236 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

spirosz wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...
What? Good gameplay is the foundation of a good game, and the very pillar of games in general. Sure, good gameplay doesn't necessarily guaruntee that the game will be good, but a lack thereof goes a long way towards making a bad game. Take Dark Souls, for instance. The story is almost non-existent, but the gameplay is, for the most part, phenomenal, and the game is treated as such. You can't have a good game without good gameplay.

Demon Souls is better, trollface.
I wonder why the word gameplay has 'game'? 

It probably is, and your guess is as good as mine.

[Mathias]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...
ME1 also has huge holes of stupid, but ME1 lovers usually choose to ignore them. And you just admitted that the latter 2 games are better at the actual gaming parts to them, which is my point.

They are no where in comparison to ME3's issues.

And honestly, the "gaming" parts of the ME games I enjoy most is the talky parts. That's the game. Make choices, talk to people. Role Play.

ME3 dumbs that down to a fraction of what it was.

Simply because a game has good shooting doesn't make it a good game. Much like how a book can have great grammar structure but I still wouldn't rate it a good book if it's full of stupid and boring.

What? Good gameplay is the foundation of a good game, and the very pillar of games in general. Sure, good gameplay doesn't necessarily guaruntee that the game will be good, but a lack thereof goes a long way towards making a bad game. Take Dark Souls, for instance. The story is almost non-existent, but the gameplay is, for the most part, phenomenal, and the game is treated as such. You can't have a good game without good gameplay.

That's not true at all. Maybe if this were the 80s or 90s you'd have a point but games have gone through such a huge evolution since then, depending on the game you're making, story can come first before gameplay. Take Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid 4, or The Walking Dead. Whether you personally enjoyed those games or not is irrelevant, because those games were critically acclaimed by critics and players, and guess what? They didn't have much gameplay in them. Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 20 mai 2013 - 01:22 .

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

 Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

So did Mass Effect 3. 

:innocent:

[spirosz]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...
ME1 also has huge holes of stupid, but ME1 lovers usually choose to ignore them. And you just admitted that the latter 2 games are better at the actual gaming parts to them, which is my point.

They are no where in comparison to ME3's issues.

And honestly, the "gaming" parts of the ME games I enjoy most is the talky parts. That's the game. Make choices, talk to people. Role Play.

ME3 dumbs that down to a fraction of what it was.

Simply because a game has good shooting doesn't make it a good game. Much like how a book can have great grammar structure but I still wouldn't rate it a good book if it's full of stupid and boring.

What? Good gameplay is the foundation of a good game, and the very pillar of games in general. Sure, good gameplay doesn't necessarily guaruntee that the game will be good, but a lack thereof goes a long way towards making a bad game. Take Dark Souls, for instance. The story is almost non-existent, but the gameplay is, for the most part, phenomenal, and the game is treated as such. You can't have a good game without good gameplay.

That's not true at all. Maybe if this were the 80s or 90s you'd have a point but games have gone through such a huge evolution since then, depending on the game you're making, story can come first before gameplay. Take Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid 4, or The Walking Dead. Whether you personally enjoyed those games or not is irrelevant, because those games were critically acclaimed by critics and players, and guess what? They didn't have much gameplay in them. Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

Um... Mdoggy.  ME3 has been critically acclaimed as well, what's your point?  We're here on a Bioware focused site, of course this is going to seem vocal or picking out countless polls/sites/whatever of dislike. 

Are you involved with SPIKE TV!?!?!?!??!?!?! 

Speculations. 

[Mathias]

spirosz wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...
ME1 also has huge holes of stupid, but ME1 lovers usually choose to ignore them. And you just admitted that the latter 2 games are better at the actual gaming parts to them, which is my point.

They are no where in comparison to ME3's issues.

And honestly, the "gaming" parts of the ME games I enjoy most is the talky parts. That's the game. Make choices, talk to people. Role Play.

ME3 dumbs that down to a fraction of what it was.

Simply because a game has good shooting doesn't make it a good game. Much like how a book can have great grammar structure but I still wouldn't rate it a good book if it's full of stupid and boring.

