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: RC Master | Date: 11/14/09 11:31 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: So you guys want specifics on game design eh.. (Narcogen) : Except now, with the higher skill ceiling, those players are able to win more : convincingly than before Only when there is a mismatch, and/or a player is still on their way to reaching their "True Skill" and is still a long way from it. The entire point of the matchmaking system is to put players together that are of equal skill. Ideally, every game should come down to a handful of points, and thats where the 50/50 win/loss comes in, because you're playing with people that are as good as you. In practice the matchmaking system does not always work this way, due to restarted accounts or players intentionally losing etc. Personally, I'm failing to see how and why you believe that having the cap on skill be higher would cause players to stop playing more quickly. People still play Halo a lot, even with the supposed lower skill ceiling, but this more due to the ever changing difficulty and challenge of other players than merely a raw level of skill. Perhaps you're saying that meta-experience is more important than the raw experience of gameplay itself? While top players are moving up the True Skill ranks, perhaps then their wins will be more convincing (or where they approach their True Skill they will still be able to win more regularly because the difference in skill is more tangible). But this should only serve to move them faster up the ranks towards their ideal location more quickly? ODST on the other hand, I (and 13 others) have already completed the campaign SLASO (Solo, legendary, all skulls on). On a pick up game, going in with zero strategy, no map experience and only originally intending on getting the 200k achievement, on the map Lost Platoon (you're probably aware of it, even if you haven't played it) I laid down 12 complete sets, 6 million points and (at the time) the world record score. The only reason I stopped playing was a) because I needed to go to sleep, and the xbox is loud, b) because there was nothing left to master, nothing to overcome, it was just grinding beyond that point, I wasn't dying to the enemies. Now, obviously many would say, in this situation, go play on legendary, choose a different map etc. But in light of other people having played the same map on Legendary, using very similar tactics, and achieving 10 million odd points and themselves only quitting because there was no other score left to beat, it gets pointless. Especially when it takes dozens of hours to lay down a score like that. Other maps too, because of the map design and volume of enemies, gameplay retreats into: Wait here for enemies, take them out. Using HP's paradigm, the game becomes unfun, because it is mastered, because it is 'solved', because there is an entirely dominant strategy, which to deviate from produces lower scores, more difficult and frustating gameplay and less success. So people stop playing. From what I've read so far, HP's game design paradigm seems admirable (make either execution or strategic complexity (or 'skill range') 'sufficient' to have a game that is never mastered), but still entirely wishy-washy with no real specifics. This is more your main point of contention I would think, rather than that the goal of said paradigm is flawed. Chess was one example given of a game that excellent in that: it is relatively easy to understand the rules, and it is nearly impossible to entirely 'master' it. There are, of course, different opinions and other contributing factors (social experience surrounding the game and whatever) that contribute or detract from its overall "fun" value. But the core 'gameplay' 'skill' can be anywhere on an extremely long line. Going from this there are, of course a myriad of other reaons why people (well, a lot of people) have stopped playing ODST (or don't like it for this or that), but strength in one area can in many ways prop up failings in others. (how many people really play Halo 3 campaign these days? but because of the social, easy to access, always on and always changing and different Halo 3 MP experience, people still play the game). Even with ODSTs relatively low firefight skill ceiling, I would guess (yes, unfortunately we have no way to quantify it) that many people more people would still be playing ODST if there was a matchmaking/seach feature for its Firefight (and campaign) mode. - wow, this way longer than intended and probably won't even be read by many people :(
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |