[Lotus Petal]

Peklo, on 06 February 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Pretty sure we're just acknowledging the fact that Frankie's opinions on the given subject fall into the minority, here. It does not make his position any less valid, of course. Reading disrespect or whatever into it is silly.

It's fair enough to acknowledge that his opinion is in the minority, but there are more tactful ways to do it instead of beginning to derail a topic trying to explain why someone's opinion is blatantly wrong about a specific game. That's all I'm saying. Let's keep things on topic.

[Manfredo]

Quote

It's fair enough to acknowledge that his opinion is in the minority, but there are more tactful ways to do it instead of beginning to derail a topic trying to explain why someone's opinion is blatantly wrong about a specific game. That's all I'm saying. Let's keep things on topic.

yeah cool lets not open up channels of discussion and debate about the validity of different perspectives, that way everyone can just keep their perspectives, regardless of how valid they may or may not be, and Be Happier for it, right

happiness trumps wrongness

[Conn]

Matthew is exactly the same as Isaac because both of them are silent protagonists. Matthew can actually display more character, though, since Dark Dawn allows the player to choose which emotion he can express for his answer rather than a simple Yes/No for Isaac.

I'm not disputing that Dark Dawn's characters are weak, it's just that they're less weak than the original games. The times Isaac and co or Felix and co showed any character were very few and far between, and could probably be counted on one's hands. In Dark Dawn, these instances occur with regularity, especially because each character after the starting trio has their own 'arc' of sorts in the story.

As for the gap, my thoughts are that the huge gap justifies sticking close to the original games in a way to say "hey, we're back and just as great as before!"... changing things around would have ruined that nostalgia factor they're almost certainly banking on. I imagine (or hope, anyway) the third game will change things up a bit, beyond the two new elements.

[Lotus Petal]

Manfredo, on 06 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

yeah cool lets not open up channels of discussion and debate about the validity of different perspectives, that way everyone can just keep their perspectives, regardless of how valid they may or may not be, and Be Happier for it, right

happiness trumps wrongness

Of course, because it's so important to make sure other people know your opinion or perspective is more "valid" than theirs, and focus solely on that. If you'd rather do this than discuss the topic at hand, please, be my guest. ^__^

This post has been edited by Lotus Petal: 06 February 2012 - 06:45 PM

[thernz]

That's just what you think.

When it comes to change, it just depends on how well it is. I mean Order of Ecclesia's aims are completely different from Symphony (which are substantially different from CV1), and it's still one of the best later Castlevanias. It's more about adhering to your own individual goals than the meta-goal of the series. Say, if Lords was more focused, I might have even liked it despite how un-Castlevania it was. So it's always about aiming toward tight, focused game design than adhering to tradition or mixing things up for the sake of getting new audiences for me and Moominpapa.

[Manfredo]

Quote

Of course, because it's so important to make sure other people know your opinion or perspective is more "valid" than theirs, and focus solely on that. If you'd rather do this than discuss the topic at hand, please, be my guest. ^__^

No, its not important to know your opinion is more valid, its more important for others to consider why someone might think so, to consider their own perspectives, to consider variables they may not have otherwise, to learn, regardless of the end product.

[Lotus Petal]

Manfredo, on 06 February 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

No, its not important to know your opinion is more valid, its more important for others to consider why someone might think so, to consider their own perspectives, to consider variables they may not have otherwise, to learn, regardless of the end product.

... My mind is blown.

Might as well give my two cents on how I feel about change in games, since that's what the topic was originally about, and this has gone on long enough.

Aside from not understanding a series's "spirit" and making poor choices in implementing "nods" for the sake of including it in a series in a petty way, there's another change I have to say I'm saddened by and that would be lots of games making it a point to forcibly include tutorials and prompts, rather than leaving it up to the player as to whether or not they would actually like these features and not just turn them off. For newer gamers just beginning to play or more casual gamers who might be trying out their first FPS tutorials/prompts are great, but what about newer or more seasoned gamers who would rather try to figure things out for themselves and don't mind spending some time with trial and error or experiment by simply testing out the limits of the game while playing it?

On the other hand, one positive change are a wider range of ideas being presented, partially to appeal to the casual gaming market. Love FarmVille or hate it, but with apps on Facebook, smart phones and other portable devices, more people are being given access to try out a video game that interests them and find out why they can be fun. The Aria of Sorrow cell phone game definitely increased knowledge of the game and Castlevania in general to more people, for example, however small the group may have been.

[Conn]

That's technically not on topic but whatever

I don't really have any problem with tutorials or otherwise easing players into the game; there's nothing wrong with being accessible or otherwise clear. What really bothers me is when the game insists on holding the player's hand throughout the whole game, as I'm currently experiencing in Skyward Sword. Tutorials need to be restricted to early parts of the game and either optional or integrated subtly into gameplay— for example, Half-Life 2 teaches the player how to use the gravity gun by playing catch and basketball with D.O.G, and Shadow of the Colossus teaches climbing and jumping controls in a little platforming segment right before the first colossus. Do more stuff like that!

[thernz]

It's pretty odd how Skyward and other games hold your hand in such an obtrusive way when there are plenty of older games that let the player learn just by way of good level design. I'm not sure why that came about despite attempts to focus on a broader market. I don't think any one really likes being fed instructions.

Were the Castlevania games aimed at casual markets even that successful? I forget mobile Aria of Sorrow, Castlevania Puzzle, and Order of Shadows even exist.

[Conn]

The thing that's bizarre about Skyward Sword is it still follows all the typical Zelda tells— you know, stuff like having the Boss Door and Boss Chest look really ornate and important, or just having the camera pan around to introduce an area— but still has Fi mention these things anyway. It's sort of offensive in the way it talks down to players!

[Lotus Petal]

Conn, on 07 February 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

That's technically not on topic but whatever

I don't really have any problem with tutorials or otherwise easing players into the game; there's nothing wrong with being accessible or otherwise clear. What really bothers me is when the game insists on holding the player's hand throughout the whole game, as I'm currently experiencing in Skyward Sword. Tutorials need to be restricted to early parts of the game and either optional or integrated subtly into gameplay— for example, Half-Life 2 teaches the player how to use the gravity gun by playing catch and basketball with D.O.G, and Shadow of the Colossus teaches climbing and jumping controls in a little platforming segment right before the first colossus. Do more stuff like that!

I'm so glad we agree on that.

I was just thinking about the Tomb Raider series and remembered how annoying it was to have QTEs at certain parts of Anniversary. While I was playing this remake and remembering the original, I marveled at how much less creative the level designs were and missed things like the occasional forced camera angle that pointed you in the direction of a room holding an important item, and how easily you could master Lara's controls if you took into account that every surface she could stand on was a large square and accordingly judge jumps, running jumps, flips, and falls. Boss battles were also exciting because there were no conventional boss themes while you fought them and it was pretty easy for them to kill Lara by stomping on her or grabbing her in their jaws/beastly arms and throwing her around by the head (instant death if they can do this!)

In Anniversary, boss battles were QTEs and it was too easy to figure out where to go next because there were less open areas with multiple areas to explore in whatever order however you wanted. Just play both versions of "St. Francis' Folly" if you don't believe me. :\

Similar to my annoyance with QTEs and forced hand-holding, striving for a game to be "more realistic" at the cost of doing monotonous things like getting upgrades for doing something as simple as climbing a wall for a greater distance before tiring out is to me a lazy way of padding a game to take longer to complete. 2003's Angel of Darkness actually forces you to feed Lara vitamins so that she can gradually hang off ledges/climb along them longer. I'm so glad the newer games decided to return Lara to a super-athlete. Why the new Zelda had to follow suit with making Link also tire after a certain amount of time given the many previous games that let him climb like a mountain goat is anybody's guess.

[Conn]

It's funny you bring up Skyward Sword's climbing, because I think Nintendo actually agrees it's a dumb idea. Almost every 'big' climb Link has to do features a Stamina Fruit (which replenishes all stamina) on the vines, and rather generously close... so there's never any real danger of losing stamin and falling to the ground. Of course, why Nintendo thought the fruits were a better idea than simply scrapping it, I don't know... but hey, at least Link can actually climb with some speed, unlike in Twilight Princess.

[chrisy05]

thernz, on 07 February 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

It's pretty odd how Skyward and other games hold your hand in such an obtrusive way when there are plenty of older games that let the player learn just by way of good level design. I'm not sure why that came about despite attempts to focus on a broader market. I don't think any one really likes being fed instructions.

The irony of it all is that nintendo pioneered that school of design. The first Mario Bros. is widely acclaimed for how accessible it is, teaching the player everything they need to know through the first level. Decades later, Mario Galaxy shows us that cute, fuzzy animals can also teach us how to play, via an endless bombardment of text bubbles, telling us to "PRESS A TO SWIM", which takes up precious real estate from our TVs. Skyward Sword is worse in that regard, because not only is your traveling companion one of these stupid animals, she's also capable of pausing the game, at a whim, to give you a good dose of empty verbiage. And because the game is constantly introducing new ideas, she's always providing the player with an endless amount of instructions.

Conn, on 07 February 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

The thing that's bizarre about Skyward Sword is it still follows all the typical Zelda tells— you know, stuff like having the Boss Door and Boss Chest look really ornate and important, or just having the camera pan around to introduce an area— but still has Fi mention these things anyway. It's sort of offensive in the way it talks down to players!

YES! The game goes to great lengths to insure that the player understands every minute detail, no matter how condescending or redundant these measures may be. For instance, Fi will happily remind us to recover more health whenever the player is down to three hearts, because of course, that annoying chime wasn't already enough. Also, if the game is restarted shortly after learning the dowsing ability, Fi will say something along the lines of, "Master! I REQUIRE confirmation on whether or not you understand how dowsing functions!"

Oddly enough, Fi is but one instrument the game uses to impede progress. Another involves the signature Zelda jingle, which is heard whenever a discovery is made. In past games, it was just a harmless pat on the back, but here, the game uses it to kill any momentum. Throw a bomb at a cracked wall or a rock, and watch as the game pauses, pans the camera at rubble for a few seconds -- so you can stare at it, presumably -- then plays the jingle. Only after the jingle is heard will the game relinquish control back to the player. This happens again and again, regardless of how many walls or rocks you've already destroyed. What's puzzling is the motive behind this design choice. The player already knows what will happen to the cracked wall or rock when a bomb is thrown at it. It's what prompted the player to throw the bomb to begin with. So why do the designers feel the need to stop the game and show the player the end result? Incidentally, this intrusive pause isn't exclusive to just blowing away rocks, but also pulling levers, switches and solving other puzzles.

The award for the most insufferable feature of game still goes to the collectible treasures. Not only will the game pause and give you a useless description upon collecting a treasure, but it also makes an effort to bring up the item screen and have the treasure appear in it's respective slot. This happens again with the same treasure if you restart the game. After all, knowing exactly where these treasures go is top priority! Towards the end of the game, I found myself in a small, dark room, surrounded by a mob of enemies, and dying, no less. I decided to throw myself into the mob and hope for the best, when suddenly-- "You got a Golden Skull! A real rarity among skull ornamen".

[Conn]

That it brings up the treasure screen is what gets me. I could shake it off if all it did was give me the description every time... as TP also did. At least SS doesn't do it with Rupees anymore, haha.

[Lotus Petal]

Quote

That it brings up the treasure screen is what gets me. I could shake it off if all it did was give me the description every time... as TP also did. At least SS doesn't do it with Rupees anymore, haha.

Every. Single. Time. Just for getting non-green rupees! That drove me absolutely nuts. And then you didn't even get to keep the treasure sometimes because whoops, you had a full amount, so back into the treasure chest they go! Unbelievable.

I have to wonder if the vastly-improved resources game designers are allowed today versus the limited things they could work with on older hardware have made them lazier...

It's like designers have completely forgotten the very things that made video games so successful today and instead of utilizing them, come up with "new" ideas that are only new because they wouldn't have been considered good in any measure by prior designers who had more common sense. As I've said before, when changes are done in a way that wastes a player's time by insulting their intelligence and patience with redundancy, I hate them, and I think far too many game series have made these kinds of changes, which is why I hate them, like an annoying popular fad that forces its way into you acknowledging it exists. Otherwise, I don't have a problem necessarily with the idea of change in and of itself.