However, to provide supplementary detail, the improvements to the interface between BW and SC2 represent a massive change in the way the game actually plays, with macromanagement no longer being an all-consuming black hole on the player's attention, enabling much richer control over the tactical aspects of play, and presenting much less of an exclusive barrier to entry. It's not necessary to have insane hand speed to be a very good SC2 player, but the same could never be said for BW.
SC2 also has a much livelier international following; it's not just a game that is only played really seriously in Korea anymore.
I'm going to back away from this arguement because I don't know what any of that meant.
Some people are just invested in certain titles and spend a great deal of their time in those games. Particularly competitive games (like SSF4 or Starcraft) or MMOs (WoW). A patch, adjustment, or expansion to one of those games would seem minor to someone who played those games for a week or two and then stopped, but to someone who regularly plays them for over the entire year, it's a huge deal and impacts their day to day life.
SurfaceBeneath on
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Some people are just invested in certain titles and spend a great deal of their time in those games. Particularly competitive games (like SSF4 or Starcraft) or MMOs (WoW). A patch, adjustment, or expansion to one of those games would seem minor to someone who played those games for a week or two and then stopped, but to someone who regularly plays them for over the entire year, it's a huge deal and impacts their day to day life.
Oh believe me, I know that; TF2 changes are the bane of my existance. But man... Starcraft II as GOTY...? ...eh
Jintor on
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
I don't mind Rockstar taking themselves more seriously. I commend the fact that they're trying to tell smarter, more mature stories. I just feel those stories would be better served if they were more imaginative in their game design.
Until someone implements real consequences to your actions, I don't think it's possible to portray serious characters or stories in games of these types. And such a thing would probably be unwelcome in the first place since most of the allure comes from just screwing around (and killing a whole lot of people in the process) and even in the course of the single player game most people would find it too restrictive and un-fun.
As much as I am a fan of RDR, one of the biggest issues I had with the game is Mexico and the heinous shit they had you do there.
Like burning down peoples houses. That felt like a moment that was really inappropriate for the Marston that I was role playing, and ostensibly the Marston that Rockstar was portraying in the grand scheme of the game.
I tried to turn on the militia but that was met with instant game over.
So what I'm trying to say is that Bonnie is character of the year.
I don't mind Rockstar taking themselves more seriously. I commend the fact that they're trying to tell smarter, more mature stories. I just feel those stories would be better served if they were more imaginative in their game design.
Can you give an example where more imaginative game design would have better served the story?
I haven't played RDR, so I can only talk about GTA IV, which would be off-topic I guess, but anyway:
I was enthralled with GTA IV's story up until the point you have to move to Manhattan to hide because your house has been burnt down. After that point, you begin doing just odd jobs for random people 'cause you need money. For me, this killed the flow of the story.
Moreover, the tragedy of the story is supposed to be that Niko wants to be a good man and doesn't want to kill or murder, but that's exactly what he has to do to bury his past. But then you have missions like the one you're given by the homeless McReary brother. He asks you to go break a guy out of prison and kill him 'cause he's been calling him a rat. When Niko breaks the guy out and tells him he's going to kill him, the guy started bawling, iirc. I didn't want to kill him. Niko didn't have to kill him. He didn't owe McReary anything, nor was McReary going to help him find "that special someone". But that's the way the game was designed. Person X told you to kill Y so you do it.
In the beginning of the game, Niko was forced into a situation he didn't want to be in. That was intriguing. After that, he's going to random points and doing whatever other people tell him to do in return for money or information. The standard GTA stuff. It just stopped being compelling for me. Basically, it boiled down to them trying to tell a story that didn't fit the game they made.
This is just me, though. Totally subjective. I know loads of people were very impressed with GTA IV's story. I'm not trying to tell them they're wrong or that the story objectively sucks.
Hope I won't feel the same about RDR.
To stay on-topic, my favourite game this year was Mass Effect 2. Next would be Super Meat Boy or Starcraft II, with Bayonetta and Just Cause 2 being somewhere in the middle of that list and NFS and God of War III bringing up the rear. I am yet to play Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, but based on how much I enjoyed the second, I'm sure it'll be somewhere at the top of my list when I do finish it.
RDR in my mind had some serious story problems, and definitely feels like it was artificially extended at times.
This whole GTIV and RDR discussion bring up two things I have to say:
First, I would rather have some broken mechanics like in AP than a broken story. Sorry, but that is the tradeoff I am willing to make.
Second, GT and by proxy RDR has not changed in nearly a decade. You are still doing the same dumb fetch and kill quests and the outcomes are effectively pre-arranged. The number one complaint that I have heard and experienced with the Rockstar games is that at some point the "openness" breaks down to ensure that the story moves forward. What if I don't want to kill someone? What if that isn't the story I want to play out. The openness is a lie.
Also, seriously SC2 as game of the year? You can't iterate on a great game and then cite its predecessors brilliance as your own. Although, I guess the arguement could be made that more people will be playing SC2 in five years than any game here.
Second, GT and by proxy RDR has not changed in nearly a decade. You are still doing the same dumb fetch and kill quests and the outcomes are effectively pre-arranged. The number one complaint that I have heard and experienced with the Rockstar games is that at some point the "openness" breaks down to ensure that the story moves forward. What if I don't want to kill someone? What if that isn't the story I want to play out. The openness is a lie.
This is a dumb complaint
The world is open; the quest you are on is not.
If you were playing a linear, level-based game, would you be mad that you had to kill someone you didn't necessarily want to in order to progress the game?
Starcraft 2 warrants at least consideration for GOTY completely in isolation from StarCraft 1.
Yes, you can say that it is just the same game but polished to the heavens, and in some aspects it is. But I believe it adds a significant amount more to warrant inclusion. Specifically their online implementation of multiplayer is so robust and cleverly designed that I'm actually playing it online, whereas with SC1 it was the old PA adage of looking for some burly men to fuck you in the ass.
Adding new features, new mechanics and an entirely new BattleNet system without breaking the core gameplay so loved by so many is an incredibly hard task.
With StarCraft 2 Blizzard somehow managed to please all the die hard fans and include newcomers and the casual just dipping their toe in the water crowd. An achievement such as that is extremely rare and not easy at all.
The_Scarab on
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
To be fair, they took out a lot of the online interaction of SC1 (chat channels being patched in months after release? Really?) and the matchmaking system is basically WarCraft 3's matchmaking only refined. Having a matchmaking system in your game is not amazing, new or spectacular. It's basically a necessity.
StarCraft 2 is a very good game with a fun campaign. It is certainly the best RTS of the year and also a long time, but calling it GOTY goes a bit too far. Personal opinions, sure.
Yeah, but if you say that Starcraft 2 doesn't count as GotY 'cause they haven't radically changed the mechanics, then I don't think you can count any Call of Duty since Modern Warfare or Super Street Fighter IV or dozens of other games. AssCreed: Bro would have to be counted solely on the basis of its multiplayer offerings, too. Pfft.
Also, Spicy_Rev, I don't think anybody complains about the outcomes being pre-arranged in a GTA game. People have a problem with the heavy scripting of seemingly open missions like chasing someone through the city, but nobody's expecting an RPG. You might want to play Fallout if that's the kind of openness you're looking for.
To be fair, they took out a lot of the online interaction of SC1 (chat channels being patched in months after release? Really?) and the matchmaking system is basically WarCraft 3's matchmaking only refined. Having a matchmaking system in your game is not amazing, new or spectacular. It's basically a necessity.
StarCraft 2 is a very good game with a fun campaign. It is certainly the best RTS of the year and also a long time, but calling it GOTY goes a bit too far. Personal opinions, sure.
Yes but the point I'm making is that if you arbitrarily discount all the aspects from SC1 that make SC2 good, then it still has meat on those bones.
But when coupled with the inherent core mechanics of Starcraft, it combines to make an up to date, modern retake on a classic formula that is as polished and balanced as it ever was.
Essentially, Starcraft 2 lies in a curious middle ground for me. It's not a classical sequel, in that the gameplay is almost exactly the same outside of unit changes and balance. But it's much more than a mere expansion pack, because it brings a ten year old style of game into 2010 in a complete manner.
You say matchmaking systems are a necessity today. And they are. And Starcraft 2 has one of the best. It's almost expected, and therefore not worth highlighting. But the same is true of nearly every aspect of the game. It has leaderboards, tournament ladders, clans and an entire friends system. It has invisible updates, balance changes on the fly. It has new units and old units, some changed and some just as they always were. It has sumptuous graphics, a slick interface and a massive, thoroughly meaty and diverse single player campaign.
Starcraft 2 doesn't reinvent the wheel the same way human beings haven't reinvented the wheel. Sure, they're not made of tree stumps anymore. They're shiny and made of metal, with tires and differential axles and with disc brakes and ceramic rims. Wheels don't need to be reinvented. The best wheels are iterated, and that's exactly what Blizzard have done. Starcraft 1 was essentially a perfect game. They brought that game into the modern gaming environment in the absolute best possible manner.
How can you say that doing so, without fucking it up as so many others have done so many times (I'm looking at you EA) is not worthy of game of the year consideration? Outside of the fact that millions of people bought the game and play it every day.
Do games of the year have to push the industry forward now? Are we making arbitrary limitations on what can be considered? You know, sometimes merely making a fucking great game is probably enough.
The_Scarab on
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
StarCraft 2 has a laughable story, Marauders and Medevacs.
It can win RTS of the year, but not GOTY.
Personal opinion.
Second, GT and by proxy RDR has not changed in nearly a decade. You are still doing the same dumb fetch and kill quests and the outcomes are effectively pre-arranged. The number one complaint that I have heard and experienced with the Rockstar games is that at some point the "openness" breaks down to ensure that the story moves forward. What if I don't want to kill someone? What if that isn't the story I want to play out. The openness is a lie.
This is a dumb complaint
The world is open; the quest you are on is not.
If you were playing a linear, level-based game, would you be mad that you had to kill someone you didn't necessarily want to in order to progress the game?
If so, maybe you should stop playing video games.
This is why I have played Deus Ex five times, alpha protocol three times, and have never made it through a single GTA game.
kaliyama on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I think GotY as a quality measure is too subjective, we should rather look for the game's impact to industry. And I think there Kinect Adventures is the king... ~5 million units sold, not including last-minute purchases.
Watching the sales numbers of the Kinect kind of reminds me of how some neckbeards pronounced Nintendo doomed with the Wii.
I think GotY as a quality measure is too subjective, we should rather look for the game's impact to industry. And I think there Kinect Adventures is the king... ~5 million units sold, not including last-minute purchases.
Watching the sales numbers of the Kinect kind of reminds me of how some neckbeards pronounced Nintendo doomed with the Wii.
Game of the year should the best made game or, alternatively, the one you enjoyed most.
NOT the one that just sold a bunch. That's ridiculous.
Your comments are silly goosery to the most extreme. You play an open world game because it is, well, open. Making Niko a psychopath in the end undercuts the whole experience. I am not alone in this. Garnett and Jeff from WC have both espoused this idea and dozens of others. You don't really have a choice in how you approach things in a supposedly open world game. I would not have these expectations for Gears or God of War or BLOPS. That is not what those games offer. Red Dead falls right in line with this.
Also, I can see the SC2 stuff that you guys are laying out. Making a good game better shouldn't be held against SC2. If it doesn't sweep the RTS awards, I would be surprised. Klyka is right though, not GOTY. The story is laughable.
I think GotY as a quality measure is too subjective, we should rather look for the game's impact to industry. And I think there Kinect Adventures is the king... ~5 million units sold, not including last-minute purchases.
Watching the sales numbers of the Kinect kind of reminds me of how some neckbeards pronounced Nintendo doomed with the Wii.
Game of the year should the best made game or, alternatively, the one you enjoyed most.
NOT the one that just sold a bunch. That's ridiculous.
What are you talking about? Just Dance is clearly game of the year.
Do you pretty much need to play ME1 before diving into ME2? All these GOTY comments are making me a bit interested.
If you haven't played ME1 you will never understand why Garrus is a bro, why Wrex is awesome, why Tali is sweet and who "space hitler" is referring to.
Really, play ME1 before ME2. Then use your ME1 character in ME2. It makes the experience SO much better.
Do you pretty much need to play ME1 before diving into ME2? All these GOTY comments are making me a bit interested.
If you haven't played ME1 you will never understand why Garrus is a bro, why Wrex is awesome, why Tali is sweet and who "space hitler" is referring to.
Really, play ME1 before ME2. Then use your ME1 character in ME2. It makes the experience SO much better.
Ok, good to know. I only ask because ME2 is super cheap and easily found, but I haven't been able to find ME1 anywhere during my boxing week search. Oh well, it looks like ME2 will continue to hover around $20 after boxing week anyways.
Do you pretty much need to play ME1 before diving into ME2? All these GOTY comments are making me a bit interested.
If you haven't played ME1 you will never understand why Garrus is a bro, why Wrex is awesome, why Tali is sweet and who "space hitler" is referring to.
Really, play ME1 before ME2. Then use your ME1 character in ME2. It makes the experience SO much better.
ME1 gets an unfairly bum rap these days. It has its problems, yes, not gonna deny that, but it's still goddamn awesome.
Actually, without ME1 you won't even meet Wrex at all, regardless.
So, everyone in this thread agrees that Bayonetta is the GOTY, right?
Good!
Maybe if they'd released it for the PC.
I'll have to agree with that. With most of the 360 and PS3 games that I want to play being released on PC, I'm just not going to get one of those consoles. A friend of mine does actually own a 360, maybe I can convince him that it is very important that I get to play Bayonetta.
Mass Effect 2 - Great story, great graphics, great gameplay and just completely hooks you. It's one of those Zelda type games that makes you screw every other game in your library because you want to see what happens next. The DLC content is icing on the cake. Not since Metal Gear Solid 3 have i been captured by a game from beginning to end.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - This game has some of the tightest controls I have ever witnessed. When you die, it's your own damn fault. The color palette and level design is one of the best I've seen since I was a wee lad. The boss fights are so memorable. For example, the boss level where you are fighting this big robot while riding Yoshi and eating his missiles and shooting them back had me die a couple of times. I would get mesmerized by the graphics and smooth animation that I would get caught up looking at Yoshi looking all cute that I died 3 times. He was so cute and scared.
Red Dead Redemption - The scope and gameplay is simply captivating. You actually feel like your there. I shot so many men for beating me at Poker, and I always wanted to do that!
battledrill on
______________________
battlerep on STEAM.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Red Dead Redemption, and I can't think of much else. Brotherhood's a great game but has some flaws.
Only have two problems with RDR: You can't punch people out, and its hard to be evil. I guess it also shipped with a lot less online modes than GTA4 did, but hell, Free Roam is fun.
I'm sure Bayonetta is good but there's no way I could play that in front of other people. I mean say what you will but to the uninformed passer by it is juvenile as fuck and you will be castigated for seeming to enjoy it.
I'm sure Bayonetta is good but there's no way I could play that in front of other people. I mean say what you will but to the uninformed passer by it is juvenile as fuck and you will be castigated for seeming to enjoy it.
Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason I haven't gotten it. There's no way I could play it and not have my wife give me dirty looks. Plus, the whole trying to play it while my daughters aren't around would be a bother as well.
I don't think the uninformed passer will be able to make out what the fuck is going on. Unless they walked in on a cut scene. Then you'd best hide your face in shame.
Posts
If they don't, they lived the year wrong.
Go back and do it again!
peace out
Some people are just invested in certain titles and spend a great deal of their time in those games. Particularly competitive games (like SSF4 or Starcraft) or MMOs (WoW). A patch, adjustment, or expansion to one of those games would seem minor to someone who played those games for a week or two and then stopped, but to someone who regularly plays them for over the entire year, it's a huge deal and impacts their day to day life.
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
Maybe!
Also Bethryn "I was a demon all along".
Oh believe me, I know that; TF2 changes are the bane of my existance. But man... Starcraft II as GOTY...? ...eh
As much as I am a fan of RDR, one of the biggest issues I had with the game is Mexico and the heinous shit they had you do there.
I tried to turn on the militia but that was met with instant game over.
So what I'm trying to say is that Bonnie is character of the year.
not really
Gamer Tag: LeeWay0
PSN: Leeway0
RDR in my mind had some serious story problems, and definitely feels like it was artificially extended at times.
There are some specific
First, I would rather have some broken mechanics like in AP than a broken story. Sorry, but that is the tradeoff I am willing to make.
Second, GT and by proxy RDR has not changed in nearly a decade. You are still doing the same dumb fetch and kill quests and the outcomes are effectively pre-arranged. The number one complaint that I have heard and experienced with the Rockstar games is that at some point the "openness" breaks down to ensure that the story moves forward. What if I don't want to kill someone? What if that isn't the story I want to play out. The openness is a lie.
Also, seriously SC2 as game of the year? You can't iterate on a great game and then cite its predecessors brilliance as your own. Although, I guess the arguement could be made that more people will be playing SC2 in five years than any game here.
This is a dumb complaint
The world is open; the quest you are on is not.
If you were playing a linear, level-based game, would you be mad that you had to kill someone you didn't necessarily want to in order to progress the game?
If so, maybe you should stop playing video games.
Yes, you can say that it is just the same game but polished to the heavens, and in some aspects it is. But I believe it adds a significant amount more to warrant inclusion. Specifically their online implementation of multiplayer is so robust and cleverly designed that I'm actually playing it online, whereas with SC1 it was the old PA adage of looking for some burly men to fuck you in the ass.
Adding new features, new mechanics and an entirely new BattleNet system without breaking the core gameplay so loved by so many is an incredibly hard task.
With StarCraft 2 Blizzard somehow managed to please all the die hard fans and include newcomers and the casual just dipping their toe in the water crowd. An achievement such as that is extremely rare and not easy at all.
StarCraft 2 is a very good game with a fun campaign. It is certainly the best RTS of the year and also a long time, but calling it GOTY goes a bit too far. Personal opinions, sure.
Also, Spicy_Rev, I don't think anybody complains about the outcomes being pre-arranged in a GTA game. People have a problem with the heavy scripting of seemingly open missions like chasing someone through the city, but nobody's expecting an RPG. You might want to play Fallout if that's the kind of openness you're looking for.
Yes but the point I'm making is that if you arbitrarily discount all the aspects from SC1 that make SC2 good, then it still has meat on those bones.
But when coupled with the inherent core mechanics of Starcraft, it combines to make an up to date, modern retake on a classic formula that is as polished and balanced as it ever was.
Essentially, Starcraft 2 lies in a curious middle ground for me. It's not a classical sequel, in that the gameplay is almost exactly the same outside of unit changes and balance. But it's much more than a mere expansion pack, because it brings a ten year old style of game into 2010 in a complete manner.
You say matchmaking systems are a necessity today. And they are. And Starcraft 2 has one of the best. It's almost expected, and therefore not worth highlighting. But the same is true of nearly every aspect of the game. It has leaderboards, tournament ladders, clans and an entire friends system. It has invisible updates, balance changes on the fly. It has new units and old units, some changed and some just as they always were. It has sumptuous graphics, a slick interface and a massive, thoroughly meaty and diverse single player campaign.
Starcraft 2 doesn't reinvent the wheel the same way human beings haven't reinvented the wheel. Sure, they're not made of tree stumps anymore. They're shiny and made of metal, with tires and differential axles and with disc brakes and ceramic rims. Wheels don't need to be reinvented. The best wheels are iterated, and that's exactly what Blizzard have done. Starcraft 1 was essentially a perfect game. They brought that game into the modern gaming environment in the absolute best possible manner.
How can you say that doing so, without fucking it up as so many others have done so many times (I'm looking at you EA) is not worthy of game of the year consideration? Outside of the fact that millions of people bought the game and play it every day.
Do games of the year have to push the industry forward now? Are we making arbitrary limitations on what can be considered? You know, sometimes merely making a fucking great game is probably enough.
It can win RTS of the year, but not GOTY.
Personal opinion.
I was writing up a post here, but The_Scarab said it better than I could have.
This is why I have played Deus Ex five times, alpha protocol three times, and have never made it through a single GTA game.
This is utterly myopic.
Game of the year should the best made game or, alternatively, the one you enjoyed most.
NOT the one that just sold a bunch. That's ridiculous.
Your comments are silly goosery to the most extreme. You play an open world game because it is, well, open. Making Niko a psychopath in the end undercuts the whole experience. I am not alone in this. Garnett and Jeff from WC have both espoused this idea and dozens of others. You don't really have a choice in how you approach things in a supposedly open world game. I would not have these expectations for Gears or God of War or BLOPS. That is not what those games offer. Red Dead falls right in line with this.
Also, I can see the SC2 stuff that you guys are laying out. Making a good game better shouldn't be held against SC2. If it doesn't sweep the RTS awards, I would be surprised. Klyka is right though, not GOTY. The story is laughable.
Deadly Premonitions story of the year.
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
Fucking Bayonetta
no other game comes close to what that game is. I still play it after dumping 100 hours into it.
100+ hours on an action game in a world where action games only lasts 10 hours on average.
Fucking amazing.
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeex2
I also have to say it's my GOTY despite my being terrible at and hating fighting/action games. So it has to be doing something incredibly right.
What are you talking about? Just Dance is clearly game of the year.
Gamer Tag: LeeWay0
PSN: Leeway0
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
If you haven't played ME1 you will never understand why Garrus is a bro, why Wrex is awesome, why Tali is sweet and who "space hitler" is referring to.
Really, play ME1 before ME2. Then use your ME1 character in ME2. It makes the experience SO much better.
Ok, good to know. I only ask because ME2 is super cheap and easily found, but I haven't been able to find ME1 anywhere during my boxing week search. Oh well, it looks like ME2 will continue to hover around $20 after boxing week anyways.
ME1 gets an unfairly bum rap these days. It has its problems, yes, not gonna deny that, but it's still goddamn awesome.
Steam | XBL
I'll have to agree with that. With most of the 360 and PS3 games that I want to play being released on PC, I'm just not going to get one of those consoles. A friend of mine does actually own a 360, maybe I can convince him that it is very important that I get to play Bayonetta.
Mass Effect 2 - Great story, great graphics, great gameplay and just completely hooks you. It's one of those Zelda type games that makes you screw every other game in your library because you want to see what happens next. The DLC content is icing on the cake. Not since Metal Gear Solid 3 have i been captured by a game from beginning to end.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - This game has some of the tightest controls I have ever witnessed. When you die, it's your own damn fault. The color palette and level design is one of the best I've seen since I was a wee lad. The boss fights are so memorable. For example, the boss level where you are fighting this big robot while riding Yoshi and eating his missiles and shooting them back had me die a couple of times. I would get mesmerized by the graphics and smooth animation that I would get caught up looking at Yoshi looking all cute that I died 3 times. He was so cute and scared.
Red Dead Redemption - The scope and gameplay is simply captivating. You actually feel like your there. I shot so many men for beating me at Poker, and I always wanted to do that!
______________________
battlerep on STEAM.
Only have two problems with RDR: You can't punch people out, and its hard to be evil. I guess it also shipped with a lot less online modes than GTA4 did, but hell, Free Roam is fun.
Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason I haven't gotten it. There's no way I could play it and not have my wife give me dirty looks. Plus, the whole trying to play it while my daughters aren't around would be a bother as well.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games