It’s a shame of course about the censorship (funny if people did this in real life) but it’s nice to see teachers and educators paying attention to the great potential of the medium and it’s nice of the devs to take steps in their direction.
From the launch of the game I had been saying that it’s a shame this wonderful historical recreation doesn’t have a mode like this for people who just want to cruise around. I was imagining a better way would be to have a separate way just out of flying with the bird which is both wonderful and very interesting, but hey, I guess this has both, so, quite fantastic!
A nice fireside chat about the game and world design of this often overlooked rough and dirty gem, which despite it’s problems, still did some extraordinary things.
Part two of the EasyAllies’ Souls Retrospective. Enjoy and consider supporting Easy Allies on Patreon if you enjoy their content https://www.patreon.com/EasyAllies
I always loved the retrospective videos of Gametrailers and the Easy Allies continue with them. Finally, after many months of anticipation, the first part of the Souls retrospective is here. Enjoy and consider supporting Easy Allies on Patreon if you enjoy their content :) https://www.patreon.com/EasyAllies
He makes some very interesting points. Interesting design choices analysis. Also in terms of the story, including the impressive intro movie. Personally I have some mixed feelings towards DS2. On one hand I really value the variety of locations, and DS2 was a unique memorable experience, but on the other hand I find the atmosphere of DS1 is to much much more admiration worthy, as well as some things in Demon’s Souls. To me personally the big impact that DS2 had was also a lot about it giving me the courage to go back to DS1 & Demon’s Souls. And yet DS2 was something special in it’s own, and made a unique impression and series of memories… And indeed like he points out to me too Bloodborne felt not so radical in it’s gameplay because in many ways as a weak mage in DS2 I often ended up playing Bloodborne style in a dynamic fast way. But I digress, I I found the design analysis very interesting and he makes some very interesting arguments.
Though we as gamers got a great game and it still sold decent, I see this yet another case of business considerations destroying the game design choices and messing with the customer experience, like those devs so focused on pirating that they implement DRM that pisses off their paying customers (respect for GoG for pushing against that with business sense).
In Hitman I felt it too every time when after paying the full season pass game I was repeatedly forced against my will to connect to their servers and experience that extra wait/problems/the thus designed repetition gameplay, particularly the artificial structuring of the replays for episodic gameplay: it diminishes the value the customers get out of their gameplay. Plus in being greedy that way I think they lost a lot of potential customers which only got 1-3 episodes and never got the rest. This makes me think of games like GTA 4 & 5, granted huge games, which I hear stats say most people never finish, yet that’s no problem because 1) the people who do finish them feel they got great value 2) those who didn’t got a unique experience of a huge scale with a taste of much more. Now imagine they would’ve had monetization in the forefront (as i’d suspect they’re transitioning to), and had made chunks. Then group 1) would’ve gotten a butchered experienced, with locked areas and never become the huge advocates, and would’ve gave off worse reviews and group 2) would only buy 5-10h of gameplay because after that they already got the taste and lost interest. At least that’s what I imagine would happen. But with Hitman in particular it felt that while it was a great game by the devs, there were definitely management people there who had monetization rather than customer satisfaction as their highest priority and that could be felt in many game design influencing choices.
PS: since he mentions it in the video, yes, i’m one of those, i fully subscribe to being an admirer of the original Watch Dogs which I purchased multiple times and incredibly disappointed in how they destroyed their integrity and credibility with Watch Dogs 2 in order to make it more “mass market” (yes, you can feel that strong push, from the politically correct black hero, to the very safe subjects to dumbing it down for the masses). And I get why it’s so hard for the devs to tell, because I bought Watch Dogs 2 on preorder full price, based on the credibility of Watch Dogs 1, and yet now due to the big disappointment in 2 I will be much less likely to do that for 3 even though they might return to the origins. It’s hard for the devs to tell, similar story with Assassin’s Creed, but yet as a gamer I can tell when something is driven by a desire to make sales/get social hi-fives or a desire to create something wonderful. I’m always encouraged when I see this pattern, of the game which got the critical praise and media doesn’t sell so well as I feel there’s some justice in the universe after all and the customers are in fact smarter than the sales people take them for in recognizing a genuine thing from a quick cash push.
