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: 6/20/11 12:26 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: You have an odd definition of "update" then... (uberfoop) : This must be the big problem here, then; I certainly haven't laid out my : argument particularly well. I apologize. Well, here goes, albeit rather : informally: __________________ : The main source of gameplay frustration is the sense that something has : happened unfairly to you. i.e. if something happens unfairly to the : player, this can cause frustration. : Having more factors outside of the players' control, ie things that at least : at some level might be perceived as "luck", enables more : opportunities for the sense that something unfair has happened. : Having more deterministic gameplay typically means less perception that : things happen due to luck. : So, a game being more deterministic reduces the main source of gameplay : frustration. : __________________ I disagree with your primary assumption about the main source of gameplay frustration. It is only one potential source. Players often feel as if something has happened unfairly even when it hasn't, and this makes this very difficult to quantify. Further, when competition occurs between players of differing skill, losing itself can be a frustration, even if it all is perfectly fair and transparent. I could only begin to accept your assumption with the rider that "all other things being equal"-- the problem is that all things are rarely equal. : The idea is that, contrary to what seems to be your assumption, I hold the
I don't think I need to accept this assumption without it being established. You're trying to set that, for all games, at all times, unfairness related to events that are random or perceived as random is the single largest source of player frustration, and reason from that to the idea that it is no longer necessary to examine any two games for inherent sources of frustration. I think this is false, and I don't see the reasoning that has led you to this conclusion. : If we look at Reach, there are more circumstances that lend themselves to be
Halo 1's pistol is a power weapon, and is ridiculous. Making it a spawn weapon does not solve the game's balance issue. Halo 1 has other power weapons, the sniper and the rocket launcher, for instance. These exist in Halo 3 and each has similar tradeoffs as the original game, in terms of effective range, accuracy, ammo capacity, and reload time. I would not accept it as established that Halo 1's weapon balance is superior to Halo 3's (it is not) nor would I accept it as established that the gap between Halo 3's power weapons and non-power weapons. This arises from a misapprehension that Halo 1's pistol is not a power weapon, but rather a non-power spawn weapon. It counters the power weapons very well-- because it is itself a power weapon. : ___________________
: *Though admittedly I cannot demonstrate that this particular point is
I do not think the effect of Halo's "luck" is equally applicable across the entire spectrum of players. I don't think a player who normally would get beat 15-0 and instead loses 12-5 is in danger of hitting a wall of diminishing returns on his "unfair success". Likewise, the player who in a more deterministic game might win 15-5 but instead is winning 20-0 because of a run of good luck is also in no danger, as the degree to which luck is helping him is inconsequential. In short I think what Bungie realized in iterating the series was that a little bit of indeterminism that compresses the way that the theoretical skill gap is expressed in the practical kill count helps marginal players more than it hurts superior players. I apologize if I'm not willing to go into that more deeply; I've discussed it at length with Cody Miller and others in this forum over the years and it's such well-worn territory that I am loathe to revisit it. : ___________________ : I think I would agree that success is still more enjoyable than failure, even
: I also admit that I can't necessarily imagine a game which eliminates luck
For any player who is unwilling to specialize in the use of the pistol where the pistol is available on the map, or is a spawn weapon, I'd say Halo 1 runs, skips, and jumps right over that boundary. The absence of a single dominant weapon in just about every other Halo titles allows players personal freedom to prefer some weapons over others in similar situations without necessarily being punished for it. : A rather important question: are we talking PC or console? If console, I'll
Console. I haven't played on a PC since the original Halo 1 demo. : Possibly. Being a human being, I feel okay admitting that sufficient
Yes, I just think the value of the nostalgia market is overestimated within this particular forum, which is not representative of the wider market.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |