For this week’s Dissecting Design we’re taking a look back at Prototype. An interesting open-world-styled game that came out at the end of the decade, the game had all the building blocks in place to be an amazing franchise, but it did not work out for it and the developers.
One of the oldest design issues that have plagued RPG-based design has been the “hoarder syndrome,” where players will refuse to use life saving items and instead hoard them for some time in the future. At its worst, hoarder syndrome can make a game worse to play due to the player not using every option open to them.
However, the simple solution of giving the player more may be counter-intuitive to the design or cumbersome depending on the implementation. There is a solution to this problem, but it requires some advanced thinking.
During a recent live cast, we got on the discussion of the company culture in the Game Industry. Just because studio names like Naughty Dog, Blizzard, Bungie, and more are still around, doesn’t mean that they’re the same studio when they were creating their hits. People go on to new jobs or are fired, but no matter the case, the studio changes.
And this creates an interesting and challenging topic to talk about: Just who is responsible for the success of a video game?
For this week’s Dissecting Design, I took a look at the monetization model of South Park Phone Destroyer and how it encapsulate all the best/worst aspects of monetized game design.