Deep Rock Galactic roguelike dev says innovation for innovation's sake is too expensive to survive: "We're a studio of 50 people with bills to pay"
-
Starfield was just weird. Like, I expected the load screens and all the other GameBryo/Creation jank. But that's not what made it disappointing. It was just... Boring. I couldn't get immersed in the world because nothing about it was interesting once you scratched deeper than the surface. Even the twist ending/NG+ system which is actually kind of a neat idea wasn't done well (like you might have to go through the entire, boring-ass game up to 7 times before you even see a difference).
I don't know anything about the NG+ system because I steered way clear of Starfield, but it sounds like somebody at Bethesda saw people playing Skyrim over and over and thought "How can we monetize that", hence the grind you're alluding to. They expected you to encounter it organically because of course the game was such hot shit everyone was gonna play it forever. Oops.
Call me a cynic if you want but these are the guys who invented paid cosmetics.
-
I don't know anything about the NG+ system because I steered way clear of Starfield, but it sounds like somebody at Bethesda saw people playing Skyrim over and over and thought "How can we monetize that", hence the grind you're alluding to. They expected you to encounter it organically because of course the game was such hot shit everyone was gonna play it forever. Oops.
Call me a cynic if you want but these are the guys who invented paid cosmetics.
call me a cynic
You’re a cynic. Weird request but I hope you’re happy
-
I actually was thinking about this the other day with soulslikes as I make my way through Bloodborne. This is an entire genre that isn't even new. They're Metroidvanias (or whatever you would classify the OG Castlevania as other than just "side scrolling platformer")! The only real difference is that you don't get tools as like weapons/accessories to reach new areas, you just get a boring ass key that opens a door, you open a door from only one side, or a trigger automatically opens a new path when you defeat a boss.
Is it your first playthrough of Bloodborne? If so I’m so jelly. I’d do anything to play that game for the first time again!! Don’t forget to do the dlc
-
call me a cynic
You’re a cynic. Weird request but I hope you’re happy
Ecstatic! I’m sure it will go bad somehow, though.
-
I actually was thinking about this the other day with soulslikes as I make my way through Bloodborne. This is an entire genre that isn't even new. They're Metroidvanias (or whatever you would classify the OG Castlevania as other than just "side scrolling platformer")! The only real difference is that you don't get tools as like weapons/accessories to reach new areas, you just get a boring ass key that opens a door, you open a door from only one side, or a trigger automatically opens a new path when you defeat a boss.
while metroidvania is an apt comparison souls-like games and specifically dark souls games feel a lot like classic dungeon crawlers ( but with real time combat instead of grids. Which in the case of fromsoftwares earlier games kingsfield, makes a lot of sense.
-
"It sounds weird but we try to keep our innovation as low as possible," the director explained. "We'll say 'it's this game but with that.' It takes so much time to innovate. Sometimes you find the hidden holy Grail of game design, but often indie developers sit for five years trying out stuff. We're a studio of 50 people with bills to pay. So we can't do that."
Honestly "it’s this game but with that." could be a pretty good way to innovate unless you're totally phoning it in IMO.
Metroid was created when people at Nintendo wanted to combine the skill-based platforming of Super Mario Bros with the exploration of a Zelda game. That ended up being one of the two founding games in the Castlevania genre.
System Shock was created by people who wanted to make a game with the same "emergent gameplay systems as a puzzle/playground" aspect of dungeon crawling RPGs like Ultima, but in a SciFi rather than fantasy setting. What we ended up with was something that combined fast paced shooter gameplay and a tight narrative presentation on the one hand, with letting the player make their own solutions to levels by manipulating open-ended gameplay systems on the other. This is very similar to the situation with metroid IMO, in how it tried to combine two very differnt styles of gameplay. Today we have an entire genre of games inspired by System Shock called immersive sims (though its more of a design ethos than a genre IMO).
The famous level design and exploration of Dark Souls was inspired by the 3D Zelda games, and while I don't have a source for this its hard for me to believe that the lock-on mechanics and basic idea for the movement weren't at least a little inspired by Zelda too. Or, in other words, Dark Souls is basically a 3D Zelda game but with the tone and difficulty of their earlier King's Field series.
Now, I don't mean to imply that combing two good things is a guaranteed way to get something good. Or even that, if you do hit upon a good combination, that that's the only thing you need to put into your work. The games I've just talked about are all absolute classics and obviously a lot went into that. For example, the genesis of the iconic multiplayer aspect of Fromsoft's games came about during the development of Demon's Souls, when Miyazaki was trying to drive up hill in a bad snow storm. There was a line of cars, and when one began to spin it's tires then ones behind it would intentionly push on it to help it up. This all happened without the drivers being able to talk to each other, and, seeing this, Miyazaki wondered what became of the last car in the line, but knew he would never get an answer since he would never see these people again. It was this experience that inspired the creation of phantoms.
However, what I am trying to say is that taking something you like and understanding what makes it tick, then making it work in a new context, can end up creating something that then seems wildly innovative in that context.
As an aside, both Zelda and King's Field were inspired by a dungeon crawling game called "Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord". Both Wizardry and Ultima were derived from earlier games that were basically "Dungeons and Dragons, but on a computer". Some of them were even named "DND" on the early computer systems they ran on.
DnD itself was created when people wanted to do wargames with a greater emphasis on unconventional warfare (such as spying, diplomacy/intrigue, propaganda, etc) that by necessity required roleplay. After one of these kinds of games was set in a half Conan the Barbarian half Gothic horror medieval fantasy setting with a spooky underground labyrinth beneath a town we got the trope of dungeon delving and returning with treasure to a (relatively) safe town just outside the dungeon entrance.
-
Starfield was just weird. Like, I expected the load screens and all the other GameBryo/Creation jank. But that's not what made it disappointing. It was just... Boring. I couldn't get immersed in the world because nothing about it was interesting once you scratched deeper than the surface. Even the twist ending/NG+ system which is actually kind of a neat idea wasn't done well (like you might have to go through the entire, boring-ass game up to 7 times before you even see a difference).
The draw from Skyrim and other ES games is wandering around and stumbling on cool stuff.
They both removed wandering by having you fly your ship to a planet, and removed the cool stuff by making the planets procgen.
It's good fun exploring the cities and space stations but then that's it. They designed out the entire game in favour of more procgen content.
-
"It sounds weird but we try to keep our innovation as low as possible," the director explained. "We'll say 'it's this game but with that.' It takes so much time to innovate. Sometimes you find the hidden holy Grail of game design, but often indie developers sit for five years trying out stuff. We're a studio of 50 people with bills to pay. So we can't do that."
I would pay $10 a month (ongoing, MRR) to be able to fly their home base ship to different asteroids and occasionally have the bugs invade it. I would play the fuck out of that game.
-
"It sounds weird but we try to keep our innovation as low as possible," the director explained. "We'll say 'it's this game but with that.' It takes so much time to innovate. Sometimes you find the hidden holy Grail of game design, but often indie developers sit for five years trying out stuff. We're a studio of 50 people with bills to pay. So we can't do that."
Deep Rock Galactic is owned by Embracer Group.
-
"It sounds weird but we try to keep our innovation as low as possible," the director explained. "We'll say 'it's this game but with that.' It takes so much time to innovate. Sometimes you find the hidden holy Grail of game design, but often indie developers sit for five years trying out stuff. We're a studio of 50 people with bills to pay. So we can't do that."
DRG Survivors is innovative enough for what it is. More importantly it's well-made and a fun addition to the world of DRG. Does it reinvent the genre? No, but it does some interesting things with its different challenges so it stays fresh for longer than most bullet heavens.
-
Deep Rock Galactic is owned by Embracer Group.
What's your point? What makes Embracer different than any other gaming conglomerate?
-
"It sounds weird but we try to keep our innovation as low as possible," the director explained. "We'll say 'it's this game but with that.' It takes so much time to innovate. Sometimes you find the hidden holy Grail of game design, but often indie developers sit for five years trying out stuff. We're a studio of 50 people with bills to pay. So we can't do that."
-
I asked a friend who plays it and he says its good with randoms, but great if you have a crew you regularly game with.
-
IMO, "it's this game, but with X" is innovation. It's certainly more innovative than "it's this game, again, with absolutely nothing new" like Ubisoft basically does with every sequel to every IP they handle.
And too much innovation will alienate people anyway. People want something new but at the same time want something familiar. If it’s too out there people can’t relate with it, especially before the purchase, and feel it’s too risky to spend time and money on. And for the people who do try it you still need to convince them to push through the beginning stages of the game. Since very innovative gameplay comes with a steep learning curve and not just skill wise since it breaks conventions there is also a cultural (in the gaming sense) learning curve.
-
I honestly don't know why they don't simply make those a subscription service at this point. They change nothing but the stats to try and reflect real life in most iterations. Sports games are the one type of game that because of how they already do them would be perfect for the live service bullshit, and yet, inexplicably, they are the one genre that has next to no live service games. I can literally only think of one of the FIFA games which is free 2 play and live service.
These kind of games run on a shit ton of licensing deals, from player likeness, club branding and music. Bet it is much more advantageous for the studios in these licensing deals to just create single releases. With a subscription service the IP holders will demand a deal based on playtime.
-
"It sounds weird but we try to keep our innovation as low as possible," the director explained. "We'll say 'it's this game but with that.' It takes so much time to innovate. Sometimes you find the hidden holy Grail of game design, but often indie developers sit for five years trying out stuff. We're a studio of 50 people with bills to pay. So we can't do that."
I guess I know not to buy more from then in that case. I'm tired of playing same slop from different companies that dont want to try anything new. DRG is good game but it also feels like its not living up to its fullest potential, now i know why.
-
Absolutely. I think most of us are excited for incremental evolution.
And conversely a lack of that is the chief source of my frustration with games. Bethesda is another dev that comes to mind with the loading screen debacle that was Starfield.
I honestly did not expect Starfield to have actual flyable spaceships and vehicles. That was a pleasant surprise, so Bethesda evidently has not stagnated completely. The problem is Starfield has issues with many other game elements (like loading screens, mediocre worldbuilding, etc). Also the fact that it was simply a game in a different genre than previous Bethesda games didn't help. People expected a handcrafted open world a la Fallout 4 but got a kind-of-procedurally generated sandbox.
-
I asked a friend who plays it and he says its good with randoms, but great if you have a crew you regularly game with.
It's great either way. It has a good community.
-
What's your point? What makes Embracer different than any other gaming conglomerate?
Because Embracer especially has a bad case of bag chasing and layoffs right after. If Ghost Ship downsizes, don't act surprised.
-
I guess I know not to buy more from then in that case. I'm tired of playing same slop from different companies that dont want to try anything new. DRG is good game but it also feels like its not living up to its fullest potential, now i know why.
This isn't DRG, this is DRG survivors
