|
BS:
The enemy thing is still interesting to me, because it seems like most RPGs now
are leveling enemies parallel to your levels.
RP: I think it's a terrible mistake. I
don't know why they do that. I personally think World of Warcraft got it right. In the level 1 area, if I go back
there at level 20, I can just [makes killing noises]. I know I'm powerful.
You know what feels great? If you reach the
level cap, which I think now is 80, go into the Dead Mines, which is one of the
lowest level instances in the world, and you can like pull the entire instance
and just [makes killing noise], and you just feel like the biggest badass. And
you look badass. You've got this incredible gear and sick weapons with shit
glowing on them. You can just go in there and just own all the stuff. You feel
like a god to them, and you are, and you're supposed to be because you've
reached that level. I think that's great. That's part of what drives us there.
Remember Mario Kart? When you're playing multiplayer, do you actually feel
good about the fact that you're ahead, but because the other guys are behind,
the game cheats and makes him drive faster?
BS:
Yeah, rubber banding. Not so much.
RP: I fucking hate that. I understand why
they do it, especially in the multiplayer context, but in the single-player
game? Dude, I'm winning, so fuck you. But if I'm behind in single-player, sure,
give me a boost, give me some help. But if I'm in front, let me dominate. Let
me own this because that's where I am. That's how good I am.
BS:
In the Mario Kart example, it could
wind up getting boring if you've figured out all the tricks to the levels, if
you're just always just zipping around everybody.
RP: Then guess what? When you're that good,
you've also figured out the rubber banding. If I'm playing single-player, I can
game the shit out of that. There's a point -- they haven't eliminated that
point where I will never lose this race. So, they haven't actually fixed that
problem.
I think what they've done is they've made a
game design where if players are close together in skill, they've kept the
tension in a competitive match. I think that's not a bad design in that context.
But if you're talking about a context of a role-playing game, especially where
you're not playing competitively with other people, I don't think that's a good
decision at all.
I think that because we've played Mario Kart and we know what that feels
like, even if can appreciate the design value in the context of that
competitive game, we don't feel good about it. We can imagine that if we
applied that to other cases, we'd be really pissed. If there's gear at stake,
I've actually leveled up and I'm powerful, and I've invested this to get that
power, and the game robs me of it because it's trying to auto-balance me. It's
like, "Screw you, game. Let me have my power. I earned it."
And we do that a lot as designers. When I
say "we", I mean there are a lot of designers that do that. I think
game designers need to get over themselves. A lot of game designers want to
show gamers that they're in control of their world. There is a sad percentage
of game design that is like, "This is my world and my rules. You're going
to play the game the way I intended to play it." You know what? As gamers,
we just want to have fun. Sometimes, we know the fun things in spite of the
game designer, but the space designer is not letting us have it. Get mad at
him.
BS:
Though sometimes it can be too much of a sandbox. For me personally, once you
let me loose in Grand Theft Auto, I
actually stop playing. I'm just like, "Screw it," and then I get
bored.
RP: One of the problems is if you don't
have something driving you and compelling you towards a path, and you need
that, then you're going to feel lost and without a motivation. So, I think
that's where that falls apart. That's a different problem. That's the
designer's fault, too, actually. That's the designer's fault thinking he made a
world so compelling he doesn't need to help you understand what to do next and
to motivate you to do it. And then he's failed there.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
Beautifully put-- truest statement about shooters I think I have ever read. Really hits home why we (most of us anyway) enjoy the core gameplay of FPS games so much.
I agree with the sentiment that game "balancing" is BS and it's cool to feel powerful, especially at the end of a game - however, I can see how there is an argument to be made for rubber band AI and enemy difficulty. In Oblivion, Bethesda's game before Fallout 3, it was exactly as Randy describes - enemies leveled almost exactly parallel with you (at least on console - this could be modded on PC.) Players could still exploit it though, by leveling to the point just before the enemies scale up (I think it was on a 5 level soft cap.) In Fallout, the enemies ARE locked at their level after the first time you enter an area - but they do scale to your level when you first go in. Still, you can go back to earlier instances later on and own stuff - the specific timing and locations are just not as static as in Oblivion.
Also - great point about story getting in the way. I AM the type of gamer who will role-play a story, and found myself sorely disappointed my first time through Fallout at how short it was. There should have been a "teenage scouting years" section or something where you're encouraged by the story to explore - if a game doesn't nudge me that way I usually don't do it, and the world seems empty. The same thing happened in GTA4.
if you end up with too many areas in an open-world title where you can simply "own" everything, the developers finds themselves faced with a serious loss of content, most gamers (casual audience aside) play games for a challenge through-and-through, and cleaving low level fodder is only fun for so long before its time to move on to the higher-end content.
As for the interview as a whole;
I really enjoyed the personal level this interview had; Brandon you did a great job getting the right questions in while avoiding that 'interview grille' territory that often causes developers to clam up and regurgitate mundane PR responses that you find in so many other interviews outside of gamasutra-- cheers!
I think dialogue in role playing games is essential. Playing the role of your character is all about altering the perceptions of those around you. Will you treat other characters with compassion, or with distate? Will you help them or hinder them? Surely it's what role playing is all about? It is often the reason you feel compelled to keep playing, to get that special item and to level up. You feel like you are making a real difference to these characters "lives" and the fact Borderlands rejects this feature gives me pause.
He seems a little like a shooter-freak, but that's cool, especially at a company that makes shooters. I never liked Brothers in Arms, but am buying Borderlands.
Ohh wait, now that I think about it I have heard of Randy before.. Didn't he twitter that he would give people loot if they proved they pre-ordered the game. haha, he's crazy, I like. Keep it up!