| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 104 Joined: 14 May 2008     | |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 845 Joined: 8 Apr 2008    | I think you answered your own question in the first paragraph. Any game if worded correctly can seem infinitely repetitive, but it's just the nature of video games. I don't want to complete a basic assassination mission in AC, only to have to suddenly lay siege to a city in classic Fire Emblem fashion, I'm playing the game because it plays a particular way that I find fun and interesting, so the game shouldn't deviate far from that style or system. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2458 Joined: 4 May 2008    | Heh heh. Ass Creed. Back to the topic, they use the same type of mission because that's how they want the game to play. AC use the same type of stealth missions because Ubisoft wanted it to be a stealth game through and through. |
Muckraker  Posts: 303 Joined: 8 May 2008  | Theres a level to where repeatability doesn't just characterize the game as a certain scheme, it actually detracts from the worth of the game. My example: Halo, or Halo 2, whichever one where you had to follow that floating robot around for like 4 hours through the exact same rooms killing (avoiding) the exact same bad guys. At first glance at the title I thought you were talking about why so many of the games today are so much like games that have been previously released. For example, when I first played God Of War, I thought it was a ripoff of the Rygar (Ps2) game scheme. Or how when I played Call of Duty I thought it was a ripoff of Medal of Honor. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 131 Joined: 9 Jun 2008  | Halo's actually a good example to bring into this; the developer (whose name escapes me) said that his approach to gaming is a 'thirty seconds of fun' approach, which you repeat with different approaches to the formula. Maybe this time there are enemies behind you as well as in front. Maybe this time you're in vehicles. Etc. |
Muckraker Posts: 303 Joined: 8 May 2008 | I recall the rule from as far back as Doom: There is no free BFG. There are some other little repeating occurrences you see in games. For example: Shadow of the colossus, you go and find some big thing, kill it, start back in the same place, and go find something else. It was a nice predictable gameplay element, but it didn't help the flow of the story at all. An interesting thing you should check out: The Lost Coast, a free "game" you get with Half Life 2. Basically the crew explains the new things they made in the game, and explains the mechanics of introducing an "arena" area, having the player explore, then trapping him and forcing him to fight his way out. Also, breaking up the action with peaceful areas, cutscenes, or travel is a thing most games employ now. |
Paperboy  Posts: 32 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 | Wait...what now? I never got any Lost Coast with Half Life 2. Do you mean the PC version? But to get on topic, I always never noticed. If I saw something copied in a game then I would just get a rush of nostalgia and think about when I did that in a different game. Doesn't make the game any less fun. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 93 Joined: 12 Mar 2008 | This sort of thing most certainly happens with movies as well. Moviemakers will often sit down and say, "I want this movie to have X fight scenes, Y car chases, and Z explosions," and then hire a writer to write the plot around that. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 149 Joined: 13 Feb 2008  | I dunno - I think it's a pretty tall order for games to be constantly sending something completely new your way, but I see your point. Granted, I have never played Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, or Grand Theft Auto, because I don't have a system for it, but I do know what you're talking about in other games. If a game constantly throws something new at you ever few seconds, we have a name for it. We call it WarioWare. But that's a ridiculous example. I do agree that games can get quite monotonous, if they don't break up their set-pieces with interesting moments. Now, I am quick to point out that I can probably be easily called a Zelda fanboy, because I only played one Zelda game I didn't like (Minish Cap - I never played PHourglass, so I don't have an opinion.) But I think that Zelda does it right. I'll use the most recent example, Twilight Princess. There are nine dungeons in all, and you do kind of do the same thing in all of them. You get keys, open doors, solve environmental puzzles that make you feel really stupid when you figure them out, find the map, find the compass, find the Important Weapon, and use it to navigate the rest of the dungeon, get the Big Key, and kill the boss. It's a formula, and it would get really boring if the whole game was just a gauntlet of dungeons. But that's not the case. There is usually at least an hour of playtime in between dungeons, and some of the quests you have to do to gain access to the dungeon include but are not limited to: Racing a Yeti to the bottom of a mountain on a snowboard. You get the idea. By the time you get to a dungeon, you are ready for it, and it never really gets old, and by the end of the game, you start to feel really "good at" clearing a dungeon. Sure, the bosses are really easy, and it becomes a little ridiculous sometimes to see a big eye on the thing and then think "well golly, I'd better hit that eye." However, I was never bored or frustrated with the game. On the other hand, this may just be because I'm a Zelda Fanboy. Personally, I didn't see much of an issue with the puzzles in Half-Life 2. Sure, the fact that the same ones often came back in the episodes was noticeable, but not an issue to me. This is most likely due to the fact that the game had me so jittery and scared of things popping out of the shadows that I was genuinely pleased when I could relax a bit, stack up some boxes, and not worry about poison headcrabs coming out of nowhere. However, after all this yammering, I acknowledge that you do have a point. I have played games that I soon stopped playing because I was bored with them. However, many games seem to follow the philosophy that if I create a good game mechanic, then repeat it exactly the proper amount of times, then it will be Good. This is much like the philosophy of a good joke. A normal thought, repeated often enough, becomes a good joke if delivered properly. A good joke, if repeated too often, becomes a bad joke. This can repeat in sine-wave fashion. If Fire Emblem is your thing, then you really like tactical unfair-chess, and it doesn't bother you that the game gives you 30 stages of them. (Fire Emblem's idea of a joke is to have a long range magician come out of the fog with no warning at all and kill one of your characters, so you have to start over the mission if you want to ever see them again.) If you really like Age of Empires, then you LIKE to build bases, and master the art of building a base, setting up walls, and harassing your enemy all at once. Some of the things that are the blight of modern games is the desire to do so much at once. It's not a problem when done right, and in the right mix. For instance, the fishing in Zelda is enjoyable, but not for everybody, and you only have to do it once. When a first person shooter puts in a vehicle section, it had better be good. Otherwise, it's just a change of perspective from first to third person, a change of controls, and an exercise in frustration. |
Beat Writer Posts: 209 Joined: 17 Jun 2008 | The thing is, it's cheap. And it's filler material. In GTA: san andreas the gameplay was really fucking boring. The missions in most cases too. It really was just the same thing over and over and over, and most of it felt like just filler material, so that they could claim a storyline of 40 hours, or whatever. It's like that in many games, and some people try to justify it. Sometimes it's because they thought it would actually be funny (like in dungeon siege 2), but mostly it's filler material, and cheap such. Games copying off of others is basically the same thing. It's cheap, it's easy and it still makes money. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 70 Joined: 23 Jun 2008 |
This really isn't up for debate; repeating the same thing 10 times is easier than doing 10 different things, and next gen game budgets are already through the roof. I'm sure that Bioware would have loved to replace all of the copy-and-paste content in Mass Effect with handcrafted stuff, but the game already has a ton of content that takes time/money to produce (dialog takes a lot more effort to create when it isn't being written by the janitor and acted out by homeless people in exchange for a hamburger..... Age of Conan). |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2178 Joined: 20 Dec 2007    | Last RTS game I played that still had a heavy emphasis on base building was Supcom, but you can always plan everything out so micromanagement in the "mass production" field isn't hard. Also, another thing to take into consideration is this... Employee: OK mr. game designer and producer man, I have a great idea for GTA IV, why don't we [innovative game idea here] Mr. Boss Man: That is AWESOME...too bad we've spent all our money on making liberty city good and the dialogue in the cutscenes a little more than "Muthafucka you need to bust this busta CJ, you down with the grove?! YEAH SWEET, GROVE 4 LIFE!" - so we're just going to have to slap the shitty game on top. Employee: OK well can we at least put some checkpoints in the missions? Mr. Boss Man: WOAH YOU THINK WE JUST PRINT MONEY HERE?! YOU THINK I'M JUST MADE OF SOLID GOLD HERE?! I TOLD YOU, WE'RE RUNNING LOW ON CASH AND THIS IS 2008, IT ISN'T AS CHEAP AS IT USED TO BE! I mean for christ's sake we still can't even afford to make a PC version of the damn thing.. So I say you break in that "delete" key on your keyboard, you'll need it for your inbox.. Employee: Eh, you're right, who cares, why make it good if we are going to get their money anyway? Mr. Boss Man: Keep thinking that way and you may rise to the top faster than you think! Now get to work! *GTA IV prints money, and everyone calls it the best game ever, so with no criticism at all, the company feels that it would be safe to not even put some fucking checkpoints in GTA V - because they would just call it the best game ever all over again.* *Ubisoft spends all their cash on making AlTair being able to climb a wall, and now has no money to make the game the non-linear freerunning "handle a situation the way you want" kind of game they promised it would be, but nonetheless, having Jade Raymond pop up at conventions and say the same shit over and over made fanboys wet in their pants anyway, and then the game sells millions, but...at least it's being more harshly critiqued than GTA because we may actually see some improvement in AC2* |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 700 Joined: 1 Jan 2008  |
Agree with everything besides the AC bit. I'd much rather have a game that fails while trying something new(Assassin's Creed) than a game that still doesn't do anything about the flaws back from 2001-era(GTA4 & GTA3). And the story in GTA4 was quite crap anyway.I don't expect it to be as epic and complex as MGS4 but they could at least link it in a logical way. What's the point in having a million dollars if I'm still living in some run-down houses?Why is Niko everybody's bitch and never gets any of his own power and influence?Why do characters disappear and are never seen again as soon as you finish their respective storylines? Why did Dimitri send a hitman to Roman's Wedding anyway?Why doesn't sparing/killing a certain character and the story twist make any difference to how the actual story plays out? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1085 Joined: 9 Dec 2007   | Because it works. People are safe and comfortable with what they already know. Why do you think sequels continuously sell so well? How come titles like Ico or Okami get hardly recognition from the media (including independent outlets such as The Escapist)? Simply because people are not interested. Sure, you may bring a thousand more things to the table, but people are uncomfortable in new surroundings, and so think its confusing and don't even attempt to play it. Thus, sales figures drop and - before the designers know it - they're out of jobs. They keep doing it because it sells. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 212 Joined: 21 May 2008   |
It does work Take Alone in the dark, Resident evil 4 Worked perfectly, if Alone in the Dark had followed in RE 4's footsteps it would have been perfect, but instead they tried to out do RE4 and failed |
Paperboy Posts: 36 Joined: 4 Jan 2008 | lissen that may be fine and all but all im saying is that i want some better thinking about gameplay and not only about graphix but that is just me i dont have to have huge landscapes totaly visible (unless it improves the gameplay like when you are a sniper or something but they dont seem to think about it that way) i have the idea that most games not just modern day games but games of all times just put 90% of theyr money in graphix and 5% will be wasted(this is inevitable so it doesnt matter) and the remaining 5 % is used for the story and the gameplay (some games may use up to 20 % for story but those are exeptions gameplay is rarely using more)and id like this formula to be more of a 60 to 35 % thing especialy in the gameplay part becouse i dont care if i can see a deer runing 5 miles away (again exept when you need to hunt this deer but you get my point) or crows and other birds flying everywhere all the time just gather all that money leave those things out and hire some voice actors , script writers or gameplay disigners instead and try to have an early beta out to see if the third person should be changed to first person or stealth controls should be changed to combat controls(MGS4) im sorry if this feels kind of like ranting but im just tired of companys making badass graphix just becouse some revieuwers seem to get a stiffy from that |
Beat Writer  Posts: 137 Joined: 22 Apr 2008 | Games have always been repetitive. Always. And frankly, I'm glad they are. Mostly this is because a game can seem very choppy if it's trying to be multiple things at once. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 76 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 | Because it would be pretty jaring for a game to switch styles all of a sudden. Take Yahtzee example of Manhunt or Theif - The Dark Project. Both had moments of sudden action that dont work with a stelth game. |
Muckraker  Posts: 256 Joined: 13 Jan 2008 | To an extent it's because the repeating action is FUN. When you break down any MMO, it consists of "Kill Y, get X" for HOURS. But people don't play them because they're unfun, but because they're enjoying it. Of course that can go too far, and if you didn't find the act enjoyable in the first place, then any amount of repeating will aggravate you. But otherwise, repetitive acts can be just as fun as constantly changing acts. Sometimes more because you don't have to adjust each time. So yeah, the repetitive acts aren't what get to you (those are EVERYWHERE. Every game, every system, since Ball in a Cup) but the act itself that you don't like. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1854 Joined: 22 Jun 2008 | Graphics suck. Like people say they ruin games. Take mass effect. Its said to have good graphics a good story and good gameplay. Well from my point of view on a standard defintion tv it sucks.. Its to bright theres a blue transformer light. Now let me rip on its story. Your supposed to be able to do a whole lot of animations to make it feel realistic. Now i have only seen one part where theres actually a option where you do something instead of talking. Its all talk... And Talk... And then endlessly repetive shooting and more shooting and more shooting.... |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2527 Joined: 21 Jan 2008   |
Melaisis, that's what I think as well. They do it because they know it works, and thus sells. That way, they will get some money on it. They can't afford to take the risk. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1121 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 | Wow, people doing things to make lots of money $ ( its a question mark joke) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2178 Joined: 20 Dec 2007 |
