What do YOU think makes a good game?

93	18668

offline

KentyBK

566 posts

Nomad

Posted June 19, '11 8:54pm UTC

How fun the game is.

And what makes a game fun?

P.S. I'm the first to notice the timestamp. Yay for me!

Nope. ;D

It's just a much better topic to discuss than the usual stuff on here, so I'd almost say I wouldn't mind if this topic isn't being locked for obvious its Necro-ish nature.

offline

wwedfan1

187 posts

Peasant

Posted June 19, '11 11:36pm UTC

good music graphics and and story line to grap the person playing.also good side quests.

offline

Joe96

2,226 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '11 12:24am UTC

I think a solid theme, good graphics, a story that is well developed, artwork that matches the genre (scary for horror, bright for fun, etc.), decent audio, not too glitchy... so on, so forth.

offline

MrCoffee

29 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '11 8:01pm UTC

Another would be to stop using cutscenes and generally relying on story to carry your game. Once you get rid of all the bloat (because once again the story should only server a functional purpose similar to graphics) you can go back to making games revolve around the more important things again.

While providing an interesting choice, I would like to say that some cut-scenes do enhance the game in a way no story could. Thus giving the game a more dramatic effect, at the cost of making it more like a movie. However, in a game like Mass Effect, the cut-scenes give you another perspective on how the events happen in the game, along with showing you how one choice (going back to your freedom of choice I realize) you make can affect the outcome of how your character behaves, and giving you a more personalized game-play experience.

To add to your replayability section, i would also like to point out that the more creative and new the game-play style is, the more successful it is. Which enhances the replayability greatly.

[quote]Another would be to stop using cutscenes and generally relying on story to carry your game. Once you get rid of all the bloat (because once again the story should only server a functional purpose similar to graphics) you can go back to making games revolve around the more important things again.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhile providing an interesting choice, I would like to say that some cut-scenes do enhance the game in a way no story could. Thus giving the game a more dramatic effect, at the cost of making it more like a movie. However, in a game like Mass Effect, the cut-scenes give you another perspective on how the events happen in the game, along with showing you how one choice (going back to your freedom of choice I realize) you make can affect the outcome of how your character behaves, and giving you a more personalized game-play experience. \r\n\r\nTo add to your replayability section, i would also like to point out that the more creative and new the game-play style is, the more successful it is. Which enhances the replayability greatly.

offline

KentyBK

566 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '11 9:19pm UTC

While providing an interesting choice, I would like to say that some cut-scenes do enhance the game in a way no story could

I'm sure you are familiar with the old saying "show, don't tell". For games, there is actually a similar saying: "do, don't show". Most of the time, a cutscene is just used so the developers can show off their ZOMG graphics or something else to that effect.

Imagine a cutscene of the main character beating a boss. The obvious question is: Why doesn't the game let me do that myself?

If the game would let you do that instead of showing you movie clips, it would lead to a much better sense of immersion. Instead of thinking "Whoa that guy did something ******", you'd instead think "Whoa I did something ******". I think this is the reason why building stuff in Minecraft so satisfying (random side note: this is also why I never want there to be a story in Minecraft).

In short: All cutscenes do is interrupt the gameplay (and they start to get annoying if you have to see unskippable cutscenes every time you lose to a boss ;D), which should be the main focus.

And again, there's no need for games to have complex stories to the point where you NEED cutscenes.

Thus giving the game a more dramatic effect, at the cost of making it more like a movie.

Do I need dramatic effect in my games? Making games like movies is a bad idea, considering actually watching movies is much cheaper than buying full price games.

However, in a game like Mass Effect, the cut-scenes give you another perspective on how the events happen in the game, along with showing you how one choice (going back to your freedom of choice I realize) you make can affect the outcome of how your character behaves, and giving you a more personalized game-play experience.

Do, don't show.

Here's a good example on how to do "choice" very well: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

What those games did was list off all the things you did and their consequences of those choices. And I mean every.single.one including the smallest of side quests. Now THAT is a personalized experience (not to mention you could do other crazy stuff like playing a character with low intelligence, resulting in you speaking gibberish xD).

It would be interesting if Mass Effect 3 would go a similar route. I can't really comment much more than that since I only really played a few hours of the first one.

To add to your replayability section, i would also like to point out that the more creative and new the game-play style is, the more successful it is. Which enhances the replayability greatly.

Creativity does not ensure success. Heavy Rain sure had a "creative" take on gameplay. Not to mention stuff like Minecraft isn't *new* per se, since it got influenced by other games too. Just by concept, I'd argue the newest and yet most successful game in recent memory would be Wii Fit.

Also, being successful does not equal replay value.

[quote]While providing an interesting choice, I would like to say that some cut-scenes do enhance the game in a way no story could[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm sure you are familiar with the old saying "show, don't tell". For games, there is actually a similar saying: "do, don't show". Most of the time, a cutscene is just used so the developers can show off their ZOMG graphics or something else to that effect.\r\n\r\nImagine a cutscene of the main character beating a boss. The obvious question is: Why doesn't the game let me do that myself?\r\n\r\nIf the game would let you do that instead of showing you movie clips, it would lead to a much better sense of immersion. Instead of thinking "Whoa that guy did something ******", you'd instead think "Whoa I did something ******". I think this is the reason why building stuff in Minecraft so satisfying (random side note: this is also why I never want there to be a story in Minecraft).\r\n\r\nIn short: All cutscenes do is interrupt the gameplay (and they start to get annoying if you have to see unskippable cutscenes every time you lose to a boss ;D), which should be the main focus.\r\n\r\nAnd again, there's no need for games to have complex stories to the point where you NEED cutscenes.\r\n\r\n[quote] Thus giving the game a more dramatic effect, at the cost of making it more like a movie.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDo I need dramatic effect in my games? Making games like movies is a bad idea, considering actually watching movies is much cheaper than buying full price games.\r\n\r\n[quote]However, in a game like Mass Effect, the cut-scenes give you another perspective on how the events happen in the game, along with showing you how one choice (going back to your freedom of choice I realize) you make can affect the outcome of how your character behaves, and giving you a more personalized game-play experience.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDo, don't show.\r\n\r\nHere's a good example on how to do "choice" very well: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.\r\n\r\nWhat those games did was list off all the things you did and their consequences of those choices. And I mean every.single.one including the smallest of side quests. Now THAT is a personalized experience (not to mention you could do other crazy stuff like playing a character with low intelligence, resulting in you speaking gibberish xD).\r\n\r\nIt would be interesting if Mass Effect 3 would go a similar route. I can't really comment much more than that since I only really played a few hours of the first one.\r\n\r\n[quote]To add to your replayability section, i would also like to point out that the more creative and new the game-play style is, the more successful it is. Which enhances the replayability greatly.[/quote]\r\n\r\nCreativity does not ensure success. Heavy Rain sure had a "creative" take on gameplay. Not to mention stuff like Minecraft isn't *new* per se, since it got influenced by other games too. Just by concept, I'd argue the newest and yet most successful game in recent memory would be Wii Fit.\r\n\r\nAlso, being successful does not equal replay value.

offline

skippythemonkey1

90 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '11 9:32pm UTC

Bieng able 2 choose the difficulty, a good storyline,no crappy graphics,not 2 many glitches,a mode like zombies incase u get bored of the campaign, having fun,and adventure/action.

offline

MrCoffee

29 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '11 10:25pm UTC

In short: All cutscenes do is interrupt the gameplay

I have to disagree. While they do at times interrupt game-play, they have just as much a positive effect on games as they do a negative effect. While they do have their annoying times (Borderlands: Knoxx Battle being an example) they also allow the player to see what their choices have become overall.

Making games like movies is a bad idea, considering actually watching movies is much cheaper than buying full price games.

While this is partially true, a game with cut-scenes allows for you to get a better idea of whats going on. Particularly for games where you command a squad, (going back to Mass Effect here) it gives you a sense of what kind of creature or boss you may be dealing with, allowing for a more in depth idea of how the game was made to be seen.

Do, don't show.

Here's a good example on how to do "choice" very well: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

What those games did was list off all the things you did and their consequences of those choices. And I mean every.single.one including the smallest of side quests. Now THAT is a personalized experience

I absolutely agree with you, and I believe Mass Effect did a pretty good job at the freedom of choice, while not as good as the Fallout series, the game was fun.

Creativity does not ensure success. Heavy Rain sure had a "creative" take on gameplay. Not to mention stuff like Minecraft isn't *new* per se, since it got influenced by other games too. Just by concept, I'd argue the newest and yet most successful game in recent memory would be Wii Fit.

I am aware creativity relies on other points to compliment itself, but if it has no creativity, who will buy it? Would you buy a game that's simple, and an exact remake of Tetris? All creativity does is enhances the replayability. Which in turn may make or break a game. I was merely agreeing with you, which i am quite surprised you chose to address this also.

Also, being successful does not equal replay value.

Hmm, another issue i'm not sure why you addressed. I worded it a bit badly, try replacing replayability in the last sentence, with the word successful. That should give you the intended statement.

[quote]In short: All cutscenes do is interrupt the gameplay[/quote]\r\n\r\nI have to disagree. While they do at times interrupt game-play, they have just as much a positive effect on games as they do a negative effect. While they do have their annoying times (Borderlands: Knoxx Battle being an example) they also allow the player to see what their choices have become overall.\r\n\r\n[quote]Making games like movies is a bad idea, considering actually watching movies is much cheaper than buying full price games.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhile this is partially true, a game with cut-scenes allows for you to get a better idea of whats going on. Particularly for games where you command a squad, (going back to Mass Effect here) it gives you a sense of what kind of creature or boss you may be dealing with, allowing for a more in depth idea of how the game was made to be seen. \r\n\r\n[quote]Do, don't show.\r\n\r\nHere's a good example on how to do "choice" very well: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.\r\n\r\nWhat those games did was list off all the things you did and their consequences of those choices. And I mean every.single.one including the smallest of side quests. Now THAT is a personalized experience[/quote]\r\n\r\nI absolutely agree with you, and I believe Mass Effect did a pretty good job at the freedom of choice, while not as good as the Fallout series, the game was fun.\r\n\r\n[quote]Creativity does not ensure success. Heavy Rain sure had a "creative" take on gameplay. Not to mention stuff like Minecraft isn't *new* per se, since it got influenced by other games too. Just by concept, I'd argue the newest and yet most successful game in recent memory would be Wii Fit.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI am aware creativity relies on other points to compliment itself, but if it has no creativity, who will buy it? Would you buy a game that's simple, and an exact remake of Tetris? All creativity does is enhances the replayability. Which in turn may make or break a game. I was merely agreeing with you, which i am quite surprised you chose to address this also.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, being successful does not equal replay value.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHmm, another issue i'm not sure why you addressed. I worded it a bit badly, try replacing replayability in the last sentence, with the word successful. That should give you the intended statement.

offline

gaboloth

1,612 posts

Peasant

Posted June 20, '11 10:53pm UTC

Imagine a cutscene of the main character beating a boss. The obvious question is: Why doesn't the game let me do that myself?

Definitely! Cutscenes can get really annoying when they work like that. For example in Halo:Reach. You destroy huge alien armies during the game, then a single unit kills all your spartans in the cutscenes. I feel like, what? I would have totally survived if you let me play!
The funny thing is that they found the perfect solution to this in the final level of Reach. They just left you alone with an endless army with no chance of surviving, so it made sense to start with the cutscene of your death after you actually died during gameplay. In my opinion they should have used this solution much more in the game.

But cutscenes aren't always bad. An example of an excellent cutscene in my opinion is the one where the terrorist kill the president in the first modern warfare game. It's technically a cutscene because you don't do anything, you just look around, but you can still move the first person visual of the president just like how you would do in the game. In this way it still takes time to explain the story better and to define the personality of your enemies better, but it doesn't stop the flow of the game as much as a normal cutscene.

[quote]Imagine a cutscene of the main character beating a boss. The obvious question is: Why doesn't the game let me do that myself?[/quote]\r\nDefinitely! Cutscenes can get really annoying when they work like that. For example in Halo:Reach. You destroy huge alien armies during the game, then a single unit kills all your spartans in the cutscenes. I feel like, what? I would have totally survived if you let me play!\r\nThe funny thing is that they found the perfect solution to this in the final level of Reach. They just left you alone with an endless army with no chance of surviving, so it made sense to start with the cutscene of your death after you actually died during gameplay. In my opinion they should have used this solution much more in the game.\r\n\r\nBut cutscenes aren't always bad. An example of an excellent cutscene in my opinion is the one where the terrorist kill the president in the first  modern warfare game. It's technically a cutscene because you don't do anything, you just look around, but you can still move the first person visual of the president just like how you would do in the game. In this way it still takes time to explain the story better and to define the personality of your enemies better, but it doesn't stop the flow of the game as much as a normal cutscene.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted June 20, '11 11:12pm UTC

If the game would let you do that instead of showing you movie clips, it would lead to a much better sense of immersion. Instead of thinking "Whoa that guy did something ******", you'd instead think "Whoa I did something ******". I think this is the reason why building stuff in Minecraft so satisfying (random side note: this is also why I never want there to be a story in Minecraft).

A good example is Crysis 2 although I have to say that doing the things you ask, whilst of course amazing is pretty hard to do in a game like Mass Effect. Cinematic style orientation isn't always the best thing - don't get me wrong, but I feel they executed it very well in Mass Effect II and due to the choices involved it did seem like a very impacting experience.

If they had more games like it I'd think more like you, I think, but it was different, creative, outstanding (in my opinion) and actually quite immersive in its own sense.

In short: All cutscenes do is interrupt the gameplay (and they start to get annoying if you have to see unskippable cutscenes every time you lose to a boss ;D), which should be the main focus.

Cutscenes in moderation are certainly good as it provides uniqueness and a little bit of a "step-back" from all the hectic fighting going on (usually ).

Do I need dramatic effect in my games? Making games like movies is a bad idea, considering actually watching movies is much cheaper than buying full price games.

Drama done correctly can be good for immersion.

Here's a good example on how to do "choice" very well: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.
What those games did was list off all the things you did and their consequences of those choices. And I mean every.single.one including the smallest of side quests. Now THAT is a personalized experience (not to mention you could do other crazy stuff like playing a character with low intelligence, resulting in you speaking gibberish xD).
It would be interesting if Mass Effect 3 would go a similar route. I can't really comment much more than that since I only really played a few hours of the first one.

Can I say Fable I was also a great example of this as well? Call me sad but I looked at Fable I at young age and I began looking at how my actions were affecting people, that game helped me more than all my hours at school, really.

One quick thing - if you were suddenly unable to make a choice, would that not make good impact? One of the biggest emotional strikes a human can take is the inability to do something or have no control, a key "dramatic" moment in the game that you cannot control would be exceptional if you ask me. Not saying it's unavoidable or something, but once a previous choice was made it indirectly forced you into it -- that I like.

Creativity does not ensure success. Heavy Rain sure had a "creative" take on gameplay. Not to mention stuff like Minecraft isn't *new* per se, since it got influenced by other games too. Just by concept, I'd argue the newest and yet most successful game in recent memory would be Wii Fit.
Also, being successful does not equal replay value.

I think I should have elaborated. I think the games with the most longevity would be the ones with player created content and such. Being able to theorycraft characters, create maps for fun or for competition (which even professional gamers in SCII use, for instance), to test things and etc, playing other peoples maps - the limits are pretty endless! It is not a guaranteed buff to the longevity however the Forge in Halo does go quite a way to show this, the editor in Age of Mythology will show this, hell, a sub-genre (DotA) was made using an Editor in Warcraft III!

I can't say that it makes it any better on a business standard but making something your own is amazing nonetheless, I feel it would be twice as powerful a feeling who developed the thing from the bottom-up.

And again, there's no need for games to have complex stories to the point where you NEED cutscenes.

Also. One more thing - Cutscenes - that means anything with unique actions you can't do in the actual gameplay, correct? Would the talking in Mass Effect II count because I find the talking the listening, the focus and the information a nice part of the game and it is much more... "Indepth", it's not "We've found the safehouse of Imal-Kazhk, you need to go in there and take him out!" it's more of actually finding that information first which does develop the story better as you get to see more of it.

I have to go but I do enjoy this discussion KentyBK.

- H

[quote]If the game would let you do that instead of showing you movie clips, it would lead to a much better sense of immersion. Instead of thinking "Whoa that guy did something ******", you'd instead think "Whoa I did something ******". I think this is the reason why building stuff in Minecraft so satisfying (random side note: this is also why I never want there to be a story in Minecraft).[/quote]\r\nA good example is Crysis 2 although I have to say that doing the things you ask, whilst of course amazing is pretty hard to do in a game like Mass Effect. Cinematic style orientation isn't always the best thing - don't get me wrong, but I feel they executed it very well in Mass Effect II and due to the choices involved it did seem like a very impacting experience. \r\n\r\nIf they had more games like it I'd think more like you, I think, but it was different, creative, outstanding (in my opinion) and actually quite immersive in its own sense. :D\r\n\r\n[quote]In short: All cutscenes do is interrupt the gameplay (and they start to get annoying if you have to see unskippable cutscenes every time you lose to a boss ;D), which should be the main focus.[/quote]\r\nCutscenes in moderation are certainly good as it provides uniqueness and a little bit of a "step-back" from all the hectic fighting going on (usually :D ).\r\n\r\n[quote]Do I need dramatic effect in my games? Making games like movies is a bad idea, considering actually watching movies is much cheaper than buying full price games.[/quote]\r\nDrama done correctly can be good for immersion.\r\n\r\n[quote]Here's a good example on how to do "choice" very well: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.\r\nWhat those games did was list off all the things you did and their consequences of those choices. And I mean every.single.one including the smallest of side quests. Now THAT is a personalized experience (not to mention you could do other crazy stuff like playing a character with low intelligence, resulting in you speaking gibberish xD).\r\nIt would be interesting if Mass Effect 3 would go a similar route. I can't really comment much more than that since I only really played a few hours of the first one.[/quote]\r\nCan I say Fable I was also a great example of this as well? Call me sad but I looked at Fable I at young age and I began looking at how my actions were affecting people, that game helped me more than all my hours at school, really. :D\r\n\r\nOne quick thing - if you were suddenly unable to make a choice, would that not make good impact? One of the biggest emotional strikes a human can take is the inability to do something or have no control, a key "dramatic" moment in the game that you cannot control would be exceptional if you ask me. Not saying it's unavoidable or something, but once a previous choice was made it indirectly forced you into it -- that I like.\r\n\r\n[quote]Creativity does not ensure success. Heavy Rain sure had a "creative" take on gameplay. Not to mention stuff like Minecraft isn't *new* per se, since it got influenced by other games too. Just by concept, I'd argue the newest and yet most successful game in recent memory would be Wii Fit.\r\nAlso, being successful does not equal replay value.[/quote]\r\nI think I should have elaborated. I think the games with the most longevity would be the ones with player created content and such. Being able to theorycraft characters, create maps for fun or for competition (which even professional gamers in SCII use, for instance), to test things and etc, playing other peoples maps - the limits are pretty endless! It is not a guaranteed buff to the longevity however the Forge in Halo does go quite a way to show this, the editor in Age of Mythology will show this, hell, a sub-genre (DotA) was made using an Editor in Warcraft III!\r\n\r\nI can't say that it makes it any better on a business standard but making something your own is amazing nonetheless, I feel it would be twice as powerful a feeling who developed the thing from the bottom-up. :)\r\n\r\n[quote]And again, there's no need for games to have complex stories to the point where you NEED cutscenes.[/quote]\r\nAlso. One more thing - Cutscenes - that means anything with unique actions you can't do in the actual gameplay, correct? Would the talking in Mass Effect II count because I find the talking the listening, the focus and the information a nice part of the game and it is much more... "Indepth", it's not "We've found the safehouse of Imal-Kazhk, you need to go in there and take him out!" it's more of actually finding that information first which does develop the story better as you get to see more of it. :)\r\n\r\nI have to go but I do enjoy this discussion KentyBK. :)\r\n\r\n - H

offline

Metallica137

120 posts

Nomad

Posted June 21, '11 12:25am UTC

Graphics don't matter. Gameplay is the biggest factor.

offline

KentyBK

566 posts

Nomad

Posted June 21, '11 1:20am UTC

Alright folks this one will be big so brace for impact. I'll seperate it a little by person though.

I have to disagree. While they do at times interrupt game-play, they have just as much a positive effect on games as they do a negative effect. While they do have their annoying times (Borderlands: Knoxx Battle being an example) they also allow the player to see what their choices have become overall.

Why can you not show this choice through gameplay? Why would you need a cutscene to tell you if your choice was good or bad? Not to mention "choice" in games goes a lot deeper than just choosing between dialogue options. Even a game like Pacman or Tetris offers you choice - the ability to play the game a certain way

To name another example of choice: Pokemon. Why do you think it was successful? Sure it being very accesable to kids certainly helped but I'll never believe that's the whole story. I mean look at it: the amount of choice you have in Pokemon is INSANE. It's literally a JRPG with hundreds of possible party members.

Just the way to approach a situation in different ways is an example of choice. If you manage to make most options for the problem viable, then you have some good design on your hands.

The *problem* is that most modern games have is that they limit the amount of choice and player freedom, focusing instead of a "movie like experience" using scripted events and cutscenes. But that's not where I'd want gaming to go.

We need more Minecrafts,Marios and Baldur's Gates (feel free to replace with Mass Effect :3) instead of *generic movie like action game*

It's a bit of an exaggeration but this. Seriously. (random side note: that's a level from Doom if I'm not mistaken)

allowing for a more in depth idea of how the game was made to be seen.

He's the part I disagree. Why should I care how "the game is meant to be seen"? This isn't a movie. I'm the one that plays the game, which means -I- should be the one in control. The developers *great vision* shouldn't matter. You can make something scary and intimidating without cutscenes.

I am aware creativity relies on other points to compliment itself, but if it has no creativity, who will buy it?

You misunderstood. My point wasn't creativity enhances anything. My point was that creativity is WORTHLESS. Who buys a game that is the most creative concept ever, if the gameplay is crap?

Now to list some examples of super successful non-creative games:

New Super Mario Bros (the DS one) sold 25 million copies. Mario Galaxy 2(which is arguable the more *creative* of the two) sold 6 million copies.

Also Modern Warfare 2. 'nough said really.

I could go on, but the point really makes itself when you look at the truly successful games that have come out over the years.

Creativity is just a marketing ploy. In the end, it's about having fun and not having played "something unique and creative".

Would you buy a game that's simple, and an exact remake of Tetris?

I know you didn't mean it like that, but that statement kind of implies Tetris is complicated. xD

It DOES imply that you are either original or a complete ripoff, which I disagree with. What makes Tetris work is that it's really self-explanatory to everyone. If you made a puzzle game with this as your main design choice, you can be sure I'd check it out.

Here's another fun fact: Tetris actually has an official Nintendo sequel.

If you watch that video, you'll notice how they made the super simple Tetris concept more complex (dare I say *original*?) and in turn have created a game nobody remembers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

But cutscenes aren't always bad. An example of an excellent cutscene in my opinion is the one where the terrorist kill the president in the first modern warfare game. It's technically a cutscene because you don't do anything, you just look around, but you can still move the first person visual of the president just like how you would do in the game. In this way it still takes time to explain the story better and to define the personality of your enemies better, but it doesn't stop the flow of the game as much as a normal cutscene.

Valve also does this sorts of cutscenes very well, but at the same time, these "cutscenes" are easily skippable (I'm talking about Portal 2 mainly) by just moving forward with the game. That's awesome design, because you can choose to follow these scenes, or just ignore them and move on.

The game isn't entirely consistant with this though, as there are some section where it confines you to a room or area with nothing to do except watching (how awesome would it have been if the game gave you hard to notice ways to escape those and continue on, essentially being able to "skip" those scenes too? You could have more dialogue as a reward for finding those).
But still, I can tolerate those much more since you CAN STILL MOVE, which makes for a much bigger sense of immersion, than just watching a movie scene.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A good example is Crysis 2 although I have to say that doing the things you ask, whilst of course amazing is pretty hard to do in a game like Mass Effect. Cinematic style orientation isn't always the best thing - don't get me wrong, but I feel they executed it very well in Mass Effect II and due to the choices involved it did seem like a very impacting experience.

The one thing Mass Effect has going for it over all the other Trilogies and sequels is carrying over your saves, which literally makes the amount of choice explode.

Imagine if you didn't have this feature: they would have had to determine a single combination of choices that are "correct" (i.e if Bioware decided that character x or y had to die for the "correct story&quot, thereby making any previous set of choices you had pointless.

By using the feature they can have the player tell their OWN story. This goes back to my earlier point on how the players personality crafts the story. If the game manages to make YOU (i.e the player) feel awesome for your actions, instead of making the main character seem awesome, then it wins.

Cutscenes in moderation are certainly good as it provides uniqueness and a little bit of a "step-back" from all the hectic fighting going on (usually ).

But the question is, if the hectic fighting is fun, do you WANT to take a step back? ;D

Besides, I think this could easily be accomplished if you just had a "safe-zone" basically. A small room where you would be safe from danger. Again, look at a game like Doom. You have small time frames to calm down (mostly in-between levels and secret room with no enemies and goodies ) but no cutscenes.

Drama done correctly can be good for immersion.

But the question is if Drama in a game automatically leads to fun, which is undoubtly the most important thing a game should give you.

Can I say Fable I was also a great example of this as well? Call me sad but I looked at Fable I at young age and I began looking at how my actions were affecting people, that game helped me more than all my hours at school, really.

The original Black and White comes to mind. :3
Teaching and educating your creature in different ways is another way of using "choice" and indirectly influences the game world.

One quick thing - if you were suddenly unable to make a choice, would that not make good impact? One of the biggest emotional strikes a human can take is the inability to do something or have no control, a key "dramatic" moment in the game that you cannot control would be exceptional if you ask me. Not saying it's unavoidable or something, but once a previous choice was made it indirectly forced you into it -- that I like.

If said event is part of a choice and is exclusive to a certain branch or a set of choices, then yes that is very much awesome xP

Reminds me of yet another game example: Ultima 5 (which I never played myself, but I inted to at some point)

If you get captured by the main villian (which only happens when you fail one of those standard "sneak-into-castle-mission-with-guards" deals, he offers you two choices:

Either you give him what he wants (which is some magic key word or something) or he threatens to kill one of your companions. So of course you refuse until the obligatory rescue right? ;D

Not in this game. If you don't give him comply with his demands, he kills them one-by-one.....permanently. How's THAT for choice?

