IBTNQuote:
Originally Posted by Albert Einstein or E.F. Schumacker
Printable View
IBTNQuote:
Originally Posted by Albert Einstein or E.F. Schumacker
It's Zwei. ZWEI. "Two" in German.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
There was an entire trend in art which was pretty much a lot of people just doing that. It'd be funny if gaming gets it's own version of the 1913 anchorage show where the media goes to find the new big ideas of game developers and leave flabbergasted as to why Konami's new action thriller looks like a game that was programmed in basic in a week's time.
Dave Halverson maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
All I know is that Katamari Damacy did just that. It got rid of a lot of the fuss and hoopla and just boiled it down to simple play mechanics, simple graphics, simple sounds and ended up being one of the best games of the generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo
The idea might not work for every genre, but it can produce some wonderful games at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
oooowwwwnnnneedd
The premise of KD might be simple... and every game that isn't Rez pretty much has 'simple' sounds, but the actual mechanics are not, while the graphics are definitely not simple when you realize how many objects it's dealing with on screen at once, each with their own set of properties. If you think you could have had the exact same experience on the PSX, you're dreaming. It's a lot more complex than Pac-man gobbling up pellets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
If we're talking simple premise, then there's plenty of games that do that released these days. Gungrave:OD might have had a story to it with a slew of cut-scenes, but the game was little more than 'shoot shit up.' Mario Sunshine was more complex than that.
The only games that approach complexity are in genres where it's justified, like Rainbow Six. I'm sure there are games that are overly complicated, but I honestly can't think of one off the top of my head.
Wow, that's some really impressive moderating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone
IBTNQuote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
Who the hell is "stalking" anyway? Diffx posts something, "we" respond, and "we" get to told to, politely, "shut the fuck up".
Ridiculous.
Your definitions of dated and obsolete are your own and aren't shared by a lot of people. Just because a medium has improved technologically doesn't mean it's history shouldn't be enjoyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I'm not really going to even try to discuss with you, because all you're really doing is flamebaiting. That's all you ever really do anyway. The mods may love it (ideal TNL poster? Fucking please) but it truly is tiresome.
I only hope I don't ever become as pompous and jaded as you are. Good luck to you in whatever you decided to shit on next.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
The only thing outdated and obsolete are a quasi-intellectual, jaded, asshole internet persona. *yawn*
Yet you respond to this quasi-intellectual, jaded, asshole internet persona. How novel!Quote:
Originally Posted by JefmcC
So then give me the ranch. Ive never been beat up in my life and the fact that you are so desperate makes me LAWWWL. I can tell youre desperate to do it, and it truly is wonderful.Quote:
You think I think that everyone that asks the questions you did are twerps? No. Only people with your crap attitude as if they're right and other people are wrong, when you're more wrong than anyone else here on average. All I picture is someone that got repeatedly beat up by people because they thought you were a piece of crap and now you want to get back at them. I'd bet the ranch that I'm not far off on that assertion.
Theres a big difference between wanting to become the Atari 2600 Champion so you can show it off to people who used to hate you and wanting to become the Atari 2600 Champion for your own personal gratification, you know. I guess that I, unlike you, dont need to get my life validated by everyone around me, and I am content to do my own thing as long as it makes me happy.
And the fact that you said this, paired with the knowledge that you workout, makes me question your motives for doing so, loverboy.
Wasnt that like PN03? That game sucked. Its not a matter of making things more complex per se, its about making them more intense and interesting, more interactive, and more rewarding in payoff. Sorry but there's not much in gaming that tops a well-placed gib in TFC or a well-placed strike to end a 30-minute match in War3. ^__^Quote:
Konami's new action thriller looks like a game that was programmed in basic in a week's time.
Honestly I think multiplayer does a lot to ratchet up the quality of games. Ive always liked multiplayer.
No, I replied to the content of this thread. Specifically, to Melf's comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I don't have a problem with you being the forum asshole, every forum needs one. Besides, without an asshole, how would everyone get thier shit out?
You are doing a fine job.
But that doesn't change the fact that your act is old, outdated, and obsolete.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Says who? It was creative, but I don't see that game topping off gamerankings.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Game quality = review ratings
No.Quote:
Wasnt that like PN03?
It's more like...chicken jockey! except pretend that it's being made by Konami and marketed as the next generation of action game.
Oops. I have a habit of typing something, the way it sounds. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Yes, I know it means two in German, as in the second Herzog game. The first being on a Japanese computer.
I think you do not notice the complexity of most games because you play a lot of them. Some genres have completely marganalized themselves because they kept narrowing their focus until only the hardest of the hardcore were left. Look at what happened to fighting games and shumps. Okay, the initial games (SFII and Raiden -- for the sake of simplicity, I am starting in the early 90s) were all big and successful and shit, but the experience eventutally grew stale. So they have to add to the experience... and they kept adding until the games got so complex no one who has just learned of their existence could ever fathom to play the game unless they underwent great effort to do so. "No one has ever learned to throw a fireball since 1996" was a statement one of my friends would always throw out in regards to this problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammadeau
Ever see someone get completely lost in the character select menu of CvS2? "Grooves, ratios, what is this shit?... why are there so many people, and why do I have to pick so many people?" Ever see someone do the same thing in a level in Ikaruga or DoDonPachi (or seemingly so) and end up with vastly different scores? Some of these games have turned into usuability nightmares.
On that note: I could never imagine my mother being able to figure out a game like Guilty Gear XX or Ikaruga, but she was able to figure out how to play (and even enjoy playing!) Katamari Damacy within sixty seconds. The last game she played to any length before that was Dr. Mario and Kwirk (?!) on the Game Boy... figure that one out.
-Dippy
Nostalgia's fun. I'll hang on to it fuckers.
You've got a point there. I'm playing Gallop Racer 2004 right now and man is this game complicated. Horses, riders, venues... all come with a pile of stats, but in the end it's not more complex than the average RPG. It's just complex in a way that I'm not used to.
I'd still say KD is complex in its own fashion, but it's complex in a way that's completely intuitive, like the ball of stuff moves how it would likely move in real life. There's some big number crunching behind the scenes for that to happen, but to the player it seems completely natural.
Dipstick, youre talking about something that NG used to touch on a bit, and I think a development of some sort of critical theory of videogames should address it (and I think such theory would be useful to game development and progression). There is a certain language based mostly on tradition and past games, and some games try too hard to change it, and just end up alienating people. But this is poor design. Remember that POS FFT clone Hoshigami? It had so many stupid subengines and different systems and shit and it just collapsed under its own weight.
Also, if you look at the first Total War game, Shogun, yea it tried a lot of cool things, but the interface was a miserable attempt at abstraction. It used yin-yang symbols, lots of other Japanese symbols, etc., to try to add atmosphere but it just got weird and stupid. They worked it out with the next game, mostly, but yea, poor design. Compare that to the way Blizzard implemented upkeep in War3, which radically changed the way the game is played (for the better, Id argue).
Its just a question of design.
Why don't you hump Dave Perry's leg while you're at it.
A lot of people say they play 8 or 16 bit games because they're so easy to pick up for just a short while when you don't have much time. This may be true, but most of those games are also a lot more difficult than games are today, and if you want to get any real enjoyment from playing them, you probably have to practice.
If you're going to pick up a game for only 20 minutes and suck at it every time because you don't have time to practice and learn patterns, wouldn't you be just as well off playing a new, easier game? It's difficult to find a game these days that can't be saved at least every 20 minutes and it's not difficult to find games that are easy to get into.
I love playing older games and I'll always go back to them in between playing new games, but not because the old ones are more convenient. I think it's an over used and clichéd excuse. Granted, a cartridge loads up faster than a DVD, but if that's your main concern then GBA has most of the classic genres well covered, often with much better graphics.