What are other games doing wrong?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

They fail because they’re too Survivor sided.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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..