|
That made me think about something, which is that players will ruin the game for themselves if they find a convenient way to move forward, even if it's boring, even if it's tedious. But if they find something that works, they'll stick with it even if they are ruining the game for themselves. I do it.
MS: Yeah, I do it. I do. And how do you stop the player from ruining the experience for himself? It's a crazy challenge, but I think if you playtest it enough...
Even designers, I think, what we tend to do sometimes is, you leave in that exploit for yourself that you like to use. Then maybe what you should do as a designer is look at the exploit that you've provided for yourself, and fix it, or address it in a different way. Don't leave it in as an exploit for yourself that other players are going to find, and they're going to use. And it takes the experience and goes from this really wide, "Hey, I'm going to try to find all these ways to complete this," to "I'm going to only use this one perfect way to do it." There has to be something to counter that.
If it was in a versus situation it's "this thing combats that", then this isn't the only one exploit that you can do all the time. Like if you were going to do a turret, the nice thing about a turret is that it has a limited line of sight, of how you can look left and right, it has range that you can move left and right. Although anything that gets in front of it has this like incredible killing power, right? But the limitations are you have no idea what's coming from behind you. You can only turn it so far. You're stuck and you're locked into one position.
If you don't provide, as a designer, a way for the other players to flank the guy who's using the turret, to potentially stay away from that guy, and then come up when he can't see you, then you've made that the all-powerful thing that everybody will exploit. So if you have one of those, you have to look at it and go, "There's got to be a way that you can Kryptonite this thing." And I don't know if it's possible to do that for everything that you do in a game, but I do think that that's the challenge of game design, is to make sure that you are doing that in as many places as possible.
Now, that being said, my guess is that Jason McDonald talked about square, square, triangle. And that's something I think that even [former combat and systems lead] Eric Williams would say, where you need to be able to do a specific, very simple and basic combo in order to get through the game, and not require the player have to do the uber-powerful specials in order to get through the game; he's got to be able to do the most basic moves, because they want him to be able to progress.
So yeah, we still probably have that low level; you don't have to do the most complicated moves in order to defeat creatures in combat and get through the game. But the challenges, essentially the combat puzzles that we're going to put in front of you, require you to fight a boss that there's no way that just square, square, triangle is going to get you through it. You're going to have to complete other challenges when you fight him.
God of War III example, Hades, you went into this sequence where you were chained up with him and you were fighting against him. It was unique and you might've been pressing square a lot, but you were also moving the analog stick to stay back, fighting your way off of the edge before he pulled you down into the river so he could kill you. And if you got past that and not died, you completed a challenge that wasn't just "I pressed square, square, triangle to defeat this creature."
So is it more about providing situations with variety, or are those also teaching experiences about mixing up the gameplay? Like the battle you just described, is that about teaching someone that there's something else they can do? Or is it just more about taking them out of the context where they can just spam the same attack.
MS: I think, in boss battles, it's definitely about variety of challenge. And we've come to be known for that. We want every new boss encounter to be different than any other boss encounter that's ever been done before. And we want it to be unique. We don't want to copy anything that anyone's ever done before; you want to try something new.
So that's where we spend a lot of time and effort, trying to provide new experience, new challenge, and something that, when you get done with playing the game you remember that sequence. You might not remember the goat fight you had, the goat captain outside of this arena. That was more of a challenge that was similar to a lot of other challenges in the game, but you sure as heck remember that fight against Hades.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
The single player story is still going to be the same old male-fantasy-power-trip that we all know and love, only this time maybe Kratos is a bit less of an asshole at the start and then, rest assured, he will become a much bigger, badder asshole at the end.
What I'm really interested in is the multiplayer. Competitive group based hack'n slash multiplayer is something that no one has gotten right yet (Anarchy Reigns didn't do too well) but I think that if executed properly it has A LOT of potential.
Also, I think it'll be cool to see in which way (if any) tweaking and balancing the combat system and the different strategies for multiplayer has influenced the single player side of the things.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/171970/the_secrets_of_brutal ity_god_of_.ph
p
"Gods quarreling and being petty ...treating humans (even their champions) as disposable pawns"
angle (a la "Clash of the Titans") was not emphasized enough (or at all) in the series, which would have allowed me as a player to empathize more with Kratos' plight. by the 3rd installment, Kratos just comes across as a "grade A party pooper".
i (as player) didn't quite empathize with Kratos savagely killing someone like Poseidon/Hercules/Hermes/Hera/Perseus... I mean, yeah, they are in your way but is gouging his eyes out/disemboweling/chopping his legs off...really necessary? :)
As much as I loved the creativity involved with setting up mechanics and gameplay for these (Poseidon/Hercules/Hermes/Hera/Perseus) boss fights... the story setup to those moments could have been stronger... For example:
Imagine if Poseidon/Hercules/Hermes was personally involved in executing a legion of Kratos beloved and loyal Spartan soldiers? That would have at least allow me to savor the moment rather than cringe at the death of a character looking to overt the end of the world. (Motivation is a big part of revenge)
Anyways, seems like they decided to bring him back down to earth a bit... (Hey I'll cross my fingers they do something like have a flashback sequence to Kratos before his downfall to become the Ghost of Spata, think it would be interesting to see more of his rise to a spartan captain, and perhaps we can see some bare-fisted fighting... just a thought)
I did smile a bit when I read " a character that got almost too powerful, too unpleasant, too inhuman ".
You mean that he actually became the God of War at the end of the first game? ;)
These people have a lot of talent and passion for this, great. Focus that into a new direction. If they want to stay with the ancient Greek/Roman, et al theme, choose a new hero/anti-hero. There are thousands of years of REAL history to put a spin on, and thousands of years of mythology to adapt as well.
