*sub thread* Expanding Core Features in Games (adding co-op etc)

[RenegadeRocks]

Oh I agree. I think pretty much anything could be an interesting experiment. Problem is: games are business and there's little space for experiments. Unless you're Will Wright that is.

or Kojima!

 

[Dominik D]

I couldn't agree... less. Kojima hasn't been experimenting with gameplay lately and I wouldn't call interactive movie an experiment. It's part of the industry since the early days of CD-ROM.

 

[deepbrown]

I couldn't agree... less. Kojima hasn't been experimenting with gameplay lately and I wouldn't call interactive movie an experiment. It's part of the industry since the early days of CD-ROM.

He's experimented with gameplay mechanics and game delivery in every MGS game. I expect no less from MGS4. Do you have your copy?

 

[Dominik D]

Tell me what kind of fresh gameplay element did series deliver outside of sneaking mechanics? Upgrades to the gameplay since first MGS I can think of are: more enemy awareness levels, mixing even more adventure games' elements into the game, additional moves, persistent world, customization.

They are not core gameplay elements and they are nowhere close to what kind of experimentation Wright's teams are doing. Both Sim City and The Sims were core for establishing new genres. Time will show what Spore is going to do to the industry. Kojima was key in establishing stealth action games but it's hard to deny that MGS hasn't been reinventing itself, just evolving.

That said it's also hard to deny that his games outside of MGS line are at the very least good. It's just that is not the point. I disagree with the statement, that Kojima is doing a lot of experimentation in his games. Some, yes, but not on the level others are doing. I have no problems with Kojima being Internet celebrity, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every single trait attributed to him. He's not a god, at least not just yet.

@mods: could you please spawn a new thread or something? This discussion shouldn't be here at all...

 

[AlNom]

Ok folks, I moved the OT stuff out of the TR:U thread to a new sub-thread.

 

[RobertR1]

Not exactly TR related but I think Too Human will be a good gauge on how well co-op can work in action games such as NG/DMC/GoW and others.

 

[Dominik D]

I don't think that TH controls will be as sophisticated as, say, NG ones. Or did I miss some info on crazy combos in Too Human? So far it looks like 3D Diablo with coop stripped down to two players. And, honestly, Diablo reference is all I need to buy this game.

 

[obonicus]

They are not core gameplay elements and they are nowhere close to what kind of experimentation Wright's teams are doing. Both Sim City and The Sims were core for establishing new genres. Time will show what Spore is going to do to the industry. Kojima was key in establishing stealth action games but it's hard to deny that MGS hasn't been reinventing itself, just evolving.

Sim City spawned a genre (though not one you see much anymore). But The Sims? Other than Sims games, was there much of a genre there? Other than MAYBE virtual fishbowl/pet games, I can't think of any. I doubt Spore will be a new genre, either.

 

[Dominik D]

Off the top of my mind: Singles.

 

[wco81]

Oh I agree. I think pretty much anything could be an interesting experiment. Problem is: games are business and there's little space for experiments. Unless you're Will Wright that is.

That may be the crux of the matter.

Publishers are risk-averse so they want to cultivate brands or franchises which have had success.

That means that an entrenched brand is slotted in some straightjacket and there may not be much interest in expanding the gameplay to multiplayer.

Especially since doing so is a) risky - you don't know how fans of the series will react and b) costly - with the return on marginal investment uncertain.

That is, they can spend x more dollars to add online multiplayer modes but with no guarantees that such investment will result in y more incremental sales.

Of course in the action/adventure realm, and all single-player games really, there are a number of gamers who will rent rather than buy or buy but re-sell after beating the singleplayer missions.

This discussion started out about longevity of games. You can argue that a good multiplayer mode, which offers an experience distinct from the singleplayer missions, will keep interest in the game longer.

But are there examples of such games, especially games where you get multiplayer modes for the first time in the series and people keep playing it for a long time after release?

A good test case might be GTA4. If a year from now, a lot of people are still playing it online and sales of new copies continue at a better rate than previous incarnations of the franchise. Could people continue to buy GTA4 a year from now at least partly because there are still many people playing online?

 

[Dominik D]

Personally I don't buy the "multi makes the game live longer" argument. There are single-player oriented games I keep coming back to every year or two. Even if such game is 10h experience, if solid, will provide 30, 40 or even more hours of fun. The problem with multiplayer games (well, with most of them at least) is that you can play them now and only now. 6-10 months down the road nobody will care about them anymore, you will have difficulties finding server or other people willing to play. Another factor is that with time, only hardcore gamers stay with the title, making it even harder to get into the game.

Sure there are games with multi lasting forever (Starcraft, Q3, Halo,...) but there are games with multi nobody cares about (anyone playing multiplayer Turok these days?). Just like there are single player games you keep playing over and over again and games you play once and forget. But at the end of the day it's hard for me to understand why multi is THE way to make game last longer. Solid silnge player experience you want to replay is equally good in my book.