Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Killian Kalthorne]

The worse thing a game designer can do is listen to the fan base. They should just make the game that will appease the majority of players and give the few hardcases out there tool sets to make mods for the niche gamers.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[TwinkieGorilla]

The worse thing a game designer can do is listen to the fan base. They should just make the game that will appease the majority of players and give the few hardcases out there tool sets to make mods for the niche gamers.

 

10 years from now i see you and your worldview sitting together at a diner, puffing smoke in the waitress' face. your coffee isn't great, but it's not bad either. at least the caffeine gave you a wee jolt. the sandwich? bland, but edible. at least you're not hungry. ho hum. off to see a movie. what was the name of it again? bah, i don't remember. at least my time will be occupied for a few hours.

 

****'s just sad, man.

[Amentep]

The worse thing a game designer can do is listen to the fan base. They should just make the game that will appease the majority of players and give the few hardcases out there tool sets to make mods for the niche gamers.

 

The game designer should know their audience. In other words, the game designer who make a languidly paced shooter probably wouldn't make shooter game fans happy and probably wouldn't create much buzz for any potential crossover audience. But on the other hand allowing online fan opinion to sway the design of a game is really the same as any creative endeavor by committee; it'll have input from everybody and please no one.

 

The key is, I think, in knowing the audience and having a strong sense of what the game should do and be. Then the online fan opinion can be looked at to see if there's anything in there that fits the general audience and fits in with the expectations of the game.

 

Or something.

[Slowtrain]

Visc used to be so hardcore, too. Now he is mr. reasonable. what the hell happened to this world?

 

Edit; really, I don't think he has been the same since he bought an xbox.

Edited May 11, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Aristes]

I think there's a lot of room to adjust difficulty without losing sales. In fact, I think complexity is perfectly legit as long as the essential elements are easy for the player to understand. You want a system the player can grasp quickly, but takes longer to master and then to perfect. Make sure that there is plenty of gameplay feedback to teach the player how things work and reinforce good tactics.

 

As far as game difficulty goes, folks should not keep in mind that games can be more or less difficult, but that difficulty in and of itself is not an end goal. Otherwise, just plug in a chess game program, take your beating, and then lick your wounds. The idea is challenging enough without being excessively difficult. 'Cause the design team can make a game that's too difficult. It's actually easier to make an impossibly difficult game than an easy one in terms of risk reward. Yeah, you can make a game where all that's entailed is entering your name in a field on the sign in screen. You can also disable the keyboard.

 

Arguing that a game should be commercially viable is perfectly legit. However, creating new products and trying to create and capture new markets is also legit. The best argument against soemone advocating from a sales point of view is not, "Shut the hell up!" It's saying, "How do you know it wouldn't be commercially successful?" And then pointing out why it could be.

 

Troika didn't make great games that failed because of some inherently great quality that players just. couldn't. get. It failed because they made mediocre games with a lot of bugs. I liked Arcanum, but it was not only buggy but also empty. Bloodlines, my favorite Troika game, is probably the one I liked best, but it was too little too late and even it had problems. Troika failed because they put out inferior products. Some folks might like to think that Troika was too godlike for those "casual gamers" to enjoy, but that's not true. They just got beat out by other folks making better games that appealed to more people.

[Slowtrain]

difficulty in and of itself is not an end goal.

 

I agree, but spreaking only for myself, difficulty usually requires some degree of thought to overcome. That thought process, is for me the end goal.

 

 

The more I have to think when playing a game the more rewarding the game will be for me.

 

 

And I don't mean think like reading Foucault kind of think, but thinking as in how to overcome the game challenges.

[Aristes]

Yeah. I agree. The process is fun. That's why simple with increased difficulty is better. Kind of like puzzle games where the basic idea is really easy to grasp, but then new concepts are added that increase difficulty and force the player to think.

[Amentep]

Of course even in that there are degrees; being challenged and being frustrated are often closely related in my experience.

[TwinkieGorilla]

And I don't mean think like reading Foucault kind of think, but thinking as in how to overcome the game challenges.

 

Madness & Civilization: The Game

 

*Intro Sequence*

 

you look around. you find yourself in chains on a ship of fools. what do you want to do now?

 

> look down

[Slowtrain]

Yeah. I agree. The process is fun. That's why simple with increased difficulty is better. Kind of like puzzle games where the basic idea is really easy to grasp, but then new concepts are added that increase difficulty and force the player to think.