If we can make a game of travelling the Oregon Trail... we can make a game about almost anything based on even a small part of history.
I tried the first one and was done with it pretty quickly. A good friend of mine tried to get me to play parts 2 and 3 also, but ended up showcasing them to me by playing them himself.
To me there's a lot wrong with the series as a whole and although of course the opposite can (and probably will) be argued by many people here and on other sites, I stand by the following:
First you should know (to at least be able to understand me a little bit) that I'm a European and somewhat of a history buff and a great fan of mythology, especially Greek mythology, which has a very rich and diverse history and also tries to make Gods more human by giving them human traits and faults.
Even with all that, they ARE still Gods, and are supposed to be ridiculously powerful.
Now, from a gamers' point of view I'm always very interested to see how developers and story writers weave that 'reality' into the tapestry of their game, and unfortunately they get it wrong most of the time and to me it actually feels they are insulting the culture and the history of something so rich and ancient all for the sake of 'just entertainment' or trying to create what the blind masses may perceive as a good game. If I actually was from Greece, it would not be strange for me to even see this as a sort of blasphemy..
Especially so with God of War. What I'm about to say may sound racist, but isn't intended as such, so please bear with me and don't rip one remark out of it's context.
To start of with, the only thing that is somewhat Greek about Kratos, is his name, but even that isn't because it's not Greek at all, it's American-Greek, aka made up. The word or name Kratos does not even exist in Greek and has no meaning whatsoever. They probably used it because they thought it 'sounds cool'.
Then his appearance: to me he looks like a black guy with a bad paint job, and he seems to act pretty 'ghetto' or 'gangsta' too. For all I know it's 50 cents' ancestor from the hood and that seems VERY out of place to me.
So, the character to me has no 'feel' at all within these Greek surroundings, he would fit much better in a game that was taking place in an Eastern or African setting, like Egypt, Africa or something more along the likes of a Conan game.
And to me personally the most idiotic and disturbing thing is how a mere mortal (even though I can understand using artefacts and Godly power ups makes one more capable) would be single handedly able to slay the entire pantheon of Ancient Greek Gods, who themselves have powers beyond the comprehension of men, and to get into power had to slay and/or imprison the Titans, creatures almost equally powerful that would probably swat Kratos like a fly without even so much as an afterthought.
Kratos as a character feels empty and meaningless, his plight far too unimportant to have any sympathy for, let alone personify with. 'Almost' too inhuman? He's an ass and a very unlikeable person, period.
From all the games I've played, previewed and reviewed that are somewhat in the same genre and are from about the same period, Dante's Inferno impressed me way more.
The general fault with ALL of these games is that developers try to make them into these big, American Hollywood blockbusters while the stories themselves are already cool enough and need no 'enhancements' in the bigger, better, faster format that's so mainstream in these kind of games nowadays.
The reason why I liked Dante's Inferno way more is that in that story it IS possible to feel sympathy for the character, the combat feels less superficial and I certainly have no problems with slaying nasty demons and hellspawn, so as a player that gives me way more satisfaction because it 'feels' like I'm doing something good, or righteous. (as opposed to slaying Gods revered and respected by millions)
And even though Dante's Inferno is also not strictly following the original story, it at least seems to show it some respect and therefore makes it a better experience when playing it.
Another game that gets my okay for respecting mythology without changing too much is Rise of the Argonauts. Try it if you haven't already. (although it's an entirely different sort of game than GoW or Dante's Inferno)
All in all, like I said in the beginning, this is just my opinion but that does count enough for me to never play another God of War game again. Reading from other comments that the first one was also the best, doesn't help this any further either...
I do like to agree with some of you that a new character/IP is needed to revive this series and I also think that developers/studios in general (somewhat understandably, seeing how things are going with quite a few studios) are playing it safe by sticking with what they have and trying (with mixed results) to 'improve' these character sets and so on instead of moving on and making creative juices flow again instead of making them stagnate by limiting them into working in the confines of an already finished series.
As for other commenters: Michael Alexander: spot on, and Eric McVinney's idea is also rather intriguing...
And finally, Mark Simon: there's only ONE God of War and his name is ARES!
I suppose (having military experience) I would levy similar arguments on practically every military movie ever made (I have to suspend belief when I watch them, because I'm thinking "this is unrealistic, people don't act this way, this is not military tradition/custom/etc.")
Sometimes you cant get too caught up in it, you have to just enjoy yourself without too much critical analysis.
...And just my opinion based on some of your statements
--Kratos as a character feels empty and meaningless, his plight far too unimportant to have any sympathy for, let alone personify with. 'Almost' too inhuman? He's an ass and a very unlikeable person, period.
I think the first GoW had it's moments, (it's your typical "greek tragedy") but there was still something missing from the saga to totally connect the dots, but I thought his plight was well-realized (it's your simple revenge story), 2 & 3 though... I agree with your sentiment
--he looks like a black guy with a paint job
The voice actor for Kratos is a "black guy" fyi
--Dante's Inferno impressed me way more
I own both, and am hard pressed to see any improvements that DI had over GoW, (including story and lore)... I mean Dante's Inferno (the book) narrative wise was not about fighting off hordes of demons, I also thought the combat in Gow (pick any one) was superior, but to each his/her own.
Dante's Inferno the game is anything but respectful to the source. It takes a Michael Bay sized dump on the source material.
Kratos might not quite be the Greek version of Michael Meyers, but he's not far off.