Options

What features should *every* video game have?

12357

Posts

  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    SimBen on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Every game with difficulty levels should have more than one difficulty slider to use. If I want to have the improved AI of the hard mode without them being stupidly powerful, I should be able to choose that. I don't like all or nothing deals where I have to choose between the most advanced AI and not dieing in one hit.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    AydrAydr Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    SimBen wrote: »
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    I think that would annoy the hell out of me. If the boss should be destroying me, let it destroy me.

    Aydr on
  • Options
    Paradox ControlParadox Control Master MC Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I have a few small wishes:

    Games Marketed as a Competitive Online Game need a few things, always:
    1. Halo 2/3 style Party+Match Making systems! Seriously, its the best way to get in a game, quick, with some friends and play some games. I can list a number of games that would have been 100% better if they just ripped off this system.
    CNC3: This game was advertised as the next big competitive multi-player RTS. Beyond things like balance, the game failed because of a total lack of online accessibility. The game had an Auto Match feature, but when you would do 2v2 you couldn't select a team mate and have him play with you. So you would get teamed up with random jerks. WarCraft 3 had this feature for god sake!
    Gears of War: This game was awesome. But god for bid you actually want to do some kind of organized ranked game. You can't invite your friends to a ranked online game in GoW on the 360, which is dumb because of how much the game reinforces team work and tactics, something you can't do with random XBL users.

    No more Clans!
    After playing WoW, and having them introduce the Arena, I have fallen in love with the idea of Teams instead of Clans. In CNC3 for example, theres a clan ladder, but no one does clan matches and the people with the most members usually end up on top because they can basically Spam games. With a Team based system, you would set up teams for the kind of rank match you want to do. You could have a Ranked 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 team. Your team could have twice as many players allowed to play in the type of match you picked for your team, so you can have backups. This would reinforce team play more and make it overall easier to rank then a Clan would be.

    Paradox Control on
    \
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2007
    Delzhand wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »

    Not all games are created equal, and can save in the same amount of data.

    Let's take an RPG, for example. The reason most RPGs let you have a save-anytime (unless it's restricted for balance reasons) is that they only have to store your X,Y,Z, which party members you have, and their stats, and event tags (did you get to this point, do you have this special item, etc). You usually have no need to save any enemy or NPC states, or physics object states, etc.

    The more complicated the game gets, the more space you will need to save. Now on PC games, you could get away with this a bit more since everyone has $TEXAS GB of space these days. But on consoles, you have to account for the smallest amount of space available. And even then you don't want to be taking up a person's entire memory card unless you reallly have to.

    Regardless of how much space, you must also consider how to handle -any- event that is occuring at any time if you allow quicksave. For example, in Halo 2 the following is saved when you hit a checkpoint:

    * Player state (xyz, ammo count, weapons, direction being faced, health)
    * Enemy state (xyz, direction being faced, it's current target, the current position in it's decision tree, it's health, knowledge of dead squadmates)
    * Ally state (xyz, direction, knowledge of allies, current position in it's decision tree, gender, face, accesories)
    * Physics object states (location, damage, velocity)
    * Vehicle states (location, damage, velocity, model)
    * all level tags
    * dead bodies
    * much more

    coming out to about a 4MB save file. And that's still not saving "everything", for example it does not save if you are shooting or swinging, etc.

    And this is "just an FPS". Doom 3 can get away with quicksaving because all it does is save your location, ammo, guns, and a quick list of tags and enemy locations. Dead bodies are not tracked, you don't have allies, there's hardly any physics objects, etc.

    The more complicated of a game state you have to track, the bigger the file and the bigger the problems you encounter. For example, nobody will talk in Halo until -after- you get a checkpoint. This is so they don't have to save the current tracking position in a dialogue file for anything being spoken.

