By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - How does a dev forget something so basic???

theprof00 on 28 February 2014
kupomogli said:
theprof00 said:

Have you played games other than monster hunter? I've played several. There is no enjoyment in beating the bosses because there is no real reward for doing it. MH rewards you for beating bosses in a certain way..really, truly hunting them, and using them for parts. I've tried soul sacrifice...I've tried Ragnarok...I've tried everything. Nothing compares. It's like, Ok just go fight something else now, and I'm left feeling like 'well this doesn't matter at all' this is just questing like in an mmo but without getting gear.

This would be more similar to say, an mmo, where beating an instance or boss didn't give you any items.

And wow, how you can miss the point with your other examples is beyond me. I have nothing but good things to say about both those games, and literally niether one is like Monster Hunter in any shape or form, aside that there are monsters that you hunt.

I'm not missing the point at all.  I've played both of the other you've mentioned in this post, but my examples are games that are somewhat similar in style as the enjoyment of both games comes from the boss battles.      

Your whole spiel about weapon and armor crafting being the main focus in Monster Hunter then listing that they're not in Ragnarok Odyssey or Soul Sacrifice because you get no reward for killing a monster is way off.  They're there, they're just a little different.  On Monster Hunter you harvest them from the monsters you kill or harvest points.  In Ragnarok Odyssey they immediately drop to the ground after you kill the monsters, cards and crafting items.  On Soul Sacrifice you get spells as a reward for how well you do, up to three different ones, you get spells for breaking a cursed part, and you get spells if you sacrifice part of your body or are used as a sacrifice, each spell being able to be upgraded for more uses or a more powerful version of a spell. 

The difference with the games are the gameplay and that's what makes it better, not the grinding for parts.  I'd actually like Monster Hunter more if it was less repeated grinding for parts to make your weapons more powerful because I actually thought that fighting the bosses was the best part of the game.

So why is MH the more popular series of all combined? Because the monsters are better?

I'm being rhetorical. The other rewards just aren't very good. The spells in SS are meh, and the cards in rag are the same...in ragnarok, when I saw things drop I was like, Awesome! And then I went to use them and was like, "what do you mean I can't craft armor or weapons?

Like I said, it would be like if you were in an MMO doing a raid, and the only rewards you got were some buffs or spells. People LIKE getting gear. That's really all there is to it. Blizzard made BILLIONS off this simple idea.

EDIT: The question really is "Why can't I do both". I can change my weapon type, class, sharpness, and moveset as well as craft in MonHun, but I can only change my attacks in the other games? It's just so...superficial. It'd be like, Oh for this boss, you get this amount of gold. you can use gold to buy potions, and unlock more monsters. That would be as superficial as it goes. Monhun is a very complex game with lots of depth, and the others just barely scratch that.

Also, about SotC like you mentioned earlier...I would say SotC is more of a puzzle game with a giant monster theme than a giant monster hunting game.



Around the Network
Munkeh111 on 28 February 2014
vivster said:

I'll add Sim City:
The core gameplay is building cities alone, preferably in an endless mode. The newest just scratches all that and limits the space and puts in some unneeded online features.

But the UI is just so damm good.... They're online stuff was meant to simulate a sort of global economy to make the game more interesting (and act as DLC but whatever), it just didn't really pan out that well.

I do think they made some money off the game AND learnt what people want. The next SimCity should hopefully have bigger cities and other improvements.

I think I am in a tiny minority in really enjoying the new game

But I do get surprised when something obvious is missed. They have loads of external testing to make sure that things aren't obviously wrong, but I guess it is hard to think of EVERYTHING

The one other thing to consider is that all that people want is what they already have. Nobody can ask for something that doesn't exist yet



theprof00 on 28 February 2014
sales2099 said:
At a certain point one has to realize that developers are people with creative ideas and interests to keep their work (and sequels) fresh moving forward. Also, the gamers themselves have to keep an open mind, stop being so entitled, and appreciate the old games for what they were, while embracing the changes in the new one.

Now if the sequel bombs on metacritic, thats another story.

Being entitled?

What would you do if for instance, they took away co-op in halo?

Here's another one:
Mario Kart losing character specific super moves. What is the purpose? That is a creative idea?



vivster on 28 February 2014
Munkeh111 said:
vivster said:

I'll add Sim City:
The core gameplay is building cities alone, preferably in an endless mode. The newest just scratches all that and limits the space and puts in some unneeded online features.

But the UI is just so damm good.... They're online stuff was meant to simulate a sort of global economy to make the game more interesting (and act as DLC but whatever), it just didn't really pan out that well.

I do think they made some money off the game AND learnt what people want. The next SimCity should hopefully have bigger cities and other improvements.

I think I am in a tiny minority in really enjoying the new game

But I do get surprised when something obvious is missed. They have loads of external testing to make sure that things aren't obviously wrong, but I guess it is hard to think of EVERYTHING

The one other thing to consider is that all that people want is what they already have. Nobody can ask for something that doesn't exist yet

Fun fact though: I never played any Sim City game and probably never will.

I just wanted to belong to the cool kids by shitting on EA :(

So if you like the game, more power to you! :)



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Munkeh111 on 28 February 2014
vivster said:
Munkeh111 said:

But the UI is just so damm good.... They're online stuff was meant to simulate a sort of global economy to make the game more interesting (and act as DLC but whatever), it just didn't really pan out that well.

I do think they made some money off the game AND learnt what people want. The next SimCity should hopefully have bigger cities and other improvements.

I think I am in a tiny minority in really enjoying the new game

But I do get surprised when something obvious is missed. They have loads of external testing to make sure that things aren't obviously wrong, but I guess it is hard to think of EVERYTHING

The one other thing to consider is that all that people want is what they already have. Nobody can ask for something that doesn't exist yet

Fun fact though: I never played any Sim City game and probably never will.

I just wanted to belong to the cool kids by shitting on EA :(

So if you like the game, more power to you! :)

Never!!!!! I thought everyone had played SimCity at some point in their lives.

I played it for a bit when I was really young, then a few years back it was on a Steam sale and so I picked it. Then within the next few days I had played 24 hours of it.... It is amazingly addictive and something that everyone should play. Then again, I also got really addicted to Cities in Motion, a public transport management game



Around the Network
theprof00 on 28 February 2014
Munkeh111 said:
vivster said:

I'll add Sim City:
The core gameplay is building cities alone, preferably in an endless mode. The newest just scratches all that and limits the space and puts in some unneeded online features.

But the UI is just so damm good.... They're online stuff was meant to simulate a sort of global economy to make the game more interesting (and act as DLC but whatever), it just didn't really pan out that well.

I do think they made some money off the game AND learnt what people want. The next SimCity should hopefully have bigger cities and other improvements.

I think I am in a tiny minority in really enjoying the new game

But I do get surprised when something obvious is missed. They have loads of external testing to make sure that things aren't obviously wrong, but I guess it is hard to think of EVERYTHING

The one other thing to consider is that all that people want is what they already have. Nobody can ask for something that doesn't exist yet

I'm not saying the new simcity is bad.

I'm saying they completely left out a huge demographic (their previous fanbase)

There are literally, still threads today on /v/ about simcity 2000 and the one after it, I forget what it's called. Anyway, why make the cities so small? That's really the whole point. They could have ahd both, but decided to change it completely. For literally no reason. It could have been big cities with all the same multiplayer portions added on.

I think the multiplayer aspects are terrific....but at the cost of the map size? Man is that frustrating.



vivster on 28 February 2014
Munkeh111 said:
vivster said:
Munkeh111 said:

But the UI is just so damm good.... They're online stuff was meant to simulate a sort of global economy to make the game more interesting (and act as DLC but whatever), it just didn't really pan out that well.

I do think they made some money off the game AND learnt what people want. The next SimCity should hopefully have bigger cities and other improvements.

I think I am in a tiny minority in really enjoying the new game

But I do get surprised when something obvious is missed. They have loads of external testing to make sure that things aren't obviously wrong, but I guess it is hard to think of EVERYTHING

The one other thing to consider is that all that people want is what they already have. Nobody can ask for something that doesn't exist yet

Fun fact though: I never played any Sim City game and probably never will.

I just wanted to belong to the cool kids by shitting on EA :(

So if you like the game, more power to you! :)

Never!!!!! I thought everyone had played SimCity at some point in their lives.

