244 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't even know what people qualify as "bad gameplay" anymore.

ME1 quality? That's not bad... it doesn't make you unable to finish the game...

KOTOR quality? Not bad... able to finish the game...

I just don't know what people mean. They seem to describe gameplay which reaches out and physically beats you with a cat o' nine tails as you attempt to follow the path of the story. Either they have really high gameplay standards or I have really low gameplay standards.

An example of bad game play from ME1 and an example from ME2:

ME1 -- your squadmates firing into your back or whatever cover they're behind continuously, and needing to be positioned just precisely so in order to actually fire downrange instead.

ME2 -- trying to hit a target with a power from behind cover, but because the very edge of the target marker or crosshair is touching the cover you're behind or another nearby object -- Zaeed throws his inferno grenade at you instead of at the mercs or Collectors you're trying to target, or your singularity is now right in your face blocking your view.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nightwriter wrote...
None of that made the game unplayable, however.

A game doesn't have to be unplayable to have bad gameplay elements.

[Nightwriter]

Well people act like ME1's gameplay was unacceptable torture and if the ME2 story was gutted to rectify that, rightly so.

[Collider]

ME2 is really the only Bioware game that I've played that I think had good gameplay.

Don't think that the improving of the gameplay necessarily meant that the story suffered as a result.

[AntiChri5]

People seem to be losing sight of what makes a game a game.

There are games with absolutely no story.

There are no games with absolutely no gameply.

[Midnight_Thirty]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

ME2 -- trying to hit a target with a power from behind cover, but because the very edge of the target marker or crosshair is touching the cover you're behind or another nearby object -- Zaeed throws his inferno grenade at you instead of at the mercs or Collectors you're trying to target, or your singularity is now right in your face blocking your view.

This also happens quite a bit in ME1

[AntiChri5]

I think the real reason ME 2s story suffered is the magical decree demanding all epics be in three installments.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well people act like ME1's gameplay was unacceptable torture and if the ME2 story was gutted to rectify that, rightly so.

Some do, I suppose.  Personally, I still thought that ME1 was quite playable once you accepted the limitations and adapted.  It wasn't torture, just annoying at first.

I've played games with torture gameplay, and ME1 was so much better than those games.   And ME2 isn't remarkably better than ME1, it just has different faults in its gameplay. 

[Gokuthegrate]

I pick story.

The reason I play a RPG if for the story. IF the story is strong I can overlook outdated graphics or some control issues. BW choice to sacrafice story for gameplay in 2. Hopefully BW doesnt turn ME into the Matrix. Overlooking the story for flash.

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
Well people act like ME1's gameplay was unacceptable torture and if the ME2 story was gutted to rectify that, rightly so.

Generalizing. Some people find ME1's gameplay was just fine. Some people felt it was better.

Misinterpreting. Some people found ME2's gameplay unquestionably better, but that does not mean they found ME1's gameplay unacceptable torture.

If you found something to be better, why would you want to go back? The enemy AI, the variation in weapon handling, the interaction of various powers, the handling of combat were better in ME2 than ME1. To me. It still needs a lot of improvement, but it's better, so why would I want them to go back to how they did it in ME1?

As for gameplay vs. story, there are many ways to tell a story. You can write a novel. Make a movie. Create a television series. An interactive play. A comic book. Or a game. If you decide to tell the story as a game, there is something about the game format that you feel is the best way to convey this story in a manner no other medium could. Games are visual. They are auditory. They are kinesthetic. They require reaction on the part of the user. They are malleable in a manner other mediums are not. To tell the best story as a game you must make use of all the advantages game design can give you.

Excellent gameplay can elevate a mediocre story. Poor gameplay can bury a promising story.

Right now I'm trying to play Grim Fandango on Windows Vista, an operating system many generations removed from the one which the game was originally designed. I am dealing with constant glitches to get this game moving. Now, it's an excellent story, one of the best. But the only reason why I'm dealing with this many glitches was because I had played it glitch-free once before and know the pain is worth it.

Which is kind of an extreme example here, as a game doesn't have to be glitchy to be considered poor game design.

And really, it takes truly horrid gameplay design to kill great stories. I wouldn't call ME1's gameplay design horrid. It's not excellent so it needs its story to carry it. But the thing is, sometimes story isn't enough to save a poorly designed game. Just as sometimes a great designed game isn't enough to make it a great story.

[Pacifien]

AntiChri5 wrote...
People seem to be losing sight of what makes a game a game.
There are games with absolutely no story.
There are no games with absolutely no gameply.

All games have story, man.

[Killjoy Cutter]

In some games, the story is the meat. In others, it's just the glaze.

[Iakus]

AntiChri5 wrote...

People seem to be losing sight of what makes a game a game.
There are games with absolutely no story.
There are no games with absolutely no gameply.

True.

However, there aren't a whole lot of rpgs without story.

Thus why I like rpgs. 

[Gokuthegrate]

iakus wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

People seem to be losing sight of what makes a game a game.
There are games with absolutely no story.
There are no games with absolutely no gameply.

True.

However, there aren't a whole lot of rpgs without story.

Thus why I like rpgs. 

Im guessing most people who love rpgs love them for the story.

[AntiChri5]

It can't be an RPG without a story.

[Aedan_Cousland]

Story > Gameplay

For any RPG a well developed and engrossing story are more important than anything else, not that gameplay isn't also important of course.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 28 octobre 2010 - 04:19 .

[Lunatic LK47]

[quote]Nightwriter wrote...

I didn't have any problems aiming.[/quote]

Uh, the manner of hitting the targets is that it's too freaking slow. I shouldn't have to rely on the Ability/weapon menu" to freeze time just to aim my gun at a fast moving target. I always try to do things in real-time and try not to do the "freeze-frame" attacks as much as possible. KOTOR 1, I was the opposite just so I could get all of the time in the world just to stack whatever skills I wanted to use. If ME1 plays as a shooter combat-wise, I shouldn't have to rely on archaic RPG elements.

[quote]What does it matter if you fire your gun instead of elbowing someone? Unlimited ammo.[/quote]

Uh, hello, Elbow knocks people out and doesn't kill them. Easy to accidentally kill someone if they just randomly go into medium range and I always have Sledgehammer/Inferno/Polonium rounds equipped. Considering they don't have much in the way of armor, easy to FUBAR unless I decide to reload files just because I didn't save after every battle. It's also more inconvenient where I accidentally elbow a charging Krogan while I'm pumping him full of assault rifle or pistol ammo. ME2 actually fixed that problem for me with a melee button

[quote]I never got close enough to Feros colonists to hit them, always used grenades. Why does it matter if the grenades are the select button?[/quote]

Pretty ****ing awkward. It was better off on either the L Trigger, or a bumper button. If anything, the weapons menu should have been the select button instead just to make things more natural.

[quote]What's wrong with the mako handling[/quote]

To pull up from an old review from Gamefaqs, here are my personal problems:

Controlling the Mako was a nightmare at times, especially when I drove
Halo's Warthog proficiently in the Halo games. Just when I entered an
uncharted world for the first time, I got killed by a Thresher Maw over
twenty times just because the Mako decided to reverse on me, despite the
fact that I wanted to make a U turn and high tail out of dodge.

Here is a rudimentary diagram of how the controls are set up

Halo:

<
(Warthog) << (Camera). When I press up on the Analog stick, the
vehicle always drives forward, with the camera following behind it, it
works well, while pulling down will automatically reverse the Warthog.

>
(Warthog) << (Camera). Like the previous “paragraph,” The Warthog
will automatically steer to the direction the camera is pointing at when
I press up, making the U-Turn when necessary.

Mako:

Unfortunately, the Mako needlessly aggravated me, and here is what I got.

<
(Mako) <<(Camera). Okay, the controls are fine. At least it goes
forward when I want to, providing that the Mako's trunk is facing me.

>
(Mako) <<(Camera). The situation I mentioned in the “controls”
section is what exactly happened. Knowing that my Mako is damaged and I
needed to run away, I moved the camera to a different direction, which
is 180 degrees, and then pressed up on the analog stick. Instead of the U
turn, I got met with backing up and then getting killed just because
the Mako backed up.

I have posted this on the Gamefaqs message
boards, but got met with the typical fanboy response, “You suck at
gaming” “You suck at driving,” “You suck at this game.” I've beaten this
game three times completely, and honestly felt that the QA department
really didn't test out everything in the game. Seriously, please revamp
the controls for the Mako.

That's the full story of me hating the Mako. Oops, apparently, the subsequent Halo games had the same crappy driving controls for the tanks. Driving the Mako is the equivalent of saying "It's perfectly okay for me to suddenly hit reverse despite my transmission being set on 'Drive' when I'm attempting to make a U-Turn." That's how problematic the Mako felt.

[quoteThe constant biotic attacks that make you fall like a ragdoll were annoying, I'll give you that.[/quote]

Glad we can agree on something.

[quote]None of that made the game unplayable, however.
[/quote]

Sure, it didn't make it unplayable, but it still wasn't all that enjoyable either.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 28 octobre 2010 - 05:41 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Pacifien wrote...
Excellent gameplay can elevate a mediocre story. Poor gameplay can bury a promising story.

QFT.  Also a game with no story can still be a great game.  A story with no gameplay can never be considered a game from the get go.

Gameplay's just generally the one you want to do well if nothing else gets done right (in the general sense of games), you can expect your title to do better that way in the markets and in reviews.




Now yes, for RPGs, story is more important.. but it's also why I never got into them until more recently.  Turn-based RPGs, for example, have a combat system that completely pulls me out of the world or story they're trying to tell.
ex)   Hero:  "You killed my one and only true love!!  I'LL DESTROY YOU!!.... it's your turn first right?"

[Onyx Jaguar]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I think the real reason ME 2s story suffered is the magical decree demanding all epics be in three installments.

I can agree with this

[wulf3n]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

What's wrong with the mako handling

To pull up from an old review from Gamefaqs, here are my personal problems:

Controlling the Mako was a nightmare at times, especially when I drove
Halo's Warthog proficiently in the Halo games. Just when I entered an
uncharted world for the first time, I got killed by a Thresher Maw over
twenty times just because the Mako decided to reverse on me, despite the
fact that I wanted to make a U turn and high tail out of dodge.

Here is a rudimentary diagram of how the controls are set up

Halo:

<
(Warthog) << (Camera). When I press up on the Analog stick, the
vehicle always drives forward, with the camera following behind it, it
works well, while pulling down will automatically reverse the Warthog.

>
(Warthog) << (Camera). Like the previous “paragraph,” The Warthog
will automatically steer to the direction the camera is pointing at when
I press up, making the U-Turn when necessary.

Mako:

Unfortunately, the Mako needlessly aggravated me, and here is what I got.

<
(Mako) <<(Camera). Okay, the controls are fine. At least it goes
forward when I want to, providing that the Mako's trunk is facing me.

>
(Mako) <<(Camera). The situation I mentioned in the “controls”
section is what exactly happened. Knowing that my Mako is damaged and I
needed to run away, I moved the camera to a different direction, which
is 180 degrees, and then pressed up on the analog stick. Instead of the U
turn, I got met with backing up and then getting killed just because
the Mako backed up.

I have posted this on the Gamefaqs message
boards, but got met with the typical fanboy response, “You suck at
gaming” “You suck at driving,” “You suck at this game.” I've beaten this
game three times completely, and honestly felt that the QA department
really didn't test out everything in the game. Seriously, please revamp
the controls for the Mako.

That's the full story of me hating the Mako. Oops, apparently, the subsequent Halo games had the same crappy driving controls for the tanks. Driving the Mako is the equivalent of saying "It's perfectly okay for me to suddenly hit reverse despite my transmission being set on 'Drive' when I'm attempting to make a U-Turn." That's how problematic the Mako felt.

I don't think its apt to compare the mako with the warthog, as the warthog doesn't have to deal with shooting while driving. The warthog doesn't allow you to look around while driving.

I better comparison would be the mako and the scorpion, and when you think about it the scorpion is just as clunky, albeit for different reasons.

[marshalleck]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Collider wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I hate having to choose. Story is more important but I shouldn't have to say so, you know?

So think about this: how many people do you think were working on ME2's gameplay/graphics/etc, and how many do you think were working on actual story?

Realistically there are going to be more people working on gameplay and graphics etc. Realistically the amount of people working on the story is probably far less. Bioware is actually one of the few studios that puts so much emphasis on the writers and the story. A lot of other studios have people who are doing other things for the game (graphics, sound, etc) write some of the story - meaning people who aren't necessarily specialized, or they call in temporary writers for the story.

Then what the hell hapen to ME2's writing?

Mac Walters.

[Gibb_Shepard]

In general i would say that Story should be slightly more important than gameplay, but after the ME2 plot i think the "Story is much more important than gameplay" applies.

[GodWood]

When I'm playing a role-playing game (and a Bioware game at that) I expect story to be the focus.

If I was looking for a game where gameplay was the focus I'd play something else.

[Lunatic LK47]

wulf3n wrote...

I don't think its apt to compare the mako with the warthog, as the warthog doesn't have to deal with shooting while driving. The warthog doesn't allow you to look around while driving.

I better comparison would be the mako and the scorpion, and when you think about it the scorpion is just as clunky, albeit for different reasons.

Uh, except the Warthog and the Ghost had *BETTER * controls than the heavier vehicles maneuverability-wise. I never had problems with the turret system with the Mako. I had problems with moving the damn thing because of the aforementioned problems in my post. With the Warthog and Ghost, all the left stick had to handle was "Drive forward when you press up, drive backward when you press down." (in the Hammerhead's case, it controls almost exactly like the Ghost, which I found to be a good thing). With the Mako, the controls flip flop back and forth depending on the direction the Mako is facing. Inconsistent controls at its finest.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 28 octobre 2010 - 07:41 .