BombermanBoard

Soniti 254 · #93 Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:06 pm

AoBman05 wrote:

So tell me, what exactly would you consider a "gimmick" and what would you consider an "improvement" to gameplay? The definition between the two differs greatly between the entire gamer community; so great and so loosely used that it isn't even taken them seriously anymore.

It's hard to explain what I feel is a gimmick and what's an improvement to gameplay. I think this definition from Dictionary.com best describes my feelings regarding gimmicks.

Dictionary.com wrote:

gim·mick
–verb (used with object)
to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, esp. in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often fol. by up ): to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.

As for what I feel an "improvement to gameplay" is, it's more so just simple things like adding an extra button or two, or the addition of a control stick. So I guess better input devices is, in my opinion anyway, an improvement to gameplay. Also having a character be able to do more actions (which kind of goes in hand with better input devices) is what I would call an improvement. Take this statement as you will.

AoBman05 wrote:

This whole paragraph is completely opinionated. Just because you don't like them doesn't automatically make it bad for everyone else. You also have to remember that the range of consumers has expanded, it's not just hardcore gamers anymore they have appease to.

Again, I didn't say anything like "I hate it so everyone else must hate it too". I just don't see how 3D projection can be considered a real improvement to gameplay.

Also, I'm aware of that. Nintendo made that part perfectly clear at one of their prior E3s by basically saying "you guys aren't our target audience anymore." Looking at their console's library is also proof enough.

AoBman05 wrote:

Again, what exactly would you consider a "gimmick" and what would you consider an "improvement" to gameplay? The two terms get slapped around so much it not even clear anymore.

I already left my answer to this so I'll just ask you this instead; Since I've given you my definitions, why don't you give me yours?

AoBman05 wrote:

BTW, If the 3DS's 3D projection isn't your cup of tea, you can simply turn it down/off. The PSX being 3D and revolving around new concepts didn't stop it from making it a great system; I doubt a similar approach would anywhere near as bad as you claim if even at all. They push graphics everytime a new gen console is made/announced, this isn't even anything new. It's basically the Blu-Ray/HDD argument all over again.

If you can turn off 3D projection, then good. I don't need to complain. However, I would like to know where you got this info from. From what I've seen, it's made out so that it isn't a choice whether it's on or off.

I don't see much of a resemblance with your example for the PSX and 3DS. The PSX was made when the other major players were working with 3D graphics already, so it's not like Sony was doing anything new regarding that. They were going with the flow. I'll admit that the 3DS is trying something new, but I just don't see how 3D projection will contribute to the gameplay experience positively.

I'm aware that they push the graphical capabilities for their next games. I just don't see how 3D projection would contribute to that, if at all. All it'd be doing is making the graphics appear like it's jumping off the screen. It wouldn't make it look any more real. If anything, it'd be more of a personal reminder that it isn't real. But I suppose this is all opinionated too.

AoBman05 wrote:

You ignored my whole point, if they do in fact put all their effort into making 'good fun games', there will be just as many people complaining about it being a 'rehash' as they would if they built around on a gimmick. In this day and age, it is extremely difficult to accomplish that because people are so goddamn picky and critical about the final product.

Whoever said that a "good fun game" has to be a rehash? Where'd you get that notion that all good games must be made in a certain way? I sure didn't say anything like that. I think that if a group actually put their full effort into it, they could make any sort of fun, unique, and original game if they so choose to. But you don't see that all that much these days. Companies tend to make games that they know will sell.

AoBman05 wrote:

They don't put effort into the games? Do you even know a thing about programming? Or about deadlines? Or about Executive Meddling? Or ultimately making a product aimed at some of the most unpleasable consumer base out there? While I don't know what truly goes on inside the developer's studios nor do I intend to defend their products, I highly doubt they're just lolly-gagging around their desktops for Lulz and money.

Actually, I have done some very bare bones programing thanks to vocational school. I know it isn't exactly fun or pleasant. But if you honestly believe some of these companies give it their all in the development of games (like, say, Sonic Team with new Sonic games), then I'm not sure if there's anything I can really say about that. There are undeniably some companies that do put in a solid effort in their games, but not all of them.

But anyhow. Fact of the matter is, the entire video game industry is a business, and as of late it behaves like one. As long as they get money, they probably don't care if people liked the product in the end. People like it? Good for them. People dislike it? As long as the dough comes in, who cares? As long as it's somewhat playable (regardless of whether the gameplay's done to death or not) and it makes then cash, then their work is done. The few one's who actually do consider their fans' opinions are the only ones who actually somewhat care about their fan base in the first place.

AoBman05 wrote:

Really, it seems that your whole complaints boil down to a 'Causal vs Hardcore' gamers debate. Catering to the more casual is better market for them not only because there's a lot more of them, but because they won't make a 6 page essay about how their game sucks, simply because they didn't make it his way, every time they release a new game.

Me? I couldn't care less; if I think a game is good, I'll buy it. Otherwise I won't bother or I'll just flash cart it.

Wasn't aware that complaining about what I would deem a useless feature boils down to a "Casual vs Hardcore" gamer debate. Cool.

But seriously though, if this 3DS thing actually does the 3D projection thing well, then I'll proceed to shove my foot in my mouth. But that was never my point to begin with. My whole point is that video game companies, as of late, have been relying too much on gimmicks rather then making solid games. It's almost as if they feel that as long as the gimmick's in, the game will be fun regardless of whether the game actually is.