• Game Maker's Toolkit - Arkham Knight and the Scourge of Scale
    44 replies, posted
[QUOTE=tempunary;48161626]Asylum is so much better than City it's not even funny The only actual problem with Asylum is the shitty final boss[/QUOTE] Asylum is the perfect Batman story in game form in that its a slice of life, just another night for the Caped Crusader, and can fit with the comics pretty seamlessly. City is when they started changing stuff and made their own little slice of the franchise, but Asylum is still a great experience.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;48162822]the point is that gone homes tiny house has a ton of shit to look at and a bunch of tiny details [/QUOTE] Meh, PT did it better and it was just a demo.
He makes valid points, except in one area. Predator Mode in Asylum was specifically limited to certain rooms. If you were in a fistfight with Thugs, there was seldom ever a gargoyle to grapple up to and everyone would shout "Where's he gone?!" That never happened, predator has remained the same in the way it was employed in Asylum, throughout the whole trilogy. Perhaps that could've been altered a bit in Knight sure, but that wasn't the point he was making. I'd say Arkham Knight packs as much quality into its quantity as Asylum did.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48161097]Case in point. I'm guessing you either didn't actually watch the video or immediately tuned out the second you heard the word "Gone" followed by the word "Home", because the vast majority of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the video or the context in which it discusses Gone Home.[/QUOTE] I'm only responding to the backlash.
[QUOTE=BOXHOUND;48160237]Story/atmosphere driven adventure games do have an audience. It's absolutely fine not to like gone home. But "developers should never make games like this" is a pretty egocentric outlook. If people don't want this type of game, the devs who make them will go out of business.[/QUOTE] The issue is it's barely a "game" in the classic sense. It really is more just interactive story telling and even then the interactivity is minimal.
Literally everyone but facepunch likes gone home lol I don't know why everyone here has a stick up their butt about it
[QUOTE=redBadger;48164365]Literally everyone but facepunch likes gone home lol I don't know why everyone here has a stick up their butt about it[/QUOTE] How outrageous that people have opinions that differ! I know a shit ton of people who hate Gone Home because it's not as good as the vanishing of Ethan carter or the Stanley Parable
Is Arkham Knight even good?
snip
[QUOTE=Psychopath12;48160241]I think that's maybe stretching a bit of what the intent behind the example was. It's not that he wants to see more sandbox games with similar gameplay as Gone Home, but more sandbox games that have a tightened focus on small environments instead of massive expanses that marketing departments like to advertise. Gone Home, regardless of the quality of its gameplay or narrative, was a sandbox game with a small and enclosed world; which is exactly the type of example he wanted to give to contrast a large open-world environment the video was focused on criticizing. While it fulfilled the criteria of a suitable example, the game itself is controversial.[/QUOTE] Theirs a plethora of way better examples than Gone Home though. Pick a good mystery house game, like Scratches.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48164377]How outrageous that people have opinions that differ! I know a shit ton of people who hate Gone Home because it's not as good as the vanishing of Ethan carter or the Stanley Parable[/QUOTE] It's not even as good as Dear Esther, and he'd actually played it he might know that.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48161362]Victory state does not mean there is a game involved. A failure state does not mean there is a game involved. A game is a game when it has rules. Anything can be considered a game. An interactive story is technically a game, but it shouldn't be priced like a videogame. What it is, is a terrible example of a game. If I made a game where you touch a wall and you win, it's a terrible idea. If I made a game where you walk around and touch and read things until you win, it's the same goddamn thing, it just takes longer. Story just enriches the experience, but when your core gameplay is shit, it's kind of hard to care. These are games, not books.[/QUOTE] If you made a game where you touch a wall and you win, then bam, that's a rule of the game. Touching walls = winning. If you made a game where you walk around a touch and read things until you eventually win, then that's a set of rules for the game. Reading things to get all the info = winning. Victory states are basically the one thing that separates games from interactive media outside of games. When you read a choose your own adventure book you're technically playing a role-playing game. You can win, or you can lose (remember to keep your thumb on the last page!) by making decisions and interacting with the characters. When you interact with a TV show (say those awful Eastenders live things) or whatever you're not really winning or losing, just changing the outcome a bit. No matter your choice the thing was going to end in a way that wasn't just "nope you fucked it all up gg go gome" or "wow you did it good work". [QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48161362]The second part of your argument is kind of strange, what are you trying to say? That games shouldn't allow it's environment to tell you details?[/QUOTE] I honestly have no idea how you managed to extract that as the meaning of that part of my post. This honestly eludes me. That part was quite straightforward. "that's only recently started to rear its head again." As in, we are actually seeing it again properly in titles that aren't just indie ones. There's a decade or so of AAA games where the environments might have gotten more detailed, but they weren't used to expand the universe much or imply narrative to the game that the script didn't.
I haven't really touched Arkham Knight but I've heard a lot of bad things from it. Weirdly enough in contrast, I've been playing Megaman Legends...there is a lot of stuff to do and the story is paced in such a way from what I've seen that it actually doesn't place that sense of urgency immediately on the player. That's probably my biggest complaint about games the place urgency in the beginning, you need to keep that urgency going. If you're putting it on later, you need to set it up that a player has explored everything else and is ready to feel that urgency and rush forward.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48167419]I haven't really touched Arkham Knight but I've heard a lot of bad things from it.[/QUOTE] As a game it's rather fun I'd say. Shame about the PC port but if you have console version I'd say it's a good play.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.