By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LordTheNightKnight on 27 January 2010
couchmonkey said:
Torillian said:
Mummelmann said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I can't believe they implemented a mechanic for drinking orange juice."

That, and the teeth brushing, are like something from WarioWare, only that's a spoof.

"(hint; tutorials are usually very, very boring)"

Hint: That's not a good thing, since that's the first impression when it comes to gameplay.

I've played plenty of good games with boring tutorials. But, you see, I play the actual game as well before I make up my mind, which is obviously above the hallowed and revered Malstrom. Seriously, how has he gathered such a large following being such an ass to every single thing that doesn't match his preference? He wants everyone to love the same things as him and those who don't are morons or fanboys. He's acting like some of our 12-13 year old members defending to the death their favorite games simply out of some bewildered sense of duty with little to no actual substance in the arguments themselves.

In fact don't most Zelda games start with a pretty dull "walk around this town with a POS wooden sword"?  I'm sure if someone stopped playing Zelda before it got out of that first town they'd think the game was pretty crappy and just about fishing.

Malstrom doesn't like the Zelda tutorials either.  He had an entire posting on how the intro to each new Zelda game is getting worse.  And I mostly agree with him!  I lent my Wii Twighlight Princess to two different people when I first got it and both tried Zelda but quit after 10-20 minutes because it's so boring.  Remember that Malstrom is interested in the business context.  His point of view is that these long tutorials are a barrier to having fun and a barrier to selling new customers on the game.  Gamers will play them anyway because we're invested in video games so we're willing to get through an hour of crap to play the quality part of the game.

Frankly, the rest of Heavy Rain may be great, but I think the intro is clearly a bad design.

So they don't even read his other posts, even the ones on this thread. You would think a seasoned poster as Torillian would know better than to fail to do the research.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Torillian on 27 January 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
couchmonkey said:
Torillian said:
Mummelmann said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I can't believe they implemented a mechanic for drinking orange juice."

That, and the teeth brushing, are like something from WarioWare, only that's a spoof.

"(hint; tutorials are usually very, very boring)"

Hint: That's not a good thing, since that's the first impression when it comes to gameplay.

I've played plenty of good games with boring tutorials. But, you see, I play the actual game as well before I make up my mind, which is obviously above the hallowed and revered Malstrom. Seriously, how has he gathered such a large following being such an ass to every single thing that doesn't match his preference? He wants everyone to love the same things as him and those who don't are morons or fanboys. He's acting like some of our 12-13 year old members defending to the death their favorite games simply out of some bewildered sense of duty with little to no actual substance in the arguments themselves.

In fact don't most Zelda games start with a pretty dull "walk around this town with a POS wooden sword"?  I'm sure if someone stopped playing Zelda before it got out of that first town they'd think the game was pretty crappy and just about fishing.

Malstrom doesn't like the Zelda tutorials either.  He had an entire posting on how the intro to each new Zelda game is getting worse.  And I mostly agree with him!  I lent my Wii Twighlight Princess to two different people when I first got it and both tried Zelda but quit after 10-20 minutes because it's so boring.  Remember that Malstrom is interested in the business context.  His point of view is that these long tutorials are a barrier to having fun and a barrier to selling new customers on the game.  Gamers will play them anyway because we're invested in video games so we're willing to get through an hour of crap to play the quality part of the game.

Frankly, the rest of Heavy Rain may be great, but I think the intro is clearly a bad design.

So they don't even read his other posts, even the ones on this thread. You would think a seasoned poster as Torillian would know better than to fail to do the research.

I'm not arguing against Malstrom.  I try not to because then I'd have to read what he wrote and I prefer not to.  I was arguing against you, and the idea that it's a bad tutorial in Heavy Rain.   Now if you think that the same thing is poor in Zelda then alright, I guess you just aren't into slow tutorials, but personally I think some games need it.  Particularly games that are longer or heavily story based.  Loss can't be emotional unless you get some kind of connection to what is lost.



...

SaviorX on 27 January 2010

I think Malstrom is being a little too heavy on the Zelda failure aspect. Metroid Other M selling only 2m, I can see that, but I'd figure after Nintendo has been merely focused on 10 million sellers, they wouldn't hamper Zelda with trivial crap.

But I guess we will just have to wait and see. Heck, it could be 2D........LOL



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

LordTheNightKnight on 27 January 2010

"I'm not arguing against Malstrom.  I try not to because then I'd have to read what he wrote and I prefer not to.  I was arguing against you, and the idea that it's a bad tutorial in Heavy Rain.   Now if you think that the same thing is poor in Zelda then alright, I guess you just aren't into slow tutorials, but personally I think some games need it.  Particularly games that are longer or heavily story based.  Loss can't be emotional unless you get some kind of connection to what is lost."

Kingdom Hearts is long and story based. I've heard loads of complaints about the turorials in the second game. I haven't heard complaints about the first game's tutorial. Because it kicks ass. It seems slow, but it's about buliding the atmopshere of the game. The second game does that.

Heavy Rain does have a bad tutorial. I'm not getting to know the guy, and his weak dialog doesn't make me care about him, or his family.

Loss in a video game is not about feeling emotion. It's a reason to keep playing to either get back that lost thing or avenge it. If it's just to try to make me feel emotion, it's trying to be something other than a game. It becomes a railroad plot trying to pretend it's a medium where we accept those, since we know books and movies aren't interatice.

A tutorial that makes me think I'm playing a knockoff of The Sims doesn't belong at the start of an adventure game.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Reasonable on 27 January 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Reasonable said:
donathos said:
You know, regarding adventure games... I've always loved adventure games, and maybe I'd love Heavy Rain.

Hell, I loved (and continue to love) text adventures, like the old Infocom games, and more recent amateur releases with the annual Interactive Fiction awards (Adam Cadre's Photopia is a jewel, for instance, as is Andrew Plotkin's Hunter In Darkness).

But for the life of me, I can't remember one of those games forcing the player to do such mundane tasks as brushing teeth, using the toilet, etc.

Without taking some time to actually play Heavy Rain, it's hard to know whether that stuff's in there for good purpose... maybe it is? But I'd be disappointed if it was there *just* as a gameplay tutorial. I mean, tutorials can be more interesting than "the morning routine," I think.

I'm going to make a guess (which I normally don't like to do) on why they took this approach.

To set the scene, I'm assuming:

1 - they want you to have settled into your character and in a sense 'feel' like your character before the shit hits the fan with the core narrative

2 - they want you to have invested in your family (wife and kids) before the shit hits the fan

3 - they didn't want to use any cutscenes, etc. to do this as its not interactive - i.e. cover setup passively then give you control when the shit hits the fan

4 - they wanted tutorials that were part of the game for basic interaction, etc.

 

So, you go through (interactively) a normal realistic set of tasks for your character starting the day.  This isn't fantasy or anything at this point, you're just a guy getting up, getting ready for the day, playing with your kids, etc.

Then, if they've timed it well, they pull the rug out from under you (I'm pretty sure I know how although I've avoided reading anything, but the clues are there in a few trailers I've seen).

This won't be for everyone, but to make a comparison, you're not a space marine waking up in a jail getting busted out in the middle of an hostile attack by aliens (to look at Gears nicely traditional opening for an actioner).  You're a normal guy in a normal house - what else would you be doing?

 

Well I didn't feel for the character, or the family. Not just because I didn't play it, but because we only got some mentions that the guy even had a family, in some of the most flat writing and voice acting I've heard. Not bad, just flat.

And a tutorial being unindicative of the rest of the game isn't anything new either.

I'm just guessing QDs' reasoning for taking a certain approach.  Whether it actually works in another matter of course.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
Torillian on 27 January 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

"I'm not arguing against Malstrom.  I try not to because then I'd have to read what he wrote and I prefer not to.  I was arguing against you, and the idea that it's a bad tutorial in Heavy Rain.   Now if you think that the same thing is poor in Zelda then alright, I guess you just aren't into slow tutorials, but personally I think some games need it.  Particularly games that are longer or heavily story based.  Loss can't be emotional unless you get some kind of connection to what is lost."

Kingdom Hearts is long and story based. I've heard loads of complaints about the turorials in the second game. I haven't heard complaints about the first game's tutorial. Because it kicks ass. It seems slow, but it's about buliding the atmopshere of the game. The second game does that.

Heavy Rain does have a bad tutorial. I'm not getting to know the guy, and his weak dialog doesn't make me care about him, or his family.

Loss in a video game is not about feeling emotion. It's a reason to keep playing to either get back that lost thing or avenge it. If it's just to try to make me feel emotion, it's trying to be something other than a game. It becomes a railroad plot trying to pretend it's a medium where we accept those, since we know books and movies aren't interatice.

A tutorial that makes me think I'm playing a knockoff of The Sims doesn't belong at the start of an adventure game.

Kingdom Hearts 2 gets complaints because that tutorial was long as hell.  Noone wants to play as some random kid when they start a sequel to a game they enjoyed. 

Trying to make you feel emotion doesn't mean that it isn't a game anymore, it means it isn't your type of game apparently.  Emotional games have been some of my favorites and I've never been a fan of games that don't have any kind of story like a 2D mario but I'm not going to tell you that it isn't a game just because it isn't my type of game. 

How do you know how it makes you feel to play it?  You've never touched it and neither have I, but I can appreciate what they're trying to do, maybe it worked and maybe it didn't, but I'm not going to write it off because it looks silly from a video.



...

LordTheNightKnight on 27 January 2010

I should clarify.

I'll discount the tutorial from Kingdom Hearts 2, considering it was folded into the long as hell introduction. But it's not being slow that I am calling on (again so was KH1's). It's being boring and looking like a real life simulator, which is not what adventure games are.

I don't mean trying to make me feel any emotion. I wrote specifically about trying to make me feel loss. But what I mean specifically is trying to make me feel loss just to identify with the character more. It's not that it's not my type of game (because I've actually identified with some characters), it's that it's doing it through a boring manner. You brush the guy's teeth, and you'r supposed to identify with him? Perhaps if you are a servant, and the symbolism of the player being the servant to the game is what this tutorial looks like, not the interactive story that QD has been promising.

If it actually was about interacting with the story, why not a mini story relating to the guy's morning routine, now just which order he drinks orange juice first or plays with the RC car first. You might not mind, but the mainstream will be turned off, because they have been showing they care more about playing the game than the story of the game.

And if you are talking about different tastes, then you don't tell others not to care about the short length of Madworld just because of the presentation. Sure, that was another thread, but it does mean you actually have been telling us how to feel about a game. I'm telling you simply why others will feel this way about Heavy Rain. Not that they should, but that they will, based on their past buying behavior.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Torillian on 27 January 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
I should clarify.

I'll discount the tutorial from Kingdom Hearts 2, considering it was folded into the long as hell introduction. But it's not being slow that I am calling on (again so was KH1's). It's being boring and looking like a real life simulator, which is not what adventure games are.

I don't mean trying to make me feel any emotion. I wrote specifically about trying to make me feel loss. But what I mean specifically is trying to make me feel loss just to identify with the character more. It's not that it's not my type of game (because I've actually identified with some characters), it's that it's doing it through a boring manner. You brush the guy's teeth, and you'r supposed to identify with him? Perhaps if you are a servant, and the symbolism of the player being the servant to the game is what this tutorial looks like, not the interactive story that QD has been promising.

If it actually was about interacting with the story, why not a mini story relating to the guy's morning routine, now just which order he drinks orange juice first or plays with the RC car first. You might not mind, but the mainstream will be turned off, because they have been showing they care more about playing the game than the story of the game.

And if you are talking about different tastes, then you don't tell others not to care about the short length of Madworld just because of the presentation. Sure, that was another thread, but it does mean you actually have been telling us how to feel about a game. I'm telling you simply why others will feel this way about Heavy Rain. Not that they should, but that they will, based on their past buying behavior.

You're going to have to find that post, all I remember arguing is that Madworld's shortness is somewhat acceptable because of genre norms, doesn't have to do with the presentation, atleast not solely the presentation.

 



...

LordTheNightKnight on 27 January 2010

Thread: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=98303

Post: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3063036&page=2&postnum=21

You wrote that the presentation "made up" for the length and lack of replay value. The length I could have tolerated. But claiming a game we only play once is acceptable just to get wowed by it is what I'm calling on.

But the point isn't just my opinion. I'm pointing out that a slow tutorial will just bore people who just want to play a game, not get absorbed in it. It will not transcend gaming, as the developer hopes. It won't enhance the narrative (especially when the dialog is is just making declarations instead of building character). It makes the game seem like you have to do boring things instead of getting involved in the story. And it's not even setting up the gameplay well, as it looks like it's teaching you to do boring things instead of playing the game. That is why it's a bad tutorial. It's not what I think about it. It's what is there.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Torillian on 27 January 2010

how does that translate into them not caring about the length? There were just qualities of the game that made up for it while other games are short and don't have such qualities.

I still disagree about the tutorial, but I'll wait until I play the game to continue that argument.



...