believer258's forum posts

#1 Posted by believer258 (12461 posts) -

@seppli said:
@kidavenger said:

buying tactics ogre is painless

It brings on many changes

And I can take or leave it if I please

A haiku? Dude!

Haven't you ever seen MASH?

@seppli said:
@video_game_king said:

While it is technically possible for the game to let you play as a ninja named Boner, the actual probability of that happening is very low. It isn't worth it.

Also, expect a fair bit of grind.

My FF:Tactics party was pretty much the Ninja Turtles by the end. I guess I could do with a change of professions. I don't mind grinding in SRPGs. The turnbased battles is what I show up for after all. It's all a blur like 80s training montage anyways, and the sweet sweet fruit of min/maxing little pixel dudes is oh so alluring.

The story is merely there to tell me when it's okay to quit.

In that case, what about Disgaea?

#2 Posted by believer258 (12461 posts) -

@believer258: Again I don't think Art Design and "Graphics" are equatable, doesn't really matter what the situation is. Metroid Prime is probably the best looking game ever made; but it doesn't hold a candle graphically to any number of modern games. Art Design is an integral part of gameplay in almost every superb game; graphics are not. Vagrant Story has the best graphics on the PS1 but it could be in the bottom 10% and still be the best game because of art design, storyline, and gameplay.

Cost is a hard thing, it isn't immaterial, cost is relevant and cost to length "ratio" is also relevant as is replayability; all of these things matter to people purchasing games. If you're a reviewer and you don't actually purchase games then maybe they don't matter; but to the consumer it matters. It objectively matters. At the same time it is possible for a game to reach an asymptote and completely obliterate length as an issue, the obvious case here being Super Metroid. Vanquish isn't flawless or immortal but the "true" length of the game is around 25-30 hours if you dig deeper; thus the cost : length ratio is fine for most people.

Though there is also something to be said for a game having a "cost" in the sense of time it takes to complete; assuming the game never reaches an asymptote; but this is a much deeper argument not really discussed frequently in this medium. Leave it to the user to decide how much his time is worth to him; this varies tremendously from person to person; whereas for the vast majority of people $60 is still a significant sum and $20 is a less significant sum (those that don't fall into this category are largely irrelevant to any and all discussions regarding cost, time, or interpolations of the two; they are not consumers on a relevant level, nor are they numerous enough to have an impact barring some wheelbarrow purchases).

That top part is largely what I meant by "aesthetics". Also yes, Metroid Prime is the best-looking game ever made and that game, above all others, deserves to be seen running natively at 1080p, 60FPS. Good fucking luck with that.

And that second part is largely what I meant by my last paragraph, the one about blue-collar workers caring about cost-to-length ratio while judging a game from a more critical perspective shouldn't take that into account. (Also, no such thing as a true, real, objective declaration on a game's quality, you just have to be able to make the best argument you can for it).

Talking about a game's cost in time is definitely an interesting subject, probably way more interesting than the cost:length ratio subject of this thread. Say you make a game equal in quality to Super Metroid, but it takes no less than a full thousand hours to finish once. Disregarding the sheer hypothetical nature of this scenario, is that really worth it?

#3 Posted by believer258 (12461 posts) -

@believer258: I think graphics are a minor selling point but length is a major one; graphics are almost completely irrelevant to the actual quality of the game; though there is something to be said for something like Crysis when it came out (or even today) or the Witcher 2; but unless a game is so far and away superior to its peers graphics aren't really that important. Even in the case of Ryse which appears to be the best looking game at present you have rather crippling flaws in gameplay and art design. The reason Skyrim was so well liked was length pure and simple; the game is alright but it lasts forever and basically holds its own for maybe 75% of the running time; obviously Skyrim is nothing compared to Dark Souls on the quality front but length alone was enough for it to triumph over it as well as stuff like Arkham City and Uncharted 3.

I'm going to disagree on that bit about Skyrim being well-liked on length alone (see my latest blog for more details!). Also, to what extent that game lasts really depends on what you plan to do in it. Do you want to do all of the guild quests, the Civil War quest, the main quest, and anything else you can find? It's going to take you a while. Just want to do the main quest and the Civil War quest? That's about 8-12 hours (and you're missing the bloody point). Putting an estimated length on that game is largely impossible just because you can do and see so many different things in it.

Anyway, graphics - OK, let me interrupt this bit to be more specific. By "graphics", I specifically mean something's detail. Draw distance, particle effects, texture resolution, etc. Resolution and framerate have something to do with that, but we'll put that aside for now. Aesthetics are not quite the same thing.

Anyway, playing a game primarily because you think it looks good can definitely be a selling point and a reason for giving a game praise. Graphics can enhance aesthetics, they can enhance the world, they can enhance clarity, they can make things look and seem more smooth, and so on. I think they're absolutely more than "minor", but they also can never be as important as mechanics, atmosphere, design, world, or even those aesthetics I mentioned. Or, hell, even resolution and framerate, both of which can improve a game drastically. Mass Effect is almost painful to play on 360 unless you have a super high tolerance for graininess and a framerate that jumps around like a kid on a caffeine drip, but on PC it's (usually) a pleasure.

To come back around to being on topic, length is the same way. Asking sixty dollars for a campaign that only lasts five hours is a hell of a stretch. Sure, that might be what Vanquish did at launch, but it's an awfully hard pill to swallow if you're not rich and don't know how good the game is. And a game of a good length can be quite satisfying. However, when considering a game's quality, pacing is far more important than length. FFXIII would probably be a vastly superior game if 20-30 hours were shaved off of its length and you could get into the game much faster. By contrast, it takes about 25-30 hours to finish Chrono Trigger and it's easily one of the best JRPG's of all time. For that matter, most of those highly-praised SNES RPG's fall below the 40 hour mark. This is pretty much what you said above, and I agree wholeheartedly with that.

But that's all from a practical blue-collar perspective anyway. From an actual, abstract critical perspective, where you're trying to reach that (actually impossible, but you should try for it anyway) realm of objective judgment, a game's hour count and price shouldn't matter all that much.

#4 Edited by believer258 (12461 posts) -

Yes, but like graphics it has its place when determining a game's value.

#5 Edited by believer258 (12461 posts) -

I don't generally go out of my way to get or play DLC because when I get to the end of a game's single player campaign, I usually feel "finished" with it. I might replay the game but I don't really feel a need for new content.

However, when it releases as a stand alone game like Blood Dragon, or this ACIV thing, it feels like the developers are making something new to me. I feel like I'm buying a game with similar ideas and mechanics that are being used for something new, especially in the case of Blood Dragon which I almost always view as a spin-off and not really as DLC.

#6 Posted by believer258 (12461 posts) -

I have no interest in comics whatsoever, so no.

I mean, I've been there once or twice just to see what's up, but I didn't stick around for long. I think there's someone there with over 100,000 posts, which makes me feel better about myself.

#7 Posted by believer258 (12461 posts) -

This might be the first time in history that an audience wants more ads. Outside of the Super Bowl, maybe.

Premium members often mention going for the regular one, anyway, just to hear Jeff and Vinny's back-and-forth seemingly impromptu Squarespace advertising.

#8 Posted by believer258 (12461 posts) -

Next up: Amazon buys Nintendo.

I'm kidding! Sort of.

#9 Edited by believer258 (12461 posts) -

Wait... I thought I read somewhere that your Fire Emblem Awakening bit was coming up today?

I've played some Black Ops 2, but never finished it. I'm just not all that interested in set-piece, event-heavy, super-scripted shooters anymore.

#10 Posted by believer258 (12461 posts) -

@lackingsaint: I actually don't like X-Com all that much for that reason, but a lot of people do so I thought I'd mention it.

But I definitely need something that demands attention now, otherwise I'll just let my mind wander back to my work.