|
| T O P I C | |
|
The Development Bomb
July 31st 2002, 21:29 CEST by Talion Over the years, the time required to develop an action computer game (and other types as well, but the action genre is easiest to trace back) has steadily increased. In the side-scroller days, making a game took a few months. Now it takes a few years. We all know this, but the question must be raised: how long will it take in 2005? 2010? In 1968 Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, predicting that overpopulation would make life miserable in the 1980s and untenable in the 1990s. Well, that didn't happen. Now it serves to warn us about extrapolating from current trends. However, the book failed in its predictions not in terms of the population increases but in other areas. Ehrlich did not anticipate that agricultural advances would cause a food increase that outstripped the population increase. Enough about Ehrlich. Games take a long time to make. That's a fact we all understand. However, they have been taking longer and longer. Max Payne took four years, DNF is taking heaven knows how long, and it looks like Doom III will take four years (starting its development after Quake 3's release, though the content developers did work on Q3:TA for a while). TF2 is MIA, and if George Broussard (or was it Scott Miller, can't remember) is to be believed, Valve is secretly working on Half-Life II. Whatever they're doing, it's taking a long time. OK, so it takes 4 years to make a good action game. In the past it didn't take four years. Go back far enough and it took four months. Now go forward five or ten years. Now how long does it take? If I was actually willing to do any research for a PC topic, which I am not, I would graph the trend and use that to make a guess. Since research is out, I will pull a number of out my lazy bum and say we could be looking at 6 or 8 year development times. Could this be? Maybe, but it seems ridiculous. The economics of 4 year development cycles are bad enough. 8 years is when it becomes a philanthropic rather than capitalistic endevour. Where and how will the trend halt? According to the lovable 3DR tag team, it takes 4 years to make a Great Game, and since everyone seems to be doing it we'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't the 4 year number stem from the need to outdo the previous generation of games? How will 3DR outdo themselves for Duke 5 or whatever they end up doing? How many years will it take? Naturally there are exceptions to this rule. American McGee's Alice took about a year to develop. Development time figures are hard to get and as I said I'm busting my butt here, but I'm sure there are other quick-to-market FPS. However, they remain exceptions, and the A-list companies continue to lengthen their development cycles. Where will it end? |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The Development Bomb
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Forcing horror on to someone using limitations isn't really scary for the right reasons. Consider: Me and a friend played through Resident Evil on the Game Cube last week. At one point, we had to try and run past all the zombies/hunters/crimson heads because we didn't have any ammo to kill them. Now, sure, we were afraid of dying, but only because we were on our 12th try from the last save already, and didn't want to have to do it again. Then, later in the game, we were forced to play 2.5 hours without saving due to not having any ink ribbons. Again, we were scared of dying... but not because the game was scary, but because we didn't want to have to redo 2.5 hours of gameplay. A survival horror should be scary on its own merits, rather than scaring the player by trying to piss him off. If we'd have died during that 2.5 hours, we were going to quit playing. Fucked if we'd redo all that just because the game is stupid. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
Cliff: Bad Warren Does Bad Warren have a goatee the way that Bad Michael Knight did ? When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right |
|
Sure, I agree. I think... I never played it: does Resident Evil include a mechanic where you can replenish your ammo by backtracking and putting forth a little effort? If not, it sucks, if so, you did. System Shock 2 is an excellent example of failed marketing. Don't give me any fucking shit about how making weapons into another seekable resource, like ammo and health is in every other game, is an "unfun" idea; that's not the issue. 1) The justification in the story for weapons degrading so "quickly" (although it's funny how people don't seem to mind about how they can so "quickly" reload their weapon or pick up items from the ground while running at top speed for hours and hours without losing any breath) needed to be given to the player in the first 30 minutes of the game, not the last 30; 2) The game should have shipped with the ability to adjust the difficulty of the game in the UI, little sliders for enemy respawning, farm rewards, and such like. Those two seemingly small details would have made a -huge- difference in how the game was recieved. |
|
Or rather, the way that every evil doppleganger in every 80s show had, Evil Michael Knight being the one that springs to mind. Didn't evil KITT have a goatee as well ? When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right |
|
Whatever, Leslie Nassar will tell you LG folded so therefore their games sucked. Sales = quality. No. They folded because they couldn't stay afloat on the strength of their titles. I personally think their games sucked, but I don't like 90% of the titles from successful developers. i like monkeys. are you a monkey?
|
|
I don't think Looking Glass' games sucked, but I think they are hugely overrated by some people. By the same token, I think Deus Ex is overrated... Though its a FINE game, maybe even a minorly great one, its just not the second coming of gaming many people made it out to be. Ditto GTA3, but even more so (meaning, GTA3, while fun, is even less deserving of all the kudos it got). |
|
I never played it: does Resident Evil include a mechanic where you can replenish your ammo by backtracking and putting forth a little effort? Nope, there is a hardcoded amount of ammo in the game, and a hardcoded amount of monsters too. Except some of them tend to get back up sometimes, so there isn't necessarily enough ammo to kill everything in the game. Plus that doesn't factor in missing because of the shitty controls, or the fact that each monster seems to take a random amount of hits before it dies. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
Well, it's apples and oranges, then. The complaints about the weapon degradation in System Shock are totally overstated by the weaklings who played it and were upset that it wasn't more like Quake. Fuck 'em. As I say, Nova, by disabling key elements of the gameplay, you cheapened the experience for yourself and missed out on ~20% of the game's thrill. Too bad, too; because along with nearly all the Infocom games, System Shock 2 ranks highly on the list of games I wish I have informed my family to tell me to play, should I ever become so fortunate as to be stricken with amnesia. It's hard to do something for the first time, again. Well, cheer up; there's always multiplayer. |
|
And the engine revs up ... "It's pretty common for pussies, dumbasses, and their families to blame their problems on vague influences like the media and society. The truth is, fuck you."
|
|
You know, ever since you've been thinking that you might actually be getting laid, you've lost your keen edge. |
|
As I say, Nova, by disabling key elements of the gameplay, you cheapened the experience for yourself and missed out on ~20% of the game's thrill. I didn't. Because I had fun the whole time. To me, not having a weapon, and having to run around a monster just so he doesn't hand my ass to me, wouldn't be fun. It wouldn't have increased my fun, it would have decreased it. When I'm enjoying a game fully, that's it. There isn't more than that. Fun is fun, there isn't anything above fun. There is a lot below fun, but when I'm having fun, that's as good as it gets. So while you can prescribe to the uppity 'you must play the game the way the developer made it and FUCK YOU' school of thought, I am all for options that make the game more fun to people who otherwise wouldn't have fun. Which is the same as the save anywhere argument. You saying I must play with weapons that break is the exact same thing as someone else saying you must play with limited save points. Why must people assume that the game the developer made is the ultimate way to have fun in that game? I'm sorry, that just isn't the case. That is never the case. If you can have fun with frustrating limitations that the developer put in in the name of 'fun', so be it. Good for you. But don't go forcing your masochistic ways on people that don't like them! Jesus fucking christ, if every game had a way to customize the things that lots of people didn't like, a lot of games would probably get a good boost in sales. God knows if I'd been able to disable the stupid fucking omniscient snipers in MOHAA, I might have actually left the game with an overall feeling of enjoyment, rather that fucking quitting halfway through and feeling like someone just stole a 100$ bill out of my wallet. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
You know, ever since you've been thinking that you might actually be getting laid, you've lost your keen edge. I had a keen edge? Rock! "It's pretty common for pussies, dumbasses, and their families to blame their problems on vague influences like the media and society. The truth is, fuck you."
|
|
The game player owes the developer nothing. In other words, if someone wants to play a game in a certain way with a certain cheat, or whatever, so be it. So fuck you jafd. Also, the weapon degradation was stupid, stupid, stupid. Ever notice how no FPSes since have reused that little tidbit? Ever wonder why? |
|
It just occurred to me that jafd is constantly whining that games should have some super flexible screen of options, and then he goes and complains that Nova disabled something that should have amounted to an optional part of the game. Therefore, in conclusion, I think jafd is stupid! |
|
I didn't. Because I had fun the whole time. "I'm not arguing that with you!" To me, not having a weapon, You always have a melee weapon. Er, unless you drop it. Which would be silly. When I'm enjoying a game fully, that's it. There isn't more than that. You didn't experience the fullness of the game, that's my point. Fun is fun, there isn't anything above fun. Okay, compare: coitus and masturbation. They're both fun, right? There is a lot below fun, but when I'm having fun, that's as good as it gets. As you believe, so it is so. So while you can prescribe to the uppity 'you must play the game the way the developer made it and FUCK YOU' school of thought, I never said this, nor do I ascribe to this belief. You saying I must play with weapons that break I never said this either! Let's change the subject: "Classical Violin: Nothing But Loud Screeching." |
|
Oh gee, I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough. Insert 'to have 100% of the experience' after each line, where appropriate. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
And the way I look at it, if I only had 80% of the game experience, then the 20% I skipped was the suck. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
I never played SS2. I never played Thief. I never finished Deus Ex. I prefer StarCraft to Total Annihilation by a *large* margin. Research has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory rats.
