Why game developers build a game around one feature????

[andromeda23]

Why many games published recently are nothing else other than one-hit-wonders. Games which are build around one feature, are suppose to make it great and entertaining. Most cases, even that "awesome" feature is kind of "I've seen it already, boring stuff". Why not make games the other way around like Half-Life and Source engine. We've brilliant games (I know there is nothing new same ol'FPS) but is pimped with Source engine. That makes it much more entertaining. We can find multiple examples of game with build in features not games built around one idea. And that is what game industry needs.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Why many games published recently are nothing else other than one-hit-wonders. Games which are build around one feature, are suppose to make it great and entertaining. Most cases, even that "awesome" feature is kind of "I've seen it already, boring stuff". Why not make games the other way around like Half-Life and Source engine. We've brilliant games (I know there is nothing new same ol'FPS) but is pimped with Source engine. That makes it much more entertaining. We can find multiple examples of game with build in features not games built around one idea. And that is what game industry needs.

Stalker anyone? That game had many, Many features. Also is it just me or is the source engine a bit dated?

 

[Dommyboy]

A few new games seem to be spreading their wings and traversing into other gameplay methods. Like Saints Row 2 focuses on customization, cars, guns. Usual Stuff but more of it so it actually feels like your playing a new game.

 

[Squarewave]

I probably read this post at least 5 times and I can't tell if he's praising half life for using the source engine or if hes complaining about HL:Source about selling based only on it running the source engine

 

[ReepNeep]

Designed around one feature? Kinda like how half life 2 was barely more than a physics demo?

 

[AboveUp]

You could have explained yourself a bit better, since your first post is a bit vague, but I think I understand what you're implying.
Giving it some thought, I found 5 reasons why most games tend to focus on one main feature, and one only.

1. It costs more money to fully develop a more complex structure for a game.
2. They would have to create a balance between the various gameplay mechanics, which takes more time, and time is money.
3. It's risky because it might become too deep. People want simple games, not something they'll have to learn to play.
4. If any of the multiple major features resembles something from another company, you're screwed. It's easier to avoid that by sticking to what you know.
5. It's easier, faster and cheaper to create an entry to an already started franchise than to start something from scratch.

**EDIT**

Designed around one feature? Kinda like how half life 2 was barely more than a physics demo?

I have to fully agree with this post as well. Half-Life 2 is not a good example in this case.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Designed around one feature? Kinda like how half life 2 was barely more than a physics demo?

Somebody needs a smack.

Well besides the nice stuff like story, characters and stuff the gameplay is well a physics demo and they are showcasing to the world that you can seesaw..It pissed me off that we have to do it in half-life 2, And in episode 2. Its like they think we don't know they have a physics engine..

 

[pha kin su pah]

because games that try to do everything, produce an end result in that all aspects of the game aren't built correctly and make for a lack luster experience.

ie GTA4, poor cover system, poor driving system, poor targeting system, irritating everything else.

however if it tried to do everything to a professional level, it would cost too much production wise, and people would be over it for all it was worth.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

because games that try to do everything, produce an end result in that all aspects of the game aren't built correctly and make for a lack luster experience.

ie GTA4, poor cover system, poor driving system, poor targeting system, irritating everything else.

however if it tried to do everything to a professional level, it would cost too much production wise, and people would be over it for all it was worth.

I thought everyone on earth agreed that GTA IV is the second coming of jesus if he was a criminal that didn't do drugs?

 

[AboveUp]

They did, until they realized that it didn't create the water or wine it promised them.

 

[GoblinOnFire]

Red Faction: Guerilla pops to mind. A great feature,collapsing buildings and all, but absolutetly no guarantee that this will be even a decent game when it finally ships.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

They did, until they realized that it didn't create the water or wine it promised them.

Yeah its like getting drunk, Its fun and everyone will tell you its fun, Until its over and you then see its got a quite a set of downfalls..

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Red Faction: Guerilla pops to mind. A great feature,collapsing buildings and all, but absolutetly no guarantee that this will be even a decent game when it finally ships.

Well being able to demolish buildings with a sledgehammer and everything that goes in will be bustable and you can see after busting it down should instantly make be a 8 just because of how fun that is..

 

[GoblinOnFire]

Well being able to demolish buildings with a sledgehammer and everything that goes in will be bustable and you can see after busting it down should instantly make be a 8 just because of how fun that is..

I see...
How do you feel about the concept of stories in games?

 

[The Wooster]

Well being able to demolish buildings with a sledgehammer and everything that goes in will be bustable and you can see after busting it down should instantly make be a 8 just because of how fun that is..

I see...
How do you feel about the concept of stories in games?

So... like.... It'd be a talking hammer?

 

[andromeda23]

I think this is a problem there no longer games this is industry. Developers don't care about players. They care only about sales. I have nothing agaist lerning how to play game. That's way you have a turial in a game.

@pha kin su pah: In GTAIV they were at least trying to do something. Make shooting part of the game bit deeper.

And I'm not saying that HL2 is the best game ever but you have a gamplay beside of phisics. And collaping building in Red Faction, you can destroy 90% of buildings in Battlefield Bad Company and so what you can't prone and enemy standing in the front of the exploding wall have 99% chances of survival.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

I have to say that while I feel the source engine isn't dated (they update it quite a bit - releasing a whole new version for Ep2/TF2/Portal) I do see HL2 as pretty much a physics demo with a plot.

Its an epic game don't get me wrong, but most if not all the puzzles rely on the physics only. Hell there are two sections where you have nothing but physics to get through (ravenholm due to the lack of ammo, the citadel).

 

[ReepNeep]

Designed around one feature? Kinda like how half life 2 was barely more than a physics demo?

Somebody needs a smack.

Smack me all you like. For me, the only fun in the entirety of HL2 was playing with the physics engine. The gravity gun and the crane/cargo container sequence are the only memorable things about that game. Its an FPS that forgot to include either good gunfights or weapons that didn't suck goatballs. WTF?

People talk about how the game had such wonderful characters but I honestly think thats just because HL2 was the first game they played with genuinely realistic facial expressions and lip-syncing. The characters themselves were cardboard cutouts, just like they are in most games.

HL2 is one long parade of gimmicks without any solid gameplay to back it up. I love the first one because it had HL2's inventiveness as well as good gunplay and it's for-the-time fantastic level design. HL2 is just a temple built on sand.

 

[meatloaf231]

I have to say that while I feel the source engine isn't dated (they update it quite a bit - releasing a whole new version for Ep2/TF2/Portal) I do see HL2 as pretty much a physics demo with a plot.

Its an epic game don't get me wrong, but most if not all the puzzles rely on the physics only. Hell there are two sections where you have nothing but physics to get through (ravenholm due to the lack of ammo, the citadel).

Ok yeah no.

If they didn't use their physics, it would have been like Devil May Cry 4's fighting. Oh look at us, we built a great game BUT YOU DON'T GET TO USE IT GO HOME.

They used the physics so much because it was worthy of attention. Ravenholm was just after you got the gravity gun so people were itching to use it, and what better way than to smash up some zombies in a junk-filled town? After that, it was used about as much as every other gun. Also, the citadel you didn't rely on the physics as much as on the ultra-laser-doom-cannon that was the gravity gun. You never balanced a seesaw with combine elites, did you?

Not to defend HL2 that much... It has it's flaws, just like every game. Like the fact that the airboat was a terrible idea.

Ugh. Stupid airboat.