Widescreen Gaming Forum

There was nothing wrong with "risking it all" on a new IP back when games took maybe a million to make. Now they're multi-million affairs that take half a decade to code, publishers shy away from trying anything new as new is "dangerous".

People will buy an established brand even if it's shit in comparison to a lesser known competitor.

(I'm think of Shadow Hearts vs. Final Fantasy etc here...)

We have casual versus "real games" now, and a continuing independent movement that looks to hardcore gamers, but we have little in the way of separate focuses from the big publishers on hardcore games with smaller budgets. Do you think the industry could split into two core paths and tread both independently? One an interactive movie style to sell to millions and put a ton of money into it and one style for hardcore gamers that uses older graphics and technology but has hardcore gameplay?

A company like EA already has casual, sports and mainstream sections to its company, why not add a "hardcore" section that makes games with less graphical elements and more story/hardcore gameplay?

well I'm a bit on both sides on this one,
I mean... even though I'm a gamer with not so bad skills, I don't regret the very hard games from 20 years ago (games on Amstrad or Amiga which had little content) Does anyone remember this "supercopter" game where you had to move through tunnels ? OMG !

Plus I'm a bit on the nervous side, if I lose like an unskilled looser dozens of times, I may lose my temper and hit my keyboard (which is why I bought a durable steelkeys one :mrgreen: )

The problem is not the reduced difficulty but the disappearance of actual gameplay. ;)

The problem is not the reduced difficulty but the disappearance of actual gameplay. ;)

Exactly.

If you want to make it easier to get a headshot, which consoles already do with auto-aim and aim-assist, that could be a whole other matter. This system actively removes the need to play the game at all to headshot people, you just hit a button.

Time will tell how pervasive it is in the game, how easily it can be ignored.

I see

but still the difference between "gameplay disappearance" & difficulty seems a bit vague
I mean if you get the autoaim/aimassist way too strong, you get a reduction in gameplay since you don't need to aim anymore ...

don't you think so ? :?:

I mean if you get the autoaim/aimassist way too strong, you get a reduction in gameplay since you don't need to aim anymore ...

don't you think so ? :?:

I see what you're saying, but the difference in this case is that the new Splinter cell game totally takes away control from the player, rather than just making up for a fault in the hardware. The real reason that autoaim/aimassist exists on console shooters is because the analog sticks are simply not precise enough. Don't believe me? Try playing a game of Halo with friendly fire on and try to shoot your own teammates from range. It's damn hard.

If the autoaim is too strong, then yeah, that would be taking away control from the player. But autoaim is making up for a flaw with the control system, while this new system is making up for a flaw in the player himself.

Update: Reply from Ubisoft (not to me directly of course, but to this general sentiment)

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/30/ubisoft-on-making-splinter-cell-for-a-broader-audience/

According to Beland, the team at Ubisoft Montreal spent a lot of time looking at previous games in the series to decide what its core values are. Beland said that the series does a good job of providing the "fantasy" of Sam Fisher, but that the difficulty was turning off some players. "What was coming up all the time was, 'Man, that game's hard. I played the first map and I stopped. It was too difficult,'" said Beland. He admitted that sales of the Splinter Cell series declined from the first game to the fourth.

Thus, the team decided to focus on the values of Splinter Cell -- stealth, light vs. shadow, etc -- and look at them in a different way. "If you're the best elite agent in the world, if you're Sam Fisher," asked Beland, "why do you have to hang off a ledge and move at one centimeter per minute?" He added that the team wanted Sam Fisher "to be a predator, not a grandmother." This concept led to concepts like the Mark and Execute feature, giving players the feeling that they really are an elite agent.

According to Beland, such changes to Splinter Cell are part of the delicate balancing act in which the game industry is currently engaged. "We need to stop making games that are super hardcore," said Beland, "But we're afraid because we don't want to lose the hardcore people!" He added that "it's a real challenge" to make a game that is both accessible to the casual audience but still appealing to the hardcore.

We have to make the bad players feel like a badass, or else they won't buy our game!

I like that he at least acknowledged that making the game too freaking dumb and simple will turn off the "hardcore" audience who actually play games to play games. Of course his opinion on it is "screw the hardcore" which is disappointing. One hopes it will tank and teach them a lesson, but it will probably sell like gangbusters.

As gaming gets more and more a mainstream industry this is just getting more and more sad.

Nice to see some honesty from Ubisoft, but this:

"We need to stop making games that are super hardcore,"

is truly saddening.

I don't think "hardcore" games will vanish. There will always be a customer base for such games, even if the mainstream crowd only wants point-and-click shooters.

_________________
VirtualDub Game Recording Guide | BFME2 & RotWK Widescreen/Triplehead Mods

Beland

*snigger*


Splinter Cell wasn't and has never been that hardcore anyway!! And moving slowly along a ledge etc it was just realistic - hes not a ninja. :roll:

_________________
Formerly eZ`

Follow me on twitter: @theg00seberry and find me on Steam

Fears somewhat pacified: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQU3ndAEdY