How Audience Plays a Role in Games in more than just Budget

 

How Audience Plays a Role in Games in more than just Budget

---

This video has really got me thinking how much of a role an audience plays a role in the design of any game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc8hrXyG1xw&feature=emb_title

It's not just something to use to excuse why AAA gaming are being dummed down but it plays a role in how your game will be designed. Kingdom Hearts 2 has an interesting combat system but since the game is appealing to people who enjoy Disney, Final Fantasy players who might or might not actively play real time action games, people who like the shounen anime aesthetics and story and finally the people who want a good combat system and play it for the challenge. They have to design the game with all these things in mind so therefore all it's depth might not be found by all the players who play it.

Another example is the MGS series. There's different people who play MGS for different reasons, they like the story, the long cutscenes, the ficitional versus battle people to see how "tough" and "cool" the Snakes are against. With all these people Kojima has to appeal, not everyone is going to notice the gameplay details and crazy stuff and the "depth" the game has.

Compare to say Thief, Mark of the Ninja, and Splinter Cell, those games are primarily aimed at people who want an indepth stealth experience and when discussion with these games are involved, they tend to mostly mechanical, level design, overall gameplay focused. The less people to appeal to, the more people will notice everything a game has to offer and the devs will make design and put work around those design decisions.

People often bash Spidey PS4 and Batman Arkham for being "too easy", "too simplistic", and lacks the "depth of Devil May Cry", but the thing is, those games are licensed games and they also have to appeal to fans who like that license. People who purely read Batman and Spider-Man comics or view media with them and don't actively play games at all. I met up with someone recently who couldn't even beat the Arkham games on normal and had to play on easy. This is the trap licensed games will always fall into.

Then there is the CoD series. Yes, it constantly gets made fun of for recycling so much and barely having any innovation. But I'd argue one reason why the sps are so stale is because CoD has to appeal to two groups of people, ones who play it for the sp and the ones for the mp. Yes, the devs could easily overhaul the whole series' combat system and I really fucking wished they did but at the same time, would they really want to put in so much effort into a mode only a fraction of the player base will play? It's the trap CoD has been in for so long now.

Halo is an interesting one where it has multiple audiences but the series does in a way have discourse that is consistent. People will play the sp and mp but both seem to have consistent amount of effort put into both with the exception of 5. People who play Halo generally also play the sp, coop, mp and are really passionate for the story and lore too.

And yes, everyone is annoyed to death about the Sekiro "easy" mode debacle. The thing is, From's audience and the people they appeal want super challenging games and that's what they expect from them so From wants to make a game that they want. The easy mode to them shits all over everything they expect From Soft. It's just pointless adding an easy mode to a game where the design isn't even built around and to appeal to an audience that probably won't even play their game anyway.

"Audience" is not just something that be used to explain inflating budgets, but it plays a huge role in any game's design.

 

Why David Cage's "answer" to Game Overs don't Work and Comparison to Telltale

 

Why David Cage's "answer" to Game Overs don't Work and Comparison to Telltale

---

Playing Detroit made me realize to some degree why Telltale's games are so scripted. Yes the latter should cut out the "this game is tailor made to how you play" crap. But with Detroit, the game just wastes your time for the first few chapters and then kills your character off in an anti climatic way just because you didn't have walkthrough in front of you during the "danger" sections. At least with Telltale games, a first time player can get the whole story on their first run while with Detroit, a section can catch you off guard and then you lose good chunk of story and then you got to do that section again and have a walkthrough this time. This isn't so much a "solution" to game overs as it is just wasting time and making you wish checkpoint restarts were in the game because removing the "gamey" elements makes the story a lot worse when compared to Telltale games and especially other mediums that David Cage is trying to emulate.

I have a lot of issues with the way Telltale does the "game" part of their "game" but at least they play to their strengths and have their stories be a universal experience and don't waste the player's time re doing sections with a walkthrough on hand.

Telltale games don't give you any reason to re visit and the first playthrough might as well be your last but David Cage's solution is to just have you replay sections and watch the same scenes until you stumble upon the best solution or just keep a guide with you at all times.

Then there is the fact that Detroit has an "easy mode" where characters can't die and you get the full experience no matter how much you fuck up. It's strange how what makes David Cage's game different from Telltale's games is that "choices do matter" but here, he is giving you the idea option to view the story. Now, if you fuck up, you won't get locked out of story sequences, and the story will play out as intended. So in a sense, David Cage is giving you the option to play it as a normal story without any of the pseudo game overs. So basically, all of this "flow chart" nonsense is basically just one big gimmick.

 

Why I dislike Call of Duty Multiplayer

 

Why I dislike Call of Duty Multiplayer

---

I am not a big fan mp games in general and I feel like a large contributor to that is the CoD franchise, in all fairness I used to play World at War's mp a lot but later games just annoyed the piss out of me, and every mp game at the time the time of the 7th gen were basically emulating CoD.

I find CoD mp to be really uninteresting in general. Its basically who ever melee or shoots with ADS first wins. I don't get why CoD hates the idea of hip fire so much. And you want to know why people camp in CoD games? Its because ADS is king and you are better off holding the ADS button at all times then you are actually running and gunning because running and gunning means you have to aim your crosshair and then press the ADS button then shoot, clearly running and pressing ADS is too much work so just sitting there removes the busywork.

And killstreaks, boy oh boy, not only is the act of running and gunning in a run and gun shooter not fun at all but now, you get rewarded for sitting around and waiting for the enemy to come to you. Which basically puts all the players who want to play properly at a huge disadvantage. Mainly because it exploits CoD's weak combat and rewards people who don't want to run and gun. People who actively don't play the game will get air strikes, gunners and radar scans and further attacking people who actively want to run and gun and have a good time.

This stuff ain't got shit on arena shooters. Prestiging? Who cares if the core shooting is so weak. Arena shooters encourage you to move and learn the layout of the maps, the weapon placements and encourages you to run around and get up close and personal. You have to learn the map, find the weapon placements and you have to yes, actually run and gun. None of that customizable loadout shit where you have 10 machine guns and pistols that all do the same thing. Each weapon in arena shooters feel different from each other and have their uses. And no stupid killstreak rewards putting other players at a disadvantage.

Maps feel nice and large with lots of verticality, and decent amount of space to get the drop on enemies.

And getting kills in Arena shooters actually require more skill than just pressing ADS first, since you can take a decent amount of damage before you die, you can run back get some health and armor, find some weapons come back and even kill the player hunting you. Getting a kill requires quite a bit of dedication from the player, and requires you to pay attention rather hitting ADS or melee first.

I know later CoDs probably fixed the kill streak and camping problem but people often say MW series is the high point of CoD mp and I so strongly disagree with that. They really are overly nostalgic.

 

FEAR and Why I Miss Physics Engines in Games

 

FEAR and Why I Miss Physics Engines in Games

I miss the fuck out of ragdoll physics. FEAR combining ragdoll physics and gore is one of the many reasons why that game nails combat so well. 8th gen, give me a AAA fps game like FEAR and shove your open world shit up your ass. Doom and Titanfall don't count.

It's amazing how FEAR basically combines, Max Payne 2's ragdoll physics with Quake 2's over the top gore. I think this is what FEAR 2 and 3's combat was missing in many ways, the ragdoll physics. It's really disappointing that the more the 7th gen progressed physics engines pretty much became more and more irrelevant. Star Wars the Force Unleashed and GTA 4 were probably the last games that really pushed the ideas of exaggerated game physics. But back to FEAR, it seems FEAR 2 and 3, just only remember the blood and gore but not the over the top exaggerated death animations when you hit an enemy. Hitting an enemy in the first FEAR and Extraction Point just provides a great stimulus for combat that no game provides. It truly is a very big fucking shame that the god awful horror elements of FEAR gets talked about more than this stuff. This along with the level layouts, the AI with it's goals and communication with each other, the amazing weapons to use, the level of detail in the environments where at times it can put you at a disadvantage(smoke, explosions wrecking your focus while in BT, and glass breaking to surprise enemies), and the weapon limit making you improvise is among the many underused examples of why FEAR is great. The AI, I get, but the scripted obvious as fuck horror sequences can fuck themselves, and should be a negative.

It's quite interesting when talking about physics engine in general. Games in the early to mid 00s were basically abusing it and was in almost every action game, from Half Life 2, Second Sight, Psi Ops, GTA 4, FEAR, Max Payne 2, Star Wars the Force Unleashed, and Painkiller to name a few.

In a lot of the games they were in, they added a hilariously over the top element to the gameplay. The most fun thing about GTA 4 was using explosive weapons to see the bodies flying. Jumping out of cars were hilarious due to how exaggerated the death animations were. Killing Niko over and again was just hilariously fun. Jumping out of cars, helicopters, boats, buildings was just so damn funny because Niko would just bounce like if his body barely had any weight.

In Star Wars the Force Unleashed, it was a so hilariously dumb and over the top to play around with the Stormtroopers. Just pushing and pulling them around, having them grab on to the environment, having them grab on to each other provided for a somewhat unique Star Wars and gaming experience. Where Psi Ops and Second Sight only lightly touched up interactions with enemies and the environments with psychic powers, TFU really took the idea two extra steps further.

Max Payne 2 and Painkiller had combat be really over the top because blasting enemies with the weapons would cause them to go flying and land to the ground very lightly. It's like sort of like those action movies where enemies would go flying every time they got hit by guns. It really made the weapons feel that much better.

Instead of open worlds, and MMO shit maybe gaming should go back to incorporating physics engines into their games for more fun and unique gameplay experiences. I know it's expensive but I would rather see physics engines come back then high powered graphics.

 

My Ideal Hulk game

 

My Ideal Hulk game

Superhero games generally don't get a good reception and while some of that negative press is justified, I do feel like there are some gems in the genre like Volition's Punisher game, Raven Software's X-Men Origins Wolverine, The Darkness games and one of my personal favorites, Hulk Ultimate Destruction.

Those few that follow me knows that I am a huge fanboy of Hulk Ultimate Destruction. I generally am not a big fan of open world games, but Hulk UD was a lot of fun. It captured, the spirit of the Hulk while also being an incredibly fun game. Radical Entertainment also made a great combat system in an open world setting which is no easy feat if you ask me.

A part of just kept wondering while Hulk UD's combat was very good overall, I got to wonder how much better the game could've been if it ditched the open world entirely and made for a more linear experience. I feel it would make the combat encounters feel better because the developers can place different materials Hulk can use as weapons in an open but carefully controlled space rather than making it something the player randomly finds in an open world. I would certainly use the ball and chain weapon more if the devs spawn more trucks. I feel there would also be more enemy variety too since the devs aren't too busy handcrafting the open world and focus more on the combat engine. Can you honestly name an open world with a huge variety of enemies? They pack the combat arenas with more stuff and opportunities to destroy you enemies. You can have environment kills, even more weaponizations, have more carnage on screen because you are having it in a controlled environment. Something a bit like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic with the environmental kills and that would do.

Which is where my idea for my kind of Hulk game would come in:

Make it based on the Planet Hulk storyline. There are so many comic book stories that take place on foreign planets and in space? So why the fuck don't games take advantage of that? I am tired of cities being used for my superhero games. I know Hulk UD had the Badlands but I find that setting uninteresting.

I picture it being a cross between Metroid Prime, God of War and Hulk Ultimate Destruction. Metroid Prime for it's setting, and sense of isolation. God of War for it's gory combat and pacing. Of course heavy liberties have to be taken with the story since Hulk meets a lot of people in that storyline but I feel Hulk being alone and isolated on a foreign planet would make for a fascinating gameplay experience like Hulk would just get beat up by an alien overlord, and then gets captured by slave traders and then runs off and escapes and finds his way around the world. Hell, since GOW is an inspiration you can have it be about Hulk overthrowing an tyrannical alien dictator. You can have the gladiator parts but that is to break up the place from all the exploring. Hulk can find different upgrades for his armor, get new weapons, and even bring the weaponizations back from UD but with the environment and even some of the weapons you find. Make the combat gorier too, Hulk is a violent character so I would do what Raven Software did with Wolverine and have Hulk brutally murder his enemies. It would lead for much more satisfying combat plus with the impromptu weapons would and dismemberment system like Dead Space and you could get some emergent combat encounters.

You can throw some puzzles along the way to break up the place like GOW and even have Hulk visit landmarks of the planet. The Gladiator school Hulk goes to in the comic can serve as a tutorial as well, I mention him being a slave before but you can tie them in together.

I can go on all day but I feel like a Planet Hulk game has a crapload of potential and am surprised has never got made. With Spider-Man PS4 being a success, maybe we can get something like this get made. Please, no open world Planet Hulk game...please.

 

 

Assassin's Creed: What Could've Been

 Assassin's Creed: What Could've Been

---

I have always dissed Assassin's Creed and considered it to be one of Ubisoft's most overrated franchises. But I always had a soft spot for AC1 and Unity. Mainly due to the fact that they were more interesting takes on open world rather than period piece GTA or wannabe RPGs or Arkham clones. In AC1, you had multiple assassination targets and you can assassinate them in any order. Every mission was about gathering intel on your target and performing the kill rather than have the mission be its own level like most open world games.

The problem was that the missions were the same thing over and over and the assassination methods were extremely limited when compared to Hitman or atleast the good Hitmans. But there was a solid foundation. AC1 was more of a proof of concept than a good game. Unfortunately, the sequels outside of Unity completely ignored this design template for GTA style bullshit. With Unity, I appreciate them trying to bring back the AC1 design and make it more of a stealth game, but the stealth system was on Dishonored levels of badly designed. Its like Ubisoft didn't want to use the Splinter Cell Conviction style stealth but wanted Unity to be different but had no idea how to accomplish this. So they just pissed all over everything. Its sad, this series could've been unique but it all it did was lay the groundwork for the death of who used to be one of my favorite devs. Its sad to see what Ubisoft has become.

In some ways, Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor and even MGS5 feels like a better AC sequel.

But I still think there is potential in the kind of game AC1 went for. Maybe have a world where if you kill one target, it'll drastically effect the outcome of the rest of the men you have to assassinate. Have the Black Box assassinations from Unity, but more expanded on and with a proper better made stealth system. Like do what MGS5 did with different times of day effecting assassination opportunities. Maybe have the nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor. Where if you botch an assassination attempt the target will be aware and take extra precautions, if you make it out alive. Hell, use the notoriety system from Hitman Blood Money too where the more bodies and more of a presence you make throughout the levels, the more enemies will be aware of your presence. Have the intel gathering be apart of the difficulty. Players can choose to gather intel, and it'll make the game easier but if you choose just to jump right in, it'll be a lot harder. Maybe add some secondary objectives that can make you stronger, or effect the assassination in some way. Maybe even tie parkour more to the assassination attempts as well. If you jump around too much, later assassinations will have more guards posted at the rooftops and more rifleman will be there.

But what about the crowds, you ask. Well the series is mainly known for that and I say you can add more depth there too. Maybe instead of having the crowds making you completely invisible to enemies, you can have them have various states of alert, like have the npcs communicate to the player, maybe have the crowds be bribed to help you, use the crowds too much and more guards will be posted in their vicinity. Have crowds be antagonistic to the player depending on their actions.

And with alerts, you don't need for it to be a game over, the target could run away and isolate himself, or stand and fight and then run away but there has to be serious consequences for doing that, which the before mentioned notoriety can come in. The wanted posters from past games can play more of a role. Have the player make more of an effort to get the wanted level down instead of ripping down wanted posters. Maybe assist the citizens and help government officials and they can help you in your next kill.

Okay, I've rambled on enough and I think there's a lot of potential for what AC goes for but Ubisoft would rather make boring ass open world RPG shit instead. It's like Ubisoft has been missing the point ever since AC2 released, and still continue too. This series could've been really special.