Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

Extremely long introduction/"easing in" periods

I don't have a problem with this in games like Half-Life

Full stop!

What Half-life did however was make each section of the game very tight for each weapon. Even when you are stuck with a very limited arsenal were your choices and tactics still vast. The reason why the long easing in period didn't hurt was because there was no easing in period... Sure you didn't start the game with the rocket, but the section of the game where you are armed only with the Crowbar was just as good as the section (if not better) where you finally get the assault rifle.

I didn't mean to say that Half-Life was too slow, by all means it's excellent at keeping the action going, although it's easy to get lost in a few levels with repetitive designs. and confusing layouts.

By "easing in" I meant the very opening part of a game where there's not very much actual gameplay, like character creation in Morrowind, or Kokiri Forest before you get to the Deku Tree in Ocarina of Time. Not necessarily cutscenes or tutorials, just walking around waiting until you stumble upon the actual game.

In Half-Life, I'd say the actual gameplay starts when you get your first weapon and some enemies to fight; you're in the meat of the game now. It works because the easing-in period sets the scene for the game to follow and lets you learn game mechanics in a non-intrusive manner. It's a narrative tool that adds to the interactivity of the game by giving you a friendly, pre-conflict scenario, making it seem like there's a world that exists both before and after the game has been beaten.

In other games, it doesn't work because it feels like it's dragging it's feet. So much effortis spent trying to establish a character that you grow sincerely tired of them before any actual drama happens. You get a weapon, but you have to get a minimum score on a firing range before you actually have some things to fight. A brand new play mechanic is introduced after you've been doing without it for a while, making the feature seem tacked-on.

I really should write a column or something, I have a lot to say if you prompt me

[MadMalkavian]

[SNIP]Extremely long introduction/"easing in" periods[/SNIP]

Some people tell stories one way while other people tell stories another way, though I can understand your dislike of such things. Sometimes it gets a little repetitive going through the prison ship for the fortieth time or being allowed to live because some Anarch cried bullshit for the twelfth time and quite personally a lot of these games should have an option to skip the introduction cutscenes after having been through them once already. Most of them don't which in hindsight kind of makes me not want to play said games over and over again without taking months of rest in between playthroughs.

At least most of these character building cutscenes aren't god-awful tutorials that make you want to sterilize yourself in hopes that you don't spawn something which makes said god-awful tutorials when it finishes the maturation process. I might seriously consider disowning my offspring if they did such a thing. Wouldn't go through with it though a large sum of money might tempt me.

[Neonivek]

There are some games that basically the whole thing is the Easing in Period.

[alexandertnt]

keep listening to me talk very sloooooowly!

Really slow talking characters
Where you can either sit there for half an hour to listen the dialogue drone on and on (please talk faster!) or skip it all together (and consequently have no idea what is going on anymore).

No subtitles
(strongly related to above) I read much faster than some character can speak, I tend to read through text dialogue very quickly. Not having an option for subtitles means I have to sit there an wait for them to finish. Even if they are talking at a decent pace, I still want to read ahead and skip to the next piece of dialogue.

[Darkmere]

(stuff about slow game intros)

That reminds me of a "making of" vid I saw about God of War 2. If you aren't familiar, you start the off fully powered up from the first game and get duped into losing all your character levels during the first boss fight. The creators said they actually did the very first of the game AFTER they finished the final segments of the game, when they were familiar with the mechanics and how the rest of the game played out. Instead of a bumbling tutorial you got to play a badass for a while, and when that was removed, you were motivated to get all the cool stuff back. I wish more companies would do stuff like that - throw you right in the middle of a polished experience at the beginning.

[Krevsin]

The sword vs guns is simply cultural difference in the philosophy of war. Its basically because the USA warrior culture is born from the gun and the rest of the worlds older countries' warrior culture is born from the sword.

Actually, it is more a thing of how a weapon is percieved. The US (along with most of the West) see the weapon as a tool, a thing that a warrior needs in order to be successful, which is why a lot of Western myths, games, films contain warriors that use Magical Swords That Cannot be Defeated^tm in order to slay their foes. To put it simply, in western culture, strength derives from the tool.

