surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
About a year ago, I praised Ian Bogost's critique of Bully and lamented the unfortunate lack of game criticism, as distinct from game reviews.
Natural Detox
Natural Detox
About a year ago, I praised Ian Bogost's critique of Bully and lamented the unfortunate lack of game criticism, as distinct from game reviews.
Natural Detox
Natural Detox
It really is unfortunate. Reviews focus more on the quality of the game than the qualities. Reviews are often only made longer than usual because there's different modes or different things to do in the game, not because there's more to talk about in terms of design. I think basic game design choices really are the most important thing in determining the quality of the game. I also think game design decisions are the real reason the Japanese industry is suffering (All of the business reasons Inafune has talked about are also important, but I mean in terms of game quality), but that's a blog for another time.
The thing about pointing something out, is that it'll never ends. Sure what if they fixed that, there'll be other things to point out like; "why the heck do they have a weapons vending machine for a civilized utopia?", or if they fix the oil spills, then; "why the cuss those oil spills looked like they're trying too hard to stand out?", moreso; "where are the other people? why does everyone in this place wants to kill ME?". Well, okay, I guess you're forgivable. You should play Bioshock 2, they got most of the "issues" (especially that underwhelming boss fight) handled. ;D
I disagree about it never ending. Weapons vending machines make sense in a society where everybody wields weapons. The oil spill is really just a one time thing. The way they intend you to get out of that situation is to incinerate the oil, but if you don't notice it you just have to fight your way out normally. The other people are all splicers. Splicers often seem to move in packs. You're not in a pack with any splicers, so they're always aggressive towards you. More so, you have a lot more ADAM in you than any splicer.
I'll play BioShock 2 eventually, but I'm kind of burned out on Rapture for now. Really looking forward to Infinite though.
I'll play BioShock 2 eventually, but I'm kind of burned out on Rapture for now. Really looking forward to Infinite though.
I don't think you realize this, but the oil next to the incinerate plasmid was a very deliberately good design decision. Fire clearly ignites oil IRL and that oil patch was to make it obvs to most anyone that "you can do likewise". It is handholdy, sure, but it is good design. Much better than having to spell it out completely in a tutorial or foregoing either and hiding it in a corner of the manual (that noone ever reads -- don't tell me to RTFM, ever, else I invoke the wrath of STFUAJPG).
The "incinerate issue" you have quite clashes with the idea of electricity you've discharged ending up hurting yourself. One is clearly videogamey (electric discharge) while the other is very grounded in reality. The result may be due to the effect being borrowed from other games or media (like Saving Private Ryan influencing every post-MoHAA FPS' conveyance of being in combat). I took it in without question, and I'd be curious to see what someone going in pretty fresh to videogames would think of it. That was a smart thing for you to notice.
The security research thing doesn't seem so intentional, but could be. I don't imagine anyone would consciously say "we shouldn't allow the player to research something that is temporary non-hostile" but rather: the friendly-AI code was explicitly tied to not allowing the player to research the object associated with it and therefore a programmer didn't notice it after a copy+paste. I think in this day and age of "a player should see most if not all of our game assets" being the prevailing mindset, making that a "game design choice" would be a bit of a fumble. Also, it limits potential of "100 percent achievos" on 1 playthrough, which I find (morally) reprehensible. People want 100 percents in 1 and they should get that. Otherwise it is not valuing the players time as a person, but as a purchaser (and hopefully non-trade-inner) of goods. That's Bobby-Kotick/Online-pass level shit right there (and I would hope and estimate that 2k's Irrational splinter groups -- Marin, Australia, and Irrational: Reborn'd believe in being charitable while still being marketable moreso than either 2k publishing proper, or the big and nasty ActiBlizz). Also, fuck achievos.
Some of the other issues I was introduced to before playing the game and I'm wondering if you picked up on them after hearing the criticisms (poor story twist and boss battle) and are just rehashing them because you were better forewarned to their perceived suckiness (as I was). I recall hearing of some people who didn't even notice, and possibly Irrational's focus group was among them (or it was too late to "patch out".. :))
The "incinerate issue" you have quite clashes with the idea of electricity you've discharged ending up hurting yourself. One is clearly videogamey (electric discharge) while the other is very grounded in reality. The result may be due to the effect being borrowed from other games or media (like Saving Private Ryan influencing every post-MoHAA FPS' conveyance of being in combat). I took it in without question, and I'd be curious to see what someone going in pretty fresh to videogames would think of it. That was a smart thing for you to notice.
The security research thing doesn't seem so intentional, but could be. I don't imagine anyone would consciously say "we shouldn't allow the player to research something that is temporary non-hostile" but rather: the friendly-AI code was explicitly tied to not allowing the player to research the object associated with it and therefore a programmer didn't notice it after a copy+paste. I think in this day and age of "a player should see most if not all of our game assets" being the prevailing mindset, making that a "game design choice" would be a bit of a fumble. Also, it limits potential of "100 percent achievos" on 1 playthrough, which I find (morally) reprehensible. People want 100 percents in 1 and they should get that. Otherwise it is not valuing the players time as a person, but as a purchaser (and hopefully non-trade-inner) of goods. That's Bobby-Kotick/Online-pass level shit right there (and I would hope and estimate that 2k's Irrational splinter groups -- Marin, Australia, and Irrational: Reborn'd believe in being charitable while still being marketable moreso than either 2k publishing proper, or the big and nasty ActiBlizz). Also, fuck achievos.
Some of the other issues I was introduced to before playing the game and I'm wondering if you picked up on them after hearing the criticisms (poor story twist and boss battle) and are just rehashing them because you were better forewarned to their perceived suckiness (as I was). I recall hearing of some people who didn't even notice, and possibly Irrational's focus group was among them (or it was too late to "patch out".. :))
I think you misunderstood my complaint about the oil. I didn't notice it. It's hard to see from within the room, so if you don't notice before you go in there's a problem.
I completely agree with the everything in one play through idea. The smartest thing I've ever heard Peter Molyneux say was in regards to branching game paths, and how one day he just realized, "that everyone would want to see the dragon," as was the case for Fable, which he was designing at the time.
You may be right about the security thing, but I could really see that one going either way.
I hadn't really heard much in way of criticism, though I was at least acutely aware to some plot details. I don't think the story twist, assuming you're talking about the main climax, is a bad one. I think it's actually quite an interesting twist on the way modern video games work, and points out the contrast between when a player can relate to his character and not. At that moment, you are Jack.
I hadn't heard any complaints about the final boss fight either, but those flaws seem to be becoming more prevalent in video games in general. Arkham Asylum is the perfect example. The fact that they handled the boss battles so poorly, and the game still managed to get such good reviews when historically the rogue gallery has what made Batman so popular, speaks to how well done everything else in that game is.
I completely agree with the everything in one play through idea. The smartest thing I've ever heard Peter Molyneux say was in regards to branching game paths, and how one day he just realized, "that everyone would want to see the dragon," as was the case for Fable, which he was designing at the time.
You may be right about the security thing, but I could really see that one going either way.
I hadn't really heard much in way of criticism, though I was at least acutely aware to some plot details. I don't think the story twist, assuming you're talking about the main climax, is a bad one. I think it's actually quite an interesting twist on the way modern video games work, and points out the contrast between when a player can relate to his character and not. At that moment, you are Jack.
I hadn't heard any complaints about the final boss fight either, but those flaws seem to be becoming more prevalent in video games in general. Arkham Asylum is the perfect example. The fact that they handled the boss battles so poorly, and the game still managed to get such good reviews when historically the rogue gallery has what made Batman so popular, speaks to how well done everything else in that game is.
