A question to those who felt that Brutal Legend turned into an RTS partway through.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Hey, Escapist forumgoers. Here's a question to all of you who felt that this game was 'ruined' because it 'turned into an RTS'.

First, watch this video of me playing through one of the stage battles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJP4ZujTEs

Now, please tell me at which specific point in that video does the game stop being an action game and become an RTS instead. Because as far as I can tell, it doesn't. Sure, it's an action game in an RTS sorta framework, but everything you're doing is still the exact same stuff you've been doing in the rest of the game - killing stuff with your axe and guitar, playing solos, using teamup attacks with allies, and so on.

Does the occasional one second of choosing what new troops to recruit every couple of minutes or so really change the gameplay so completely? Does the fact that you can now fly around honestly mean that suddenly the game sucks, even though nothing has been removed from the gameplay at all?

Your video is entirely RTS footage.

Ealrier parts of the game included hitting things with your axe (Edit: and nothing else). By the time you're flying and buying units you've gone too far.

random_bars:
Uh... Bump? Can you do that here?

Well, you can, but it's generally frowned upon.

And as a person who played that sodding game all the way to the end, I have to say that the game truly sunk in that 'This is how it's going to stay' around the point where I was ordering headbangers around using controls that reminded me of the robot minigame in Ratchet and Clank.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the game's humor, tone and even it's pro-roadie message. But when a game teases me with kickass driving and hack-slashy fun for the first ten minutes and then goes 'Fetch moar units!' for pretty much the rest of gameplay, I can't help but feel disappointment, not that the game was bad, but that I was tricked into something and had false expectations of it.

random_bars:
Uh... Bump? Can you do that here?

Nope you really can't. The mods will be on your ass for it. Its not just frowned on. Its downright illegal.

Kushin:

random_bars:
Uh... Bump? Can you do that here?

Well, you can, but it's generally frowned upon.

And as a person who played that sodding game all the way to the end, I have to say that the game truly sunk in that 'This is how it's going to stay' around the point where I was ordering headbangers around using controls that reminded me of the robot minigame in Ratchet and Clank.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the game's humor, tone and even it's pro-roadie message. But when a game teases me with kickass driving and hack-slashy fun for the first ten minutes and then goes 'Fetch moar units!' for pretty much the rest of gameplay, I can't help but feel disappointment, not that the game was bad, but that I was tricked into something and had false expectations of it.

Did you watch the video? I'm more interested to see whether the experience I had in the game actually matched anyone else's, than what you can remember of it. If you watch the video, you'll see that in the stage battles I'm doing as much hacky-slashy fun stuff as in the rest of the game. I'm basically just wondering whether everyone else's battles looked like that too, because from what I can tell, the main problem with this game wasn't that it was bad, but that it was badly explained and consequently nobody really played it to its full capacity for fun.

I just want to know whether, having watched the video to the end, you still think that the stage battles are a complete gameplay shift, with all the action bits removed, because from where I'm standing... Well, they're just not.

Palademon:
Your video is entirely RTS footage.

Ealrier parts of the game included hitting things with your axe (Edit: and nothing else). By the time you're flying and buying units you've gone too far.

...Did you watch past the first two seconds? My point is that in the video I'm doing just as much hitting things with my axe, and melting faces, and teamup attacks, as in the rest of the game.

its an RTS and the first nail in Tim Shaffers coffin.

Next thing you know he will be telling us to play Grim fandango as a cover based FPS. Wouldn't it be better if he just made the games he wanted instead of making other games and claiming they're the games he intended to make?

Well I think the rts part was an awesome idea, it's kind of like sacrifice except with a metal theme.
They didn't really flesh it out enough though. I wanna build actual bases please. Have more stuff to do.
The solos shouldn't be goddamn quick time events and have a bit more impact like spells in sacrifice do.
Hitting stuff with your axe should either have more impact or be completely canned (fuck that god of war bullshit with enemies having a crapton of health and you hack on them 500 times. Why is that the standard now aynways?) and cars should have an actual function (they are 100% useless in multiplayer and skirmish).

But anyway if you can't tell something has changed the time those base stages pop up and still think it's a pure action game, I can't help you.

