Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Interus]

Okay.

Semantic:

1: You are right. Games are defined as a competition of skill. Nothing about fun in there.
2: You are wrong. Games are things made to be fun.
3: You are right. Games are so broadly defined as to be a worthless term.

This is... very silly. By that logic, single-player games aren't games, because they aren't competition. Please don't use the first generic dictionary definition of the word "game" to make any sort of argument when we're obviously talking about a particular medium that uses the appellation. That isn't productive or useful.

Single player games can easily be competitions.  All you have to do is have some way of keeping and comparing scores.  Other than that, I agree that the dictionary definition isn't what's being discussed.

[mainiac]

In an attempt to rerail the conversation, I want to try a different tact.

The problem isn't the manner in which you grind.  Grinding is actually a pretty valid way to represent a character becoming more powerful.  I don't think anybody doubts that experience leads you to gain useful skills.  The problem actually lies in the fact that your skills don't have any character.  I mean consider this story I just made up:

"Old One-Eye Magee started off one day an idealistic young scamp from the Followers of the Apocalypse, setting out to heal folks and right the worlds wrongs.  Well turns out the world had plenty of both.  The young scamp turned into the hardened wander, bearing the scars of a hundred fights and around every fight there were always people needing to be saved.  These days Magee is the finest doc this side of the Colorado, he'll bring you back from the brink of death and you'll be up and walking the next day."

I basically just described the experience of someone learning surgery from shooting douchebags.  But it feels plausible because practicing medicine was what those fights were about.  The character of One-Eye Magee is somebody who gets into violence because he's seeking medical challenges, thus it seems reasonable to think that as he takes levels in badass, he must be getting good at that medicine.

Whereas in New Vegas, I had a character who was good at science, lockpicking and speech because... well those are useful skills to have.  But why wouldn't every wasteland wander be just as good as I am at those?  What sets me apart?  We can all be special in our own way, but we can't all be special in every way.  There should be some tradeoff somewhere.  Maybe it shouldn't be too hard to get speech up to 100, but once you do you can't raise lockpicking or science above 60.  Then it stops being 'I shot douchebags and learned brain surgery" and becomes a matter of experienced characters getting better at their particular specialties.

Sorry if this rambles, it's pretty late where I am and I'm just posting due to insomnia.

[Soadreqm]

"Less realistic" does not imply "better" either, and sometimes, an ideal of realism (although not complete realism, which is totally absurd) can make a better game, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

Well, obviously. What I was actually trying to say is that realism should not be your ultimate goal. You should be making the game more realistic to achieve something else, ie. the game being good. Not every game would benefit from an injection of realism. And while you weren't saying that realism was "good" and non-realism was "bad", piecewise was.

My old nemesis....we meet again!

It is good to be arguing with you again, Nenjin.

I think we're disagreeing at a pretty deep level here. You seem to be saying that the character advancement system should be an interesting part of gameplay, whereas I believe that it is usually a pointless gaming abstraction that should be made as unobtrusive as possible.

I suppose you CAN make the leveling engaging by itself, rather than just something that you have to do in order to proceed further in the game. If you try that, you would obviously be going for a complex system. Not realistic, mind, but complex. Like the one in The World Ends With You. For killing enemies, you get experience, which makes you level up, granting you stat boosts. At the same time, the your pins gain "PP", making them level up and become more powerful. Turning the Nintendo DS off also gives PP, as does interacting with other NDSs, and depending on which kind of PP the pins get, they can evolve into different pins. Slain enemies also drop more pins, and the types of pins and the drop rates can be changed by adjusting the two separate difficulty sliders. Pin power is also affected by local fashion trends, which are in turn affected by which pins you use in battle. Unneeded pins can be sold for money, which can be used to buy clothing (that grants stat boosts when worn) and food (which grants stat boosts when digested). That took a while to explain, and I think it's a pretty good example of a fun and interesting character advancement minigame. It couldn't be used in any other games I can think of, and works on its own, internal alien logic that doesn't give a damn how the real world works.

On the other end of the spectrum, I think the first Deus Ex did a pretty flawless job at making skill advancement not get in the way. You get skill points for completing various mission objectives, some of them optional, as well as exploring hard-to-reach nooks and crannies. The points accumulate, until you decide to spend them on purchasing a new level of skill in whatever craft you think you need. You don't have to specifically work to get skill points, as you get them for completing objectives. There is no way to grind for them, other than thoroughly exploring everything and solving all the sidequests. And while the skills are helpful, they're not strictly NECESSARY. Lockpicking is a matter of having enough disposable lockpicks. First aid uses up medkits. You can use any gun without having any skill, and leveling up just makes it easier. Hacking is pretty much the only thing where you need the skill to even just try some things, but it's never the only way to solve the problem at hand. And then there's the augmentation system, which is realistic in that you are given an in-story reason why you suddenly have these superpowers. For those who never played the game, you had to hunt down these little cans filled with nanites, and then get a medbot to install them, while making some strategic decisions about which of the mutually exclusive abilities you would take.

Neither of these felt grindy. In Deus Ex, grinding was simply flat out impossible, as there were no renewable sources of neither experience nor nanites. In TWEWY, I was grinding like a slave in a treadmill, but I loved it. I was only trying to become more powerful so I could defeat some enemies with harder difficulty settings so I could get pins I didn't have yet. I could have breezed through the game at any time by just switching to easy mode. I was leveling up just to see more levels, neglecting the plot, which I guess is what happens when you have a fun minigame. Screw Ganondorf, I have fish to catch.

I don't really see how a learn-by-use system could NOT be grindy, unless you made every aspect of the game, from shooting dudes to picking locks to treating injuries to talking to people so fun and engaging that you would do it even if there was no actual reward for it. Which is prohibitively difficult, but not actually impossible, I guess.

[G-Flex]

Well, obviously. What I was actually trying to say is that realism should not be your ultimate goal. You should be making the game more realistic to achieve something else, ie. the game being good.

That's a really loaded response. What does "good" even mean? "Good" for any work simply means that it accomplishes something valid, or, more often, that it accomplishes what it sets out to do. If something tries to be realistic for the sake of being realistic, and people appreciate that and get something out of it, then it's "good". "Good" does not mean "something I would personally enjoy" or "something that lives up to the arbitrary expectations I've placed upon it".

In Deus Ex, grinding was simply flat out impossible, as there were no renewable sources of neither experience nor nanites.

For the most part, I agree with you about Deus Ex, but in one way I feel it shoots itself in the foot. The game tries to go for a "multiple-possible-paths" approach. There are multiple solutions to every problem, and the idea is that you use whatever approach is appropriate to you/your character. The problem is that the approaches are usually not mutually exclusive. If there are eight ways into a building in Deus Ex, the smart way is to use all eight, because you'll probably get more skill points and equipment doing it. If you're given a choice between "break into an armory, steal some explosives, and use them to blow up robots" and "use your hacking skills to shut down the robots remotely", you're probably best off doing the latter, breaking into the armory anyway, and stockpiling the explosives for later. There's little sense of one option actually requiring you to give up another, except for plot-related things. So yeah, there's no grinding, but to a decent player who likes to explore, there's still a concept of doing everything possible to get skill points and loot even when there's no obvious reason to do so and your objective can be completed without it. That's really one of my only major complaints with the game; there's so much choice within it, but in the end that choice doesn't mean much to me, because the smartest choice of all is "all of the above".

I don't really see how a learn-by-use system could NOT be grindy, unless you made every aspect of the game, from shooting dudes to picking locks to treating injuries to talking to people so fun and engaging that you would do it even if there was no actual reward for it. Which is prohibitively difficult, but not actually impossible, I guess.

A solution to this is to provide enough goals and challenges that grinding simply isn't necessary. After all, why spend an hour exercising your skill doing nothing (jumping repeatedly against a wall, etc.) when you can spend an hour putting it to use to accomplish something, which still exercises it? Of course, most games are limited enough in terms of content that this isn't how things pan out, or, as in many learn-by-use systems, some things are simply too easy/difficult to practice through normal use.

[Soadreqm]

What does "good" even mean?

Of things: Having in adequate degree those properties which a thing of the kind ought to have.

This is the definition I was going for. "Bad", for reference, I am using to mean the opposite. If something tries to be realistic for the sake of being realistic, and people appreciate that and get something out of it, then it's "good". If something tries to be realistic for the sake of being realistic, and people don't appreciate it and consider it a waste of time, it is "bad". My argument is that what a game developer should be doing is try to achieve "good", instead of "realism". If you think realism will lead to "good", then you use realism. If you do not think that realism will lead to "good", then you do not use realism. For my part, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Do you have difficulties understanding my argument, or do you simply disagree with it?

If there are eight ways into a building in Deus Ex, the smart way is to use all eight, because you'll probably get more skill points and equipment doing it.

Yeah, you're right. I don't think this is actually much of a problem, though. I like the exploration, and exploration is likely what I would be doing even if the game didn't give me anything for it. It's only grinding if I'm doing it to achieve something else. There isn't much in-character reason to go around crawling in every air vent, but I don't worry that much about character motivation. If anyone asks, I'm just roleplaying a kleptomaniac stalker with a fetish for secrets.

It does kind of limit the choices, though. I suppose the only real choice is between punching through the game, ignoring the tantalising siren song of the locked doors and the hidden augmentation canisters; and meticulously searching every area to make sure you don't miss anything. The latter approach gives more XP and equipment, but you'll likely only need it if you're taking the slow approach.

why spend an hour exercising your skill doing nothing (jumping repeatedly against a wall, etc.) when you can spend an hour putting it to use to accomplish something, which still exercises it?

Having games where that was actually possible would be pretty cool, but I can't really think of a single one. In Morrowind, the jumping skill was fairly useless until you got it to a decent level, of very limited utility even when maxed out, and there were three spells that could do the same job, not counting the rare and exclusive Fortify Skill. This happens to a lot of skills in a lot of games. There just isn't enough to do with it. Specifically, there are SOME things you can do with the skill in question that sound pretty cool, and you need to train the skill up to try those, and until then there's fuck all to do with it that is actually interesting.

[Criptfeind]

What sets me apart?

Well this one does have a easy answer. The fact is; you are the hero.

You are the wanderer of the wastes. The hero of the strip. The leader of armies. The fist of Caesar. You are special. You are above the normal wastelanders.

That's pretty much the point.

[G-Flex]

In an attempt to rerail the conversation, I want to try a different tact.

The problem isn't the manner in which you grind.  Grinding is actually a pretty valid way to represent a character becoming more powerful.  I don't think anybody doubts that experience leads you to gain useful skills.

"Grinding" does not mean gaining skills through experience. It means gaining skills (or any other measure of character ability) through mindless repetitive tasks that don't really count as any sort of valid experience for the player at all, and hardly even would for the character.

What does "good" even mean?

Of things: Having in adequate degree those properties which a thing of the kind ought to have.

This is the definition I was going for. "Bad", for reference, I am using to mean the opposite. If something tries to be realistic for the sake of being realistic, and people appreciate that and get something out of it, then it's "good". If something tries to be realistic for the sake of being realistic, and people don't appreciate it and consider it a waste of time, it is "bad".

Why do people do this? Why do people think that dictionary definitions are even relevant here? Hell, I don't even think this one applies at all, because it's prescriptive; it assumes that a thing "ought to have" certain "properties". That's not how art works. Art is not prescriptive, and there are no "ought"s. What matters is what it is and what it's good for, not whatever expectations are placed upon it externally.

My argument is that what a game developer should be doing is try to achieve "good", instead of "realism". If you think realism will lead to "good", then you use realism. If you do not think that realism will lead to "good", then you do not use realism. For my part, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Do you have difficulties understanding my argument, or do you simply disagree with it?

I have trouble understanding your argument because I have absolutely no idea what you even mean by "good". Your explanations... aren't. "Good" means something completely different for each game. It's not some unified goal.

If there are eight ways into a building in Deus Ex, the smart way is to use all eight, because you'll probably get more skill points and equipment doing it.

Yeah, you're right. I don't think this is actually much of a problem, though. I like the exploration, and exploration is likely what I would be doing even if the game didn't give me anything for it.

Yeah, to some extent I agree, but I wish there were more exclusive choices. I wish that going one way (or having one set of skills) actually prevented other options to some degree, because then I'd actually feel like I'm choosing... but this isn't true for most of the game.

why spend an hour exercising your skill doing nothing (jumping repeatedly against a wall, etc.) when you can spend an hour putting it to use to accomplish something, which still exercises it?

Having games where that was actually possible would be pretty cool, but I can't really think of a single one. In Morrowind, the jumping skill was fairly useless until you got it to a decent level, of very limited utility even when maxed out, and there were three spells that could do the same job, not counting the rare and exclusive Fortify Skill.

Haha, yeah, although to some degree that's a problem with the magic/enchantment system... of which there are several. You're definitely right about those two skills not having much use, though. Would be nice if they affected other things, or affected those things more meaningfully.

[Soadreqm]

Why do people do this? Why do people think that dictionary definitions are even relevant here?

People do it because you keep asking them to define every word they use. You asked me what I meant by "good". That is such a basic concept that I honestly would find it pretty difficult to explain in my own words. As my access to a university network gives me access to the internet version of OED, I thought I'd look how a group of posh English professors had solved the issue I now faced, and found a rather elegant definition of the word that coincided with the meaning I had already mentally assigned to it. Of course I am going to quote it at you. If you don't think that a definition of a word is relevant, why would you ask for it? As a stalling tactic? To exhaust me into submission? Fuck you, G-Flex. Fuck you.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Never change.

Anyway, since we are on the highly intriguing subject of semantics, I might as well ramble on about this for a few paragraphs. There are certainly things a game ought to have. They are different for different games, and different for different people, but they're still there. From a player's point of view, a game should entertain him, and if he finds it boring, the game has failed. Most developers are making games so that people will play, enjoy, and most importantly, buy their games. If a great many people find the game boring, and the game fails to generate enough revenue to cover the costs of developing it, they are most likely going to consider it a failure. There are other metrics to judge a game by, and the "enjoyment" I alluded to is incredibly vague, but saying that it is impossible to judge a work of art isn't really correct either.

I don't see why we shouldn't argue about the merits and flaws of video games just because there's no objective scale to judge them by. People do the same for other media of art. You can certainly think that a painting is shit, why not a video game? And if you can put into words why you think a video game is shit, why not bicker about it on the internet?

Which is exactly what we have been doing. Piecewise claimed that realism was basically the best thing ever, and games should strive to be more realistic. I argued that this was not so, and that not every game would be made better by a large dose of realism. Then we're suddenly talking about what I meant with "better" and I don't even know what's going on anymore.

[G-Flex]

There are certainly things a game ought to have. They are different for different games, and different for different people, but they're still there.

Problem is, it doesn't just vary per person, it also varies per game. I know I don't expect the same from every game, and there have been games that don't really "entertain" me in the same way as, say, the vast majority of games I've ever played, and they were still good on their own terms. If you're talking about the popular market, then yeah, of course people expect certain things, but people's expectations don't necessarily apply to a given product, and commercial success is pretty independent of the "quality" of a thing.

There are other metrics to judge a game by, and the "enjoyment" I alluded to is incredibly vague, but saying that it is impossible to judge a work of art isn't really correct either.

Right, I'm not saying it's impossible to judge a work of art. I'm saying it's impossible to try to apply universal criteria to it instead of judging it based on its individual merits. If I say a video game is bad, I'm not going to say it's bad because it failed some test that I expected it to pass even if the game never chose to take that test to begin with and was made for completely different reasons, for instance. A good critic judges something based on its own merits, not on arbitrary criteria imposed upon it. If I think "Eraserhead", "Caddyshack", and <insert documentary film here> are good films, that doesn't mean they succeed in the same criteria at all, or serve anything of the same purpose. At least I hope they don't, in that case.

Which is exactly what we have been doing. Piecewise claimed that realism was basically the best thing ever, and games should strive to be more realistic. I argued that this was not so, and that not every game would be made better by a large dose of realism. Then we're suddenly talking about what I meant with "better" and I don't even know what's going on anymore.

If it helps, I agree with that.