Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 7723353" data-attributes="member: 6801286">I'd argue that a game can be great despite having the flaw of having lots of bits and pieces. Its not a binary thing. The boardgame Dead of Winter has a ton of bits and pieces too, and yes, that's bad. But its a great game regardless. But likewise the boardgame Descent has bits and pieces to a ludicrous degree, and it kills it. Many people would decline to play Decent after seeing the box.[ATTACH]88167[/ATTACH]Merciful Zeus!That is an entirely different thing. Having a large deck to choose from, does not overcomplicate the game. Where as having dozens of tokens to track health, sanity, food, money, trash, weapons, is definitely a negative. It is inelligant design. And like I said, it doesn't automatically make a game bad, because all games have flaws. One of my favourite games is Arkham Horror, and that game has way too many bits and pieces. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad.Almost never in my opinion. Bits and pieces make a game more clunky, there are more things to get lost when playing it, and it is often the result of trying to (poorly) translate videogame statistics into a boardgame format. If you could find a way to track said statistics without the aid of countless tokens, the game would without a doubt be better for it. All game design is subjective, and a matter of personal preference.Lots of modern games are all about allowing the player to progress, and experience more of the game. I think that does make the games more easy, but it also shows a stronger commitment to make the games fun (which ultimately I would argue is the goal). Would a game like Silent Hill benefit from being really hard? What if you had to redo boss fights multiple times, instead of killing them on your first try? What if the puzzles were way more difficult, and you were stuck on them for several days? Would the Silent Hill games be better that way? I don't think they would. With a horror game like Silent Hill, its more about getting the player to experience more horror, and not about challenging their fighting and/or puzzling skills. It would be an entirely different game if it did.Likewise, would Uncharted be a better game if the combat was harder? No it wouldn't. You can play the game on "crushing" difficulty, and immediately find out just how utterly frustrating and repetitive the combat can be if the game is unforgiving. Uncharted is all about the story, the characters, and feeling like you're Indiana Jones. Many of the cool combat moves would not be possible if you simply got shot to pieces. But the game is deliberately more forgiving, because the designers want the player to get out of hiding, and not just stay behind a rock all day. Also, I think the designers are aware that the combat just isn't really good. Its not one of the game's strengths, despite them all having a large focus on shooting.Dark Souls is a very niche game in that regard. The difficulty of the series turns a lot of players away, but for those who really like a good challenge, it is very rewarding. But I don't think that all games should follow that example. Is it though? Or is more that we now have higher standards? I think despite the endless stream of boring cover based shooters, there's been a lot of noteworthy improvements to videogames over the years. For example, we are no longer required to redo an entire level if we lose. Most games have checkpoints now. Most games also mix up their mechanics more often, and they have very clear tutorials. I think the reason why I like old school games, is pure nostalgia. When I was young I had the patience to master those games, and our choice was limited. We didn't have internet reviews yet, so we had to rely on reviews in game magazines, or more often than not, we simply bought a game blindly. Sure, there's some gems among the classics. But I can also recognize some poor design decissions in some of them. And if I look at the games that I still occasionally play, there's very few of them. I have quite a few games for the classic NES, but out of all of those the only ones I play are: -Zelda 1 (because it is a great game and stood the test of time)-Megaman 2 (for being the best, and perhaps also the easiest in the series)-Super Mario Bros 3 (For being like Mario 1, but better. Better graphics, better music, more gameplay variety, better controls)-Castlevania 3 (for improving on the formula, having varied levels and enemies, and having awesome music)-TMNT 3 (because its just about the best sidescrolling multiplayer brawler, just short of Golden Axe). All the others, garbage, mostly.And you may notice that a lot of these are sequels. A lot of game designers were just popping these games out very quickly, and more often than not just throwing stuff at the wall, and seeing what sticks. The first game in a series was rarely the best one (Zelda being a rare exception to the rule), and important improvements were often made to the games in the sequel.</blockquote>

Verification