Jump to content

MultiLockOn

Member
  • Content Count

    3,323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

Everything posted by MultiLockOn

  1. It is undoubtedly a huge exaggeration to compare the two lol I won't deny that. I just don't think I should ever be prevented from simply walking, let alone turning my character pawn. I find CE's to be just as annoying. One of the those is contextualized and actually makes physical sense. Getting knocked back by an explosion doesn't actually take control away any more than not being able to change directions in the air takes away control. If I had a warthog ram a box into me so I'm pegged between a box and a wall, I wouldn't say "I'm being stunned" because I'm unable to move my character - that's just the normal and intended reaction. It makes sense and it's not actually hijacking me of anything. Getting hit by a mccree flashbang and having my character sit completely still while the words STUNNED pop up and I face in 1 direction, not the same thing.
  2. Have you played against stasis in destiny. It's Stun, the game. https://youtu.be/sVOQkLnyRj4
  3. Look beyond his specific use of the word crowd control. CC almost always refers to a mechanic that prevents your character from doing anything, a stun, your buttons don't work. If he suggested this new plasma pistol idea as a "zoning" weapon you probably wouldn't nitpick his idea. Also I'm fairly sure the acid pool he recommended it leaves wouldn't stun you so much as deal damage. No different than throwing a firebomb grenade on the ground.
  4. That is very situational and still not even close to the same thing as being hit by something and now I can't jump, my movement is slow, I can barely turn my reticle. Stun is stupid.
  5. Eh. It's half true, half an excuse. In some ways I am way more productive because I can roll out of bed and get to work instantly, stop and go throughout the day no distractions. In an office you have to get dressed, drive there, work set hours and go home. Lot more flexible right now. On the other hand, what would be a 45 second conversation with the guy sitting behind me is now a half hour zoom call. Lots of scheduled meetings now. Overall I think it's being used as an excuse.
  6. I think you've reached the wrong conclusion here. You keep pointing to escape as the reason why faster movement tech doesn't work and then pin it on the game mode for respawning players; the actual culprit here is that escaping = means healing. The problem isn't respawning, it's recharging health.
  7. If you would actually like to talk about design, I'm at my desk until 6 and can chat, not many meetings today. Message me and I can give you my discord / xbl gt. Probably better done over voice anyways. EDIT: Boyo I'm sorry if that came off rude. I think you were being a little obnoxious with your responses and I got frustrated
  8. Boyo you begged Westin for examples because you thought the stuff he said was 'the easy stuff' and then you continue to throw a mountain of terrible ideas. You throw out literally hundreds of random ideas and maybe 1% of them are good. If you actually understood a fraction of Westin said you'd realize it's not even important to hammer out the specifics when you actually understand this stuff because you can separate the good from the bad. I've known Westin for ~6 years and he's been on my project on my game with me for the last 3 years. The amount of times we came up with a general idea and went "Yeah we can go about this any number of ways, we don't have to hammer this out" because we both understand the same principles would be too many to count. Yes specifics are obviously important, but once you understand your core principles all that stuff is easy and just takes the smallest amount of creativity. I could probably sit here and list out 12 different ways to design the beam rifle in Halo that all would be improvements on what it currently does but none of that matters because you have no idea what makes something good or bad. Ideas are easy, they're free. Hell you throw out a thousand a day. And they mean literally nothing. And then someone actually makes a ~45 minute video trying to teach the foundations of design that you clearly have no idea about and you pester him for 2 pages asking him for specifics, saying that everything he stated was obvious and easy. Even if he did give you specifics of weapon redesigns or mechanical changes to movement, you would have no idea why it's good. If you did understand you wouldn't be unironically suggesting light blades that charge overshields, sandman vehicles that burrow underground, turning your spartan into monkey ball to roll through holes, or shoving your arm into the wall to charge an OS. For the record - if you worked for me as a designer and actually unironically suggested any of these ideas in a meeting I would probably fire you on the spot because it's just painfully obvious to me where your level of understanding is at. Which like fine, whatever. Not everyone is a game designer, not a big deal you don't have to be good at this stuff. But then to be ^ THAT ^ obnoxious when someone actually makes a video talking about the important stuff... this is why people don't talk about design here. Like why bother man.
  9. I mean, it just means you're not a good developer. You say all that and then wonder why like every single game in every genre looks like the next. We have a million Overwatch Clones, Call of Duty Clones, and League clones and basically nothing else. Even games in different genres are looking like one another. A good designer can understand why something works and not resort to copying. 343 didn't know why the CE magnum was so good, so they just 'copied it' to Halo 5 in how they thought it performed and it was a hitscan aim assist machine with huge bloom and spread. Stupid. If they actually understood why it worked the way it did, that wouldn't have happened. Genuine thinkers are hard to come by.
  10. I dunno, Bungie said 30 seconds of fun, someone coined that into gameplay loops, then everyone parrots it and believes it to be true. Happens with a lot of things honestly, this entire industry is just people copying everyone else instead of thinking for themselves. If I had a dollar every time we tried to solve a problem and I heard the sentence "well what does Destiny do?" Or "what does overwatch do?" I would be a rich man. I've worked with animators who wouldn't do anything without first referencing something in overwatch first and how they animate things on certain frames.
  11. I'll say there are many many games that feel impactful, and strong, and fast, and streamers will be like "Oh man this game / gun / ability is crispy" but it never lasts. I'd actually go so far to say that as far as feedback goes and feeling powerful, Halo 2 / 3 might be the some of the worst games I've ever played in that regard. The guns are basically perfectly stationary on your screen with no ridiculous canon-like recoil, your walk speed is balls, you're floaty, slow, weak... but to be honest it doesn't really matter. Not that any of those things in isolation are wrong to enjoy or bad for games, but they don't really have any staying power. If the false sense of powerful and speed and impact actually meant anything then Titanfall 2, Mortal Kombat, and Anthem would be the most played games out there. But they're not, they all dropped like rocks because at the end of the day you can't trick a human brain into thinking it's having fun. You might believe at a surface level you are, but your brain knows better. And unfortunately most modern game design is devs thinking they can trick you into thinking you're having fun. Pretty much every renowned game with insane staying power, Halo Ce / 2 /3, Smash Melee, Dark Souls, are all remarkably slow powerless games compared to their competitors. Smash doesn't have a fraction of the flash and flair of every single attack in Mortal Kombat, but MK sucks so.. all the flashiness and power fantasy in the world won't keep people playing it. Dark Souls you're a weak pathetic stupid piece of shit who can roll and hit, and that's it. Doesn't matter though, it's difficult, and rewarding, and probably the best game of all time and people will never stop playing it. Halo was the same way. While I would like more impact and strength in Halo again, it won't solve the underlying issues. The Halo CE magnum skinned as a banana peel shooting bananas would probably provide better play retention than an actual hand cannon that kills in 12 shots with bloom. All that matters at the end of the day is integrity of the game - ensuring the better player wins, and allowing people to get better in the first place. "The team that made Fear 1 had good direction. They focused entirely on the core shooting gameplay. The bullet impacts are fantastic, the lights were dynamic which made shooting them actually do something. Enemies call out your position and try to flank. The sound design is fantastic. The lights allow you to spot enemy shadows that are in real time. The core loop of actually moving around and clearing rooms was refined and focused on. What was the sacrifce? Environment. It was small, claustrophobic and bland. But they were smart and fit this into the theme. Space Marine is another game with a pretty modest team and budget and they threw everything into the core loop. The sound of your guns, the impact of them, the gore, the melee, the animations. Everything involving the core loop which is shoot your magazine dry, charge in, beat up then execute was refined to a T. Absolutely all the effort went into that. The environments are pretty bland (classic Unreal 3-itis of default shaders + brown everywhere) the voice mix is average and the third act isn't great." I wouldn't even call that a gameplay loop, it's just ensuring the game has some form of fun (skill) and then building the game around it. And the reason I'm so hard on not using that phrase is how easily people take it and miss the entire point, and you end up with this Timestamped. The belief in the game industry among every designer I've ever spoken to is that if you make players repeat the same sequence of actions over and over, it's a fun loop. And it's totally, and completely untrue. But now if you look at anthem you'll see exactly where went wrong, you sit there and press 4 different buttons in the same order to shoot out 4 of the same explosions in different colors and they genuinely tricked themselves (at least during development) into believing it's fun. It's not, difficulty is fun. Skill is fun. All the impact and explosions and weapon feedback won't save a bad game. I talked to a dev once who told me Fortnite's gameplay loop was what made it so popular. I asked him what the loop was, and he said "ya know, dropping in, getting kills, winning." That's not even a loop, it's a description of an objective. Fortnite is fun because it's hard and has depth to it's building. It's also remarkably simple which helps the barrier to entry. Being able to build also circumvents a lot of design issues with Battle Royales, like dying because you're in the middle of a giant open field and have no cover to use - building ensures