Friday, September 12, 2014

Nature Of The Game

Friday is here and you can take that deep breath as the weekend is almost upon you. I know isn't it a great feeling? Now I am assuming most of you read my post yesterday about Destiny. I have been enjoying the game even though I did have some negative thoughts about the game. I thought maybe it was because my lack of interest in shooters that the game itself would have a hard time keeping my interesting for more than it would take to see a little of the end game content. I must say I didn get a lot of interesting feedback including this submission by FlipmanV for today's Reader Post. If you agreed with my post yesterday or not this is another interesting point of view.

Are some gamers simply naive towards the basis of game design?

Destiny's gameplay is repetitive is something Gauss and others have said, the argument I hear to counter this statement is: 
Well, in Mario all you do is jump. In Call of Duty, all you do is shoot people. In Star Fox, all you do is shoot ships. In Tetris, all you do is stack.

Using this argument only shows that you lack knowledge or experience in gaming. Seriously.

Mario games are essentially a logical, action puzzle game featuring different challenges until the end. CoD and Battlefield takes you through the story while mixing up gameplay. Ride a tank, race through this jeep, use pistols only, stealth mission, etc. Star Fox [64] is a rail shooter in which the field is dynamically changing. Bosses also require different strategies to beat. Actual strategies. A puzzle game is logic-based. Saying it's repetitive implies that you're not willing to learn any potential combos and strategies. Most puzzle games are insanely difficult to master.

Let's look at Destiny. All the missions remain the same. You ride your Sparrow to the destination. You kill enemies. You then have your Ghost hack some sort of machinery. Then you fight a wave of monsters and eventually leading up to a boss, while boss summons more monsters periodically.

Now, the enemies aren't any different. You hit their weak spot, which is 90% of the time, in their head, eyeball, or stomach. You shoot and take cover when you're low on health. Your strategy doesn't change, you're literally not doing anything different. There's stuff like the Hydra and Hobgolbin which gives the illusion that it requires "strategy", but waiting until they lower their shield is not a strategy and requires no extra skill.

There's no missions like in CoD/BF in which you have to ride a gunship, or a sneaking mission, or a boat mission, or any other mission that simply doesn't involve whatever the hell you've already done on the first 3 missions.

Other than the sword-fight level, there's no instance in which you needed to change your strategy or do anything different. It's about as mindless as it can be. Similar to Assassin's Creed I and I believe even Gauss would agree that was one of the most repetitive games ever created.

Thank you FlipmanV for your take on this whole thing. Like I have said before I have been having fun playing the game and I will in all likelihood be playing it for a couple weeks before I think I will lose its flare and then will put it down for awhile. This doesn't mean it is a bad game it just means it isn't a great game.

Enjoy your weekend everyone!

1 comment:

  1. It's true, but in the same sense the game is a fun game. Does it really need to be compared to other things when it really isn't like other things? Just my thoughts at least