|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 16:53:05 GMT -5
Post by derboo on Jun 8, 2010 16:53:05 GMT -5
The Rock Band games have quite a following and those are arguably based on score. How many people are actually playing those games for score? I'd think they're party games for most people. Why does it have to be about popularity? Nothing to do with unlockables, but there are arguments about difficulty of the main game being altered to appeal to a wider audience, when the game was made that way for a reason. Difficulty levels are a way around it, but adding things that aren't necessary to the game itself doesn't necessarily mean that it will make a game appeal to an audience it isn't intended for. Of course it is a viable option to make a game only for your tiny niche core audience and disregard everyone else's tastes. But then there's no base to complain when the game sells 10,000 copies, budgets stay low, publishing deals remain a rarity, most other people don't care about "your" genre, and "mainstream" reviewers call the game out for the shortcomings it obviously has from a "mainstream" gaming perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 16:58:05 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 16:58:05 GMT -5
Only Achievement Hunters really play Rock Band for score. Even then, they're only doing it because they have to.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 17:31:27 GMT -5
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 8, 2010 17:31:27 GMT -5
Hiding huge chunks of your game behind a curtain to grind towards isn't any fun. I like unlockables better when they just fun things to mess around with. OutRun 2006 did this really well - the core arcade games were fully available from the start, but high scoring on the challenges unlocked new music, cars and random stuff like that. After Burner Climax is the same way - the EX Options aren't technically THAT big deal, but it's fun to mess around with. It also serves a more visible bar of progress see how much better you're getting.
Online leaderboards are really the best thing to happen to score-driven games. At least you can see where you place and watch you crawl up the ranks as you get better. Little carrots like these really work well on a psychological level.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 17:35:15 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 8, 2010 17:35:15 GMT -5
Of course it is a viable option to make a game only for your tiny niche core audience and disregard everyone else's tastes. But then there's no base to complain when the game sells 10,000 copies, budgets stay low, publishing deals remain a rarity, most other people don't care about "your" genre, and "mainstream" reviewers call the game out for the shortcomings it obviously has from a "mainstream" gaming perspective. Where did this come from? I said that extras aren't required, not that they shouldn't be included. What's wrong with respecting the niche audience (and I find it a bit odd that games aimed at a specific audience are being promoted here, but at the same time the idea behind them is being discouraged. One article even claimed that nobody played certain games simply because they are obscure) or the idea that there is more about games than popularity? I don't see a point in worrying about who likes a game and letting that affect enjoyment of the game. I understand that not everyone plays for score and there are people who give the niche audience a bad name, but there are many who do play for score and don't fit into the assumptions or accusations made based on a tiny amount of people who do give those playing for score or who feel unlockables aren't needed a bad name. Just so more assumptions aren't made, I don't always play for score and I don't consider myself an expert, but I found certain games with a scoring system to be more fun to play for score. Others, I found more fun to just play. I feel like I don't get everything out of a game if I don't take full advantage of what it has to offer. Pac-Man just felt empty when I played it just to go through the stages. From my perspective, I found the idea of score surprisingly one sided on the HG101 boards and it just came off as bashing those who like to play a game a certain way. I understand that this site is aimed at a casual audience, but it's for games that aren't necessarily aimed at that audience. I understand where some of this is coming from, but the games are designed the way they are designed. Trying to force games to cater to the audience won't tell people what the games are about. I meant Rock Band and Guitar Hero, but someone has to be, since I hear talk about leaderboards all the time. Not to mention the competitive nature of the game and the fact that many party games are played for score.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 19:22:34 GMT -5
Post by derboo on Jun 8, 2010 19:22:34 GMT -5
I don't quite understand your argument, nor why there is even an argument to be had. No game "requires" to have achievements or extras (we were perfectly fine without the former for decades). Still, they have the potential to greatly enhance the experience. Metal Gear Solid without the VR missions? Awesome. Metal Gear Solid with the VR missions? So incredibly awesome more missions were sold seperately (IIRC. There was that add-on, wasn't it?).
I haven't ever seeing anyone complain that a shmup is a less complete shmup without unlockables - it is, however, a much more thin package, and when you charge full price for a port of a game that has already made its money in arcades, you might as well offer something special for those willing to pay that not-so-little extra. It's all about laziness, and shmup ports are by far not the only games getting criticized for that.
