Print

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

[Mindmaker]

Cinematic games.
Sure, it was something new and different back when it was new, but nobody expected it to become a trend.

Open world.
Most games just either don't fill it with anything meaningful or don't give you the tools to manipulate it to your fancy.

[MoLAoS]

Cinematic games.
Sure, it was something new and different back when it was new, but nobody expected it to become a trend.

Open world.
Most games just either don't fill it with anything meaningful or don't give you the tools to manipulate it to your fancy.

Open world is such a tragedy. Most of the world just isn't that exciting. You can't really fill it up with stuff, even if you had the budget to make enough content it would just feel fake. Even ElderScrolls games failed at this. For all the herbs and dungeons and monsters they had the world still felt so empty.

[Neonivek]

Well not to mention that Open Worlds tend to have a much weaker narrative then games without. Often with HUGE barriers to separate the narrative structure from the other aspects of the story.

Oblivion gets "open world story" so wrong it could be a parody. What should be the "End of the world" ends up being "ohh look honey, a gate to hell. We better stay clear or else we might be attacked by some gremlins or something"... "But honey what about that huge city they destroyed?"... "Ohh that was last year, get with the times"

I am not counting Mass effect mostly because it is not so much an "open world" as it is linear with a few side paths... and large open areas for side activities.

[MoLAoS]

Well not to mention that Open Worlds tend to have a much weaker narrative then games without. Often with HUGE barriers to separate the narrative structure from the other aspects of the story.

Oblivion gets "open world story" so wrong it could be a parody. What should be the "End of the world" ends up being "ohh look honey, a gate to hell. We better stay clear or else we might be attacked by some gremlins or something"... "But honey what about that huge city they destroyed?"... "Ohh that was last year, get with the times"

I am not counting Mass effect mostly because it is not so much an "open world" as it is linear with a few side paths... and large open areas for side activities.

Well, static open worlds seem like a pretty bad idea. There was no way that could turn out well. But on the other hand most users lack the computing power to play a game that simulates an amount of world the size of Elderscrolls worlds.

[Vector]

.

[WillowLuman]

I'm imagining a game inspired by Porco Rosso based on that description...

Survival mechanics and resource management where they shouldn't be. In general I like them, but like "RPG mechanics" they often serve to stretch playtime.

[Neonivek]

Ohhh Survival games...

But I am not QUITE in groan territory for it yet.

I mean Stranded 2 was oddly boring (It had the paradox where the harder you put the difficulty the less fun it became) but it did feature it properly.

A lot of games seem to get this right, they just rarely pull it off well... but without an exemplar I don't blame them. Sometimes you have to see a feature done well before you can do it too.

[Vector]

.

[MoLAoS]

Ohhh Survival games...

But I am not QUITE in groan territory for it yet.

I mean Stranded 2 was oddly boring (It had the paradox where the harder you put the difficulty the less fun it became) but it did feature it properly.

A lot of games seem to get this right, they just rarely pull it off well... but without an exemplar I don't blame them. Sometimes you have to see a feature done well before you can do it too.

I dislike this way of thinking. If you need a great execution of a mechanic to copy off of, what are you even adding to the genre? Its almost always a nobody who makes the big feature innovation and then a rich concept leech who steals it and makes millions. This is the opposite of how it should work. What the heck are we giving people money for if the only way they can design a quality game is to rip off someone else? This is totally different than seeing a shit feature with a great concept and then executing brilliantly. I dunno, I feel like this is another issue of content superiority where people care less about the feature and more about the shiny and the quantity of art assets and scripted content.

[Neonivek]

It is just how it works MoLAoS.

Remember geniuses steal.

If you need a great execution of a mechanic to copy off of, what are you even adding to the genre?

There are two ways you can really make a product.
1) You can innovate, do something new with it.
or
2) You can be derivative, but pull it off very well.

Resident Evil, for example, near carbon copied Alone in the Dark.

[Mindmaker]

I'm curious how Witcher III will handle the bigger maps as well. I really hope for something like Gothic 2 + Night of the Raven, which had a really nice, big world.

@Survival games:
I wish there were more, but for some reason none of them seem to really "click" with me.
Don't Starve had some really nice ideas and I really loved the art, but somehow I played it a lot less than I would have liked to.
Maybe the progression was too linear? Although that wouldn't explain why I still loved Notruim.

I remember some sort of tile/hex turn based indie game that had a rather interesting take on the whole survival theme, mostly due to realism and lots of ways to deal with situations.
Can't remember it's name though.

[Girlinhat]

My problem with survival games, is that it ultimately becomes 'build a house' games.  In pretty much every survival mode of any given game, it's the first 10 minutes to scrap up resources and get lucky, then the next 10 hours with a chest full of wheat and ten thousand building materials that you can't find storage room for.

UnRealWorld hit it decently well with survival, mainly because the cold north can be terribly unforgiving.  That one HTML game was also really good, Stranded was it?  You played it in-browser, and it was a roguelike...

The problem with survival games seems to be difficulty.  Instead of 'you are now surviving' it should be closer to 'good luck surviving'.  Imagine Dark Souls as a farming/survival/crafting game.  You think you're doing well, but you're actually dead and the loading screen just hasn't appeared yet.

[MoLAoS]

It is just how it works MoLAoS.

Remember geniuses steal.

If you need a great execution of a mechanic to copy off of, what are you even adding to the genre?

There are two ways you can really make a product.
1) You can innovate, do something new with it.
or
2) You can be derivative, but pull it off very well.

Resident Evil, for example, near carbon copied Alone in the Dark.

And since ignorant player bases are primarily focused on execution this belief really favors filthy rich publishers who can do massive play testing and like A/B testing and shit and then plow down crazy graphics. This kind of thinking is responsible for the miniscule advancement in gaming. Plebs buy the same game over and over ala Fifa, CoD, ea sports shit and publishers have no motivation to improve.

I guess that's the difference between PCs and NPCs, much as I hate to reference a concept so thoroughly endorsed by Eliezer Yudkowsky.

[MoLAoS]

My problem with survival games, is that it ultimately becomes 'build a house' games.  In pretty much every survival mode of any given game, it's the first 10 minutes to scrap up resources and get lucky, then the next 10 hours with a chest full of wheat and ten thousand building materials that you can't find storage room for.

UnRealWorld hit it decently well with survival, mainly because the cold north can be terribly unforgiving.  That one HTML game was also really good, Stranded was it?  You played it in-browser, and it was a roguelike...

The problem with survival games seems to be difficulty.  Instead of 'you are now surviving' it should be closer to 'good luck surviving'.  Imagine Dark Souls as a farming/survival/crafting game.  You think you're doing well, but you're actually dead and the loading screen just hasn't appeared yet.

Too many survival games get confused with other genres being incorporated like city/town building or even kingdom building. And they never pull it off as well as something like Majesty or King of Dragon Pass did. Those games were more difficult survival wise than most survival games I played and they weren't even survival games.

Roguelikes are a way better genre to emulate. But just with much less magic and combat.

[choppy]

My problem with survival games, is that it ultimately becomes 'build a house' games.  In pretty much every survival mode of any given game, it's the first 10 minutes to scrap up resources and get lucky, then the next 10 hours with a chest full of wheat and ten thousand building materials that you can't find storage room for.

UnRealWorld hit it decently well with survival, mainly because the cold north can be terribly unforgiving.  That one HTML game was also really good, Stranded was it?  You played it in-browser, and it was a roguelike...

The problem with survival games seems to be difficulty.  Instead of 'you are now surviving' it should be closer to 'good luck surviving'.  Imagine Dark Souls as a farming/survival/crafting game.  You think you're doing well, but you're actually dead and the loading screen just hasn't appeared yet.

The HTML game you are looking for is Wayward I think. http://www.unlok.ca/wayward/