27 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

bEVEsthda wrote...

@ Crustybot

I'm not sure you have taken much care in reading the posts, because you are mainly talking about tactical combat, despite that I have repeatedly pointed out that is not the subject.

Doing interesting things, in the gameplay, is mainly coupled to dropping any pretensions of real-time.
That is the crunch thing that opens up all sorts of possibilities.

Sorry, it's just when you say "tactical", it invites the train of thought and combat is the only kind of gameplay you talk about. But many of the things I talked about aren't "combat" mechanics per se, they are "gameplay mechanics" that can be integrated into other situations outside of combat. Exploration, puzzles, infiltration, etc. Certain spells that can be used only in certain terrains, destructible/interactive environments, scouting and sneaking past enemies, etc.

I also don't understand why "real-time" is the big issue in all of this. There's nothing that really inhibits real time gameplay from having lots of enemies, or from having more variety in combat outcomes. That's more to do with AI and the like (Fleeing, Line of Sight detection, etc) and whether the engine or hardware is capable of running it.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 03 juin 2012 - 01:22 .

[AkiKishi]

Pokemon is very tactical. Especially once you get into breendiing and movesets. It's also very successful. Partly because you get blanket coverage because of the animes and partly because it's a very good game.

Having very distinctive matchups while some are obvious . Fire vs Grass for example. Others are much less so, especially dual types.

It's a little like Crusty's example of chain being good against slashing weapons, but useless against piercing weapons.

[bEVEsthda]

CrustyBot wrote...

I also don't understand why "real-time" is the big issue in all of this. There's nothing that really inhibits real time gameplay from having lots of enemies, or from having more variety in combat outcomes. That's more to do with AI and the like (Fleeing, Line of Sight detection, etc) and whether the engine or hardware is capable of running it.

That's not true at all. As long as you have a system that attempts to run a realtime animation, as means of feedback, you're always going to be severely limited, in terms of what you can have the system to do. Both in terms of numbers, simulation features and AI. If you don't see that, you're just thinking too small.

Secondly, there are also other good reasons to have a gameplay interface that doesn't rely on timings or actions/reactions from the gamer. 'Twitch' gaming ultimately has a very small market base, no matter how you look at it. That's one of video-gaming's big problems right now. It's kinda surprising, to see that the big publishers are so oblivious of this. They're feeling the consequences, but they're not understanding the big picture. Instead, they think focus on recruiting more young people to videogaming, or making games more "streamlined", or making games actually easier, is the solution. Meanwhile, they have in later years removed themselves and their products from the mainstream or mainstream appeal (unless you count kids).

I can only hope that EA gets the next SimCity right (despite their talent for turning everything to poop), that it becomes a success, and that EA starts to learn something from that. It's probably more likely that next SimCity turns into a kiddie- console action-romp though. Yet another EA fiasco.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 juin 2012 - 12:30 .