Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Game Design Theory / Size; Does it matter?

Author
Message
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 2nd May 2009 03:33
Link
I've never played Fable 2, but a friend of mine did. He said it took him about 6 hours to finish and he was utterly disgusted at how little effort he felt the developers put into it. This is just what he said, so I can't confirm a word of it, but his description kind of reminds me of Dungeon Siege 2. Before anybody says anything about THAT game... UGH! Don't even get me started about it.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 2nd May 2009 17:42
Link
I think quite the opposite, I loved it and though the main story wasn't long, but there was a lot that I felt made it interesting and it didn't seem to me that they were lazy or put little effort into it.

Your signature has been erased by a mod - Please reduce it to 600x120 maximum size
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 4th May 2009 02:45
Link
Which one? Fable 2 or Dungeon Siege 2? Like I said, I've never played Fable 2 so I can neither confirm nor deny what my buddy said. I did waste my money on Dungeon Siege 2, unfortunately, and that game IS like that.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 4th May 2009 13:57 Edited at: 4th May 2009 13:59
Link
Fable 2, never played Dungeon Siege 2.

A friend introduced me to Phantasy Star Universe the other day and yesterday after watching the 'Make love not warcraft' episode of South Park I thought I'd download the 10-day trial of WoW. I gave it a quick spin. Is it me, or are the scales in these games way off?

Here let me give you a screenshot:



This to me is where things are scaled to be bigger to make things feel bigger, but the door is way too big for a house in this screen and the landscape is just empty, trying to cross it isn't that interesting. I think I just lose my point of immersion (or at least I have in similar games)

Your signature has been erased by a mod - Please reduce it to 600x120 maximum size
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Allan Hambrick
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd May 2008
Location:
Posted: 5th May 2009 01:20
Link
WOW graphics, from an art perspective are great. The world is huge and every inch of it is worth looking at. Stuff is big. That said, Night elves are tall and Taurens are very tall. So, my guess is the scale represents a trade off of realistic versus accessible.

In RPG's I think a balance of a tight environment but epic scope are important. Personally, I think Mass effect got it mostly right. The only problem I had with that game is that the environments didn't seem "real" For example, WOW graphics are not "real" but with the use of excellent ambient sounds and "mood" they etch themselves into your memory as places you have been. Wandering into Feralis for the first time, for the first time in WOW is amazing. So green, so alive, so beautiful. That is is the key. Environment is more than the sum of it's parts. It is a synergy of graphics and sound that creates a mood that enhances the player experience.

Of course, I could just be a WOW sap

Allan
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 5th May 2009 01:46
Link
I think that door is perhaps too big for a Tauren as well and I think the sane 'large and beautiful' effect could be achieved without wasting space. However, it's difficult to talk about any negative effects of WarCraft's attempts at immersion yet, simply because I've not played enough of it. It might not even matter in the grand scheme of things.

I'm comparing to other MMORPGs that use the same 'big' philosophy like Silk Road Online, Pirate King and a few others. In Pirate King/Tale of Pirates if you wanted to cross the ocean from one major island to the next it would take quite a long time, I found myself, slumped just going "click...click...dogdge the shark...click....click...click" and it got boring. Especially as I was wanting to trade between islands. The buildings had a better scale though, but the distances made it boring after a while.

Rose online and RuneScape are 2 that maybe filled their spaces a bit better. RuneScape had a few of its distances, but at least there were things to do along the way and extra places you could explore. Somethings were well placed (whilst others weren't), though RuneScape did get quite repetitive for me, though the member's area has a lot more to offer.

Rose, well, I quite enjoyed that, but I only played it when it was free and a beta, but it's too long ago to remember anything specific about it.

Your signature has been erased by a mod - Please reduce it to 600x120 maximum size
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 5th May 2009 02:47 Edited at: 5th May 2009 02:48
Link
I've never played World of Warcraft and I have absolutely no intention of doing so. For reasons that I've already said, I absolutely hate online games. That screenshot looks like Reign of Chaos, but I guess that makes sense doesn't it.

Quote: "WOW graphics, from an art perspective are great. The world is huge and every inch of it is worth looking at."


That's fine if it looks pretty. But the real question is: is there actually something to do in it? And is it anything more than: go over there, go talk to this guy, go kill this monster, go get this item, etc.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Plotinus
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2009
Location:
Posted: 5th May 2009 12:49 Edited at: 5th May 2009 12:50
Link
That building is supposed to be large and impressive. Also, wait until you get a mount, and then you'll see why doorways need to be large. I think on the whole WoW is scaled very well and convincingly. The world is large enough to feel like a world but small enough to be manageable. Allan Hambrick is right to point out the synergy of graphics and sound in this game; they are very, very well designed. The more you explore the world the more you come to appreciate this. It is obviously less realistic in its style than, say, Oblivion, but the world is far larger and there is much more of a sense of "place": everywhere you go has its own character and feels carefully designed to be interesting, not simply a bunch of lookalike trees with some could-be-anywhere wandering monsters.

It's still a flawed game in many ways, but there's a reason why it's one of the most popular games in the world. I don't believe I've ever played anything which so successfully created a feeling of immersion.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 6th May 2009 01:52
Link
Quote: "everywhere you go has its own character and feels carefully designed to be interesting, not simply a bunch of lookalike trees "


That kind of immersion is great if all you're looking for in a game is good artwork, but I find that in most online games the NPCs are hollow and the other PCs are even hollower. If a game had deep characters and plot, then I wouldn't really give a **** if all the trees look alike. I'm not saying I like it when the world looks the same everywhere, in fact I prefer it when every place in the game has it's own feel, I'm just saying that characters and plot should take presidence over it. I've never played World of Warcraft, so I don't know if it's like that or not.

Quote: "Also, wait until you get a mount, and then you'll see why doorways need to be large."


Maybe you should be asking why you can ride your mount into a building in the first place.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
tatts
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jan 2006
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posted: 6th May 2009 15:46
Link
Having something to always do in a game is why I think I like the Grand Theft Auto's so much. The play area is always a fair size and there is always something to do..

In GTA 4 for example... My daughter and I always have crash contests to see who can do the most damage to their vehicles before they either blow up or just stop running period. Or we see how long we can manage not to crash with having the pedal to the metal syndrome. The great thing about these games is that you don't always have to follow the story to have fun with it, and you don't always need to go out and kill in the game to have fun with it either. We usually look for jumps and things like this to make the game more interesting.
Back to top
Profile PM
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 7th May 2009 02:36
Link
If I had a daughter, Grand Theft Auto would definately not be a game series I'd play with her or even allow her to play, for reasons that should be quite obvious.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 7th May 2009 07:42
Link
Quote: "I suppose. I do have a VERY short temper."

That's something you're going to need to get over to make your game.
No, but I wish you the best of luck with it, just a good deal later than you've stated. Oh, I also own Evochron Renegades and Evochron Legends, the two most recent Star Wraith 3d Games. They're a good example of a huge environment that doesn't get dull, at least not for me so far. Also, if you read the Newsletter or the WIP board, you might know of my current game Dream, which is also made in DBC, as well as Soul Hunter by zzz.


An excellent example of a great game with a mostly barren landscape is Shadow of the Colossus. Frankly, one of the best game environments in any game ever, I think. Right up there with Koholint Island.

My experience is that to make a large map truly interesting it can be mostly barren or very lush, but to really stay interesting there must alway be some visable point of interest. In SotC this could be a shrine, fruit tree, a bridge or forest, or architecture or city or something, the map is so open that ever point of interest really grabs your attention, and you get an amazing feeling of exploration, which felt very similar to Koholint Island despite their many differences.

I've also found in my own games, that clear visually differently shaped areas with different color schemes and sound effects has a huge impact on how interesting a game stays. In puzzle games I've found having a different puzzle mechanic to focus on in each level also helps with variety.

So, however big or small your world is, be it a single area or separated into sections, there should always be a point of interest not just visually but gameplay wise (having it be both is a huge plus). And then different areas of the map being visually separate in shapes and color is a good way to keep areas clearly defined and interesting to the player.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Plotinus
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2009
Location:
Posted: 8th May 2009 23:56
Link
Quote: "That kind of immersion is great if all you're looking for in a game is good artwork, but I find that in most online games the NPCs are hollow and the other PCs are even hollower. If a game had deep characters and plot, then I wouldn't really give a **** if all the trees look alike. I'm not saying I like it when the world looks the same everywhere, in fact I prefer it when every place in the game has it's own feel, I'm just saying that characters and plot should take presidence over it. I've never played World of Warcraft, so I don't know if it's like that or not."


All MMORPGs are like that to some degree or other - it's the nature of the genre. You can't really change the world because everyone else is playing in it too, and that means it can't be very plot-driven. I'd say in the case of World of Warcraft the quests are well written, and many of the quest chains do form quite absorbing little stories. It's well designed and plot-driven to that extent. But it's up to the player whether to follow those quest chains or not, and ultimately they won't make much difference to the world in general or to what other quest chains there might be. So that extent, it is not plot-driven. But as I say, that's the nature of the beast.

This issue goes beyond MMORPGs, of course: plot versus the freedom of the player. Is it possible to have both and integrate them well?

Quote: "Maybe you should be asking why you can ride your mount into a building in the first place."


Well, why not, if you want to? Your mount disappears automatically when you go indoors, but not until a second or two after you've gone in.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 9th May 2009 03:06 Edited at: 9th May 2009 03:13
Link
> Bizar Guy

This thread isn't about a game of mine that I haven't started yet or even intend to start for a very long time, so how about we stay on topic and not talk about it, okay?

Quote: "All MMORPGs are like that to some degree or other "


That's the problem.

Quote: "Well, why not, if you want to? Your mount disappears automatically when you go indoors, but not until a second or two after you've gone in."


I'm just saying it's kind of cheesy and unrealistic, but if the mount disappears when you go into a building then I still don't understand why the doors need to be that big. Doors to people's houses aren't that big in real life, so why should they be in games?

Quote: "This issue goes beyond MMORPGs, of course: plot versus the freedom of the player. Is it possible to have both and integrate them well?"


I think so. I've never seen it done before in a game, because the only thing professional game companies give a crap about is making the game as fast and as cheaply as possible so they can start selling it as soon as possible. But I still think it can be done, because I've come up with the concept for such a game (which I've been changing and refining for the past three or so years and will be changing and refining for at least another year) and I'm pretty sure it's doable.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
tatts
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jan 2006
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posted: 9th May 2009 06:48
Link
Quote: "If I had a daughter, Grand Theft Auto would definately not be a game series I'd play with her or even allow her to play, for reasons that should be quite obvious."


Well that is why I stay away from the missions and created new type games, so that they can play it as well without all the other stuff that is in the game. And besides, if my girls were to young then I would have to agree. But they are all in there teens and I feel they are mature enough for the game, well most of it.
However, I do sit and play the game with them and I do not allow them to do missions and of course go to certain spots in the game.
Back to top
Profile PM
Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 9th May 2009 10:02 Edited at: 9th May 2009 10:04
Link
Quote: "This thread isn't about a game of mine that I haven't started yet or even intend to start for a very long time, so how about we stay on topic and not talk about it, okay?"

Oh no, I mentioned it again once in regards to what you said [/sarcasm]!! Deal with it. Anyways, my post was a good deal more than about your game, that was only the first paragraph.

Quote: "I think so. I've never seen it done before in a game, because the only thing professional game companies give a crap about is making the game as fast and as cheaply as possible so they can start selling it as soon as possible. But I still think it can be done, because I've come up with the concept for such a game (which I've been changing and refining for the past three or so years and will be changing and refining for at least another year) and I'm pretty sure it's doable."

...way to contradict yourself in the same post. Also, not all professional developers do that. Cyan Worlds, Relic, Valve, Grasshopper Manufacture, Will Wright, Fumito Ueda, and so on are some of the ones really trying to make good games. Just because a lot of developers do it does not mean they all do. Some are really in it to make good games.

Quote: "If I had a daughter, Grand Theft Auto would definately not be a game series I'd play with her or even allow her to play, for reasons that should be quite obvious."

I would judge my child's maturity and then say whether they can get the game. One they turned 17, would allow them to buy whatever games they wanted, as long as it was rated M or less.


MMOs can allow you to effect the game world by using instances. Say in Guild Wars, the area you start off in is totally destroyed, which was pretty cool. Still you have the issue that not everyone can actually be special, so you rather need to focus on telling an excellent story through the world you are in.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Plotinus
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2009
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2009 11:24
Link
Quote: "I'm just saying it's kind of cheesy and unrealistic, but if the mount disappears when you go into a building then I still don't understand why the doors need to be that big. Doors to people's houses aren't that big in real life, so why should they be in games?"


I suppose another reason is that if your camera is position behind and above your character, having doorways only a little higher than the character would mean that your camera would zoom in and out very rapidly (at best) every time you went through one. That would be very annoying. Still, all I can really say is that in years of playing that particular game it has never even occurred to me that the doorways are unrealistically large, so whatever the reasoning behind it, it fits in well.

Quote: "Well that is why I stay away from the missions and created new type games, so that they can play it as well without all the other stuff that is in the game. And besides, if my girls were to young then I would have to agree. But they are all in there teens and I feel they are mature enough for the game, well most of it. "


I think this is a splendidly sensible approach.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Darth Kiwi
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 10th May 2009 02:07
Link
If you wanted a plot-driven MMO, perhaps you could have one enormous plot which can be affected by the whole society of players?

Eg. Let's say there's a war on. The map is divided in half, with cities owned by either side. Through long, arduous battles taking several days, the sides wage war on each other: each player is one soldier in this conflict. Eventually one side loses, there's a victory celebration or something, and then the game-world is reset and the whole thing starts over again.

Secretary of Unknowable Knowledge for the Rock/Dink administration '08
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 11th May 2009 04:15
Link
Quote: "...way to contradict yourself in the same post. Also, not all professional developers do that. Cyan Worlds, Relic, Valve, Grasshopper Manufacture, Will Wright, Fumito Ueda, and so on are some of the ones really trying to make good games. Just because a lot of developers do it does not mean they all do. Some are really in it to make good games."


I didn't contradict myself, I was just saying that I've got this idea for a game which is like what I described in the previous sentence, it's just that I'm not ready to make it yet.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
dab
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location: Your Temp Folder!
Posted: 20th May 2009 10:33
Link
I really enjoyed the characters of FFX. I thought it got kind of lame at the end, but it started out great! The story was good, but then it just ended terribly. Don't even get me started about X-2... I felt they should have incorporated X a bit more. Even though they didn't want to break their tradition of no sequel games.. :\

FFIX was a great game. I really connected myself with the characters. I didn't know what was going on plot wise, but I enjoyed the way the characters interacted with each other.

I loved the starting plot on FFVIII. I liked the main character. Though I didn't play that game to the end, so I can't comment much on the story.

I haven't played FXII, but it didn't look like that great of a FF game from the demo I saw a friend play.

Need a new hideout for all your conversations? Join dab-Media IRC. irc.dab-media.com:6667
Need PHP coding done? Contact me. Jobs done for as little as $15/hour! Email me for more information.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Gosub
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Sep 2007
Location:
Posted: 20th May 2009 19:20
Link
Do you think you'd be more satisfied if the expanses were more varied and more interactive and varied in their interactive properties?
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 21st May 2009 18:18
Link
If expanses gave you something to do and didn't require you to cross great distances just to get from A to B unless it doesn't take too long to get across and a bit of variation would do as well (not just fights)

Back to top
Profile PM Website
WickedVixen
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2007
Location: New Brisbane, Utopia Prime, VGC GHQ
Posted: 25th May 2009 07:11
Link
I just looked through a few of the posts and wanted to address a couple of things (though I don't remember who said what... lol).

1. In FF7, the all-powerful company was called ShinRa Corporation. ShinRa in Japanese means "god".

2. Graphics makes the games "pretty"-- much like eye-candy. If a game is visually appealing, like making foods a certain color (like breeding carrots to be orange instead of pale green), then the "powers that be" want you to buy their game-- even if it is the worst game in history. The "powers that be" seem to think that just because their game has these real-looking avatars and all of this scenery, then you'll spend your money on their game. (Leading to #3.)

3. Voice Overs... Who in their right mind would play a game that has Samuel L. Jackson voicing a multi-colored giraffe, even if that giraffe could use it's spots to fight crime? I would not. Now, getting the likes of this Mr. Jackson to voice the "Afro Samurai" game was a good idea. Using actors to provide voices for games is awesome and helps to portray that "suspension of disbelief", does it really need to be done? Simply, no.
IMHO, it seems to me that in everything we watch and play (video games, mostly), there is a facet that's called the "suspension of disbelief". Visual immersion and near-reality situations play into that suspension: adding in a well-voiced and well-acted virtual personality goes FAR to help suspend our disbelief. Without descent games like "Afro Samurai" and the "Naruto RPG" series (even "Lost Odyssey" deserves mention), these games, though full of visual style and finesse, fall flat without the voices, or voiced by school children huffing helium and speaking those same lines.
As an example, choose your favorite TV program. By changing one word, one that is uttered multiple times throughout the show, into one that would seem innocent, changes the entire situation. Let's use "The Godfather". Change every "kill" to "jump". The entire movie then reflects a whole different connotation. (Remember the sterilizing of Mortal Kombat for the SNES, but the inclusion of the infamous 'blood code' made that version of the game better, because it ran more closely to the arcade game? This is partly what I'm explaining.)

4. Stop making games that tie into the release of movies of the same name. "Terminator Salvation" looks to be a great movie, but the game, already slated for release soon, ties into the release of the movie. If anyone knows about movie tie-in games, these games are usually craptacular! "Enter the Matrix" was only marginally playable by using the 'everything hack' cheat code...
Give the developers time to research the game. Give the developers the actors to properly voice the game. Let the developers craft the game, as closely or as prequel/sequel as they want, as long as the game stays true to the storyline/content/original creator's vision.

5. Games that contain invisible boundries on that open sandbox are only limiting their true creativity. Take "Entropia Universe" as an example: vast open spaces, gorgeous texturing and landscapes, alien skies. This is the epitome of an open-exploration game. "Second Life" is a great social network sandbox; some of SL lags, and too many objects on-screen make it slow, the relationships in SL are second-to-none. "Phantasy Star Universe" is a game that takes place in well-constructed 'rooms' that are intricately laid out and populated with varying levels of attack-flora and -fauna. "PSU" is not for everyone. I play the demo version on my Xbox 360 every now and again, and I enjoy the player interaction. (Though I hate the 7-year olds who curse and swear worse than I do, and get pissy when you ask them to stop. I don't care how well these little snots know the area I'm trudging around in; they need to understand that cursing/swearing is not to be tolerated all the time. I say my occasional colorful expletive and I'm done.)

6. Online component to a beloved franchise seriously lacks graphical panache. (Any games come to mind for this headline? lol) Biggest disappointment: "Halo 3"! You can choose you own to fill in this one... "Second Life", but that's about to change with their new updates, coming soon. There are too many games like with this drawback! Would you consider both "Gears of War" iterations as lacking graphically when playing online? Any other games come to mind?

I hope I spread some love to what I'd like to see, but open sandboxes tend to distract from the task at hand, and huge gigantic expanses tend to drag the fun out to its thinnest threads, becoming more than a 10 minute trek, frayed nerves and the want for offing the developers! lol

[/url]
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Darth Kiwi
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 25th May 2009 19:16
Link
Not quite sure how this relates to the OP, but you make a lot of good points anyway.

Quote: "Give the developers the actors to properly voice the game. Let the developers craft the game, as closely or as prequel/sequel as they want, as long as the game stays true to the storyline/content/original creator's vision."


One of the best movie tie-ins I've played was Bladerunner, which was made fifteen years after the film came out! It's an excellent example of a dev team getting the atmosphere and the feel of the game "right", and not just cashing in. By contrast, every single review I've seen for the new Watchmen game condemns it as mindless, pointless, repetitive and irritating.

Secretary of Unknowable Knowledge for the Rock/Dink administration '08
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th May 2009 19:57
Link
I think some good points were made - I quite like having good voice actors and it's good to see some of the bigger names getting in there like Seth Green in Mass Effect, Stephen Fry and the actress who played Susan in My Family in Fable 2, Sean Bean and Patrick Stewart in Oblivion, the bad guy from Fifth Element in Fallout 3 (I can't remember the actor's name), Keifer Sutherland in CoD:WaW and so on. Though to clarify for geekiness, the voice actor in The Lost Odyssey who played Cooke, her voice sounds distinctively like Lil and Phil's from the cartoon TV series Rugrats, am I right in thinking it's the same person? For the Lost Odyssey I didn't like the voice acting at first, but it grew on me, it's perhaps because of Jansen really, at first I didn't expect his character to be an irritating one, but it was just the voice actor getting it wrong - though it seems Jansen was annoying on purpose, so you could love him later, but I think actually all of the characters are well kept and individual, I won't even switch to the Japanese voice over.


Quote: "4. Stop making games that tie into the release of movies of the same name."


Yes, definitely, I am sure people will be more excited about Batman: Arkham Assylum than X-Men Origins: Wolverine - putting it too close to the film makes the to restricted I think - it seems they have to just play on different parts of the movie and I don't think these sort of games usually fulfil their potentional. It seems like the film->games market is a difficult one to make interesting, for me it'd be a pretty impulsive buy. I bought the Resevoir Dogs game as it was on offer...for me it was just a Big-Fat no.



As we're going into online play here, I've got PSU on my PC (though I've only played Single Player), I got it because a couple of friends have been raving on about it as it keeps them playing for hours, it looks like a good MMORPG and I won over by the fact the environments are closed - in a way the maps are more focused than 'go wherever the hell you like' and in a way makes it a little more interesting to explore, though I've not played much of it, so I can't go in depth.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 26th May 2009 03:10
Link
Sometimes I like large and open worlds, and sometimes I like focused and "room based" ones. It really depends on the specific game, 'cause I think it doesn't really make a difference if it's done well. Oblivion has a large open world, and I think it does it very well. Neverwinter Nights has a focused "room based" world, and I think it does it very well.

Movie games do tend to suck. I used to be obsessed with Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth, so I used to buy every Lord of the Rings game I could find. Almost every single one of them absolutely sucked, there was only some RTS that wasn't that bad.

As for voice acting, it really doesn't matter to me. If the voices are annoying I just turn them off, I don't care if I have to read subtitles. If they've got Picard, like in Oblivion, then it's a treat. I think music is the more important sound aspect of video games, and not voice acting.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Nemesis_0_
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 26th May 2009 11:20
Link
I agree with u. Like in WoW yea there is hours of epic questing and dungeons... but you know how long u have to run to get there. It almost make it not worth it to play!

Your signature has been erased by a mod
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 27th May 2009 02:36
Link
As far as voice acting goes I think it can relieve some of the reading so you can focused more on what's happening and though I sometimes think the voice acting in Japanese games sounds better in Japanese, I tend to have them in English because I can't focus on two things on the screen as once - games that don't have voice acting in them make good use of where they put speech.

Though one voice actor that I found really annoying was in the last Prince of Persia game, the fact they made it impossible to kill your character just made it even worse, I couldn't even make the guy jump off of a cliff and die...it's depressing, or I just lead a very, very sad life...probably the latter. For those two games I believe characterisation was poor, which in the previous PoP games I felt the characters were better.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 27th May 2009 03:14
Link
Quote: "As far as voice acting goes I think it can relieve some of the reading so you can focused more on what's happening "


Well, maybe the dialogue should be important for what's happening and not something that shifts your focus away from what's happening. In fact, I think there should be times when the dialogue IS what's happening.

Voice acting is just like fancy shader graphics. Yeah it's great to have it, but it's not that important compared to other things, like the gameplay and plot.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 27th May 2009 15:53
Link
The truth is, games are getting more and more cinematic, when it comes to watching a film with subtitles on, you might focus more on the words than the events, though you can still see what's going on, it's not always ideal for you to read everything in a film, but for non-English stuff it works fine. In a cinematic situation it's like watching a film, I don't suppose you watch a film, turn the sound off and read the subtitles. The Square-Enix RPGs from FFX onwards had a good balance - for cinematics moments or general important moments you got voice acting with some text, but for less important things like talking to a villager or something, you got only text, and well, you're not really watching anything.

Having voice acting I think makes the game better rather than gets in the way of anything (nor does it take too much of the developer's time), it's not an essential part of a game and a game doesn't need it as such but it adds to it.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 28th May 2009 02:19
Link
Yes, voice acting does make a game better, and it doesn't take too much of the developer's time. But it does take more of the developer's money, and there are more important things that this money could be spent on to make the game better, such as the music.

Quote: "The truth is, games are getting more and more cinematic"


That's a problem. Games nowadays are having more and more of a sense that stories should just tell themselves. I think it should be the opposite. It should be that the stories engage the player and make him a part of the story. Otherwise, what makes games any different from the passive forms of story telling, like movies or TV shows?

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 28th May 2009 13:09 Edited at: 28th May 2009 13:10
Link
I've not seen anything where 'more money' would have improved the project, the only cuts I tend to see made are from rushing things to meet a deadline and those cuts tend to be important like bug testing, though it doesn't seem to happen too often either, BioWare is one company I can think of here. Other things that have made a game not so good have been down to planning and design.

But Cinematics aren't a problem and have been a part of the game industry for a long time, it's just they've got more and more visually appealing and are there to progress the story - it seems senseless to have the player do something when there's a part of the plot that doesn't fit with the gameplay - would it be enjoyable to move the character so that they put their arm around another character so that they may talk and develop the character relationship, things like that would be absolutely pointless. The use of cinematics too can work as a break - keeping people focused for too long requires too much of their brain - which is why we have punctuation, paragraphs, soundbites and all sorts. When I've beaten a very difficult boss, I put down the controller and the cinematic plays, it keeps me entertained whilst I prepare to take on the next bit.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 29th May 2009 03:07
Link
I'm not saying there should be no cutscenes at all, I'm just saying that you should feel engaged in them and not just be standing around (or sitting around) mindlessly watching them. My view is that yes, there should be cutscenes that take care of the more trivial tasks for the player like walking next to someone while talking to them, but they should still involve the player in them. The cutscene style conversations in Neverwinter Nights 2 were really good cutscenes that involved the player.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Erk
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Feb 2008
Location:
Posted: 29th May 2009 06:39
Link
If you think Oblivion is bad, roll back to the second game in the series, Daggerfall.
Morrowind has 6 square miles
Oblivion sits pretty at about 16 square miles.

