DarthSkywalker
Your Most Aggro Pal (he/him)
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 125,143
- Reaction score
- 65,715
- Points
- 203
No, no they really aren't.all those things added together which make up gameplay and what ultimately accounts for it to be good or bad is pretty much subjective. as for ME, I played through Me1 once I didn't get to play the crap out of it like I did with Me2, but I didn't like the heat based combat. I didn't like Me3's combat much either even though most people find it to be an improvement over Me2.
ME3's combat is a refined take on ME2's. It is definitely better, even if the game isn't.
Things like hit detection, enemy AI, controller response, and the mechanics of the combat as a whole are not subjective. They are actually quite objective, as they are can easily be quantified. Now how much enjoyment once gets of course is completely subjective.Not sure I follow that. Are you talking about intricacy/complexity of combat, enemy design and level design? Otherwise anything to do with style differences of those is down to preference. Explain more if you want to as I don't think I got the gist.
You ever see someone complain about how the game is cheap or such? This can be true. A game could have inconsistent in its hit detection that leads to one doing the exact same thing against the same attack and not working because the code is crap. That is why something like Dark Souls and Bayonetta are fantastic from a design prospective. You are rewarded for your consistency, for learning and doing the right thing. If you hit at the right moment, you are rewarded. If you dodge an enemy attack at the right time, you are rewarded. This is why FPS and netcode matter.
Last edited: