|
al-azad posted:You called it depressing that characters focused on resource management don't have to be good at aiming like a character with a sniper rifle. That's not their focus and making them also have laser aim actively harms their purpose in the game while adding absolutely nothing to the design of the game. I called it depressing that characters aren't focused on more things at once, because in fact it does add to the game when a single character has more ways in which they can be played well or poorly, rather than fewer -- and especially so when the way that's missing is so central and well-suited to FPS games.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
doom is really really accessible. maybe not quake mp, but there's not really much you have to know about doom to play it compared to any other fps and it doesn't really have any advanced techniques you'd have to learn, the most you need to be good at is moving fast and aiming well
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
I just saw an ad for the current bad Humble Monthly, it quoted reviews from only IGN 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I called it depressing that characters aren't focused on more things at once, because in fact it does add to the game when a single character has more ways in which they can be played well or poorly, rather than fewer -- and especially so when the way that's missing is so central and well-suited to FPS games. But again, your normative framework of skill dominance implies that these new games are destroying opportunities for good players to demonstrate their skills, and that this is a net loss to the landscape of gameplay mechanics ("corrosion"). But those opportunities already exist and they will continue to exist in the games that have already been made that cater to those skill floors. It's not like if high skill-floor games were the only ones on the market, that those unskilled people would force themselves to get better. They would just not play at all. Your argument carries the elitist tinge that the unwashed masses are dragging things down to their level like some Beggars in Spain scenario, and preventing the better parts of humanity from truly shining. The more people who are able to have fun with games is a net positive, actually
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
The Colonel posted:doom is really really accessible. maybe not quake mp, but there's not really much you have to know about doom to play it compared to any other fps and it doesn't really have any advanced techniques you'd have to learn, the most you need to be good at is moving fast and aiming well Well, MP is what I care about, to be honest. Singleplayer design principles have changed too, though. Like think about the period of time when QTEs were in absolutely everything and how that's sort of been walked back a little but not really. There's a conflict there between the value of looking cool and the value of giving the player as much control as possible as often as possible. In Training talked about his frustration with characters having animations for picking up health packs -- a single minor example, but it's the same idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:But again, your normative framework of skill dominance implies that these new games are destroying opportunities for good players to demonstrate their skills, and that this is a net loss to the landscape of gameplay mechanics. I can definitely say that if every hero in Overwatch required twitch aiming to be good I wouldn't have played it after the open beta ended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
The first rule of fostering a competitive community in any game is to have people loving playing it. If a sizable cross-section of players find your game inaccessible or not worthwhile enough to bother improving, then it's dead in the water. All that competitive potential is immediately lost because nobody cares enough to keep the community going.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Olive! posted:I just saw an ad for the current bad Humble Monthly, it quoted reviews from only IGN Lol awesome
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I called it depressing that characters aren't focused on more things at once, because in fact it does add to the game when a single character has more ways in which they can be played well or poorly, rather than fewer -- and especially so when the way that's missing is so central and well-suited to FPS games. I really can't agree on this one. On a basic level you have to understand what you're game is trying to accomplish. An ideal competition is symmetric, everyone is on the same playing field. These are the games focused on twitch shooting and maneuvering with the player's dexterity being the deciding factor in victory. Something like Overwatch is about managing resources, and some characters are good at controlling them while others are good at repelling. It's bad if you require a high level of expertise to perform your character's basic job. Winston's skill is defending, pushing, and harassing the other team. A good Winston player needs to know the geometry of a level perfectly for his leaps to be effective. Adding an extra layer of precision aiming on top of that, when a character like McCree who focuses on damage and doesn't need to move around as much, makes Winston actively worse as a character even to a player that can control him at an expert level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:But again, your normative framework of skill dominance implies that these new games are destroying opportunities for good players to demonstrate their skills, and that this is a net loss to the landscape of gameplay mechanics ("corrosion"). Not entirely true. People play games for reasons that have nothing to do with the conflict we've been talking about. Some people would absolutely never play this sort of game, some people would only play this kind of game. The vast majority of people, however, are neither, and will play things because they look cool or have their favorite character in them or it's what their friends play or because the game's mechanics allow for funny or exciting circumstances to occur (regardless of how hard you have to work to create those circumstances.) Also, just generally speaking, games die out. Both in the sense of declining populations, obsolete tech, developers going under and taking their server architecture with them, and so on. CharlieFoxtrot posted:Your argument carries the elitist tinge that the unwashed masses are dragging things down to their level like some Beggars in Spain scenario, and preventing the better parts of humanity from truly shining. It does and I make absolutely no apology for it. It's aesthetics, not social welfare. Elitism isn't a bad thing here. CharlieFoxtrot posted:The more people who are able to have fun with games is a net positive, actually It is a positive for people to be happy, but it's not always worth the opportunity cost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
silent hill 3 was definitely not as well put together as sh2 plotwise but i think i enjoyed playing it more, and it was definitely way better than the first one if only because it found a balance with the dumb cult stuff that made me not end up completely disinterested in what was happening, and heather is much more of a character than harry. actually i think that's also why the cult stuff didn't feel really boring, claudia and vincent feel way stronger as characters than dahlia, who... was just kind of a giant rear end in a top hat.
The Colonel fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It does and I make absolutely no apology for it. It's aesthetics, not social welfare. Elitism isn't a bad thing here. Fair enough, you do you. I will continue to take pleasure in, and advocate for, games which offend your sensibilities. Cheers
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It does and I make absolutely no apology for it. It's aesthetics, not social welfare. Elitism isn't a bad thing here. lmao sorry dude but this is some lame-rear end poo poo. i don't care if you've got weird takes on fps games but this is just a really lame thing to say
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
I don't want to agree with tuxedo catfish so I bought 80 dollars worth of overwatch lootcrates, since it's my favorite game of all time now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
i can't even run overwatch
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
What was that MMO that marketed itself with vanilla wow raid elitism and then proceeded to flop immediately?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Andrast posted:What was that MMO that marketed itself with vanilla wow raid elitism and then proceeded to flop immediately? *hovers closely to mic* "The Wild Star"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
The Colonel posted:silent hill 3 was definitely not as well put together as sh2 plotwise but i think i enjoyed playing it more, and it was definitely way better than the first one if only because it found a balance with the dumb cult stuff that made me not end up completely disinterested in what was happening, and heather is much more of a character than harry. actually i think that's also why the cult stuff didn't feel really boring, claudia and vincent feel way stronger as characters than dahlia, who... was just kind of a giant rear end in a top hat. SH3 didn't get going until far too late in the game. And Dahlia was lame but Kaufmann and Lisa more than make up for it whereas Vincent and Claudia are kind of nonexistant creepy people and the detective guy a huge goof. Part of it may be nostalgia, SH1 and SH2 were the only games in the series I played when new, but SH1 has this sense of place that neither of the sequels has managed yet. Silent Hill is modeled like an actual town and the drug fueled (literally) story keeps things slightly more grounded. I think I'll like The Room the best. I enjoy the mundane normal world aspects of Silent Hill far more than the gross rusty chain sections and SH3 leaned heavily on those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
al-azad posted:SH3 didn't get going until far too late in the game. And Dahlia was lame but Kaufmann and Lisa more than make up for it whereas Vincent and Claudia are kind of nonexistant creepy people and the detective guy a huge goof. Part of it may be nostalgia, SH1 and SH2 were the only games in the series I played when new, but SH1 has this sense of place that neither of the sequels has managed yet. Silent Hill is modeled like an actual town and the drug fueled (literally) story keeps things slightly more grounded. the detective guy being a goof owns, though. i love that his entire character is that he's basically just a depressed old guy who accidentally stumbled into something really hosed up and he doesn't really have any idea how to deal with it anyway this has been way too much silent hill for me for one month so i'll probably play the room next year if not at some point before then
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
al-azad posted:I really can't agree on this one. On a basic level you have to understand what you're game is trying to accomplish. An ideal competition is symmetric, everyone is on the same playing field. These are the games focused on twitch shooting and maneuvering with the player's dexterity being the deciding factor in victory. That's fine, at least now it sounds like we're arguing about the same thing. There's a space between perfect symmetry and making any skill completely interchangeable with any other, though. I didn't mention it by name but the game I was referring to earlier was Brood War. Brood War is extremely asymmetric in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of each race, but no race is excused from the fundamentals of the game -- every race benefits from good micro, good base layout, good build orders, good timings, and so on. There are unique qualities that each has to worry about the others don't -- you don't need to know exactly how Zerg units respond to move commands to be good at Protoss, for example, in much the same way a Pharah player doesn't have to master hitscan aim. But no one is excused from the fundamentals. This is important not only because of the effect it has on the skill ceiling -- that's important, yes, and while removing a particular skill check lowers the skill ceiling, most players will never get that good. You're right about the fact that Overwatch still has a high skill ceilling overall. (Although I wasn't saying that it didn't, just that it could be even higher.) But there's another aspect to it, which is parity -- imagine, for a moment, that one of the races in Brood War didn't have to control its units. It just builds them and they go off and do their own thing. If you changed nothing else about the game, they'd probably be garbage -- the ability of a player who masters unit micro to press their advantage would overwhelm them. To make up for this, you have to give them some other advantage -- maybe all their guys have better stats, maybe they have really smart AI, whatever. This brings them up to balance, but it devalues micro -- why bother practicing something when you could get an equal advantage for free? (The alternative, of course, is to have one faction/character/whatever who's easy to play but just sucks. This isn't good either; it's a waste of development resources and kind of sucks if you're someone who likes that character for other reasons and doesn't want to have to choose between getting good and playing their favorite.) On top of that, this kind of slanted balance creates an unsolvable balance problem between different skill tiers -- you have to figure out what kind of player the power level of the "free" advantage should be based on. Say you make the AI in the previous example as smart as an average player. That is going to be an overwhelming advantage in a game where everyone is low-skill, and an overwhelming weakness in pro play. Conversely, if every character scales similarly, then bad players will have pretty fair odds against other bad players, and good players will have pretty fair odds against other good players. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Oct 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Mercy may have made Overwatch more accessible to people who are bad at aiming, but old Mercy was by an enormous margin the worst thing about the game, and from what I've read new Mercy is arguably even worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
I don't think class based team shooters and RTS games have enough in common to make points about the former using the latter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Mercy may have made Overwatch more accessible to people who are bad at aiming, but old Mercy was by an enormous margin the worst thing about the game, and from what I've read new Mercy is arguably even worse. Heroes like Rein or Winston don't need aim either
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Mercy may have made Overwatch more accessible to people who are bad at aiming, but old Mercy was by an enormous margin the worst thing about the game, and from what I've read new Mercy is arguably even worse. In my last post, you know how I talk about the difficulty of balancing a character who's excused from certain skills -- about exactly what level of "free" power is appropriate? New Mercy is what happens when you answer that question with "even more than extremely high skill would get you."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Heroes like Rein or Winston don't need aim either Neither of them are easy to play well though. I might be missing a lot of points in this debate because I don't find it inherently interesting, and thereby missing your point too, but Rein and Winston are not easy mode characters for noobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Mercy isn't overpowered because she's easy to play, it's because she has a rez
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
mutata posted:Neither of them are easy to play well though. I might be missing a lot of points in this debate because I don't find it inherently interesting but Rein and Winston are not easy mode characters for noobs. They are not easy to play well but they are very accessible for people who aren't good at twitch aiming. Tuxedo Catfish seems to think this is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Also old Mercy, while incredibly tedious to play against (and tedious to play as -- characters with no twitch skill and whose positioning decision tree mainly boils down to "run and hide" aren't fun to play, either), was also very weak -- the worst healer by far. From a balance perspective, she needed to be stronger. From a parity/design standpoint, she needed to be crap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Andrast posted:They are not easy to play well but they are very accessible for people who aren't good at twitch aiming. It's not a bad thing, it's just a very unimportant good thing. It's like worrying whether conservative Christians will be comfortable playing Diablo 2. Some of them will overcome it, and the ones who don't, well, that's their loss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
My thoughts are that not all games should try to be all things to all people, hth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's not a bad thing, it's just a very unimportant good thing. It's like worrying whether conservative Christians will be comfortable playing Diablo 2. Some of them will overcome it, and the ones who don't, well, that's their loss. I'm glad the developers didn't think because I really enjoyed playing Overwatch for around six months
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
I don't see why twitch aiming is the be all end all benchmark video game skill and why that's the only skill that has a high skill ceiling. It sounds like that's just your favorite one so that's your go to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
This conversation has me, as a new owner of Quake Champions, considering installing it and giving it a spin
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Is Super Mario Odyssey the first Mario game with titty jiggle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
mutata posted:I don't see why twitch aiming is the be all end all benchmark video game skill and why that's the only skill that has a high skill ceiling. It sounds like that's just your favorite one so that's your go to. It isn't, either the be-all and end-all or my personal favorite; FPSes aren't even my favorite genre. But it doesn't need to be either of those things for any of this to be relevant. If we lived in an alternate universe where console controller design never shifted the emphasis of FPS games away from aim, but rail shooters somehow became the default for some reason, I'd be talking about how we need to bring back positioning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
tap my mountain posted:Is Super Mario Odyssey the first Mario game with titty jiggle? Which character? The chain chomp lady? I am writing a 50,000 word fanfic about Mario giving up on Peach and dating that bunny lady.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
The only good multiplayer shooter rn is Splatoon 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:This conversation has me, as a new owner of Quake Champions, considering installing it and giving it a spin
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:Holy poo poo the first run experience of Destiny 2 is so poorly designed. Non-Nintendo console games are so universally lovely about this it is weird to me that you still hear people talking about what a hassle it is to get games to run on a PC. Between games just loving running when I click run, and SSD load times my PC is 100% better for just sitting down and playing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
it's funny to me that everyone in oddesseyy speaks like a minion and the bad guys are rabbids
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 20:13
|
|
