I'm pretty sure all the glitches and exploits are what make JK2 so popular as well.
I'm pretty sure all the glitches and exploits are what make JK2 so popular as well.
You implied it. You said Goldeneye came first. That has absolutely no relevance unless it also served to influence the game you are comparing it to. In the case of Quake (I or II), it didn't. I should not have to spell this out for you.Originally Posted by Pooky
Button pressing also in Quake I. Besides, accidentally blowing something up and ending the game because of civilian casualties is literally no different than accidentally shooting the red barrel next to you and ending the game by killing yourself.
Um, seriously? Keycard collection is not the same thing as 'blow up this computer or kill too many civilians and you fail the entire mission with no chance of recovery'. I'm getting the feeling from this that you really didn't play Goldeneye much at all. I suggest you go do so.
Like I said, plot vs. play mechanics. I suggest you take a step back and understand that concept.
Let's all just face it. Pooky doesn't like new games. I don't really blame him.
I don't either. Most are steaming piles of shit, and the half-decent ones don't measure up to the old in terms of fun.
No, I did not. I said that Quake 2 came afterwards in case you were referring to Quake 2, because Quake 2 did have somewhat more sophisticated mechanics.
No, you're the one who's not understanding. Clearly you've barely played Goldeneye at all, and this isn't the first time you've tried to argue with me based on little to no actual knowledge of the game in question. Go play it, and tell me it's not more sophisticated than Quake.
Besides being one of the first games that proved shooters on a console could really work, Goldeneye was one of the first games to take a more realistic approach to FPS. It included things like location based damage and (albeit loose) representations of real life weapons which nobody else had done before. I suggest you take a step back and take a moment to actually know what you're talking about before starting another 10 page argument over an idiotic point of semantics.
I like some of them. Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games ever. Just not the vast majority.
It really depends on how you define exploit. The glitches are what give the game depth and longevity, because each one adds to the gameplay while taking away nothing. Every new glitch is a new tactic to use against your opponents, and there's literally no end to the strategies you can employ. The same can be said of a game like Super Metroid, which is still actively played by speedrunners today because there are so many things to discover. That's what happens when developers don't put a shitload of overbearing restrictions on their game.
Last edited by Pooky; February 14th, 2012 at 05:41 PM.
Yeah, it also had a kick-ass soundtrack.
Pooky. Stop. You look like an idiot.
1. What you said implies that Goldeneye was somehow a precursor to Quake II. It came before, yes, but it had no bearing on its development as it was under way before Goldeneye even hit the shelves. Furthermore, Quake II came out only three months later. It was developed roughly during the same time as Goldeneye; you think those last three months were spent dreaming up the game mechanics and features? You brought up a comparison that basically has no meaning to this conversation-why bring Quake into this if not to imply that Goldeneye influenced it? Had Goldeneye not come along, we would have still ended up with Quake II just the same. This goes back to what I mentioned in the "PSA" thread: you, specifically you, are incapable of reading your own posts and deducing their actual meaning. You need to be able to put yourself into your audience's shoes and read it as they would. Proof-read for logic. Make connections to ideas within a conversation and understand them. You can't mash out responses and make an effective argument.
2. You clearly know diddly-squat about game design. Now you're bringing in location based damage and that's great because you're finally starting to talk about play elements rather than plot elements disguised as play elements...not that they really change how you play the game all that much because, say, a sniper rifle is still a one-shot kill and people instinctively aim for the head anyways when presented with a high-powered, scoped weapon. It does add an element of knowledge to be used by more experienced players in multiplayer, but then so do all of the crazy moves in Quake. Quake II also had damage "models" for NPCs. I'd call that an equivalent effect to location-based damage as far as advancement in features goes.
3. You are missing *my* point. I never called it out for not being innovative, which is essentially what you are accusing me of. Nothing I said even close to implied it. All I did was say that as a shooter, it wasn't that great. It lacked the thrill of racing through Quake II, getting your timing perfect in Halo, or having an engrossing environment like Half-Life (1 and 2). It didn't take the same amount of skill/practise as Counter-Strike and thus didn't grant you as much satisfaction when you consistently pull that 180-headshot with the Scout.
So before you reply, first get a grasp of English comprehension. Then, remove your rose-tinted goggles and go educate yourself on game design. Finally, stop engaging in debates where you have no basis for debating in the first place.
Practise what you preach.
Thanks.
Don't argue about what games are better than each other in terms of combat mechanics, its mostly opinion when it comes that. Game developers develope what they want to develop and what they find fun. Most of the time, anyway (id hope)
Precisely.
And fun is a matter of personal opinion. You can, however, increase the number of people that have fun with your game using proper challenge/reward systems for your target audience.
Reminds me of the awesome in tribes 2.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks