Debate: What video game designers need to get into their heads...

[Scholesgoals]

I honestly dont understand the obsession with bigger being better in games these days. It almost seems like the technology we have has actually become a crutch for developers of adventure and rpg games that they have to fill the game with as much vastness as possible.

Take fallout NV for example, this game has so much potential to be great, but for some reason situations arise where you have quests where you have to traverse the whole map just to get some bloke to talk to you. It really doesnt make sense - the amount of times i've come across a cool looking location, only for it to be populated by one lousy radroach and no loot. What is the point of going to all that trouble to develop the building and all areas around it when it has nothing of value and there is no point in going there!

Historically, games of this nature where chocka full of things to do in any given area. Take some black isle classics like baldurs gate or planescape - the amount of depth in party management, player levelling, and general questing was so much that it never felt like the story was on a lull. There was always something to think about, or places WITH STUFF IN!

I've just finished playing fallout after 2 hours whereby i literally accomplished nothing but travelling between two places (on either side of the map) and talking.

Fallout 3 wasnt so bad because there were super mutants and it was slightly more linear - when you went on a certain route (to get to that bit in the bottom right of the map) it was designed to filter you along a series of incidents which built towards the climax. I've just spassed about on new vegas and wandered into some casinos.

Maybe its a bethesda thing because i hate morrowind too, just wandering around.

Devs like naughty dog have the right idea - create something which takes you the whole way through, and dont let up. Make it small enough so that players always have a sense of knowing where they are etc.

Honestly, the reason devs will never make an rpg as engrossing as baldurs gate is because they are too concerned with expanding the world as much as possible, rather than focusing on the things that really matter, like engrossing plot and intriguing character development.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Well I thought Fallout 3 was pretty damn amazing.

RPGs are a tough one, make them too linear and people don't like them, make them too open and people don't like them. It's all about finding the right mix.

FFVII did it, but then you've FFXIII, which I didn't like at all, it was so linear, and I'm a huge FF fan.

Recent games that have gotten it spot on are Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. I love the idea of just instantly transporting to locations, whether they be relevant or irrelevant to the plot.

 

[Dingledoog]

I honestly dont understand the obsession with bigger being better in games these days. It almost seems like the technology we have has actually become a crutch for developers of adventure and rpg games that they have to fill the game with as much vastness as possible.

Take fallout NV for example, this game has so much potential to be great, but for some reason situations arise where you have quests where you have to traverse the whole map just to get some bloke to talk to you. It really doesnt make sense - the amount of times i've come across a cool looking location, only for it to be populated by one lousy radroach and no loot. What is the point of going to all that trouble to develop the building and all areas around it when it has nothing of value and there is no point in going there!

Historically, games of this nature where chocka full of things to do in any given area. Take some black isle classics like baldurs gate or planescape - the amount of depth in party management, player levelling, and general questing was so much that it never felt like the story was on a lull. There was always something to think about, or places WITH STUFF IN!

I've just finished playing fallout after 2 hours whereby i literally accomplished nothing but travelling between two places (on either side of the map) and talking.

Fallout 3 wasnt so bad because there were super mutants and it was slightly more linear - when you went on a certain route (to get to that bit in the bottom right of the map) it was designed to filter you along a series of incidents which built towards the climax. I've just spassed about on new vegas and wandered into some casinos.

Maybe its a bethesda thing because i hate morrowind too, just wandering around.

Devs like naughty dog have the right idea - create something which takes you the whole way through, and dont let up. Make it small enough so that players always have a sense of knowing where they are etc.

Honestly, the reason devs will never make an rpg as engrossing as baldurs gate is because they are too concerned with expanding the world as much as possible, rather than focusing on the things that really matter, like engrossing plot and intriguing character development.

Obsidian developed New Vegas, Bethesda is only the publisher.

I agree that New Vegas is a lot more of an empty and boring world when compared to Fallout 3. The part about Bethesda is nonsense though imo as they are probably the best around at open world RPG's.

There are some great linear RPG's around as has already been mentioned. Dragon Age has been my favourite recently and #2 is out soon.

 

[Scholesgoals]

Well I thought Fallout 3 was pretty damn amazing.

RPGs are a tough one, make them too linear and people don't like them, make them too open and people don't like them. It's all about finding the right mix.

FFVII did it, but then you've FFXIII, which I didn't like at all, it was so linear, and I'm a huge FF fan.

Recent games that have gotten it spot on are Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. I love the idea of just instantly transporting to locations, whether they be relevant or irrelevant to the plot.

mass effect 2 was very good, but even that suffered from hugeness problems, masses of planets to explore with not much going on them, then one big area that was impossible to get your head round.

Dragon age started really well but got a bit samey towards the end - it just seems like they are lacking that special bit of character to them which made the other games that much better.

obsidian/bethesda - whatever, its still the same engine used.

The best rpg i played was planescape torment, purely because there was such an incentive to find out about your character - and it was actually difficult to complete without being bewildering. The combat was the best in baldurs gate where if you didnt plan a battle well, then you lost big time. Loved the fact that some fights you had to replay several times until you figured out a way to win. I really dont think thats been bettered in modern games.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You realise that you can fast travel in NV, right? Also, while a lot of buildings might seem empty, they do play important parts in specific quests.

The real debate about NV, IMO, is why it was released in such a bug ridden state.

 

[Massive Spanner]

mass effect 2 was very good, but even that suffered from hugeness problems, masses of planets to explore with not much going on them, then one big area that was impossible to get your head round.

Dragon age started really well but got a bit samey towards the end - it just seems like they are lacking that special bit of character to them which made the other games that much better.

obsidian/bethesda - whatever, its still the same engine used.

The best rpg i played was planescape torment, purely because there was such an incentive to find out about your character - and it was actually difficult to complete without being bewildering. The combat was the best in baldurs gate where if you didnt plan a battle well, then you lost big time. Loved the fact that some fights you had to replay several times until you figured out a way to win. I really dont think thats been bettered in modern games.

Yeah, of the old school games it was the best. I preferred Icewind Dale to BG though, mainly because the whole thing was pure out and out combat.

 

[elmo]

They've gotten too fixated on the aesthetics of the game that they've neglected the bloody gameplay itself.

 

[Scholesgoals]

They've gotten too fixated on the aesthetics of the game that they've neglected the bloody gameplay itself.

Thats pretty much the short version of what i wanted to say.

I dont understand this!

surely its easier to develop a strong bit of gameplay and then develop the game?

 

[Scholesgoals]

You realise that you can fast travel in NV, right? Also, while a lot of buildings might seem empty, they do play important parts in specific quests.

The real debate about NV, IMO, is why it was released in such a bug ridden state.

yeah. I didnt even want to get onto the fact that the game crashes every 5 mins. its awful!

This and fifa 11 makes you wonder if we'll buy any old crap these days

 

[Dingledoog]

obsidian/bethesda - whatever, its still the same engine used.

It does matter a little bit though because Epic Mickey and Civ IV were made with that engine.

Thats pretty much the short version of what i wanted to say.

I dont understand this!

surely its easier to develop a strong bit of gameplay and then develop the game?

Games have done this, see Just Cause 2. Amazing gameplay, rest of the game is pretty poor though (voice acting/story).

yeah. I didnt even want to get onto the fact that the game crashes every 5 mins. its awful!

This and fifa 11 makes you wonder if we'll buy any old crap these days

Agreed, release half finished games and still rake in the coin.

 

[Scholesgoals]

It does matter a little bit though because Epic Mickey and Civ IV were made with that engine.

ah i didnt know that, civ4 is a vastly different game, surprised that used the same engine, so i'll step aside on this due to ignorance.

Games have done this, see Just Cause 2. Amazing gameplay, rest of the game is pretty poor though (voice acting/story).

Perhaps i mean something different - gameplay to me is everything but the aesthetics - JC2 had some fun elements in terms of physics in but in terms of story and actual point to the game, its awful.

Honestly, think about those classic games that stick in your mind,

metal gear solid
zelda
mario
civ series
age of empires
starcraft
tomb raider etc etc

each of these games are classics because they are just so well designed and polished. It seems that the current trend is to make a lot of throwaway games that rake in big but really have no longevity or depth.

The only ones i can think of today that have that level of thought and development in them are the uncharted games, which absolutely blew me away. Simple mechanics, beautifully executed. (and i dont mean graphically, even though it is a good looking game)

Agreed, release half finished games and still rake in the coin.

the reason for that is because enough people have broadband internet access so that patches can be released afterwards. Its not a fair way to do it to be honest, and im fast losing patience with it. Imagine if you bought a shoe but had to wait for a replacement sole after 3 days.... not on and should be more tightly regulated.

Fifa 11 plays like a fecking demo, every time i load a game it jibs out. Fallout NV is almost game ruiningly buggy.

 

[Xander45]

The best games mix everything up in a nice little bundle, and the best example of them all is Shadow of the Colossus. Fantastic graphics and music, big open world to explore, easy to use yet still challenging gameplay and a story that dragged you in more than you'd think it would given the lack of actual dialogue.

Spoiler

If you didn't feel a tad upset when Agro fell then you're not human.

It's like a game of one-upmanship to see who can make the game with the biggest space. Red Dead Redemption did well, they could have made it absolutely massive, but instead they made it big enough to be impressive but not so big as to be overwhelming.

 

[Scholesgoals]

The best games mix everything up in a nice little bundle, and the best example of them all is Shadow of the Colossus. Fantastic graphics and music, big open world to explore, easy to use yet still challenging gameplay and a story that dragged you in more than you'd think it would given the lack of actual dialogue.

Spoiler

If you didn't feel a tad upset when Agro fell then you're not human.

It's like a game of one-upmanship to see who can make the game with the biggest space. Red Dead Redemption did well, they could have made it absolutely massive, but instead they made it big enough to be impressive but not so big as to be overwhelming.

too big!

why do i wanna ride around a load of empty stuff?

why do people enjoy this!?

I stopped playing that game because i was bored of riding around aimlessly.

 

[Xander45]

too big!

why do i wanna ride around a load of empty stuff?

why do people enjoy this!?

I stopped playing that game because i was bored of riding around aimlessly.

I didn't find it too big at all, there was a fast travel option and a taxi service if you couldn't be arsed with riding. If you went from mission to mission you hardly did much aimless wandering. Personally i found GTA 4 to be much more of a chore to get around.

 

[Dingledoog]

Perhaps i mean something different - gameplay to me is everything but the aesthetics - JC2 had some fun elements in terms of physics in but in terms of story and actual point to the game, its awful.

Honestly, think about those classic games that stick in your mind,

metal gear solid
zelda
mario
civ series
age of empires
starcraft
tomb raider etc etc

each of these games are classics because they are just so well designed and polished. It seems that the current trend is to make a lot of throwaway games that rake in big but really have no longevity or depth.

The only ones i can think of today that have that level of thought and development in them are the uncharted games, which absolutely blew me away. Simple mechanics, beautifully executed. (and i dont mean graphically, even though it is a good looking game)

The bit highlighted is what I wanted to touch on. While games might be buggy when released (seems to be a lot of games recently are released with awful bugs) the longevity and re playability of a lot of games can't be questioned. Perfect example of this is Dragon Age where you can play it 5 times and get quite a different story.

Big open world games are what people want and the idea imo is great. In practice though they always have problems because the problem with creating a world that big is it's not financially possible to test every single area of it extensively.

The best games mix everything up in a nice little bundle, and the best example of them all is Shadow of the Colossus. Fantastic graphics and music, big open world to explore, easy to use yet still challenging gameplay and a story that dragged you in more than you'd think it would given the lack of actual dialogue.

Spoiler

If you didn't feel a tad upset when Agro fell then you're not human.

It's like a game of one-upmanship to see who can make the game with the biggest space. Red Dead Redemption did well, they could have made it absolutely massive, but instead they made it big enough to be impressive but not so big as to be overwhelming.

Agreed although even that had a ridiculous amount of bugs, even if they were hilarious.

 

[Dingledoog]

too big!

why do i wanna ride around a load of empty stuff?

why do people enjoy this!?

I stopped playing that game because i was bored of riding around aimlessly.

Guess open world games just aren't your thing, there are still really good games out there for you though. That or you have never heard of fast travel.

 

[Scholesgoals]

Guess open world games just aren't your thing, there are still really good games out there for you though. That or you have never heard of fast travel.

hmm maybe you're right, but i loved san andreas because it had the whole gang territory minigame in it, which always kept the traversing fresh.

Fast travel is fine and all, but it disconnects from the immersive point of the game. If you need to fast travel everywhere all the time then the game is poorly designed imo. Plus i cant stand loading times.

 

[Xander45]

I think you're asking for a bit much here mate.

You don't need to fast travel in the majority of these big open world games as there's usually a sequence of missions that slowly lead across the map. New Vegas didn't do well in that regard, but Red Dead did. The long travel sequences were either filled with dramatic shoot outs or talking that helped fill out the story and the characters.

And loading times aren't going to go away anytime soon, Uncharted have it nailed down but there's still that longish load at the start. And they can only do it because they're on the platform with much larger disc space and all that jazz, multiplatform games are of course going to suffer.

 

[elmo]

Thats pretty much the short version of what i wanted to say.

I dont understand this!

surely its easier to develop a strong bit of gameplay and then develop the game?

They're taking the easy way out, it's easier to make games look pretty rather than coming out with an interesting gameplay.

 

[SmashedHombre]

Age of Empires is a classic example of this. AoE 1 - brilliant. AoE 2 - best game ever made. AoE 3 - fancy graphics, dull gameplay. The Total War series is another example, Shogun Rome, Medieval...all genius. Disappointting. That said, I enjoy the Fallout's, but yeah I agree for the most part, gameplay just aint what it used to be. Of course that's probably nostalgia talking, but they don't make games like they used to. We had proper games in my day

 

[The Flying Potato]

The issue of multiplayer gaming being held in higher regard than singleplayer is far more concerning imo.

 

[SharkyMcShark]

Something I'm sick of is stunted single player campaigns - developers are more and more turning out short and substandard bollocks in the hope that multiplayer will make people ignore it. Which is understandable I suppose but then you get developers that turn out very short single player only games (Force Unleashed 2 and Mirrors Edge are two that come to mind both games I enjoyed but were unforgivably short). The Halo series has also gone this way.

Football Manager is a game that has kept me busy for over a thousand hours across various incarnations down the years but few games even keep going for more than a few hours worth of play time over a weekend anymore. I've revisisted KOTOR2, GTA San Andreas, GTA4 and Saints Row 2 over the last few weeks and it's such a shame that there aren't that many games anymore that offer such an extended playtime - a 25 - 40 hour single player of quality is just something that you're not seeing anymore.

Also you're less likely to see commercial games try new things (thank you Mr Kotick you fecking wanker). Indie games are now the realm of true gameplay innovation, as EA, Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft are now only interested in franchises that can be "annualized" (Kotick's words). Unforunately this is the changing face of the games industry - the basic model of any semi widespread release is make an entire game, then disable a quarter of it and unlock it for 15 bucks a few months after release (generally 'DLC' ships with the game, you're just paying to unlock it). It's unfortunate that it sells so well because it's basically leading to the industry eating itself. Especially unfortunate is the increasing popularity of the 'Call of Duty' development model - the publishers get two studios working on their big titles, with each studio releasing every two years just before christmas so essentially they're spewing out one title of that 'brand' per year.

I don't like it but then it's an industry like any other- they follow the money. I'm hoping for some kind of paradigm busting consumer revolution but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Scholesgoals]

Age of Empires is a classic example of this. AoE 1 - brilliant. AoE 2 - best game ever made. AoE 3 - fancy graphics, dull gameplay. The Total War series is another example, Shogun Rome, Medieval...all genius. Disappointting. That said, I enjoy the Fallout's, but yeah I agree for the most part, gameplay just aint what it used to be. Of course that's probably nostalgia talking, but they don't make games like they used to. We had proper games in my day

THIS THIS THIS!!!

Age of empires 2 is probably my favourite ever game, it was so ridiculously simple, yet complex too - scissor paper stone of this kills that and then go!!

all the home nation stuff and the rest with aoe3 meant that i had never been so disappointed with a game in my life. I remember the whole online community was excited for aoe3 - finally! and when it came out, it absolutely tanked. keep it simple!

 

[Scholesgoals]

Something I'm sick of is stunted single player campaigns - developers are more and more turning out short and substandard bollocks in the hope that multiplayer will make people ignore it. Which is understandable I suppose but then you get developers that turn out very short single player only games (Force Unleashed 2 and Mirrors Edge are two that come to mind both games I enjoyed but were unforgivably short). The Halo series has also gone this way.

Football Manager is a game that has kept me busy for over a thousand hours across various incarnations down the years but few games even keep going for more than a few hours worth of play time over a weekend anymore. I've revisisted KOTOR2, GTA San Andreas, GTA4 and Saints Row 2 over the last few weeks and it's such a shame that there aren't that many games anymore that offer such an extended playtime - a 25 - 40 hour single player of quality is just something that you're not seeing anymore.

Also you're less likely to see commercial games try new things (thank you Mr Kotick you fecking wanker). Indie games are now the realm of true gameplay innovation, as EA, Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft are now only interested in franchises that can be "annualized" (Kotick's words). Unforunately this is the changing face of the games industry - the basic model of any semi widespread release is make an entire game, then disable a quarter of it and unlock it for 15 bucks a few months after release (generally 'DLC' ships with the game, you're just paying to unlock it). It's unfortunate that it sells so well because it's basically leading to the industry eating itself. Especially unfortunate is the increasing popularity of the 'Call of Duty' development model - the publishers get two studios working on their big titles, with each studio releasing every two years just before christmas so essentially they're spewing out one title of that 'brand' per year.

I don't like it but then it's an industry like any other- they follow the money. I'm hoping for some kind of paradigm busting consumer revolution but I'm not holding my breath.

It'll happen sooner or later.

i'm tired of buying these games now and i only consider myself a moderate gamer.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Something I'm sick of is stunted single player campaigns - developers are more and more turning out short and substandard bollocks in the hope that multiplayer will make people ignore it. Which is understandable I suppose but then you get developers that turn out very short single player only games (Force Unleashed 2 and Mirrors Edge are two that come to mind both games I enjoyed but were unforgivably short). The Halo series has also gone this way.

Football Manager is a game that has kept me busy for over a thousand hours across various incarnations down the years but few games even keep going for more than a few hours worth of play time over a weekend anymore. I've revisisted KOTOR2, GTA San Andreas, GTA4 and Saints Row 2 over the last few weeks and it's such a shame that there aren't that many games anymore that offer such an extended playtime - a 25 - 40 hour single player of quality is just something that you're not seeing anymore.

Red Dead, Just Cause 2, Castlevania, The Saboteur, AC Brotherhood, Fallout NV....all recent games with SP campaigns that range from 25 hours to maybe 100.

They are out there.

 

[Plan M]

I quickly got bored with Fallout 3 - I can see that it's a good game but I always get fed up with all the talking and wandering around. The shooting felt "meh" as well.

I just want good old fashioned action these days!

 

[SmashedHombre]

THIS THIS THIS!!!

Age of empires 2 is probably my favourite ever game, it was so ridiculously simple, yet complex too - scissor paper stone of this kills that and then go!!

all the home nation stuff and the rest with aoe3 meant that i had never been so disappointed with a game in my life. I remember the whole online community was excited for aoe3 - finally! and when it came out, it absolutely tanked. keep it simple!

Yeah that home nation stuff was rubbish. Tried to rip of civilization a bit there I think, and it didn't work. Why did they have to go and drastically change what was one of the greatest game formats ever made? And what is it with classic RTS' and the desire to go all 3D ? C&C is another example. I had such, such high hopes for AoE3. Age of Mythology really should have been a warning though, I only have myself to blame for not picking up on it.

Do game designers really think so little of us that they believe we value fancy graphics above gameplay? If they had released AoE 3 using the same format as AoE 2, but just newer- with new units, new civs, maybe a few new army formations etc...it would have been amazing. Why fix what aint broken? Everyone argues that people won't buy a new game that's too similar to its predecessor but frankly that's bollocks. Look at the FM's or all the WoW expansions etc. They don't drastically change the gameplay of a working formula, they just add a few new bits to it. And it works because when people grow to love a game, they don't want to see the next one completely revamped, they want to see the same game they grew to love- just different. AoE2 get it right after keeping the same AoE1 format, just improving on it. Rome and Medieval Total Wars improved Shogun, then Empire came out and ruined it. C&C was doing well up until Generals, etc etc. Civilization has made a killing by simply releasing the same game again and again, just different. Yeah, I seem to be naming all RTS' here, but meh- I love RTS'. I'm sure my point spans all genre's though.

They're going to feck over my childhood with the new KotOR an' all. I know it. Stupid MMORPG's.

 

[Scholesgoals]

Yeah that home nation stuff was rubbish. Tried to rip of civilization a bit there I think, and it didn't work. Why did they have to go and drastically change what was one of the greatest game formats ever made? And what is it with classic RTS' and the desire to go all 3D ? C&C is another example. I had such, such high hopes for AoE3. Age of Mythology really should have been a warning though, I only have myself to blame for not picking up on it.

Do game designers really think so little of us that they believe we value fancy graphics above gameplay? If they had released AoE 3 using the same format as AoE 2, but just newer- with new units, new civs, maybe a few new army formations etc...it would have been amazing. Why fix what aint broken? Everyone argues that people won't buy a new game that's too similar to its predecessor but frankly that's bollocks. Look at the FM's or all the WoW expansions etc. They don't drastically change the gameplay of a working formula, they just add a few new bits to it. And it works because when people grow to love a game, they don't want to see the next one completely revamped, they want to see the same game they grew to love- just different. AoE2 get it right after keeping the same AoE1 format, just improving on it. Rome and Medieval Total Wars improved Shogun, then Empire came out and ruined it. C&C was doing well up until Generals, etc etc. Civilization has made a killing by simply releasing the same game again and again, just different. Yeah, I seem to be naming all RTS' here, but meh- I love RTS'. I'm sure my point spans all genre's though.

They're going to feck over my childhood with the new KotOR an' all. I know it. Stupid MMORPG's.

Great post, wish i could show game designers this!

 

[Eriku]

too big!

why do i wanna ride around a load of empty stuff?

why do people enjoy this!?

I stopped playing that game because i was bored of riding around aimlessly.

I liked that aspect... Strangers and challenges in the wilderness... Hide-outs and bandits... And just the sheer beauty and variation... Starry skies and a slower time than what we're used to today. I quite liked that