10 Things I hate about WipEout Pulse

[Colin Berry]

No, it's not 2097 and I've never really understood why we can't go back to more that handling.

...........(which is absolutely right though I thought that just making objects solid would end that) ...

The 2097 handling couldnt return even if we wanted it to because the code no longer exists Personally I love 2097 but I think its what it was then, and well, it is a hard handling model that would probably reduce the appeal and accessibility of the game somewhat and in turn means reduced interest and the series ends if it doesnt sell. I do continue to work on the handling though, but it needs ever balancing between old style and being accessible, coupled with my own feeling on what feels nice. I do think our Airbrakes have space to develop and improve into though, I have tried several times to replicate the airbrakes from 2097 with no joy yet Though the HD airbrakes being analog are lovely. I'm still tweaking the HD handling too - It is 'based' on the Pure / Pulse system but its tweaked for HD, not massively but its a little different, though subtley so. thing is I could spend months tweaking it but at some point you have to stop, so you can get on with making the rest of the game

I know for some people they see this as a dampening down of Wipeouts hardcore roots, but the truth is games have to sell, if they dont, the series ends. the early Wipeouts were well respected but did not sell in big numbers. These days the costs are higher and the games need to sell accordingly, which means making sure your game is accessible and appealing to a broad market not a niche market. The only team in sony that gets away with niche games as such is the ICO team, we have to sell. wipeout has to sell, if it doesnt it dies (as it is it is a niche of a niche - futuristic + racing games - there arent many because it is niche and risky - Wipeout wont ever sell 5million like Burnout / NFS double niche is tricky) . Thats why we can never make it for the hardcore only or even get too single minded - I'd like to make 'Colin Berrys Wipeout', but I cant, I have to bow and bend on certain things for the overall sake of the game and its appeal. Thats the reality for 99% of game developers to be honest. You want people to enjoy your game, you want it to sell and you never want to abandon the loyal fanbase but you want to expand it because you need the game to sell. Its a juggling act and the reality though some may disagree, is that the handling model is a contentious issue in Wipeout, for some Pure and Pulse are WAY too hard, for others they are too easy for some the handling model isnt what it once was and its 'too easy' for others the control of these things remains impossible.


We also cant make every object solid in a scene as it massively increases the poly count (each object has 'art' polys and separate collision polys) and also means too many calls are done to the collision system -- putting collision on everything in short means something else has to be sacrificed, probably visuals, ergo we came up with the cage system for Pulse, retain visuals but not allow the player outside of a 'cage' that we specify



hrm thats a lot of waffle

[Dogg Thang]

All fair enough. I would wonder though if, while aiming for appeal and accessibility, if raising the latter can reduce the former, like diluting a fine wine with beer won't nessesarily make for a more desirable drink.

Considering just how popular those early WO games were, I wonder what had them move from a must-have series to a niche title? I mean, some reviews called it a tired series which is just so unfair. Ridge Racer from the same time has had a ridiculous number of sequels, has recycled elements many times and has never been called tired. Same with many racers. So I'm not sure what happened to Wipeout in terms of perception. Given the amount of work you guys put in, that must really frustrate.

I think it should be a mainstream series.

Anyway, I love the game. I hope it does well so we get some more soon.

[Medusa]

for some Pure and Pulse are WAY too hard, for others they are too easy for some the handling model isnt what it once was and its 'too easy' for others the control of these things remains impossible. 

Okay let me just say, that if the control of Pure and Pulse is too hard for people, then they shouldn't try to race "anti-gravity ships". I really suck at using a d-pad. I rarely use pitch control in Pure or Pulse. I find BRs easier to do than use pitch control. Yet, I can still play the games. Wipeout is the sort of game where it should be impossible to play without at least a small amount of pitch control on every track (unless you're on vector/venom of course).

It's too bad WipEout couldn't remain an incredibly demanding game with excellent control peripherals with each new iteration. Even so, quantity over quality is a difficult sell. That means as long as more copies sell, that's okay - but how many that buy it will love it? Will they just dump it as soon as they've beaten it? Time will tell, huh?

[phl0w]

I totally agree with you Medusa. I don't understand why games are getting easier and easier these days just so each and everyone can play them either. Well, I do know why (and I really didn't think I'd hear that from a producer of one of my most favourite videogames), I just don't understand the logic behind wanting to sell games instead of making a really good game. Let me elaborate what a "really good game" means in that context and don't kill me for calling Pulse not a good game. Sure, it's a bit unfair to let Pulse be the major impulse here, but the problem is there, with any videogame. The way I see it, a game is good when it requires effort (and by effort I don't mean learn the basic controls and keep your eyes open), when it can make you dedicate a good time of your life mastering it, when it offers a simple set of rules/ mechanics that allow for countless variations, when there's an inherent goal, theoretically achievable, practically unreachable (if, by playing, you get the feeling of walking down that road, a game can motivate). Pretty much the obvious stuff a human being demands from a game worth his while. Now, the problem is, that not a single videogame can offer what's demanded from "real" games and as long as they don't, they'll never acquire the much thought-after status most of the producers, and even more gamers want their "games". It's no coincidence that successful games like Chess and Go transcend shallow entertainment, just look at their mechanics and essence. Did they get sequels? The paradox is this: The industry lives from peoples' hunting after quick, effortless entertainment. Videogames' future, as I see it, strongly depends from producers straighten up and leading their products to head to a proper form of gaming, yet in doing so they run the risk of dooming their own work, because, you know, people don't want games, they're not going after rewards if it means effort and dedication, they're not willing to devote themselves to anything, they just want entertainment (partly to distract them from that very same problem), as passive and as little challenging as possible. The only challenge being their time invested. Added rewards for that provided by modern videogames.

[Roadster]

That's a rather convoluted post there, Phl0w, but if all you're saying is that a videogame has to be immensely challenging in order for it to be any good, then... well, you're wrong.

[infoxicated]

...and in need of the odd line break.

[NeXaR_QroN]

Well, I don't think he is wrong... completely. It should provide a challenge IF the player is up to it, but I agree with the game-should-be-accesible-to-all-in-order-to-sell point. The thing is to be able to provide that two options at the same time.

[DawnFireDragoon]

not sure about 10, but...

1. the red weapon warning icons (i got told this'll be optional in hd though)
2. white/black runs, i prefer entirely new environments
3. outpost 7, the skill cut gets in the way more than anything
4. mag strips in certain places, they're definitely over used in Pulse and i'm not sure if there's a place for them in wipeout.
5. i've said it many times, but the game has too much bright neon on nearly every track, for my taste anyway. i know others like this.
6. electronic voice over/track intro...pointless, never had them before and don't need them now.


thing is, i love the game, just a few things irritate me.

[Frances_Penfold]

I don't understand why games are getting easier and easier these days just so each and everyone can play them either... I just don't understand the logic behind wanting to sell games instead of making a really good game.

Videogames' future, as I see it, strongly depends from producers straighten up and leading their products to head to a proper form of gaming, yet in doing so they run the risk of dooming their own work, because, you know, people don't want games, they're not going after rewards if it means effort and dedication, they're not willing to devote themselves to anything, they just want entertainment

I'm sure that Rob and Colin can provide a much more nuanced interpretation... but my understanding is that the economics of modern video games is demanding higher level of sales, but that the traditional demographic target is getting smaller and harder to reach. There's a reason that Nintendo redoubled it's efforts to reach out to "new" gamers and casuals this generation.

I like my games to be intense and difficult... but as it is Wipeout is NOT particularly friendly to new gamers. I mean, goodness, you probably have to sink 50-100 hours of gameplay into Wipeout Pulse to really appreciate online multiplayer, and for a newcomer, the single player grid would be damn difficult. Very, very few gamers would regard Wipeout Pure and Pulse as "too easy."

So I dunno... I think Sony should do everything it can to increase the popularity of Wipeout as a franchise, while also trying to maintain the depth of the games as a service to the hardcore fans. I think that Wipeout Pulse is a good compromise in this regard

[Colin Berry]

Regarding why games are getting easier and easier (warning waffle coming) - games now are FAR different to 15 years ago.
15 year ago you would load the tape for 10mins and if it broke, you'd rewind start again no worries, it took patience.

Nowadays you have to grab a player in the first 5 mins, which means having an accessible game. That doesnt mean the whole game is easy, but it needs a degree of initial accessibility.

The reason is simple 100s of games are released each year (more games released world wide per year than films are released on cinema) its very competitive, if your game doesnt sell, you dont get to make a sequel. If your game doesnt appeal then people put it down after 5mins in the shop and walk away. Yes there are hardcore players who will persevere, but trends show they are the minority of games players and indeed potentially a dying breed, or at least a breed of gamer that is reducing a little in number.

Personally I want to make the best can I can, but I have to work within constraints, be they time, people, skills, machines, marketing, company - I have a duty to the game, to the fans and people buying it, but also to the company who employs me. I cant spend 5 years making a game that massages my ego, I dont have my own company, and I tend to find people who do that maybe dont make the best games.

Often people talk about games being art, and I've always found that quite odd, I'm not sure Beethoven or Van Gogh had the constraints on them that game developers have (or modern day musicians - I wonder how Wagner would do with Sony Music saying wer want that track finish by friday etc ) I'm not sure an artist can truly produce 'art' if they have to produce something for someone in a set time scale to certain requirements but I'd rambling.... as such we make games that are constrained and we aim to make them the best they can be but they have to have appeal, they have to sell, that might be hard to hear but I think you'll find you can count on one hand the number of games developers in the world who do not make games with an aim that they sell. It is a simple reality.

That doesnt mean we sell our soul and sacrifice everything, the care and attention to detail is there as is catering for the long term fans but in terms of something like the handling model we try to make it not so hard to pick up and be able to play. We did cater for all with the addition of the AI difficulty, sure there will be some people who can fly through hard and think it still too easy, but then they are the extreme of a spectrum and we have to get the game compeltable by QA to be released.

I read something recently written by David Jaffe, the guy who swears a lot and made god of War (hi Rob) about how he wants games to entertain him, he doesnt want them to test him - at first I was shocked and though WTF but then I realised I myself have reached a similar level in my gaming with age - I dont want to buy the latest FIFA even if it is better than PRO EVO I am a prov evo guy it is what I know and I dont want to relearn everything. I like games that challenge me but I dont want that constantly as I also enjoy games that are fun. In wipeout it is cool learning a hard track and nailing it a top speed, but I also get fun flying round a circuit like vineta K that I can do virtually blindfolded (exaggeration) because its fun, even though its not hugely taxing.

Games need to grab people early, the average attention span of a gamer has changed over the past 21 years from 47 minutes to 14 seconds ! (ok I just made thiose figures up completely but the attention span of society as a whole has dropped, we live in a media centric world where this mornings newspapers are out of date by lunchtime and history by mid afternoon).

I'm sure most of what I have written here is off topic and mostly pointless, but my aim with any game I am working on is to make the best X I can, be it Wipeout opr something else. However my aim has to fit with the company aim which is you have 18months top make this game. Now I could happily spend 18 months just working on the handling, but then there would be nothing else, and it would take 6 years to make the game and by then a new machine is out and you start over. So we have to make the best we can within a time frame, we also have to make it accessible, I would hate to deliberately make a game elitist and I used to be a 'hardcore' gamer, but you cant have that as an aim, games should be inclusive not exclusive. Now I wont make wipeout in a way that your gran can play it, but I want more people playing it than before and people getting rewarded by it and enjoying it. And that all flips back in part to the handling - the handling isnt the be all and end all of accessibility but it is part of it.

I remember picking up Wipeout in the local dixons shop and playing it on a 10ft screen back in the day and I pinballed down the track in last place unable to control it and I loved it and thought it was cool as ****. I'm nto sure I'd still love that now, or how many others would.

I do agree the handling now is different to the early games (its changed every iteration if you go back and play them side by side) I do think there are ways it could still improve, but then I dont think any previous version was perfect. Its all personal preference, some here will argue 2097 had the handling spot on, others will say it was WO3, others will say it was the N64 version due to the analogue stick, some love Fusion...


Just to answer one comment from phlow,
- I just don't understand the logic behind wanting to sell games instead of making a really good game

Those things are not mutually exclusive.
My priority as the lead designer is to make the best game possible, but also to deliver on time on schedule a game that people enjoy and as a consequence will buy.

It might be that some people think the old handling was the best, but what if more poeple disagree with that than agree, who is right ?

Its my job to try and please all, but I cant, so I can just juggle all the eggs and hope more survive than break.

This isnt some sort of please dont criticise response by the way, we appreicate criticism as it helps us put issues right, I'm jsut trying to explain some reasoning as to why we have to broaden the appeal of the game and why as a part of that some of the handling alters away from a harder more niche approach. Of course there are other ways to answer the problem, offering different handlign systems for example, many things have been considered and are thoguht about.

I've got to do some work now

[Dogg Thang]

I want more people playing it than before and people getting rewarded by it and enjoying it. And that all flips back in part to the handling - the handling isnt the be all and end all of accessibility but it is part of it.

Out of curiosity, is that happening? Are the modern more-accessable WO games doing better than the early games? Pure seemed to do well but I have no idea how they compare.

[guillaume]

I'm not a WipEout veteran, but as a fan since Pure, I must say I'm really happy that you have to broaden your audience, even if that makes the game easier at first.
When I first launched Pulse, the first (ok, maybe second) thing I noticed was the inclusion of the manual and the tips on the loading screens, and I thought 'nice, that will make the newcomers happy'.
And then I began racing, and thought 'Ouch, I'm happy I played Pure, that must be hard enough for newcomers'

The more people playing WipEout, the more people we'll have fun with!
And I'm convinced that Pulse is not easier than Pure once you become a good player. The record tables will see new entries for a looong while I think, just like the previous games.
So basically, I'm just happy. Thanks

[Sausehuhn]

Well, I can understand that nowadays "it's all about the money". Probably that wasn't different for W'O'' as well. But it's true: big companies focus on big franchises because that's where to make money. And if WipEout is one of these it means the game is succesful, which is, of course, a nice thing.
I'm also aware of that you guys at Studio Liverpool try your best to give us good games, to make something that pleases Sony because of the money and the customers because they like the game.
But - and I can just speak for my personal experience here - the "old" handling is the last thing you would have to worry about. I know people who never, I mean never, play WipEout and after a few races they got the hang of Wip3out or 2097. Of course not Phantom and yeah they didn't reach every checkpoint at the first race (but checkpoints are dropped anyway since Fusion), but after some time they got it and then the reward for their succes.
You cannot start Pulse and do perfect laps right from the start when you've never played the game before. And same goes for WO, WO3 and 2097. Actually there's no difference in how things get started.
When people start a race for the first time the only thing that matters is the feeling of speed. If they know "oh yeah that's going to be fast" then they've the ambition to master the game. That was a problem with Pure. It was to slow in the lower classes and poeple said "no, that game is too slow" and the threw it away. That changed with Pulse which is a good thing. And I think that could work with the old handling as well.
At least to me it was always the unique feeling WipEout had. The unique handling you would never find in any other game (the tilting rear of the ships and the floatiness). And of course the perfectly executed design that build up the central theme through the game.
That's somehow missing in the new titels. And at least for me Pulse makes a step backward in terms of design, too. Not only the menu design, but some tracks just seem a bit messy to me. Basilico for example has a very strange feeling to me because it has so many design elements combined into one. I don't see any "theme" for the track if you know what I mean. Of course that's a matter of taste, but I for one miss the minimalism.
The game lost realism to me. It has a rather catoonish look. I'm happy WOHD focusses on more realism again.

I want to underline it again: I'm speaking for myself here. And I like Pure and Pulse very much. I do not want to offend somebody with my words, especially not the guys from SL because these guys did a great job with the games

[phl0w]

First of all thanks for not bashing me altogether, after all it was a pretty provocative post.
Second of all

but if all you're saying is that a videogame has to be immensely challenging in order for it to be any good

Nope, didn't say that. If you really must subsume it than I'd say: If the only challenge a "game" provides is to find the time playing it, then it's not a game but just time passing by, as if nothing has happened. But that's rather simplified and may, again, be misunderstood.

I agree that videogames aren't art, and will never be but saying

I'm not sure Beethoven or Van Gogh had the constraints on them that game developers have

is just not true. As a matter of fact most classical pieces were written due to a binding request or the composer was bound by a contract, like Bach in Leipzig who had to come up with a new cantata every Sunday and religious holiday- For 27 years! Same is true for visual arts. It was just the genius of those guys that they managed to create something that would meet requirements of their clients and at the same time create something so outstanding it would later be seen as classical art.
Anyway

I would hate to deliberately make a game elitist and I used to be a 'hardcore' gamer, but you cant have that as an aim, games should be inclusive not exclusive

And yet including the average gamer (an oxymoron in this context, since accessibility doesn't aim for gamers but the non-gaming mass to broaden a game's target audience, therefor that average gamer is pretty much your Joe Public, who didn't care about videogames until a product was "tailored" to suddenly fit) means catering to someone who will play that videogame for a fractional amount of the time someone with dedication does, who, in the process now may find that videogame not worth his time anymore as it was dumped down too much and looks for other activities. Now who's more suitable for a game. One who finds meaning in devoting himself to it, spends tons of time mastering it or one that buys it because he saw an awesome commercial or likes the back of the box, doesn't even complete half of it, and forgets about it after a week because it's still too hard for him to be bothered. You have to consider that videogames, or other activities, for that matter, that require skill of some sort (both intellectual and motor-driven), will always be too hard for many, no matter how easy they might seem for others. How many people don't play Go or Chess, to stress those examples one more time, because it's just too frickin' hard to play properly or against someone good? Would it be fair to tone the games down, so more people will play it? Not to those that spent their lives mastering it and more importantly not fair to the game itself- as an entity! Sure, you could include all kinds of rules or change the game to a degree that everybody is attracted by it, it just wouldn't be that game, i.e. Go / Chess, anymore. Same goes for Wipeout ( and pretty much any other game hard and rewarding enough to attract a dedicated fan base) and what people over the years have come to understand and see the essence of it. Did they misconceive it?
It's clear that from a fiscal point of view it doesn't matter who buys videogames, but who says that the road the industry is headed is the right one and not a dead-end?
Again, please don't see this as an insult or solely related to Wipeout. I very much appreciate your (Mr. Colin Berry's) and your team's work and hold you in the highest esteem to visit these boards, willing to listen AND answer to each and everybody's problems. However, It's a dilemma of identity videogames per se are suffering from. And seeing that WOZ includes many, many reasonable people and a producer who is capable of a view of the industry from a meta-level without feeling personally attacked make these boards a very futile ground for discussions. Granted it's Off-Topic, but still...

Hope I included "the odd line break". The text looks readable in the small reply-box, so I tend to forget to insert breaks every now and then.

EDIT:

You cannot start Pulse and do perfect laps right from the start when you've never played the game before. And same goes for WO, WO3 and 2097. Actually there's no difference in how things get started.

I don't think so: I'm by far not one of the better WOers and I managed to complete every grid on the first try, with the exception of 2 Phantom tournaments. Furthermore, never did I clock so many Perfect Laps right from the start in a Wipeout game than in Pulse. No matter how you look at it, Single Player is too easy for someone familiar with the basic mechanics. I agree that it's not the handling that's the easy part- I actually like it very much in Pulse, but the A.I. and time limits are way too forgiving. Heck, there are tracks in Pure (e.g. Iridia) where I still haven't managed to get TT Golds in all classes.

[infoxicated]

Maybe you're just awesome at the game?

Certainly my imperfect laps far outweigh my perfect ones. Just out of curiosity, phl0w, can you post your exact statistics for that kind of thing, because I'd love to see just how easy you've found the game.

