New Games... Dated Gameplay

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ok, what this has to do with NFS no idea... but here it goes;

 

That would be like a difference inside a game. You know, like in DX where you can either be stealthy, rambo or hacker etc. But that doesn't mean you can act like DX in for example Doom3. That just isn't working.

 

Having said that; Sequel of Game X is NOT different in gameplay if you put in the same cars, give them parts which will edit some of their specs and then release it; even if the cars could have differences inbetween them...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a more "extreme" example of how different variables change the gameplay experience.

 

Well if you play like Rambo in DX thats exactly as you would act in Doom.

 

The feature list goes beyond that.

[Calax]

oye... this is getting more and more petty and more and more useless... both sides are right, but from a different angle.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

oye... this is getting more and more petty and more and more useless... both sides are right, but from a different angle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've so lost my ruthless streak

 

It seems pretty clear though that games add new features to prevent gameplay becoming stale.

[BattleCookiee]

Well if you play like Rambo in DX thats exactly as you would act in Doom.

 

No you can't. Try Doom style filling everything enemy with bullets in DX. Wonder if you even make it off the docking area without getting annihilated...

 

And features do NOT make up gameplay. You can add in a million of features and still haven't changed a thing in gameplay. Gameplay is based on several things who are, quite frankly, totally independant of "features"

 

For example in racing games that would be;

The way the cars handle; way the feeling of speed is generated; intensitivity of the races.

For adventures;

(Ill-)Logically of puzzles; Amount of time spent; Handling of items/area investigation.

 

You can add in several thousands of "features" but as long as you keep the main stuff the same gameplay will not vary. And because it is quite easy to change the gameplay if wanted you can make several thousand different types of racing-games or millions of different FPS. But adding in "features" does not make this disctinction...

Edited March 10, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And features do NOT make up gameplay. You can add in a million of features and still haven't changed a thing in gameplay. Gameplay is based on several things who are, quite frankly, totally independant of "features"

 

For example in racing games that would be;

The way the cars handle; way the feeling of speed is generated; intensitivity of the races.

For adventures;

(Ill-)Logically of puzzles; Amount of time spent; Handling of items/area investigation.

 

You can add in several thousands of "features" but as long as you keep the main stuff the same gameplay will not vary. And because it is quite easy to change the gameplay if wanted you can make several thousand different types of racing-games or millions of different FPS. But adding in "features" does not make this disctinction...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like this you mean.

 

Features

 

Hundreds of ways to customize your ride. Pick from major aftermarket parts manufacturers

 

A new sensation of speed has been created in the game by the award winning Need For Speed team and an OSCAR nominated Hollywood visual effects expert

 

Free-Roaming City: Explore a massive city divided into five distinct, interconnected neighborhoods, ranging from serpentine suburban hills to an intense downtown grid. A complex series of drivable freeways connect the neighborhoods together.

 

Emergent Gameplay: Want to make a name for yourself in the underground? You'll need to find it first. Races can happen anywhere and at any time and as players encounter rivals on the street they'll be clued into where they can buy the hottest upgrades or enter the most elite events.

 

Performance Tuning: Tune every aspect of your car's performance with hundreds of licensed aftermarket performance upgrades and then fine-tune everything from the gear ratio to the suspension for the ultimate ride.

 

Environmental Variety: Each of the five distinct neighborhoods in Need for Speed Underground 2 feature a unique look and feel, including varied driving conditions and track types. Road surfaces, real-time weather effects, and environmental hazards will keep gamers on their toes as they race from dusk till dawn.

 

Open Road, Open World - Rule the streets as the most notorious street racer in various regions that include edgy industrial and urban environments. In the game, the environment can be a friend for a foe. Players will master short-cuts as well as use the traffic and destructible environments to their advantage.

 

Performance Tuning - Can't compete against a sports car? Head to the safehouse and tune up your ride to race against any class of vehicles.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now your completely contradicing yourself in the same post. Features dont change gameplay you say. Then you go on to say that the way the feeling of speed is generated is a valid change.

 

Ok so look at the bolded section on the feature list. "

[BattleCookiee]

I must be blind as I cannot find the bolded line in your entire list

 

EDIT; found it... and I did mention there WERE 5 non-graphics related features on that list of yours...

 

Ah well... in a list of 100 items only 1 gameplay changing thingie... and then also used in the 2 games thereafter (thus they keep the same gameplay)...

Way to go evolution...

Edited March 10, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[karka]

I am still waiting for a CRPG that has full horse combat and mounted archery as an option.  *sniff*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Then your hero is Mount & Blade "

[Llyranor]

Mount & Blade

[Shadowstrider]

ZzzZZZZzzZZ

[SSgtSniper]

Yeah, modern does not automatically imply better in any way...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sometimes it's actually worse..... "

[kirottu]

Major difference between Undeground 2 and Most Wanted is that you have police force trying to get you and when they do you lose the game.

 

Then there

[Volourn]

"Well, since most games in the future will use UE3"

 

O RLY? I find that VERY hard to believe. In fact, it's pretty much 100% false.

 

And, no, new games don't have dated gameplay. Dated implies that it's useless in modern agmes, and I beg to differ. NWN2's gameplay is absolutely great (most likely) for a modern game.

[alanschu]

And even if it is a part which changes the performance of Car X; what would it differ from gameplay if before it was not upgradable or instead of keeping Car X you get car Y to have these boosts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Same as in Mario Kart where Peach drives in a totally different way to Donkey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think you're stretching to say that this is a gameplay change.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I think you're stretching to say that this is a gameplay change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Give it a try.

[BattleCookiee]

O RLY? I find that VERY hard to believe. In fact, it's pretty much 100% false.

 

Both MS and Sony have made agreements with Epic to make UE3 the #1 used engine for games on their console. Tell me then that a "few" will going to use it... also quite alot of PC-games producers have gotten themselves licenses...

[alanschu]

I think you're stretching to say that this is a gameplay change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Give it a try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I wouldn't consider adding a new spell in a game like NWN a change, nor a new character in a Street Fighter game a gameplay change.

 

The only difference between Peach and Donkey Kong is their speed and handling, but you still play the game the same way. I think an appropriate analogy to this is that playing an NHL game as a high octane Ottawa team is a different gameplay experience than a defensive minded Minnesota team. Even though I still push the same buttons to do the same things.

 

Given my experience with racing games, I don't think there's been a whole lot of changes to the racing dynamic. Most Wanted could probably represent a change in the paradigm, but not most racing games. I agree with Battlewookiee on this aspect.

 

I haven't played Arena, so I can't comment on that.

 

I agree that I don't think core mechanics have changed a whole lot in video games, but I don't necessarily think that that is a bad thing. Hades is complaining about it, but for some reason I doubt he'd be terribly unhappy if someone made a game (with a new story of course) that was a carbon copy of how Fallout played.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Hades is complaining about it, but for some reason I doubt he'd be terribly unhappy if someone made a game (with a new story of course) that was a carbon copy of how Fallout played.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

O R00FLES?

[metadigital]

Hey, I remember when you had to start up games from DOS and use memory controllers to fit the start-up code within 640 KB. It was an eternal hunt for the smallest, most efficient mouse drivers.

 

MODERN IS BETTER!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hee hee. I remember when my father rented my first computer (for a week, to see if I would use it) and I had to re-seat the disk controller card from slot five (who ever heard of a disk daughter card in slot five of an Apple ][?) Fortunately it didn't take more than a few minutes, then I spent almost all 196 hours playing Star Trek ...

[Shadowstrider]

I wouldn't consider adding a new spell in a game like NWN a change, nor a new character in a Street Fighter game a gameplay change.

 

It depends on what the spell does.

 

Contingencies in BG2 most certainly added to the gameplay. Denying this is simply simple.

 

A new character doesn't count as a gameplay change? Even if the character's style is completely unique from the others? Maybe not in the SF series, but that is why that series sort of passed into history.

 

Go play Tekken and try to play Hwaorang like you would play Steve Fox.

 

The gameplay is completely different in most modern fighting games.

 

The only difference between Peach and Donkey Kong is their speed and handling, but you still play the game the same way.  I think an appropriate analogy to this is that playing an NHL game as a high octane Ottawa team is a different gameplay experience than a defensive minded Minnesota team.  Even though I still push the same buttons to do the same things.

 

No one in my circle of friends plays Donkey Kong like Peach. Then again, we play Mario Kart religiously on SNES, N64 and even Gamecube still. We play weekly, still, for hours. If you play kong like peaches against us, you'd lose. For example, a common strategy with peaches is to fire a green shell close to the wall and power slide away; narrowly avoiding the shell and giving your pursuer a nice surprise. Kong couldn't do this, he would have to release the shell farther from the wall. On the other hand, as Kong, a favored tactic is clipping; which is basically hanging onto a green shell and using it as either a shield or dropping it on fast moving vehicles as a mine. Although Peach could do this, just like Kong could try banking, it isn't conducive to Peach's speedy playstyle.

 

Sure, you COULD play the game the same, but you could also give a wizard a sword and try to scrap it out.

 

I haven't played Arena, so I can't comment on that.

 

I agree that I don't think core mechanics have changed a whole lot in video games, but I don't necessarily think that that is a bad thing.  Hades is complaining about it, but for some reason I doubt he'd be terribly unhappy if someone made a game (with a new story of course) that was a carbon copy of how Fallout played.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What Battlewookie calls "gameplay" is what you're calling "core mechanics." No, core mechanics have not changed much... why would you make a series of games with little in common? There are OTHER Elder Scrolls universe games outside of TES1-4, for example Redguard or Battlespire. The mechanics of these are fairly different from TES1-4. The GAMEPLAY from each TES1-4 game varies greatly from one to the next, whether Battlewookie calls them "features" or not doesn't bother me one bit. They're gameplay.

[alanschu]

I wouldn't consider adding a new spell in a game like NWN a change, nor a new character in a Street Fighter game a gameplay change.

 

It depends on what the spell does.

 

Contingencies in BG2 most certainly added to the gameplay. Denying this is simply simple.

 

I would agree.

 

A new character doesn't count as a gameplay change? Even if the character's style is completely unique from the others? Maybe not in the SF series, but that is why that series sort of passed into history.

 

Go play Tekken and try to play Hwaorang like you would play Steve Fox.

 

The gameplay is completely different in most modern fighting games.

 

Because quite clearly it's an issue of semantics, and what I interpret gameplay is different that what you interpret. Having characters that have different moves and styles doesn't reflect additional "gameplay" IMO. I still play the game pretty much the same way. It's not like the punch buttons are now kicks, or that the block button has me doing an attack. It's just different moves, with a strategy that is used for the particular moves. Just like how I don't consider playing with offensive Ottawa Senators to be a gameplay difference over the Minnesota Wild.

 

And I don't dispute that different fighting games provide different gameplay. A game of Street Fighter is quite a bit different than a game of Tekken.

 

The only difference between Peach and Donkey Kong is their speed and handling, but you still play the game the same way.

[Shadowstrider]

Game mechanics are the bits that come together to make the game play. Just because you use the same button to accelerate in a game doesn't mean it hasn't changed gameplay, and you should know better than that, especially for an aspiring game developer.

 

If you add a feature you're adding gameplay. Thats it. Just because a game follows the same control scheme doesn't mean it is the same in terms of gameplay. Arena's stealth compared to Daggerfall's compared to Morrowind's? Spells. That IS the gameplay of the games. Seamless world technology. Physics. Traps. Riding horses. Hell, jumping WHILE casting spells and firing. That is all gameplay. You can't simply ignore a game's added features and say "the gameplay hasn't changed." To be frank, that is ignorant - it ignores the facts, it ignores the truth of the situation.

 

Simply because a game continues the first-person, adventure format doesn't mean it hasn't had gameplay changes. Afterall, Battlewookie said he isn't asking for revolutionary/ground-breaking game changes, yet EVERY post makes it clearer that he is. I mean, you're siding with the guy who said this:

 

Oh, Oblivion's gameplay is so modern. Still the same since Arena, and that is like 10 years old or so?  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is among the most simplified, generalized outlooks on gameplay EVER. It follows the descriptor I attributed above; ignorant. Before you jumpy folk out there go reporting the post, look up ignorant. I'll even do the legwork:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignorant

 

Do games in the same series tend to follow the same formula? Ofcourse. To do otherwise is contradictory to the concept of sequels.

 

Look at the traditional Mario Brother's line. The game formula has changed very little. A guy in overalls jumps around bumping boxes with his head for special powers. Sure they made the games 3d now, and they've added some new power-ups, but, obviously, the gameplay is still the same as the originals; all you have to do is ignore all the advances.

 

...I can't believe this debate is even going on.

 

P.S. I'm not going to fix your quotes for you, and it isn't because the post is too long (that is never the cause). One of your quote markers is formatted incorrectly, and yes a single botched quote marker will blow them all out of wack.

[Llyranor]

Shadowstrider, you don't know what you're talking about. Look at today's CRPGS. You still have to use the freaking mouse and click on things. You still have to use the keyboard to do stuff, you still have to read through stupid text. Hello? This is outdated gameplay from last millenium.

 

As much as I'm not a fan at all of the TES series, I'll be the first to admit Radiant AI, if properly implemented (if TES4 doesn't succeed, then the next ones will anyway), could lead to great stuff, if you're into that sort of thing. Emergent sandboxy gameplay seems to be the 'in' thing nowadays.

[alanschu]

Game mechanics are the bits that come together to make the game play.  Just because you use the same button to accelerate in a game doesn't mean it hasn't changed gameplay, and you should know better than that, especially for an aspiring game developer.

 

You misunderstood my post. When I was talking about the accelerator, I was referring to within the same game (in this game Mariokart). I understand that two games with completely identical control schemes can have very different gameplay. FPS games are a prime example.

 

If you add a feature you're adding gameplay.  Thats it.  Just because a game follows the same control scheme doesn't mean it is the same in terms of gameplay.  Arena's stealth compared to Daggerfall's compared to Morrowind's?  Spells.  That IS the gameplay of the games.  Seamless world technology.  Physics.  Traps.  Riding horses.  Hell, jumping WHILE casting spells and firing.  That is all gameplay.  You can't simply ignore a game's added features and say "the gameplay hasn't changed."  To be frank, that is ignorant - it ignores the facts, it ignores the truth of the situation.

 

You're accusing me of something I didn't say. Citing games like Arena and Daggerfall and comparing them to Morrowind doesn't mean anything to me, because I never said if those games do or do not modify gameplay. I couldn't even attempt to claim that, as I haven't played two of those games.

 

Simply because a game continues the first-person, adventure format doesn't mean it hasn't had gameplay changes.  Afterall, Battlewookie said he isn't asking for revolutionary/ground-breaking game changes, yet EVERY post makes it clearer that he is.  I mean, you're siding with the guy who said this:

 

Never said that. Nor am I taking Battlewookiee's side. I just agreed with him on one aspect.

 

Do games in the same series tend to follow the same formula?  Ofcourse.  To do otherwise is contradictory to the concept of sequels.

 

Look at the traditional Mario Brother's line.  The game formula has changed very little.  A guy in overalls jumps around bumping boxes with his head for special powers.  Sure they made the games 3d now, and they've added some new power-ups, but, obviously, the gameplay is still the same as the originals; all you have to do is ignore all the advances.

 

...I can't believe this debate is even going on.

 

I'm not saying games like Mario don't have advances...

 

 

P.S. I'm not going to fix your quotes for you, and it isn't because the post is too long (that is never the cause).  One of your quote markers is formatted incorrectly, and yes a single botched quote marker will blow them all out of wack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't realize the quote markers were incorrect at the time. And I'm well aware that all it takes is one. Not that it matters because I can't change them now anyways.

Edited March 11, 2006 by alanschu

[Shadowstrider]

Maybe the posts got jarbled in the quote disaster, it certainly seemed to me you were saying all of that "new game features are not new gameplay."

[Shadowstrider]

Shadowstrider, you don't know what you're talking about. Look at today's CRPGS. You still have to use the freaking mouse and click on things. You still have to use the keyboard to do stuff, you still have to read through stupid text. Hello? This is outdated gameplay from last millenium.

 

You've convinced me. I apologize to everyone. You're all right, just because a game uses W for forward, it is old and outdated. I demand that these be changed, otherwise the game is cliche and archaic.

 

All I want is for there to be the features I want in games that have never claimed to work in the way I think they should. I mean, all I want is some compromise, I want all games to include all features. Ever. I demand first person, third person and 5th person (where you see through the eyes of the villain but actually control the hero, or something). Is that soooooo much to ask?

 

I mean, is it? Compromise.

 

As much as I'm not a fan at all of the TES series, I'll be the first to admit Radiant AI, if properly implemented (if TES4 doesn't succeed, then the next ones will anyway), could lead to great stuff, if you're into that sort of thing. Emergent sandboxy gameplay seems to be the 'in' thing nowadays.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wish I could, like, comment and stuff, but I like my job. '_;