 

 

Exactly.

 

I think "bad" difficulty is when things are hard just to be hard and gameplay becomes just an exercise in endurance and repitition until you finally get the lucky break and can move on.

 

Good game design should reward thought, not simply force endless reloads.

[Slowtrain]

And I don't mean think like reading Foucault kind of think, but thinking as in how to overcome the game challenges.

 

Madness & Civilization: The Game

 

*Intro Sequence*

 

you look around. you find yourself in chains on a ship of fools. what do you want to do now?

 

> look down

 

 

Just give Foucalt a really big sword and lots of muscles and send him to hell to fight teh demonz.

[Nightshape]

Visc used to be so hardcore, too. Now he is mr. reasonable. what the hell happened to this world?

 

Edit; really, I don't think he has been the same since he bought an xbox.

 

XBoxes give one perspective.

[Kefeinzel]

I don't know, maybe you guys can enlighten me on this, but I've never not purchased a game because of it's rumored or actual difficulty.

Maybe it's cause I grew up on XCOM and JA2, but damn.

 

Do any of you guys have (or are) these mythical retarded friends that wouldn't buy a game due to difficulty?

It's not like FO:NV is going to be marketed to kids, so why should all video games these days be difficulty tuned to where they can be completed by a six year old?

I played through FO3 on hard , and then later on easy and for some reason it seemed harder on easy... But why should these games be on a difficulty scale that should rightly be called subcategories of easy?

[Killian Kalthorne]

The worse thing a game designer can do is listen to the fan base. They should just make the game that will appease the majority of players and give the few hardcases out there tool sets to make mods for the niche gamers.

 

10 years from now i see you and your worldview sitting together at a diner, puffing smoke in the waitress' face. your coffee isn't great, but it's not bad either. at least the caffeine gave you a wee jolt. the sandwich? bland, but edible. at least you're not hungry. ho hum. off to see a movie. what was the name of it again? bah, i don't remember. at least my time will be occupied for a few hours.

 

****'s just sad, man.

 

I doubt that for several reasons.

 

One, smoking in a restaurant is illegal where I live.

Two, I don't smoke.

Three, I trust only one person to make my food and that is me.

Four, I don't drink coffee.

Five, I go to the movies once every two to three years.

Six, I don't need outside stimulus to have fun. *tee hee*

[Aristes]

I think that FO3 on easy can be harder than FO3 on hard. That's because they changed the XP rewards based on setting, which is absolutely stupid. What were they thinking? Idealy, if you want to speed through combat, you kept the game on hard until you reached 20, then put it on easy. On my next run I'll probably do that since I really don't care about combat difficulty anymore. I just want more exploration. Of course, my next run uses VATS perks, which means it will probably be easy anyhow.

[Amentep]

Do any of you guys have (or are) these mythical retarded friends that wouldn't buy a game due to difficulty?

 

I wouldn't not buy a game because of difficulty, but certain *kinds* of difficulty would probably lessen my interest in a game (for example, if I heard - from sources I trust - that a game had incredibly difficult timed jump sections throughout the game, I'd probably end up not buying it)

[Slowtrain]

I don't know, maybe you guys can enlighten me on this, but I've never not purchased a game because of it's rumored or actual difficulty.

 

 

I don't think difficulty has much to do with it.

 

Complexity, maybe. Too much thought required?

[Gizmo]

Sheesh, people, they maide this game for mainstream casual gamers, not hardcore fanatics. All the stimpack mods, and turn base crap is gerat for mods, but lets keep them out of the main game. As much they may add to the difficulty for hard core gamers lets not forget that it is the mainstream gamers that keeps companies like Bethesda and Obsidian in business so they can make more games.

No one should take a deep game, and make it shallow [because the masses can't swim]; If your market is the mass consumer, than you don't need a deep IP and could whip up practically anything and it would suffice. Companies that do this, are pulling down the greats and all potential for any new greats.

 

Its like selling "Shakespeare" or "The Worm Ouroboros" translated from English into debased English; or selling expurgated copies of Mark Twain... for the sake of selling a book.

 

~This is sadly reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 coming true on several levels; Games are the new New-Speak, and publishers are beaming with pride that each new batch has fewer words than the last one.

 

 

the attitude of complacency for compromising one's integrity is depressing and symptomatic of the decline of the medium in general. remember when Tim Cain was told FO won't get GOTY because it's too good and Tim says (paraphrasing) "I hope not. I hope the worth of a game isn't determined by the amount of copies sold." if people continue compromising and fans like Killian keep saying "that's ok as long as you stay afloat as a company" then we're going to revert back to Pong much sooner than you all think.

Agreed.

 

 

And where is Tim Cain ? Developing some unknown MMOG at Carbine Studios after Troika crashed and burned. NCsoft ain't doing that well either nowadays and if Timmy still follows his mantra, it's bye bye for the Carbine Studies and possible for NCsoft too.

I thought Troika collapsed after a deal [with Activision?] fell through.

 

I would hope he does follow it, though I agree, that you can't sell a Rapidograph on a shelf full of Biro's.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Gizmo

[entrerix]

for some reason killian, your last post made me extremely depressed.

Smoking and drinking coffee in a fancy shmancy restaurant in paris while wearing expensive clothes and gloating about your superiority is one of life's finest pleasures. You are really missing out.

 

if the masses are so retarded, then they'll just buy what is marketed to them, regardless of difficulty, all the developers really need to do then is throw in a "very easy" mode that keeps all the good stuff but lowers the enemy hit points to 1. then any ol retard can just play on that mode (see metal gear solid 3 very easy mode) and not feel bad that their new "super cool elite awesome game of the year game that everyone at school is playing" is too hard for their little retard brain.

 

this lets the developer make the game as challenging as they want

 

 

also, fallout nv should feature all the groups and characters intended for van buren.

 

I actually am of the opinion that most people who plays games can handle a little challenge, so long as the challenge derives from strategic and not arbitrary causes - if a person can see why they failed and can then think of ways of avoiding that same failure next round, then the person will keep playing because strategy is fun.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Gizmo, I think you are remembering Fallout 1 and 2 with some rose tinted lenses. They weren't all that deep.

[Gizmo]

Gizmo, I think you are remembering Fallout 1 and 2 with some rose tinted lenses. They weren't all that deep.

No I'm remembering what they achieved on a Pentium 90MHz using 16 MB ram, and that FO3 demands 32x the ram and a 2400MHz Pentium and is barely par but for the graphics and Havok (both of which are superfluous to the actual gameplay)

[Aram]

How you think about how Obsidian should think about how they make the next Fallout game will dictate how the rest of your life will happen.

 

It is the most important philosophical question you will ever ask yourself.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Fallout 1 and 2's gameplay was slow and ponderous. It was no real challenge. Fallout 3's real time gameplay, even with VATS, is far more challenging than what Fallout 1 and 2 offered.

[HoonDing]

It's funny how the complexity/difficulty of games has changed... the ancient Wizardry RPGs had some fights that could take up to an hour. Veterans of 80s RPG games probably considered RPGs like Baldur's Gate pathetically easy, just like now we are lauding Baldur's Gate as the 'pinnacle' of complexity and scoff at Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect, et al.

 

But it seems this decline in complexity is true for pretty much every game genre - compare 'ancient' adventure games from Sierra like King's Quest or Quest for Glory to modern ones --- if you missed to pick up a certain object in King's Quest, it could be impossible to finish the game; if you solved a puzzle the wrong way, you could die in gruesome fashion. Can you imagine something like this in a modern adventure game?

 

Compare the old Tomb Raider games to the modern ones - nowadays Lara practically moves herself around the screen, with the player having to push one or two buttons... in the original ones one had to mess around with all possible arcane keyboard combinations to get the job done.

 

I shudder to think that the so-called 'console kiddies' will scoff at games 10-20 years from now and brag that 'in their day' games were much more complex and difficult...

[Gizmo]

Fallout 1 and 2's gameplay was slow and ponderous. It was no real challenge. Fallout 3's real time gameplay, even with VATS, is far more challenging than what Fallout 1 and 2 offered.

I prefer the latter style for this series, and as part the Fallout series... FO3 is a boil in its butt.

 

I shudder to think that the so-called 'console kiddies' will scoff at games 10-20 years from now and brag that 'in their day' games were much more complex and difficult...

The future is closer than we think

 

Animal Crossing is likely the future of all gaming.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Gizmo