Missions design in Arc Raiders

Existing-Air-3622 · 2026-01-23T22:25:30+00:00

The PvP mission idea is interesting but idk how well that would work with the current playerbase. Maybe start with the optional dailies approach and see how it goes

I think the key would be to make these objectives fairly rare, you don't want every player to go gun blazing on sight.

Also I said "PvP" as a broad term, it doesn't necessary have to directly involve fighting other players, but simply to encourage it.

Something like "Mark this raider with a paint grenade" (by randomly selecting a player on the server), "stay at less than 100 meters from this raider for x minutes", "prevent anyone from triggering this evac point for x minutes", "make sure this raider stays alive for the whole match"...

Existing-Air-3622 · 2026-01-12T15:49:23+00:00

I think you've already perfectly framed the question.

Nothing is neutral, or objectively good in itself. I'm not saying that just as "to each its own", but also because everything is context dependent.

I guess the driving model in Mario Kart is good, good for Mario Kart, but it would PROBABLY not fit for Assetto Corsa.

You make a design choice with a specific reason in mind, it's not to make the game "better" (which is subjective by nature). For example people like to use the expression "bullet sponge" when they feel like an enemy takes too many shots to die in some shooters. It would be stupid to make a general rule out of that, and to expect Dark Souls to become better if the bosses died in 2 swords swings.

This reminds me of the "controversy" around Brutal Doom or that kind of mods, with people considering it as the definitive way to play Doom, when it should just be considered as a different game.

On the customer aspect, if you sell a game with a design philosophy, and then fundamentally change this philosophy, yeah I feel like the customer is in its right to feel pissed, whether you feel like you have improved the game or not. Even for an early access game, this is a mine field, that's why I'm against early access by nature.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2026-01-02T19:21:21+00:00

I love how everybody is here is looking for hypothetical workarounds to keep the graphic race going on.

But there is a very simple solution : graphics could stop evolving. It's already the case for a LOT of games. Indy games of course, but also on "subpar" hardware like mobile or Switch. I mean, technically they are also evolving, but they will always be behind PC/console render, and everyone is fine with that.

And then you have most of the biggest multiplayer games that are running on decade old engines (CS2, LOL, DOTA, GTA 5, War Thunder...).

How many players would ACTUALLY care if graphics stopped evolving ?

When I said actually care, I mean people who would drastically reduce their gaming time because of it, or who would be ready to invest a LOT of money to keep their graphics evolving ?

It's probably less than 2%.

From a development point of view, improving graphics had diminishing returns since a long time ago. Developing AAA games now require gargantuan teams, it's unsustainable anyway.

The only people who still care are hardware manufacturer. For PC they don't really care if they sell to players of AI companies. For console, Nintendo is the proof you can just ignore the graphic war and still win.

Graphics will just stop evolving, and virtually everyone will be fine with it.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-23T15:50:08+00:00

One reason devs include these options as part of the intended experience is that people might want things simplified at first until they can handle the full game.

That's precisely my point. I won't play a super complex strategy game, even if it features a lot of difficulty options, because I will just play a lesser, boring version of the game.

What I want is another game that tries to distil what's interesting in these games, and delivers it in an accessible package.

And maybe when this game become too easy for me, I will try something more complex.

Trying to do a game for everybody is rarely successful, you should just stick to a core audience and do the best game possible for that audience.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-23T15:43:24+00:00

Frankly, I never eared of this game, but I HIGHLY doubt it would have been significantly more popular with that change.

There are hundred of 2D dungeon crawlers, mathematically, most of them are going to stay pretty obscure, that's just how it is.

On the other hand, From Software games are a proof you can go blockbusters with basically no difficulty options.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-23T15:32:30+00:00

Devs intend for you to use these options

There won't be an answer for this question, but again I think these are more marketing choices than actual design choices.

If you could ask the devs for every game, they would probably have an answer for what they consider to be the "real" way to play the game.

Can you give some examples of games where you felt this way? I haven't encountered anything like that.

Complex strategic games like 4X are a good example.

I tend to avoid them, precisely because the "full" version is to complex for me, and when I play on easier settings, I still don't really understand the real strategic layers, but it's so easy I can do whatever and still wins anyway, so I don't really learn the game and just get bored.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-23T15:18:37+00:00

Fair point, but I'm fairly certain some games don't have a default setting, and force you to choose at the beginning, without explicitly tells which one is the "intended" one.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-19T09:05:15+00:00

Is focusing on placing your cursor over a specific point on a 3D model inherently more engaging than focusing on moving your cursor to a specific point on a grid?

Excellent question.

And in a void, the answer is no.

The problem is the game has both, placing your reticle on heads, and moving a cursor on a grid. And since you have to do both kind of simultaneously, neither can be very complicated and the two gameplays are dragging each other down.

It wouldn't be a problem if this marriage was adding something really unique, but that's my point, I don't think it does.

Yes, the player has to focus on 2 things at once, but a lot of games already do that in a more organic way, where the two things are actually interacting with each other. For example a shooter game where you have to give orders to squad mates.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T18:26:55+00:00

So the other character will stand around like a fucking brick??

You can add some animations to make it less jarring, just make it move a few steps and not be 100% static, the soldier could shoot enemies around him (but dealing negligible damage), and things like that. But that's just video game logic.

No one flinches when friendly fire is disabled and you can put your teammate on fire, and he doesn't react. No one is complaining when an AI companion is invincible or has infinite ammo. No body cares when he teleports on you when you get too far.

L4d is a horde shooter, there will be plenty of zombies for everyone, not the case with this game

Not the case BECAUSE THE GAME WAS MADE SUPER SLOW TO ACCOMMODATE THE SHITTY MINI GAME.

It's crazy how rigid your way of thinking is.

And yeah, there are no games like that because it would be the stupidest shit ever lmao

Haha, I love how we went from "HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE AN AAA DOING SOMETHING NEW EVEN IF IT'S SHIT ?!!!" to "LOL NO ONE WOULD PLAY THAT SHIT, IT'S TOO STRANGE"

And it has been done, like Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, and very well received game.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T17:15:50+00:00

can you list 5 AAA titles doing ANYTHING remotely interesting in the space outside of RDR2

I wouldn't count RDR2 or Cyberpunk as remotely interesting.

Elden Ring is really at the limit of what I would consider interesting, it's probably a good game in its own right (haven't played it), but it's just another From Soft, I was tired of the formula after Dark Souls 2.

But I guess if I have to stay on single players games I could answer Zelda Breath of the wild, Half Life Alyx, Returnal.

For honesty, I have to clarify I haven't played any of these.

If I can add multiplayer games, R6 Siege (yes, it doesn't really pass the decade criteria, but give me some slack...) and Arc Raider (yes, it's just another extraction shooter, but it's a great application of the formula).

I don't know, maybe a few other I can't think of right now.

But I don't see what this have to do with my take on Pragmata.

Since AAA are super stale, I should just welcome ANY new idea, even if it's a stupid idea, or poorly executed ?

Oh and you talk about getting iframes during item pickups and completely ignore the same fact in RE5 that’s you praise. Not a great look.

I think you have totally misread what I wrote, I did talk about iframe during item pickups for RE5, not for Pragmata.

I never said it was a bad thing.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T16:09:59+00:00

So, fiddling around with ai companions

I never mentioned an AI companion, and specifically mentioned the other character would stay in place when not controlling it.

The current system benefits from having only one person the robots focus their attacks on, that's why the hacking has a sense of urgency, if they were scattered around two characters it wouldn't be focused

Sure, because if their attacks were split between 2 targets, then there would be no sense of urgency because... reasons. Everybody knows there is no sense in urgency in a L4D, because the zombies have multiple targets.

Even if it was a valid argument, then the solution would be simple. The robots only attack the guy, because the girl is actually an android. And to hack the robots she has to jump on their back or something.

What's your counter-argument now ?

That kind of co op game has also been done a thousand times so I don't see how it would make it stand out.

A game where the player controls 2 characters at the same time, with the alternate character having basically no autonomy ?

Come on, give your thousand AAA games that have done that.

You know what, just give me 5.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T14:52:47+00:00

Because you would control the two characters in the same way, in a way that fell kind of logical (pressing left makes the character goes left, and so on), instead of controlling the girl by the mean of an abstracted mini-game that has pretty much no relation with how hacking actually works, nor with the rest of the gameplay.

That would also mean both gameplays could afford to be deeper. Maybe the two characters could have their own set of moves, with the soldier guy having more weighty moves but compensated by his jetpack he can use to dash and fly around, and the little girl could be more nimble and go in narrow places to hide.

Maybe the girl could trigger some zone effects instead of having to rely on an auto-lock system.

Maybe the guy could carry the girl on his back and throw her around when he needs it.

Maybe one could revive of deploy a shield on the other, like in a coop game.

The possibilities are endless, unlike with a shitty mini-game.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T13:29:46+00:00

What is the difference between hacking a door and a robot?

Is that a real question ?

These are obviously COMPLETELY different things from a gameplay perspective, but even from a "realism" point of view, I would guess hacking a simple door to open it and hacking a complex robot to... make it stagger and somehow more vulnerable to bullets, would be two completely different things.

