AssInAss

@AssInAss said:

Beyond Good and Evil has about 7 gameplay types: driving, spacecraft, mini-games, stealth, combat, chases, and photography. And all done really well, even the air hockey.   The only part of Brutal Legend I thought wasn't done well was the driving, where the problems are compounded in the demon races. The Deuce felt heavier than any car in GTA 4. Other than that, I don't know many of the bad design choices. Care to elaborate?

You've stretched a few gameplay types into seven. Beyond Good and Evil (a mediocre game at best) has maybe two gameplay types, three if you include the photography (yawn). Let's be generous and say three. It's a fairly standard action-adventure game with fairly generic gameplay. You can try to separate out the driving and spacecraft elements, but they're essentially the same. It plays like most other games of that type from that era. Minigames? Really? Then I guess Mass Effect 2 has about six or seven gameplay elements then, to be as generous with the terms as you are.  As for bad design choices, that's what I've been talking about the entire time: too many gameplay types, none of which had enough depth to be fun or compelling. I'm not saying don't like the game. But the lack of commercial success says quite a bit about the game design. I'm not saying anything about the game that wasn't said in a dozen different reviews of the game. The driving was clunky. The brawling was oversimplified. The RTS crippled by the camera and controls. The story elements were fine, as were the game world elements. In short, a game with a lot of potential that was crippled by bad choices. No doubt made worse by the game's troubled development cycle. Not an uncommon story, that.

@AssInAss said:

Some pretty vague responses. 
@haggis said:

It's not that I didn't expect the RTS in Brutal Legend. It just didn't seem (to me) to fit into the rest of the game very well. Add on top of that some of the design decisions (yes, including the 3rd person perspective), and you wind up with something that didn't do it for a lot of gamers. I thought the RTS would be less central to the game as it was.  So, yes, it was a problem of marketing. But it was also a problem of game design. The game was trying to do too many things, and didn't do any of them particularly well. If it had stuck to being a third-person, open-world beat-em-up I think it would have been more successful than it was. As it is, it has vehicle combat, RTS, brawling, open-world. Basically a kitchen sink game. They rarely turn out well. Brutal Legend wasn't a horrible game, but it fell short of expectations.

Actually, those "kitchen sink" games tend to turn out pretty well, look at sandbox games and Zelda clones. If it was just a beat-em-up, it would be criticized for being too simple (Assassin's Creed 1).   It fits very well with the world, the factions, saving the world, metal themes, to have big boss stage battles portrayed as a RTS.

Sandbox games and Zelda clones aren't kitchen sink games, though. They're pretty clearly focused on a single proven combination of gameplay elements. Name a successful game that combines four or five gameplay types, then get back to me. There simply aren't any. Even games that attempt to combine RPG elements with FPS or TPS style (just two varieties of gameplay) get criticized for not pulling all the disparate elements together and being "dumbed down." Combine two elements, and depth needs to be sacrificed. Examples? Notably games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion, where people constantly (and legitimately) griped about the quality of the shooter experience. Or Mass Effect 2, again where RPG elements were made more shallow in order to orient the game more toward being a third-person shooter. Add a third gameplay element, even more needs to be sacrificed. Borderlands comes to mind as a game that pulled it off, to a degree (RPG, shooter, vehicle combat). I didn't like the game as much as some did. Even still, the RPS elements were light, as was the vehicle combat. I'm not saying it can't be done well, only that I haven't seen it done well yet. Too bad in the case of Brutal Legend, given how much I enjoyed the game world (and I am a huge Tim Schafer fan, as you might suspect from my profile picture), but a lot of bad design choices. And who was complaining that Assassin's Creed 1 was too simple? Most of the criticisms seemed to point to the rigid mission structure, not that the gameplay elements were too simple.  We'll have to continue to disagree about whether or not the RTS elements fit into the game world. Metal fans as mindless drones taking orders from a roadie? It still makes no sense to me.

New weapons? dear god, we dont need new weapons - just reskin 1.6 and put in matchmaking and leaderboards with some achievements and u are golden.

Edit: And do not, i repeat, DO NOT put hats in..

Enhance your calm, Alex.

Some pretty vague responses. 
@haggis said:

It's not that I didn't expect the RTS in Brutal Legend. It just didn't seem (to me) to fit into the rest of the game very well. Add on top of that some of the design decisions (yes, including the 3rd person perspective), and you wind up with something that didn't do it for a lot of gamers. I thought the RTS would be less central to the game as it was.  So, yes, it was a problem of marketing. But it was also a problem of game design. The game was trying to do too many things, and didn't do any of them particularly well. If it had stuck to being a third-person, open-world beat-em-up I think it would have been more successful than it was. As it is, it has vehicle combat, RTS, brawling, open-world. Basically a kitchen sink game. They rarely turn out well. Brutal Legend wasn't a horrible game, but it fell short of expectations.

I'm nearing the end of the game, and I just need some explanation of the outcry over the RTS elements aka "Stage Battles" in Brutal Legend. 
 
Is it because it's not a good RTS? And if you're a RTS nut, can you explain why? You can select individual units or a whole bunch, so that can't be the problem.
 
Is it because of the unique style of RTS with the 3rd person perspective, so people couldn't handle the change?
 
Is it because of the elitist "RTS don't work on consoles" crowd?  Isn't this a better way of having a console RTS, having you fly (essentially becoming a "cursor") and micro-manage from above? There must be something good about it for Starhawk to rip off the concept. 
 
Or Is it because people didn't expect RTS in Brutal Legend? That's the fault of EA's marketing, not the game.

Oh wow, thank you it's awesome to see how indie developers can get started. Great resource! 

loss of human life is tragic , why you dont care about other innocent life losses then americans?  how many thousands of innocent ppl died in the name of american 'crusade against terrorism'

@AssInAss said:

No worries, it'll still win RPG of the year and PC GOTY awards.   Unless if Mass Effect 3 brings back the RPG from 1 and has a grey decision system, and Skyrim is tons better than Oblivion. ;)

You clearly aren't talking about the Giantbomb GOTY awards, since they all vastly preferred Mass Effect 2 to 1, and honestly spent very little time talking about the Witcher 2.  Honestly, the Witcher 1 has been mentioned more...and that's been in a slightly mocking sense.