|
tap my mountain posted:I've already long accepted that there won't be a "true dead rising sequel", its just not good business to make a game that people don't want to buy. It is really annoying to hear them repeatedly say they are returning to the series roots, when it only amounts to them bringing Frank West back Lords of the Fallen is a focus tested dark souls game. edit: And it's actually not that bad, it's just a bit dull.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
I bet from uses focus testing too, especially for Sony exclusive titles with extra money behind them and more expectations to make something good
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Lords of the fallen is loving garbage and I can't imaging there was much focus testing, because "half of your mechanics are literally broken and not any fun" probably would have come up. Your magic abilities generate a particle effect field that makes it impossible to see the enemies being effected by it. Jump attacks can't hit enemies you're locked on to. Turntabling is 300% worse than dark souls 2. Every boss is a boring slog with too much health. I gave it a chance. I beat the entire game. It only gets worse. The first levels are the best ones. The first 3-4 bosses are by far the most fun and interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
I'm sure most AAA game developers have focus testing at some point, it's just a matter of how much of the feedback they choose to listen to. Because a lot of it will be garbage. And that's not me saying "focus testers are bad at games so they can't give good feedback", because it'd be unfair to place their ability to criticize on their skill at the game. What I mean is that their feedback needs to be taken with a massive mountain of salt because of the very narrow perspective focus test groups have on the game they're playing. And if devs take their feedback as, "this is what all players will think and act like", you end up with Valve putting massive pure white spotlights pointing at every important thing in Left 4 Dead because a couple people turned off their flashlights and couldn't see the objectives.
CJacobs fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Ni-oh was super focus tested and that game is going to be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Focus testing can help but it's not a cure all to flawed game design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Almost every major form of media focus tests, you just only ever hear about it when creators are trying to scapegoat their failures which is why it's universally considered to be A Bad Thing and not just a useful tool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:
I mean, one of the big things about DR is that your first two runs would be you loving around and levelling your guy before actually tackling the story / psychos. That's how that series works, or how it worked up until 3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I mean, one of the big things about DR is that your first two runs would be you loving around and levelling your guy before actually tackling the story / psychos. That's how that series works, or how it worked up until 3. I think the problem with that philosophy is that it works on paper, but in practice being unable to beat the game (unless you've played it before and know exactly what to do) on your first playthrough sucks. It really sucks. The issue I take with it is that it makes the game intentionally unfair to the player in artificial ways, like making your character move a lot slower so you can't get places as fast as you need to in a time-based videogame. Dead Rising 2 is more upfront about this, but 1 doesn't come out and say it when they mention that your Frank Level persists across playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
As with a lot of time-based games, the idea behind Dead Rising is that you're not going to finish it in a single playthrough. You're expected to fail because the game has a set strict time limit and figuring out how to do everything in that limit is part of the game, with the game specifically designed to make it easier in subsequent playthroughs. It's the same philosophy as Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter or Majora's Mask or one of the billlion roguelike games out there. Maybe it's a mistake to do that in a story-focused game but DR wasn't really hard to finish the story (and you didn't need to play 2 or 3 times to finish the story) but hard to do so while completing everything in the game which... is basically the point. You have 72 hours, what can you do in that time frame?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
i just beat the saboteur and aside from every mission in the last third of the game breaking and forcing a reload to make the flags trigger correctly it was fun. ending is kind of a dud but i guess it is from the "no final bosses ever" period of game design that i hope we are leaving behind soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
The player shouldn't have to play 6 hours to get to the point where their character is ready to play the first playthrough of the game. You can still enjoy the time you spend doing it while acknowledging that the game is very openly not respecting your time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:The player shouldn't have to play 6 hours to get to the point where their character is ready to play the first playthrough of the game. You can still enjoy the time you spend doing it while acknowledging that the game is very openly not respecting your time. You don't have to! I don't get what you ever mean by this. You gain levels very very quickly in Dead Rising. If you encounter something you can't handle then avoid it and do something else. You're confusing a 100% perfect playthrough where you save ever survivor and kill every psycho while also finishing the story with your first playthrough. They're not the same thing. I also don't agree that a game intended to not be finished on your first playthrough is 'openly wasting your time.' A lot of games have some combination of stats, unlocks and knowledge which make it difficult or unlikely you'll finish the entire game on your first playthrough and which encourage you to gradually build up your resources to do so. Figuring out how to manage the resources you have to do it in the shortest period of time is the point of those games. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You don't have to! I don't get what you ever mean by this. You gain levels very very quickly in Dead Rising. If you encounter something you can't handle then avoid it and do something else. I'm a firm believer that the Dead Rising games don't respect your time. They're a lot of fun gameplay-wise and the time-based game mechanic is stressful but in an exciting way. But they're designed around the idea that you don't have the time to have fun doing whatever you want, and finish the story. They give you a big open world and absolutely no downtime with which to spend exploring it. The defense for that is always, always "just ignore the game's nagging do what you want", but are you seriously telling me the game doesn't pressure you real hard to go save the survivors? The two halves of the game are at odds with each other. You can do one or the other, but if you try to do both you will fail, and that sucks. edit: Which is why I am a fan of Dead Rising 3's system, where you can use the time limit if you want or just ignore it. The player has the option from the outset to choose how they want to play the game, instead of being pushed in both directions by the game even though it's a losing proposition. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I'm a firm believer that the Dead Rising games don't respect your time. They're a lot of fun gameplay-wise and the time-based game mechanic is stressful but in an exciting way. But they're designed around the idea that you don't have the time to have fun doing whatever you want, and finish the story. They give you a big open world and absolutely no downtime with which to spend exploring it. The defense for that is always, always "just ignore the game's nagging do what you want", but are you seriously telling me the game doesn't pressure you real hard to go save the survivors? The two halves of the game are at odds with each other. ... No they're not.  The idea behind the game is literally that you're given a lot of different things to do and have to prioritize the things you want, with doing them all being the hardest part. Your argument appears to be that a game is 'at odds' if it gives you multiple objectives that are conflicting with each other and that's just bonkers. That's the entire point. It is an intended element of the game that you will fail to rescue people or make mistakes or have to decide between trying to rescue someone or going to your next goal and risk running out of time. That's the entire point.Like do you think X-COM is wasting your time because it is designed around the idea that you'll have to make mistakes, lose soldiers, or even fail the entire game and have to start over?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... No they're not. That is a pretty big simplification of my argument. No, games are not at odds with themselves when they give you multiple things to do and not enough time to do all of them. When you're presented with two choices in a game, the idea is that they are explicit in saying you can only do one. You can save this guy or this guy. But you can't save both of them. Dead Rising takes a different approach: They tell you "do what you want and save the survivors". The game being designed that you will only be able to do the former on your first playthrough is in direct contrast to what it tells you to do. edit: And let me be clear, I don't have a problem with the game giving you multiple very different ways to play or experience it. What I have a problem with is when a game says "you can't do it all" and "why didn't you do it all??" in the same breath. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:edit: And let me be clear, I don't have a problem with the game giving you multiple very different ways to play or experience it. What I have a problem with is when a game says "you can't do it all" and "why didn't you do it all??" in the same breath. And I don't think it says this. I mean it goes "wow, those people died, it sucks" but it would be sort of weird if it didn't. Encouraging you to do something isn't the same as going "You suck for not doing this!" You're free to do whatever you want including ignoring survivors. Hell, you don't even need to rescue survivors to do the main story. It's entirely an optional objective and it isn't like Frank angsts over it if he can't save everyone. The game is written and scripted so that Frank can be an rear end in a top hat who is just there for photos or a guy who saves everyone. I don't think a game is being unfair or wasting its time if it goes "here is an objective, complete it if you can but failure is okay too", especially when it's a game explicitly designed to be played multiple times in different ways. It's also trying to be a zombie movie where saving everyone isn't supposed to be an easy or reasonable task and failing to be able to save people is sort of necessary for it to hit the right tone. (Something that a lot of zombie-style games do for the same reason.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:And I don't think it says this. I mean it goes "wow, those people died, it sucks" but it would be sort of weird if it didn't. Encouraging you to do something isn't the same as going "You suck for not doing this!" You're free to do whatever you want including ignoring survivors. Hell, you don't even need to rescue survivors to do the main story. It's entirely an optional objective and it isn't like Frank angsts over it if he can't save everyone. The game is written and scripted so that Frank can be an rear end in a top hat who is just there for photos or a guy who saves everyone. That's fair. Within the context of the story, it does make sense that you can't do both. But again, that's why I like 3's Arkham City-style approach to time passage better. They also went with the "play through it multiple times" and "restart whenever and keep your character progress" thing, but I think that kind of a system fits a lot more smoothly when you aren't being pressured by the game itself to do so. On the default setting you don't have to restart at all and can just go on a zombie rampage to get your level up if you're struggling, but they also included the nightmare mode thing that has the standard timer to satisfy people who like that pressure. In either mode, you can still restart from the beginning whenever you want, and imo that's the best way to do something like that. If you want less recent proof that the developers agree, just look at Dead Rising 2 and Off the Record. It is a real problem, especially in 2, and so they included sandbox mode in OTR and that pretty much fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
