What are you playing?

[Cybernetic pig]

What are all these AAA games that strive to appease both the traditional 15-30-year-old male demographic as well as their grandmothers?

Expeditions: Conquistador

None. I was exaggerating.

[YeomanTheCastle]

Why do you think developers should cater to particular audiences? It's THEIR game, if we don't like what they've done with it, it's not their fault. I don't recall game developers owing us anything, so why should they care about us? I don't care much for your "all games should be based on what I want, not anyone else" attitude.

[Cybernetic pig]

It's a tough question, but they most certainly should cater to gamers.

And knowledgeable fans of developers, those of which who have supported them since the beginning.

And I never said nor implied this: "all games should be based on what I want, not anyone else".

[AEmer]

It seems to me that your idea about what catering to a certain group means is very different from what cybernetic pig's idea about it is.

Basically, he's suggesting that if you don't target a specific audience, then you necessarily target everybody...which I'm pretty sure is not the conclusion you arrive at when you say "don't target anyone". What you're saying seems to be that the devs aint nobodys bitch, and everybody can just go fuck themselves because the game aint for them...if you'll excuse my bad gangsta impression.

These two impressions of what targeting and catering means that you two hold are pretty much irreconcilable, though of course, the meaning of the words is not exclusive, so neither of you is wrong, per say.

Anyway, why should game developers try to cater to a specific demography? I'll tell you why: Because you can make those people very, very happy. Simplest example is batman: arkham asylum. It made fans of the kevin conroy batman out of Batman: The Animated Series very happy, in part, because it used this series' voice actors for the joker and the batman.

Catering to this audience made this audience really, really enjoy the game. Games aren't made in a vacuum, and if your idea with your game is to make people enjoy themselves - which I reckon it probably is - then it's simply a logical next step to say, ok, who can I entertain really well and how hard will it be?

[DaveW]

Edit: Holy shit - giant wall of text Er, sorry about that.

Except then the game is not so well designed. I hate to go all.... this.. on you but:
The 8 minutes before the boss should prepare you for the boss if they're well designed. Beating them should be practice for the 'exam' that is the boss fight or whatever at 9 mins. If they're not, the boss should have a checkpoint right before it. This is typically the sort of thing you should catch during playtesting.

Obviously, a well designed game would do that - yes, and like I said I have no problem with a well designed checkpoint system. But then, I think the best checkpoint systems are akin to CoD where the checkpoints aren't far apart so it's not that different to having quicksave. The example I posted probably wouldn't happen in a CoD game. What I'm saying more than anything is that I think checkpoint systems are very, very easy to fuck up and get wrong - so I prefer quicksaves because they take the developer out of the equation.

Also I feel dirty for praising CoD so much. I don't actually like CoD.

There are records of people getting shot with dozens of bullets and living.

Living with medical attention afterwards, which is a pretty important distinction. Regardless, you know what I meant - no damage sustained in modern FPS games is realistic so medkits are already a suspension of disbelief.

Uhuh, yet we clearly buy that the bullets are magically teleporting from the half spent clips on the ground into complete full mags on our body and that the same happens when we reload an unspent mag. The bullets are not automagically appearing in your gun, they're automagically appearing on your person, which is what they're doing already anyway.

We do indeed. I never said that systems in modern FPS's don't require a suspension of disbelief - just that there's a difference between what you've described and being able to shoot a heavy machine gun for several minutes without running out of ammunition. Also my point still stands re: reloads - not sure what they have to do with it.

I honestly don't really see the difference between health management and ammo management aside from the fact that ammo is usually easier to come by(each time you kill an enemy typically). Although in the stalkers games you typically get both ammo and medkits each time you kill someone so....

Well, I did explain it. Ammo management is necessary for suspension of disbelief and maintaining playstyle. Health management isn't (as much.) With health regeneration, you're still prevented from playing like a jackass because you will still die after a few shots. You can't really time-limit ammunition in the same way, so unlimited ammo does encourage a different play style.

Exactly, here is the point you are missing with non-regen health. "use it wisely" applies for health too. Regen health encourages "Knock yourself out", as long as you dont actually die of course.

But it doesn't, because of the reason I've stated above. If you run into a battle you're still going to die - regen health doesn't affect your playstyle much per-battle. Over the course of a game it will, because you won't have situations where you've saved with shitty health and have to fight your way through a map with 2hp. I like that it doesn't happen much anymore.

(Also - you're counting on people not gaming the system. If I run into a crazy situation in Deus Ex or Stalker and get shot, I can pop into the inventory and heal myself instantly and carry on fighting. Of course you can stop this easily by making health-kits heal over time, but don't act as if current FPS games with healthkit management are perfect)

Im gonna be immature here and say for such an intelligent guy you play like a fucking noob. That is my analysis of you, chalked up.
People like you is why people like me rarely get fun games anymore But I can only reluctantly respect your opinions I suppose.

Eh, deal with it. I happen to agree with what I believe is the majority opinion - that games should be more about fun experiences than semi-realistic simulations.

Also - I could probably kick your ass in any multiplayer FPS. Just sayin'.

Nope nothing to do with simulation on this one, its plain fun. Doom, Mario, System Shock you name it, all would have been lesser experiences if they had blasphemous regen health.

They would be lesser experiences to you because they would be less like a simulation. Your problem, as I've said before, is you can't look at things objectively.

It's not "plain fun" because people's definition of plain fun is completely fucking different.

but otherwise I'm strongly against developers catering to a particular audience.

This is EXACTLY why the majority of modern games suck. "Games shouldn't cater to just gamers, but to grandmas too".

For fu..

Did you not read anything said a few pages ago? Developers are catering to gamers. It's just gamers happen to want something you don't like.

Don't take that out on the developers because they're not catering to your minority opinion. Blame the majority who disagree with you.

And I never said nor implied this: "all games should be based on what I want, not anyone else".

You have. Constantly.

[Cybernetic pig]

For fu..

Did you not read anything said a few pages ago? Developers are catering to gamers . It's just gamers happen to want something you don't like.

Wrong. They are catering to as wide an audience as they can in most instances, at least it seems like it. Yes that still includes gamers and old-school gamers, but then we just get a watered down experience.

Blame the majority who disagree with you.

I have. You fucking noob
Sucks to be outnumbered, especially in this case.

You have. Constantly.

Yeah, I kinda have. I've got issues.

[DaveW]

For fu..

Did you not read anything said a few pages ago? Developers are catering to gamers . It's just gamers happen to want something you don't like.

Wrong. They are catering to as wide an audience as they can in most instances, at least it seems like it. Yes that still includes gamers and old-school gamers, but then we just get a watered down experience.

So I'm wrong and they're definitely not catering to gamers, but they are catering to gamers?

Glad we cleared that up.

[Cybernetic pig]

So I'm wrong and they're definitely not catering to gamers, but they are catering to gamers?

.

Exactly, they are not focusing on one audience.

[DaveW]

You've lost me there. What games don't cater to one audience?

[Cybernetic pig]

You've lost me there. What games don't cater to one audience?

I dont know, I think I've lost myself here too (it's getting late). or I have lost you, yeah I'll blame you. Well it was nice talking to you Dave. And for the record I would kick your ass at Multiplayer FPS.

[kdawg88]

And for the record I would kick your ass at Multiplayer FPS.

Which one, pray tell?

[Cybernetic pig]

And for the record I would kick your ass at Multiplayer FPS.

Which one, pray tell?

Call Of Duty, Quake, Doom ...I've never played Deus Ex multi. Should really rectify that soon.

Why are you interested anyway?

[kdawg88]

And for the record I would kick your ass at Multiplayer FPS.

Which one, pray tell?

Call Of Duty, Quake, Doom ...I've never played Deus Ex multi. Should really rectify that soon.

Why are you interested anyway?

I just happen to know that they're all quite different - being good at one doesn't mean being instantly good at the other. I play Quake and a bit of DOOM as well.

[Cybernetic pig]

I just happen to know that they're all quite different - being good at one doesn't mean being instantly good at the other. I play Quake and a bit of DOOM as well.

No Call of Duty then?

I have started developing my own FPS in the Unity engine. It's not designed for actual gamers though, its for people who want to be told a story, and people who are bored and want to shoot something for 5 mins. JK.
Well I am working on a game, but it's not a FPS.

@Dave, if you play games for story, then why not read a book. Surely you agree they are far better at telling a story than a video game?

[DaveW]

I just happen to know that they're all quite different - being good at one doesn't mean being instantly good at the other. I play Quake and a bit of DOOM as well.

No Call of Duty then?

I have started developing my own FPS in the Unity engine. It's not designed for actual gamers though, its for people who want to be told a story, and people who are bored and want to shoot something for 5 mins. JK.
Well I am working on a game, but it's not a FPS.

@Dave, if you play games for story, then why not read a book. Surely you agree they are far better at telling a story than a video game?

I'm good at any classic/basic FPS - i.e. Unreal Tournament or Counter Strike. Deus Ex multiplayer doesn't really interest me. I'd like to see you try and beat me at the former.

I don't play games just for story - though for the record that's like telling someone watching a film "just read a book!". Which, hell, you may do. I enjoy a challenge. I just don't like that challenge being lost in the fucking menus. Take STALKER - I love the experience you get of being inside the zone, meeting the other stalkers and exploring old bunkers with monsters in. I don't love micro-managing my inventory. Or Deus Ex - I love the atmosphere, characters, story, the broad elements of the gameplay - but I don't love having to deal with the horrible UI and convoluted roleplaying systems.