Uno Ill Nino
Banned
FartOfWar said:
No shit? When you do, put the link up here and in your blog so we know it exists.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
1Up LAN Party Podcast 12/3/08 (featuring Chuff Love's Gamestop Girl)
- Thread starter border
- Start date
No shit? When you do, put the link up here and in your blog so we know it exists.
bistromathics
facing a bright new dawn
FartOfWar said:
you didnt like dystopia
farnham said:
Bingo, exactly.
About this podcast, hey I still like listening to Ryan and Anthony and whats so wrong with the podcast being different every once in a while with a couple new faces? The core crew there is terrific and I'm just glad we finally get a new episode. Can't wait for Matt and Robert to be back.
Uno Ill Nino
Banned
FartOfWar said:
Yeah man, I think he means that in a positive way. I listened to GFW every week for about a year until you stopped and the only PC games I played in that time were Age of Conan and the Quake LIVE beta. It didn't matter that I didn't play Company of Heroes or the new Battlefield because I enjoyed hearing about them. I play enough FPS games to understand what you liked about FarCry 2, know what I mean?
For me, GFW was great because it mixed gaming with regular old life. You'd hear stories about shitty jobs you guys used to have, but then it'd transition over to some discussion about Bioshock or Team Fortress or something. That's something that a lot of other gaming podcasts try to do, but either don't have the life experience to back it up, or the interesting people to tell the stories in the first place.
GFW set the bar for the podcast I put up every week. *link removed* What higher praise could you ask for?
bistromathics
facing a bright new dawn
EviLore said:
I am not so great at shooters, but I love certain ones that I can get into. For that to happen, there needs to be an extra hook besides solid gunplay. During the HL1 days, I preferred games like The Specialists and Natural Selection over something like Counter Strike. Dystopia has a LOT more to it than just shooting (I happen to think the weapons are pretty rad, but w/e to each his own).
This complexity is where the game turns bad. If you are not willing to devote lots of time to learning the maps and the different objectives, the game just will not be any fun for you. I did happen to put up with the insane learning curve, and the satisfaction I get from doing something right or doing something well is way more gratifying than calling in an airstrike in COD4 or something.
I think Shawn brought it up in reference to the 'depth vs complexity' topic that was just briefly touched on in a couple gfw episodes. I wish they had discussed this issue more, because it seems like a good one. TF2 is something I can't really get into because it seems too simple. Going by the popular opinion, TF2 is an example of a 'deep' game, but not a 'complex' one. I don't know where I am going with this, but if ppl can understand a little bit of what I am trying to say and can relate, they should check out dystopia!
http://www.dystopia-game.com/
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
farnham said:
Well, honestly the show was just f'n entertaining. They could have been talking about cooking or roof repair and it would have been good. When you find the right mix of personalities with creativity, it can be great.
I don't have time for detailed discussion at the moment, Bis, however, here is something on the subject that popped up today:
There's been a belief that a simple game can't be deep, and I think that a simple game can be deep; and, conversely, I think that a complicated game might be a shallow game, from a gameplay perspective -- it just has a lot of complication. So, how do you see that issue, within development?
HK: The way I came up with a solution is to divide the game into two different layers. One is the very simple game, so that a player can clear the goal with just three commands. But for those users who want to play a deeper game, they can use weapons; they can collect equipment and weapons, to try to clear different missions, with different goals.
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3851/the_rhythm_of_creation_hiroyuki_.php
There's been a belief that a simple game can't be deep, and I think that a simple game can be deep; and, conversely, I think that a complicated game might be a shallow game, from a gameplay perspective -- it just has a lot of complication. So, how do you see that issue, within development?
HK: The way I came up with a solution is to divide the game into two different layers. One is the very simple game, so that a player can clear the goal with just three commands. But for those users who want to play a deeper game, they can use weapons; they can collect equipment and weapons, to try to clear different missions, with different goals.
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3851/the_rhythm_of_creation_hiroyuki_.php
prodystopian
Member
bistromathics said:you didnt like dystopia
I am a fan of dyst...Oh, the game. nm.
Where is the length of the podcast (not that important), and FFS where is Bobito?
RubxQub
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎÎ³Î»Î¿Ï Ïον καί ÏÎµÏ Î´Î¿Î»Ïγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
...am I the only one who's a bit miffed that you can apparently get hired by a gaming enthusiast organization by just dating one of their staff?
I know sometimes in business it's the people you know...but damn.
I know sometimes in business it's the people you know...but damn.
bistromathics said:
TF2 is one of those games that's simple to learn and easy to jump into, but takes a long time to master. In that sense it isn't complex, as it's very accessible as far as the mechanics go, but the gameplay has lots of depth beyond the surface. I think those are probably the most difficult types of games to make, or at least, to balance properly. When they're done right, they appeal to both casuals and hardcores equally. Another example of a game like this is Street Fighter 2.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
*shrugs*
I enjoyed the podcast enough.
It probably was the weakest episode they've done in while, but like half the crew was missing.
I enjoyed the podcast enough.
It probably was the weakest episode they've done in while, but like half the crew was missing.
RubxQub said:
If true, its pretty ridiculous, especially considering all of the people on GAF who would probably jump at the chance to work at a place like 1UP, and likely have comparable skills. Who knows, though...
What I generally don't understand is the disconnect between how many people have their own game blogs or write informally about games and would love to work in the industry, compared with how much god-awful and sloppy writing you see in professional reviews. Maybe its a function of pay; do gaming sites just pay these people shit wages, preventing a lot of educated / talented people from being willing to work in the enthusiast press?
This crew is not into PC games at all. If shawn were there, there would have been a lot more to say about that Company of Heroes expansion. This crew plays PC games on 360 unless it's WOW and CoD4 (yes Tina).
This podcast is depressing.
This podcast is depressing.
Zeliard said:
i stand by my exclamation of "holy shit, this is the micro machines 2 of fps!" that i first made about 25 minutes into playing the "beta".
but on the flip side, some of the most fun i've been having lately is taking to red orchestra tank battles with a friend on vent. there's no turret mouse aim (it really feels like you're operating a second world war turret.) and without proper synergy between the commander and driver - along with an appreciation of hulling down behind terrain, angling, weak spots and bullet drop - the average life will be clunky, frustrating and brief.
the result being that the rewards from a perfectly orchestrated and executed kill weigh in far heavier than gaining a +1 on some arbitrary score card. the sort of satisfaction that achievement based hoop-jumping couldn't be farther from.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Come on, you barely know the circumstances. Don't jump to conclusions, maybe she's highly qualified.RubxQub said:
Edit:
As for Go, although you start out with a myriad of possibilities, what makes the game so fascinating is the inevitable "playing on rails" towards the end because the constellations get more and more forcing. So at least to me, it's the way the game evolves that fascinates me about this particular example.FartOfWar said:
Foxtastical
Member
Welcome to game journalism. Maybe she be, maybe she ain't be. Let's not attack anyone.wmat said:
Nevertheless, there is good news in this thread now.
GotchaForce
Member
Ken Levine and Shawn Elliot podcasts would be so awesome.
Zeliard said:
Totally. I just started playing Street Fighter with guys that are way, way better than me, and I've started to learn more about the complexity of that game. It's incredibly deep, much more so than I previously thought. I'm starting to really have a great respect for the types of games that have simple mechanics with a "simple to learn but difficult to master" mentality. Another key thing that games like that have to do is reward the user after they've mastered the simple mechanics, and another game that I really think drives that point home is Mirror's Edge. You really only jump in that game, but you can get SO damn good at jumping.
bistromathics
facing a bright new dawn
I completely understand the 'easy to learn, hard to master' model and why it is a strong one. But surely people must realize there is something to be gained from complexity as well - not a 'superficial' complexity, but something that really adds to the gameplay and the satisfaction the player feels when they succeed. The depth vs complexity thing was originally brought up by a Relic dev I beleive, in reference to CoH and the RTS genre in general.
What keeps Shawn and others coming back to CoH? It's not the 'simple but deep' gameplay, but the 'complex and deep' gameplay. I have found that the games I get the most enjoyment out of do have a fairly significant element of complexity.
What keeps Shawn and others coming back to CoH? It's not the 'simple but deep' gameplay, but the 'complex and deep' gameplay. I have found that the games I get the most enjoyment out of do have a fairly significant element of complexity.
Danne-Danger
Member
It's exactly the same way with Quake Wars, and at the same time it's the reason why it didn't become the smash hit that I think it deserved to be. There's just so much to take in, even for the somewhat hardcore ET players there was a learning curve in order to wrap your head around all of the new concepts introduced. And in the time where games like CoD4 and TF2 reign supreme, that's just not what players want anymore.bistromathics said:
And I'm the same way with TF2, after playing QW I didnt enjoy it because of the restrictions that game put on me for choosing a specific class, there they pretty much force you into playing your role while in QW it feels like every class was designed with flexibility in mind. Compare the Medics for example, in TF2 you get the medigun and outside of healing people you're pretty much crippled in a one-on-one against any other class, they want you to heal people so that's the way they chose to design it. In QW, the Medic (and every other class) gets access to the standard assault rifle, which will put him up to par with every other class on the field. You then have the choice of just running around healing people, going commando while healing yourself, going behind enemy lines to destroy spawnhosts and capture forward spawns though most likely, you'll be doing all of these at the same time once you get good at the game. Youll never feel like the game is funnelling you to do one specific thing. That's just for one class, and the same could be said for any other, for all the complexity that game has it also translates into depth, which is why I keep coming back, there's always something else to learn. There is definitely room for you to be flexible with your playstyle in TF2, but with how the rock, paper scissor aspect works in it there'll always be situations where the deck is stacked against you, and not because of skill level and/or map layout but because the way the classes are designed to counterbalance each other.
There are certainly benefits to they way TF2 does it since a new player can easily jump in and get an idea of what hes supposed to be doing, someone playing the medic class will quickly realize that they cant really go at it by themselves and that the only way to survive is to stick with your team and aid the more combat oriented classes. With QW, because its open-ended the only way youre going to stop dying and be a benefit to your team is to either have good twitch skills, know the maps really well so you know where you should be and when - which is made harder since the objectives are constantly changing while your team moves forward - or to learn how other classes work in order to counter them, which is extra tricky since the teams are asymmetrical.
The complexity also brings other problems to the table, it's really pretty hard to get a great pub game going, if there's one side that knows the maps and knows how to play it will absolutely decimate the other team and there's nothing they can do about it (and since the game comes with a stats page, a lot of people will join the winning team or leave the server), the best matches in QW comes when both teams know what they're doing which is a pretty rare occurrence save for a few servers. Though the smaller user base is making that easier with time I've noticed, right now most of the people that still play are the ones with 100-200h+ in-game, which often puts a lot of high-ranked players on both sides. The downside of that is of course that it's even harder for new players to jump in...
What the hell am I babbling about... oh yes, you should checkout QW if you want something different.
FartOfWar said:
Many game developers have said this over the years, and I just don't think it's practical.
I remember on GFW when you guys were previewing Spore, and during the civ level discussion you were commenting on how deep the game was since you could create complex strategies for conquering the AI. The problem is that at the end of the day you can also just select your units and right click the opponent's city. It didn't matter how much detail was put into the game to provide depth, when push came to shove two mouse clicks were all that was needed. Bioshock suffered from this as well. There was water on the ground that I could lure the AI into... or I could just shoot them.
I agree that most 'deep' games are just shallow mechanics repeated over and over, but if all i need to do is the bear minimum to beat a game then why would I not? There are plenty of other games I could be playing, why pick the one that insults me by assuming I won't want a deeper experience up front (which is what you would have to do to ensure that people who don't want the deep stuff can pick up and play.) Achievements shouldn't be used as an incentive to play the full game.
That being said, if it's fun, then of course I'll play it. It seems so few game developers look at their games and say "forget all my stupid designs for a second, is this game really fun?"
Edit: All of what I said is null when it comes to multiplayer. It's two entirely different concepts.
Danne-Danger
Member
I wasn't that keen on it for the first 10 hours of playtime either tbh, but once everything started to click I never looked back.wmat said:
It is a similar game to TF2 with how it's a classbased game and all, but it's sort of on the other side of the design philosophy.
I think that it was Paul Wedgewood (head of Splash Damage) that said that you can't compensate the gameplay for newer players, it's layers upon layers of depth that keep players coming back. Which I somewhat agree with, though it was definitely a case of the wrong game at the wrong time for a lot of people.
I can't help but feel this episode would have gone over a lot better if it had actually been released last week, when everyone was full of Thanksgiving cheer.
But yeah, they really need some people that will play and talk about stuff beyond "console shooters that happen to also be on the PC" and Blizzard titles. Everybody that's on the show now has a place - nobody needs to get the boot or anything, but they need some more involved people in the mix.
Nobody here knows what her qualifications were/are. It's pretty unfair to assume that all she did was go out with Anthony. As noted, she's not really working on the editorial side anyway.
But yeah, they really need some people that will play and talk about stuff beyond "console shooters that happen to also be on the PC" and Blizzard titles. Everybody that's on the show now has a place - nobody needs to get the boot or anything, but they need some more involved people in the mix.
RubxQub said:
lawblob said:
Nobody here knows what her qualifications were/are. It's pretty unfair to assume that all she did was go out with Anthony. As noted, she's not really working on the editorial side anyway.
LegendOfGood
Member
Calcaneus said:
As much as I love the Brodeo, I can admit that even they had some off days; whether it was being exhausted from e3 or a deadline or whatever.
rollingstart
Banned
big_z said:
Jeff is EA, Shawn is 2K
Bad blood, man.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Linkzg said:
This is why we want EA to buy Take 2!
Danne-Danger said:
i'm not sure it was pure complexity that deterred the nubs, as much as it was this complexity combined with the thin, unresponsive gunplay. this was also a problem with the original ET, but given it's relative simplicity and price, the problem remained isolated in many peoples minds against the game's superior meta design.
compare this to something like FEAR combat. that game brought nothing new to the table whatsoever. modified sp maps and generic and vanilla game modes made for an extremely unimaginative multi player experience. yet i still played this shit out of this, purely due to the gratifying nature of the weapons and the damage model.
i really hope splash damage have picked up on this and get another try at it, because their progressive thinking is paramount in a self aping genre right now - and goddamn, i really wanted to like quake wars.
and even if an accessible, streamlined experience is the ultimate goal; there would be no tf2 without tfc.
MrTroubleMaker
Member
:OFartOfWar said:
nice!!!
"Zerg rush" isn't even proper Starcraft terminology, it's just something that people who don't know anything about Starcraft say, because they once got rushed by zerglings online. Hardly anyone uses this strategy (officially termed 5pool, since you build your spawning pool when you only have 5 drones), because it only works in 1v1 maps where you know exactly where your opponents base is, and only if they are doing a really risky/greedy fast expansion build order or can't micro. You generally don't play greedy in a 2player map where there is a high probability of being rushed due to knowing where your opponents base is. Almost every game of Starcraft is actually played on a 4 player map, and if a Zerg scouts you with a drone really early into the game, it'll be pretty obvious what's going on and you can stop it fairly easily, and then the Zerg will be so far behind economically he might as well type out.
rollingstart
Banned
firehawk12 said:
They are plenty of reasons why we would want EA to buy Take 2
Micromegas
Member
I think people just need to come to grips with the simple fact that the golden-age of 1up podcasts is behind us.