Printable View
God of War did a great job of implementing "trial and error" gameplay. The ending areas with spinning spikes that so many seem to hate can be figured out, and it's incredibly rewarding when it happens. Plus, you are given checkpoints throughout the sections.
If you're referring to quicksaves, I've something to say against 'em. The ability to stop and pick up a game whenever you want is a good idea--and quick saves are good for this--but it's just way, way too easy for both 1) the player to abuse, and 2) the game designer to rely on. So much level design in PC FPS games leads to ambushes and instant deaths you can't avoid, but hey it's no big deal 'cause the player's been hitting F6 constantly, so who cares? Let 'em reload and try that thirty-second stretch of gameplay again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
As for player abuse, it's something that's not clear cut enough--even to me, when playing--where using quick saves is cheapening the experience or just doing what's necessary. I like the Castlevania/Metroid save systems where you have the challenge of getting from one point to the other without dying. It's a finite challenge designed by the developer. PC quick saves completely undo any challenge design a game has. Go play Super Mario Bros. on an emulator with savestates for proof.
I agree that a self-deleting quicksave is the best way to go. It doesn't spoil the challenge design at all and makes it possible for players to quit playing whenever they need to.
Simon Byron's arguments against stealth are pretty straw-manny. An RPG explosion versus sitting in a cupboard? Eh, not quite accurate if considering the leaders in stealth gameplay.
I generally like stealth gameplay, though two things can completely ruin it for me: 1) inconsistent, buggy AI (most bad stealth games suffer this: Riddick, Pandora Tomorrow), 2) instant mission failure if caught (especially if due to inconsistent, buggy AI).
Molyneux's analogy of cutscenes being like commercials is pretty awesome (in that it doesn't make any sense). His comments reek of ADD: "“I agree that there have been some very beautiful cut scenes but even the best leave you frustrated . . . you can't try out the reward until you've sat through three minutes of story." Half-Life 2's storytelling works well for the game, but I wouldn't necessarily want to see it in every game.
Holy shit I agree 100% with everything MarkRyan just said. The world must be coming to an end!
I agree with MarkRyan on the quicksave thing... it is something that IMO the world needs less of, not more. Now, people usually point to the example of Far Cry - the game originally had no quicksaves but was put in a patch later. The problem with Far Cry was that the designers built the game like it had quicksaves... but took them out at the end. The result was a total mess by the endgame.
Ill point to RE4 again, that game didnt have quick saves and I didnt need them: it had a good number of save points and if you died between, it put you at a reasonable spot.
The problem is that no quicksaves make the designers... design more. And I guess they don't want to do that.
Quicksaves belong in strategy games only, IMO.
There is a fire and ice level in Blade Dancer, but we have already established that game sucks anyway, hehe.
Yeah I mostly agree with this. Metal Gear Solid kind of needed stealth gameplay and I don't agree that the only action in games should be running in head first, pistols a-blazin'. In other games it might be a nice option to have (Oblvion) so long as it's not really the center of attention in the gameplay depo. But hamfisting stealth in to a game where it doesn't belong (Wind Waker) is bullshit and ruins games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I also personally hate bottomless pits in 3D games, since they're usually accompanied by terrible camera and level design (Tenchu is notorious in my mind for abuse of the bottomless pit in 3D).
I do agree cutscenes blow too. Halflife 1 & 2 got it right.
How hard is it to put decent camera angles in 3D games? Every 3D game I've played always has some quirky camera angle that I know the developers could've fixed.
I knew the 3D camera would be gotten to eventually. Why do cameras in 3D games suck so hard? What is it about this one specific element that 10 years (or so) of development still hasn't been able to fix?
My gripe- "realism". Games aren't realistic. Any time I can take 5 bullets in a row and soldier on, or slam a car at 60MPH into another car and watch it bounce away, any claim to realism is dead. Reality just isn't a fun gameplay element.
James
I don't play games to be challenged to the point of frustration. The hardest games I want to play involve sports (soccer, ping pong, boxing, football, etc). If I'm really in to a game because I like the characters, gameplay or story I don't want to have to replay a level 30 times because the difficulty is too high for me. In fact if a game provides so much of a challenge I become tired of trying and bored with the challenge I return it. This is why difficulty levels are useful. If you like challenges you can crank it, if you just want the experience then crank it the other way -- everyone wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by TaekwondoNJ
Maybe camera's angle are harder than everyone thinks they are.