What are other games doing wrong?

dbd900bach Member Posts: 617

As we all know, when Dead by Daylight started out, the asymmetrical horror genre was in its infancy with no popular titles to its name. Nothing that stood out to make the genre pop. Then came along dbd which in a stroke of luck, completely dominated the genre andis the first game to make the asymmetrical horror genre popular. Once it got Halloween as a chapter, there was no stopping them and there was certainly no game to compete with them.

Over the years we've had a great deal of games try to plant themselves in the genre, automatically contesting with dbd yet they ultimately fail for one reason or another. Most simply died out, too small or undeveloped to keep an audience. Others faced technical issues, development and financial issues that prevented them progressing any further. Noticeably the most promising games faced these issues like Last Year. Friday the 13th seemed like the only game that held its own, yet ultimately ended up in limbo due to the licensing court battles. Yet at the end of the tunnel, Dbd still stands strong many years later while other titles drowned out.

So why? I know I've listed a lot of reasons, yet no game has even touched the popularity and potential that dbd has. Any game that comes close faces one problem or another that fizzles it out, while every other game is incapable of going further. What's this limbo that these games keep falling into?


  • Nazzzak
    Nazzzak Member Posts: 5,050

    I think you answered that question for yourself: "Once it got Halloween as a chapter, there was no stopping them". Being the basis from which anything can be brought in and adapted makes it appeal to a wide range of fan bases. Most of the other similar games are kind of restricted and it can get old. Last week I had a day where my games were literally Wesker, Wraith, Wesker, Wraith, etc, and it got old fast. I think games need to be able to keep you mentally engaged. The frequent updates help and DBD is in a position to constantly bring new content with few limitations.

  • Smoe
    Smoe Member Posts: 2,728

    This and the fact that DBD had a head start by being one of the first ones to do these kinds of asym games also helped alot.

    I'd also argue DBD's simplistic gameplay could be considered one of it's strong points as it allows anyone to be able to quickly jump in and learn the base mechanics of the game.

  • dbd900bach
    dbd900bach Member Posts: 617

    Yet a great deal of players were begging for a different game, but any game that offered something different never lasted. There was definitely some really good contenders, yet they just disappeared

  • Yatol
    Yatol Member Posts: 1,939

    My biggest issue with asym games is they all insist on having 4 survivors.

  • Nazzzak
    Nazzzak Member Posts: 5,050

    A different game doesn't mean people won't find issues or become bored etc etc. Plus there are different reasons why each failed - depending on who you ask of course. F13 for example got caught up in legal woes and died, and the developers have just released Killer Klowns from Outer Space adapting the same formula of F13. The Evil Dead playerbase pretty much unanimously agree the devs abandoned the game with no planned updates. Home Sweet Home was pretty unanimously agreed upon to be a very one sided beat up. VHS was a failure thanks to the devs mistakes - there's plenty of videos online that go into it, Dowsey has a particularly good one that sums it up well.

    TCM is arguably the best contender to date but it has had a massive drop in players and I would say it's mostly a monotony factor. Having played TCM myself and spent some time in the community, I'll say it's playerbase has this weird expectation of TCM offering something new and different, while simultaneously comparing it to DBD when questioning what it's doing wrong. I'd argue that it's necessary to use voice chat in TCM if you're 100% focused on winning, yet most of their playerbase don't seem to use it (which I get, but that's the primary tool the game has given them). Instead it's a constant 'them vs us', even worse than I see among the DBD community.

    I also think the constant cries of "this game is finally gonna kill DBD!" everytime a new asymm game is released doesn't help. A playerbase united on mutual hatred of another game rather than the merits of the new game doesn't bode well.

  • Beaburd
    Beaburd Member Posts: 954
    edited May 30

    There's a few factors that I think are behind failing asymmetrical game, but three that stand out the most to me are:

    1. Restricted background/lore that limits content expansion
    2. Lack of actual second chances for the survivors
    3. Fatigue from overstimulus and/or game complexity

    #1 is pretty simple - most asymmetrical games (Friday the 13th, Last Year, Evolve, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Killer Klowns, that-other-behaviour-asymmetrical-game-that-failed-and-whose-name-I-can't-remember, etc.) all have a really restrictive lore.