In most Eastern mythologies (and by eastern mythologies, I mean the far East, China, Korea, Japan, et cetera), the power of the warrior comes from within, and their weapon is merely an extension of themselves, which is why in a lot of eastern games, characters can shoot fireballs et cetera (not by use of magic, mind you, "use" of magic (as a tool) is a western thing, in Eastern myths, magic comes from within). Put simply, in eastern culture, strength comes from within.

So, despite the fact that the Japanese were very partial to using firearms during their feudal period and despite that all eastern armies use firearms nowadays (ergo, the "philosophy of war" is partial to firearms, like in the West), the reason why eastern games contain dudes wielding swords fighting off hordes of gun-toting maniacs isn't the difference in the philosophy of war, it's a difference in how a weapon is percieved.

In eastern games, a well trained warrior can defeat said hordes of gun-toting maniacs not because his sword is better than their guns, but because he is a better warrior. Still, I preffer the realistic presentation more since there's no way in hell, even if your sword is enchanted (unless it's enchanted with Killing Your Enemies From Afar^tm (might as well invest in a gun, really) or Blocking All Projectiles^tm (Physics would like to have a word with you) that you're ever going to beat a guy with an AK-47 except in some very specific circumstances (but said specific circumstances do not neccesarily require a sword as any melee weapon would do)

[scrdest]

I'm just going to be nitpicky, but early guns were inferior to bows made in the same time - less accuracy, less range, not too much difference in power, long loading time... the thing is, to use a bow effectively you need years of training, whereas gun is 'point this bit at enemy, press this bit here and pray it hits where you want it to'.

[Krevsin]

Yep, and while the casualities from a volley of arrows could be devastating, a lot of the damage could be prevented by raising your shield and staying down, hoping that no arrows penetrate next to your arms.

But a arquebus bullet, no matter how inaccurate it was was nigh unstoppable by conventional means and sent Knights (and, partially, the Feudal system of army making) packing to the Garbage Pit of history. Oh, and it also gave rise to the Landsknecht, some of the badassest asskickers in the history of warfare.

[scrdest]

Knights were starting to become obsolete some time before the advent of firearms, which showed especially during such epic fails as Agincourt and Crecy, when conventional cavalry tactics of the time proved to be lacking, but the guns were a nail to the coffin.

[Krevsin]

Knights were, by the time they went off the scene as a thing to do, the historic battlefield equivalent of that douchebag who you've told to get lost from your party because he's ruining it for everyone and yet stays there for three more hours making failed attempts at wooing the women until someone decided to say: "Alright, that's it." whereupon they promptly grabbed him and threw him out of the window.

Or maybe that's just what I do.

[Neonivek]

in Eastern myths, magic comes from within

Uhhhhh >_>

[Krevsin]

in Eastern myths, magic comes from within

Uhhhhh >_>

Not magic as such, but the power to do it (at least semi successfully)

[Neonivek]

in Eastern myths, magic comes from within

Uhhhhh >_>

Not magic as such, but the power to do it (at least semi successfully)

Well I am not going to say your wrong... but I am going to point out the celestial beauracracy.

[Krevsin]

in Eastern myths, magic comes from within

Uhhhhh >_>

Not magic as such, but the power to do it (at least semi successfully)

Well I am not going to say your wrong... but I am going to point out the celestial beauracracy.

It is the exception that proves the rule, as some wise bloke once said. Also, China as a whole is (and, for most of the time, was) a massive sprawl of a country with countless numbers of mythologies, legends and outlooks on life, the meaning of it et cetera.

Still, a lot of Eastern mythology deals with power that comes from within and focuses more on skill rather than fancy swords gained at the local deity.

[NobodyPro]

But a arquebus bullet, no matter how inaccurate it was was nigh unstoppable by conventional means and sent Knights (and, partially, the Feudal system of army making) packing to the Garbage Pit of history.

Silence, you unscrupulous vagabond. Clearly you have not heard of Sir Arthur Haselrig’s valiant London Lobsters. Sir Arthur was shot four times at close range before some silly sod got it into his mind to attack the horse instead. Pip pip tally ho!