Original Post
Playability.
I've been a 'semi-gamer' since the GameBoy Color came out, but back then, I never really noticed that most games have boiled down to the same thing. Lately, games have lost their luster, because I've seen most everything, and done most everything. Some games never get old, though, and that's because they're constantly thinking of new ways to hook you. Fighting games-- most of them-- have become incredibly obsolete. How many times can you watch Ryu's Hadoken and still be amazed by it? It impressed me when I was thirteen, but that's about it. Honestly, Tekken? The thrill of unlocking characters has been replaced by online play, but really, it's more annoying to watch someone you don't know beat the crap out of you with cheap tricks, than it is to watch your friend.
Games like Call Of Duty, though overrated, do provide a kind of enjoyment though. I know a lot of people don't really like World At War, but it's multiplayer is actually much better than Modern Warfare (That is, in my opinion). The weapons all fit the era, thus making it that much more fun. It's things like that, that help keep playability in line. Perhaps the greatest example of eternal playability, though, is Final Fantasy. Though the mechanics of the game remained the same throughout the first few, the stories constantly changed. Not only that, but I did feel a sympathy for the characters. Things like that set games apart. How many times have you watched a character take an emotion journey, and said "Wow, that was a good game?", only to see the same exact thing happen in the sequel, which entertained you a great deal less?
Honestly, I think games should end franchises after the second edition. It just makes things flow more, don't you think?
Games like Call Of Duty, though overrated, do provide a kind of enjoyment though. I know a lot of people don't really like World At War, but it's multiplayer is actually much better than Modern Warfare (That is, in my opinion). The weapons all fit the era, thus making it that much more fun. It's things like that, that help keep playability in line. Perhaps the greatest example of eternal playability, though, is Final Fantasy. Though the mechanics of the game remained the same throughout the first few, the stories constantly changed. Not only that, but I did feel a sympathy for the characters. Things like that set games apart. How many times have you watched a character take an emotion journey, and said "Wow, that was a good game?", only to see the same exact thing happen in the sequel, which entertained you a great deal less?
Honestly, I think games should end franchises after the second edition. It just makes things flow more, don't you think?
No. Look at the ninetndo franchises: Mario, and Zelda. Every installment of these games adds something new (Think Mario Paper/Sunshine/Galaxy, Zelda OOT, MM, 4Swords) Most of these games are incredible and perfected, although so slide here or there.
To me what makes a single player game playable is a good story and challenges. Starfox 64 is a good example. It has surface game that is easy enough to play through which is augmented by a good story and game play. But if you go back and replay missions you can unlock other paths, or planets, to follow. This adds replayability.
In multiplayer I'm looking for the ability to mess around with friends (rl or otherwise) and constantly seeking an different online experience. What I mean by that is that regardless of how much you play it, there are going to be permutations, however so slight, that change the situation: you have to think on your feet, improvise, and adapt if you want to stay on top.
Also fighting games (SSB) are amazing for multiplayer. I'm not playing games to be amazed by the graphics, but to be amazed by the gameplay.
To me what makes a single player game playable is a good story and challenges. Starfox 64 is a good example. It has surface game that is easy enough to play through which is augmented by a good story and game play. But if you go back and replay missions you can unlock other paths, or planets, to follow. This adds replayability.
In multiplayer I'm looking for the ability to mess around with friends (rl or otherwise) and constantly seeking an different online experience. What I mean by that is that regardless of how much you play it, there are going to be permutations, however so slight, that change the situation: you have to think on your feet, improvise, and adapt if you want to stay on top.
Also fighting games (SSB) are amazing for multiplayer. I'm not playing games to be amazed by the graphics, but to be amazed by the gameplay.
bro i havn't been on because the last time we fought you hit me so hard it uninstalled the game
That's what I'm saying... The gameplay on a lot of games has become so perfected, that there's no need for a sequel.
Are you crazy? Modern Warfare was amazing online. Infinity Ward really knows how to make a good online shooter. CoD1 and 2 were also amazing to play online. CoD3 and WaW were meh for me online.
i have a totally post modern tattoo of a scalene triangle.