This is to me just one of many examples of the perverse and subtly horrible consequence that free to play and MMOs have on the game design & user experience. I put them together because both have certain fundamental genetically unavoidable properties which developers repeatedly pretend don’t exist or promise that their specific games won’t suffer from them, yet due to these innate characteristics both introduce mutations into gameplay which tend to corrupt the goal of making games fun and enjoyable for the player and into something else, a building resentment monster growing under the surface, as the games logically choose not to cater to the player’s needs and joys but rather to the constraints of their genetics.
In the case of free to play of hiding monetization and thus subtly perverting the gameplay design choices, and in the case of MMOs because even if they don’t run on a subscription model they must cater to the satisfaction of not one player but many players, and thus can’t bring the fantasies and joys of one, because they must always balance for the others not to find it unfair, which cripples them. Take for example The Elder Scrolls online, a game which i think in terms of production, content, audience and pedigree has many great things, yet even when it goes back to Morrowind, with so much potential and such a big fan-base, not just the presence of the other players trivializes the experience and contradicts the narrative told but logically also subtle design decisions made for this purpose thus make the game less fun than it could’ve been.
In the cases of multiplayer we have seen over the years some better than others solutions (Dead Island/Dying Light allowed me to play singleplayer until i accidentally shattered my own immersion by lifting the curtain and seeing others in my world destroying quests, exploration and immersion), yet in the free to play arena I see things even worse, which is why I still believe the best strategy for player enjoying their experience and developers still getting their money is simply stealing the modern “free to play” naming/PR and instead mixing it with the old demo-model, eg parts/regions which are free, and parts which are payed. This way the free parts can be designed without compromises in the experience & player satisfaction, without all those subtle perverting tweaks meant to incentivize the free to play model. Of course even doing this I can imagine differences between a bad and an excellent game as to how subtly this is done, how it takes the lessons learned in recent years from “free to play” to integrate the content in an organic way. Otherwise we end up with what I’ve seen all to many times: two radically different games hiding under the same hood, contradicting each other in design and goals.
The problem is ultimate in my opinion: you can’t serve two masters, and you can see that on many such games, having in different states two different and contradictory design structures. One which is fun, one which is frustrating. And ironically I’ve seen many tragedies where even the player who decides to pay hoping to return the game to a fun state no longer can because the design incentives are already so deeply baked into the cake that they can’t be eliminated. It saddened me but I actually played free to play games which were pretty good in parts, and I wanted to thank/pay the developers for that… but paying them broke the game in another way, and there were actually games in which it was logical not to pay the developers because you ruined your own experience. This I find tragic and perverse on both accounts, for the players as they are no longer sure what/when they’re buying, if they’re getting fun or frustration, and of course for the developers, as they put so much work/money/effort/development time and then don’t get adequately rewarded for their effort, and often due to logical consequences of their own designs.
PS: i’m playing among others Zelda: Breath of the Wild currently, and it’s a fun (if creepy) mental experiment to think of all the ways in which that game would’ve been destroyed, and all my minor complaints would’ve mutated into horrible throw the game into a junk bin, if it had been designed with free to play in mind. There too I see my theory/model being self consistent: even keeping the same amount of content, rather than pervert the whole world and experience with a free to play, adjusting the crafting/currency system and/or the monsters for grinding and micro-transactions, is to my mind a much bigger horrible evil that they could’ve done than to have the initial plateau or regions free to play but keeping the same consistent design.
So, spurred by that video, this has been a little essay of mine trying to put down my thoughts over the past years on the free to play model. I think it’s hard enough to make a game that pleases the critical players… but that task is made not just much harder but possibly impossible by in essence making what is two games, with two contradicting sets of values and design choices. I find it a huge betrayal when the final game you buy is radically different than what you tried out… and yet this is what keeps happening.
