missions" are there to teach you how to control your dude. Everything leading up to the Pleasure Gardens is a tutorial given in a piecemeal fashion, to teach you ultimately how to play the Stage Battles.
But when that is basically the first half, and you go through the rest of the game relatively quickly, I can see it being a problem. Just another two hours and three or 4 more stage battles would have made it a lot better (seriously, you have next to no time in the mountain area).
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. But that's a problem with story flow, rather than tutorial or lack thereof.
They needed about 5 or 6 more missions in the snowy mountain region, and they needed about 3 more missions versus the Drowning Doom, and about 8 more missions against Tainted Coil. But again, that's a pacing problem and has nothing to do with teaching you how to play the game. Fighting Lyonwhite teaches you how to play the game.
Making Barons more expensive would fix it. If they cost 300 to build, players would not be able to churn out multiple squads as quickly. All factions can reasonably handle 1 baron squad. Slowing down the production rate would be an adequate nerf.
I think this is an accurate statement. The issue, I think, is one that is compounded by the cost of the unit, the speed it produces, and how fast it can travel. Adjusting one of these levers could produce the desired results.
Yes. People don't like Brutal Legend because it's hard to classify. That's totally it.
C'mon. The problem with Brutal Legend is that it's lacking polish where it needs it most.
- Open world, no jump. Walk around that log.
- Race minigame with irritating and frustrating lack of collision physics.
- "Unlockable" solos hidden in the world, which should probably have been given to you as a reward for progressing through the game, so you might actually have them by the time you could use them in the last battles of the game.
- Poor plot development/writing in parts; you all know what scene I'm talking about. Add in an assumption that you've found every unlockable legend possible at any given point. It's confusing to hear a character talk about something he shouldn't know yet.
- Clumsy controls for unit movement. They work, but they could be more intuitive. (I love the earlier idea for which button you build with determines where the unit will go after being built.)
- No in-game introduction to playing the other factions; you're thrown in the pool with some flavor text and get to sink or swim.
- No numerical data. It's hard to build strategy when you only have vague observations on when and how a unit is useful vs another unit. Same goes for solos, and in single player, equipment/car upgrades.
- Visual transitions/cuts are jarring at times. Hit a motorforge. Ozzy will talk. Screen will cut to the shop list before he finishes his last word. Same with most of the side-mission conversations; characters will get cut off on their last syllable. Victory/Defeat screens seem to get their music cut off before it fades out all the way.
- Multiplayer balance issues (hopefully to be corrected, but always frustrating.)
- *edit in* Framerate issues on the the PS3 version, often when playing a solo or driving around.
I could continue if you really want. Many will say, "You're nitpicking!" Yes. Yes, I am. But you know what? Having a long list of nitpicks can keep you down.
I like Brutal Legend's single player. I think it's a good game, and I enjoyed playing it. Multiplayer seems like the thing that would be my bag, if everything weren't so obscured from me (I want my unit stats!) But, it's these things that keep the game from being "Great", and hold it down to merely "Good". Which seems to be the overriding public opinion.
Houn on
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Hell, an expansion could be Lyonwhite coming back and trying to take over the mountain area, and you get some more story/missions out of it. That's stuff basically already made for the game, just adding on to the single player a bit.
TexiKen on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
Wait,so people from Double Fine actually messaged you guys here on the boards?
supposedly. I double checked the name with the credits in-game and the guy is clearly there. I'm still slightly suspicious though. However, thats probably just because this is the internet.
Whatever Double Fine does, they need to do it quickly. Especially for PS3 owners. That community was very weak to begin with, and if the Baron rush isn't addressed shortly, it will kill the interest that remains.
Also, I think you're misidentifying the problem. It's not that he can't jump; Link can't jump in Zelda and it's never a problem. It's that there's no "auto-jump/climb" like in Zelda to easily get around small debris. Alternatively, the landscape could have just been designed so there's no small debris.
Not every game needs a jump button. It's largely a vestige of the ancient platformer genre. In real life you can't just leap 10 feet in the air over shit. (And I know Eddie isn't in "real life," but his mobility is fairly realistic.)
- No numerical data. It's hard to build strategy when you only have vague observations on when and how a unit is useful vs another unit. Same goes for solos, and in single player, equipment/car upgrades.
I prefer it this way, actually. You can gauge the "hit points" of things by looking at them, which is more realistic anyway, and keeps you in the here-and-now game world.
I wish more games abandoned the idea of an omniscient player who knows all the relevant stats about himself and his allies with merely a glance at his HUD.
I agree with the rest of your nitpicks though. I'll add that I really wished "BRUTAL VICTORY" was accompanied by some kind of satisfying visual explosion of the enemy's stage—it happens too abruptly.
I think what moves this game from "good" to "nearly great, if not outright great" is the storytelling and creativity of the world. Or at least, I think that makes up for its minor flaws.
Wait,so people from Double Fine actually messaged you guys here on the boards?
"He" messaged me again asking to elaborate on Team Matchmaking, and if Barons was the sole issue. (My previous responce recommended expansions to Single Player and tweaks to Multiplayer, such as Production Commands, larger music lists and Team Matchmaking.) This was my responce....
