Games that needs remakes or sequels
- Thread starter mgsgod
- Start date
Y'know... The original topic is about remaking certain games.
So, you realize that means I think that the game should be remade right? Like, with updated gameplay? We on the same page? Ok, good.
If we get another warning I'd suggest switching to PM. It's an interesting discussion but, yeah...
So anyway, yeah I didn't give any critiques about FFVII's gameplay, but I hoped my point (evaluating a game qualitatively) was expressed.
As far as your argument about chapter IV, I don't remember having any problems buying or selling gear. There's some useless junk items you can sell just for cash, as well as some minor quests that help you out (giving people random crap, etc.) Also, enemies attack Ari if you do his dance move thing a lot, but you can always put him in the back behind characters or put him behind Rosalyn. Also, most people don't know this because the game doesn't tell you (a legit reason against it), but you can have characters wait and then combo-attack on one monster doing a lot more damage.
Your main argument is that the game is simple and made in a time of RPG combat systems that were a lot more complex. But again, that's just your preference. You do have a strong point in that "why should I pay for a game that runs like it was made 8 years ago?" But, y'know, I buy and play those games, hell I bought Castle Crashers last month. I like older games with newer graphics. I was one of the few people who played Dragon Quest VII for more than an hour. And when I get home I'm buying Mega Man 9 from Xbox Live Arcade to play before my best friends AD&D campaign next weekend. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad. Yes, it could be lazy, but looking at Zener Works website I doubt they had more money than the Wild Arms guys.
That said, paying $50 for a game that could've been made in 1980 is a legit reason against the game, and the publisher, but not gameplay.
Also there's plenty of things to do other than the main quest, but the game doesn't outright show it to you. You gotta spend a good amount of time looking around, talking to people and think. It's relentless, especially compared to todays games, but that's because we're now used to gold "!" over NPCs heads to tell us where the next side-quest is.
So, you realize that means I think that the game should be remade right? Like, with updated gameplay? We on the same page? Ok, good.
If we get another warning I'd suggest switching to PM. It's an interesting discussion but, yeah...
So anyway, yeah I didn't give any critiques about FFVII's gameplay, but I hoped my point (evaluating a game qualitatively) was expressed.
As far as your argument about chapter IV, I don't remember having any problems buying or selling gear. There's some useless junk items you can sell just for cash, as well as some minor quests that help you out (giving people random crap, etc.) Also, enemies attack Ari if you do his dance move thing a lot, but you can always put him in the back behind characters or put him behind Rosalyn. Also, most people don't know this because the game doesn't tell you (a legit reason against it), but you can have characters wait and then combo-attack on one monster doing a lot more damage.
Your main argument is that the game is simple and made in a time of RPG combat systems that were a lot more complex. But again, that's just your preference. You do have a strong point in that "why should I pay for a game that runs like it was made 8 years ago?" But, y'know, I buy and play those games, hell I bought Castle Crashers last month. I like older games with newer graphics. I was one of the few people who played Dragon Quest VII for more than an hour. And when I get home I'm buying Mega Man 9 from Xbox Live Arcade to play before my best friends AD&D campaign next weekend. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad. Yes, it could be lazy, but looking at Zener Works website I doubt they had more money than the Wild Arms guys.
That said, paying $50 for a game that could've been made in 1980 is a legit reason against the game, and the publisher, but not gameplay.
Also there's plenty of things to do other than the main quest, but the game doesn't outright show it to you. You gotta spend a good amount of time looking around, talking to people and think. It's relentless, especially compared to todays games, but that's because we're now used to gold "!" over NPCs heads to tell us where the next side-quest is.
Miek":1q5qy9qf said:
I read that part, in fact if you had read my post you would know that (speaking of laziness.) I know he compared simplicity to laziness, but that's bs. Just because something's simple doesn't mean the developers were lazy (another thing you would've gotten if you read my post.) Portal is a simple game made by a handful of college students and Erik Wolpaw, and it's arguably one of the best games ever made (and it came out last year.) But according to Marcus' line of thought Portal is a bad game because it's simple (one button shoots orange portals, one button shoots blue portals) compared to Halo where I can dual-wield, throw grenades, put down energy barriers, use turrets, ride vehicles, attack with melee, command troops, etc etc etc.)