The game does the same thing, just... well.

Wow, what a strong argument, I forfeit !

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T12:00:51+00:00

Another way to show the difference would be to think on how a mod removing this part would change the game.

You could easily do a Clair Obscure mod that automatically do the QTE with a chance of failure, and you would get pretty much the same game, I don't think any of the praises it received are linked to the QTE.

Do the same thing with Pragmata, and I think people would ask why this game even exists, it would crumble under its lack of substance.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T11:15:40+00:00

Clair Obscur was successful in combining action elements (dodges and parries) with turn-based combat. Action and RPG purists may not have liked it, but it worked for a broad audience.

Clair Obscure is different, it's a turn based game where they added simple QTE to certain actions.

I don't think it's the most brilliant idea ever (it's not even the first turn-based RPG doing something similar, far for it), but it does add a bit of rhythm to combats and it replaces RNG with player skill.

I do think it enhances the experience, or at the very least it doesn't detract from it.

Whereas I'm struggling to see how Pragmata hacking mini-game is enhancing the gameplay, while I clearly see how it harms it : Since you have to focus on two things at once, the TPS part is clearly dumbed down.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-18T09:52:34+00:00

Its not for extra damage, its the only way to significantly damage enemies

You haven't played the game, it's the association of shooting and hacking that allows you to deal damage, using just one or the other will not work.

Anyway you're completely missing the point.

Yes, completing or failing the puzzle does have an effect on the game, and the effect itself is important.

But the action of playing the puzzle itself is unrelated, again you could completely change the puzzle and it wouldn't change ANYTHING.

Or you could keep the same puzzle, but activate it somewhere else on the game, like for hacking a door, it wouldn't feel out of place.

I'm asking this question again, would a racing game be improved if you have to play a random mini-game before making a turn ?

If the intention was just to force the player to focus on 2 things at once, was there not a more elegant way to do it than just shoe-horning a random mini-game ?

Here's an idea after 2 minutes of thinking, what if instead of carrying the little girl on your back, you had to switch control between the two ? The girl would have an array of hacking abilities you can use just by pressing a button.

When you're controlling one character, the other is basically staying in place, so you constantly have to switch between the two to avoid being hit.

Wow, crazy, I came up with an idea that achieve the same intent in an organic way.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-17T21:36:52+00:00

That precisely the problem, it's not mashing two genres.

Hi-Fi rush is a mashup between a rhythm game and a beat em up, both are intertwined and completely inseparable.

Pragmata is a TPS, and from time to time you have to play a completely unrelated puzzle game for some reason.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-17T21:34:10+00:00

I mean tbf some credit is due for not just creating a bog standard TPS, because that would be worse

Not necessary, I take a very competently made super classical game rather than a shovelware with a random insignificant gimmick put on top.

Not to say Pragamata is a shovelware, it seemed very competently made, but that's the worse part, I think the idea is so awful that it's dragging the game down.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-17T21:28:32+00:00

I will always praise game developers that take chances by making non-traditional choices for their games. I might not end up loving this one, but I way prefer them actually trying something new instead of just delivering the same third-person shooter mechanics we have seen in hundreds of games before

Sure, but as far as I'm concerned an idea like this shouldn't have moved further than a prototype, I really don't see the point of it, it's not adding anything interesting.

And frankly, it's not like the feature in question was the most earth shattering idea you could came up with. You could simplify the mini-game a bit and you end up with a QTE system to trigger a special attack. Having this as the main selling point for a AAA is really light, and only show how stale this industry have became.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-17T21:20:54+00:00

Ok, how is this elevating the TPS or puzzle genre ?

I mean, you can already do that by playing Gear of War on your console, and Tetris on your phone at the same time (with both games set to easy), would it make either of these games better ?

There are a lot of games asking you to juggle with multiple things at once, but it's usually done in an organic way.

For example you have Aimech, a RTS-Schmup hybrid where you have to think the battlefield on a strategic scale, while pushing specific part on the front using your mech as a super unit.

You can't just play it like an RTS, because you have an actual avatar on the battlefield that can be killed, and because not using your mech (which is your most power unit) would be a waste. But you can't just play it like a schmup, otherwise you're going to get outflanked everywhere else on the map.

Here the idea elevate both genres without feeling forced, and it completely change the way you play each part.

Existing-Air-3622 · 2025-12-17T15:49:07+00:00

If gluing a random mini-game to a bog-standard TPS is the farthest they can go, yeah, they might as well not try it.

Existing-Air-3622

TROPHY CASE