Slashdot Mirror
Mechanics That Changed Gameplay Forever
grammar fascist writes "A feature at 1up.com explores the various gameplay devices that revolutionized videogaming, and you might not believe how simple they are: life bars, power-ups, bosses, and combos make the list. From the article: 'As good as these ideas may sound on paper, they don't always work in execution. Sometimes they don't even make sense. But every once in a while, a game designer comes up with a fantastic concept that engages the player -- and influences the work of other designers.'"
I'll tell you what changed games - Saving
Lets face it, nobody would have ever finished the original Zelda if you had to start from the beginning everytime. Saving is what made games evolve from 3-6 hours of maximum gameplay to the massive sprawling indepth masterpieces we know today. Playing a game over and over and over so that you're perfectly adept at every nook and cranny is for the kids who have hours to spend on it, and is frustrating as hell (Ninja Gaiden I through III, I'm looking in your direction). The older crowd doesn't have the patience or the time for that kind of thing. Saving has made replayability an option, rather than a requirement.
The same argument also applies the natural extension of saving, which is unlimited continues.
No Free-cam?
No "sandbox mode" ala Simcity/Grand Theft Auto?
Sniper Shots made it but "target locking?"
This list may all be great mechanics, but many of them are far from the best.
Demented But Determined.
Seems to me that having a canine companion premiered in Nethack. ...And which, I might add, flamebaitingly, happens to be better than all those other games!
What about cheat codes?
Nethack is a good example of no save cheating(well, not built in anyways.)
You can save and quit, but you can't save without quitting. When you load you can resume your savegame or delete. Outside of these two option, you can't do anything else. This way you arn't stuck playing continuously, but you also can't replay anything before your savegame. Either you're playing and 'live', or you're saved and taking a break.
Of course as a result, the vast majority of the game never gets more than half way through it, but that just makes it worth replaying. Most games today are just stuck on rails trying to tell you a story. Theres no way to fail, only fail to do what they want you to do forcing you to try again. You are not playing the game, the game is playing you.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
In my opinion, most modern RTS games feel just as advanced as C&C. Here's a quick test to show why:
- Select a group of units, and assign them to hotkey 1.
- Have them attack an enemy group. Naturally, they overwhelm them and are victorious.
- Some your units are damaged and need to be sent back to base for repair. Do so without pulling away healthy units. While you can do this on Dark Reign, Red Alert 2, and a few other games... most games on the market do not support Auto-repair or otherwise send damaged units back to base without micromanaging them.
- While you were attacking the enemy forces, you were naturally building up another attack force with your build panel on the right-hand side of the screen. Select those new units and add them to group 1.
- Oh look, the enemy is launching another attack - have group 1 engage and destroy them. (They will do so easily, since the computer AI sucks.)
- Now, since the enemy base is weakly defended, have your reinforced group obliterate the enemy in one large swarm. To do so, wait until your reinforcements join up, and charge (which will be forever in every modern game other then Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2 - as units stop in their tracks as soon as their assigned target is destroyed.)
The order of events shown above are highly reasonable in a military assault. However, RTS games have the most basic of flaws in unit AIs that prevent these things from being possible - and these flaws are fixable by anyone who knows what they are doing.
A seriously weak article. It had it spot on with a few of the entries, but come on, dog side-kicks transformed gaming???
How about:
Run and jump?
Scrolling backgrounds? (It changed shooters forever and then changed platform games forever).
Analog controls? Mario 64 introduced "push the stick a little to tip toe", "medium to walk" and "all the way to run". This feature is in 90% of character based 3D games now!
There are plenty more, but this article obviously didn't want to get too technical.
First time I saw this was SWAT from Quake1, then Actionquake2, the team from which Gooseman left to make Counterstrike. And then a billion other "realistic" games spawned a bevy of bullet-based FPS games.
The popular weaponry was rocket launchers, railguns, freaky energy weaponry and whatnot. Now many games have hit-scan bullet guns instead, and with recoil, stability, and locational damage.
So many FPSes are tossing in headshots and favoring bullet-based guns. I like the crazy fictional guns, too much same-ness in a pistol/shotgun/chaingun(in whatever form they may take).
The very idea that they would have one powerful enemy at the end whose sole purpose is to defeat the one person who had ever managed to cut through all the defenses makes no sense. He should instead be outside to support the other defenses, not held in reserve as a single defensive point.
Now give me a game where whether you're able to get to the end depends on you surviving your own character's fatigue, where your character really doesn't have the time or endurance to "clear the level" (and not by having infinitely regenerating enemies). Maybe dealing with that would get game designers to stop making games where all you have to do is keep mashing the A button.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?