Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: So you guys want specifics on game design eh.. | |
| Posted By: Hawaiian Pig | Date: 11/13/09 10:47 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: So you guys want specifics on game design eh.. (Narcogen) : I think I'd also agree that it is more difficult, but I'm just not sure what : that's relevant to. I think it's a normal Yankee prejudice to assume that : hard work pays off and generates better things. : However I'm also inclined to agree with Brecht: virtue is not bound up with
: Especially so since I seriously doubt the statement that such a game would
I think I mentioned several times that the focus for designing games does not have to be solely on one side of the fence or another (there are certainly a few points of intersection). I still feel that changes to one side are practically inconsequential to the other. Rich atmosphere and story doesn't affect in any way the three elements of higher level play I discussed (that you seemed to skip over; fair enough, if I wasn't into narratives either I may have glossed over a discussion on literary theory). : Yes, I think some of us did think that was silly, or perhaps more
Yeah, I was buttering up those words. It was straight up wrong. : No, I don't think we think that. I don't think that. What I think is that if
I'd invite you to actually consider game theory a little more, then. At the moment I think you're dismissing it "just because" you're not entirely familiar with it. If you don't like the sports analogy, look at literally any other non-cooperative multiplayer game that is highly successful and has enjoyed significant longevity; there are countless examples of games with a low buy-in for new players and a very distant skill ceiling. I can play chess, but I have no idea what the name of the opening is when I move my pawn forward two spaces. I can play that game on the fly and wing it, and if I'm playing with someone of equal skill it works. It derives complexity entirely from strategy, as its a game of perfect information and no execution element. At the strategic level, there are a finite number of rules that provide a significantly large number of options. That said, the number of options isn't too large, so the game doesn't get overwhelming. This is a game, I feel, exemplifies significant complexity. Would adding a compelling narrative and backstory to the two warring factions of the chess board interfere with this? Would adding badass cinematic-style animations to the board disrupt this balance? If there were a social element to party chatting during chess, would changing the rules of the game truly affect this interaction? I feel it actually does to some extent. Since the difficulty in mastering a game can determine the longevity, it also determines how long you want to play a specific game before it gets stale for you and your buddies. I noticed in various ODST threads that people felt firefight practically ended after Wave 4 and, at that point, it becomes solvable. Once it's solved, no one wants to play it. Perhaps due to lack of complexity in strategy (maybe: once wave 4 hits you employ one strategy and changing it unilaterally would not benefit you in anyway), or perhaps due to execution-based elements (maybe: Halo gameplay can't be stretched indefinitely as one's player control and interaction with the world isn't varied enough). It's here that I think designing with the higher level (again, the term is hierarchical in terms of concepts, not skill based) elements of play that I described can benefit others. Adding depth in these areas can provide longevity, whether or not all players realize it. : I think this assumption is, in nearly every important respect, wrong. Just
I'm not sure why you're so vehemently against the sports metaphors. (Part of) Halo is a non-cooperative multiplayer game, and this is directly analogous to sports as well as any other adversarial game. I feel that depth of strategy, execution, and information exchange are fundamental in all non-cooperative multiplayer games, and Halo is no different. : If the requirements of the competitive gamer require core game mechanics that
: The idea that this can easily be 'tweaked' in a way that seems so
Halo, to some extent, like chess strikes an admirable balance when you look at it strictly from a game-design standpoint (as opposed to say story-design, graphic-design, social-network-design). As a system of rules (developed by the "sandbox") that dictate one's strategy and execution and that regulates one's available information, I think it finds an interesting mix. That said, I do think this can be tweaked, and so does the developer. AR starts, as I mentioned, very much epitomizes this. As a safeguard for weaker players, the impetus was to keep headshottable weapons out of players hands to mitigate the execution-based elements of BR play. The problem was, that the dominant strategy of BR use is still available, and that leads to an imbalance of available dominant strategies. As I said in the original post (in the part you seemed to not understand?), this forced the game to rely on the initial AR encounters which are easier to master (execution) and, therefore, have a frustratingly low skill ceiling. It's no surprise, then, to see that there's either considerable discontent with AR starts or just simply apathy. Those who don't understand (or more specifically, do not derive satisfaction from the competitive elements of play) simply don't care, and the effect on them is minimal. At best, it only serves to bring them slightly higher up in trueskill rank and ultimately mismatch them with players who excel with the dominant strategies. I'd contend that, while BR starts would limit their rank, they'd get matched up more accurately, would not get dominated, and then continue to not care. If the aesthetic of the rank is bothersome, then adjust it superficially. : You just keep saying the same things. You admit that as the audience becomes
And you frustratingly insist that it's impossible and throw up your hands. I think that's unfair; I've been trying to demonstrate how it is possible, and you seem to ignore that. : Is it your assertion then that Halo, or perhaps merely ODST, is
I'll reiterate here: Halo strikes an interesting mix of the higher level elements of play. On the competitive multiplayer side, exceptionally well. On the campaign side, well it is less important to consider these elements of play; however, as I've touched on in this thread and in others, that "dullness" of encounters in ODST (most specifically, Firefight Scenarios in the campaign) can be addressed when thinking of these elements. The monster-closet encounter ends up devolving into a single strategy: you sit there and wait for enemies to come and you react. Strategically, it's drastically thin. This leaves complexity to be found only in the execution of the encounter (and there are only so many times you can Shoot, Grenade, Melee the same guys over and over). Instead, as many can attest, some of the best encounters are strategically rich and provide the player with multiple options. The often recalled large and open encounters in Halo 1 provide extreme versatility in this regard. Strategy is found in the two warring factions (flood/covenant), the many options of entry into the battle, the weapons you bring to the battle and so forth. I'm rambling, but do you not see how these concepts apply and can enrich the experience? I think a lot of the things GhaleonEB criticized in his post on ODST (that I vehemently agreed with) can be considered in this context, and I feel they would benefit from developers doing so. : The movie industry is making interactive movies? News to me. I thought that
Hah, nope, but the video game industry is. :) : Honestly, beyond this point I had extreme difficulty in extracting what it is
This is really unfortunate, as the aim of the post was to attempt to deconstruct how I view complexity in games. The ideas are tough to grasp, and I may not be so great in articulating them, but I was hoping you specifically would give it a chance. : Your (ahem) 'casual' dismissal speaks volumes. The volume it was intended to speak was to say: Come on guys, this should be a given, and I shouldn't have to clarify this. : I think where the accusations come in is where it is assumed that better
: I've railed against this in the past but I think it is self-evident that,
: You think they're right, I think they're right. Do I think they're right? I think they made some of the best decisions they can. Some don't resonate with me, but I do have to make concessions when there is an intersection of interests. I still feel, and have attempted to demonstrate this at every turn, that crafting a social experience need not bring down the skill ceiling. Many competitive games and pro sports (oh no!) don't compromise the fun to be had in a pick-up game with friends. The difference between sports and Halo, here, is that we must constantly return to the issue of matchmaking. Everyone plays on the same court. That said, I think it's an absolute band-aid solution to adjust the game itself rather than find solutions to the matchmaking system. That said, I made these concessions and continued to play Halo. Why? I actually value the social aspect of Halo more than the competitive aspect. Mainly because the latter isn't as enriching as I find it in other games. Of course, these concessions are similar to how the lore junkie in me would excuse things like the sudden disappearance of a certain hand-cannon from the UNSC's armory. You'd think humanity's last hope would have access to the most powerful shit available to him. Also what the hell happened to the Mark VI's gaunlets. : Yes, because looking at the top titles on live, it's evident that Halo is
A second multiplayer mode lacking in Significant Complexity™ : You're entitled :) ty : Still need to define your terms :) a goatrope is a cool guy. cool guy can be broken down further. guy is a clearly defined term, however cool is tougher to address. I feel that this can be understood to operate within a hierarchy of concepts... : Let's put it this way. With regards to multiplayer, replayability for some
Agreed with that. : If this is the case, increasing the skill ceiling only increases the
Should this not, by definition of the matchmaking system, place them at a point where they win as much as they lose? Is that not the point of the system? Players will grind away in the matchmaking system, winning games, until they start to lose. At that point, is the ideal not to keep them at this point, straddling the height of their personal skill ceiling? From there, wouldn't further practice at this level increase their personal skill ceiling? What happens when the height of that skill ceiling has a low limit? When players hit that, they quit playing. Halo's ceiling is sufficiently high enough that this doesn't happen as often. Other games suffer from this greatly. Maybe we should consider this in game designnnnnn. : This is exactly what I mean when I say the benefits of such changes are not
This part really doesn't work anymore in light of what I said above, and I think you need to specifically demonstrate why applying the concepts I developed result in asymmetrical game design. I think I went to great lengths to demonstrate otherwise. We're still cool right?
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |