By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
the_dengle on 03 June 2015
Edit Thread
Mummelmann said:

Can't speak for anyone else, but this is what I take issue with:

"First, we put a lot of effort into every inch of the online stages, so by playing them over and over again users can get a better feel for the terrain, giving the gameplay more breadth and depth. The characteristics of the weapons and the strategies for using them vary with each weapon, and of course these will vary depending on the stage you use them in and even what combination of equipment your teammates and opponents are using."

And then the reason for leaving out voice chat:

"We think there are two reasons for wanting to use it: to play strategically, and to know what you opponent is feeling. We designed the game so that it's still possible to play strategically, while also giving due consideration so that there is no extreme advantage one way or the other. In terms of knowing what your opponent is feeling, we really do understand the fun that can be had with this, but we hope that you will also understand that it can also have a negative effect too."

So, they dose out the content so users can get familiar with it and develop and learn strategies, and then go on to say that voice chat would be desired as an additional strategic tool, so they didn't want to add it. They want people to play the maps over and over and get skilled with the various weapons but they don't want them to plan and communicate to improve strategy?
That's ridiculous.

If they had simply stated that; "We don't feel that the game would benefit from voice chat, so we didn't add it." it would be fine, but this reasoning is out of whack.
There's also the strange suggestion that "those who haven't played shooters before" would somehow mix and play with people who use voice chat and take it more seriously, and that the latter group would somehow scare the other one away.
This is is also corny reasoning seeing as how the major reason newbies would be turned away from facing experienced players would be the fact that they would get owned by them, whether or not these better players were chatting with one another on headsets is absolutely irrelevant in this context.
Deciding to not add voice chat, although a strange decision imo, is fine, but his reasoning for it is not, see the difference?

You are wrong to say that the section you quoted is "the reason for leaving out voice chat." That paragraph is about how they approached designing the game after the decision not to include voice chat had already been made: "We designed the game so it is still possible to play strategically..." He is explaining how their design choices were intended to act as a 'substitute' for voice chat, allowing the players to strategize and work as a team without directly communicating. That section indicates he believes they successfully replicated the strategic benefits of voice chat, without the emotional elements -- as intended.

The explanation for why they did not develop voice chat for the game is in the previous paragraph. "Getting to this ("so that all players can enjoy the game") though meant going through a selection process for all features that should appear in the game, and as part of this process we decided to leave out voice chat." That's it, it's that simple. He said right there that they didn't want to include voice chat because they didn't believe it would make the game more enjoyable.