I will admit that because the engine is simple it might've been lazy design, but that's not enough evidence to prove a point (if you wanna get all "rules of debate".) Also many games have simple design, and that's because they don't need any superfluous bullshit. Did Okage need anything more to add to its gameplay? Maybe, to keep people like Marcus more interested. But I know for a fact Yahtzee hates all RPGs due to their turn-based nature, which means Yahtzee would hate games Marcus likes because the system is simplistic and uninteresting to him. Does that mean all RPGs are badly designed? Well, arguably yes, but I doubt any of you would secede that point.
theozzfancometh
Member
Remakes are good and all, I just get frustrated when thats all there is. There's so many of them. GTA IV, Call of Duty 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Pokemon Platinum, Final Fantasy XIII, Fable 2, Gears of War 2, Elder Scrolls IV, Silent Hill: Homecoming, Madden 09, Guitar Hero World Tour, etc...
I'm not saying that these aren't good games (in fact, the ones i've played, i love and the ones i haven't look awesome.) I just think that we need more originals, like Bioshock, Dead Space, and Assassin's Creed. When a new sequel is made, we inevitably just end up comparing it the one that was made before it. I love having a fresh look on a new game, playing something I haven't played before, and not knowing what to expect, rather than saying, "Oh that's cool. You couldn't use a meat shield in the first Gears of War."
I'm not saying that these aren't good games (in fact, the ones i've played, i love and the ones i haven't look awesome.) I just think that we need more originals, like Bioshock, Dead Space, and Assassin's Creed. When a new sequel is made, we inevitably just end up comparing it the one that was made before it. I love having a fresh look on a new game, playing something I haven't played before, and not knowing what to expect, rather than saying, "Oh that's cool. You couldn't use a meat shield in the first Gears of War."
theozzfancometh
Member
Cruelty":xtozpy1s said:
Less. It's got some of the same elements, and a lot of the inspiration for Bioshock comes from it, but I wouldnt really consider it a sequel.
Marcus' point was that a system is "simple" if it still provides a fun and complete experience without needing bells and whistles -- ergo Portal. "Laziness" comes when a system is lacking and could have been improved thorugh further fleshing-out, which the developers (for whatever reason) declined to do. In essence, that simplicity becomes laziness when it begins encroaching on the game's quality. The second point can be applied to Okage because it would have benefited immensely from some new gameplay elements. Even Final Fantasy VII with its largely default battle system and heavily melodramatic and convoluted storyline had improved character customization options and the "Limit Break" system that people so love to abuse nowadays. I liked Okage (largely due to the character and enemy design, largely because the developers had the balls to add an enemy named "Bad Poetry Golem,") but I agree that the gameplay could have been so much better if the developers had added something to make it feel less like battles were just exercise sessions for your X button. The intermittent "Stan Quizzes" that netted you a cool attack at the battle's start were on the right track in that regard.
Some minigames or variations in the "travel upward from your current position and talk with everyone you meet along the way" formula would have been great improvements, as well. Minigames not so much, but it was in desperate need of something to break up the feeling of monotony that you got after playing through a dungeon.
Well then we have to backtrack. Was Ultima a bad game because it didn't have limit breaks or materia? Is Dragon Quest a bad game because of it's simplicity? You can't argue that because the Dragon Quests series is the most popular RPG in Japan, so popular that they had to pass a law to prevent damages to the Japanese economy caused by Dragon Quest. In fact, Dragon Quest has for more fans and is arguably more beloved than the Final Fantasy series. Earthbound is another example of a popular RPG that is incredibly simple. The only thing new Earthbound did was the rolling HP system, aside from that it actually jumped back a generation as far as gameplay is concerned.
It might seem like Okage is worse off because of it's simplicity, but if Okage had the chance to really sell, if it had more ads and if more people knew about it then it probably would've become as infamous as Earthbound. But since so few people are around to talk about it, it makes it look like the system is lacking, when in fact it does no more or less mechanically than many games.
You have to look at the system itself, outside of other RPGs, outside of the storyline, graphics and sound. Outside of the year it was made, the system it was produced for and the country it came from. Strip all that stuff away and is the engine solid? Yes. It works, it's not broken, and plenty of people find it entertaining.
Now I'm not arguing that Okage wouldn't be vastly improved by more enhancements to its gameplay to flesh it out a bit more, but the system by itself is not bad because it doesn't have the quirks of other gameplay systems. I think a helter skelter design approach to the core engines of the game would have made a beautiful compliment to Okage, but it's current engine is pretty sturdy. It serves its purpose and that's all it set out to do. The game is a working deconstructionist RPG, so it's basic system slightly benefits the game if you think about it.
It might seem like Okage is worse off because of it's simplicity, but if Okage had the chance to really sell, if it had more ads and if more people knew about it then it probably would've become as infamous as Earthbound. But since so few people are around to talk about it, it makes it look like the system is lacking, when in fact it does no more or less mechanically than many games.
You have to look at the system itself, outside of other RPGs, outside of the storyline, graphics and sound. Outside of the year it was made, the system it was produced for and the country it came from. Strip all that stuff away and is the engine solid? Yes. It works, it's not broken, and plenty of people find it entertaining.
Now I'm not arguing that Okage wouldn't be vastly improved by more enhancements to its gameplay to flesh it out a bit more, but the system by itself is not bad because it doesn't have the quirks of other gameplay systems. I think a helter skelter design approach to the core engines of the game would have made a beautiful compliment to Okage, but it's current engine is pretty sturdy. It serves its purpose and that's all it set out to do. The game is a working deconstructionist RPG, so it's basic system slightly benefits the game if you think about it.
Dark_linis
Member
Jet set radio.
And my point that your judgement of the lump sum is based on how entertained you are.
Let's take Uno as an example. It's a well-rounded and complete system, simple, but complete. So you go around and play Uno for years and you start to get bored because you're used to the system. Then someone comes along and makes a new Uno game with enough new rules to make it a whole new card game, yet retaining the spirit of the original. Then more and more people make new kinds of card games based on the Uno system, and maybe they add elements from Go Fish, Solitaire or Black Jack.
Ok, so now you have an entire genre of card games based around Uno, if someone came out with a new Uno game with newly designed cards does it mean the creators were lazy? The sum of its parts is the same as it was years ago. We've grown used to RPGs having all kinds of new takes on the system, but that does not mean any game that doesn't deviate from the system is lazy or badly designed.
There is a plethora of visual novel/hentai games in Japan that run almost exactly the same as they did years ago when they used to come on 25 floppy discs. In Japan game designers don't try to approach game design in new and inventive ways too often due to societal reasons (and that's why they're fucked.) In Japan oftentimes they feel "if it aint' broke, don't fix it." While I generally hate this approach to game design, I can't fault Okage for having a bad system because it doesn't. It's a basic system and it works.
Besides, maybe the creators didn't want to add a new combat system. They're approach was mostly skewed towards the graphics and music. Hell, they used fucking WINDOWS SOUND EFFECTS in the game. They live in a tiny office, I doubt they had the programmers to pull off the game on their own, and their only other previous work was two gameboy color games. They didn't have the money for expansive code, but creativity is free, and so they stuck to that. They weren't lazy, they were just poor and ambitious. The system is never unfair towards the player (Final Fantasy I) or to the game itself (Disgaea.) There were no bugs, no errors, and the system was simple and straightforward to use. This does not denote laziness, but simplicity.
But, if you're right then I guess we should shut down these forums. No one here has the money, resources and skills to pull off anything like Final Fantasy XIXIXIXIIXIXII, so let's just fucking pull the plug.
Well, it's been fun everyone,
Goodnight you kings of New England
~Ixis
Let's take Uno as an example. It's a well-rounded and complete system, simple, but complete. So you go around and play Uno for years and you start to get bored because you're used to the system. Then someone comes along and makes a new Uno game with enough new rules to make it a whole new card game, yet retaining the spirit of the original. Then more and more people make new kinds of card games based on the Uno system, and maybe they add elements from Go Fish, Solitaire or Black Jack.
Ok, so now you have an entire genre of card games based around Uno, if someone came out with a new Uno game with newly designed cards does it mean the creators were lazy? The sum of its parts is the same as it was years ago. We've grown used to RPGs having all kinds of new takes on the system, but that does not mean any game that doesn't deviate from the system is lazy or badly designed.
There is a plethora of visual novel/hentai games in Japan that run almost exactly the same as they did years ago when they used to come on 25 floppy discs. In Japan game designers don't try to approach game design in new and inventive ways too often due to societal reasons (and that's why they're fucked.) In Japan oftentimes they feel "if it aint' broke, don't fix it." While I generally hate this approach to game design, I can't fault Okage for having a bad system because it doesn't. It's a basic system and it works.
Besides, maybe the creators didn't want to add a new combat system. They're approach was mostly skewed towards the graphics and music. Hell, they used fucking WINDOWS SOUND EFFECTS in the game. They live in a tiny office, I doubt they had the programmers to pull off the game on their own, and their only other previous work was two gameboy color games. They didn't have the money for expansive code, but creativity is free, and so they stuck to that. They weren't lazy, they were just poor and ambitious. The system is never unfair towards the player (Final Fantasy I) or to the game itself (Disgaea.) There were no bugs, no errors, and the system was simple and straightforward to use. This does not denote laziness, but simplicity.
But, if you're right then I guess we should shut down these forums. No one here has the money, resources and skills to pull off anything like Final Fantasy XIXIXIXIIXIXII, so let's just fucking pull the plug.
Well, it's been fun everyone,
Goodnight you kings of New England
~Ixis
I keep getting the feeling that we're both holding loosely opposed ends of different arguments. You're saying that a simple system doesn't necessarily detract from a game's quality (and I agree with you here!) while I'm saying that Okage was lacking in the gameplay department; that their execution of the simple system was inadequate to form a full and enjoyable gameplay experience.
This is a heavily subjective topic, though, so I think I should at least ask so that we're on the same page: did you find the gameplay fun?
This is a heavily subjective topic, though, so I think I should at least ask so that we're on the same page: did you find the gameplay fun?
theozzfancometh":3dmpaw2k said:
It's a spiritual predecessor, it was made with System Shock 2 in mind, and was made for the same style intentionally but it isn't a mythos or direct sequel.
Anyway on the other hand;
Needs a sequel:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... boxnew.jpg[/img]
and
Needs a remake:
http://www.megghy.com/immagini/PS2/M/Ma ... _2_Ps2.jpg[/img]
Miek":3ppbkser said:
I did, but not at first. My first playthrough it was a pain in the ass, and I gave up about 75% of the way in. However, on my second playthrough my friend showed me some of the neat stuff you can do in combat like combo attacks and chaining spells/skills that they never tell you about, and that made combat actually fun. Also Stan's special quiz came up more often. He also told me about all the sidequests, and extra plotlines and stuff which greatly expanded on the game. And of course I love the music and art style. Other than that I just had to suffer through the dungeons (which, after looking through the production art it seems they had lots of ideas for lots of dungeons but just couldn't implement them) and the sound effects that were straight-up stolen from Windows (the monster death SFX is from Windows 98.)
That's why I suggested it for this thread in the first place. It could be expanded upon, but I think they took their time and resources and had to go with something very simple at the end. I personally don't mind grinding and simplistic battle systems (I play through Earthbound every year which has a horrible grind at the beginning and end, not to mention you don't even see your characters on the battlefield.) The game is not for everybody, but if the wacky vibe of the game where combined with an off-kilter game engine it'd probably preform a lot better.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
TETRIS FOR THE FUCKING WII
and i'm gonna point out how it should work too!
because reading that conversation above sucks and would do better in a thread ENTIRELY OF IT'S OWN
go hit up RM Discussion or something
Now, as I was saying... TETRIS FOR THE MUTHAFUCKIN WII!!!
First few levels you control the falling block with the right hand, you move the controller and it moves the block, you flick your wrist and it rotates
then it gets hard
a 2nd falling block, often mistimed with the first. you control it the exact same way. cept you has to use your left remote.
that would be fucking hard, do you have any idea how insane that would get once you get to the fast stages. god i would love that game. if your healthy it would give you cancer of the pituitary gland.
Two player?
Fuck two different screens, we got co-op bitch! Two blocks fall at once, you each control one. Then a 3rd and 4th, again controlled with the other remote. Fucking 4 tetris blocks tumbling down controlled by two pairs of hands.
I WANT THIS GAME.
and i'm gonna point out how it should work too!
because reading that conversation above sucks and would do better in a thread ENTIRELY OF IT'S OWN
go hit up RM Discussion or something
Now, as I was saying... TETRIS FOR THE MUTHAFUCKIN WII!!!
First few levels you control the falling block with the right hand, you move the controller and it moves the block, you flick your wrist and it rotates
then it gets hard
a 2nd falling block, often mistimed with the first. you control it the exact same way. cept you has to use your left remote.
that would be fucking hard, do you have any idea how insane that would get once you get to the fast stages. god i would love that game. if your healthy it would give you cancer of the pituitary gland.
Two player?
Fuck two different screens, we got co-op bitch! Two blocks fall at once, you each control one. Then a 3rd and 4th, again controlled with the other remote. Fucking 4 tetris blocks tumbling down controlled by two pairs of hands.
I WANT THIS GAME.