Yeah, i call BS on this too. I belive that he said that just because sandbox games take longer time to make and as we all know: time is money.suitepee7 said:
Battlefield Producer Thinks Most Sandbox Games Are "Boring"
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
F you Bach, believe me that making this game for PC a "special" one will totally backfire if it's like CoD. We want it to be massive, immersive and NOT BLOODY SCRIPTED.
The producer of a "gritty and realistic" desaturated War shooter resembling CoD and other similar games thinks it's boring?
Well I'll obviously be listening to his opinion.
Well I'll obviously be listening to his opinion.
I think he is making excuses, simply put Sandbox games with the demands on them are much harder to write, develop, and program. Especially seeing as you need to do all the plot development and "missions" as well as build up a huge and consistant world, and provide things to do in it.
I suppose there is some truth to these games being "hardcore", which it disturbs me to find he considers being a bad thing. Largely because when you put a casual player down in front of a game with that many options and only very general directives on what to do (even if there is a campaign and plot) they tend to get intimidated. Casual gamers want to be taken by the hand and lead down a path, and be sure that they aren't going to miss anything cool. Your casual gamer doesn't want to hunt for easter eggs, they want to be handed the game (so to speak).
I think the problem with the "Battlefield" developer is largely that it doesn't want to put in the effort, or pay the expense. It's not a matter of making a profit, but making the most possible profits. Less work means a less expensive game, and if that game reaches more casual players and sells more copies it makes more money as well. It seems that like a lot of developers, they are trying to portray their "selling out" (for lack of a better term) as some kind of progress for the medium, when in reality it's nothing but MORE money going into their pockets and giving themselves an easier job. They can try and justify it any way they want, but that's the bottom line.
Incidently, I'll also say that this kind of attitude is what is holding back games from being taken more seriously. When you dumb the games down to make them approachable it gets the reception one would expect from dumbed down products. You talk about how serious games are, how interactive they are, and how they are the future, but then churn out very linear games with minimal interaction, designed so the lowest human denominator isn't going to have a problem, and one shouldn't be surprised when your medium is viewed the same as children's cartoons since it's at a child-like level. Sandbox games, and being able to see how a world reacts to a player's actions is one of the things that have been moving games forward as being interactive. What's more they have been becoming increasingly complex as time goes on, and while intimidating to the lowest human denominator it's been one of the big defenses of games as a growing medium. You can't have it both ways. Like it or not, even if it's just a reaction to violence, having people scream and flee while the police respond is a big achievement, and this kind of thing has been getting better over time. Saint's Row is paticularly impressive when you think about it as it's able to track police, gang, and allied response at the same time. If you say engage in criminal activity at the expense of a gang in one area, the police and gang bangers will both respond with seperate levels of force depending on how much you annoyed them. If you flee into YOUR territory your own gang members will also get involved on your side, with a degree of effectiveness largely determined by your overall success at the game up until that point. This kind of thing, and it moving forward, and being used in other settings other than crime, is one of the big defenses of game evoluion, and yes it might intimidate casuals, but hey... if we catered to that crowd we'd all still be playing games on the level of the Atari 2600.
I'll also say that another area games are trying to evolve into is becoming a serious, competitive practice. People look at shooter and fighting game tournaments, and of course games like "Starcraft" and what they have become in Korea, as signs of how gaming could very well become a competitive endeavor much like sports. Of course the thing is that for this to happen gaming has to take itself seriously. You can't for example have a serious, competitive chess game, if you say give special and unbalanced advantages to one of the players to compensate for their lack of skill. You can't say tie one hand behind Michael Jordan's back to make the game fair for other players (or well, back in his prime). Yet, that is fundementally what is going on with a lot of games in order to make them approchable. You have fighting games designed so a casual player can sit down and start doing impressive seeming things right off the bat, with a lot of moves with power disproportionate to their ease of execution being put into the game intentionally. Shooting games have things like the "noob tube" to act as a crutch for new players, and so on. We see this in things like MMORPGs as well, with effort being taken to prevent the serious players from effectively locking casuals out of the competitive aspects of the game... yet if you want games to be taken seriously you can't have this. You need to focus on balance, and have everyone playing by the same rules without any deliberate imbalances intended to make them approchable.
Simply put for gaming to continue to evolve, it has to become increasingly hardcore, and be presented as something people need to work at in order to do well at. It should not be stooping down to lift people up, but constantly elevating and demanding more of the people who want to play.
While this seems to be going pretty far afield, and is reading into the comments being made by the Battlefield developers, I think I understand where they are coming from, even if they won't admit it. To some extent their comments remind me of what we saw with "Alan Wake" which was transformed from a Sandbox game into a very linear experience, and suffered from it both in terms of the game itself (although it was okay) and in the reception it received. Sad because a sandbox horror game would have been a nice step in evolution, getting away from the generes that dominate that style of game. As things stand we're left with "Deadly Premonition" and it's moments of genius as a sign of what could be done with the genere if someone was to throw the level of tech and development "Alan Wake" had behind it.
I suppose there is some truth to these games being "hardcore", which it disturbs me to find he considers being a bad thing. Largely because when you put a casual player down in front of a game with that many options and only very general directives on what to do (even if there is a campaign and plot) they tend to get intimidated. Casual gamers want to be taken by the hand and lead down a path, and be sure that they aren't going to miss anything cool. Your casual gamer doesn't want to hunt for easter eggs, they want to be handed the game (so to speak).
I think the problem with the "Battlefield" developer is largely that it doesn't want to put in the effort, or pay the expense. It's not a matter of making a profit, but making the most possible profits. Less work means a less expensive game, and if that game reaches more casual players and sells more copies it makes more money as well. It seems that like a lot of developers, they are trying to portray their "selling out" (for lack of a better term) as some kind of progress for the medium, when in reality it's nothing but MORE money going into their pockets and giving themselves an easier job. They can try and justify it any way they want, but that's the bottom line.
Incidently, I'll also say that this kind of attitude is what is holding back games from being taken more seriously. When you dumb the games down to make them approachable it gets the reception one would expect from dumbed down products. You talk about how serious games are, how interactive they are, and how they are the future, but then churn out very linear games with minimal interaction, designed so the lowest human denominator isn't going to have a problem, and one shouldn't be surprised when your medium is viewed the same as children's cartoons since it's at a child-like level. Sandbox games, and being able to see how a world reacts to a player's actions is one of the things that have been moving games forward as being interactive. What's more they have been becoming increasingly complex as time goes on, and while intimidating to the lowest human denominator it's been one of the big defenses of games as a growing medium. You can't have it both ways. Like it or not, even if it's just a reaction to violence, having people scream and flee while the police respond is a big achievement, and this kind of thing has been getting better over time. Saint's Row is paticularly impressive when you think about it as it's able to track police, gang, and allied response at the same time. If you say engage in criminal activity at the expense of a gang in one area, the police and gang bangers will both respond with seperate levels of force depending on how much you annoyed them. If you flee into YOUR territory your own gang members will also get involved on your side, with a degree of effectiveness largely determined by your overall success at the game up until that point. This kind of thing, and it moving forward, and being used in other settings other than crime, is one of the big defenses of game evoluion, and yes it might intimidate casuals, but hey... if we catered to that crowd we'd all still be playing games on the level of the Atari 2600.
I'll also say that another area games are trying to evolve into is becoming a serious, competitive practice. People look at shooter and fighting game tournaments, and of course games like "Starcraft" and what they have become in Korea, as signs of how gaming could very well become a competitive endeavor much like sports. Of course the thing is that for this to happen gaming has to take itself seriously. You can't for example have a serious, competitive chess game, if you say give special and unbalanced advantages to one of the players to compensate for their lack of skill. You can't say tie one hand behind Michael Jordan's back to make the game fair for other players (or well, back in his prime). Yet, that is fundementally what is going on with a lot of games in order to make them approchable. You have fighting games designed so a casual player can sit down and start doing impressive seeming things right off the bat, with a lot of moves with power disproportionate to their ease of execution being put into the game intentionally. Shooting games have things like the "noob tube" to act as a crutch for new players, and so on. We see this in things like MMORPGs as well, with effort being taken to prevent the serious players from effectively locking casuals out of the competitive aspects of the game... yet if you want games to be taken seriously you can't have this. You need to focus on balance, and have everyone playing by the same rules without any deliberate imbalances intended to make them approchable.
Simply put for gaming to continue to evolve, it has to become increasingly hardcore, and be presented as something people need to work at in order to do well at. It should not be stooping down to lift people up, but constantly elevating and demanding more of the people who want to play.
While this seems to be going pretty far afield, and is reading into the comments being made by the Battlefield developers, I think I understand where they are coming from, even if they won't admit it. To some extent their comments remind me of what we saw with "Alan Wake" which was transformed from a Sandbox game into a very linear experience, and suffered from it both in terms of the game itself (although it was okay) and in the reception it received. Sad because a sandbox horror game would have been a nice step in evolution, getting away from the generes that dominate that style of game. As things stand we're left with "Deadly Premonition" and it's moments of genius as a sign of what could be done with the genere if someone was to throw the level of tech and development "Alan Wake" had behind it.
Really? I find games that "closely resemble the likes of Call of Duty" boring. Sandbox games are at least longer than 4 hours.
Like GTA, Saint's Row, Zelda, Fallout...
These guys just need someone to sit behind them and slap them on the head when they say something stupid. But then I'd suggest that for most people.
Boring games are boring, sandbox, linear, wwhatever.
Good games are good, sandbox linear whatever.
What he ought to have said is "we can't come up with a sandbox concept that isn't boring"
There are plenty of insane fun sandbox titles out there that NEVER get boring.
It just takes talent to make them...
Good games are good, sandbox linear whatever.
What he ought to have said is "we can't come up with a sandbox concept that isn't boring"
There are plenty of insane fun sandbox titles out there that NEVER get boring.
It just takes talent to make them...
I might've liked that game, but the game breaking bugs I heard about that apperently pop up more often than those in Fallout: NV broke the deal for me. Still, if this statement really does mean that Battlefield 3 will be a CoD clone, then I guess will have to forever choose between bugged up the ass or generic. I'll choose generic, because at least I can play that and it can be fun if done well.imperialreign said:
well there goes 1 pre order
thats one of the reasons we were buying battlefield 3, for the ability to explore the map and choose different ways to attack the enemy thats why we still play battlefield 2 . More like cod black ops and mordern warfare,so its going to be a pile of overpowered weapons killstreaks and over linear gameplay . shit this just gonna play some BFBC 2 until they say it was a joke
thats one of the reasons we were buying battlefield 3, for the ability to explore the map and choose different ways to attack the enemy thats why we still play battlefield 2 . More like cod black ops and mordern warfare,so its going to be a pile of overpowered weapons killstreaks and over linear gameplay . shit this just gonna play some BFBC 2 until they say it was a joke
I completely see his point... Far cry 2 for example was an unecessery sandbox shooter, which should have remained a linear campaign based shooter. I am confident this is more or less what he is referring to.
sandbox games are not 'bad' but being sandbox is not a necessity, linearity can be a good thin in some genres, especially shooters
sandbox games are not 'bad' but being sandbox is not a necessity, linearity can be a good thin in some genres, especially shooters
This is exactly how I feel, I was looking forward to this game so much after thoroughly enjoying the Battlefield 2 experience. I was looking forward to an open map combat scenario that didn't confine you like so many other FPS games (I'm looking at you COD).Khushal said:
I wonder if he realises how many pre-orders he's likely to have cost the company with that single statement alone. I know I certainly won't be getting this game on pre-order anymore, it's going to be a "wait several weeks and see if it's even worth my time" style scenario for me now, as I'm assuming it will be with many others.
I always believed the Battlefield audience was mostly made up by people who liked to get away from the small map size and narrowness of the CoD franchise. Either I'm completely and utterly wrong on this point (which from my experience I would strongly guess that I am not), or this tool has no idea of the audience that follows the Battlefield series. If the latter statement is true, then this has to be one of the worst cases of audience targeting I've seen from a large developer in quite a while. Say what you will about sequels going down hill, but at least they usualy target the correct market.
Pot thinks most kettles are black. It's the difference between a large, unfocused, open-ended game experience, and a small, narrowly-focused, repetitive game experience. Neither is fun when done poorly.Logan Westbrook said:
Sandbox games are very much like sandboxes. If you've got some cool toys in there, it's hours and hours of fun. If it's just you sitting in some sand, of course it's boring. The good sandbox games give you an environment, some toys, and a push in the right direction(s). Then they dare you to go use those tools to do thing things you want. It's like a parent putting a kid in a room full of toys and saying, "Go to town. You might start with the blocks." The bad sandbox games are more like a parent that puts the kid in a playpen with no toys and says, "Here. Entertain yourself somehow while I count your money."
Expecting a sandbox game to have a full campaign is fair. That's sort of the extended tutorial showing you how to do what you want, where to do it, and what happens when you do. After that, though? It becomes your world.
Spiderman 2 for the GameCube is still one of my absolute favorite games. The free-roaming, the brilliantly-done swinging mechanics. The missions were boring and repetitive, but just getting around was amazing. Just Cause 2 captured some of that. When done well, there are few games a sandbox mode wouldn't add a lot to.