Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

Recommended Posts

I beat Ducktales Remastered. The new ending level was fun and pretty challenging, the ending made me laugh, and this plays during the end credits.

I'd say it was more than worth my $15. 9/10. Would buy again!

Glad to hear someone liking it, I was really interested in picking it up myself. I remember having a blast with the original back in the day, and I liked the touches I'd seen added in the videos that covered the new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I beat Ducktales Remastered. The new ending level was fun and pretty challenging, the ending made me laugh, and this plays during the end credits.

I'd say it was more than worth my $15. 9/10. Would buy again!

Glad to hear someone liking it, I was really interested in picking it up myself. I remember having a blast with the original back in the day, and I liked the touches I'd see added in the videos that covered the new one.

Well they said Ducktales and WayForward, and I had no choice but to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I'm playing the Castle Of Illusion remake and surprisingly it's a well rounded platformer. Music is fantastic, and the dialogue is played out like a storybook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my kind of theory on video games is that they should go down relatively easy. no game overs, no bad endings, no way to truly fuck up. if you're trying to tell a story game overs not only break the flow but they make no sense. like in call of duty, you can die and restart 100 times on the way to your destination, but when you die 'for real' because the story prescribes it how is that supposed to be any more meaningful than the other 100 deaths? in a video game the only barrier to the best ending is your patience and willingness to restart. it's artificial. give me a story instead of wasting my time, i say.
You speak and all I hear is that TTG's BTTF:TG likely is one of your favorite adventure games.

If that's true, don't tell Rather Dashing.

.

.

Speaking for myself, I'm a big fan of Sierra's King's Quest series. Sure, I'm not fond of dead-ending oneself, but I see nothing wrong with dying in an adventure game without an autosave feature. You just learn to "save early and save often." In fact, one of many people's complaints about KQ7 is that there's no penalty for dying as you autoload to immediately before you died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the 'citizen kane' of games will turn out to be a shooter. i'm not going to rule out anything.

Oh come on why do we keep looking for this?! We figured out 13 years ago(!) that the Citizen Kane of gaming is Tony Hawk's Pro Skater.

Yes it is the Ham Sandwich of the ages. Lovingly crafted with care and the thought of my needs. So compact and deliciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my kind of theory on video games is that they should go down relatively easy. no game overs, no bad endings, no way to truly fuck up. if you're trying to tell a story game overs not only break the flow but they make no sense. like in call of duty, you can die and restart 100 times on the way to your destination, but when you die 'for real' because the story prescribes it how is that supposed to be any more meaningful than the other 100 deaths? in a video game the only barrier to the best ending is your patience and willingness to restart. it's artificial. give me a story instead of wasting my time, i say.

of course there are some games i play specifically for the challenge such as shooters or the occasional puzzle game. i have fun with these games and they'll always have a place in my heart but i think to move forward games need to start empowering the player instead of abusing them. tim schafer said somewhere that games are about wish fulfilment and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Games need a way to balance difficulty or they aren't games anymore. If you want just a story, watch a movie or read a book. Games need to be games and people need to quit being ashamed of that. Also your theory is the worst thing I have ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my kind of theory on video games is that they should go down relatively easy. no game overs, no bad endings, no way to truly fuck up. if you're trying to tell a story game overs not only break the flow but they make no sense. like in call of duty, you can die and restart 100 times on the way to your destination, but when you die 'for real' because the story prescribes it how is that supposed to be any more meaningful than the other 100 deaths? in a video game the only barrier to the best ending is your patience and willingness to restart. it's artificial. give me a story instead of wasting my time, i say.

of course there are some games i play specifically for the challenge such as shooters or the occasional puzzle game. i have fun with these games and they'll always have a place in my heart but i think to move forward games need to start empowering the player instead of abusing them. tim schafer said somewhere that games are about wish fulfilment and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Games need a way to balance difficulty or they aren't games anymore. If you want just a story, watch a movie or read a book. Games need to be games and people need to quit being ashamed of that. Also your theory is the worst thing I have ever read.

Then you should read this. http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6829556/1/My-Immortal

Clearly, hot's theory is not worse than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think hot's whole thing seems really silly and thinking through the problem entirely backwards. Games aren't stories that arbitrarily have challenges in them, they're a series of challenges that happen to use story bits as rewards. People start seeing the destination over the journey and suddenly the whole world turns inside-out!

That's not to say that "Challenges", specifically, are the only valid way to handle interactive entertainment, but player engagement and agency has to do SOMETHING. If a player is just walking between linear story points, pushing buttons so they FEEL like they're doing something but ultimately their choices and actions don't matter(because the game is designed to accept even the least skilled or thought through inputs as valid ways to win), then there really is no reason for the story to be conveyed in "game" form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my kind of theory on video games is that they should go down relatively easy. no game overs, no bad endings, no way to truly fuck up. if you're trying to tell a story game overs not only break the flow but they make no sense. like in call of duty, you can die and restart 100 times on the way to your destination, but when you die 'for real' because the story prescribes it how is that supposed to be any more meaningful than the other 100 deaths? in a video game the only barrier to the best ending is your patience and willingness to restart. it's artificial. give me a story instead of wasting my time, i say.

of course there are some games i play specifically for the challenge such as shooters or the occasional puzzle game. i have fun with these games and they'll always have a place in my heart but i think to move forward games need to start empowering the player instead of abusing them. tim schafer said somewhere that games are about wish fulfilment and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Games need a way to balance difficulty or they aren't games anymore. If you want just a story, watch a movie or read a book. Games need to be games and people need to quit being ashamed of that. Also your theory is the worst thing I have ever read.

as3yyrI.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think hot's whole thing seems really silly and thinking through the problem entirely backwards. Games aren't stories that arbitrarily have challenges in them, they're a series of challenges that happen to use story bits as rewards. People start seeing the destination over the journey and suddenly the whole world turns inside-out!

That's not to say that "Challenges", specifically, are the only valid way to handle interactive entertainment, but player engagement and agency has to do SOMETHING. If a player is just walking between linear story points, pushing buttons so they FEEL like they're doing something but ultimately their choices and actions don't matter(because the game is designed to accept even the least skilled or thought through inputs as valid ways to win), then there really is no reason for the story to be conveyed in "game" form.

I know Jurassic Park: The Game hurt you guys bad, but ease up on tha haterade. I'm not saying games can't be games. I welcome gamey games that are games. XCOM: EU was like my 2012 GOTY. I'm not saying the kind of games I'm talking about are good. Journey reflects some of my theory and I thought that game was shit. I just feel like it's ground that needs to be explored.

Now, your second paragraph is really what I'm trying to get into. How can we make a game that is interactive but doesn't fall back upon simple forms of interaction like combat or brainteasers? How can we reflect broader human experiences in interactive gameplay like love, things that don't have well-defined win or lose states? I don't have all the answers but I'm not content to say "meh, games are games" and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think hot's whole thing seems really silly and thinking through the problem entirely backwards. Games aren't stories that arbitrarily have challenges in them, they're a series of challenges that happen to use story bits as rewards. People start seeing the destination over the journey and suddenly the whole world turns inside-out!

I know Jurassic Park: The Game hurt you guys bad.

I Actually liked JP:TG...but then again I'm the only one who did but..you know I'm known to like weird things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any developers want to show me how to make a really good game without any real challenge in either combat, puzzles or events (sports and driving games), they're welcome. So far I played one such game Journey, and that still isn't a game I want to become a role model for other games.

I kinda hate all these new adventure games, like Kentucky Route Zero and Swords & Sorcery, where they're remove all the gamey parts, and just want you click through a specific route to make the story happen. It's sooooo booooring.

Challenge is needed to make a foe feel powerful and intimidating. In New Vegas, there are still places I haven't been to at all because I fear them, and it took me quite a while before I ventured up on Black Mountain. If I would have been able to walk to those places and just easily beat everything easily, those places would loose most of their identity. It would have been like in Fable 3, where you´re supposed to fight this great evil, but no matter how many times you get knocked down, you just get up. It becomes silly, like a parody.

If developers want to do something different, they should look at games like Sid Meier's Pirates, where you can't really fail. If you´re defeated, you´re put in a worse position, but you will be able to continue with the same carreer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If any developers want to show me how to make a really good game without any real challenge in either combat, puzzles or events (sports and driving games), they're welcome. So far I played one such game Journey, and that still isn't a game I want to become a role model for other games.

Interaction can be meaningful without "challenges", per se. Personally I like challenges! They're my preferred way to go about the whole meaningful interaction problem. Still, non-challenging interaction can still be meaningful. Exploration, branching story paths, freeform building, that sort of thing, anything where the player interaction isn't just to push forward a linear narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, your second paragraph is really what I'm trying to get into. How can we make a game that is interactive but doesn't fall back upon simple forms of interaction like combat or brainteasers? How can we reflect broader human experiences in interactive gameplay like love, things that don't have well-defined win or lose states? I don't have all the answers but I'm not content to say "meh, games are games" and leave it at that.

Isn't that called the sims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, your second paragraph is really what I'm trying to get into. How can we make a game that is interactive but doesn't fall back upon simple forms of interaction like combat or brainteasers? How can we reflect broader human experiences in interactive gameplay like love, things that don't have well-defined win or lose states? I don't have all the answers but I'm not content to say "meh, games are games" and leave it at that.

Isn't that called the sims?

Sorta. You can watch your characters babble and you can make them kiss and sex and stuff but I don't feel like it really gets in-depth. I'd like to see things like conversation get fleshed out or maybe even things like facial expressions. Those little things that add up. A lot of scenarios in the Sims have to have the blanks filled in with imagination. I'd kind of like the hand of an author in there to help guide you to unique and memorable experiences while still giving you meaningful choice. I'm not really into sandbox kind of games although I can have some fun with them. There are things to learn from the Sims, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like my challenges and particulary why I like my older games. Because they didn't hold your hand..to me I can play Call of Duty beat it four hours non the worse. I think dev's need to work on creating an amazing story and amazing gameplay. Ala "The Last Of Us." Walking dead may have won game of the year last year...but to be honest all it was a guided tour with minimal amount of think force, and choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like my challenges and particulary why I like my older games. Because they didn't hold your hand..to me I can play Call of Duty beat it four hours non the worse. I think dev's need to work on creating an amazing story and amazing gameplay. Ala "The Last Of Us." Walking dead may have won game of the year last year...but to be honest all it was a guided tour with minimal amount of think force, and choices.

The Last of us, I would argue, was a hand-holder.

I really think that the company Quantic Dream could step it up a notch in storytelling and deliver an emotional masterpiece. Heavy Rain was a bit messy on the story side, imo. All the elements for an awesome experience were there, but they didn't seem to fit together properly. It was almost as if they relied too much on gimmicks such as '20 endings!' or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like my challenges and particulary why I like my older games. Because they didn't hold your hand..to me I can play Call of Duty beat it four hours non the worse. I think dev's need to work on creating an amazing story and amazing gameplay. Ala "The Last Of Us." Walking dead may have won game of the year last year...but to be honest all it was a guided tour with minimal amount of think force, and choices.

The Last of us, I would argue, was a hand-holder.

I really think that the company Quantic Dream could step it up a notch in storytelling and deliver an emotional masterpiece. Heavy Rain was a bit messy on the story side, imo. All the elements for an awesome experience were there, but they didn't seem to fit together properly. It was almost as if they relied too much on gimmicks such as '20 endings!' or whatever.

Yeah, Heavy Rain was like a series of setpiece moments that had a thin story stretched over them after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, and that's the problem we are getting quality entertainment but the prettier it is it seems. The minimal the gameplay is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i liked heavy rain although it had a ton of problems. missing a single qte and getting a bad ending is such bullshit. it's super bullshit. mega bullshit. i admired its huge ambition though. they even put a message in an achievement that said something like "thank you for supporting interactive drama!" i will be reading the reviews for beyond: two souls carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, and that's the problem we are getting quality entertainment but the prettier it is it seems. The minimal the gameplay is.

I can't understand you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i liked heavy rain although it had a ton of problems. missing a single qte and getting a bad ending is such bullshit. it's super bullshit. mega bullshit. i admired its huge ambition though. they even put a message in an achievement that said something like "thank you for supporting interactive drama!" i will be reading the reviews for beyond: two souls carefully.
I think the plot twist of who the killer is, is more bullshit than how easy it is to get a bad ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i liked heavy rain although it had a ton of problems. missing a single qte and getting a bad ending is such bullshit. it's super bullshit. mega bullshit. i admired its huge ambition though. they even put a message in an achievement that said something like "thank you for supporting interactive drama!" i will be reading the reviews for beyond: two souls carefully.
I think the plot twist of who the killer is, is more bullshit than how easy it is to get a bad ending.
They're both equally shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget

Ethan seeing the drowned kids in his dreams, which he never knew or would know what they look like

that the writers forgot about as soon as it's mentioned and only used as a straight middle finger to the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was actually a subplot that was scrapped at the last minute, because it was too dumb even for that game.

Originally Ethan was going to be psychically connected with the killer.

I guess they cut it so late that they didn't have time to change the other scenes with it. It's dumb with or without it, but at least that explains some things that never get mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interaction can be meaningful without "challenges", per se. Personally I like challenges! They're my preferred way to go about the whole meaningful interaction problem. Still, non-challenging interaction can still be meaningful. Exploration, branching story paths, freeform building, that sort of thing, anything where the player interaction isn't just to push forward a linear narrative.

But how many examples can you name of such games? Minecraft? Even that has challenge when you play survival mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I knew that from watching the Two Best Friends let's play. I just can't believe that plot point made it all the way to voice acting stage before they realized how dumb it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heavy rain has more plot holes that swiss cheese has cheese holes. i also didn't like how the female protagonist always had to be fending off creepy murders/rapists (even in her freakin' dreams). i also didn't like how the only black guy in the game was a stereotypical thug. i also didn't like how disjointed the endings felt. i also didn't like how the accents and voice acting sometimes sounded awkward. (jason!) i also didn't like how the tone of some of the sequences made them feel like they belonged in a torture porn movie instead of a serious thriller. (ok jason's dad, crawl over some glass now and jump over some electric fences because we couldn't think of anything better for you to do.) i also didn't like... ok i'll stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...