    Whenever you make a game that focuses on licensed content as the core lore instead of a supplement to original lore, you start requiring a slew of approvals from the license holder before you can add content. It makes new content, and potentially other collaborations, difficult and slow to produce because it needs to make sense in the context of the game and mesh with it.

    Last Year, Evolve, and that-other-behaviour-game had original lore, but suffered in a similar way in that it was too restrictive to really implement licensed content in a way that makes sense. Kids in a school? Soldiers fighting dinosaurs? A bunch of… parlor ninjas in a… death arena fighting some guy…? How do you put licensed material into those games in a way that makes sense?

    DBD's lore is actually so flexible in this regard because, aside from the characters in the fog themselves, the lore is basically "unknown entity kidnaps people and puts them here." It's so simple it's almost stupid, but it's because of that simplicity that they have tons of leeway to add whatever the heck they want.

    For #2, some of the games mentioned above don't have any second chances for survivors (F13, Texas Chainsaw) which I think hurts them. It basically means you wait long in a lobby and if you mess up, gg, you're back in the lobby. Meanwhile the other games do have second chances, but they don't really emphasize the importance of rescuing teammates like DBD does. On top of that DBD also has second chance perks on top of that, which caters to casual audiences even more - something that's important for getting and maintaining a high player base (sorry guys, casuals matter).

    For #3, DBD is pretty simple. M1 a generator, hit a skill check and you win. Get bored? Go save someone. Still not fun enough? Build to provoke and play with the killer. You have tons of options and the ability to take initiative and do what you want in a game. If you want to just relax and take it easy, you can. If you want to sweat and be efficient, you can. If you want an adrenaline rush, you can.

    Most of the other games place you with a single goal, with limited opportunities to, as the survivor, take initiative and decide what you want to do in any particular match. A lot of times the goal you need also requires a bunch of steps to accomplish it too (fuel the boat, insert a fuse, crank a lever, loot a house, etc.). So there's just a lot less flexibility in deciding what your role is in any particular game, as well as deciding how much you want to relax vs sweat. Often times, that will be decided for you, which can make games more exhausting.

    There's actually quite a few other aspects of DBD that I think makes it successful over its competitors, but these are a few of the big points that I think really set it ahead of others.

    I just remembered Behaviour's other game was called 'Death Garden'

  • Yharwick
    Yharwick Member Posts: 521

    Asymms by their nature are hard to balance you either get Friday the 13th where Jason was near indestructible or VHS which just turns into a bully simulator and that definitely contributes, I know there's plenty of balance complaints around DBD that are warranted but 60/40 is A LOT better then other asymms tend to do.

    Oddly enough a lot of it seems to come from poor dev/community interaction, Gun Interactive and Hellbent were just terrible at taking player criticism and making any changes based on it. BHVR was admittedly also terrible at this in the early years but have improved a lot in that department in recent years.

  • UndeddJester
    UndeddJester Member Posts: 2,610
    edited May 30

    My theory is that the common trend I see in a lot of horror asyms is they allow you to directly fight the killer and/or they lack a lot of skill expression for chase, which leads to no one wanting to play killer sides.

    We all know about the history of DBD and things like instablinds and alike, but killers also had pretty nasty stuff they could do themselves, and fundamentally a lot of DBD killer bullying was not an intended part of the gameplay loop, and is always getting things nerfed to remove it.

    In DBD you fight back as survivor by running away longer, there is no concept of killing the killer like in Ft13th/VHS. Ft13th was less problematic because Jason could literally 1 shot kill you, so was still mostly fun, but even despite that, you get issues where survivors get the jumper and Jason is running away from survivors... the gameplay loop is backwards. This scared a lot of people off playing Jason.