I’ve seen this many times and I’m afraid I’ll see it many times more, because to paraphrase the british tv series Hustle: people like to get something for nothing, so we’ll keep giving them nothing for something.
I received this game as an epic b-day present from Raul Bugner (shoutout thaaaanks!) on my 17th. It was aamazing! I remember how I had some close friends over and we played some Worms Armageddon but then everybody left in the evening and I was left alone with this gem. The next thing I remember is semi-trembling from cold/lack of sleep happily watching the credits roll (with exploding bunnies?) around 6-7am, noticing that the sun had risen on the window to my left and that it had become light outside. What a night!
PS: sooo cool when he says they were inspired by Another World / Out of this World! So much respect for that tiny but huge game old game.
It is the year 1912, and you’ve somehow found your way aboard the largest man-made mobile structure on Earth. Naturally, because it’s a plague-free couple of years, you find time to wander around the ship, bask in its beauty, and overall enjoy the view.
Oh, wait, all of this is about to be on the ocean floor in a matter of hours (spoiler alert).
The dedicated people at Vintage Digital Revival LLC are hard at work recreating the Titanic, down to every last watertight[citation heavily needed] bulkhead. Seriously.
The project is still in its infancy (the game engine seems to be at default settings based on some glitches caused by detail culling in UE4), and at this stage (much like Cameron’s “Titanic”) is devoid of characters. Gameplay should feature both a ship exploration mode, and a story mode.
It is estimated to be available for purchase somewhere in 2018, so sit tight.
There are 2 demos available for download on the developers’ website (alongside a beautiful gallery of in-game shots). The devs recommend having a whopping 8 GiB of system RAM, but it’s worth it.
I find that this game has taken a brilliant game design choice to invite the players to admire the good looking environments, which are at times quite beautiful. Often times I see games which have in fact fantastic art assets, but because they have no gameplay associated to seeing them many twitch players miss them. This simple gampley (could just as well have been collecting points) combined with the challenge of gliding invites me to go close and go into a mood of calm and observation paying attention to the surroundings.
Are all these video game (and movie) reboots making you feel left out? Don’t worry! Chances are you’ve enjoyed the first two games set in The Old Republic times, and maybe even had a daydream about them being remade.
Dream no more; a small, independent team decided to step up, and treat KOTOR to a nice shine and polish, featuring modern models and shaders, and a first-person mode, among many other goodies.
Don’t forget to check their progress over here.
At the time of writing (August, 2016), Apeiron has not yet received a cease & desist. Good for them.
Very interesting talk. As a lover of history it was particularly interesting to me the tweaks, bends and compromises that have to be made on history to make it more entertaining/commercial. I particularly found interesting the story at 21:30 as I happened to have known a bit about the subject from a T. Sowell historical book where he argued against the mainstream view of exploitative colonialism saying it just wasn’t profitable to trade with undeveloped nations. The story about religious schisms was also very interesting, as well as the tough decision to cut out some aspects of the simulation.
These games some I’ve played, the others I I always feel guilty I haven’t played yet as I know i’d love them, I just get so much more tempted by others. I guess I’m also waiting for “the one” that will draw me fully back into the genre. I’m hoping for a new trade simulation, with more historical scope, maybe Patrician 5++. At times I thought it might be something like a new Anno game, but then I’m put off by exactly such compromises on historical or reality as he talks about when he brings in silly propagandist marxism, as when I got the impression the game was geared towards the most advanced energy source being the oh so very politically correct solar power or such things. I hope more and more this genre will do what Game of Thrones did for the movie industry which is go into the territory of tough choices with some plausibility even if they’re not so “pretty”… but that of course would harm profitability so I kinda doubt it. From what I’ve been seeing with civilization 6 too I get the impression they went into the kiddy/simplify/mainstream direction. Hope I’m wrong, but It turned that way with 5 too, and they abandoned a lot of the more complex mechanics they pioneered in the 4 addons. Still watching the genre hopefully…