Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
Scepheo wrote:
funnyhair wrote:
There are no consequences for dying anymore. you die and it puts the game on pause for a little bit. Then you come back And its like nothing happened. I liked it when the game reset after your died, sure you had to collect everything again, but at lease it gave you incentive not to die.
Agreed, when I found out that dieing in Bioshock did nothing but move you to a vita-chamber, I immediately stopped paying attention to my health. The incentive not to die should be made a lot bigger in games, especially multiplayer games. I mean, in single player, if you ruin your own experience by not caring about dieing, fine, I don't care. But if you run around in an online shooter knifing everybody to death, that does kinda ruin it for the other players.
On topic: Quick-time events?
Or remove the health bar, if it serves no purpose.
Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 14
Location: Peotone, IL, USA
The capacity for a game to scroll in more than one direction, the move to beginning-to-end gaming rather than strictly playing for high scores, and introducing recognizable characters as protagonists rather than faceless spaceships and shapes (thank you, Pac-Man). Boom.
Some excellent points raised in this thread, though. Good times.
www.NintendoLegend.com -- One gamer's quest to play and review every American-released NES game!
The capacity for a game to scroll in more than one direction
Well, scrolling itself. Most of the very first games where not scrollable and had, at most, levels divided into different screens.
the move to beginning-to-end gaming rather than strictly playing for high scores, and introducing recognizable characters as protagonists rather than faceless spaceships and shapes (thank you, Pac-Man). Boom.
This got me thinking: Perhaps innovations in gaming could be categorized into two groups:
1) Innovations that were rather self-evident and didn't surprise anyone (in other words, it was just a matter of time and/or technology when it would be implemented for the first time).
2) Strokes of genius. Something which was not self-evident at all, but required somebody to come up with the innovative idea that almost nobody else had thought of before.
#1 doesn't necessarily mean that the innovation was insignificant and boring. For example, it was only a matter of time (basically the only obstacle was lacking technology) before we got fully 3D photorealistic sandbox FPS games with huge worlds that can be freely explored and interacted with (rather than the player being confined to a narrow path) and their eventual development didn't really surprise anyone, but the first such games (such as eg. Oblivion) were still very impressive.
Yes I agree with you Warp. That a perfect way to break it up.
Also I have changed my idea on what I am doing. Instead of making a top ten list of non-technology driven innovations. I am just going to write about any innovation in whatever order I want. This will allows me to talk about technology also.
How about in-game tutorials? You know, tutorials that teach you the basics of the gameplay, but rather than them being just boring textual tutorials or completely separate tutorials (such as a "training course"), they are actually embedded into the main storyline.
When sufficiently well done, it can actually add to the depth of the game. For example, the famous "pick up that can" minitutorial in Half-Life 2 is so memorable that it became an internet meme.
How about in-game tutorials? You know, tutorials that teach you the basics of the gameplay, but rather than them being just boring textual tutorials or completely separate tutorials (such as a "training course"), they are actually embedded into the main storyline.
When sufficiently well done, it can actually add to the depth of the game. For example, the famous "pick up that can" minitutorial in Half-Life 2 is so memorable that it became an internet meme.
What, you don't think Mega Man X5 wasn't the best tutorial usage ever? For shame!
