Ce sujet est fermé
D00m580 wrote...
The rest of your post is not an excuse either, it's your head and you should use it before posting something like that.
Modifié par House_Hlaalu, 26 septembre 2011 - 05:47 .
House_Hlaalu wrote...
D00m580 wrote...
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Not my image
Not an excuse for posting a direct insult.
Thats right, just ignore the rest of my post.
I said if someone can edit it out, ill replace it. Go ahead. Edit it out if you feel you need to.
Arthur Cousland wrote...
Yes, the image isn't necessary.
I just like games that don't feel like my choices mean very little because the writers want to tell their story, regardless of what the player does.
While it's nice to be able to comment on a game and post constructive criticism in hopes that it may influence a future product in some minor way, I'd like to believe that the developers already know what makes a fun game because they play the games themselves, and aren't caught completely off-guard when something gets criticized, because they "thought" they knew what people wanted.
D00m580 wrote...
You're right, but if you take into consideration the fact that this is an extract from an interview with a writer who works as a part of a team to make a game, you shouldn't cling to her words and say that she must hate gaming if she makes a remark about not liking the game part of a game. She isn't he only person working on a game and neither she (presumably:whistle:) is the one who can call the shots on the question of whether combat is a main part of a game or a minor one.
Modifié par House_Hlaalu, 26 septembre 2011 - 06:01 .
centauri2002 wrote...
I think I'd prefer to have a writer on a games development team who disliked combat but was good at writing than a writer who loved combat and disliked storytelling. Besides, a writer isn't going to have an affect on how the gameplay turns out. A writer affects the story, so their focus should be on that. She is but one cog in a very large machine.
Also, OP, you seem to be under the illusion that gameplay is all that is important to a game. Well, games have evolved since the days of Pong, or so I like to think. There are many factors that go into making a good game, particularly the RPGs that BioWare make. One such thing is story, along with dialogue, atmosphere, music, environments, etc etc. The so-called gameplay is just a part of it.
So I think the story's just as important as the gameplay.
Personally, I can play through a game with a great story but poor gameplay (as long as it isn't too long and monotonous) but I can't stand games without a decent story but might have some good gameplay. I guess different players have different priorities.
House_Hlaalu wrote...
D00m580 wrote...
You're right, but if you take into consideration the fact that this is an extract from an interview with a writer who works as a part of a team to make a game, you shouldn't cling to her words and say that she must hate gaming if she makes a remark about not liking the game part of a game. She isn't he only person working on a game and neither she (presumably:whistle:) is the one who can call the shots on the question of whether combat is a main part of a game or a minor one.
fix'd.
I think people who make games should like games. I dislike the direction games are taking towards cinamatics and movies. 10 years ago i doubt there would be many people like Heppler who dislikes gameplay who makes games. What a surprise, games were a lot more like games 10 years ago and less like movies with cinematics, yet they still had killer stories.
TLDR: game makers who don't like gameplay are a cancer on the gameindustry.
And before people start accusing me of making remarks at specific people, im talking in the broad range. Games like LA Noire are just terrible, because its like the gamemakers were ashamed of the game being a game, and wanted people to skip the gameplay, because they just wanted to have a movie using a games engine and graphics.
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Ive got a feeling someone like Chriss Avelone and Hideo Kojima like gameplay. Who makes better games with better gameplay and story.
Story and gameplay can be integrated together, can be two sides of the same coin. Avelone and Kojimas games show that. If the writer dislikes gameplay, then the story is going to be dissassociated with the gameplay. An example in DA2 would be how Templars are blind if your a mage. Thats story being unrelated to the gameplay. Avelone and Kojima would never let that fly.
centauri2002 wrote...
I think I'd prefer to have a writer on a games development team who disliked combat but was good at writing than a writer who loved combat and disliked storytelling. Besides, a writer isn't going to have an affect on how the gameplay turns out. A writer affects the story, so their focus should be on that. She is but one cog in a very large machine.
Also, OP, you seem to be under the illusion that gameplay is all that is important to a game. Well, games have evolved since the days of Pong, or so I like to think. There are many factors that go into making a good game, particularly the RPGs that BioWare make. One such thing is story, along with dialogue, atmosphere, music, environments, etc etc. The so-called gameplay is just a part of it.
So I think the story's just as important as the gameplay.
Personally, I can play through a game with a great story but poor gameplay (as long as it isn't too long and monotonous) but I can't stand games without a decent story but might have some good gameplay. I guess different players have different priorities.
Did Heppler have anything to do with the parachuting enemies? Or the overall game design?House_Hlaalu wrote...
centauri2002 wrote...
I think I'd prefer to have a writer on a games development team who disliked combat but was good at writing than a writer who loved combat and disliked storytelling. Besides, a writer isn't going to have an affect on how the gameplay turns out. A writer affects the story, so their focus should be on that. She is but one cog in a very large machine.
Also, OP, you seem to be under the illusion that gameplay is all that is important to a game. Well, games have evolved since the days of Pong, or so I like to think. There are many factors that go into making a good game, particularly the RPGs that BioWare make. One such thing is story, along with dialogue, atmosphere, music, environments, etc etc. The so-called gameplay is just a part of it.
So I think the story's just as important as the gameplay.
Personally, I can play through a game with a great story but poor gameplay (as long as it isn't too long and monotonous) but I can't stand games without a decent story but might have some good gameplay. I guess different players have different priorities.
Gameplay is of utmost importance, even in a story focused game. Think, a game like Metal Gear Solid probably has some of the best videogame plot out there, but it also had killer gameplay and revolutionary moments (specifically in MGS1).
DA2 had crap gameplay with its parachuting enemies. It also had crap story imo, but thats subjective. Someone above liked its story, but had to use Console commands to skip through the gameplay to see that story. That there, is bad game design.
What im saying is, gameplay and plot don't have to be unrelated, they can complement each other, which in turn makes better gameplay and better story than if they ignored each other.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I happen to agree entirely with Jennifer's remarks, and I'd like to see BioWare implement them.
However, they appear to be moving in the opposite direction.
centauri2002 wrote...
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Ive got a feeling someone like Chriss Avelone and Hideo Kojima like gameplay. Who makes better games with better gameplay and story.
Story and gameplay can be integrated together, can be two sides of the same coin. Avelone and Kojimas games show that. If the writer dislikes gameplay, then the story is going to be dissassociated with the gameplay. An example in DA2 would be how Templars are blind if your a mage. Thats story being unrelated to the gameplay. Avelone and Kojima would never let that fly.
That's hugely presumptuous of you. I don't think one single person is responsible for the quality of a game, so that's no proof for anything. It's the directors and producers jobs to see that all the separate parts of a game mesh well together, not the writers and programmers. If you want to blame someone, blame them.
Omega Torsk wrote...
Fighting presents the challenge! If you remove that, then... what is the point?
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Gameplay is of utmost importance, even in a story focused game. Think, a game like Metal Gear Solid probably has some of the best videogame plot out there, but it also had killer gameplay and revolutionary moments (specifically in MGS1).
DA2 had crap gameplay with its parachuting enemies. It also had crap story imo, but thats subjective. Someone above liked its story, but had to use Console commands to skip through the gameplay to see that story. That there, is bad game design.
What im saying is, gameplay and plot don't have to be unrelated, they can complement each other, which in turn makes better gameplay and better story than if they ignored each other.
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Avelone and especially Kojima are leads and take all the creative decisions for the game. They visualise and decide what is going to happen, and the programmers make it happen. But the leads decide what the programmers make. So yes, it can be attributed to Avelone and Kojima.
When the head changes, the changes in a game are very noticeable. DA2 had Laidlaw wheres DAO had Brent Knowles. Its clear that Laidlaw had a large influence on DA2. Had DA2 been Knowles, DA2 would be very different, in fact the game could even be very good because 1 and a half years is ample time to make a god-tier game if you don't change the formula around too much. DA2 was only rushed because they tried to start over anew when they didn't have enough time.
House_Hlaalu wrote...
centauri2002 wrote...
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Ive got a feeling someone like Chriss Avelone and Hideo Kojima like gameplay. Who makes better games with better gameplay and story.
Story and gameplay can be integrated together, can be two sides of the same coin. Avelone and Kojimas games show that. If the writer dislikes gameplay, then the story is going to be dissassociated with the gameplay. An example in DA2 would be how Templars are blind if your a mage. Thats story being unrelated to the gameplay. Avelone and Kojima would never let that fly.
That's hugely presumptuous of you. I don't think one single person is responsible for the quality of a game, so that's no proof for anything. It's the directors and producers jobs to see that all the separate parts of a game mesh well together, not the writers and programmers. If you want to blame someone, blame them.
Avelone and especially Kojima are leads and take all the creative decisions for the game. They visualise and decide what is going to happen, and the programmers make it happen. But the leads decide what the programmers make. So yes, it can be attributed to Avelone and Kojima.
When the head changes, the changes in a game are very noticeable. DA2 had Laidlaw wheres DAO had Brent Knowles. Its clear that Laidlaw had a large influence on DA2. Had DA2 been Knowles, DA2 would be very different, in fact the game could even be very good because 1 and a half years is ample time to make a god-tier game if you don't change the formula around too much. DA2 was only rushed because they tried to start over anew when they didn't have enough time.
centauri2002 wrote...
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Gameplay is of utmost importance, even in a story focused game. Think, a game like Metal Gear Solid probably has some of the best videogame plot out there, but it also had killer gameplay and revolutionary moments (specifically in MGS1).
DA2 had crap gameplay with its parachuting enemies. It also had crap story imo, but thats subjective. Someone above liked its story, but had to use Console commands to skip through the gameplay to see that story. That there, is bad game design.
What im saying is, gameplay and plot don't have to be unrelated, they can complement each other, which in turn makes better gameplay and better story than if they ignored each other.
I agree, quality gameplay and story make for an excellent game. But I see them as being equally important. Games have surpassed being simply about shooting a pixel from the lower portion of the screen to a group of pixels at the top.
But, I don't think a writer needs to enjoy all aspects of gameplay to write a good story for that game. Any writer worth their salt will be able to write well regardless of the subject matter. We'd all be pretty limited if we could only write what we truly loved. Yes, it might turn out better if there's passion behind those words but just because a writer doesn't like the gameplay, doesn't mean they hate the game's story and lore.
centauri2002 wrote...
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Avelone and especially Kojima are leads and take all the creative decisions for the game. They visualise and decide what is going to happen, and the programmers make it happen. But the leads decide what the programmers make. So yes, it can be attributed to Avelone and Kojima.
When the head changes, the changes in a game are very noticeable. DA2 had Laidlaw wheres DAO had Brent Knowles. Its clear that Laidlaw had a large influence on DA2. Had DA2 been Knowles, DA2 would be very different, in fact the game could even be very good because 1 and a half years is ample time to make a god-tier game if you don't change the formula around too much. DA2 was only rushed because they tried to start over anew when they didn't have enough time.
The original post was referring to a writer, not an executive producer, so the example isn't really relevant.
If you were talking about the heads of these games, then I'd have to say that it would be advantageous that they enjoy playing the games too.
House_Hlaalu wrote...
Yes, but if your writer doesn't like gameplay, how can they complement each other. The writer must like gameplay.
Retour en haut