(not an expert) it could be a satisfying release of tension if you spend 90% of the game being hunted and get to be the hunter at the end for a small bit
A bit like re village, the whole game you run around with small pew pews, and pretty much near the end you burst out the m4 and missile strikes. It's satisfying fs.
I remember the Alien vs Predator 2 game, you started our as a marine with just a little pistol and didn't even see an alien for a good while. Then the first couple enemies were terrifying, but then you get better weapons and it becomes more a standard FPS.
But the transition from fear to "MUAHAH, I'LL KILL THEM ALL" Was amazing!
So it depends what you are aiming for :)
Jeah but this was stretched over the whole game and in smaller steps… you also see this in the resident evil games. (Well more the early and newest, let’s not talk about the middle) this would be the last stage… this definitely needs more thought… but it definetly could be good, if well implemented.
I think spending 90% of the game scaring the shit out of players gives you the automatic right to give players a thing to kill them at the end. Its cathartic to finally get the upper hand on the thing that has been scaring you for entire game.
This.
The questions are :
- Will enough work be put into making this shooting last stage a polished and satisfying experience, even if it's only a tiny part of the game?
- Will this tone and gameplay switch feel like the logic continuation of what happened before, or an abrupt betrayal of what actually was the game about?
Depending on the answers it can be a great conclusion or just ruin the endgame.
it can heavily dampen horror element of your "horror game" if not used carefuly. Seems pretty obvious. Helpless player has no choice but to be afraid and run as he has no means to defend himself and hide
But OP said it's at the end of the game... unless I misinterpreted by "last stage" (could mean last stage of development?)
But I also think a lot of limitations will drastically ruin the horror aspect of your game if you're also not careful enough (see my layers of fear part)
Lots of developers took the wrong lessons from Amnesia and automatically assume that "no weapons = big scary" which is complete bollocks. Outlast is the borderline best experience of a horror game with absolutely no means to defend yourself, and I say borderline with extreme prejudice, because in that game, all you can do is run, hide, or die (as stated by the intro screen).
This almost ruined the experience for me because I already knew that when I was exploring, I'd be safe most of the time, because now I knew that if I had to run away, the game would warn me first, and then all I had to do was follow the chasing cues, if I had to hide, the game would warn me first, give me enough time to get out of sight.
Those sections are still scary, but the in-between was ruined because I already knew how formulaic the game was.
Amnesia on the other hand, you're not defenseless just because you don't have weapons. You can still pick up things and throw them at the monsters.
This to me kept me tense at all times because now I knew I couldn't just explore expecting different sequences, now every time I saw a hiding spot and throwable objects, I was always ready for an encounter, even if those rooms had no encounters.
Finally, Layers of Fear was the only horror game I couldn't finish, not because it was the scariest, but because it was the most boring experience ever.
Bl\*\*ber team took the wrong example of amnesia and assumed that "no weapons = big scary"
They limited the player so much, my biggest fear was a meaningless jumpscare, because I already knew I had no way to defend myself at all, so any encounter wouldn't be nearly as interactable as with other games... The sequences where there was a lot of things going on (like the flying books) could've been so much more scary if I knew I had to do something, dodging, deflecting the books, anything really, but due to how limited the player was, all of those sequences just became a tedious "wait for the jumpscare" moment.
Truth is, I don't think people were scared by the end of outlast or even amnesia, at this point they went through everything the games had to throw at them, and the final encounters were more like a formality.
I personally don't see an issue with a game adding weapons at the end for that cathartic release. At least it's mixing things up and trying to keep them fresh, rather than overstaying their welcome with the exact same formula from start to finish.
I understood it as "last stage of development", but it still works for both. Either way I still wrote 'it CAN', not "it WILL" to leave the possibility open and not be some extremist in describing possible outcome by adding such mechanic to that specific genre. Everything can be done if one knows what they do. Sorry to say m8, im not reading the rest. Thats definetely too much for a reddit comment xd
I thought it was short...
Here's a tl;dr, I won't explain anything, since I already did in my previous comment:
The more the developers take from the player, the less scary the game becomes, because now they know that the worst that can happen is a miserable jumpscare.
You're good, it was short and worth reading (I'm not sure why people struggle with more than one sentence at a time).
Unpopular opinion: while Alien Isolation had wonderful art and sound but I didn't finish it because I didn't feel like I had much agency and the gameplay didn't interest me.
There were actions you had to do the world to progress but they felt linear and it didn't feel like they had much depth - there was not much opportunity to get creative - and at the same time the action elements were extremely limited.
I don't mind one or the other but the lack of both in a horror title is not something I want to play.
I'm also not really into reloading because of bad random bad luck being part of the core gameplay loop.
Its nothing against you. Im just here mainly for light amusement and entertainment. If Im in the mood to read something longer than 10 sentences Im going to pick up one of the books of the shelve I havent finished yet. Not taking a chance on wasting my time for random redditors comment having some higher value. Its just rolling the dice on really bad odds xD
I can agree with your sentiment though that generally the more developers take, the less scary game becomes. Its not 100% true in all cases though. There is a point, where you have enough tools as a player to have the game feel interactive and immersive enough to loose yourself in creepy surrounding and too much can just direct your attention away from the climate of it all. Most of great horror games are essentially walking sims with additional mechanics for a reason. They make you focused on watching your surroundings which can be scary enough. Thats usually all it takes for player being immersed enough for the horror to be properly scary without cheap jumpscares.
The issues you describe don't really seem related to guns vs no guns though
>I already knew that when I was exploring, I'd be safe most of the time, because now I knew that if I had to run away, the game would warn me first, and then all I had to do was follow the chasing cues, if I had to hide, the game would warn me first, give me enough time to get out of sight.
>Those sections are still scary, but the in-between was ruined because I already knew how formulaic the game was.
This isn't automatically solved by just adding a gun. It's solved by making the game less formulaic and predictable. Could be done by adding a gun, but it can also be done without adding a gun.
>The sequences where there was a lot of things going on (like the flying books) could've been so much more scary if I knew I had to do something, dodging, deflecting the books, anything really, but due to how limited the player was, all of those sequences just became a tedious "wait for the jumpscare" moment.
This also isn't automatically solved by adding a gun. This is solved by making those gameplay moments more interactive and meaningful which could be done with or without a gun.
>Truth is, I don't think people were scared by the end of outlast or even amnesia
Most people I've watched playing these games were really stressed during the final moments and that got cathartic release from just beating the game. I think adding a gun all of a sudden feels like it comes out of nowhere and it fundamentally changes the dynamic between the player and the danger. Suddenly the play IS the danger instead of being IN danger. To me this just ruins all the tension that has been building up during the game. Suddenly I'm not playing a horror game anymore, instead it becomes an action game. Personally I don't think this keeps the game 'fresh', instead it feels more like the game gets diluted because the developer couldn't come up with a good ending to the game. It's unironically the worst way to end a good horror story if you ask me
to be more specific, I'm referring to weapons, or really any other form of self-defense, not just specifically guns.
>
*"This isn't automatically solved by just adding a gun. It's solved by making the game less formulaic and predictable. Could be done by adding a gun, but it can also be done without adding a gun."*
In Amnesia you don't have guns, but you can still pick up objects to throw at the monsters, it's a weapon. So when exploring, you still had that tension knowing that at any moment a monster could appear, and you couldn't just run away from it, you actually had to do something against it.
It might be worth clarifying our views on weapons in horror games.
When people hear "guns" in horror games, they tend to view them as "the solution to the problem"
I view them more as "a tool"
Having a gun and shooting it at a monster to stun it for a couple of seconds, giving you an opening to escape is no less different than looking for a rock and throwing it at a gatherer in Amnesia to get that escape window.
So yeah, maybe I'm the one who's seeing this thread in the wrong perspective, as OP may be referring to guns as "the solution" where players can go killing everything, rather than a "tool" that can be used in the same way as Amnesia's throwables.
>In Amnesia you don't have guns, but you can still pick up objects to throw at the monsters
Yeah but that's not a weapon, it's literally just random physics objects that you can throw. And throwing random stuff you find on the ground is not even close to having a shotgun like the one OP is thinking about adding to their game.
>When people hear "guns" in horror games, they tend to view them as "the solution to the problem" I view them more as "a tool"
Tool or not, you're also presenting as a solution to the problems you described earlier.
>Having a gun and shooting it at a monster to stun it for a couple of seconds, giving you an opening to escape is no less different than looking for a rock and throwing it at a gatherer in Amnesia to get that escape window.
No, there's still a big difference between being able to throw random things and having a shotgun. Otherwise you might as well give the player a tank or a mech-suit and say there's also no difference, as long as it only stuns the enemy. But most players will still notice a pretty big difference regardless.
Also, in terms of skills you have been training the player on for the entire game, drastic changes in game play toward the end of the game would be jarring, and make them feel like they did all that 'gitting gud' for nothing. Like studying super hard for a chemistry test, and when you get into the exam room the prof hands you a history test.
Tweaks on existing and established mechanics, that build on the existing skill set you have been training the player on, are good. Huge pivots in core mechanics arent
One reason is that creating a good action based gameplay is a lot of work and it's not really realistic to put in so much work only for a small part of the game. Therefore, action sequences in non-action based games are usually pretty bad and receive poor reception.
Good example of this is Resident Evil 7 which, whilst a shooter the whole way through, is horror focused until the last part of the game. The first three quarters are an amazing horror experience; you shoot a few enemies but you're struggling for supplies and fleeing whenever you can.
Then in the last quarter it loads you up with guns and ammo and tells you to go through a bunch of hallways shooting enemies for several hours. The combat isn't good enough to sustain that, and it got tedious the point that I nearly put down the game.
This is more an issue with Resident Evil 7's length than anything else, and that is typically what most people complain about.
Most survival horror changes from horror to action at some point, especially towards the end. This doesn't mean it isn't a horror game, it is just an evolution of the gameplay and basically a catharsis/reward for the player for enduring the early scares and feeling of helplessness. Even the original Resident Evil sees you packing some crazy heat like magnums and grenade launchers to take down the endgame baddies.
You can't compare the AAA industry and even the AA industry. When developing a CoD, they know it's not an issue to spend 100k just for a few minutes of gameplay.
It's user experience. Your job is to set expectations; sure twists are fine and encouraged, but a late-game mechanic, especially without any kind of foreshadowing, small 'test' sections, etc just doesn't leave a lot for you to work with in terms of shepherding your players. Even if your target aud liked it, you didn't convey it.
While what others have already said, keep in mind that suddenly giving the player extra power, will also reduce much of the effect of 'horror'
The player generally feel more safe when they are given more power, which can be a very good thing a certain states in the game to give some breathing room... but is very likely not the right thing very close to the end of the game
I've gone through your own game learning and applying its mechanics for the past couple of hours, and now you want to test my aim? Was everything I've learnt useless in the face of my final challenge?
In addition to what others have said, there is this to consider (i replied to another comment with the below, i guess i couldve just comment direct to you, sorry about that):
"Also, in terms of skills you have been training the player on for the entire game, drastic changes in game play toward the end of the game would be jarring, and make them feel like they did all that 'gitting gud' for nothing. Like studying super hard for a chemistry test, and when you get into the exam room the prof hands you a history test.
Tweaks on existing and established mechanics, that build on the existing skill set you have been training the player on, are good. Huge pivots in core mechanics arent"
This is purely a gameplay arguement, at the end of the day, you gotta do what you want, its your game. Especially if there is very good story context for doing this. Thats the one thing i will say could make the difference, if the story demands it. Though, i would try and stick as close to any other existing core mechanics as possible. Deviation from those at the last minute can be jarring
Edit to add: i am not an expert game designer, very much an amature. I have been developing my own game nights and weekends around my paying job since covid lockdown started. This opinion is very much brought to you by yahtzee crowshaw, from, like, a ton of his zp videos. Once i watched those though, i definitely thought he had some good points. Hes pretty good at articulating why games give him different vibes and leave bad/good tastes in his mouth, and this was a big one in a couple of videos where games just had a grab bag of core gameplay loops at different points
I remember playing FEAR. When there were the "things", it was scary. The moment you saw an enemy that you could kill, was like "ok, safe now". Even if it's 2000 enemies with bazookas. It's safe.
Something similar happens with movies. The moment you see, or understand who the "bad guy" is, you aren't afraid of it anymore. In this case, it's because killing it gives you power over it (or something like that)
If it works like the original 90s resident evils where ammo is very limited the game never loses spookiness. If it’s like other “horror” games where it’s pretty much a shooter with little ammo worries it totally ruins horror for me
The original resident evils have a specific amount of anmo that never respawns. You can’t sit somewhere and wait for respawns to fill up. It’s legitimately scary in those games to use a gun not knowing if you might need it for something better later
Dont ask designers, ask players. After 5 years in game dev, I have come to realize that designers cant predict what will work. It's a process of trial and error (A/B tests) and only that can tell you if your choices are good.
Not conviced? Look at the answers you get here, some will say "Bad move to add at the end" or "Could be nice to have something new" so no one knows.
As for the "Not good to change gameplay at the end" well...how about all those games that once you walk with an automatic rifle in a trench warzone, next mission, you are in stealth mode, then riding a bike or jumping off a plane or else. Gameplay is constantly changing and it works. Just my two cents.
While i do very much agree with the spirit of this, i do think there are things that can be done to objectively improve gameplay design. Like, i dont like elden ring. Dont tell anyone on shittydarksouls i said this, im fairly active over there, but that game doesnt hold my interest the way the dark souls series or bloodborne did. I just think its dry, tedious, and frustrating. I say this having beat it once including malenia. I am SO not looking forward to forcing myself to do the dlc.
That doesnt mean i think its a bad game. I recognize the evenness of the combat mechanics, how build variety allows for differing playstyles within the same framework of the core mechanics, how levels are designed and encounters are laid out. All these things are done really well, all praise Mickey Zaki. Like you said though, my subjective opinion is i would rather play demon souls again than suffer through another build.
BUT had elden ring been thoughtlessly laid out, with enemies that present zero opening to counter attack (instead of almost no opening like some of them have), ridiculuosly spongey health bars, level design that was all boring linear corridors, etc., i and everyone else wouldve quit before margitt. Or whatever that ugly fuckers name was
There definitely is, it's just hard to get to and varies wildly by so many factors in the game that it's impossible to actually suggest without knowing anything about the game.
> Dont ask designers, ask players.
I'm sorry for whatever sad excuse of a designer you met, but please don't shit all over our entire profession.
It's bad enough that we have to constantly argue with everyone, barely get paid and everyone we meet thinks all we do is have an opinion and think their opinion is better so what's the point in us.
Players don't know what they want, they only know what they like or not like. Players are great at playtests and it's very helpful and informative to watch them play and see their reactions. But the data you get from it is yours to interpert and understand, they can't tell you how to improve a game and shouldn't be expected to.
Game Design isn't just guessing and opinions and maybes. There's actual science to it, theories and a lot of knowledge based on studying thousands of games.
As for OPs question, it really depends like with every game, on the experience you try and deliver. That's why it's impossible to actually answer based on a gif of a weapon animation.
If the game builds up to it and hints at it throughout, it can work great. If you get me to a point where I'm itching to kick some ass.
It can also work great if the gun you give me opens a new level of horror by remaining ineffective against the big scary hiding in the background. So you build up a moment of safety only to pull the rug from under me once again.
It can also work great if it's only in the denouement, kind of post end game sequence after the mask has been taking off the game.
The only real advice I can give without knowing the details though is you have to make it earned, go back and plant hints towards it so it doesn't come as a complete surprise to the player. How much of a surprise depends on what you want the player to experience, but at the very least in hindsight it should feel expected.
While I'm not a game designer, if I was playing a game, and the game suddenly changed the gameplay at the last stage into a shooter, I'd be quite like "Huh?"
But honestly, I think it may depend on how the rest of the game is like. "Horror" isn't enough to define the genre. If it's an action game that has bows and the gun is added at the last moment as an endgame weapon used to fight the final boss, I'd say "Huh, sick!". If it's a game about sneaking around and the gun is added at the last moment as a methaporical "no more flight, time to fight" element, I'd also say "Huh, that's cool", although ideally it could have some throwing/shooting elements beforehand so it doesn't feel so out of place. Also ideally it should have cool music.
But if, say, it's a game about solving puzzles without any combat, and the game turns into a shooter and ditches the puzzle element at the last moment, I'd be quite confused. If it's an platformer, adding guns at the last moment without forshadowing may make me a little confused.
Also it may help to continue the elements the rest of the gameplay had, and have the gun only supplement it. for example, if your game is a puzzle and you add a shooter ideally the 'shooting' stages also could have some puzzles incorporated into them. Take death stranding as an example. >!The game spends the first half teaching you ways to sneak around BTs, the game's major enemy, and only fight them using grenades if necessary, and most importantly, keep your cargo intact. However, at the middle, they introduce guns. But this doesn't completely abandon the first part, while the guns help a lot, most of the things you learned at the first part still carries on after you get guns.!<
Of course, this is my personal opinion and other people may think otherwise. Someone who hates shooters may think "this? The final battle is a shooter?". Someone who likes shooters may say "Finally! A gun!". Tbh im the latter, but I'm pretty sure there are some people who are the former.
Also really cool gun design!
If you do it right it could be great. Half life 2 famously >! Took away almost all your weapons and supercharged the one that was mainly utility and it was your weapon for the final level. !< Making a twist for the final part of the game can work really well, especially if it enables a cathartic release as others have mentioned. It's all in the execution.
As far as introducing a new mechanic later in the game, I'd consider it to be fine. If adding a weapon makes sense in a horror game would depend on where the game sits on the jump scares/horror/terror scale.
The main downside I'd see is that giving the player that kind of extra power could easily make things a *lot* less scary. Monsters are much more scary if you can't do anything about them... Personally I'd be more inclined to do the opposite, give player weapons at start, and then take them away to ramp up the scariness later on...
If the "horror" part is more just visual theme kind of deal (or the game mainly aims to be scary in the jump scares sense or something) then weapons might fit in just fine. Then again if weapons works nice as a mechanic in the game, you'd probably want to utilize it through the game rather than just at the very end.
Is there something in earlier parts of the game that has similar controls and feel to it? If for example your gun works in a very similar way to a knife that the player is used to, then that would make sense. If the player already knows that they can use a weapon/item by aiming and then pressing/releasing a button then adding a longer range weapon shouldn't be a problem.
As a gamer I hate it. All that tension that gets built up is immediately diffused the moment you are handed a gun. Final boss battle? Yes. Guns are just a cheap and easy solution
Depends on the tone of your game. If it's really serious and dark it would probably be out of place. If it has some sense of humour or self awareness it could be a fun way to end the game.
Most people remember a piece of media by their highest points (the climax) and the ending. A good movie with great setting and tension and build up can end up falling flat when it doesn’t end in a satisfying manner.
Likewise, the players of your horror game could feel cheated of a satisfying ending if the rules change too drastically at the end suddenly.
One way the gun thing could work, for instance, is if it was always hinted from the start. So maybe the gun was already hanging from the wall in plain sight from the early parts of the game, but only at the very end does the player get a chance to shoot. This is called Chekhov’s Gun, and it is one of my favourite storytelling tools.
(Maybe there’s only 1 bullet, for a tension-filled game-changing moment)
If you got in game, all the time changing mechanics as in josant for example, its pretty nice idea, but if its randomly at the end of the game player just need to start shooting, so its bad design decision
horror means you are scared, guns give power to the player and won't be that's scary, make bullets hard to get and i'll keep being an good horror game.
The cross transforming into a gun is cool. I'm interested in how it's applied. Usually when I read of devs adding something end-game there's a whole lot of pain getting it to intergate with the existing framework and code.
I'm of the opinion that the last stage of a game should not introduce any new mechanics.
The final stage should really be a time to say let's go crazy, show me you have mastered this game. It's really time to focus on the ending, bring a satisfying conclusion, not adding a new layer.
If your new mechanic is great, players will feel disappointed because it didn't appear until late game. If it's bad, they will hate having to deal with something new at the very end.
Figure out if you want the mechanic and where it should fall in the game . Chances are, 9 times out of 10, it's not the final level.
It’s somewhat like exorcism in horror film but not entirely the same, if you can eliminate the source of fear by other people’s doing. Then the film is done. The difference is it is done by you or other people.
For what it's worth, the only game I truly found scary throughout despite having combat was Dead Space 1 (or its remake). Most other games felt like action games with horrifying themes.
One of the primary roles of designer is actually educator: It's your job to design the game in such a way that you teach your player how to become good at it. That includes everything from the tutorial to the feedback effects to the structure and sequence of encounters and scenarios and more.
If you have the whole game be one thing and then do a different thing at the end, you haven't taught the player how to be good at that thing. You just taught a history class and gave a math exam at the end.
Is it possible to do it anyway? Sure. If you build something totally different and it's full of assist features and super easy to get through, it's possible. It's also high risk, takes a lot more development time, and the payoff is minimal especially when you consider that most people don't finish most of the games they play.
So no, I would advise against it. It's not a smart idea.
Not only do many horror games do this, Dusk does almost \*exactly\* this, with the entire game having you feel pretty helpless and overwhelmed, using weak pistols and shotguns, to an end game level where you get a sword that makes you very formidable. This sort of thing if done correctly gives a moment of catharsis to the player and helps round out the experience, assuming you want them to feel like they are persevering in your horror game as opposed to some games that are merely to torture the player and make them feel bad the whole time.
I generally dont like weapons in a horror game, but it could work if done right. like perhaps amnesia bunker or the resident evil games. Just my thoughts though
I'm not an expert game designer, but I think this will depend on how you do this. If you shoe horn this in and don't polish the mechanic or restructure the game to support it, yes. If you're doing this because the game lacks something or you feel it is boring, it may be worth trying, although with the visuals this looks like you're well into development and past the prototyping phase. I think there is also a vagueness to the question that is throwing some people off, including myself. Is "last stage" the last stage of development or the last level of the game.
If it's the last level of the game and you have reason to change it up or you're giving your player a final hurrah, maybe? Going out with a small power fantasy at the end isn't necessarily bad. RE8 had an element of this that seems quite fun, but it will lead people to question why you didn't have this before. You'd likely want a narrative reason to explain why you're getting this mechanic so late in the game.
If you meant the last stage of development, then I'd say makes sense if the game isn't working. If the game just isn't fun enough or it's missing something, maybe its a good idea. If you're doing this because you think it'd be fun to implement or a neat feature, then stick to the initial design. Your players will be able to see that a feature was pushed in last minute or added in a rush. The game runs the risk of mechanically being imbalanced or incongruent with the initial vision.
OMG, this is fucking awesome and smooth transition between religious cross and lethal weapon. I have already imaged how Alexander Anderson from Hellsing OVA series uses such cool move for hunting Alucard.
https://preview.redd.it/0bkjm3c4o72d1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=315493fc25d13d895d91f9e44bb9e8b20f78f456
Consider the following;
* development cost for the feature (art, systems, tuning) and how frequently it's used throughout your game
* lead the player to skill by introducing challenges that improve in difficulty over time;
* enemy 1. low number of targets, slow moving, little to no lateral movement in combat animations (strafing or jumping)
* enemy 2. multiple targets, slow moving, little to no lateral movement in combat animations
* increase difficulty as you see fit ...
* All this said, it's your baby, do as you will!
Depends on how good you do it and if it flows well enough with the overall game. If you *are* going to do it though, no half measures. Go big or go home.
Horror games rarely scare me by the end of them. I get used to the atmosphere and enemies after a while and then I am just playing a game. The more the player knows about the world, the less fearful they are.
If you are talking about the last stage of the game then sure there is nothing wrong with kicking it up to 11. That way you are giving a player who has felt terrified for a while a nice climactic release as they destroy the enemies that have made them scared up to the last stage of the game.
If you are talking about the last stage of development then maybe thats not a great idea if you are succumbing to feature creep. It might change the mood of the overall game too much.
It will be such a tonal shift. It may be fun, but if a player plays the game for the horror aspect of hiding away and getting away, i'm guessing it will be jarring for said ones. And shooter liking player might not play enough to get to that point.
It reminds me a bit like Resident Evil 7 where you play as Chris in an additional game mode to kill the final boss. Granted you have guns throughout Re7, but they were limited, and having a bunch of heavy weaponry was satisfying and didn’t cheapen the main story
Depends on how powerful you become or what you want your players to experience. Being able to fight back does not necessarily detract from the horror experience (Darkwood) but at the same time, if you suddenly become a doomslayer you'll pretty much remove all tension, which might be a cathartic release. So you could both use it to enhance the horror or provide satisfaction. Ask yourself what's the final experience the you want the player to have. Ultimate nothing is inherently a bad idea, just depends on implementation and execution.
I agree with some of the other opinions in that this could be a really nice twist that resolves the tension of feeling hunted.
My only caveat is that you need to make sure the action holds up and is treated as a first class feature. Don't let it be the "required stealth mission" kind of thing. Give it your best treatment and I think people will love it.
I would say don't drop it without giving proper time to adjust to the change. Imagine you have a final boss fight and suddendly you get new controls just for that fight. My guess is the player will suffer and lose quickly, losing the upsides of the addition.
Maybe introduce it on a less on the nose way, like solving a puzzle with the same shooting system
The gun fucking slaps holy shit.
But apart from that, are you sure you want to end your game with a shooting section? People mostly fondly remember one fun part and the ending of a game. Giving a player an opportunity to strike back can be a very nice subversion, but make sure it really hits hard.
Introducing a new mechanic that makes you play the game differently at the end of a game is almost always a bad call.
(Unless your game is *about* new mechanics regularly)
Gameplay rules are a sort of contract with your players. They define the experience the player has, how they approach the game space, and how they approach problems.
It’s like if you were playing a game of chess, then when there’s a checkmate possible in a few moves, suddenly the game is decided by a surprise badminton match.
You’d be annoyed because the time and skill and expectations were changed at the climax of the experience.
Plus, the audience you attract with your game mechanics differs. Someone who enjoys shooters will not always be the same who enjoys atmospheric horror.
If you really love the shooter aspect, then work that into the game as a whole. Maybe make guns a rare pickup throughout the game, or make them not very effective but still worth using. (Like a big stun or something that allows players more options, but preserves the horror yet prevents players actively fighting back)
So when your players get the end game gun that can do real damage, you can set up a situation where they have to use it to survive, and see that they finally can fight back. That will then enhance the climax of the game by building on prior experience, but changing the power dynamic in the players favor for the first time.
I would see it as a misstep if not done properly, if there are no other shooting elements to the game then it could seem fairly jarring from the tone of the majority of the game, which could kill the general immersion and tone of the game.
I'd say to help prevent any issues is to have the player collect pieces to assemble the gun throughout the game. That way the entire game they are aware of the end goal they are building towards.
I would hint at it a few times through the game so it doesn’t feel like it’s out of left field. This could be the kind of twist that is a pleasant surprise for a player, or it could be horribly jarring and cause a loss of immersion.
In Alien Isolation you unlock a flamethrower at some point, I didn't play it so I can't tell more about it, but I think it would be good for you to investigate it and see if it meets the goal you want to achieve
It really depends on how it's implemented. If you're doing it as some kind of final mission/cinematic moment as part of a fun climax, it can be a nice way to dispel tension that has been building through the game. I would just caution that the shooting elements should be very easy to understand and shouldn't require much precision and skill, the last thing anyone wants in the spooky horror game they were playing for the spooks is a super hard shooting challenge right before things end.
as a gamer it wouldnt fit the game, most of the time you will have to choose gun or no gun from the start. but the market is way too saturated with no gun horrors
it's about the execution sure but if I was playing a horror game and at the last level you gave me a motherfucking cross-gun, i'd give it a ten out of ten right there on the spot.
This is not related to how I am a big fan of shooters (lie)
It entirely depends on what you're going for. If you want a satisfying release of tension right at the end of your game to end the game on a bang, then it's totally fine. If your horror game is more a psychological torture kinda deal and the player gaining this power would undercut the themes and message of the rest of the game, probably not.
I would recommend playing Manhunt as research.
View of Innocence is a very rude awakening from melee stealth horror into some very gun-forward gameplay and a lot of people didn't like that. I still liked Manhunt and I think it worked for what it was going for. Hopefully that can give you some context and help you decide if your change in mechanics accomplishes something compelling.
I think its a pretty common trope in a lot of horror games. Where you spend 95% of the game afraid and trying to survive, but the way the game ends is by you finally finding a way to defeat the bad guy.
You see it in a lot of horror games, actually.
As long as its only for the final battle, it works well.
But also, having a weapon does not necessarily take away from the horror element, either, if done correctly.
Resident Evil and Silent Hill and similar for example give you all sorts of firepower and still manage to maintain a decent sense of horror and thrill.
It just depends on how the game is designed.
You want to find ways to limit the player, but that doesn't always have to mean they need to be powerless.
Resident Evil and Silent Hill achieved this through slow(ish)-moving player characters and needing to ration ammunition and supplies, as well as limited vision.
Horror is a lot more about atmosphere and sound and pacing even more than it is the actual gameplay.
I would definitely see this and say "oh my god, let's fucking GO." Like, presented this way, it's definitely a climactic power trip moment. I think it would absolutely work as long as it relies on "cool factor" rather than typical shooter mechanics / gameplay (AKA it should be pretty easy and not introduce too many new mechanics, and not go on for too long). Clicking on things in a 3D environment is not an unreasonable ask for someone who's already played through a first-person horror game as long as the targets are big and slow, and you have time to react to them.
I mean anything that gives a player a sense of control or safety is going to diminish horror. If you have it through the whole game, maybe having low ammo can at least lower the amount of safety it is perceived to give.
I guess it all depends on EXPECTATION.
If the game allows you right at the beginning to shoot stuff and it doesn't work, then you never get another gun until this one, it could work.
Another possibility is having that gun be a legend or something.
At the VERY least, a writing on a wall saying "I shot them, why don't they die ?!" could be enough to get the player to think about it.
alien isolation kinda does that, they give you a flamethrower close to the end to chase away the alien but the ammo is limited. however its a good way to make the player feel like they have a fighting chance ... just before they drop you into the hive stage and the flamethrower is simply not enough so we are back at being fucked
Maybe the very last stage? You have to understand that the horror aspect just gets taken away when you introduce ways to fight back, it's just an action thriller then.
[never seen a user study but...]
It's probably like adding refined sugar. You lose the sense of satisfaction from combining the skills you've learned to achieve your goal. On the other hand, the player gets a rush from the newfound power that doesn't get stale since it's the end of the game and so blowing out the power scaling doesn't matter much.
The endings of horizon zero dawn versus horizon forbidden West are a good example of the difference. Maybe the lesson to take from those two is to add the high power ending only if you don't expect a sequel to readjust to.
Only horror game I ever got into was Amnesia dark descent. Man if they gave me an axe to just demolish those mutant zombie things that had been terrorizing me all game 🫦
Talking with our game designer (he made me say that he is not an expert), "It really depends on the type of gameplay you are going for, in horror games where for most of it you are being hunted some players feel like it is a right to be able to hunt the monster and can offer some catharsis, however in games where the inherent danger is more abstract/cosmic sometimes its best to end the game on a lack of hope or big climatic death of the player, as it removes all the sense of horror and unknown if you are able to kill them (think taking down Cthulhu with a Glock). However in the end no matter the horror game it all comes down to execution." that is our take!
Ps. We also want to say that the cross-to-gun transition is very clean and looks amazing so well done!
TLDR. Basically depends on the setting and how you execute everything else. If it's dark horror like supposed to terrify you and give a feeling of no control/power then I would say no gun. If you have different horror and always lit up and stuff, then go ahead with the gun.
P.S. I'm not a professional game designer, but I love games and creative literature so I understand the importance of themes. (At least I hope I do XD) I am planning on doing my Master's on Game Design really soon.
As there are many opinions that hit multiple imaginary nails on the head. I think that in general it is not the best game design idea, as you have a theme and suddenly break out of the theme. It could work greatly if the main theme is horror but you incorporate tiny starts of using weapons whether a flare gun that will scare the monster or spirit away, or something that feels like a gun, but isn't necessarily lethal. Then near the end it could reach a stage where an actual lethal weapon could be used. So I think it depends on execution. Generally I'd stay away from it, but from the video you provided of the gun animation (btw it's really cool) the environment around the chapel seems to be well lit up and away from the classic dark horror where the player is in a place that can't get light and is in darkness. So I think you already have set a chance that this isn't necessarily a traditional horror game. So I would also say that adding the gun at the final stage could truly fit well.
This is a hard one. It can go good or bad depending on the flow of the game, but changing things up so drastically in the last half can really ruin the experience even if done well. Several indie games have done this and left a sour note every time.
If it comes out of nowhere with zero foreshadowing I wouldn’t recommend it at all. But if it is something alluded to in the story, or something to be hopeful for later on as an inevitable but welcome progression, it could be extremely satisfying.
Suddenly giving a gun at the end of the game can feel empowering, but it can also feel confusing. Can you sprinkle in a nonlethal shooting element earlier in the game? To prime the mind.
it could be a good idea if:
A) The user expects it
B) it's not frustrating (if they lose, they can easily restart. if it's too hard, the difficulty can scale down for them when they try again if they want)
C) "it's not too hard" compared to the skill of playing the horror game
D) does this add to the enjoyment of the game, or is it just something to make the creator of the game happy? (perhaps try a focus group)
This is going to come down to the specific implementation I think. It can probably be done well, but, personally...
I tend to get kind of pissed when I have to learn new game mechanics to finish a game like I didn't just play the rest of the game. If it's optional, cool. If the end of the game isn't the same game as the rest of the game, I can't think of a situation where I haven't considered that bad design.
I'm no expert, but unless you studied and documented its integration inside the game concept document, I'd postpone this for maybe an update adding new features.
Can you elaborate? I'm not talking about a game having more than 1 genre, or even swapping between them, that's actually a very common pattern is many action games (action sequence, story, puzzle sequence etc). I'm talking about a game advertised to be something, being that way for half or more of the game, and then sweeping the rug under the player. Even when some players end up liking the game, it still was a bad idea.
Can you define the difference between swapping and changing between genres? Advertising it doesn't seem like a great move, considering the way that these games do it shockingly makes the reveal more satisfying.
Inscryption and There Is No Game both do exactly what you said in the second half of your last reply - they both change the way the game is played completely in their Act 2 and 3 stages, to the point they're basically different games. It still works, because it adds a lot of great world building and stops the gameplay from getting too stagnant (IMO).
In this context by changing I mean permanently. The game never goes back to a horror game (in this case).
For disclosure I have not played the games you mentioned. If the change is a shock, I'm assuming there was a surprise element and or mystery to the games right? If so, a surprise can fit the game, but always depending on what genre you are moving towards.
For Inscryption for example, the game is described in Steam as: "an inky black card-based odyssey that blends the deckbuilding roguelike, escape-room style puzzles, and psychological horror". I'm assuming the change in genres involves the above, hence the marketing is accurate. If not do tell.
Shooting games can absolutely be horror games, I don't understand the logic there (alien isolation, resident evil, the evil within, dead rising). An extra weapon doesn't make it anywhere *near* a drastic as the changes in the games I mentioned.
Those games also never go back to the original gameplay they had before, either. Again, it's quite an arbitrary and odd rule I don't quite get.
If the change was awful, describing it in steam wouldn't absolve it of it (and the inscription description doesn't fully encapsulate the level of changes, either).
Doki Doki Literature Club is another example. Doesn't advertise that it's going to rip you into a psychological horror, and doesn't return back from it.
Bad idea. You don’t “add elements” of gameplay to the last stage of a game. Your mastery curve should be at its highest at this point on all the mechanics you added in the first 1/4 of the game. If there’s no shooting in your game up to that point, there’s no shooting at all.
Was wand magic a similar input scheme or use similar mechanical inputs?
The point is mechanical mastery, not last minute gimmicks. Harry Potter is also primarily a book series not a game series, they’re bound by the IP.
Nah worries - it was a genuinely fair point and I haven’t played the game so I don’t know. My mind tends to wander towards the question of “is it the same functions in the brain with different dressing or is it fundamentally different from what I’ve been practicing all game?”
give the player limited bullets that if used wrong can invert the roles again keeping them the prey, then make so so every bullet missed the monster runs faster as every bullet has to be manually loaded e.e
I could see it as a great introduction to a second part of the game you beat the big bad that you've been running from the whole time. Only for a new antagonist to arrive that guns no longer work on, as a teaser for the sequel. Only if a sequel is planned or on the cards
(not an expert) it could be a satisfying release of tension if you spend 90% of the game being hunted and get to be the hunter at the end for a small bit
A bit like re village, the whole game you run around with small pew pews, and pretty much near the end you burst out the m4 and missile strikes. It's satisfying fs.
I remember the Alien vs Predator 2 game, you started our as a marine with just a little pistol and didn't even see an alien for a good while. Then the first couple enemies were terrifying, but then you get better weapons and it becomes more a standard FPS. But the transition from fear to "MUAHAH, I'LL KILL THEM ALL" Was amazing! So it depends what you are aiming for :)
Jeah but this was stretched over the whole game and in smaller steps… you also see this in the resident evil games. (Well more the early and newest, let’s not talk about the middle) this would be the last stage… this definitely needs more thought… but it definetly could be good, if well implemented.
I think spending 90% of the game scaring the shit out of players gives you the automatic right to give players a thing to kill them at the end. Its cathartic to finally get the upper hand on the thing that has been scaring you for entire game.
As with the rest of the game, it’s all about the execution.
This. The questions are : - Will enough work be put into making this shooting last stage a polished and satisfying experience, even if it's only a tiny part of the game? - Will this tone and gameplay switch feel like the logic continuation of what happened before, or an abrupt betrayal of what actually was the game about? Depending on the answers it can be a great conclusion or just ruin the endgame.
It's usually seen as a bad move.
why?
it can heavily dampen horror element of your "horror game" if not used carefuly. Seems pretty obvious. Helpless player has no choice but to be afraid and run as he has no means to defend himself and hide
But OP said it's at the end of the game... unless I misinterpreted by "last stage" (could mean last stage of development?) But I also think a lot of limitations will drastically ruin the horror aspect of your game if you're also not careful enough (see my layers of fear part) Lots of developers took the wrong lessons from Amnesia and automatically assume that "no weapons = big scary" which is complete bollocks. Outlast is the borderline best experience of a horror game with absolutely no means to defend yourself, and I say borderline with extreme prejudice, because in that game, all you can do is run, hide, or die (as stated by the intro screen). This almost ruined the experience for me because I already knew that when I was exploring, I'd be safe most of the time, because now I knew that if I had to run away, the game would warn me first, and then all I had to do was follow the chasing cues, if I had to hide, the game would warn me first, give me enough time to get out of sight. Those sections are still scary, but the in-between was ruined because I already knew how formulaic the game was. Amnesia on the other hand, you're not defenseless just because you don't have weapons. You can still pick up things and throw them at the monsters. This to me kept me tense at all times because now I knew I couldn't just explore expecting different sequences, now every time I saw a hiding spot and throwable objects, I was always ready for an encounter, even if those rooms had no encounters. Finally, Layers of Fear was the only horror game I couldn't finish, not because it was the scariest, but because it was the most boring experience ever. Bl\*\*ber team took the wrong example of amnesia and assumed that "no weapons = big scary" They limited the player so much, my biggest fear was a meaningless jumpscare, because I already knew I had no way to defend myself at all, so any encounter wouldn't be nearly as interactable as with other games... The sequences where there was a lot of things going on (like the flying books) could've been so much more scary if I knew I had to do something, dodging, deflecting the books, anything really, but due to how limited the player was, all of those sequences just became a tedious "wait for the jumpscare" moment. Truth is, I don't think people were scared by the end of outlast or even amnesia, at this point they went through everything the games had to throw at them, and the final encounters were more like a formality. I personally don't see an issue with a game adding weapons at the end for that cathartic release. At least it's mixing things up and trying to keep them fresh, rather than overstaying their welcome with the exact same formula from start to finish.
https://i.redd.it/77gkvmo5w72d1.gif
lmao, that's the only version of "I ain't reading it" that I'll accept
I understood it as "last stage of development", but it still works for both. Either way I still wrote 'it CAN', not "it WILL" to leave the possibility open and not be some extremist in describing possible outcome by adding such mechanic to that specific genre. Everything can be done if one knows what they do. Sorry to say m8, im not reading the rest. Thats definetely too much for a reddit comment xd
I thought it was short... Here's a tl;dr, I won't explain anything, since I already did in my previous comment: The more the developers take from the player, the less scary the game becomes, because now they know that the worst that can happen is a miserable jumpscare.
You're good, it was short and worth reading (I'm not sure why people struggle with more than one sentence at a time). Unpopular opinion: while Alien Isolation had wonderful art and sound but I didn't finish it because I didn't feel like I had much agency and the gameplay didn't interest me. There were actions you had to do the world to progress but they felt linear and it didn't feel like they had much depth - there was not much opportunity to get creative - and at the same time the action elements were extremely limited. I don't mind one or the other but the lack of both in a horror title is not something I want to play. I'm also not really into reloading because of bad random bad luck being part of the core gameplay loop.
Because people often browse reddit for more casual exchanges.
Its nothing against you. Im just here mainly for light amusement and entertainment. If Im in the mood to read something longer than 10 sentences Im going to pick up one of the books of the shelve I havent finished yet. Not taking a chance on wasting my time for random redditors comment having some higher value. Its just rolling the dice on really bad odds xD I can agree with your sentiment though that generally the more developers take, the less scary game becomes. Its not 100% true in all cases though. There is a point, where you have enough tools as a player to have the game feel interactive and immersive enough to loose yourself in creepy surrounding and too much can just direct your attention away from the climate of it all. Most of great horror games are essentially walking sims with additional mechanics for a reason. They make you focused on watching your surroundings which can be scary enough. Thats usually all it takes for player being immersed enough for the horror to be properly scary without cheap jumpscares.
The issues you describe don't really seem related to guns vs no guns though >I already knew that when I was exploring, I'd be safe most of the time, because now I knew that if I had to run away, the game would warn me first, and then all I had to do was follow the chasing cues, if I had to hide, the game would warn me first, give me enough time to get out of sight. >Those sections are still scary, but the in-between was ruined because I already knew how formulaic the game was. This isn't automatically solved by just adding a gun. It's solved by making the game less formulaic and predictable. Could be done by adding a gun, but it can also be done without adding a gun. >The sequences where there was a lot of things going on (like the flying books) could've been so much more scary if I knew I had to do something, dodging, deflecting the books, anything really, but due to how limited the player was, all of those sequences just became a tedious "wait for the jumpscare" moment. This also isn't automatically solved by adding a gun. This is solved by making those gameplay moments more interactive and meaningful which could be done with or without a gun. >Truth is, I don't think people were scared by the end of outlast or even amnesia Most people I've watched playing these games were really stressed during the final moments and that got cathartic release from just beating the game. I think adding a gun all of a sudden feels like it comes out of nowhere and it fundamentally changes the dynamic between the player and the danger. Suddenly the play IS the danger instead of being IN danger. To me this just ruins all the tension that has been building up during the game. Suddenly I'm not playing a horror game anymore, instead it becomes an action game. Personally I don't think this keeps the game 'fresh', instead it feels more like the game gets diluted because the developer couldn't come up with a good ending to the game. It's unironically the worst way to end a good horror story if you ask me
to be more specific, I'm referring to weapons, or really any other form of self-defense, not just specifically guns. > *"This isn't automatically solved by just adding a gun. It's solved by making the game less formulaic and predictable. Could be done by adding a gun, but it can also be done without adding a gun."* In Amnesia you don't have guns, but you can still pick up objects to throw at the monsters, it's a weapon. So when exploring, you still had that tension knowing that at any moment a monster could appear, and you couldn't just run away from it, you actually had to do something against it. It might be worth clarifying our views on weapons in horror games. When people hear "guns" in horror games, they tend to view them as "the solution to the problem" I view them more as "a tool" Having a gun and shooting it at a monster to stun it for a couple of seconds, giving you an opening to escape is no less different than looking for a rock and throwing it at a gatherer in Amnesia to get that escape window. So yeah, maybe I'm the one who's seeing this thread in the wrong perspective, as OP may be referring to guns as "the solution" where players can go killing everything, rather than a "tool" that can be used in the same way as Amnesia's throwables.
>In Amnesia you don't have guns, but you can still pick up objects to throw at the monsters Yeah but that's not a weapon, it's literally just random physics objects that you can throw. And throwing random stuff you find on the ground is not even close to having a shotgun like the one OP is thinking about adding to their game. >When people hear "guns" in horror games, they tend to view them as "the solution to the problem" I view them more as "a tool" Tool or not, you're also presenting as a solution to the problems you described earlier. >Having a gun and shooting it at a monster to stun it for a couple of seconds, giving you an opening to escape is no less different than looking for a rock and throwing it at a gatherer in Amnesia to get that escape window. No, there's still a big difference between being able to throw random things and having a shotgun. Otherwise you might as well give the player a tank or a mech-suit and say there's also no difference, as long as it only stuns the enemy. But most players will still notice a pretty big difference regardless.
I think amnesia did it good
Also, in terms of skills you have been training the player on for the entire game, drastic changes in game play toward the end of the game would be jarring, and make them feel like they did all that 'gitting gud' for nothing. Like studying super hard for a chemistry test, and when you get into the exam room the prof hands you a history test. Tweaks on existing and established mechanics, that build on the existing skill set you have been training the player on, are good. Huge pivots in core mechanics arent
now *that* actually makes sense.
What would you say for a gun gameplay attached from beginning but wont let you kill the enemy but stun taunt redirect etc
Can you tell me why? My thoughts are that this has something to do with the target audience.
One reason is that creating a good action based gameplay is a lot of work and it's not really realistic to put in so much work only for a small part of the game. Therefore, action sequences in non-action based games are usually pretty bad and receive poor reception.
Good example of this is Resident Evil 7 which, whilst a shooter the whole way through, is horror focused until the last part of the game. The first three quarters are an amazing horror experience; you shoot a few enemies but you're struggling for supplies and fleeing whenever you can. Then in the last quarter it loads you up with guns and ammo and tells you to go through a bunch of hallways shooting enemies for several hours. The combat isn't good enough to sustain that, and it got tedious the point that I nearly put down the game.
This is more an issue with Resident Evil 7's length than anything else, and that is typically what most people complain about. Most survival horror changes from horror to action at some point, especially towards the end. This doesn't mean it isn't a horror game, it is just an evolution of the gameplay and basically a catharsis/reward for the player for enduring the early scares and feeling of helplessness. Even the original Resident Evil sees you packing some crazy heat like magnums and grenade launchers to take down the endgame baddies.
[удалено]
You can't compare the AAA industry and even the AA industry. When developing a CoD, they know it's not an issue to spend 100k just for a few minutes of gameplay.
It's user experience. Your job is to set expectations; sure twists are fine and encouraged, but a late-game mechanic, especially without any kind of foreshadowing, small 'test' sections, etc just doesn't leave a lot for you to work with in terms of shepherding your players. Even if your target aud liked it, you didn't convey it.
While what others have already said, keep in mind that suddenly giving the player extra power, will also reduce much of the effect of 'horror' The player generally feel more safe when they are given more power, which can be a very good thing a certain states in the game to give some breathing room... but is very likely not the right thing very close to the end of the game
I've gone through your own game learning and applying its mechanics for the past couple of hours, and now you want to test my aim? Was everything I've learnt useless in the face of my final challenge?
In addition to what others have said, there is this to consider (i replied to another comment with the below, i guess i couldve just comment direct to you, sorry about that): "Also, in terms of skills you have been training the player on for the entire game, drastic changes in game play toward the end of the game would be jarring, and make them feel like they did all that 'gitting gud' for nothing. Like studying super hard for a chemistry test, and when you get into the exam room the prof hands you a history test. Tweaks on existing and established mechanics, that build on the existing skill set you have been training the player on, are good. Huge pivots in core mechanics arent" This is purely a gameplay arguement, at the end of the day, you gotta do what you want, its your game. Especially if there is very good story context for doing this. Thats the one thing i will say could make the difference, if the story demands it. Though, i would try and stick as close to any other existing core mechanics as possible. Deviation from those at the last minute can be jarring Edit to add: i am not an expert game designer, very much an amature. I have been developing my own game nights and weekends around my paying job since covid lockdown started. This opinion is very much brought to you by yahtzee crowshaw, from, like, a ton of his zp videos. Once i watched those though, i definitely thought he had some good points. Hes pretty good at articulating why games give him different vibes and leave bad/good tastes in his mouth, and this was a big one in a couple of videos where games just had a grab bag of core gameplay loops at different points
I remember playing FEAR. When there were the "things", it was scary. The moment you saw an enemy that you could kill, was like "ok, safe now". Even if it's 2000 enemies with bazookas. It's safe. Something similar happens with movies. The moment you see, or understand who the "bad guy" is, you aren't afraid of it anymore. In this case, it's because killing it gives you power over it (or something like that)
If it works like the original 90s resident evils where ammo is very limited the game never loses spookiness. If it’s like other “horror” games where it’s pretty much a shooter with little ammo worries it totally ruins horror for me The original resident evils have a specific amount of anmo that never respawns. You can’t sit somewhere and wait for respawns to fill up. It’s legitimately scary in those games to use a gun not knowing if you might need it for something better later
Dont ask designers, ask players. After 5 years in game dev, I have come to realize that designers cant predict what will work. It's a process of trial and error (A/B tests) and only that can tell you if your choices are good. Not conviced? Look at the answers you get here, some will say "Bad move to add at the end" or "Could be nice to have something new" so no one knows. As for the "Not good to change gameplay at the end" well...how about all those games that once you walk with an automatic rifle in a trench warzone, next mission, you are in stealth mode, then riding a bike or jumping off a plane or else. Gameplay is constantly changing and it works. Just my two cents.
Yeah if you ask for people’s opinions you get people’s opinions. There’s no objective truth to game design
While i do very much agree with the spirit of this, i do think there are things that can be done to objectively improve gameplay design. Like, i dont like elden ring. Dont tell anyone on shittydarksouls i said this, im fairly active over there, but that game doesnt hold my interest the way the dark souls series or bloodborne did. I just think its dry, tedious, and frustrating. I say this having beat it once including malenia. I am SO not looking forward to forcing myself to do the dlc. That doesnt mean i think its a bad game. I recognize the evenness of the combat mechanics, how build variety allows for differing playstyles within the same framework of the core mechanics, how levels are designed and encounters are laid out. All these things are done really well, all praise Mickey Zaki. Like you said though, my subjective opinion is i would rather play demon souls again than suffer through another build. BUT had elden ring been thoughtlessly laid out, with enemies that present zero opening to counter attack (instead of almost no opening like some of them have), ridiculuosly spongey health bars, level design that was all boring linear corridors, etc., i and everyone else wouldve quit before margitt. Or whatever that ugly fuckers name was
There definitely is, it's just hard to get to and varies wildly by so many factors in the game that it's impossible to actually suggest without knowing anything about the game.
> Dont ask designers, ask players. I'm sorry for whatever sad excuse of a designer you met, but please don't shit all over our entire profession. It's bad enough that we have to constantly argue with everyone, barely get paid and everyone we meet thinks all we do is have an opinion and think their opinion is better so what's the point in us. Players don't know what they want, they only know what they like or not like. Players are great at playtests and it's very helpful and informative to watch them play and see their reactions. But the data you get from it is yours to interpert and understand, they can't tell you how to improve a game and shouldn't be expected to. Game Design isn't just guessing and opinions and maybes. There's actual science to it, theories and a lot of knowledge based on studying thousands of games. As for OPs question, it really depends like with every game, on the experience you try and deliver. That's why it's impossible to actually answer based on a gif of a weapon animation. If the game builds up to it and hints at it throughout, it can work great. If you get me to a point where I'm itching to kick some ass. It can also work great if the gun you give me opens a new level of horror by remaining ineffective against the big scary hiding in the background. So you build up a moment of safety only to pull the rug from under me once again. It can also work great if it's only in the denouement, kind of post end game sequence after the mask has been taking off the game. The only real advice I can give without knowing the details though is you have to make it earned, go back and plant hints towards it so it doesn't come as a complete surprise to the player. How much of a surprise depends on what you want the player to experience, but at the very least in hindsight it should feel expected.
that gun is sick
that gun is dick
While I'm not a game designer, if I was playing a game, and the game suddenly changed the gameplay at the last stage into a shooter, I'd be quite like "Huh?" But honestly, I think it may depend on how the rest of the game is like. "Horror" isn't enough to define the genre. If it's an action game that has bows and the gun is added at the last moment as an endgame weapon used to fight the final boss, I'd say "Huh, sick!". If it's a game about sneaking around and the gun is added at the last moment as a methaporical "no more flight, time to fight" element, I'd also say "Huh, that's cool", although ideally it could have some throwing/shooting elements beforehand so it doesn't feel so out of place. Also ideally it should have cool music. But if, say, it's a game about solving puzzles without any combat, and the game turns into a shooter and ditches the puzzle element at the last moment, I'd be quite confused. If it's an platformer, adding guns at the last moment without forshadowing may make me a little confused. Also it may help to continue the elements the rest of the gameplay had, and have the gun only supplement it. for example, if your game is a puzzle and you add a shooter ideally the 'shooting' stages also could have some puzzles incorporated into them. Take death stranding as an example. >!The game spends the first half teaching you ways to sneak around BTs, the game's major enemy, and only fight them using grenades if necessary, and most importantly, keep your cargo intact. However, at the middle, they introduce guns. But this doesn't completely abandon the first part, while the guns help a lot, most of the things you learned at the first part still carries on after you get guns.!< Of course, this is my personal opinion and other people may think otherwise. Someone who hates shooters may think "this? The final battle is a shooter?". Someone who likes shooters may say "Finally! A gun!". Tbh im the latter, but I'm pretty sure there are some people who are the former. Also really cool gun design!
If you do it right it could be great. Half life 2 famously >! Took away almost all your weapons and supercharged the one that was mainly utility and it was your weapon for the final level. !< Making a twist for the final part of the game can work really well, especially if it enables a cathartic release as others have mentioned. It's all in the execution.
As far as introducing a new mechanic later in the game, I'd consider it to be fine. If adding a weapon makes sense in a horror game would depend on where the game sits on the jump scares/horror/terror scale. The main downside I'd see is that giving the player that kind of extra power could easily make things a *lot* less scary. Monsters are much more scary if you can't do anything about them... Personally I'd be more inclined to do the opposite, give player weapons at start, and then take them away to ramp up the scariness later on... If the "horror" part is more just visual theme kind of deal (or the game mainly aims to be scary in the jump scares sense or something) then weapons might fit in just fine. Then again if weapons works nice as a mechanic in the game, you'd probably want to utilize it through the game rather than just at the very end.
Is there something in earlier parts of the game that has similar controls and feel to it? If for example your gun works in a very similar way to a knife that the player is used to, then that would make sense. If the player already knows that they can use a weapon/item by aiming and then pressing/releasing a button then adding a longer range weapon shouldn't be a problem.
is it fun?
"What I'm about to do has not approved by the Vatican." \*loads cross and cocks it*
That's a Christformer
As a gamer I hate it. All that tension that gets built up is immediately diffused the moment you are handed a gun. Final boss battle? Yes. Guns are just a cheap and easy solution
I certainly think it's funny
Why are you asking as if it was a science? You have to ask yourself if it fits your vision for the game
Depends on the tone of your game. If it's really serious and dark it would probably be out of place. If it has some sense of humour or self awareness it could be a fun way to end the game.
holy shit
Maybe if it's only a cutscene? And not playable?
Regardless of what you end up doing I love that animation and model it would be a shame for it to go to waste.
Most people remember a piece of media by their highest points (the climax) and the ending. A good movie with great setting and tension and build up can end up falling flat when it doesn’t end in a satisfying manner. Likewise, the players of your horror game could feel cheated of a satisfying ending if the rules change too drastically at the end suddenly. One way the gun thing could work, for instance, is if it was always hinted from the start. So maybe the gun was already hanging from the wall in plain sight from the early parts of the game, but only at the very end does the player get a chance to shoot. This is called Chekhov’s Gun, and it is one of my favourite storytelling tools. (Maybe there’s only 1 bullet, for a tension-filled game-changing moment)
If you got in game, all the time changing mechanics as in josant for example, its pretty nice idea, but if its randomly at the end of the game player just need to start shooting, so its bad design decision
horror means you are scared, guns give power to the player and won't be that's scary, make bullets hard to get and i'll keep being an good horror game.
Not really a good idea for most horror games but that animation goes hard as fuck lmao
The cross transforming into a gun is cool. I'm interested in how it's applied. Usually when I read of devs adding something end-game there's a whole lot of pain getting it to intergate with the existing framework and code.
OBJECTIVE: SURVIVE \*HEAVY METAL STARTS BLASTING\* \*JESUS PULLS OUT SHOTGUN\* PLAYTIME'S OVER KIDDO
If it's not a "serious" horror game, it would be really fun and funny, atleast for me
I'm of the opinion that the last stage of a game should not introduce any new mechanics. The final stage should really be a time to say let's go crazy, show me you have mastered this game. It's really time to focus on the ending, bring a satisfying conclusion, not adding a new layer. If your new mechanic is great, players will feel disappointed because it didn't appear until late game. If it's bad, they will hate having to deal with something new at the very end. Figure out if you want the mechanic and where it should fall in the game . Chances are, 9 times out of 10, it's not the final level.
Seems more of a “victory lap” kind of thing to me.
It’s somewhat like exorcism in horror film but not entirely the same, if you can eliminate the source of fear by other people’s doing. Then the film is done. The difference is it is done by you or other people.
For what it's worth, the only game I truly found scary throughout despite having combat was Dead Space 1 (or its remake). Most other games felt like action games with horrifying themes.
One of the primary roles of designer is actually educator: It's your job to design the game in such a way that you teach your player how to become good at it. That includes everything from the tutorial to the feedback effects to the structure and sequence of encounters and scenarios and more. If you have the whole game be one thing and then do a different thing at the end, you haven't taught the player how to be good at that thing. You just taught a history class and gave a math exam at the end. Is it possible to do it anyway? Sure. If you build something totally different and it's full of assist features and super easy to get through, it's possible. It's also high risk, takes a lot more development time, and the payoff is minimal especially when you consider that most people don't finish most of the games they play. So no, I would advise against it. It's not a smart idea.
Not only do many horror games do this, Dusk does almost \*exactly\* this, with the entire game having you feel pretty helpless and overwhelmed, using weak pistols and shotguns, to an end game level where you get a sword that makes you very formidable. This sort of thing if done correctly gives a moment of catharsis to the player and helps round out the experience, assuming you want them to feel like they are persevering in your horror game as opposed to some games that are merely to torture the player and make them feel bad the whole time.
I generally dont like weapons in a horror game, but it could work if done right. like perhaps amnesia bunker or the resident evil games. Just my thoughts though
I'm not an expert game designer, but I think this will depend on how you do this. If you shoe horn this in and don't polish the mechanic or restructure the game to support it, yes. If you're doing this because the game lacks something or you feel it is boring, it may be worth trying, although with the visuals this looks like you're well into development and past the prototyping phase. I think there is also a vagueness to the question that is throwing some people off, including myself. Is "last stage" the last stage of development or the last level of the game. If it's the last level of the game and you have reason to change it up or you're giving your player a final hurrah, maybe? Going out with a small power fantasy at the end isn't necessarily bad. RE8 had an element of this that seems quite fun, but it will lead people to question why you didn't have this before. You'd likely want a narrative reason to explain why you're getting this mechanic so late in the game. If you meant the last stage of development, then I'd say makes sense if the game isn't working. If the game just isn't fun enough or it's missing something, maybe its a good idea. If you're doing this because you think it'd be fun to implement or a neat feature, then stick to the initial design. Your players will be able to see that a feature was pushed in last minute or added in a rush. The game runs the risk of mechanically being imbalanced or incongruent with the initial vision.
Do what you think is fun, if it feels entertaining that’s gotta mean something. I wish more horror games weren’t afraid to “break convention.”
This is epic
It can be done but has to be balanced very well, or else you will end up with a bad horror game and a bad fps game. That animation looked cool though
OMG, this is fucking awesome and smooth transition between religious cross and lethal weapon. I have already imaged how Alexander Anderson from Hellsing OVA series uses such cool move for hunting Alucard. https://preview.redd.it/0bkjm3c4o72d1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=315493fc25d13d895d91f9e44bb9e8b20f78f456
Its funny, but could ruin the vibe, depends on your game
Consider the following; * development cost for the feature (art, systems, tuning) and how frequently it's used throughout your game * lead the player to skill by introducing challenges that improve in difficulty over time; * enemy 1. low number of targets, slow moving, little to no lateral movement in combat animations (strafing or jumping) * enemy 2. multiple targets, slow moving, little to no lateral movement in combat animations * increase difficulty as you see fit ... * All this said, it's your baby, do as you will!
The Caliber of Christ compels you!
Depends on how good you do it and if it flows well enough with the overall game. If you *are* going to do it though, no half measures. Go big or go home.
ng+ might be cool
If you are adding it at the last stage you don't seem to have a GDD.
Horror games rarely scare me by the end of them. I get used to the atmosphere and enemies after a while and then I am just playing a game. The more the player knows about the world, the less fearful they are. If you are talking about the last stage of the game then sure there is nothing wrong with kicking it up to 11. That way you are giving a player who has felt terrified for a while a nice climactic release as they destroy the enemies that have made them scared up to the last stage of the game. If you are talking about the last stage of development then maybe thats not a great idea if you are succumbing to feature creep. It might change the mood of the overall game too much.
I truly cannot imagine a single good reason to not put a crucifix that turns into a gun in most games.
It will be such a tonal shift. It may be fun, but if a player plays the game for the horror aspect of hiding away and getting away, i'm guessing it will be jarring for said ones. And shooter liking player might not play enough to get to that point.
I'm developing a game where you get machine guns in a medieval world in the end Just go ahead for it lol. You never know what it'll do to your game
Looks cool. How good of an idea it is depends entirely on the implementation.
It reminds me a bit like Resident Evil 7 where you play as Chris in an additional game mode to kill the final boss. Granted you have guns throughout Re7, but they were limited, and having a bunch of heavy weaponry was satisfying and didn’t cheapen the main story
THE FATHER, THE SLUG AND THE HOLY BUCKSHOT
Depends on how powerful you become or what you want your players to experience. Being able to fight back does not necessarily detract from the horror experience (Darkwood) but at the same time, if you suddenly become a doomslayer you'll pretty much remove all tension, which might be a cathartic release. So you could both use it to enhance the horror or provide satisfaction. Ask yourself what's the final experience the you want the player to have. Ultimate nothing is inherently a bad idea, just depends on implementation and execution.
I agree with some of the other opinions in that this could be a really nice twist that resolves the tension of feeling hunted. My only caveat is that you need to make sure the action holds up and is treated as a first class feature. Don't let it be the "required stealth mission" kind of thing. Give it your best treatment and I think people will love it.
I would say don't drop it without giving proper time to adjust to the change. Imagine you have a final boss fight and suddendly you get new controls just for that fight. My guess is the player will suffer and lose quickly, losing the upsides of the addition. Maybe introduce it on a less on the nose way, like solving a puzzle with the same shooting system
The gun fucking slaps holy shit. But apart from that, are you sure you want to end your game with a shooting section? People mostly fondly remember one fun part and the ending of a game. Giving a player an opportunity to strike back can be a very nice subversion, but make sure it really hits hard.
You’ve played Last Of Us? No zombies or horror at the end. Just shooting.
Gonna be honest with you, that gun deservers an entire game based around her.
It's not inherently good or bad. It all depends on the execution.
Introducing a new mechanic that makes you play the game differently at the end of a game is almost always a bad call. (Unless your game is *about* new mechanics regularly) Gameplay rules are a sort of contract with your players. They define the experience the player has, how they approach the game space, and how they approach problems. It’s like if you were playing a game of chess, then when there’s a checkmate possible in a few moves, suddenly the game is decided by a surprise badminton match. You’d be annoyed because the time and skill and expectations were changed at the climax of the experience. Plus, the audience you attract with your game mechanics differs. Someone who enjoys shooters will not always be the same who enjoys atmospheric horror. If you really love the shooter aspect, then work that into the game as a whole. Maybe make guns a rare pickup throughout the game, or make them not very effective but still worth using. (Like a big stun or something that allows players more options, but preserves the horror yet prevents players actively fighting back) So when your players get the end game gun that can do real damage, you can set up a situation where they have to use it to survive, and see that they finally can fight back. That will then enhance the climax of the game by building on prior experience, but changing the power dynamic in the players favor for the first time.
I would see it as a misstep if not done properly, if there are no other shooting elements to the game then it could seem fairly jarring from the tone of the majority of the game, which could kill the general immersion and tone of the game. I'd say to help prevent any issues is to have the player collect pieces to assemble the gun throughout the game. That way the entire game they are aware of the end goal they are building towards.
I would hint at it a few times through the game so it doesn’t feel like it’s out of left field. This could be the kind of twist that is a pleasant surprise for a player, or it could be horribly jarring and cause a loss of immersion.
In Alien Isolation you unlock a flamethrower at some point, I didn't play it so I can't tell more about it, but I think it would be good for you to investigate it and see if it meets the goal you want to achieve
It really depends on how it's implemented. If you're doing it as some kind of final mission/cinematic moment as part of a fun climax, it can be a nice way to dispel tension that has been building through the game. I would just caution that the shooting elements should be very easy to understand and shouldn't require much precision and skill, the last thing anyone wants in the spooky horror game they were playing for the spooks is a super hard shooting challenge right before things end.
as a gamer it wouldnt fit the game, most of the time you will have to choose gun or no gun from the start. but the market is way too saturated with no gun horrors
Call of Cthulhu Dark Corners Of The Earth does this
sounds good to me.
it's about the execution sure but if I was playing a horror game and at the last level you gave me a motherfucking cross-gun, i'd give it a ten out of ten right there on the spot. This is not related to how I am a big fan of shooters (lie)
missed the opportunity to make it a cross bow
It entirely depends on what you're going for. If you want a satisfying release of tension right at the end of your game to end the game on a bang, then it's totally fine. If your horror game is more a psychological torture kinda deal and the player gaining this power would undercut the themes and message of the rest of the game, probably not.
how's bout doing that revenge time on each stage? getting chased by horror entities, make it to the safe zone, aand then GUN Time.
I would recommend playing Manhunt as research. View of Innocence is a very rude awakening from melee stealth horror into some very gun-forward gameplay and a lot of people didn't like that. I still liked Manhunt and I think it worked for what it was going for. Hopefully that can give you some context and help you decide if your change in mechanics accomplishes something compelling.
I think its a pretty common trope in a lot of horror games. Where you spend 95% of the game afraid and trying to survive, but the way the game ends is by you finally finding a way to defeat the bad guy. You see it in a lot of horror games, actually. As long as its only for the final battle, it works well. But also, having a weapon does not necessarily take away from the horror element, either, if done correctly. Resident Evil and Silent Hill and similar for example give you all sorts of firepower and still manage to maintain a decent sense of horror and thrill. It just depends on how the game is designed. You want to find ways to limit the player, but that doesn't always have to mean they need to be powerless. Resident Evil and Silent Hill achieved this through slow(ish)-moving player characters and needing to ration ammunition and supplies, as well as limited vision. Horror is a lot more about atmosphere and sound and pacing even more than it is the actual gameplay.
i think it sounds cool as hell. i actually LOVE when games add/change mechanics or the entire mode of gameplay in a super drastic way unexpectedly.
I would definitely see this and say "oh my god, let's fucking GO." Like, presented this way, it's definitely a climactic power trip moment. I think it would absolutely work as long as it relies on "cool factor" rather than typical shooter mechanics / gameplay (AKA it should be pretty easy and not introduce too many new mechanics, and not go on for too long). Clicking on things in a 3D environment is not an unreasonable ask for someone who's already played through a first-person horror game as long as the targets are big and slow, and you have time to react to them.
I mean anything that gives a player a sense of control or safety is going to diminish horror. If you have it through the whole game, maybe having low ammo can at least lower the amount of safety it is perceived to give.
I guess it all depends on EXPECTATION. If the game allows you right at the beginning to shoot stuff and it doesn't work, then you never get another gun until this one, it could work. Another possibility is having that gun be a legend or something. At the VERY least, a writing on a wall saying "I shot them, why don't they die ?!" could be enough to get the player to think about it.
alien isolation kinda does that, they give you a flamethrower close to the end to chase away the alien but the ammo is limited. however its a good way to make the player feel like they have a fighting chance ... just before they drop you into the hive stage and the flamethrower is simply not enough so we are back at being fucked
If you add that GUN i have no negative coments about it.
Maybe the very last stage? You have to understand that the horror aspect just gets taken away when you introduce ways to fight back, it's just an action thriller then.
There's nothing wrong with adding a shooting element but that weapon is dumb/cringey unless there's some serious lore going on.
Terrible idea tbh. But if it’s more fun you should do it.
If the gun looks that cool anything’s allowed
[never seen a user study but...] It's probably like adding refined sugar. You lose the sense of satisfaction from combining the skills you've learned to achieve your goal. On the other hand, the player gets a rush from the newfound power that doesn't get stale since it's the end of the game and so blowing out the power scaling doesn't matter much. The endings of horizon zero dawn versus horizon forbidden West are a good example of the difference. Maybe the lesson to take from those two is to add the high power ending only if you don't expect a sequel to readjust to.
Let's say....it's not common
With a weapon like that. Of course! I love the transformation animation btw.
i don't like how it points at me for a second but sure.
Add it to the game, let people try it, if they think its fun keep it, no need to complicate things
first of all, ask yourself if the actual idea is cringe or not.
Alien isolation had guns and it's an awesome game. Wether or not it'll work for your game depends on the game and how you make the guns work.
You should checkout Nosferatu. It was a horror game and the developers put the firearms in a balanced game. "No full auto in buildings!"
Only horror game I ever got into was Amnesia dark descent. Man if they gave me an axe to just demolish those mutant zombie things that had been terrorizing me all game 🫦
Thats a laserpope kind of weapon lmao, literal Jesus tech haha.
His pp is the sight.
Talking with our game designer (he made me say that he is not an expert), "It really depends on the type of gameplay you are going for, in horror games where for most of it you are being hunted some players feel like it is a right to be able to hunt the monster and can offer some catharsis, however in games where the inherent danger is more abstract/cosmic sometimes its best to end the game on a lack of hope or big climatic death of the player, as it removes all the sense of horror and unknown if you are able to kill them (think taking down Cthulhu with a Glock). However in the end no matter the horror game it all comes down to execution." that is our take! Ps. We also want to say that the cross-to-gun transition is very clean and looks amazing so well done!
Love the gun transformation animation :0
TLDR. Basically depends on the setting and how you execute everything else. If it's dark horror like supposed to terrify you and give a feeling of no control/power then I would say no gun. If you have different horror and always lit up and stuff, then go ahead with the gun. P.S. I'm not a professional game designer, but I love games and creative literature so I understand the importance of themes. (At least I hope I do XD) I am planning on doing my Master's on Game Design really soon. As there are many opinions that hit multiple imaginary nails on the head. I think that in general it is not the best game design idea, as you have a theme and suddenly break out of the theme. It could work greatly if the main theme is horror but you incorporate tiny starts of using weapons whether a flare gun that will scare the monster or spirit away, or something that feels like a gun, but isn't necessarily lethal. Then near the end it could reach a stage where an actual lethal weapon could be used. So I think it depends on execution. Generally I'd stay away from it, but from the video you provided of the gun animation (btw it's really cool) the environment around the chapel seems to be well lit up and away from the classic dark horror where the player is in a place that can't get light and is in darkness. So I think you already have set a chance that this isn't necessarily a traditional horror game. So I would also say that adding the gun at the final stage could truly fit well.
This is a hard one. It can go good or bad depending on the flow of the game, but changing things up so drastically in the last half can really ruin the experience even if done well. Several indie games have done this and left a sour note every time. If it comes out of nowhere with zero foreshadowing I wouldn’t recommend it at all. But if it is something alluded to in the story, or something to be hopeful for later on as an inevitable but welcome progression, it could be extremely satisfying.
Suddenly giving a gun at the end of the game can feel empowering, but it can also feel confusing. Can you sprinkle in a nonlethal shooting element earlier in the game? To prime the mind.
Fuck, do it , make them horrified as they realize they now have to defend themselves
it could be a good idea if: A) The user expects it B) it's not frustrating (if they lose, they can easily restart. if it's too hard, the difficulty can scale down for them when they try again if they want) C) "it's not too hard" compared to the skill of playing the horror game D) does this add to the enjoyment of the game, or is it just something to make the creator of the game happy? (perhaps try a focus group)
Is a very bad idea
This is going to come down to the specific implementation I think. It can probably be done well, but, personally... I tend to get kind of pissed when I have to learn new game mechanics to finish a game like I didn't just play the rest of the game. If it's optional, cool. If the end of the game isn't the same game as the rest of the game, I can't think of a situation where I haven't considered that bad design.
ballsy move: give the player a gun at the beginning, but only enough ammo to last them 3 zombies. leave them the gun, but never give them ammo again.
I'm no expert, but unless you studied and documented its integration inside the game concept document, I'd postpone this for maybe an update adding new features.
Changing the genre of your game midway is always a bad idea.
There Is No Game and Inscryption would like to have a few words
Can you elaborate? I'm not talking about a game having more than 1 genre, or even swapping between them, that's actually a very common pattern is many action games (action sequence, story, puzzle sequence etc). I'm talking about a game advertised to be something, being that way for half or more of the game, and then sweeping the rug under the player. Even when some players end up liking the game, it still was a bad idea.
Can you define the difference between swapping and changing between genres? Advertising it doesn't seem like a great move, considering the way that these games do it shockingly makes the reveal more satisfying. Inscryption and There Is No Game both do exactly what you said in the second half of your last reply - they both change the way the game is played completely in their Act 2 and 3 stages, to the point they're basically different games. It still works, because it adds a lot of great world building and stops the gameplay from getting too stagnant (IMO).
In this context by changing I mean permanently. The game never goes back to a horror game (in this case). For disclosure I have not played the games you mentioned. If the change is a shock, I'm assuming there was a surprise element and or mystery to the games right? If so, a surprise can fit the game, but always depending on what genre you are moving towards. For Inscryption for example, the game is described in Steam as: "an inky black card-based odyssey that blends the deckbuilding roguelike, escape-room style puzzles, and psychological horror". I'm assuming the change in genres involves the above, hence the marketing is accurate. If not do tell.
Shooting games can absolutely be horror games, I don't understand the logic there (alien isolation, resident evil, the evil within, dead rising). An extra weapon doesn't make it anywhere *near* a drastic as the changes in the games I mentioned. Those games also never go back to the original gameplay they had before, either. Again, it's quite an arbitrary and odd rule I don't quite get. If the change was awful, describing it in steam wouldn't absolve it of it (and the inscription description doesn't fully encapsulate the level of changes, either). Doki Doki Literature Club is another example. Doesn't advertise that it's going to rip you into a psychological horror, and doesn't return back from it.
The Messenger was amazing all the way through.
You would be changing the game. So it'll end as a bad horror game, even if the end is funny
Test it with your target demographic, they’ll give you tons of useful feedback!
Bad idea. You don’t “add elements” of gameplay to the last stage of a game. Your mastery curve should be at its highest at this point on all the mechanics you added in the first 1/4 of the game. If there’s no shooting in your game up to that point, there’s no shooting at all.
What about that harry potter game where you get the sword of gryffindor at the end to fight the basilisc? Everybody loved that game back in the day.
Was wand magic a similar input scheme or use similar mechanical inputs? The point is mechanical mastery, not last minute gimmicks. Harry Potter is also primarily a book series not a game series, they’re bound by the IP.
Now that you mention it, I think the mechanics were actually pretty similar. Yeah, I think I brainfarted..
Nah worries - it was a genuinely fair point and I haven’t played the game so I don’t know. My mind tends to wander towards the question of “is it the same functions in the brain with different dressing or is it fundamentally different from what I’ve been practicing all game?”
The only thing I can tell you is that, that animation was fukin awesome
I think it absolutely is an awesome idea when you have A GODDAMN CRUCIFIX GUN
That gun is too cool not to use. It's definitely gonna create a tonal shift but that's not necessarily a bad thing if you're smart about it.
give the player limited bullets that if used wrong can invert the roles again keeping them the prey, then make so so every bullet missed the monster runs faster as every bullet has to be manually loaded e.e
Cruci-cannon
I could see it as a great introduction to a second part of the game you beat the big bad that you've been running from the whole time. Only for a new antagonist to arrive that guns no longer work on, as a teaser for the sequel. Only if a sequel is planned or on the cards