Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118 ... 324

Author Topic: Gaming Pet Peeves  (Read 523404 times)

Lightningfalcon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Target locked. Firing main cannon.
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1725 on: March 02, 2015, 08:06:12 pm »

     In my opinion, casual elements are whatever removes mechanics from a game for the sake of appealing to a wider audience, or just a lack of gameplay mechanics in general.  For an example, I'll use XCOM and Command and Conquer. 
     In the original XCOM, you controlled a large set of soldiers, had a varying amount of turn units for each soldier per turn that averaged at around 50, a door of pure, unforgiving pain at the beginning of each mission, and a geoscape where the strategic battle played out in. In the new XCOM, you could only have up to six soldiers in a mission, you had up to two actions that could be taken per turn for each soldier, and a simplified version of the geoscape from the original.  How much of each of these changes is making the game more casual?  A max of six soldiers compared to the original twenty is a massive drop.  But, whenever I play the original, I rarely used all twenty at once.  I would almost always use about a third to a half of my space for tanks.  So for the Skyranger I would have ten soldiers and a tank, while for the Avenger I would have twelve soldiers and two tanks.  And even then I wouldn't use them all, , and the people I was using would be spread over a much wider area, operating my men in small squads.  Meanwhile, in the new XCOM, you almost always use all your soldiers, and they are almost always working together, only occasionally being split up on the lower difficulties.  So instead of removing complexity, you are mostly just changing the scale of the battle, while making the individual soldiers more valuable. 
     Next you had the turn units.  On one hand, with only two actions, there is a lot less that can be done.  You either move, move and do an action, or do an action.  But really, what are you going to do with 60 TUs?  Not really much will be different, but now you have to spend a minute crunching numbers to check if you will have exactly enough to run over, throw a grenade, and try to get to cover.  So there you are mainly sacrificing a small amount of extra mechanics for a much more streamlined experience.
Then you have your delivery into battle.  In the original, you dedicated at least one third of your troops to getting shot as they stormed down the platform, giving the rest of your squad time to get to the area surrounding the skyranger, making them a perfect target for grenades and blaster bombs.  In the new XCOM, you start the mission on the ground already, most of the time with no ememies in site.  However, instead of being a case of purposely removed mechanics, this is a symptom of a lower scale of combat and a change in TU functionality, since losing just one or two soldiers straight off at the beginning would be a heavy loss. 
     Finally, you have the geoscape.  From what I understand of the developers reasoning behind their simplification of it, most people only built extra bases for fighter coverage, so replacing extra base functionality with satellites was an acceptable thing to do.  This is the only major change that can truly be called casualition, because there are entire mechanics that have been removed to make it easier for new people to play.  In the original, you had to make the choice between placing all your eggs in one well defended basket, or spending the extra money to diversify your bases, allowing a total loss of your main base to be recoverable, at the cost of more spent money and extra management.  The loss of this functionality basically renders the geoscape to an issue of money, with finding the best balance between satellites, panic, and fighters.
So, overall, most of what was done was changing the core mechanics while still keeping most of the complexity, with a few exceptions.  However, when you get to Command and Conquer Four, what happened was mostly a loss of mechanics.  Having not actually played the game, I can't comment on the specifics.  But in early C&C games, you had a heavy emphasis on base building.  In the few MP games I played with my friends, along with in single player, you would have multiple bases.  Some would be large, sprawling bases that can do everything, some would be secondary bases, some would be just resource outposts, and some would be for being a dick to the other player by use of artillery and bomber emplacements.  However, C&C4 got rid of this, replacing it with some kind of Crawler shit that did all your resource management for you.  This gets rid of an entire field of mechanics, replacing it with something completely different, all in the name of making the game accessibly to a completely different audience.
So, TL;DR, a casual game has a loss or lack of complexity with nothing to make up for it.  There are no complex maneuvers that can be discovered or practiced that allow for a longer amount of gameplay, no stories that can be told, and no deep insight into the human condition that is gained. 
Logged
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum circo vincendarum
W-we just... wanted our...
Actually most of the people here explicitly wanted chaos and tragedy. So. Uh.

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1726 on: March 02, 2015, 09:17:09 pm »

Like I'm sorry, but you cannot be whimsical and a mass murderer unless you're some kind of unrelatable asshole. Killing people takes its toll on a person's mind. With western RPGs at least I'm not looking at cheerful lolis doing the murder, it's almost like I'm looking at someone who understands they're taking peoples' lives. Almost.
The Joker comes to mind.

Today, some people were murdered and their families are mourning. Are you shedding a tear? No?

The reason we don't care about the hundreds of people is they are faceless and we know nothing about them, just like those very real people who died today. But, we do know quite a lot about Satsuke (I assume you just made the character up), and as such we actually care about that character and their feelings.
I didn't murder those people, tho. It doesn't reflect on me, cause I had nothing to do with it, nor was it on me to prevent it. I'd expect it to reflect on whomever it affected.
You might if you read a story about one family, though. For instance, 'Mommy was in an accident': A family tries to heal after a fatal tragedy, an article from the Washington Post today. Personally, I had to stop several times while reading it.

Edit: Also, I agree with everything Lightningfalcon said about XCom.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 09:34:08 pm by Shadowlord »
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

Beggars` Sect

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1727 on: March 02, 2015, 10:18:43 pm »

New Xcom is a good example of a casualised - sorry, streamlined - game. There`s nothing wrong with tweaking the original, but when the major drive in development is not depth & complexity but "accessibility", "new audiences" &  "quarterly profit" then the final product will always suffer.

And if the title in question is not a major disaster it`s much easier for gamers to rationalise away - quite often, like exemplified by Lightningfalcon above in a sensible and convincing manner. Which does not change the fact it`s still a variant of post-purchase rationalisation and the reality is sadly different.

Other examples of great on surface but ultimately disappointing games: Deus Ex:HR, new Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2
Logged

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1728 on: March 02, 2015, 10:25:55 pm »

Games are targeted towards different markets. There are games that are targeted towards casual players, and these are not targeted towards hard core players, and there are games that are targeted towards hard core players.

I gave up on working out what is casual and hard core as people have different opinions on what those terms mean. More often, people just seem to characterise game elements they dislike with the core-ness they don't associate themselves with.
Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1729 on: March 02, 2015, 10:34:24 pm »

Other examples of great on surface but ultimately disappointing games: Deus Ex:HR, new Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2
Literally just finished Wasteland 2 this evening. The content gets less dense the further it goes and I hit a bit of a buggy patch around Hollywood, but the way it ended really redeemed it for me:

Logged

Lightningfalcon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Target locked. Firing main cannon.
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1730 on: March 02, 2015, 11:07:46 pm »

New Xcom is a good example of a casualised - sorry, streamlined - game. There`s nothing wrong with tweaking the original, but when the major drive in development is not depth & complexity but "accessibility", "new audiences" &  "quarterly profit" then the final product will always suffer.

And if the title in question is not a major disaster it`s much easier for gamers to rationalise away - quite often, like exemplified by Lightningfalcon above in a sensible and convincing manner. Which does not change the fact it`s still a variant of post-purchase rationalisation and the reality is sadly different.

Other examples of great on surface but ultimately disappointing games: Deus Ex:HR, new Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2
I was also going to add a large bit about how Xenonauts was able to modernize it without sacrificing everything, but my hand was getting tired.  The existence of Xenonauts is basically the reason why I can look at new XCOM and accept it how it is.  When I want small scale tactical combat with flanking manuevers, I play new XCOM.  When I want larger squad based tactics and actual strategic planning, I play Xenonauts.  Also whenever I want that air combat music. 
Logged
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum circo vincendarum
W-we just... wanted our...
Actually most of the people here explicitly wanted chaos and tragedy. So. Uh.

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1731 on: March 03, 2015, 12:44:58 am »

New Xcom is a good example of a casualised - sorry, streamlined - game. There`s nothing wrong with tweaking the original, but when the major drive in development is not depth & complexity but "accessibility", "new audiences" &  "quarterly profit" then the final product will always suffer.

And if the title in question is not a major disaster it`s much easier for gamers to rationalise away - quite often, like exemplified by Lightningfalcon above in a sensible and convincing manner. Which does not change the fact it`s still a variant of post-purchase rationalisation and the reality is sadly different.

Other examples of great on surface but ultimately disappointing games: Deus Ex:HR, new Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2
In newcom, they implemented it the old way before rebuilding it with a new game inspired by the Space Hulk boardgame because they thought the new way was better.  It wasn't about money, the devs chose "a few significant choices" over "many easily solvable ones."

Also, I love that.  We're rationalizing away our buyers remorse.  That's totally why there's all these hardcore gamers doing challenge runs, people doing multiple playthroughs, people making a super-challenging expanded mod, thousands of people watching streams and youtube videos.  Yup, we just really can't admit this game sucks.  Like we aren't enjoying it, but we have to at least try to get our money's worth.  We've made it through the first fifty hours, might as well press on for the next fifty.
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1732 on: March 03, 2015, 12:49:26 am »

Here's one: When the cable modem suddenly and mysteriously loses the internet connection and can't find it again while I'm playing a MOBA.
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1733 on: March 03, 2015, 12:59:34 am »

Blue tinting

The entire game seems to be tinted blue! I have seen it come up more recently in a number of modern games, such as Medieval Engineers and Besieged. I think it has something to do with the physically based rendering and the sky colour (some sort of fake GI?), but regardless of realism (and I doub't that that's realistic, RL certainly doesn't look that blue to me when I look out the window) it still looks bad and makes everything look flat. It doesn't help that my screen already has a nasty blue tint to it (yay, early LED backlit screens!), so everything ends up incredibly blue tinted. I'm so sick of the colour blue.
Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

Lightningfalcon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Target locked. Firing main cannon.
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1734 on: March 03, 2015, 01:09:21 am »

Blue tinting

The entire game seems to be tinted blue! I have seen it come up more recently in a number of modern games, such as Medieval Engineers and Besieged. I think it has something to do with the physically based rendering and the sky colour (some sort of fake GI?), but regardless of realism (and I doub't that that's realistic, RL certainly doesn't look that blue to me when I look out the window) it still looks bad and makes everything look flat. It doesn't help that my screen already has a nasty blue tint to it (yay, early LED backlit screens!), so everything ends up incredibly blue tinted. I'm so sick of the colour blue.
The only game I can think of that is tinted blue is Mass Effect 1.
Logged
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum circo vincendarum
W-we just... wanted our...
Actually most of the people here explicitly wanted chaos and tragedy. So. Uh.

Mech#4

  • Bay Watcher
  • (ಠ_ృ) Like a sir.
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1735 on: March 03, 2015, 02:15:23 am »

Medieval Engineers could have a blue tint due to the long distance drawing. Like how in real life distant mountains appear blue because of the atmosphere in between you and them. Besiege does have a close fog that gives a bluish tinge to things, though I thought it was quite colourful from the screenshots but maybe that's the bright explosions and fire effects.
Logged
Kaypy:Adamantine in a poorly defended fortress is the royal equivalent of an unclaimed sock on a battlefield.

Here's a thread listing Let's Players found on the internet. Feel free to add.
List of Notable Mods. Feel free to add.

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1736 on: March 03, 2015, 04:20:19 am »

I just opened up a blank Unity scene and added a white cube, lit using a single white directional light and the GI system, to demonstrate what I mean.

Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

UXLZ

  • Bay Watcher
  • God Eater
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1737 on: March 03, 2015, 04:32:49 am »

White isn't necessarily pure white in the 3D field. It's hard to have pure anything, really, otherwise it looks fake.
Logged
Ahhh~ She looked into your eyes,
And saw what laid beneath,
Don't try to save yourself,
The circle is complete.

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1738 on: March 03, 2015, 05:16:38 am »

White isn't necessarily pure white in the 3D field.

This depends on your lighting model. For a simple diffuse lighting system, yes, white light is indeed perfectly pure. perfectly white light and perfectly white texture equals perfectly white pixel.

I suspect it is the ambient light generated by the Global Illumination system designed to simulate the blue ambient light from the sky. Unfortunately, things are also lit indirectly by light that bounces off other (distinctly non-blue) things in the environment in real like. I suspect that the lighting systems these games use don't do this, so something like all the green trees in Medieval engineers does not contribute any green lighting to the scene, only the blue sky does.

I don't believe Unity's GI can update indirect lighting on moving objects. So AFAIK the lighting contribution for objects in motion comes from direct lighting, specular, and the ambient from the blue sky. All that lush green forest won't give you a nice greenish tinge to your creations.

tl;dr: blue tinting everything looks fake and bad.

Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« Reply #1739 on: March 03, 2015, 08:24:05 am »

Hmm. I've never seen this GI before in Unity. Ah, bing suggests it's a new feature in 5.0 (I don't have the beta).

You might try making your light yellow, like the daytime sun, and see if that makes a difference. Also, the sky having an effect in buildings seems like a serious bug.

(I cannot recall seeing the sky ever providing enough illumination on the Earth's surface to be visible, either, so this seems like a ridiculously overdone effect.)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 08:25:39 am by Shadowlord »
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive
Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118 ... 324