[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48741001]It comes from creativity and art and all that good shit. It's not walking in and saying this is how it should be because from a business perspective bla bla bla[/QUOTE]
To make a game really easy and still be fun takes a lot more creativity than just slapping stuff around and trying to make the game as hard as possible.
it's a greater challenge to make a game that's both fun, and easy, than to make a game that's hard, and exciting.
When I speak "Hard", however, I mean this as in, Dark souls or Hotline, "Hard", and modern Zelda, or whatever would be "Easy"
at the same time, I will say though, hard games that are also [U]well designed[/U] and fair are far superior than easier games, but making a game that's hard AND balanced is tough as piss. Dark Souls and witcher 3 are definitely two games that are hard but absolutely far from unfair (generally).
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48741001]I think guidelines is a better term than rules, and you can debate those guidelines at that. You can debate me that a challenging game is inherently better, I just think I would 'win' that debate.[/QUOTE]
That just sounds silly, people don't play games because games are hard, they play them because they're FUN.
this is why Nintendo's games top sales list so heavily. Zelda is far from a hard game, or at least these days it isn't, hell, if I may say, it's 1/5th as hard as souls. But people love Zelda because it's exciting and astounding.
at the same time, still a huge market for people that like games that are unbelievably unforgiving.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48741001]
And when you can puke on a painting and make money off it, you can make a hard game and make money off it.[/QUOTE]
there is a market for hard games and easy games. Different people play different difficulties. I find harder games to be superior, but I end up playing more 'easy' games anyways
[QUOTE=J!NX;48740830]tbh games can't be compared to art because there are no rules to making art, and there are no rules to making a video game. the difference however is that [B][U][I]video games have objectivity and film and art does not.[/I][/U][/B] You can make an objectively good or bad game, or an objectively bad level, but there is still plenty of subjectivity to go around in games.[/QUOTE]
Someone hasn't seen The Room :v:
[QUOTE=Minelayer;48743127]Someone hasn't seen The Room :v:[/QUOTE]
but the room is a genius comedy
god forbid maybe we wait till the game comes out to actually see if dogmeat dies or not
Dogmeat could never die, anyways.
Whenever he died, I would just harvest his dog meat and move on.
what if he died but you could get a new dog from some breeders in a certain town and start all over?
that would actually be pretty sweet. If your dog dies, the new one doesn't know all the previous training so you have to retrain them, maybe?
that and there could be a wait time, it could also cost bottle caps every time.
The day when I get a companion that can handle itself without it being completely OP is the day that I wont reload a save when they die. Also until that day I am fine with companions like dogmeat are unkillable.
Its really stupid when a game punishes you when really you havent fucked up, I think that your companions should only have to die in situations where you made a bad decision so they deserve to die.
[t]https://s3.amazonaws.com/AZComics/comic348.png[/t]
I think this comic explains why I'm ok with Dogmeat getting godmode for FO4.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.