05-25-2013, 11:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2013, 12:19 PM by PrettyNier.)
it expresses exasperation, actually
exasperation that you can't get past the modal concept of "more" when "more" has nothing to do with the criticism. it's like an unintentional strawman.
it's like you're under the impression i'm saying that ocarina of time "could have been more" quantitatively, and the way to fix the game was to keep the game the same but with more content, which is bollocks; i'm arguing that the game could have been made differently because the things it did wrong have little to do with technological limitations. it is not because of technological limitations that there are so many items and that a lot of them are not worthwhile, acting as little more than keys; that is bad design and an obvious correction is not "more content" but reduce the amount of items and make them more unique and focused and to shape the level design and mechanics around actually utilizing these items in a way that doesn't relegate them to just keys with a different skin.
super mario 64 (released 2 years earlier, hey-o) had a number of different abilities, ranging from the different kinds of jumps to the different kinds of hats, and with few exceptions, they're all integrated naturally and organically with the game and the level design; nothing feels like a key even though mechanically there are many instances where these things sort of are.
the criticism of hyrule field isn't that "it should have been larger" or that "it should have things under every nook and cranny", the criticism is that it is filler and that it is barren; essentially, not that its "too small and doesn't have enough" but that its unnecessarily bloated and that it serves little actual purpose. and that it's level design is incredibly uninteresting.
it's almost as if you've created this false defense around your argument that ocarina of time, existing as is, is the only thing that the technology could have made, which is pretty dang short-sighted (and i really shouldn't have to tell you why)
furthermore: the entire point of mentioning technology was only to say that "technology does not justify a bad game as being good". it doesn't matter why a bad game is the way it is, because it's... still a bad game. that's it. the experience with a product is with the product, not with the process that led to the products creation. this does not mean that contemporary standards on superficial elements - graphics, audio quality, et cetera - matter, it means that Game Design is not one of those superficial elements that "revolutionizes" itself qualitatively every generation.
to try to state it as simply as possible: the problem isn't that the game doesn't have more, the problem is what's already there
exasperation that you can't get past the modal concept of "more" when "more" has nothing to do with the criticism. it's like an unintentional strawman.
it's like you're under the impression i'm saying that ocarina of time "could have been more" quantitatively, and the way to fix the game was to keep the game the same but with more content, which is bollocks; i'm arguing that the game could have been made differently because the things it did wrong have little to do with technological limitations. it is not because of technological limitations that there are so many items and that a lot of them are not worthwhile, acting as little more than keys; that is bad design and an obvious correction is not "more content" but reduce the amount of items and make them more unique and focused and to shape the level design and mechanics around actually utilizing these items in a way that doesn't relegate them to just keys with a different skin.
super mario 64 (released 2 years earlier, hey-o) had a number of different abilities, ranging from the different kinds of jumps to the different kinds of hats, and with few exceptions, they're all integrated naturally and organically with the game and the level design; nothing feels like a key even though mechanically there are many instances where these things sort of are.
the criticism of hyrule field isn't that "it should have been larger" or that "it should have things under every nook and cranny", the criticism is that it is filler and that it is barren; essentially, not that its "too small and doesn't have enough" but that its unnecessarily bloated and that it serves little actual purpose. and that it's level design is incredibly uninteresting.
it's almost as if you've created this false defense around your argument that ocarina of time, existing as is, is the only thing that the technology could have made, which is pretty dang short-sighted (and i really shouldn't have to tell you why)
furthermore: the entire point of mentioning technology was only to say that "technology does not justify a bad game as being good". it doesn't matter why a bad game is the way it is, because it's... still a bad game. that's it. the experience with a product is with the product, not with the process that led to the products creation. this does not mean that contemporary standards on superficial elements - graphics, audio quality, et cetera - matter, it means that Game Design is not one of those superficial elements that "revolutionizes" itself qualitatively every generation.
to try to state it as simply as possible: the problem isn't that the game doesn't have more, the problem is what's already there
Quote:why would you edit your post with a vague contrast? what was wrong with what you said before?i edited it because i didn't want to say what i said before?? that should be obvious. and "subjectivity isn't solitary" is not a contrast, its a statement that means subjectivity does not stand on its own and the only thing justifying subjective experience is objective experience