Print

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

[sapperski]

I'm a fairly new bay12er, been playing DF for about a year now, but never really participated in the forums until this last release. Anyway, here's my 2 cents on slipping standards. I agree with some about paid off reviews, but a lot of reviews are preliminary reviews where the designers show off the best parts of the game and then the review is made, so in a way it is biased. Most reviews are this way. So it's easy to give a horrible game a good review based on being shown the best parts. I think that graphics also play a large role in games, but feel as though this has been happening for a long time. Ever since the computer became a household item, people have been trying to improve on graphics and make the "Most fantastic graphics EVER!" game. Though personally I feel like graphics are nice, but shouldn't out-weigh gameplay.
Lastly, I don't disagree with numbered scores, but think it should be standardized, much like someone else wrote in here. Such as (just a suggested scale) 1-2: horrible graphics and even worse gameplay 2-3: horrible graphics, but slightly better gameplay 3-4: bottom of the barrel graphics but improved gameplay 4-5: one-time playthrough gameplay despite graphics 5-6: one-time playthrough gameplay with improved graphics 6-7: Good gameplay despite graphics with average replayability 7-8: Good gameplay with good replayability and decent graphics 8-9: Gameplay is amazing despite graphics, easy replayability, learning curve is simple, but keeps the game depth deep 9-10: Playing this game is highly recommended, and playing it over and over again is even higher on the recommendation, oh, did I mention the graphics are good 10: Game is a must to play and replay and graphics are state of the art, if you don't own this game, your not a gamer.

Well, that's just my opinion. As far DF I only give it an 8, mainly because of the learning curve. I've been playing a year and still haven't figured everything out, and just now have gotten brave enough to work with magma without committing to suicide. Great game, and even better replayability, but one hell of a difficult learning curve.

[Sowelu]

Hmm, but what would you rate a one-time gameplay with amazing, mind-blowing graphics, although it's only ten hours long?  What if it's 40 hours long?  How much do you consider the now-ubiquitous achievements to add to the replayability score?

How much is multiplayer worth?  How many points would Halo (regardless of your opinions of the game itself...) have lost, if it had poorly-balanced multiplayer, or no multiplayer at all?  Starcraft?  Goldeneye?  Mario Kart?  How much higher would you rate Portal if it had cooperative multiplayer?  (We'll get to find out soon enough!   )  What about STALKER? 

[fenrif]

Hmm, but what would you rate a one-time gameplay with amazing, mind-blowing graphics, although it's only ten hours long?  What if it's 40 hours long?  How much do you consider the now-ubiquitous achievements to add to the replayability score?

How much is multiplayer worth?  How many points would Halo (regardless of your opinions of the game itself...) have lost, if it had poorly-balanced multiplayer, or no multiplayer at all?  Starcraft?  Goldeneye?  Mario Kart?  How much higher would you rate Portal if it had cooperative multiplayer?  (We'll get to find out soon enough!   )  What about STALKER?

Achievements aren't ever done properly in my opinion. There should be hundreds for each game, rewarding you for doing all kinds of crazy things. Instead they usually boil down to "finish level 1/2/3/4/etc on easy/normal/hard" and then some multiplayer ranking ones.

The orange box is the best game for achievments if you ask me. They used them to encourage people to try different things in the game, and rewarded different playstyles with different achievements. And there were LOADS of them (granted there were three seperate games, but still more per game than most other games have).

Halo, mario kart, and goldeneye wouldn't be the hugely memorable games they are without multiplayer. That's what made those games. Not just multiplayer either, but split-screen multiplayer. Which is why im so annoyed that most games nowadays don't bother with it. A good split screen game will be played for years.

[MrWiggles]

They don't brother with it as its a technical difficulty. Its an underrated marvel that halo can go 4 player split screen, as the game more or less has to be ran four time over in order to provide the split screen.

[fenrif]

They don't brother with it as its a technical difficulty. Its an underrated marvel that halo can go 4 player split screen, as the game more or less has to be ran four time over in order to provide the split screen.

But it's hardly something specific to halo, split screen was the standard before internet became common for consoles.

It seems to be much more about getting people to pay for xbox live. Especially when you get games that have no system link option, or have two player split screen but wont let you system link and split screen at the same time.

[MrWiggles]

They don't brother with it as its a technical difficulty. Its an underrated marvel that halo can go 4 player split screen, as the game more or less has to be ran four time over in order to provide the split screen.

But it's hardly something specific to halo, split screen was the standard before internet became common for consoles.

It seems to be much more about getting people to pay for xbox live. Especially when you get games that have no system link option, or have two player split screen but wont let you system link and split screen at the same time.

Which may make sense if it was something only found on Xbox games. 

It was more common on console in the past because the games were less in terms of raw resources in order to run them. Multiplayer split screen started dying out last console generation.  There also nother reason as well. American market dont really care about split screen or system link. Americans dont like really like gaming in groups. We do like gaming across the internet though.

The Japanese/asian market is where you'll find split screen and system link to be much more common place. Monster Hunter, is a prime example I believe. In the Japanese release there is no on line play, but for the american release they had to include it. (It was a bit ago when I read on this, so I may be incorrect on this.)

[nenjin]

The deliberate removal of split-screening in a lot of titles is one reason I've become less, and less of a console player. I started playing SP games next to my bro and friends on Nintendo, and we graduated to 2 player and multi-player games. Then I got into PC gaming, and eventually online MP, but my friends and I would still hit the video store every few weekends to rent something, just to hang out in the same room, playing a game as a shared activity.

Online gaming is convenient and awesome in its own way, offering it's own perks, but I do miss the togetherness you can get out of console games, and I wish there was still a solid focus on making games like that. There are a few (X-men Legends ect....) games and series out there that are still doing that...but it's not like it was in the Golden Age of Consoles.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

They don't brother with it as its a technical difficulty. Its an underrated marvel that halo can go 4 player split screen, as the game more or less has to be ran four time over in order to provide the split screen.

But it's hardly something specific to halo, split screen was the standard before internet became common for consoles.

It seems to be much more about getting people to pay for xbox live. Especially when you get games that have no system link option, or have two player split screen but wont let you system link and split screen at the same time.

Which may make sense if it was something only found on Xbox games. 

It was more common on console in the past because the games were less in terms of raw resources in order to run them. Multiplayer split screen started dying out last console generation.  There also nother reason as well. American market dont really care about split screen or system link. Americans dont like really like gaming in groups. We do like gaming across the internet though.

The Japanese/asian market is where you'll find split screen and system link to be much more common place. Monster Hunter, is a prime example I believe. In the Japanese release there is no on line play, but for the american release they had to include it. (It was a bit ago when I read on this, so I may be incorrect on this.)

I don't know which American market you're talking about but last I checked American console gamers don't mind playing split screen at all.  I know I don't.  When I'm playing PC games however that's a different matter.

There aren't many X-Box exclusive games.  Most games released on X-Box are either on X-Box and all other consoles or X-Box and PC.  Regardless, it's a simple fact that the game companies get more money if people aren't sharing, so even if it X-Box LIVE subscriptions had nothing to do with it it would still probably be more about money than technological limitations.

[Pathos]

The deliberate removal of split-screening in a lot of titles is one reason I've become less, and less of a console player. I started playing SP games next to my bro and friends on Nintendo, and we graduated to 2 player and multi-player games. Then I got into PC gaming, and eventually online MP, but my friends and I would still hit the video store every few weekends to rent something, just to hang out in the same room, playing a game as a shared activity.

Online gaming is convenient and awesome in its own way, offering it's own perks, but I do miss the togetherness you can get out of console games, and I wish there was still a solid focus on making games like that. There are a few (X-men Legends ect....) games and series out there that are still doing that...but it's not like it was in the Golden Age of Consoles.

I can agree with this so damn much, and I guess one of the reasons the Wii thrives as much as it does is the split-screen. I understand why they do it (SIGN UP FOR XBOX LIVE HURR DURR), but it still royally pisses me off.

[Sowelu]

Achievements aren't ever done properly in my opinion. There should be hundreds for each game, rewarding you for doing all kinds of crazy things. Instead they usually boil down to "finish level 1/2/3/4/etc on easy/normal/hard" and then some multiplayer ranking ones.

That would explain why I feel the way I do about achievements...  The only games with achievements I ever play are Valve ones (Orange Box, L4D, etc)

[sapperski]

I really don't like the achievements thing, I've seen friends of mine play for days just to get one achievement. In my opinion, it doesn't make the game anymore replayable, just a form of bragging rights. I don't know how many times people said they beat Zelda (original nes Zelda) when they hadn't. It's just another way to say "I did this", nothing more. It also makes no sense to me to put an achievement to beat the game on easy (Guitar hero and Rock band are the two I'm pissed over on this one) AND on expert. If I can beat the stupid game on expert, I would bet a years pay that I can beat it on easy. Why have the achievement then?

So, back to my original reason for the post, I don't think achievements should factor into the game rating, it's just a form of bragging, not any addition to the actual game, and definitely wasn't the reason I bought an xbox (was actually peer pressure. I know, I'm a sucker for a bunch of guys standing around telling me to buy something, just because they did. Too bad most of them are hooked on DF and MUDs now) 

[fenrif]

I really don't like the achievements thing, I've seen friends of mine play for days just to get one achievement. In my opinion, it doesn't make the game anymore replayable, just a form of bragging rights. I don't know how many times people said they beat Zelda (original nes Zelda) when they hadn't. It's just another way to say "I did this", nothing more. It also makes no sense to me to put an achievement to beat the game on easy (Guitar hero and Rock band are the two I'm pissed over on this one) AND on expert. If I can beat the stupid game on expert, I would bet a years pay that I can beat it on easy. Why have the achievement then?

So, back to my original reason for the post, I don't think achievements should factor into the game rating, it's just a form of bragging, not any addition to the actual game, and definitely wasn't the reason I bought an xbox (was actually peer pressure. I know, I'm a sucker for a bunch of guys standing around telling me to buy something, just because they did. Too bad most of them are hooked on DF and MUDs now) 

Most good games give you achievements for beating the game on any difficulty lower than the one you played on. Beat it on hard and you get 3 achievements (easy/medium/hard).

I do think they can add to the game if they're done right, it's just that most devs don't bother. Japanese devs especially seem to see achievements as excused to put in things you need to check gamefaqs for.

I used to have something like 55,000 gamerscore on my 360. Me and my friends would make bets on who could thousand a game first (get the full 1000 points). Thought that was only on certain games which we were really into anyway. I was never obsessed with it or anything, I just play a lot of games... Then my profile got corrupted and all my points were wiped. Now I hardly ever bother with achievements.

I did always think that you should be able to use the achievement icons as your gamerpics. Each game comes with at least 20 built in gamerpic icons, one for each individual achievement in the game. But of course then microsoft couldn't sell you a pack of 5 tiny pictures for 12 quid. 

[nenjin]

I liken modern achievements to lights and noise makers on a pinball machine.

Today, a pinball game would be considered incomplete if it didn't have some lights and stuff to zazz it up.

That said, it's long become a cliche for video games. Especially the "finish the game achievement", GOD that one irritates me so much.

Take Killing Floor for example. You get achievements for killing the Patriarch in the final wave of the match. Kill them on Normal, Hard or Suicidal, and you get an achievement.

What makes KF different than most games is the rate of failure to beat the patriarch at all difficulties. Victory is NOT a foregone conclusion, at least for your first few weeks with the game, and so you really feel like you earned that achievement.

Still, KF has it's fair share of crap achievements. But at least they usually give achievements for stuff that is somewhat hard to do (like dealing the fatal blow to a Husk with a flame thrower. It can be tricky considering the husk is 99% immune to fire damage.)

It's a sign of the times that many games need achievements to make them feel complete, so that overall game play doesn't feel shallow. Unfortunately, for some of us, seeing these lame achievements makes the entire game seem somewhat shallow.

I think achievements should work something like this:

Achievements should be awarded for doing meaningful things that NOT every player can or will do. For example, you've got your typical RPG quest. You're supposed to kill this witch. Everyone wants you to kill her.

But you don't. You leave her alive. You sacrifice all the xp, money and things you get from killing her. The story moves on and you get the achievement "A dirty witch lover." Later on in game you might get some benefit for leaving her alive, but mostly the desire for the achievement means you have to give something up.

No games approach achievements like that. They're just mandatory, and I think that's the totally wrong way to go. If the only thing that separates achievement from not, is a few thousand mouse clicks or button presses, who cares? If an achievement actually represented some moral or ethical choice, or a deliberate choice to make the game harder for myself...that actually means something.

For example, you're playing a dual-wielding badass in some game. You met a character in a hospital, an artist who lost their arm in a tragic accident. You OFFER your arm to the artist, and go through the rest of the game with a single arm for attacks. You get the achievement "The One-armed Man did it".

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think that externalizing achievements is necessary in a game where you play in short disconnected sessions. But in an RPG for example, where you have a saved game, the achievement should be entirely inside the game itself. That is, you don't have a sparkly little achievement for leaving the witch alone, but there are reprecussions later in the game.

A game like adventure-mode DF where you play one character and then retire or die to start a new one, would be very interesting with that. Not that the witch is scripted, but just because she is around she will continue doing witchy things and your next adventurer will deal with that.

Killing all the carnivores in a forest may cause an herbivore population explosion, followed by devastation of the plants and/or immigrant carnivores from nearby areas. Or maybe the villagers start going into the forest more, hunting the herbivores because they are so plentiful and the carnivores are gone. They could base much of their industry and culture around there herbivores, and you come around with a later adventurer and find things have changed.

[fenrif]

I agree with you except for the desire for the achievement being the reason for doing those things. Going specifically for the achievement shouldn't be the reason, and the game shouldn't encourage that line of thinking. I'd much rather ALL achievements were hidden for all games. It'd be nice if my 360 gave me that as an option, to toggle on or off.

When I was first reading about the 360, and its achievements I imagined me and all my friends comparing our achievements. "oh you got one for beating the entire game without killing any civillians? I got one for causing a million dollars worth of property damage." Instead it ends up being more a case of everyone gets far too many common ones.

Considering how much time it must take to do achievements (surely can't be that long, they're just a line of text or two) it's rather annoying that more thought hasn't been put into them. Some studios seem to really grasp the concept well though, so there is still hope.