I think I should have elaborated. I think the games with the most longevity would be the ones with player created content and such. Being able to theorycraft characters, create maps for fun or for competition (which even professional gamers in SCII use, for instance), to test things and etc, playing other peoples maps - the limits are pretty endless! It is not a guaranteed buff to the longevity however the Forge in Halo does go quite a way to show this, the editor in Age of Mythology will show this, hell, a sub-genre (DotA) was made using an Editor in Warcraft III!

Of course. ;D
An active community very much helps with keeping your game alive. However I'd argue that you can create a game that has a lot of longevity even without a modding community (the obvious example being all them Nintendo games ;D). The influence of mods is undeniable though.

But would it not be much more smart to just make games on your own, instead of making free mods, seeing that you obviously have the knowledge to program things? Just a food for thought.

Also. One more thing - Cutscenes - that means anything with unique actions you can't do in the actual gameplay, correct? Would the talking in Mass Effect II count because I find the talking the listening, the focus and the information a nice part of the game and it is much more... "Indepth", it's not "We've found the safehouse of Imal-Kazhk, you need to go in there and take him out!" it's more of actually finding that information first which does develop the story better as you get to see more of it.

Actually I don't consider the talking as cutscenes. That's just the modern version of the standard RPG dialogue (atleast where Western RPGs are concerned).

A cutscene would be something that plays out without input of the player, like a prerendered movie scene. The talking atleast let's you decide in which direction you take the discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew, finally we can have some nice discussions in this topic ;D

Keep 'em coming guys.

Alright folks this one will be big so brace for impact. I'll seperate it a little by person though.\r\n\r\n[quote]I have to disagree. While they do at times interrupt game-play, they have just as much a positive effect on games as they do a negative effect. While they do have their annoying times (Borderlands: Knoxx Battle being an example) they also allow the player to see what their choices have become overall.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhy can you not show this choice through gameplay? Why would you need a cutscene to tell you if your choice was good or bad? Not to mention "choice" in games goes a lot deeper than just choosing between dialogue options. Even a game like Pacman or Tetris offers you choice - the ability to play the game a certain way\r\n\r\nTo name another example of choice: Pokemon. Why do you think it was successful? Sure it being very accesable to kids certainly helped but I'll never believe that's the whole story. I mean look at it: the amount of choice you have in Pokemon is INSANE. It's literally a JRPG with hundreds of possible party members.\r\n\r\nJust the way to approach a situation in different ways is an example of choice. If you manage to make most options for the problem viable, then you have some good design on your hands.\r\n\r\nThe *problem* is that most modern games have is that they limit the amount of choice and player freedom, focusing instead of a "movie like experience" using scripted events and cutscenes. But that's not where I'd want gaming to go.\r\n\r\nWe need more Minecrafts,Marios and Baldur's Gates (feel free to replace with Mass Effect :3) instead of *generic movie like action game*\r\n\r\nIt's a bit of an exaggeration but [url=http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/halolz-dot-com-fpsmapdesign-1993-2010-doom.gif]this. Seriously.[/url] (random side note: that's a level from Doom if I'm not mistaken)\r\n\r\n[quote]allowing for a more in depth idea of how the game was made to be seen.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHe's the part I disagree. Why should I care how "the game is meant to be seen"? This isn't a movie. I'm the one that plays the game, which means -I- should be the one in control. The developers *great vision* shouldn't matter. You can make something scary and intimidating without cutscenes.\r\n\r\n[quote]I am aware creativity relies on other points to compliment itself, but if it has no creativity, who will buy it? [/quote]\r\n\r\nYou misunderstood. My point wasn't creativity enhances anything. My point was that creativity is WORTHLESS. Who buys a game that is the most creative concept ever, if the gameplay is crap?\r\n\r\nNow to list some examples of super successful non-creative games:\r\n\r\nNew Super Mario Bros (the DS one) sold 25 million copies. Mario Galaxy 2(which is arguable the more *creative* of the two) sold 6 million copies.\r\n\r\nAlso Modern Warfare 2. 'nough said really.\r\n\r\nI could go on, but the point really makes itself when you look at the truly successful games that have come out over the years.\r\n\r\nCreativity is just a marketing ploy. In the end, it's about having fun and not having played "something unique and creative".\r\n\r\n[quote]Would you buy a game that's simple, and an exact remake of Tetris?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI know you didn't mean it like that, but that statement kind of implies Tetris is complicated. xD\r\n\r\nIt DOES imply that you are either original or a complete ripoff, which I disagree with. What makes Tetris work is that it's really self-explanatory to everyone. If you made a puzzle game with this as your main design choice, you can be sure I'd check it out. \r\n\r\nHere's another fun fact: Tetris [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNW70uT7g3E]actually has an official Nintendo sequel.[/url]\r\n\r\nIf you watch that video, you'll notice how they made the super simple Tetris concept more complex (dare I say *original*?) and in turn have created a game nobody remembers.\r\n\r\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n[quote]But cutscenes aren't always bad. An example of an excellent cutscene in my opinion is the one where the terrorist kill the president in the first  modern warfare game. It's technically a cutscene because you don't do anything, you just look around, but you can still move the first person visual of the president just like how you would do in the game. In this way it still takes time to explain the story better and to define the personality of your enemies better, but it doesn't stop the flow of the game as much as a normal cutscene.[/quote]\r\n\r\nValve also does this sorts of cutscenes very well, but at the same time, these "cutscenes" are easily skippable (I'm talking about Portal 2 mainly) by just moving forward with the game. That's awesome design, because you can choose to follow these scenes, or just ignore them and move on.\r\n\r\nThe game isn't entirely consistant with this though, as there are some section where it confines you to a room or area with nothing to do except watching (how awesome would it have been if the game gave you hard to notice ways to escape those and continue on, essentially being able to "skip" those scenes too? You could have more dialogue as a reward for finding those). \r\nBut still, I can tolerate those much more since you CAN STILL MOVE, which makes for a much bigger sense of immersion, than just watching a movie scene.\r\n\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n[quote]A good example is Crysis 2 although I have to say that doing the things you ask, whilst of course amazing is pretty hard to do in a game like Mass Effect. Cinematic style orientation isn't always the best thing - don't get me wrong, but I feel they executed it very well in Mass Effect II and due to the choices involved it did seem like a very impacting experience.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe one thing Mass Effect has going for it over all the other Trilogies and sequels is carrying over your saves, which literally makes the amount of choice explode.\r\n\r\nImagine if you didn't have this feature: they would have had to determine a single combination of choices that are "correct" (i.e if Bioware decided that character x or y had to die for the "correct story"), thereby making any previous set of choices you had pointless.\r\n\r\nBy using the feature they can have the player tell their OWN story. This goes back to my earlier point on how the players personality crafts the story. If the game manages to make YOU (i.e the player) feel awesome for your actions, instead of making the main character seem awesome, then it wins.\r\n\r\n[quote]Cutscenes in moderation are certainly good as it provides uniqueness and a little bit of a "step-back" from all the hectic fighting going on (usually :D ).[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut the question is, if the hectic fighting is fun, do you WANT to take a step back? ;D\r\n\r\nBesides, I think this could easily be accomplished if you just had a "safe-zone" basically. A small room where you would be safe from danger. Again, look at a game like Doom. You have small time frames to calm down (mostly in-between levels and secret room with no enemies and goodies :D) but no cutscenes.\r\n\r\n[quote]Drama done correctly can be good for immersion.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut the question is if Drama in a game automatically leads to fun, which is undoubtly the most important thing a game should give you.\r\n\r\n[quote]Can I say Fable I was also a great example of this as well? Call me sad but I looked at Fable I at young age and I began looking at how my actions were affecting people, that game helped me more than all my hours at school, really. :D[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe original Black and White comes to mind. :3\r\nTeaching and educating your creature in different ways is another way of using "choice" and indirectly influences the game world.\r\n\r\n[quote]One quick thing - if you were suddenly unable to make a choice, would that not make good impact? One of the biggest emotional strikes a human can take is the inability to do something or have no control, a key "dramatic" moment in the game that you cannot control would be exceptional if you ask me. Not saying it's unavoidable or something, but once a previous choice was made it indirectly forced you into it -- that I like.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf said event is part of a choice and is exclusive to a certain branch or a set of choices, then yes that is very much awesome xP\r\n\r\nReminds me of yet another game example: Ultima 5 (which I never played myself, but I inted to at some point)\r\n\r\nIf you get captured by the main villian (which only happens when you fail one of those standard "sneak-into-castle-mission-with-guards" deals, he offers you two choices:\r\n\r\nEither you give him what he wants (which is some magic key word or something) or he threatens to kill one of your companions. So of course you refuse until the obligatory rescue right? ;D\r\n\r\nNot in this game. If you don't give him comply with his demands, he kills them one-by-one.....permanently. How's THAT for choice?\r\n\r\n[quote]I think I should have elaborated. I think the games with the most longevity would be the ones with player created content and such. Being able to theorycraft characters, create maps for fun or for competition (which even professional gamers in SCII use, for instance), to test things and etc, playing other peoples maps - the limits are pretty endless! It is not a guaranteed buff to the longevity however the Forge in Halo does go quite a way to show this, the editor in Age of Mythology will show this, hell, a sub-genre (DotA) was made using an Editor in Warcraft III![/quote]\r\n\r\nOf course. ;D\r\nAn active community very much helps with keeping your game alive. However I'd argue that you can create a game that has a lot of longevity even without a modding community (the obvious example being all them Nintendo games ;D). The influence of mods is undeniable though.\r\n\r\nBut would it not be much more smart to just make games on your own, instead of making free mods, seeing that you obviously have the knowledge to program things? Just a food for thought.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also. One more thing - Cutscenes - that means anything with unique actions you can't do in the actual gameplay, correct? Would the talking in Mass Effect II count because I find the talking the listening, the focus and the information a nice part of the game and it is much more... "Indepth", it's not "We've found the safehouse of Imal-Kazhk, you need to go in there and take him out!" it's more of actually finding that information first which does develop the story better as you get to see more of it. :)[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually I don't consider the talking as cutscenes. That's just the modern version of the standard RPG dialogue (atleast where Western RPGs are concerned).\r\n\r\nA cutscene would be something that plays out without input of the player, like a prerendered movie scene. The talking atleast let's you decide in which direction you take the discussion.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\nWhew, finally we can have some nice discussions in this topic ;D\r\n\r\nKeep 'em coming guys.

