surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I think as long as you keep it fun an intuitive you can make as complicated games as you want, but you have to explain and educate the player how itīs supposed to work. BUT I get you point and I agree ;D
Good stuff!!
One of the games I'm most excited for this year is Resistance 3 and everything I'm hearing from Insomniac Games is how they're basically simplifying it. They're taking what worked from the previous games and cutting out the unnecessary bits. Even stuff that was awesome (8-player co-op) or a major selling point (60-player versus) they're cutting out so that they can focus and aim their new game the exact way they want.
One of the games I'm most excited for this year is Resistance 3 and everything I'm hearing from Insomniac Games is how they're basically simplifying it. They're taking what worked from the previous games and cutting out the unnecessary bits. Even stuff that was awesome (8-player co-op) or a major selling point (60-player versus) they're cutting out so that they can focus and aim their new game the exact way they want.
Wow, when I first read the headline, I thought you meant 2010 sucked in terms of gaming. I'm sorry to hear about your friends!
As for the games, that's basically what any developer worth its salt ought to be doing: recognizing their strengths and weaknesses (in terms of the studio as well as the franchise), and building the former while minimizing (or improving on) the latter. One other highly-praised game--Red Dead Redemption--manages to pull this off. Despite it not really being part of a franchise, it's a spiritual sequel to both Red Dead Revolver and GTA IV, much in the same vein of the others on this list. I found GTA IV unplayable, but RDR a huge timesuck.
In 2009, Assassin's Creed II pulled this off beautifully, and while I haven't gotten far enough in Brotherhood to say one way or the other, I've already seen improvements in the formula and critics seem to enjoy the further refinements too.
As for the games, that's basically what any developer worth its salt ought to be doing: recognizing their strengths and weaknesses (in terms of the studio as well as the franchise), and building the former while minimizing (or improving on) the latter. One other highly-praised game--Red Dead Redemption--manages to pull this off. Despite it not really being part of a franchise, it's a spiritual sequel to both Red Dead Revolver and GTA IV, much in the same vein of the others on this list. I found GTA IV unplayable, but RDR a huge timesuck.
In 2009, Assassin's Creed II pulled this off beautifully, and while I haven't gotten far enough in Brotherhood to say one way or the other, I've already seen improvements in the formula and critics seem to enjoy the further refinements too.
I've been thinking this for a long time now. I'm beginning to prefer the XBLA titles after the AAA retail releases, all because they seem much more focused. Super Meat Boy shouldn't have been half as engrossing as it is for a game simply about jumping over things, but weeks later I find myself drawn back to it again and again.
Then I look at Vanquish. While fun, it's a mess in terms of focus. The score attack system has no real weight to it when the weapons for each mission are randomised. Who's to say the score won't improve until you reload and receive the weapons you want? And why, with so much emphasis on replaying levels, does our performance have to be based on a 6-digit number? Why not a medallion, like in Platinum's near-flawless Bayonetta?
Sometimes, less is more. More features don't necessarily equate to better games if they're not well-realisd in the first place.
Then I look at Vanquish. While fun, it's a mess in terms of focus. The score attack system has no real weight to it when the weapons for each mission are randomised. Who's to say the score won't improve until you reload and receive the weapons you want? And why, with so much emphasis on replaying levels, does our performance have to be based on a 6-digit number? Why not a medallion, like in Platinum's near-flawless Bayonetta?
Sometimes, less is more. More features don't necessarily equate to better games if they're not well-realisd in the first place.
Nicely said. I too felt that last year gave us far too many sequels. There weren't a lot of new IP's and the ones we saw tended to be similar to existing games.
I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with sequels. If they're done well. All of the above examples are proof of that. The problem is when the first game wasn't that good to begin with and the sequel is just a rehash of the first with all the problems of the first one made worse.
Not sure I see what you are talking about with the XIII battle system. I liked it and it was pretty different in what it offered. It was more real time management than active participation, but it wasn't a bad system.
They just made a boring game. Not what I would call bad. Just boring.
They just made a boring game. Not what I would call bad. Just boring.
Hmm.
I don't know so much about cutting out features. Cutting out features means cutting DOWN complexity, and complexity is very often an inherent good, even sometimes when complexity IS the bad kind (i.e. the "fat" in games).
Remember when Valve cut out grenades, conc. jumps, extra weapons, etc. out of TF2? People were pisssssseeedddd. And, in fact, a lot of high level players are still pissed because while TFC may have been inelegant in its complexity, it was still, well, COMPLEX, a lot more so than TF2 and, thus, more interesting (at high levels of play, anyway).
Or remember when Smash Bros. Brawl came out and high-level Melee players were peeved at the lack of advanced techniques? Melee, at high-levels of play, was comparable to any fighting game in its complexity whereas Brawl was reduced to a shallow minimum and was a lot less interesting because of it.
If developers are going to cut down complexity, they better know exactly what they're doing. It's better to keep features and REFINE them than outright cut them out.
I don't know so much about cutting out features. Cutting out features means cutting DOWN complexity, and complexity is very often an inherent good, even sometimes when complexity IS the bad kind (i.e. the "fat" in games).
Remember when Valve cut out grenades, conc. jumps, extra weapons, etc. out of TF2? People were pisssssseeedddd. And, in fact, a lot of high level players are still pissed because while TFC may have been inelegant in its complexity, it was still, well, COMPLEX, a lot more so than TF2 and, thus, more interesting (at high levels of play, anyway).
Or remember when Smash Bros. Brawl came out and high-level Melee players were peeved at the lack of advanced techniques? Melee, at high-levels of play, was comparable to any fighting game in its complexity whereas Brawl was reduced to a shallow minimum and was a lot less interesting because of it.
If developers are going to cut down complexity, they better know exactly what they're doing. It's better to keep features and REFINE them than outright cut them out.
