As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

New Comic Thread: Wednesday, April 29, 2009

1234568

Posts

  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    My reason for not solely using counter-attacks in AC is because it makes it a piss poor boring game. It might not be the most efficient from a mechanical game play stand point, but it is more fun.

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

    Also, I find the game boring as shit anyway, because every single element of the entire thing is just no-skill grinding. There are six things you can do in town: Save a civilian from guards, pick pockets, eavesdrop (literally just sit on a bunch and listen to VO), beat a guy up, assassinate targets in public, and collect flags. Of those, the only one that's actually challenging at all is "assassinate targets in public" because you have a short time to do it, multiple targets, and you have to remain undetected. And that one I encountered twice, total, in the entire game. Maybe there were more than two, but I only happened across two.

    Then you have the story, which continually leads you through like there's some big, intricate plot waiting for you, and the ending is a huge let-down (see my earlier "end spoiler").
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    By your logic, there is no reason to do a pistol only run in a game for example. While there is a reason for some (they enjoy the challenge and it makes it more fun to them). There is more to videogames, especially single player videogames, then doing things in the most efficient way possible. Maybe I'm just not as jaded and bitter as you. :P

    OK, so two things. First, that's what Achievements/Trophies are for. Second, if the game is made right, the player should find it prohibitively hard to do that unless he's played the game for a ridiculous amount of time and is so obscenely good at it that there's no challenge left. This should be very rare, like the guys who try to get the highest possible score in Pac-Man. As an example, imagine playing through the WC3 campaign using only tier 1 units with no upgrades. Or playing Resident Evil 5 and never using guns outside of boss battles. If the game is designed right, the player should be sufficiently challenged that unless he's god-like at it, he enjoys playing his best.

    The same thing happens with games like MGS. Players eventually start doing no-kill and no-detection runs, but only once they've gotten so ridiculously good that they're breezing through Extreme difficulty. AC, on the other hand, is so grindy and easy that players who haven't even finished it need to create challenge artificially.

    Defender on
  • redheadredhead Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    defender isn't criticizing players who chose to use attacks other than the counter-attack, he's criticizing the developer for making it too good. the developer controls what the "tangible in game mechanical benefits to the player" actually are, and if there's one attack that's so good it renders the others useless for the rest of the game, most of the time that's poor design. if the player finds a way to make the game fun in spite of the developer's poor design by ignoring the most effective way to play, then good for them. but then you're effectively playing a different game, so that's not a credit to the developer and it doesn't make the game good again. it would be like if I made a game in which the players are supposed to jam darts into their eyes to win, and you discovered that it's way more fun if you play by throwing the darts at a dartboard instead. that might make the game fun, but it's not the same game, so I, the developer, don't deserve credit for making it good.

    so yes, there's no built-in reason to do a pistol only run (in most games), because the game itself doesn't reward you for that style of play by making it very effective. you can choose to do it anyway, but then, again, you're playing a different game. the developer controls what styles of play give what kinds of rewards on the assumption that most players will play the game the way that is most heavily rewarded. if the pistol can't kill anything after level 2, the developer can safely assume that most people will drop it to grab an assault rifle. since that's what most players are going to do, the assault rifle needs to be fun to use-- if the pistol is really entertaining and the assault rifle is boring as hell to use but really effective, then the player has an annoying dilemma and the game gets less fun. that's the developer's fault. if the player overcomes it by deciding, "oh, what the hell, I'll just keep the pistol just to make things tough" and it turns out that that's fun to do, then good for them. but that isn't an example of good game design.

    redhead on
  • Ness445Ness445 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Redhead, I read your post and agree with all of your points, and I guess I prefer it over some ALLCAPS message, but some capitalization has never actively hurt anyone (unless this is not true, unless...a capital letter...murdered your father and then raped his dead corpse).

    Ness445 on
    4445.gif
  • Darth WaiterDarth Waiter Elrond Hubbard Mordor XenuRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ness445 wrote: »
    Redhead, I read your post and agree with all of your points, and I guess I prefer it over some ALLCAPS message, but some capitalization has never actively hurt anyone (unless this is not true, unless...a capital letter...murdered your father and then raped his dead corpse).

    Well, it's no backslash, drenched in bloody fury.

    Darth Waiter on
  • Punsie McKalePunsie McKale Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    so mercenaries 2, the game that I orginally bought a 360 to play half a year ago and finally got around to playing?

    lame lame lame

    Punsie McKale on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Ness445Ness445 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ness445 wrote: »
    Redhead, I read your post and agree with all of your points, and I guess I prefer it over some ALLCAPS message, but some capitalization has never actively hurt anyone (unless this is not true, unless...a capital letter...murdered your father and then raped his dead corpse).

    Well, it's no backslash, drenched in bloody fury.
    I want a Mr. Period application to run in the corner of Firefox, softly tutting to himself every time I make some terrible error in spelling/punctuation.

    Ness445 on
    4445.gif
  • Darth WaiterDarth Waiter Elrond Hubbard Mordor XenuRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ness445 wrote: »
    I want a Mr. Period application to run in the corner of Firefox, softly tutting to himself every time I make some terrible error in spelling/punctuation.

    I would pay many rape dollars for this.

    Darth Waiter on
  • Ness445Ness445 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    It would be a constant moral support.

    I long for his approval.

    Ness445 on
    4445.gif
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The MSWord paperclip would've been so much better if it silently judged you every time you made a typo.

    Speed Racer on
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Backslash would fuck the MSWord paperclip up

    Me Too! on
  • redheadredhead Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ness445 wrote: »
    Redhead, I read your post and agree with all of your points, and I guess I prefer it over some ALLCAPS message, but some capitalization has never actively hurt anyone (unless this is not true, unless...a capital letter...murdered your father and then raped his dead corpse).

    yeah I usually use caps and stuff if it's gonna be a long post, but that one started out small and grew on me

    and I didn't feel like going back in and adding them

    redhead on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Redhead understands.

    Defender on
  • Blake TBlake T Do you have enemies then? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Man all I'm saying is that I had fun playing the damm game.

    Blake T on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Blaket wrote: »
    Man all I'm saying is that I had fun playing the damm game.

    That makes you a bad person.

    Defender on
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    I still have fun playing it

    I get on and run across Acre and Jerusalem. Damascus not so much for some reason

    Me Too! on
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    My reason for not solely using counter-attacks in AC is because it makes it a piss poor boring game. It might not be the most efficient from a mechanical game play stand point, but it is more fun.

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

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

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

    Speed Racer on
  • Punsie McKalePunsie McKale Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    defender, start a little game review site

    I'd read it

    Punsie McKale on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    My reason for not solely using counter-attacks in AC is because it makes it a piss poor boring game. It might not be the most efficient from a mechanical game play stand point, but it is more fun.

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

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

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

    I think you might actually more than half-agree with me. As I said, even if you ignore the bad combat, the majority of the game is spent grinding no-skill activities/running boring errands. The only interesting errand I ever had to run was killing people in the streets without getting caught and within a certain time limit. But that happened exactly twice in the entire game. The final boss fight was pretty good, too, although that fight made counters even more important because I think the last boss is the only guy in the game who can counter you (actually the second-to-last boss might also have counters, I forget), so making direct attacks is a super-dumb idea.

    Defender on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    defender, start a little game review site

    I'd read it

    Thanks. I would like to, actually. The problem with that is that I think I could get fired for conflict of interest. Also there are times when I am critical of games that are connected in some corporate way to my own company.

    Defender on
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    defender, start a little game review site

    I'd read it

    Thanks. I would like to, actually. The problem with that is that I think I could get fired for conflict of interest. Also there are times when I am critical of games that are connected in some corporate way to my own company.

    Well once you get fired for all the intravenous drug abuse and the mafia connections, what'll be stopping you?

    Metzger Meister on
  • Punsie McKalePunsie McKale Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    woah, defender, you work at a game company?

    which one?

    ah, you can't say, I bet. Conflict of interest

    Punsie McKale on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    defender, start a little game review site

    I'd read it

    Thanks. I would like to, actually. The problem with that is that I think I could get fired for conflict of interest. Also there are times when I am critical of games that are connected in some corporate way to my own company.

    So keep it anonymous?

    Munkus Beaver on
    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    woah, defender, you work at a game company?

    which one?

    ah, you can't say, I bet. Conflict of interest

    Of all the companies out there, software companies would be the first ones I would think of that would do internet checks of their employees.

    It wouldn't be a good business move to proclaim that you work for a company on a public posting profile, unless you were doing so as a rep.

    Munkus Beaver on
    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    My reason for not solely using counter-attacks in AC is because it makes it a piss poor boring game. It might not be the most efficient from a mechanical game play stand point, but it is more fun.

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

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

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

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

    Speed Racer on
  • AMP'dAMP'd Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    I still have fun playing it

    I get on and run across Acre and Jerusalem. Damascus not so much for some reason

    I always liked Acre the least, except for on the ship level.

