Its nice to see a trailer after all this time.
You can have a Woooooooooo from me.
You can have a Woooooooooo from me.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Oliwerko on Sat 18/07/2009 12:51:31
I was going to write pretty much the same as Radiant already did.
I think that people nowadays want to jump into the action of the game super-fast, have ultra-mega gfx effects and so on. Gaming nowadays seems to me a bit....fast-paced? Look at hardcore simulators, they are much more rare than they used to be not a long time ago. People don't have time to study manuals, they want good-looking simplicity. Total simplicity, no guessing what to do. Gilbert's quote nicely says this, they want just get good at doing whatever they are told to.
In adventrues, it's about the story. Gamers nowadays don't really want good stories, they want anything but the story, be it graphic effects, movie-like cutscenes that make more than half of the game, anything.
Playing an adventure game is like reading a book, it's a little bit more interactive book than a printed one. Now how many people nowadays read books?
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 16/07/2009 22:16:52
The reason I'm kind of against Italy is that there's a lot of pull to do touristy things. I like touristy things, and I think part of Mittens is absorbing a little bit of another culture. However, I like doing touristy things when my goal is to be a tourist. I don't want to be a tourist often at Mittens, I'm coming to hang out with people and have a few laughs, not to educate myself or take in the sites. Not that Italy prevents me from hanging out with people, but I get the feeling people are looking at going to Mittens from a tourist perspective, when in reality we'll probably only do touristy things 25-30% of the time.
However, I don't honestly care one way or the other between the two locations, because they're just background to the actual event. I'm going to Mittens either way. The only thing that should really matter is "how much will it cost us" and "how many people can we house". If it's cheaper in Italy and we can house more people, by all means, let's do it. And visa versa. So why not search for housing and let the numbers make our decision for us?
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 16/07/2009 06:17:28
I still think Braid is pretty much an adventure game disguised as a platform game. If the plot is scarce in it, it may be described as an adventure game with not much of a plot, but the core game mechanics are the same (or almost the same).
Quote from: KhrisMUC on Thu 16/07/2009 07:50:48Why XP. Cool kids use Windows 7.
Run Bootcamp, install XP, then use a decent program like ProMotion
Quote from: Becky on Mon 13/07/2009 11:30:55
I like how people who weren't at Mittens are saying that the discussions at Mittens excluded people! How would they know? They weren't there?
Quote from: AGA on Sun 12/07/2009 23:37:03
Plenty of us agreed on Holland at the time. Only Disco seems to have come up with this Italy idea, it seems.
Personally I don't mind either way.
Quote from: Nacho on Sun 12/07/2009 12:40:07
About the "We shouldn' t go to the Nederland because some members can go mad with the weed" argument... Sorry, for me it' s a bit revealer of the personality of the member who mentioned it ^_^ I would never be tempted about Amsterdam' s savage appeals... If you are, why should the rest of the people pay for your vicious mentality???
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 11/07/2009 17:06:49
I've never been bothered by 'fair' deaths in games. Take Quest for Glory as an example: you find a goblin, you fight the goblin. You have three possible outcomes:
1. You kill the goblin.
2. You are killed by the goblin.
3. You run away like a pansy.
Now, you can't make friends with the goblin, but aside from that you're given some good options. Death depends on your own character skills (weapon/magic levels) and personal skills (grasp of the controls) and while you might be angry at dying you can't say the game didn't give you a chance.
I list this in stark contrast to some of Sierra's other games, most notably the earlier King's Quest games. You can be walking along in the first game and die for a myriad reasons, many times without any kind of warning. This is frustrating. This is bad design. I can't fathom why anyone apart from the most masochistic enjoyed the early King's Quest games, but enough people did that they made many more.
Death in games should either come from wanton negligence on the part of the player (wandering into a busy intersection or a puddle of bubbling green goo) or as a consequence of a fight. It is possible that a player can be unaware that doing a certain thing is, in fact, dangerous, either because they've never encountered a situation like it or because your game is not presenting a real-world situation. In either case, not explaining the situation in enough detail to understand the consequences is just shoddy design and is more likely to frustrate someone than to amuse them, especially if the death is tied to an obscure puzzle and they have to trial-and-error their way through multiple deaths to find a solution. Tying death to a puzzle is something that should be done with careful planning. Is it a timed sequence? If so, do they have a reasonable enough time to figure out the solution on the first try if they are clever, or will they have to know exactly what to do to have enough time to do it? If it's based on a complicated mechanical puzzle, is it designed logically enough that most people can figure it out without guessing? These are important things to consider when factoring in death as a puzzle outcome.
By continuing to use this site you agree to the use of cookies. Please visit this page to see exactly how we use these.
Page created in 0.209 seconds with 15 queries.