|
This game sure gets pretty at times.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
No Gravitas posted:This game sure gets pretty at times. The art direction is my favorite part by far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Every time I see the Wings of Ormazd power used I can't help but think of These.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Major_JF posted:Every time I see the Wings of Ormazd power used I can't help but think of These. This made me want to check out the 2d version of PoP2008.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
I gotta say, having seen this game again it really does nail the feel of a playable fairy tale. I still have a fond spot for this game, not sure why the gaming community was so hard on it at release (gamers as a horde are idiots, news at eleven).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
ManlyGrunting posted:I gotta say, having seen this game again it really does nail the feel of a playable fairy tale. I still have a fond spot for this game, not sure why the gaming community was so hard on it at release (gamers as a horde are idiots, news at eleven). I think it was because of the change in gameplay style (focused on lenient and more casual movement) and the removal of the previous Prince. It was advertised as a different game though, so I don't understand the outrage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Very concept of "death" - no matter how irrelevant it was in Sands of Time trilogy when you could rewind to safe point within limit - being removed seriously turned me off from the idea. There's no failing, and thus no success when you finally beat that one section full of traps within time limit. Someone else probably will go through all other reasons they dislike this one, like combat already mentioned in previous posts among others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
GuyUpNorth posted:Very concept of "death" - no matter how irrelevant it was in Sands of Time trilogy when you could rewind to safe point within limit - being removed seriously turned me off from the idea. There's no failing, and thus no success when you finally beat that one section full of traps within time limit. When people say a platformer without a concept of death is bad, I like to point them to Wario Land II and III as counterexamples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
GuyUpNorth posted:Very concept of "death" - no matter how irrelevant it was in Sands of Time trilogy when you could rewind to safe point within limit - being removed seriously turned me off from the idea. There's no failing, and thus no success when you finally beat that one section full of traps within time limit. I don't think failure is always important. Creating a big challenge was really not high on the list of priorities for PoP2008, and that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
GamesAreSupernice posted:[...] and that's fine. I mean, sure, it's fine, but it doesn't really make for great discussion. Which is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Blind Sally posted:I mean, sure, it's fine, but it doesn't really make for great discussion. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I finished watching The Reservoir and wow Prince, way to be an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Don't know what you guys are talking about I died a loving tonne in this game. Or what? what do you call it when you fail a jump and then respawn at a checkpoint in a platformer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:I finished watching The Reservoir and wow Prince, way to be an rear end in a top hat. I think the amount of times he asks Elika if she's okay cancels that out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Onmi posted:Don't know what you guys are talking about I died a loving tonne in this game. Or what? what do you call it when you fail a jump and then respawn at a checkpoint in a platformer? Yeah, this is always my thought when people say 'you can't even DIE!'. Yes you can. You respawn at the last solid platform you were on. Exactly like would happen if you died and respawned. I mean, they've eliminated the GAME OVER, but... good? Good. Those are tedious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
The issue with this game is that it isn't really a platformer in the classic sense, it's a series of quicktime events where the prompts are environmental markers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Jim Flatline posted:The issue with this game is that it isn't really a platformer in the classic sense, it's a series of quicktime events where the prompts are environmental markers. I think you could say that about any platformer with Prince of Persia's jumping mechanics (not this one, the PS2 games as well, and other games that utilize its control scheme). The difference is the timing in the environmental markers. The timing in 2008 is very lenient, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It was just made with a different set of priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
While this is not a bad game, I feel it's worse than the sands of time trilogy; here's my reasons for that: -Too harsh consequences for failure. You faceplant, you get reset. In the sands trilogy, you faceplant, you rewind a few seconds and try again immediatly. This allows for longer strings of more difficult jumps, because you have a safety net. Platforming is not a binary pass/fail affair, but doing good makes you consume less resources, doing bad you consume more; your sand tanks are effectively an health bar for platforming, and if you make a difficult series of jumps without using the dagger you feel the princest prince that ever persia'd. By contrast, here making everything perfect is the default, so you don't feel a badass when you do, and failures have the worst consequence of all, none at all but lost time. -easier platforming that feels more difficult Here each single jump can't be made too difficult, or the overall sequence of jumps before you get to a new respawn point simply becomes too hard and fucks you. You need to overcompensate the difficulty, since this is not aimed at the horrible difficulty crowd, but the lack of nuance means you straight up need to nerf every platforming piece. The sands trilogy overcompensated too, of course, but it did so by drowning you in sand, and that's a step removed; thus each sequence in the trilogy is actually more difficult in a vacuum than here, with the dagger damping it down. As to the feels more difficult, "I had to try this sequence three times" feels more difficult than "I had to dagger four times". Omobono fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Omobono posted:While this is not a bad game, I feel it's worse than the sands of time trilogy; here's my reasons for that: I can understand feeling it's worse from a game design perspective, I just feel it's got its own strengths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
I don't think it's an issue with the difficulty per se, or with the checkpoints vs. rewind decision specifically, so much as the complete lack of a difficulty curve. Sands of Time went from a tutorial area that introduced one movement ability at a time to a series of increasingly complex and complicated climbing challenges, ending with the epic Tower of Dawn sequence, where you ride a nearly interminable elevator while fighting a few dozen enemies, then have to climb the outside of that same tower without the ability to rewind time anymore, with some of the most difficult challenges yet, but you're ready for them because the game has been building to them the whole time. It starts with enemies that have no defense against your combat moves, builds to enemies that can block various techniques, and ends with enemies that require actual reflexes rather than flashy combos. It's not just the story, but the game itself building up as you progress. You get additional health, more sand tanks, and stronger swords, which makes you feel stronger even though the game balances that with tougher enemies. Strictly speaking, 2008 has no upgrades at all. The four powers you get are just additional colored plates you can use to get into a few new areas, which effectively act as keys to locked doors more than movement abilities. Even Forgotten Sands Wii let you upgrade the situational movement abilities so you could eventually use them anywhere AND gave them all combat applications, even if they weren't very good. In 2008, the last area you go to could be the first one someone else goes to, so they have to maintain a pretty consistent difficulty throughout. Okay, so they add blobs at a certain point to make things more annoying, but it's exactly the same platforming, only now you have to wait sometimes. This game seems to discourage that - almost every movement in the other trilogy gave you a chance to stop and think, look around, and decide what to do. There are enough long sequences in this game where you have to keep moving that when there's a break, you usually just keep going and rely on your reflexes to hit the right buttons at the right time. This latest video covers my issues with the level design as well, going along with the movement plates. The other games had recognizable geography, even if it was contrived at times. You had to climb walls and swing on poles in Sands of Time and Warrior Within because the palaces were falling apart, blocking the normal paths, and the traps had been activated, presumably including things like collapsing most of the floors. The Two Thrones stuck to the rooftops mostly, so the roads that would normally be traversable are a fatal fall away and you have to climb stuff. And the climbing is the thing - there are sequences of ledges or poles to jump across, and they lead somewhere. 2008 is four giant rings of outer walls, and then you fly randomly around or jump to random surfaces and bingo bango, you're in a level. How DID the Ahura get around? Did they all have climbing claws? The things the Prince of the other trilogy did at least seemed generally possible for a human, if only one at peak physical condition and with excellent reflexes. This game just leaves me confused as to why they don't just fly straight to the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
And recognizing that I've pretty much been a bundle of negativity so far, here's a double-post with some positivity that isn't really relevant until the end of the game, but I don't want anyone to think I've come here just to dump on a game because people like it and I don't. Even though most of the characterization is hidden behind the push-to-talk button and there's no direct incentive to use that, especially in the middle of a level when you're usually trying to get to the end, the story itself is pretty good even if you just let the characters be their bland cutscene selves and go from objective to objective. When I beat the game, I genuinely wanted to play a sequel to see what would happen next. Maybe it's just that the ending was that good, which is why the compliment isn't relevant quite yet. There is, at least, enough story along the required path to keep things interesting and engaging, or I probably would have stopped playing long before then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
I feel like the flaws you mentioned with the architectural design are present in the final game of the Sands of Time trilogy, which is arguably the best game of the bunch. Nevermind that the Ahura have the same excuse of their civilization being left to severe decay. But, aside from that (which can be considered a legitimate flaw, I think), everything else you mentioned seemingly comes down to "it was made with different game design principles than Sands of Time". Did Sands of Time have more traditional progression and difficulty? Yes. But that is because it was meant to be linear, and it had a very different focus from 2008. I understand preferring the PS2 trilogy. There's nothing at all wrong with desiring its design over 2008's, but when you're analyzing a work, it helps to keep in mind what the work was attempting to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
I would like to note that I almost unbookmarked this thread because of the high pace of the updates, and my limited free time, until I noticed that most videos are relatively short. So, lurkers, don't worry. It doesn't take that much time to keep up. E: Please show off the Prince faceplanting into a wall. Carbon dioxide fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I would like to note that I almost unbookmarked this thread because of the high pace of the updates, and my limited free time, until I noticed that most videos are relatively short. Will do. I apologize for the frequent updates (had no idea I would be saying that), but I've got a lot to cover and so little time to cover it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
GamesAreSupernice posted:I think you could say that about any platformer with Prince of Persia's jumping mechanics (not this one, the PS2 games as well, and other games that utilize its control scheme). The difference is the timing in the environmental markers. The timing in 2008 is very lenient, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It was just made with a different set of priorities. No, it's completely different. In 2008 you press the ring button when you reach a ring, for example, that requires zero thought in how you're going to traverse the environment. The majority of the game is this sort of QTE press-button-at-the-right-time gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Jim Flatline posted:No, it's completely different. In 2008 you press the ring button when you reach a ring, for example, that requires zero thought in how you're going to traverse the environment. The majority of the game is this sort of QTE press-button-at-the-right-time gameplay. I don't think having dedicated buttons for specific functions is enough to differentiate the two on a conceptual level. In the Sands of Time trilogy, you still press a certain button when you reach a certain environmental mark. If that sounds like a vague blanket statement, that's the point. All games are essentially timed button presses, and with the PoP games (both this one and the Sands of Time trilogy), the button presses require less movement and agency than other games in their genre. That isn't a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
GamesAreSupernice posted:I don't think having dedicated buttons for specific functions is enough to differentiate the two on a conceptual level. In the Sands of Time trilogy, you still press a certain button when you reach a certain environmental mark. If that sounds like a vague blanket statement, that's the point. All games are essentially timed button presses, and with the PoP games (both this one and the Sands of Time trilogy), the button presses require less movement and agency than other games in their genre. That isn't a bad thing. No, because in 2008 if you need to run on a wall, there's run marks on the wall to show you. The levels in 2008 are essentially arranged as corridors and there is only one method to traverse them that you don't have to think about. In the other games you have to look around the enviroment and think and decide how you're going to traverse it. In 2008 it's essentially a series of obstacle courses where you have to press the button at the right time, there's a scuff mark on the wall or a ring to prompt you instead of a button flashing up on the screen as in a tradition QTE. Every game PoP or otherwise can be boiled to pressing the button at the right time if you strip all the context and meaning behind the statement. The difference between 2008 and the other games is that the other games don't explicitly tell you what buttons you should press. 2008 constantly reuses and repeats the exact same indicators to show you what to press (i.e the scuffmarks and the rings). The least chariatble way of describing 2008 would be to say it's an FMV QTE game that uses the game engine to dynamically create the FMVs to save space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Jim Flatline posted:No, because in 2008 if you need to run on a wall, there's run marks on the wall to show you. The levels in 2008 are essentially arranged as corridors and there is only one method to traverse them that you don't have to think about. Yes, all those incredibly wide open and multi pathed areas in the sands of time trilogy, wait no every one of those games was a literal corridor and then maybe a square room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:Yes, all those incredibly wide open and multi pathed areas in the sands of time trilogy, wait no every one of those games was a literal corridor and then maybe a square room. It wasn't though and Warrior Within certainly wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I can see his point, about the linearity of the platforming (even if the overall structure isn't linear). But, even supposing it could be described as an FMV game, I still wouldn't call that a bad thing. Regardless of what the gameplay can be classified as, or how it compares to the Sands of Time trilogy, it seems pretty appropriate for what they intended to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