<DeadorK> fair maiden<DeadorK> if the cum is going to be in your mouth
<DeadorK> it shall be in mine as well
I have to say, what is the difference between Modern Warfare and World at War anyway? All i can see is different balance on the weapons, different models and names for the weapons and soldiers, and different maps, oh and dogs instead of helicopters.
Then they resell it as a 'new game'. Nice.
All the games these days dont seem to be as exciting and fun as they used to be, and i think Guitaroo is right when he talks about the lack of local interactment, I know I only play shooters when im playing with people I know, and even then i usually only play at LANs.
Games now days dont exactly follow the 'right way' to make a sequel. For example, really when you think hard about it, all the CoDs are pretty much the same, i mean yeah they perfected some of the systems and made it feel like there was a lot more achievement, but the game is still the same.
Then look at the Prince of Persia chain, we have Prince of Persia (the original), and its sequal Prince of Persia two: The shadow and the flame. Then we have the next in the series, that isnt exactly a sequal, Prince of Persia 3D. At the point the series is pretty much mature, so they opt for a new series with completely different gameplay, the Sands of Time trillogy, and finally the completely new Prince of Persia (200
, once again with new gameplay. This is how a game should mature, it goes through a number of phases, changing significantly at each one. In the way of Mario games, you have a lot of different genres tied to one franchise, which makes an unnatural variety.
So long as they mix it up, im cool with franchises running for a long time.
Another example would be Wacraft. Warcraft 1 was 2D, and featured 2 races, WC2 was 2d aswell, and featured 4 races as well as online gameplay, which was very significant, and was the beginning of the maturation of the series, the current installment of WC3 focused more on bringing the game up to standard graphics wise, and on setting up a more usable online interface and editor. This is when the series is basically completely mature, and from now on we dont really expect another expansion, and if so it will merely be expanding on the content.
We expect 4 races, an improved editor and an improved online interface, but we dont expect anything significant from the matured series.
Certainly Warcraft 4 should be the end of the series, unless they can present anything new and groundbreaking.
Then they resell it as a 'new game'. Nice.
All the games these days dont seem to be as exciting and fun as they used to be, and i think Guitaroo is right when he talks about the lack of local interactment, I know I only play shooters when im playing with people I know, and even then i usually only play at LANs.
Games now days dont exactly follow the 'right way' to make a sequel. For example, really when you think hard about it, all the CoDs are pretty much the same, i mean yeah they perfected some of the systems and made it feel like there was a lot more achievement, but the game is still the same.
Then look at the Prince of Persia chain, we have Prince of Persia (the original), and its sequal Prince of Persia two: The shadow and the flame. Then we have the next in the series, that isnt exactly a sequal, Prince of Persia 3D. At the point the series is pretty much mature, so they opt for a new series with completely different gameplay, the Sands of Time trillogy, and finally the completely new Prince of Persia (200
, once again with new gameplay. This is how a game should mature, it goes through a number of phases, changing significantly at each one. In the way of Mario games, you have a lot of different genres tied to one franchise, which makes an unnatural variety.So long as they mix it up, im cool with franchises running for a long time.
Another example would be Wacraft. Warcraft 1 was 2D, and featured 2 races, WC2 was 2d aswell, and featured 4 races as well as online gameplay, which was very significant, and was the beginning of the maturation of the series, the current installment of WC3 focused more on bringing the game up to standard graphics wise, and on setting up a more usable online interface and editor. This is when the series is basically completely mature, and from now on we dont really expect another expansion, and if so it will merely be expanding on the content.
We expect 4 races, an improved editor and an improved online interface, but we dont expect anything significant from the matured series.
Certainly Warcraft 4 should be the end of the series, unless they can present anything new and groundbreaking.
When I see you, my heart goes DOKI⑨DOKI
Fish: "Gorman has been chosen for admin. After a lengthy discussion we've all decided that Gorman is the best choice for the next admin."
