bananaking21 said:
|
True. I suppose, I haven't played them. But I have played some that fit that bill.
There is a simple gameplay aspect of both of them. They did what they set out to do. Sometimes simple is better. It doesn't disuade from the story but it allows it to ebb and flow. If the simple gameplay in those games were fundamentally flawed you likely wouldn't have been able to finish either of them. There are some points you can easily over look, then others no so much. As simple as it is, just directionality in games can be a huge factor. If you press a direction and go a different direction, or the input takes a second to work, or it doesn't do what it was meant to do that is failing a fundamental gameplay mechanic. Especially with old style games like the first one you mentioned. If you stop pressing a button will it continue to do what it is doing. With that hinder the performance of the next button press? I have recently played a game that unfortunately has almost all of these issues in it. Alphaeda Genesis. The controls are terrible, and as basic as the gameplay is in an old RPG like this, it is a huge part of the game and not much different from what you were talking about with Stars and Moon or whatever it's called (I'm not trying to downplay the game, I just can't remember the name at the moment). If you press right on the control pad you expect the character to go right. This is the case for the most part, but every once in a while, maybe it's how I'm pressing the button, but the character will go up or down. This isn't something new in video games, but it does happen regularly. There can also be a slight pause before moving forward, or a delay after, consistantly after, letting go of a direction and the character will continue to do a walking animation and in that time I am unable to interact with anything. The fighting sequences are fine so far, but the controls are bad enough I could never recommend this game. It shares the same idea of movement in many old style SNES RPG type games, but it's flawed even for a game where the controls and gameplay have never been anything much beyond the normal standard and that's acceptable.
However, another game that is EXTREMELY simple with a simple story but becomes oddly addictive is Little Inferno. You do nothing more than drag items from the side and drop them into the fireplace to burn them. It's arguibly a simpler control scheme that moving around a character to different points on a screen to talk to people. The game might not be right for someone with a lack of patience but I don't think the games you mentioned would be either. It becomes easy to get enthralled in the experience and slight story that follows the enjoyable gameplay mechanic. If the controls were screwed so that it was harder than it needed to be to drag something into the fire place it could destroy the entire game due to a little annoyance. That is where the gameplay is concerned. In more complex games the levels have their share in the gameplay, so if something becomes tedious or irritating it can destroy the whole experience. A game is about how it makes you feel, but with bad gameplay you won't be able to experience what the game was envisioned you to experience. It might cause irritation instead of enjoyment, or anger instead of loving. Some games are designed to be harder and somehow warrant and encourage you to continue past the the potential irksome moment and somehow reward your hard work, but again for that to happen, there cannot be anything fundamentally wrong with the gameplay. I'm thinking the likes of the Donkey Kong Country series, or DK:TF. Hard games but you feel a sense of accomplishment after finishing them. There are others of course, these just came to mind because I have been playing DK:TF again recently. Super meat boy fits that bill as well. Sharp reactive controls that do exactly what they are meant to do without hindering the rest of the experience.
Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.
