Derp Video Game Stuff...

So yeah video games... yeah
arent they something...yeah
yeah.....

Okay well i am utterly clueless on where to start this thing off so TOPIC ANYONE?

First topic! What would you like an Action RPG to be like?

In my case, as long as it haves a nice class system and good combat system I'm good with it. But what I want to really hear from you is something like what one of these games SHOULD have in order to be awesomesauce.

How big of a game are we talking about here? Like in terms of length and things like that?

I agree with the class system since classes are always awesome. A good combat system is definitely necessary but easier to say than do. What exactly is the gameplay going to be like?

Aside from that, I think music is pretty fundamental to making the game more memorable. Branching classes are also pretty cool and give the player a lot of choice. Combination attacks (from more than one party member (assuming theres a party that is)) are also a pretty interesting game mechanic to add.

I agree with Kevin that music makes or breaks it for me. Everything else for me is just preference, but includes:

-I know that there aren't many games that still do this, but I hate battle systems where you have to bump into enemies to instigate a battle sequence.

- It bothers me a lot when a game is easy as long as you train enough. Sure, you need to be strong enough, but as a gamer I don't feel like I've accomplished anything if the only strategy is smashing the x button.

-I like variety in building your character. It makes the replay more fun.

-This is really nit-picky, but anything that takes away from the fantasy experience is a huge negative for me. Like fake looking grass, walls that look like they're made out of paper. Also, I don't like being told I can't go somewhere. A better deterrent would be higher leveled opponents that kill instantly, I don't like the "you have to be ___ level to proceed."

-Last thing for now, as much as I like cut scenes, there's been a trend lately where they are applied too liberally. Like every new set of maps you walk into, new scene. I like to have to work for them.

RPG are a touchy thing as of now.
Are you assuming action as in turn by turn action or something more along the lines of traditional MMO turn base/real time fighting.
Because in my opinion they both are freaking obsolete.

The best attempt at an action RPG that still induces a heavy influence of stat wise combat while retaining a very strong and fun action system is the tales series. TOS, tales of the Abyss, they perform an exceptionally well thought out combat system to create true "action" rpg sequence, while still telling a very compelling story that sets a good tone of "role play." Also i can easily envision this in multilayer settings considering the tales series already allows multiple people to participate in battles.

There is a common theme i find in RPG's that allow you to customize your character to a large degree and thats they usually they will favor the content of story over gameplay. There are still exceptions to this wheras your character can still play in well to the fact that say the game intends you to be another grizzled human man, but go for a more like touchy feely sort of i dont know elf character.
RPG intends on role playing and as far as i can tell there isnt a game that perfectly tailors a scenario for whatever you intend your built character to play as a certain "role."
Okay there are things such as Skyrim and Mass effect in which perform this scenario relatively well. Finding issues to compensate for the aspect that your not the skinhead grizzled canon commander shepard but some really black haired asian looking female character, and whilst your not that blonde hair generic human nord but a lizard man. These games have compensated for that story wise to allow a set system of customization that still allows good storytelling, but to an extent.
RPG implies role playing if you want a true set of customization you would create a game to be able to play a certain specific role to an "extreme" context. Open free will means large variances in story, and with that large variance the story begins to fall in the better terms, lacking.

Could you imagine the reach around for the storyline would have to take if Commander Shepard the iconic character of the human race was a turian or Drell? Customization is good but as far as i can tell it plays a big issue on the idea of story telling and role playing.

On the latter theres the RPG where the game presets a character persona/class/skills and all and allows you to play that "role" as an aspect of RPG.
Whilst you may receive less of an ideal condition of a game for you in turn you revive a story, or at least SHOULD receive a story that is specifically pre tailored to that constant character. Common in such things as FF and the tales series its ends up with a much more compelling character/story build up.
Pretty much because the story expects something to be some way. For example say your main character is a swordsman and his rival character w/e that may be is also a swordsman. A dual of similar specialties can become more meaningful as the idea of the whole "swordsman dual" thing drives more of a relationship than say your a mage fighting a guy wielding a sword, theres a lack of atmosphere.

I'm assuming a real time action combat RPG game.

Now I agree completely with you guys, music is key. But I'd like to nail the gameplay first.

As Larz already mentioned, the story must have an appropriate context according to who are you playing as. I don't know about you, but I haven't managed to find a proper "role play" game, as in I'd like to be "X" class and my name is "Y + Z" and I'm "A" Class that likes to do "B" stuff and hates "C" (characters/events/items/etc), I'm skilled with "D" and suck with "E". And then add your "own" (actually pregenerated story line with at least room for a vast customization) that can vary while in game according to your actions AND last but not least, I'd like it to have some realism, like hardcore mode in Fallout. My character needs to sleep, go to the bathroom, eat, get stressed, be depressed, get happy, you call it.

Now after nailing down that part, the gameplay comes in. Since it's a real time based combat (no turns and free combat) 2 things can happen: A button masher and a non button masher. For now I find non button mashers to be quite entertaining, easy to learn and hard to master. Taking this in account, Where is the battle occurring? How is it engaged? What type of area is it? Does it affect my character? How is my character able to move? Does it do it slowly or fast? How is it able to attack? For ranged characters as mages and archers (assuming they exist), do they have an auto aim system? What's the attack speed? Are there any special skills? Are there elemental skills? Is there elemental weaknesses and status ailments and buffs? Is there a combo system? How does it work? Do I get any bonuses? What kind of rewards do I get from combat? How am I able to use this rewards (as for character growth)? Is there a character growth system system? Does it work with experience points? How does it affect my character? Is there any other way to improve my character?

From these questions, what I like is the following: I like battles to occur in open spaces with no need to enter a special field for combat, the areas would be either in any location in the world or in special dungeons scattered through the world. Now something interesting I'd like to see is an all field combat system, where you can fight either in air, ground or underwater and have a randomly generated world. Obviously depending on the field I'm battling in the battle mechanic changes, if I'm doing ground fighting I should be able to move freely (that includes jumping and strafing) through the battlefield as for air battles (that meaning our character flying in some sort of way) I'd like to be able to move as if I were a space ship, that meaning I'm able to move freely in any direction. For underwater combat a similar system to air combat would apply with an addition of a breath system, meaning we could have races and classes that are able to breathe underwater or have some advantage there. Having this, combat should work in a non button masher way with the ability to perform special combos while still being able to attack normally (that meaning just swinging your weapon/shoot arrows/cast basic magic) to this adding a fast paced combat and the ability to dodge, parry and/or deflect incoming attacks, them being physical, ranged or magical. Skills should be key to defeating an enemy quickly but not a must use to defeat them, as for classes special skills (assuming they exist and based on the 3 basic ones Melee, Magic and Ranged) All of them should have AoE skills, With Melee being the ones taking more advantage in this, followed by Magic and lastly Ranged, no matter, balance should be key, not allowing Melee to do too much damage with a normal attack speed, Magic having the most damage but slower attack speed and Ranged as a support (thinking about some sort of arrow rain to not let it be left behind and a chained shot, that meaning an arrow can hit multiple enemies with this arrow redirecting itself after hitting one enemy). Talking about support I'd like to see a system that doesn't make the battle easier if you have more people fighting with you, instead make the battle less of a burden and keep the same enemy difficulty if not increase it. Now I said that any class should be completely customized according on how I want to role play it, that meaning any class could be the so called Tanks, DPS, Healers, you name it. Might be difficult to pull off, but it would be a pretty damn interesting system to play with. As for elements, I like the good ol' Fire beats earth, earth beats water, water beats fire sort of stuff (could add a bit more like lightning and wind) Keeps it simple, easy to learn and easy to fight. Status ailments would be pretty much the same, simple stuff: Stun, Slow, burn, bleed, paralysis, lower defense, etc. Same goes for buffs, all of the contrary to debuffs and also immunities to elemental and non elemental debuffs. As for the character growth system, the "levels" system seems to be overused, so why not make it gear based? that meaning that your gear defines how strong you are and what enemies you are able to confront. How to obtain that gear is a totally different matter. Now using gear as our level, we could use some sort of experience points system like in Skyrim, which means I level up and strengthen whatever skills I use the most, like magic, melee stuffs or ranged stuffs. For example using a bow would give me experience in that area that would level my skill and give me damage/defense/special stuff bonuses. We could do the same for stats.

That's pretty much all I'm going to talk about combat for now @-@ I could keep expanding on that and end up talking about crafting systems or whatever. BUT I DIGRESS

Now Music... Dayum, a game without music is crap, but a game with music that doesn't fit the atmosphere or the game theme is even worse. Nuff else said, Depends on the game style.

I think that's all I'm writing for now... my brain overheated from all that.

Okay the whole hardcore "manage my hunger,thirst,bladder,rest etc bars" thing is pre done in stuff like Sims 3 and Lost in the Blue
(yes ive played it, im a sad sap shut up)
and it really is nothing but an excessive handling of conditions that you must first manage before even playing the game, in short its a freaking chore and is usually unappealing to most players.

Your ideal game mode closely matches Monster Hunter ideally in my opinion.
Game mechanics switch between an idea of weapons and play style
ie
Sword/shield - Versatile/block/low damage = Slash
Balance play style
Lance/Shield - Slow maneuvers/Huge block/Decent damage = Pierce
Defensive play style
Great Sword - Slow attack/Best damage = Slash
Offensive play style

Combat is relatively free roaming with the map layout set out in zones (basically 1 large area of open combat connected upon each other between load screens)

They all posses a different play style on how you are to ideally fight something. On land and on sea as well. Weapons posses basic elements as well that will fare different upon different monster aspects accordingly.

The range aspect is balanced between 3 modes as well. Heavy Meduim and Light bowguns. The obvious advantage of bowguns is that they are range and can load different status ailment bullets. The difference in balance and play style is damage/maneuverability/ammo compatibility.

The game sets out to do things very well executed, and has a lot a room for potential. The only thing i would say wrong with it is that it becomes repetitive considering you need to keep fighting bosses to gather the best materials to craft and upgrade your armor, but regardless the combat design as an open free action fighter is ace's in mechanics, game play, balance, and fun.

Just don't expect a story, or much of anything else besides killing bosses.

Also Alek space your paragraphs more. <.<

Also something to mention about cinematic games they are okay so long as they are performed well. I have noticed that most games that rely on cut scenes for base game play aspects have a tendency to play off the whole "action command" sequence which in turn is nothing but a bunch of coordinated button smashing that the developers were to lazy to work a concept to compensate for a situation they didn't want to design or was to tedious to work fluently into the game mechanics.

Which is why you get stuff like in Resident evil or the newer final fantasy where instead of creative game play and mechanic flow, you get to smash the shiny button to the most common cause NOT DIE. There are some games that should do this and should not, and where it is appropriate, a where it is just damn lazy.

Ever hear of the game "The Walking Dead" presumably another zombie game it is actually an adventure story telling game. This is something where i don't really mind the idea of an abundance of action commands. Considering it doesn't revolve around an action style path it sets out to tell a compelling story with the game play aspect of it is what actions you take and what actions you fail. It is something that more or less is for the context of the story and how toy would play it out rather than mechanics and major combat. Which is why the idea of action cinema commands are more or less appropriate here.

Jesus Christ I was going to read this whole thread but as soon as I got down to Larz's and scrolled I stopped.

I'm just going to agree with Helen. I'm definitely not as big on games as I used to be and I probably wouldn't fit in as much here, but I know those were some of the most annoying features. Especially the bumping into creatures to start a battle part, good music, and character variety- both in battle stats and just physical appearance like in Skyrim.

Yeah, holy shit, I'm stepping out of this segment. Y'all are talking about things that I've never put a lot of thought into, and I know I don't have anything useful to contribute. Although, continue the discussion, enjoying the read.

Aw no fun :T
come ooooon contribute even if its not something ridiculously in depth just touching on some basis's would be nice
:3

You want a good game? Then help Alek help you ¬¬
Can't be bothered atm to type another huge paragraph,doing a long homework for finals.

SOMEONE TAKE THE SPEAKING BATON!

But I have nothing to contribute! I was taught that if I don't know what I'm talking about to not say anything at all.

Speaking of things I don't know about, did any of you watch the E3 conference? I didn't get to, so I want to hear all about it!

Oh actually! I can contribute a video for you guys. It's 20 minutes long but it's funny and it has a lot of great points about game design! Me and my brother worship this guy, he has a lot of gaming vids, but I like this one in particular because Mega Man X was one of my favorites as a kid. I know it's not really the same kind of game that you guys are talking about, but especially about the mechanics of teaching your audience how to play the game without talking to them like they're stupid is definitely something that should be applied to modern games. So if you're interested, again it's long but really funny and interesting!

(might only be good if you played the game, I don't know, I've showed it to a few people but they were all fans so I don't know if translates well to someone who's not a fan but is interested in game design)

That was just brilliant... Best game design lesson I've ever had (might be the only on I've actually had :3)

I guess we shouldn't get involved in a very specific type of gameplay. We should just discuss what works in games and why it works.

I played Mega Man X (didn't beat it though) and Mega Man X 4, and I must say that I agree 9001% with him. Screw freaking tutorials, it's just learn by trial or error. To be honest, Mega Man has been one of my favorite games of all history, him and Sonic. They were just epic.

Wow Alek, that's over 9000! I'm glad you liked the video though. He has another one about Castlevania that's pretty good too, if you're interested it's on his channel, first in the season of his series "sequilitis." But yeah, tutorials I think take away from the experience of the game, and make you feel less proud when you accomplish something.

Speaking of Sonic, why do you think Sega has pretty much collapsed? I mean, after Dreamcast we really haven't seen much from them, and when they do release anything it gets really bad reviews.

In my opinion they screwed too much with the core gameplay Sonic had in it's games. I remember playing the first game as a kid and being really excited about running as fast as I could grabbing at least 100 rings to get the level bonus. Those rage times when you ran out of rings and died and just kept trying and those hard but simple bosses.

Now that's what started it. After that, and some other games that I'm not mentioning that I didn't enjoyed as much, came Sonic Adventure 1. Amazing game, amazing sequel style (just like Mega Man, it only improved what they already had) but they screwed a bit too much with the story. I'm not saying it's a bad story, I enjoyed the thing, but sometimes it really got boring as hell when all I wanted to do is run like a mad man and destroy enemies on my way. Now that I said what I disliked the most (and what almost ruined it for me) comes the Chao Garden... MAN, I FELL IN LOVE WITH THAT THING. I'D BUY A DREAMCAST AGAIN JUST TO HAVE ANOTHER GARDEN AND RAISE MY CHAOS. (hehe, see what I did there)

Anyways, in terms of gameplay the thing was pretty cool and the tutorial wasn't really something to worry about. It did have a tutorial, but you could just ignore it and run past everything you had in front, obviously they had to teach you the chain attacks in mid air, but I think that was as much as they messed with the tutorial stuff.

Then came Sonic Adventure 2. Sonic Adventure 1 revamped, nuff said. My favorite sonic game so far, they corrected the story, added a bit more gameplay with other characters and Man, the intro level was just epic. You get to kick a boss's butt the first time you play. I ca't remember anything ruining the game for me but those damn annoying fishing levels with "Big".

After this the chaos started to happen. They started new sequels with COMPLETELY different gameplays, like those from sonic Heroes (wasn't that bad, I enjoyed it but wasn't as fun), Sonic Riders, Sonic Unleashed, you name it. They started to modify the thing so much that it barely resembles the first sonic games. Fans just have lost all hope in the sequels. Pretty much like Final Fantasy, they need to return to the core, what started all.

The only exception to all this madness is Sonic Battle for the GBA. Best thing I've ever had in my GBA. Nuff said. Download it and check it in an emulator.

That's a common criticism I hear with hardcore Sonic fans (the part where you talked about the story). Sonic I think was a game that had a really simple goal and really cool mechanics that hadn't really been seen before. I think it's interesting that with classic games people really like more of the same but just enhanced as the technology gets better.

I guess a good counter-example of a series that did a good job of keeping what was good about the original games but adapting to new technology would be Mario. I've never not liked a single Mario game I've ever played. A lot of people don't agree with me but I don't care. Or Zelda I guess would be another one. I'm planning on playing Skyward Sword toward the end of the summer because I heard it's the best game in the franchise. I can't imagine how that could be true, but I'm excited to find out.

Alek, did you not like FFXIII? I actually did, but something I hear from others is that they didn't like how you had to follow the story-line exactly. I never played the early FF games, what made them better than the new ones?

FF XIII? I <3ed the thing. Some may disagreee, but I like the story line and how it plays, the only thing that is damn annoying is that it is too mainstream. You just need to keep walking forward, kill enemies, add points to the paradigms and repeat. I just want to be able to explore the world freely, be able to keep doing the story line but also be able to grind some sweet stuff and explore areas that seem interesting.

Mario isn't bad. I like it, but it's not something I'd play in a daily basis o get too hard core in it. It's almost the same story as with Sonic but withouth all the Failure. The only mario game I've ever fallen in love with is Super Mario 64. Man, I remember my mom playing until 3a.m. just to tell me how She beat a boss or how She collected a new star and keep playing with me in the morning. TTwTT Best childhood ever. ANYWAYS, Super Mario 64 plays really smooth. I like the game mechanics, it doesn't stray too far away from it's concept and the story is still kept as simple as the first one. Nuff said.

Now Zelda... I'm not gonna discuss it. I love all of the series. And indeed, Skyward sword IS amazing, I just wouldn't give it the title of best Zelda Game.

Yeah, I like the ability to explore too. My boyfriend bought FXIII 2 and we're supposed to start playing it after his summer class ends. I'm a little reluctant though, because I haven't met anyone that liked it.

I played Mario Galaxy and it reminded me a whole bunch of Mario 64. I'm also incredibly partial to Super Mario on the NES, it had a whole bunch of hidden things and the levels themselves had cool things, like being able to swim and fly, which was really fun as a kid. And the new game on the wii is also really cool, because its the same side scroll Mario game that everyone loves but can be played by up to four people at once. Totally ripped that feature off of other games like Little Big Planet, but it's awesome.

AW, COME ON, talk ZELDA.

I LAIK ZELDA

(this is my contribution to this discussion)

I'm actually on the other end of the exploring argument. I honestly prefer more linear gameplay than a huge expanse of things to do. I'm fine with some side-exploration and things like that, but I hate huge worlds with everything to do. It is interesting to be able to do so many things but I find it overwhelming and distracting from the main story or what you should be doing. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but it'd be a good idea to ease the player into it. I remember playing Oblivion, getting out of the sewer or wherever I was, and having no fucking idea what to do. Like that megaman video said (btw Helen that was awesome, saw it a while ago but still just as good), it helps to have good "conveyance".

I think Mario 64 and Galaxy did a pretty good job at this. They did have a good deal of exploration but did a good job keeping it so that it wouldn't overwhelm the player. The castle was kept in reasonably small partitions that would gradually open up and each of the levels were like their own little world to explore. It was fairly obvious what you had to do

And somehow Zelda has gotten kind of boring for me. I have skyward sword at like 1 temple and I was planning on picking it back up over the summer. I don't know if I will like it this time but it seemed way too similar to previous Zelda titles in a lot of ways. The flying and open-world aspect was a welcome change though since it gives a nice break from forging through all the temples. I don't know, we'll see if I finish it

I think that's a really good point, Kevin. I've definitely played games with a big open world and I've been incredibly confused about where to go and what to do. It really is a balance of letting the person playing feel free to do as they please but still have some sort of direction.

I thought the design for Mario 64 was really cool too. The castle was super neat, with all the paintings and the never ending staircase. It was really creative.

Really? I'm getting so many conflicting opinions about Skyward Sword! I just want a challenging game with puzzle elements and a good story that I can take my time with through the fall semester. Is this not the one?

Mmm Omar, always dropping knowledge on us!


OH! I was wondering what everyone thought about all these games that require actual physical activity now? I finally caught up reading about E3, and I was surprised to learn that they put a lot of focus on kinect and sony move. I kind of feel like most people when they play games don't want anything physically demanding, so why are they marketing the opposite? Is the logical next step to really make the body the controller, or is this some ploy to get mothers to stop complaining that their kids are getting fat playing video games?!

Kniect and such games at this point are something for much of the casual category. Sure you can have some fun find some interesting bits here and there but your really gonna see lacking of the gameplay side heavily due to the fact of device limitations on reading movements.

With Sonic
The issue of sonic games is the issue of three dimensional game play, think about the concept for a second a platforming game in which you are to control a highly mobile character at breakneck speeds while making precision jumps and movements.
Even if someone made it so that the camera could keep up with him regardless of angle it wouldn't be humanly possible to freely control him and do all those things.
Emphasis on free control, think about making large scale jumps by "gauging" your relative distance at high speeds, or moving awkward angles without "lightdashing."

This issue is on the latter with mario games considering the concept is similar but with an easier paced character.
With mario................heck i cant even comment on mario games anymore. I mean its freaking mario, theres so much ground to touch, things to be said that thers just to much to be said to even make any linear standpoints with mario anymore. Thing is though Mario games now play on the aspect of buying of both nostalgia and "taste."
Platform games that rely on gameplay itself are becoming a tad obsolete nowadays, so with mario really now its either an aspect of you like the game or you dont really.


Ill finish commenting later. My internet cut out earlier and i lost everything i was commenting on so i kind of dont feel like rewriting everything at the moment.

This year at E3 was the year of sequels, all of the big games were sequels, and there was the Wii U which looks retarded. I don't know the appeal of video games that require you to get up either. I thought the reason we played video games is because we don't like getting up. I think nintendo's biggest mistake with the Wii was not that it had motion controls, but 1. They made almost no games for real gamers 2. It ended up becoming a gimmick because very few games truly utilized it. The only real game for the wii in my opinion was Super Smash Bros Brawl. That game alone was a reason to by the system. But if you think about it, it didn't actually use the motion controller at all. I just used the motion controller to start the game up and then continued with my GC controller. I hate nintendo now with a passion, they are money grubbing fiends, and I will only support them if they make a new Super Smash Bros game, which they conveniently forgot to mention at E3 even though they mentioned it last year.

ANYWAYS, talking about Sonic now. You guys need to play Sonic Colors, its a little hidden gem on the Wii that not that many people know about. Im telling you it is the best sonic game since Sonic Adventure 2. I agree the story has gone to shit, but did you really play a sonic game for the story? I always played it for the fast paced gameplay. I know there is another new sonic game called Sonic Generations i think, i don't know if that well or not, but I hope they will start to revert back to more of the Sonic Adventure 2 sonic, and less "sonic and mario at the olympic games" sonic..

Kevin does have a point at the "too open world" thing. But In my opinion it just depends on the game we are playing, and that pretty much depends on a lot of aspects, them including the game's genre, the story, the background setting, the core gameplay and stuff of the sort. It's not like you can have a 2D sandbox platformer (just to ground the term a little bit, think old sonic with ability to go "anywhere"). The thing would be pretty pointless and boring.

In the other hand, indeed, conveyance is key. Just compare Oblivion and Skyrim. Skyrim simply let's you go anywhere from the start but still pushes you a bit to the main story line at the very beginning. In my case, I tried oblivion and found myself in the very same situation as Kevin. Tried Skyrim and fell in love with the thing right away, plus added some mods ;3

At the moment I haven't watched anything from E3 but Watch Dogs and The Last of Us. Other than that I'm completely clueless about sequels and stuff.
Now about the kinect thing... I just really can't stand the thing for 3 reasons:
1. I don't like that much movement (same here as with everyone)
2. The thing haves a bit of a late response time (in my opinion) to be able to work like it should
3. Most of the games they are releasing are just complete crap. Complete crap being (most of them) sports stuff and poorly designed gameplay gimmicks that barely do anything with the system's capabilities.

I have no complaints for Wii U as long as it gets serious this time. Any more "only kid's games developing policy" and I'm done with Nintendo. I'm tired of just liking Nintendo just because of Zelda, Metroid and their exclusive crap looking amazing.

@Omar: I'll be sure to give Sonic Colors a try if I can find it on the interwebs. :3 Let's hope it gives a good show.