I like game mechanics that make sense...

Alphahawk

Member
Every once in a while in a videogame you're treated to a mechanic that makes "real world" sense as oposed to the fantasy reality of most videogames. The best example I can give is in Zelda OOT when you travel to the future your not taken to the future instantly per say, but instead
your character hits his head on the time temple floor and is knocked out for seven years.
A more recent (and perhapse less gruesome) example is Burnout Paradise, insteadd of the normal "You did X so you magicly get Y car" mechanic of most racing games, you gain new cars by taking them out and then picking them up at the junkyard. Yet another example is The Darkness, in most games when you die your magicly taken back to a checkpoint, in the Darkness however the Darkness actually ressurects you and takes you back to the checkpoint.

So are there any more examples of videogame mechanics that make logical real word sense?
 
Alphahawk said:
Every once in a while in a videogame you're treated to a mechanic that makes "real world" sense as oposed to the fantasy reality of most videogames. The best example I can give is in Zelda OOT when you travel to the future your not taken to the future instantly per say, but instead
your character hits his head on the time temple floor and is knocked out for seven years.
A more recent (and perhapse less gruesome) example is Burnout Paradise, insteadd of the normal "You did X so you magicly get Y car" mechanic of most racing games, you gain new cars by taking them out and then picking them up at the junkyard. Yet another example is The Darkness, in most games when you die your magicly taken back to a checkpoint, in the Darkness however the Darkness actually ressurects you and takes you back to the checkpoint.

So are there any more examples of videogame mechanics that make logical real word sense?

Most games have SOME mechanic that makes sense, I would say. Also, it's per se, and it's latin.
 
Ledsen said:
Most games have SOME mechanic that makes sense, I would say. Also, it's per se, and it's latin.

I'm talking about things that make sense as opossed to most other games, innovations in "Videogame" logic so to speak.
 
Bioshock. It's not like other crappy games where you magically respawn, when you die you're revived from those chambers.

lol
 
Battersea Power Station said:
The things you describe are not "game mechanics" at all. In fact, they have nothing to do with the game itself but with the plot/writing.
Having the world reworked for the future with you traveling between the two time periods in Ocarina of Time is a gameplay mechanic.
 
Alphahawk said:
The best example I can give is in Zelda OOT when you travel to the future your not taken to the future instantly per say, but instead
your character hits his head on the time temple floor and is knocked out for seven years.

Unfortunately, this method doesn't explain how you can possibly go back in time. So really, it still doesn't make "real world" sense.

No Means Nomad said:
Having the world reworked for the future with you traveling between the two time periods in Ocarina of Time is a gameplay mechanic.

Yes, time travel was a gameplay mechanic. Having Link grow seven years worth during the span is more plot oriented (yes, sure, you can't use the boomerang anymore, etc... but really, it's Light World/Dark World all over again).
 
In Maken X when you got in an elevator and went up, it did the little dip down, just before the door opened. I'd never seen a game elevator do that before.
 
Game mechanics that make sense:

A character should be able to jump, climb over objects without a fucking prompt (UNCHARTED, GTAIV), climb on top of objects (UNCHARTED, GTAIV), drop down and hang from ledge (UNCHARTED), be able to fire a one-handed weapon while hanging from ledge while using the ledge as cover (UNCHARTED), and use objects as cover without having a fucking prompt show up all the time (UNCHARTED/GTAIV).

L3 should be used to switch shoulder view while aiming in a third-person shooter.

Melee during a gunfight should take 3-5 moves at most and should be over quickly as not to kill the game's pacing (UNCHARTED).

In a third person shooter, the character's movement should be controlled like a platformer, but the camera CAN be controlled by the player and the aiming reticle should be anchored to the direction of the camera and not the direction the character is facing (UNCHARTED and GTAIV)

There should be as few invisible walls as possible, if the player isn't allowed to go across a certain barrier, erect a physical barrier there (hurhurhur I said erect).

Jump should be executed via a jump button. Not an action button. Jumping should ALWAYS be manual and NOT simply context-driven, press the jump button to make the character jump.

More collision maps give the game more freedom and increases the actual playable area within a level (SOTC, Soul Reaver, Okami), think vertical.

Camera should be controlled with the right stick (up, down, rotate).

A headshot should always be a one-shot kill (unless the bullet hits a protective helmet, in which case the helmet should come off).

Defeating a boss should grant one an ability that enables the player both as a means to open up a new area AND/OR as a new offensive capability (Soul Reaver, OKAMI, ZELDA).

Skills/moveset should be utilitarian and purpose-driven, a skill/move is NOT just an animation with damage attached, it should do SOMETHING (push an enemy back, break a block, hit with a wide damage radius as opposed to a quicker strike with a narrow AOE, launcher, grapple, dash forward, dash backward), 10 very useful moves that the player will be using all the time are always better than having a 100 strings where 99 of them are never used.

A weapon should come with unique ability, speed, moves, element affinity, and all of which should mean something unique than just being a different skin for the same fucking weapon but just with more fucking damage or a slightly different attack animations where there is no practical difference. Gauntlet breaks wall, claw climbs wall, fire sword burns vines blocking path, lighting staff powers device.

Having one weapon in each class that can be upgraded and built upon to be made more powerful throughout the entire game instead of having 100 weapon of the same class having the same fucking animation set.

Meaningful weapons/items instead of "mad loot", have instead energy or essence from dead enemies that power up or keep fueling various abilities in kind of a "sustaining that chain reaction" way.

Flying in game is overrated, large leaps such as launching a manual grapple beam that pulls the player to the target via a super-jump is much more thrilling.

A large boss is only a large boss when that physicality matters more than just the player hitting at the boss's feet. The more manually interactive the boss is (meaning the ability to manually climb and walk on the boss), the bigger the boss becomes even when the boss might not be taking up more space.

QTEs are stupid and lame, they're the worst kind of cutscenes since they actually INTERRUPT GAMEPLAY while regular cutscenes merely allow the game to transition to story-telling upon finishing one level and entering the next, manual control is always better than a QTE, because basically a QTE can indicate that you want to do something but you haven't figured out how to design it properly so you're scotch-taping some cutscenes to a few button-inputs.

angry.gif
 
I finished uncharted but what I didn't like is how enemies seemingly took 20+ shots while you can only take 4-5. Even a shotgun at close range didn't kill one like in four instances. Same with Turok the weapons seem useless and enemies take 30+ shots. Plus that of a enemy can disrupt/hit you from 20 yards away with a pulse rifle while strafing as you are hiding right by a tree trying to snipe them? Come on.
 
I love how the OP thinks the time travel in OoT is realistic. :lol

All this time, I had no idea that Rip Van Winkle was a sensible tale about realistic time travel.
 
G-Fex said:
I finished uncharted but what I didn't like is how enemies seemingly took 20+ shots while you can only take 4-5. Even a shotgun at close range didn't kill one like in four instances. Same with Turok the weapons seem useless and enemies take 30+ shots. Plus that of a enemy can disrupt/hit you from 20 yards away with a pulse rifle while strafing as you are hiding right by a tree trying to snipe them? Come on.

Actually you are incorrect. Enemies only take 4-5 pistol hits in Uncharted, and only one in the head (unless the merc is wearing a helmet in which case the helmet would come off allowing the next headshot to be lethal). If you're spending 20 bullets on a single enemy, then it's a matter of fewer than a quarter of those bullets actually hitting the enemy, in which case you need to take better aim, firing in the general vacinity of the enemy does not mean you're hitting the enemy.
 
Kittonwy said:
Actually you are incorrect. Enemies only take 4-5 pistol hits in Uncharted, and only one in the head (unless the merc is wearing a helmet in which case the helmet would come off allowing the next headshot to be lethal). If you're spending 20 bullets on a single enemy, then it's a matter of fewer than a quarter of those bullets actually hitting the enemy, in which case you need to take better aim, firing in the general vacinity of the enemy does not mean you're hitting the enemy.

ok if you say so.
 
i think Skate's use of the Right Stick to mimic a skater's leading foot is excellent example of mechanics 'making sense'.
 
Kittonwy said:
Actually you are incorrect. Enemies only take 4-5 pistol hits in Uncharted, and only one in the head (unless the merc is wearing a helmet in which case the helmet would come off allowing the next headshot to be lethal). If you're spending 20 bullets on a single enemy, then it's a matter of fewer than a quarter of those bullets actually hitting the enemy, in which case you need to take better aim, firing in the general vacinity of the enemy does not mean you're hitting the enemy.

^^^^^^
After beating this game on Hard on my first play through, this sounds about right.
 
I like how in GTA4 you can get a car, open a door and get inside. It's pure magic.

I also like using legs in some game to walk.
 
Personally, what impresses me is when i game impose its logic and that for some reasons, it's so awesome that you agree instantly.

Classic example: Eat a flower and you can throw fire balls!!

Doesn't make a lick of sense in real world, totally does in the world created by the game.
 
Alphahawk said:
Every once in a while in a videogame you're treated to a mechanic that makes "real world" sense as oposed to the fantasy reality of most videogames. The best example I can give is in Zelda OOT when you travel to the future your not taken to the future instantly per say, but instead
your character hits his head on the time temple floor and is knocked out for seven years.
A more recent (and perhapse less gruesome) example is Burnout Paradise, insteadd of the normal "You did X so you magicly get Y car" mechanic of most racing games, you gain new cars by taking them out and then picking them up at the junkyard. Yet another example is The Darkness, in most games when you die your magicly taken back to a checkpoint, in the Darkness however the Darkness actually ressurects you and takes you back to the checkpoint.

So are there any more examples of videogame mechanics that make logical real word sense?


Oh so you´re one of those guys who says pre-madonna right?!
 
bjork said:
In Maken X when you got in an elevator and went up, it did the little dip down, just before the door opened. I'd never seen a game elevator do that before.


Oh how I want a sequel to that game.

It wasn't even that great, but it was revolutionary for its time.
And while we're at it.... we need a sequel to Breakdown.
 
Flynn said:
Uncle Pey'j isn't realistic but he's still a great mechanic.

:lol nice

Pey'j is more of a game mechanic than the examples in the OP. As others said, those are examples of game writing being used to maintain suspension of disbelief.
 
Immortal_Daemon said:
Oh how I want a sequel to that game.

It wasn't even that great, but it was revolutionary for its time.
And while we're at it.... we need a sequel to Breakdown.

Before I finished reading your post I was gonna respond with "Try out Breakdown"...so, wait for Mirror's Edge to come out!
 
Kittonwy said:
Game mechanics that make sense:

A character should be able to jump, climb over objects without a fucking prompt (UNCHARTED, GTAIV), climb on top of objects (UNCHARTED, GTAIV), drop down and hang from ledge (UNCHARTED), be able to fire a one-handed weapon while hanging from ledge while using the ledge as cover (UNCHARTED), and use objects as cover without having a fucking prompt show up all the time (UNCHARTED/GTAIV).

L3 should be used to switch shoulder view while aiming in a third-person shooter.

Melee during a gunfight should take 3-5 moves at most and should be over quickly as not to kill the game's pacing (UNCHARTED).

In a third person shooter, the character's movement should be controlled like a platformer, but the camera CAN be controlled by the player and the aiming reticle should be anchored to the direction of the camera and not the direction the character is facing (UNCHARTED and GTAIV)

There should be as few invisible walls as possible, if the player isn't allowed to go across a certain barrier, erect a physical barrier there (hurhurhur I said erect).

Jump should be executed via a jump button. Not an action button. Jumping should ALWAYS be manual and NOT simply context-driven, press the jump button to make the character jump.

More collision maps give the game more freedom and increases the actual playable area within a level (SOTC, Soul Reaver, Okami), think vertical.

Camera should be controlled with the right stick (up, down, rotate).

A headshot should always be a one-shot kill (unless the bullet hits a protective helmet, in which case the helmet should come off).

Defeating a boss should grant one an ability that enables the player both as a means to open up a new area AND/OR as a new offensive capability (Soul Reaver, OKAMI, ZELDA).

Skills/moveset should be utilitarian and purpose-driven, a skill/move is NOT just an animation with damage attached, it should do SOMETHING (push an enemy back, break a block, hit with a wide damage radius as opposed to a quicker strike with a narrow AOE, launcher, grapple, dash forward, dash backward), 10 very useful moves that the player will be using all the time are always better than having a 100 strings where 99 of them are never used.

A weapon should come with unique ability, speed, moves, element affinity, and all of which should mean something unique than just being a different skin for the same fucking weapon but just with more fucking damage or a slightly different attack animations where there is no practical difference. Gauntlet breaks wall, claw climbs wall, fire sword burns vines blocking path, lighting staff powers device.

Having one weapon in each class that can be upgraded and built upon to be made more powerful throughout the entire game instead of having 100 weapon of the same class having the same fucking animation set.

Meaningful weapons/items instead of "mad loot", have instead energy or essence from dead enemies that power up or keep fueling various abilities in kind of a "sustaining that chain reaction" way.

Flying in game is overrated, large leaps such as launching a manual grapple beam that pulls the player to the target via a super-jump is much more thrilling.

A large boss is only a large boss when that physicality matters more than just the player hitting at the boss's feet. The more manually interactive the boss is (meaning the ability to manually climb and walk on the boss), the bigger the boss becomes even when the boss might not be taking up more space.

QTEs are stupid and lame, they're the worst kind of cutscenes since they actually INTERRUPT GAMEPLAY while regular cutscenes merely allow the game to transition to story-telling upon finishing one level and entering the next, manual control is always better than a QTE, because basically a QTE can indicate that you want to do something but you haven't figured out how to design it properly so you're scotch-taping some cutscenes to a few button-inputs.

angry.gif
Corollary: exceptions to the above may be made when the game is Resident Evil 4.
 
badcrumble said:
Corollary: exceptions to the above may be made when the game is Resident Evil 4.

I'm not a big fan of RE4's game mechanics other than the soft lock-on to an enemy's various body parts, but with a better aiming system I wonder if that's even needed given the slow speed of the zombies, in general I don't like tank-style controls in 3rd person action games, it's not necessary and it's actually less accessible in general.
Indifferent2.gif
 
It bugs me when materials in games don't react they way they should. Like when you can use fire to burn down a wooden door but other wooden barriers are immune. Frustrates the hell out of me in the 3D Zelda games when logically something should work but the devs force you to do it the way they intended.
 
I LOVED the relationship mechanic in Shining Force III, I just thought it was so cool how, depending on which party members you used together often, they would receive stat boosts from each other. It's been so long, but Synbios getting a temporary defense boost just from standing next to Dantares was just awesome. By the time I got to the final dungeons all you would see is giant hearts over everyone's head lol.

Another favorite would have to be the attack system in Legend of Dragoon. I really liked how although you were using 1 button, the timing (in normal as well as dragoon mode) was crucial to the length (and thus damage) of the combos. Especially on that gust of wind dance.

I don't remember it too well, but Shinobi's dog was awesome too. Good times.


shinobi.jpg
 
bjork said:
In Maken X when you got in an elevator and went up, it did the little dip down, just before the door opened. I'd never seen a game elevator do that before.

I never noticed this!

This is why I dislike DiRT and GRiD. Their driving mechanics didn't add up or make sense. I'm all good with arcade racers. SEGA Rally: Revo feels like you're on ice...I don't mind because it all adds up and is an intense racing experience. Same with Ridge Racer...despite being pretty extreme, once you get it, you get it. Can't say the same with DiRT.

I won't post charts, but Sonic physics also made a lot of sense. If you jumped and bounced off a baddie, you had a good idea of where you'd go as a result. The physics were exaggerated, but made sense and were consistent. You never saw the same coherent system in the 3D titles. The physics were whack and didn't make sense.
 
Top Bottom