    Now, the easy way out would be to just save the entire contents of RAM to disk and be done with it. This can be done with the e-word, and NES/SNES/TGX16/Genesis games on Virtual Consoles. e-words can do it due to the vast amount of HDD space. NES/SNES/etc VC games can do it because the original console had very low amounts of total RAM in the first place. N64 games cannot do it because that would be an 8MB file -in addition to- any save file that the game itself generates, and would eat up the Wii internal memory pretty damn fast. You get up to the PS2: 24MB -at least- to save, GC would be 36, and the Xbox would have taken 64MB to do it. Now you have the Wii at 84MB, the 360 at 512MB, and the PS3 at 384 (128MB is reserved for the XMB) and your available space is disappearing fast. Couple with the fact that dumping the entire contents of RAM to the disk would make it much easier for people to circumvent any of the 3 console's DRM/hacking preventions, and you'll see why nobody is in a rush to do so.

    It should also be noted that the DS/PSP/other handhelds do sleep mode by turning everything off possible while maintaining the current contents of RAM with a small charge. On the GBA this was the speakers, link port, game port and screen. DS games have a bit more control over what happens when you close the DS and can selectively keep certain things on, like WIFI or the speakers. Nothing is being 'saved', it's just pausing the game and turning off non-essential items.

    Either way, in my opinion as a developer, i don't really care if a game has quicksave or checkpoint systems or save points, as long as it's balanced well. Not every game should have quicksaves (if you don't have the time to play a game with long checkpoints, learn 2 pause or I guess that game is not for you) and not every game should have Halo's auto-checkpoint system. Heck, I don't care if the game has a password system as long as it's not too long and I have an option to save anyway (passwords were used by developers to save money on not paying for SRAM or save batteries). Although it does really suck when a developer will do an auto-checkpoint system but botch it.

    A fine example of a game pulling off save points well? Tales of Symphonia. I didn't even know I could save out on the overworld until my brother pointed it out to me a year after playing the game for the first time..

    Without going into details, these are pretty flimsy reasons not to have some sort of quicksave. You don't have to save the position of every joint in enemy 398's body as he ragdolls through the air or the position of the 2000 particles in the rocket explosion. A quicksave isn't (and shouldn't be) a RAM dump. Save event tags, player status, and last room entered. Or something like that. Obviously depends on the game, but at what point are we delving into game design for a specific game as opposed to a theoretical "how-to"?

    congratulations on not reading my post. I addressed all of that.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    Vert1Vert1 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    You "pro-save point" guys should have been helping fight off the waves of "pro-save anywhere" guys in the thread solely about saving games.

    Vert1 on
    blood_berry_new.jpg
    Sleep wrote: »
    Vert1 wrote: »
    I'd like to ask everyone here one question. What is a game?

    A lower form of sex.
  • Options
    Masqued ManMasqued Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    For console games with multiple moving speeds, analog control. If I play one more game that uses a joystick that makes me hold an additional button to run at full speed, I will SCREAM. Analog control allows multiple movement speeds without having to hold buttons: you tilt the stick slightly and the character tiptoes, you push it further and the character walks, you push it as far as it will go, and the character runs! The feature is there, and it frees up buttons that would be otherwise used to modify speed. Use it!

    Let's see ... the first popular console to have an analog stick was the freakin' N64, in 1996, and its two main competitors soon thereafter released controllers that use such technology. It was sort of acceptable during that generation, because there was enough of a concern that programming analog control wouldn't be worth it, because you'd have to make sure the coding would work properly for a feature not everyone would be able to use, (analog control wasn't present in the original PS1 and Saturn controllers, so not everyone who used those systems would even be able to use it.) But to have to hold a button to run in RE4, in 2005, ten years after the release date of the most recent system to not have analog control guaranteed, (PS1)? It's just unacceptable.

    I also think that every game should have a fully customizable control scheme. I can understand not allowing one to asign analog functions to digital buttons, and vice-versa, but anything short of that should be allowed.

    This one relates to my first gripe. Another feature I want to see more games use is the menu selection system of the 2K sports games for the Sega Dreamcast. It's great. Instead of using the outdated, single-column list of the days of digital control, where you have to repeatedly tap down, or hold it, to move to a selection, they use features that take full advantage of the analog control present. There are two arcs on-screen; one's on the top, and the other is underneath, upside-down. Each arc has a list of menu titles spread across it. There is a circular cursor onscreen. When moving the joystick, the cursor moves along with it, but when the joystick is re-centered, the cursor is re-centered, too. When you point the joystick at an angle, the cursor follows it to that angle. So if there's an option at the left end of the top arc, you push the stick to that area of the joystick's field, (upper-far left area,) and keep it there. The cursor moves there, too, and you can select that menu title. It's more efficient, and more resourceful than the other method that practically every other game I have ever played uses.

    Masqued Man on
  • Options
    Vert1Vert1 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007

    This one relates to my first gripe. Another feature I want to see more games use is the menu selection system of the 2K sports games for the Sega Dreamcast. It's great. Instead of using the outdated, single-column list of the days of digital control, where you have to repeatedly tap down, or hold it, to move to a selection, they use features that take full advantage of the analog control present. There are two arcs on-screen; one's on the top, and the other is underneath, upside-down. Each arc has a list of menu titles spread across it. There is a circular cursor onscreen. When moving the joystick, the cursor moves along with it, but when the joystick is re-centered, the cursor is re-centered, too. When you point the joystick at an angle, the cursor follows it to that angle. So if there's an option at the left end of the top arc, you push the stick to that area of the joystick's field, (upper-far left area,) and the cursor moves there, too, and you can select that menu title. It's more efficient, and more resourceful than the other method that practically every other game I have ever played uses.

    This sounds like something Metroid Prime 2: Echoes menu did. Not really sure...

    Vert1 on
    blood_berry_new.jpg
    Sleep wrote: »
    Vert1 wrote: »
    I'd like to ask everyone here one question. What is a game?

    A lower form of sex.
  • Options
    UltrachristUltrachrist Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    SimBen wrote: »
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    I'd hate this. If I happened to die in RE4, I'd restart the game because I didn't want any of that nonsense about auto scaling difficulty. It really kills the sense of accomplishment when the game automatically gets easier.

    Ultrachrist on
    ultrachrist2.png
  • Options
    Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'll just jump right in here.

    -Customizable controls
    -Every cutscene should be skippable

    Marty81 on
  • Options
    OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    SimBen wrote: »
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    I'd hate this. If I happened to die in RE4, I'd restart the game because I didn't want any of that nonsense about auto scaling difficulty. It really kills the sense of accomplishment when the game automatically gets easier.


    RE4 has auto-scaling difficulty, doesn't it? I remember someone saying the part with the truck gets really ridiculous if you haven't died.

    Edit on rereading: Actually I guess Ultrachrist is saying that he did restart RE4 every time he died, not that he would if it had adaptive difficulty.

    Wow. So if you died on the last level you just went all the way back to the beginning, every time? Maybe I wasn't misreading it. Now I'm confused.

    Orogogus on
  • Options
    NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Every game should be available on the PC.

    Seriously.

    Nocturne on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    shyguy wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Being able to save anywhere breaks some games. And I don't mean from the perspective of using quicksave/load to cheat the game, because that can be gotten around by just having the load erase itself after loading, but I mean any game where you could get lost easilly, forcing you to save at specific places, not just anywhere means you are less likely to get lost when you load up next time.

    Wait... how is that a downside? Getting lost in a game and having no idea what to do is one of the things that will simply make me shut off a game and never play it again.

    The point I was making was that people saying "All games should let me save anywhere" are wrong, because in some games it would potentially ruin it.

    That point laid up against people with little spare time not being able to play it at all is not significant enough for you to be labelling their desire with an arbritrary designation like "wrong".

    What I said was wrong was that "All games should have save anywhere"

    It would break the gameplay of some games, therefore it is wrong to say that all games should have it. I do think that alot of games would benefit from it though.

    I can't think of any game that would be broken by a ff3 ds quicksave deleted on load implementation that some very simple additions wouldn't completely fix. You just need to design it with it in mind rather than shoehorning it in.

    It's a good thing you don't program or design games then, because that's not always possible.

    Why not? (Serious question, hit me with all the juicy details and jargon, I can take it)

    *snip*

    Thankyou for the information.
    I'm going to assume you would compress all the data anyway.
    Could you chunk some of those variables or knock them out for the sake of having the system out of convenience? For example, no particle effects being saved. So you don't need to have the explosions and pretties and dead bodies and sparklies and what not. Just focus on the concrete objects that can affect the gamer, like grenades that haven't exploded yet and enemy guns.
    Most people wouldn't notice on return I'm sure if an explosion in the distance wasn't there when they came back. New explosions would just happen as usual.
    A best guess or a simplification of a scene would be more than acceptable for the convenience.
    This would even have the advantage of encouraging use of the checkpoint system in place, as this quicksave would be made clear to be a necessity of convenience.
    I mean it certainly makes things pretty and keeps immersion, but do you really need dead bodies from a practical standpoint if the player can't meaningfully interact with them?
    I'm sure there are other ways to chunk variables and make the saves smaller.

    Alternatively, you can easily make it clear that it's not a perfect save, just a best guess, and that it is recommended you save at the checkpoint for maximum gameplay experience.
    Making it clear that the save will be deleted upon load would take care of the memory saving size wouldn't it.
    I doubt the next generation of consoles is going to have the no guaranteed hdd problem of the current xbox and wii. The ps3 doesn't, so I have no sympathy for anybody pulling the save size angle for any game coming out on that.
    I am in no way asking for a dogmatic standard normal quicksave solution of perfection. (For example, in FF3 you cannot save in a battle. This is fine, you are only missing one battle.) Just something other than "It can't be done or ever worked into game design as they current exist. End of story." which is the kind of fatalistic line you were giving me.
    Granted my own language was similarly uncompromising, for which I apologise, I just have a melodramatic soul. :)
    I think it goes without saying that PC games with only checkpoints are pathetically lazy though.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    Rufus_ShinraRufus_Shinra Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Nocturne wrote: »
    Every game should be available on the PC.

    Seriously.
    Wii Sports?

    Rufus_Shinra on
  • Options
    DaveTheWaveDaveTheWave Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'll give my 2c anyway.

    Cut-scenes should go. After playing HL2 and similar games where there are no cut-scenes, I can't stand games where they waffle on with poorly filmed scenes which take a long time to explain incredibly simple or intuitive things. I hate being torn out of the game any more. Interaction is what makes games immersive, not watching a horrible cut-scene. Excemptions are things like Twin Snakes, Viewtiful Joe etc where they are entirely skippable or wholly entertaining to watch.

    Tutorials HAVE TO GO. If you can't make your mechanics and interface intuitive, then fire one of your 400 pixel shader programmers and hire some designers for that purpose alone. I'm tired of being forced to sit through really basic tutorials or early sections of games which are clearly designed to explain to you very simple concepts as if you are some sort of retard who can't figure out that when something is blocking your path, you have to move it out of the way.

    We need more games which just throw you in the thick of things and let you figure it out yourself.

    DaveTheWave on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Orogogus wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    I'd hate this. If I happened to die in RE4, I'd restart the game because I didn't want any of that nonsense about auto scaling difficulty. It really kills the sense of accomplishment when the game automatically gets easier.


    RE4 has auto-scaling difficulty, doesn't it? I remember someone saying the part with the truck gets really ridiculous if you haven't died.

    Edit on rereading: Actually I guess Ultrachrist is saying that he did restart RE4 every time he died, not that he would if it had adaptive difficulty.

    Wow. So if you died on the last level you just went all the way back to the beginning, every time? Maybe I wasn't misreading it. Now I'm confused.

    Well yeah, RE4 had adaptive difficulty. It was only basing it on the number of times you died, though (so it's of the "throws you a bone on the 5th try" variety). But I only found that out after beating the game, and it was completely invisible, which I thought was really well-done; I never realized the game got easier as I repeated sections.

    I guess if you hate playing a game that's always just right for your skills and want the complete frustration of constant repetition, you could have the adaptive difficulty as an option you can turn off (as it is in Lego Star Wars 2...)

    SimBen on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    DrakmathusDrakmathus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I like that Earthbound would automatically win fights if you were high level enough compared to your opponents. I would love to see that in all RPGs henceforth.

    Also, in Crystalis once you are high level enough if you go back to the beginning if an enemy runs into you, THEY get hurt. That blew my mind when I found it out in elementary school. I don't think many games would be able to take advantage of a feature like that but maybe there are still enemies that try to run into you, I don't know...

    Drakmathus on
  • Options
    BishizelBishizel Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Every game should offer good Clan/Guild Support.

    Developers of multiplayer games should understand by now that every single multiplayer game has spawned numerous clans. They need to actually factor in some support. None of this crap where you have a guild leader, no officers, only members, with no useful features crap.

    It's almost 2008, seriously guys get with it. You don't need everything under the sun, you just, at a bare minimum, need:

    The ability to have officers, and other ranks
    The ability to assign duties or abilities to the various ranks (such as boot/invite rights)
    A guild bank (in games where this is necessary)
    An ability for everyone to easily view the guild roster
    An ability to make personal notes associated with those people.
    Some way to distinguish yourself, via dye kits, tabard, etc. (doesn't apply in games like TF2, though it would be cool if you could pick colors for your guild)

    Bishizel on
    psheadsignr2.jpg
    DO NOT FISTPOUND
  • Options
    DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Half Life:

    Tuesday:

    Fuck headcrabs.
    No, you wouldn't be able to read Gordon's journal in HL. It'd just be like...


    "I... see you have... b-brought your j-journal with you, doctor Freeman"

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Halo 3 video recording and sharing, but with the ability to jump in and take over any character in multiplayer at any point.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    UltrachristUltrachrist Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Orogogus wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    I'd hate this. If I happened to die in RE4, I'd restart the game because I didn't want any of that nonsense about auto scaling difficulty. It really kills the sense of accomplishment when the game automatically gets easier.


    RE4 has auto-scaling difficulty, doesn't it? I remember someone saying the part with the truck gets really ridiculous if you haven't died.

    Edit on rereading: Actually I guess Ultrachrist is saying that he did restart RE4 every time he died, not that he would if it had adaptive difficulty.

    Wow. So if you died on the last level you just went all the way back to the beginning, every time? Maybe I wasn't misreading it. Now I'm confused.

    Nononono. If you die in RE4, it sends you back to your last save. If you die and restart the game, you also were sent back to your last save but the game doesn't "know" that you died, so it doesn't adjust the difficulty.

    It probably wouldn't have been a big deal since I didn't die that often in RE4 but apparently if you died alot they did things like turn those blind monster guys into regular enemies.

    Ultrachrist on
    ultrachrist2.png
  • Options
    bruinbruin Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'll give my 2c anyway.

    Cut-scenes should go. After playing HL2 and similar games where there are no cut-scenes, I can't stand games where they waffle on with poorly filmed scenes which take a long time to explain incredibly simple or intuitive things. I hate being torn out of the game any more. Interaction is what makes games immersive, not watching a horrible cut-scene. Excemptions are things like Twin Snakes, Viewtiful Joe etc where they are entirely skippable or wholly entertaining to watch.

    Tutorials HAVE TO GO. If you can't make your mechanics and interface intuitive, then fire one of your 400 pixel shader programmers and hire some designers for that purpose alone. I'm tired of being forced to sit through really basic tutorials or early sections of games which are clearly designed to explain to you very simple concepts as if you are some sort of retard who can't figure out that when something is blocking your path, you have to move it out of the way.

    We need more games which just throw you in the thick of things and let you figure it out yourself.

    I'd say bad cutscenes must go, but there's nothing wrong inherently with cutscenes if you ask me.

    Tutorials I think work better if they're optional, and I hate it when they try to work them into the story or whatever to have them blend in with the rest of the game. It's always too obvious.

    bruin on
  • Options
    OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Orogogus wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    I'd hate this. If I happened to die in RE4, I'd restart the game because I didn't want any of that nonsense about auto scaling difficulty. It really kills the sense of accomplishment when the game automatically gets easier.


    RE4 has auto-scaling difficulty, doesn't it? I remember someone saying the part with the truck gets really ridiculous if you haven't died.

    Edit on rereading: Actually I guess Ultrachrist is saying that he did restart RE4 every time he died, not that he would if it had adaptive difficulty.

    Wow. So if you died on the last level you just went all the way back to the beginning, every time? Maybe I wasn't misreading it. Now I'm confused.

    Nononono. If you die in RE4, it sends you back to your last save. If you die and restart the game, you also were sent back to your last save but the game doesn't "know" that you died, so it doesn't adjust the difficulty.

    It probably wouldn't have been a big deal since I didn't die that often in RE4 but apparently if you died alot they did things like turn those blind monster guys into regular enemies.

    I think the game does "know", because someone was saying if you haven't died by the time you're with Ashley on the truck, then that section's barely beatable with the Chicago Typewriter -- it just spawns a mind-blowingly ridiculous amount of enemies at that point.

    Orogogus on
  • Options
    Something WittySomething Witty Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I think every online console game should use a matchmaking system similar to Halo 3's.

    Something Witty on
    IMWithDentToo.png
  • Options
    UltrachristUltrachrist Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    Every game needs on-the-fly adaptive difficulty.

    Not just "Do you want to chicken out and try baby mode, you fucking pussy?" (a la Warcraft 3/Ninja Gaiden), not just counting your deaths and throwing you a bone on your 5th try on a particular section. If you're losing a lot of health, make the enemies easier to kill until you've recovered enough. If you're murdering them blindfolded with one hand behind your back, make them tougher. Ideally, no one should even NOTICE there are difficulty levels in that given game. This could even work in RPGs by modifying the baddies' behavior (without touching the stats) - if you're dealing Texas damage and are basically invincible, the boss will do his super-technique more often. If you're down to one guy with critical HP, the boss will do its weakest punch/heal. You could have a Tetris where the blocks' falling speed is directly proportional to the percentage of unoccupied space on the board. It basically works with every non-multiplayer game.

    I'd hate this. If I happened to die in RE4, I'd restart the game because I didn't want any of that nonsense about auto scaling difficulty. It really kills the sense of accomplishment when the game automatically gets easier.


    RE4 has auto-scaling difficulty, doesn't it? I remember someone saying the part with the truck gets really ridiculous if you haven't died.

    Edit on rereading: Actually I guess Ultrachrist is saying that he did restart RE4 every time he died, not that he would if it had adaptive difficulty.

    Wow. So if you died on the last level you just went all the way back to the beginning, every time? Maybe I wasn't misreading it. Now I'm confused.

    Nononono. If you die in RE4, it sends you back to your last save. If you die and restart the game, you also were sent back to your last save but the game doesn't "know" that you died, so it doesn't adjust the difficulty.

    It probably wouldn't have been a big deal since I didn't die that often in RE4 but apparently if you died alot they did things like turn those blind monster guys into regular enemies.

    I think the game does "know", because someone was saying if you haven't died by the time you're with Ashley on the truck, then that section's barely beatable with the Chicago Typewriter -- it just spawns a mind-blowingly ridiculous amount of enemies at that point.

    hmm, it's been so long since I beat the game but I don't remember anything like that. I also might not have learned about the adaptive difficulty until I had been a fair distance into the game and died a few times. Now this makes me want to play the game again with the intent of never dying.

    Ultrachrist on
    ultrachrist2.png
  • Options
    Gorilla SaladGorilla Salad Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm not sure if this is true, but I think that if you walk backwards, the enemies won't spawn.

    Gorilla Salad on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Every game, huh? Hmmm...

    Every game should have:

    *A start screen. And none of those fake-out start screens where the game logo shoots laser beams and kills you. ...No, wait, Pong doesn't have a start screen and it turned out fine.

    *A way to win-- no, no, SimCity, a lot of those old pre-NES games like Yar's Revenge and Missile Command don't have that and they're all-time greats...

    *Characters? ...crap, Pong again, and Tetris, and really a lot of puzzle games actually.

    Something every video game has or should have.... damn. It's like some sort of zen koan.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    mtvcdm wrote: »
    Every game, huh? Hmmm...

    Every game should have:

    *A start screen. And none of those fake-out start screens where the game logo shoots laser beams and kills you. ...No, wait, Pong doesn't have a start screen and it turned out fine.

    *A way to win-- no, no, SimCity, a lot of those old pre-NES games like Yar's Revenge and Missile Command don't have that and they're all-time greats...

    *Characters? ...crap, Pong again, and Tetris, and really a lot of puzzle games actually.

    Something every video game has or should have.... damn. It's like some sort of zen koan.

    Fun?

    jothki on
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    mtvcdm wrote: »
    Every game, huh? Hmmm...

    Every game should have:

    *A start screen. And none of those fake-out start screens where the game logo shoots laser beams and kills you. ...No, wait, Pong doesn't have a start screen and it turned out fine.

    *A way to win-- no, no, SimCity, a lot of those old pre-NES games like Yar's Revenge and Missile Command don't have that and they're all-time greats...

    *Characters? ...crap, Pong again, and Tetris, and really a lot of puzzle games actually.

    Something every video game has or should have.... damn. It's like some sort of zen koan.

    Fun?

    Daikatana.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    AydrAydr Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    darleysam wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    mtvcdm wrote: »
    Every game, huh? Hmmm...

    Every game should have:

    *A start screen. And none of those fake-out start screens where the game logo shoots laser beams and kills you. ...No, wait, Pong doesn't have a start screen and it turned out fine.

    *A way to win-- no, no, SimCity, a lot of those old pre-NES games like Yar's Revenge and Missile Command don't have that and they're all-time greats...

    *Characters? ...crap, Pong again, and Tetris, and really a lot of puzzle games actually.

    Something every video game has or should have.... damn. It's like some sort of zen koan.

    Fun?

    Daikatana.

    The thread is should have, not does have.

    Aydr on
  • Options
    SirUltimosSirUltimos Don't talk, Rusty. Just paint. Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    How about John Romero? Yeah, every game should have John Romero somewhere in it, with no exceptions.

    SirUltimos on
  • Options
    Rey Del AguilaRey Del Aguila __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Inside the model for every boss Since Doom 2 has been the face of John Romero.

    Rey Del Aguila on
    Because you know who SAID you know what with you know who, let's keep that between me and you.
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Well, the reason I went with 'did have' in that case is, well, look at the games I listed. Those are games that raise at least a halfway plausible argument that perhaps every game doesn't need those very basic elements, because they didn't and they turned out fine. Most games do, to be sure, but not EVERY game. The absolute value of "every" (clarified in the OP with the statement 'regardless of genre') rules out just about every element of a game period. For example, using entries from this thread alone:

    *Not every game needs New Game+. Say, Madden.
    *Not every game needs cutscenes. I've seen a number of puzzle games that do fine without.
    *Tetris would be thoroughly ruined by "save anywhere".
    *Nor does Tetris need writing, let alone decent writing.
    *Or pause-move camera.
    *Or the BG&E spiral keyboard. The only time most games from that era would even have a use for it is if you're entering your initials for a high score. (Assuming they could even operate it in the pre-analog era.)
    *We've already established that not every game needs characters, so not every game needs automatic clothing changes for those nonexistent characters.
    *Jumping. I do not need my Formula 1 car to jump. If my Formula 1 car is jumping, something has gone horribly wrong and I am about to be fused to whatever remains of my steering wheel.
    *And let's discuss the uses of telekinesis in Madden. Yes, I'm sure we'd all like to see Devin Hester impale Albert Haynesworth on a goalpost using only his mind, but the NFL tends to frown upon such things these days.
    *Changing difficulty on the fly-- let's again go to Tetris. "SHIT THIS PIECE IS DROPPING TOO FAST!" (pause) (adjust difficulty) "Phew. That was close."

    Actually, come to think of it, I don't think Tetris needs a single thing on this list. That's a pretty good metric right there: "Does Tetris need it?"

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Tetris needs another shape.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Options
    MiserableMirthMiserableMirth Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I suggested difficulty settings earlier (at checkpoint type intervals, not on the fly) and they seem to stand up pretty strong. I can't think of a game that wouldn't benefit from some kind of way to make the game more challenging or easier.

    MiserableMirth on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    All games should record a ton of inane shit. I love it when games do that. Pong would be better with a bunch of stats like how many games I won, lost, how man balls I missed, etc.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    All games should record a ton of inane shit. I love it when games do that. Pong would be better with a bunch of stats like how many games I won, lost, how man balls I missed, etc.

    titmouse: doesn't miss man balls

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Low battery warnings. Some Wii games do it, some don't, and it really should be mandatory for any game on any system capable of it.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    darleysam wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    All games should record a ton of inane shit. I love it when games do that. Pong would be better with a bunch of stats like how many games I won, lost, how man balls I missed, etc.

    titmouse: doesn't miss man balls

    Every game needs man balls.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Tetris needs another shape.
    Wasn't there a Game Boy game with five-part tetrominos instead of four?

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Sign In or Register to comment.