I wonder when it was that developers stopped listening to good players?
Yes, Iâ€™m aware thatâ€™s a generalization â€“ not all developers do this. However, the developers of the games that I play most often seem to, and thatâ€™s not a good thing at all.
Gaming has become a lot more popular than it was when I was a kid â€“ everyone and his mom seems to have an Xbox, whether to play the latest iteration of Madden or the FPS flavour of the month. The immediate effect of this is that pretty much every developer has been wondering how to appeal to this newly-expanded gaming demographic. The more insidious effect has been that theyâ€™ve started dumbing down their games to appeal to this demographic.
As an example, letâ€™s take a look at Team Fortress 2. Simply put, they removed tons of stuff that had been present in TFC in order to simplify the game and make it appeal to Joe Gamer whose only experience with FPSes up to that point was probably Halo. This included several advanced techniques like concussion jumping, several weapons (super shotguns, railguns, nailguns, all the grenades), as well as weapon-specific ammunition and armor. Even some of the seemingly innocent changes caused the game to be dumbed down â€“ for instance, the fact that friendly fire is off and you donâ€™t collide with your teammates makes it easier to spy check and thus severely limits the Spyâ€™s usefulness. And letâ€™s not forget the obvious â€“ critical hits and random damage spread.
The result is that the game sort of works if youâ€™re playing it casually, but as soon as you try to get better at it you start to run into problems. High level play in TF2 involves class limits out of necessity and only uses a small set of maps since most of the game modes arenâ€™t particularly suited to it. The end result is that TF2â€™s high level scene is markedly smaller than that of other games like CS and Quake.
Not enough? Letâ€™s look at another recent Valve game, Left 4 Dead. This game was sold primarily as a co-op game, and in that respect it works decently, although the weapon balance is rather poor. However, Valve also saw fit to add a Versus mode, which was plainly not designed with high-level play in mind, much like TF2. The survivors are blatantly overpowered, with all sorts of abilities at their disposal â€“ this is in addition to the poorly balanced weapons. A team of skilled survivors all wielding autoshotguns is pretty much guaranteed to make it to the safe room most of the time. This situation didnâ€™t really improve in the sequel â€“ while the infected did get buffed a little, the survivors gained several more abilities, such as defibrillators to bring dead teammates back to life, bile grenades to distract hordes, grenade launchers and high-damage melee weapons.
The effect of this on high level play is that various player-developed mods need to be used to achieve any semblance of balance at all. And these mods basically remove several item types from the game and reducing the influence of the AI director in order to achieve this goal.
Now you might ask, â€œbut SonicTempest, arenâ€™t games supposed to be fun? Why are you treating them like SERIOUS BUSINESS?â€ To which I would reply: â€œWhat do you mean by fun?â€ What someone finds fun isnâ€™t going to be fun for everyone else. Some people have fun messing around in 32-player low-gravity mario_kart servers in TF2, whereas others have fun learning the ins and outs of a game and mastering its nuances of its ruleset. Note also that someoneâ€™s perception of fun changes over time â€“ at one point I enjoyed playing Pyro on 32-player instaspawn Dustbowl as much as any casual player out there. However, after 300 or so hours of playtime, about half of which have been spent playing Soldier almost exclusively and trying to learn the class as best as I can, my definition of fun has changed, based on the simple fact that my skill level has increased. This change has also led me to realise that playing TF2 in pubs is becoming less and less fun for me, simply because of all the things built into this game that hinder high level play.
The conclusion, therefore, is that developers need to design their games with high level play in mind first and foremost for them to remain interesting. Most peopleâ€™s response to this approach is that it â€˜alienates new playersâ€™ â€“ which is a premise with which I disagree quite strongly. Look at games like Starcraft and Quake. These games have very high skill ceilings which is the main reason their high level play scenes continue to thrive even today (keep in mind that these games came out ten years ago!) Yet is either game any less fun at low levels of play? I played Quake and Quake III Arena deathmatch back when the games were new, and I was by no means a good player, yet I still had fun with both games. Similarly, I was terrible at Starcraft, but this didnâ€™t diminish my enjoyment of my weekly matches with my high school friends one bit. And these games are still great fun to play, even today â€“ I played Starcraft with my fellow interns while I was in India back in 2006, and even though I still sucked at it, it was every bit as entertaining as it was back in 1998.
Will I be able to say the same about TF2 or L4D ten years from now? I doubt it.
PS: I spent most of this post talking about FPSes, but this is something thatâ€™s becoming prevalent across all genres. A little game called â€œKing of Fighters XIIâ€ comes to mindâ€¦and some might even say that Street Fighter IV falls into this category.
4 thoughts on “Ass backwards”
Since when have the first iteration of any Capcom fighter series ever been worth playing in the long run? SF2: World Warrior, Alpha 1, SF3: New Generation, X-men vs. Street Fighter, Capcom vs. SNK 1… all have been horrifically broken and had a low skill ceiling in the long run.
Sure, but the view that I mentioned rises from comparing SFIV to Third Strike. I don’t know if I would call SFIV horrifically broken, but there are those who make convincing arguments for it being a net loss of depth from Third Strike.
I don’t have an opinion on it since I don’t have too much experience with SF games, but I can confidently say that KOFXII falls into this bucket.
SFIV, they say, was designed with newer players in mind. According to the Japanese crew, this will help newbies ease into other SF titles.
However, this is a double-edged sword. There’s the shortcut for the shoryuken motion, but it tends to mess up the execution of other moves if there’s overlaps. The game can also be very turtley, since it rewards the more defensive players, and often makes it hard for those who start the offense. Ultras are seen by many as skewed too. Huge damage for comeback possibilities and… those without Shoryuken->FADC->Ultra have it harder than those who do.
Even though I agree with you, fully I might add, when you look at things from an economic standpoint, and quite honestly, is there really any other standpoint nowadays? It really does make sense not to cater to the hardcore, there’s a reason why the Wii is so godamn popular and it’s not because the hardcore and talented are playing it.
Though I would make an argument in favour of catering to the hardcore, I find myself starting to shy away from that title nowadays. As gaming grows more mainstream and the hardcore start to grow up, the definition of good/experienced players are going to change too. Perhaps we’re just starting to see the effects of that trend now.