Print

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

[Draco18s]

You talk about breaking the mold, but you want to conform Quetzalcoatl to the mold of a draconic monster to be fought? The mesoamerican god of civilization, the sun, and the wind?

Yes and no.
For one, the god of the mesoamerican civilization was the god of a civilization that performed live human sacrifices.
I could totally see a game where you are RandomDude thrown into jail for some minor offense and ends up on the list of Sacrificial Victims and in order to save yourself you've got to fight your way out.  Up to and including Punching God In The Face.

I could also totally see this game ending with you dying anyway.

I.e. it's all about context.

[WillowLuman]

The idea of a sacrifice was that their loss should be a sacrifice, giving up someone dear, not a garbage disposal. The Aztecs always offered someone valuable, usually the son of a noble. They didn't use it as a punishment, as a lowly criminal would be an offensive offer, and the marked victim got the utmost lavish, hedonistic treatment in their final days. The ritualistic cannibalism of the sacrifice afterwards was because their flesh was seen as holy, as of a martyr who had sacrificed their life for others, and those who ate it hoped to gain this holy aspect.

The Aztecs believed that the forces which kept the universe in existence could only be sustained by human blood, whether as food or to replace that which they lost from wounds in constant battle against the end. Not so much that there was a terrible feathered monster which held them hostage to this.

Still, you might be some tribal person captured who does not share the belief system. Alternately, you might try to stop the empire from imploding in on itself from various ethnic differences / defeat those metal-clad four-legged firebreathing monsters / assist your own tribe in throwing off the Aztec yoke.

[MrWiggles]

True, there are a lot of dragons.  My point is there are A LOT of kinds of dragons and we keep getting the same ones.

Also, the reason new IP fails is because it isn't carried through.  Corners get cut and mechanics changed to make it more like "what sells," so it end up being crap.  Anything that does come out and isn't crap tends to not be advertised very well/much and the publisher ends up shooting themselves in the foot.

Of course, the same is true for remakes.  They keep getting genericicized into bland mush.  But it sells because "gamers" liked the last one, or hope it is more like the first one, or...

But yes

How in the world can you claim knowledge how new IP games are made? And how can you then further imply that these 'cut' features and mechanics would have improved the game?

Exactly my point. Personally, I'd rather fight a feathered serpent than generic European dragon #6.

Kinda in agreement. Even an Asian dragon would be a nice change of pace.

Even more irritating wehn they opt for dumb brute European dragons. I'd rather have someone play up the silver tongue for once.

In while that sounds neat, it in practice wouldnt be. Conversation are entirely passive in video games because in the end, it has to rely on a finite script. Your choices are presented ahead of you, as their response. So it might be a good experience, or cut scene, it would be a [edit] poor basis for a game. 

[Draco18s]

The idea of a sacrifice was that their loss should be a sacrifice, giving up someone dear, not a garbage disposal. The Aztecs always offered someone valuable, usually the son of a noble. They didn't use it as a punishment, as a lowly criminal would be an offensive offer, and the marked victim got the utmost lavish, hedonistic treatment in their final days.

Fair point.  I was just making something up on the fly.  There's still a whole huge area of possibility to throw a player into the mesoamerican culture and for one reason or another have to face down a feathered serpent god.

How in the world can you claim knowledge how new IP games are made? And how can you then further imply that these 'cut' features and mechanics would have improved the game?

Have you played Spore recently?

And yes, features do get cut.  Ever heard of "Day 1 DLC"?

And yes, games get pushed through to release before things are ready (I'm in the gorram industry where this happens all the gorram time).

[MrWiggles]

The idea of a sacrifice was that their loss should be a sacrifice, giving up someone dear, not a garbage disposal. The Aztecs always offered someone valuable, usually the son of a noble. They didn't use it as a punishment, as a lowly criminal would be an offensive offer, and the marked victim got the utmost lavish, hedonistic treatment in their final days.

Fair point.  I was just making something up on the fly.  There's still a whole huge area of possibility to throw a player into the mesoamerican culture and for one reason or another have to face down a feathered serpent god.

How in the world can you claim knowledge how new IP games are made? And how can you then further imply that these 'cut' features and mechanics would have improved the game?

Have you played Spore recently?

And yes, features do get cut.  Ever heard of "Day 1 DLC"?

And yes, games get pushed through to release before things are ready (I'm in the gorram industry where this happens all the gorram time).

I'm not saying that Features dont get cut, I'm saying that you cant know when features do get cut, or what those features are and you cannot know if those features that may have been cut would have improved the game. Spore may have been shit, if it was left 'intact'.

Day 1 DLC are thing because of how the economics of DLC work. DLC are most likely to be bought the sooner they are released when the game is released. The further away from release the DLC is released the least less likely it'll be bought.

And games, are never done, they just get released like most creative endeavors.

[Draco18s]

I'm not saying that Features dont get cut, I'm saying that you cant know when features do get cut, or what those features are and you cannot know if those features that may have been cut would have improved the game. Spore may have been shit, if it was left 'intact'.

Or maybe EA stuck their fingers in it.  But you're right, I don't know for sure, other than "they promised X and it was never delivered."  I forget which game it was now, but it was advertised on steam with a feature list of like 30 things.  EXACTLY ZERO of them were true.  And I don't mean in the "features over a dozen maps" and has exactly twelve.  I mean in the "features over a dozen maps" and has four, kind of way.

Day 1 DLC are thing because of how the economics of DLC work. DLC are most likely to be bought the sooner they are released when the game is released. The further away from release the DLC is released the least less likely it'll be bought.

I know how the economy of DLC works.  What I'm saying is:
I, as a consumer, should expect to get the full product up front in a single box.  DLC should not be integral to being able to complete the game, should not include additional mechanics, should not be integral to the main story line (i.e. not-owning it shouldn't mean you "miss out" on critical plot).  DLC is for bonus content.  Additional story, additional Stuff To Do, more characters, more weapons, or whatever.  All too frequently publishers cut out a critical part of the core game and sell it as DLC on day one.

And games, are never done, they just get released like most creative endeavors.

This is so untrue on so many levels...

[MrWiggles]

What game cannot be completed without DLC? oO And further more, what do you mean by complete?

Also, why shouldnt a publisher have a say so in the games their funding?

This is so untrue on so many levels...

Also, every developer that I've heard has spoken to that similar effect. Seems to hold true to any game maker, be it board games, card games or dem video games. There a whole wikia dedicated to left over content in games, that couldnt make the cut for various reasons.

[Draco18s]

What game cannot be completed without DLC? oO And further more, what do you mean by complete?

Dungeon Defenders.  Without the Series EV or the Summoner, completing all of the core content on all difficulty levels is actually impossible.  Nightmare difficulty without SEV is neigh impossible because of Goblin Copters (the missile reflect wall nullifies them).  Without the summoner you're just gimping yourself, because the summoner allows you to double your defense capabilities.

That's not the only game.  But I'd be hard pressed to name one, largely because I never play them.  Also unable to answer the second half of that for the same reason (that is, by not remembering what game it was, I can't specify what I mean exactly).

Also, why shouldnt a publisher have a say so in the games their funding?

Because publishers are complete dumbfucks.  Developers want their funding sources to be hands off so that they can make the game they want to make without a dozen people Building By Committee it into a complete mess.

This is so untrue on so many levels...

Also, every developer that I've heard has spoken to that similar effect. Seems to hold true to any game maker, be it board games, card games or dem video games. There a whole wikia dedicated to left over content in games, that couldnt make the cut for various reasons.

There's a difference between "cutting a few features for budget (or other) reasons, but the game is otherwise finished" and "this game is blatantly obviously unfinished and incomplete."

Shadowrun Returns wanted to include a kind of multiplayer where you could hire a friend's characters as NPCs, but it was cut because no one could quite figure out how that would actually work (one of the features was that if you got that NPC killed, you couldn't hire them again....but the game was client side single player with a save function: what happened if you loaded up the game prior to getting the NPC killed?  Could you still hire them?)

The loss of that feature was lamented, but it was widely known that there were design issues with it, and rather than spending time and money figuring out how to make it work, it was scrapped.  But the game, when released, shouldn't be any less "complete" without it.

[MrWiggles]

What game cannot be completed without DLC? oO And further more, what do you mean by complete?

Dungeon Defenders.  Without the Series EV or the Summoner, completing all of the core content on all difficulty levels is actually impossible.  Nightmare difficulty without SEV is neigh impossible because of Goblin Copters (the missile reflect wall nullifies them).  Without the summoner you're just gimping yourself, because the summoner allows you to double your defense capabilities.

That's not the only game.  But I'd be hard pressed to name one, largely because I never play them.  Also unable to answer the second half of that for the same reason (that is, by not remembering what game it was, I can't specify what I mean exactly).

I'm not really seeing any [edit] substantiation in your claim that Dungeon Defender cannot be beat without DLC. I think you're confusing their business model with completion.

Nightmare Difficulty wasnt added until 2 years after the game initial release. And that Difficulty, from what I can tell was added in during a 4 part DLC package. It seems to be optional Expansion of the game. It could have very well been meant a part of the core game play, but it taking two years to get, seems to suggest otherwise.

In so while Series EV and Summoner is popular for beating Nightmare Difficulty, there seems to be a plethora of strats which do not use them, and some of the farming strats that I can find only use the Squire.

In fact it looks like that DD business model, is to live through semi frequent Expansion Packs. So, it seems like you've picked a very poor example.

Also, why shouldnt a publisher have a say so in the games their funding?

Because publishers are complete dumbfucks.  Developers want their funding sources to be hands off so that they can make the game they want to make without a dozen people Building By Committee it into a complete mess.

Ah, once again you're claiming knowledge you do not have. When Publisher 'meddling' is beneficial for the game, its private but when its not its public. And we dont even really know for sure when it is due to Publisher Meddling because most games are not made with 100 percent transparency. Its speculation and generally baseless.

Its also, again assuming that the game would have been better without their meddling. You cannot say that with /any/ authority. Spore, may have been shit if it was left 'intact'.

This is so untrue on so many levels...

Also, every developer that I've heard has spoken to that similar effect. Seems to hold true to any game maker, be it board games, card games or dem video games. There a whole wikia dedicated to left over content in games, that couldnt make the cut for various reasons.

There's a difference between "cutting a few features for budget (or other) reasons, but the game is otherwise finished" and "this game is blatantly obviously unfinished and incomplete."

Shadowrun Returns wanted to include a kind of multiplayer where you could hire a friend's characters as NPCs, but it was cut because no one could quite figure out how that would actually work (one of the features was that if you got that NPC killed, you couldn't hire them again....but the game was client side single player with a save function: what happened if you loaded up the game prior to getting the NPC killed?  Could you still hire them?)

The loss of that feature was lamented, but it was widely known that there were design issues with it, and rather than spending time and money figuring out how to make it work, it was scrapped.  But the game, when released, shouldn't be any less "complete" without it.

I dont get what point you're making here, or how the example demonstrates it.

[Glloyd]

Yeah. For example, the most vocal gamers could be also a tiny minority. What they want is not what ALL gamers want, what the MAJORITY of gamers want is expressed in what they purchase.

So if you make what the vocal minority wants, they're happy, but you only sell like, ten copies. And if you make what sells, the vocal minority is pissed, but you sell ten million.

I'm not saying this is what it is, but it has some explaining power in that regard.

This is why COD is still popular (popular in that it sells, a lot), despite the fact that each annual game is merely a carbon copy of the previous ones, with a slightly different coat of paint.

ANYWAYS, lets get this train back on the rails. Personally, i want to be placed in some large world, and just be able to make my own path. Want to be a peasant farmer? Go for it. Blacksmith? Get your tools together boyo. Knight? Dream big kiddo, you'll be there someday. Adventurer? Assemble your party, apply for funding from those tight-purse nobles and you're off! Really, I just want the options there, because I know at one time I would want to be a farmer. And the other time, I'd be swashbuckling on the high seas! Kind of like Mount and Blade, but with more freedom and options. And no concrete endgoal.

[Graknorke]

I put expectation on Ultima Ratio Regum for being a promising-looking open-world type game. Like Dwarf Fortress but more serious and generally more focused around the individual character.

[Mongol13524]

A tabletop RPG in a videogame engine.

Combat would be Bioware RPG or Mount & Blade style. The GM would have a view like roll20, Dungeonland, and Dungeon Master's, and can do anything a GM would want to from their view. It would either be a balanced fight like Dungeonland, or a mode where (s)he can do anything.

Overworld travel would be boarding transportation (board ship in town A, possibly have the GM scrip an event, get off in town B) and Mount & Blade style travel. The GM can give the party however much or little freedom in regards to travel as (s)he pleases, depending on the settings and the campaign.

Having it seamlessly blend into a 4X/management game/RTS/whatever on demand would obviously be great, but overly ambitious for anything that may exist in the next 5 years. The whole concept in ambitious and would be screwed up in a realistic circumstance, though.

TLDR; Mount & Blade with a GM

[itisnotlogical]

I'm not saying that Features dont get cut, I'm saying that you cant know when features do get cut, or what those features are and you cannot know if those features that may have been cut would have improved the game. Spore may have been shit, if it was left 'intact'.

In some cases it's easier than others, but you actually can find quite a lot of unused content in many games. Some of it is debug stuff that developers used during the making of the game, but a lot of them (particularly in Generals and Goldeneye) are actually features and assets that were cut during development. There's crazy amounts of unused stuff in Super Mario Galaxy as well, just to show that more modern games have unused content on the actual disc.

Not trying to make any actual point, I just find all this unused stuff fascinating

[MrWiggles]

I'm not saying that Features dont get cut, I'm saying that you cant know when features do get cut, or what those features are and you cannot know if those features that may have been cut would have improved the game. Spore may have been shit, if it was left 'intact'.

In some cases it's easier than others, but you actually can find quite a lot of unused content in many games. Some of it is debug stuff that developers used during the making of the game, but a lot of them (particularly in Generals and Goldeneye) are actually features and assets that were cut during development. There's crazy amounts of unused stuff in Super Mario Galaxy as well, just to show that more modern games have unused content on the actual disc.

Not trying to make any actual point, I just find all this unused stuff fascinating

Like I said earlier, there a whole wikia dedicated to cataloging all the used assets left on commercial games. Its really interesting.

[itisnotlogical]

On-topic, I want to see a parkour racing game set in dangerous environments where you can trip and shove your opponents in to deadly obstacles and off of rooftops. The animations should be motion captured, but with limited amounts of procedurally-applied variation so that they don't start to look robotic after a while.