If their games had enough mass market appeal, they could do it like with DVDs and offer two versions - a cheap one with just the game, and a more expensive one with the extra content as the equivalent of the extra disc that comes with movies. As it stands, however, they sell the barebones version for the price of a deluxe package. Which is perfectly fine, it's their decision, and if there's people who consider it worth that amount, great, but it is the duty of any reviewer to point that fact out, as customers are used to get "just the movie" for 15 bucks and a two disc package for 25 (or whatever it is at your region).
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 19:39:43 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 8, 2010 19:39:43 GMT -5
I don't quite understand your argument, nor why there is even an argument to be had. No game "requires" to have achievements or extras (we were perfectly fine without the former for decades). Still, they have the potential to greatly enhance the experience. Metal Gear Solid without the VR missions? Awesome. Metal Gear Solid with the VR missions? So incredibly awesome more missions were sold seperately (IIRC. There was that add-on, wasn't it?). I haven't ever seeing anyone complain that a shmup is a less complete shmup without unlockables - it is, however, a much more thin package, and when you charge full price for a port of a game that has already made its money in arcades, you might as well offer something special for those willing to pay that not-so-little extra. It's all about laziness, and shmup ports are by far not the only games getting criticized for that. If their games had enough mass market appeal, they could do it like with DVDs and offer two versions - a cheap one with just the game, and a more expensive one with the extra content as the equivalent of the extra disc that comes with movies. As it stands, however, they sell the barebones version for the price of a deluxe package. Which is perfectly fine, it's their decision, and if there's people who consider it worth that amount, great, but it is the duty of any reviewer to point that fact out, as customers are used to get "just the movie" for 15 bucks and a two disc package for 25 (or whatever it is at your region). If you don't understand what I'm saying, why are you are replying to me? The only reason I'm arguing with you is because you are missing my point. I even tried clarifying in my last post, and you still reply to me with the same things that I have gotten the first time you said them. And THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Just because some people don't agree with your perspective, you ignore half of what they said and talk down to them as if they didn't understand anything, when in reality, they understood everything. Anyway, in an attempt to be even more clear, I was saying that the game itself should be a main focus. Dude, you are telling me that you haven't heard anyone complain that a shump is less complete without unlockables when it's complained about all the time on the HG101 forums? How many times do I have to repeat that my point is that it isn't wrong for games to be aimed at a specific audience? How can I post something without you questioning my posts and repeating the same things I already said?
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 19:51:35 GMT -5
Post by derboo on Jun 8, 2010 19:51:35 GMT -5
If you don't understand what I'm saying, why are you are replying to me? To make you clarify what you mean. Right now it appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It seems like you're in defense against attacks that aren't even made. If there was something important to the discussion Kurt has accidently destroyed, it might be of use to repeat it.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 19:56:23 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 8, 2010 19:56:23 GMT -5
If you don't understand what I'm saying, why are you are replying to me? To make you clarify what you mean. Right now it appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It seems like you're in defense against attacks that aren't even made. If there was something important to the discussion Kurt has accidently destroyed, it might be of use to repeat it. The problem is that I am trying to clarify what I mean, but you aren't getting it. Or more specifically, it seems you are not accepting what I have to say and assuming things because of it. I personally find it rude to try and force me (or someone with Asperger syndrome) to clarify things that didn't need to be clarified in the first place. BTW, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, but I'm trying to get this whole "I don't accept what you say so I'll keep arguing" thing nipped in the bud.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 20:18:18 GMT -5
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 8, 2010 20:18:18 GMT -5
See, I'm not going to argue that Gran Turismo games should cater to me. I don't care - no matter what they do, a realistic driving sim is never ever going to appeal to me. I do, however, like shooters. I do rather enjoying playing these types of games, too, even though they're not set up in the same manner as the type of shooters I first got into. I feel like I should be part of the audience they're aiming for, but they aren't quite following through. That's the only reason I feel any vague investment in it.
And besides, aren't you sick of reading forums and hearing people complain that XX shooter should be released for $15 or only on XBLA because shooters don't have the same "value"? I sympathize with the thought process and halfway agree with it, but wouldn't it be nice if the genre we cared about was viewed as being less disposable?
It would also be nice because, you know, Ketsui, one of the most well regarded Cave shooter by its fans, dropped to half price on Amazon Japan in less than two months, suggesting that maybe it didn't do so well. That's unfortunate, and there are any number of reasons for it, ranging from distrust in 5pb's porting job to overproduction to the general unwillingness to pay full price for a seven year old game. But it also suggests that somewhere along the line, someone should be making some better business decisions, and putting a little extra to cater to a wider audience isn't really selling out when it can pay the bills. Public perception is important for cases like this, especially if we want to see more of these localized.
