What makes good game design?

Soul is shorthand for "defined artistic vision." It isn't necessarily tied to nostalgia, but videogames are in the unfortunate position of having lots and lots of technical evolution in the lifetime of most users. Generally speaking, old games had to wrestle with technical limitations, and had to make up for it with style and vision. Modern games with fewer limitations require less hand-crafted detail and identity.

Think of videogame music, for example. If you have a limited number of channels, then the melody needs to be very punchy and interesting to be memorable or interesting to the player. But if you have the full freedom to insert a recording of anything you'd like, then the easy thing to do is use generic orchestral fill that is technically impressive but lacks a memorable melody or hook. It doesn't "rock the boat" too much and therefore can make no real impression on the player. Soulless.

Wow what a great question for a forum like this user

A game with "soul" is one that actually engages you and makes you emotionally invested in what's happening in the game. A soulless game by contrast just feels like doing chores. I would say the most important factor in the soul of a game is the worldbuilding, it should be fleshed out enough to be immersive but at the same time leave enough to the imagination to create a sense of intrigue. To me this is why a lot of AAA games are soulless, they're well crafted and highly produces but spoonfeed the story/backstory to the player and handhold them too much, removing any challenge or sense of struggle.

Don’t be like ACfag, user

But those character action games generally have superior control, level design, and encounter variety. Your raw skill and understanding of strategy is being challenged. While Diablo and other ARPGS focus on the metagame, optimizing builds and doing things "the right way" in terms of stats and equipment to alleviate any challenge from the "Action" or mechanical challenge. And even in games like Diablo that action component is underdeveloped compared to it's contemporaries.
A recent example of this difference is between Dark Souls and Sekiro. Both are built on the same engine and feature similar control/combat, but while Dark Souls expects you to minimize the challenge at any point by knowing the right gear and stats to focus on, allowing you to massively fuck yourself over, Sekiro strips down the RPG aspects to improve on the combat and enemy design and lets the player focus on actually playing the game and getting good with all of the tools given to you. Yes, you can twink your way through DS, but that's pretty much impossible on a first playthrough and you need to have wiki'd which weapons and routes are viable; Sekiro is much more doable and potentially much more rewarding to play blind.
I personally prefer games that minimize RPG components, as I always end up looking things up in shit like Diablo and Dark Souls because I've been burned by trying to blindly experiment before, ruining a playthrough from some arbitrarily hidden system or useless stats or the level design punishing certain builds. And looking at wikis and guides seem like the coward's path when in well designed action games you're already given the tools to succeed - you just need to learn how to use them.

There isn't anything personal about it. There is only so many ways to present gameplay. Does Diablo have good physical challenge? No. Does Diablo have good decision making? No. Does Diablo have good exploration? No. Its just fulfills that neanderthal hunting and gathering urge. It doesn't have good gameplay. Its monkey-tier.

one thing that's especially important is making everything stand out, whether it be characters, enemies, important items, things like that.
A big reason why Street Fighter has had a strong edge over a lot of other fighting games is the fact that Capcom absolutely nails this idea with the SF character designs, every single character is instantly recognizable and their poses and actions are all stand out and easy to understand.
The reason Mario has done so well as a platformer is because each enemy is obvious, whether it be a simple thing like distinguishing the different Koopa types through colors(red turn around, green walk off platforms) or just identifying what is coming at you immediately like how bullet bills only move forward and goombas with their big heads are obviously killed by hitting their heads. FPS games like Doom and Halo also do pretty good job with this in their earlier installments.
Having well designed enemies allows you to set up more interesting scenarios as the player is able to identify what they are dealing with much more efficiently and they can more easily plan out strategies around it.

Attached: ChunLi_A.png (960x800, 143K)

>Not him, but the problem with Sonic is that it's designed to be beaten as quickly as possible.
Then make Mission Mode from SA2 as a core mechanic. It's not really hard to design levels around doing an objective as fast as possible, just make them fun to play through and it should be fine.

>Taking it slow literally ruins the gameplay.
CD proves this wrong.

>Which is a good argument for hack n slash segments.
I guess if this would work for a 3D era Sonic, but at the same time, I really don't seen why combat is even a Sonic ideal outside of "other series did it" and "the archie comics exists"

>Running as fast as Sonic can. Once you break that motion. the game becomes dull.
Which games do this exactly? You're not support to be constantly going 1000s of mph, you are just suppose to have faster gameplay than the average platformer.

First things first, split 2D and 3D just like mario did.

2D should follow in the footsteps of mania, whether the graphics stay pure 2D or go to 2.5D.

3D should be designed to have mainly platforming focused areas connected by mainly speed sections. Think how mario galaxy has its planets connected by launch stars, but instead of planets sonic has a more standard 3D platforming area, and instead of launch stars it has a speed focused section. The platforming focused sections can be either linear or non-linear, whatever sega thinks is better

The original GW had some of the comfiest zone feels of all time.

I remember playing in the open beta where everyone started off in Lion's Arch, you could backtrack all the way back to the Shiverpeaks and Borlis Pass, and even press on further to post-destruction Ascalon before most people even had heard of it. The Shiverpeak areas were maximum tier comfy and totally deserted since so few people even had the idea of going there (as in the beta your natural progression was just to go forward in the storyline).

That game had some of my favorite world exploration memories. They don't make 'em like that anymore *sips*

>it’s a user thinks sonic’s gameplay is about actually going fast episode
He needs to play 2,3, K, CD, and M and reevaluate his preconceptions

Condensed version:
>Area has a puzzle where you need to hit a switch to progress
>A tree has apples that fell off the branch
>Said apple can be used as an item to hit the switch with
>Every time you use the apple as an item, another spawns in the spot you found it at infinitely
>You can also eat the apple for a minor HP restoration along with collecting them as much as the game allows you to

tl;dr good game design focuses on the conveniences allowed for the player to progress within a reasonable and flexible manner.
>

Attached: 1428857342954.png (1280x720, 887K)

>Armored Core Souls
>Mech game but instead of corporations and mercenaries, all the mech shit is lost technology
>Giant scifi monsters (dune sandworm?), biomechanical horrors, eldritch aliens, other hostile human mechs that have gone insane, eventually supernatural threats from another dimension
>Typical lonely game universe with a few npcs/quests, spread throught a solar system/various worlds with a hub that's a ship orbiting the sun, game is about the universe undergoing heat death and you need to set a new big bang
>The respawn mechanic is because you're downloading your consciousness into conveniently placed microfabrication ports throughout the game world and you lose xp cuz it only saves data when you manually rest/integrate it
>Stats upgrade your various systems like engine (dex), actuators (str), stabilizers (weight/load), cooling (energy weap, i.e. magic), etc and allow you to equip new gear found from schematics in the ruined landscape
>Game world balanced around limited flight, some encounters are in arenas that put you in full flight dogfights with missile storms and everything, but exploration is kept interesting by having significant portions in structures/underground so you can't just fly past everything
>Guns and missiles and shit are a primary weapon but have semi-limited ammo between rests so using lots of melee is incentivized
>Final boss is a player invasion/pvp duel

Wtf is this thread? Is it just one supremely autistic guy ranting endlessly?

Attached: 0A5E12EF-3F89-41FE-9396-CDC74C22939D.gif (480x358, 1.16M)

none. humans don't require food and water every 3 minutes. no game touches on true environmental and injury hazards, interesting challenges, but instead uses tedious resource drain

-game mechanics existing within the world
-the world feels alive and larger than just what the player experiences
-good sense of scale
-secrets and optional content
>no handholding or too much casualization of mechanics
-offer freedom or choices to the player
-indirect story telling, more showing rather than telling
-sandbox gameplay
-no one and done mechanics or gimmicks, the player has a full suite of tools and abilities at his disposal that he utilizes throughout the whole game

this is also why I have a lot of issues Mortal Kombat 11 and a lot of modern games that attempt to go the "realism" route, none of the characters end up standing out, everything just kind of blends in, actions aren't easily telegraphed, poses aren't that stand out, colors are dull. These things are extremely important, especially for designing a fighting game, every character needs to stand out and have easily telegraphed moves so people playing are able to adapt more easily and react to actions appropriately. A lot of games that make the attempt at realism fall under this rock, with realism you can't really go TOO far with designing enemies, this is especially why I hate most Zombie/zombie like games. They all end up looking the same and it makes it so the most you can really do with scenarios are "WHOA A SWARM?!?!?!?!?!?!" and it's just boring. I think the only game to do this right is Left 4 Dead and that's purely because of the special zombies in those games, they all stand out in dark areas and crowded areas so you can easily identify which one you are dealing with(and the game even has the characters point it out in case you couldn't).

its also a group affair in reality. irl if you have a serious injury or illness and you're alone, you're fucked. humans are social animals that survive by pooling resources and assisting each other when weak. a good survival game would be controlling a small group

Lurk more and learn to link whoever you’re responding to

Attached: BC77BA03-6455-4562-B66A-36E90EB2F93F.png (500x375, 134K)

>start the game with 6 survivors
>only guy skilled in cooking stub his toe because you didn't learn to craft footwear yet and he's bed ridden for a couple days
>the rest of the survivors can't cook for shit and keep ruining food
>everyone dies of starvation

WOOOOOOOOOOOOW

>Lurk more
ironic post

I don’t think you understand anything, user.

Ironic for calling out a guy who doesn’t even know how to operate Yea Forums? Okay dude

Attached: 05B73DEB-AC74-420B-A4E7-D0F6121ED430.gif (141x141, 481K)

>crafting items
doesn't really make walking through these worlds all that exciting for me
>What do they accomplish though?
the feeling of being in a game world while cutting a lot of the fat and legwork

you know what, if you're making a huuuge world, at least give me a fast, free and fun method of transportation (no fuel or payment bullshit)
I think that would solve a lot of problems, it's probably why those GTA games are less painful than most open world games

The real strength of Retro Game design was that it didn't have any contempt for the player by, ironically, not giving a shit if players won or lost. Retro games would do their own thing. Have their own unique challenges, designs, quirks, and would expect players to figure out how to win on their own. Retro games didn't have that hand holdy mentality that modern games do. If you won, congrats. If not, fuck you, game over, try again.

>the strength of retro game design
Lack of tutorials, for the most part. Also lower quality graphics meant that devs didn't always opt for "realistic" graphics, leading to different artstyles.

Also lack of cinematics. With old games it was pretty much plug and play, you were taken straight into the gameplay very quickly.

Now THIS is autism! Yeeoooww!

Yep. That's how out of touch retro gamers are. We've been doing the heavily stylized thing since the late 00s, because competent designers understand a video game should be more like an interactive painting, not an interactive movie.

the size obviously. when you can only make a hand full of stages, characters, and mechanics most of the development process is used to refine the experience where as in modern games everything is developed at once isolated from the whole and changes are made in the last minute. its content for the sake of content without a clear sense of direction. look at the way FF evolved when compared to DQ. one wraps the game design around existing technology whilst the latter remains consistent in its essence.

>don't have good taste in video games
What did user mean by this?

I didn’t know ACfag had a podcast

I know I'm not unique in saying that modern > retro in most respects, but:

I will say that retro games -- due to their arcade influences -- are much more likely to have a "balls to the wall" option that is more cleverly and elegantly implemented than in modern games (which either won't implement it or will draw too much attention to it). Once high scores stopped being an actual thing in home console games, there was still this tendency to include small....details that made something akin to a "high score" possible -- collecting things, never taking a hit, 1CC'ing, etc. But, importantly, this was all heavily optional -- no achievements, no hidden semi-important items hiding as rewards (or, none that were anything other than rumors), etc. Just a simple feeling of "I've already beaten this game, so I wonder what it'd be like to take it to the extreme..."

In modern games, that feeling is just gone for the most part. Games are either too long for that to happen, or too easy, or too heavily emphasize their hardcoreness, or so on. Perhaps it's not that modern games are "bad" in this regard, but for the most part, I always liked the retro games almost never throw the idea of "you didn't really complete this game, y'know?" or "you didn't *fully* complete this game, y'know?" into your face.

The incentive to replay games today is far less likely for me than even a game from a decade ago, usually because an average game today has the play time of a 40+ hour RPG, and quite a bit of that can be mundane padding sometimes. Open world aesthetic and quests are a commodity in videogames now. These things used to be locked to specific genres, but now you see it almost everywhere. Who has time for all of this going from one game to the next? I don't care much for them but modern multiplayer games work much better from a re-playability standpoint, you can jump in and out of them on the spot in most cases.

Indie games are a really good deviation from this as well, just make sure you stay away from shovelware...

Re-playability will always be an important factor in measuring the quality of a game for me, because it's what truly makes or breaks a game in my eyes. If you're going to make a 40+ hour game with mundane quests and movie aesthetics then it better have some damn good gameplay at least.

Yeah, seems like most modern AAA titles all use orchestral OSTs which all blend together into one unmemorable whole
either that or it's ambiental mood music with barely any structure (usually used in indie retro styled games)

back when music was 8 bit composers had to make sure their music had memorable structures

No it's not. Health regenerates because the developers think the only way to make challenge is to overwhelm you with enemies. It's a band aid for poor balance.

Understand what the game is and what it consist of. Understand game psychology, how the perception of the player is built. to be able to pay attention to absolutely all the little things.

That's because the difficulty came more from punishment and required consistency than just mechanical challenge, and millenials/zoomers HATE losing progress or building consistency they just want their quick fix and feel like they're overcoming challenges. That's why you have platformers with no depth, no punishment (if you die you restart from the same screen) just a lot of spikes and near pixel perfect jumps.

this is good game design, if you have not reached this level yet, then just give up.

Attached: hqdefault[1].jpg (480x360, 21K)

Communities were smaller but diverse, which resulted in a bigger amount of genres of good quality.

As things become popular, you now have to please everybody, reducing to a minimum the most interesting features.

Yes, it's true that indie exists, but only a small bunch of them make quality and innovative games. The rest clones metroid or zelda. They have no power to influence the industry. So we are stuck in a safe space of games that either provides old gameplay with new stories, or games that rehash what others made with a custom skin.

Just compare a crpg of the eighties with one released nowdays. The crpg crowd knew what they wanted and crpgs had a clear direction. There was space for innovations, but also incentive. Indies could make interesting games as they aren't kept back by resources ('make sure your game looks good while everything else suffer) or expectations.

> japan
> good
lmao

I miss level design.

It seems like all the most popular modern games, both AAA and indie have moved towards either open world or procedural generation. A few great developers still understand the art of level design (Arkane, From Software), but even the likes of Nintendo have been moving towards aimless open worlds over tightly crafted experiences. Indie devs also fall back on procedural generation and rogue-like elements because it's an easy excuse to do less work.

It's fun repeating the same exciting parts until you've achieved utter mastery of them.
And then playing them some more to revel in your mastery.

I want a game where the main character is not the main one in this world. so that the world would live on its own and it would be raised to the absolute.

>What do they accomplish though?
They got you between major locations efficiently so you could get on with the game.

Modern games in general have a problem where length in general is considered a virtue so you have to wade through endless padding and bullshit so the marketing team could boast about an "epic 60+ hour journey."

this was in the context of a brief discussion on overworlds, like in old JRPGs

>pick fighter class
only get to auto attack all game
dont get to see magic side of game which more often than not always better than a fighters early game
>pick mage class
your weapons and armor looks and is bad
get bullied early on by assasins

hybid is always more fun unless you gimped by having a mix of stats

>your own weapon drains your health when you are not killing enemies
Imagine how much the game journos would cry if this game was released today, begging for an easy mode, callings elitists bad peopled, etc.

Source, please.

"Artificial difficulty" is a stupid term. The life-draining mechanic helps establish the brisk efficiency the game wants out of the player, along with the tate system.

Please give source

Look up MDA game design

?
On the Vimeo video?

Yes I play on Hard because I have been playing games for years.
Most menus say “for experience players of this genre”. So obviously I am going to play hard because I have played more games than the average “gamer”.
I seriously don’t know why you made this thread.
Easy = I don’t play many games
Medium = I play games every so often
Hard = I play games weekly/daily
Expert = I play games all the time or at least one genre a shit ton

Yes, give me link please

I don't have it.
You should reply to OP and with a picture so people are more likely to see your question.

Honestly I think the major appeal of Bethesdas mainline titles (Fallout/Elder Scrolls) is that you are in a world where literally everything is an object you can take or move around. Like you can look into people's inventories and shit and take all their items, while most RPGs don't have as in depth looting systems (a creature dies, there is a certain % chance for a singular item to spawn on their corpse).
I am a huge Elder Scrolls fan and I can definitely see why people don't like Skyrim, it definitely is a bit of a step down from its predecessors. Oblivion had some of the best quests I've ever seen in a game and Morrowind's theme and atmosphere was something else.
You go from that to a generic RPG.
I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be though, I think it's popular to hate on Bethesda games so people get on the bandwagon.
They are what they are and they could be a lot better but they could be a lot worse.

>The AI has needs and actions and will always use the path of least resistance to fulfill their needs. NPC is needs food, so they get food at the market and cook it at home. NPC needs social time so they talk with townsfolk or go to the pub. I imagine the issue with this system is how unpredictable it could become. For instance if an NPC needs to eat and you steal all their money and food, so they resort to stealing, that would be very immersive and interesting. But what if you steal everyone's food and money and all of a sudden the whole town is trying to steal or hunt, now you've broken the town.
You literally just described Todd's radiant AI system was made for and implemented in Oblivion, and ran on an Xbox 360.

Skyrim was a step back from Oblivion. they actively simplified things NPC's could do because "silly things would happen". I liked the silly things dammit.

For example, NPCs in Oblivion had a responsibility setting, 0 - 100. When it was below 30, they could commit crime such as theft. This was completely removed from skyrim, no NPC in skyrim can commit crime outside of simply being aggressive (bandits etc). In Oblivion, during the "eat" schedule, NPCs would actually use food items in their inventory. In skyrim, an animation just got played.

Why does this matter? It feeds into the responsibility setting. In Oblivion if an NPC had low responsibility, and didn't have any food on them, they would actively resort to stealing food from around them or they'd try and pick-pocket other NPCs. Guards treated this crime just as it would from the player, which would set off a chain of events. This is why NPCs such as City-Swimmer (bravil?) would end up randomly dead in many playthroughs, she'd get chased down and killed by guards because she got caught stealing bread or whatever.

Oblivion had multiple small things like this which would lead to dynamic, non-hardscripted things happening with no input from the player. Things that were sadly removed from skyrim.

>a Zelda game with the world size of BOTW, the NPC interaction/world building of MM, the cryptic puzzles and difficulty of Zelda II, and the dungeon quality of ALttP and OoT
and it will never ever happen

personally, I like Fallout, but I don't like TES. because I am absolutely not interested in the subject of medieval magic and fantasy, I can't find damn anything interesting and romantic.

Wow, that's cool. any mods bringing that back to Skyrim? was it Morrowind?

>leveling up
He said good games

I'm also turned off by generic fantasy settings. Cliche in general gets painful real fast.

I think the core essence of what makes magic and spells interesting in games that have them is the power to bend reality, to almost edit the rules of the game. In Knights of the Old Republic, there's a force power, Burst Speed, that makes your characters move twice as fast. This is good to reduce on the amount of time you'd otherwise have to spend on tedious walking. Morrowind has a levitation spell, which allows you to basically fly across the map, letting you maneuver across it in ways that otherwise ordinarily would have been impossible. Various summoning magic in The Elder Scrolls games and Fable and others allows you to have a party of companions, no matter how temporary, and how limited to combat applications, when otherwise you wouldn't be able to and would have to ride solo.

Magic is great because it's become the most convenient excuse for game designers to add really crazy but extremely useful and fun mechanics to games that might have just been mundane without them---especially when most devs in all genres don't invest a lot of time into making deep, engaging melee and ranged combat.

Attached: 1465140533705.gif (301x300, 949K)

not that I know of
any ideas for good progession?

Yes, entertainment is very important in games

I would actually love this, this is all I want, the tedium of running back and forth isnt very fun. I like scrapping items on the fly and managing food as I get it while in a dungeon.

any one who thinks 15 minutes or more of solid walking is engaging gameplay is probably autistic and out of touch.

>there was never a wii jet grind radio where you held the wiimote vertically like a spray can

smfh

I loved this game as a kid, but replaying it now, the story is kind of cringy, and I really hate how they throw in political tidbits in there without explaination. You get one sentence about "the elites overtake us" and that's it. I don't want long explaination in games, but if your game is going to be about such far reaching and important topics, it's appropriate to explore them more deeply. Money is too useless in this game. There should have been a way to sell and buy stuff so that you can optimize your inventory according to the way you play (selling assault gun ammo for prod chargers, for example) - as it is, it's much too inconvenient to not "go with the flow". You're seemingly given a choice but one choice is just so much objectively better than the other.

Still an 8.5/10 but only the 10/10 masterpiece if you really, really get into the story and somewhat agree with its ideals .

What the actual fuck is this thread

>The game's ideal...
That's only one of the three endings. The other two take virtually the opposite approach, and not as "bad endings" at all (arguably, JClios is the canon ending).
>What I don't like...
Any coherent plot has to establish some facts, otherwise nothing has meaning. It's not simply about the elite being at fault; the game supplies many points to justify the existence of such organizations. The Illuminati had controlled the world for at least a millennium, but while they were behind a number of wars and major events in history, they also facilitated the careful expansion of technology and mediated most conflicts before they reached the public eye. It was only a coup by technocrat evil-genius Bob Page that ruined the status quo. Further, the game makes an argument in favor of central power in the form of a mostly-autonomous socially-authoritarian Chinese government, "the last sovereign nation on Earth". Then there's Helios, the omniscient immortal AI that wishes to be the benevolent god to all of mankind. And on the flip side, it gives plenty of examples to show the negatives of decentralization. Hong Kong is fundamentally controlled by rival gangs, causing rampant crime. India and Pakistan go into nuclear war without a strong UN/global power to discourage sectarianism. The NSF, the flag-bearers of independence and libertarianism, are ultimately too small to ever be a serious threat.
>For me personally...
The game acknowledges exactly your points; if you read the info bulletins in UNATCO, it's fear of terrorism that makes people support them. And remember that the game was released before 9/11, the Patriot Act, Snowden, etc.
>the game almost admits
Yeah and it gets pretty tongue-in-cheek by the time you have Area 51/Greys, but to me it's remarkable that it had the intent of containing nearly every conspiracy/political view imaginable, yet still ties into a coherent plot where a person can interpret their own ideal story.

Individual characters may sometimes have simplistic explanations, but that's because it's supposed to be somewhat realistic, and non-preachy. In real life people generally don't go on MGS-tier five minute pseudo-intellectual tangents. Deus Ex is more about learning a little bit of every viewpoint and having to put everything into context, dig through all the emails/datacubes/etc, and come to your own conclusion. But even still I'd say that there are dozens of conversations on the longer side as well; are the bartender convos, the Morpheus convos, etc "one sentence"?

I'm curious what you think the game's "ideals" are, since it was intentionally supposed to be a game where you can find good or bad in any individual or group, depending on your own perspectives.

This was on an Atari 7800 which was a miracle of programming given the technology

You should strive to break boundaries of what's possible like these guys did

Attached: IMG_4574.png (610x353, 23K)

There are no real boundaries anymore. The hip thing these days is to put limitations on yourself and strike to create the best game possible within them, like those guys who program new NES games and keep them within 40KB

>Im not used to all this build stuff in ARPGs so Im genuinely curious: wheres the fun in replaying the same areas over and over again while sticking to a list someone else made?
that's exactly what a straight-up action game like Ninja Gaiden is, essentially

Why would you rule out linear games? Racing's about as linear as it comes outside of rhythm games yet it's built solely around replayability as a genre, same as arcade games. Or do you mean the meme type of "replayability" where instead of revisiting a game because it's it has additional depth or challenge you revisit it because it arbitrarily locks away content behind playthroughs? That's gay.

How the fuck would you make a Media, Corporate and Rocker class fun to play as in a video game and not boring as shit?

_
they'd only be fun in multiplayer
>media = fatal frame
>rocker = rock band
>corporate = EVE

_
>EVE
I said "fun", not a Microsoft Excel Simulator.

_
>media
Report who gets in too deep on some black market story shit
>corportate
You're literally a millionaire. You do crazy shit outside of the public eye that if leaked would cause outrage
>Rocker
Just a biker gang type deal. Travel around and sing and fuck and somewhere along the way you stumble upon some shady shit

There, easy.

_
You're literally describing story beats and roleplay, not gameplay for a video game.

_
>Media is stealth with a camera gun
>Corporate is dialogue based and starts with more money
>Rocker gets unique dialogue with gang members and aoe music stun ability
Wow that was so hard

_
games are so much more fun when there are more avenues for completing the game. taking someone down with your fame as a rocker, or catching them doing something illegal or embarrassing as a media, or buying his business out from under him as a corporate. there are so many better ways to play a game that don't involve guns or hacking

Attached: c - 1554432508654 - cyberpunk classes.png (3100x1550, 1.65M)

>87 replies
>15 IPs
>one autistic faggot can't stop posting
Start a blog faggot.

The current technological level of video games would never allow for you to have enough freedom to have 9 classes in a AAA game and have then be unique gameplay wise and story wise. Imagine all the different mechanics most players would never see because they won't do 9 playthroughs, imagine all the ridiculous amount of design time they would have to take to make sure every mission is compleatable with every class while making sure their skills are useful so the selection doesn't feel meaningless, imagine the thousands of extra lines they would have to write and record in which characters acknowledge your class choice. Literally fucking impossible.

_
Not every class would be able to complete every mission, thats the fucking point, there would be enough unique ways of completing the main objective of the game giving you reasons to play the game completely different ways

_
I feel like certain classes' single unique skill could do a big change on gameplay.
I think Medias would be neat solely for how much their skill could change gameplay. Have a major focus on your job, cover events as you see fit your narrative to sway the major opinion, do deep digging to uncover secrets on big or local celebs and some other stuff.

Nothing's stopping you from replying to OP.
But you're just here to shitpost, obviously, not to contribute.

dubs
fun>not fun

Attached: D1itpfkUcAAHpqT.png (900x900, 804K)

that because mirrors edge 1 uses ray tracing, and mirrors 2 doesn't, and this mod does.

but more importantly, I think raytracing is integral to the players ability to interpret 3d space in a 2d screen, our brains are hardwired to process that lighting information to understand the enviroment. therefore when moving through said enviroment, at a high speed FPS view, that lighting information, whether baked or realtime is integral to the experience being comfortable and enjoyable for the player. catalyst understandably went with the nu-dev art-asset-pipeline without a thought to the player experience just to look "cool"

i know ea are through and through cunts these days with riccotello et-al, but this was still the devs responsibility not to be idiots

Attached: c - 1552040645173 - graphics.png (1363x875, 1.79M)

You are not contributing anything faggot, because you are blogposting.

define blogposting
also, you haven't denied that you aren't contributing and are just looking to complain about something

Why can't people make the difference between hard and punishing? Souls games are punishing, with the occasional hard enemy or boss. It's all about not fucking up and losing your pacing.Heal at the wrong time? punished. get greedy? punished. Don't pay attention and tunnel vision? punished. But so long as you keep up it's not hard. The most that happens is that you have to change strats for a boss, or change builds.

-No bullshit long ass cinematic intro with 20 minutes of tutorials
-No hand holding
-No easy mode
-Smooth fluid gameplay
-Lots of replayability
-Challenging content but the ability to become OP and steamroll everything if you know enough about the game
-Good voice acting

Attached: the chad protag.jpg (1280x720, 377K)

See . Fuck you faggots, boosting with one button verse boosting by holding right dont' matter, it's still boosting. All Sonic games that focus on pure speed is trash. Sonic is a platformer that uses momentum to explore and has mulitple ways for speedrunners to go fast via skill. 3K and Mania is the perfected examples prooving this. Sonic 2 is casual garbage and CD is only flawed because it's too heavily vertical in design.

Attached: 1553300250333 - sonic platforming.webm (770x469, 2.94M)

>-Challenging content but the ability to become OP and steamroll everything if you know enough about the game
odd preference
you got a hankering for powertripping?

Arin from Game Grumps already explained that
youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

Advance 2 is exactly how the boost should work, though. It's a reward for building and maintaining speed for a set amount of time. I also like how the time it takes to reach top speed lowers when you hold onto a large amount of rings. Gives collecting rings an actual purpose outside of only needing one to stay alive.

You're still doing it.
>this is [adjective]
What you need to do is
>this does x, y, and z, meaning it is [adjective]
Or alternatively if you have better eloquence,
>it's [adjective] and that's because x, y and z"
Perusing your arguments I see this guy I'll take a crack at
>There was no necessity to structure an immensely long hook to be a red herring for elements that won't matter. In fact it can be argued that the Navy's Metal Gear program is another red herring just to expose the later foe. Same may be said for solidus. In fact that entire section is setting up something that will not come into play.
Yes it had to be exactly that long. You probably didn't play the first game so you don't get it, but the fact that Kojima managed to so perfectly tell the same story 4 (four) times in the second chapter of 2 was amazing. It's telling the story of 1, it's telling the story of itself on its face, it's telling the story of you the player experiencing this all, and it's telling the story of how Raiden was literally just playing MGS1 the whole time. The whole "nonlethal playthrough" thing, which you probably missed being a gameplay challenge, highlights these moments especially. All those people you killed? You did that for a fucking videogame, Jack. Unless maybe you didn't, and that scene takes on a whole new meaning. You had to be fooled into thinking you had made it to the end when the floor drops out from underneath you and you're thrust into the chaos

Cute girls

That's it

Attached: 1552978218439.jpg (960x1379, 872K)

A moment of valor shines brightest against a backdrop of despair.
I like dark fantasy not only because of the aesthetic but also because that saving the innocent becomes all the more worthwhile when its in a world of monsters and deception. It makes your fight feel like a real struggle, not something pre-planned by destiny because the world is good.
Games like Darkest Dungeon and the Witcher are bleak but this makes that great moment of heroism and happiness all the greater. The darkness can also lend itself to interesting themes, worldviews and decisions.
Saving the princess gets boring. There must be something more to think on.
Though soemtimes it goes too far into the other direction. Like Game of Thrones "everything and everyone is evil and if not evil then stupid". Which is equally as unthinking and simple.

>It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.
Maybe that is not true for all dark fantasy. Sometimes the end is horrible no matter what. But that doesnt devalue what has transpired. A dark story can be perfect for many things.