|
|
I never finished Deus Ex. If you say it was because it was too long, they're going to launch the nuke. "It's pretty common for pussies, dumbasses, and their families to blame their problems on vague influences like the media and society. The truth is, fuck you."
|
|
I say we nuke him from orbit, just to be sure... Security Guard: "How about some ID there, buddy?"
Me w/thong gun: "How about a sequin thong? ... *THUPT* ... " Security Guard: "Forget the ID, point me to a dancing pole!" |
|
I tried to get into Total Annihilation on three different occasions. I couldn't. Oh look, 100 different things to create! Each with a different shaped polygon! Wow! Next. I said ve're going to cut off your CHONSON!
|
|
Your Friend: Ditto GTA3, but even more so (meaning, GTA3, while fun, is even less deserving of all the kudos it got). I could be wrong, but most of the kudos that GTA3 got was on account of the fairly open-ended nature of it's gameplay. Which is fair enough because it was, you know, fairly open-ended. I don't think anyone hailed it as the way forward, though most would agree that it's a step in the right direction. I haven't played GTA3 on the PC, but I don't think I would. To me, GTA3 is a classic console-type game: dip in when ya want. And in the sense that you can just dip in for a few minutes without getting involved in the grander narrative, it is brilliant. Likewise DeusEx. It wasn't a perfect game, the requirements at the time were steep enough. But it had a thousand times more depth than most first person shooters at the time (and now, in fact) and there were far more things right with it than there were wrong with it. I actually think it would have done far better if it had been pushed as a 'whole new experience in first-person action' than as a first-person RPG. Nova Z: To me, not having a weapon, and having to run around a monster just so he doesn't hand my ass to me, wouldn't be fun. Come on, you loved DeusEx, you've said so many times here. The situations that I enjoyed most in DE were those occassions were you hadn't enough ammo, were low on health or otherwise had to avoid a direct confrontation with the bad guys. You were forced to go stealthy. I often found myself holding my breath for real when I was ducked in shadows waiting for a guard or a bot to go past. Likewise MGS2. I am all for options that make the game more fun to people who otherwise wouldn't have fun. Where does that stop though - why bother having game designers at all ? Why not just sell the SDK and let players make the game that appeals to them ? Seriously though, unless it's a major pain in the arse feature that makes little or no sense or is purely an artificial way to boost the game's longevity or challenge then I don't see why you should be complaining. Take the aiming in DeusEx, for example. That made sense to me in both the context of the game world and in the context of the game mechanics. It's one more impetus to improve your various skills. You got a pain in the arse from degrading weapons in SS2, but what about the people who got a sense of achievement from managing to get through another gun battle ? Or to the end of the game without artifically making the game easier ? Cos that's what you're doing by not playing how the developer envisaged. And I'm sorry if I sound like jafd, but the game should be played as the developer envisaged it. If a game doesn't sell well because of some stupid feature, then that's their problem. If you wanna be in a club, you've got to obey the rules. Or leave. When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right |
|
Or make my own fucking club. And you aren't invited. Difference between Deus Ex and SS2, is that in Deus Ex, there was always a different path you could take to get around a guard, rather than have to burn 10 bullets on him. And failing that, you could always sneak up behind and do an instant take down. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
Gotta agree with jafd. The weapons degradation thing made things tense and fun, at least for me. "Brian, there's a message in my Alpha Bits! It says 'OOOOOOO'!"
"Peter, those are Cheerios." -The Family Guy |
|
Fury, There's a bit of a gaming hipster thing that you've clearly caught on to. Similar to people who listen to really obscure bands just to be non-mainstream.. To be hip you need to love Looking Glass' games (despite the fact that many of them weren't that great, though they were all at least pretty good). You also need to love all the Infocom text adventure games despite the fact that only a couple of them were really any good. You need to hate all the Myst games. And so on and so forth. Anyway, as far as GTA3 goes, in reality the gameplay wasn't all that open ended. The mission tree was fairly static and there was way too much similarity between all the missions. The fact that you could just run around and cause chaos was pretty cool, but not exactly a giant leap in game design... Its just the designer stepping back from his/her ego (which maybe he/she really should get kudos for since it seems to be fairly rare) and not forcing the player to do something specific at every point in the game. |
|
Anyway, as far as GTA3 goes, in reality the gameplay wasn't all that open ended. The mission tree was fairly static and there was way too much similarity between all the missions. The fact that you could just run around and cause chaos was pretty cool, but not exactly a giant leap in game design... Its just the designer stepping back from his/her ego (which maybe he/she really should get kudos for since it seems to be fairly rare) and not forcing the player to do something specific at every point in the game. Maybe some people are overstating the game, but you've gone too far the other way. "It's pretty common for pussies, dumbasses, and their families to blame their problems on vague influences like the media and society. The truth is, fuck you."
|
|
Why is anyone debating how Nova plays his game that he spent his hard-earned (I assume) money? If I decide to use a trainer while playing a game without built-in cheats, or a character editor, who in the fuck are you to tell me that its wrong?! -Jon
|
|
Friend: The open-endedness came in how those missions were completed. Tired of getting shot down when you tried to snipe Salvatore from the rooftop? Not a problem. Go pile some cars in front of his driveway and camp out for him, and take your time while his car tries going through the pile-up to get back in the driveway. 8 Ball's mission? Finding that sniping is too much of a pain, you could try the gutsy route and take all the Columbians out up close ... The open-endedness wasn't necessarily in what you could do in the game, but in the missions. -Jon
|
|
Precisely. Deus Ex was the same way ... the open ended nature was not in the story line, but rather in how you attacked each obstacle. "It's pretty common for pussies, dumbasses, and their families to blame their problems on vague influences like the media and society. The truth is, fuck you."
|
|
Duality: Who's saying it's wrong ? It's not what the designer had in mind. It's their game, their vision (cough), their work. Play the game whatever way you like, but don't whine if it's not what you personally wanted. When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right |
|
I'm not actually whining. I was happy they included the option in game, and I played it that way due to the opinion of people whose gaming tastes I trust. I just don't see the problem with playing a game a different way than intended if it results in the end player enjoying the game more than they would have otherwise. I know I'd be happy knowing someone had fun with a game I made, even if it involved playing it different than I'd intended. The way I see if, if one of my oversights made the game less fun for a part of the audience, I'd definely take that as a hint, and release a work around if it wasn't too much trouble. Look at a game like heavy gear, or mechwarrior. Both those games have options, in the menus, for invincibility, unlimited ammo, and the ability to ignore heat (in MW). Why do you think they did that? Personally, I never turned on any of those options when I played, because I didn't feel the need. But if I *had* reached a part I couldn't get past without cheating, I like the fact that the options were there to help me out. On that note, I really wish a lot of cheats were more like failsafes. For instance, I think god mode cheats would be better if they allowed you to be damaged, but only down to 1hp. That way, if you played well, and never actually got that low, you could feel like you played through without really cheating, but you could also play with the knowledge that you wouldn't be forced to waste time playing a too-difficult level over and over again. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
Warren I had a keen edge? Rock! Loneliness and chronic "self-improvement" can lead to a very acerbic and dangerous edge. Even multiple edges. Hey, I made a cool game! It's called: "I poisoned half the food in the house, so if you eat you might die"! On an unrelated note, have a taco.
|
|
You got a pain in the arse from degrading weapons in SS2, but what about the people who got a sense of achievement from managing to get through another gun battle ? Or to the end of the game without artifically making the game easier ? Cos that's what you're doing by not playing how the developer envisaged. That sure as hell sounds like you're looking down upon his practice, by comparing his experience to how others experienced it the way it was meant to be. Nova: Max Payne did that. You would get hurt til you had no HP left, but wouldn't die. The red tint and limping was annoying enough to get you to play the game as though you could die. Without the actual penalty of doing so. (Though that red tint sure made the restaurant scene way more difficult than would have been without, methinks.) -Jon
|
|
Cool. I never had to cheat in Max Payne, it was balanced well, IMO. We're not "Whinny," either, "Looser".
-MCorleone |
|
Well I cheat because I like being ubergod and I suck at all games. And yeah I'm one of those pussies who would rather fight through a game on hard with cheats than play on easy and be shown a modicum of challenge. I never really felt an overwhelming urge to play SS2 (despite constant praises from seemingly everyone) because the cheat of having "undead" in the user.cfg file didn't seem to work. -Jon
|
|
Yeah but even still, all the missions pretty much came down to kill some guy. Use a car, or guns. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate that you have more freedom than in many other games, but a lot of the freedom is superficial. If I could do something like dress up as a mafia guy to get in closer to take out Salvatore (and it wasn't some cheap scripted event) that would be closer to Real Freedom. Hell, it would feel even more free if I could actually go inside of buildings...That would be a start... Of course, I do understand how every possible permutation of actions makes the game increasingly exponentially complex to develop/design/test, so I'm not whining TOO much, but there's still a long way to go from GTA3 to true freeform gaming. Its a step in the right direction but too many reviewers treat it as the final destination. Answer this jafd...Suppose a game comes out that doesn't have save anywhere. Someone makes a non-official save anywhere patch. Do you APPLY IT or do you EXPERIENCE THE FULLNESS OF THE GAME? Yeah that's what I thought you hypocritical gasbag. |
|
Oh, don't be so modest. You're whining plenty. Hey, I made a cool game! It's called: "I poisoned half the food in the house, so if you eat you might die"! On an unrelated note, have a taco.
|
|
re: GTA3 and degrees of freedom A major part of the art of computer games is precisely creating the illusion of freedom. Even (some) text adventures -- where freedom is truly, severely limited -- were good at this. I'm using "freedom" in the sense of possible actions, and possible outcomes. Much as with text adventures, for most game types the developer must explicitly provide for each action and each outcome. Sure, in an FPS you can fire that rifle anywhere, and anyone can die, but both "fire rifle" and "die" are premade. The SimWhatevers and the like are different, in that the game provides a universe with rules, and the results are much more variable (although still within certain parameters). Theoretically, MMOGs (could) have much more varied gameplay/outcomes, but so far have failed to do so in interesting ways. It remains to be seen whether experiments like Entropia truly can develop an interesting in-game economy, ecology, etc. I think MMOGs have the best shot at this because the cumulative behaviour of thousands of people could lead to chaos-like dynamics. But that takes a whole other level of balancing. loop this (also in high-res)
|
|
/me merely points out that Tribes was multiplayer Terra Nova, that System Shock outdid Doom and Duke3d in 2.5d interactivity (and had a storyline), that FLY was a great flight sim and that Thief broke new FPS ground. Some people just dont like those games, some people dont get them, much like some people dont like steak and some people prefer ribeye to filet mignon. Thems the breaks, but Looking Glass and irrational games made damn fine games that didnt sit in the mainstream mold. Ds Never argue with an idiot, theyll drag you down onto their level, then beat you with experience.
|
|
duality: That sure as hell sounds like you're looking down upon his practice, by comparing his experience to how others experienced it the way it was meant to be. perhaps, but what i was trying to get at is that maybe he was missing the point. maybe if he'd played through according to Spector' or whoever's original vision he'd have enjoyed the experience and the sense of achievement. Or maybe he wouldn't. We, and more imprtantly, Nova Z, will never know. But fuck it, he enjoyed himself and degrading weapons is one gameplay facet that Warren Spector will probably never explore again, for better or worse. Your Friend: Yeah but even still, all the missions pretty much came down to kill some guy. Use a car, or guns. Don't lie. There was a broader range of mission types than that. OK, so by the end you'd probably experienced at least two missions of each type but there was more variety there than you're giving credit for. And I don't know about anyone else, but I rarely did two missions in a row. After every mission (all of which lasted what ? five minutes tops ?), I tended to save the game, spend maybe 30/35/60 mins. fucking around, killing people, stealing cars, trying to complete the RC challenges, unique jumps etc. and then go and do something else (in the 'real world'). There was plenty to do apart from the missions, so even if you got three missions that were almost identical in a row, you still wouldn't find it repetitive because you'd probably spend half an hour trying to steal an FBI car in between anyway. As for you freedom point.. yeah sure, dressing up as a mafia guy would've been fantastic and really free-feeling (ahem). But you couldn't. That's why we say 'relative freedom' and 'reasonably open-ended' instead of absolutely positively true to life. I'm sure someone somewhere would complain that you couldn't pick which French designhouse created the suit that you stole from the mafia chappy in your revisited version of GTA3, but that's just proves the old saying: you can't please all of the people all of the