Platformer style or classic RPG [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Jimmt

2012-12-20, 10:28 PM

How is it like a platformer? Because most of the fighting is linear. There's not much "depth" in terms of fighting; you don't see Roy fighting in the front and Belkar in the distance, you just see Roy - and then it'll switch focus to Belkar. Except for the giant battle that's pretty much how it is.

There is, of course, middle ground - games like TMNT arcade where the gameplay is mostly left and right but you can move up and down, albeit while still facing left/right.

Nimrod's Son

2012-12-21, 02:23 AM

In what way exactly is the comic like a platform game? :smallconfused::smallconfused:
In the days before 3D gaming became commonplace, almost all platform games had a side-on perspective similar to the one seen in the comic. Which would look more like the comic, but I don't think would make for terribly interesting gaming. You'd be holding "right" an awful lot. It'd basically be Golden Axe with cartoon graphics.

I think by far the best way of representing OotS as a videogame would be to eschew both action and roleplaying and have it as a Lucasarts-style point-and-click adventure. That way you get to keep the look, humour and the spirit of the original comic without necessarily having to sacrifice gameplay.

(Thinking about it, a collaboration with fellow Kickstarter record-breaker Tim Schafer would be an absolute wet dream of a project...)

Zahhak

2012-12-21, 03:11 AM

How is it like a platformer? Because most of the fighting is linear. There's not much "depth" in terms of fighting; you don't see Roy fighting in the front and Belkar in the distance, you just see Roy - and then it'll switch focus to Belkar. Except for the giant battle that's pretty much how it is.

If that were to happen more often (it happens sometimes, but not often) it would greatly distort our ability to see whats happening. That was most likely a decision of necessity, not art.

Although, my suspicion is that the OP meant a platformer like the sidescrolling platformers that are popular on armorgames.

Winter

2012-12-21, 06:56 AM

Although, my suspicion is that the OP meant a platformer like the sidescrolling platformers that are popular on armorgames.

Kids these days. It's "side-scrolling platformers like they were popular in the 80s and early 90s".

Apart from that: classic RPG. OotS lives from the dynamics in the party and from the interaction of characters with the world. You simply cannot map that to a side scroller.

You do not have the IP of this so anything beyond "write up some basic ideas for fun" is very likely not possible.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-21, 10:12 AM

In the days before 3D gaming became commonplace, almost all platform games had a side-on perspective similar to the one seen in the comic. Which would look more like the comic, but I don't think would make for terribly interesting gaming.

Okay, well just like with the falling issue, have a side view doesn't equate to being a platform game. Lots of games back then had side views, like the aforementioned Sierra adventure games (King's Quest, Space Quest, etc.). Tons of fighting games have a side-view perspective as well, but zero platforming aspects.

A lot of web comics are drawn from a side view because that viewpoint makes it easy to draw characters standing next to each other. Realize that this is a coincidence arising from convenience and not something that makes platforming an appropriate genre for an OOTS game.

lio45

2012-12-21, 12:59 PM

You simply cannot map that to a side scroller.

(...) and not something that makes platforming an appropriate genre for an OOTS game.

Exactly right.

(Well, unless you decide to completely ignore the D&D aspect... then yes, you could have the player(s) each choose one of the six PCs, each with different "special" abilities (Roy jumps higher than Durkon, V throws fire balls, etc.), and collectively move right while jumping over pits and on enemies.)

Winter

2012-12-21, 01:49 PM

The idea alone that you could turn something that lives off a "group of characters" into a platformer game (where you can, based on the very fundamental gameplay, only play one char at once) is pretty puzzling to me.
I'd be like... the game only had the names and looks in common with what the source actually is.

Dr.Epic

2012-12-21, 02:03 PM

The ability to fall does not equate to platforming.

But nevertheless, it was still the funniest moment in OotS.:smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Nimrod's Son

2012-12-21, 04:47 PM

Okay, well just like with the falling issue, have a side view doesn't equate to being a platform game. Lots of games back then had side views, like the aforementioned Sierra adventure games (King's Quest, Space Quest, etc.). Tons of fighting games have a side-view perspective as well, but zero platforming aspects.
Tons of old fighting games had a side-view perspective, but advances in technology have made that sort of gameplay obsolete (which is why I specifically mentioned Golden Axe, which isn't strictly speaking a platformer, but rather a side-scrolling fantasy fighting game with very occasional platform elements - chasms to leap over, that sort of thing). Not so with 2D platformers: Limbo is a great example of a recent one that took the gaming world by storm.

Realize that this is a coincidence arising from convenience and not something that makes platforming an appropriate genre for an OOTS game.
I absolutely agree, but at the same time I do think that it would need to remain almost entirely in 2D (with perhaps the odd bit of perspective a la Enor & Gannji on the rooftop) to be faithful to the strip. An eight-way scrolling platformer with terrain that resembles the strip where Roy and Thog search for the Earth Sigil would be vastly prefereable in terms of gameplay to a horizontally-scrolling slash-em-up, and an overhead-or-POV-view like most RPGs would just be wrong. Actually, anything to do with RPGs would be wrong for OotS, because as soon as you put stats in there you remove the potential for cartoonish comedy.

If the only two options were "classic RPG" and "2D platformer", I'd vote for platformer every time (with the caveat that it actually is a platformer, not just a game where you walk right until you find monsters to kill). But like I said, I reckon graphic adventure would be by far the best way to go.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-21, 05:54 PM

As others have mentioned, the fighting tends to be rather side to side rather than back to front and 'camera' movements out of that are reserved for fairly rare and important moments.
Therefore, I could see it working as a beat em' up side scrolling RPG.
Think of games like Golden axe, but with RPG elements and more story. Multiplayer would be neat, picking which characters you wanted to play. A clean vector art style would suit, in my opinion.

hamishspence

2012-12-21, 06:13 PM

Therefore, I could see it working as a beat em' up side scrolling RPG.
Think of games like Golden axe, but with RPG elements and more story. Multiplayer would be neat, picking which characters you wanted to play. A clean vector art style would suit, in my opinion.

I vaguely recall a side-scrolling D&D arcade game- Shadow over Mystara, it was called.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DungeonsAndDragons?from=Main.DungeonsAndDragonsSha dowOverMystara

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-21, 07:09 PM

Tons of old fighting games had a side-view perspective, but advances in technology have made that sort of gameplay obsolete

This is completely untrue. Street Fighter IV and Marvel VS Capcom 3 are two great examples of current-generation fighting games that have a side-view perspective despite their 3D graphics.

Sith_Happens

2012-12-21, 08:09 PM

Oh, definitely RPG, probably isometric. The real question is, real-time or turn-based? And if the former, with or without a combat pause?

Jimmt

2012-12-21, 08:36 PM

I'd say real-time. Although that would kind of break the d&d feel, I feel like you already get the turn-based experience from playing normal d&d. Real-time would bring in a totally new element of gameplay (would be harder tho; would have to implement better fighting/magic systems)

Zahhak

2012-12-21, 09:41 PM

Jimmt

2012-12-21, 09:47 PM

I code in Java :)

And those flash games are almost always no good.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-21, 10:09 PM

Am I the only person who has been under the assumption of this being made into a flashgame that would be posted on one of the half-dozen flashgame sites like armorgames? Because those games are almost exclusively side scrolling platformers or top down shooters.

No, I've been under the assumption of this never actually getting made because the Giant will most likely never give random forumites permission to make a game based on OOTS.

That being said, deciding what programming language and software kit you're going to use before completing a design document--or even knowing what genre the game will be in--is a terrible idea in terms of game development. Different tools have different uses and different strengths, so ideally you want to choose the one that best fits your project.

Jimmt

2012-12-21, 10:51 PM

I have to disagree. With an all-purpose language like java or even c++ almost anything is possible. Developers don't usually pick the language to the game - they choose what they are most comfortable with.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-21, 11:33 PM

I vaguely recall a side-scrolling D&D arcade game- Shadow over Mystara, it was called.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DungeonsAndDragons?from=Main.DungeonsAndDragonsSha dowOverMystara
Neat!:smallbiggrin: I was unaware of that, but that's rather cool.

Dr.Epic

2012-12-21, 11:43 PM

Why has no one yet to suggest the greatest genre of gaming:
Text-based adventure!

<Get ye flask

Nimrod's Son

2012-12-21, 11:51 PM

This is completely untrue. Street Fighter IV and Marvel VS Capcom 3 are two great examples of current-generation fighting games that have a side-view perspective despite their 3D graphics.
I was talking about side-scrolling beat-em-ups in the Golden Axe/Double Dragon vein, not contained-arena one-on-one types, which I don't really see fitting with OotS at all. Some people might enjoy a Street Fighter-style fighting game with OotS characters, sure, but that's infinitely less appealing to me than a graphic adventure based on puzzles and character interaction. Maybe a bit of token action for good measure, but fighting shouldn't be the main thrust of the gameplay, it should be about story and humour.

Am I the only person who has been under the assumption of this being made into a flashgame that would be posted on one of the half-dozen flashgame sites like armorgames? Because those games are almost exclusively side scrolling platformers or top down shooters.
Rich is never going to give his permission for someone to make a quick flash game like that, because as Jimmt says, those games are almost always terrible. He's never given permission for any fan-made project yet, and I'm sure plenty have asked. I was talking purely hypothetically: if Rich was to license OotS to a professional games company, which I'm aware is very unlikely to ever happen.

Jimmt

2012-12-22, 12:04 AM

I was talking about side-scrolling beat-em-ups in the Golden Axe/Double Dragon vein, not contained-arena one-on-one types, which I don't really see fitting with OotS at all. Some people might enjoy a Street Fighter-style fighting game with OotS characters, sure, but that's infinitely less appealing to me than a graphic adventure based on puzzles and character interaction. Maybe a bit of token action for good measure, but fighting shouldn't be the main thrust of the gameplay, it should be about story and humour.
Yeah, side-scrolling action doesn't really work that much anymore for non-arena games, the field is being taken over by 3D MMORPGS and full out HD 3D games like Skyrim.

Gift Jeraff

2012-12-22, 04:34 AM

It should be 4-player platform/party fighting game.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-22, 06:34 AM

A lot of indie games are still using side-scrolling format, so your comment about it being obsolete is still wrong. Also, there is a big difference between fighting games and beat-'em-ups.

You probably didn't know this, but they released a reboot for Double Dragon just a few months ago.

Kurald Galain

2012-12-22, 06:55 AM

How about a board game instead? Maybe something that plays in Dorukan's Dungeon where you can have up to six players that each have a deck of cards to represent one character's abilities? :smallamused:

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-22, 06:57 AM

lio45

2012-12-22, 10:25 AM

No, I've been under the assumption of this never actually getting made because the Giant will most likely never give random forumites permission to make a game based on OOTS.

^ Of course.

But if Jimmt is serious, willing to commit, really persistent, loves to code, has a LOT of free time, and will continue to have a LOT of free time for the foreseeable future... (obviously I wouldn't bet on that, because the likelyhood of Jimmt, like any other forumite, being that one-in-a-million guy is just plain near zero...)

...then, if he really wanted to, he could very well create something very loosely based on OotS/D&D that could still be a success... (No one has copyrights on the concepts of fighter, sword, magic, fights, monsters, etc.)

And then, if it's indeed very good, when it gets presented to Rich, at that point Jimmt definitely won't be just a random forumite any more... and who knows? Maybe he'll get that never-granted-before permission to put a Roy skin on his game's fighter character and add little OotS-flavored bits to the game...

Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath :P

brionl

2012-12-22, 09:41 PM

It should be 4-player platform/party fighting game.

Like the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Simpsons arcade games.

Dr.Epic

2012-12-22, 09:47 PM

Simpsons arcade games.

Or what is the second greatest game of all time?

(The greatest game of all time is E.T. for the Atari 2600.:smallwink:)

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-24, 01:39 AM

(The greatest game of all time is E.T. for the Atari 2600.:smallwink:)

Lies, LIES! :smallamused:

Seriously, that game was bad even by Atari 2600 standards.

Nimrod's Son

2012-12-24, 02:28 PM

A lot of indie games are still using side-scrolling format, so your comment about it being obsolete is still wrong.
If it isn't obsolete, why aren't the big-name companies doing it? I did specifically say I was talking about a big-name company handling the license, after all.

Also, there is a big difference between fighting games and beat-'em-ups.
There isn't a big difference at all, there's a large amount of crossover between the two. Final Fight was originally conceived as a sequel to Street Fighter, after all. But regardless, I don't see the relevance of pointing that out; it's not like I've been using the terms interchangeably, is it? I know what each means, and I don't think either would work for OotS, as I've been saying all along.

You probably didn't know this, but they released a reboot for Double Dragon just a few months ago.
I remember hearing something about that. But if they didn't have the hugely popular Double Dragon brand to rely on, it almost certainly wouldn't have happened.

You haven't addressed my point at all. Do you think a side-scrolling beat-em-up would make for a better OotS game than a graphic adventure? I don't, and I've given my reasons. All you've done is argue that old-school beat-em-ups are more relevant in today's market than I've made out. I still dispute that, but even if you're right it's still completely tangential to my point.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-24, 03:56 PM

You haven't addressed my point at all. Do you think a side-scrolling beat-em-up would make for a better OotS game than a graphic adventure? I don't, and I've given my reasons. All you've done is argue that old-school beat-em-ups are more relevant in today's market than I've made out. I still dispute that, but even if you're right it's still completely tangential to my point.

What was your point again? :smallconfused: I went back over the thread, and I'm really not sure.

I made a comment that platformers were not the only side-view games, since (for example) a lot of fighting games also have a side-view perspective.

You replied that OLD fighting games had side-view, but that current technology made that style of gameplay "obsolete."

I corrected you on that point, citing two current-gen fighting games (SF4 and MvC3) which both have side-view gameplay (unless Capcom is not a big-name publisher anymore??). I also said that there are tons of indie games which make use of that style as well. How many examples do you need to prove that side-scrolling is not obsolete exactly?

You then proceeded to nitpick the term "fighting game" by conflating it with old-school beat 'em ups, which was completely tangential to anything being discussed, in order to try to evade the hole you dug yourself. This despite the fact that you later claim to know the difference between fighters and beat 'em ups.

You also tried to backtrack and claim the comment about obsolete gameplay was only in reference to big-name companies, but that wasn't actually added into your argument until later on when you were already trying to cover your mistake.

So, no, Nimrod, I don't know what your point was with this useless misinformation about current gaming trends, but thanks for bringing it up again after everybody else had already moved on.

Merry X-Mas!

P.S. I never claimed that fighting or beat 'em ups was the correct genre for an OOTS game. All I've been doing is trying to figure out why the OP jumped to platformer as the obvious genre for OOTS. That is all.

Personally, I think a Simpsons arcade-style beat 'em up WOULD be a fine way to make a game using the OOTS characters. However, this is the very first time I'm making mention of my opinion on the subject.

Koo Rehtorb

2012-12-24, 04:21 PM

I cite this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0224.html) comic as evidence that OotS should be made into a Gauntlet clone.

Kurald Galain

2012-12-24, 07:05 PM

If it isn't obsolete, why aren't the big-name companies doing it?

Because the word "obsolete" has nothing to do with whether or not big-name companies are doing anything.

Dr.Epic

2012-12-24, 09:39 PM

Lies, LIES! :smallamused:

Seriously, that game was bad even by Atari 2600 standards.

Pff. I bet you also think Legend of Zelda Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are good games too.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-24, 11:52 PM

Pff. I bet you also think Legend of Zelda Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are good games too.

Haha, WRONG! A Link to the Past was a GREAT game, while Ocarina of Time was merely decent. :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Dr.Epic

2012-12-25, 12:36 AM

Haha, WRONG! A Link to the Past was a GREAT game, while Ocarina of Time was merely decent. :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Like you know what you're talking about. The only good thing the Zelda series has ever done was this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiyBO-ty4fs).

Zahhak

2012-12-25, 01:17 AM

....a quick flash game like that, because as Jimmt says, those games are almost always terrible.

Are you serious? Have you ever played any flash game in the last, like decade? Maybe one of the ones made by semi-pros? Insane Rouge AI, GemCraft, Kingdom Rush, Continuity, all great games, all flash based.

Jimmt

2012-12-25, 12:08 PM

We're talking about the quick, in browser, single player flash games, like on miniclip and armorgames. Most are complete ****, but some are decent.
Oh and btw, I've never heard of any of those games, but I will tell you that flash games like that are almost never as good as serious games, mainly because flash is a lot easier to learn than a lot of other languages.