    TCM you can fight back more in the 1vs1; tackling the killer, stabbing from behind or wrestling then punching in the balls. The level up system lends itself to create some pretty obnoxious fight back mechanics. That is still at least hit and run away... but it's other iissues there isn't much beyond map knowledge in terms of skill expression. A lot of interactions boil down to builds, no skill, and the family need to be much more coordinated than the survivors to win, all the while eating stuns and stabs.... so again no one really wants to play family.

    The most DBD has is a flashlight, which can stun/blind sure, but ultimately in the 1vs1 a flashlight isn't gonna save you, and the point is still to run... and all you ever do is hide and run.

    That's my theory on why other asyms struggle... they allow fighting the killer directly in their gameplay loop... and it's just not horror if you're chasing the killer.

  • Nick
    Nick Member Posts: 1,224

    They were there early. Got the big licenses and creates a big religious loyal following, who are ready to defend DBD more than their homecountry

  • GentlemanFridge
    GentlemanFridge Member Posts: 5,465

    F13 - too slow on content updates, limited freedom of what that content could be, and got hard screwed by the license dispute. The fact that Jason was killable also turned the very premise on its head, making him the victim to be sought out and killed.

    VHS - arguably had the best run of them all. To its credit, it was fairly simple to understand, and had every opportunity to be something unique. But the dev team was too small, there was no community management at all. The devs created an echo chamber of “positive rewinders” which stifled any and all negative feedback.The closed beta lasted WAY too long, meaning that once it did come out, the playerbase was already too good at the game for any new players to come aboard smoothly. Maps weren’t randomised in any way, meaning that every map played the same way. Monster was too weak…

    Last Year: Not sure what really “killed” this one, insofar as I don’t remember anything specific. It never really saw any traction, I suppose.

    RE: Resistance: Arguably the most unique take on the genre, and it had a lot of potential. But there was barely any dev support after Nikolai was added. I don’t think Capcom had any real plans for it to begin with. IIRC, there were also a lot of cheaters.

    Evil Dead: Lack of dev support, and even less marketing. ED never breached containment, so to speak. After Baal, there didn’t seem to be any plans for new content either.

    TCM: Not dead yet, to its credit. They went the route of making original characters, which is already a massive up over their previous game, F13. I personally think this one is hampered by how clunky it can feel to play, which is mostly due to the healthbar system a lot of these games use. It’s not hit = damaged, it’s wail on the character model until down. There were also a lot of ways to stun and incapacitate family members, which you really cannot have in the phase of the game’s life were you most desperately need the game to feel smooth for both sides.

    Deathgarden: Too little to the main gameplay loop. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I just thought it looked a bit boring?

  • The_Krapper
    The_Krapper Member Posts: 3,228

    The problem that happens with this community when new games come out is instead of thinking in a mindset that DBD is a OG they're the pioneers making the trail for these other people, they start comparing them in a way to pit them against eachother and then some people will just find little things wrong with a game just starting out and make videos on why that games gonna be dead and then it slowly does die regardless of the great potential it may have, so what necessarily are the games doing wrong? Nothing , people are just too impatient and want to compare it to a game that's been out almost a whole decade now with funding and changes.

  • Xernoton
    Xernoton Member Posts: 5,395

    They all have their individual issues that they absolutely don't have the time to solve because the game dies before they even understand what's wrong.

    Think back to the early days of DBD. The game had some massive issues back then too. But it was a completely new take on the genre and so it survived. Until they got the Halloween license, which definitely boosted this game and helped it stand out above its competitors. Wanna play Michael Myers or Laurie Strode? Well, you can. Buy DBD and the Halloween dlc today.

    This gave the game enough longevity to fix some of its early issues and pump out new content. Some of the other games were doomed from the start because the very concept was too flawed for the game to survive but probably the biggest reason is that these games die significantly faster thanks to DBD's existence.

    It's always the same. Some new game is released, a bunch of players from DBD go over there and claim "This game will kill DBD." only to then realise that this game has its own issues and come back a month later. This makes the game skyrocket in popularity and then suddenly die down as people start to leave and because of that immediate popularity any issues the game might have will be much less forgivable.

  • Memesis
    Memesis Member Posts: 42

    I think it's a perfect blend of iconic original characters and heavy hitting licenses. Deceptively high skill ceiling gameplay and potentially thousands of hours of mastery that come from the knowledge of hundreds of perks, almost 40 killers and maps all make a ~15 minute match feel thrilling and unique each time you load up.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,474

    1: First in the genre helps. Part of the appeal of DbD is the diversity, all the different maps, killers, perk combos, etc. It would be next to impossible to launch a fresh game that matched that. Also compared to shooters, fighting games, sports, etc. its not big enough to support multiple players.

    2: Being supported by licenses, but not constrained by them. TCM is a Texas Chainsaw game. There's not really any way you could ever put Freddy or Alien in it. But the DbD concept allows you to pull from multiple styles of horror (or horror adjacent) and represent the characters enough to feel distinct.

    3: Asyms are hard to develop. Trying to figure the balance points are really difficult in comparison to something like a 5v5 FPS.

    4: The live service model means people don't want to leave to go to another live service model. People have built up cosmetics, characters, etc. This creates an attachment to the game.

    5: An enjoyable gameplay loop that doesn't get old. There is enough randomness in the game to keep people coming back.

    6: Taking a long time to master. TCM was out for maybe days before people had idealized routes mapped out for both sides and you had games ended in a minute or two. The meta strategies took awhile to develop and you still get people saying it takes thousands of hours to get really good at the game.

    7: Having time to develop the elimination format. The three hook stages per character feels tense, but also is not as boring as an instant kill (like Deathgarden had for most of its run). Trying to figure out where to try the line to make the survivor experience feel like death is imminent, while not having that be the actual reality which leads to boring games, is a fine line to walk.

    8: Changing up the meta. DbD is not meant to ever be a perfectly balanced game, its meant to change and evolve over time. I think people miss how important this has been in keeping the game alive as it goes through different eras of dominant meta styles.

    9: It's enjoyable to watch on twitch, youtube, etc. I've never cared for esports, but I just watched the full 24 hour spring invitational. Twitch streamers who try to leave DbD complain about how its the only game people seem to want to watch. Because it is has this larger audience base that keeps the game going by having an avenue to bring in fresh players.

    Deathgarden: Too little to the main gameplay loop. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I just thought it looked a bit boring?

    The visuals didn't match the game. The game was much more action oriented and felt like a sprint. Scavs had parkor and could run up walls, slide through tunnels, all while bullets were flying around them and Hunters could jump across the map while firing off explosives and shock blasts (the game even had the terminator robot). However, the graphics and design stuck more to the DbD style with hunters stalking the other side, leading to a massive disconnect.

  • Harbinger1985
    Harbinger1985 Member Posts: 69

    I didn't play all asymmetrical games, got a few of them like Predator: Hunting Grounds, which now came to next-gen consoles and got a second wind! I also play Evolve Stage 2, which was fun, till lasted. :D Evil Dead official game…. looks good and fun, hence got Bruce Campbell! But learn the gameplay as a newb… Tried to play, but vets are just hush, till try to get what stuff you pick-up.

    Far as I know Evolve was the first or big asymmetrical MP title. Made by Turtle Rock who brough us CS and L4D! No pressure, huh? The game also built to CryEngine 3. Plus it got a lot off expensive DLCs. I'll think that was enough to the game didn't get enough popular, and maybe the publisher said "OK, that's all, closing shop". Stage 2 free2play was a good died, but I guess it didn't brough back enough players or earned new one.

    Predator: Hunting Grounds is a great idea! Sadly even the designs, cosmetics and the vibe is great! Hence they get Schwarzenegger for Dutch in the game as playable character and all notable Predator skins… the game doesn't get enough new content. Only character models which sometimes was broken look or loadout wise - Predator 2 Pred still has. Also, lack of maps and new content like missions for fireteam or hell add other popular characters, they added Isabelle and some sport guy. Maps, they made a night version all fo them and call it a day. Extra plus those maps ran worse, and the game poorly optimized at least for PC.

    I guess DBD success it's the constant new contents. New maps, killers, survivors, skins, perks, Rift items… you name it! They added Bill for free, Halloween and lots of popular horror game or movie. Just name ONE game where 4 players up from Resident Evil games, Alan Wake, Alien and Saw to collide someone from Silent Hill on a map which happens Haddonfield.

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,318

    They fail because they’re too Survivor sided.

  • edgarpoop
    edgarpoop Member Posts: 8,098

    In general, asymm developers tend to ignore every game that has come before in the genre and don't pay enough attention to how asymm players play games. There's a bizarre naivete about design decisions, and it always comes back to bite them.

    Players are going to optimize the game and be competitive whether you intend it or not. It will happen. The game has to be able to tolerate it. Too often bad design is passed off as "well, the game is supposed to be casual." I'm watching Killer Klowns gameplay and seeing players getting spawn killed in 2 or 3 hits. What are we doing here? Hello? Players are going to try and optimize the game and they're going to encounter players who are casual. This is a 100% likely reality that your game will encounter. Is the game still playable when that happens? If not, go back to alpha and try again. The game will fail in 2024 if it isn't addressed on release.

    Role queue, or lack thereof. Another super ridiculous mistake asymm games often make. No option to queue for a specific role. This is a severe case of not paying attention and not doing your research. When any player talks about playing an asymmetrical game, they will almost say "I played X role on Y game today". Players are loading up these games because they feel like playing one role or the other. Removing the option to queue for a specific role has never been successful (to my knowledge). Why do devs keep trying it?

    If you do make a more competitive game (VHS), make sure both roles are able to be competitive. Don't give every tool to one role and reduce the other role to a cooldown simulator. Again, a ridiculous design choice that could have been avoided with even a little effort.

  • bm33
    bm33 Member Posts: 8,098

    DBD has alot of content, consistent content updates, can get alot of the content for free from earnable currency, is available on multiple platforms, and has had 8 years to make adjustments. While the matchmaking isn't perfect there is something there to atleast try and prevent a new player from getting stomped by a veteran.

    DBD also had something alot of other games don't get to have now - they had a chance to learn/grow because they were first so players didn't give up and move on quickly from them. Any new horror assym immediately gets compared to current DBD, a game that's had 8 years to fix issues from player feedback. A new game comes out and players find issues the devs didn't know about because players manage to find ways to play the game the devs didn't intend so didn't consider it. The new game gets much harsher criticism and people don't give the devs a chance to make fixes because people can fall back on DBD, the game that had the chance to learn/grow. If DBD came out today the same way it did in 2016 people would tear it apart and not give them a chance to make the changes they made in that first year or two.

    Killer Klown devs have said day 1 patch is going to address weapon balancing since they're seeing how strong they are in early access. They'll also be turning on role preference system after early access. There's apparently a bunch of stuff that is supposed to be in day 1 patch.

  • hermitkermit
    hermitkermit Member Posts: 255

    As some people have already stated, I think they fail when the killer isn't in the power role. That's why I'm comfortable with a 60%-40% balance, because it's what keeps the game alive, as killer players don't want to play a game where the "survivors" are just as powerful, which makes sense because you're playing an iconic horror villain, and if there are four or more other players that are just as strong as you then obviously it's not going to be enjoyable. Because of this I believe survivors need to accept that they are not meant to "win" as often as killers and that the game should be balanced this way, and that killers need to accept that they do in fact have an advantage.

  • 100PercentBPMain
    100PercentBPMain Member Posts: 610

    If Friday never died I wouldn't be here, but alas it did so I'm here to stay.

