Can we revisit some old design decisions that seem to have been overlooked during new design decisions?

2b02f09dda89cfbef21b7bc3eea90fc4 1024x576 - Can we revisit some old design decisions that seem to have been overlooked during new design decisions?

I've noticed a bit of a recurring theme where the game has a previously existing system that seems to be designed with a certain kind of balance in mind by whoever made it at the time. And then at a later time, a new system will be added that requires some change to the old system, but whoever is working on the new system appears to be different and acts tone-deaf towards the logic that went behind the old system, and loses the inherent balance and good design that went into that system.

Some examples:

  • Energy cell weapons with innate element. The original tradeoff here is clear: the weapons use a more expensive kind of ammo. In return, they get a "free" element in addition to a full set of existing perks. But now the recombobulator comes in. These weapons are now changed to have a fixed element. This decision misses the entire point of what the element was all about. The "free" element was supposed to be a pro of the weapon. A fixed element is a con to its flexibility. So now they cost a more expensive ammo, in return for having a further disadvantage in perks. It really seems like this decision was done by a different person that didn't really look too deeply into what the previous person was thinking. If your new system requires the gun to have an elemental perk slot, then why not just let the gun have 2 elements, one fixed, one reperkable? The code clearly works with that, since there were guns that did this previously, and that benefit is the payoff for using more expensive energy ammo.

  • Event weapons designed to have a unique perk, but after being updated into the recombobulator system just have commonly available perks and are locked into them. These event weapons originally did something that normal weapons couldn't, and that was what made them unique. Frostbite, Snowball, etc are some examples. Now, they're just an already existing weapon locked into a specific perk…

  • Phase scout's literal whole selling point as a mythic was to have infinite sprint. The rest of her perk-set is really lackluster, all in exchange to have this one effect (and even with it, she was already considered low-tier). Then infinite sprint is added to everybody. You'd expect the perk to be replaced with something else equally significant and class-defining, but instead this keystone perk is just replaced with any old random generic phase shift perk. Again, this seems to be another design choice made without really deeply understanding the keystone importance of the perk that was being replaced.

There may be a few more that escape me at the moment; I'm sure others can chime in.

Original link

© Post "Can we revisit some old design decisions that seem to have been overlooked during new design decisions?" for game Fortnite.

Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020

2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.

Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]

2020 has a ton to look forward the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.

You Might Also Like