IGN and their crusade against Hack and Slash.

My rule number one when deciding whether a game's combat system is too complex:

Is it point and fire? If not, too complex.

Then you're still applying it wrong, as you're using inconsistent standards to decide what is easy or difficult to achieve.

Just because New Super Mario Bros Wii didn't use a physics engine doesn't mean applying 4 players at once in a series never meant for that was easy. It doesn't mean trying to capture the spirit of a series to get the same sales again is easy to achieve.

The Silent Majority you are trying to dismiss are not just random in what they will buy.

"And yet, this man marks down Kirby as "easy to make" despite having much the same complexity as Scribblenauts, but with a different direction."

See, just deciding what is and what isn't effort shows not being consistent in an argument.

edited 16th Oct '10 11:15:10 AM by DragonQuestZ

^ Lol Multiplayer is the standard for games now anyways. It's not like New Super Mario Bros multiplayer was hailed as a great recognition anyways or compared to the like of Halo or whatever.

Lol it seems obvious that Scribblenaughts is more amibitious based on possibilities and it's sandbox nature alone! It's achieveing much on the DS which doesn't even have the graphical power of the Wii.

Did i not mention that Scribblenaughts had a writing system better than Nintendo's?

The Silent Majority are a hard to pin down group but they aren't associated with being an informed audience.

edited 16th Oct '10 11:21:36 AM by shinfernape

It was fun and full of lulz though.

The point is, Spyro has a simple combat system and that the cutscene had no reason to be in the game.

You know, maybe if they were a boss later on, or someone you'd be working a lot in tandem like in a keep up level or two/three man path of destruction it would have been nice foreshadowing. But none of that was anywhere so the cutscene was better off not existing. The time making it could have been spent making the game more interesting.

"it seems obvious that Scribblenaughts is more amibitious based on possibilities"

That's not what "difficult to achieve" means.

You know, screw the "multiplayer standard". If it floats your boat, great, but it's not the be-all-end-all of vidya. It's more fun for me to pit my wits against the designers than anything.

I think a good question is this:

How long does it take to kill one guy? Is it like in Tiberian Twilight, where several tanks firing on one human take 30 seconds to kill it, or is it like in Stargunner where one-and-a-half seconds of gunfire from your basic cannon are enough to vape/kill several enemies?

Granted, I'm exaggerating, but that's still a good question to ask.

edited 16th Oct '10 11:22:22 AM by RocketDude

Scribblenauts had a nice concept but really it wasn't that great a game.

@ Dragon having so many possibilites and building such a sandbox game is difficult. Having close to a thousand items that are made to interact with one another and the environment is no small feat or the fact they have their own animations. The possiblities are so much because they were ambitious in creating a game that used hundreds of words.

@ cider well the cutscene looked cool and cool is entertaining. If a cutscene is entertaining then I won't complain. But maybe it's a YMMV.

edited 16th Oct '10 11:24:48 AM by shinfernape

Rocket Dude: Good point. It fits into the old standard in stories and in game design, that of pacing. In hack and slash, of course, pacing is punctuated by blood and bodies (or in the '90s, oil and piles of scrap). If it takes two dozen hits to take down one mook and you're surrounded by a dozen of them at a time, it's not fun anymore. Even if you're good enough to never get hit, it's just tedious.

@ Post 6: Made Of Win.

@shinfernape: I don't know where you're going with that, but a lot of people do play Garrys Mod and Minecraft. Admittedly, both had/have long development times, but both are a little more reliant on scripting, I believe. In fact, the former probably took less work due to being originally built off of Half Life 2.

edited 16th Oct '10 11:28:08 AM by RocketDude

Man what's with the idea of multiplayer being the standard? I love single-player campaigns.

Post 6 made my morning.

If you're going to heavily concentrate on multiplayer with a game that could go online to make it more fun, then do it. Otherwise, the multiplayer should be an option that can still be fun, but isn't actually necessarry to enjoy or complete the game.

I enjoyed Shining Soul on the GBA because despite my character missing a freakin' lot(and the enemy can't, by the way), it didn't take fifty successful hits to down an enemy. Sonic Unleashed on the other hand...

"Dragon having so many possibilites and building such a sandbox game is difficult. Having close to a thousand items that are made to interact with one another and the environment is no small feat or the fact they have their own animations. The possiblities are so much because they were ambitious in creating a game that used hundreds of words."

No, that still assumes that was their motive, not what they did.

^ Ok they're motives were to make a good game. They were ambitious about having a game where you can create any item that exists in the dictionary that you can use in certain combinations which had never been done on such a scale. They relatively succeeded and the games sold well and they got greenlighted for a sequel.

edited 16th Oct '10 11:41:31 AM by shinfernape

That still just means one particular form of ambition. It does not prove that ambition in itself is a sales point in a game (as you were claiming that was why people bought it), nor does it have anything to do with home console games, which is where you first brought up ambition.

^ People did buy it because it was ambitious i.e. having such a system where you can create anything you can think of from a dictionary and it was a unique selling point. It's what drew the attention of the gaming media.

Ambitious games like GTA 4 happen to sell well and get fairly good critical reception. You cannot get everything right maybe but some things they did atleast worked.

I geuss I should throw the words experimentation about. Seeing as people attempt something ambitious, learn from their mistakes and make a better game.

edited 16th Oct '10 11:47:25 AM by shinfernape

"People did buy it because it was ambitious"

You have to prove that, not just insist it. And the only way to do that is to talk to people that bought it and ask why.

But...people didn't buy it because it was ambitious. People bought it because it was fun.

^^ Man why else did people buy the game? The chance to use hundred of words in a game in a sandbox game. Like I said it's why the gaming media drew attention to it. It's not like it's story inspired people to have a look.

edited 16th Oct '10 12:07:14 PM by shinfernape

Experimental good!

Not experimental not auto-bad!

I mainly got Scribblenauts and Super Scribblenauts because it's zany and yes, there's a lot to play with. I will get Kirby's Epic Yarn because Kirby is always a good, easy, silly, cute ride, and will leave me with a warm hot-chocolate feeling.

"Man why else did people buy the game?"

Talk about Opinion Myopia. Just because you think that is the appeal only prove that you personally found that part appealing. Try to think that maybe people have different tastes, even about the same things that you like.