ITT: the only correct way to play games

Sαndtrap · August 29, 2016, 12:47:14 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2016, 12:45:18 AM

Quote from: Doop on August 29, 2016, 12:43:17 AM
What if I enjoy increased difficulty?
this is less to do with what you enjoy and more to do with whether you care to play games properly or not

no one's saying you have to care

I care not for playing properly then.

FUCK THE SYSTEM

#YOLO

Verbatim · August 29, 2016, 12:53:21 AM

Quote from: Doop on August 29, 2016, 12:47:14 AM

I care not for playing properly then.

FUCK THE SYSTEM

#YOLO

i mean, playing on the hardest difficulty is certainly better than playing easy mode or something

apparently, Doom is contradictory in the sense that it has a "normal" difficulty, which would suggest that that's the standard, but the developers have gone on record to state that the "hard" difficulty is the definitive Doom experience

in my opinion, if it was the definitive doom experience, they wouldn't have called it "hard"--that doesn't make any sense to me, but not everyone thinks in the same terms as i do

the case is the same for Halo--the game is "meant" to be played on heroic, yet it has an easier difficulty called "normal," which i find misleading

challengerX · August 29, 2016, 06:25:38 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Batch · August 29, 2016, 08:01:09 AM

1. Whatever you like
2. Whatever is most enjoyable
3. Find out what you enjoy
4. Whatever is most comfortable
5. Customise to your fitting (provided its not cheating) it's your world.

don't be a cunt Verb.

Deleted · August 29, 2016, 11:00:00 AM

Quote from: challengerX on August 29, 2016, 06:25:38 AM

]Who cares what the developers say? The majority of the time they're all a bunch of fucking retards who can barely play their own game.

Its all good untill the devs change everything because they suck at the game they made and dont get it.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/96446/titanfall-2-game-director-on-a-slower-paced-multiplayer

Quote

"After the original game, we sat down and looked at it objectively. We got a lot of feedback from the outside, from fans, from research saying, "Hey, there's not enough. There's not enough content. We want more content." Internally, we played the game and came out of the play session thinking, "That was super exhausting. That was super chaotic." Why is that? We struggled with trying to answer what it was.
What it came down to was, it was difficult for players to have a predictably unpredictable kind of experience. It was difficult for players to say, "If I die here in this game mode, how do I get better?" Do I zig? Do I zag? What should I have done differently? It was hard for Titanfall players to answer that through their experience. So we went back to the drawing board so we could fix this.
We started by addressing the fact that you move so fast. You can't shoot out of the air so easily. So we slowed things down just a touch. Then also thinking more in terms of having players more proactive decisions, so instead of reacting to everything, they're thinking more like, "This match and this mode, this map, etc." They go, what things in the loadout menu will best help me fulfill that purpose. There's a much greater sense of purpose for players, so now they are thinking in terms of planning ahead, in terms of "I want to do this. This is my goal, this is my identity of how I am as a player." There's a huge difference, because all the different modes now kind of necessitate the player proactively thinking about what they want to do."

Meanwhile, with the people who actualy know how to play:

YouTube

Elai · August 30, 2016, 05:45:18 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 29, 2016, 12:53:21 AM

Quote from: Doop on August 29, 2016, 12:47:14 AM
I care not for playing properly then.

FUCK THE SYSTEM

#YOLO
i mean, playing on the hardest difficulty is certainly better than playing easy mode or something

apparently, Doom is contradictory in the sense that it has a "normal" difficulty, which would suggest that that's the standard, but the developers have gone on record to state that the "hard" difficulty is the definitive Doom experience

in my opinion, if it was the definitive doom experience, they wouldn't have called it "hard"--that doesn't make any sense to me, but not everyone thinks in the same terms as i do

the case is the same for Halo--the game is "meant" to be played on heroic, yet it has an easier difficulty called "normal," which i find misleading

because developers use relative terms to describe their difficulty. in their minds, normal does not mean "way the game was designed to play", but "normalised/average difficulty"

Arren · September 02, 2016, 10:01:44 AM

What's an example of a game which does not have a normal difficulty, or at least some kind of default?

I cannot think of why reason 1 would be considered correct.

I have disagreements with reasons 3 and 4. One size does not necessarily fit all with controls, nor should it. If a player's personal, subjective control biases enable them to experience the intentions of the developer, those controls have served their purpose to the game. They should not be homogenized.

As for no mods I only see the argument that they're not representative of the experience the developers made, but improvements to that formula can be made to make the experience more enjoyable to the player, or perhaps a different set of mechanics improves other aspects of the game the designers wanted to convey, but didn't;or those areas the designers didn't even think of which present novel ways of expanding on their content in the future. Bethesda's approach to analyzing fan mods and incorporating them into their games allows them to evolve features they might not have thought of otherwise which expands their initial vision. I don't see a problem with this.

I'm surprised you didn't add a 6.) Legally

Verbatim · September 02, 2016, 10:18:14 AM

Quote from: Arren on September 02, 2016, 10:01:44 AM

What's an example of a game which does not have a normal difficulty, or at least some kind of default?

Guitar Hero/Rock Band is usually the first example I think of. There's easy, medium, hard, and expert--but that game is unique in the sense that the "proper" way to play it would be to start at easy and work yourself up to expert. Once you can play every song on expert, there's very little reason to play anything easier.

Keep in mind that this thread isn't to be taken too seriously. I just really like pissing people off with my opinions.

Quote

I cannot think of why reason 1 would be considered correct.

There are many, but perhaps the biggest reason is that console is where all the best games are.

Quote

I have disagreements with reasons 3 and 4. One size does not necessarily fit all with controls, nor should it. If a player's personal, subjective control biases enable them to experience the intentions of the developer, those controls have served their purpose to the game. They should not be homogenized.

Personally, I like to play on a game's default settings no matter what--even if it's uncomfortable. The way I see it, if the developer wanted me to play with x control scheme, they would've made that the default control scheme--but they didn't, so, in my opinion, that should be respected. If I've already beaten the game once, then I can start experimenting with other control schemes.

However, if it's something like a fighting game, then you should be able to map the controls however you want. Tournaments allow you to do this.

Quote

As for no mods I only see the argument that they're not representative of the experience the developers made, but improvements to that formula can be made to make the experience more enjoyable to the player

That's only if all you care about is enjoyment--in which case, there's really no fixing that. I don't necessarily play games just to have fun. That seems very base to me.

Quote

or perhaps a different set of mechanics improves other aspects of the game the designers wanted to convey, but didn't;or those areas the designers didn't even think of which present novel ways of expanding on their content in the future.

To me, when a developer releases a game, it's like submitting a test. What you got wrong is what you got wrong, and there's no turning back once you've already handed in your paper.

Quote

I'm surprised you didn't add a 6.) Legally

Figured it was implied by #1.

Arren · September 02, 2016, 06:22:11 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 02, 2016, 10:18:14 AM

As for no mods I only see the argument that they're not representative of the experience the developers made, but improvements to that formula can be made to make the experience more enjoyable to the player

Quote

That's only if all you care about is enjoyment--in which case, there's really no fixing that. I don't necessarily play games just to have fun. That seems very base to me.

I agree on baseness, I should have made my point clearer. I don't think enjoyment in the context of a game needs to necessarily be fun, as people can also derive pleasure from tragedy. A personal example springing to mind is this little story. What I should have instead said (and what I later said) was about the ability of the mod to expand the designer's vision, which you have addressed below...

Quote

To me, when a developer releases a game, it's like submitting a test. What you got wrong is what you got wrong, and there's no turning back once you've already handed in your paper.

We have different subjectivities here. I see games more like scientific papers, they're first conceived and developed by the original "research" team. Upon launch they go through various "peer review" procceses (whether that's the horde of critics or the players themselves) and then through play the endeavors of their ideas are tested. At no point are the findings definitively finished, new adjustments can be made to portray the researchers ideas.

Quote

I'm surprised you didn't add a 6.) Legally

Quote

Figured it was implied by #1.

Assuming that one was true