>Not even a dnd-hate thing, but dnd's 'standard six' attributes have a lot of well-documented problems
>Care to ellaborate? I am curious

Perhaps most famous is the Int/Wis absolute clusterfuck. The thread below contains a lot of typical examples of the kind of extremely disparate ideas, baggage, and arguments that have been thrown around for 20+ years about what those two stats even do. Try asking your friends about what those two stats do; you're likely to spend a good twenty minutes arguing about IQ scores, idiot savants, ditzy geniuses, and perception.
>reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/31jgrk/what_wisdom_really_is/

You also have str/dex issues, where that divide doesn't reflect how bodies work. Irl, power and speed are the same. Stronger bodies move faster. You also get some issues relating to ranged weapons (i.e. 'hey strength is actually really important in archery', 'why don't I need to be accurate to throw shit at people', etc).

Dex has problems relating to merging manual dexterity, ability to move the entire body, movement speed (i.e. whether it should affect it), and reaction time. Also it's supposed to be "physical", despite dnd derived-characteristics such as initiative plainly including mental elements.

You get the classic "what does high strength + low con look like", and that question alone has a million answers depending on who you ask.

There's the age-old debate about charisma. What it represents, how much physical attractiveness goes into it, whether it should even be a stat in-game (under assumption that players are expected to simply roleplay everything)

Angry also goes over a few of the problems with ability scores in his essay here.
theangrygm.com/i-hate-ability-scores/

But perhaps the best way to learn what's wrong with dnd attributes is to try reading some games which do things quite differently. You'll feel the difference when you read them, much more clearly than you will from staring at dnd continuously.

>set Charisma to 1
>character can still converse with people normally, maintain eye contact, and make friends

I hate simpleton logic like this.

>I'm thinking of it as a Mental version of Constitution right now.
That's basically what it is. They didn't 100% go through with it, but you can kind of see that in how their first six attributes are set up
Intelligence = How you use your mental stats
vs Physical Prowess = How you use your physical stats

Mental Affinity = How you impact others through words and mannerisms
vs Physical Strength = How you fuck up the world around you

Mental Endurance = How much abuse your mind can take
vs Physical Endurance = How much abuse your body can take

then Speed and Beauty are kind of outliers.

Changing Beauty to Grace probably would make a lot more sense given beings with high beauty tend to be shit like elves, nymphs, or incubi; generally beings who might be described as having an aura of grace.

People think strategy is all about how simply moving units around and besting another player. Yet at its core, it isn't, its about dealing with uncertainty. Thats why the best strategy games have significant random elements, to create uncertainty. Panzer General (with Fantasy general), Steel Panthers, Atomic's V for Victory series, are the best examples. Most of the games people cite as "good strategy games" actually aren't strategy games at all. Chess is not a good "strategy game" neither is X-Com, starcraft or most RTS. They have their own strategy elements, but not games that require good understandings of probabilities and their effects on planning..

Attached: special - rts games - real time strategy - 1528006682412.png (2192x3016, 3.73M)

Exoddus has more gameplay variety because of course it does, they had time to tweak the game formula, but from a relative standpoint I think it’s the inferior game. In terms of “tone” it’s basically a level pack. The area makeup and Mudokon placement back this up as well. In Oddysey it feels like you’re in this weird world discovering secrets and occasionally rescuing a lost soul. In Exoddus it’s this loud smorgasbord of lights, levers, and other moving parts with all sorts of ways to get the pleasure center of your brain going. Oh look, a “hidden” path, there’s ten Mudokons to rescue at once!

Quiksave is a double-edged sword; saving was a bit fucked in Oddysey but Quiksave is like giving you emulator save states. You can tell yourself you’ll be responsible with it but when the game makers didn’t really indicate where the line is, it makes it a bit difficult.

Understandable. I personally think that Exoddus has a better tone due to it, because it knows when to have moments of light hearted fun and when to be serious. When it comes to mudokons, having 10 in one area is acceptable because now the game has 299 instead of just 99, and they still are spread out within their areas. I completely agree with quicksave though, it is hella broken.

The strategy is shifted towards other things like time/gold and items/spell/level synergy. Also the brainpower required is divided by 5 and if one player is retarded it can fuck up your whole game. Dota 2 is an incredibly complex game with mechanics that are really counter-intuitive for RTS players. The thing is that if you are good are RTS you can have a great time controling heroes with summons/mind control like chen/lycan.
In RTS games you control many units, but those units are really simple compared to any hero in dota, not even heros in wc3 came close to their counterparts in dota, and that was back in the day when dota was still evolving. Nowadays every hero has turned into an overlycomplex blob with uncountable synergies and situational effects that you need to know if you want to overcome the enemy team because their heros also have another set of situational effects and synergies on their heroes, the items they buy and between their teammates.

cute girls.

The OP does have a point in that jrpgs are weirdly homogenous.

A good way to demonstrate this is to look at how jrpgs utilize their settings. For instance, if you look at wrpgs that aren't high fantasy, like say Fallout, Deus Ex, Jagged Alliance, Vampire The Masquerade, etc. they tend to incorporate aspects of their setting in their gameplay. And I don't mean things like characters using guns. I mean stuff like Fallout having a barter economy, which is logical in a post-apocalyptic society where monetization has broken down. Or how cybernetic augmentations in Deus Ex take the place of a more traditional RPG system. Or the whole mercenary company aspect of Jagged Alliance.

It's obvious that a game's setting should inform its gameplay. But jrpgs really don't do this. Even jrpgs that take place in modern or futuristic settings, such as Persona or Xenoblade, still revolve around typical high fantasy cliches like dungeon crawling and god-killing shenanigans. The characters even still use medieval weaponry. Heck, Symphony of the Night is a Japanese vampire RPG where you play as a vampire, yet you can't even bite anyone to drink blood, meaning you can't even fulfil the basic function of a vampire. How lame is that? Or heck, Lost Odyssey, a game where you play as immortals, yet you can somehow still die from combat.

Another baffling trope is when jrpgs take place in a world such as Final Fantasy 7 or 15, where the technology and level of civilization is far more advanced than our own. Yet despite said technology and level of civilization, the world functions like a standard medieval fantasy world, with small settlements separated by vast, uncharted expanses of wilderness filled with wild beasts and roving bandits, and characters still using medieval weaponry. What is the point of going with a futuristic setting if it's functionally and thematically identical to a medieval fantasy world?

I've never understand why jrpgs are designed this way.

Attached: 1535100032208.jpg (2000x1797, 874K)

Attached: types of players.jpg (1280x720, 97K)

Square is artistically bankrupt.

>Makes ARPG
>Sells well but reviews for it are mediocre at best
>Core fanbase isn't happy even though they don't completely shit on the game

>Makes turn based RPG
>Game sells millions of copies
>Square can't fucking figure out why

>ARPG, open world, flat bland characters, empty world filled with fetch quests and typical mmo style go here and kill x amount of these with pointless rewards. Combat is button mashing mindlessness.

>RPG has rich story and a fair amount of sidequests that not only require choice (Which affects what you get as your reward as you sacrifice the other option) that are well worth your effort, combat requires either strategy or overleveling to the point of ruining the game for yourself

It's almost like the normies will buy whatever shit lands on their plate but the fanbase speaks for what they want.

turn based games are fine when there's actually something to it, but most jrpgs you can just mash attack or play elemental rps with no effort for 99% of the game. Action games let you style on trashmobs and try out different combos and stuff but that doesn't apply to turn based. Not like you're actually going to see if poison works on some random mook when you can just one shot it

actually your post made me think that yeah turn based works if you think of it (and turn based rpgs) as being/should be like strategy games in a sense, instead of being action games with turn based combat basically.

It was that guy who brought up the style thing, not me. I just said it was debatable that SF2 was the best despite how influential it is. I don't dislike SF at all, I just don't like ut as much as KoF and if we're talking style I don't think there's any contest. Take a game like MotW though which doesn't have some of what I think makes King of Fighters shine and I don't t think it compares well to Street Fighter 2 for example. Designs are cool but they don't reallt matter.

I like King of Fighter's large rosters and team battle set ups which make extended play sessions much more interesting and makes for much less predictable match ups. Dodges and rolls add another layer making projectile spam a much less viable option and close range characters don't all have to be balanced specifically to deal with it. Also specials in KoF are often more complex and require more effort and practice. Pulling off a pretzel or even simple orochinagi motion under pressure raises the bar in my opinion and is one of the reasons I have a lower opinion of Mark of the Wolves.

What the fuck is going on?

Attached: D5D9A8B7-CFED-4E90-89BC-8E4A9D59796B.jpg (680x343, 55K)

this reminds me of the gw2 bot that got the general banned from /vg/

There are two extremes to good game design: maximum freedom or maximum control

For the former that involves giving as much freedom and options to the player as possible, while still managing to make the game "fun" somehow and not completely directionless or aimless

For the latter it's basically tricking the player into playing a certain way that you want them to in order to enjoy the game more, without them realizing that they're being tricked or without them caring about it

The Dreamcast controller has to be the worst first-party controller I've ever had the misfortune of using. It's ergonomics are just so bad, it's too thin, the grips are too small, that analog sick hurts your thumb, there's only one analog stick, cord routes out the bottom, VMU was gimmicky as hell, just terrible. And that's not even counting things it's missing that are standard now like bumpers, analog stick button click, wireless/wired choice, built-in rumble etc.

Attached: Dreamcast - Etsy 340 × 270 etsy.jpg (800x533, 127K)

interesting

Attached: 1541489451229.png (320x320, 100K)

Just reminded me of my server (Draenor US) during late vanilla/TBC/wotlk

There was this human mage who sat at level 40 the entire time I played named Armani, who would do nothing but tailor shirts and bags and sell them on the auction house at ludicrous prices, like 30g for a black shirt. And people would buy them, just for the "made by armani" label. If you inspected anybody, they had a damn armani shirt. He used to come up with these little skit advertisements on trade chat too, everybody on the server knew he who he was. I miss shit like that.

boost """games""" physics engine:
>locked down with no freedom to do anything the devs did not intend you to do
>he same level of depth as hallway endless runner mobile games
>can not platform in 3D whatsoever, so they shove 2D sections to take care of it while 3D is autopilot phone game
>all you do is dash left-right and jump/crouch to avoid obstacles
>sonic controls as if he was a 5000lb car
>no flexibility whatsoever, takes very long to turn
>jumping from an inclined plane does not give you signifficant height, feel locked down by the physics engine

Adventure physics engine:
>jump off inclined planes to gain incredible height proportional to speed buildup from spindash
>jump into walls to get insane vertical height
>precise, accurate platforming
>huge potential to have rooftop to rooftop platforming level designs

Make this become pasta adventurebros. We have to change the narrative. The facts are on our side. All these boostfags got is dumb reviews from youtubers taken out of context.

Attached: 1553300524027 - sonic movement.webm (475x484, 2.45M)

The Gaecube buttons were so comfortable. Literally the ONLY controller (other than maybe Gensis) designed in a radial pattern to mimic the circular rotation of a thumb. No one ever brings this up. Cross pattern is overrated.

Attached: Nintendo GameCube Controller.jpg (300x225, 13K)

Not even close to the same
>Dearth of restores
>You have to punish the bosses hard and any mistakes you make are punished ten times as hard
>One mistake kills you or puts you in range where you have to heal immediately

I like it but it's way way harder than the other games

Because when I play the malk vampires, I don't want to be a realistically mentally ill autistic person, I want to be A crazy ass awesome Willy wonka type character who is off the walls but utterly on top of everything.

That's like 99% of the appeal of playing a malk, being someone who argues with a stop sign one moment and then utterly rips apart the conspiracy that's going on the next second.

Fuck man, even the insane hallucination about the Tuna playing chess with the sush chef was brilliant.

[see youtube.com/watch?v=JTPf8eozg7Y]

>>robot ally like Robo from Chrono Trigger, or Liberty Prime from Fallout. Maybe a mix of the two. Hell, make it a mix of Dungeon Man and EVE from the Mother series.
>gameplay
What?
>>enemies that learn from your attacks and have a connected network so the same trick won't work twice on them (so you have to keep shuffling your attack strategies to keep them at bay)
That's stupid. You can already have that with regular enemies learning from one mistake but then again it depends how they got fucked.
Also people don't want smart AI, they want AI that seems smart. An actual smart AI would destroy at least 95% of players

>IF THE GAME ISN'T FUN WHY BOTHER

Attached: 1544159433658.png (540x543, 266K)

The thing you fgc people need to realize is that some people want to play a game where combo'ing someone is more than just "dial out the combo with zero thought or variation" and getting comboed is just "put your controller down and do nothing for five seconds".

_
A shitty American kusoge, your point?

I like traditional fighters, but it is objective truth that when you're getting comboed you literally cannot do nothing for the entirety of it, and that Melee combos require creativity due to the lack of true combos in the game.

Attached: c - 1552042260288.webm (649x366, 2.96M)

>That's stupid. You can already have that with regular enemies learning from one mistake but then again it depends how they got fucked.
I really don't see how you can think it's stupid, and what this sentence is supposed to show: how it's stupid, or what the alternative is?

No women or minorities in positions of importance.

Designing good games.

dude, where are you getting this? give me source and good sites on this topic

>Also people don't want smart AI, they want AI that seems smart. An actual smart AI would destroy at least 95% of players

No, what you're describing is the result of an omniscient AI, who has access to all the information of a match within the milliseconds that data becomes available to it.

An opponent in a fighting game who knows what attack is coming from you the moment a button is pressed; a combatant in a shooter who knows precisely where you are while you could have no clue where they are; enemies in RPGs that know exactly whether RNG is in their favor for every possible action that they might take, and avoid ones which will produce less efficient results depending on what the RNG will be that turn: these are the bullshit AI players don't want. They are not merely "smart" AI---they are AI that know everything there is to know.

Attached: artstyle - 1551500692959 - coloring is warm, homeliness.jpg (800x670, 46K)

The GC controller has many good things but also has so much stupid shit.
Why is there not left shoulder button?
Why is the DPad so small and weird to use?
I could let it slide that it has no buttons below the analogs.
What was really nice about the GC controller was how good the analog sticks are. The triggers are really good, shame Nintendo ditched them forever. They actually used them in their games and it was pretty neat.
> designed in a radial pattern to mimic the circular rotation of a thumb. No one ever brings this up. Cross pattern is overrated.
Because what you say makes no sense. How the fuck do you use the buttons? You can reach all buttons with your precious circular rotation without accidently pressing the A button.
Also crosspattern allows to use more buttons combinations (AB, AX, BY, XY), while GC controller only allows 3 combinations, XY is still possible but it's not that easy

literally this site, my guy
boards.fireden.net/v
warosu.org/vr/
boards.fireden.net/tg/

if you really want to find the original contexts, posts and threads, you can reasonably deduce which board posts came from and do a simple literal string ("[Insert text here]") on any part of the posts.

youtube.com/watch?v=bE_ZuNp1CTI

Attached: 1502283744070.png (333x232, 40K)

I gave an alternative. There is no point in coming up with some kind of network learning how the player approaches situations when you just give a basic, standard intelligence and raise that standard with increasing difficulty.
An enemy should probably come up with something against your cheese strat but not every enemy should suddenly know about that approach. It's kind of lame.
> how it's stupid, or what the alternative is?
That an enemy should be able to learn but I don't want to fight the same entity throughout game in every game
No, even if the AI just knows basic strategic it can outplay a vast majority of players.
I wasn't even thinking of omniscient AI that reads your input

>Why is there not left shoulder button?
Because then that would be copying Sony. Half-assing it is enough to get the benefits of modern design while not overwhelming devs with freedom to implement more complex mechanics due to greater mapping space.
>Why is the DPad so small and weird to use?
I personally find it super stiff, which is what makes it bad. I imagine it was to force emphasis on using the analog stick for movement instead of allowing devs to fall back on the d-pad as a crutch, as was allowed with the N64 controller.
>What was really nice about the GC controller was how good the analog sticks are.
They're *okay*. They don't get *as* loose as other controllers, and the gates make a huge beneficial difference in terms of precision. The webbed design at the top also helped with grip and reducing slipping of the thumb.
>The triggers are really good
They're interesting, but can't tell how many games actually need or would benefit from their functionality.
>How the fuck do you use the buttons?
The A button being centralized allows it to be used as a hub for all other inputs. In SSB, I use it as my jump button, and I put attack, special, and grab on all the other face buttons. This allows me to easily use jump for instant aerials by simply slipping my finger to the attack button off the jump button (the big ass A), or by using it in jump cancelled or instant aerial specials (like laser and shine) and jump cancelled grabs.
>Also crosspattern allows to use more buttons combinations (AB, AX, BY, XY)
This is true but going directly across ([according to Xbox mapping] X to B, A to Y) is more error-prone. This cross-pattern makes it so that quickly hitting buttons requires way more care than it would on a Gamecube controller, which not only keeps your thumb in a central position with automatic access to all the other face buttons, but the layout and shape of the pad doesn't require looking down at the controller much at all. The feels are distinct.

Attached: Gamecube - Controller OFFICIAL Orange Spice.jpg (300x225, 16K)

>There is no point in coming up with some kind of network learning how the player approaches situations when you just give a basic, standard intelligence and raise that standard with increasing difficulty.
But then eventually the player permanently adapts to the AI and the game ceases to be as difficult from that point onward. The important part of replayability is that a game stays consistently challenging, and an AI based on machine learning continuously adapting to the players' changes in tactics allows it to consistently mount a formidable response to the player's efforts to overcome the game.

tl;dr its necessary to keep the game hard and prevent players from ever fully "figuring it out", busting it open

>Enemy swings downwards
>Deflect
>Enemy swings sideways
>Jump
>Enemy thrusts
>Dodge
>Boss?
>Use appropriate shinobi tool gimmick
>All other times
>R1R1R1R1R1R1R1
It amazes me that people are having difficulty with this, game is just aggressively paced rock-paper-scissors.

>Good game design
A video game I like
>Bad game design
A video game I don't like

>is there an natural dificult?
Yes, but it's not in any souls game. Natural difficulty doesn't rely on trial and error like souls games do, but on building a set of skills in the player and then testing those skills. A naturally difficult game is one that an observant and skillful player can (theoretically) beat without having to repeat anything.
Souls games do not do this. They are 3D versions of the shittiest platformers of the 80's and 90's. Soulsfags will say this shit is on par with SotN, but it's more on par with battletoads.

[How to make a game with SOUL]

_
Literally Mexican Donte. Have it be about fighting demons in classic Mexico or a Spanish place. Complete with Spanish demon folklore, cartels, and all
>every time you dodge/royal guard, the crowd chants Ole!!
>Spanish guitar gives us a Thicc Spanish Nevan
>places to fight like bar fights, old west, Spanish architecture,etc
>Mariachi music gets progressively louder the more your style goes up, to the point when it gets to S, the crowd really cheers you on

_
I'd kill for a character action game based on stereotypical Mexican folklore. Spanish guitars, lucha moves, sick neon skeletons, thick accents, sombreros, everything.

_
>instead of generic beer and cigarettes, El Donte drinks tequila and smokes cigars
>and has a classical guitar as a weapon

_
Nigga you had me at the Ole bit! That’s fucking perfect. The music would be Spanish guitar and mariachi and other shit too. Like Call of Juarez and stuff. God why hasn’t a game done this yet? Can you imagine the guns for this game and weapons? A fucking sombrero weapon with a glowing pancho would be 10/10

_
>Can you imagine the guns for this game and weapons?
>luchador mask fists weapon
>incorporates taunts into attacks by automatically playing a taunt after landing an attack
>as your style gauge increases, the taunts become longer but cause your next attack to deal more proportionately more damage for letting the taunts play out uninterrupted

_
>Luchador style moves
>Can fucking Chokeslam/Elbow Slam demons
>Can fucking PUT THEM IN HOLDS AND MAKE THEM TAP OUT
>WHEN THEY TAP OUT you SNAP THEIR NECK

_
Nono, you wear three masks and switch between them for human/demon/angel style. Your taunts and moves change as well, so you act more like a heel in demon style and a face in angel.

_
>every time you switch to the demon luchador mask, you hear a whip crack along with a spanish voice saying El Diablo

Attached: 877d10f7bedd3624c0f0aeaf36e618ec-d5vhfhm.png (845x974, 861K)

>Because then that would be copying Sony.
Even the SNES had two shoulder buttons. If I'm not mistaken the DS2 doesn't even have triggers, just 4 shoulder buttons.
>The A button being centralized allows it to be used as a hub for all other inputs. In SSB, I use it as my jump button, and I put attack, special, and grab on all the other face buttons. This allows me to easily use jump for instant aerials by simply slipping my finger to the attack button off the jump button (the big ass A), or by using it in jump cancelled or instant aerial specials (like laser and shine) and jump cancelled grabs.
Fair point but very situational and you can just bind that function to one shoulder button and have four free face buttons but I agree that combining the A button with three other buttons works on the GC controller. But other combination do not.
>This is true but going directly across ([according to Xbox mapping] X to B, A to Y) is more error-prone.
I didn't include those because of that. I used the Nintendo layout since the SNES which is just like Xbox/DC but XY and AB being switched.
> This cross-pattern makes it so that quickly hitting buttons requires way more care than it would on a Gamecube controller
Maybe, but you don't have to be really that careful. It might be easier for someone who never used a controller but it's really not an issue.
While the feels are distinct it's also a non-issue. You learn fast enough where which button is

one thing i liked about DmC was how easy and natural it was

to switch between weapons
i even like how the hook is used.

_
To be honest, they should have kept the smoking. It would

have fit Donte's character.

>He's smoking nearly every scene
>Every couple of scenes, you see he get a new pack
>At the end, he's about to light another one, but stops
>"You know what? I think I'll quit."
>"...Tomorrow."
>Lights it up

People conflate art direction and level design. From a purely artistic standpoint, the stages were nice to look at. From a gameplay standpoint having to navigate those stages, they were hot fucking garbage

>here use your grappling hook to pull some debris back
>this serves absolutely no purpose other than to ensure our level designers get their 40 hours for the week because the whole thing is a fucking hallway anyway

In the GTa games and Red dead I always use the cinematic camera even though It's difficult to control, do you know why? Because it looks cool as fuck, same reason I played the Uncharteds and God of War,cinematic camera angles make games look cool

Attached: c - 1552854887612 - graphics.jpg (3840x2160, 843K)

Attached: c - 1552854899355 - graphics.jpg (1920x1080, 558K)

>The important part of replayability is that a game stays consistently challenging
Yeah but playing against the same enemy isn't fun either.
At that point you're better off with implementing a multiplayer system

battlefield is 100% baked with only humans shooting guns shit you faggot
xv is fully dynamic real time gi lighting and pbr with a full weather and daynight susten full of monsters and party members with more animations alone than the entirety of your shitty shooter, while made is 1/4 the time and 1/5 the dev team size too

_
>battlefield is 100% baked
So is almost every game including FFXV. XV doesn't have dynamic GI it uses prebaked lights for various areas. That's why whne you exit buildings the entire games visual pipeline spergs out.

It was calld FPV or something like that, they talked about it at the siggraph around the time of release.
also
>PBR
lul retarded faggot

Who says you're playing against the same enemy?
Don't know where you got that part from.

When will you shitheels realize that realism itself is an artstyle, and the only reason that style ages quickly is because because it's so common. If there were dozens of games done in the Hollow Knight artstyle, Hollow Knight would look like shit in 5 years as well.

This.
Graphics have a short shelf life. It's the art direction, lighting, and atmosphere that keep the visual fresh.

Because according to your idea they're all connected to some kind of network. It's the same AI/entity all over.

I've beaten it. The base game anyway. Never bought any of the DLC.
Character models look good. World, when fully rendered, also looks pretty good. The issue is a lot of it doesn't render in gameplay, with a low draw distance and a lot of pop-in. A lot can probably be attributed to the shitty dev cycle it had, as I said.

It won't seem like you're continuously facing the same "guy" when "his" capabilities continue shifting due to inhabiting different avatars, i.e., your real, in-game enemies, who don't all have the same attacks, patterns, and abilities.

besides, even if that were an issue, you can just have separate neural nets for separate parties/groups/kinds of enemies
the only reason devs don't do this today is because of technical limitations that tie into things like schedule and budget

The original Itagaki masterpiece is the real shit. NGB was made for the 50 IQ American audience. In the original when you get to the floating rock boss fight there is no tutorial. You get there, you don't know what the fuck to do, mash a bunch of buttons and die. In NGB you have this pansy-ass tutorial explaining the goddamn controls! What the fuck is that? Do you think I'm 3 years old? I'm perfectly capable of pressing random shit on the controller and taking basically forced damage until I figure things out through brute force.

In the labyrinth in NGB they threw in a kunai scroll telling you to use the Flails against the ghost fish. What the fuck??? Don't tell me what to do! Imagine someone playing the game for the first time. They go into the labyrinth, get eaten to death by ghost fish, restart. That's how games should be. Fuck your advice NGB, I do what I want. If I'm gonna die I'll die. But I'll die like a man, NOT through reading sissifying tutorials.

Also, in the labyrinth there was no save statue near the end in the original. In NGB there is. Fuck. That. Noise. May as well put sissy checkpoints at bosses. Put me back at the start of the level when I die goddammit. Checkpoints are bullshit. Saves are bullshit. Give me an NES-style system where I have to start the game from the beginning if I run out of lives/continues.

It's too bad the NG series was constantly being plagued by people cramping Itagaki's style. NG04 was perfect then The Devils fucked with the rest, putting in more save points, weak tutorials, Anti-American staff weapons, cowardly smoke bombs, etc. NG2 was flawed because some jackass was always playing pranks on him during development. Lord Itagaki knows the Real Shit, others are haters though. Devil's Third is underrated because people just don't know. Yaiba is deffo a piece of shit though believe me, since he had nothing to do with it.

Attached: 1538656520008 - tomonobu itagaki.jpg (960x960, 79K)

DmC

Core values

Weird how most of the sisy shit describes Sekiro

DMC4 Nero was more satisfying to play as.

His animations and sound effects had a lot more meat to them. Red Queen/Blue Rose had much more pronounced effects and their colours suited them much more than in 5, especially when charged up.

His buster animations were also a lot more brutal/useful for dealing damage and the enemies had better hit reactions. In particular, there was a better sense of weight to everything; bustering an assault in the air would drag Nero to the ground because of how heavy it was, charged shot would sent Nero flying back, slamming enemies on the ground felt much more impactful etc.

Since Nero always had his buster, enemies (e.g mephistos, gladius) and levels (platforming sections) were designed around this, whereas in DMC5 the developers can't account for Nero having X Devil Breaker on hand so enemies can't be designed around certain breakers (this is also ignoring that the enemies have to be beaten by the 2 other characters).

DMC5 Nero is fun to play but he pales in comparison to DMC4 Nero.

Attached: c - 1528833823914 - dmc animations 4 vs 5.webm (640x650, 602K)

Attached: 1552513273417 - dmc4 credo nero.gif (320x180, 2.18M)

>Weird
Is it though?
People were afraid before it released that Activision's involvement would "casualize" it; though nobody knew how that would manifest.

Will Wright has a Master Class video series on it, pirate it and watch it.

JRPG with vast open world exploration (like an MMO, but more detailed, kinda like XBC2 but less fragmented), job-based combat system with turn based battles.Compelling story with a scale like FFX or FFIX where you slowly get to visit the entire world (doesn't have to be 'save-the-world' tier) and where you can make your own characters following some 'behaviour' templates so they can fit specific roles in story and cutscenes. Like you can create the "childhood friend" character (either male or female) with some traits like 'aggressive', 'shy', 'wimp', etc and based on a combination of gender + traits they behave differently in the story interactions. Repeat this for every party member.

>mfw playing bayo for the first time
>all that outlandish bizzare sexiness
I'm not sure what to feel bros.
It's not your typical "I want to insert my penis inside her" but rather "I want admire her in a cloud of perfume while letting her have metaphorical drugged-out animalistic tantric sex with my literal mind"

Attached: artstyle - 1546231788344.webm (1280x720, 948K)

Easy mode
>make team voice chat work based on distance, dead players are muted.
>spy's backstabs will never show on the enemy's kill feed
>spy using voice chat will not have a notification while invisible
>cloaked/disguised spies will not show outlines when someone respawn
>allow disguised spies to press R to simulate a reload animation

Hard mode
>unfuck the hitboxes so backstabs actually require hitting the back
>unfuck weapons like the enforcer so they can be sidegrades that reward alternative playstyles

>New sapper that hacks enemy sentry and makes it shoot the engineer's team.
Make it a harder to destroy sapper that makes the sentry malfunction and shoot at random directions, possibly hurting anyone nearby.

Also a sapper you can throw but does less damage and requires a cooldown afterwards.

No
While he is challenging you can literally memorize it
Undyne is objectively harder since there is some rng

_
>While he is challenging you can literally memorize it

That's the whole point. You keep losing over and over until you know how to do it, putting emphasis on the games theme of player determination

Don't forget that Skyrim's main plot parades you through every guild and organization even forcing you to join some of them. I can tolerate that in Oblivion you can be archmage, champion, listener, blade, grey fox, crusader, vampire, and daedric prince all in one, but it handled shit better. Instead of forcing you to join the university to learn about crap, you just have to bother an NPC that comes out of the university now and then.

It's very ironic that it railroads you into that bullshit but at the same time you can complete the story without ever visiting Morthaal, Falkreath, or Markarth.

>What do you mean? I noticed I feel more limited in 5, but I couldn’t really understand why. I felt like too many attacks required me to finish the animations before executing other inputs.
Itsuno has reduced the number of animation cancels in DMC4, then again in DMC5. This is why Gilgamesh feels like slogging frozen shit compared to Beowulf, despite Gilgamesh technically having a more diverse moveset and having its animations practically ripped from DMC3.

In DMC3 you could cancel the ending animations of an attack by:
>Switching weapons.
>Shooting.
>Jumping.
>Rolling.
>Activating DT.
>Just timings.
>Using your style moveset.
>Enemy Hop.

In DMC4 a lot of these were removed and pointless dumbshit frame timings were added instead so we could get stupid fighting game shit like MAX-ACT that even the most pro players can't properly time, and Distortion, which just pointlessly destroys everything in the game.

DMC5 removes all of them. I haven't found a single cancel anywhere outside of spamming enemy hop, and a few jump cancels on Balrog's Blow Mode, which as so fucking worthless they may as well not even exist and I'm pretty sure they're a bug or oversight, and not something intended.

Attached: c - 1446713873409 - dmc3 subhuman combo.webm (800x600, 2.86M)

if a game falls apart on its highest difficulty then it's not a good game

also the fundamental combat balancing is fucked and between UTs and OTs there's way too much focus on "cinematic" moves

This nigga isn't wrong. Fuck you people, I've played the online parts of these games, you haven't. I've gotten hate mail after invading a dude where he says he's trying to summon his friend, or to stop killing said friend, because he needs help cheesing a boss with an overleveled character buddy. There are people out there that got the games only because they knew someone else that beat them many times, and played co-op with those people so they could breeze through a game.

We can argue all day and night about how people play or why, but the statement was made: why the fuck would you PAY money for a game to have someone else beat it for you? It's literally pointless and a borderline insult to games as a hobby. I personally know THREE motherfuckers who absolutely refused to play alone and flat out quit if we couldn't connect for co-op, and one of them got lost at the starting areas of Bloodborne even though you literally go straight and that's it. Do NOT fucking underestimate how retarded people are and how they latch on to games as nothing more than a social thing for imaginary social gamer points.

Deus Ex isn't even praised for its plot, it more has to do with the superb level design and just how much room it gives to the player in the way you can approach things. It's a cross-bread of System Shock 2 and first two Thief games and it's absolutely fucking great.

none of this really bothers me about the Prime series but one of the things that does is the focus on scanning
It's hilarious in a way because the scanner was basically the most useless completely skip-able item in Super Metroid but what bothers me is that it completely changes the tone of the games
2D Metroid relied almost entirely on environmental story telling with virtually no text throughout the whole entire game
But then in Prime they had to go and ruin that by making everything scan-able and just handing you the lore with no subtlety
But it's not even like this is unique to Prime
Games in general seem to have no clue how to subtly deliver a story it's just that Metroid was one of the series that actually used to before Prime

[YouTube comment]

youtube.com/watch?v=G35b4R9bk8g
Amazing. Now that Dmc3 has weapon switching and style switching mods I feel the greatest possible combos are out of human reach- meaning the potential is absolutely limitless.i can't imagine someone switching 3 or 4 weapons over in such a short amount of time, switching styles, jump canceling,processing their next move, switching 2 or 3 weapons over, royal guarding the incoming attack perfectly, switching styles all throughout.

made by people who actuallu like games and also aren't retards
that's about the only criteria I require

To expand on what has said. BR is the soccer of videogames.
The inherent fact of not having the same level of control over your legs as your arms causes more randomness and unpredictability in the outcome of each match. Whenever you pit two teams against each other, the randomness can make up for an initial difference of skill. The underdog winning is a huge narrative we can all relate to.
All this applies to BR.
Individual players have very limited control over their environment, and are subject to the other 99 players' positions, their current loadouts/armor/vehicles (which is impossible to predict unlike static map shooters) and if there's building involved, how much they can spam the build a structure command.
All this creates a constant crescendo of tension with players dying and the playing field shrinking. Still at the end of the day a victory or defeat is shallow and pointless, since the other 99 players left and started another match as soon as they got eliminated.

Attached: humor - 1551929546366.webm (640x360, 2.19M)

>Fantasy MMO
>World changing events that players can take part in and decide the outcome
>World can go to shit if players decide to
>Some balance of building and raiding
>Ships for traveling
>Degree of GM interaction-such as if your city/civilization gets big enough/last long enough you can petition to get a custom building or something similar made so that player towns aren't all the same
>Living lore written on each server by events
>Players can take the roles of monsters/npcs during some events to make things more difficult

kotaku.com/the-bizarre-construction-of-silent-hill-3-1830056465
The Bizarre Construction Of Silent Hill 3
Cameron Kunzelman
10/28/18 1:00pm Filed to: Silent Hill

In a new episode of the YouTube show Boundary Break, host Shesez explores Silent Hill 3 to show off some of the stranger parts of the game.

youtube.com/watch?v=RntfgO8UIco

While I have ceased to be truly astonished by the weird ways that games are put together, this episode of Boundary Break digs into some strangeness around Silent Hill 3 that I just didn’t know about.

The first is that the town of Silent Hill itself loads in “chunks.” This isn’t necessarily surprising, as many games do this for parts of the world when you aren’t looking at them, but there’s something really spooky about Silent Hill not existing until you’re standing in it. Until then it’s just a creepy grey void hidden behind some fog.

The second is that I was not aware of how many re-used assets from Silent Hill 2 are in the game. Shesez claims that the town itself is a recycled asset (which makes sense), but he also highlights the fact that Angela Orosco and James Sunderland make pseudo-cameos in Silent Hill 3. Angela is the head of a diner patron in the game’s opening, and James is subbed in for Harry Mason, the protagonist of the original Silent Hill. These character models from the second game are just conveniently there to be used, and it makes me wonder how compressed together the development times for Silent Hill 2 and Silent Hill 3 were.

In any case, like all of the Boundary Break videos, this one is worth watching all the way through to see some of the neat tricks that developers use to bring their worlds together.

files.catbox.moe/o5ey9l.mp4

Attached: c - 1540357357319.png (297x366, 233K)

7/10 game
average, mediocre, unimpressive but playable

+
God tier music and decently sized world and good voice acting
An alright twist on the JRPG combat system
good art

-
horrible pacing
absurdly repetitive structure
boring opponents
bad balancing
linear quests
total lack of character interaction
bad writing in several chapters
boring exploration
shallow itemization
pointless character classes
terrible endgame storyline delivery
final boss gated behind 30 minute grind with no save slot
no puzzles
totally sterile and uninteractive world

This is the downside of facial scanning. You can no longer create idealistic beauty, you have to settle for realistic beauty. And while genuinely beautiful people exist, you're also limited to the number of actresses available to you. So you get shit like this and nuClaire, because that's who was available to you at the time, and it was "good enough."

Attached: 1548745380483 - claire redfield comparison.png (1169x521, 1.04M)

world design is built around it.

_
This.

>Morrowind
>"Go north, hang a left at the temple, NPC lives in the second house on the right."
>Skyrim
>"Go talk to the NPC!"

Telling people to just turn off the casual features doesn't work, because games that use casual features by default are generally designed around those features. You'd have to completely rebalance, change dialogue, put up different visual cues, possibly redesign key portions of the map, etc.

if something is fun for about 8 seconds and you can milk that/make it continuous
shut up with your jarpig bullshit dude.

>you're also limited to the number of actresses available to you.
in most cases they just bring in pretty girl and scan her in as a game model then animate it however they want. most games don't actually use complicated mocap for every cutscene and character animation.

your only limitation is in which pretty girl you want to choose.

Parries and backstabs ruin Souls combat

They're just QTEs without the visual button prompt

Attached: 1449938776414.webm (800x500, 2.86M)

>It should be a pretty well known fact by now that video games need mechanics that challenge you in some way,
And Durability fails to do that. There's no challenge in an element that does not come into play during actual gameplay. It only becomes a thing in between fights, a chore that causes you to head back to town or sift through your inventory to repair/replace your gear.
It never becomes a thing during a fight because the player is not likely to start the next fight when he knows his only option is going to break before the fight is over. It doesn't encourage scavenging or exploration, it encourages not fighting.

Zelda's system is no better. Shit tier Weapons litter the ground in such excess that you leave areas with junk all over the place. In fact, there's so little reason to fight chump enemies on the overworld since the end result is a net loss. They'll always give you shit and the best stuff is found in established locations or by doing puzzle shrines rather than through combat. You also have infinite bombs.

The only game that has done a good durability system, one in which managing your weapon is a part of the fight, is The Way of the Samurai.
In WOTS1 2 and 3, reckless attacks and excessive blocking build up tension, pushing it too far will crack the blade and reduce the maximum amount of stress it can handle before breaking further. You had to pace yourself to keep the heat down, and make use of proper parrying and attacking the enemy's openings to minimize heat buildup.
Keep fucking around and it will eventually shatter. This system made durability a part of the game, and also made it something you could manage in such a way that skillful play would leave your sword in pristine condition for a whole playthrough.

And then WOTS4 FUCKED IT ALL UP by removing that system in favor of a generic degrading durability system in which you keep on heading back to Dojima to get your shit repaired regularly between fights.

Same for inventory management in most RPGs that amounts to a bit of busywork with no decisionmaking involved

examples?
I can't think of unequivocally useless items in RPGs that are supposedly there to actually serve a purpose

Attached: tldr.jpg (643x820, 75K)

Inventory management, with a weight limit or whatever
There's usually no impactful choice to be made, the extent is often 'I'll grab item x over y because it has higher value per weight"

big bouncing anime tiddies and stripper outfits

>What makes good game design?
Games that stay true to their formula and make it flow. Game progression has to feel natural, consistent and fair and the activities the game throws at you need to be fun and engaging. A somewhat servicable story helps as well but is no must.
pic related does it well enough I think.

Attached: Sands of Time.jpg (640x908, 99K)

ah
yeah Resident Evil is better about that by having actual shape as the limitation; I believe hardly anyone has ripped it off

yes, leveling up is not one of them

Yeah that's one of the exceptions
The Long Dark also makes this an important factor because weight is extremely limited and time is essential

>first game made durability a central mechanic that forces you to manage your weapon and play style
>sequel reduces it to a useless bar to top off occasionally
Swordcraft Story had this happen too and it pissed me right off

For Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, it was the simple fact that it was a platforming game that tried to push the boundaries on platforming mechanics.
It wasn't just that you needed to do parkour to progress, from wall-running to wall-jumping to edge climbing, hanging, walking, and so very much else on, but that it implemented a solid, well-functioning physics system to back all that up. You can tell exactly when the Prince is losing steam on a wall run, swinging off bars isn't automatic as you need to build momentum from swinging in place first, and the camera doesn't actively work against the player when they're pulling off all their feats by keeping an eye both on where the player is now and what the upcoming obstacle will require.
It was fairly linear and didn't allow too much deviation from the expected course of platforming, but it made what platforming it forced you to do feel pretty good, especially compared to the vast majority of action games with platforming elements that don't even include jumps with momentum behind them (like DMC).

Older games were challenging because of unpredictability, enough to warrant saying they have their own kind of emergent design. Whereas in modern games everything is scripted. It might seem like systemic design but it's an illusion created by the developers. Older games were the real deal. Just you against a virtual world trying to stifle you from executing its mechanics to the fullest extent of your ability. Modern games expect you to win. From the foundational level they're insured against potential game-ending situations by way of exploring of the game's mechanics because developers care too much about optics these days, because that's what people care about these days. As video games were commoditized the industry became a giant trend-chasing centipede kowtowing to the circuitous predetermined path to homogenization and complacency like the games themselves. Gaming has no identity. Only Nintendo occasionally ventures away and creates a game or new genre that hearkens to these old values, like ARMS.

Phantasy Star's got style, it doesn't need atmosphere

Attached: Ranger - Phantasy Star Wiki -.jpg (1200x1600, 441K)

Go back to your twitter threads, nigger.

sfv didn't have
arcade mode
story mode
vs cpu
and more stuff like 2nd player rematch option or lobby filters.

it had shitty tutorial mode
meh combo challenges (only 10 per character)
awful survival mode
horrible netcode

DOA is getting all above with decent netcode, matchmaking filters (wifi, lan icons)
-an awesome training mode and indepth tutorial mode
-combo challenges
-command training
-arcade mode
-story mode
-survival
-doa central
-that game mode where you do missions and get rewarded. (I dont remember
the name)

BUT YEAH DOA IS BAREBONES HURR HURR EARLY ACCESS GAME

Attached: doa - 1547411831840 - hayabusa izuna drop.webm (1280x720, 2.84M)

>all those useless particles and hit effects

If one thing Itagaki was really good at was making sure nothing meaningless would make it in his games, he would've never allowed all these stupid transitions and gimmicks.

Don't forget

>No tag battles

I know most people won't care but for me it was a fun way to introduce people to it. It was also one of the last fighting series to have a way for people to work together ant not exclusively against one another. Again, a nice way to introduce casuals. Goes for 2 v AI in Survival (loved it) or 2 v 2 players.

That said, I did think the demo was good and that the fundamentals seem good. I was worried about meter in DOA but it seems to be fine.

>Slow and boring
Oh, you mean games where you can't win by just touching your opponent once?

>VF is ugly as fuck and dead

Doesn't contradict my point.

Literally you guys are only good for complaints.

We give you a game here that:

-Lenient inputs
-Small to slightly difficult execution ceiling
-Playable and fun at all level
-Doesn't condone mashing
-A variety of roster, no clone whatsoever, each character has its own gameplay and depth
-No comeback mechanics
-Relatively easy combos (no such crap as 1 second move cancel)
-No frame links
-Being good doesn't mean mastering dumb techs that some people are physically unable to perform.
-Your own play style decides the match-up.

And you still complain:
>Oh but the game is dead
>The game looks ugly
>the characters are bland
>no story mode
>no lore

You guys gotta cut out the crap at some point and just be serious, you only find excuses to not get good.

>The best fighting games out there and I would even say fighting games in general are known for great graphics.
Not even going to comment on how much stupid that sounds.
But do you mean something like clay fighter maybe?
SF5 is still a good game by any means.

Anyways, it's not like Virtua Fighter is really ugly, in fact each iteration offers the best graphics you can get for a fighting game.
The game is just old.

Attached: Goh Hinogami from Virtua Fighter.png (929x2479, 2.21M)

IV was the first execution heavy SF. The franchise has never emphasized combos and execution outside of the worst games: Alpha 3 and SFIV. The reason Alpha 3 emphasizes it is because it was a straightup broken game.

SF2, Alpha 1/2, and all versions of SF3 all emphasized fundamentals over anything else. Most inputs are extremely simple compared to other fighting games and most combos were just a couple of normals into a special move at best.

Compared to other games at the time, like Samsho, SF was much easier input wise.

Third Strike is often praised as the best in the franchise, and many agree it is among the most complex in the franchise. That being said, it also has the easiest inputs in the franchise. Charge buffering lets you do charge moves in ways you literally cannot in other SF games. Almost all supers are universally the simple QCF x2 motion. Most special moves are very simple input wise too.

And only a few characters are particularly combo heavy in SF3. Outside of Yun's genei jin it's mostly Urien, Makoto, Dudley, and arguably Oro. Among those, only Dudley actually had a lot of combos OUTSIDE of just using a specific super designed for juggles.

And even then it is certainly easier to do all that shit than it was to do some of the basic combos in SFIV because of how important links were.

The removal of hard knockdowns (in most cases), tight links, and shit tons of option selects means people will get to have more input on how a match goes. Same with the removal of chip wins. There are way too many near unwinnable situations in SFIV, and plenty of guaranteed wins. The parry system prevented a lot of guaranteed wins in SF3, but it also brought in a lot of its own problems. SFV will have its own problems as well, such as

>normals feeling like complete shit in most cases
>almost no reward for going out of your way to try to create setups

but none of them will be as bad as the throw system in IV, for example.

Attached: sf3-logo2.png (803x217, 307K)

Japan loves anything with an emotional punch, no matter how silly. Anime is all about the hype moments and surprise and sorrow. Undertale lives on that philosophy of emotive entertainment. And it does it exceptionally well because each scene / level / conversation is designed around the music, which is emotionally paired to the plot point.

Gameplay and visuals aside, the clever pairing of emotive music with plot pieces is powerful, and Japan eats that stuff up.

>RTSFPS
>One player per team is assigned the role of being a normal RTS player, while everyone else can either play as a generic mook, or opt to wait in a queue
>RTS player needs to construct buildings and individual units
>Queued people can pick the special units (vehicles, specialist infantry etc.) when they become available
>RTS needs to keep the supply line going while the other players need to fulfill whatever the RTS commands them to do in order to succeed, and vice versa
>Special units are also free to use their special abilities whenever they see fit
>Players can also be picked up by vehicles to be ferried across the battlefield
>Special areas on the map give buffs and other bonuses to whoever owns them
It's basically Natural Selection but with more options being given to the command-role, and vehicles

That sounds great, I'd play the fuck out of it. Have a similar idea about a somewhat KND-inspired stealth game where you play as kids in a school. You'd have kid gadgets, like RC cars, mail-in X-Ray glasses, and slingshots, and missions would be parodies of typical stealth game missions. Getting a teacher fired/getting a student sent to detention in place of assassinations, starting a food fight in the cafeteria to create a distraction, sneaking into the office to alter test results, etc.

>An open world RPG where you play as a super-villain.
>You can customize powers, costume, the entire ordeal
>You can just fuck around with powers outside of main missions just for the hell of it, earning points of villainy which are basically exp used to upgrade and unlock new powers, so eventually if you wanted to you could have all the powers you wanted
>You can even combine the traits of two abilities you've unlocked to allow for more unique experiences
>You don't even need to conquer the world, you can just be that asshole who moves someone's car in a parking lot
>You can also do heroic things to get hero exp, a separate meter which allows you to unlock missions to get eventually get you a superhero ending

A game all about the joke character with a maxed out luck stat

No progression, I prefer no progression at all, if I like a game I replay it a lot, but a game like Metroid or Zelda, I just can't, your character changes so much and gets so much better, I rather have a character that stays the same from beginning to end and all is skill. Or a game with item progression but new game plus where I keep everything

Attached: c - 1546290276536 - sonic game dsign.png (1366x768, 794K)

Character progression overall. If you can stick with a basic or mid tier weapon for a chunk of the game or items are dependent on utility rather than stats that's better in my opinion

Attached: 1484542538674 - kingdom hearts 3 sora.jpg (940x529, 145K)

I hate games with skill point progression which can't be re-spec'd. I end up restarting the game over and over with new characters trying to find the perfect build.
So I don't care much what the progression system is so long as it's always easier to change your character's play style than start a brand new character.

Then lets do more to make the monsters seem like they're real creatures and not meaningless piles of numbers. As it stands its impossible to interact with your supposed best friends and companions outside of battle or a incredibly basic minigame. Take advantage of new hardware, give them personalities and defining traits. Let us spend time with them in the overworld just hanging out, or doing some activities together. If you won't do something new at least improve on what you already have.

Attached: 1543857138694 - platinum friend park.gif (500x329, 134K)

>FF1
>Both MMOs
These games actually do not have job systems, even though the MMOs use the word 'job' they're pretty standard class systems. Jobs being seprate from character levels so you can switch back and forth without losing progress is a core element of the system. Even PSU has more of a 'job system' than FF11 or 14.

Attached: 1554690131119 - ffv classes.gif (988x480, 322K)

the three types of fun in video games are:
gameplay/challenge
narrative/aesthetic
creative/self-expression

you can say that gameplay can be further broken down into strategy, skill and luck
your seperation of short term and long term intellectual skill is the definition of tactics and strategy - tactics between what lies between abstract strategy and raw mechanical skill at the game

Some of the Team Skull grunts had some character. They weren't exactly evil, they were just goofy misfits who weren't good enough for the island challenges that came together to form a team. The interactions were charming too, like that one Team Skull grunt who couldn't do the pose right and was thinking of leaving the team until other members came together to help him out and treat him as a part of the Team Skull family. There aren't any interactions like that with Team Flare. They're just a bunch of assholes who keep talking about their suits and money. The only interaction between members you see in the game is between Flare Admins.

_
instant text
skippable cutscenes
less linear
fewer interruptions during exploration
less handholding
hold b to make battles faster ala golden sun

_
It would bring back features that Game Freak keep cutting and readding for no god damn reason. Vs. Seeker, Following Pokemon, Ball Seals, Difficulty options, Battle Frontier, leader rematches, Dex Nav, Triple/Rotation battles, Game Corners.

I want to emphasize Ball Seals, it's such an underrated feature and a neat idea. Customizing a bunch of effects when you send out your Pokemon is just nice. It makes the Pokemon feel more personal.

_
I wish the Vs. Seeker had a feature where the Pokemon of people out there scales to yours, that way, it's challenging.

Attached: 1416620770258 - platinum gym rematch.png (256x192, 11K)

Survival games suck because they never end and once you understand the meta, it devolves into you leaving your fortress farm to be only minorly inconvenienced.

Which what I wish to God LGPE would've did. Instead of it being frozen in 1996. What's changed in Kanto? There's so much they could've did especially since the place is basically run by mad scientists. Did teleporter technology from Silph Co become common place? Especially since Saffron gym also uses it? What was Bill doing with his gene splicing tech? I know he was perfecting the box system but did he ever do anything with it? What about the rail system introduced in gen 2? They have trans regional travel now, was that the only rail system they made? What's the point of going back to a place you've already been if you're not going to reimagine it?

Attached: 1543728286442.png (297x287, 36K)

Horror games aren't scary.
There cannot be an intelligible horror genre because the very idea defies how horror works. Horror is scary and its nearly impossible to be scared by mere imagery without any psychological interpretation. You preload a bias to lock yourself out of the memes of psychological interpretation when you try to consume a horror product by insisting that "scary games don't scare you", aka you won't be scared by much else than the cheapest of thrills like jump-scares; so imagery is all that is left and at most it might only disturb you, though mass retailed videogames need to be ESRB rated so even that imagery has a finite upper bound of what can be conveyed.

As a child playing a game featuring frightening imagery, you may be scared, but these same tricks aren't going to work on you past puberty much less throughout the rest of your life. The horror genre therefore literally and unironically exists for kids in a greater capacity than fischer-price nintendoshit.

I find BotW to be a horror game because it's contents horrify me related to the psychology surrounding and presented within it. You expect fun-loving things and entertaining color palettes from Nintendo games, you expect safe and moderate content with E-for-Everyone rated games, and you expect some level of quality and coherence from Legend of Zelda. BotW is an E-Rated, Nintendo, Zelda game -- yet BotW contains content that defies assumptions about all of those by featuring cross-dressing for the already effiminate Link and dog-eating.

Real horror is that which defies expectations. This is also why you're still a virgin. You're afraid your advances will be denied and your expectations defied.

Attached: suffering.jpg (720x480, 52K)

Magic in Fable was great. It does something great that I've seen other RPGs struggle to handle well, that being being able to blend magic into other types of play.
Normally in RPGs you have the three types: Melee sword man, magic man, and stealthy archer man. In most RPGs they're segmented, but Fables magic lets those things bleed together.

Want to be a melee sword man with magic in Fable? You have berserk, multi strike, assassins rush, battle charge, physical shield, ect.
Want to be a melee sword man with magic in Skyrim? You can shoot magic out of your offhand ONLY if you use a one handed weapon with no shield, or give yourself a small defense buff.
Want to be a archer with magic in Fable? You have Multi Arrow, Ghost sword and Summon and turncoat to keep enemys distracted, Slow time for easy headshots, Force push to get enemys off you.
Want to be a archer with magic in Skyrim? Uh, you can summon something and turn invisible I guess.

Attached: 1548846284231 - oakvale fable.jpg (944x706, 109K)

Because being able to alter reality in varying degrees is broken as fuck compared to swinging swords at varying degrees of strength, so it has to be nerfed

It isn't completely descriptive, by that definition sonic is a metroid-esque game which it absolutely isn't. Also platforming loses all meaning when there are no pitfalls at all.

Insofar as RPG balance, there should plainly be disparities between one class and the next. Specificity is the butter on the texas toast of an RPG. It should perhaps, depending on context, be so specific that a group of classes (warrior, rogue, ranger) shouldn't be able to clear it, effectively class-specific content. Depending on context this can be used as a means to leverage an economy into existence, so the caster classes can provide resources to the melee classes, and the tank classes can provide them to the casters and the rogues to the tanks. Individual classes likewise could have their own. Add crafting to the concept as well.

Conversely, and for the sake of streamlining, eliminate specificity and open all content to all classes. Economy must then necessarily play to RNG and therefore to efficiency of a given build to accumulate the resources in a specific piece of content, though all others have the ability to clear it, though this will be at the cost of diminished returns to the player. At the scope of overall gameplay value this damages the depth of the economy by allowing players to freely accumulate a given resource independently while failing to reinforce the player choice aspect that makes an RPG an RPG. It also disincentivizes diversity since the content is always available players will likely opt for a singular class for a longer period of time up to burnout.

In either case, it should be said that mechanics rather than numbers should be the determining aspect of balance.

Attached: c - 1490733596538.png (1024x1024, 67K)

Bows are a weapon which require both.
Obviously the more force you can exert, the greater a bow you can draw.
But you need dexterity too: to draw and nock an arrow without dropping it or bouncing it off the arrow rest, to hold it steady and sight it consistently, and to shoot steady thru release. Moreso if you're doing it on horseback.

The difference then in the STR|DEX balance would be the style of bow combat you go for.
STR > DEX would be for longbow, long range, large slow groups groups doing volley fire, anti-knight/armor.
STR < DEX would be for shortbow, close range, small mobile groups, hit-and-run, singular targets.
For solo, S>D would be more of the woodsy ranger type, D

where did you get the knowledge you use?

I don't like medieval style. swords, bows, iron armor - all this I do not like.

>gamblers have no dex
>monks have -3 dex
>ranger -3 strength
This is the worst thing I've ever seen

No one wants gameplay depth.
They want to relax after soul crushing work

Attached: 1529401725975.jpg (768x960, 65K)

?
I don't understand the question.
More into the KOTOR style? Or are you straight up a gunz guy?
I think the chart has potential. The maker was just very confused about certain things. It could be fixed by shifting classes around. Gambler for example could be changed to DEX+ and STR-; Ranger could be moved closer toward base, and just dock off a magic point.
I like what the chart was going for, it just had no idea how to fill in its blanks.

>He thinks people come to Dark Souls for the combat

How to spot a real brainlet. Are you one of those retards that compare the combat to DMC without talking about the differences in enemies, health pool, level design and a shit ton of other differences? The draw of Souls is survival, learning of patterns, intelligent level design.

No one comes to Dark Souls to spam R1 and circle just like no one comes to DMC for it's level design beyond having good arenas to fight enemies in.

you write all this yourself? if so, where did you get the knowledge about this?

Combat is more than (You), the player's mechanics, and part of the appeal (and lack thereof for Sekiro) was the variety of builds.
Dark Souls combat works because of the enemy design. Not the literal, visual design, but the movesets, the telegraphs, the hitboxes (which are shit, sometimes, unfortunately), and so on.
Combat is no fun when your opposition is a non-threat. It's why The Legend of Zelda has been such a piece of shit for the entirety of the 21st century. Its balls fell off.

>you write all this yourself?
of course not
I'm the author of virtually none of it
>if so, where did you get the knowledge about this?
basically, you just need to pay attention to thought-provoking posts when you see them, and save them somewhere in your notes
but how you make posts like these is you examine games on a level beyond just how much you enjoy them. you judge them according to a list like this:

>Writing
Story
Plot
Dialogue
Characters
Lore / World design
>Sound design
Soundtrack / Music
Ambience
Sound effects
Voice acting
>Visuals/Graphics
Graphics
Environmental design
Character design
Spritework/Modelling
>Gameplay
Mechanics
Combat
Exploration
Platforming
Physics
Player choice
>Miscellaneous Game design
Level / Stage / Map design
Progression system
Artificial Intelligence (Environmental; Non-Player-Character [Ally, Enemy, Neutral])
Items / Equipment
Saving
Balancing
>Performance
Framerate
Optimization
Loading
Bugs
Stability (crashes)
Modibility
>Content
Unlockables
Base game
Modes
Customization

Attached: 1528677480479.png (1280x720, 746K)

I'm modeling in a blender and I'm interested in everything related to graphics and art.

Here are the games I think a college class should teach about:
>Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 to teach about fun gameplay mechanics
>Yoshi's Island to teach about level design
>Nier Automata to teach about storytelling in games

I was about to get into that point

DaS2

>don't put points in int
>it's slog to get through
>most enemies are painful to kill
>get all the cool spells but can't use them

>put some points in int
>great variety
>enemies are perfectly balanced
>SSSick "combos"

>max int
>enjoy playing on easy mode
_
"Souls" games

>if you are too retarded and it takes forever to beat anything you'll hate it
>if you are too smart you'll realize the combat is shallow and uninteresting
>if you are some normie you'll think it's epic and the best series ever because it's harder then Assassins Creed 7: Electric Boogaloo but still easy enough that you can eventually beat it

_
>>if you are too smart you'll realize the combat is shallow and uninteresting
You just proved a dunning-kruger-like curve to enjoyment of Souls games because the next step is realizing that combat is not the primary draw of the series, and the combat that does exist serves the rest of the experience well

_
Combat is the only thing that stands out about the series. Everything else is incredibly predictable and boring.

_
Maybe you felt that way but the Souls series (early souls games, at least) was given massive amounts of praise for its atmosphere, level design, amount of player guidance, synergy of game mechanics, and art design. You can't just write all of that off. Combat is objectively not the only selling point of the game, and arguably not the primary one either

_
Well that should prove my point. Stupid players wouldn't give a fuck about atmosphere, art design or "game mechanic synergy". Smart players wouldn't give a fuck about it because the base gameplay isn't that interesting or rewarding.

It's only the middle-ground normies that need to justify liking a mediocre game that they have to resort to abstract non-factors.

>Smart players wouldn't give a fuck about it because the base gameplay isn't that interesting or rewarding.
Why wouldn't smart players pay attention to aesthetic and mechanical execution in their games? That sounds like you're projecting your values onto others, user. Not a smart thing to do!
Combat is a subset of gameplay. While it itself (the combat) isn't particularly deep, I really don't know if it needs to be in a game so largely based around exploration, atmosphere, player choices, risk-reward decisions, etc. In fact, I often pay much less attention to things like atmosphere in games with deep combat like Bayonetta because deep combat is more mentally taxing to execute well and distracts from other components of the game (which is a good thing in Bayo's case, but wouldn't be in Souls')

cute girls

I think I've posted things about art direction ITT already, but the basic idea is that you shouldn't be striving for graphical fidelity and realism above all else.
It's important for the game to have an identity, and an inspired artstyle that tries to capture an aesthetic coherent with the game's theme and atmosphere is more important. Proper art direction is critical.
Look at Detroit: Become Human. An ostensibly realistic game that achieves uniqueness / its own style by messing with lighting, color saturation, and the cleanness of models in a way other realistic games don't. It can be bright, moderately colorful, and relatively free of blemishes.

Attached: 1528660203979.jpg (1279x859, 126K)

Garry's Mod fits in that chart perfectly.
Dumb people get bored quickly in a game that you can do anything with no point or objetive. Normsl people enjoy all the opportunities that gmod offers, from engineering machines to mindless fun. Smart people see its limitation and moves on to bigger toys.

I've seen quite a few old gmod Youtube channels that changed their nickname for their real name and their last uploads were real life stuff they invented, like RC vehicles, paintball sentry guns, fully sized hydraulic systems etc. Quite a bittersweet feeling, specially when you hear their fully grown up voice after those years.

There needs to be more hybrids like Shadowhearts and Gladus. Turn based with timing mechanics are the best

Would you like to hear a tidbit about the development of the Silent Hill 2 or Silent Hill 3 female lead?

Attached: sh3_art_char_heather_02.jpg (2041x5100, 560K)

>game where you can have any disposition is a fuckin' mess
you can't write a story that flexes based on something so core/central to the main character. Games like Dues Ex and Alpha protocol worked out because you played as a guy being various levels of dickish

That's how it is in kotor 2
>going in a jungle to find a hunter
>he's somehow stuck in mines he activated and can't move
>good option is carefully disabling each mine until he can leave
>evil option is detonating the mines and looting his corpse
Evil is quicker, easier and in fact gets you more rewards. It goes very well with how the SW dark side is supposed to be

Good characters in RPGs should never, ever get the best rewards. The whole purpose of being good, virtuous, self-sacrificing etc. is that it's done purely because it's the right thing to do. Instead every RPG works like this.

