Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
A story is not a game, though. It's certainly a part of the experience and good stories strengthen games, but it's not a part of the system you manipulate in order to achieve your objectives. Ergo, if the story "picks up the slack" with its quality, so to speak, then there's a flaw in the core gameplay experience wherein the product fails at its objectives. This has no bearing on subjective enjoyment of a game, but it does influence how well the experience comes together on a wider scale.
One example of games and stories coming together more powerfully, even in small ways, can be seen in modern games. Since modern graphics are so advanced, there's less reliance on rendered cut scenes; where cut scenes are used, today they more often use the core game assets. There's also the lack of shift between presentation style when it comes to different segments of gameplay. For instance, games like The Witcher and Mass Effect have the player use the same controls and visual perspectives in and out of combat, tying the whole experience together that much better.
And this is essentially what makes The Witcher games so excellent. Both have great stories (especially the second, if you ask me), but while they allow the player to interact meaningfully with those stories, the core combat gameplay has a level of strategy and depth to it most games don't touch. The second game in particular ramps up the difficulty, forcing the player to use narrative encouragement to win -- that is, the potion brewing mechanic, which is a core part of what makes a Witcher. So the player has to take a few seconds out to brew potions every once in a while and consume them before entering combat, making the core experience "feel" like being a Witcher before the story even really comes into play.
This is what I meant when I brought up the italicised question in my last post. The general gameplay and narrative of the The Witcher games certainly support the story (and the story supports them), but those games don't rely on the story to make the experience engaging. When you know the concept (you are a superhuman mutant that used sword skills, toxic potions and minor magical spells to slay monsters) and understand the mechanics, the game experiences begin to write themselves, and the story deepens the strength of that experience quite a bit -- but all the same, it can only be so empowering to the overall experience because the core-level considerations were accounted for in the first place.
?
From what I've played of the first game, at least, but other than "use the right stance for the enemy and if it's tough, use potions," I'm not seeing all that deep a strategy.
The second game expands on that, as you can't use potions within combat and the movement into real time combat means dodges, parries and the like are legitimately meaningful. You have to use both skill and strategy.
In the first game, beefing up your sword skills is sort of "easy mode" anyway -- if you take a path more heavily based on increasing your magical abilities, the combat takes on a different tone and the potions (and combinations thereof) become a lot more important. Especially towards the end of the game, I found myself using particular combinations of potions to protect myself against some or another challenge.
This becomes more prevalent later in the game as you encounter a wider variety of enemies under different conditions. By the final chapter, potions were an absolute must, even with most of my sword skills decked out as far as my level would allow. On the other hand, the true, final part of the game was pretty easy given that I found a win button combination just beforehand (but at the same time, discovering that combination was pretty cool and made me feel like a badass).
Ah, okay, that's cool. Looking forward to the second game.
Honestly, except for Igni and rarely Aard, I haven't really found magic to be especially useful.
Quen is pretty boss after upgrades, and even without upgrades in the second game. The one that turns enemies into allies can turn a battle around, too. And the one that traps enemies in place is much, much more useful in the second game, and is possibly the coolest of cool spells after upgrades. I'm more biased towards swordsmanship myself (inb4 predictabo), but I think my strongest build in the second game was a strategic choice of sword skills and some magic upgrades that netted me advanced versions of Aard and Quen, plus additional stamina.
I think you've just highlighted the core of our disagreement.
I see the videogame as a valid medium for delivering a story experience, while you see the videogame as a mechanical entertainment medium through which a story can optionally be told.
Alternatively, I see it as acceptable if a game has somewhat-boring gameplay mechanics that the player is encouraged to continue through in order to see a story, while you see the same thing as a deficiency. Granted, I wouldn't say such a game is ideal, but I might still enjoy it.
On the other hand, if a game doesn't have a story, I think the mechanics, soundtrack, artwork, and other aspects have to be extra good for me to get the same enjoyment out of that game compared to a game that's equivalent in every way but also has a story that's compelling on its own but has very little to do with the mechanics, while you seem to say that you'd get the same enjoyment out of both such games.
On the other hand, though, the story is the optional part. A game without a story can be good. A game without gameplay isn't a game, and a game with bad gameplay is more akin to a movie that makes you pause to do paperwork every five minutes. It's not completely impossible to enjoy, but that movie had better be damn good.
Okay, perhaps a sweeping philosophical statement like that one wasn't a good idea.
Yeah, I suck at conundrums of philosophy.
It's not exactly personal -- of two equivalent games, I'd choose the one with the better story every time -- but general measurement of game successes and demographics show us that successful games are based on the strength of their core mechanics and experience first. Modern Warfare doesn't really have a bad story, so to speak, but it's not particularly good either so it's not winning awards on those grounds. But its core gameplay is so refined and, to its audiences, so sensible and easily understood that it becomes an experience that's easy to jump into and enjoy.
As someone with an interest in making games, I have to look beyond my own opinion and look at what achieves wider success, and currently, story-driven games aren't the most successful games out there. It's games like Minecraft and Angry Birds that have achieved the most success, which tells us that game audiences -- even mainstream casual gamers -- are after strong mechanical experiences before strong story ones. I'd personally love to see more games that are both, but at the same time, the numbers tell me that most people will go for the stronger core experience first.
That's an excellent choice for a pair of examples, in that they're completely on the opposite ends of the spectrum, audience-wise.
Thank you. I also chose them because of how similar they are in terms of principle. Minecraft isn't exactly "accessible" to begin with, but once you know what you're doing, you can jump into a new game and have a strong experience within seconds of beginning. While Minecraft has a much stronger "hardcore" following than Angry Birds, they work on exactly the same level of accessibility and simplicity as determined relatively to their specific audiences.
In short, you jump into the game, have fun and stop when you want to. Neither has a story, but the experience of the game speaks for itself. And I think this is why casual application games have a lot to teach AAA designers. Mind you, I don't want the "traditional" video game to disappear at all, but the efficiency with which Angry Birds provides an entertaining experience is definitely something to take into account.
I have to go offline soon, but I wanna say, yes, i see, you're speaking more for a broader audience than for personal taste, and I think you're right for the broader audience. I get where you're coming from now. Just wanna make a note of that before I get kicked offline.
So, my younger brother just informed me of some updates on the upcoming TES MMO. Features include:
- Enforced third-person perspective.
- Point-and-click gameplay, including combat.
- Hotbar abilities.
- Level restrictions on where you can and cannot go.
I know I've chewed out TES in the past, but I've also recognised what it's done right and effectively, and these changes stand in violation of the things it does do well and takes a backwards step. Furthermore, it's a continuation of copy/paste MMO design bollocks that seems to be some kind of unbreakable class ceiling in the genre. Bad call, Bethesda.
The new TES mmo is going to flop heavily
How many computers can handle 200 avatars casting shit without dropping to 1 fps?
It looks less like the Elder Scrolls and more like World of Warcraft.
Nope, WoW was always more focused on PvE. The game reminds me of a Korean game called Archlord (I think thats what is called) in which people fought with other players to control the game world
Not necessarily. Progress Quest has no gameplay whatsoever, but it can't properly be called anything other than a game, since the entire concept only makes sense when it's considered to be one.
And I still think visual novels are properly games, but I know you disagree with me there.
^^ On the sliding scale of "Elder Scrolls" to "World of Warcraft", I would say TESO definitely falls heavily towards the "World of Warcraft" end of the spectrum.
^ Well, technically visual novels contain some rudimentary gameplay via the choices, but I wouldn't exactly call them games the same way sports games, traditional games, vidya ect. are.
I don't think Bethesda is actually developing it.
they don't cast it at the same time, I'd wager.
^^ You're right -- it's their parent company, which is actually a company created by Bethesda leaders to contain everything Bethesda owns (including itself).
Maybe not but its still gonna be laggy as shit, not even Eve have that many fights with 200 people in it.
They're also probably gonna be really tiny or some shit. Either that or be glitchy as fuck, which fits with TES' long and proud history of glitches.
I'd consider visual novels with some sort of significant player input to be games. (As in, more player input than the virtual equivalent of flipping pages.)
Progress Quest is a game the way a book with binding but no pages is a book. It's basically a sort of "minimum" or "degenerate condition" idea of a game.
Are you talking about what WoW did and use instanced servers?
So what qualifies VNs and not Choose Your Own Adventure books as games, Glenn?
^no idea
Well, in the early days of wow, there used to be a world pvp fight between about 50-100 players and it used to crash the server so Blizzard created instanced battlegrounds that take the strain.
^^ CYOA books are games too. Very simple games, mind you, and not the sort that would be marketed with the "game" label. They're games the same way something like hangman is a game. Audience choice influences the outcome.
Well, gonna play Monster Hunter Tri for the first time in a while.
I apparently don't own a classic controller, so... yeah.
EDIT: Wait nevermind. Offline is boring as shit and I don't want to play online right now so I changed my mind.