    I like that game more still, but it's literally unplayable.

  • ArkInk
    ArkInk Member Posts: 581

    Dbd's licence variety gave it a pretty strong start to a casual audience, and its got a lot of fantastic original characters to form a Brand identity out of, along with having a ridiculously high skill ceiling that only got bigger as more and more characters and perks were added. Simply put, DBD got the ball rolling and never stopped, even if they rolled out a few stinkers along the way.

    One thing I often see with Asyms is that they hit a snag and spiral. Evil Dead and RE Mastermind stopped getting proper support before I even realized it. BHVR, regardless of whether or not their updates literally shatter the game and start bleeding players, keep it pushing and you can expect a new chapter in 3 months regardless of the last bombs.

    Combine all this with the fact DBD had no competition and was able to grow freely at first, and the fact that any competitors now have to stand up to DBD to keep players. Well, it isn't surprising the game stuck around so long. At least not to me.

  • Mr_K
    Mr_K Member Posts: 9,131

    They all devolved into the one being bullied by the many. The many would optimize the killing/stun locking/etc of the one causing less players wanting to play that role.

  • danielmaster87
    danielmaster87 Member Posts: 8,763

    It's because they keep trying to copy Dead By Daylight in all of its faults. Dead By Daylight is an anomaly, in that it's been managed so badly that any other game would have gone under long ago, and yet it's still popular because horror icons. If it was original only characters, the game would be dead. These other games think that they can also become a killer bullying simulator with unfair/infinite loops and stunning/killing mechanics for survivors to use against the killers, and still succeed. No. You don't have Myers, Freddy, or Ghost Face, so your days are numbered.

  • danielmaster87
    danielmaster87 Member Posts: 8,763

    We'll accept it when it's true. The golden age of DBD doesn't happen until killer is the power role.

  • Yatol
    Yatol Member Posts: 1,939

    DBD is the go to game because of its age and licenses, the other games fail for a multitude of reasons but the biggest one is they aren't safe to get into as they might shut down soon after release.

  • Reinami
    Reinami Member Posts: 5,171

    The problem most asymmetrical games like this face is a few things.

    1. Balance. Usually the game is horribly balanced, and even DBD is horribly balanced IMO, but its the most balanced of this horribly balanced genre, if that makes sense. If a game is unfair for the "killer" you get situations like VHS where you just don't want to play. And if it is horribly balanced the other way, jason just instantly kills you like in F13.
    2. Design. Many of these games allow the survivors to fight back against the killer. DBD is the only one where this not the case. All you can do in DBD is run.
    3. Power dynamics. The problem with asymmetrical games, and DBD imo, is that they need to get the power dynamic right. The one player SHOULD be stronger than one of the players on the other team. Period. Because it is inherently a 1vX. That one player HAS to be stronger than a single one of the X otherwise, why would you ever play the 1? Many games get this wrong.
    4. Simplicity. DBD is a very complicated game, or is it? You have generators, survivors need to repair them, then they can escape. The killer is trying to stop them from repairing and hook them instead. The gameplay loop in terms of concept is very simple to understand and can be explained to someone in 30 seconds. A lot of these games create a ton of systems that heavily complicate the games in ways that makes them really hard to learn. DBD is definitely complicated, but the complexity is layered on top of the simple idea of the game, rather than it being a part of the game itself.
      1. Part of what makes DBD good in this case, is that they generally approach things like Magic the Gathering. Magic for example, has very simple rules when you think about it. Players take turns, you can place one land down per turn, you tap things to do stuff, and you can attack on your turn and your opponent can block. But what gives the game complexity is the cards allow you to break those rules. You have cards that let you draw extra cards, or cards that let you place more lands, or destroy lands.
      2. DBD does this well because the game is so simple, and then the perks and the items "break" the rules of the game.

  • drsoontm
    drsoontm Member Posts: 4,275

    One factor I believe is if the "survivors" can fight the "killer" or not.

    It seem to lead to a guerrilla play style that is tedious. (e.g. VHS)

    It's possible that having multiple killers alleviate the problem, but only time will tell (Killer Clowns something game)

  • duygu
    duygu Member Posts: 327

    I dont think the other games are doing things fatally wrong, I think it's just that DBD even with its own wrongs and shortcomings is too big to be defeated. Let's not pretend that DBD doesn't have its flaws that put off many players. There's way too much content in this game which attracts players from depraved fanbases like silent hill and the metagame is addicting.

    Also, the difference between the mediocre player and the good player in DBD is decision making and knowledge. There's nothing mechanically hard about guessing right, but it feels really good anyway. No difference in the flashlight save of a bad player and a good player, but it feels equally satisfying. This game is so simple to play for the most part which makes it accessible and allows the bad players to feel like they're good at the game. The most tryhard players can play killers like wesker who have their own techs that are actually hard to execute, so there're options for every type of player.

  • FrenchBagels
    FrenchBagels Member Posts: 174

    They try to compete with the DBD, that’s what.

    DBD set this massive foothold on asymmetric games that many can’t compete with. You know, like Smash. It’s established itself first and so it gets the cool game treatment. So other games try so hard to mooch off it.

    Amnesia TDD wasn’t popular because it was a clone of the horror games before it, it tried a relatively new role that it pioneered itself. You can be an asymmetrical game if you want, but you have to establish your gimmick that sticks. Otherwise, you just end up as a DBD clone.

  • ArkInk
    ArkInk Member Posts: 581

    Last Year was horribly mismanaged by the head dev and it ended up way behind schedule. There wasn't a proper team working on it for a good while after it was funded, and a bad deal with Discord basically meant no eyes were on the game when it finally did come out. It was a pretty fun game, like a strange take on L4D Zombie multiplayer, but it was screwed from the start.

    I do feel inclined to mention that F13 also had original survivors, and an original Jason type (though Savini Jason was impossible to get post launch). Had the licensing not broken down, it might've made it.

  • Science_Guy
    Science_Guy Member Posts: 1,978

    The only thing DBD truly did right was be released first.

    It was as horribly managed early on as F13, had agonizingly terrible lobbies like TCM, and was horrifically unbalanced like LY or VHS. But there was no real competition for almost an entire year, so it suffered, bled players, worked on its problems long enough to rebound back to success. Most of these games never had much space to grow, let alone grow, die, and grow back.

    I do agree that the simplicity of the game's core elements has gone a long way towards keeping DBD alive, but imo if you swap, for example, Last Year's release date with DBD's, DBD never would have made it.

  • Mooks
    Mooks Member Posts: 14,606

    As others have said, one of the main things is that many asym horror games are way too restricted with potential new content - either they are bound to one specific license or to a specific theme which makes it hard to bring variety.

    DbD has managed to bring so many licenses together but also created so many original characters, based on horror tropes and themes that fit in. There is not much that’s really completely out of bounds here and they found ways to make even Chucky and Xenomorph work and not feel totally out of place.

    The gameplay loop is also simple enough to not be super overwhelming for people that are familiar with videogames and plenty of things (like addons, items, perks) are not necessarily all needed to be understood to be able to play matches.

    I think fighting back against the killer isn’t a major point why others failed and DbD is successful. This may be possible to be implemented in an asymm game without breaking it but it sure needs better balancing.

    I feel like the Killer Klowns game does plenty of things good compared to others! I am looking forward to see how that will go. But one issue I can see is that you can’t choose your side and get automatically assigned to either human or Klown?? Well at least you are not alone on the killer side I guess..

  • hermitkermit
    hermitkermit Member Posts: 255

    Can I ask why you consider killer is not in the power role in DBD? And what you believe killer being in the power role would look like? I think 60% is a good compromise. Even top 5% of SWF has a 48% success rate. I’m worry that if you split the divide even further, people would have very little incentive to play the survivor role as the chances of survival are already less than half.