| sundin13 said:
C. Errr...every game has limitations. A good game hides those limitations and makes the player feel like their decisions matter. I described a game that puts the decisions on the players head and makes them feel like their decisions matter. That is the strength of games, putting the power in the players hands. Like I said, a good game, hides its limitations...once again, watch the Extra Credits videos I posted for a more in depth desription of why both agency and the illusion of choice matter, even in linear games. E. Why would the player move into a less advantageous position? If the optimal strategy is boring, it is not the players fault for applying that strategy. As stated, in another video, the player attempted to move around, but the section was obviously designed around the player staying in their cubby-hole and they almost died. Once again, you are misunderstanding everything I am saying about choice. CHOICE DOES NOT MEAN OPEN WORLD and it doesn't even mean just narrative choice. Uncharted is a good example of gameplay choice in a linear game. Often it presents numerous paths that the player can take with its interesting terrain traversal and gives the player the option of playing with stealth or going guns blazing. Often the player actually has to think about where they can move and when they can move and which order to take enemies out. I rarely felt like I was playing whack a mole in Uncharted... I am not criticizing linear games, I am not criticizing cover based shooters, I am criticizing the order @Der: it says "often", not "always" |
C. What you're saying is subjective, not objective, and I disagree entirely. I think the exact opposite, and that goes for that video as well.
E. Who said it's less advantegous? It's just riskier, that's all. And like in most games, the riskier path can be more fun. What does almost dying have to do with anything? Maybe he should have tried something else. Did he even use blacksight? Did he try switching weapons around instead of constantly using the thermite rifle? He does have a pistol which is easier to use specially while moving (hence, out of cover). He could go into cover, spray the explosive section in the middle and light it up with the flare, than move up and use blacksight to dispatch the most immediate threats, then use the pistol (maybe even while running in hip fire) to kill the few that might remain. Not really all that problematic, considering you only become more vulnerable in the very last part of what i just described.
And I don't think Uncharted is a good example of what you're saying. Uncharted is whack a mole. A lot more than The Order. The game doesn't offer you any ways to shake it up, there's nothing similar to the blacksight mechanic, there's no real destructible cover, and the weapons are boring and very traditional. Did you play Uncharted 1-3? (I didn't play #3 so excuse me If i'm wrong here) You sound like you're talking about U4 instead...
As for U4 itself, it seems fine.. There's a certain dynamic to what we saw that seems cool. But I don't want all games to be like that. Specially considering that the more they try to do the less good they are at any specific thing. U4 and The Order both have some semblance of stealth but neither are going to be as good at it as MGS or other true stealth games. And U4's gunplay/fights aren't as good as The Order either. So let The Order be the way it is. I don't want it to be like U4. Having both is better than having two U4s. Both will do some things better than the other. Blowing up and vaporizing things and people will be better in The Order, toying around with enemies will be better in U4. That's just the way games work.
@wilco
I had forgotten about the 3:50 scene..it was one of the very first shown back in February 2014. It's still just a few more seconds and changes nothing of what I said. On top of that, the recent previews complaining about QTEs were of the PSX demo, which still only has 18 seconds of QTEs in 30 minutes.
There are no QTEs on the werewolf scene.