As an addendum, I think most people are only hostile against high score junkies as a defensive mechanism - I don't really see anything wrong with it, it's more that I've encountered more than enough people that were elitist jerks about it. And so the fights wage on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 20:23:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 20:23:33 GMT -5
Let's just take the whole thing to the SRK forums and be done with it. Now there's a group of elitist shitknockers.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 20:23:50 GMT -5
Post by derboo on Jun 8, 2010 20:23:50 GMT -5
Apparently you were editing your post while I was writing mine, brianc. Anyway, in an attempt to be even more clear, I was saying that the game itself should be a main focus. Dude, you are telling me that you haven't heard anyone complain that a shump is less complete without unlockables when it's complained about all the time on the HG101 forums? How many times do I have to repeat that my point is that it isn't wrong for games to be aimed at a specific audience? Would love to see a few quotes for that claim. Who said it's wrong for games to be aimed at a specific audience, and where? Where is the game not the main focus? The article is actually quite favorable of Ketsui.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 20:29:36 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 8, 2010 20:29:36 GMT -5
And besides, aren't you sick of reading forums and hearing people complain that XX shooter should be released for $15 or only on XBLA because shooters don't have the same "value"? I sympathize with the thought process and halfway agree with it, but wouldn't it be nice if the genre we cared about was viewed as being less disposable? To an extent, but I'm also tried of hearing 5 dollars is too much for an older game (though at the same time, I like paying pocket change for a real SMB cart and I like how many SMS and 2600 games are dirt cheap). I like extras and getting games for cheap, but back in the day or even in the 90s games were like 40 dollars with no extras and now 20 dollars is expensive compilations with over 100 games because they don't have some random game. I think it would be nice to see the genre as less disposable, but I don't think it's important to worry about what people think. BTW, many on shmups feel that games like Ikaruga are a bit too rigid with scoring. I also feel friendly competition is more fun than the crazy type. A few quotes? Go back and READ the posts in this very topic. Some of the things said were based on professional game sites and not just HG101. Now you're just reading things into my post that I didn't say. It's not that someone specifically said that games had to be aimed at a specific audience, but a few posters on HG101 complained about how games need to add things to appeal to a specific audience. My point was that the games were made for a specific audience, adding stuff didn't change the main game, and that adding things for casual audience to a game like a shmup that isn't aimed at a casual audience wouldn't suddendly make it casual. Nobody said the game was not the main focus, but a few people said that things should be added to games to appeal to a wider audience. But this is going in circles. I feel it's not important to add things because the game itself is the meat (something I brought up on my own, BTW), but at the same time, I didn't say there was anything wrong with this. However, what I do find wrong is that you keep pushing that these things should be added on me and making this conversation go in circles. I said I liked the Ketsui article and never said anything was wrong with the article! What I have a problem with is the constant generalizing and assumptions of fan bases at HG101.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 21:19:49 GMT -5
Post by kog3100edw on Jun 8, 2010 21:19:49 GMT -5
Well considering the thread is comments about the article and the game itself, is there anyone who wants to post something relevant to that?
The article doesn't make much of an issue about Cavedicks. So we probably don't need to make a continuing issue of it now.
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 21:36:01 GMT -5
Post by Jave on Jun 8, 2010 21:36:01 GMT -5
Okay, about the article, which I've only just now got around to reading. I assume you meant one or the other (I tease)
|
|
|
Ketsui
Jun 8, 2010 21:44:19 GMT -5
Post by kyouki on Jun 8, 2010 21:44:19 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind it if Cave were to add a bunch of stuff to unlock, as long as it is just fun stuff like artwork or alternate sprites for the ships or something. But honestly doing that is not gonna make people get on board, if they don't like STGs for what they are.
I think Ketsui not selling well is just because it's an old game being sold on the 360 in Japan for $70. The people who want Ketsui wanted it back when it was announced for the PS2 years ago and have resigned themselves to playing it in the arcades.
To make STGs appeal to a wider audience you'd have to get rid of all the stuff fans play STGs for, and then what would be the point? Then you are in a completely different genre honestly, if you start bolting on RPG stats or visual novels or whatever. I honestly have no idea what could be added to make them appeal to more people, without taking out the things I (and other fans of the genre) like. Sure that makes me selfish, but you have to be when it comes to entertainment.
|
|