Famously Overrated Developers

[General Zod]

By the way, did Halo create the "all FPSes that aren't about World War II must be about Space Marines" mindset of recent gaming, or did it just popularize it?

Pretty sure Quake and/or Doom did it first.

[Civil War Man]

By the way, did Halo create the "all FPSes that aren't about World War II must be about Space Marines" mindset of recent gaming, or did it just popularize it?

Pretty sure Quake and/or Doom did it first.

Yeah, but it seems like "WWII, Space Marines, WWII Space Marines, or GTFO" is a slightly more recent phenomenon. Especially since the developers had to go out of their way to make the Turok remake about Space Marines.

[Ryan Thunder]

How exactly do you mean? Stupidly durable main characters?

[Nephtys]

How exactly do you mean? Stupidly durable main characters?

It's really a DOOM thing that carried on to QUAKE and lots of those other games, that all the popular FPS involve generic faceless men in space armor with space helmets wielding space guns.

There were of course plenty of other types of FPS that weren't space marines or WW2 back when. Stuff like Hexen had wizards and crusaders, System Shock had a h-h-hacker, Duke Nukem 3D had a estosterone elemental and Rise of the Triad/Blood had heaven remembers what.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh, that.

Well, don't those usually end up working out better for multiplayer? Because frankly I feel wierd playing something where you're an actual character (and everybody else is that same character) online.

[salm]

Did they ever make games that had a really "look dude, you have 10 hours to complete this game or you die. It's entirely possible you'll fuck it up after 5 hours but won't find out till the end." game mechanic?

I probably wouldn't play it if they did.

I can´t remember the name but there was this one game on the C64. Before starting you had to chose a couple of items out of 20 or so. However, if you picked the wrong combination you were not able to finish the game and you were not able to exchange the items you picked in the beginning for the correct ones. So if you picked the wrong ones in the beginning you simply had to restart the game.

It's really a DOOM thing that carried on to QUAKE and lots of those other games, that all the popular FPS involve generic faceless men in space armor with space helmets wielding space guns.

I guess that´s because space guns give you a good excuse to implement guns with slow bullets. A plasma rifle or something like that will usually have bullets the player can avoid by straving. So a Space Marine setting is a way of supporting a gameplay system that is supposed to allow the player to strave avoid bullets.
However, it´s a shame that this setting is so dominating since there are other settings that would support such gameplay as well. Hexen did that for example with magic instead of plasma.

[Nephtys]

System Shock had a time limit if you wanted to play it in hard mode. 11 hours and SHODAN destroys Earth.

[Zac Naloen]

Man I'm glad I missd out on those games, I would never have got into gaming out of pure frustration at the games I was playing.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm going with Bethesda, followed by Bungie.

Bethesda's unmodded games are unmitigated disasters. Their skill-based system in Oblivion, for example, was infuriating even when playing it. It was literally set up such that strategy guides frequently suggested that you wanted a character that was theoretically the worst and least able to learn skills that you used the most. In addition, the game is seriously unbalanced between different skills, such that pure magic-users are much harder to play at all levels than other skills. It's not like it would've taken a genius to spot some of its flaws, either (high jumping-skill characters can actually jump so high that they injure themselves while leaping on level ground and landing on their feet), and I found their quests to be unintuitive and their world to be boring. From what little I've played of Fallout, it appears to have the same flaws. I also despise their system of making people pay additional money for unbelievably stupid crap (the "horse armor" mod being perhaps the most infamous example).

Bungie is similarly overrated--the Halo series seems like a competent, but astoundingly basic FPS. When I compare it to, say, Perfect Dark--a game released for a much earlier console--it shows nothing like the imaginative weapons, level design, or even setting as PD. Compared to PC shooters it's totally derivative, and while it largely gets good marks for game balance, as far as I can tell, it has none of the more advanced features expected out of modern FPS's.

[Uraniun235]

How exactly do you mean? Stupidly durable main characters?

It's really a DOOM thing that carried on to QUAKE and lots of those other games, that all the popular FPS involve generic faceless men in space armor with space helmets wielding space guns.

That was a conscious decision for Doom. The early Doom concept was a far more story-driven game, with a lot more fiddly bits (like punching in codes or stuff like that) and even cutscenes. During development, the majority of Id decided it would play a lot better if they stripped all that out and made it a very simple, very fast run-and-gun game.

Same thing happened earlier with Wolfenstein 3D. It was originally intended to be more like the original Castle Wolfenstein game, with disguises and dragging bodies and what-have-you, but they decided it was faster and more fun as a simple run-and-gun.

And with Quake, again there were grand ideas thrown around for a Different kind of FPS, but eventually after not coming up with much for it, they just made another Space Marines game.


By Quake 3, even the Id guys were sick of SPACE MARINE IN SPACE, but by then I think John Carmack had become too conservative to deviate from that. They were going to do something different after that, but eventually Carmack turned around and said "naaaah, I'd rather do another Doom, only spookier". (yes yes 'more fulldark with flashlights and monster closets', very clever A+) By this time some fanboys who grew up on Doom were on board and they of course were hell of stoked for doing Doom 3, while the older guys just rolled their eyes.

[Bluewolf]

Bungie in my mind though I voted Valve as well.

Bungie made a generic game with a generic trashy plot and for 4 games they have not moved away from the same trashy plot or the same generic game type. The amount of Halo love is staggering. To be fair Halo is not an awful FPS but as many have said in the thread. It does little outside the box so to speak. Compare it to say, Goldeneye that tried new things (like the sniper rifle).

Also I would say Valve. Though their games could be called mods, they are solid games non the less and can be a blast to play. A lot of people hype the company up though. Valve have awful time keeping skills and when you have a joke called "Valve time" you know are dealing with a company with a bit of an off reputation in that field. Their HL2 Episodes stand testemant to hat.

[Balrog]

My vote would personally go for Blizzard. Their games aren't bad, as such, but the fanbase surrounding them gets on my tits. Same with Bungie.

I too am surprised Blizzard didn't make the list. People joke that the nation of South Korea collectively came when Starcraft 2 was announced, but the way in which it gets hyped by the media and especially its fanboys, you'd think Blizzard can do no wrong. Unless they change the formula. I still laugh when thinking about SC "pros" who argue that concepts like Multi-Building Selection and Smart-Casting = ZOMG the game plays itself!

But of the ones listed, I'd have to vote for Bioware. Most of their games I like, but the Second Coming they are not. Playing through Mass Effect a second time makes the flaws in that game really stand out; you'd think they would at least know how to design an inventory system that actually works, among its other flaws. Which doesn't get me excited to buy the sequel in the hopes that they've stopped making such stupid game design choices.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I too am surprised Blizzard didn't make the list. People joke that the nation of South Korea collectively came when Starcraft 2 was announced, but the way in which it gets hyped by the media and especially its fanboys, you'd think Blizzard can do no wrong. Unless they change the formula. I still laugh when thinking about SC "pros" who argue that concepts like Multi-Building Selection and Smart-Casting = ZOMG the game plays itself!

Blizzard also deserves a reaming for shamelessly lifting their story concepts directly from Games Workshop properties.

[Ryan Thunder]

I believe that both Starcraft and Warcraft were originally supposed to be Warhammer 40K and Fantasy games, respectively. Then GW pulled the plug at the last minute as is their usual idiotic custom.

It'd explain a lot of similarities, anyway.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I believe that both Starcraft and Warcraft were originally supposed to be Warhammer 40K and Fantasy games, respectively. Then GW pulled the plug at the last minute as is their usual idiotic custom.

It'd explain a lot of similarities, anyway.

I can't find any corroboration for this, and given that Warcraft was released in 1994 and Starcraft in 1998, your version of events doesn't really make sense. So unless you have a source for this I'm inclined to just dismiss it and explain the similarities by guessing that Blizzard pretty much plagiarized their way to success.

[Aaron]

But of the ones listed, I'd have to vote for Bioware. Most of their games I like, but the Second Coming they are not. Playing through Mass Effect a second time makes the flaws in that game really stand out; you'd think they would at least know how to design an inventory system that actually works, among its other flaws. Which doesn't get me excited to buy the sequel in the hopes that they've stopped making such stupid game design choices.

I've seen this posted a number of times but no one (that I saw anyways) ever expanded on it. What's broken about it? I mean you get swamped by a tonne of shit that is only marginally better then the level below it but I never had any trouble swapping out upgrades or anything.

[weemadando]

But of the ones listed, I'd have to vote for Bioware. Most of their games I like, but the Second Coming they are not. Playing through Mass Effect a second time makes the flaws in that game really stand out; you'd think they would at least know how to design an inventory system that actually works, among its other flaws. Which doesn't get me excited to buy the sequel in the hopes that they've stopped making such stupid game design choices.

I've seen this posted a number of times but no one (that I saw anyways) ever expanded on it. What's broken about it? I mean you get swamped by a tonne of shit that is only marginally better then the level below it but I never had any trouble swapping out upgrades or anything.

For me, it was that the system was so tedious to work through, that there were so many redundant items and that it's layout and controls were awful - you could only choose to equip an item to leave a screen, not just back out of the screen. Stuff like that.

[Aaron]

For me, it was that the system was so tedious to work through, that there were so many redundant items and that it's layout and controls were awful - you could only choose to equip an item to leave a screen, not just back out of the screen. Stuff like that.

Thats what I experienced as well, I occasionally put the wrong upgrade in thanks to fucking up with the buttons. I thought maybe it was just a 360 thing, is the setup identical on the PC?

[Balrog]

But of the ones listed, I'd have to vote for Bioware. Most of their games I like, but the Second Coming they are not. Playing through Mass Effect a second time makes the flaws in that game really stand out; you'd think they would at least know how to design an inventory system that actually works, among its other flaws. Which doesn't get me excited to buy the sequel in the hopes that they've stopped making such stupid game design choices.

I've seen this posted a number of times but no one (that I saw anyways) ever expanded on it. What's broken about it? I mean you get swamped by a tonne of shit that is only marginally better then the level below it but I never had any trouble swapping out upgrades or anything.

The biggest thing wrong with it is the lack of any stacking of items. Having to scroll through ten individual "Motorized Butt Scratchers," rather then just a single item of "Motorized Butt Scratcher x10" is simply tedious, especially if you're trying to salvage/sell them off to make room. Which is the other big flaw, an arbitrary 150 item limit. Which normally isn't a problem, except there is so much useless crap in the game, of such infinitesimal difference between the different equipment, that you can easily reach that limit in a single mission. This in turn breaks the game's economy, to where pretty much you can amass so much wealth selling off this useless crap that you just buy Spectre gear for your entire crew and you're set; getting the "You're a Rich Bastard" achievement, 2million credits IIRC, should be something you have to work at, not something that just comes naturally.

[Vympel]

The biggest thing wrong with it is the lack of any stacking of items. Having to scroll through ten individual "Motorized Butt Scratchers," rather then just a single item of "Motorized Butt Scratcher x10" is simply tedious, especially if you're trying to salvage/sell them off to make room. Which is the other big flaw, an arbitrary 150 item limit. Which normally isn't a problem, except there is so much useless crap in the game, of such infinitesimal difference between the different equipment, that you can easily reach that limit in a single mission. This in turn breaks the game's economy, to where pretty much you can amass so much wealth selling off this useless crap that you just buy Spectre gear for your entire crew and you're set; getting the "You're a Rich Bastard" achievement, 2million credits IIRC, should be something you have to work at, not something that just comes naturally.

Luckily, on the PC version you can mod out the 150 item limitation with a simple console command (IIRC) - but I never bothered, because the last thing I wanted was more worthless shit in my inventory.

[CaptHawkeye]

What's really funny is that a lot of these developers have never made any paticularly new features in their games beyond maybe a gimmick. Reading through this thread you get the impression that the only thing any of these devs have done is write and market a storyline with some bang bang action. A lot of the gameplay design in and of itself is wholly unoriginal. Bioware and Bethesda still think archaic list inventories are a good idea. Bungie still thinks linear gameplay with lots of space marine angst is a good design choice. Even though we've had that since Doom. Valve still thinks its two dimensional Source mods are a kind of artwork, much more than just code but the embodiment of modern Da Vinci...which to be fair plenty of developers think too.

Could it be that game developing is dominated by an old boys club who hold to the same aging design referances they played games to in the 90s/80s?

[Eleas]

Could it be that game developing is dominated by an old boys club who hold to the same aging design referances they played games to in the 90s/80s?

Not that so much as the financiers, while the audience at large judge a game's merits based on how many conventional gimmicks they can find in it. If not for their presence, how would they know how to even play the game?

[Uraniun235]

Bungie still thinks linear gameplay with lots of space marine angst is a good design choice. Even though we've had that since Doom.


Could it be that game developing is dominated by an old boys club who hold to the same aging design referances they played games to in the 90s/80s?

What is a "good design choice"? Because if you look at it from an entrepreneur's perspective of "what will make me the most money", Bungie made very good design choices when they decided to do "Space marine in space, variation 93"; the market clearly is happy to purchase very basic run-and-gun FPS games.

If you look at it from the game connoisseur's perspective of "what will innovate and advance the state of the art", then yeah, Bungie made a poor choice. But it's hardly realistic to expect that every game that comes out will bring a new gameplay element to the table, otherwise there'd be very, very few games out there, and not all of them good; you could argue that Quake is basically the same game as Doom, but the refinements that Quake brought were certainly welcome additions. Refinement and variation don't satisfy the compulsive need for novelty that some people have, but they're still worthwhile.

The unspoken assumption that usually underlies complaints about formulaic game development seems to be that, if it weren't for lazy/greedy developers and unsophisticated audiences, we would have many more games which bring new and exciting developments in gameplay to the market. I have to question whether that's actually the case - are there actually a plethora of great ideas that would be brought to market if it weren't for conservatives in the game market, or are we actually seeing most of the creative talent to be had in video gaming?

[Stark]

I think what Hawx is saying is that yes, Bungie is clearly an investor's dream and marketing savvy... but that they are over-rated, because they talk loads of shit. They made a generic game while at the same time convincing everyone it was revolutionary, 'evolved', and a decade of gamers bought it totally. This is again good commercial sense.

The idea that high profile games are the peak of available innovation is totally retarded. Smaller, niche or just crazy/Russian developers still make 'interesting' games (even if they're often broken or rubbish), so there is innovation out there. I'm not sure that the actual market would ever support it in a good way - the whole phenomenon of 'overrated' suggests that all things being equal, most gamers would rather play Counterstrike with Nose Hair Rendering than an interesting shooter which would require learning, perhaps invalidate the established skills or challenge the approach taken. Commercial viability and innovation or overratedness are very separate.

Dear lord I sound like I'm talking about art. I'm not, ok? Honest.

[salm]

So maybe Valves approach isn´t all that bad after all. when they bought up the Portal team they bought an innovative and intersting game and pumped dollars into it. The dollar pumping by Valve was probably a major contributor to making the game not sucky and broken.
It´s quite similar to Peter Jackson pumping money into this District 9 movie.