I was going to post this as a reply to the first gameplay video, but it got a bit long. So I decided this discussion could use its own thread.
Splash Damage, please drop the idea of an authentic (pseudo-realistic) experience at all cost and across all aspects of Dirty Bomb! No competitive shooter became successful by chasing an authentic experience. Competitive shooters become successful by defining a set of rules within their own virtual world that empowers the player and is as deterministic and predictable as possible.
Realistic maneuverability, for instance, limits the player immensely, and the power of a video game can be found in the fact that physical laws do not have to be followed. Look at Quake and Tribes for instance. The consoles input method (controllers) have forced the movement speed of games to be decreased significantly, and Dirty Bomb has the chance of returning to the times of PC shooters with truly fast and acrobatic movement.
The same goes for map dimensions, object scale and clutter. It is preferred to ignore realistic dimensions and create more clear sight lines with fewer clutter. Remember that you are creating an arena for a game, not a virtual tour of London, so while the set dressing does increase immersion, it should never interfere with the gameplay in any way. Look at games like Counter-Strike and the original Enemy Territory for believable but entirely unrealistic scale and clear and uncluttered arenas, while still managing to convey a particular atmosphere.
The same counts for weapons. Choosing to only include weapons inspired by real-life counterparts simply limits your game incredibly. It limits the weaponry both in the way it looks, as well as, and most importantly, the way the weapons fire, handle or deal damage. There are so many interesting and creative weapons that can be designed, from projectiles with interesting characteristics, to ‘melee’ weapons with a boomerang like quality, for instance. None of that is possible however, if real-life weaponry is the only inspiration.
The number of weapons that can be carried has also decreased with the introduction of shooters to consoles, but PC has no such limitation, and allowing players to choose the right weapon for a particular encounter is very empowering. The introduction of aim-down-sight is also a staple of modern shooters, and is used often to increase the number of unlockables, especially in free-to-play games. But its worth to gameplay is questionable, especially because it occludes the screen. Aim-down-sight is generally not preferable and can be a real hindrance, especially when combined with fast movement speed.
Lastly, pseudo-realistic bullet damage is an issue that has plagued modern shooters for quite a while, with few exceptions. The original Enemy Territory is a definite exception, Brink is almost an exception to this, with bullet damage that is significantly lower than games like Battlefield or Call of Duty. The problem with pseudo-realistic bullet damage, where a player drops dead a split second after first getting hit, is that this removes battling from the combat gameplay. It is a deliberate choice of the gameplay designer to choose twitch gameplay over battling gameplay, but I think Dirty Bomb can really differentiate itself from the other modern shooters by promoting battling players over twitch kill/death.
One aspect of Dirty Bomb that I saw in the trailer that I am really delighted about and very much looking forward to, is the ‘single rolling objective’. A major issue of recent first person shooters is the chaotic distribution of players across the playing field/arena/map, where there are no clear team sides and combat is largely distributed over the entire map. The objective of escorting or stopping a tank is very effective at focusing the combat, as well as very clearly defining sides of the map for each team.
The problem that Brink had with its objectives, is that there were multiple ones, with all but the main objective having seemingly little effect and having little to do with each other. The multiple objectives and cramped and convoluted maps caused confusion as well as choke points and combat not focused around the main objective. The choke points in Brink were also largely contrived and were so strict that the progression through the map came to a screeching halt at each one, which could cause the dreaded cycle of running towards the choke point from spawn (choosing one of a few routes), arriving and kill or be killed, and repeat, with little chance of using your class’ abilities and making for all too predictable encounters.
Look at games like Team Fortress 2, Tribes: Ascend and Shootmania Storm for examples of clearly defined and predictable rule sets, that choose to ignore reality to empower the player, making for good competitive games. Dirty Bomb currently looks to sway towards a generic modern military shooter, which would be a real shame. This is avoidable, as it has various redeemable factors, not in the least the team behind it. I trust Splash Damage to deliver a true PC shooter experience, they have the proven track record!
P.S. I really love the development model Splash Damage seems to have chosen for Dirty Bomb: an iterative approach, with early community involvement. This model worked incredibly well for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Tribes: Ascend and others, and will undoubtedly pay off for Dirty Bomb.
Please discuss and post your own concerns for Dirty Bomb, as well as expressing its potential.