you don't undermine the player skill with factors out of their control like that. I just think the whole concept of "loops" to be so ridiculous and misses the point entirely and now there's entire franchises that have risen and fallen on that lie because they didn't know how to design a game. Low skill floor is mainly great for reducing complexity, but more importantly allowing new players to learn and appreciate the game. If there are other aspects, like a false sense of "intensity" as you put it, that's fine if it helps them stay so long as it doesn't jeopardize other aspects of the game. Doom / Assassins Creed make your last 20 health points worth more than your first 80. I think this is completely disingenuous and lies to me, it doesn't give me the information I actually want (which is how much health I actually have) because they think if players are always BARELY escaping a fight by the skin of your teeth it'll be really intense and make you excited and want to play more. So you're always right on the cusp of dying but not really because you actually still have a ton of health. I don't like that, I think it's wrong and I'm willing to bet in the long run it doesn't actually do anything. It's also worth noting that if skill and competition and learning is what's enticing to every human, you need to make sure to allow them to do that. My gf and her best friend / best friend's boyfriend probably would not have enjoyed playing chess for 5 hours if they just went in and lost within 5 moves. Similarly, you would probably not enjoy a game if you just went in and stomped everyone 100 - 0 every single time. You would not enjoy Halo if Bungie came to you and said "Hey, we're going to spawn you, ONLY you, with a rocket launcher every single game, and nobody else in the match." You would not have fun. People need the ability to grow, and overcome, and do difficult things because it is intrinsically rewarding and satisfying as a human being. It's fulfilling, like being in a long term healthy loving relationship. And Titanfall 2 and Destiny is porn. It might seem fun, you might THINK it doesn't effect you, you might really believe you like it - but you don't. You need fulfillment. And every single time a franchise walks from this path and begins to just hand players instant gratification it suffers. It seems like your conclusion is that problem solving is the ultimate bedrock of what you could define as good design and don't think it's skill. The reason I don't agree with this, is you can very well have a game that is 100% brain dead and it is still engaging because it is difficult. Put me in a room with some boxes in Gears 1 / 2 / 3 and it's fun even if I turn my brain off because it's difficult to do. In the same way aiming a rifle in real life is difficult to do and satisfying to get better at. You could do it all day and not get bored of it. Halo could be a brain dead game, and in a lot of ways is, but if the simple act of moving and shooting is difficult (while remaining simple) the game will live forever. This is why I'd say skill is the ultimate breath that games live on, keep in mind this can extend to mental skill and mechanical skill is only half the battle. But the idea that if you just keep offering problems to be solved and the game will be fun, I don't buy. I'd take your conclusion "Lots of emergent, engaging problems. Games that present new problems forever, are fun forever." and say that if a game even offers 1 single problem, and you only have 1 solution, so long as that solution is difficult to reach and fun to execute (skill) then that's all you need. In fact, a lot of developers do subscribe to that mindset and I think the results speak for themselves. The idea that if someone picks a certain character in Overwatch, and then all I have to do is counterpick - that is not engaging. Nor is it fun, or rewarding in the least. Or picking up a plasma pistol because the enemy grabbed an OS, even if I execute on that and shield strip + Br headshot them, it's not fun. Because it was easy. It didn't require anything from me. This is all a fancy example just to say, Halo 3 with only the BR and Sniper is more fun than Call of Duty with 1000 different weapons.
  12. I don't see any complexity to CS outside maybe the buying system in-between rounds. Otherwise what do you have, move jump zoom and shoot? About as simple as it comes. It's always a breathe of fresh air going to fortnite after Apex and not having to worry about finding armor, finding finding barrels and attachments, managing which ammo I'm carrying. I just grab 5 items and go. Very simple.
  13. Id say most of those games don't have complexity they have depth, which is good. Complexity is bad. League of Legends / OW are both, simple and complex in the sense that you can just pick one character and there's really only 3 abilities. Which is not complex at all. The complexity comes from the fact that there's like 20 heroes, lol has way more then that. So both of those games have some complexity but it's manageable. Fortnite has like, the least complexity of any BR. there's no inventory management, no item screen, no armor system, no juggling of ammunition types. Very very light on complexity, but a lot of depth in the building.
  14. Integrity trumps all. People love to attribute random game design theories to what makes a successful game like "oh a good combat loop is the key to a good game!" Only thats complete nonsense. Bungie popularized that term with their "30 seconds of fun" quote except Bungie also had no idea what made halo good. There is no loop to halo and it's fun. There IS a combat loop in anthem where you sequence the same abilities over and over and over and it's not fun. Battle Royale are like the most formless loopless gameplay out there, every single game is completely different. But they're super successful. I also hear the "1 life" theory a lot like I mentioned last post only that doesn't explain everything either, as someone else here kindly demonstrated "oh wait, overwatch isn't 1 life and it has good retention". If you really want to find the absolute bedrock theory of what makes good game design with good retention you need an explanation that covers all bases and every example. If you want to know what I think, I'll say skill of any kind is really the magic bullet. Any franchise that has removed player skill has instantly suffered the consequences and the retention dropped like a rock (Reach, Halo 4, Smash Brawl, etc). The whole "casual vs competitive" shtick everyone talks about is bullshit and a lie. There's not a single human being out there that doesn't enjoy competing and growing and getting better against people their own skill level. I was in Nashville late last year on vacation with the gf, and her best friend and boyfriend. It was immediately after the Nashville bombing went off after Christmas and we ended up getting stuck in a hotel lobby for 5 hours with nothing to do except play chess because they had a board set up. Turns out, everyone had a blast and 5 hours flew by. If you had asked any of them prior if they enjoyed chess, or competing, they would've said no. But that's not true, they just didn't know yet that they did enjoy it. It's the same story as someone who's only ever played call of duty, they might not THINK they would enjoy a more skill game and competing, but they would if they tried it. No one who's ever played a more skillful, more righteous experience that is fulfilling and lasting ever is satisfied with anything else. It's why everyone on beyond is still here, we played the good halo games and now nothing else suffices. It's why Dark Souls kids play nothing but fromsoft games, because once youve experienced it you can't settle for anything else. A game that is difficult, and allows you to get better and succeed with skill, will be more successful than the same game without skill. It's also very possible to have a game that has skill, but also completely undermines it with stupid abilities and dumb shit. Halo 5, Quake champions, Destiny, are all games that have skill. You can grow and get better at significantly, they also have a mountain of stupid shit that can kill you with no effort which makes it very frustrating. This is where people who don't understand design as much will be like "Halo 5 doesn't take skill" but also "Halo 5 is super sweaty" (ie everyone on reddit) because technically, both are true. Halo 5 is both very competitive and casual, or more accurately its neither. You can't play it competitively because there's so much stupid shit in the game but the stupid shit doesn't make it fun for "casuals" if that's a real thing. Quake champions does this too with the new champion abilities. Destiny.... I'm not even going to talk about that game could be so good but it's so god damn stupid. And of course, none of this matters if your skill floor is too high for people to get interested in the game. Halo 5 is complex, but not deep. You want depth, not complexity. Complexity makes it hard to get into the game even if it's good. Starcraft obviously has a lot of depth but it's complexity is too high because it legit takes 2000 hours to learn the game. In summary - this is my formula Low skill floor, high skill ceiling. As simple as you can possibly get it while having as much depth as possible (complexity is bad, depth is good). Don't undermine whatever skill you have. The more skill the better, you can subdivide that into mental and mechanical skill, and it's not a ratio. You can have a lot of one and none of the other. Geara of war is straight mechanical skill and basically no mental. Mobas are basically all mental no mechanical. CS has a decent amount of both. The more of both the better. Run every successful game ever through those filters and compare the retention of them. It should hold up. Battle Royales are very difficult, and take a lot of skill and planning to win. They are popular. The ones with the best retention are the ones with the most skill, and undermine them in the least ways (warzone, Fortnite obviously has intense skill, Apex). Whenever a franchise lowers the skill ceiling ( Halo Reach , 4, Smash Brawl, Gears 5), undermines skill (Quake champions, Halo 5, Destiny) adds complexity and raises the skill floor (Halo 5, Doom Eternal, OW,) the player retention suffers. Sometimes it's more difficult to interpret because some things get better and some things get worse, like Doom Eternal was a much harder game than 2016 which I appreciated, it introduced new skill. But it did so by adding a LOT of complexity, so the player reception shifts. The people who are into Doom Eternal are super into it and would die for it. But on the whole it's reception was weaker than 2016, probably because the complexity was a turn off to more people than the prequel. But I promise if you look at every game through that filter it'll make sense.
  15. I interviewed at Hi-Rez about a year ago for Rogue Company, and the lead designer on the project was actually Ghandi. I talked to him for about an hour and he had this same exact theory. He said gamers don't have the patience for multi-life games now which is why all the biggest games are 1-life modes or Battle Royales. I completely disagree with that reasoning and I think it misses the point, but just know that you're not alone in that process. It's definitely 1 theory out there.
  16. I don't know if there's any that I've LOVED but I certainly think if you take a step back and look at the holistic map slate of H4, there are ideas that are rooted in all of these There's probably more character in 3 these maps than the entire Halo 5 map slate combined. You can tell they actually had different ideas, and CA did better at actually making unique assets for al the maps. They look different. Whether or not they played better, different story obv, but I respect the effort CA puts into retaining character. Compared to H5 It looks like 343 made 10 assets and tried to make 14 maps out of those same assets. Every one of these maps are just jumbles of random shapes with no character, no idea behind any of them. it's just stuff. But, again I stress that this has nothing to do with how the CA maps play.
  17. You're only somewhat correct about lowering the action per minute metric, but to be honest that sort of misses the point of why it's a bad mechanic entirely. There's a simpler reason there. Certain Affinity handled the aiming for both of those games.
  18. I mean, I guess it depends on what you consider cheating. Soldiers 76's ult with aimbot isn't "cheating" as it's intentional, but it might as well be the same exact effect. If someone cheated and added in grenade trajectory lines like in Titanfall that would show where your grenade would land so you could line it up, I consider cheating for the player - even though it's intentionally put in the game. I'm sure some dev who came up with that thought it was a great idea on how to teach new players the grenade arcs but all it does is allow players who aren't familiar with the game / skilled enough to interrupted the geometry land kills they wouldn't otherwise. There are just some features that are standard in a lot of games, akin to the grenade arc prediction, that I don't think should've ever been introduced and standardized
  19. "What info you make available should only be decided by what gameplay you want," The gameplay I want is fair, and has integrity. If something is given to you that you or your team wouldn't have naturally discerned, it loses integrity. Otherwise you're playing chess with Clippy sitting there telling you when you have pieces in danger. Like everything, it's rarely black and white, but instead a tuning thing of finding the right balance. I just think most games have long passed that midpoint.
  20. The more you do it the easier it gets. I played a lot of doubles quake champions little over a year ago, and while at first timing ~4 items on 30 second dynamic respawns sounds impossible, it gets easier with repetition until you can do it almost subconsciously and focus on other things. Not saying I want this for Halo, just worth noting.
  21. I didn't say no visual feedback, I said no free information. I don't want to see outlines through walls, but if I'm looking dead at someone I should be able to tell if they're my teammate or not. A glow, a white outline in world space, etc. that's fine. Information you earn, even through very basic methods is very different than information given to you. I like the Halo 3 armor glow when your shields got lower because it was subtle, involved game knowledge, and required some observational skills to pick up on. I don't like health bars floating over people's heads because it just openly broadcasts that information to everyone. There's times an enemy was crossing my screen in Destiny very quickly, and I might not have shot and instead just opted to chase and get closer before engaging if it wasn't for their health bar telling me they were 1 shot. So I just stopped shot once and got the kill. That is free information that actually altered my decision making and screwed them over. Footsteps is somewhat similar and it punishes movement hard which is not what you want. I can accept it in BR's because predictability is tough to manage but outside of that ehhh I am not referring to MW's realism mode where you can't tell who's your friend or enemy and how many bullets you have left. That's stupid.
  22. Well, I suppose I myself don't really see why we'd draw that distinction. I'm just trying to avoid the scenario where I die, because the game explicitly told the enemy something they never would've known otherwise. Same reason loud footsteps bother me. I understand where you're coming from, and I think at the end of the day this is a minor thing in the scope of the game - I'm really just throwing out design hypotheticals. We'll see when my project's multiplayer becomes playable if we can indeed easily function with minimal information.
  23. It'd probably make low level games very sporadic and high level games more intentional, more skillful I think. There's something immensely satisfying about very intentional communication with a teammate, especially in 2's, where you call something out and your partner reacts to that. It's essentially a combination of trust, communication skills, and good decision making. A lot of that is absent because the game is forcing it to be absent through things being just handed to you. The extreme example of this is Destiny's radar system where there is no way to actually remove yourself from the radar ever (unless you're a hunter and go invis but I'll bitch about Hunters another time). Once you're within ~100m it pulses red in the general direction you're coming from. There is no such thing as flanking in Destiny against even a mid level team with decent communication because the game is putting you on blast and doing all the work for you. Obviously this is a hyper extreme example but the byproduct of that is, you don't need to communicate that much. And not in a good way. EDIT: As for LAN events with viewing monitors, I don't know honestly I hadn't thought about that. It's a good point. There's probably ways to trick it. You can filter in-game chat through headsets as game audio instead of party chat on a separate channel, I think Xbox 360 backwards compat games had a bug where this happened so I could hear people talking in game playing Halo reach while being in an xbox one party. Just hearing someone through voice chat sometimes is enough to make the decision to hop in sometimes. Also I think it would be cool if voice chat that was projected in the game world was proximity based and had actual fall-off over distance like something in the real world would work. I don't know, we might just not have seen the right game yet.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.