Posted 10:14am on Fri 29 April 2011
- Posts: 8,195
From the recent news entry from Videogamer, about Bioware and their latest MMO development game Star Wars: The Old Republic and their concerns about their 'fans' reactions to their proposed game. It got me thinking...
I can see why BioWare can be seen as being frustrated over this. Peoples assumptions and preconceptions, especially negative, before the game is even released can have a butterfly effect on aspects of the games development, like features that the developer, in this case Bioware; want to include. The motivation and drive to develop the game itself can see itself diminish as the people at big game companies normally want to make a game that they would enjoy 20% and the 80% is normally, in my view, what the rest of the world would like for example EA and the Fifa games, it's my opinion that little innovation has been made in Fifa games bar the constant tech upgrades. It really shows that making games that the developer wants to make is important to the gaming industry.
You have to cut if with a fine knife though, and decide what's best for you as the development team and them as the player. I think more people today are too afraid of change and are too accustomed with familiarity between different games, in relation to the big hitters in the FPS and MMO genre and in terms of gameplay. Hence the comment in the article from Bioware; "You can't do that because it hasn't been done" it's that preconception of failure that sets some if not most peoples thought of purchasing the game or even the interest at all in the game.
But of course it's different with technology, the Wii was the first major change in my opinion that really got people thinking about how to use technology differently which spawned Sony's PlayStation Move and Microsofts Kinect which took it to the next level. But does this technology boost as it were, does it change the way we think about gameplay design? I mean it's only motion control. But it's going and thinking differently to all the other clones of the same gameplay and game design and heck even character design that leads to something really special.
The iPhone revolutionised handheld gaming because of the apps and how easy they were use and play incorporating motion control and touch sensitive screens to a small device lead to games like Angry Birds, a very very simple game yet incredibly popular.
I've had somewhat premature experience on game development and game design, in relation to making a game not only you enjoy but it's targeted audience will enjoy. My tutor constantly annoys us by saying, "why can't i skip this intro or cutscene, i don't care about the story i just wanna play the game" yet were like well, we care about the story and it's a key element in the game so were making you watch it. Of course we couldn't be like that no matter how strongly we felt against it, we had to give the option to the player to skip, it also came down to design elements in our game that were either stripped or not even considered by other people who either play tested the game or during the initial concept stages. Some elements that people in the team felt adamant about incorporating. It's all down to compromise.
And it's all because people have a preconception as to how a game should be. It almost comes down to 'If it's not broke, don't fix it attitude' or the COD mentality as i like to call it...So it's how i say, you have to really cut it with a fine slicey knife when developing a game, the features and how it will be played. But I think the real special games, when they are successful, are those development teams that create a game that really are different to how people think games should be. Like Heavy Rain. That might as well be a film. But if it were a film, it would be fairly average because it isn't a game. That sorta' thing.
I don't really want to see games being creatively strangled by those who have this COD mentality, it's why i think some game developers are now saying they are afraid of where the gaming industry is going.
Posted 2:35pm on Fri 29 April 2011
- Posts: 6,920
But COD is broken but the company is far too lazy to even fix it.
Posted 3:33pm on Fri 29 April 2011
- Posts: 8,195
It is broken, but what isn't broken is the control scheme, Activision pretty much got it bang on for usability for a novice to pick up and play straight away. Which people liked so much that players started to complain against games like Killzone 2 that the responsiveness of the weapons were too sluggish and the button layout was too awkward, which was the intended direction Guerrilla Games wanted for the controls...to be different and project that sense of weight to the weapons which in my opinion was a nice touch and really gave the game some feel to it as apposed where it was lacking in storytelling.
Gameplay is broken because they just add endlessly onto the game without much thought and even compromise other areas which i personally find important in games. Take for example Black Ops; the sound in that game was absolutely awful and really drew me out of the game amongst other things.
Posted 9:08am on Mon 19 September 2011
- Posts: 2
Yes, I was also quite amazed. Apparantly the way I've set up my set pieces worked out pretty well, although it is also because I get plenty of corners and free-kicks I suppose.