Victory Game Center

Birgitte2004 wrote:

Chao wrote: QTEs are the outcome of "I want to make this badass set piece but I can't make interesting gameplay for shit"

Most "good" QTEs can't be replicated in regular gameplay at all. Asking to remove those is asking for the game to be less interesting.

I wouldn't ask why there are negative reactions to QTEs, because they can be done badly and overused, and people will naturally hate that.

I would instead ask why some people are so averse to them that they 100% positively absolutely hate them no matter what they are and what they add to the game. Those people are pretty easy to find around here apparently.

Jake Tucker wrote: The emphasis on real world architecture morphed the gameplay around it. Real buildings had real chokepoints, which often meant you were trying to fight the enemies as well as the fact that buildings aren't often designed with armed counterterrorism units in mind.

This meant accidents could happen. "A team would stack up on a door and one guy would throw a grenade through the door," explains Sonedecker. "Except it hit the door frame and bounced back into the team. People would look at it for a second then you'd hear screaming 'GRENADE' through your speakers or from the next door office just as everyone started to try to run away. But the hallways were not wide enough for six people so just as we bunched up: BOOM!" Sonedecker moves his arms outwards to simulate the lethal explosion before laughing.

Jake Tucker wrote: On DeVries' 25th birthday, the team was being trained by, what DeVries described as "some very seriously "tip of the spear" guys" on how to shoot MP5s full auto while moving. This formed the basis of Rainbow Six's movement model. The technical consultants advised that keeping a stable firing position while moving was essential. When asked whether or not they'd leap over a sofa in the middle of the room to get across the room faster, they scoffed - "Too dangerous, I'd go around it". The programmers were enthusiastic; this meant they wouldn't have to program in jumping.

Langdon Alger wrote: That's the problem with VR. No complex gameplay.

stuminus3 wrote: Better than video games? I can dig this. Walking into a late 80s/early 90s arcade lined with pinball machines was an unparalleled experience. Pure gameplay.

Thomas Grip wrote: What this all leads me to is the following: When it comes to storytelling, games are inherently just too fun for their own good. I think the problem comes down to being stuck at a local maximum

What I mean with this is that as you are developing a game, you will come across a bunch of ideas that you can choose to follow. There will always be a lot of tension between getting the game's gameplay and storytelling to work. Scouting the territory of the possible design choices, the ones where the gameplay wins are the ones that will almost always come out victorious. Following the path of narrative-focus will almost always decrease the perceived engagement. Think of these gameplay-focused solutions as going upwards towards a peak, and the story-focused ones as going downhill into a valley.

But that doesn't mean that focusing on gameplay is optimal in the long run. It just means that given the solutions at hand, most of the time, the best one will seem to be the ones with gameplay-focus. There could be another, much higher, peak further away, but the only way to reach it is through tough terrain and deep valleys. By this I mean that a method will not show its value until you let it evolve to a certain amount. But in video games the classic play is so interesting on its own, that is unlikely anyone would want to make this journey.

Wesley-Sigma wrote: The narrative that 'Games are only getting better.' is pushed by people who are ignorant of game design and mechanics.

Succint Verbosity wrote: The issue with mimics – the first enemies you will encounter – is that they just aren’t fun to fight