Oh.
Some players have trouble getting team games together. The players on your team must be previously invited and accepted into the game. Then if there are three of you, you seek a game with another three players who have done the same.
Players who favor team games have trouble doing this. What they would like to see is a lobby for Team Matchmaking. In which they select something like "Team Matchmaking," get to choose how big the teams are (ideally), are taken to a lobby with other players who want to play on teams too, and from there they divide up their teams and choose their faction. So that they don't have to arrange a meeting with their friends if they're not around.
For that to work, these players would have to compromise the faction they play after the players are put in the lobby. Searching for "Team Matchmaking Players Playing as Faction XYZ who want teams of N" tightens up the Venn Diagram of players too much. What's important is that the players who want to be on teams get to play.
As for the barons, yes they are the sole balance issue, and players all over feel the Ps3 community is...gone...and the 360 community is fading exclusively because of this. This is the reality of the situation. Take a look at your leaderboards for 360 and Ps3. You wont like the results.
How you approach barons...different things could work. Making them require more resources is popular, and my favorite option, because I noticed on Bleeding Coast, a player made no units whatsoever, and went straight to upgrading their base to get the barons. Baron Spam enthusiasts are simply not making different units and not needing them.
You could argue that with me. People say different things, like "they should take longer to make," or "make them slower," or , "give Drowning Doom and Tainted Coil a counter" (popular among RTS pros)* or "make them weaker." The resource thing is my favorite option.
* A RTS fan here said "I don't talk about nerfs, I talk about counters." Implying when you see your opponent repeating an exploitable activity, you should be able to punish them easily no matter what faction you are using, making the "spam" stop working. It's a little late for making new weapons for TC and DD. Making a counter would consist of making Barons more vulnerable to what DD and TC has at Tier 1 and 2.
Again, I prefer changing up production requirements.
It's the only balance issue I see. I want the game to play like it did the first two weeks, when everything felt very even. That should be the goal. An RTS enthusiast said that this is common, that players will find a new exploit that will take the barons place and the developer will see them as they appear.
Check my thread thoroughly, we have some really good players and good discussions on this topic. Too many to think of. I look forward to seeing what you consider. Thanks.
Another thing I like about BL that doesn't really get mentioned: the internal cohesiveness of the game's reality. And this is another reason why it reminds me of Shadow of the Colossus.
In most games you run around the world and there are enemies wandering around for no reason whatsoever, except of course the game design's transparent desire to give you "filler" to kill. Even in otherwise very realistic, very consistent games (like Bioshock), this happens, and I think it detracts from the experience of feeling like you're actually there.
Shadow of the Colossus gets around this by not having anything in the world except a few lizards. Which worked well for that game, because it was a lonely and haunting game.
In Brutal Legend, the world is filled with squads of roaming enemies, but it's also filled with squads of roaming allies. When you drive past a bunch of enemies, you don't think, "Oh, the game design needs some filler chaffe for me to fight so that this area of the map doesn't feel empty." You think, "aw shit, enemy scouts, oh good there's my guys patrolling over there." It makes complete sense in the context of the game's world that there are all of these small squads of enemies roaming around because the world is at war.
And this probably sounds like I'm nitpicking to find good things, but I've always thought that the game's internal "reality" or "believability" is one of the most important aspects. I really like to be drawn completely into games; I don't like to see the scaffolding of the gameplay mechanics at all. And Brutal Legend nails this more than almost any game I can think of.
In Brutal Legend, the world is filled with squads of roaming enemies, but it's also filled with squads of roaming allies. When you drive past a bunch of enemies, you don't think, "Oh, the game design needs some filler chaffe for me to fight so that this area of the map doesn't feel empty." You think, "aw shit, enemy scouts, oh good there's my guys patrolling over there." It makes complete sense in the context of the game's world that there are all of these small squads of enemies roaming around because the world is at war.
So was anyone else completely unsurprised when Yahtzee pretty much hated the game? Or at least disliked it or something?
I'm starting to wonder why I think this game is absolutely fucking awesome when so many people just plain don't like it. Every reviewer/critic/journalist/webcomic artist that I admire or hold respect for tends to hate this game, and finding myself in a gaming minority like this when I see such a brilliant game in front of me is beginning to be irksome.
Yahtzee's schtick has gotten really really old, and really, Jack Black was the problem here? The lack of tutorial and shortness of the single player are valid complaints (we are so used to tutorials being a given in today's games that when it's not there it is weird), but in this world Jack Black makes it work.
Again, it's not surprising when Yahtzee dislikes things. Including very well received things. Or poorly received things. Or stuff in between. It is, as previously mentioned, his schtick.
Given that he's not too fond of RTS games or Sandbox titles either, I can't see how he'd like the game anyway, really. I mean, I liked it, even in light of the fact that I found the RTS elements to be among the less enjoyable parts of the game.
Synthesis on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
This is what I got:
Hi Kor!
We're looking for some direct balancing feedback on Brütal Legend multiplayer from people who are active on messageboards. Browsing through the forum it seems like you're pretty into the game. Can you quickly get back to me with a list of the major issues that you have with the multiplayer game right now? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
So was anyone else completely unsurprised when Yahtzee pretty much hated the game? Or at least disliked it or something?
I'm starting to wonder why I think this game is absolutely fucking awesome when so many people just plain don't like it. Every reviewer/critic/journalist/webcomic artist that I admire or hold respect for tends to hate this game, and finding myself in a gaming minority like this when I see such a brilliant game in front of me is beginning to be irksome.
Yahtzee's schtick has gotten really really old, and really, Jack Black was the problem here? The lack of tutorial and shortness of the single player are valid complaints (we are so used to tutorials being a given in today's games that when it's not there it is weird), but in this world Jack Black makes it work.
Again, it's not surprising when Yahtzee dislikes things. Including very well received things. Or poorly received things. Or stuff in between. It is, as previously mentioned, his schtick.
Given that he's not too fond of RTS games or Sandbox titles either, I can't see how he'd like the game anyway, really. I mean, I liked it, even in light of the fact that I found the RTS elements to be among the less enjoyable parts of the game.
What I want to know is if it takes the RTS genre in a direction he likes. BL is the only type of RTS I play.
Kor, I dropped your PA name to that guy because you're a top player here, and could provide a different perspective. I hope that's all right.
The only thing that bugged me about the random fights in the game is how completely random they are. Do a few laps around the dry ice area, and don't kill anything. Every single lap will produce a completely different set of monsters.
On the other hand, I really liked how squads of Ironheade became more common as you secured your dominance in a given region.. and enemy squads got less common. It helped make it feel like you were having an impact on the world.
Yes. People don't like Brutal Legend because it's hard to classify. That's totally it.
I'm not sure where this came from. However, since my post was one of only a couple recently talking about this I'll clarify my stance. I don't think people disliked it because it was hard to classify. I think the game asks you to approach it in a measured fashion and if you skip or rush this you probably won't have as much fun.
From my own perspective, I wouldn't call Brutal Legend a great game. I love it, sure, but objectively it isn't a masterpiece. It's not even close.
So how exactly is the rally flag solo supposed to work? The last 2 stage battles I tried to use it, it did nothing and I had to fly back to my stage and order my units to follow me.
Also, I'm definitely leaning towards the "not so great" camp towards the game right now with about 4 or 5 missions left to go. I can't fully pin down why though. I think I just find the whole thing kind of disjointed. It's both heavily mission based with free exploration in a game where your gameplay in missions is totally different from what you tend to do outside of stage battles. And frankly, I don't have that much fun in the stage battles either. That might change if I get the damn rally flag to work though so I don't have to keep going back and forth to gather units.
The only thing that bugged me about the random fights in the game is how completely random they are. Do a few laps around the dry ice area, and don't kill anything. Every single lap will produce a completely different set of monsters.
On the other hand, I really liked how squads of Ironheade became more common as you secured your dominance in a given region.. and enemy squads got less common. It helped make it feel like you were having an impact on the world.
You realize that creature spawns are partially dependent on time of day, right?
What I want to know is if it takes the RTS genre in a direction he likes. BL is the only type of RTS I play.
Based on this video, it doesn't seem like it. He lambasted it quite a bit for not letting you know it was an RTS until long after you'd started playing, and hated how the RTS felt like you were just throwing hordes of minions at a target.
I'm not really sure if that could be improved on. The less RTS you make the game, the more it's going to feel like one of those japanese game where you slaughter thousands of enemies.. at which point it's just an action game.
xzzy on
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
So how exactly is the rally flag solo supposed to work? The last 2 stage battles I tried to use it, it did nothing and I had to fly back to my stage and order my units to follow me.
Also, I'm definitely leaning towards the "not so great" camp towards the game right now with about 4 or 5 missions left to go. I can't fully pin down why though. I think I just find the whole thing kind of disjointed. It's both heavily mission based with free exploration in a game where your gameplay in missions is totally different from what you tend to do outside of stage battles. And frankly, I don't have that much fun in the stage battles either. That might change if I get the damn rally flag to work though so I don't have to keep going back and forth to gather units.
Rally flag only works for newly made units. They will run out to where you plant the flag (or you can have your character have it on their back so they follow you.
Rally Army is the solo you want to use, as it will bring everyone to where you are.
So was anyone else completely unsurprised when Yahtzee pretty much hated the game? Or at least disliked it or something?
I'm starting to wonder why I think this game is absolutely fucking awesome when so many people just plain don't like it. Every reviewer/critic/journalist/webcomic artist that I admire or hold respect for tends to hate this game, and finding myself in a gaming minority like this when I see such a brilliant game in front of me is beginning to be irksome.
Yahtzee's schtick has gotten really really old, and really, Jack Black was the problem here? The lack of tutorial and shortness of the single player are valid complaints (we are so used to tutorials being a given in today's games that when it's not there it is weird), but in this world Jack Black makes it work.
Again, it's not surprising when Yahtzee dislikes things. Including very well received things. Or poorly received things. Or stuff in between. It is, as previously mentioned, his schtick.
Given that he's not too fond of RTS games or Sandbox titles either, I can't see how he'd like the game anyway, really. I mean, I liked it, even in light of the fact that I found the RTS elements to be among the less enjoyable parts of the game.
What I want to know is if it takes the RTS genre in a direction he likes. BL is the only type of RTS I play.
I'm going to guess a resounding "NO" (we are still talking about Yahtzee, right?). In spite of the fun of breaking stuff and acting tough personally.
Also, if BL is the only RTS you play, keep in mind--and I'm sure you've already heard this to death, but it bares repeating--that is very unique among RTS games. I want to say it takes away from the depth of RTS in general in favor of some more brutal, hack-and-slash elements (say, half RTS, half beat-shit-up). My problem was I was more interested in the later than the former, so I didn't want to really do the battles, but nonetheless, I would say it works for the purposes of the game.
What I want to know is if it takes the RTS genre in a direction he likes. BL is the only type of RTS I play.
Based on this video, it doesn't seem like it. He lambasted it quite a bit for not letting you know it was an RTS until long after you'd started playing, and hated how the RTS felt like you were just throwing hordes of minions at a target.
I'm not really sure if that could be improved on. The less RTS you make the game, the more it's going to feel like one of those japanese game where you slaughter thousands of enemies.. at which point it's just an action game.
This is what I keep telling whiners. To go play Nintey Nine Nights and come back when their bored of the game and of Inphyy smashing her tits together while donning her armor. (You know the part.)
Also, if BL is the only RTS you play, keep in mind--and I'm sure you've already heard this to death, but it bares repeating--that is very unique among RTS games. I want to say it takes away from the depth of RTS in general in favor of some more brutal, hack-and-slash elements (say, half RTS, half beat-shit-up). My problem was I was more interested in the later than the former, so I didn't want to really do the battles, but nonetheless, I would say it works for the purposes of the game.
Yeah, I know. My RTS selection is limited to four games. (Battlezone, Sacrfice, Natural Selection and Brutal Legend.) I'll give Starcraft 2 a try if I can get a good computer or scale down the graphics enough. It's very cool to watch.
What I want to know is if it takes the RTS genre in a direction he likes. BL is the only type of RTS I play.
Based on this video, it doesn't seem like it. He lambasted it quite a bit for not letting you know it was an RTS until long after you'd started playing, and hated how the RTS felt like you were just throwing hordes of minions at a target.
I'm not really sure if that could be improved on. The less RTS you make the game, the more it's going to feel like one of those japanese game where you slaughter thousands of enemies.. at which point it's just an action game.
This is what I keep telling whiners. To go play Nintey Nine Nights and come back when their bored of the game and of Inphyy smashing her tits together while donning her armor. (You know the part.)
Eh. I don't want to play an action game where the armies are peripheral to the gameplay. But I do think that Brutal Legend would have been better if it merged action tropes with tactics tropes, rather than action with strategy.
What really makes the game is how interactive your army is, mainly through the Double Team attacks. Also how "naked" you feel without being surrounded by your troops, and how you and your army both ultimately rely on each other to fight on the ground effectively. But I do think the more abstracted, traditional real time strategy elements—mostly resource management—are peripheral to this central experience. I would have preferred a layer of tactical complexity that merges more with your actions on the ground.
Oh, I love the world. It's very tight and cohesive; I can wander it for hours and never lose immersion. They get mad points for that, along with all the art direction, music choices, atmosphere, etc.
Also, the Brutal Legend dude should just post here. So we can all flame/worship him.
Houn on
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
The best thing about the world is in the swamp area, where you have drum cymbals as plants. When I saw that, that's when I really fell in love with the metal world.
But I do think the more abstracted, traditional real time strategy elements—mostly resource management—are peripheral to this central experience. I would have preferred a layer of tactical complexity that merges more with your actions on the ground.
I kind of agree. It would have required a lot of redesigning of how the units interacted, but I think a setup where you start a fight with a number of fans and get no more would have been an interesting idea. Means you start a match by spending your points to pick the units you want, and once that's done all you have to worry about is killing the enemy before he kills you.
This has a lot to do with the fact that this is how Myth worked, and I still think it's the best RTS game ever made. So I am quite biased.
It also introduces the idea of unit conservation, which is a secondary concern in most casual RTS encounters.
I kind of agree. It would have required a lot of redesigning of how the units interacted, but I think a setup where you start a fight with a number of fans and get no more would have been an interesting idea. Means you start a match by spending your points to pick the units you want, and once that's done all you have to worry about is killing the enemy before he kills you.
This has a lot to do with the fact that this is how Myth worked, and I still think it's the best RTS game ever made. So I am quite biased.
It also introduces the idea of unit conservation, which is a secondary concern in most casual RTS encounters.
My idea was for the fans to basically be like "Style points" in Devil May Cry. You get more by doing badass shit as Eddie on the battlefield. And the more fans you have directly affects your army's strength. If you get enough fans you can "route" the other army by scaring them to run the other direction (apparently DD has attacks that do this already).
