- Joined
- Jul 14, 2024
the 2016 doom game essentially does this and nobody had the balls to call it bad for doing it, because the game had a killer soundtrack and wasn't complete dogshit. But, brass tacks, the game literally has you collect upgrade points that forces you to go into an upgrade menu and ask you if you want the shotgun's alternate fire to do 40% extra bullet damage or if you want it to be a grenade launcherWhen the MOUSE devs made the shotgun in MOUSE, they went off of "The shotgun does a lot of damage at close meaning it can do a 2.15653424652 multiplier at the closest range and if you're too far away it'll do 0.55323232% instead. This is to better balance the shotguns utility as to prevent the player from just sniping enemies from afar with the shotgun because that would ruin the overall balance of the weaponry in his possession and the player would complain that there's no reason to use anything else. We've also added an upgrade system for the shotgun meaning they can do 6% the damage at max, but this is so that the player is better scaled with our scaled up enemies because without a system implemented to ensure the player stays at an even playing field with his adversaries, he'll complain that he feels overpowered, so we've better balanced the weaponry so that's not the case and the player can stay relatively even with his enemies and keep the game a challenge."
i think that's just astoundingly bad game design. people lampshade it as "giving the player choice" but like home boy that allows you to hand-wave away any bad design choice, it's flat out not taking responsibility for the game as a developer lol
Last edited:
