I'm an average fellow who likes to play video games. I work for a news website as a video producer, and I'm hoping to use that experience to score a job at a video game-centric news site doing the same thing.
My consoles of choice are PS3 and Vita, but I'm working my way into PC gaming. I recently built a high end 'rig,' and I'm working on building up a decent Steam library. I'm always looking for people to play online with, so if you've got a PS3 or Vita, please add me on PSN!
Battlefield is the glaring ommission from the For Glory mode. I don’t think they’ve revealed any other neutral stages thus far, but Battlefield is a staple in neutral stages, and is my personal favorite competitive stage. It doesn’t make sense to have stages exclusive to Glory, either. It’s just a weird, unnecessary choice. They could have done a much better job than the all or nothing setup they’ve gone with.
I dunno, I think they look cool. They may not be practical, but they’re cool.
We’re arguing definitions here. You’re looking at the term as you would a security exploit or a hack. I’m saying it’s just using the full use of the mechanic, whether it was intended or not. You’re exploiting the invincibility frames and the rules of ledge grabbing when ledge hogging. Again, it’s not a negative word. It’s just an accurate term for what is happening.
-make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
Pretty crappy setup for modes. It’s very limiting. Players can’t play on FD with items, and other neutral stages are ignored in favor of the most boring neutral stage (and not the only fair competitive stage). It should have been For Fun: all stages all items and For Glory: all neutral stages no items.
This version is breaking plenty of established norms in previous iterations, so I wouldn’t hold that standard as a rule.
The idea isn’t being eliminated, but the change in how edge-grabbing works will likely drastically alter the the edge game is played. All previous SSB games allowed for any player to hog the edge when another player was recovering. Now, since damage (and airtime?) affect edge grabbing priority, players can’t just edge hog whenever they want.
I think the result will be pretty great. It will force players to use different tactics based on how much damage they and their opponent have. A 1v1 with a player at high damage and the other with low damage will see the high damage player pushing to get the other off-stage so they can edge guard (since they’ll have priority) and the low damage player staying closer to center-stage and trying to get a heavy hit on the other. The tactics will constantly shift with the changes in damage percentage, which will likely make for much more interesting high level play.
The invincibility frames are a defensive mechanic that is intended to provide recovering players some security when re-entering the stage. That mechanic was exploited in a way that allowed players on-stage to cut off a recovering player’s only option.
Same goes for me. I’m enjoying games like Luftrausers and Divekick a whole lot more than The Last of Us, just because it’s not as demanding. When I sit down to play , say, Infamous: SS, I feel a pang of guilt and stress because I’m committing a lot of time to something. Even if I’m enjoying myself (which I sure as heck did with Infamous), it’s hard to shake the ever-present knowledge that 2+ hours are about to be gone.
With Luftrausers, I play a few rounds and set down the controller to do something else, and can come back a few minutes or hours later and pick it back up. It’s refreshing, whereas longer sessions are on the verge of mentally and emotionally taxing.
It’s definitely an exploit. It’s using a mechanic that was intended for safe recovery as an offensive tactic. It’s not a bad thing, but it’s definitely an exploit. An exploit isn’t inherently a bad thing.
Note my example. I used Sly Cooper. A franchise that has its fourth entry in the works and has an HD rerelease of the first three. All of which incorporate a character in a wheelchair.
My point was that you can make an impact with the inclusion of a character in a minority group without making a “preachy” game.
I was hoping UE4 would shed that too. It’s a little better here, but still not as good as others. Unfortunately, I’m sure a lot more games will be using UE4 because of the low barrier to entry with the new licensing system.
That was one of my favorite moments in the first game. I chose the good side, and the result said a lot about Cole’s view of his powers. It also made me really like evil cole when I played the second time, because I could see how he felt about being a super hero, and it fueling his rage.
Is think you’re missing the point of this whole speech’s article. Heir wasn’t encouraging developers to make games with messages – preachy games as you called them. Instead, he’s saying that developers should be encouraged to incorporate minority parties into their works. This doesn’t mean creating a story that forces the player to change their views or emotionally affect them. Simply incorporating people from these groups in a way that isn’t harmful can create significant change.
Someone above mentioned Bentley from Sly Cooper as a character that is disabled and treated as just another character. This can be a huge encouragement to a child in a wheelchair. Seeing Bentley could make them think, “Being in a wheelchair isn’t a bad thing. I can be strong and smart and important, just like Bentley.” If I were a developer, and I created something that made a child feel empowered despite a perceived disability, it would be more encouraging than sales numbers or profit.