Interactive Achievement Awards Announced: Modern Warfare wins GOTY

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

^^ I think Grammaton confused the two of us. I'm the one from Europe! *waves* :wink:

Skylock00

Man, all this talk about genre conventions made me remember my extensive breakdown of how to interpret RPG's...that's a fun one to think over. :P

OOPS, I thought Skylock was an overseas member as well. Sorry.

(Waves back to Up in Flames.) I didn't forget you.

Man, all this talk about genre conventions made me remember my extensive breakdown of how to interpret RPG's...that's a fun one to think over. :PSkylock00

I find this pretty interesting as well. RPG's are hands down the most controversial issue. Japanese, Western, action-RPG's, open-ended, linear...some people even lump turn-based strategy games into the kettle. There's so much differing opinions as to what really constitutes an RPG, but as always I go to the root - the very meaning of role-playing.

But really, gaming is evolving so fast that it's becoming increasingly difficult to brand a game one way or the other. So many different genres and playstyIes meet in one game that you have to use several different monikers to describe a certain game.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]climbing and sword fighting isn't mything? Huh well I find pop games to be alot better than assassin's creed even though the second game got more praise than it deserved. Assassin's Creed had many good ideas but something went wrong when those ideas were implemented. gamingqueen

What I meant was if those elements, as they were presented in the game, didn't speak to you then you'd run out of interest pretty fast.

I liked the combat because it struck me as being very realistic.

POP is an awesome series as well by the way.

did you really enjoy fighting with the guards :? ? I only played AC once... I don't intend to play it again... Pop games were like a roller-coaster ride...

LOVED IT.

It takes a while to get used to it but you can do some pretty cool things, like tossing a guard off a roof or into a structure and watching it collapse on top of him. It's also fun to run to higher areas, have the guards pursue you, and then knock them off one by one. The counter attacks are well-implemented too, so overall you have some robust options for breaking heads.

The combat in POP is solid and well done too. I think AC feels slower because it's more grounded in reality.

If you wrote it, I'd most certainly read it.Grammaton-Cleric

I've always had a fascination with theoretical analysis of game design, and history of video games. Another set of writings I'm interested in engaging in is writing up stuff on the history/growth of video game audio in general.

Now that topic is a lot more niche than analyizing core genres and stuff, but I still think it's a topic worth having something written about it...especially since most of the innovators and visionaries in the realm of game audio are still alive, and what better time to learn more about the origin of these things than from the people who actually were responsible for it?

But it's not as "free" as it looks. If the alarm goes on and guards know about your existence, the only way to lose guards sight is by going inside a stack of hay or a box with drapes* the one on the roof dunno what you call it* that felt cheap because I was next to the door of the place where my next assassination is and the guards were looking for me, anyways the game wouldn't let me in until it's reintlizing and the only way to do is either by going into the stakc of hay or the box with curtains even though there were no guards around.

I find this pretty interesting as well. RPG's are hands down the most controversial issue. Japanese, Western, action-RPG's, open-ended, linear...some people even lump turn-based strategy games into the kettle. There's so much differing opinions as to what really constitutes an RPG, but as always I go to the root - the very meaning of role-playing.UpInFlames

Console/Computer RPGs, in general, are more or less attempts by designers to recreate the experience established by the original core of the concept of an RPG - Tabletop RPGs (D&D and so forth). In this sense, designers act as Dungeon Masters, who establish rules and playing conventions.

Now, Tabletop RPGs would have DMs that, when skilled enough, would know how to modify/stretch/change rules around to make the game play in a fashion more suitable for the kind of players he was working with. Maybe they would make character growth more linear/simple to focus on just playing the game, or modify combat to be less strict and grid based to make the pacing of combat faster, or other sorts of changes would be made to tailor the game in a fashion that was most enjoyable to the players.

Now, unfortuantely, Computer/Console game developers don't have this ability to shift their campaign at the flip of a switch to match what the players would want to play perfectly. So what's the solution? Simple - Adopt design conventions and mechanics from other pre-established genres to form the foundation of their games to make the games in forms that are accessible to a wider range of gamers (namely, those who are fans of those genres).

The primary three genres that most all RPGs derive some level of design/gameplay mechanics from to form the final design are: Action, Adventure, Strategy (at least as far as I can tell). The level of influence in these genres can be made clear in a wide range of games in the realm of RPGs.

For example, some RPGs are much more action centric (ie. Diablo, Oblivion, Secret of Mana) than others, and some fall more into a strategy approach for mechanics (ie. Final Fantasy, Fallout, Turn-Based Strategy RPGs, A large number of traditional computer RPGs), and others have varying levels of influence from the conventions of adventure games (in terms of having puzzle solving, non-linear world constructions vs. linear constructions, and so forth). Between these influences, and what sorts of design elements are drawn from these genre influences, one can more easily determine what makes one RPG different than enough in terms that are more clearly objective from a design standpoint than simply saying "Japanese RPG" or "Western RPG."

One problem is that it's hard to simply say that an RPG is purely influenced by just one of these core genres, as most derive some level of influence from each of these elements to some degree. One thing that could be possible to visualize this is create some series of diagrams that show how influences could be derived/balanced.

Furthermore, regardless of how much direct control the player has over the growth of his/her character(s) in an RPG, one design convention is pretty absolute across all RPGs - The growth of the character him/herself throughout the game is one of the primary ways that the player is able to advance further in the game, either by making encounters more managable for the player, or by developing skills/abilities that allow the character to overcome/advance beyond encounters in ways that may or may not involve direct combat.

Realistically, if one thinks about it, that's the /only/ significant design convention that RPGs introduced to the world of video games - character development/growth (specifically one that isn't derived from simply 'acquiring' items to make one stronger/have more abilities), in a commonly statistical fashion (whether or not it is directly controlled by the player), being a primary means of advancement through a game.

- - -

It's a very rough version of what I had written up a while ago, but it's roughly what my views are of the genre.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Most of the awards/nominations are within the bounds of reason, but the rpg nominations/awards are a bad joke. No nomination for Persona 3 or Soul Nomad, but nominations for high profile but low quality games such as Mass Effect (which shipped months before it was done) and Rogue Galaxy (an unambitious Kingdom Hearts clone)?ShenlongBo

Seriously, I haven't played ME, and I've heard nothing but the utmost praise for it. By now, I've learned that "utmost praise" doesn't always tell the whole tale. What was missing or unpolished in ME?

Reviewers poured praise over ME (most of it praise centering on the story, acting and exploration), but by their own sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit admission, ignored serious game design and technical issues to do so.

Glitches, poor AI, and weak squad mechanics weigh the game down. IGN

It's not always a utopian future, however, as some significant bugs found their way into the final release of Mass Effect. We were able to reproduce a glitch during one boss fight that completely impeded our progress, making it impossible to proceed unless we reloaded and tried a completely different approach. The AI controlling your squadmates is also less than perfect - they'll often try to steal the cover you're using, keeping you from getting a good look at the action, or just bumbling through a fight if not given proper direction. Gamespy

Other problems rear their heads as well, such as the occasions when you or your party members get trapped on level geometry, which forces you to reload your last save. - Gamespot

I haven't played ME either and unless a patch is released, I doubt I ever will.

[QUOTE="ShenlongBo"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Most of the awards/nominations are within the bounds of reason, but the rpg nominations/awards are a bad joke. No nomination for Persona 3 or Soul Nomad, but nominations for high profile but low quality games such as Mass Effect (which shipped months before it was done) and Rogue Galaxy (an unambitious Kingdom Hearts clone)?CarnageHeart

Seriously, I haven't played ME, and I've heard nothing but the utmost praise for it. By now, I've learned that "utmost praise" doesn't always tell the whole tale. What was missing or unpolished in ME?

Reviewers poured praise over ME (most of it praise centering on the story, acting and exploration), but by their own sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit admission, ignored serious game design and technical issues to do so.

Glitches, poor AI, and weak squad mechanics weigh the game down. IGN

It's not always a utopian future, however, as some significant bugs found their way into the final release of Mass Effect. We were able to reproduce a glitch during one boss fight that completely impeded our progress, making it impossible to proceed unless we reloaded and tried a completely different approach. The AI controlling your squadmates is also less than perfect - they'll often try to steal the cover you're using, keeping you from getting a good look at the action, or just bumbling through a fight if not given proper direction. Gamespy

Other problems rear their heads as well, such as the occasions when you or your party members get trapped on level geometry, which forces you to reload your last save. - Gamespot

I haven't played ME either and unless a patch is released, I doubt I ever will.

I feel less bad about having not played ME yet. I was already pretty sure I'd never get around to it, and now I won't mind if that comes true.

Ew... those kinds of bugs pretty much say it all. It's one thing for game mechanics to not quite come together well, and another thing entirely when you can tell parts of a game simply weren't fully developed.

I feel less bad about having not played ME yet. I was already pretty sure I'd never get around to it, and now I won't mind if that comes true.

ShenlongBo

Yep. It's just a really badly put together game technically speaking. And on top of all the technical problems, there's a lot not to like about the design. The menu/inventory system is godawful -- hands down the worst I've played in any RPG to date. You can spend a half an hour selling off inventory because you have to select each one individually and wait a half a second for it to load the item description. And you are doing this constantly in the game due to the game's 150 item limit. There's clunky, and then there's Mass Effect. It's also a shame that even on the Normandy, you have to go through a loading screen to get to the lower deck to speak with your crew or visit the requisitions officer. It's clunky stuff like that that just becomes teeth-gratingly frustrating as the game goes on. Also, apparently when the writers went on strike in Hollywood, so too did the level designers in the game business. Or at least Bioware's did. Almost every structure you encounter on every planet during side quests (what few you can actually go to) is one of two layouts. Each and every one of them.

I agree with Carnage that it just flat isn't finished. It's just so sub-par in so many areas that it just screams "rubber stamp and ship."

did i play a different COD4 than everyone else because the version I played was just a very well put, yet very average shooter. I had more fun playing Half Life 2, Black, Resistance, you know games that actually make u use your weapons effectively. I seriously dont understand what shooter fans want in their shooters because it seemed to me that COD4 gave us a chance to kill literally thousands of enemy soldiers with the same weapons. the only variety we got was that one sniper mission, a helicopter gun and a gunship level. After admiring the visual settings of each level, I was BORED OF KILLING PEOPLE mid missions. Fans also overly praised its Story mode, but that story mode had little to no story. literally no character development, one cutscene in the beginning and unless there is a huge number of cutscenes and story development in the third, this game's story mode is just a sequence of single player missions. I just find that there is something wrong with a game's story mode that gives you no incentive to finish a game.

Online multiplayer also has this been there, done that feel.

[QUOTE="ShenlongBo"]Ew... those kinds of bugs pretty much say it all. It's one thing for game mechanics to not quite come together well, and another thing entirely when you can tell parts of a game simply weren't fully developed.

I feel less bad about having not played ME yet. I was already pretty sure I'd never get around to it, and now I won't mind if that comes true.

Shame-usBlackley

Yep. It's just a really badly put together game technically speaking. And on top of all the technical problems, there's a lot not to like about the design. The menu/inventory system is godawful -- hands down the worst I've played in any RPG to date. You can spend a half an hour selling off inventory because you have to select each one individually and wait a half a second for it to load the item description. And you are doing this constantly in the game due to the game's 150 item limit. There's clunky, and then there's Mass Effect. It's also a shame that even on the Normandy, you have to go through a loading screen to get to the lower deck to speak with your crew or visit the requisitions officer. It's clunky stuff like that that just becomes teeth-gratingly frustrating as the game goes on. Also, apparently when the writers went on strike in Hollywood, so too did the level designers in the game business. Or at least Bioware's did. Almost every structure you encounter on every planet during side quests (what few you can actually go to) is one of two layouts. Each and every one of them.

I agree with Carnage that it just flat isn't finished. It's just so sub-par in so many areas that it just screams "rubber stamp and ship."

...a $50 joke :(

EDIT: I should point out that I did ultimately give NMH a "buy it" recommendation, though, if only because it's unique enough (in the entire market, let alone the Wii) and has a strong enogh narrative to make it worthwhile for people aching for this kind of escape. Those people know who they are, and the review, I think, makes it clear that you need to be one of them in order for the "buy it" to be speaking to you.

Those little niggling things are examples of why I ultimately just couldn't get behind No More Heroes (wound up giving it a 6.6 at Gamer2.0). It's a really cool concept, but the overall design is a joke...

...a $50 joke :(

EDIT: I should point out that I did ultimately give NMH a "buy it" recommendation, though, if only because it's unique enough (in the entire market, let alone the Wii) and has a strong enogh narrative to make it worthwhile for people aching for this kind of escape. Those people know who they are, and the review, I think, makes it clear that you need to be one of them in order for the "buy it" to be speaking to you.

ShenlongBo

Yeah, I've pretty much sworn off Suda 51. The guy has all these really cool concepts, but they just never come together like I hope. I think he and Peter Molyneaux were separated at birth. :P

And for what it's worth, I still gave Mass Effect a 7.5, and that was entirely due to the story arc being really well done and the combat (shooter combat in an RPG) being pretty good. I'd still give it a "buy" rating, but I think it's important for people to know what to expect, which I think a most of the press ignored, and those that didn't ignore the problems glossed over them quite a bit. It's easily the jankiest game on the market today, yet it has a Metacritic average of 91.

EDIT: And quite possibly the biggest area Bioware dropped the ball on was in regard to rewarding the player for exploration. Remember the first time you found a lightsaber crystal in KOTOR and you were like "OMG NEED LIGHTSABER RIGHT NOW!!111"? There is none of that in Mass Effect. The weapons are all very basic, very available. And even the special weapons that finally do show up are introduced in the most ho-hum of ways, with no spectacle, and in practice aren't tremendously better than the high-level stuff you'd find in containers. Western RPGs need to return to the design conceit of making exploration rewarding. I mean, how hard would it have been to have included a side mission where you land on a hostile planet that is filled with enemies and you stumble across some dude's (who is dead from the enemies) research that details experimental weapon data to build some sort of uber-weapon? That would've made the side quests have context, made them WORTH doing. And it would've been a helluva lot better than scanning for gases and minerals.

Mass Effect is a really impressive game, but it's not as good as it is impressive. That's the best way I can describe it. I'd probably rate it higher than Blackley, but I totally see where he's coming from.

Is BioWare even capable of a game with a stable framerate?

While I found COD4 to have entertaining gameplay, I wouldn't go as far as to call it GOTY, espcially with the competition. :/

And I don't think Motorstorm was a bad call. The game was incredibly fun, and accessible. Forza 2 was a deep racer, but not easy to play or get into, and it contained nothing that hadn't been done before (aside from the online).

You guys are being too hard on Mass Effect.

I mean, its not what KOTOR was for its time, but its a hell of alot better than Jade Empire. Its got some glitches, sure. So did KOTOR. By the end of the game you end up with an insane amount of money that you'l never need too. But despite all that, it was still the best RPG I've played in awhile.

Its really a bummer that Bioware don't seem to care enough about technical details, but there's no denying that a great game is still there.

And please, don't compare Suda 51 to Bioware. :P Suda should be a story writer and nothing more. That's probably what his role is in the new Fatal Frame.

And please, don't compare Suda 51 to Bioware. :P Suda should be a story writer and nothing more. That's probably what his role is in the new Fatal Frame.

EdgecrusherAza

Furthermore, he is one of the two directors for Fatal Frame.