18 replies to this topic

[force_echo]

Discuss.

[Peypeypeypey]

I'm somewhere between 1 and 3. The story is the most important part of the game to me, but I do think that changing the mechanics can lead to better games. I'm more towards the third option, though.

[DamagingRob]

Hmm.. Hard to say. If they add new stuff, and it fits in good, then yeah. But if they change it, and the game blows, well...

The last option, I don't know either. I mean, a good story to go with it, isn't a bad thing. But a game is a game. If it's not fun, I don't think it matters how good the story was, you probably won't play it again. Just Youtube the scenes from it. Some games even have the "scene select" option. Seeing that less and less these days, though.

[sirmethos]

It can pretty much go either way.

The change in gameplay from Jedi Knight, to Jedi Knight: Jedi Outcast(and the sequel, Jedi Academy), definitely made the game better, imo(changed from FPS to third-person, with the Light saber and Force Powers as the primary weapons). Along with the addition of an easy-to-use Multiplayer option, JK:JO and JK:JA completely blew Dark Forces and Dark Forces: Jedi Knight, out of the water, despite the fact that the story in the first two was far superior to that of the last two.

On the other hand, I've heard several complaints about the change in gameplay from Command and Conquer/Red Alert, to C&C: Tiberium Sun(the primary change is that the Construction Yards, have been switched out with mobile construction walkers)

Lastly, the change in gameplay with the GTA games haven't, for me at least, had any real effect on the quality of the games. I thoroughly enjoyed the original GTA games, and I've enjoyed the newer GTA games just as much(though for different reasons).

[silversurfer092]

Absolutely not. Gameplay makes the game. If some game has total shite gameplay but the greatest story ever told, it still won't get a lot of play. However, a game with amazing gameplay and a shit story (every game ever because every story is cliche now) gets a lot of play. In Fallout 3, who was like "OH FUCK! Does the dad really have to die?" or in Arkham City "Well, def didn't see Joker being the baddest of em all". No one. Of course, I only buy the games that have awesome gameplay and good story.

Whattup KOTORs.

EDIT: Bioshock is the exception. My friend did play through all of Bioshock just for the story.

[force_echo]

I mean, I definitely think arguments are to be had for every option.

Sonic tried to switch up the gameplay mechanics and ended completely destroying the franchise in a massive crash-and-burn. Similar things happened to Mario, and to a lesser extent, Zelda.

Mass Effect definitely changed it's gameplay mechanics from 1 to 2 for the better, and so did Bioshock.

But also, this brings up the third point. Pretty much everyone liked Bioshock 1 more than 2 because of the story and impact, even though the gameplay was better in 2. Similar to fallout 3 and New Vegas. Even though New Vegas had better gameplay mechanics, Fallout 3 is widely regarded to be the better game.

[DamagingRob]

Well, you have to remember with New Vegas, it is buggy as shit. I've had that thing freeze on me at least a dozen times, on the frickin' start menu, when it attempted to load the DLC content. So far, once I actually get the game to start, I haven't had problems in-game.

[force_echo]

On the Xbox it is. That's why I have it for the PC. Fixer mods ftw.

[DamagingRob]

Heh. Well, I haven't seen one review that said they liked Fallout 3 more because of its story. Usually, the complaints for New Vegas (from what I've seen, anyways) are about the bugs.

[Peypeypeypey]

I wasn't trying to say that gameplay is useless and story is the only important thing. I meant that if a franchise already has good gameplay, more effort should be put into making the story better.

[force_echo]

I haven't seen a single review that really compares NV and 3 extensively, but I have seen quote a few reviews that say Fallout has better mechanics. The 3 being a better game comes from basically everyone who's played both. 3 is just more fun, I haven't heard a single person say that NV is mor e fun to play than 3.

[silversurfer092]

I like 3 more because Washington DC is way cooler than New Vegas. I like the more urban feel than the wild, wild west feel. Except fuck all the animals in both games. The little bee fuckers in NV and the Mirelurks in 3.

[kainboa]

I have to say, I prefer New Vegas over Fallout 3.

I just preferred the general setting of the Mojave desert and the situation of the courier, rather than the vault guy in DC.

[force_echo]

I like 3 more because Washington DC is way cooler than New Vegas. I like the more urban feel than the wild, wild west feel. Except *vulgarity* all the animals in both games. The little bee *vulgarity*ers in NV and the Mirelurks in 3.

Boatflys? You got killed by boatflys? You can kill those *vulgarity*s with one shot. WITH A VARMINT RIFLE.

[silversurfer092]

Boatflys? You got killed by boatflys? You can kill those *vulgarity*s with one shot. WITH A VARMINT RIFLE.

Nah, not boatflys. The Cazador. Those things were damn impossible.

[deojusto]

I actually liked NV a little better. The companions had more depth, the weapons were more stratified so that you have to work your way up and don't get a missile launcher as soon as you reach the first town. Also the grey morality worked a little better for me. F3 had Enclave bad, BOS good, with the regulators, slavers, and Talons thrown in. NV had a whole bunch of organizations and groups which were never completely evil or completely altruistic.

Also, no having to take freaking subway tunnels every five minutes to move the equivalent of five city blocks.

[force_echo]

New Vegas had Legion bad, NCR good. House and Yes Man were a little murkier.

[deojusto]

But the NCR wasn't always good. They had bitter springs, they wanted to exterminate the Khans, the Brotherhood, Jacobstown, and assassinate House. Really going independent was perhaps the more moral option. Even House, while sometimes autocratic, could have worked Hoover Dam far better than anyone else and Vegas would have been better off than if the NCR held a tenuous grasp. Even the Legion was more a dark grey then true black.

That said, the Enclave did have some noble ideals, but really they just wanted domination and didn't provide anything in return. Caesar at least brought stability.

[force_echo]

Well, the grasp wouldn't have been very tenuous once the Courier defeated the Legion. With no more Legion presence, and with The Courier aiding them, I assumed that the NCR would have reinforced the Vegas area much more heavily.

Bitter Springs was a mistake, and the NCR tried to make amends for it. The NCR wanted to exterminate the Brotherhood in the first place because they believed in distributing Pre-War technology and using it to improve the lives of the people. The Brotherhood were being selfish dicks and wanted to control the tech for themselves to make more badass weapons. Jacobstown and dealing with House were shady though, I'll give you that.