Decline Thiaf Pre-Release Thread

[MadMaxHellfire]

Over-reliance on fan feedback can be destructive

it is if you ask cod fans.

 

[Data4]

The truth is there is nothing wrong with QTEs

The invalidity of this statement renders everything that follows invalid.

 

[set]

The truth is there is nothing wrong with QTEs

The invalidity of this statement renders everything that follows invalid.

I can think of plenty of QTE games that are succesful and many people enjoy them. But then again, I consider the whole rhythm genre to be a QTE genre. And it kinda is, though maybe some people will disagree with me because they don't want to deign the possibility.

The way QTEs are used to 'replace' gameplay is poor and most developers misuse them, but as a game mechanic... I mean, mashing A to break open a door or something, was fine in the N64 days. Having various context-sensitive button promopts to deal with otherwise trivial obstacles is a good way to give an obstacle weight. QTEs are fine in a vacuum, but replacing a complex or cinematic action, say, stabbing someone in the head, with a QTE? That's lazy and stupid and boring.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

The truth is there is nothing wrong with QTEs

The invalidity of this statement renders everything that follows invalid.

I can think of plenty of QTE games that are succesful and many people enjoy them. But then again, I consider the whole rhythm genre to be a QTE genre.

For me, you just named the only situation in which QTEs are acceptable. QTEs are all about timing, and by the logical extension, rhythm. Which means that games like Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero are ALL about QTEs, and they work in that context. And yet they're somewhat shallow in gameplay, aren't they? Is anyone still playing Guitar Hero today? I can understand DDR because it's actual physical exercise, but I haven't heard a twang from GH in some years now.

QTE games are a niche of gaming, one that was surprisingly quick to be filled and die out. So I am kinda perplexed why developers and publishers think it's not only cool to squeeze them in wherever possible, but mandatory, Maybe it's the sales figures for all those GH clones, who knows? But let's look back and find the first QTE game ever released. That was 30 years ago, Dragon's Lair. DL was a bold experiment that mixed gaming with hand-drawn animation, and while the game looked amazing back in the day, the novelty of the game vanished pretty quick once people figured it out. Cutscene plays, and at one point an input prompt is required. If the correct input prompt is given, the next cutscene in the sequence is played, otherwise a death scene is played and the cutscene plays again. Repeat until lives run out or the endgame is reached. It makes for crap gameplay, but the graphics and sound were decades ahead of what was possible at the time.

QTEs can still be used properly, mind you. As a mini-game, for example. Anachronox had at least one QTE sequence (where Sly is dancing in the gay bar) and I've never heard of anyone dissing the game because of that. But making QTEs replace gameplay that has been established time and time again, that can be done better with a mouse or a keyboard or pretty much ANYTHING ELSE... it just boggles my mind why anyone would think this is a good idea. So why takedowns or close combat encounters, or... goodness help us... scripted events. Why should these have game elements have QTEs in them? There's no point, no reason. And yet there they are.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

because "press a button and something awesome happens" sells even if you're giving the worst of the most putrid shit away.

 

[DemonKing]

I wouldn't care too much about the occasional QTE but the one thing I can't stand is when you're trying to play a ported game on PC and despite remapping the QTE keys the screen still brings up the default ones during the QTE sequence meaning you have absolutely no chance of hitting the right buttons in sequence.

 

[Caim]

I wouldn't care too much about the occasional QTE but the one thing I can't stand is when you're trying to play a ported game on PC and despite remapping the QTE keys the screen still brings up the default ones during the QTE sequence meaning you have absolutely no chance of hitting the right buttons in sequence.

What. That is just shoddy porting. Which games actually do that?

 

[AlexOfSpades]

I wouldn't care too much about the occasional QTE but the one thing I can't stand is when you're trying to play a ported game on PC and despite remapping the QTE keys the screen still brings up the default ones during the QTE sequence meaning you have absolutely no chance of hitting the right buttons in sequence.

What. That is just shoddy porting. Which games actually do that?

I'm not sure, but i think the Resident Evil computer ports did that.

 

[set]

DDR and Guitar Hero only 'died out' because companies that shall not be named here were far too quick to release a new one every six months. They wouldn't even iterate on the gameplay, they just tried to make money by selling songs. No consumer, no matter how mouth-breathing, is stupid enough to waste their money on tripe like that.

Rhythm games are perfectly fine and rhythm mechanics can work fine in a game. There are also other ways to use QTE mechanics, I mean, Conker's Bad Fur Day is what, just a bunch of QTEs and minigames all over the place? But the way it's all presented and designed is of a certain quality and merit that it works. It's not like anyone has exhausted what QTEs can even do yet, most developers are too busy copying each other to actually innovate.

QTEs are fine, in theory. How they're executed by developers, how we see them in most games - it's shit, no doubt - but there's nothing inherently wrong with them. You can make a fun game with any right combination of mecahnics, there's no such thing as a 'bad mechanic'. I could make a deeply engrossing game using only QTEs, you could too, if you put your mind to it.

 

[toroid]

DDR and Guitar Hero only 'died out' because companies that shall not be named here were far too quick to release a new one every six months. They wouldn't even iterate on the gameplay, they just tried to make money by selling songs. No consumer, no matter how mouth-breathing, is stupid enough to waste their money on tripe like that.

Rhythm games are perfectly fine and rhythm mechanics can work fine in a game. There are also other ways to use QTE mechanics, I mean, Conker's Bad Fur Day is what, just a bunch of QTEs and minigames all over the place? But the way it's all presented and designed is of a certain quality and merit that it works. It's not like anyone has exhausted what QTEs can even do yet, most developers are too busy copying each other to actually innovate.

QTEs are fine, in theory. How they're executed by developers, how we see them in most games - it's shit, no doubt - but there's nothing inherently wrong with them. You can make a fun game with any right combination of mecahnics, there's no such thing as a 'bad mechanic'. I could make a deeply engrossing game using only QTEs, you could too, if you put your mind to it.

Fuck you.

 

[set]

Manually brofisting toroid.

 

[Cassidy]

-bait-

1) Joined: Oct 21, 2013

2) Writes a long but flawed argument in favor of a shitty gameplay mechanic that is almost 100% hated in the Codex...

sup' Drog

 

[AlexOfSpades]

If you guys go past the hate and actually read, you'll see he has a point. Of course its possible to make a good game with QTE's. Just doesnt mean that QTE's are good, or the game couldnt be improved with a better gameplay choice other than a quick-time-event.

You can make a good game out of any shit mechanic as long as you work hard enough.

 

[Great Deceiver]

I could make a deeply engrossing game using only QTEs, you could too, if you put your mind to it.

What a misunderstood genius.

 

[set]

I could make a deeply engrossing game using only QTEs, you could too, if you put your mind to it.

What a misunderstood genius.

I'm hardly calling myself a genius if I say you could do it too. You could. QTEs are just a mechanic of getting the player to interact, they don't define how they're used.

You could do a horror game entirely made of QTEs. It would work. Done well and people would consider it some great 'adventure game'. Please, I'm not saying anything ridiculous here.

QTEs can be rightly hated for how they're used, but used properly, and you could create a very enjoyable game.

 

[Great Deceiver]

I certainly couldn't do it. QTEs suck.

However, if you're so sure of yourself and the value of QTEs, why don't you actually do what you say you could instead of chain posting on a forum that massively disagrees with you?

 

[Oesophagus]

Of course its possible to make a good game in spite of QTE's.

 

[set]

I certainly couldn't do it. QTEs suck.

However, if you're so sure of yourself and the value of QTEs, why don't you actually do what you say you could instead of chain posting on a forum that massively disagrees with you?

Wow, talk about hostility.

I have no inspiration to waste my time making a game you wouldn't even play because of your irrational hatred of QTEs. Hell, making a good RPG that pleases even one person out of ten on this forum would be an enormous chore, considering how picky and contradictory people are about what makes a 'good game'.

What I'm saying is a good game is agnostic of the mechanics used to make it. There's no mechanic that's inherently bad and you're a big hypocrite if you argue otherwise. Really, how many classic arcade games are nothing more than a bunch of QTEs?

 

[Great Deceiver]

Arcade games were generally the epitome of player agency, and barring abominations like Dragon's Lair and specific genres like rhythm games, you're just talking out of your ass.

QTEs take control away from the players and arrest them to a specific chain of commands happening on-screen at a specific, predetermined time, in a predetermined sequence; it's the anti-gameplay.

You can't possibly be making an argument that classics such as Pac-Man, Galaga, Donkey Kong, etc. have anything at all in common with that. Old arcade games have a purity of concept and simple objectives, that you attain by acting upon the obstacles presented to you in a dynamic manner, through the agency of the general ruleset that each game's controls provide you. There is a range of possibilities in such games, that goes beyond the simple on/off failstates of QTEs.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

DDR and Guitar Hero only 'died out' because companies that shall not be named here were far too quick to release a new one every six months. They wouldn't even iterate on the gameplay, they just tried to make money by selling songs. No consumer, no matter how mouth-breathing, is stupid enough to waste their money on tripe like that.

Not iterating on the gameplay is one of the reasons why these games died out, true. But arguing that no consumer, "no matter how mouth-breathing, is stupid enough" to justify it doesn't ring true. Football Manager, and other similar games, are re-released with minor updated annually. For exorbant prices. People eat that shit up like crazy.

Rhythm games are perfectly fine and rhythm mechanics can work fine in a game. There are also other ways to use QTE mechanics

I agree on this.

I mean, Conker's Bad Fur Day is what, just a bunch of QTEs and minigames all over the place? But the way it's all presented and designed is of a certain quality and merit that it works. It's not like anyone has exhausted what QTEs can even do yet, most developers are too busy copying each other to actually innovate.

It's been a while since I had a look at CBFD, but I don't really recall it being QTE-infested... or even having QTEs to begin with. But don't quote me on that, I may be wrong.