Daggerfall?
62,394 square miles
15,000+ locations
and
750,000+ Unique NPCs

I thank god that that game has fast travel.
Back to top
Profile PM
Darth Kiwi
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 29th May 2009 14:07
Link
Quote: "But Cinematics aren't a problem and have been a part of the game industry for a long time, it's just they've got more and more visually appealing and are there to progress the story - it seems senseless to have the player do something when there's a part of the plot that doesn't fit with the gameplay - would it be enjoyable to move the character so that they put their arm around another character so that they may talk and develop the character relationship, things like that would be absolutely pointless. The use of cinematics too can work as a break - keeping people focused for too long requires too much of their brain - which is why we have punctuation, paragraphs, soundbites and all sorts. When I've beaten a very difficult boss, I put down the controller and the cinematic plays, it keeps me entertained whilst I prepare to take on the next bit.
"


Metal Gear Solid is the most obvious example here. While I do like the MGS games, and I appreciate the fact that you can sit back and watch the cutscenes unfolding, it does feel very much like the game is split into two modes: playing, and watching. A game like Half-life or BioShock is, in my opinion, more "game-like" in that it is a game even when cinematic things are happening - which means the player often reacts to a cinematic while it's happening. (For example, if someone is dying of poison gas behind a glass window, you might try to shoot at the window. It won't work but you tried - and you were integrated into the story.)

Of course, that doesn't mean there should be no cutscenes whatsoever - but I think I prefer the Half-life method.

Quicktime events in cutscenes ala Resident Evil 4 really annoy me, though. If I sit back to watch a cutscene, I go into "watching" mode, which means I am *never* prepared to press A to dodge or whatever.

Secretary of Unknowable Knowledge for the Rock/Dink administration '08
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 29th May 2009 19:27
Link
Quote: "I'm not saying there should be no cutscenes at all, I'm just saying that you should feel engaged in them and not just be standing around (or sitting around) mindlessly watching them. My view is that yes, there should be cutscenes that take care of the more trivial tasks for the player like walking next to someone while talking to them, but they should still involve the player in them. The cutscene style conversations in Neverwinter Nights 2 were really good cutscenes that involved the player."


I think they work fine without them and quite enjoy less interactive cutscenes, but I also like interactive onea - though they tend to be when you can choose what to say, like in Mass Effect and you choices effect the outcome, but I don't think that's viable for all games, particuarly when the game relies on a definite outcome for the scene, where I don't actually think it's a good idea to force those scenes into being interactive, particularly as it wouldn't add much - making them add more interaction I think would change the game. In some cases cinematics can act as a teaser, like when you might have the good guy fight a bad guy and you think 'cool I want to fight him', and it leads onto that battle, either immediately or later, in the Last Remnant there were cutscenes against the Conqueror, who is the big bad guy, I think it work more effectively by not fighting him until a later stage, though you get to see the full might of his power as he is breaking down doors, killing those who oppose him and of course the battle between one of your characters and him (I won't spoil it) - it emphasises how untouchable he is (particularly as the scene is quite dramatic and action filled), yet does not spoil the excitement of when you get to fight him but adds the excitement instead. Hence acting as an effective teaser, I find some other games benefit from things like that. There are some cutscenes that I see where I just think player involvement wouldn't have worked or wouldn't have been as a effective.

As far as MGS goes, I only played the first one, which certainly had cinematic elements to it, but if I remember correctly there was plenty of gameplay and I found it to be a very enjoyable game. Though I've heard about the scene in MGS 4, I think that was just overdoing it a tad bit.

RE4, I never played it, but I played Resi-Evils 1-3 and Code:Veronica X, their cutscene never got in the way and if a zombie was in the scene coming your way and you character is holding a gun, it was a sure sign that you were going to be attacked - though sometimes the 'I'm not expecting it' element was used from time to time, which works in the horror genre, but it's not of a case of 'Oh crap I was too busy watching something'. RE4, I was going to buy it, but a few changes were made that I couldn't see myself getting into, the same for RE5.

Though I quite like the HL and Bioshock method, but I think if games applied to the same methods or the same standards, then we wouldn't get this nice variation of game types we have - I would not say it's ideal for other games to take of the HL method or for HL to do what The Last Remnant did, and I think different ways work for different situations, so there's no one 'best' way of dealing with cutscenes, it's all relative IMO.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Darth Kiwi
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 29th May 2009 19:59
Link
Quote: "Though I quite like the HL and Bioshock method, but I think if games applied to the same methods or the same standards, then we wouldn't get this nice variation of game types we have - I would not say it's ideal for other games to take of the HL method or for HL to do what The Last Remnant did, and I think different ways work for different situations, so there's no one 'best' way of dealing with cutscenes, it's all relative IMO."


Yes, I know what you mean. I personally think noninteractive cutscenes aren't using the "game" to its full potential but of course there are situations where they just work much better - plus, as you said, there might be unforeseen problems if you have a scripted sequence which the player can interact with (for example, if they have a teleport power or something... that would really mess things up).

The teaser tactic is something I hadn't thought of - and, if a cinematic adds to the game like that then I'm all for it. But, I can't help being reminded of the level in Jedi Knight 2 when you fight Dessan (the big villain). At this point you're just a regular guy: no force powers or lightsaber, so you have to fight him with guns. He just deflects or dodges all your bullets, making him effectively invulnerable (and he probably has infinite health as well) and he simply wipes the floor with you (literally, in some cases). Once your health is reduced to a certain level, Dessan flies off. The devs therefore found a way to make this sequence interactive, and also to show how powerful Dessan is so that when you do fight him, you're that much more psyched up for it.
Quote: "
RE4, I never played it, but I played Resi-Evils 1-3 and Code:Veronica X"

I don't know if RE 1-3 and CV did this, but the cinematics in RE4 had quicktime events. So I'd be quietly sitting back, watching a cutscene, maybe drinking tea or something, and suddenly (with no prior warning) something bad would happen and I'd have to "press A!!!" to stop my character from dying (within the cutscene). I understand why they put them in - to create tension and so on - but I never felt tense or alarmed during cutscenes, just really annoyed when a quicktime event popped up.

Quote: "Though I quite like the HL and Bioshock method, but I think if games applied to the same methods or the same standards, then we wouldn't get this nice variation of game types we have - I would not say it's ideal for other games to take of the HL method or for HL to do what The Last Remnant did, and I think different ways work for different situations, so there's no one 'best' way of dealing with cutscenes, it's all relative IMO."

Agreed - we all have different preferences but to say "this is better every time!" is probably going a bit far.

Secretary of Unknowable Knowledge for the Rock/Dink administration '08
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 30th May 2009 00:00
Link
I think on the cutscenes, one thing that did annoy me was the end of Oblivion, you get so far and you go through a lot and you don't even get to fight the final boss, a cutscene happens and I felt after doing this and that, it'd be my job to kill him. Thankfully you get a bigger fight at the end of The Shivering Isles.


Quote: "Quote: "
RE4, I never played it, but I played Resi-Evils 1-3 and Code:Veronica X"
I don't know if RE 1-3 and CV did this, but the cinematics in RE4 had quicktime events."

Ah, I think I know what you mean, I played Resident Evil Zero's opening and it had them (I think Resident Evil Zero is the first to have them, so RE1-3 and C:VX don't have them) and I can see why they were included, but if they're during cutscenes, then that's a little cruel. In REZero, or at least what I played of it, the only real time events (where you had to press a button to dodge) it was like during a boss battle, so you already know that you're in control.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 30th May 2009 02:45
Link
Ah, good old Jedi Outcast. Actually, I've always felt that the first fight with Dessan was a cheap way for the developers to advance the plot. Trust me, I've spent hours on end trying to see if that part of the game is beatable. I've even used cheats, but still I've never been able to kill him (probably because you can't). Good times...

Oblivion really only had two proper cutscenes: the one at the start narrated by the Emperor, and the one at the end narrated by Martin. They were both kind of long, but they had good music so they were bearable. And yeah, the end of Oblivion was kind of an anticlimax. But I haven't finished Shivering Isles yet, so please don't give anything away!

However, Oblivion had these short scripted events where you lost control of your character, kind of like cutscenes. I think these were absolute genius, because it was still in your character's perspective, so you were still fully immersed in them, but you couln't do anything to interupt the scripted event, so they could do pretty much whatever they wanted.

I've never played any Resident Evil games, but I have played games that do crap like that. It's extremely stupid, and should never be done again.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Herakles
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2009
Location: Lost in my own head
Posted: 11th Jun 2009 02:47
Link
So I just started playing Everquest 2 with my dad recently. The world is massive, but (other than the occasional "go kill this monster, get this item, bla bla bla" quest) it's all just seemingly endless fields of monsters. Sure it's fun actually doing something with my dad (which we haven't really done for years), but the game itself is just fight after fight after fight. Once you're done fighting, you go to the nearest city and sell all of the junk you've taken from your enemies, and then you go fight more. There's no plot, or anything really interesting about it at all, just fighting.

Swordfight! My cheesy little first game!
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=147808&b=36
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-23 09:04:15
Your offset time is: 2024-11-23 09:04:15