next »

[Dragonmaw]

i will say that i love how the open world lets me play around with alternate approaches without ruining my score or anything. i always try and play the missions full stealth no kills, but in open world i just spend my time fucking around with weird builds and killing people and being silly.

I would even be in favor of reloads costing GMP or a similar mechanic (restarting the mission completely would be free).

no

[s0]

       

I would even be in favor of reloads costing GMP or a similar mechanic (restarting the mission completely would be free).

no

yes. gam devolves into super meat boy checkpoint grind way too easily, at least for side ops  and shorter missions

oh of course restarting would also reset all the money you spent on checkpoints

also i would remove the scoring system from the story missions completely and introduce a separate "score run" mode that unlocks once u beat a mission. as lenient as the scoring system is it still kinda encourages "perfect" play and hence reloading/restarting when something goes wrong.

this gam has the same problem as banjo kazooie: nuts n bolts in that the "default"/obvious playstyle doesnt play to its biggest strengths

[Dragonmaw]

reloading a checkpoint already penalizes you, adding gmp cost to it is just needlessly vindictive. the game already encourages you to restart missions (and sometimes forces you to anyway) so restarting from checkpoint costing money is just it serves literally no purpose except even more punishment for failure in a game that restarts missions anyway (funny note: if you reload a checkpoint, even if that checkpoint is at the start, it still penalizes you. restart mission is the only way to avoid being penalized, and it forces you to sit through the heli approach again).

you don't get people to try things outside the box by making the basics of game punishing. you get people do try things outside the box by making the basics easy (relatively) and the situations hard. that's where mgs5, dishonored, dark souls, etc all succeed; you are not punished for trying new things, you are only punished for underestimating the task before you or your own lack of skill.

[gimymblert]

But it would make it more like a rogue like

[Dragonmaw]

so, worse

[gimymblert]

Y U no like rogue like? 

[s0]

reloading a checkpoint already penalizes you,

what? reloading actually gives you a huge advantage. all the enemies you've already marked stay that way, making it much easier to keep track of their routes. i mean using OP-Dog kinda makes that irrelevant but still. i literally have no idea what the punishment for reloading is.

(i don't consider being denied a score bonus you don't have to care about a real "penalty" if thats what you mean)

you don't get people to try things outside the box by making the basics of game punishing

the basics of MGS5 are the opposite of punishing. the game has regen health and its not easy to actually die which is why "failure" in the game is potentially much more interesting than a simple failstate. theres lots of opportunities for a back and forth between you and enemies. that is, unless you reload a checkpoint which is much quicker and easier than playing cat and mouse with the guards. my proposal isnt about getting players to experiment per se but making them not reload whenever anything doesn't go according to plan.

[s0]

But it would make it more like a rogue like

oh yeah, guard layouts could be randomized too

[Dragonmaw]

my proposal isnt about getting players to experiment per se but making them not reload whenever anything doesn't go according to plan.

then make it so you restart from the beginning of the mission and remove the marks when you do.

also "not restarting from checkpoint for optimal run when you can" is the very definition of experimenting in a game where you can load a new save. you don't get people to do things by making it more annoying to do the opposite. that's like, trickle-down mechanical design. you remove limits and penalties, you don't add more.

[gimymblert]

push A for awesome
push X to not die

[s0]

you don't get people to do things by making it more annoying to do the opposite. that's like, trickle-down mechanical design. you remove limits and penalties, you don't add more.

no thats wrong. gam design is all about setting limitations. even sandbox games are about that.

[gimymblert]

I don't want to put the man on a high pedestal here and I've surely grown out of personality cult habits...
But now when I take a distanced look at Kojima's work, I come to the following conclusion: Kojima is not a genius because he is one of the best game-designers out there -No- the man needs to credited for being a post-modern philosopher expressing himself through modern pop-culture. This may sound far fetched and "high-horse", but please take a while to think about it...

The "story" (see traditional definition) in MGS has always been all over the place, but there is something very consistent about the series: the refelction about the world and where it is heading.

MGS 1+2 featured pretty Sci-Fi driven concepts like transhumanism. With Snake Eater Kojima started to discuss ideas like patriotism and nationalism. In MGS4 he showed us a world where this ideas don't seem to matter anymore (=post-modernism). From our present perspective we might ask "why would something like this happen?"

Kojima's fails to tell a traditional story in TPP, meaning: what happens to character x and y how is a linked to b....BUT as for now MGSV closes his arch of reflection (see above):
The whole "lingua franca" concept is absolutely brilliant. The execution may not deliver, but holy fuck...there is some really deep stuff to be found here (in a video game!!!) if you are only slightly into this kind of topics. Skull Face's monologue is basically an answer to the underlying topics in MGS3 and 4 - "What defines a nation and what does it take to break it appart?"

He started with "far in the future" concepts like nanomachines and Human-AI-fusion and ended with something very tangible and relatabel - language.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1118998&page=9

My preference was always for the "boring" part of mgs, also why avenger 2 is better than 1 for me. BTW expressing complex idea through unashamed pop culture is a goal I would like to hit too.

[s0]

mgs is the only military themed game series i can stand playing bc its blissfully free of gung-ho nationalistic bs.

EDIT: the thought just occurred to me that MGS is the military videogame equivalent of a spaghetti western

[ProgramGamer]

[...]
My preference was always for the "boring" part of mgs, also why avenger 2 is better than 1 for me. BTW expressing complex idea through unashamed pop culture is a goal I would like to hit too.

Avengers 1 had better dramatic tension and an overall better story arc though, as well as better pacing. I'm all for exploring themes through media, but I do think that if your movie is going to explore deep themes it has to first achieve correct technical quality for those themes to be taken seriously.

[gimymblert]

nop no way avenger 1 was better

[ProgramGamer]

Avengers 1 isn't better, Avengers 2 is just the worse one of the two, from a very strict pacing and story arc perspective. The themes in both movies are interesting, even if Avengers 2 fell a bit short on it's trans-humanism themes IMO.

[Alec S.]

EDIT: the thought just occurred to me that MGS is the military videogame equivalent of a spaghetti western

Well, it does have not one but two characters modeled after Lee Van Cleef

[s0]

who's the other one (other than ocelot)?

that's probably more of an escape from new york reference than a spaghetti western reference though. but kojima is definitely big on the genre. boktai (and boktai 2 in particular) is a big circle jerk of spag western references.

[Alec S.]

Old Snake in MGS 4.  I'd say it's probably a little of both, since Ocelot has always been a gunslinger in the spaghetti western mold.

Man, I really need to play Boktai again.

[gimymblert]

Avengers 1 isn't better, Avengers 2 is just the worse one of the two, from a very strict pacing and story arc perspective. The themes in both movies are interesting, even if Avengers 2 fell a bit short on it's trans-humanism themes IMO.

Avenger 1 has random action sequence and non sensical character arc, the character felt force and there was no real theme but "action!"

Avenger 2 is more sensible in his approach and better structured, first character dynamics complement each other, they beautifully handled hawkman, instead of making him super powered, they make him the stable "everyday" man to contrast the "troubled four" and had a nice balance, his role continue as he provide the balance to another trouble character (the twin) not by being super philosophical but by making a point about the strangeness of his situations (not being super powered among other). The four other main characters nicely follow a double pattern of character dynamics (representation of the old guard (captain, thor) vs the modern guy (banner, stark) and the reflective cautious (captain, banner) vs the brash careless one (stark, thor). In some sort Ultron was a perfect foil to create tension along all those dynamics, allowing the archer to ground himself and the other with that family moment that only point at how exhausted the other were by lack of a real ground to rest on (they all have their unresolved trouble and ultron accentuate that by being the exaggeration of their common trait). The banner/black widow was however really bad, even though they try the angle "we are both monster inside" to bring them together, with banner as the real damsel but black widow as the literal damsel. The character dynamics is what allow the movie with a huge ensemble cast to not fall apart by considering the group as a single entity instead of a collection of individual.

The only redeeming thing in avenger 1 is loki, but that's only because the ator as massive charisma in his role.