But I want to point to Anachronox again as a game that sported several various mini-games. Only the dancing mini-game can truly be called a QTE, but there's a question about some of the others. One of them is a "whac-a-mole" game, another is "hold the cursor in place for X amount of time" and another is a variation of the Mastermind boardgame. Are variable mini-games like these used a lot in games today, especially AAA+ titles? Why is it that of all possible mini-games, we seem to be stuck with QTEs?

QTEs are fine, in theory. How they're executed by developers, how we see them in most games - it's shit, no doubt - but there's nothing inherently wrong with them. You can make a fun game with any right combination of mecahnics, there's no such thing as a 'bad mechanic'. I could make a deeply engrossing game using only QTEs, you could too, if you put your mind to it.

There is a game where you have to push a series of buttons in pretty much the right order, within a narrow time limit, in order to proceed. Fail and you lose a life, succeed and the game continues.

I just described every QTE game ever made.

I also just described over 60% of every game ever made. The above line is what they boil down to, and it's the only way your above argument holds merit - by deconstructing not only what a QTE is, but also what a game is. And deconstructing an argument tends to end in futility.

I was about to argue the point further, but Great Deceiver above me beat me to the punch.

 

[Oesophagus]

First people argue for RTWP in the Torment thread, now for QTE's?

 

[set]

Here's how I define a QTE:

A timed-period where you have to press a specified button. You receive an arbitrary consequence depending upon if you succeeded or not, usually it's failure/you die if you don't.

This differs from general gameplay, where you might have to press some button and you may get a comsequence. QTEs are less dyanamic than 'real' gameplay. As far as a QTE is concerned, you fail if you don't press that button at the time the developer intended (this idea is what makes Ryse so hilarious, by the way, games have gone so far down the shitter QTEs no longer even offer failure). It's totally different from building a sword fighting combat system which dynamically creates scenarios where you have to press buttons in certain ways to deal with certain then dynamically created situations.

The placement of a random-ass QTE in a long cutscene sequence is stupid.
The palcement of a QTE in a long cutscene sequence to try and make it interactive and more gamey? Also stupid.
The replacement of complex gameplay, like, say, swerving the car at the right time, or catching something mid-air, with a timed hard-coded pass or fail button prompt? Very, very stupid lazy design.

I'm not defending any of that shit.

But you could make a game where QTEs form a rhythm or a pattern, it needn't even be a static one. We can see this in Guitar Hero, or in something like Bit Trip Runner. I don't personally enjoy those games a lot, but plenty of people do.
You could make QTEs stimulating, by having them layer in a certain way, by utilizing repetition and expectation of the player, by making them become long complex strings that require practice and a little luck. There are lots of basic game theories that could be applied to QTEs to make them fun and engaging, instead of a token excuse to say, "I know you just watched a 90 minute cutscene, but really, this game has gameplay!!" Some QTEs could come about depending upon how long it took you to respond to the event, or QTEs that occur if you perform other timed-QTEs in a certain order - they don't necessarily have to be a total pass or fail event like most games treat them as. You could even have C&C with QTEs - if you complete a string of QTEs before another, something might happen differently ten minutes down the road!!

The point is, how you use QTEs is totally different from what a QTE is. How you use game mechanics is how you make a game. People who make good games know how to make them, it doesn't matter what they do. Maybe you don't like real time with pause, but that doesn't necessarily make that mechanic bad. It can be a bad mechanic if how you use it is 'wrong', but gonig real time with pause never ruined a game for everybody just on the virture of it being real time with pause. How you used it, or how you used it with other game mechanics, is what created the 'bad game', not the thing itself.

It's this idea that we should only use some game mechanics and not others, under this false pretense that mechanic X is more fun and popular, that will eventually lead to the homogenization of games as a whole. As it already is, developers are too afraid to provide an experience that isn't wholly some time-tested idiom. Reinforcing the inane idea that some game mechanics strictly "don't work" is what's brought us to 2013: I can't find a turn-based game that isn't Civilization coming from a big-name publisher. The dogma repeated by shallow twleve year olds down at gamespot is, and I qoute from people I've spoken to in the past, "Turn based games are boring." "Turn based games are old-hat." "Turn based games can't possibly be fun." It's one thing to not like a mechanic yourself, but it's absolutely shallow-minded to write something off entirely because you don't like it, or because someone hasn't yet released a game to do it right. There's a reason RPGs are a dying breed, it's the popular conception that they're 'for nerds' and they're 'boring'. How much chaos resulted when Shadowrun Returns annoucned it wouldn't have 'corpse loot'? As if a mechanic like that is required to make a good game or not. Whether Tides of Numenera uses Real Time with Pause or not isn't going to dictate exclusively whether it's a good game or not (granted, the concept is wholly personal, and personally, I think it would enjoy it more as anything but a turn-based game, but that's because I've preconceptions of how the game is going to play).

tl;dr? Stop being myopic overly-negative assholes

 

[Zewp]

tl;dr? Stop being myopic overly-negative assholes

tl;dr, fuck off.

Also, 'sup Drog.

 

[Ninjerk]

A QTE is just a flashy logic gate. What he's saying isn't at all remarkable, and you guys are trolling yourselves.

 

[Data4]

tl;dr? Stop being myopic overly-negative assholes

You know where you are, right?