Instead of commands having to do with location, rallying points, etc, the commands would have to do with your army's formation. Forming defensive lines, attack lines, flanking maneuvers, etc. Though obviously this would still need to be quite simplified, and a lot of it would still have to be automated.
Also, if BL is the only RTS you play, keep in mind--and I'm sure you've already heard this to death, but it bares repeating--that is very unique among RTS games. I want to say it takes away from the depth of RTS in general in favor of some more brutal, hack-and-slash elements (say, half RTS, half beat-shit-up). My problem was I was more interested in the later than the former, so I didn't want to really do the battles, but nonetheless, I would say it works for the purposes of the game.
Yeah, I know. My RTS selection is limited to four games. (Battlezone, Sacrfice, Natural Selection and Brutal Legend.) I'll give Starcraft 2 a try if I can get a good computer or scale down the graphics enough. It's very cool to watch.
I say this because I'm an RTS-addict, going back (okay, not that far back) into the days of Dune II and the original C&C. Right now, if I want to play an RTS, I'll crack open Company of Heroes if I want something long and involving, or World in Conflict if I just want to sit around for ten minutes and laugh or curse like a maniac, depending on the course of the battle.
I will not, ever, to be totally honest, pick up Brutal Legend whilst looking for an RTS. But if I want to enjoy heavy metal with my very limited knowledge of the drama, whilst hearing Jack Black in what I feel is one of his better roles and maybe chop up some nuns? You bet I'll play BL.
Somewhat ironically(?), I'm not a Starcraft guy. Never was, well, maybe a little bit, but it didn't stick. I went almost directly from Warcraft II to its expansion to Warcraft III. I'm sure I'll be playing the demo for SC2 at least. And I'm still kind of sad that the most fun I had with the game was the first twenty minutes or so. That was great stuff.
Synthesis on
0
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
So was anyone else completely unsurprised when Yahtzee pretty much hated the game? Or at least disliked it or something?
I'm starting to wonder why I think this game is absolutely fucking awesome when so many people just plain don't like it. Every reviewer/critic/journalist/webcomic artist that I admire or hold respect for tends to hate this game, and finding myself in a gaming minority like this when I see such a brilliant game in front of me is beginning to be irksome.
Do you play a lot of videogames? I haven't played much of anything since the PS2/Gamecube generation, aside from Rock Band. So for me, I think I enjoy Brutal Legend because it doesn't automatically coalesce into some preconceived notion of genre.
But for people like Tycho and pro game reviewers who constantly play games, I'd imagine that their preconceptions are ossified by established genres. Tycho, for example, insists it's an RTS game and was frustrated when he tried to play it as an RTS game. Maybe it's because I read the comic (and Schaffer's response) before I picked the game up, but I don't think this would have even occurred to me.
I do think the game could have done a better job focusing the player on the action aspects and simplifying the RTS aspects—it could have been "blended" better. But I wouldn't be surprised if the game appeals to less hardcore players with less expectations of how an RTS "should" play.
Actually, I play a lot of games. I actually attempted to try to beat 37 of my games for this current school semester, but I got sidetracked by RL and then by Brutal Legend. I consider myself an avid gamer.
Which makes me even more confused as to why I fucking love Brutal Legend. It seems other people who have a background similar to mine dislike the game, but I'm totally sold by this metal masterwork.
It's not just the presentation I love either. The multiplayer in my mind is brilliant. So yeah, I'm confused.
Yes. People don't like Brutal Legend because it's hard to classify. That's totally it.
The largest complaint by far for the game was it's stage battles, i.e. multiplayer. That's my favorite part of the game. This is what worries me. Am I that out of touch or are a lot of people not looking at this game in the right way.
Admittedly, a game should be show it's grandeur and glory from the get-go and not require the player to dig into the game to find its brilliance. I think Yahtzee nailed that part, and to me it's Brutal Legend's real flaw.
This game doesn't present itself well, in game and out of game. The advertisements and trailers don't really show you the core of the game (barring the multiplayer tutorial, which is presented as a fucking side item), and the game never flat out says "don't hover around the battle and do nothing! Wade into combat and DOUBLE TEAM!" The game doesn't hint at what it takes to be good, which gives the illusion that there's no depth to the gameplay. There is, and it's awesome.
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
For me,the best thing about the multiplayer is that I can not only build an army that looks absolutely amazing graphically (I mean come on,the designs are just fantastic) but I can actually interact with every single one of my units and command them myself using distinctive special attacks.
It just feels RIGHT to drive around on the Rockcrusher and ...well...crushing things or summoning Bladehenge.
Klyka on
SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
looking for some good times. willing to play some multi-team games as well
Based on my limited experience, and the fact that the reapers are tier 3 ... it almost seems like the barons should be switched with the big-fisted dudes for Ironheade. This would also mirror the progression of how you team up with these units in the game. I wonder if the whole thing is just a mistake.
I'm not certain if giving Ironheade anti-vehicle heavy infantry in the 2nd tier is necessarily the way to go. I think that Ironheade needs that counter infantry unit (like DD needs the Ratgut) but that the Barons are probably effective in a few too many categories: you get them early, they're reasonably priced, they're fast as hell, and they molest just about everything that moves.
A number of good solutions have already been proposed: increase cost, decrease damage versus buildings, etc. Given that they use fire, they do have decreased damage against vehicles, right? Another idea might be to limit the total number of Baron squads you can spawn at any one time.
That would go too far, unless your talking about requiring more slots or making less per unit. I like the increase cost option. I think they produce quickly too, but the resource thing is more important.
Hell the DD can only have 3 brides. Every teir 4 unit has a cap of one. Why not give barons a 3 squad cap. And have them die in a fire too.
Edit: Oh yeah and TC can only have one overblesser.
Now that I think about it this would just swap out gradualy larger mobs of barons for a constant stream of 3 baron squads. Also would leave the one trick ponys(fools) with the resources to tech up while keeping the presure on.
Malechai on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
Posts
Note that I was speaking of one of those options being needed, certainly not 2 or 3 of them.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Yahtzee's schtick has gotten really really old, and really, Jack Black was the problem here? The lack of tutorial and shortness of the single player are valid complaints (we are so used to tutorials being a given in today's games that when it's not there it is weird), but in this world Jack Black makes it work.
But when that is basically the first half, and you go through the rest of the game relatively quickly, I can see it being a problem. Just another two hours and three or 4 more stage battles would have made it a lot better (seriously, you have next to no time in the mountain area).
They needed about 5 or 6 more missions in the snowy mountain region, and they needed about 3 more missions versus the Drowning Doom, and about 8 more missions against Tainted Coil. But again, that's a pacing problem and has nothing to do with teaching you how to play the game. Fighting Lyonwhite teaches you how to play the game.
I think this is an accurate statement. The issue, I think, is one that is compounded by the cost of the unit, the speed it produces, and how fast it can travel. Adjusting one of these levers could produce the desired results.
C'mon. The problem with Brutal Legend is that it's lacking polish where it needs it most.
- Open world, no jump. Walk around that log.
- Race minigame with irritating and frustrating lack of collision physics.
- "Unlockable" solos hidden in the world, which should probably have been given to you as a reward for progressing through the game, so you might actually have them by the time you could use them in the last battles of the game.
- Poor plot development/writing in parts; you all know what scene I'm talking about. Add in an assumption that you've found every unlockable legend possible at any given point. It's confusing to hear a character talk about something he shouldn't know yet.
- Clumsy controls for unit movement. They work, but they could be more intuitive. (I love the earlier idea for which button you build with determines where the unit will go after being built.)
- No in-game introduction to playing the other factions; you're thrown in the pool with some flavor text and get to sink or swim.
- No numerical data. It's hard to build strategy when you only have vague observations on when and how a unit is useful vs another unit. Same goes for solos, and in single player, equipment/car upgrades.
- Visual transitions/cuts are jarring at times. Hit a motorforge. Ozzy will talk. Screen will cut to the shop list before he finishes his last word. Same with most of the side-mission conversations; characters will get cut off on their last syllable. Victory/Defeat screens seem to get their music cut off before it fades out all the way.
- Multiplayer balance issues (hopefully to be corrected, but always frustrating.)
- *edit in* Framerate issues on the the PS3 version, often when playing a solo or driving around.
I could continue if you really want. Many will say, "You're nitpicking!" Yes. Yes, I am. But you know what? Having a long list of nitpicks can keep you down.
I like Brutal Legend's single player. I think it's a good game, and I enjoyed playing it. Multiplayer seems like the thing that would be my bag, if everything weren't so obscured from me (I want my unit stats!) But, it's these things that keep the game from being "Great", and hold it down to merely "Good". Which seems to be the overriding public opinion.
supposedly. I double checked the name with the credits in-game and the guy is clearly there. I'm still slightly suspicious though. However, thats probably just because this is the internet.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Also, I think you're misidentifying the problem. It's not that he can't jump; Link can't jump in Zelda and it's never a problem. It's that there's no "auto-jump/climb" like in Zelda to easily get around small debris. Alternatively, the landscape could have just been designed so there's no small debris.
Not every game needs a jump button. It's largely a vestige of the ancient platformer genre. In real life you can't just leap 10 feet in the air over shit. (And I know Eddie isn't in "real life," but his mobility is fairly realistic.)
I prefer it this way, actually. You can gauge the "hit points" of things by looking at them, which is more realistic anyway, and keeps you in the here-and-now game world.
I wish more games abandoned the idea of an omniscient player who knows all the relevant stats about himself and his allies with merely a glance at his HUD.
I agree with the rest of your nitpicks though. I'll add that I really wished "BRUTAL VICTORY" was accompanied by some kind of satisfying visual explosion of the enemy's stage—it happens too abruptly.
I think what moves this game from "good" to "nearly great, if not outright great" is the storytelling and creativity of the world. Or at least, I think that makes up for its minor flaws.
"He" messaged me again asking to elaborate on Team Matchmaking, and if Barons was the sole issue. (My previous responce recommended expansions to Single Player and tweaks to Multiplayer, such as Production Commands, larger music lists and Team Matchmaking.) This was my responce....
Some players have trouble getting team games together. The players on your team must be previously invited and accepted into the game. Then if there are three of you, you seek a game with another three players who have done the same.
Players who favor team games have trouble doing this. What they would like to see is a lobby for Team Matchmaking. In which they select something like "Team Matchmaking," get to choose how big the teams are (ideally), are taken to a lobby with other players who want to play on teams too, and from there they divide up their teams and choose their faction. So that they don't have to arrange a meeting with their friends if they're not around.
For that to work, these players would have to compromise the faction they play after the players are put in the lobby. Searching for "Team Matchmaking Players Playing as Faction XYZ who want teams of N" tightens up the Venn Diagram of players too much. What's important is that the players who want to be on teams get to play.
As for the barons, yes they are the sole balance issue, and players all over feel the Ps3 community is...gone...and the 360 community is fading exclusively because of this. This is the reality of the situation. Take a look at your leaderboards for 360 and Ps3. You wont like the results.
How you approach barons...different things could work. Making them require more resources is popular, and my favorite option, because I noticed on Bleeding Coast, a player made no units whatsoever, and went straight to upgrading their base to get the barons. Baron Spam enthusiasts are simply not making different units and not needing them.
You could argue that with me. People say different things, like "they should take longer to make," or "make them slower," or , "give Drowning Doom and Tainted Coil a counter" (popular among RTS pros)* or "make them weaker." The resource thing is my favorite option.
* A RTS fan here said "I don't talk about nerfs, I talk about counters." Implying when you see your opponent repeating an exploitable activity, you should be able to punish them easily no matter what faction you are using, making the "spam" stop working. It's a little late for making new weapons for TC and DD. Making a counter would consist of making Barons more vulnerable to what DD and TC has at Tier 1 and 2.
Again, I prefer changing up production requirements.
It's the only balance issue I see. I want the game to play like it did the first two weeks, when everything felt very even. That should be the goal. An RTS enthusiast said that this is common, that players will find a new exploit that will take the barons place and the developer will see them as they appear.
Check my thread thoroughly, we have some really good players and good discussions on this topic. Too many to think of. I look forward to seeing what you consider. Thanks.
In most games you run around the world and there are enemies wandering around for no reason whatsoever, except of course the game design's transparent desire to give you "filler" to kill. Even in otherwise very realistic, very consistent games (like Bioshock), this happens, and I think it detracts from the experience of feeling like you're actually there.
Shadow of the Colossus gets around this by not having anything in the world except a few lizards. Which worked well for that game, because it was a lonely and haunting game.
In Brutal Legend, the world is filled with squads of roaming enemies, but it's also filled with squads of roaming allies. When you drive past a bunch of enemies, you don't think, "Oh, the game design needs some filler chaffe for me to fight so that this area of the map doesn't feel empty." You think, "aw shit, enemy scouts, oh good there's my guys patrolling over there." It makes complete sense in the context of the game's world that there are all of these small squads of enemies roaming around because the world is at war.
And this probably sounds like I'm nitpicking to find good things, but I've always thought that the game's internal "reality" or "believability" is one of the most important aspects. I really like to be drawn completely into games; I don't like to see the scaffolding of the gameplay mechanics at all. And Brutal Legend nails this more than almost any game I can think of.
And Laser Panthers.
Again, it's not surprising when Yahtzee dislikes things. Including very well received things. Or poorly received things. Or stuff in between. It is, as previously mentioned, his schtick.
Given that he's not too fond of RTS games or Sandbox titles either, I can't see how he'd like the game anyway, really. I mean, I liked it, even in light of the fact that I found the RTS elements to be among the less enjoyable parts of the game.
He signed it, but I'm not going to include that.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
What I want to know is if it takes the RTS genre in a direction he likes. BL is the only type of RTS I play.
Kor, I dropped your PA name to that guy because you're a top player here, and could provide a different perspective. I hope that's all right.
On the other hand, I really liked how squads of Ironheade became more common as you secured your dominance in a given region.. and enemy squads got less common. It helped make it feel like you were having an impact on the world.
I'm not sure where this came from. However, since my post was one of only a couple recently talking about this I'll clarify my stance. I don't think people disliked it because it was hard to classify. I think the game asks you to approach it in a measured fashion and if you skip or rush this you probably won't have as much fun.
From my own perspective, I wouldn't call Brutal Legend a great game. I love it, sure, but objectively it isn't a masterpiece. It's not even close.
Also, I'm definitely leaning towards the "not so great" camp towards the game right now with about 4 or 5 missions left to go. I can't fully pin down why though. I think I just find the whole thing kind of disjointed. It's both heavily mission based with free exploration in a game where your gameplay in missions is totally different from what you tend to do outside of stage battles. And frankly, I don't have that much fun in the stage battles either. That might change if I get the damn rally flag to work though so I don't have to keep going back and forth to gather units.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
You realize that creature spawns are partially dependent on time of day, right?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
I'm not really sure if that could be improved on. The less RTS you make the game, the more it's going to feel like one of those japanese game where you slaughter thousands of enemies.. at which point it's just an action game.
Rally flag only works for newly made units. They will run out to where you plant the flag (or you can have your character have it on their back so they follow you.
Rally Army is the solo you want to use, as it will bring everyone to where you are.
I'm going to guess a resounding "NO" (we are still talking about Yahtzee, right?). In spite of the fun of breaking stuff and acting tough personally.
Also, if BL is the only RTS you play, keep in mind--and I'm sure you've already heard this to death, but it bares repeating--that is very unique among RTS games. I want to say it takes away from the depth of RTS in general in favor of some more brutal, hack-and-slash elements (say, half RTS, half beat-shit-up). My problem was I was more interested in the later than the former, so I didn't want to really do the battles, but nonetheless, I would say it works for the purposes of the game.
This is what I keep telling whiners. To go play Nintey Nine Nights and come back when their bored of the game and of Inphyy smashing her tits together while donning her armor. (You know the part.)
Yeah, I know. My RTS selection is limited to four games. (Battlezone, Sacrfice, Natural Selection and Brutal Legend.) I'll give Starcraft 2 a try if I can get a good computer or scale down the graphics enough. It's very cool to watch.
What really makes the game is how interactive your army is, mainly through the Double Team attacks. Also how "naked" you feel without being surrounded by your troops, and how you and your army both ultimately rely on each other to fight on the ground effectively. But I do think the more abstracted, traditional real time strategy elements—mostly resource management—are peripheral to this central experience. I would have preferred a layer of tactical complexity that merges more with your actions on the ground.
Also, the Brutal Legend dude should just post here. So we can all flame/worship him.
I kind of agree. It would have required a lot of redesigning of how the units interacted, but I think a setup where you start a fight with a number of fans and get no more would have been an interesting idea. Means you start a match by spending your points to pick the units you want, and once that's done all you have to worry about is killing the enemy before he kills you.
This has a lot to do with the fact that this is how Myth worked, and I still think it's the best RTS game ever made. So I am quite biased.
It also introduces the idea of unit conservation, which is a secondary concern in most casual RTS encounters.
Instead of commands having to do with location, rallying points, etc, the commands would have to do with your army's formation. Forming defensive lines, attack lines, flanking maneuvers, etc. Though obviously this would still need to be quite simplified, and a lot of it would still have to be automated.
I say this because I'm an RTS-addict, going back (okay, not that far back) into the days of Dune II and the original C&C. Right now, if I want to play an RTS, I'll crack open Company of Heroes if I want something long and involving, or World in Conflict if I just want to sit around for ten minutes and laugh or curse like a maniac, depending on the course of the battle.
I will not, ever, to be totally honest, pick up Brutal Legend whilst looking for an RTS. But if I want to enjoy heavy metal with my very limited knowledge of the drama, whilst hearing Jack Black in what I feel is one of his better roles and maybe chop up some nuns? You bet I'll play BL.
Somewhat ironically(?), I'm not a Starcraft guy. Never was, well, maybe a little bit, but it didn't stick. I went almost directly from Warcraft II to its expansion to Warcraft III. I'm sure I'll be playing the demo for SC2 at least. And I'm still kind of sad that the most fun I had with the game was the first twenty minutes or so. That was great stuff.
Actually, I play a lot of games. I actually attempted to try to beat 37 of my games for this current school semester, but I got sidetracked by RL and then by Brutal Legend. I consider myself an avid gamer.
Which makes me even more confused as to why I fucking love Brutal Legend. It seems other people who have a background similar to mine dislike the game, but I'm totally sold by this metal masterwork.
It's not just the presentation I love either. The multiplayer in my mind is brilliant. So yeah, I'm confused.
Maybe it's the laser panthers.
The largest complaint by far for the game was it's stage battles, i.e. multiplayer. That's my favorite part of the game. This is what worries me. Am I that out of touch or are a lot of people not looking at this game in the right way.
Admittedly, a game should be show it's grandeur and glory from the get-go and not require the player to dig into the game to find its brilliance. I think Yahtzee nailed that part, and to me it's Brutal Legend's real flaw.
This game doesn't present itself well, in game and out of game. The advertisements and trailers don't really show you the core of the game (barring the multiplayer tutorial, which is presented as a fucking side item), and the game never flat out says "don't hover around the battle and do nothing! Wade into combat and DOUBLE TEAM!" The game doesn't hint at what it takes to be good, which gives the illusion that there's no depth to the gameplay. There is, and it's awesome.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
It just feels RIGHT to drive around on the Rockcrusher and ...well...crushing things or summoning Bladehenge.
www.livestream.com/pabrutallegend
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Hell the DD can only have 3 brides. Every teir 4 unit has a cap of one. Why not give barons a 3 squad cap. And have them die in a fire too.
Edit: Oh yeah and TC can only have one overblesser.
Now that I think about it this would just swap out gradualy larger mobs of barons for a constant stream of 3 baron squads. Also would leave the one trick ponys(fools) with the resources to tech up while keeping the presure on.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
My rock crusher always blows up before 20 (I bet I'm close) and I just can't get 15 enemies in a tight enough area for the pain lifter.
Rock crusher? Umm... find a buddy...
edit: I don't think the painlifter one has to be with one single euthanasia does it?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????