He also fueled 200 posts of debate over what constitutes a "combo" in a fighting game, almost singlehandedly.
Maybe Andrew has the dictionary that was coauthored by Emmanuel Lewis instead of that Merriam guy.
Printable View
He also fueled 200 posts of debate over what constitutes a "combo" in a fighting game, almost singlehandedly.
Maybe Andrew has the dictionary that was coauthored by Emmanuel Lewis instead of that Merriam guy.
I will admit, though, that some of the very best game designers work at Pizza Hut.
this thread is amazing. one for the tnl hall of fame. which reminds me. we need a hall of fame.
Any game designer should agree that gameplay is the core of the game. Given an ideal world, designers would probably claim that gameplay should be put above all other considerations. And in a lot of cases, were it not for external pressures, these same game designers would attempt to treat the gameplay with the level of importance that it deserves. There's just one problem with this: There is no universally accepted definition of gameplay. Gameplay is an important, if nebulous, concept. Many times during discussions of games, we have heard comments such as, "This has great gameplay," followed by a detailed description of the particular aspect of the game. However, if instead you were to ask the question, "What is gameplay?", most answers would attempt to explain by example. Indeed, explanation by example can be helpful, but it requires that you infer a definition of gameplay by induction. Describing gameplay without using self-reference is similar to trying to explain the concept of red without reference to color. It is difficult to conceive, but not impossible.
There is a reason for this difficulty: The concept of gameplay is extremely difficult to define. Each designer has his or her own personal definition of gameplay, formed from exposure to many examples over the course of a career. Gameplay is so difficult to define because there is no single entity that we can point to and say, "There! That's the gameplay." Gameplay is the result of a large number of contributing elements. The presence, or lack thereof, of gameplay can be deduced by examining a particular game for indications and contraindications of these elements. (These terms are borrowed from medical terminology: An indication is a positive sign that implies the existence of gameplay, and a contraindication is a negative sign that implies that gameplay does not exist.)
***
[O]ur formal definition of gameplay:
One or more causally linked series of challenges in a simulated environment.
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/des...rollingsadams/
What thread was this? I feel a sick urge to read through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dog$
JM
Indeed we do. This is one amazing thread though, no doubt about it.
I think that's where you both follow a completely different path. The battle engine (in Andrew's mind) doesn't change because basically, it's still a time based battle, with your characters on one side and the ennemies on the other. It's still the same routine that makes the whole game go on, except it has a lot more factors, but basically it's the same. The things like espers, Junctions, chain Grid, all that are only Extra options that you may or may not use, but they have nothing to do with the orders the game gives to show you the battle. (in all FFs, the normal map disappears and you are led to the battle screen, then the battle unfolds time based, each character acting out one option you chose in the menus of that particuliar game.)Quote:
You can not do either action in a Final Fantasy other than the one it appears in. This is because THE BATTLE ENGINE HAS CHANGED, meaning that you PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY.
If I got it right, Saga Frontier and the FFs have the same battle engine, but Secret of Mana doesn't. Am I right?
As for the discussion about how his (Andrew's) skills are better than yours, the way I see it, he's making a distinction between the actual process of programming and the ability to judge of the results. And since you guys are judging the variety of options and not the actual program codes like he does, it's only natural that you can't understand each other.
If this thread ever goes back to the original point, could someone please send me a PM? Thanks in advance...
One major difference in the gameplay of FF3 and FFX is that FFX allows you to perform combos.
How do you perform these combo's.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoleTroll
It's not. As I've explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
Gameplay is not that you just did a fireball to an enemy and they're now set ablaze. Gameplay is you clicking on the menu FIREGA and that's it. As I've said, engines with real time engines that don't rely on turn based gameplay have different gameplay because gameplay is what you control.
It has nothing to do with the controllers interface.
Lets try to relate this to Final Fantasy and not other games, because that's what I said in my first post.
dog$: I said button combo in the thread. Nobody seemed to see the button word.
I haven't played Saga Frontier, but yes. That's basically it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saffran
Like I've said time and time again. Gameplay is not what you do but how you do it, in game. Maybe they don't know enough about games to be able to see what I'm saying.
i really shouldn't be drawn into this dead end, but:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo