The RTS segments are similar to other RTS games, except you have the ability to land and join in on the action and they take up, at the least, a third of the game. The units are interesting, but you would probably say that that is all style.
What irks me about this argument is that what separates the game from other action games is the story and the subject-matter, which you say is all style. The game does have substance, I'm just having trouble distinguishing the content from what you would consider to be stylistic.
What irks me about this argument is that what separates the game from other action games is the story and the subject-matter, which you say is all style. The game does have substance, I'm just having trouble distinguishing the content from what you would consider to be stylistic.
Remove all graphics from the game and make them stick figures or other geometric shapes. Remove all story. Remove all music. Remove all voice acting. Remove all color. Remove all flavor. What's left is the actual gameplay.
What irks me about this argument is that what separates the game from other action games is the story and the subject-matter, which you say is all style. The game does have substance, I'm just having trouble distinguishing the content from what you would consider to be stylistic.
Remove all graphics from the game and make them stick figures or other geometric shapes. Remove all story. Remove all music. Remove all voice acting. Remove all color. Remove all flavor. What's left is the actual gameplay.
...So, you believe that style is never a substitute for gameplay? Ever? Even if it's good rehashed gameplay? Should I just make a bunch of stick figure games with new gameplay and sell them to you? While I understand and respect you being critical of this game, what you just said is kind of ridiculous in the grand scope of things. Also, he mentioned melting people's faces with guitars and fun combos, which is gameplay, not style. I would also consider Ozzy's upgrades to be gameplay, not style, since they enhance your abilities and decide how you fight.
Remove all graphics from the game and make them stick figures or other geometric shapes. Remove all story. Remove all music. Remove all voice acting. Remove all color. Remove all flavor. What's left is the actual gameplay.
I would be curious to know if you would play NS or NS2 if it was a silent, wire-frame game. Theoretically, that would be sufficient.
Remove all graphics from the game and make them stick figures or other geometric shapes. Remove all story. Remove all music. Remove all voice acting. Remove all color. Remove all flavor. What's left is the actual gameplay.
I would be curious to know if you would play NS or NS2 if it was a silent, wire-frame game. Theoretically, that would be sufficient.
Theoretically speaking NS2 would be the same as NS1.
...So, you believe that style is never a substitute for gameplay? Ever? Even if it's good rehashed gameplay? Should I just make a bunch of stick figure games with new gameplay and sell them to you?
Yes. Many of the games I have really enjoyed use minimalistic graphics/style. Dwarf Fortress, Captain Forever, Defcon, Rez, Geometry Wars...
Also, he mentioned melting people's faces with guitars and fun combos, which are gameplay, not style. I would also consider Ozzy's upgrades to be gameplay, not style, since they enhance your abilities and decide how you fight.
Combos to perform an action are nothing new. Just because it's a different animation does not make it a "gameplay" enhancement. Upgrading a character's abilities is old as well.
...So, you believe that style is never a substitute for gameplay? Ever? Even if it's good rehashed gameplay? Should I just make a bunch of stick figure games with new gameplay and sell them to you? While I understand and respect you being critical of this game, what you just said is kind of ridiculous in the grand scope of things.
If a game is all style and no substance, what is the point of playing?
Imagine if Star Wars, an amazing movie, was never a movie to begin with. Instead, it was attached to an average platforming game. That basically ruins the whole thing. It's not worth suffering through, and wasting time playing, some junk just to receive a movie as a "reward". If you've made a movie, just show me the movie. Don't make me pay a pile of extra money and spend a bunch of extra time just to be able to see and hear the movie you've made.
Imagine sitting in the theater to see Lord of the Rings. The movie pauses. Now a keyboard appears. You have to push the right buttons in a certain order with a certain timing in order for the movie to keep playing. It's not even choose your own adventure. The story is completely linear. This is what too many games today boil down to.
Also, he mentioned melting people's faces with guitars and fun combos, which are gameplay, not style.
Melting faces with guitars is all style. The only thing that is gameplay is combos. All that boils down to is that you hit buttons to defeat enemies. There are many different combinations of buttons you can hit, but they all bring you closer to the same end result of defeating enemies. Some just do it more quickly than others, or defeat more enemies at once, etc.
I would also consider Ozzy's upgrades to be gameplay, not style, since they enhance your abilities and decide how you fight.
Upgrading in and of itself is a gameplay element, but a lame one. It's just leveling up. Yawn! The fact that you get the upgrades from Ozzy is all style.
So we can't like the story and enjoy splitting skulls in the mean time?
You can. I like them too. I'm just saying that the game itself is still crap, and no amount of awesome style can make it worth it for me to pay for it or spend so many hours playing it. Don't try to say the game is good if you can't defend it.
The Brutal Legend demo certainly impressed me with its style and humor, but I did find the game itself underwhelming. It was dull and repetitive. If they wanted to really showcase the game, they should've made a demo with the actual RTS segment, to emphasize the ways in which the game is different.
From what I've seen (and read) about the RTS segment, the game seems to be a really cool progression of scale, starting off as one guy with a guitar and eventually becoming the commander of an army of loyal demons ready to conquer the world. It's a cool twist on becoming a world-renowned rock star (staring off small and eventually acquiring a legion of raving fans), but if they do it wrong, then there's really nothing too attractive about the game.
I'm all about style when it comes to a game, but there still has to be solid gameplay there. I'm willing to overlook a degree of crappy and dull gameplay if the style is sufficiently awesome, but there is a point at which the game is just making an obvious appeal to stylistic preferences. It's actually almost insulting, in a way.
However, if the RTS element is really good, and the game is actually a neat little progression like that, then I'm all about it. 360's are cheap, and my Wii is basically worthless, so I've been looking for good console entertainment.
Just because gameplay is old doesn't make it bad. I respect that you only like to play a good idea once, but some of us like that gameplay, and enjoy playing it multiple times with different presentations and styles. Your opinions about this are not the end all, be all.
Don't try to say the game is good if you can't defend it.
I can't possibly. You've defined a everything but the barebone mechanics as style and as such are completely irrelevant. Most games will fall apart under this definition, like just about any Final Fantasy and Half Life game. In fact most games can be broken down to side A does battle with side B so everything is rehashed and we shouldn't bother playing games at all.
It's Scott's world guys, we just happen to be breathing his oxygen.
Just because gameplay is old doesn't make it bad. I respect that you only like to play a good idea once, but some of us like that gameplay, and enjoying playing it multiple times with different presentations and styles. Your opinions about this are not the end all, be all.
Again, just to reiterate what Scott said. If you enjoy playing it, go for it. But there is too much novel and interesting entertainment out there for us to play the same thing with a different paint scheme.
Just because gameplay is old doesn't make it bad. I respect that you only like to play a good idea once, but some of us like that gameplay, and enjoying playing it multiple times with different presentations and styles. Your opinions about this are not the end all, be all.
Again, just to reiterate what Scott said. If you enjoy playing it, go for it. But there is too much novel and interesting entertainment out there for us to play the same thing with a different paint scheme.
Okay, I got that. I respect your opinion, as I already said.
the game itself is still crap
I was responding to this. Scott can say he doesn't want to replay a similar game, but my point is that it doesn't make it crap.
Again, just to reiterate what Scott said. If you enjoy playing it, go for it. But there is too much novel and interesting entertainment out there for us to play the same thing with a different paint scheme.
So why get involved if you don't care. It's just to troll.
I was responding to this. Scott can say he doesn't want to replay a similar game, but my point is that it doesn't make it crap.
It all depends on where you set your bar. My bar is very very very high. If it's not absolutely amazing, or incredibly promising, it doesn't even get "in the queue." If I start on something, and it turns out it's not as amazing as I thought, I drop it right quick.
I was responding to this. Scott can say he doesn't want to replay a similar game, but my point is that it doesn't make it crap.
It all depends on where you set your bar. My bar is very very very high. If it's not absolutely amazing, or incredibly promising, it doesn't even get "in the queue." If I start on something, and it turns out it's not as amazing as I thought, I drop it right quick.
I understand this. I was just saying that calling it crap is a little rude. You can say you don't like it, but you even admit we should play it if we like it. Therefore, it's not really crap, just not your style, or your prerogative.
I finished Uncharted 2, and have moved into playing Brutal Legend. I'm having trouble getting into it, possibly just because its in the shadow of Uncharted 2 for me now. But generally I'm kind of disappointed in it so far.
I understand this. I was just saying that calling it crap is a little rude. You can say you don't like it, but you even admit we should play it if we like it. Therefore, it's not really crap, just not your style, or your prerogative.
You have read things that Scott has posted before, haven't you?
I understand this. I was just saying that calling it crap is a little rude. You can say you don't like it, but you even admit we should play it if we like it. Therefore, it's not really crap, just not your style, or your prerogative.
You have read things that Scott has posted before, haven't you?
I know, and I am continuing to say that it seems purposefully offensive and biting.
Axel, you are so young...so fragile. Your poor heart of glass shattered by piercing words of Scott Rubin, you lick your wounds in a corner of the forum, searching for the comforting reassurance of your compatriots.
I was once like you. Young, unscarred. But through the years I have been tempered in the flames of battle, made hard by numerous FRC arguments. I am no longer so cut by a barbed tongue, Nay, but I revel in the duels with Scott. You must steel yourself, henceforth. Be confident in your position and release a hearty cry to arms.
So don't be such a wuss. Don't get upset 'cause Scott insulted something you like. He'll do that.
Comments
What irks me about this argument is that what separates the game from other action games is the story and the subject-matter, which you say is all style. The game does have substance, I'm just having trouble distinguishing the content from what you would consider to be stylistic.
Also, he mentioned melting people's faces with guitars and fun combos, which is gameplay, not style. I would also consider Ozzy's upgrades to be gameplay, not style, since they enhance your abilities and decide how you fight.
Imagine if Star Wars, an amazing movie, was never a movie to begin with. Instead, it was attached to an average platforming game. That basically ruins the whole thing. It's not worth suffering through, and wasting time playing, some junk just to receive a movie as a "reward". If you've made a movie, just show me the movie. Don't make me pay a pile of extra money and spend a bunch of extra time just to be able to see and hear the movie you've made.
Imagine sitting in the theater to see Lord of the Rings. The movie pauses. Now a keyboard appears. You have to push the right buttons in a certain order with a certain timing in order for the movie to keep playing. It's not even choose your own adventure. The story is completely linear. This is what too many games today boil down to. Melting faces with guitars is all style. The only thing that is gameplay is combos. All that boils down to is that you hit buttons to defeat enemies. There are many different combinations of buttons you can hit, but they all bring you closer to the same end result of defeating enemies. Some just do it more quickly than others, or defeat more enemies at once, etc. Upgrading in and of itself is a gameplay element, but a lame one. It's just leveling up. Yawn! The fact that you get the upgrades from Ozzy is all style.
From what I've seen (and read) about the RTS segment, the game seems to be a really cool progression of scale, starting off as one guy with a guitar and eventually becoming the commander of an army of loyal demons ready to conquer the world. It's a cool twist on becoming a world-renowned rock star (staring off small and eventually acquiring a legion of raving fans), but if they do it wrong, then there's really nothing too attractive about the game.
I'm all about style when it comes to a game, but there still has to be solid gameplay there. I'm willing to overlook a degree of crappy and dull gameplay if the style is sufficiently awesome, but there is a point at which the game is just making an obvious appeal to stylistic preferences. It's actually almost insulting, in a way.
However, if the RTS element is really good, and the game is actually a neat little progression like that, then I'm all about it. 360's are cheap, and my Wii is basically worthless, so I've been looking for good console entertainment.
It's Scott's world guys, we just happen to be breathing his oxygen.
I was once like you. Young, unscarred. But through the years I have been tempered in the flames of battle, made hard by numerous FRC arguments. I am no longer so cut by a barbed tongue, Nay, but I revel in the duels with Scott. You must steel yourself, henceforth. Be confident in your position and release a hearty cry to arms.
So don't be such a wuss. Don't get upset 'cause Scott insulted something you like. He'll do that.
I didn't think I sounded pathetic. I thought I was being pretty confident. But I have always been bad at confidence, so it's understandable.