PDA

View Full Version : Hardcore, or Not?



Kevyne-Shandris
5th Jul 2008, 01:20
I'm watching this experiment called MMOs from a point of discontent. Partly because I don't think they even know what they're making, let alone where they're going (new genre, that seems to be making the same mistakes of old gaming -- a major one is linear gameplay in a world that NEEDS to be open-ended).

Remembering that video interview with Spector and Smith, and my discontent with MMOs in general (Myspace+Facebook+bad game play=chaos), I came across an article about the hardcore issue in MMOs. Now Harvey made it very clear that a game can't be made for hardcore gamers. It seems to be a common theme coming out of Austin now...

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7082&Itemid=2

But here's the problem: if you want folks to be hardcore enough to play to the "end game", how do you think they will? Solution so far is to dumb down gameplay and features so the casual gamer can zip in and out. Problem there is, there's no commitment to the game. Without the commitment, the franchise base will wax and wane, and not be a solid community (and it's no fun posting on dead sites about the game). No solid community the franchise becomes a B like movie. That doesn't help in keeping it alive, as corporate isn't interested in losing money, which in the end causes the franchise to either die or go into a long hibernation (further killing interest).

So this leaves the publishers, and the devs who depend on the publisher for their jobs, in a lurch. If they continue making games to appeal to the masses, the masses will just abandon them when a new title comes along (this is happening so much now, it's no wonder why games have a 2 year survival rate). To please the masses means they have to grind out games at short intervals (and we see what it did with the DX universe). Short development time means less going into the game (especially the story if the devs want to sell by eyecandy). It's a death spiral -- giving the masses their candy, but getting little reward for it, as they only wanted to sample it.

Now making a game totally for hardcore gamers will spell defeat for a title, as it's not inclusive -- not denying that. But to claim, hardcore gamers can't be a part of the equation of game development is how and why games like DX:IW exist. Was it good for the publisher? The developers? The players?

No.

So why continue making games for the noncommitted gamer????

Where do you think hardcore gamers play a part in game development? In the concept/alpha/beta stages of a game? After the release by promoting the game? In honest criticism?

Where?

Blade_hunter
5th Jul 2008, 14:06
I want an hardcore gamer game because games for casual gamers most of times are too simple with a very low amount of content, for a casual gamer thats not a problem I think, but for core games simple games already exists and the firsts games are simple, and we have played to theses simple games, core gamers wants new stuff and games that can be played during a great amount of time and not 8 hours for a classic FPS.
rare are the games that can be played 12 hours and more.

That depends what we want and what are the public of this DX 3, on this forum most guy's are core gamers and core gamers are the kind of gamers that can take care about an upcoming game

Psychopomp
5th Jul 2008, 15:01
The hardcore gamers are no longer the entirety of the market.
Gaming is a business, and few is the business that makes a product for niche market.



I *want* Deus Ex 3 to be for the gamers like me, who want a DEEEEEEP, lengthy, complex experience.

I fear Project: Snowblind

I *expect* I compromise between Deus Ex 1 and 2.

Which wouldn't be so bad.

Kevyne-Shandris
5th Jul 2008, 17:49
You shouldn't have to balance between good and godawful.

Blade_hunter
5th Jul 2008, 17:59
For me it's not a compromise between DX 1 and 2, for me the challenge is to make a better game than DX 1, your compromise is maybe called Snowblind, because it's better than DX 2 in some part of the game, but not good as DX 1.

I prefer to see a compromise between DX 1 and SS 2 with technical updates than a game like Snowblind

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Jul 2008, 18:06
^
Yeah, have to agree with that.
I definitely don't want a Snowblind and I'm expecting DX3 to be better than DX1. :cool:

jordan_a
7th Jul 2008, 18:26
In my opinion, so far the best and most realistic system market wise is to offer the player several levels of difficulty, 3 (not enough) or more for instance.

Depending on the level chosen several features vary: character's health, inventory, ammo and your enemies' health and accuracy.

Blade_hunter
7th Jul 2008, 20:08
For me the best is 5 main difficulty levels with some custom gameplay parts

Tourist - Easy - Medium - Hard - Realistic


The Difficulty level changes the AI and the accuracy of the NPC

For examples in easiest levels they are more easy to target, their reflexes are slower and they are less accurate.

Description
Tourist
Slow reflexes
Lowest dodge level
Poor accuracy

Easy
Normal reflexes
Low dodge level
Low accuracy

Normal
Normal reflexes
Correct dodge level
Correct accuracy

Hard
Normal reflexes
Good dodge level
Good accuracy

Realistic
Fast reflexes
Excellent dodge level
Excellent accuracy

I propose that because this is more realistic, I propose a tourist mode for the unexperienced players.
I don't propose health settings because I want more realism even if DX series use them as a difficulty setting, the poor use was in Bioshock with enemies with ton of hitpoints on the higher difficulty settings

For the gameplay customization I put some ideas in this thread
Because some of them can change the difficulty and the realism on themselves
I forgot to propose some different settings for the hack and the rest but it can make the game more for hardcore or casual gamers without modify the core of the game

I think propose some gameplay settings the game can be adapted for the largest category of gamers.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=76639&page=2

iWait
7th Jul 2008, 22:27
That is for MMOs though, it's much different selling MMOs than it is selling regular games.

If you want a successful MMO do what WoW does, have a high level cap, raids and instances to make people want to get to that level, and patches/expansions to make people still want to play the game after they did all the instances.

jcp28
7th Jul 2008, 22:33
Seriously, let's not do anything stupid like increase enemy health in such a way that the "difficulty" largely comes from having to shoot them in the face several times, which was a trademark of Bioshock like Blade hunter says.

Romeo
8th Jul 2008, 07:27
Personal taste, just hear me out:

Beginner (Basic mode. Enemies are significantly weaker than you in every way).

Normal (Enemies are slightly weaker in a few ways).

Challenge (Enemies are relatively equal to the main character in terms of strength, though weak enemies will be weaker, and harder enemies even more powerful).

Ridiculous - Unlocked after Challenge (All enemies are tougher than the main character by various amounts).

Realistic - Unlocked after Normal or higher (One shot, one kill, for both enemies and the main character. Doesn't apply to armored opponents though).

iWait
8th Jul 2008, 07:54
One shot, one kill isn't that realistic though.

Would make augs like ballistic protection and regeneration useless.

How about in the realistic setting it just does weapon damage x2?

Romeo
8th Jul 2008, 07:57
I don't know if you've seen many shootouts, but generally one or two rounds in the head or torso does the trick. And ballistic damage could simply allow a fraction more protection. But regen would be useless, so what? lol

iWait
8th Jul 2008, 08:00
Errr..... Seeing as most NATO forces use the 5.56 round which is about the equivalent of a 9mm in force it can take anywhere from 3-5 correctly aimed shots to take down an individual quickly.

And if you take body armor into the equation... You end up with 10 cops equipped with 9mm pistols trying to take down 2 terrorists armed with AK's and full body armor.

Blade_hunter
8th Jul 2008, 14:01
The AR bullets isn't very efficient against organic targets, but they are the only that can pierce armored stuff like armors.
The AR bullets are most of times supersonic bullets, and rare are the pistols and the SMG's with this kind of stuff (the most famous models are the Five seveN, the P90, the MP7)
But some bullets like the .45 caliber cartridge allows a powerful shot and causes more damages than an AR bullet into unarmored bodies, the SMG's and the shotguns are very useful in confined spaces that disallow great movements.
The weight of a weapon disallow to carry too much ammo and other equipment


Hollywood Miniguns: Predator vs. common sense.

