Video Games DCC

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Isn't CoD Ghost also suppose to allow you to play as a dog unit? I remember someone mentioning that the dog should be the main focus of the game's camepaign mode to make it the best story in CoD of all time.

Also, I found this interesting article from VGChartz that talks about the current situation of third parties and the Wii U: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=166018&page=1

 

[TY]

We will see what CoD brings us... I dont have high hopes at all, but i still would love it if the story is actually good.

 

[Khoshi]

Call of Duty 4 had the best story imo...it was just thrilling and new at the time.

 

[TY]

I agree. After that it went downhill, and not a small bit...

 

[machomuu]

CoD4 did have a good story, as did CoD 3, 2, and 1. I remember when the Single Player modes were actually fun. Good times.

 

[TY]

Yeah, a game with a good single player is pretty attractive to me if the multiplayer pisses me off.

 

[Pave Low]

Even if the multiplayer of games I like aren't very good or made very well, I still play it. There's just something about playing multiplayer for me which really makes me more engaged. Also, if my friends are playing multiplayer on a game, I will most likely end up playing it with them. I always play with my friends and we always get our games together. :3

 

[TY]

Mostly when the multiplayer is bad in my eyes its mostly cause of the community.

 

[Pave Low]

The community can suck hard. Haha, but when we find little kids or something that are being very annoying we just annoy them and yeah, if someone is doing something annoying we just do the same thing but worse to them. We have power in numbers ekekekeke

 

[TY]

I unfortunately dont. I may have loads of friends playing the game but not even a single time we team up...

 

[machomuu]

You shouldn't support crappy multiplayers in games, that's why CoD gets away with rehashing the same game for years. Other Pre-2013 FPS, too.

 

[Pave Low]

We all have our opinions on what "crappy" multiplayer games are. Sometimes when me and my friends play together, it isn't so crappy. We like to be competitive so there is a bit more spice in there also to make it more exciting.

 

[machomuu]

That's not quite my point. If you acknowledge that a multiplayer isn't that great, but support it anyway, they you are supporting the multiplayer that you only can tolerate, and thus you're barring the way for a better experienced based on design rather than something that you have to make better yourself.

 

[Apple Juice]

To throw my own opinion into the mix here, I think any multiplayer game, good or bad, can be made entertaining with a few friends around. Sure, some are better than others, but when it comes down to it most games that are part of this genre are heavily dedicated to a good time and not quite towards quality game play and graphics. That being said, I don't think throwing the multiplayer option on just any game is a good choice, as those kind of features are rarely used in that situation.

 

[machomuu]

To throw my own opinion into the mix here, I think any multiplayer game, good or bad, can be made entertaining with a few friends around. Sure, some are better than others, but when it comes down to it most games that are part of this genre are heavily dedicated to a good time and not quite towards quality game play and graphics. That being said, I don't think throwing the multiplayer option on just any game is a good choice, as those kind of features are rarely used in that situation.

Hm...I don't know about the bolded part. I'd say that quality gameplay goes hand and hand with a good time, and when a developer doesn't put an emphasis on the gameplay (or at the very least, a story if we're talking a non-multiplayer experience), then it's just for the money. If the developer can rely on the players to create a good experience out of what they acknowledge as an okay or old and tired one, then they've truly succeeded as entrepreneurs, and failed as quality game developers.

It's a shrewd and effective tactic to be sure, but it only ends up hurting the consumer. If not in the moment, then in the future.

 

[Apple Juice]

Hm...I don't know about the bolded part. I'd say that quality gameplay goes hand and hand with a good time, and when a developer doesn't put an emphasis on the gameplay (or at the very least, a story if we're talking a non-multiplayer experience), then it's just for the money. If the developer can rely on the players to create a good experience out of what they acknowledge as an okay or old and tired one, then they've truly succeeded as entrepreneurs, and failed as quality game developers.

It's a shrewd and effective tactic to be sure, but it only ends up hurting the consumer. If not in the moment, then in the future.

We can look at the Super Smash Bros series as an example. Its storyline was relatively mediocre and the 'mandatory' part of the game was finished simply because it was necessary. The real part of the game was the multiplayer option, which featured a lot of quick action and flashy graphics that sapped a lot of my time, haha. Point being, they didn't put as much of an emphasis on good 'game play' meaning the main part of the game as they did to the multiplayer feature. If you thought by game play I meant mechanics and quality of the actual controls, of course that's important for every game & genre out there.

 

[machomuu]

We can look at the Super Smash Bros series as an example. Its storyline was relatively mediocre and the 'mandatory' part of the game was finished simply because it was necessary. The real part of the game was the multiplayer option, which featured a lot of quick action and flashy graphics that sapped a lot of my time, haha. Point being, they didn't put as much of an emphasis on good 'game play' meaning the main part of the game as they did to the multiplayer feature. If you thought by game play I meant mechanics and quality of the actual controls, of course that's important for every game & genre out there.

So by "gameplay" you're referring to the story mode? Well that's a completely different story, I definitely thought you were talking about gameplay mechanics and the like. In which case, I would agree, depending on where the game's priorities are.

Though I'd disagree about SSB and the story only being done because its mandatory. I guess it depends on who you are, but I think Melee and Brawl did a great job creating fun and replayable experiences, and I don't know how many times I've played the Classic and All-Star modes on each one (not to mention the very well done Challenge mode in Melee and the sub-par but quality Adventure mode in Brawl). I think Sakurai put a lot of work into things other than just the multiplayer section, and I always felt thrilled when it came to unlocking characters and pursuing locked ones. I do get your point, however.

 

[Apple Juice]

They absolutely weren't all bad, but I just felt they weren't up to par with other games that featured similar options and yet managed to add a bit more storyline. I did like the cut scenes that they threw in every now and then, and I think they made it blend well enough with the character unlocking and such. Still, when playing through the storyline I did hurry a bit to get it over with, haha. Maybe that's just me, though. In contrast, some games focus too heavily on storyline and once the main part is complete, there's little to do and leaves the cartridge to be practically useless. D:

 

[machomuu]

True, but it depends on what the player gets out of it. Take my favorite 3DS game, Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward. It easily has the greatest storyline I've ever seen in a game, and I absolutely loved the story because of how long it lasted. Now, they did add a few things for replay value, but if they hadn't added them, I'd still be satisfied because the game was that good. It was pretty long, too. The Ace Attorney games are the same way (though I've replayed all of those).

I think the important thing is the amount of time you spend and the satisfaction you get out of it compared to the price you're paying, because many game developers feel that the immersion would be ruined if they added something else. There are some games that want you to finish the game and leave you with the feelings that you were left with at the end. A good example of this is Bioshock Infinite, and a much more general example is most Adventure and Visual Novel games. After all, sometimes developers do try to add extra content to their great experiences and they end up feeling tacked on, which can sometimes be the case with multiplayer in various games (and the vice versa is true for various multiplayer-oriented games like Call of Duty and Battlefield 3).

I'll agree, though, Brawl's story mode was just okay. Other than the cutscenes, the gameplay was just okay, but it mostly just felt like a segue to the next part of the story. Cut out the gameplay, and you'd practically have a movie. A short one, though. But it did have a great presentation.

 

[TY]

Same goes for StarCraft 2 imo.
The cutscenes look so well made that i almost think i bought a movie instead of a game