Comments on: Content Disclosure http://www.owengrieve.com/2008/10/12/content-disclosure/ Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:10:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Smartbomb http://www.owengrieve.com/2008/10/12/content-disclosure/#comment-378 Smartbomb Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:21:28 +0000 http://www.owengrieve.com/?p=89#comment-378 [...] the original game. The sequel feels a lot more linear, possibly as a part of the general trend to stop hiding content from players - which was certainly a major element in Mass Effect. Your ultimate objective, outlined at the [...] [...] the original game. The sequel feels a lot more linear, possibly as a part of the general trend to stop hiding content from players – which was certainly a major element in Mass Effect. Your ultimate objective, outlined at the [...]

]]> By: Iain http://www.owengrieve.com/2008/10/12/content-disclosure/#comment-42 Iain Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:20:05 +0000 http://www.owengrieve.com/?p=89#comment-42 There's a school of games design that doesn't seem to believe that players should ever feel any consequence for their actions but yeah, it's mostly out of fear of wasted development. The game I ranted about on this issue was Oblivion, where the game is so intent on keeping all options available to you at all times that your sense of place in the world is ruined. People you've robbed blind are perfectly happy to have you help them clear their bedroom of rats. Players aren't pumping coins into a machine, what's so terrible about content you're not going to see the first time you play the game? Dead Rising was all about priorities to me; you leave someone to die to rescue someone else and the permanence of the results give them impact. You can go play through the game again and change your priorities if you're desperate to see that one boss fight you missed. So yeah, I agree, but as you've identified I don't think it's a design decision so much as a response to constraint. There is absolutely no excuse for Fahrenheit's nosedive. Unless they had to fire the entire writing staff and recruit a twelve year old to do two thirds of the narrative development. There’s a school of games design that doesn’t seem to believe that players should ever feel any consequence for their actions but yeah, it’s mostly out of fear of wasted development. The game I ranted about on this issue was Oblivion, where the game is so intent on keeping all options available to you at all times that your sense of place in the world is ruined. People you’ve robbed blind are perfectly happy to have you help them clear their bedroom of rats.

Players aren’t pumping coins into a machine, what’s so terrible about content you’re not going to see the first time you play the game? Dead Rising was all about priorities to me; you leave someone to die to rescue someone else and the permanence of the results give them impact. You can go play through the game again and change your priorities if you’re desperate to see that one boss fight you missed.

So yeah, I agree, but as you’ve identified I don’t think it’s a design decision so much as a response to constraint.

There is absolutely no excuse for Fahrenheit’s nosedive. Unless they had to fire the entire writing staff and recruit a twelve year old to do two thirds of the narrative development.

]]> By: John http://www.owengrieve.com/2008/10/12/content-disclosure/#comment-30 John Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:17:34 +0000 http://www.owengrieve.com/?p=89#comment-30 Good points there Owen. I agree that removing the time limit from Dead Rising on the Wii is about the stupidest thing they could have done. I agree that games do not need every player to see 100% of the content, in fact designing them that way should be a specific decision and not a default approach. Having said that in my opinion you have to be careful how much "extra" or alternative content you develop. Again this depends hugely on the type of game and how adaptable the art assets are. Outrun works because the amount of time to develop additional assets and the need to bring people back to the game were acceptable within the development time frame. All of that said if your are making a game on your own time, dont compromise and stick in as much additional and alternative content as you can manage! I would! Another game that suffered due to poor choices regarding the what content would be seen by most players is Fahrenheit. The looked at the numbers and only a small percentage of gamers ever finish a game. So they cut the amount of time and effort spent on the later levels with the result of the last quarter of the sucking. I think its an extension of the same line of thought applied to Dead Rising Wii. And one that let down players that really liked the game quite badly. Good points there Owen. I agree that removing the time limit from Dead Rising on the Wii is about the stupidest thing they could have done. I agree that games do not need every player to see 100% of the content, in fact designing them that way should be a specific decision and not a default approach. Having said that in my opinion you have to be careful how much “extra” or alternative content you develop. Again this depends hugely on the type of game and how adaptable the art assets are. Outrun works because the amount of time to develop additional assets and the need to bring people back to the game were acceptable within the development time frame. All of that said if your are making a game on your own time, dont compromise and stick in as much additional and alternative content as you can manage! I would!
Another game that suffered due to poor choices regarding the what content would be seen by most players is Fahrenheit. The looked at the numbers and only a small percentage of gamers ever finish a game. So they cut the amount of time and effort spent on the later levels with the result of the last quarter of the sucking. I think its an extension of the same line of thought applied to Dead Rising Wii. And one that let down players that really liked the game quite badly.

]]>