GameClub: Transistor debrief / Sexy Brutale begins!

Ok I'm a bit late on this GameClub as I just finished it today, so I don't know if anyone will read this, but I'll leave it here anyways. Pretty much everything I wanted to say has been said, I just want to add the test beach room provided a good break from the action, a way to discover new combinations of functions that I didn't think were that fun because the game forces you to use given functions, and the motivation for all that lied in unlocking tracks to make the beach feel more cozy, which is all good game design in my opinion.

LostEcho

I am a firm believe in orchestration and direction. the best "freedom" systems in games are the deceptively limiting ones. A prime example of this failing for me is Lichdom: Battlemage. It had a combat system where you can constantly craft your own spells. although it became a chore to maintain and was ultimately not a fun experience. Transistor walks that line, though the limit of a single ability only occupying a primary OR a secondary slot greatly limits you but in a way that is fun and demands thought. I honestly think the only real failing of the weapon system was the lack of a test area to trial your loadouts. Players should be able to "augment' inside a game, not have to do the job of game design and balancing for the developer. Customization should be a form of expression, a way to differentiate your play style, not an excuse to avoid building compelling gameplay, If a game IS to have high customization it needs to lead by example by using its own systems to craft functional and fun experiences.

I hadn't thought about the weapons, armors, and spells of Dark Souls as a form of player expression and defining their own play style. I guess it's because you start with one set of equipment and stats towards a given build, and you get some time to get used to it before you start experimenting. One strength that Dark Souls has is that each melee weapon feels distinct. Maybe that's something the transistor itself lacks in the early stages of the game? Actually, Dark Souls might not be the best comparison since it's a third-person over-the-shoulder action game.

Megabyte01

I'm someone who absolutely loves mechanical exploration (and more conventional exploration, but that's less relevant right now), so I adore game systems like transistors which allows me a lot of room to play around in and find different setups I like. That being said, I know I'm not the majority, and I concede that it might have been a better game if it had a better way to help players find a play style that worked for them. For me, however, Transistor ranks very highly in my favorite games list.

Daphoa

I think player freedom is great, but the player has to know what options they have. The fact that functions in Transistor can be used as primary, secondary, or passive means that the number of options scales up VERY quickly...and with basically no explanation unless the player digs. (And yeah, the inability to test your abilities outside of a battle is frustrating.) I think the backdoor challenges were a good way of getting the player to try something different. I would never have tried Switch() if not for a challenge that forced me to use it. (I probably would have used Breach() and Crash() the entire game!) DOOM 2016 did the same thing with the rune challenges, which forced me to use weapon mods and strategies I wouldn't have normally tried. Ultimately I think player freedom is the way to go in an interactive medium like games. It's much more frustrating to be stuck figuring out the one correct way of doing things. But the game has to ramp up more gradually and teach the player better than Transistor does.

Ben Visness

Focused gameplay vs player freedom and gameplay choice/exploration - it’s a tradeoff with different play styles and opportunities. Personally, I think I would enjoy a well polished experience a lot more. But that does not mean there is not value in (trying to give) player choice, exploration, and experimentation. If you're trying to polish multiple play styles that's obviously harder, with the additional complexity dimension of balancing the different play styles. Extremely hard, but interesting. I’m thinking of multiplayer games right now. Games that provide classes and weapons and modifications as choice. There have been numerous great asymmetrical multiplayer games (oldest that comes to mind would be AvP2). On these games, the asymmetry is a central part of what makes these games interesting, and in some games allows for interesting interactions between team members (support vs tank vs offense) or between own and enemy team (counters to enemy loadouts and abilities, selecting targets, etc). There is no clear "inner" between the two. Both are valuable. Focusing on one mechanic is no doubt easier to develop, and allows for a more focused experience. In multiplayer, it focuses on skill competition rather than tactics/team synergy. Asymmetry and choice is a lot harder to do right, but no doubt can be very interesting. In the end, both depend on adequate investments for adequate quality for them to work.

Jan Klass