"Hollywood Minigun" from the Predator movie a still image from the PREDATOR movie, featuring the Minigun
In the year 1987 the movie "Predator" (starring A. Schwarznegger) hit the screens. One of the most impressive scenes was the one where the US Commandos, led by "Dutch" (Schwarznegger), attempted to fight back the alien Predator. One of Commandos was armed with the distinctive weapon, a 6-barreled rotary Minigun, fed from backpack ammo box. This gave the impression that the Miniguns can be used for infantry support. It must be noted, that in this movie a special, blank firing version of the Minigun was sued. The electric motor was powered via cable, hidden in the actor's pants, and the actor had to carry bulletproof vest and protective mask to avoid injuries from the fast and violently ejecting empty cases. Had this gun being fired using real ammunition, the actor would ended lying on his back, being forced off the legs by the violent recoil. The "backpack" ammo capacity, also, could be worth only several seconds of fire. lets calculate: 2 000 rounds of 5.56mm ammo will weight about 25 kg (55 lbs); 2 000 rounds of 7.62mm will weight about 2 times more, making such load almost impossible to carry on foots. yet this load of ammo will worth only 20 or so seconds of fire. Add some powerful batteries to power electrical drive of about 4KWt (4+ horse-power), and the bulk of the gun itself, and you'll see that even the strongest man won't be able to carry this load, less to fire it with any chance to hit, due to extremely powerful recoil.

Quote from the arms site World guns.ru

I don't want a full realism, DX is a bit realistic and it's sufficient, some realm inconvenients can improve the gameplay, we can see some applications in games like many modern FPS and some old like SS2 - DX.
In my suggestions I will take some inconvenients to add some balance, tactics and keep the fact we can get a good gameplay, and I'm not alone in this case I think.
For me DX isn't a military simulation, but some realistic things can enhance the gameplay I think, but not all, and thats the fact DX 1 is a good game, because we have some realistic stuff, an evolution during the game, but not all things are realistic and thats a good thing.
We must find the best compromise with realm and fun.
The games like battlefield, Crysis and many others are a bit arcade when we compare them with the reality.

iWait
8th Jul 2008, 18:47
If you didn't understand that I was referring to the infamous North Hollywood Shootout incident.

Romeo
9th Jul 2008, 04:02
Errr..... Seeing as most NATO forces use the 5.56 round which is about the equivalent of a 9mm in force it can take anywhere from 3-5 correctly aimed shots to take down an individual quickly.

And if you take body armor into the equation... You end up with 10 cops equipped with 9mm pistols trying to take down 2 terrorists armed with AK's and full body armor.

Actually Nato tend to use the standard .223, with rare exceptions. And 3-5 rounds to take down an opponent when aiming for limbs, but believe me, you're average unarmored Joe Blow probbaly wont last too far past round 2. Secondly, I think full body is rare for most situations (Professional army and Special Weapons and Tactics), but even still, hollow-points and armor piercing rounds tend to tear through everything except Dragonskin. But to boot, 9mm pistols are relatively basic, in the future (Deus Ex era) I would expect most pistols to be at the power of Desert Eagles or more.

PS, BattleField is a "bit" arcadey? Hehe, ever tried firing an Assault Rifle at full auto? It's HELLA arcadey! lol

Kevyne-Shandris
9th Jul 2008, 18:24
Errr..... Seeing as most NATO forces use the 5.56 round which is about the equivalent of a 9mm in force it can take anywhere from 3-5 correctly aimed shots to take down an individual quickly.

And if you take body armor into the equation... You end up with 10 cops equipped with 9mm pistols trying to take down 2 terrorists armed with AK's and full body armor.

Which is why in those situations they call in the SWAT teams, which don't use 9mm or even .357 magnums -- they use assault rifles from the AR-15 onwards.

For an agent running around in these situations, a 10mm isn't going to be a sidearm of choice anyway (peppering the baddie with CS made more sense!). In DX3 the sidearm would have to be something much more powerful than a 10mm/9mm/.45 Colt. Something like a modernized .44 pistol. With body armor common for anyone in the future, the .44 would at least drop the armored baddie to his knees (a .44 has horrific velocity that will take the breath out of an armored guy, and once down the rest just follows naturely).

When my dad was cop (since retired), he even asked the chief for a higher powered sidearm (then .357, compared to the .38 revolver). Would be no different in the future. Mean streets = meaner weapons.

Blade_hunter
9th Jul 2008, 21:12
Battlefield is a bit arcade; more realistic than many games but not fully realistic at all

The game Unreal Tournament is the last "Fast modern FPS" with guns with the same main functions since the first unreal.
And this game is the most arcade game
The most realistic FPS is the game (derivated from a mod) Red Orchestra I think