I never felt it turned into an RTS, to be honest. I summoned units, yes, but they bolstered my own fighting force, with me leading the way. It felt like I was a captain in the field, rather than an all-powerful general, as defines an RTS.

I wouldn't say it's entirely an RTS, but it turns from straight Action into Action with RTS elements. Yeah, you never stop being able to dive into the heart of the action and melt off faces, but you can't ignore recruiting troops and controlling when and where they attack the enemy.

Dejawesp:
its an RTS and the first nail in Tim Shaffers coffin.

Next thing you know he will be telling us to play Grim fandango as a cover based FPS. Wouldn't it be better if he just made the games he wanted instead of making other games and claiming they're the games he intended to make?

He already made some self-depricating jokes about it during the Pychonaughts 2 kickstarter, so I doubt he will try something similar again.

Dejawesp:
its an RTS and the first nail in Tim Shaffers coffin.

Next thing you know he will be telling us to play Grim fandango as a cover based FPS. Wouldn't it be better if he just made the games he wanted instead of making other games and claiming they're the games he intended to make?

Did you watch the video...? Look, just - please. Watch the video through to the end. Then feel free to say what you like about the gameplay of the battles. I'm asking about what you feel about the game when played as I play it in the video, not what it was like when you played it.

loa:
Well I think the rts part was an awesome idea, it's kind of like sacrifice except with a metal theme.
They didn't really flesh it out enough though. I wanna build actual bases please. Have more stuff to do.
The solos shouldn't be goddamn quick time events and have a bit more impact like spells in sacrifice do.
Hitting stuff with your axe should either have more impact or be completely canned (fuck that god of war bullshit with enemies having a crapton of health and you hack on them 500 times. Why is that the standard now aynways?) and cars should have an actual function (they are 100% useless in multiplayer and skirmish).

But anyway if you can't tell something has changed the time those base stages pop up and still think it's a pure action game, I can't help you.

At least you've heard of Sacrifice, which is a plus. I disagree with you on some of your points though. For example, I think making the solos quicktime events wasn't just a "let's throw this in for the hell of it" thing but an intentional mechanic because it takes the spells of Sacrifice a step further - it doesn't just tie you to one spot and stop you doing anything for the duration of the spell, but it requires you to focus on hitting the notes so it makes it more difficult to even pay attention to anything else, making the decision to play a solo into more of a commitment and a risk.

And I'm not saying that nothing's changed in the stage battles, what I'm saying is that nothing has been removed - you're still using the same axe and the same guitar, the same teamup attacks, the same guitar solos, and so on. I'm saying that people who think the gameplay is completely switched up at these points must be doing something very wrong, because when I play the game, the battles are just the culmination of all the other combat mechanics in the game... Which is why I'm asking people to watch the video of how I play and then tell me if they still think the stage battles are this sudden switchout of gameplay styles.

Realitycrash:
He already made some self-depricating jokes about it during the Pychonaughts 2 kickstarter, so I doubt he will try something similar again.

...And then clarified that he wasn't being self-deprecating, but was subtly mocking people who didn't get how to play the stage battles. Or "weren't good enough for the metal" as he put it.

It's just that some people got annoyed since the demo didn't even hint that it would have RTS gameplay and then halfway through it involved a lot of RTS gameplay, people who didn't like RTS games felt they had been tricked.

Personally I was fine with it but I would like to be able to do more to the enemies.

Dandark:
It's just that some people got annoyed since the demo didn't even hint that it would have RTS gameplay and then halfway through it involved a lot of RTS gameplay, people who didn't like RTS games felt they had been tricked.

Personally I was fine with it but I would like to be able to do more to the enemies.

That's understandable, the marketing for the game was goddamn stupid. Although you can blame EA for that.

Although... You'd like to be able to do more to the enemies such as what?

Honestly, I loved the stage battles. It seems that most of the accusations about people playing them like an RTS come from how they were letting their experience with other games influence their behaviour and expectations. If you just step back for a moment it's pretty clear that it's far more beneficial to be in the middle of the melee fighting alongside your troops than floating around above watching your units trundle around the map. Seems like people only want something unique or different so long as it doesn't confuse them too much.

Also, I loved playing as the Drowning Doom faction online. I had loads of fun.

Whatever it was, it was fun. I actually loved the RTS/hack and slash gameplay. It's about as close to my kingdom under fire from the old xbox as I could get.

You know, I played it as an RTS (I never landed (except when necessary for guitar solos), just flew and directed troops), but I also love Brutal Legend. I think it was a great game.

Geo Da Sponge:
Honestly, I loved the stage battles. It seems that most of the accusations about people playing them like an RTS come from how they were letting their experience with other games influence their behaviour and expectations. If you just step back for a moment it's pretty clear that it's far more beneficial to be in the middle of the melee fighting alongside your troops than floating around above watching your units trundle around the map. Seems like people only want something unique or different so long as it doesn't confuse them too much.

Also, I loved playing as the Drowning Doom faction online. I had loads of fun.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm trying to say here. I actually didn't like the battles at first either, but then as I gradually became more confident with the controls and realized that I really ought to be using all the double teams and solos and stuff, the battles became more and more fun the more I got involved in the actual combat and used all the moves I had available.

And it's frustrating that so many people seem adamant that they're going to comment without watching the video first. I'm not posting it to try to swamp you guys with ridiculous amounts of content that you could never get through and then hide behind that to avoid argument. I just want to make sure we're on the same page here, rather than me trying to explain why this game is fun when played in the way I play it, while you guys stubbornly insist that it isn't when you don't even know what it's like when played like I play it. It's just one video, it's not very long and if you really can't be bothered to watch the whole thing then just skip to 2:50 and watch from there, since that's where the fun bit starts.

The RTS elements really took away from enjoyment, at least for me. It was such a hassle ordering the troops around, especially with a controller, and at latest when you had to assign commands manually to specific groups it all became a jumbled mess. A shame, really, the action combat was rather decent. Not great but good enough to be fun.
The humour wasn't that great, either, and there was too much of Jack Black in the game (these two occurrences may correlate with each other). The only thing that saved the game for me was one of the most awesome video game soundtracks ever.

Smertnik:
The RTS elements really took away from enjoyment, at least for me. It was such a hassle ordering the troops around, especially with a controller, and at latest when you had to assign commands manually to specific groups it all became a jumbled mess. A shame, really, the action combat was rather decent. Not great but good enough to be fun.
The humour wasn't that great, either, and there was too much of Jack Black in the game (these two occurrences may correlate with each other). The only thing that saved the game for me was one of the most awesome video game soundtracks ever.

Is that after watching the video that you're still saying this? 'Cause, well, you NEVER had to order commands to specific groups, or try to manage your troops at all. The point was just to keep them in a big group and fight alongside them on the battlefield.

I know everyone so far has delightfully ignored the whole point of the topic, which was to watch the video and then tell me at which point in it does the game stop being an action game and become an RTS instead, but... Please can you be the exception? It's not a long video. I just want to know an outsider's perspective on how the game plays for me, and whether it looks any different and/or better than you remember.

If you'll just watch the video from beginning to end and still don't like the look of it then I'll happily accept that the game simply isn't for you, but as it stands, everything I've seen suggests that the game I'm advocating as being great fun is essentially a different one than the people who complained about RTS elements played.

I didn't think the RTS elements took away AT ALL from the game.

People bitched and moaned about it, but I felt it was rather well done.
It's not a flawless game, but it's a Solid B/B+ in my book.

random_bars:
Is that after watching the video that you're still saying this? 'Cause, well, you NEVER had to order commands to specific groups, or try to manage your troops at all. The point was just to keep them in a big group and fight alongside them on the battlefield.

I know everyone so far has delightfully ignored the whole point of the topic, which was to watch the video and then tell me at which point in it does the game stop being an action game and become an RTS instead, but... Please can you be the exception? It's not a long video. I just want to know an outsider's perspective on how the game plays for me, and whether it looks any different and/or better than you remember.

If you'll just watch the video from beginning to end and still don't like the look of it then I'll happily accept that the game simply isn't for you, but as it stands, everything I've seen suggests that the game I'm advocating as being great fun is essentially a different one than the people who complained about RTS elements played.

I really don't care about your video, I played the game myself. And the way you're pushing it on people kinda makes it seem to me that you're just looking for more views.

In any case, why can't you accept that other people may just not like what you like? Why does this matter to you so much?

Smertnik:
I really don't care about your video, I played the game myself. And the way you're pushing it on people kinda makes it seem to me that you're just looking for more views.

In any case, why can't you accept that other people may just not like what you like? Why does this matter to you so much?

But you can accept that a game can be different amounts of fun depending on how it's played, surely? That's why I'm asking people to watch the video. I don't give a damn about getting views other than to ask people what they think of what the game is like when played in a way which, in my opinion, makes it fun. I'm not asking about what the game was like when you played it, that's not what the topic is for. I'm sure you're right that it wasn't fun when you played it. I'm not doubting that at all.

But if you're so strong in your convictions that the game is bad, why are you so unwilling to consider anything that might suggest otherwise? Surely if you're right then it won't make a bit of difference to what you think, and you can just come back and laugh at me for having terrible taste in games?

And as to why I care - because I like this game, I'm fed up of having to defend myself for liking it against people who make complaints about it which aren't just things which I'm not really bothered by, but are things which literally did not affect me in the slightest. Like your comment about it sucking because you have to do lots of assigning specific commands to specific groups, which you just don't. So I'm asking people whether the footage of me playing looks anything like what the game played like for them.

I mean... We're on a forum for discussing video games here. If you think discussions like this don't matter, why are you even here?

I like that game a lot. I enjoyed it all the way through. To me it felt hack n' slash all the time, just with backup.

random_bars:
But if you're so strong in your convictions that the game is bad, why are you so unwilling to consider anything that might suggest otherwise? Surely if you're right then it won't make a bit of difference to what you think, and you can just come back and laugh at me for having terrible taste in games?

Here's a Question:
Why are you so unwilling to accept that people don't like what you like?
I've never played Brutal Legend, but just from looking at this thread, There are obviously different opinions about it. Can't you just stop making people look at your video, and maybe look at your own actions?

Kitty4President:
Here's a Question:
Why are you so unwilling to accept that people don't like what you like?
I've never played Brutal Legend, but just from looking at this thread, There are obviously different opinions about it. Can't you just stop making people look at your video, and maybe look at your own actions?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that people don't like what I like, but I have a feeling that if people played the thing they think they don't like in the way that I played it, then they would like it. I have this feeling because when I first played the game, I didn't like it either, and for the exact same reasons as everyone else has said here. But as I started to play it differently, I started to like it more and more. I've heard other people say the same thing too.

As I've said, if people will see what the game plays like when it's not played as though it's a traditional RTS and they still don't like it, then that's totally fine. All I'm asking is that people actually look at the thing that I'm saying that I like before they say that they don't like it. Is that so crazy? And again, if you really don't like the idea of discussing video games, why are you even here?

random_bars:

But if you're so strong in your convictions that the game is bad, why are you so unwilling to consider anything that might suggest otherwise?

When did I call Brütal Legend a bad game? It's surely not great but I consider it at the very least the good kind of mediocre.

random_bars:

And as to why I care - because I like this game, I'm fed up of having to defend myself for liking it against people who make complaints about it which aren't just things which I'm not really bothered by, but are things which literally did not affect me in the slightest.

Then the question would be why you feel the need to "defend yourself" over this matter. If some of your friends attack you on behalf of such infinitesimally irrelevant matter I'd start looking for better friends. And if it's not friends, then there's no point in caring about those people, is there? We're all entitled to our own preferences, after all.

random_bars:
As I've said, if people will see what the game plays like when it's not played as though it's a traditional RTS and they still don't like it, then that's totally fine. All I'm asking is that people actually look at the thing that I'm saying that I like before they say that they don't like it. Is that so crazy? And again, if you really don't like the idea of discussing video games, why are you even here?

So asking people to stop disliking something is the same as accepting others opinions about it? wat.

If your idea of just asking everyone to consider your opinion is to make them watch a video, then you're pushing it a little by bluntly telling them to watch it every time someone replies.

