So it seems to me that the design decisions that are being made- particularly in terms of changes from PS1- largely follow a single pattern. In general, it seems like there are tradeoffs between meta- and strategy-level gameplay, like trying to lock a continent, and pure FPS play, that is, shooting at people. For example, low TTK and respawn times (arguably) make shooting more satisfying, because you kill people more quickly and get back in the fight more quickly, but also make long-term gains difficult to realize, and make it extremely difficult to plan coherent strategy for winning battles.
It seems the devs have largely chosen to emphasize the immediate FPS gameplay experience at the expense the larger strategy experience. Things that fall into this category include permanent footholds, rapid TTK, and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls). That's not inherently good or bad, but it seems to be a common theme in many of the most controversial changes.
I really don't intend for this to turn into a rehash of things people hate or love or to extend endless debates over TTK or footholds- there are other threads for that- but I am interested to hear if people think this accurately summarizes the design decisions being made.
|
2012-06-11, 02:09 PM
Threaded Mode