ZylonBane on 14/10/2008 at 23:25
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
Hopefully, someday in the abstract future, devs will just give over many of these options to players, and we can build challenges as we like.
Indeed, perhaps in the far distant Buck Rogers future of NINETEEN-HUNDRED and NINETY-FOUR.
Inline Image:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3492/ss1configqv6.pngBlackCapedManX on 15/10/2008 at 00:11
But that's a vague set of difficulty controls (which is far better than easy-medium-hard, however...), I would be pleased to see something almost as comprehensive as some of the character creators. Like a difficulty creator, so you could sculpt how you'll end up playing any given game, tuning up certain challenges and down other, or changing individual rates/amounts of resources. Something with enough options that you could, in the same game, play with radically differing obstacles, from the externals of the game environment, to limitations set on the player abilities themselves.
redrain85 on 15/10/2008 at 17:33
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Indeed, perhaps in the far distant Buck Rogers future of NINETEEN-HUNDRED and NINETY-FOUR.
It really is sad to think that a 14 year old game is, in some ways, still more advanced and more impressive than even the most recent titles.
heywood on 15/10/2008 at 19:01
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
But that's a vague set of difficulty controls (which is far better than easy-medium-hard, however...), I would be pleased to see something almost as comprehensive as some of the character creators. Like a difficulty creator, so you could sculpt how you'll end up playing any given game, tuning up certain challenges and down other, or changing individual rates/amounts of resources. Something with enough options that you could, in the same game, play with radically differing obstacles, from the externals of the game environment, to limitations set on the player abilities themselves.
In most games, all of that can be changed through config/ini/resource files,
if the developers make them accessible. That's why we need mod-friendly games, so the community can do that and more.
ZymeAddict on 16/10/2008 at 05:19
Wow, am I behind the times. New info on DX3!?
The only thing I really don't like the sound of is auto-heal. I fucking hate auto-heal, even in balls-to-the-wall action games like COD4.
Why the holy hell do they think that stupid piece of shit gameplay choice will at all improve the experience? :mad:
PS: Love the art design though.
ZylonBane on 16/10/2008 at 12:17
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
Why the holy hell do they think that stupid piece of shit gameplay choice will at all improve the experience?
Because Halol.
Silkworm on 19/10/2008 at 19:31
Quote Posted by Aja
Bioshock IS subtle, nuanced, and intelligent, but in different ways than SS2. In terms of narrative, ... There's more to intelligent gaming than inventory management.
BioShock is not subtle nuanced or intelligent as a GAME - as a GAME it is nothing more than a Doom clone with Diablo-like spells. Any properties not relevant to its value as a GAME are totally irrelevant to this discussion. Once again, you really owe it to yourself to play an actual FPS/RPG like Vampire: Bloodliens or Deus Ex - not only are they better games than BioShock, but they actually have much deeper and better characters and plots.
Quote Posted by Chade
EDIT: actually, after further thought, this is quite a good of example of stuff I was saying in my earlier posts too. So let's say you nerfed the big daddy. Great. Simple change, right? Except that the big daddy is made to look big and strong and huge through it's art assets, in-game scripted sequences, and it's role as protector of the most precious resource in the game. A game with a huge strong hulk of a protector who died in one hit would suck.
So no, it's actually not an easy change. Not if you wanted to do it right. Because the game elements are all interconnected, and if you nerfed the big daddy, then you really should change it's art assets, change the in-game scripted sequences, change it's role in the gameplay, etc etc, to match the rest of the game.
None of what you said changes the fact that the
gameplay is the easy part. Asthetic and production values are the hard part. Gameplay changes don't cost nearly as much, require as much time, and can be done by fewer people than art, animation, modeling, and sound.
For years - decades - PC gamers played games whose entire data footprint was less than a
single texture of a modern FPS. Ultima, Elite, and many other classic games were programmed by one person, and after compiling take up about 300 kilobytes of space. It really isn't too much to ask that modern game developers - with their million dollar budgets, 50+ teams of people, and liscensed technology, at the very least
match the gameplay complexity of what amateur hobbyist programmers could achieve in their garages 20 years ago!
So I totally disagree with your "appeal to authority" - modern game developers think gameplay complexity is unfeasable in modern gaming are full of shit. As long as they can afford to hire 8 man art teams, expensive voice actors, buy newer and more powerful computers and so on, they can afford to consider the level of gameplay options and complexity that System Shock had in 1994.
Chade on 20/10/2008 at 03:36
Quote Posted by Silkworm
None of what you said changes the fact that the
gameplay is the easy part ...
How so? If you want to make a change to a game, the cost of that change includes everything that will come packaged with it. Arbitrarily partitioning that cost into bits and pieces won't help your bottom line.
Finally, we are not debating the ability of game designers to provide complex gameplay. I have no doubt that there are no technical reasons game designers could not put a great deal more complexity into their games using modern budgets and tech. I also have no doubt they could make a game about flying exploding bananas, which is about as relevant to this debate.
We are debating the amount of work required to make a single game appeal to both hardcore and mass market gamers. Specifically: whether it is too much work to be cost effective. Keep in mind the intended target audience of any changes is very low: it is only those hardcore gamers who wouldn't have bought the game without the changes, but will now. And there are a lot of changes required to target completely different audiences, and potential knock on effects of those changes. And then there is the oppurtunity cost of not using that money to do something else.
I await the time when games with SS2-like budget and appeal become feasible for the indie guys. I suspect we won't have to wait all that long. Maybe even just four or five years. But don't look for that sort of complexity from a game designed for >10 times the intended number of customers.
Papy on 20/10/2008 at 06:15
Quote Posted by Chade
Specifically: whether it is too much work to be cost effective.
I already answered that point, so I guess you disagree with my numbers. So how much to YOU think it would cost to change the gameplay to make BioShock more challenging and complex, and how much people do you think would prefer that version?
DDL on 20/10/2008 at 09:49
Well, you'd have to balance up the fact that while doing that WOULD increase sales (albeit probably by a small amount: the more cerebral gamers are heavily outnumbered by the instant-gratification idiots)...you could instead take that small number of extra people and get them working on the next mass-market-targeting game a little earlier, so you can churn out more low common denominator games faster.
To be honest, I think the best thing any game-releasing company can do is just release a full suite of editing tools with each game, so that people can then sort things out to their own satisfaction.