GamesAreSupernice posted:Regardless of what the gameplay can be classified as, or how it compares to the Sands of Time trilogy, it seems pretty appropriate for what they intended to make. This is, I think, the point where we agree to disagree. I think many of us, myself included, tend to take an egocentric view of things like games and take it as read that what we enjoy more is better. Jak & Daxter went from a platformer to a sandbox/open-world mission-based platformer to, of all things, a racing game. It wasn't a bad racing game, but for people who don't like racing games, it wasn't likely to be a very enjoyable game. Final Fantasy went from RPGs to MMORPGs and what amount to slightly interactive movies, and the general consensus among fans of the series is that the games have been going downhill as a result. This game is more or less a different genre of game while retaining the same title, and while it loses everything I enjoyed about the earlier games in the series, obviously there will be people who like it more than its predecessors. I still don't understand why companies can't just come up with new names for completely different games, especially when there's absolutely no story correlation at all, but they'd rather sell one game to a bunch of angry people than save that goodwill for future endeavors. I really doubt anyone would have looked at this game and said "This is too much like Sands of Time. Why didn't they just call it Prince of Persia?" I bought it expecting something that I didn't get, and I don't think many of the people who wanted this game were attracted by the title of a series they obviously didn't like that much, but that's marketing for you. They made a decent game for some people, then sold it to a different group of people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Nidoking posted:This is, I think, the point where we agree to disagree. I think many of us, myself included, tend to take an egocentric view of things like games and take it as read that what we enjoy more is better. Jak & Daxter went from a platformer to a sandbox/open-world mission-based platformer to, of all things, a racing game. It wasn't a bad racing game, but for people who don't like racing games, it wasn't likely to be a very enjoyable game. Final Fantasy went from RPGs to MMORPGs and what amount to slightly interactive movies, and the general consensus among fans of the series is that the games have been going downhill as a result. This game is more or less a different genre of game while retaining the same title, and while it loses everything I enjoyed about the earlier games in the series, obviously there will be people who like it more than its predecessors. I still don't understand why companies can't just come up with new names for completely different games, especially when there's absolutely no story correlation at all, but they'd rather sell one game to a bunch of angry people than save that goodwill for future endeavors. I really doubt anyone would have looked at this game and said "This is too much like Sands of Time. Why didn't they just call it Prince of Persia?" I bought it expecting something that I didn't get, and I don't think many of the people who wanted this game were attracted by the title of a series they obviously didn't like that much, but that's marketing for you. They made a decent game for some people, then sold it to a different group of people. I suppose I never understood that sentiment. Sands of Time is much different from the original PoP, for example, and this PoP wasn't advertised or shown as a continuation of the sands of time trilogy. I would get it if they tried to trick people, but they didn't. All the information was there and you knew it wasn't the same game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Sands Of Time is overrated, Warrior Within is the best of the trilogy but people seem to dislike it for the wrong reasons. I would rather play 2008 again rather than Sands Of Time again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Jim Flatline posted:Sands Of Time is overrated, Warrior Within is the best of the trilogy but people seem to dislike it for the wrong reasons. I would rather play 2008 again rather than Sands Of Time again. I enjoy Sands of Time for creating the concept, but as for level-design, I think Warrior Within outclasses it. Two Thrones is my favorite narratively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Warrior Within is really, really dark and I understand why people don't like that aspect at least. Surprisingly for Ubisoft, they managed to balance it by Two Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
GuyUpNorth posted:Warrior Within is really, really dark and I understand why people don't like that aspect at least. Surprisingly for Ubisoft, they managed to balance it by Two Thrones. They reference the "darker" aspects of Warrior Within in Two Thrones, and manage to turn it into a piece of The Prince's journey, so even if it wasn't self-aware at first, it was in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 01:12
|
|