Maybe you'll learn something Cruel.

Maybe you'll learn something Cruel.

I dont think there's much to learn from a guy who talks about the mobility in Titanfall 2, then shows a gameplay clip of someone simply walking around in Titanfall, not even shooting at anyone...

It's funny how the guy only hints at the stiff controls and wonky gameplay of Vanquish by praising the higher framerate for making it easier to actually hit your targets (while neglecting to mention a pretty huge bug that comes with the framerate), while showing off fairly repetitive moves (how many times will he shoot his grenade in midair? How often will he buttslide to cover a few feet during a lack of combat? Bring a counter!).

If anything, this helps folks appreciate how far Platinum's come since then, especially when the pro-Vanquish defense essentially just consists of "people were just playing it wrong!"

Aren't you the one who says that a game should be inherently fun on its own, without requiring people to play it a certain way to be fun?

Aren't you the one who says that a game should be inherently fun on its own, without requiring people to play it a certain way to be fun?

You can play any game in ways so as to make it not fun. So to answer your question: NO.

Would you play Mario without getting powerups, busting bricks, or going down pipes? You don't have to do any of that stuff. But you have more fun if you do it!

Aren't you the one who says that a game should be inherently fun on its own, without requiring people to play it a certain way to be fun?

You can play any game in ways so as to make it not fun. So to answer your question: NO.

That's literally the opposite of what I asked.

Aren't you the one who says that a game should be inherently fun on its own, without requiring people to play it a certain way to be fun?

You can play any game in ways so as to make it not fun. So to answer your question: NO.

That's literally the opposite of what I asked.

Comprehension.

If there exists ways to play every game that kills the fun, then every game is required to be played a certain way so as to be fun. So I would never argue what you just said.

Aren't you the one who says that a game should be inherently fun on its own, without requiring people to play it a certain way to be fun?

You can play any game in ways so as to make it not fun. So to answer your question: NO.

That's literally the opposite of what I asked.

Comprehension.

If there exists ways to play every game that kills the fun, then every game is required to be played a certain way so as to be fun. So I would never argue what you just said.

I didn't ask if there were ways to make a game unfun.

I said that the defense that this guy (and other Vanquish defenders) uses is "you won't have fun unless you play the game using these tricks!" As in, you, the player, have to go out of your way to MAKE THE GAME FUN. Why is it not fun on its own? Why should I have to go out of my way to use button combos that the game does not require in order to have fun? Any game has optional features that add to the game and make it more fun, but the game should be fun on its own. Is it fun to play Dead Space games using only the Plasma Cutter? Yes. Is it fun to use other weapons? Also yes! Are you required to use other weapons or Suits to make the game fun? Nope.

Then people say Vanquish is boring. Even the guy on the video admits that the game is a Japanese take on more successful Western franchises "but IF YOU PLAY THE GAME DIFFERENTLY, it's more than that". Well, he just acknowledged that you have to go out of your way to make it fun.

Aren't you the one who says that a game should be inherently fun on its own, without requiring people to play it a certain way to be fun?

You can play any game in ways so as to make it not fun. So to answer your question: NO.

That's literally the opposite of what I asked.

Comprehension.

If there exists ways to play every game that kills the fun, then every game is required to be played a certain way so as to be fun. So I would never argue what you just said.

Then people say Vanquish is boring. Even the guy on the video admits that the game is a Japanese take on more successful Western franchises "but IF YOU PLAY THE GAME DIFFERENTLY, it's more than that". Well, he just acknowledged that you have to go out of your way to make it fun.

Halo is boring if you just press A over and over again and don't explore anything else you can do. Every game requires you to engage in a sense of curiosity in the game systems.

People who say Vanquish is boring are playing it on a difficulty level too easy for them. Gears of War is ruined this way too if you play on easy. It becomes a cover based shooter where you don't have to use cover. Game ruined.

Pretty much every game ever made is more fun when you go out of your way to learn the systems, and play on an appropriate difficulty for your skill. Why that is a knock against Vanquish I will never know. Remember when we used to commend depth in games?

Aren't you the one who says that a game should be inherently fun on its own, without requiring people to play it a certain way to be fun?

You can play any game in ways so as to make it not fun. So to answer your question: NO.

That's literally the opposite of what I asked.

Comprehension.

If there exists ways to play every game that kills the fun, then every game is required to be played a certain way so as to be fun. So I would never argue what you just said.

Then people say Vanquish is boring. Even the guy on the video admits that the game is a Japanese take on more successful Western franchises "but IF YOU PLAY THE GAME DIFFERENTLY, it's more than that". Well, he just acknowledged that you have to go out of your way to make it fun.

Halo is boring if you just press A over and over again and don't explore anything else you can do. Every game requires you to engage in a sense of curiosity in the game systems.

You can't make progress in Halo just by pressing A. You can beat Vanquish without using any of the "unique" systems that "make the game fun". Your argument is crap.

People who say Vanquish is boring are playing it on a difficulty level too easy for them.

Couldn't the same terrible argument be made of literally any game? Doesn't make it correct. Difficulty =/= Fun.

You can't make progress in Halo just by pressing A. You can beat Vanquish without using any of the "unique" systems that "make the game fun". Your argument is crap.

When did progress or beating the game become a requirement for fun? Are Rockslider and all those tricksters spending hours and hours not beating the game and being bored?

As always, just my own personal take here, but here goes.

Everything that vanquish does has been done better in other games. Even so, if vanquish assembled all its various elements in a way that was somehow beneficial to the total experience, that would be cool. But IMO, it doesn't do that. The mobility aspect of the game HURTS its functionality as a fun, challenging shooter.

I'll expand on that:

To me, good game design involves allowing the player to master skills in such a way that makes them more effective at conquering the challenges in front of them... AND, in a great game, those "skills" are also inherently fun or satisfying.

When people talk about the "fun" in vanquish, they talk about sprinting and vaulting and sliding around. But you can only really play the game that way on the easy or normal difficulty levels. And at those levels, I personally found little challenge to the game. The enemies weren't tough to fight, the encounters offered little challenge. But bumping the difficulty up higher does not encourage further mastery of those "fun" abilities. Instead, it forces the player to slow down, stop running and sliding as often, and play the game more like a typical 3rd person cover-based shooter. And as a 3rd person cover/-based shooter, Vanquish fucking sucks. It is dull as hell compared to games like Gears of War, which are designed from the ground up to support the more strategic and tactical sides of that style of gameplay.

Titanfall is probably the LAST game that any Vanquish defender should make comparisons to, because Titanfall nails the very element that Vanquish so utterly fails. In Titanfall, the "fun" part of combat (the mobility, wall running, sliding, etc) becomes increasingly important as you face more demanding challenges. You don't get better at Titanfall by slowing down and playing it more like every other shooter, you get better by truly mastering the insanely intricate movement mechanics so that you can continue to be faster and harder to hit than your opponent.

Titanfall shows you a basic set of mechanics, then rewards players who want more of a challenge by providing ways to take those mechanics further and further and further.

Vanquish presents fun, but shallow mechanics. Then punishes players who want a challenge until they stop engaging with those mechanics almost entirely.

- No text -

So you flipped your argument from just pressing A to doing the literal opposite of that by setting up complex scenarios most people won't see. It works against your point. It's actually a closer analogy to Vanquish. Rockslider is having more fun than most by doing what he is, but most people never saw or did those things. Vanquish is the same way--most people simply played the game and found it boring. It's the game's fault folks didn't engage. The devs should have made doing so more compelling. They don't get to put out a mediocre game and then tell me I played it wrong after the fact. If I was playing wrong, I shouldn't have been able to finish the fucking thing.

People love it because it's actually very damn good. :p

No it is their fault. If you play the game on a difficulty level that is so easy you don't have to engage with the game systems, then you need to adjust the difficulty. Again, nobody knocked gears of war even though easy mode completely ruins the game and allows you to bypass all the mechanics.

Now if the game were that way on all difficulty levels, then it would be the game's fault. But it isn't.

When people talk about the "fun" in vanquish, they talk about sprinting and vaulting and sliding around. But you can only really play the game that way on the easy or normal difficulty levels. And at those levels, I personally found little challenge to the game. The enemies weren't tough to fight, the encounters offered little challenge. But bumping the difficulty up higher does not encourage further mastery of those "fun" abilities. Instead, it forces the player to slow down, stop running and sliding as often, and play the game more like a typical 3rd person cover-based shooter. And as a 3rd person cover/-based shooter, Vanquish fucking sucks. It is dull as hell compared to games like Gears of War, which are designed from the ground up to support the more strategic and tactical sides of that style of gameplay.

Vanquish presents fun, but shallow mechanics. Then punishes players who want a challenge until they stop engaging with those mechanics almost entirely.

I feel it is literally the opposite of that. If you play Vanquish like Gears on Hard, then that's kind of like playing Halo with only the Plasma Rifle. The tools at your disposal require and extreme amount of mastery, but once you do you can lay waste to everything. If you play it like a typical 3rd person shooter you squander all that. But if you refused to play Halo with any other weapons, does that make the game bad?

Here is an expert playing the Hardest challenge mode. This mode take most people 15+ minutes. Notice how he is always moving, switching weapons, and hardly ever in cover:

People fell back to the Gears type passive play because it was what they were used to, and did not explore the truly wonderful systems that were in fact in place. It's pretty amazing we can have completely opposite views of this game, with you calling it shallow and me calling it deep.

The tools at your disposal require and extreme amount of mastery, but once you do you can lay waste to everything. If you play it like a typical 3rd person shooter you squander all that. But if you refused to play Halo with any other weapons, does that make the game bad?

Here is an expert playing the Hardest challenge mode. This mode take most people 15+ minutes. Notice how he is always moving, switching weapons, and hardly ever in cover:

And here is an expert playing Gears on the hardest difficulty setting. Note how he goes large chunks without actually engaging enemies or taking cover. By your logic, the fact that he's playing on a harder difficulty means that this should be impossible, no? "Game ruined", as you said, even though he's playing on the hardest difficulty.

People fell back to the Gears type passive play because it was what they were used to, and did not explore the truly wonderful systems that were in fact in place. It's pretty amazing we can have completely opposite views of this game, with you calling it shallow and me calling it deep.

I wouldn't call having an extra mechanic "deep", especially when the game doesn't realy do anything that requires you to use it to succeed.
"But if you master the game!" You shouldn't have to master a game to have fun. Any game can be more fun if you master it, so it's a crap argument. If you Master Titanfall, you can reach insane speeds without losing control of your actions. Will most players reach this level of mastery? No. Is the game still fun without mastering mechanics such as this? Yes.

Vanquish is crap (and the painfully generic aesthetics are crap too, which by your logic makes it a bad game). Maybe it CAN be fun "if you master the mechanics", but if the game doesn't compel you to use them , then that's the game being bad at implementing them.

Vanquish is crap (and the painfully generic aesthetics are crap too, which by your logic makes it a bad game)

That's rich coming from the guy that champions Warframe. :P (I'm sure Warframe is fine, but unholy shit, it's ugly)

Maybe it CAN be fun "if you master the mechanics", but if the game doesn't compel you to use them , then that's the game being bad at implementing them.

More than that, you can't litter a game with waist high walls and a cover system and then tell people they're playing wrong when they use them. The game's two big mechanics are complete opposites of each other. You can't invalidate the experiences of a huge swath of the players because they used one system instead of the other.

And here is an expert playing Gears on the hardest difficulty setting. Note how he goes large chunks without actually engaging enemies or taking cover. By your logic, the fact that he's playing on a harder difficulty means that this should be impossible, no? "Game ruined", as you said, even though he's playing on the hardest difficulty.

This is a segmented speedrun dude. This means each part was hundreds (possibly more) attempts put together. You cannot play the game normally all the way through like that.

Vanquish is crap (and the painfully generic aesthetics are crap too, which by your logic makes it a bad game)

That's rich coming from the guy that champions Warframe. :P (I'm sure Warframe is fine, but unholy shit, it's ugly)

Exactly. Warframe looks, sounds, feels, and plays ugly.

Vanquish is crap (and the painfully generic aesthetics are crap too, which by your logic makes it a bad game)

That's rich coming from the guy that champions Warframe. :P (I'm sure Warframe is fine, but unholy shit, it's ugly)

Heh, I like that Warframe has a very distinct look. It's like Guyver for the most part (maybe I'm just old). Still, I find it funny that Cody champions a game with an extremely generic style and muddy graphics, despite saying that aesthetics are important to a game being "good".

By his own logic, Vanquish should be considered a bad game simply based on its graphics.

Maybe it CAN be fun "if you master the mechanics", but if the game doesn't compel you to use them , then that's the game being bad at implementing them.

More than that, you can't litter a game with waist high walls and a cover system and then tell people they're playing wrong when they use them. The game's two big mechanics are complete opposites of each other. You can't invalidate the experiences of a huge swath of the players because they used one system instead of the other.

Exactly. The game doesn't give you incentive to use the optional mechanics, so the fact that people use the ample cover means that they're playing the game as it's being presented.

Vanquish is crap (and the painfully generic aesthetics are crap too, which by your logic makes it a bad game)

That's rich coming from the guy that champions Warframe. :P (I'm sure Warframe is fine, but unholy shit, it's ugly)

Exactly. Warframe looks, sounds, feels, and plays ugly.

That's rich coming from the guy championing Vanquish! :P

Maybe it CAN be fun "if you master the mechanics", but if the game doesn't compel you to use them , then that's the game being bad at implementing them.

More than that, you can't litter a game with waist high walls and a cover system and then tell people they're playing wrong when they use them. The game's two big mechanics are complete opposites of each other. You can't invalidate the experiences of a huge swath of the players because they used one system instead of the other.

^ Bingo