>The bad character gets the reward now
>The good character, after being told they'd get nothing, gets a better reward later

The latter defeats the purpose of picking the morally good option, because everybody is aware of this trope which has been used non-stop since the dawn of video games. It's gotten to the point where people don't pick the good option because within the context it's the right thing to do, but because they're aware there's better rewards coming their way. It incentivises the choice when that shouldn't be the aim of a good character.

Disagree, it should be different kind of rewards. Evil characters should get physical rewards, better cash, better gear and so on while moralfags should get non physical rewards. NPCs opening paths for them, extra XP, bonus perks from their god.

Mario Kart is for babies and appeal for a casual audience. What Nintendo is missing is a racing game that reward genuine competitive skill and F-ZERO could fit for the Job. They say they are out of idea for making a new F-ZERO? Literally all you have to do is the Following:

1 Player Mode with:
>Grand Prix (Club (easy) , Heart (medium), Spade (hard) and Diamond (very hard), and Master Cups)
>Time Attack (Possibility to download online records)
>Cutsom race (A mode where you can choose a track or set your own cup and compete against computers... you can set the numbers of computers)
>Rumble (Some Death Match inside an arena against other Computers)
>Story Mode (Well it will depend of Nintendo's creativity and their ability of character developpement or this story mode could just be the Grand-Prix mode, but each character has an intro and ending

A Multiplayer (2-4 Players) with
>Grand Prix
>Custom Race
>Rumble

An Online Mode with
>Casual Race: (Free and 30 players )
>Ranked Race (Ranked and 30 players)
>Rumble (and 30 players)
>F-ZERO INTERNATIONAL GRAND PRIX (Special competition event Weekly or Monthly when you race in online cups and get rewards (for example pieces) if you win)
>Private Lobby (The Host create its own grand prix and invite peeps)
>Invitations (check your invitations sent for Lobby matches)

Options

Customize
>Shop (Characters/Pieces: You buy characters and Pieces with Racing points/Real money... pieces will give you ability to create your own machine
>Create (Race or Machine)
>Stats (Check your offline and online stats)
... and other stuff like that…

You also have a button in the main menu where you can directly see your profile and stats.

There. WTF is so complicated to come up with 30 new Races, smoke a little bit of cocaine to develop a decent story mode, bring back the 40 players from GX and Rick Wheeler and program this whole menu?

Attached: art - fzero - Explore fzero on.jpg (1280x800, 156K)

was me

>New Leaf has everything gamecube had
youtu.be/ZlZeco94Cj4
youtu.be/RrD9ptfF0iQ
youtu.be/3rg5cbbeLmY
Ok retard

Graphics and voice acting

Attached: 1551538658603.jpg (1324x1369, 325K)

>You shouldn't able to just snap your fingers and have your surroundings change.
And it's not about giving you that option, the biome would be set upon town generation and not change after. AC is a game about the day to day and the slow rural living, as you mentioned, having things change fast would drive attention away from those small interactions and daily activities.

Im interested about Stalker, Metro, Fallout, postapocaliptic games, ruins, war, fear the future

fishing minigame

I have something related to that though not about graphics.

Attached: v - Theres a distinct rift between the Metro and STALKER fabases - Video Games - 4chan.png (1644x950, 244K)

> Metro was created former by stalker shadow of chernobyl.
there are very few. Chief programmers, development Manager, artists

Fallout 3 had best map design because it looked like a nuked place.., It's a fucking postapocaliptic game so why fallout 76 is so green and untuched?

_
>Fallout 3 had best map design because it looked like a nuked place
>200 years after the war
>meanwhile 50 years after the war shit looks like a rainforest
sasuga bethesda

~
Fallout 3 Is Better Than You Think
youtube.com/watch?v=5z8XHe2NoAE

Attached: c - 02e1a1e5dccfe3c2c0371b8842239f4aec95e0c851811d4f8a93fb03eb38835f - fallout 3.jpg (1609x3554, 2.4M)

Its water. Especially community of Metro too much smaller and less strong and true to the game

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

I can tell you why Fallout 3 and 4 fucking blow in comparison to 1 and 2

In 1 and 2 you have 3 main quests, in fallout 3 and 4, you have fucking 20

But how you complete the 3 main quests in fallout 1 and 2 takes you around the entire world if you're playing blind, exploring the setting, talking with people, doing odd jobs, hoping to find information on your objective.

In fallout 3 and 4 you just follow a dot on your compass and are told a story, you don't get to explore that story, in fallout 1 you could just bumble into the master's lair or the super mutant base blindly, if fallout 1 was designed like fallout 3, you could bumble into the mutant base, but it would be full of raiders instead and the front door would be locked, same with the master's lair, because you didn't do the fetch quest in junk town, that leads to the fetch quest in the hub, that leads to the waterchip in the necropolis, that then causes the super mutant base to unlock, but you still need to do the super mutant base to unlock the master's lair.

Attached: bethesda and fallout 3 - 1529242614525.png (798x2904, 282K)

> corrals placed in a strictly defined distance from each other to make it easier for children to navigate.
in the call of Pripyat it was copied and we got souless levels.

God I just fucking love sucking me some dicks
Mmmmmmmm.....

continue

eight ch.net/vg/res/73871.html#74246

[...] It is no exaggeration to say that the gameplay in Fallout 1 and 2 is flawed on a fundamental level.

At their core, these games are obsessed with the tabletop dice roll mechanic completely to a fault. Nearly everything that has a vague skill check has a randomized chance of success. This would be fine if you couldn't completely fuck yourself over, but sadly the developers got some sort of sadistic thrill with enemy critical hits. The result is that you end up savescumming for damn near everything because you never know when you're going to run into a lucky enemy with a burst fire weapon or some shit that will get a critical hit on you and instantly end your game regardless of how much you've pumped into your hit points or how good the armor you're wearing is. This has a very detrimental effect on all the other skill check mechanics because there's seemingly no point in putting a ton of skill points into a lot of things for the mere chance of higher success when you're saving and reloading throughout the whole game anyway no matter what you do.

[...]

The Fallout games are so short and trivial to actually beat that they have this dissonance going on where, while they have a fair amount of character-building side quests to do (okay, the first game really has jack and shit), they amount to very little in the end because there's no real incentive to do them except for completionism's sake. The reason you do optional questing in any character-building game is to find dank loot or gear or level up in order to make your character more powerful. [...] However, this only matters when there's an actual reason to build your character. Beating Fallout 1 and 2 is such an utterly trivial feat and the level up system outside Perks is so pointless that there is effectively very little reason to do much of any character building in them. The side content essentially just exists for its own sake. [...]

Attached: 1534473831972 - fallout 3 criticism.jpg (2213x2397, 1.17M)

can you give me your entire archive of text and saved pictures on mega or google drive? I think I could use it.

And all links to saved threads

Sorry, it really wouldn't be as useful to you as you might think.
For example, I'm currently going through a saved thread (or selected posts copied into my notes from that thread) about Bethesda's buggy, incompetently designed engines, dated November 10th, 2018. The posts have little to nothing to do with game design, per se. They are talking about an engine, which is about game design, but they're pointing out what Bethesda's engine is incapable of that is standard in other engines. It's an interesting read, though not pertinent to this thread.

Other texts I have may have even less to do with game design. All of this is just a long-winded way of explaining that I save a lot of stuff which would be junk considering your interests. I'm fine accommodating your requests for specific info / topics where I have them, however. Considering that 7 hours have passed and the thread is only a little over half-way done, there's still a lot of time for posting.

It's more convenient for both of us if I continue selectively posting. If I had a dedicated trove unmixed with my other stuff, I would post it for you, but I don't.

Attached: c - 1546902499742 - momentum in platforming games.png (1617x1339, 615K)

if you want the links then from now on I'll at least post the post number and the board it came from

Attached: c - 1544603295164 - the goblet model - neutral areas should be bowls, and extreme areas handles.png (666x603, 95K)

so this is basically Yea Forums reruns? the best of Yea Forums?

I guess I don't hate it. it's usually like this already but with shitposts

Actually, that's exactly the kind of thing most devs do.

If you actually look at large open world games like GTA, you will find that many bushes are just trees that they buried to the top, because its easier to just use the tree then make a separate bush model, and many desks are actually just cabinets they pulled underground to where only the top part shows.

Likewise, in games like Gear of War, when you are riding on the back of some giant creature, or a train, the creature/train is actually remaining perfectly still, they just applied a shake movement to it, and make the background slide on a slideshow reel, to give the train the appearance of moving, when its infarct, perfectly still. Because its 100 times easier to do that then actually make a track and have the train/monster follow it.

What you posted is literally the exact same thing devs have been doing since 3d games were a thing. Its a basic, and common, shortcut.

is there a paste about the simulation of life, the feeling of the player being in the living world, game design of the living world with random events? remembering the final countdown.
Remember the promises of the developers of Stalker in 2002-2004 to make each NPC is active, the ability of NPS to pass the game instead of the main character.

> Likewise, in games like Gear of War, when you are riding on the back of some giant creature, or a train, the creature/train is actually remaining perfectly still, they just applied a shake movement to it, and make the background slide on a slideshow reel, to give the train the appearance of moving, when its infarct, perfectly still. Because its 100 times easier to do that then actually make a track and have the train/monster follow it.
if I understand correctly, it also works in the Metro. the train stands still, and the geometry of the tunnel is simply duplicated

I'll look for that. Meantime you can look at the Oblivion posts ITT if you haven't seen them already (CTRL+F, you know)
Have you seen the Gothic vs Morrowind video?

yeah a start to the autism ward

> Have you seen the Gothic vs Morrowind video?
Im dont playing in this and dont deen

>Bethesda has a lot more competition now for open world RPGs than back in 2011
Yeah, and at best they're Ubisoft-tier open worlds.
>Witcher 3 is meant to compete
>NPCs randomly generated and basically just setpieces, no schedules or anything unique
>Novigrad has barely any of its houses enterable and most of them have the exact same interior model
>only a few dungeons
>little to no world interaction, items are at best models with physics, not actual items you can pick up

I don't understand.
If you haven't, it highlights making a living world by how AI interact with it and the player.
I'll find it.

Quality over quantity. Large captials aren't interesting if all the NPCs are shitty set pieces with one liners, that follow a basic pathing. Sure, Skyrim's """cities""" are pathetic small hovels, but at least every single NPC has a complex weekly schedule, multiple interactions and relationships, and all the buildings are unique. The only reason we're in this mess is because no one is trying to compete with Bethesda. Everyone who makes sandbox RPGs, makes them Witcher style. All the development focuses on the character action part, with none given to world building. Not to mention every retard who makes modern WRPGS keep trying to ape Japan, and gives you a set in stone role, instead of allowing you to create your own character. TES is the only game on the market of its kind, it has no competitors. Witcher is closer to Dragon's Dogma than any TES. I don't want to the adventures of the chosen Mary Sue, with nothing but railroaded content, and worthless filler fetch quests with the only RPG elements being stats and perks. I want an interactive world, if there's no game outside the main quest, then your sandbox is a just marketing ploy.

Gothic 2 vs Morrowind
youtube.com/watch?v=1PcUQQOODv0

what about conformity to trends? not about microtransactions and cases, but about generations, politics world tendentions and realtionships.

warosu.org/tg/thread/40311549

What is a game were power creeps have a hard time creeping or is impossible to powercreep altogether?

_
Twilight 2000/2013.

The characters learn new skills (and improve in the old ones) really slowly and even as they do that their gear slowly wears down. Due to the post-apocalyptic setting any gear that they find is likely to be in equally poor condition so they can't get any powercreep from better equipment either.

I think this game would accomplish your goals quite well as the average Twilight game turns into former soldiers tilling the soil on a farm in the middle of nowhere so that they can make alcohol. They need the alcohol as fuel for cars and generators.

Attached: 1531673733981.jpg (750x715, 73K)

Is there any turn based combat rpg that involves skill? Not baiting but it seems to me that turn based combat does not rely on any form of skill, strategy or preparation for that matter. The only winning factor are stats and healing items. There's only one way to play efficiently and it is to spam buff/heal on your melee dps and spam aoe spells with your casters.Status ailments are completely irrelevant since they're a waste of turn against fodder you can instakill and bosses are immune to all of them. And when you can't get past a fight it doesn't mean you have to take a different approach but simply that you have to spend the next four hours or so in random encounters until your party stats let you face the next level. In an action rpg, being stuck in a fight implies you need to keep going at it until you can read the enemy's moves and counter accordingly, in a turn based it just means the devs have decided to artificially expand the playtime of their game by forcing you to do the same thing over and over, you basically pay with your lifetime to be allowed to progress.
To support my claim I'd like to add that when I see positive feedback about x turn based games the emphasis is always on graphism, music, atmosphere, characters, dialogs,story, but very rarely the combat system.

I do :)

Depends on what the game is about, taking from the most classic genre, platforming.

>what is the game about
jumping from platform to platform

And from that you build the game basing on the many ways your character can jump, increasing the difficulty on precision (how big is the platform you are jumping to, having to jump certain specific distances, having to jump in a specific manner), reaction (the platforms move, or they fall after a period of time, or there is some form of timer forcing the player to keep moving) and demand (you have to do X jumps in Y amount of time). This is the basis of the game.

For how to make a goo level design, for one it has to be aesthetically appealing, many people will say this having to do with it, but you win people by their first impression, if your game looks like shit, why would anyone try it in the 1st place? From there your game has to
>explain its main mechanics
You can do this either by having it written it down or have your player find out by themselves, if you go with the former, write in the most precise and shortest form to not confuse or bore your player respectively, if the latter, you have to build a "tutorial" level where the player must learn what to do in a simple controlled task first (so you can have it be more complex later on) or they cant progress (forcing him to jump to beat the level, in this example). After the tutorial, new mechanics should be introduced in the same manner in a minor scale so it doesnt feel like the whole game is a tutorial.

Now for the main game, a good level design is something that is engaging, builds upon previously presented problems in an orderly fashion and is clear in what your objective is and how you can reach it (unless one of the last two previously mentioned points is part of the challenge).

Thats it. Everything else is interchangeable in what genre of the game you are exactly creating is.

>An opponent in a fighting game who knows what attack is coming from you the moment a button is pressed
This is the gayest shit in fighting games, it ends up making the player find out what one move or tactic works then spamming it over and over bc otherwise the opponent is literally unbeatable, this is an example of deeply flawed design.
If I were designing a fighting game the only "input reading" I would put in is having the AI calculate which moves it could counter with that would lead to a clash or cause the AI to play more elusively while still getting hit sometimes, but the input reading would still be at a minimum

Attached: c - 1539919291131.png (621x929, 138K)

just watch a core a gaming video and regurgitate its information mark

where to start? I think oblivion

The generation directly after Deus ex quite literally had government funded propaganda for the military. Even metal gear solid poked fun at it. Do you really think they'd let games that really strike deep at the flaws of the military industrial complex just keep existing? You've seen how proudly game devs and journos drink the kool aid these days, you've seen how they go to seminars about a whole bunch of entry level marxist rhetoric. Do you think any of them have the will, let alone the context, to seriously talk about the most important issues of our time?

Do you really think it's a coincidence that people dug up racism as the most important topic of the day seemingly out of nowhere in the last eight years? It's almost like it's a smokescreen to hide bigger issues that could reach more people if games actually addressed them. Have you ever even seen a modern game seriously talk about contemporary china, for instance? Anything about the medical industrial complex? The war on drugs or the opioid epidemic, or even the most obvious problem of the modern age: the mass migration of people in the pursuit of changing demographics? For fuck's sake, the last game that even acknowledged that was a concept that existed was silent hill 3 in a fucking background detail book.

Non fictional, contemporary geopolitics are unironically more interesting, relevant, and important than any fictional allegory ever could be.

I hate dynamic lighting in games 200x-early 201x before appearing voxel global illumination. Static lighting with the compiled shadow was great because it compiled global lighting and had an effect similar to that in ray traccing

I want a RPG that mixes the best of both JRPG and WRPG

>Character creation
>Multiple races, with more interesting stuff than just elves and dwarves
>Armor changes your appearance
>Armor is grounded in reality
>A few intricate armors, but they have a lore reason to be unusual (demonic armor, mage robes that can afford to be less practical)
>Characters look human, but still idealized (actually attractive); not ugly western women but not full blown anime either
>Silent protagonist with dialog choices that matter
>Multiple story paths
>Non-linear
>Relationship system where party members can like you more/less
>Romance for some party members
>Class system
>Manually select which stat and skill to upgrade on level up
>Actual music instead of hollywood orchestra bullshit

Reducing the gameplay/difficulty of a RPG to solely its battle system and difficulty of individual battles is facetious as many RPGs focus on having you traverse dungeons, in which your resources will slowly deplete over the course of the dungeon; as such, the difficulty and strategy comes not from completing individual battles, but a succession of battles in which you are weaker; typically, the final battle has the strongest enemy, even though you are at your weakest.

The dynamic lighting and shadows of those times were terrible. All for the sake of the normal and specular maps. Im hate bloom effect too.

I feel like the puzzles of extremely hard JRPGs revolve around coming up with very specialized builds based upon a deep understanding of the game mechanics. Sure, you can just copy someone's build that was posted online, but that's like using the internet to solve a puzzle.

Year 2016
It is now for the second time that the black
Chernobyl erupted to open a Zone - a new
horror of ill mankind. It was at that moment
that hundreds of people turned into word-
less toys of invisible forces, insane toys with
erased personalities. And there were futile
attempts of the army to cope with the new
plague of the planet, at least to prevent its
development and spread, while groups of
scientists and the military disappeared in
ever-bigger Zone. Only rare people, resistant
to inuence and control of invisible forces,
dared to set off for the Zone to procure
evidence of weird and uncanny changes
around Chernobyl atomic facility. Only a
handful returned, bringing strange objects
and stories of deadly traps and eerie animal
mutants. They got known as stalkers, those
who leave for the changing world of the
Zone to explore it and nd artefacts, those
who cross the immense Zone covered with
ulcers of black lakes, scorched earth, poi-
sonous fogs, deadly anomalous zones, pop-
ulated by sapient animal mutants. The army
cordoned off all the entrances to the Zone
and let in only small clusters of scientists,
but stalkers kept inltrating the Zone and
brought artefacts to subsequently sell them
to pay-willers.
Year 2036
Twenty years later one of the stalking new-
bies (Player), makes his rst steps into the
Zone. He is to learn much of the Zone
and what lies in its hub. Many stalkers and
scientists came to a conclusion that there
is Something to control the Zone spread,
something to manage a huge army of zom-
bies, transformed animals, uncanny crea-
tures and god knows what other beings in
the Zone epicentre, straight in the centre
of destroyed Chernobyl atomic plant. That
substance takes army units under control,
turns neighbouring civilians into zombies and
forces large numbers of squads to attack
army posts. That substance is a damaged

Attached: poster_ol.jpg (2215x2742, 550K)

There is two types of games now dominating:

The first is the freedom sandbox, preferred by western audience.
Now in the game you can do what YOU want not what the developer thinks you want to do. This is what devs always forget they can't put themselves in the player's perspective, and an abomination like fallout 3 and its friends.
You want to stretch out the game time, but at the same time you don't understand that not every single person who wants to play your game has the same exact thinking process. The freedom you get in these types of games are always pushing you into a railroad. I often see this in modern games that the game passively forces you into situations and you get a slap on the wrist for think outside the box which the developer already set down to you. Also very important: put interesting content into a small space, rather than a big ass playground filled with nothing. Fuck you rockstar your games suck ass past San Andreas. A good sandbox game is like Kenshi, where you actually do have freedom.

Now the second: The linear-themepark type game. This type works a lot better with eastern gamers, but the trick here is you need to put a fuckton amount of interesting content into every segment. You sacrifice freedom for more content, but this means you have to include characters, voice acting, mechanics in a high level to keep the player interested. Everything is cramped to a little place, and it has to be exceptionally good to not get dull moments. If one of the elements are lacking it'll be more noticeable, so there is no middle ground. Good example for a good linear game Nier automata.

Its possible to combine the two but usually they end up very lukewarm, where one type will conflict the other and make it worse, where even the devs don't know what to do with the game so it ends up being a mediocre game. This is probably the hardest type to make and a fuckton of games failed to do this.

A setting where the gods are not real is actually the best setting for clerics and paladins. In such a setting, their power comes from their belief, so, for example, by channeling your 'love of humanity' towards someone you could heal them, and your righteous fury could smite foes.

What doesn't actually make sense are clerics in settings where god are real. Hear me out on this. So their power comes directly from their god, as in "the god is giving you a part of their power". Do gods diminish their own power by doing so, or do they get unlimited power to hand out? If so, what's stopping them from giving spells literally to everyone that even believes slightly on their cause (e.g. why isn't everyone a cleric of some god; or at least, why aren't clerics much more common?)? If not, why are they giving out their power at all (especially evil deities), when they would be the best at promoting their porfolio being the highest example of it?
But it gets much worse when you consider that D&D, the game which primarily uses cleric and paladin, has a very steep power curve. Fighters get better at fighting and wizards learn more magic, but what do clerics do? Their power is literally given out to them. And it improves (or does not improve) for literally no in-game reason. Their god decides to give them more spells out of the blue.
When you consider endgame epic level progression, clerics just suck. Martials should get to ignore physics, wizards rewrite physics and are basically gods unto themselves, and clerics? Clerics still have a boss - they may be powerful, but they're still their god's bitch.

Black Monolith, created billions of years ago
by unknown ancient race on Earth orbit.
The Monolith, an evolutionary module to
control life evolution on Earth, was created
to breed a race of super-conscious immor-
tal creatures on the planet. The Monolith
was formed long before the rst bacteria
appeared in billowing oceans of the Earth.
Aiming to breed sapient creatures, it was
highly scrupulous to select species for fur-
ther evolution. The Monolith controlled the
evolution by means of directional viruses,
mutagenic interference to alter the devel-
opment of life and creatures on Earth.
Countless amount of times had the Monolith
destroyed whole races of sapient beings, to
have, due to various reasons, dissatised
the ultimate goal - it sent pestilences, oods,
ared conagrations, earthquakes, meteor
falls, comets and asteroids until the rst
humans showed up on the planet.
A thousand years ago the Monolith got dam-
aged, remained on orbit for a long time
until nally descending onto the Earth to
collapse in the previously prepared derelict
spot on the territory of Chernobyl atomic
plant. When falling, the Monolith generated
an anomalous Zone for 10 km around.
The Monolith is in multi-dimensional space,
so it is absolutely invisible to beings with 3-dimensional sight. The Monolith is dam-
aged, its work balancing on the verge of
normal and abnormal introductions into the
mankind evolution. All the animals within
the zone get subjected to hyperevolution,
changing from generation to generation into
transformed mutant creatures.
Colossal energy and unbelievably strong
intellect of the Monolith generate awful
jams over a large distance around, and an
increased eld of entropy, destabilization of
temporal and spatial ows, various hyper-
anomalous phenomena as a result.

Due to heavy damage and numerous aws,
the Monolith’s intellect is insane, but its
insanity is not within an applied eld, such
as practical decision-making and common
logic, but in the upper level of consciousness,
where probabilities and possibilities are cal-
culated. Its insanity engenders bizarre ideas
of internal human evolution. The Monolith is
ready to waste the meticulously breed fruit
of human civilization for the sake of internal
evolution experiment.
The Monolith restores its workability, but it
will take ages to complete the restoration.
Player is given two choices:
• If the monolith is left functioning, the
number of mutations in humans will
exceed all possible limits, supposedly 10%
of people will remain in more or less
human form. Due to internal evolution, the
mankind will end up divided into countless
branches and sub-species, pitted against
each other in terrible scramble of evolu-
tion niche capture and protection.
• If the monolith is destroyed, the mankind
will stop evolving to entail, rstly, ages-
lasting stagnation and, in the long run,
dark ages of human race degradation.
Stalker is to make
a hard choice: if he
protects the Mono-
lith, there, on one
hand, still remains a
hope to restore it,
but, on the other,
looms an inevitable
mankind change
(mutation) and ter-
rible war; and if he
destroys the Mono-
lith, the situation will
be nearly irreversi-
ble - the humanity
will degrade within
500-1000 years leaving genetic scientists
the only possible human controllers of man-
kind evolution.
The choice will be aggravated by intrusion
of army and military stalkers attempting to
destroy the Monolith. Though the chance to
get it destroyed by the army is negligibly
small, there is a way bigger probability of
damaging the Monolith more severely, thus
speeding up and deteriorating the internal
human evolution.

Stalkers correct
Beyond the influence and control of invisible forces, free explorers ventured into the Zone.
Stalkers travel through the Zone with their goals, which may vary from trying to get rich, to find the cause of the Zone.
Stalker goals:Edit
1. Get to the Monolith to fulfill the desire
2. Find the cause of the Zone and make it disappear
3. Revenge different Stalker (old scores even before Zone, …)
4. Earnings (wealth, money for treatment)
5. In search of adventure (adrenaline, the desire to become a hero, )
6. Attempts to understand yourself
7. Escape to the Zone (crime, betrayal, depression, craving for suicide)
Stalker actions:Edit
1. Conflicts with stalkers, scientists, soldiers
2. The salvation of stalkers and scientists
3. Request for help
4. Ambush
5. Shares information and news with other stalkers
6. Trade
7. Stalking a certain Stalker
8. Task execution
9. Hunting for laboratory documents

Attached: 1555167615.jpg (1920x1440, 374K)

Pretty much every level that takes place on a moving train/ship/vehicle moves the background and not the vehicle. You know how players are always clipping through walls and/or getting stuck in things? You do not want to know how bad it'd be accelerated to 60 miles per hour on a twisting, turning track

D&D emulates heroic fantasy epics where the heroes, who are admirable and virtuous, triumph over the villains, who are despicable and socially unacceptable. Fundamentally, the game is about ideological conflict and the relationships of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. Alignment can be thought of as a mechanical implementation of these ideological forces.

Alignment works when the story is a grand morality play, a battle between cosmological Good and Evil and an exploration of right and wrong. It provides a framework for characters to represent different sides of a moral argument and come to a conclusion about which approach is Right. (This is why the Lawful Good paladin is actually one of the best D&D characters when played well -- a flawed hero trying to do good in a morally ambiguous world makes for compelling stories.)

Alignment falls apart when the story embraces moral relativism or can't easily be defined by an ideological conflict. For instance, the average murderhobo party is more concerned with how much loot they receive than whether their actions are actually morally right. For these kinds of games, where the players' personal motivations and conflicts with other characters are the focus, alignment is a distraction from what's really important to the story -- the player motivations.

IMO, the takeaway is that *the mechanics should serve the game you're playing.* Alignment is not necessarily bad or stupid, but it encourages a certain style of epic fantasy, which isn't necessary the same game that the DM or players are interested in. When used right, it highlights the fundamental theme of the story by showing how every battle and every conflict relates to that moral theme. When used wrong, it's essentially baggage that distracts from the real focus of the gameplay.

Attached: c - 1544592342691 - alignments deconstructed.png (712x615, 106K)

Planescape: Torment is not a "traditional" fantasy epic but more of a deconstruction of the genre. The central theme is self-discovery, and while you have a few ways to go about that in gameplay -- some more Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic than others -- the actual theme or "moral of the story" doesn't change, just the tone of the story and the likability of the main character.

A good test of "does alignment make sense here?" is to check if the hero and villain have a fundamental ideological divide. In the case of P:T the villain isn't even known for most of the game and arguably isn't an "antagonist" at all, but a reflection of the Nameless One's own struggle for understanding. The "moral of the story," if it can be called that, isn't related to Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos -- it's just a discussion of a paradox, and of the entire meaning of alignments and choices in general.

P:T does take the opportunity to play with alignments as part of its subversion of the D&D fantasy. This is why you have some totally evil and alien party members, why the game features numerous traditionally "evil" beings that turn out to not be evil, and so on. P:T can do this because it isn't about what is Right, but how choices can be more complex than a binary "good or evil," and how difficult it is to judge situations when you don't have all the information.

Let's compare Planescape: Torment to a different game, Tyranny, which also heavily features player choice. The difference between P:T and Tyranny is that there are two *huge* ideological conflicts set up right at the beginning of Tyranny -- the Tiers (Good) vs. Kyros (Evil) conflict, and the Lawful (Dishonored) vs. Chaotic (Scarlet Chorus) conflict. The Fatebinder spends pretty much all their time arbitrating Good vs. Evil and Lawful vs. Chaotic situations, which leads to real political change because you're supporting one of the political groups guided by that ideology. The ending of Tyranny is highly variable and based on what factions (i.e. alignments) you ended up siding with. Contrast this to the ending of P:T which is basically always the same, with no great cosmological war hanging in the balance, regardless of how much of a dick your Nameless One was. Tyranny is the game where "alignment works"; P:T is the game where alignment is used as a red herring to make a point about a different theme entirely.

> ... alignments ... What kind of setting/story work the best with it?

The Virtue system from Ultima 4 and 5 would work well. The eight virtues are delightfully integrated into the world and it's lore. Often the virtues would conflict with each other, making decisions more Good vs. Good, rather than Good vs. Evil. This even happens in character creation with a serries of hypothetical questions (see pic).

I always wanted to try an RPG based in this vidya-game world. Where player advancement is tied to doing virtuous acts. Eventually pitting virtue against virtue as in a similiar vain as the character creation questions.

Attached: c - 1544623362594 - Ultimass.png (880x886, 198K)

original neverwinter campaign has dialoguue that depends on your int. if you have low int people will treat you like a drooling retard and you will only have retard dialogue options. its quite funny.

I haven't come across many posts like that looking through my notes unfortunately.
From my understanding, this is something only RPGs and sandbox games try to do, if you're concerned about an on-the-ground perspective. Some other games like Shenmue and Animal Crossing do it, but they lack modern sophistication.

boards.fireden.net/v/search/text/oblivion food dead/

I'm not an expert on AI nor do I know too much about what newer RPGs like Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Vampyre have done with the simulation of a living world, but I've been finding that reading about Olivion's AI system is kind of stimulating for wondering about future possibilities.

also at this point I've gotten very tired, so I'll be stopping posting very soon

I think this thread has covered about enough ground as the thread needed
hopefully if people hold onto the lessons here and carry them into future similar threads, these points can be built upon and explore in greater depth game design

Attached: c - 1547844470650 - combat - dark messiah.webm (960x540, 2.89M)

> webm
what a game?

dark messiah
it's in the filename

Attached: c - 1547844545191 - combat - dark messiah.webm (640x360, 2.98M)

thanks. hope to see you next day.