Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Ok then, I'll try to better get the idea across to you using another method. A series of questions.
Please explain why this makes the game good. After you do that, if your explanation does not fully divulge the root of what's good about the sandbox gameplay, I will ask another question about the vague parts. This will continue till either I cannot ask any more questions, or you cannot answer them.
I'll take game design for 200.
You didn't explain how this makes the game good. You gave examples of games which have used the same concept, but that does not tell anything about why the sandbox element is a good thing.
Make sure in the future not to derive subtexts about my motives that have not been defined. This is not an attempt for me to discredit the sandbox element, I specifically stated that I think the sandbox element is a good thing about the game.
Yes. I am probably a bigger literary snob than you are a video game snob.
There are some modern art exhibits you ought to check out.
How are you able to call Clifford at 10 miles and Harry Potter at 100 miles if you also acknowledge that they have different goals? "Different goals" amounts to "different values," which means they aren't comparable on the same scale. Meaning, Clifford goes 10 miles north on the surface of the earth, and Harry Potter goes 100 miles down into the ground. They end up in different places because they were intending to go different places.
Lol. You brought in a literary analogy, so I followed up with another. If the point isn't readily apparent, nevermind, because this isn't a thread about fiction.
The only thing I see that might be judged across the scale is technical skill, but you mentioned creative depth, so that's the thing I'm questioning.
We all judge things by our own criteria. My criteria for games puts gameplay as the first priority. If you have an awesome combat system stuck in between long dramatic cut scenes, I will probably fast forward the cut scenes to get to the gameplay. Because, to me, games are not interactive movies. Games, whether they are card games or sports games, they are meant to be played. Everything else comes second.
Why does having an interwoven relationship between characters, story, and gameplay lead you believe that character and story isn't deep? First of all, you would need to explain why the story isn't deep using the story itself as evidence, not its relationship to the gameplay. Saying that the story is closely related to gameplay doesn't indicate either high or low quality to me.
Yes. You are correct. Characters are just devices that move toward a goal that is centered around gratification. And that is how you construct a game. There's a reason why Link never speaks. And it's the same reason for Samus. And for Pac-Man. And the L-Shaped Tetris Block.
Yes, but you haven't given an explanation for why "story independent of the gameplay" is a quality worth juding in a game. How does it impact the game in a way that enhances the experience of the player?
He was a very simple character but he was the orginal character which made most people make an "All head character".Sorry if my implication was not clear enough but if a concept defined by GTA3 (sandbox gameplay) is able to spawn so many major games, the game has something going for it right?
Again, this isn't an explanation for what makes the sandbox element good. You're using the fact that it has been replicated in other games as an argument, but that argument is completely dependent on other games. By that logic, if no other games had used the sandbox element after GTA, it wouldn't be a good game mechanic, when that's just not true. The legacy of the element itself does not speak to its merits at all. It implies it, but it does not determine it.
Because people enjoyed it. They liked to roam free through the game while not being forced to do missions in certain areas.
Whether or not people enjoy it is irrelevant. I didn't enjoy it, does that mean it's bad?
You obviously don't understand my argument in the OP. My argument is that depth determines what a good game is, not opinions. Depth is more definable than a raw opinion, therefore it's a better standard for defining what a good game is.
Well let me rephrase it. You cannot compare in terms of which is better than the other. Unless one game is just flat out TERRIBLE, you cannot validly compare a game in reference to which one is better than another. That is what I meant by comparing. You can compare and contrast Halo and Call of Duty, but can you honestly say one is better than the other? I think not. I personally prefer Call of Duty over Halo, but I do not think I can validly say CoD is better for *insert reasons*
yea this. I hate showing my friends great games that aren't fps's and getting ridiculed because they take skill or they take time.InferiorityComplex; said:
Wait, what does that have to do with the post you quoted at all...? InferiorityComplex was saying that it's the fans that get annoying and you SHOULDN'T blame the actual thing. You're saying that people either have bad taste or like things just because they're cool, thus blaming the actual thing for being bad in the first place.
Having a standard does not make me a snob. My problem is that in today's culture games are judged by the fickle populace, which makes the standards for good gaming dependent on the mood swings of the culture, rather than the merits of the games. I don't accept that, because the culture always shows bias towards a certain type of gaming and changes too frequently. I'd much rather see games judged on a standard by which all games can be judged, and that, I feel, should be depth.Yes. I am probably a bigger literary snob than you are a video game snob.
I hold no regard for the more ridiculous aspects of modern art.
The red is the entire problem with your response. You're ignoring the entire part about finding a common ground. The directions they go in and the places they end up are irrelevant, because those are not common grounds. The comparable grounds in this situation is mileage. The fact that one goes one way and the other goes another does not change the fact that one went more miles than another, and that's what I'm comparing.
The ultimate question, if anything, is where opinion may come in to play, and I acknowledge this, but using this method of judging a game will always be better than judging a game by "which was more fun" or "which sold the most" because this is a less subjective and more sophisticated, rational process. Because an opinion about the depth of a gameplay is less radical than an opinion about the game as a whole, and, when using this method, due to the use of common grounds, there are concepts which people can identify with, making those opinions backed with evidence.
Actually, I don't recall every using or referring to the phrase "creative depth." In the OP I made a statement about "creativity and depth" but that =/= creative depth. Also, I apologize because upon reading the OP again, I realize that I included too much drama and emotion in getting my point across. Much of it is tactlessly worded and does no adequately express the points I was trying to make. I should probably update it with some clarifying info as to the state of the arguments.
That can't be done, because judging any game singularly comes down solely on preference. For example: I can't say that OoT has a great story if I can't compare it to a standard for stories. If you will allow me to inject a standard into my evaluations, then I can proceed. Otherwise, I'd just be saying, this is good because I say it's good.
But what you don't realize is that your assessment of games could affect the way games were made, if the majority of people thought the same way.And my point is that this independent judgement of games does no justice to the game itself, because the popular criteria reflects what the people want, and how future games will be made. If the popular criteria for a good games were "hack-and-slash" gameplay then more "hack-and-slash" gameplay would be made not because there is anything inherently good with "hack-and-slash" gameplay, but because people said they liked it, and that is a pretty stupid standard. Right now, the only thing that says that Halo/CoD/whatever is a good game is the popular opinion. If the popular opinion were against it, then those games would be deemed as bad or unworthy to be made, and less would be made. This does not do justice to the games because there is no standard, but this is precisely what is happening to gaming right now. The popular opinion is moving towards the side of less depth, and as a result less deep games are being made.
and that would take to other games to complain about "that age of gaming".
I'm not sure if I'm misreading your post or something, but Falcon was being 110% sarcastic.
Yeah, Halo's a bit too realistic for my taste too. Same with Quake.
I don't consider near immediate health regeneration to be realistic. I'm a Nintendo fan, though, so what do I care.
Well clearly you know nothing about real life.I don't consider near immediate health regeneration to be realistic. I'm a Nintendo fan, though, so what do I care.
Yep, I'd assume that is what happens when you read things out of context, prejudge, and can't comprehend ideas.
Do you survive through multiple headshots in the face? I must be missing out on some secret.
