I was going to use AI, but it was too much waste of time:
First Things First:
There are three types of gamers:
- Those who seek escapism: art, lore/story/setting/worldbuilding, music, etcetera
- Those drawn to the act of play (Gameplay): how you interact and exist in the game.
- Those who want to "git gud": to understand and exploit the mechanics and systems.
I think Marathon failed to make a strong first impression in all of the above categories.
How would I have communicated a stronger sense of
escapism?
1. Start with a shot of a space station orbiting the planet:
It implies and provides a narrative justification for the rotation or change of maps and accessible zones over time (seasons). Procedural elements add greater variety to the maps (biomes)
2. Inside the space station and from a first-person perspective (representing the player), we see a window with the planet visible in the background, and below it, a computer monitor
diegetic menus/UI.
The player uses the monitor to do their shit and to select their contract with different factions. There is a representation similar to the stock market, a system that emulates volatile changes depending on the players performance in extracting or not extracting what the companies have contracted them for. This opens up a lot of shit, adds more replayability and risk versus reward, making each "drop" more dynamic and meaningful in a bigger context.
When the player is ready to play, the camera tilts upward, and we select the zone using by looking at the planet through the window, (holographic UI.)
3. How does the player "drop" onto the planet?
When the player chooses their contract with a faction, they get "
branded," and their "consciousness" is transferred to a facility on the planet owned by that faction where the playable characters are built (the synthetic caterpillars). This makes the world feel more realistic and tangible (not just dissapearing when players reach a beacon or whatever).
This "branding" has gameplay implications. Each faction has its own strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, the stock value system can influence player behavior, shaping how they approach missions, objectives, and interactions with other players. This could enable not only betrayal but also actions like helping upgrade AI enemies against other players. A solo player could use this strategy, for example.
How could I have shown stronger
gameplay?
I think the game came across as quite basic in its traversal and overall movement and interaction with the world. boring as fuck.
Beyond a more dynamic traversal (players and environment) plus better animations.
I was thinking, "Hey, this looks like Death Stranding." Use the
damn vehicles! Make them automated, at least.
Fill them with cargo/loot/resources, select an extraction point or whatever. and boom, you have a
dynamic mission. (It's not like this mode hasn't been invented.)
How could I have shown a stronger
"git gut" factor?
By this point, gamers who are more interested in this aspect of video games should see the connection between the "stock value" > contracts > branding = Market Manipulation in order for them to acquired "gear" or abilities, credits or whatever this game is using. But in terms of gameplay:
It's the "Player Expression" thing. These "runners" can't even run much, they can't do parkour, as shown in the CGI short at the end of the livestream. The navigation, traversal, and AI interaction all came across as mundane, by-the-numbers, outdated, and slow. There was no complexity, strategy, or nuance involved. That's exactly the kind of thing I would've showcased instead.
Men_in_Boxes
ChorizoPicozo
Give it up for once
