SMART in Hindsight - Exedore @ GDC Europe

(tokamak) #41

Call of Duty

(MoonOnAStick) #42

It’s not just that SMART isn’t essential to success, it isn’t very rewarding to use. Even as someone who couldn’t rocket jump out of my bath, there’s a real exhilaration in previous games from getting that extra speed from strafe-jumping, or that extra momentum from a rocket smash (as well as a great risk/reward mechanic from the self damage you have to inflict). There is also the problem that SMART is painted on afterward and not universally applicable in the way that trick jumping is. Any successor (SMART 2 or whatever) has to feel similarly ‘earned’ and be consistent across all geometry, not just a cool canned animation.

(Humate) #43

If you are playing mario kart, monopoly, the sims, puzzle bobble, rainbow islands etc then what you have described is appropriate.

(Humate) #44

Thats correct - the player needed to feel as if they had beaten another player, because of its use. :slight_smile:

(thesuzukimethod) #45

re: numbers, there has been an increase in the number of total matches played (as tracked by the stats site) on both x360 and ps3. paradoxically it started the week+ before DLC came out…perhaps in anticipation?..i didnt save the numbers and i haven’t looked at it in a week or so, but i was tracking these numbers for completely unrelated reasons (trying to make the argument that ps3 was on the rise while x360 was stagnant/declining…lol…but as it turned out, they were just about neck in neck - seems ps3 had a larger increase, but x360 had a larger base to start with…either way, both went up in terms of total matches played (tracked))

now there are (significant) problems with tracking matches vs. players, as all it takes is a single human to log a match so you could have 1000 matches that were the same 16 people playing ~60 matches, you could have 1000 people playing a single 1 human only match each, or (and most likely), you could have something in the middle. anecdotally, matches are more full, and some of the “lobby workarounds” have been less necessary to get full games + lots of new names in these games, which definitely makes it seem more active…unfortunately, this also results in a lot of what Cep is complaining about in his (new) thread.

#mostlyunsubstantiated :wink:

(DarkangelUK) #46

That’s exactly my feelings, it seems most of the reward has been removed and has been replaced with ‘equal opportunity’.

(wolfnemesis75) #47

[QUOTE=thesuzukimethod;371799]re: numbers, there has been an increase in the number of total matches played (as tracked by the stats site) on both x360 and ps3. paradoxically it started the week+ before DLC came out…perhaps in anticipation?..i didnt save the numbers and i haven’t looked at it in a week or so, but i was tracking these numbers for completely unrelated reasons (trying to make the argument that ps3 was on the rise while x360 was stagnant/declining…lol…but as it turned out, they were just about neck in neck - seems ps3 had a larger increase, but x360 had a larger base to start with…either way, both went up in terms of total matches played (tracked))

now there are (significant) problems with tracking matches vs. players, as all it takes is a single human to log a match so you could have 1000 matches that were the same 16 people playing ~60 matches, you could have 1000 people playing a single 1 human only match each, or (and most likely), you could have something in the middle. anecdotally, matches are more full, and some of the “lobby workarounds” have been less necessary to get full games + lots of new names in these games, which definitely makes it seem more active…unfortunately, this also results in a lot of what Cep is complaining about in his (new) thread.

#mostlyunsubstantiated ;)[/QUOTE]Cool. Along the lines of what I was thinking. Thanks, bro. :slight_smile:

(nephandys) #48

[QUOTE=Humate;371790]If you are playing mario kart, monopoly, the sims, puzzle bobble, rainbow islands etc then what you have described is appropriate.

Thats correct - the player needed to feel as if they had beaten another player, because of its use. :)[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree that everyone who plays FPS’s or games where your competing against each other is competitive or working constantly on their skills to get better. The vast majority of people are casual players playing for fun. That doesn’t mean they don’t want to win or like to win, but they’re not focused on constantly improving their skills, searching the net for strategies, reading guides, etc.

We’re both only going off our own opinions here so some anecdotal evidence, my wife plays MNC every single night and she used to play L4D1/2 the same way. These are both generally considered “competitive” games (maybe MNC to a lesser degree than L4D) and the goal is clearly to defeat your opponent. She only ever plays for fun though. She doesn’t care about working on getting better at all outside of accumulating experience while playing the game. The majority of my RL friends? Casuals. Look at the MMO market, casuals vastly out number hardcore raiders or hard core players in general.

I’ll also play devil’s advocate for a second as well. Why do so many people here think SD appealed to the lowest common denominator, simplified game play, console-ized, included huge spread with high hp, etc.? So they could appeal to the majority of players who are casual and would still like to find success even with limited play time and effort.

(DarkangelUK) #49

[QUOTE=nephandys;371807]
I’ll also play devil’s advocate for a second as well. Why do so many people here think SD appealed to the lowest common denominator, simplified game play, console-ized, included huge spread with high hp, etc.? So they could appeal to the majority of players who are casual and would still like to find success even with limited play time and effort.[/QUOTE]
There are far better ways to appeal to the wider audience and avoid damaging your reputation.

(tokamak) #50

I must have said this a hundred times on this forum already. If they in fact managed to get a large mass of players excited for the game, if Brink turned out to be a widespread phenomenon, then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on I would just be someone with a more obscure taste and that was that. It would mean they got the goal they set out for and nobody would ever fault them on that.

But they did NOT get that large mass of players, in fact, Brink has a smaller playerbase than ETQW on the PC (can’t say anything about the consoles EITHER way). This means that SD failed in the direction they took. This is all the more frustrating about those who are passionate about ET as they’ve been on the receiving end of these measures. They were the ones who would’ve swallowed all these dumbing down in favour of the mob.
But again, that’s not what’s happening right now. SD has demonstrated that they do not have the right idea of what a gamer wants and they only drive that point further home by their post-release statements about the way the game turned out to be. Those statements made me questions whether they actually knew what made their past games so great and suddenly it dawned on me that it’s possible for a developer to do something right by dumb luck.

ETQW’s mechanics WORKED. It was exactly the right balance between deep tactical combat and arcade action. ETQW had a rough period with strong competition and I fear that it’s because of the disappointing sales that SD set out to change direction with Brink. Brink on the other hand had NO direct competition in the tactical shooter genre and the only real threat was LA Noire. Again, these two games aren’t in the same niche the same way COD and Battlefield were with ETQW.

ETQW didn’t receive the credit it deserved from it’s very own producers. To this date it’s still the best FPS in existence, catering to all kinds of players offering value to arcade egos as well as those who like a more in depth and nuanced approach. It was the marketing and competition that held it back and not the core gameplay.

If I were to build a shooter, it would have ETQW’s feel and drive the asymmetry between both teams to further extremes to increase the replay value and get people addicted to it indefinitely.

(Humate) #51

[QUOTE=nephandys;371807]I have to disagree that everyone who plays FPS’s or games where your competing against each other is competitive or working constantly on their skills to get better. The vast majority of people are casual players playing for fun. That doesn’t mean they don’t want to win or like to win, but they’re not focused on constantly improving their skills, searching the net for strategies, reading guides, etc.

We’re both only going off our own opinions here so some anecdotal evidence, my wife plays MNC every single night and she used to play L4D1/2 the same way. These are both generally considered “competitive” games (maybe MNC to a lesser degree than L4D) and the goal is clearly to defeat your opponent. She only ever plays for fun though. She doesn’t care about working on getting better at all outside of accumulating experience while playing the game. The majority of my RL friends? Casuals. Look at the MMO market, casuals vastly out number hardcore raiders or hard core players in general.

I’ll also play devil’s advocate for a second as well. Why do so many people here think SD appealed to the lowest common denominator, simplified game play, console-ized, included huge spread with high hp, etc.? So they could appeal to the majority of players who are casual and would still like to find success even with limited play time and effort.[/QUOTE]

What Im saying is - those games Ive listed are “friendly” by nature. They are designed so that they arent intimidating, so that anyone can pick up the game whether it be your 4 year old or your great uncle or even your wife.

Conversely the multiplayer FPS genre as well as the RTS genre ( more so in fact ) aren’t as friendly to the average player.Theres a lot to learn and they may be discouraged that they arent very good at them at first. In light of this, there are many who dont give a crap about how good or bad they are at it. They enjoy them regardless. Im one of those people… I play SC2, I’m absolutely abysmal at it - and yet its easily one of my favourite games ever. I dont look up strategies, as I prefer to work out those things myself… but occasionally I enjoy watching a stream, or watching a duel b/w the pro players out there.

In other words, games dont need to be dumbed down in order for people to enjoy them. They accept the fact they might get their ass handed to them, because the game itself makes up for it in other ways.

Brink’s design is predicated on the belief - that if you are terrible at the game, then you will hate it.

In my experience, its the other way around. Its more rewarding/fun to play in the deep pool, than the baby pool.

(tokamak) #52

SC2 is an awesome example.

Compared to SC one, a few aspects of the game have been automatised to take the most tedious parts out of the game. Still it kept it’s incredibly high skill ceiling so high that we now have pro gamers playing games against bronze league players while dancing through their room

Blizzard made the game accessible by protecting the player’s ego. The match making process is hidden and the algorithm a well-kept secret. They’ve stopped displaying the win loss ratio of players unless you’re in the uppermost leagues. And the lowest league, Bronze, amounts for 40% of the playerbase. So you never truly know how bad you are if you’re in this league. You could be the worst SC2 player int he world and still feel like you’re around average.

They did not adapt the game the masses however. They smoothed out a few tedious tasks in SC but that’s it. All the rest is balanced around the way professionals play the game. They couldn’t get away with neglecting their pros as that would render the big tournaments unwatchable. The lower players will have to deal with this but they gladly do so because it means hey get to play under the same conditions the big stars play under.

(wolfnemesis75) #53

I still feel a more advanced SMART that allows you to scale over rooftops would’ve driven home the gameplay mechanic much more. If new players see other people are fighting on the roof tops (so sorry Heavy Fatties) then they’re gonna want to do it too. One of those areas in the game where it tries to accommodate all body types and gammers ingrained FPS mechanics like in COD, even though the end result was most people just play light. Almost screams for an approach where you just put Parkour elements everywhere instead and let players decide over time what can be done with it. One of those things now that I’ve played the game a ton, I see it could be stretched much further now into a more vertical fighting direction. So that battles are taking place hi above the ground and peeps are jumping from one roof to another with the chance or penalty of death below. :slight_smile:

(.Chris.) #54

You do know not been able to scale over roof tops has nothing what so ever to do with the level of complexity of the SMART system?

It was purely a game and/or level design choice, SMART can be used to scale rooftops quite easily just that no map produced thus far allows it.

If the editing tools were available I’m pretty sure someone would have attempted making such a map as it is a nice premise, that’s the beauty of user generated content, we can afford to take risks that the developers can’t, we don’t have to follow their direction, we can try new and experimental approaches and come with some different styles of maps that utilise SMART.

(Nexolate) #55

Yep. Some of the most interesting CSS maps I played were ones that broke the traditional mold.
Hopefully we can get an SDK, or at least a level editor down the line to work on these kinds of things. I’d give it a shot.

Regards,
Nexo

(Exedore) #56

I actually mentioned this in the talk, but they didn’t quote it. I’ll try to explain more when I’m back from Cologne.

(shirosae) #57

Say you’re playing some other game, and you see a ladder, lift, stairway, or jumppad. They all represent a visual cue that tells you that what you’re seeing is a viable route, because people generally don’t build those things to lead nowhere. Maps are generally designed so the spacial area is an arena with gameplay as the primary focus, but also in a way that allows regular building convention to act as a guide for players to access information about the layout without needing to explore every inch first. Those ladders and stairways act as signs describing the structure and layout out of sight.

With SMART? You have a bunch of boxes against a wall. Are those boxes a route? Can you go up there? Does it lead anywhere useful? Is it a dead end? Is it an invisible wall?

It’s like the Ark isn’t just being fought over by two armies constructed entirely of parkour experts; it’s like every human alive on this alternate earth is a parkour expert, so ladders and lifts and stuff were never invented.

Of course people don’t use SMART much; using it in combat is suicide and using it as a route selection tool requires that the player first experiment with any potential SMART route and remember if they offer anything useful, or if they lead to an invisible wall. Are they really going to do that during a match, with the clock running?

The only way I can think of, off, the top of my head, to deal with that is to put ladders/stairs back in, even if they’re non-functional, just to act as visual cues. Have some blown out stairs that still require SMART, but demonstrate that there is a route there. Have a retracted ladder, or a broken lift or damaged jumppad or whatever. That kind of illustrates how shallow SMART turned out to be, but at least it’ll get people using the thing more often.

(wolfnemesis75) #58

Many struggle with SMART or don’t use it. That’s why they created Heavy Body Type for those who want a more traditional shooter style and movement with limited SMART. And also the Medium for those who want a little of what they are comfortable with and some Parkour. Light is for those who embrace SMART to its fullest and wish to leave behind the old conventions of FPS. :slight_smile:

Great players understand exactly what SMART can and cannot do and best time and most effective ways to use it.
Takes heightened and deeper understanding of the mechanic.

About now, out of the Hardcore left (Brink has a hardcore fanbase still) the great players are starting to emerge, which imo, this is about the natural time for that to happen. Unrealistic expectations for great players to separate themselves in tournaments with Brink a week or two old, or even a couple months old. Now that Brink has been out a few months, now you’ll see out of the Hardcore that remain (and the hardcore fan is the only one who matters) now’s the time the cream of the crop emerge.

Now that the head-strong gamers who self-proclaimed themselves great at the game just because, are gone, it leaves the hardcore and the real players. Those in the know, get the most out of SMART. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #59

Textbook flame baiting.

(Nexolate) #60

Yeah, that’s the impression I got too.
That or naivety.

Regards,
Nexo