Before halo 4 released, we often heard that they were trying to attract new players, and at GDC, it was revealed that they specifically catered to newer players. The number one reason why this is wrong is because you catered to begin with. Catering to a certain group will by nature leave another excluded, and while it is impossible to please everyone, you please less people than you could’ve when you cater to a certain group of players.
Now before you say that “just catering to competitives is wrong too”, let me say that I agree, and that what I’m advocating here is to avoid catering in general, to just make a good game. If it’s a good game gamers will play it, there is no need to try to suck them in by developing convoluted mechanics specifically for them(personal ordnance, and perks come to mind).
Now, what makes a game good, or rather what makes a first person shooter good? First we need to look at the traits that made other shooters successful.
Doom series:open levels, wad creativity, simplicity of gameplay, arsenal of weapons. Multiplayer was arena based.
Marathon series: objectives, first to incorporate a storyline into actual gameplay, same simplicity as doom, multiplayer was similar to doom.
Quake series: same as doom but with an emphasis on multiplayer this time, which was arena based.
Half life series: open and vastly more intelligent AI and level design that encouraged problem solving, evolved physics and unique weapons, simplicity of gameplay, easy map creation through source(gmod). Multiplayer expansion was arena based.
Unreal franchise: open terrain, map creation, capture the flag, arena based multiplayer is considered to be among the best.
The first thing you should’ve noticed was the common trait of simplicity. Why must a game be so complex? Why is it that we have so many games that are filled to the brim with elements and concepts. Halo 4 has added many things that over complicate the game, these being:
Perks
Personal ordnance
Global ordnance
Loose loadout system
Sprint
Flinch
Call of duty seems to have influenced the fps market into thinking that complexity is the key to making a good shooter. The reality is that no shooter has been held as high in regard after 2007s call of duty 4. The reason it was popular was because it was different, but the market assumed that by copying its complexity it would also be as highly regarded. They were wrong to think so. Games were making money yes, but games like battlefield and cod are mocked nowadays rather than praised.
Arguably, one of the most praised games ever is minecraft. It’s important to note that minecraft has a simple core. Get blocks, mine for resources, and expand. It’s a simple game that anyone can play. The thing is though everyone can play it, not everyone can build a city or a mansion. Easy to learn difficult to master was what made these games great not complexity and ease of difficulty. It seems that simplicity and challenge is what people really want out of games.
These are basic concepts that apply to everyone. Everyone likes challenge, no matter how you slice it, challenge is a good thing. Simplicity is what gets gamers to play the game.
Balance is also the third most important thing. It makes sure that the game is fair. A game can be balanced different ways but as long as a game is balanced it will be more fun than if it wasn’t, that’s why it needs to be a higher priority. This is one of the strengths of previous halo games and the main weaknesses of reach and halo 4.
TLDR:
My point here is, instead of making games with a specific mind set, we should be making games that have universal concepts in them, namely simplicity, challenge and balance. These are general traits that leave room for creativity and high quality experiences.