[Sausehuhn]

@ phl0w

Add difficulty levels to WO3 and you have the same effect.
I don't say I want WO3 again with new tracks. No. I don't. I was just talking about the floatyness and the tilting rear. I think you know what I'm talking about.
I don't need wallbumping back, either. Keep the scratching from Pure/Pulse. I'm just saying I would like to see a more traditional handling again. A combination of the old and the new ones with its focus on how the ships handle, not how they react with objects (like opponents or walls).
But I go round in circles with my argumentation as I'm just saying the same here again just packed with a few more details. It's just sad that the handling has so much more potential that isn't used, even though it requires complete recoding. But why not if there is no exact time span (WO PS3 anyone?).

My 2 cents. I'll shut up now

[Dogg Thang]

Well I'm certainly not awesome at the game. Never have been with Wipeout as much as I love the series - the original took me ages just to eventually scrape through it. And, yes, in Pulse my imperfect laps far outweigh my perfect laps. If they didn't, we'd have a really serious problem.

But my Pulse perfect laps, even early on, far outweigh my perfect laps from any other WO game (can't remember about Fusion - I don't really count that). Like phl0w, the only ones I had difficulty with were the Phantom tournaments due to the blowing-upness of it all. I breezed through time trial golds and head to head first time - something I could rarely do in Pure. The only difficulty for me came from surviving the weapons and that was an all or nothing thing: if I survived, I won.

For better or worse, I have little doubt that making through the challenges set out by the game is much easier in Pulse.

And I see all of Colin's points and have always admired the direction he's taking the series but I think Sausehun makes a great point - the handling can really be AG with all that brings, while not having the game needing to be really tough for new players. Ultimately, what drew most of us to Wipeout was the feeling of flying an anti-gravity craft, and the speed. They're really the main two things that differentiate the series from other racers. The speed is still retained in the later classes but if I didn't know that and was new to the game, I'd likely think it was too slow early on. And if losing that feeling of floating and anti-gravity is seen as making it more accessible, that pretty much weakens the two main draws of the game for new players. But, as Sausehun says, there's no reason why you can't have floaty handling but not have it as punishing as the earlier games - making it accessible while not sacrificing the strengths of the series.

[phl0w]

Maybe you're just awesome at the game?
Certainly my imperfect laps far outweigh my perfect ones

I'm not awesome at the game because I pinballed around tracks in Speed Lap events like a bouncing-ball, and yet I got Golds. I just said that I cleared the grids on my first try (safe for 2 Phantom tournaments) and seeing that I am not one of the better players, I assume many WOZ members did so too, for me that makes Pulse's Single Player easier than the one from other WOs.
My imperfect laps outweigh my perfect laps by far either. We talked about the "start" of the game. While I didn't know what a PL was until I got a neGcon for 2097 I was surprised that I could pull them off pretty regularly in Pulse right from the start. And compared to older WOs my Perfect Laps in Pulse by far outweigh those in the older ones. Phantom though is not at the start and it's my favourite speed class according to statistics, which explains why my imperfect laps outweigh PLs
What statistics would you like to see?

EDIT: Just looked something up: Most favourite track: Outpost 7 White, ~700 laps on Phantom, not a single PL, there you go.

[infoxicated]

Oh, right - I see what you're getting at.

Well then yes, I'd agree it is too easy to get golds - I'm on grid 7 and I haven't been stuck as of yet and I haven't really been playing the campaign mode much. I'd rather bronze was attainable without too much trouble, but silvers required a fairly tight lap. Golds should require you to hit every speed pad and use the "sell-out" of the previous lap's turbo technique, I think.

[phl0w]

Golds should require you to hit every speed pad and use the "sell-out" of the previous lap's turbo technique, I think.

Totally agree. It's true that limits are stricter on the lower grids, and require a fairly tight lap, on Phantom though you can bounce left, right and center for 5 laps and still get a Gold medal with up to 10 seconds to spare. Again, this came up a few times already, but I don't see how one, even a newcomer, can feel rewarded if a run is full of mistakes, and still the game gives out Golds like peanuts. Wouldn't they be turned off either? It's beyond my understanding. But then I can't understand how one can find satisfaction in scoring a goal in FIFA either. It seems people have lost the feeling of a healthy coherence between effort and reward.