    The whole decay thing put me off.

    AMP'd on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Climbing the fucking cathedral is a blast man

    All the way to the top of the cross

    Me Too! on
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    AMP'd wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    I still have fun playing it

    I get on and run across Acre and Jerusalem. Damascus not so much for some reason

    I always liked Acre the least, except for on the ship level.

    The whole decay thing put me off.

    Was that the place with the crazy people that hit you constantly but you couldn't hit back without drawing attention?

    Because fuck that place.

    Speed Racer on
  • AMP'dAMP'd Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    AMP'd wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    I still have fun playing it

    I get on and run across Acre and Jerusalem. Damascus not so much for some reason

    I always liked Acre the least, except for on the ship level.

    The whole decay thing put me off.

    Was that the place with the crazy people that hit you constantly but you couldn't hit back without drawing attention?

    Because fuck that place.

    Dudes were everywhere, but they had that one hospital mission in Acre.

    Of course, they had the ship level there, and I loved that one.

    Also the party one in Damascus was excellent.

    AMP'd on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    The hospital kill was my favorite for the awesome "run across rafters and jump out a window" escape

    Ship was my least, for how hard it was to get there unseen and then take that fucker out, still unseen

    Me Too! on
  • AMP'dAMP'd Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The ship was the one I got totally unawares - he had his back turned and I came up behind him.

    I also really liked jumping on the poles to get to the boat, and climbing that view point the first time.

    AMP'd on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The GeekThe Geek Oh-Two Crew, Omeganaut Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    defender, start a little game review site

    I'd read it

    Thanks. I would like to, actually. The problem with that is that I think I could get fired for conflict of interest. Also there are times when I am critical of games that are connected in some corporate way to my own company.

    Your mom's connected in some corporate way to your own company.

    The Geek on
    BLM - ACAB
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    My reason for not solely using counter-attacks in AC is because it makes it a piss poor boring game. It might not be the most efficient from a mechanical game play stand point, but it is more fun.

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

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

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

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

    In the short term, yes. In the long term, though, it means that the game doesn't have depth. Without depth, it isn't going to last, because you can't get better at it.

    Defender on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    AMP'd wrote: »
    AMP'd wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    I still have fun playing it

    I get on and run across Acre and Jerusalem. Damascus not so much for some reason

    I always liked Acre the least, except for on the ship level.

    The whole decay thing put me off.

    Was that the place with the crazy people that hit you constantly but you couldn't hit back without drawing attention?

    Because fuck that place.

    Dudes were everywhere, but they had that one hospital mission in Acre.

    Of course, they had the ship level there, and I loved that one.

    Also the party one in Damascus was excellent.

    That's another thing that broke the "anonymous person in the crowd" feel. Beggars and drunks and violent psychopaths all just knew who you were, picked you alone out of the crowd to harass and/or assault, and if you hit back, even without a weapon, all of a sudden the cops were on you. In the later parts of the game, they became more common, presumably to raise the challenge level.

    Defender on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    woah, defender, you work at a game company?

    which one?

    ah, you can't say, I bet. Conflict of interest

    Of all the companies out there, software companies would be the first ones I would think of that would do internet checks of their employees.

    It wouldn't be a good business move to proclaim that you work for a company on a public posting profile, unless you were doing so as a rep.

    Yeah, it's not the best idea. Plus, what if they release a bad game and I review it and call it out for being shit? That's not good.

    Regarding "just keep it anonymous," I'm actually trying to honor my obligations here, not just do whatever I feel like and not get caught. If I start a second business, I have to OK it with my company. They have to agree that it doesn't have any conflicts with my work. And even if they do agree to that, my anonymity is blown at that point and they could change their mind about it conflicting with my job at any moment.

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

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

    AMP'd on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    My reason for not solely using counter-attacks in AC is because it makes it a piss poor boring game. It might not be the most efficient from a mechanical game play stand point, but it is more fun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Defender on
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    In Megaman 1 there's a glitch where if you shoot your electric-weapon, you can mash the start button to rapidly pause and unpause. Every time you unpause the weapon deals damage again, so you can just fire one shot at a boss and mash the start button to instantly kill them. You can use it anywhere you want, but it's only particularly useful or preferable to not cheating near the end of the game, when you're fighting large enemies with complicated attack patterns and big damage bars that don't move around very much. That doesn't really have any bearing on the points you made, I just figured I'd explain it real quick so that we were on the same ground.

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

    Speed Racer on
This discussion has been closed.