Also, I'm here discussing the game, silly. Isn't that what you do in a Game Discussion Thread? Discuss Games?

Smertnik:
When did I call Brütal Legend a bad game? It's surely not great but I consider it at the very least the good kind of mediocre.

Alright then, but you did say that the RTS elements really took away from your enjoyment. My question is simply, if your battles had looked like the one in the video, would you still feel this way?

Smertnik:

Then the question would be why you feel the need to "defend yourself" over this matter. If some of your friends attack you on behalf of such infinitesimally irrelevant matter I'd start looking for better friends. And if it's not friends, then there's no point in caring about those people, is there? We're all entitled to our own preferences, after all.

I know it's not important, it's just frustrating that whenever I mention the game online, the same complaints always flood in about stuff which, at least in the way I played the game, simply aren't true. I'm just trying to find out whether people with these complaints would still have them if they had played the game in the way that I played it - I'm trying to confirm or deny my theory that the main thing that separates people who liked the battles from people who didn't like them was how they played them, basically.

Is this hugely important? Well, no - but then neither are any of the other ten million topics on here. I'd imagine that if you're on an internet discussion forum about video games then you're already past the point at which you care about whether stuff like this is enormously important or not.

Kitty4President:

So asking people to stop disliking something is the same as accepting others opinions about it? wat.

If your idea of just asking everyone to consider your opinion is to make them watch a video, then you're pushing it a little by bluntly telling them to watch it every time someone replies.

Also, I'm here discussing the game, silly. Isn't that what you do in a Game Discussion Thread? Discuss Games?

I'm not asking them to stop disliking it at all. I'm asking them whether they like or dislike the game as played in the video. The video is literally the entire point of the topic, so I don't think asking people to actually watch it before forming an opinion on it is particularly outrageous.

random_bars:
I'm not asking them to stop disliking it at all. I'm asking them whether they like or dislike the game as played in the video. The video is literally the entire point of the topic, so I don't think asking people to actually watch it before forming an opinion on it is particularly outrageous.

Eh, alright.
You were forcing it a little too much on others though, if that was the case. It's a little rude to assume they didn't bother looking into something just because they disagree. You play it a little differently? Cool. Did others? Maybe not. That's where I think it should be left at.

Iwata:
I never felt it turned into an RTS, to be honest. I summoned units, yes, but they bolstered my own fighting force, with me leading the way. It felt like I was a captain in the field, rather than an all-powerful general, as defines an RTS.

I agree with this statement here. It's not like the game forced you to play an RTS. It literally gave you the option to join the units or not. As I recall, the flight mode was a toggle. So with that recall of memory for me, you complaining it was an "RTS" is strictly your fault for not dropping down and joining the fun.

However, if you declare that as an RTS, then let me rephrase something. An RTS is where you control several units and structures, never setting foot in the battle yourself, you are playing the role of a tactician, a general, a "god" I would say. Brutal Legends lets you join the fight. You could choose not to, but if you wanted to join in, then you should have done it. They weren't preventing you from doing so.

I gotta side with the poster. The RTS portion only enhances the experience in my opinion. The point of the game is to build up an army. Do you really expect to command an entire army without having to do any resemblance of work to manage them? Do you know what an army is? It's a tactical attack unit. Not a pile of mindless drones that while given this label, are still expected to know exactly what to attack, how to attack it, and when to attack it. Anyone who was any bit surprised of pissed about this inclusion is the same kind of person that expects a freshly-cooked omelet sitting at their bedside every morning without any of the grunt work that goes into making said omelet.

The point is, you can't raise an army without expecting to have to manage them. And it doesn't take away from the hacky-slashy experience, it just keeps it from getting dull and mindless. It puts some thinking and some diversity into the battles, and nothing more. Also, commanding a squad of headbangers lead by Lemmy to destroy a gate of skeletons with mid-paced, atmospheric black metal blasting through your speakers is a very tough experience to beat. The only negative is they don't do a great job explaining how to work the RTS portions, but it's good when you get the hang of it, which doesn't take too long if you made it through elementary school without the teacher forcibly stapling the "dunce" cap into your scalp.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked