Watching this console generation wind down is kind of like watching a game of musical chairs. Insomniac's sci-fi cover shooter Fuse is one of the few remaining games that hasn't found a seat yet, pegged uneasily for release between April and June. It doesn't take a genius to unravel EA's difficulty here - Fuse is an unproven IP that appears to trade (and in fairness, often does trade) on received ideas, beset by doubts about style since its inception, and launching into a market that's thirsty for new hardware. It's an extremely intelligent shooter, boasting all sorts of beguiling little eccentricities, but one suspects it'll take more than smart firefights and novel weaponry to break into the big time.
Our own traffic systems suggest there's very little interest in the game, and it's thus with some trepidation that I present to you another chat with Insomniac boss Ted Price, a terrifyingly calm man who can and will give one-word answers where the occasion calls for it. Here he is discussing the game itself - enthusiastic hands-on thoughts here - Insomniac's past and present, and where next generation hardware could take us.
How has making Fuse changed Insomniac?
It taught us a lot about multiplatform development. We developed a new engine and toolset for Fuse and that has certainly improved our workflow.
Do you think you've overcome fan misgivings about the tone, having opted for more of an Action Man style since your reveal trailer?
Yeah, I think that at first, for us, it was challenging to see some of the comments that were posted. At the same time we felt that the decisiojn we made to continue to push the game's tone was the right one, because it's exactly what we've done with all of our other games, we just haven't been as transparent about it.
It was important for us to take the characters and give them a lot more punch, and we weren't getting that with the original incarnation back in 2011. What we revealed was much more about the world and more about gameplay. When we really dug into the weapons we found that we had to change. the weapon development has driven a lot. Personally, I'm really happy about it.
Obviously, you don't have a competitive component in this game, other than the cooperative-competitive thing...
Co-petitive!
Co-petitive thing. Did you experiment with the idea of competitive modes, play those weapons against each other? Was it an interesting experience?
It was an interesting experience. Development's all about learning. When you develop a new IP, you're learning every day about what works and what doesn't. The competitive experiments we tried were cool but then we realised that it would be a fresher experience to take the skills that people are developing in campaign and apply them to a new mode.
And that was internally much more compelling for us because we didn't want players to feel that they were jumping into a completely different game rather than another mode. We wanted them to feel like they made progress, whether they were playing Echelon or the campaign. If you played Echelon today and you got drop-kicked - a lot of people have - you would have been making progress in the real game no matter what.
We want people to come away feeling like they win, no matter what. You play a few rounds of Echelon and, even if you don't win the entire battle, you go back into the campaign and you now have more experience points to apply to your character, which helps you in the campaign.
I was surprised by how messy it gets, by how unsportsmanlike the enemies are. Did you decide early on to make this a more challenging, overwhelming shooter
It all evolves. We intentionally want to force players out of covers and make sure the enemies are keeping players on their toes. In a four-player co-op game, you need to push players, because they get really good at using the weapons. The enemies have to be smart enough and challenging enough to keep the game fun for good players.
The infiltrators, for example - you probably got nailed by those guys. They keep you on your toes. You absolutely have to be aware of them and be aware of your friends because if they're taken out by infiltrators and you don't rescue them, you're out one man for the round and it makes it even tougher. We're asking you to take care of your buddies and we're rewarding you for it as well, because when you rescue your buddies you get more points.
The coinbags in Echelon remind me of Battlefield: Bad Company. I feel that's the way I would present the game to people - it's fundamentally serious, but it has a roguish, campy overtone.
You're right. Fuse is that balance between a story that has impact but doesn't take itself absolutely seriously and gameplay that's completely over the top. Weapons that are completely over the top that you've never seen in another shooter. The big bags of coins and the gold bars in Echelon reinforce that point. We want players to be in there, laughing and having fun, even though there are serious moments in the story - we want them to come away with smiles on their faces.
The present industry trend is towards service models. Multiplayer is now viewed as this endless entity that's woven into the fiction and supported by all sorts of community features. Was that ever a possiblity for Fuse?
Oh man. We have had a lot of ideas and we continue to about where to take this franchise, whether it's with the first release or subsequent games... we're trying to be flexible. I'm sorry I'm not giving you a concrete answer, but we've learned over the past few years that to succeed we need to adapt quickly - we have to be able to change and to anticipate where the market's going. Who knows what you're going to see? For now, we're focused on a spring release on PS3 and Xbox 360 and something fresh for shooter fans.
Where is the market going?
Your guess is as good as mine. A lot of people have tried to predict it over the last couple of years and nobody's going to have the right answer. The market continues to grow and split into unexpected pools of players. As group game creators at Insomniac, we feel good to be a business where possiblities seem infinite. It gives us a good chance to try things out and have fun.
Outernauts is a good example of that - it's on Kongregate now. It's a very different platform from what we were originally targeting on Facebook, and it's a very different game from what we released. That's part of what the business has become. As a developer you have to be comfortable with evolution, and changing your franchises to meet and anticipate player's expectations.
Is the key to design your game to be flexible, so you can release it on several different platforms?
Yeah, it's always going to take work. But when you've established a universe and basic gameplay style, it's much easier to modify it to address a new audience or new delivery mechanism.
Will we continue to see polarisation between so-called AAA console titles and comparatively inexpensive indie projects?
I'll make a historical reference. Seven or eight years ago, people said PC was dead. What's happened to PC? Thanks to digital distribution, Steam and other services, PC has come roaring back. I don't think it would be smart for any of us to say that the console business is going to go away, which you hear a lot in the news today.
I think there will always be players who want big AAA summer blockbuster experience, and you're going to get those experiences on consoles, which is for me as a player, exciting. At the same time, players have even more options when it comes to bite-sized experiences on mobile.
It means as a games enthusiast, I can spend even more time playing. That's great! I can tailor my playstyles to what I'm doing. If I've got a few hours at home, I can fire up my console. If I'm in line at a coffee shop, I'm updating my Clash of Clans base, or playing Candy Crush Saga. I've been playing that a ridiculous amount. It's all good from the industry's perspective as we have many more players coming in.
It's just that change is hard to swallow. It's hard for companies to deal with sometimes. We're in an industry that's changing faster than ever, and we have to accept that we're going to change too.
Source: OXM
Join Our Facebook Group For All The Latest News[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
[h=3]References[/h]
Thanks to: Rheena.com
Our own traffic systems suggest there's very little interest in the game, and it's thus with some trepidation that I present to you another chat with Insomniac boss Ted Price, a terrifyingly calm man who can and will give one-word answers where the occasion calls for it. Here he is discussing the game itself - enthusiastic hands-on thoughts here - Insomniac's past and present, and where next generation hardware could take us.
How has making Fuse changed Insomniac?
It taught us a lot about multiplatform development. We developed a new engine and toolset for Fuse and that has certainly improved our workflow.
Do you think you've overcome fan misgivings about the tone, having opted for more of an Action Man style since your reveal trailer?
Yeah, I think that at first, for us, it was challenging to see some of the comments that were posted. At the same time we felt that the decisiojn we made to continue to push the game's tone was the right one, because it's exactly what we've done with all of our other games, we just haven't been as transparent about it.
It was important for us to take the characters and give them a lot more punch, and we weren't getting that with the original incarnation back in 2011. What we revealed was much more about the world and more about gameplay. When we really dug into the weapons we found that we had to change. the weapon development has driven a lot. Personally, I'm really happy about it.
Obviously, you don't have a competitive component in this game, other than the cooperative-competitive thing...
Co-petitive!
Co-petitive thing. Did you experiment with the idea of competitive modes, play those weapons against each other? Was it an interesting experience?
It was an interesting experience. Development's all about learning. When you develop a new IP, you're learning every day about what works and what doesn't. The competitive experiments we tried were cool but then we realised that it would be a fresher experience to take the skills that people are developing in campaign and apply them to a new mode.
And that was internally much more compelling for us because we didn't want players to feel that they were jumping into a completely different game rather than another mode. We wanted them to feel like they made progress, whether they were playing Echelon or the campaign. If you played Echelon today and you got drop-kicked - a lot of people have - you would have been making progress in the real game no matter what.
We want people to come away feeling like they win, no matter what. You play a few rounds of Echelon and, even if you don't win the entire battle, you go back into the campaign and you now have more experience points to apply to your character, which helps you in the campaign.
I was surprised by how messy it gets, by how unsportsmanlike the enemies are. Did you decide early on to make this a more challenging, overwhelming shooter
It all evolves. We intentionally want to force players out of covers and make sure the enemies are keeping players on their toes. In a four-player co-op game, you need to push players, because they get really good at using the weapons. The enemies have to be smart enough and challenging enough to keep the game fun for good players.
The infiltrators, for example - you probably got nailed by those guys. They keep you on your toes. You absolutely have to be aware of them and be aware of your friends because if they're taken out by infiltrators and you don't rescue them, you're out one man for the round and it makes it even tougher. We're asking you to take care of your buddies and we're rewarding you for it as well, because when you rescue your buddies you get more points.
The coinbags in Echelon remind me of Battlefield: Bad Company. I feel that's the way I would present the game to people - it's fundamentally serious, but it has a roguish, campy overtone.
You're right. Fuse is that balance between a story that has impact but doesn't take itself absolutely seriously and gameplay that's completely over the top. Weapons that are completely over the top that you've never seen in another shooter. The big bags of coins and the gold bars in Echelon reinforce that point. We want players to be in there, laughing and having fun, even though there are serious moments in the story - we want them to come away with smiles on their faces.
The present industry trend is towards service models. Multiplayer is now viewed as this endless entity that's woven into the fiction and supported by all sorts of community features. Was that ever a possiblity for Fuse?
Oh man. We have had a lot of ideas and we continue to about where to take this franchise, whether it's with the first release or subsequent games... we're trying to be flexible. I'm sorry I'm not giving you a concrete answer, but we've learned over the past few years that to succeed we need to adapt quickly - we have to be able to change and to anticipate where the market's going. Who knows what you're going to see? For now, we're focused on a spring release on PS3 and Xbox 360 and something fresh for shooter fans.
Where is the market going?
Your guess is as good as mine. A lot of people have tried to predict it over the last couple of years and nobody's going to have the right answer. The market continues to grow and split into unexpected pools of players. As group game creators at Insomniac, we feel good to be a business where possiblities seem infinite. It gives us a good chance to try things out and have fun.
Outernauts is a good example of that - it's on Kongregate now. It's a very different platform from what we were originally targeting on Facebook, and it's a very different game from what we released. That's part of what the business has become. As a developer you have to be comfortable with evolution, and changing your franchises to meet and anticipate player's expectations.
Is the key to design your game to be flexible, so you can release it on several different platforms?
Yeah, it's always going to take work. But when you've established a universe and basic gameplay style, it's much easier to modify it to address a new audience or new delivery mechanism.
Will we continue to see polarisation between so-called AAA console titles and comparatively inexpensive indie projects?
I'll make a historical reference. Seven or eight years ago, people said PC was dead. What's happened to PC? Thanks to digital distribution, Steam and other services, PC has come roaring back. I don't think it would be smart for any of us to say that the console business is going to go away, which you hear a lot in the news today.
I think there will always be players who want big AAA summer blockbuster experience, and you're going to get those experiences on consoles, which is for me as a player, exciting. At the same time, players have even more options when it comes to bite-sized experiences on mobile.
It means as a games enthusiast, I can spend even more time playing. That's great! I can tailor my playstyles to what I'm doing. If I've got a few hours at home, I can fire up my console. If I'm in line at a coffee shop, I'm updating my Clash of Clans base, or playing Candy Crush Saga. I've been playing that a ridiculous amount. It's all good from the industry's perspective as we have many more players coming in.
It's just that change is hard to swallow. It's hard for companies to deal with sometimes. We're in an industry that's changing faster than ever, and we have to accept that we're going to change too.
Source: OXM
Join Our Facebook Group For All The Latest News[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
[h=3]References[/h]
- [SUP]^[/SUP] Source: OXM (www.oxm.co.uk)
- [SUP]^[/SUP] Join Our Facebook Group For All The Latest News (www.facebook.com)
Thanks to: Rheena.com