What? Good gameplay is the foundation of a good game, and the very pillar of games in general. Sure, good gameplay doesn't necessarily guaruntee that the game will be good, but a lack thereof goes a long way towards making a bad game. Take Dark Souls, for instance. The story is almost non-existent, but the gameplay is, for the most part, phenomenal, and the game is treated as such. You can't have a good game without good gameplay.

That's not true at all. Maybe if this were the 80s or 90s you'd have a point but games have gone through such a huge evolution since then, depending on the game you're making, story can come first before gameplay. Take Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid 4, or The Walking Dead. Whether you personally enjoyed those games or not is irrelevant, because those games were critically acclaimed by critics and players, and guess what? They didn't have much gameplay in them. Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

Um... Mdoggy.  ME3 has been critically acclaimed as well, what's your point?  We're here on a Bioware focused site, of course this is going to seem vocal or picking out countless polls/sites/whatever of dislike. 

Are you involved with SPIKE TV!?!?!?!??!?!?! 

Speculations. 

I was saying you don't need to have good gameplay to be a good game, and then I brought up Walking Dead as an example. I have no idea what you and Dreamgazer are talking about, bringing Mass Effect 3 into this. Did I say "Walking Dead won GOTY, pfff unlike Mass Effect 3"?

No I didn't.  I was responding to Leonardo's claim that you need to have good gameplay to be a good game.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 20 mai 2013 - 01:33 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...
ME1 also has huge holes of stupid, but ME1 lovers usually choose to ignore them. And you just admitted that the latter 2 games are better at the actual gaming parts to them, which is my point.

They are no where in comparison to ME3's issues.

And honestly, the "gaming" parts of the ME games I enjoy most is the talky parts. That's the game. Make choices, talk to people. Role Play.

ME3 dumbs that down to a fraction of what it was.

Simply because a game has good shooting doesn't make it a good game. Much like how a book can have great grammar structure but I still wouldn't rate it a good book if it's full of stupid and boring.

What? Good gameplay is the foundation of a good game, and the very pillar of games in general. Sure, good gameplay doesn't necessarily guaruntee that the game will be good, but a lack thereof goes a long way towards making a bad game. Take Dark Souls, for instance. The story is almost non-existent, but the gameplay is, for the most part, phenomenal, and the game is treated as such. You can't have a good game without good gameplay.

That's not true at all. Maybe if this were the 80s or 90s you'd have a point but games have gone through such a huge evolution since then, depending on the game you're making, story can come first before gameplay. Take Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid 4, or The Walking Dead. Whether you personally enjoyed those games or not is irrelevant, because those games were critically acclaimed by critics and players, and guess what? They didn't have much gameplay in them. Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

What you've listed were far closer to cinematic experiences than games. Really, TWD is more like an interactive novella than it is a game. Also, didn't Heavy Rain have a rather ridiculous story full of various holes and contrivances? I haven't played it myself, I admit, but a friend of mine has, and his opinion of the game was less than flattering. Either way, what you've listed, with the exception of MGS4 (which did have rather good gameplay, if I recall correctly), skirt the boundaries of what qualifies as a traditional game, as arbitrary as those qualifications are. In short, if you're attempting to make a conventional game with conventional gameplay (which is what ME was), then the gameplay for that conventional game must be good, at the very least, for it to be a good game.

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I was saying you don't need to have good gameplay to be a good game, and then I brought up Walking Dead as an example. I have no idea what you and Dreamgazer are talking about, bringing Mass Effect 3 into this. Did I say "Walking Dead won GOTY, pfff unlike Mass Effect 3"?

No I didn't.  I was responding to Leonardo's claim that you need to have good gameplay to be a good game.

Lighten up, hombre. It was done in jest.

I understand what you're saying, but you'll also find something pretty consistent when you're doing some reading on The Walking Dead and Heavy Rain: journalist and reviewers struggle with calling it "a game".

Modifié par dreamgazer, 20 mai 2013 - 01:40 .

[Mathias]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...
ME1 also has huge holes of stupid, but ME1 lovers usually choose to ignore them. And you just admitted that the latter 2 games are better at the actual gaming parts to them, which is my point.

They are no where in comparison to ME3's issues.

And honestly, the "gaming" parts of the ME games I enjoy most is the talky parts. That's the game. Make choices, talk to people. Role Play.

ME3 dumbs that down to a fraction of what it was.

Simply because a game has good shooting doesn't make it a good game. Much like how a book can have great grammar structure but I still wouldn't rate it a good book if it's full of stupid and boring.

What? Good gameplay is the foundation of a good game, and the very pillar of games in general. Sure, good gameplay doesn't necessarily guaruntee that the game will be good, but a lack thereof goes a long way towards making a bad game. Take Dark Souls, for instance. The story is almost non-existent, but the gameplay is, for the most part, phenomenal, and the game is treated as such. You can't have a good game without good gameplay.

That's not true at all. Maybe if this were the 80s or 90s you'd have a point but games have gone through such a huge evolution since then, depending on the game you're making, story can come first before gameplay. Take Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid 4, or The Walking Dead. Whether you personally enjoyed those games or not is irrelevant, because those games were critically acclaimed by critics and players, and guess what? They didn't have much gameplay in them. Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

What you've listed were far closer to cinematic experiences than games. Really, TWD is more like an interactive novella than it is a game.
 

Games are games.

Also, didn't Heavy Rain have a rather ridiculous story full of various holes and contrivances? I haven't played it myself, I admit, but a friend of mine has, and his opinion of the game was less than flattering.

It was still received well by other people, hence why I said your personal opinion isn't really all the relevant.

Either way, what you've listed, with the exception of MGS4 (which did have rather good gameplay, if I recall correctly), skirt the boundaries of what qualifies as a traditional game, as arbitrary as those qualifications are. In short, if you're attempting to make a conventional game with conventional gameplay (which is what ME was), then the gameplay for that conventional game must be good, at the very least, for it to be a good game.

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

[Mathias]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I was saying you don't need to have good gameplay to be a good game, and then I brought up Walking Dead as an example. I have no idea what you and Dreamgazer are talking about, bringing Mass Effect 3 into this. Did I say "Walking Dead won GOTY, pfff unlike Mass Effect 3"?

No I didn't.  I was responding to Leonardo's claim that you need to have good gameplay to be a good game.

Lighten up, hombre. It was done in jest.

I understand what you're saying, but you'll also find something pretty consistent when you're doing some reading on The Walking Dead and Heavy Rain: journalist and reviewers struggle with calling it "a game".

I had a feeling you were joking, until Spirosz chimed in, so I assumed you were being serious too.

[spirosz]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I was saying you don't need to have good gameplay to be a good game, and then I brought up Walking Dead as an example. I have no idea what you and Dreamgazer are talking about, bringing Mass Effect 3 into this. Did I say "Walking Dead won GOTY, pfff unlike Mass Effect 3"?

No I didn't.  I was responding to Leonardo's claim that you need to have good gameplay to be a good game.

Lighten up, hombre. It was done in jest.

I understand what you're saying, but you'll also find something pretty consistent when you're doing some reading on The Walking Dead and Heavy Rain: journalist and reviewers struggle with calling it "a game".

^And that's the core of it.  I've been in countless arguments about Heavy Rain (and I adore this game), but this isn't the place for it.  I can see the exact same thing happening with Beyond as well.  

[spirosz]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

It did have good gameplay.

Good RPG related gameplay.  

[Mathias]

spirosz wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

It did have good gameplay.

Good RPG related gameplay.  

Agreed.

[dreamgazer]

spirosz wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

It did have good gameplay.

Good RPG related gameplay.  

I've also played worse TPS and spellcasting games than the first ME.

It's a recipe.

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

It did have good gameplay.

Good RPG related gameplay.  

I've also played worse TPS and spellcasting games than the first ME.

It's a recipe.

Darksiders better not be on that list  lol

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Games are games.

It was still received well by other people, hence why I said your personal opinion isn't really all the relevant.

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

But what makes them games? Oh, yes, their gameplay! The very core aspect of a game! If TWD had a few horrendous mechanics that unnecessarily complicated the actual playing of what little game there is, would people really call it a good game? No, they'd say it succeeds as a story, but fails as a game.

So is Call of Duty, which really only has one thing going for it: gameplay. In fact, there are many more games that are more renowned for their gameplay than any other feature.

And, yes, while Mass Effect might certainly be popular (at least as more of a cult classic), it is eclipsed in popularity by its sequels, who shifted increasingly towards better gameplay rather than a renowned story.

Games are games. And what defines a game? Its gameplay.

[Mathias]

I actually don't even think the combat in ME1 is deserving of the title "Bad". It wasn't good, i'll agree with that. But to me, it was just....there. I think the combat succeeded in getting it's point across. Did the combat get any better during the Battle of the Citadel? No. But what was going on story wise is what made the combat section exciting. Same thing with the combat in Feros. Do I shoot the ExoGeni Scientists or do I save them?

So while the combat itself wasn't good, I think it succeeded in feeling like it was part of the story, and that was good enough for me.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

ME1 SUCKS! I couldn't care less about role playing

[spirosz]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME1 SUCKS! I couldn't care less about role playing

You've swayed me.  

Modifié par spirosz, 20 mai 2013 - 01:59 .

[Mathias]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Games are games.

It was still received well by other people, hence why I said your personal opinion isn't really all the relevant.

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

And, yes, while Mass Effect might certainly be popular (at least as more of a cult classic), it is eclipsed in popularity by its sequels, who shifted increasingly towards better gameplay rather than a renowned story.

Games are games. And what defines a game? Its gameplay.

There are plenty of people out there who enjoyed Mass Effect 1 more than the other two. And don't even break out the nostalgia argument on that one. A lot of people couldn't stand a lot of the gameplay mechanics in Resident Evil, but it succeeded so well in other departments that it became one of most popular and successful franchises in gaming.

[ref]

'IntelligentME3Fanboy'

'ME1 SUCKS!'

haha.


Imo, ME1 is actually the most focused of the three. ME1 focused mainly on story and dialogue. It's combat suffered because of that. (Even then, I think the combat is fine).

ME2 and ME3 were trying to emulate Gears of War. They were trying to make great and fluid gameplay but also try and make a great story, but imo they did neither of those well in 2/3.

But that's just me.

Modifié par Refara, 20 mai 2013 - 02:03 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME1 SUCKS! I couldn't care less about role playing

Bah, go away, troll! We were having a relatively civilized discussion about our plebeian opinions on the nature of games before you arrived.

[spirosz]

I guess we're looking at it from a different perspective. Some people like to critique games as a whole and how they view games. Where as say, me personally, if the gameplay has issues (yet minor, where it won't stop me from playing) I'll be able to look past it.  I'm still more of a story/character first, gameplay later. Well actually - atmosphere/music first, but that relates to what is created in that universe as well... haha.

Modifié par spirosz, 20 mai 2013 - 02:04 .

[Mathias]

Mass Effect 1 was a flawed gem. While it did have it's issues, none of them were gamebreaking, and for all it's problems it absolutely shined in other departments. That first conversation with Sovereign was one of the coolest and creepiest moments this gen imo.

[spirosz]

Oh for sure. It's FPS and graphical pop up issues were hilarious, it's inventory, copy and paste maps, etc. It's story was pretty simplistic too, but I still love it.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Games are games.

It was still received well by other people, hence why I said your personal opinion isn't really all the relevant.

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

And, yes, while Mass Effect might certainly be popular (at least as more of a cult classic), it is eclipsed in popularity by its sequels, who shifted increasingly towards better gameplay rather than a renowned story.

Games are games. And what defines a game? Its gameplay.

There are plenty of people out there who enjoyed Mass Effect 1 more than the other two. And don't even break out the nostalgia argument on that one. A lot of people couldn't stand a lot of the gameplay mechanics in Resident Evil, but it succeeded so well in other departments that it became one of most popular and successful franchises in gaming.

And there are just as many, if not more, who enjoyed the sequels more than ME. Secondly, it was some of the true "survival horror" gameplay elements that made RE so popular. It's innovative gameplay is what really hooked people.