<!--quoteo(post=1713821:date=Jun 24 2009, 05:39 PM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Jun 24 2009, 05:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713821"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We should realy stop discussing NS 2 based upon Input we have from NS 1.
There is to much different stuff...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree; this discussion is looking for details not currently available. However this doesn't mean we can't talk in general about gameplay, realism and aesthetics in video games.
IMHO, it's more complicated than a simple A > B > C equation.
Realism can be achieved in many ways, it sometimes adds to gameplay and other times detracts. Using Arma 2 as an example (multilanguage ver. ENG included available to purchase and download at <a href="http://arma2.nexway.com/index2.html?Langue=en_GB&REF=671796" target="_blank">http://arma2.nexway.com/index2.html?Langue...&REF=671796</a> < completely legal link) imagine a realistic scenario where you lose your compass and have to navigate to an underground tunnel at night that's approximately 2 kilometers away. Sure, it's realistic, but is it practical? Isn't just as realistic as giving the player a compass and giving a landmark?
This same thing applies to any game. Sure, there could be a space station that only has ladders, and thus the alien team immediately becomes underbalanced because it can't reach the a big portion of the map with anything bigger than a fade. Or the developers could be just as realistic and make a station with elevators, and thinking gameplay wise, places them strategically...
I hope you all agree with me in wanting an experience for the aliens that's biologically motivated and hive directed and for the marines tactically Squad based and militaristic. To be honest I felt NS1 is already pretty solid and has that type of gameplay. You take a few bites you're dead, skulks can't take more than a few hits, etc. They move fast, you hit hard, typical insurgent/guerrilla warfare right there.
With the new engine, I only see practical and realistic innovations keeping the feel of Natural Selection, if not downright significantly improving it.
<!--quoteo(post=1713749:date=Jun 24 2009, 08:02 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Jun 24 2009, 08:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713749"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but how does gameplay preference or gameplay vs realism matter here? My point is that in an action packed team vs team multiplayer aesthetics should ultimately serve the gameplay. It's not a one-or-the-other thing or even necessarily the two opposites, but still the aesthetics aren't going to carry the game over the flaws in the gameplay in a game like this. The <b>purely</b> atmosphere based games are nice in their own way, but at least the original NS isn't one of them.
I think NS managed to balance out the game nicely by it's unique and awesome visual style, but still not sacrificing much of the gameplay to get there. If they can pull it off again, it's going to be great.
---
Oh yes, I didn't even remember the TF2 development change back then. I guess I had already judged the game in to the DNF class and forgotten it. At that point the change was definitely good and important. However, NS has already got the visual style that works, so it boils down to the smaller details.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
heh I think you are agreeing with me. My point was exactly that its not 'one-or-the-other' and there has to be a balance between all aspects of the game. Simply saying Gameplay > Realism, like the OP said, as if its all you have to consider is very short sighted.
Imagine the marines all dressed up in clown suits, and the aliens running around giggling like school girls...I don't care how awesome, action packed, skill oriented team vs team game it was, I probably wouldn't play it..
<!--quoteo(post=1713688:date=Jun 24 2009, 12:15 PM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Jun 24 2009, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713688"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Although you could just give the onos some kind of high jump feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh ######! A LEAPING ONOS! RUN! GET TO DA CHOPPA!!!
<!--quoteo(post=1713860:date=Jun 25 2009, 12:19 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 25 2009, 12:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713860"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine the marines all dressed up in clown suits, and the aliens running around giggling like school girls...I don't care how awesome, action packed, skill oriented team vs team game it was, I probably wouldn't play it..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nah, for me, that would really depend on internal consistency, and by extension, the expectations you have. It's really all about expectations. The first expectation anyone has, is that a medium is internally consistent (things <b>make sense</b>); when it isn't, it jars our suspension of disbelief (esp. for a 'realistic' setting) and also our enjoyment of the medium. Other expectations people have, directly have to do with visual aesthetics. In the example you gave.. well, let's look at, for example, Jailbreak Source. In one of their big updates, they changed the combine and rebel forces to ROBOTS and DINOSAURS. But their entire philosophy was all about fun, screw realism and fashion - so it was internally consistent. So in the example you gave, if their INTENTION was to have it be a non-serious not-even-remotely-realistic game, then that would be okay. (Although in that case, many people would also expect the artistic direction to favour a more... cartoony look; and yet still, others wouldn't care and would enjoy it regardless, since they were <b>expecting</b> a departure from the <b>norm and expected</b>, they'd be looking at it as comedic, something to laugh at.) Now, that doesn't mean everyone will like it, or should be expected to. People still have different tastes. I personally hate bollywood films, but I have sisters and friends that love them. Actually that's a bad example, since I'm the last one who would convince you that it's okay for <b>anyone</b> to enjoy bollywood films. But I think you get my point...
Look at TF2, valve addressed the fact that a lot of people don't accept the floating up ladders any more by just not having ladders in the game, instead of adding an animation that would slow a relatively fast paced game down.
<!--quoteo(post=1713893:date=Jun 25 2009, 01:30 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 25 2009, 01:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713893"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nah, for me, that would really depend on internal consistency, and by extension, the expectations you have. It's really all about expectations. The first expectation anyone has, is that a medium is internally consistent (things <b>make sense</b>); when it isn't, it jars our suspension of disbelief (esp. for a 'realistic' setting) and also our enjoyment of the medium. Other expectations people have, directly have to do with visual aesthetics. In the example you gave.. well, let's look at, for example, Jailbreak Source. In one of their big updates, they changed the combine and rebel forces to ROBOTS and DINOSAURS. But their entire philosophy was all about fun, screw realism and fashion - so it was internally consistent. So in the example you gave, if their INTENTION was to have it be a non-serious not-even-remotely-realistic game, then that would be okay. (Although in that case, many people would also expect the artistic direction to favour a more... cartoony look; and yet still, others wouldn't care and would enjoy it regardless, since they were <b>expecting</b> a departure from the <b>norm and expected</b>, they'd be looking at it as comedic, something to laugh at.) Now, that doesn't mean everyone will like it, or should be expected to. People still have different tastes. I personally hate bollywood films, but I have sisters and friends that love them. Actually that's a bad example, since I'm the last one who would convince you that it's okay for <b>anyone</b> to enjoy bollywood films. But I think you get my point...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right I know what you are saying. The Clowns and school girls was just a hyperbol example of completely unappealing aesthetics. Its probably a bad example since some people might like clowns ... ... and school girls....
Consider for a second that the battle scenes are spacecraft in outerspace fighting alien life forms with advanced weaponry. Realism is not the word to use here. Nobody really wants realism (or if you did, you wouldn't be playing natural selection at all). The words you want to use are "realistic physics engine." In that I mean you don't want onos climbing ladders or skulks sticking to ceilings like it were covered with some adhesive rather than gripping it with its claws.
While I agree that that's important, if you stress this aspect too much, you'd start seeing marines limping from a bite wound to the leg or a blinded alien shot in the face. As cool as that may sound, it introduces balance issues which may or not be a good idea according to ultimately what's practical for the developers to do with limited time and resources and whether or not it would add or take away from the game.
And ultimately, while I may not like the idea of an onos using a ladder, I'd settle for that as opposed to having a skulk bite my legs off and leave me to die slowly over a period of 30 minutes in some corridor because it would disable me without letting me respawn. Gameplay takes higher priority anyday.
Well, realism doesn't equate to 'modern'. You can have realism in a future setting, no problem. Realism has more to do with... well, things bound by current common sense. Laws of physics, for example. Economic opportunity cost. Aesthetic sense. Laws of physics. And laws of physics.
Comments
There is to much different stuff...
There is to much different stuff...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree; this discussion is looking for details not currently available. However this doesn't mean we can't talk in general about gameplay, realism and aesthetics in video games.
IMHO, it's more complicated than a simple A > B > C equation.
Realism can be achieved in many ways, it sometimes adds to gameplay and other times detracts. Using Arma 2 as an example (multilanguage ver. ENG included available to purchase and download at <a href="http://arma2.nexway.com/index2.html?Langue=en_GB&REF=671796" target="_blank">http://arma2.nexway.com/index2.html?Langue...&REF=671796</a> < completely legal link) imagine a realistic scenario where you lose your compass and have to navigate to an underground tunnel at night that's approximately 2 kilometers away. Sure, it's realistic, but is it practical? Isn't just as realistic as giving the player a compass and giving a landmark?
This same thing applies to any game. Sure, there could be a space station that only has ladders, and thus the alien team immediately becomes underbalanced because it can't reach the a big portion of the map with anything bigger than a fade. Or the developers could be just as realistic and make a station with elevators, and thinking gameplay wise, places them strategically...
I hope you all agree with me in wanting an experience for the aliens that's biologically motivated and hive directed and for the marines tactically Squad based and militaristic. To be honest I felt NS1 is already pretty solid and has that type of gameplay. You take a few bites you're dead, skulks can't take more than a few hits, etc. They move fast, you hit hard, typical insurgent/guerrilla warfare right there.
With the new engine, I only see practical and realistic innovations keeping the feel of Natural Selection, if not downright significantly improving it.
I think NS managed to balance out the game nicely by it's unique and awesome visual style, but still not sacrificing much of the gameplay to get there. If they can pull it off again, it's going to be great.
---
Oh yes, I didn't even remember the TF2 development change back then. I guess I had already judged the game in to the DNF class and forgotten it. At that point the change was definitely good and important. However, NS has already got the visual style that works, so it boils down to the smaller details.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
heh I think you are agreeing with me. My point was exactly that its not 'one-or-the-other' and there has to be a balance between all aspects of the game. Simply saying Gameplay > Realism, like the OP said, as if its all you have to consider is very short sighted.
Imagine the marines all dressed up in clown suits, and the aliens running around giggling like school girls...I don't care how awesome, action packed, skill oriented team vs team game it was, I probably wouldn't play it..
Oh ######! A LEAPING ONOS! RUN! GET TO DA CHOPPA!!!
Nah, for me, that would really depend on internal consistency, and by extension, the expectations you have. It's really all about expectations. The first expectation anyone has, is that a medium is internally consistent (things <b>make sense</b>); when it isn't, it jars our suspension of disbelief (esp. for a 'realistic' setting) and also our enjoyment of the medium. Other expectations people have, directly have to do with visual aesthetics.
In the example you gave.. well, let's look at, for example, Jailbreak Source. In one of their big updates, they changed the combine and rebel forces to ROBOTS and DINOSAURS. But their entire philosophy was all about fun, screw realism and fashion - so it was internally consistent. So in the example you gave, if their INTENTION was to have it be a non-serious not-even-remotely-realistic game, then that would be okay. (Although in that case, many people would also expect the artistic direction to favour a more... cartoony look; and yet still, others wouldn't care and would enjoy it regardless, since they were <b>expecting</b> a departure from the <b>norm and expected</b>, they'd be looking at it as comedic, something to laugh at.)
Now, that doesn't mean everyone will like it, or should be expected to. People still have different tastes. I personally hate bollywood films, but I have sisters and friends that love them. Actually that's a bad example, since I'm the last one who would convince you that it's okay for <b>anyone</b> to enjoy bollywood films.
But I think you get my point...
In the example you gave.. well, let's look at, for example, Jailbreak Source. In one of their big updates, they changed the combine and rebel forces to ROBOTS and DINOSAURS. But their entire philosophy was all about fun, screw realism and fashion - so it was internally consistent. So in the example you gave, if their INTENTION was to have it be a non-serious not-even-remotely-realistic game, then that would be okay. (Although in that case, many people would also expect the artistic direction to favour a more... cartoony look; and yet still, others wouldn't care and would enjoy it regardless, since they were <b>expecting</b> a departure from the <b>norm and expected</b>, they'd be looking at it as comedic, something to laugh at.)
Now, that doesn't mean everyone will like it, or should be expected to. People still have different tastes. I personally hate bollywood films, but I have sisters and friends that love them. Actually that's a bad example, since I'm the last one who would convince you that it's okay for <b>anyone</b> to enjoy bollywood films.
But I think you get my point...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right I know what you are saying. The Clowns and school girls was just a hyperbol example of completely unappealing aesthetics. Its probably a bad example since some people might like clowns ... ... and school girls....
While I agree that that's important, if you stress this aspect too much, you'd start seeing marines limping from a bite wound to the leg or a blinded alien shot in the face. As cool as that may sound, it introduces balance issues which may or not be a good idea according to ultimately what's practical for the developers to do with limited time and resources and whether or not it would add or take away from the game.
And ultimately, while I may not like the idea of an onos using a ladder, I'd settle for that as opposed to having a skulk bite my legs off and leave me to die slowly over a period of 30 minutes in some corridor because it would disable me without letting me respawn. Gameplay takes higher priority anyday.