
|
|
|
In the past I have opined that there's not really any such thing as 'playing it wrong.' If a lot of people don't like a game and people say they're just not playing it properly, that is almost always because the game did not communicate to the player well enough how it wanted to be played. It was somewhat disheartening, then, to see Tim Schafer - one of my video gaming heroes, no less - post up what appeared to be a rather defensive guide on how to get the most out of Brutal Legend, how it isn't best played as an RTS and how it ought to be played for the best possible experience. It's something that hasn't passed unnoticed and I must concur that if you give a player a set of tools that looks a lot like an RTS, teach them to use them in the manner of an RTS then you shouldn't be surprised when people continue using them in such a way. The problem is quite subtle, I think. The game does do a good job of introducing the various gameplay elements, the first couple of hours of the game spent in encounters that gradually uncover more and more of the strategic parts of the gameplay. There's never much doubt as to what tools are in the box, that's for sure - the game is clear at every step about what you can and can't do. Where the difficulty arrives is in the precise manner in which it teaches you to use them.
For example, the first time you set up the stage for a battle, you are on the defensive. There is another highly defensive battle in the mid-game where the aim is just to stay alive. While these missions change things up a little, they also muddy the waters because after a while it becomes apparent that the full-on stage battles reward extremely aggressive tactics which would probably be considered reckless in other strategy games. The game wants you to move in hard, fast, to cut off the enemies' supplies before they get a chance to build up a force in early, daring raids. The experience of doing so can be utterly exhilirating. If instead, however, you choose to do what the game taught you to do at first - defend your stage, keep your resources guarded you will find yourself getting into in a war of attrition which is much, much harder to win and far less fun. In fact, it's like playing a completely different game. In one battle fairly late in the game I unwisely took the attrition approach and was beaten by an AI that was just better at being on the ball with what units to buy and when, and where to send them. It was a slow, soul destroying defeat. The next time I played I decided to be ultra-agressive, going for quick, early strikes to capture all but one of the enemy's fan geysers (basically the 'gold mines' of the game). I spent most of my time on the ground hacking at stuff and felt like I was leading from the front. As a result, it was over within ten explosive, action packed minutes that were well in keeping with the mood of the rest of the game. Why the game doesn't do a better job of teaching you 'aggressive strategy' I've no idea. Granted, it's a hard balancing act to teach because there certainly are moments in the game where it's worth holding back and building up a force. But I can only concede that it is a problem with the game, a flaw that I believe has contributed majorly to some of the (slightly!) more negative reviews that have appeared.
BUT... (that 'but' in the title had to crop up eventually) I can't stay mad at it. I just can't. I thought it would be a problem for me - I was nervous as I sat down to play the game. But after figuring out how the game really wanted me to play it, and a couple of hours of finger-wagging ('Bad Schafer. Naughty Schafer. You should have told me that's what you wanted from me!') I was left with classic Schafer. A brilliantly realised world that bleeds imagination, from a man who knows how to build 'em and surrounds himself with people who bring it to life wonderfully. Truly excellent writing, characters and comic timing. Finally, gameplay that is solid (above bitching aside), thematically sound and just damned good fun enough to support everything else that is good about it. Here's the real test: Tim Schafer said that he hoped the game would make people who previously weren't into Heavy Metal like it. Well, I admit there are a couple of classic metal tunes I found myself unexpectedly enjoying but I don't think I'll be browsing the Metal section of my music shop any time soon. However, it's a testament to how well the game transports me into its world that from the moment that I press start to the moment that I quit for the evening, I can honestly say that Metal is my favourite genre of all time.
|
|
|
|
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
|
Comment with FacebookClick connect and comment instantly! |
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds |
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

Follow
RSS
Contact
I played the RTS sections aggressively from the get-go and never had TOO much trouble as long as I stayed in the air. The A will target you specifically if you are down there and you will die quickly. I did have to change the difficulty for the last one or two fights. The crow tree is an instant death.
It's toward the end of the game that they started to bother me, when they're complete gameplay hogs. Did anyone who was waiting for Brutal Legend really want this? The first two trailers showed an action adventure game in a unique setting. Halfway through year, we were suddenly told the game would be an RTS-Action hybrid. Sorry, what?
How is the public supposed to know that "they're doing it wrong"? The entire marketing campaign was disingenuous, as was the demo: the demo SHOULD have had a stage show.
I do agree that the stage battle side of it was really downplayed until the very end though. I'm not sure whose idea that was but it was probably a mistake.
Doesn't stop me from having an absolute blast with the game, though.
I'm just referring to the insane marketing campaign that COMPLETELY left out any trace of RTS elements to the public. If you were to watch Jimmey Kimmel, they marketed Brutal Legend as "Jack Black: The Game. A silly action game romp where you just meet crazy people and Tim Curry." They pushed the fact that it was family friendly with the censoring options, and again, the only thing they ever mentioned about the RTS gameplay was in a very small sentence on some random Gamasutra/hardcore gamer website interview: not in any of the commercials or popular ad.
Now, do I blame them? Fuck no: what casual gamer likes RTS games? But still, I know at least 10 people personally that are returning the game because it was falsely represented in it's advertising material (demo included: it doesn't matter if it shouldn't have came out, it did, and didn't include a stage show, which is most of the game's crux).
I played through the game on the default difficulty setting and had no issues with the final few stage battles. I personally was more disappointed with the escort missions. Regardless, every gamer's experience with Brutal Legend is valid, and Tim only made it all worse by mounting a defense.
By contrast I've spent a whole lot of time roaming the open world landscape, doing the various missions in between the stage battles, helping patrols out with their skirmishes, finding solos or other collectibles in the world and running the occasional side-mission.
Obviously the stage battles are a major part of the game, moreso as it goes on. And of course, they are what makes up multiplayer but I still think they're a long way from the whole story, or even 'most' of the game.
Basically, a lot of people have said "I made the game easy for the stage battles", which really shows a huge design flaw: that shouldn't have to happen.
I could be wrong on the amount of time spent stage battling, as I've just gathered that information from various reviews and such. Long story short, I'll be buying the game, but I can see how the "6" reviews were warranted.
Well, my last word on that is that I agree, there is a subtle but significant flaw in the way that the game teaches you the stage battles (obviously, since that's the bulk of my post). And it's true that the game sort of centres around these stage battles - the major plot points and power shifts of the game happen around the battles and the structure of the main story mode is going from stage location to stage location on tour (although plenty happens in the in between times), so it's easy to think that the stage battles are most of the game.
But I'd still say I only spend a small amount of time actually doing the stage battles compared to everything else. If the game really wanted to focus in on the stage battles, it'd have put more of them in in, and either got rid of the open world aspect or included minor stage battles as side quests, too (which it does not)
I mean I guess if BL was a straight up action adventure, we as gamers would say "okay, this is cool, but it's just an action adventure, why not add in some large scale battles, and let us control them... hell, why not add in some RTS elements!" Well that's what Double Fine did, but it seems it's working is many different ways for the image of the game.
Besides the "be aggressive" style that's intended for the stage battles, you also need to figure out on your own that you release serpents by holding X, run by pushing in the left thumbstick, and red flower grow where there are relics to raise. I think the flower thing is told, but somehow I missed it and didn't put it together until later.
Ummm...
Actually early harass and early expand are staple RTS elements, turtling usually gets you crushed by a skilled opponent. Especially in an RTS game where you don't have towers. I mean, what's the point in being defensive when you don't have towers? I don't get it. The reason why you are defensive is because towers are usually more cost-efficient then units in terms of power but are immobile. There are no towers here. All your units are mobile. So why wouldn't you move them?
You really don't really even turtle in Starcraft. Most of the early game consists of early harass vs early expand (Zerg vs Terran/Protoss) or map control and containment (Terran vs Protoss or Zerg mirror). Perhaps people played too much BGH and stuff of that sort. I didn't keep up with all the re-balances of Warcraft 3, but early game hero rushing was always a vital strategy and you generally stayed in as long as possible in the no upkeep zone.
So if you are just building units at your stage until you hit the unit cap and the going, you're not just playing Brutal Legends wrong, you are playing a RTS wrong.
Way to miss the point entirely. But hey, lucky we have experts like you around to tell us how we should be playing our games.
Perhaps you should have read my post from I linked to at the top of this one, the one where I rail against anyone who tells anyone else 'you're playing it wrong'.
It was mentioned that the game "taught" the player to be defensive. Well ok, let's go with that. How do you defend? You need something to stop the incoming force right? Ok, so you build units. But the enemy has more units, what now? They can probably build more because they have more fans, meaning more geysers. Hmm, should really take care of that. Well now that I have that settled, I can crush the enemy right? Well there you go.
I think people misinterpreted "keep your base safe while concentrating on destroying the enemy" with "keep your base safe, uh and fap till something happens". Because while being aggressive IS important, it also IS important to pay attention to your stage and geysers in the back as the enemy will often sneak through and may kill your fan income unnoticed.
The issue is that enough people were not figuring out what the game wanted from them that Tim Schafer felt the need to write a blog post telling them how to play the game properly. And a lot of people rightly said 'well, why didn't you find a way of showing that in the game itself, rather than in a blog post a couple of days after release?'
I can't deny that it's a fairly major failing, but it is one that it's possible to get past and once you do it's pretty clear sailing.