|
I recently started up a new game of Dead Space. Overall I recall
having an enjoyable time the first go around and thought I'd play the
role of completionist and pick up a few extra achievements. The first
time I played Dead Space, it took me about 11 hours to beat the game,
but I poked in ever corner and picked up just about every item I could
along the way. I also played the entire game with just the plasma
cutter; using the ammo from the other weapons as sale items to help
feed my need for power nodes. I suppose this was made easier by the
download for the Elite Suit on Live. It felt kind of like cheating to
start out with a level-5 armored suit but it was free and I guess that
means they wanted me to use it =).
There were a couple minor flaws in
the game, like not knowing the subtle distinction between fear and anxiety...
The constant loops of pipe banging were more nauseating than fear
inducing. They often left me muting the game; especially while in a
menu. Fading the environment sounds while navigating through the store
or upgrade kiosk would have been a much welcome addition.
Other than that little nuisance, I'd almost call it a perfect 5/5
game... Almost... which leads to the point of this post! Games should
not try to be something they were never meant to be; they should focus
on what makes them fun and exploit that nugget of goodness.
There
is fine line that we have to dance as developers; how do you make a
game that is 6+ hours and keeps the player involved? Some may argue
that variety is the spice of life; and in life I would agree, but in
games it removes us from what we've been trained to believe as
reality.
Dead Space for example, is a game that requires you to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of your character. This is
something that you slowly develop over the hours you spend playing as
that character. You learn that he is clearly never meant to be a bare
knuckled fighter, but instead a dead shot gun slinger. You learn the
limitations of his mobility and adapt to them as the game progresses
and enemies become more bountiful.
You develop strategies over time
once your knowledge of his alternate abilities become second nature.
Hitting an enemy with Stasis then Force pushing them into an active air
vent simply becomes another weapon in your arsenal. So why, after all
that time training; honing your skills, would you throw it all away for
one of the most nonsensical pieces of game play?
I was extremely annoyed by the obligatory “I’ll drive, you shoot”
sequence that was shoe-horned into the game; it would have been a
better game without that mandatory plot part. I don’t see how they
could have justified it in their heads that it was a good idea to go
from a suspenseful horror game to an arcade style 3D Asteroids and
think, "perfect, ship it!". It was the one time I seriously questioned
if i even wanted to continue playing.
Beyond the fact that the
sequence had no reason for being there, most other problems up to this
point were resolved with simple puzzles, button presses, or clearing
out any enemy threat with an iron fist. I had to forget everything I
learned up to this point and basically try to play a new game that I
had no interest in. Instead of simply hitting a button to, "manually
reboot the weapon systems", and fight off a few bad guys, I was forced
to play a game where I battled the perspective matrix from Hell.
Things flying directly at you in first-person is never a good idea.
To contrast this point I tried to think of other games I enjoyed
that broke the pattern and still kept me in the game. Halo came to
mind. The first time I jumped into a warthog it was the gunner seat.
I learned that this was a bad idea and promptly kicked the driver out;
taking control of the game again. I now had the freedom to completely
abandon the warthog if I wanted to, or keep driving. Either way, I was
in control of my own destiny.
My teachings to this point still applied
since I could have easily jumped out and gunned down an enemy if I felt
it was the best way. Master Chief was never strapped into a chair and
forced to shoot rocks for 5 minutes.
I had almost forgotten about this frustrating experience. It took
me this long to purge it from my mind and here I am again, standing at
the front door of an asteroid theme park in the middle of a pet
cemetery in space; debating if I really want to go through the
numbing pain again...
It's amazing how 5 minutes can ruin the next 5
hours of a game, isn't it? I'm only this upset because it could have
been a great game and this tiny barricade between me and the rest of
the story has devalued my experience to just, a good game.
[Reprinted from a August 2nd, 2009 Blog on my website.]
|
I think CoD4s game diversions worked well because they were derivatives of the standard game play, rather than completely different games. In the AC130 gunship for instance, you're still focusing on finding targets, avoiding friendlies, and making accurate shots. It's just from a new interesting perspective.
But what about the helicopter section from Modern Warfare or the kryll section in Gears of War? These are all shooters, and they focus on shooting. You can or cannot be moving while shooting. In the helicopter section you simply can't move at all; the only movement is in your gun. In the kryll section you can control the junker, but the level is linear so you're only going one way, and you cannot get out of the junker. So why is it that -these- particular examples are well received (see above comments) but Dead Space is not? I am curious.
Those game mode in RE4/5 and GoW are case where you still have your main gameplay and control scheme working.
Those game mode in RE4/5 and GoW are case where you still have your main gameplay and control scheme working.
Because like I said in my earlier comment, those games are derivatives of the game's core gameplay. In Deadspace, that kind of shooting has nothing to do with the rest of the game, and feels quite out of place.
Comparing Dead Space with Gears of War...both are over the shoulder shooters, and the shooting gallery sections of both games are similar. I don't see how the kryll section in GoW is well received (?)and the asteroids section in Dead Space is not. As you've said Raymond, shooting stuff is core gameplay, but blasting asteroids is not? I don't understand. I might be wrong here.
Even the Gears' drive-shoot sequences were questionable at times. I especially thought the tank driving sequence in Gears 1 was misplaced. Gears 2 tried to resolve some of this by allowing the player to ride on a large platform and continue to use their own weapons and tactics to keep the enemy off of their rig. Not perfect, but better. Not to spoil any Gears 2 levels, but the sequences that were almost entirely drive-shoot through a fixed tunnel were fairly painful for me. Thankfully the difficulty was manageable and I didn't have to look back once the level was beaten. The Brumak level was enjoyable only because it was so empowering.
Maybe that's the solution :) if you are going to completely break away from the core, make it easy enough to beat quickly or simple enough to pick up and feel as empowered as you did before that point.
I did not like riding in that mine cart in the first Gears of War. And I don't like the majority of the side quest mini games in Final Fantasy X (dodge 200 lightning bolts? chasing butterflies that are near-impossible for a color-blind person to tell apart?). But I guess everyone has their preferences since some folks like Blitzball in FFX and some don't.
It makes perfect sense to throw a bit of variety into the game, but it's equally important to ensure these don't jar the player out of enjoying the gameplay.
Also, I played the game with the plasma cutter the first time and used other weapons and ammo as money as well. After playing it a second time, I came to the conclusion that the plasma cutter is actually the best gun. As far as recovery time and time to kill enemies it is the fastest and safest. I could pretty much go through the entire game without being hit and just using the plasma cutter.
Thanks
Plasma Cutters