|
|
Post by Ike on Aug 9, 2010 23:02:02 GMT -5
Price absolutely factors into how good the game is when we're talking about digital media. We typically get very limited demos of digital-only games (HoD included) that don't give us a very accurate picture of what the game's actually like. The game is not going to depreciate in value like a hard copy release will, because it has no used market to compete with. This game will be $15 for some substantial time into the future, so I can't just wait on it and say that I'll pick it up later when it's cheaper and not have to make such a hard investment in something that I have no idea if I will like. I also can't return it if I don't like it, I can't trade it to a friend for another game, I can't sell it back.
Basically, this game had god damn well better be worth my money, because I can't cut my losses if I don't like it. Games at this price point, especially games by huge established developers like Konami, should recognize this tradeoff and at least attempt to give us $15 worth of new content, but we're not even getting that.
Compare that to Prismatic Solid, an Xbox Indie game on sale for exactly One Dollar USD. For One dollar, I get 5 or 6 levels of gorgeous graphics, challenging gameplay and 100% original content. For a dollar. From a development team of exactly one guy. He made it for a contest, so there was no definite return on his investment of time and effort.
Seriously, Konami's getting outclassed by tiny independent developers in terms of delivering satisfying quality:price ratios. It's just upsetting.
|
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Aug 10, 2010 0:55:24 GMT -5
It doesn't become a better game at two bucks, it just becomes a lot easier to swallow the proverbial medicine at that price... I agree with this. The cost doesn't change the quality of the game, it just means you wasted less money. For an example- I bought Dark Awake on the PSN at ~$20. I hate it and feel like I wasted my money. At ~$5 it would still suck as much, but at least I'd only be out $5 instead of $20. No way am I gonna say "Dark Awake at $5 would have been worth it" because I don't like the game. It could have been free and I would have felt the same (just not out $20). I don't think many people look at it this way though. A ton of people, even professional reviewers, will cut a game some slack due to price. When someone says "At $50 no way, but I picked it up for $15 used and for that it's a decent game" they typically don't mean they just wasted less cash on a shitty game, they mean they have set their standards lower (which is a shame) and have reassessed the merits of the game based on the number of bills they have given to the clerk to take the game home. |
|
|
|
Post by robertagilmour on Aug 10, 2010 8:36:39 GMT -5
You know I agree about the price not making a difference about Quality. GamesTM once reviewed the games you get free with the Wii and gave them a low score and they didnt think the free-ness of them made them any difference to how worth playing they were,, which is right.
But this is all about feeling ripped off and slapped in the face, being taken advantage of ((in some cases, I hasten to add!)). I've had way too much of this in my life and and because of that, even though I am an artist, I still think of most things in terms of time and money. Even though I am a normal person who will presumably live atleast 6 more decades, I cant fit everything into those decades I would like to,, the days pass far too quickly and I try to choose very carefully what I spend my time on as I speed towards my death. I'll refuse a lot of good things because I dont want to spend the required amount of time. I just played first half of chapters of Ninja Gaiden Sigma and I enjoyed it a lot, but I'm watching youtube clips for the remaining half because I still dont think I can justify spending so many hours on it. I sometimes question if I should be playing any games at all, and I'm having a hell of a hard time trying to decide what games are worth the time, what games need to be physically played. I have been leaning towards quick games that dont demand much, and it is actually a relief when people complain a game is too easy, I'll be more likely to buy it.
Time is the much bigger factor for me, when I come to think of it, because unless we become immortal, I think creators should feel the shortness of life as a consideration towards what they create, because we dont have time for bullshit.
Sad to hear Dark Awake isnt good, the animation always impressed me a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Aug 10, 2010 9:36:27 GMT -5
It's a whole different topic, but Dark Awake plays decently... it just looks terrible. I didn't realize it from the tiny screenshots and the ridiculous trailer (which barely shows any of the game), but all the graphics are prerendered (as opposed to traditional sprites) and while this allows for smooth animations the characters (and backgrounds!) look awful. I am the type who cannot play a fighting game just based on how tight the mechanics are, so this was a real disappointment to me, especially when there are much better looking and playing fighters readily available.
I guess the time commitment thing comes down to what you are looking for in games. You mentioned you enjoyed Ninja Gaiden Sigma but didn't want to put in the time to finish it, and I can't say I understand that at all. It's really hard for me to find games I enjoy, so when I do find one I am happy to spend as much time as it takes to finish it (because the alternative is trying some other game out I might hate).
|
|
|
|
Post by pepsimanvsjoe on Aug 11, 2010 1:36:52 GMT -5
Huh. I think the game is amazing myself.
Already put in nearly 40 hours. Totally got my money's worth.
Prismatic Solid on the other hand bored me to tears.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Aug 11, 2010 8:48:43 GMT -5
I'm sorry to hear that your taste is so atrocious.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepsimanvsjoe on Aug 11, 2010 9:09:36 GMT -5
I'm sorry to hear that your taste is so atrocious. I have exquisite taste thank you very much. Believe me I was totally going to go on and on about how horrible this game is and how Konami should burn in ten hells but HoD is a legit great game that's addictive as heck. Yeah it reuses nearly all of the same content as prior Metroidvanias but it does so in such a way that the experience is very fresh and so much more entertaining. There are a number of flaws that are actually worth discussing and there are a handful of bugs that need to be worked out but as far as I'm concerned it's one of the best downloadable games released this year(Mamotte Knight is still better though). |
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Aug 11, 2010 9:49:50 GMT -5
After having collected all the drops in Portrait of Ruin (which took a while) and all the souls in Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow and doing tons of other grinding bullshit in the other Castlevania games, I'm sick to death of their boring gameplay. The whole thing about those exploratory Castlevania games is that their difficulty is just so incredibly artificial. I'm battling boredom more than I am the game's difficulty, and the only things keeping me from quitting are how fun the bosses are, how much I enjoy exploring and collecting everything and, very importantly, how much I appreciate the atmosphere (a combination of the game's visuals, style and music).
Harmony of Despair is this sick little bastard child that wants to be a directed action-platforming experience but still has the hideously awful level design of its exploratory partners. The stages are painfully boring with enemies littered about them only testing how patient you are - do you kill them and get to the loot slower, or do you not and take damage? Either way I'm about to fall asleep doing it because the level design and enemies are built around a game where you explore - not one where you meander around, learn the layout, and then repeat your little set path to the treasure and then to the boss every time you replay it.
The fact the levels are scaled out means there's barely anything to explore even the first time and it's quickly going to become just routine after that. A routine of going through levels and enemies originally designed for games where you're meant to hit a save point, progress as far as you can, then turn back if you're whittled down too far or proceed if you're strong enough. Levels that weren't meant to challenge your actual action-platforming skills, but your micromanagement skills, patience, and willingness to explore.
Harmony of Despair takes elements from a game with drastically different pacing and objectives and sticks them into itself inappropriately and comes off with an absolutely awful balance. The "fun" to be had is in the grind of the game - repeating these levels over and over again while getting marginally more powerful so you can take down the boss faster (or at all, I suppose, on the "hard" difficulty). Grinds this intense are ONLY made bearable with friends, which is where the co-op comes in.
The co-op isn't fun because the game was well-designed around it, the co-op is fun because you're doing something just easy to put your mind on automatic while you chat with a buddy. It's fun in the same way an MMORPG is fun - because you're doing the same thing your friend is doing and working toward a common goal. The only way the co-op is well designed is because the game is easy enough for you to not have to concentrate on it.
I've played shameful amounts of Maple Story in my day, so I'm really darn familiar with this appeal. It's not hard to design and it's simple enough to really put into any game. There's nothing impressive about it and anyone can do it. If you've ever given time to an MMO or played the exploratory Castlevanias enough, I can't see how on Earth you (or hardly anyone) could think this game is well designed. Every visual component with any amount of talent is stolen directly from another game, the level design is terrible, and the only real appeal is the "addictive" co-op that anyone can do with the same skill in execution.
Harmony of Despair is total shit. If I ever find myself buying and getting a friend to play with, I'm sure I'll enjoy "the grind" for a little bit, but I'll enjoy it because it was a common platform to get together on with that friend, not because it was a good game. The only real appealing elements to me are that it's not as commitment heavy as an MMO, meaning I can squeeze some braindead hours on it with a friend or two out without risking either of us feeling like we "need" to play it more to get to the top.
Edit: Maybe your taste isn't atrocious. Maybe this is just (one of) your first experience(s) with this stuff. I guess if you've never played anything like it before, you'd think this is pretty neat and well-designed. I can assume you still have decent taste beyond that if it is one of your first times, but if you're actually familiar with this kinda crap and still think it's good I'm going to have to completely discount your opinion on must stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepsimanvsjoe on Aug 11, 2010 10:12:56 GMT -5
Yikes?
Yeah uh I don't really see any of that. Granted anything is an improvement repeating the same hallways over and over for rare drops but the appeal for me in Despair is that I can essentially roll with whatever I happen to find and have a unique and fun experience.
It is perhaps a bit too easy but I guess that comes more from the fact that I've played so much I have every aspect and nuance memorized. Still if I'm playing with lousy co-op partners it actually becomes a neat little escort mission-esque diversion as I have to kill stuff as well as protect others.
I also enjoy the open-ended structure of most of the levels. For the creative types there are multiple ways of avoiding fights and even ignoring large sections of the stage(a Soma with the Yorick soul can bypass almost 90% of stage 4 for example). There's always a bit of an incentive for me to find new ways of getting around.
Admittedly the scoring system is a bit busted as it mostly favors purely ridiculous builds like Alucard w/ 2 Yasutunas or Soma w/ 2 Valmanjays. For those that aren't willing to try new things the game will become a mindless grind before long.
In some ways exploration in this game reminds me of the better days of the Metroid series, back before the likes of Zero Mission where the optimal route was made so obvious that the game should only be played one way. Sure the level design isn't as good but Despair seems to carry over a bit of the same philosophy in that regular enemies are merely destructable obstacles and there's more than one way to get past them aside from the obvious.
Course since we don't see eye to eye on any of this I'll happily accept your discounting of my opinion instead. It's early for me and I'm not big on arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rash on Aug 11, 2010 11:07:34 GMT -5
If anything, this game inspired me to go out and buy Order of Ecclasia (never tried it, hear great things) and Portrait of Ruin (for the third time, long story). I'm playing through PoR on Hard with Maria; the greatest Castlevania character ever. Doves. 'Nuff said. Admittedly the scoring system is a bit busted as it mostly favors purely ridiculous builds like Alucard w/ 2 Yasutunas or Soma w/ 2 Valmanjays. For those that aren't willing to try new things the game will become a mindless grind before long. With Jonathan, I'm rarely beaten on the scoring board by anyone other than a really powerful Shanoa or another Jonathan with maxed out sub-weapons. Once Jonathan's subs are max, Alucard and Soma do not hold a candle in damage per second; despite what you might hear on the Internet. Oh, and no one uses Charlotte. Course since we don't see eye to eye on any of this I'll happily accept your discounting of my opinion instead. It's early for me and I'm not big on arguments. lol While I don't think HD is great, the selling point for me is the large choice of characters (though it could always be larger). It's what kept me playing for a bit. It's another reason why I like Portrait of Ruin so much. Extra characters in Castlevania is a huge selling point for me and HD has that in spades with its Castlevania crossovers. I like that. They should make another fresh new Castlevania where you can be nearly any hero from the franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Aug 11, 2010 11:53:22 GMT -5
I don't understand how you're having "unique and fun experiences" with level design that "isn't as good" and regular enemies that are "merely destructible objects." The platforming and enemies are extremely basic, I can't see how this is anything other than a grind unless you're somehow entertained by optional paths. Finding my way around boring enemies through boring levels seasoned with some loot and a boss I've already fought before at the end doesn't really sound "fun." |
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Aug 11, 2010 22:33:07 GMT -5
In some ways exploration in this game reminds me of the better days of the Metroid series, back before the likes of Zero Mission where the optimal route was made so obvious that the game should only be played one way. exploration? You can see the entire map for the level, so there's no surprises, no wondering where to go. The levels may have a branching path or two, but essentially they're linear. Well, it sure is reassuring to know that even though Konami tried to shoehorn the level design of metroidvanias into the framework of a multiplayer action game, at least they took the time to make sure it wasn't as good! |
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Dec 29, 2010 9:37:44 GMT -5
If the game were like 5-8 bucks and I had one or two good friends who were planning on getting it I would consider getting it, but for two to three times that price, screw it, it's ridiculous. Welp. The game went on a one-day sale for $7.50 (and I already had the points on my account) and two friends would buy it if I did, so I finally got it. Having played it for at least a dozen hours, my opinion on the game is pretty much the same as it was when I was posting in the thread before. It's a shitty game, really, and it's almost ridiculous how much they've butchered Castlevania gameplay and atmosphere to contort it into this little grinding adventure. That said, it's still fun if you sit down and play it with a friend. It's easy enough that you can have a conversation while playing it, and the simple pleasure of gradually increasing your little character's power is rewarding enough to make it more entertaining than just having a boring conversation. I'm not trying to say I've changed my mind, but I think the praise I give it is adequate - it's more fun than a boring conversation. It reminds me of what I enjoyed about Maple Story in a good way. It's by no means a good game, but it's a decent platform for wasting time with good company on, preferably when you're not looking to do anything more than waste time. If you can get over the fact this game is shameless exploitation of a loyal fanbase hungry for anything with the brand name, there's some fun to be had with it. Yes, it's bad, lacking, shameful and possibly an obituary for the 2D side of the series, but there's still entertainment to be had, so long as you've got someone else to have it with. |
|
|
|
Post by Ike on Dec 29, 2010 10:21:55 GMT -5
I dunno, at least boring conversations are free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2011 14:39:14 GMT -5
Are there four people who'd be able to assist me with "Boned" on this game? I need to beat a boss while five other players are dead. There's at least one other person already lined up for it, any help would be appreciated!
|
|
