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

[Bulletinmybrain]

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.

Well nothing should excuse a game. Just like how the multi-player should not excuse the single player so reviewers please stop letting bungie wank off on you and take your head from out your own ass please.

 

[stevesan]

Look kid, the world's complicated, and people have various reasons for doing various things. And not all of them have time to come on forums and explain themselves to any pissed off gamer that asks, "Why did you make a shit game?"

There are numerous reasons for building games around one feature. Often, it actually works! Look at Portal, Katamari, etc. All those games were built around one novel mechanic. Other times, it doesn't work and just comes off as a gimmick. That happens. Sometimes you try something new and you can't quite pull it off correctly. When that happens, you can either cancel the game (if you're Blizzard or Valve), or you release anyway cuz you have rent to pay.

Just like escort missions, there's nothing inherently wrong with building a game around one feature. It may be tricky to get right, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try. End of story.

 

[Melaisis]

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?

Hahaha!

Anyway, the Red Faction series has always been good, so I'm not worrying about Guerilla too much. However, Bad Company follows the whole 'LOL BANG BANG BUILDINGz' concept to a T, and - aside from the fact you can blow holes in walls - there isn't much to set it apart from the pack. I like to play games for more than an hour before getting bored, and something is wrong when I opt for a session on Everyday Shooter (and that's its real name) which cost a tenner over something that cost me fifty quid. Repetition of one element just gets boring, eventually.

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?

Its bad, but not for the reasons she mentioned: I disliked GTA4 because of the character development that doesn't last for more than a few missions each and the game expects you to get passionate over nothing in the end, as well as the fact that only one supporting friendly character (despite there being a cast of hundreds) only appeared in the last mission. 'Poor cover system'? 'Bad targeting'? Were you guys playing the same game as me? If so, have you tried to play a third-person shooter before 2008 for comparison?

 

[Theo Samaritan]

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.

Valid point, however it is more than possible to have a decent physics engine and not pretty much force thee player to use it.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

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?

Hahaha!

Anyway, the Red Faction series has always been good, so I'm not worrying about Guerilla too much. However, Bad Company follows the whole 'LOL BANG BANG BUILDINGz' concept to a T, and - aside from the fact you can blow holes in walls - there isn't much to set it apart from the pack. I like to play games for more than an hour before getting bored, and something is wrong when I opt for a session on Everyday Shooter (and that's its real name) which cost a tenner over something that cost me fifty quid. Repetition of one element just gets boring, eventually.

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?

Its bad, but not for the reasons she mentioned: I disliked GTA4 because of the character development that doesn't last for more than a few missions each and the game expects you to get passionate over nothing in the end, as well as the fact that only one supporting friendly character (despite there being a cast of hundreds) only appeared in the last mission. 'Poor cover system'? 'Bad targeting'? Were you guys playing the same game as me? If so, have you tried to play a third-person shooter before 2008 for comparison?

Little Jacob and patrick were the only ones I liked in the games, Yet at the end they just kept throwing missions at us where we work for dicks.

 

[dukeh016]

I think there is a difference between "idea" and "feature." For instance, I have the idea of sticking my head in a beehive. That may be a good idea, or it may be a bad idea. Really depends on how much I like honey. I then decide I want to wear a hat when I stick my head inside a beehive. Thats a feature.

The hat, for those of you wondering, is to keep my hair nice so I can still go out after beehiving it.

Back on topic, I think the OP is right in saying that alot of games are one-feature wonders. Probably because most of the world can't tell the difference between an idea and a feature. Fracture, for example, is most certaintly the product of a feature, not an idea. On the other hand, Katamari was an idea, not a feature.

My point is thus: There are many good games based around features, but thats only because the features fail to hurt the basic idea. Hence developers can add different features and keep the same idea, all the while taking away our hard-earned bee-honey money. Only games with unique ideas will really be "great."

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I dunno, Katamari is built around a single feature and its great.

 

[Cranius]

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

I must say that Half-Life 2 was much more than just a physics demo, I personally thought it had a compelling story to it, and the actual gameplay was fantastic, especially when you add the episodes, though even alone it was still like a diamond of a game in the rough of mediocrity.

 

[Spleeni]

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.

Oh! I got to play a demo/beta of it for about an hour at San Diego Comic-Con. It IS a fun game; there's a lot of emphasis on the whole destructibility feature...even though in the demo the ground wasn't destructible.

 

[DARKLARK]

like in fracture, oo i can raise and lower the ground AND shoot a gun. obviously the developers thought it would be instant win. what it will be: mediocre third peron shooter with a tectonic gimic.