Oh yeah, take that AC bit with a (big) grain of salt, I'm a ubisoft hater :P and I had hope for AC, but I was dissapointed because it wasn't as "free" as they said it would be, and whenever a new video would come online I'd expect new information, but Jade just sat infront of an interviewer and a camera saying the same stuff she said two years ago. I could climb ANYTHING I wanted which I thought was just so damn fun, but gathering information was the same ol' sidequests, and the only way I could kill my targets were to stab them, or throw a knife at them (because Ubisoft needs to progress on the story, and they made the brilliant choice of having those monologue's that would be triggered by...stabbing them in the throat? Great, so now I can't push a broken piece of stone on top of an old cathedral onto my target because then I won't get to hear him talk to me for an hour...) Anyway, to each their own, I'm not saying AC is bad though, just saying it wasn't what it was cut-out to be, and heck some people's impressions of the game gave me a false expectation of it, but since everyone was praising it for it's faults, it just irritated me - and now my 'blind' ubisoft hatred gets in the way and clouds things up even more. Another bad thing is that now that Ubisoft is so successful, they probably don't even feel the need to start work on another AC for a long time, of course it isn't a bad thing but the problem is that even though they have time to work on AC2 and polish it up even more, the end makes people want it sooner than Ubisoft wants to release the next game - probably making the game have a 'rushed' second half again, therefore also being called "good but a lot of wasted potential", and with the high-demand and (somewhat) small staff of Ubisoft - will also end up in another delay for the PC version -_- Man, I tend to post text walls everywhere, that took way longer than it should have - sorry about that. Also, almost forgot to mention that I agree with you completely as well. The "choose who to kill" without actually affecting the story does have an upside to it though, because at least you get some say in the matter. I still think it should affect the story though, it's only common sense that it should - although, we are talking about GTA here... |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2794 Joined: 8 May 2008 | What game designer is doing the same thing over and over again though (I can think of only 2 which are EA sports and 2K sports) |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 389 Joined: 20 Dec 2007 |
Did you know that 78% of all statistics used in conversations are made up on the spot? |
Beat Writer  Posts: 132 Joined: 16 Apr 2008 |
Or in Uwe Boll's case: "Not enough car chases." |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 482 Joined: 24 Oct 2007 | Well a game runs on a certain theme or mechanic (hence game genres). A shooter will be a shooter no matter how much puzzles, vehicles, and other gameplay elements you add, the core experience will be that of a shooter. The thing is I don't think it is very wise to make a game that changes mechanics (or even the theme) every time you complete a stage or so; the game can easly loose it's focus; there has to be a central idea keeping the game together or defining it. MDK 2; now I know that one is a cult favorite, but I always had a problem with that game because every stage is basically a new game. That was particularly frustrating for me because the opening stage (where you start with the main character) gave me what I thought was a prelude to what would be a VERY awesome game, but later I found myself saying "man I really want to play MORE stuff like the first stage", and there are, but they're just to far apart for me to be able to get into a groove. I eventually gave up on it when I was playing as the doctor for the second time (I f...ing hated those). |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1078 Joined: 2 Jan 2008     | Aww... I liked Ass Creed. I don't think any game designer sets out to make a game that will be boring and repetitive, but if he sets out to make a hack'n slash, there will be lots of hacking and slashing. If he sets out to make a shooter, there will be lots of shooting. If he sets out to... ad infinitum. What it boils down to is if the thing you're doing over and over is enjoyable to you, then the game is worth playing. |
Examples: Assassins Creed, Mass Effect and, to an extent, GTA4.
I use next-gen (well, current gen) examples because these are exactly the games that should be leaving this behind. Obviously, no game can be constantly innovative, and can be seen as always doing the same thing. Gears is essentially always being in cover, Half-Life 2 is using see-saw mechanics to get out of rooms (honestly, in that game I'm pretty sure you never get out of a room just by opening a door, there's always some unlikely collection of rubble you have to move then pile up to put water in the room that takes you to an air vent which you then have to drop out of into a moving cart...sorry, great game though!), any RTS just building bases etc. You see my point.
In these games and others like it, however, you always have the impression, or illusion perhaps, of progress. In Ass Creed (hehe), it literally is the same 3 missions, in different coloured cities. Mass Effect is, in some ways, worse, because they literally just use 3 environments and put different enemies in these, for the side missions. GTA4 is better presented, but still noticeable.
MOAN MOAN!