I played it for a bit when I was really young, then a few years back it was on a Steam sale and so I picked it. Then within the next few days I had played 24 hours of it.... It is amazingly addictive and something that everyone should play. Then again, I also got really addicted to Cities in Motion, a public transport management game

There are all kinds of people. I can certainly see the appeal. But there are just too many good games out there that I have to limit myself to a few specific genres and simulation is not one of them.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

kupomogli on 28 February 2014
theprof00 said:

So why is MH the more popular series of all combined?

Monster Hunter is more popular for two reasons.  It's the better game and it was already massively popular before other developers started ripping off the concept.  Why bother asking this when I stated it was the better game the post you quoted?  It doesn't change how any of the games mechanics are.



theprof00 on 28 February 2014
Mnementh said:
theprof00 said:
kupomogli said:
theprof00 said:

Example:
Monster Hunter
What makes Monster Hunter so amazing is the armor and weapon crafting. Obviously the core gameplay is slaying big monsters, but I'm sorry, the crafting is literally the most important part. I can't even describe how many clones fail to do implement this properly.

I don't agree with this.  The weapon crafting is the most important otherwise you won't be able to progress with a weapon that takes off next to nothing or the sharpness won't allow you to pierce the boss, however the games enjoyment comes from fighting the bosses.

It's the main reason Dragon's Dogma is good.  The bosses literally make the game.  The exploration and such on Dragon's Dogma is great, but I don't think anything holds a candle to how enjoyable it is fighting the bosses on the game.

Shadow of the Colossus is nothng but bosses.  Not being able to do anything else doesn't take away from the experience.

Have you played games other than monster hunter? I've played several. There is no enjoyment in beating the bosses because there is no real reward for doing it. MH rewards you for beating bosses in a certain way..really, truly hunting them, and using them for parts. I've tried soul sacrifice...I've tried Ragnarok...I've tried everything. Nothing compares. It's like, Ok just go fight something else now, and I'm left feeling like 'well this doesn't matter at all' this is just questing like in an mmo but without getting gear.

This would be more similar to say, an mmo, where beating an instance or boss didn't give you any items.

And wow, how you can miss the point with your other examples is beyond me. I have nothing but good things to say about both those games, and literally niether one is like Monster Hunter in any shape or form, aside that there are monsters that you hunt.

EDIT: It would be like if a metroid game was released with absolutely no collecting or upgrading and I complained about it and you turned around and said "so what, you don't collect anything in Mario and that doesn't take away from the game at all".

 

EDIT2: WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT

I just read what you said about monster hunter again. You are a madman.

You're so right in your OP and so right about this. I wasn't sure why I liked MH. And as you wrote it, I was thinking - is it so? Does armor and weapon-crafting hold the key to making this series so unique? And then I looked at a piece of paper on my desk, that I made playing MH. I noted which parts I need to craft the next thing I wanted. And that's the point I think. You see what you can craft and you can see specifically what you need. You know after some time which monster drops it, and probably have to learn which body part you have to break to increase the probability of dropping the specific part. I think MOnster HUnter wouldn't work, if you only see new weapons or armor, if you have enough materials to craft them. As you can look forward you can plan which monsters to fight next, and that makes a big part of the excitement.

Exactly! It's so...adventurous!

If I were put in charge of a monhun style game , literally the first thing I would say is we need item crafting. Custom sets of armor, weapons, potions, poisons, everything. That's why it kills me when I play a clone and I'm like "how is this not here"



Munkeh111 on 28 February 2014
theprof00 said:

I'm not saying the new simcity is bad.

I'm saying they completely left out a huge demographic (their previous fanbase)

There are literally, still threads today on /v/ about simcity 2000 and the one after it, I forget what it's called. Anyway, why make the cities so small? That's really the whole point. They could have ahd both, but decided to change it completely. For literally no reason. It could have been big cities with all the same multiplayer portions added on.

I think the multiplayer aspects are terrific....but at the cost of the map size? Man is that frustrating.

They did think of it, they just thought that they're fanbase had moved on.

As a developer, it's hard to judge whether or not your fanbase still exists, especially for an older game. Most of these people are middle aged and even if they're excited about an idea of a new game, they might not necessarily have the time required to play it (since they have jobs now).

SimCity looked to capture the new "connected audience" but just misjudged their fanbase I feel. I don't think it was a case of forgetting, rather a case of misjudgement