DOOM
DOOM is an intense, highly fast paced, bullet hell of a first person shooter. It's a complete gore fest. The explosions are vibrant and the kills are sweet. The landscapes are hellish, literally, and the ambiance is terrifically horrific. The gun play is quick, fun, and intense. The game overall is a masterpiece, but is it perfect? Of course not.
Just as every form of art, while it has objective guidelines that be used to determine the game's strengths and weaknesses, it is ultimately a subjective experience. Being as such, it is open to suggestion by all who experience it, regardless of their level of enjoyment or satisfaction they got from the game. I love this game, personally, but I still have a few things I would love to see added.
One major refinement I'd love to see incorporated into DOOM is the revival of their multiplayer community. I think one of the reasons that DOOM's multiplayer failed is the same reason its single player campaigns have been so successful: predictable enemy types. In the single player section of DOOM, enemies are instantly recognizable from a far, and once you learn their patterns of attack and defense, you can begin to develop a strategy of attack once you identify the threats you are presented with. In conjunction with this idea, each weapon you are equipped with is strongest in a particular area, and can be used in combination with other weapons and situations in order to create the perfect strategy to take down your enemies. Compare this with an online multiplayer base with an infinite number of unpredictable players, play styles, and means of attack and defense, and DOOM simmers down to a gory first person combat arena, that while may be fun for a while, doesn't have enough real substance to hold up. Adding some sort of objective based situation may allow for patterns in play style among a diverse set of players to emerge, allowing opposing players to formulate strategies around these typical behaviors, allowing for an organic infusion of the best of both single player predictability and multiplayer's intensity and unique experiences offered each time around.
Just as every form of art, while it has objective guidelines that be used to determine the game's strengths and weaknesses, it is ultimately a subjective experience. Being as such, it is open to suggestion by all who experience it, regardless of their level of enjoyment or satisfaction they got from the game. I love this game, personally, but I still have a few things I would love to see added.
One major refinement I'd love to see incorporated into DOOM is the revival of their multiplayer community. I think one of the reasons that DOOM's multiplayer failed is the same reason its single player campaigns have been so successful: predictable enemy types. In the single player section of DOOM, enemies are instantly recognizable from a far, and once you learn their patterns of attack and defense, you can begin to develop a strategy of attack once you identify the threats you are presented with. In conjunction with this idea, each weapon you are equipped with is strongest in a particular area, and can be used in combination with other weapons and situations in order to create the perfect strategy to take down your enemies. Compare this with an online multiplayer base with an infinite number of unpredictable players, play styles, and means of attack and defense, and DOOM simmers down to a gory first person combat arena, that while may be fun for a while, doesn't have enough real substance to hold up. Adding some sort of objective based situation may allow for patterns in play style among a diverse set of players to emerge, allowing opposing players to formulate strategies around these typical behaviors, allowing for an organic infusion of the best of both single player predictability and multiplayer's intensity and unique experiences offered each time around.
Mirror's Edge
Mirror's Edge is another fast paced title, this time with a focus on parkour and first person platforming, rather than combat. You play as a parkour expert, running from the police throughout the urban jungle, swinging from poles, jumping from roofs, and running along walls to get to your destination as quickly as possible. While the game features some combat, a majority of it is spent running away from foes rather than confronting them head-on.
This is exactly a place where I think Mirror's Edge squandered some gameplay potential. While I understand that the aim of the game was to focus mostly on platforming and the movement of your character, I think it would have given the game a whole other layer of substance if the developers had incorporated a largest combat system into the game. If they made weapons more frequent rather than the occasional gun fight you'd be forced to get into, the game may not be entirely focused on parkour alone anymore, but could attempt to weave combat into the mix of movement as well.
There is a level that I think perfectly demonstrates the potential of this mixed mechanic. It takes place in some underground facility, and you must jump from pillars perched up high above the ground to find the optimal point to snipe your enemies down with this huge, powerful rifle. Had the developers carried this idea out further through the levels, I think the game would gain a whole new element of gameplay, though I do understand how this might drown out the main theme of parkour and platforming the developers were attempting to reach for.
