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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Who do you believe is the most over rated developer?

BenKenobi88 on 24 April 2008

There's your problem.

The console versions of Valve games suck in comparison to the original PC games.  Less players standard (16 compared to 24), lag and bugs, slower, much slower controls, etc. 

If you want to hate Valve, whatever, but I'm not going to pay attention to you until you try their games on the PC.  Because believe it or not, not all games are best on consoles.



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )

Around the Network
Rath on 24 April 2008
naznatips said:
Bodhesatva said:

Surprised how many people have said Bethesda here. They're my favorite RPG maker now, although that isn't saying much sinec I don't like any RPGs in the first place.

I'll just harp one more time on the fact that openness/interactivity is in direct opposition to story telling, and Bethesda is yet another excellent case to prove the point. Oblivion and especially Morrowind are the most open ended RPGs I've ever played, and they also happen to be the least coherent in terms of storyline.

You're all going to have to pick one or the other, I think. People seem to use the term "linear game" as a pejorative, but this also allows developers to tell a story. Do you want open games, or story driven games? Because the more open games get, the less story driven they will become.


What interactivity? There were no real consequences for anything you did in Oblivion. At worst you go to jail, but most of the time you could just steal a bunch of stuff and no one would ever know. How dull can a game get? An RPG game with no real consequences or results for your actions has no purpose. Why not just sit there and move stuff around on your computer desk?

As far as the actual gameplay goes, the dungeons were repetitive, the combat system was awful and dull, and the world was an empty lifeless mass of green.... except those damn wolves.


 I think you're kind of missing the point of the game to be honest Naz. Its a sandbox RPG and it took the sandbox element to the extreme almost ignoring the idea of a plot (seriously, the plot in Oblivion was shit) and consequence (which was to dumb the entire thing down).

I personally find the idea of a purely sandbox RPG very appealing and thoroughly enjoyed Morrowind and somewhat enjoyed Oblivion although I think the game would be much better with some consequence for your actions, which is why I'm looking foward to F3 which looks exactly like its going to be that.

 

Personally my ideal RPG would be a sandbox RPG with several strong and engaging plots that are all entirely optional and that your characters actions had plenty of consequences. 



Bodhesatva on 24 April 2008
SpookyXJ said:
Bodhesatva said:

Surprised how many people have said Bethesda here. They're my favorite RPG maker now, although that isn't saying much sinec I don't like any RPGs in the first place.

I'll just harp one more time on the fact that openness/interactivity is in direct opposition to story telling, and Bethesda is yet another excellent case to prove the point. Morrowind and even Oblivion are the most open ended RPGs I've ever played, and they also happen to be the less coherent in terms of storyline.

You're all going to have to pick one or the other, I think. People seem to use the term "linear game" as a pejorative, but this also allows developers to tell a story. Do you want open games, or story driven games? Because the more open games get, the less story driven they will become.


Thas exactly why I dont like them although I did enjoy morrowind. I just dont belive a sandbox experience and a complex well told narative have to be mutually exclusive. There is a balance that can be met to please both player preferences.


But it IS a balance. It's not like, say, interactivity and graphics, where you can have more interacitivity and have more graphics at the same time. There's no logical reason not to have more of both. 

With this, it is, as you just said, a balance. You sacrifice one for the other, and a balance between the two needs to be met.



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

SpookyXJ on 24 April 2008
Bodhesatva said:
SpookyXJ said:
Bodhesatva said:

Surprised how many people have said Bethesda here. They're my favorite RPG maker now, although that isn't saying much sinec I don't like any RPGs in the first place.

I'll just harp one more time on the fact that openness/interactivity is in direct opposition to story telling, and Bethesda is yet another excellent case to prove the point. Morrowind and even Oblivion are the most open ended RPGs I've ever played, and they also happen to be the less coherent in terms of storyline.

You're all going to have to pick one or the other, I think. People seem to use the term "linear game" as a pejorative, but this also allows developers to tell a story. Do you want open games, or story driven games? Because the more open games get, the less story driven they will become.


Thas exactly why I dont like them although I did enjoy morrowind. I just dont belive a sandbox experience and a complex well told narative have to be mutually exclusive. There is a balance that can be met to please both player preferences.


But it IS a balance. It's not like, say, interactivity and graphics, where you can have more interacitivity and have more graphics at the same time. There's no logical reason not to have more of both. 

With this, it is, as you just said, a balance. You sacrifice one for the other, and a balance between the two needs to be met.


I agree with you to a dregree and I think the problem is that no one has managed to strike the perfect balance yet. I think Morrowind and Mass Effect are examples of where a better balance could have been struck that would have done a better job of pleasing both player types.(sorry I agree with Naz on Oblivion) Take the paced narative of mass effect, make it completly optional,  and combine it with the open world with all the factions of morrowind and youd have a game that both player types could really apreciate. The only games off the top of my head that have come close are the orignal Mechwarrior and Betrayal at Krondor. 



shio on 24 April 2008
Bodhesatva said:
rocketpig said:
Bodhesatva said:

Surprised how many people have said Bethesda here. They're my favorite RPG maker now, although that isn't saying much sinec I don't like any RPGs in the first place.

I'll just harp one more time on the fact that openness/interactivity is in direct opposition to story telling, and Bethesda is yet another excellent case to prove the point. Oblivion and especially Morrowind are the most open ended RPGs I've ever played, and they also happen to be the least coherent in terms of storyline.

You're all going to have to pick one or the other, I think. People seem to use the term "linear game" as a pejorative, but this also allows developers to tell a story. Do you want open games, or story driven games? Because the more open games get, the less story driven they will become.


Or you can strike a nice medium like BioWare, you story-hatin' cat-mod.


You're right, I phrased that wrong. I didn't mean it has to be 100 percent story, 0 percent interactivity or 100 percent interactivity, 0 percent story, with nothing in between -- I only meant to say that one comes at the sacrifice of the other. Using that simple math again, you could have 60/40 interactivity/story, or 70/30, or 10/90, or whatever.

The point is, you can't have 100/100. You sacrifice one for the other.

That is Completely Wrong, Open-endness does NOT sacrifice story, it merely changes the way the story is portrayed (aka, story-telling). It is clear you have little experience with RPGs, especially wRPGs (probably since you're not very fond of RPGs)

Do you know which game is claimed by many to have the Best Story Ever in the history of videogaming? that's right, it's 'Planescape: Torment', a open-ended wRPG. PS:T has an incredibly deep and fascinating story, brilliant characters (with possibly the best sidekick character ever created, Morte), and was even compared to novels. If I was going to rate the game the way you just said, i'd give it a 100/80 (100 Story, 80 Interactivity).

Overall open-ended RPGs actually have better stories than linear RPGs: Baldur's Gate 2 just feels like a true epic and has the most natural romance; Fallout 1 & 2 have more personality than 99.9% of jRPGs (actually make that 100%); The Witcher, based on a polish novel, shows how well a open game can tell a story.



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Around the Network
BenKenobi88 on 24 April 2008

If you're going to have a huge sandbox world with little consequences, I think there needs to be more stuff to do.

I found Oblivion BORING, BORING, AHHH! Seriously, I wandered around for hours only coming across a few things, slaying them and walking some more.

At least make it interesting...



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )

naznatips on 24 April 2008
BenKenobi88 said:

There's your problem.

The console versions of Valve games suck in comparison to the original PC games. Less players standard (16 compared to 24), lag and bugs, slower, much slower controls, etc.

If you want to hate Valve, whatever, but I'm not going to pay attention to you until you try their games on the PC. Because believe it or not, not all games are best on consoles.


Exactly.  It's an issue of gameplay.  Valve games are designed with the precision and speed of a mouse in mind.  FPSes built for PCs and ported to consoles (CoD, HL2, UT3, etc.) will never deliver the true experience on consoles because that's simply not what the stages, guns, puzzles, and pacing were designed for.

Also, I still don't understand how you can criticizes games that you can't give any details on past the first few minutes Griffin.  



naznatips on 24 April 2008
BenKenobi88 said:
If you're going to have a huge sandbox world with little consequences, I think there needs to be more stuff to do.

I found Oblivion BORING, BORING, AHHH! Seriously, I wandered around for hours only coming across a few things, slaying them and walking some more.

At least make it interesting...

Exactly! This is why Grand Theft Auto works and Oblivion doesn't. Whether you like GTA or not (I lean more towards the not btw), it has TONS of stuff to do wherever you go. Oblivion didn't. Oblivion was empty and lifeless. The world was so large just for the hell of it. Not because they needed it that large to have lots of content. And the things you could do were so limited, dull, and without consequence. It just wasn't interesting.

I'm OCD and every game I start I have to finish. I didn't finish Oblivion. It was so horribly boring that an OCD person who is extremely bothered by not finishing a game, couldn't finish it. I finished freaking Zoids: Battle Legends.

You would literally have to pay me to pay Oblivion again, and you would have to pay well.  If I was given the choice between going to work, and playing Oblivion for the same amount of money per hour, I would go to work.   



SpookyXJ on 24 April 2008
shio said:
Bodhesatva said:
rocketpig said:
Bodhesatva said:

Surprised how many people have said Bethesda here. They're my favorite RPG maker now, although that isn't saying much sinec I don't like any RPGs in the first place.

I'll just harp one more time on the fact that openness/interactivity is in direct opposition to story telling, and Bethesda is yet another excellent case to prove the point. Oblivion and especially Morrowind are the most open ended RPGs I've ever played, and they also happen to be the least coherent in terms of storyline.

You're all going to have to pick one or the other, I think. People seem to use the term "linear game" as a pejorative, but this also allows developers to tell a story. Do you want open games, or story driven games? Because the more open games get, the less story driven they will become.


Or you can strike a nice medium like BioWare, you story-hatin' cat-mod.


You're right, I phrased that wrong. I didn't mean it has to be 100 percent story, 0 percent interactivity or 100 percent interactivity, 0 percent story, with nothing in between -- I only meant to say that one comes at the sacrifice of the other. Using that simple math again, you could have 60/40 interactivity/story, or 70/30, or 10/90, or whatever.

The point is, you can't have 100/100. You sacrifice one for the other.

That is Completely Wrong, Open-endness does sacrifice story, it merely changes the way the story is portrayed (aka, story-telling). It is clear you have little experience with RPGs, especially wRPGs (probably since you're not very fond of RPGs)

Do you know which game is claimed by many to have the Best Story Ever in the history of videogaming? that's right, it's 'Planescape: Torment', a open-ended wRPG. PS:T has an incredibly deep and fascinating story, brilliant characters (with possibly the best sidekick character ever created, Morte), and was even compared to novels. If I was going to rate the game the way you just said, i'd give it a 100/80 (100 Story, 80 Interactivity).

Overall open-ended RPGs actually have better stories than linear RPGs: Baldur's Gate 2 just feels like a true epic and has the most natural romance; Fallout 1 & 2 have more personality than 99.9% of jRPGs (actually make that 100%); The Witcher, based on a polish novel, shows how well a open game can tell a story.


Ah but thoes games with the exception of the Fallouts are not really complete sandboxes. There is a good bit of linearity to there progression. I guess you could consider them sectional sandboxes. Fallout 1 & 2 are great examples though.

On a side note you have great taste in games. 

 



naznatips on 24 April 2008
shio said:

Fallout 1 & 2 have more personality than 99.9% of jRPGs (actually make that 100%); The Witcher, based on a polish novel, shows how well a open game can tell a story.


I agreed with the rest of the post that open-endedness doesn't have to kill story, but these 2 lines at the end bothered me. 

You haven't played 100% of JRPGs.  You don't like JRPGs, and are a PC gamer.  You haven't even played 10% of JRPGs.  So please don't make a claim like that.

As far as The Witcher, it probably would have told the story better without so many translation issues.  Still a reasonably good game, but man the story was just gratingly awful sometimes.