I'm looking for an old videogame: It was a 2D building demolition simulator where you would buy explosives and you could place them by clicking and then aim the charges by dragging. The graphics weren't great and the game was definitely downloaded/installed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Here i thought Dead Rising was a lovely zombie game with a neat photography focus and an interesting and tense story that both got dragged down by boring zombie game play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
I suddenly feel like I want to play either Pillars of Eternity or this new Tyranny, and I'm not sure why. Never been interested in cRPGs before; only one I've played that I can think of is Divinity: Original Sin, and I only got like an hour and a half into that before getting distracted Guess I just want a story  the premise of Tyranny seems interesting at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I'm looking for an old videogame: If no one gets it here try the Games You've Forgotten Thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=2855926&perpage=40&pagenumber=121#pti15
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:I suddenly feel like I want to play either Pillars of Eternity or this new Tyranny, and I'm not sure why. Never been interested in cRPGs before; only one I've played that I can think of is Divinity: Original Sin, and I only got like an hour and a half into that before getting distracted I can't weigh in on Tyranny, but Pillars is mostly rather generic dark fantasy with some unique focus on souls and premises on how they work. Pillars also has a cool character building system where there's no wrong way to build a character(swole mage, hyper intelligent barbarian, go hog wild) Also, they're currently the same price on Steam, so i'd go with Tyranny. They've certainly learned from Pillars, the visuals look better, and it appears the voice acting is better too. It also has a neat leveling system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Wamdoodle posted:If no one gets it here try the Games You've Forgotten Thread: thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Tyranny is very good so far but the voice acting is not very good
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
With PoE, once I got past the overly chaotic combat, the one weakness with the game that bothered me most was entirely subjective in nature. I just didn't find the role of being the magic man soul searcher to be very interesting. Tyranny looks a little more interesting in that department.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Honestly, the biggest improvement Tyranny has over PoE is that it's balanced for four party members instead of six. Suddenly, I kind of understand what's going on and can micromanage combat abilities and positioning and it's fun!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
My cat is old and he's not eating any more. I can't take this...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 09:19
|
|
Lizard Wizard posted:My cat is old and he's not eating any more. I can't take this... Take him to see the vet, it could be something curable or temporary. I know it's scary, but you have to be strong for your friend.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Lizard Wizard posted:My cat is old and he's not eating any more. I can't take this... Hang in there, cat friend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Take him to see the vet, it could be something curable or temporary. I know it's scary, but you have to be strong for your friend. Yes. Also, it's really important you do this quickly. Unlike people or dogs, cats go downhill *very fast* when they stop eating. Something to do with their metabolism. Like a cat not eating for 24 hours should be treated as an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Take him to see the vet, it could be something curable or temporary. I know it's scary, but you have to be strong for your friend. We're going to do so tomorrow. But he's 19 years old at the very least, and he's been secluding himself the past few months...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Think of it this way, buddy, it always made me feel better when I was in danger of losing a pet. If your cat does pass on to the great hereafter, remember this: Your cat was your friend for a small part of your life, but you were its friend for its entire life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:Honestly, the biggest improvement Tyranny has over PoE is that it's balanced for four party members instead of six. Suddenly, I kind of understand what's going on and can micromanage combat abilities and positioning and it's fun! Yeah PoE turned into a clusterfuck with a full party of 6. Also glad they switched to primarily cooldown based abilities cause per encounter/rest abilities are kinda lovely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Lizard Wizard posted:My cat is old and he's not eating any more. I can't take this... Regardless of what happens, you can always talk to me if you need someone to talk to okay LizWiz? Just shoot me a PM or something, I don't think we're in any of the same discords sorry. I am hoping for the best, but if things take a turn for the worse, we are here for you
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I'm looking for an old videogame: angry birds
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
I hope your cat's doing okay Liz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
My cat, meanwhile, decided to pee on KCB's bathrobe >:[ bad cat This is the second time we've caught him peeing outside of his litter box. He's neutered and his litter box is clean so idk what the reason is. We have a litter box in this room that we're gonna move over closer to where he has been peeing lately and see if that fixes the problem since iirc he has a vet appointment coming up anyway so we'll know if it is an issue by then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
I find it kind of amazing that titanfall 2 has a campaign that has the modern Nintendo approach to level design. The game getting split into discrete sections of platforming + a concept (conveyor belt factory, turning switches on/off, time travel, etc) and then dropping that concept and moving onto the next one when it's gotten a bit stale; it's a really neat approach, and it is funny how the story just kinda fades away into nonsensical background noise that barely justifies anything. It's an interesting approach to ludonarrative dissonance to have a plot that pretty much functions as fitting aesthetics for a story and nothing else. It's just two armies fighting in a planet of 3d platformer levels. There is also an evil white south African mercenary, because they are in every video game where you shoot realistic people now I guess 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 12:42
|
|