This is exactly a place where I think Mirror's Edge squandered some gameplay potential. While I understand that the aim of the game was to focus mostly on platforming and the movement of your character, I think it would have given the game a whole other layer of substance if the developers had incorporated a largest combat system into the game. If they made weapons more frequent rather than the occasional gun fight you'd be forced to get into, the game may not be entirely focused on parkour alone anymore, but could attempt to weave combat into the mix of movement as well.
There is a level that I think perfectly demonstrates the potential of this mixed mechanic. It takes place in some underground facility, and you must jump from pillars perched up high above the ground to find the optimal point to snipe your enemies down with this huge, powerful rifle. Had the developers carried this idea out further through the levels, I think the game would gain a whole new element of gameplay, though I do understand how this might drown out the main theme of parkour and platforming the developers were attempting to reach for.
Law Breakers
Law Breakers combines the best of both worlds of insane, flexible movement with gung-ho style gun play and rush-based shooting mechanics. You are pit up against another enemy team, allowed to select a single hero with unique abilities and attributes that can assist in your team securing whatever objective you need to capture. These abilities range from double jumps to jet packs, from sliding stabs to grenade launchers, creating a vast and diverse set of characters to choose from.
When I first played Law Breakers, I thought the game was fun as hell, but after a while, I began to grow frustrated. An issue with the game seemed that while it featured some 14 or so different heroes to choose from, I found myself, as well as others, picking from an even smaller and more select pool of the available heroes. This causes many of the games to feel rather stale, as though I was playing the same thing over and over again, just on different levels of skill, and consequently, different levels of frustration.
I think the major reason for this is the lack of balance in the game, both through the heroes and how they counter one another, as well as the level design and game mode choices. A central theme of Law Breakers is the various sections of anti-gravity wells that are scattered throughout each map, typically centered around the objective players aim to capture. This is all fine and dandy until you start giving certain characters more of an advantage in these low gravity, highly important areas of attack and defense, such as a jet boost or double jump. This immediately creates an imbalance around the center point of the game, and if the other team wishes to balance the odds, they are better off resorting to playing similar characters themselves, thus restoring some sort of balance among the objective zone. Imbalance in games, especially games of a competitive nature, isn't always necessarily a bad thing, but it is extremely difficult to implement properly. Law Breakers choose to have their imbalance centered around the primary objective, something that all players on both sides should have an equal chance at capturing, with the only variable being their skill and mastery of their chosen character. But when you begin to give advantages to certain characters in that objective zone, it's no wonder that you see the same characters getting picked over and over again.
Similarly, no two heroes REALLY counter each other, which is something that other hero based shooters such as Overwatch needed to master in order to truly play properly. This lack of countering heroes leads players to consistently pick the easiest characters to do well with, or the most powerful characters, and since their only real counter is a duplicate hero of the same power and stats, little diversion in the players' characters occurs.
When I first played Law Breakers, I thought the game was fun as hell, but after a while, I began to grow frustrated. An issue with the game seemed that while it featured some 14 or so different heroes to choose from, I found myself, as well as others, picking from an even smaller and more select pool of the available heroes. This causes many of the games to feel rather stale, as though I was playing the same thing over and over again, just on different levels of skill, and consequently, different levels of frustration.
I think the major reason for this is the lack of balance in the game, both through the heroes and how they counter one another, as well as the level design and game mode choices. A central theme of Law Breakers is the various sections of anti-gravity wells that are scattered throughout each map, typically centered around the objective players aim to capture. This is all fine and dandy until you start giving certain characters more of an advantage in these low gravity, highly important areas of attack and defense, such as a jet boost or double jump. This immediately creates an imbalance around the center point of the game, and if the other team wishes to balance the odds, they are better off resorting to playing similar characters themselves, thus restoring some sort of balance among the objective zone. Imbalance in games, especially games of a competitive nature, isn't always necessarily a bad thing, but it is extremely difficult to implement properly. Law Breakers choose to have their imbalance centered around the primary objective, something that all players on both sides should have an equal chance at capturing, with the only variable being their skill and mastery of their chosen character. But when you begin to give advantages to certain characters in that objective zone, it's no wonder that you see the same characters getting picked over and over again.
Similarly, no two heroes REALLY counter each other, which is something that other hero based shooters such as Overwatch needed to master in order to truly play properly. This lack of countering heroes leads players to consistently pick the easiest characters to do well with, or the most powerful characters, and since their only real counter is a duplicate hero of the same power and stats, little diversion in the players' characters occurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment