Woe Is You:

ShredHead:

And I guess now you are aware that it does.

Yes, DBZ does have a story but the story is on the level of a Mario game. An excuse for people to beat shit up. I've watched the series enough to know that much. That's exactly why the whole talk about story in DBZ confuses me so much.

ShredHead:

No I wasn't, I just said it gives you more satisfaction, I didn't say a single thing about the gameplay.. I don't know where you're getting this idea.

Your exact words were "if there's nothing to unlock, what's the point in playing?" and to me that sounds like an admission that the game isn't worth playing if there aren't any unlockables. In my books, that means the game is bad and not worth playing even with the unlockables.

But question about interesting challenge as opposed to SNK challenge still stands.

All I was saying is that it's not tacked on and that not everyone thinks it's as shitty as you do.

Again, when I said that, I said, what's the point in playing? As in what's the point in playing through the story mode, which lots of people like to do, if you get no benefit from it.

You can obviously see that I like to earn stuff on games and you like to have everything from the start, and I have this odd feeling that no matter how much I argue with you, you won't admit that unlocking stuff is fun, so I'll stop with this post.

I personally believe that becoming better at a multiplayer game is rewarding enough.

Earning costumes, medals, maybe godly boss characters that aren't meant to be played in multiplayer is really fine by me. Withholding important gameplay things till I've grinded through a shitty kumite mode isn't.

For example, Guilty Gear X2 lets me access all the characters that are meant to be played in multiplayer from the get-go. If I want the really cheap bosses or the artwork, then I hit the single-player modes. Virtua Fighter 5 does the same thing: costumes are unlockable, important characters aren't. If you want to play Dural, the broken boss character of the game, you have to grind through the arcade mode with every character on the list. That's all fine by me. I don't care about the costumes or the boss character.

Street Fighter 4 on the other hand forces me to play through the arcade mode a ridiculous amount of times just so I can play as Gouken, who is a perfectly usable character. In an MMO, this would be known as grinding. It makes no sense why they even thought anyone would want to play through the same thing that many times. Again, I'm fine with colors and titles being unlockable. That doesn't bother me.

These are arcade games. Some of us just want to jump into that part of the game and not be hampered by the afterthought of a single player mode. If I wanted something especially designed to be a single player game about beating stuff up, I'd go play Ninja Gaiden.

boholikeu:

NeutralDrow:

boholikeu:
I guess that's why I don't understand people who say they like unlockables because it "extends the play time of the game". It just sounds like the game you're playing is mediocre to begin with, and you need a carrot on a stick in order to justify spending more time with it.

Unlocking a new character gets you the carrot.

Well, if that really is the reason they play fighters then I know of a game with endless re-playability: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155898/?searchterm=Guitar%20Queer-O

You never get the carrot in that game. Your premise is flawed.

So basically 'everyone's too lazy to unlock characters, we'll put a number of them there now for you'? I smell DLC to be honest with you.

NoMoreSanity:
I don't agree with that, it gives no reason to play through a game otherwise. Just have a small portion of the characters locked with majority playable from the start.

Seems almost similar to Nintendo's Digest mechanic in a sense, only that was optional, and this doesn't seem to be so.

ChromeAlchemist:
So basically 'everyone's too lazy to unlock characters, we'll put a number of them there now for you'? I smell DLC to be honest with you.

NoMoreSanity:
I don't agree with that, it gives no reason to play through a game otherwise. Just have a small portion of the characters locked with majority playable from the start.

Seems almost similar to Nintendo's Digest mechanic in a sense, only that was optional, and this doesn't seem to be so.

Sadly, I love Tekken too much to not buy it out of protest. Which means, any DLC pertinent to the actual game (Characters, Stages, extra modes etc...), I'll most likely cave and purchase. Damn bastards.

Morne

Here is the sad corporate strategy behind this kind of announcement:

Pretend you're doing a great service by presenting every character without having to unlock them, then later announce that MORE characters will be available for download... for a price of course!

wether it's this game or not, microtransactions will ruin fighting games as sure as EA is a bunch of greedy exploititive fucks

I, for one, audibly uttered forth the expression "Fuckin' Finally". Unlockable's piss me off. Sometimes I just want to play the game, not have to earn the game. I bought it, give me the goddamned content. If a game has a hard mode, I want to play that. If I have to unlock it, I never will because playing a game once is fun. Twice gets tedious.

I think someone finally understands this and I for one am pleased.

Mornelithe:
On a side note, just out of curiosity, any Tekken 3 players out there? I wanted to try and guage my...obsession with that game, by comparing save data stats. My current save for Tekken 3 (Yeah, I know, it's ridiculous I still have the save game), has 17,642 versus matches on it, highest I ever got in Survival was 34. Any other sick, disturbed, tekken obsessed individuals out there able to share their stats?

Morne

I loved Tekken 3. It was the game that got me into fighting games. My parents used to always play it too. I don't have my save data since I haven't played in forever. I prefer Tekken 4 anyway because of one character: Steve Fox. I can kick all my friends asses with him and they find his dodging so annoying. But I also hated how Jin used Karate in that game.

OT: I think removing unlockables removes a lot of the gameplay. I always like doing story modes for everybody anyway but it was nice to get a little reward for doing it.

I've only ever bought one fighting game that didn't have any unlocks; Virtua Fighter V. I bought it, played it for two days, and have barely picked it up since.

Unlockables are the only incentive to for most of us to really play fighting games. RPGs have story and the "Role Playing", first person shooters can give great multiplayer experiences and have a great plot to boot.

But story and role playing are absent from most fighting games (well, good stories are, at any rate), leaving us with awards to recieve and characters to unlock, but if you take those away, what is there left to fight for?

For those that play fighting games to unlock things... I thought the point of fighting games was to beat the shit out of characters? If I want an adventure and journey of discovery, I play an adventure game or better yet, a huge sandbox.

Somehow, I must have gotten confused. I picked up Mortal Kombat: Iteration that let me make a badass instead of their usual badly scripted tripe (Yes I know, awesome game title) or for the sake of argument, any fighting game with the intent of flinging enemies and beating them retarded until the demons in my head stopped screaming for a while. I have never understood unlocking characters as I have yet to see a fighting game with a plot worth two tits on an old hooker so why would I want to delve through their story?

Yes, I have seen the Tekken Story line or at least the storyline as of 3... It was typical anime dross spilled from the bucket of retarded lemming farts and beans. Beans that were forged in stupid instead of grown but I digress.

The point of this ramble is that I believe the Tekken director deserves a gold star and a backrub for his insight. I don't care about Dense the Schoolgirl with a sword's history or Braindamage the Samurai's obsession with pocky, I'm there to kick ass. Incidentally, the forced feeding of bad plot for a game that ONLY lets me fight in a little arena is what turned me off of fighting games.

Speaking of which, I keep wondering what possessed me to sell Barbarian. It was a ridiculously cheap fighting game that let me fling thugs at my opponent as well as scenery and the arenas didn't feel like cages, they felt like a piece of location for me to abuse the enemy in. It forced me to play through story mode but I leveled up the character by doing so instead of just opening another twit... I need to get that again and label it "Do not sell..."

I like the idea of removing unlockable characters from a fighting game. I wouldn't want to pick a character and play them for weeks just to find out there's an extra guy that I like much better.

If people are worried about replay value/shelf life the obvious solution is to add other forms of unlockable content. Super Smash Brothers Brawl has me playing characters I don't care as much for to unlock all the trophies. Maybe put in some custom outfits/items or something. Seems simple enough.

I don't play games to unlock characters, I play them because I want to PLAY THEM.

Love the idea.
Don't love the game.

Now i wish they did that to Street Fighter 4, i'm having a hard time unlocking Akuma and that damn Gouken (the unlocking process of this character is madness) .

NeutralDrow:

boholikeu:

NeutralDrow:

boholikeu:
I guess that's why I don't understand people who say they like unlockables because it "extends the play time of the game". It just sounds like the game you're playing is mediocre to begin with, and you need a carrot on a stick in order to justify spending more time with it.

Unlocking a new character gets you the carrot.

Well, if that really is the reason they play fighters then I know of a game with endless re-playability: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155898/?searchterm=Guitar%20Queer-O

You never get the carrot in that game. Your premise is flawed.

How is it flawed? People say that they like unlockables because the extra carrot on a stick motivates them to continue long after they would have normally quit (IE long after the base game play got boring). Many don't seem to actually want or care about the carrot either, as evidenced by their disdain at having the characters unlocked from the beginning. They just want something to chase. If that's all their main requirement for re-playability, the South Park game should last forever. =)

boholikeu:

NeutralDrow:

boholikeu:

NeutralDrow:

boholikeu:
I guess that's why I don't understand people who say they like unlockables because it "extends the play time of the game". It just sounds like the game you're playing is mediocre to begin with, and you need a carrot on a stick in order to justify spending more time with it.

Unlocking a new character gets you the carrot.

Well, if that really is the reason they play fighters then I know of a game with endless re-playability: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155898/?searchterm=Guitar%20Queer-O

You never get the carrot in that game. Your premise is flawed.

How is it flawed? People say that they like unlockables because the extra carrot on a stick motivates them to continue long after they would have normally quit (IE long after the base game play got boring). Many don't seem to actually want or care about the carrot either, as evidenced by their disdain at having the characters unlocked from the beginning. They just want something to chase. If that's all their main requirement for re-playability, the South Park game should last forever. =)

Because unlockables aren't analogous to a carrot on a stick. The carrot they resemble is the "carrot" of positive reinforcement.

The stick-carrot is synonymous with "an inherently unachievable goal used as an irresistible motivation." The only way a game could have such a system would be if it promised to let the player unlock something, but never actually did so.

Since last I checked, Soul Calibur players could play as Yoshimitsu, Tekken 5 players could use Heihachi, Fate/Unlimited Codes players could use Zero Lancer, etc., unlockables aren't "dangling a carrot on a stick" unless you assume the stick is attached to a non-moving object.

And yes, I do realize you're trying to be funny. This is just in case you actually seriously believe what you're saying! ^_^

NeutralDrow:

Because unlockables aren't analogous to a carrot on a stick. The carrot they resemble is the "carrot" of positive reinforcement.

The stick-carrot is synonymous with "an inherently unachievable goal used as an irresistible motivation." The only way a game could have such a system would be if it promised to let the player unlock something, but never actually did so.

Since last I checked, Soul Calibur players could play as Yoshimitsu, Tekken 5 players could use Heihachi, Fate/Unlimited Codes players could use Zero Lancer, etc., unlockables aren't "dangling a carrot on a stick" unless you assume the stick is attached to a non-moving object.

And yes, I do realize you're trying to be funny. This is just in case you actually seriously believe what you're saying! ^_^

The phrase "carrot on a stick" doesn't only refer to unachievable goals. Heck, one of the editor's of this website even used it when talking about achievements: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/editors_note/5947-Editors-Note-Carrot-on-a-Stick

Anyway, thanks for realizing it's just a joke. I only mentioned the South Park example as a hyperbole of how I see these people who "need something to work for" in order to spend more time with a game. I realize that rewarding players with new powers/items/etc is one of the main facets of gaming, but using rewards to stretch out the re-playability in spite of boring mechanics isn't good design IMO.

boholikeu:

NeutralDrow:

Because unlockables aren't analogous to a carrot on a stick. The carrot they resemble is the "carrot" of positive reinforcement.

The stick-carrot is synonymous with "an inherently unachievable goal used as an irresistible motivation." The only way a game could have such a system would be if it promised to let the player unlock something, but never actually did so.

Since last I checked, Soul Calibur players could play as Yoshimitsu, Tekken 5 players could use Heihachi, Fate/Unlimited Codes players could use Zero Lancer, etc., unlockables aren't "dangling a carrot on a stick" unless you assume the stick is attached to a non-moving object.

And yes, I do realize you're trying to be funny. This is just in case you actually seriously believe what you're saying! ^_^

The phrase "carrot on a stick" doesn't only refer to unachievable goals. Heck, one of the editor's of this website even used it when talking about achievements: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/editors_note/5947-Editors-Note-Carrot-on-a-Stick

Anyway, thanks for realizing it's just a joke. I only mentioned the South Park example as a hyperbole of how I see these people who "need something to work for" in order to spend more time with a game. I realize that rewarding players with new powers/items/etc is one of the main facets of gaming, but using rewards to stretch out the re-playability in spite of boring mechanics isn't good design IMO.

True. Unlocking something is pointless if the game itself isn't fun. Stretching re-playability isn't really a factor if no one likes it the first time around.

To me though, I'd like to actually have incentive to play the game on my own as well as with my friends. No unlockables means I have even less reason to play the game without friends there. I feel they should just have codes or something else as an option.

nothing wrong with unlockable content

This has made me suspicious of the new Tekken game. Why has he said this now? Trying to prepare people for the fact that the only way to unlock characters from now on will be via the PS Store/XBL. No thanks.

Think I'll stick to the old-school Tekken games. At least unlocking characters then felt like an achievement, rather than a commodity.

NeutralDrow:

True. Unlocking something is pointless if the game itself isn't fun. Stretching re-playability isn't really a factor if no one likes it the first time around.

Which is interesting, since "the games aren't fun if you can't get to unlock stuff" is a common idea that I see here. I personally don't get any feelings of achievement beating a cheating CPU opponent X amount of times just so I can play as the character I'd like to play as.

Was beating Seth 25 times an achievement for me? No, it was some of the most tedious crap I've had to put up with.

NO THERE NOT!!!!

they give the game more depth!!

Woe Is You:

NeutralDrow:

True. Unlocking something is pointless if the game itself isn't fun. Stretching re-playability isn't really a factor if no one likes it the first time around.

Which is interesting, since "the games aren't fun if you can't get to unlock stuff" is a common idea that I see here. I personally don't get any feelings of achievement beating a cheating CPU opponent X amount of times just so I can play as the character I'd like to play as.

Was beating Seth 25 times an achievement for me? No, it was some of the most tedious crap I've had to put up with.

Exactly! And so far none of the pro-unlockable commenters here have really addressed this point.

I'm still convinced it's mainly used as a band-aid to artificially extend playtime, similar to grinds in MMOs/RPGs.

Gaming Director's telling gamers what they want, is outdated.