Tweet
These videos might explain why group co-op shooters are so popular, and so adaptable
Hmmm, you know, mew, when you actually combine western gameplay with eastern/Japanese artstyles and themes, it actually produces more flavors of entertainment in a easy to pick up and play enviornment, mew.
I guess it's kind of like how fighting games are niche compared to shooters, because they are more difficulty to play at optimal levels.
But ya the thing is, that the industry is so westerns, and the Japanese/eastern follow the western pattern so much, that they don't
really "interpret" gameplay and entertainment correctly (which is why RPGs like FFXIII-2, that tried to be like western videogame design, end up
being very lost and have an identity crisis. They don't know what gameplay to use and what gameplay to cut out, as well as content, themes ands tuff.
And like FFXIII, it tried to be too linear and misintepret how new RPGs would play, abandoning the formulas and elements that made RPGs good in the first place, mew. The same could be said for any genre. )
The thing is, western designers are also very closed minded in their designs too, catering too much to a specific audience, instead of thinking of more possibilities, more ways to play, and more options to allow players to play how they want to play.
So ya, mew, I guess the industry is like wrestling with the debate of "how developers think something should be played" vs. "how players want to play something" vs. "how many options and variety and diversity should be included in videogame design and stuff".
But back to shooters, I think their capabilities really aren't fully explored because developers are following a cookie cutter format for all categories of their design, which is why their stuff caters to few, and only modders can really produce and adapt things more to their liking.
but the things is, developers have the tools to provide more ways to play and more ways something can be experienced, but they treat design like a cereal box, too uniform and not really providing more options and ways to play things, shooters and other things too, mew.
That's why I think shooters may receive a lot of hate (which is reasonable), but at the sametime, they are some of the most played genres, because the
gameplay and accessibility is there, but the industry is really limited its flavors and not really making all the right choices and not providing choices beyond
the default choices to make them more diversified, flexible and more options to play them, mew.
Even the smallest options and features can turn a videogame into a different videogame that may be more to people's liking.
Another example is Nintendo and NSMB, mew. Different genre but it still has that very strict, closed minded, and limiting design that prevents it from being played in more ways how people want to play them (one of the examples being the requirement of the type of controllers for using co-op play. and not allowing players to use more characters from the series. )
So ya, mew, what do you think about things and how companies really are just like making party kits that are so stiff and strict how things are played and customized, mew? It shouldn't take a mod community to adapt things more to their liking.
And the issue extends to how developers cut content, then bring back that content in new versions and stuff. Developers are too busy copying the most popular, which is also restrictive in how things are played, and the audiences they are catering to. Not to confuse the subject, this is a combination about shooters, and also the industry as a whole how they are capable of so much yet they narrow their scope too much to the point where they still aren't allowing themselves and the consumers to play their products in more ways and allow more possibilities.
THis is not to be confused with using copyright characters in other games, this is more about not only diversity of playable protagonists, but also the rules and ways things are played (such as option between 3rd person view and 1st person view as minor example).
And it's not like developers are incapable of providing more options, more diversity and more ways to play, but it's like how a food place might say "okay you can buy this food, but THIS is the only way you're going to eat it. And THIS is the only way you can treat it."
This also holds true to developers that are so stuck on tradition, that they don't look beyond those boundaries, they don't bother to take things further and establish a higher standard of options, flexibility and ways to play their products.
Another example is how developers are trying to merge difficulty levels (realism vs. arcade) instead of allowing players the option to go more realism without needing to carry the arcade rule elements (and vice versa).
A basic example is how Tomb Raider, despite having some survival elements, is going to have regenerating health, which simulator/realism fans don't want, and there might not be option to switch it off. or Oblivion and Skyrim, the compass HUD can't be turned off on consoles.
TLDR: The industry is being too uniform and restricting with their designs, content, target audiences, and options.
I guess it's kind of like how fighting games are niche compared to shooters, because they are more difficulty to play at optimal levels.
But ya the thing is, that the industry is so westerns, and the Japanese/eastern follow the western pattern so much, that they don't
really "interpret" gameplay and entertainment correctly (which is why RPGs like FFXIII-2, that tried to be like western videogame design, end up
being very lost and have an identity crisis. They don't know what gameplay to use and what gameplay to cut out, as well as content, themes ands tuff.
And like FFXIII, it tried to be too linear and misintepret how new RPGs would play, abandoning the formulas and elements that made RPGs good in the first place, mew. The same could be said for any genre. )
The thing is, western designers are also very closed minded in their designs too, catering too much to a specific audience, instead of thinking of more possibilities, more ways to play, and more options to allow players to play how they want to play.
So ya, mew, I guess the industry is like wrestling with the debate of "how developers think something should be played" vs. "how players want to play something" vs. "how many options and variety and diversity should be included in videogame design and stuff".
But back to shooters, I think their capabilities really aren't fully explored because developers are following a cookie cutter format for all categories of their design, which is why their stuff caters to few, and only modders can really produce and adapt things more to their liking.
but the things is, developers have the tools to provide more ways to play and more ways something can be experienced, but they treat design like a cereal box, too uniform and not really providing more options and ways to play things, shooters and other things too, mew.
That's why I think shooters may receive a lot of hate (which is reasonable), but at the sametime, they are some of the most played genres, because the
gameplay and accessibility is there, but the industry is really limited its flavors and not really making all the right choices and not providing choices beyond
the default choices to make them more diversified, flexible and more options to play them, mew.
Even the smallest options and features can turn a videogame into a different videogame that may be more to people's liking.
Another example is Nintendo and NSMB, mew. Different genre but it still has that very strict, closed minded, and limiting design that prevents it from being played in more ways how people want to play them (one of the examples being the requirement of the type of controllers for using co-op play. and not allowing players to use more characters from the series. )
So ya, mew, what do you think about things and how companies really are just like making party kits that are so stiff and strict how things are played and customized, mew? It shouldn't take a mod community to adapt things more to their liking.
And the issue extends to how developers cut content, then bring back that content in new versions and stuff. Developers are too busy copying the most popular, which is also restrictive in how things are played, and the audiences they are catering to. Not to confuse the subject, this is a combination about shooters, and also the industry as a whole how they are capable of so much yet they narrow their scope too much to the point where they still aren't allowing themselves and the consumers to play their products in more ways and allow more possibilities.
THis is not to be confused with using copyright characters in other games, this is more about not only diversity of playable protagonists, but also the rules and ways things are played (such as option between 3rd person view and 1st person view as minor example).
And it's not like developers are incapable of providing more options, more diversity and more ways to play, but it's like how a food place might say "okay you can buy this food, but THIS is the only way you're going to eat it. And THIS is the only way you can treat it."
This also holds true to developers that are so stuck on tradition, that they don't look beyond those boundaries, they don't bother to take things further and establish a higher standard of options, flexibility and ways to play their products.
Another example is how developers are trying to merge difficulty levels (realism vs. arcade) instead of allowing players the option to go more realism without needing to carry the arcade rule elements (and vice versa).
A basic example is how Tomb Raider, despite having some survival elements, is going to have regenerating health, which simulator/realism fans don't want, and there might not be option to switch it off. or Oblivion and Skyrim, the compass HUD can't be turned off on consoles.
TLDR: The industry is being too uniform and restricting with their designs, content, target audiences, and options.
Comment