Replayed Commandos 2 last week and it was great. Going back to 1 and it's a different beast. For years I was under the impression that Comm 2 is the best game in the series and peak of the genre, but I've seen opinions like "game bad, cause you can pick up weapons and use cigs to lure enemies". Every game made later, including Mimimi games and Origins uses the "unique character abilities" formula and... Yeah, I get it, tight gameplay and all that shit. But you know what? I think picking up weapons and wearing enemy uniforms and all that was a logical step forward when they were designing the sequel. Why wouldn't a commando pick up an MP4 from a dead German, when all they have is a knife?Franky, I don't have an issue with designing the game around specific mechanics, but it seem that there are people who will religiously defend this type of design on principle.>intended experience>tightly designed gameplay>you didn't beat the gameIt's not a "no fun allowed" situation, it's a "no creativity allowed" thing. Look at all the indie RE clones:>fixed camera angles and tank controls>limited inventory space>magic item boxes>out of place puzzles>backtrackingIt's not that I have a problem with these, as far as tank controls go, I think more games should use them, but none of those games does anything innovative. NOTHING.I don't care if the game is challenging or, if I have the same experience as some other guy playing it, I want it to be innovative
>>744581845I generally agree with you, but the crying about signalis close to its release which made the dev add some baby mode with more inventory slots and shit also kind of annoyed me, I think backtracking can make sense if the game is build for it, for instance there are enemies to avoid, do you clear them out and spend resources or just run past them? if it's a one time thing the calculus heavily favors just running past but if it's a route you'll do a few trips through you may think otherwise to minimize risk
>>744583862I'm not saying there's a problem with any of this, as in game too difficult / inapproachable. The whole "genre-staple" and "intended experience" mentality just makes every game the same. I've only played Comm Origins demo. I didn't like it. Reaons? >ran like dogshit>didn't feel like a CommandosIt played exactly the same like a Mimimi game. Devs took a franchise that started the genre and innovated upon it, only to release a title that copies the approach from what was was a spiritual successor. Not even a stylized interface with the backpack and shit, just soulless UX icons.RE clones do the same. Innovation is>can do meleefrom Silent Hill >can shoot the legs and finish off with a stomp from Dead SpaceSetting is >mansion>police station>hospital>subway >small town covered in fogFor fucks sake, at least here you can be somewhat creative.>tropical island and enemies aren't zombies but feral cannibals>zombies in Vietnam>the Maginot line>nuclear weapons disposal facility somewhere in Alaska>Fallujah in 2004How about inventory management?>you play a soldier / SWAT guy / FBI>you have a tactical vest with pouches and a small backpack>stuff fits inside your pouches>mags into mag pouches>water into cameback or canteen (stamina or health)>quest items into backpack>glock in your holster>M4 on on a 3 point sling>meds in the buttpack>have the vest / pack be upgradable or swappable>maybe some areas are not infested by monsters but controlled by an enemy faction>you need to wear a disguise and it means no vest or pack, just pocketsI'm not even being creative here, just expanding on shit that's been in the genre and copying from other games like Jagged Alliance.
>>744586159yeah I feel like a lot of indies out there just take the idea of "let me just remake that one game I really like in the past, but with lower budget so it's actually worse and more of a cheap imitation at best", I'm not sure how to feel about that but it does lead to some "interesting" implications, such as it shows the demand is there, some folks are clearly starving enough that even the cheap imitation suffices so why don't the companies themselves make them officially? like to use our RE example, why couldn't capcom have some small team making a classic style spin off game, I'm sure there's plenty of people that would love that considering all the countless subpar indie imitations that are still loved by many, maybe the institutional talent is gone or something idkthere's also a difference between the followers and leaders, people constantly say that indies are amazing, that it's so creative, that it's at the bleeding edge, because there are no expectations, no budget so people can just throw whatever at the wall and there can be a bunch of new mechanics and such, but often that doesn't really happen and as we've discussed it just goes down into the imitation route, I mean whatever you may think of something like BotW or Nintendo, that game was truly innovative to the point where it spawned decades of copycats taking one thing or another from that title, even minor stuff like the whole initial cliff walk sequenceso yeah I do share in some of your frustration, but I also think this also makes the point that maybe being truly creative or innovative is probably way harder than what people typically give it credit for, which is why it doesn't seem to happen all that often, and then when it does people just endlessly copy and milk it until the next thing pops up
>>744586159>intended experienceTo me it is a term made up by a company that makes games not for enjoyment but for some weird social cred that you are a true gamer that beats hard games. And that in turn mostly attracts normies who don't really like games but like bragging they beat a hard game.