offline

Turtelman1234

2,911 posts

Nomad

Posted June 21, '11 8:57am UTC

a good game should have:

1.balanced weapons
2.underused, but still great storyline
3.good charactes
4.not confusing controls is a plus
5.challenging
6.a puzzle here and there
7.openworld
8.options
9.a campaign that gets a little harder after each playthrough
10.and a multiplayer match up that'll put you with people that are on your level (so you end up playing against someone who's 20 levels ahead of you and it's your first time playing)

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted June 21, '11 1:07pm UTC

He's the part I disagree. Why should I care how "the game is meant to be seen"? This isn't a movie. I'm the one that plays the game, which means -I- should be the one in control. The developers *great vision* shouldn't matter. You can make something scary and intimidating without cutscenes.

Amnesia: The Dark Descent. You're pretty much in control 100% of the time.

The one thing Mass Effect has going for it over all the other Trilogies and sequels is carrying over your saves, which literally makes the amount of choice explode.

Also I find that it being a different type of game (the talking + cutscenes), the variety and the graphics (along with story and presentation) are exceptional in their own right.

By using the feature they can have the player tell their OWN story. This goes back to my earlier point on how the players personality crafts the story. If the game manages to make YOU (i.e the player) feel awesome for your actions, instead of making the main character seem awesome, then it wins.

Agreed -- all I gotta say. <3

But the question is, if the hectic fighting is fun, do you WANT to take a step back? ;D

This is one of the things. I'm a strategy guy but even so I wouldn't mind fighting in hectic warfare until the end, perhaps after or a little before the actual fight goes on, it has an opening.

Besides, I think this could easily be accomplished if you just had a "safe-zone" basically. A small room where you would be safe from danger. Again, look at a game like Doom. You have small time frames to calm down (mostly in-between levels and secret room with no enemies and goodies ) but no cutscenes.

Definitely, one of the best things in Battlefield is the ability to communicate. I spot, I call orders and I help my team, I think being able to efficiently coordinate out of the mist of battle is pretty key in any game involving warfare.

You do NOT need cutscenes in this case -- a valid point. :P

But the question is if Drama in a game automatically leads to fun, which is undoubtly the most important thing a game should give you.

There is a fair bit of drama in Amnesia: The Dark Descent... I can't say it's a game for fun, it's one for horror and the drama is definitely immersive. In Amnesia's case, it is not for fun but it still achieves an essential goal.

Say... When a character that you loved in the game died -- you want blood and you want revenge. It leads to a lot of fighting because you character (and hopefully you yourself) are mega ragin', and bam, you enjoy killing every single guy in your bloodlust.

The original Black and White comes to mind. :3
Teaching and educating your creature in different ways is another way of using "choice" and indirectly influences the game world.

Haven't played it but being a former-fan of Peter Molyneux I have seen Black and White gameplay. I love the lack of gameplay and yes the teaching of the pet is cool indeed. :P

Reminds me of yet another game example: Ultima 5 (which I never played myself, but I inted to at some point)
If you get captured by the main villian (which only happens when you fail one of those standard "sneak-into-castle-mission-with-guards" deals, he offers you two choices:
Either you give him what he wants (which is some magic key word or something) or he threatens to kill one of your companions. So of course you refuse until the obligatory rescue right? ;D
Not in this game. If you don't give him comply with his demands, he kills them one-by-one.....permanently. How's THAT for choice?

Is this an unavoidable consequence? If so then... Wow... That's actually pretty bad considering that it is removing a vast amount of humor, joy and not being lonely for the rest of the game. Having soldier companions in Halo is good and all, but having characters like Miranda or Legion in Mass Effect 2 is much more immersive.

An active community very much helps with keeping your game alive. However I'd argue that you can create a game that has a lot of longevity even without a modding community (the obvious example being all them Nintendo games ;D). The influence of mods is undeniable though.

It's not guaranteed, especially if it's a game like Halo where you play it in your downtime and don't want to invest a lot of effort learning a complex engine (which in Halo's case, it isn't complex in the slightest :P ).

But would it not be much more smart to just make games on your own, instead of making free mods, seeing that you obviously have the knowledge to program things? Just a food for thought.

Not really, the maps I make on Age of Mythology are fairly dire using only essential triggers, the maps I make for SCII are practice making MUCH more complex triggers and the Halo Forge well.... I barely play Halo :P

Creating games isn't my top priority right now, although I do want to learn C++ when I can, as a small hobby. :P

A cutscene would be something that plays out without input of the player, like a prerendered movie scene. The talking atleast let's you decide in which direction you take the discussion.

One thing I'm not too sure I like is the partially-clunky gameplay of God of War / Dantes Inferno. It is nice having an interactive scene but it makes me thing "Why can't I do that often?" :P

But one of the bad things about it is that no - it isn't one with choice, which actually would be pretty cool but very difficult to effectively implement.

Whew, finally we can have some nice discussions in this topic ;D

In the video games section?
Wow, this calls for a celebration :O

- H

[quote]He's the part I disagree. Why should I care how "the game is meant to be seen"? This isn't a movie. I'm the one that plays the game, which means -I- should be the one in control. The developers *great vision* shouldn't matter. You can make something scary and intimidating without cutscenes.[/quote]\r\nAmnesia: The Dark Descent. You're pretty much in control 100% of the time.\r\n\r\n[quote]The one thing Mass Effect has going for it over all the other Trilogies and sequels is carrying over your saves, which literally makes the amount of choice explode.[/quote]\r\nAlso I find that it being a different type of game (the talking + cutscenes), the variety and the graphics (along with story and presentation) are exceptional in their own right.\r\n\r\n[quote]By using the feature they can have the player tell their OWN story. This goes back to my earlier point on how the players personality crafts the story. If the game manages to make YOU (i.e the player) feel awesome for your actions, instead of making the main character seem awesome, then it wins.[/quote]\r\nAgreed -- all I gotta say. <3\r\n\r\n[quote]But the question is, if the hectic fighting is fun, do you WANT to take a step back? ;D[/quote]\r\nThis is one of the things. I'm a strategy guy but even so I wouldn't mind fighting in hectic warfare until the end, perhaps after or a little before the actual fight goes on, it has an opening.\r\n\r\n[quote]Besides, I think this could easily be accomplished if you just had a "safe-zone" basically. A small room where you would be safe from danger. Again, look at a game like Doom. You have small time frames to calm down (mostly in-between levels and secret room with no enemies and goodies :D) but no cutscenes.[/quote]\r\nDefinitely, one of the best things in Battlefield is the ability to communicate. I spot, I call orders and I help my team, I think being able to efficiently coordinate out of the mist of battle is pretty key in any game involving warfare.\r\n\r\nYou do NOT need cutscenes in this case -- a valid point. :P\r\n\r\n[quote]But the question is if Drama in a game automatically leads to fun, which is undoubtly the most important thing a game should give you.[/quote]\r\nThere is a fair bit of drama in Amnesia: The Dark Descent... I can't say it's a game for fun, it's one for horror and the drama is definitely immersive. In Amnesia's case, it is not for fun but it still achieves an essential goal.\r\n\r\nSay... When a character that you loved in the game died -- you want blood and you want revenge. It leads to a lot of fighting because you character (and hopefully you yourself) are mega ragin', and bam, you enjoy killing every single guy in your bloodlust.\r\n\r\n[quote]The original Black and White comes to mind. :3\r\nTeaching and educating your creature in different ways is another way of using "choice" and indirectly influences the game world.[/quote]\r\nHaven't played it but being a former-fan of Peter Molyneux I have seen Black and White gameplay. I love the lack of gameplay and yes the teaching of the pet is cool indeed. :P\r\n\r\n[quote]Reminds me of yet another game example: Ultima 5 (which I never played myself, but I inted to at some point)\r\nIf you get captured by the main villian (which only happens when you fail one of those standard "sneak-into-castle-mission-with-guards" deals, he offers you two choices:\r\nEither you give him what he wants (which is some magic key word or something) or he threatens to kill one of your companions. So of course you refuse until the obligatory rescue right? ;D\r\nNot in this game. If you don't give him comply with his demands, he kills them one-by-one.....permanently. How's THAT for choice?[/quote]\r\nIs this an unavoidable consequence? If so then... Wow... That's actually pretty bad considering that it is removing a vast amount of humor, joy and not being lonely for the rest of the game. Having soldier companions in Halo is good and all, but having characters like Miranda or Legion in Mass Effect 2 is much more immersive.\r\n\r\n[quote]An active community very much helps with keeping your game alive. However I'd argue that you can create a game that has a lot of longevity even without a modding community (the obvious example being all them Nintendo games ;D). The influence of mods is undeniable though.[/quote]\r\nIt's not guaranteed, especially if it's a game like Halo where you play it in your downtime and don't want to invest a lot of effort learning a complex engine (which in Halo's case, it isn't complex in the slightest :P ).\r\n\r\n[quote]But would it not be much more smart to just make games on your own, instead of making free mods, seeing that you obviously have the knowledge to program things? Just a food for thought.[/quote]\r\nNot really, the maps I make on Age of Mythology are fairly dire using only essential triggers, the maps I make for SCII are practice making MUCH more complex triggers and the Halo Forge well.... I barely play Halo :P\r\n\r\nCreating games isn't my top priority right now, although I do want to learn C++ when I can, as a small hobby. :P\r\n\r\n[quote]A cutscene would be something that plays out without input of the player, like a prerendered movie scene. The talking atleast let's you decide in which direction you take the discussion.[/quote]\r\nOne thing I'm not too sure I like is the partially-clunky gameplay of God of War / Dantes Inferno. It is nice having an interactive scene but it makes me thing "Why can't I do that often?" :P\r\n\r\nBut one of the bad things about it is that no - it isn't one with choice, which actually would be pretty cool but very difficult to effectively implement. :D\r\n\r\n[quote]Whew, finally we can have some nice discussions in this topic ;D[/quote]\r\nIn the video games section?\r\nWow, this calls for a celebration :O\r\n\r\n - H

offline

ug5151

587 posts

Nomad

Posted June 21, '11 2:31pm UTC

Minecraft is my favorite.
1. Makes sense (not like other building games like ROBLOX and Blockland)
2. Endless Imagination (ROBLOX has none of that)
3. Gameplay is beautiful
4. Fun.

offline

KentyBK

566 posts

Nomad

Posted June 21, '11 3:33pm UTC

Also I find that it being a different type of game (the talking + cutscenes), the variety and the graphics (along with story and presentation) are exceptional in their own right.

Do check out both Baldur's Gate games. They are very similar to Mass Effect in various design aspects right down to being able to carry over your character in-between games(except Baldur's Gate being a D'n'D game instead of Science Fiction ).

Personally, I'd consider BG2 to be one of the best RPGs ever made (and I say that without ever having played a *real* DnD game),because the game offers you the same amount of freedom that Mass Effect does.

Haven't played it but being a former-fan of Peter Molyneux I have seen Black and White gameplay. I love the lack of gameplay and yes the teaching of the pet is cool indeed. :P

Sadly they ruined that completely in the sequel by making the pet teacging way too transparent. -.-

Is this an unavoidable consequence? If so then... Wow... That's actually pretty bad considering that it is removing a vast amount of humor, joy and not being lonely for the rest of the game. Having soldier companions in Halo is good and all, but having characters like Miranda or Legion in Mass Effect 2 is much more immersive.

Like I said, I never actually played it myself. I just remembered this scene from watching this.

And to clarify, it never outright kills them. It asks you several times if you are sure about refusing the guy when he clearly issued his threat already. So really, it's your own fault. xP

Not to mention that only happens if you screw up and get caught. You can still finish without ever losing anyone permanently.

Not really, the maps I make on Age of Mythology are fairly dire using only essential triggers, the maps I make for SCII are practice making MUCH more complex triggers and the Halo Forge well.... I barely play Halo :P

Creating games isn't my top priority right now, although I do want to learn C++ when I can, as a small hobby. :P

Well I wasn't talking about people that *just* make custom maps using an editor from the developers. I mostly meant the people making very elaborate mods and total conversions of the original game.

Tower Defense, Dota and Counter Stirke come to mind. Mind you I'm not saying modding is BAD, but it seems much easier to be noticed by the gaming community in general if you make a new game, rather than a mod (which has the risk of you being confined to the original games community). Not to mention your own game can make you more money in the long run ;D

One thing I'm not too sure I like is the partially-clunky gameplay of God of War / Dantes Inferno. It is nice having an interactive scene but it makes me thing "Why can't I do that often?" :P

But one of the bad things about it is that no - it isn't one with choice, which actually would be pretty cool but very difficult to effectively implement.

Effort always pays off in the end ;D

But that brings me to the most annoying gameplay element ever conceived: Quick Time Events. Is there *anyone* that actually likes these? I mean I get the thinking process behind them (*interactive cutscenes*) but they are so poorly done that it just tends to annoy people to no end.

Compare a God Of War killing cutscene with Shadow of the Colossus. In SotC you ACTUALLY do all the fancy stuff yourself, from climbing up the monster to actually killing it. But all Quick Time Events are style over substance.

In the video games section?
Wow, this calls for a celebration :O

http://drpinna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/party-time-top.gif

[quote]Also I find that it being a different type of game (the talking + cutscenes), the variety and the graphics (along with story and presentation) are exceptional in their own right.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDo check out both Baldur's Gate games. They are very similar to Mass Effect in various design aspects right down to being able to carry over your character in-between games(except Baldur's Gate being a D'n'D game instead of Science Fiction ;p).\r\n\r\nPersonally, I'd consider BG2 to be one of the best RPGs ever made (and I say that without ever having played a *real* DnD game),because the game offers you the same amount of freedom that Mass Effect does.\r\n\r\n[quote]Haven't played it but being a former-fan of Peter Molyneux I have seen Black and White gameplay. I love the lack of gameplay and yes the teaching of the pet is cool indeed. :P[/quote]\r\n\r\nSadly they ruined that completely in the sequel by making the pet teacging way too transparent. -.-\r\n\r\n[quote]Is this an unavoidable consequence? If so then... Wow... That's actually pretty bad considering that it is removing a vast amount of humor, joy and not being lonely for the rest of the game. Having soldier companions in Halo is good and all, but having characters like Miranda or Legion in Mass Effect 2 is much more immersive.[/quote]\r\n\r\nLike I said, I never actually played it myself. I just remembered this scene from watching [url=http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/09/19/ultima-5-warriors-of-destiny/]this.[/url]\r\n\r\nAnd to clarify, it never outright kills them. It asks you several times if you are sure about refusing the guy when he clearly issued his threat already. So really, it's your own fault. xP\r\n\r\nNot to mention that only happens if you screw up and get caught. You can still finish without ever losing anyone permanently.\r\n\r\n[quote]Not really, the maps I make on Age of Mythology are fairly dire using only essential triggers, the maps I make for SCII are practice making MUCH more complex triggers and the Halo Forge well.... I barely play Halo :P\r\n\r\nCreating games isn't my top priority right now, although I do want to learn C++ when I can, as a small hobby. :P[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell I wasn't talking about people that *just* make custom maps using an editor from the developers. I mostly meant the people making very elaborate mods and total conversions of the original game.\r\n\r\nTower Defense, Dota and Counter Stirke come to mind. Mind you I'm not saying modding is BAD, but it seems much easier to be noticed by the gaming community in general if you make a new game, rather than a mod (which has the risk of you being confined to the original games community). Not to mention your own game can make you more money in the long run ;D\r\n\r\n[quote]One thing I'm not too sure I like is the partially-clunky gameplay of God of War / Dantes Inferno. It is nice having an interactive scene but it makes me thing "Why can't I do that often?" :P\r\n\r\nBut one of the bad things about it is that no - it isn't one with choice, which actually would be pretty cool but very difficult to effectively implement. :D[/quote]\r\n\r\nEffort always pays off in the end ;D\r\n\r\nBut that brings me to the most annoying gameplay element ever conceived: Quick Time Events. Is there *anyone* that actually likes these? I mean I get the thinking process behind them (*interactive cutscenes*) but they are so poorly done that it just tends to annoy people to no end.\r\n\r\nCompare a God Of War killing cutscene with Shadow of the Colossus. In SotC you ACTUALLY do all the fancy stuff yourself, from climbing up the monster to actually killing it. But all Quick Time Events are style over substance.\r\n\r\n[quote]In the video games section?\r\nWow, this calls for a celebration :O[/quote]\r\n\r\n[img]http://drpinna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/party-time-top.gif[/img]

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → Games → What do YOU think makes a good game?