Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: You have an odd definition of "update" then... | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 6/15/11 2:12 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: You have an odd definition of "update" then... (uberfoop) : Though, rather unfortunately from my standpoint, I must concede that you're
To clarify: it is fantastic from the standpoint of the producer because the producer has to keep in mind the perspective not of any individual player or group of players, but has the problem of trying to maximize the interest and enjoyment of all possible players. It is problematic from the perspective of a player who believes that their competence is above the point on the curve where they benefit less from random kills than they are cheated by random deaths-- whether or not they are actually above that line or not. Myself, I am not bothered more by "random" deaths than deserved ones, especially if I get more of the latter than the former, and if the latter are accompanied by no kills earned at all-- justifiably or unjustifiably. Being beaten soundly and consistently, I think, is simply not fun for most people unless you're looking to get on a skill-building treadmill, and that's the usual response Cody gives-- that one should work hard and improve in order to have fun. How this all works when everyone moves up the curve is unclear, especially if, like Halo 1, the way the engine works is designed to take small differences and amplify them by being wholly deterministic. I would argue that, at least at some level, parts of the
I see your point. What I've been advocating here is that you probably like Reach less well, compared to Halo 1, than a significant portion of the current online player community would dislike Halo 1 online compared to Reach, because groups of mixed skill that seem almost fairly-matched now would likely spread out. Margins of victory would likely increase across the board. Winners would enjoy themselves more and losers would quit. This creates a cycle where as more losers drop out of the population, and the game engine takes whatever difference exists between the good players and the least good remaining players, and drives that wide open again until more and more people quit. The random element you mention above is designed to create a virtuous cycle, where success or the possibility always seems just out of reach; where even when losing it feels like you had a chance, and even if you didn't execute as well as your enemies all the time, you can get a few kills, enough to encourage you to keep playing. TLDR version: The better a Halo player thinks he is, the more likely they are to believe that Halo 1 is a superior game, that better players have more fun, and that poor players should work to improve if they want to have more fun. The problem is that this is not, strictly speaking, an addressable market by itself. Half of Halo players are below average. They bought the game too, they want to play it, they want to have fun-- working at it to get better may not be part of what they want from the experience, beyond the improvement that generally comes with repetition and familiarity.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |