Why I'm Both Excited and Worried About Hunt: Showdown's Future

If you've worked with me in the past few years, you've probably heard me gushing about Hunt: Showdown. I've consistently called it one of the best FPS games ever made – specifically, one of the best first-person extraction shooter games. And I stand by that! But lately, I've been feeling a bit worried about Hunt's future and the path it's taking. Maybe I'm over-thinking it (occupational hazard of being a game designer), but hear me out.

The Curse of Being a Game Designer

As a Game Designer, I feel you can never just play games anymore. There's always this part of your brain picking apart every mechanic, every system, thinking "oh, that's how they solved that problem" or "hmm, I would've done that differently." It's both really useful for improving as a designer and kind of annoying when you just want to enjoy a game.

That's what made Hunt so special for me - it was one of those rare games that made me forget about all that analysis and just feel that pure excitement again. Well, at least until recently. Now I can't stop thinking about its all the little decisions and changes being made to Hunt, both good and concerning!

The Obvious Stuff (That's Still Worth Talking About)

Let's get this out of the way first - Hunt's sound design is incredible. Not just good, but probably the best in the industry. But it's not just about having cool gun sounds. The whole sound system and how sound is used as a mechanic is brilliant.

Here's what I mean: You're sneaking through a compound and you see murders of crows (yes, that's the proper term) just hanging out on the ground. Move too fast or make too much noise near them, and boom – they explode into the air with a loud caw that basically tells everyone in the match "Hey! Someone's over here!" Those crows aren't just annoying- they're part of this whole risk/reward system that makes Hunt unique. There are plenty more examples of similar systems that I could probably write a whole separate post just about sound design (maybe I will?).

Then there's the combat's "juiciness." Every action in combat has this wonderful weight to it. When I say weight, I don't mean your character feels heavy – it's more about how each action feels meaningful. Take the Avtomat, for example. When you start firing that beast continuously, it feels like you're actually trying to tame something wild. Your ears start ringing, making it harder to hear what's going on around you. Every shot matters, and you need to think before you pull that trigger.

What Really Makes Hunt Special

Here's where it gets interesting. Hunt isn't the only “deliberately” paced shooter out there - games like DayZ, Escape from Tarkov, and even older tactical shooters like Rainbow Six or SWAT have all explored methodical gameplay. But Hunt does something unique with its pacing that sets it apart even from its cousins.

Where games like DayZ create tension through scarcity of resource, and Tarkov builds it through complex gear systems and upgrades, Hunt achieves something special through two systems: action economy and information economy.

Action Economy is a fancy way to say "what can you do and what does it cost you?" In Hunt, every action is like making a trade:

Want to sprint? Cool, but everyone's going to hear you coming
Need to heal? Sure, but you'll be vulnerable for a few seconds
Want to take that shot? Better make it count, because that reload time is no joke

But here's the clever bit - Hunt makes all these trades super clear. When someone takes a shot with a Sparks, everyone involved knows they've got about 4 seconds before they can shoot again. That's not just a random number - it's a window of opportunity that creates these amazing moments of tension.

Information economy is the other piece of the puzzle. Think of it like a poker game - except instead of cards, you're trading in sounds, sightings, and strategic positions. Those crows I mentioned earlier? When you're moving between compounds, you'll often find them sitting right on the fastest path forward. Sure, you could trigger them and sprint past, but now everyone knows where you are. Or you could take the long way around, but that costs you time. Hunt makes these trade-offs crystal clear without cluttering your screen with UI notifications and pop-ups.

The magic happens when these two systems work together, they make you feel the cost of every action. You're constantly getting new cues that demand quick decisions based on sound and sight. Hear a heavy melee attack charging up? That hunter's probably waiting around a corner, ready to swing. Door opening slowly? Someone's trying to be sneaky. These aren't just cool details - they're pieces of information that shape your decisions.

Take the weapon system, for example. We're in 1896, so most guns are single-shot weapons. When you fire that Sparks LRR, and you recognize the sound of the gun, you're looking at a 4-second reload. Yes, 4 whole seconds – that's an eternity in an FPS! But this creates these incredible moments of decision-making. Do you peak and take that shot now? Wait for a better angle? As you know a headshot is always a kill so if you're patient enough to create the right opportunity, you can take down anyone regardless of their equipment or your aim speed. It rewards thoughtful play as much as it rewards good reflexes. Every trigger pull matters because the cost of missing is so high.

Consistency is what makes this whole system work. When you hear a certain sound, you know exactly what it means. Every mechanic has a reliable information signature attached to it, usually in the form of sound, from opening doors to swapping weapons. And to add more depth, most actions have variations in which they can be performed - you can slowly open a door (quiet but vulnerable), normally open it (medium sound), or kick it open (loud but potentially lethal to anyone behind it).

This broadcasting means players can learn and master the system, and get rewarded for learning these small details. When you make a good decision based on sound cues and positioning, you feel like a genius. The game rewards deliberate, thoughtful actions while still maintaining tension and excitement.

Where Things Might Be Getting Dicey

Now we get to why I'm a bit worried about Hunt's future. The game is has been wrestling with two major design challenges, these are by no means game ending but they are something that it looks like the teams has been slowing chipping away at:

Solving the dreaded stalemate problem
Making the game more accessible to new players

Let's talk about those stalemates – you know the situation. Two teams camping different corners of a compound, neither willing to make the first move because it means giving away information. It's about as exciting as watching paint dry. While this is absolutely a problem that needs solving, I'm concerned about how we're trying to fix it.

It feels like with each new patch, we're seeing mechanics that chip away at one of Hunt's core pillars: predictability in the information economy. Let me give you a concrete example: the health chunk system.

Originally, this system was beautifully simple - get downed and revived, lose a health chunk. That's it. Unless you banished a boss or used trait points between matches, that chunk was gone. It created this clear strategic advantage - if you downed someone, you knew they'd be weaker after the revive.

Now though? We've got all these new mechanics that don’t necessarily have any broadcasting:

Rampage: Kill someone while missing health chunks? Get them back!
Relentless: Get downed but keep your chunks when revived
Recovery shots: Just... inject your chunks back

Sure, these mechanics are technically "balanced" through various costs - trait slots, consumable slots, money, or scarcity. But they're reducing the value of information that used to be crucial for strategic decision-making.

It feels like in the pursuit of fixing stalemates, we've almost forgotten about what makes Hunt special. More and more actions have less broadcasting and fewer counterplay options.

This erosion of identity goes even deeper when you look at weapon identity. Back in the day, each gun had a clear personality defined by its ammo size, types, velocity, and damage. Certain special ammo types were exclusively available for specific weapons, making each gun feel unique. But over time? Almost every gun got access to almost every ammo type, and the velocity and damage differences have become so similar between some weapons that cost has become the main thing setting weapons apart.

Remember when we got the Stalker Beetle? The community lost its mind. A surveillance drone in our 1896!? Sure, people eventually accepted it because the cost-benefit ratio made it barely worth taking, but it represents this ongoing trend.

The Bigger Pattern

I get what Crytek is trying to do here. They're smoothing out some of Hunt's rougher edges to make it more accessible while tackling issues like stalemates by reducing information broadcasting. And they're approaching it cleverly – introducing changes gradually, letting the community adjust before taking bigger steps and It's usually one step back, two steps forward.

But here's what bugs me - these changes seemed to be more focused on making the game more broadly appealing, and not addressing some of the core gameplay issues.

Take the Necromancer trait evolution: First, it let you revive teammates from a distance an unlimited number of times (well, until they ran out of health chunks). Then it became a solo player's best friend, letting them revive themselves until they run out of Health Chunks. Then it got balanced to a burn trait, burn traits can only be used once, and it felt like this it, the end of the revolution of revive mechanics. Nope. Once the dust settled on necromancy changes, here come the Revive Darts for the hand crossbow - basically remote revival as ammunition (Side note Revive bolts were removed in Patch 2.3). Like I said, one step backwards and suddenly two steps forward.

Here's the thing - Hunt is still Hunt. It's still one of the best high-stakes FPS games out there, with incredible audio and uniquely satisfying gunplay. I want nothing more than to see the game succeed. But as someone who loves this game for its thoughtful, strategic core, and as someone who truly understands the passion the team has poured into making Hunt what it is today, I worry this trajectory might not be right.

Thoughts moving forward

If we're sticking with the current trajectory of changes, I believe we need to refocus on what makes Hunt special: its information clarity and deliberate decision-making. The goal shouldn't be to eliminate strategic play, but to ensure it remains dynamic.

Take the Scarce and Burn traits system. In their simplest form, the more powerful traits are now categorized as either Scarce or Burn. Burn traits are consumed after use, while Scarce traits cannot be purchased and must be found in the world. Right now, these “powerful” traits can pop up anywhere on the map, which introduces randomness with no counterplay opportunity.

To bring strategic decision-making and broadcasting back to these systems, we need to introduce predictability into the equation. For example, what if we tied specific traits to specific bosses? This would preserve Hunt's core value of predictability – players approaching the Assassin's lair would know exactly what potential Traits defenders might have, allowing for informed decisions rather than surprises.

On the flip side, this creates meaningful choices for players at the start of a match. Imagine a map with two bosses - knowing which traits are dropped by each boss would inform your strategy about which one to prioritize based on what you want to extract from the session. The beauty here is adding strategic depth without sacrificing information clarity – you're expanding options while maintaining the consistency that makes Hunt special.

Generally if I were to give advice on a direction I would focus on 2 key areas:

Horizontal Gameplay Expansion: Instead of adding more power restoration mechanics (which reduce the consequences of actions), we should expand strategic options horizontally. New consumables and tools that create interesting choices rather than safety nets, Hunt shines when players have meaningful choices with clear trade-offs, not when they have ways to undo their mistakes. For example Bird seeds that attract crows to create distractions or false information signals would add depth to the information economy rather than undermining it.
Environmental Deterrents: At its core, the stalemate problem is an information economy issue. Players refuse to move because movement broadcasts valuable information while providing no counterbalancing benefit. From a design perspective, environmental deterrents could rebalance this equation without removing player agency. But forcing movement through arbitrary mechanics contradicts Hunt's respect for player agency. Instead, the environment itself could create natural pressure that players can still choose to accept or avoid, this has been explored with changing weather and its a good direction to further explore.

Final Thoughts

For now, I'll keep playing, enjoying and analyzing, and definitely keep sharing my thoughts (sorry, coworkers). Because even with these concerns, Hunt: Showdown remains one of the most fascinating games to play and analyze.

What do you think? If you're a Hunt player, have you noticed these changes affecting how you play? And if you're a designer, how would you approach solving some of these problems while preserving what makes Hunt unique?

Hunt: Showdown's Design Brilliance Is At a Crossroads