Remember when you could download patches for the game that included new content and it was free? Those were good days. I remember when new maps came out for the first Call of Duty and how much fun it was to get more playtime out of it for FREE! Now you have to pay money for new maps in Modern Warfare 2 and almost every big new release comes with DLC on release that you have to pay for.
I can see why publishers do this-it's easy money for them and people are stuck paying for it if they want the full game experience. The other valid reason I can see for DLC is that it helps prevent piracy to SOME extent by forcing people to download the stuff online after buying the game legitimately. I certainly prefer day 1 DLC over DRM software that afflicts my computer.
Still, there are ways to do DLC well and ways that are kind of being an asshole. Here are the ways to do it right:
1. Don't Charge for DLC that's available the first day of release: If you charge DLC day one you're just making people pay for things that are already in the game they just paid full price for. No extra developer effort was put in, you're just removing part of the game and charging more for it. That's just not right.
2. Don't charge for new maps for FPS/RTS games: It's extremely tiring playing on the same old maps game after game, so many players might be willing to pay for new maps, as seen with all the people who bought the map packs for Modern Warfare 2. However, the reason that you shouldn't charge for these is that they help build the online community and also give the developer goodwill. Both of these will help when you release your next game, as you have a solid group of fans who will be looking forward to it. The reason Modern Warfare 2 got away with charging for it was that it already had a well established fan base. If you're a new series, don't try it.
3. Don't provide DLC that gives specific players advantages: I can't actually think of any game that has done this, but I also want it to stay that way. The whole point of a game is that it's on a level playing field at the beginning so the person with more talent wins. If players can pay money for things that give them an advantage, such as units in RTS games or better guns in FPS games, then the balance is completely fucked.
4. DLC you can charge for: Any DLC that is released after the actual game and took actual development work is fine to charge for. This is akin to an expansion pack, which I'm quite happy to pay for. The Mass Effect series is a good example-they added a few new single player missions you could experience and they were reasonably priced.
Overall, I'm not a big fan of DLC, but if it's similar to an expansion pack in design I am OK with it.
Showing posts with label Modern Warfare 2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Modern Warfare 2. Show all posts
Monday, October 11, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
FPS Weapon Choices
I've been playing a lot of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 lately, just activated prestige mode for the first time. One aspect of the game that I'm forced to think about is whether all the different firearms available really add to the game's quality. Although I despise Halo, I couldn't help but agree with one point that a Bungie Developer made at the Game Developer's Conference, namely that:
"For a shooter, you should have no more than 1 weapon per role. If you add weapons that satisfy the same role but are different, you’re simply adding complexity and NOT depth."
If you look at any weapon class in Modern Warfare 2, from handguns to assault rifles, you'll find that there are many weapons with similar roles. For instance, there are two 3 round burst fire assault rifles, the Famas and M16A4, three semi-auto sniper rifles, and somewhere around 5-7 fully automatic assault rifles. Worse, from the perspective of one trying to add depth to gameplay, many of the additional weapons are just crappier versions of other weapons. The M16A4 is superior in every way to the Famas, so why is the Famas even in the game? It certainly doesn't fulfill any unique role.
On the other hand, if you look at the game from a cosmetic standpoint, the variety of weapons does add a bit of variety. Every weapon has different iron sights, has a unique sound effect, and looks different. Additionally, the low survivability of players in Modern Warfare 2 helps compensate for the crappiness of some of the weapons. If you hit someone with 4-5 rounds, it's pretty much a kill with any weapon in the game.
There are some functional differences between weapons of the same class as well. For instance, the M104 semi-auto shotgun is great for really close range combat, as you can quickly pump out 4 shells to take out anyone, but it doesn't work well beyond that very limited range. The SPAS-12 pump action shotgun, although much slower firing, can kill players at a much greater range in one hit. The AA-12 is a fully automatic shotgun that can spray out a bunch of rounds to take out almost anyone in a close range firefight, but you run out of ammo extremely quickly. The other shotguns have some different pros and cons as well.
However, does this actually add depth to competition? I don't think so. Halo has certainly been a massive competitive success with a much more limited weapon selection. The first Call of Duty only had 3-6 weapons per side and still worked fine for multiplayer. It would probably be easier to balance the game with a limited selection of weapons that have their role more clearly delineated. After all, given a massive selection of choices, anyone serious about competition will rapidly find whichever option gives the best chance of victory. It's the same issue posed by Magic: The Gathering, there are a lot of cards available, but many are worthless and no competitive player will put them in their deck. The only purpose those cards serve is to screw over players who don't know what else is available to them. The same happens with Call of Duty, some of the weapons are marginally to significantly better than the other choices, so they are used in competition while amateurs try and win with weapons that they don't know are inferior. The ranking system also means that players at the maximum rank have access to better goods than those at the bottom as well.
It may be popular to add a bunch of options that add little to gameplay, but if you're trying to create a competitive game, it's inappropriate. You can get more bang for your development dollar if you focus on a more limited selection of weapons or choices that actually add to depth, as opposed to visual variety.
"For a shooter, you should have no more than 1 weapon per role. If you add weapons that satisfy the same role but are different, you’re simply adding complexity and NOT depth."
If you look at any weapon class in Modern Warfare 2, from handguns to assault rifles, you'll find that there are many weapons with similar roles. For instance, there are two 3 round burst fire assault rifles, the Famas and M16A4, three semi-auto sniper rifles, and somewhere around 5-7 fully automatic assault rifles. Worse, from the perspective of one trying to add depth to gameplay, many of the additional weapons are just crappier versions of other weapons. The M16A4 is superior in every way to the Famas, so why is the Famas even in the game? It certainly doesn't fulfill any unique role.
On the other hand, if you look at the game from a cosmetic standpoint, the variety of weapons does add a bit of variety. Every weapon has different iron sights, has a unique sound effect, and looks different. Additionally, the low survivability of players in Modern Warfare 2 helps compensate for the crappiness of some of the weapons. If you hit someone with 4-5 rounds, it's pretty much a kill with any weapon in the game.
There are some functional differences between weapons of the same class as well. For instance, the M104 semi-auto shotgun is great for really close range combat, as you can quickly pump out 4 shells to take out anyone, but it doesn't work well beyond that very limited range. The SPAS-12 pump action shotgun, although much slower firing, can kill players at a much greater range in one hit. The AA-12 is a fully automatic shotgun that can spray out a bunch of rounds to take out almost anyone in a close range firefight, but you run out of ammo extremely quickly. The other shotguns have some different pros and cons as well.
However, does this actually add depth to competition? I don't think so. Halo has certainly been a massive competitive success with a much more limited weapon selection. The first Call of Duty only had 3-6 weapons per side and still worked fine for multiplayer. It would probably be easier to balance the game with a limited selection of weapons that have their role more clearly delineated. After all, given a massive selection of choices, anyone serious about competition will rapidly find whichever option gives the best chance of victory. It's the same issue posed by Magic: The Gathering, there are a lot of cards available, but many are worthless and no competitive player will put them in their deck. The only purpose those cards serve is to screw over players who don't know what else is available to them. The same happens with Call of Duty, some of the weapons are marginally to significantly better than the other choices, so they are used in competition while amateurs try and win with weapons that they don't know are inferior. The ranking system also means that players at the maximum rank have access to better goods than those at the bottom as well.
It may be popular to add a bunch of options that add little to gameplay, but if you're trying to create a competitive game, it's inappropriate. You can get more bang for your development dollar if you focus on a more limited selection of weapons or choices that actually add to depth, as opposed to visual variety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)