time. Until you can, I'll just continue to get a kick out of mugging grannies and killing rastafarians. And playing GTA3. Answer this jafd...Suppose a game comes out that doesn't have save anywhere. Someone makes a non-official save anywhere patch. Do you APPLY IT or do you EXPERIENCE THE FULLNESS OF THE GAME? Yeah that's what I thought you hypocritical gasbag. I ain't jafd but... well, it depends on the game and how well the 'save nowhere' thing was implemented. Though I do seem to remember that until, like, maybe ten years ago the majority of games didn't have a save function of any description. You basically started from the start each and every time. Cliff: I think MMOGs have the best shot at this because the cumulative behaviour of thousands of people could lead to chaos-like dynamics. MMOGs could do that now, if people would work as part of a true (albeit virtual) community, instead of basically being out for themselves. Like forming towns, with civilian armies to defend them, a council etc. Or maybe they do already, I don't know much about MMOGs. Presumably they're limited by the software, but surely if people had the wherewithall to sort themselves out they could behave 'responsibly' in a virtual world ? I mean, however cynical you are of the real world, you have to admit that in general (and within the constraints and parameters of their own cultures) people generally get on with one another. When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right |
|
Or to put it another way: how many missions did you come across in GTA3 that involved bumping a bloke out of an ambulance and then driving over his body will he was dead ? When they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out ? Will you defend me ? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right |
|
First thing I did when I played doom. Went up and down the stairs, over and over again. iamelectro
|
|
I'm not actually whining. I was happy they included the option in game, and I played it that way due to the opinion of people whose gaming tastes I trust. I just don't see the problem with playing a game a different way than intended if it results in the end player enjoying the game more than they would have otherwise. Wait you never even tried it the other way? Had they told you it was a non-issue with the maintenance skill (which both decreases the time it takes to degrade and increases how well the maintenance tools work). |
|
They just said that the weapon degredation sucked, and to play without it. "'Halo 2' is a lot like 'Halo', only it's 'Halo' on fire, going 130 miles per hour through a hospital zone, being chased by helicopters and ninjas," explained Jason Jones, the head of Bungie Studios, "and the ninjas are all on fire, too."
|
|
would you have played any different? Got distracted mid-thought there |
|
What do you mean? "'Halo 2' is a lot like 'Halo', only it's 'Halo' on fire, going 130 miles per hour through a hospital zone, being chased by helicopters and ninjas," explained Jason Jones, the head of Bungie Studios, "and the ninjas are all on fire, too."
|
|
I just don't see the problem with playing a game a different way than intended if it results in the end player enjoying the game more than they would have otherwise. How do you know you wouldn't have? I fail to see how managing a third resource on top of health and ammo, is "unfun." What, it's too much challenge? The addition of a third variable makes your WORLD FALL APART??? Imagine playing Deus Ex for the first time, after setting yourself up with a third of the augs from the first level. Or, a whole bunch of ammo. Or, whatever. Would it still be fun? Sure. Would it be as fun? Well, I guess if skimming a third off the game and throwing in the garbage is "fun", there you go. Fact is, Nova, you blew through the game in like 10 hours, you never had to make very difficult decisions on how to spend your skill points ("Should I take Maintenance or Endurance?" Durr, bluh, duh), and every single time you found a weapon pick up in the game, you merely emptied it of ammunition, tossed it aside, and moved on, without experiencing any significant thrill of discovery. Right! Because the point of a journey is merely to arrive. Right? next topic: "My Dinner With Andre: Movie About Two Guys And A Table, That's It" This conversation is stupid and has nothing to do with gaming. You know why people don't like weapon degradation? Four words. Neophobia. Oldthink. |
|
They just said that the weapon degredation sucked, and to play without it. "Dude! Foreplay sucks. Just stick it in. Oh, and if she's a virgin, first push, do it really hard, it'll hurt less. Just like ripping off a Band-Aid, everyone knows that!" would you have played any different? What do you mean? You'll never know. For the sake of convenience, you've pissed away a significant chunk of one of the most compelling gaming experiences available. Oh, but you had "more fun" and "less suck," right? |
|
For the sake of convenience, you've pissed away a significant chunk of one of the most compelling gaming experiences available. To you. Doesn't mean it actually was, or was not. If it isn't compelling to Nova, and disabling it improves the overall experience for him, why on earth are you having this conversation? I believe I can fly......urk.
|
|
He doesn't know that it improved the overall experience. That's the point. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The Development Bomb
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|