God of War is old news now. You guys should move on. Maybe the Spiderman thread.

Gagan said:

One might argue they've already been making games for years, nay decades around my criteria. One might say an entire genre (Fighting games) was built on this criteria, and it's the best.

Your criteria describes fighting games, it does not make them. What you claim is the pretention of the critic, and when applied to actually making something, it is the hubris on which the critic impales itself.

SupremeAC said:

It is also one of the most exclusive, as in not inclusive and very hard to get good at/enjoyment of.  

Fighting games are plenty inclusive. This weirdo myth that "challenge isn't inclusive" is wank. Games have been presenting a challenge since their inception. Be it gladiator shit, chess, or yeah video games. Be it against another player or the cpu. Fighting games is one example, it is however not the only example of games/designers recognizing the value of interactivity n depth over simply just making something pretty. I would say a shit load of Japanese devs seem to get it. For all of Kojimas wannabe movie antics, his games are full of stuff to reward the player for playing skillfully n thinking more outside the box. His games also don't take it easy on the player given the multiple difficulty options he presents the player and amount of effort he put into those modes. It's certainly a lot more than Naughty Dog puts into a shallow game like Uncharted n Crushing.

SupremeAC said:

  I can enjoy deep gameplay, but I do not feel like investing heavily in a game where I'll just get my ass handed to me because people have been playing it much longer than I have and have memorized every combo and how many frames it takes.  So lets say that high-level fighting game players get to the point where it's about self expression and mindgames, but for shmucks like us, it's just mashing buttons.

Not wanting to get good at a game, learn a game, or being ignorant of the game isn't actually on the game, that's on the player. Not saying some blame doesn't go to fighting game devs, as very few of them have great teaching tools. But way too many people are over selling how hard a fighting game is to learn. The reality is you're all fucking bad at shooters too, you just have the benefit of being on a team, n sure there is a lower skill floor. Fighting games there is no K/D stat to make you feell better, you either hold that L or you don't. But they are some of the most rewarding n richest examples of the strengths of this medium, not a different medium. And I would argue the language used to describe why fighting games are hard, is wrong.



No one counts "frames", I do not count frames. The most I do is look up stuff on dustloop (a wiki for arcsys fighting games) or a wiki equivalent to the fighting game I'm playing. But really you're just trying to learn when you're safe to attack and when you have to play some defense. That's frames in a nut shell. Which you can learn by simply playing the game and learning through matches. It's how I learned most of DBFZ. I didn't need to know vanish+jab is plus on block, when I realized I could never counter hit out of it, I realized, okay gotta hold that block. Just like I learned when they made the patch, all of a sudden I can't jab right after Bardock's lariet attack and continue my turn, I get punished by heavier damage scaling starters. Which means its negative as fuck now, hold that block. I don't need to know it's -7 or whatever, through simply playing I'm at the same result as someone who knows its -7. My turn ended because he blocked that shit.

SupremeAC said:

I also think that Foolz point was not that there haven't been many games made around depth of mechanics, but that if someone was to make a game under your guidance by your criteria, it wouldn't end up being a great game, just as Bastion was not a great game.

And if you're all going to be gassing up level design: have you guys played DK Jungle Beat on the GC (or Wii)?  The level design in that game was top notch.  Not a single platform or enemy in that game had been put in place without reason.  And now we're on the topic: I don't like the level design of Rayman Origins or Legends.  They seem to get all this praise and I'm just not seeing it.  It can't all be because they made one level nearly an endless runner to the tunes of Black Betty?

I don't think I argued that my criteria is the only way to make a game. My criteria sort of covers Bayonetta, but by definition rewards DMC3 and 4 more for giving you far more relevant choices in combat. Platinum has a different style of beat-em up play to Itsunos. Makes sense given Kamiya's love for arcade games and Itsuno's background as a fighting game dev on the Alpha series n rival schools. But I really like Bayonetta a lot more, largely because of its enemies. I don't really understand what he's been trying to get at? I have routinely said its fine if your criteria is different from mine, I said it's fine if you like certain games that I think are trash.

I also think games sell for reasons that aren't gameplay, you can't actually put gameplay on the back of a box. If you could the fighting game genre wouldn't be second fiddle to all the other mp genres. MvCI wouldn't be considered a disaster, and Resi 6 would be looked at more fondly. Aesthetic qualities clearly matter, graphics clearly sell to a broader market, and having an accessible first impression gets more people in versus beating their face in.

I however, get very little enjoyment if any out of how much a game sells or how much other people think a game is good. More to it, from a critical standpoint, that part should be irrelevant to your assessment. A good game is a good game is a good game. Whether 5 people play it or 5 million.

As for jungle beat, didn't play because I didn't want to play with bongos, and at this point it will be a hassle to get that game n the bongos. But the level design allegedly being good wouldn't surprise me. Figure a lot of that team made Super Mario Galaxy, and Galaxy neuters Marios mechanics from 64 n Sunshine (considerable loss of depth), but is a really good ass/great game. Largely because of the sheer variety of things it gets right out of simple easy mecahnics, and because the level design work is masterful n a back to basics but still flashy n creative sort of way. I'd say Rayman Origins has a tendency to drag with its level designs, but I also think those games have distinct levels. There is a fantastic sense of precision n speed to treasure chest levels, and whoever came up with the idea for a string of rayman levels built around Splinter Cell motiffs, is a fucking legend.



Level design is a lot harder to talk about, because it's not something as easy to recall about what worked in the level. Like mechanics because you use them so much through out the game, get etched into the brain, and writing them back down on paper isn't too hard. Levels, for me at least, require to be sitting down n taking notes on what one level did, and usually require some replays n experimentation. Mechanics get experimentation in the natural flow of the game, levels you can miss the genius for the parlor trick in the natural flow of the game. There was this big ass blog I was reading by some dude who did a level by level thing on fucking Wario Land, pretty legit.

Dvader said:

When you realize you and Gagan like a bunch of the same games. Lol.

I could of told you goons that lol. I don't even hate God of War, some of the absurd praise around the game is just nauseating.

Dvader said:

When you realize you and Gagan like a bunch of the same games. Lol.

Well said, I get you. There seems to be some line you don't cross which I do and I guess we can mark it with 3D Zeldas. To me there is something magical about a game that offers so much variety in things to do. That ebb and flow of openness and then pure level design with the dungeons. The feeling in this world that no matter where I go there will be some purpose whether it's a quest, a small puzzle, a hidden item. Games like MM where yeah solving some of this stuff can be as easy as being x to y but I'm still managing time, keeping track of NPC activities and figuring out how to get x to y is great.

Then you are thrust into what I feel are the best levels in gaming, the zelda dungeons. Perfect blend of all elements I love condensed in a perfect hour of gaming. New mechanics are introduced, new enemy types, new bosses, new puzzles. Yes combat is mostly busy work, no defense there, but the rest of the design is so much better I give it a pass. I would love more action games to try to do more with its level design, GoW could have used more zelda like dungeons, batman games are some of my favorites because they take the zelda like design.

I also love spectacle, the big setpiece and Sony games do this better than anyone. I also feel uncharted games have all the encounter variety and great pacing RE4 had

I like Zelda games for their presentation stuff, I actually think they low key have cute stories. But I find that their gameplay has left way too much to be desired. I kind of like Majora's Mask, but its also because its the most anti-3d Zelda game that isn't Breath of the Wild. Meanwhile the straight up Ocarina games: Ocarina, Wind Waker, n Twilight Princess I would consider not good. I just think when I think brilliant level design I'm more impressed by what Mario does or Dark Souls or Metroid, than what Zelda does.



Like Arkham City right, on paper, that combat is wack. You mash x to a certain rhythm, you throw in some y, you clothesline a goon or two with the hook, the end. Not a whole lot to that system, its at most a timing challenge at all times. The stealth is a lot of fucking with gargoyles, basic line of sight shit. But the beauty of those dungeons, and really why Asylum is still enjoyable to play, is that the stealth arenas, while directed and have an easy method. Where you just take advantage of the most basic thing, allow for some fuckery with the mooks. Setting up traps using the breakable walls, using one guard as bait to get a whole flock of them. They are a bit too one dimensional, but I'm more engaged by that aspect of the level design than Zelda dungeons. The combat works as a break in between and is at least some what demanding enough that I'm sort of engaged. I certainly am usually in more threat of failure in Buttman than I am often in a Zelda game. Even tho after a bit that part becomes a joke too.



It's one thing I'm not looking forward to with going back to Okami, and coming out thinking oh god, Kamiya actually did make a bad game once.

edgecrusher said:

God of War is old news now. You guys should move on. Maybe the Spiderman thread.

Haven't played it, what I've seen makes me think we it's not as lame as Batman combat, but it's not a Japanese action game. And the swinging around looks fun enough, if a skill less version of some of the stuff Insomniac was doing in Sunset Overdrive. So not in any hurry to try it. Rather go through the back log n wait for Devil May Cry 5 to save gaming. Oh and Remake 2. Based Capgod