Zahhak

2012-12-26, 02:04 AM

serious games

At the mentioning of this phrase I pretty much assume that the person who said it has lost badly. "Oh, it's just a flash game, its not a real game", "Oh, its just a youtube series, its not like its a real series", "Oh, its just a hugely popular and awarded webcomic, its not like it's a real artistic genre", blah blah elitist bull**** blah. Try playing some flash games from the last few years or something before denigrating the genre.

sims796

2012-12-26, 02:19 AM

At the mentioning of this phrase I pretty much assume that the person who said it has lost badly. "Oh, it's just a flash game, its not a real game", "Oh, its just a youtube series, its not like its a real series", "Oh, its just a hugely popular and awarded webcomic, its not like it's a real artistic genre", blah blah elitist bull**** blah. Try playing some flash games from the last few years or something before denigrating the genre.

Sonny is one of my favorite series. I'd advise anyone interested in tactical RPGs to give it a chance. Mardek series is also very well done, though those random encounters are painful.

Jimmt

2012-12-26, 12:11 PM

At the mentioning of this phrase I pretty much assume that the person who said it has lost badly. "Oh, it's just a flash game, its not a real game", "Oh, its just a youtube series, its not like its a real series", "Oh, its just a hugely popular and awarded webcomic, its not like it's a real artistic genre", blah blah elitist bull**** blah. Try playing some flash games from the last few years or something before denigrating the genre.
By "serious" games I mean games that have polish. And it's true that most flash games are complete ****. Because the programmers of those games don't put much time into them.

People keep on telling me to play flash games. Sure, I have, I played a lot of flash games when I was younger. The only two I probably liked are pixel legions and realm of the mad god.

Zahhak

2012-12-26, 07:47 PM

So, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just insulting? Wonderful. Thank you for making my case against you for me.

Jimmt

2012-12-26, 08:08 PM

So, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just insulting? Wonderful. Thank you for making my case against you for me.
What?
How can I possibly be insulting you and taking making your case at the same time?
Please note I'm not trying to insult flash developers, just saying that because it's an easier language to learn, there are a lot of quickly made games that don't have much thought. I respect flash developers like anyone else.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-12-26, 09:09 PM

By "serious" games I mean games that have polish. And it's true that most flash games are complete ****. Because the programmers of those games don't put much time into them.

People keep on telling me to play flash games. Sure, I have, I played a lot of flash games when I was younger. The only two I probably liked are pixel legions and realm of the mad god.

Good flash games that probably weren't around when you were playing.

1. Sonny series. Kongregate and Armor Games, as far as I know, and Armor Games has an extra class option, at least for 2.

2. Kingdom Rush. Kongregate/Armor Games. Only tower defense game I've ever completed (not to say it's short). There was also a sequel hook at the end, so I'm hoping for more and will gladly hand them my money if they decide to put it on Steam. Haven't and probably never will buy a premium account for the first game, as I don't have an account on any flash site, although a free hero unit (I think it gives you 15 upgrade stars), more hero options, and more levels is always good.

3. Mardek series. Top-down RPG, combat like in Paper Mario (turn-based, no movement, good timing will get you some boosts to damage/defense). Got through the first and second games (admittedly, the first is really short), played a bit of the third. It was made by whatever guys have the monkey logo. On Kongregate for sure. In addition, if you have a save file on the same site of the previous game after completion, you can carry over your items to the next one. Don't think levels carry over. Random encounters without warning are a thing, and bosses are the only monsters to appear on the non-combat screen.

Winter

2012-12-27, 04:42 AM

In all honesty: even the best flash games I saw are stinkers vs. even good indie projects, we're not even speaking about small professional stand alone titles. They're only "good" when compared to what we had like five years ago.
Even if the graphics are decent and the sound design superb (some really have that), the gameplay often is still very, very simple and around the technical state other games were in the 80s (I have been there, and even the best flash games remind me of the days when I played on a 286/386 (just with better graphics and sound; even the games on the 486 were more complex than most flash games these days and do not get me started on the Amiga - I still have to see a single flash game that comes near a sidescroller as Turrican 2).

Kurald Galain

2012-12-28, 04:09 PM

We're talking about the quick, in browser, single player flash games, like on miniclip and armorgames. Most are complete ****, but some are decent.

People, most of anything is crap. Most commercial games are also crap, those are just the games we forget about. Most webcomics are, again, crap, that's why we read the few good ones like OOTS. Heck, most music is crap, in that many bands put out one song and are never heard of again.

It's just Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law) at work.

Winter

2012-12-29, 04:58 AM

People, most of anything is crap.

"Basically all flashgames are crap. The very good ones just are good as casual flashgames to kill an hour or two, if you compare them to anything from a higher league, even the very best flashgame is crap."

Better? ;)

I think that is the difference between major games, music, movies. You compare the same tier (or at least similar tiers) in those, if you go "Flashgame" vs. "real games", the flashgames stink off vs. even decent indie productions.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-29, 05:21 PM

Gift Jeraff

2013-01-02, 06:19 PM

Like the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Simpsons arcade games.

Actually, I meant like Smash Bros., PS All-Stars, TMNT Smash-Up, that Cartoon Network game, etc.

Winter

2013-01-03, 12:22 PM

Okay, Please Stop Arguing YOUR OPINION As If It Was An Actual Fact! Other people have other opinions.

Oh please, stop bolding out the obvious. You disagree? Fine. What's the problem? It gets more stupid if we all add "I think," before all posts. Of course everything I state (or everyone else) is my opinion.

KillianHawkeye

2013-01-03, 08:25 PM

Of course everything I state (or everyone else) is my opinion.

Sorry, no. Some things are facts, some things are opinions. There's a difference. If you continue to state your opinion as an absolute fact, people like myself will continue to take issue with your terrible communication style.

Winter

2013-01-04, 05:00 AM

Sorry, no. Some things are facts, some things are opinions. There's a difference. If you continue to state your opinion as an absolute fact, people like myself will continue to take issue with your terrible communication style.

I'm going to state another fact of the universe: There is no objective truth.

KillianHawkeye

2013-01-04, 06:46 PM

I'm going to state another fact of the universe: There is no objective truth.

No, but there are objective facts.

Anyway, this discussion is now as ridiculous as it is pointless. If we have nothing more to say about what genre of video game is the best fit for OOTS, then we should both just stop talking.

I'm out.

Capt Spanner

2013-01-04, 07:05 PM

It's important to recognise that genres are just that - genres. Nothing more. They are a vehicle to deliver the game's narrative.

You can tell an epic story using punk-rock or opera or metal. Far more important is to tell the story in a way you know how. American Idiot would be a terrible album if Rhapsody of Fire made it, Symphony of Enchanted Lands would be a terrible album if Greenday tried it.

It doesn't actually matter what genre a hypothetical OOTS game is. The workmanship and skill behind the design and execution of the game is everything. The rest is just a matter of taste.

Kurien

2013-01-05, 12:58 PM

{Scrubbed}

Winter

2013-01-06, 05:58 AM

Of course, the creator of Ultimate Stickventure made it simply for fun when he was bored, so Winter will probably think it only proves his point.

No, to proof my point it'd point you to armorgames, kongregate, newgrounds or deadwhale etc and what their names are.
This is obviously a crude fanmade piece that does not qualify as basis for my opinion.

And, while I am not a lawyer I'd still like to point it out (this is in no way legal advice!), it's probably a copyright infringement and surely against the explicit wishes of the OotS' author.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-01-06, 04:06 PM

"Basically all flashgames are crap. The very good ones just are good as casual flashgames to kill an hour or two, if you compare them to anything from a higher league, even the very best flashgame is crap."

Better? ;)

I think that is the difference between major games, music, movies. You compare the same tier (or at least similar tiers) in those, if you go "Flashgame" vs. "real games", the flashgames stink off vs. even decent indie productions.

Compare the Mardek series to any Final Fantasy game, except Tactics games. Same thing for Sonny, although Sonny is basically a level/gear grind with a story (but that's not what Final Fantasy is?).

In addition, Kingdom Rush is something I've played for hours, and while I've finished the campaign (although I lost the save), I still don't have 100% completion and still haven't tried using heroes as a serious, viable tactic worth fifteen upgrade stars. Kingdom Rush is even brilliant in its simplicity: its AI is totally crappy, but the strategical depth is great. What towers should I buy? Where should I place my reinforcements? What upgrades should I get? Should I use Rain of Fire now, or wait? The best archers in the kingdom or long-range riflemen? Sorcerers or Wizards (wizards. Sorcs are the worst specialty tower in the game, and I'd rather place down Barbarians with throwing axes than sorcs with an Earth Elemental)? Napalm or lightning? Paladins or Barbarians?

Nimrod's Son

2013-01-06, 10:17 PM

What was your point again? :smallconfused: I went back over the thread, and I'm really not sure.
No kidding. Sheesh.

My point is that neither a 2D platformer nor classic RPG was a particularly good choice for OotS, and that a graphic adventure would be much better. I said so at least twice, and pointed out how tangetial everything else was.

Skipping over the next bit, because it really doesn't warrant comment:

So, no, Nimrod, I don't know what your point was with this useless misinformation about current gaming trends, but thanks for bringing it up again after everybody else had already moved on.

Merry X-Mas!
I try to reply to any post that quotes me directly, but I can't do that until I read them. Sorry this is inconvenient to you but I'm a bit temporally restricted here.

P.S. I never claimed that fighting or beat 'em ups was the correct genre for an OOTS game. All I've been doing is trying to figure out why the OP jumped to platformer as the obvious genre for OOTS. That is all.
And all I was doing was trying to clarify the language in the OP when you started nitpicking on all the stuff I said that didn't actually matter. :smalltongue:

Personally, I think a Simpsons arcade-style beat 'em up WOULD be a fine way to make a game using the OOTS characters.
Yeah, and I agree. This is the thing though: like with the SF-style one-on-one fighting game, it would make for a good game but it wouldn't make for a definitive OotS license. Not in this day and age. Back when the Simpsons arcade game came out, it was fine (and remains a game I love to this day), but just look at the amount of Simpsons games that have come since, and how much more has been made of them - not just in terms of technology and gameplay, but in incorporating the world of the Simpsons into the game (not much from the TV show made it into the arcade game, and most of what did was pretty throwaway). And yet I still haven't played a Simpsons game I'd consider "definitive".

So obviously "obsolete" was the wrong choice of word, but in terms of exploring all the potential OotS has as a game it more or less does the job anyway. A Simpsons-style arcade platformer by necessity means you have can only control one character at once, and I want to be controlling them together and having them interact. That's where the spirit of OotS lies, and I'd want that reflected in the game - not just taking a fun platformer or beat-em-up and slapping OotS graphics on it.

KillianHawkeye

2013-01-06, 11:45 PM

This is the thing though: like with the SF-style one-on-one fighting game, it would make for a good game but it wouldn't make for a definitive OotS license. Not in this day and age. Back when the Simpsons arcade game came out, it was fine (and remains a game I love to this day), but just look at the amount of Simpsons games that have come since, and how much more has been made of them - not just in terms of technology and gameplay, but in incorporating the world of the Simpsons into the game (not much from the TV show made it into the arcade game, and most of what did was pretty throwaway). And yet I still haven't played a Simpsons game I'd consider "definitive".

So obviously "obsolete" was the wrong choice of word, but in terms of exploring all the potential OotS has as a game it more or less does the job anyway. A Simpsons-style arcade platformer by necessity means you have can only control one character at once, and I want to be controlling them together and having them interact. That's where the spirit of OotS lies, and I'd want that reflected in the game - not just taking a fun platformer or beat-em-up and slapping OotS graphics on it.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here by using the word "definitive." It sounds like you're trying to figure out which type of game genre could be used to create a game that was uniquely OOTS and also encompasses the complete depth and detail of the comic? If I'm way off base here, I trust you'll let me know in about two weeks.

If I am understanding you correctly, you're saying you won't really be satisfied with anything less than the Holy Grail of OOTS games. I guess that is your prerogative, but it seems like it's asking for an awful lot. Personally, I don't think a game based on another form of media (or based on anything really) needs to be the definitive work on the subject. I think it's perfectly fine, when the subject matter is as broad as OOTS, to select a slice of that subject matter to focus on. For example, somebody could create a 1-on-1 fighting game based on the Empire of Blood's colliseum, using Roy and Belkar and Thog and the bounty hunters and the other random gladiators as playable characters, and there would be nothing wrong with that.

But y'know, to each their own.