next »

[gimymblert]

@charlie
Obviously I enjoy rubber banding, I don't like racing game and competitive shit. But there is still a way to counter balance rubber banding ... scoring system, basically you enjoy the journey but then the game tell you you didn't do really well and where that you and can do better which compel you to try harder!

However minecraft (and similar random procedural simulationist game like DF) would be a game for you, there is no difficulty curve it's all up to you how hard the game is without artificial system (hide in shelter or brave the unknown).

However the only way difficulty curve make sense is when you make game, not when you play them because it's all hidden.

[Graham-]

Take Super Mario Bros 3 for example. In it you can control how fast you tackle a level, whether you use warp whistles. Each play through a level gives you a little more knowledge about it, making it easier during your next try. These elements of the game are elegant "adaptable challenge" controls.

its called good LEVEL DESIGN dude.

Yeah, that's my point. "Adaptable challenge" _is_ level design. You've spun it around to mean something different. You're okay when I control a challenge through a level design, but once I control it through some kind of "logic" you have a problem. The difference between the two is arbitrary. What matters isn't whether challenge is manipulated or not. What matters is how it is done, what the challenge curve looks like afterward, and so on.

---

Rubber banding is excellent game design. You just said nothing is inherently anything, then immediately imply that banding is inherently bad, literally two sentences later.

Mario Kart is about fighting the pack, your pack of friends. In the game you are either in the pack, a little ahead of the pack, or a little behind. That is the 3 ideal scenarios.

I've played a lot of Mario Kart. I played the SNES, 64, and Gamecube versions a good deal, with a wide range of people: people much older, younger, guys from school, from my personal life, family members and so on. That is a wide range of skill of competition. I know how banding affects the experience.

When a player dominates the competition in Mario Kart the resulting experience isn't that interesting for anybody. It isn't interesting for the leader, or the followers, because neither is challenged. If a challenge is too easy consistently it becomes boring. It it is too hard consistently it becomes boring. In both cases it is boring because the challenge is beyond what the player can apply themselves to. Senior university classes in Comp-Sci may be challenging but to an average high school student they may as well be meaningless, because the student would understand so little of it. Similarly, a kindergarten class in arithmetic would be equally boring, hopefully.

The ideal challenge curve fluctuates between a little too challenging - as-in insurmountable - and a little too easy - as-in barely requiring effort - in interesting patterns. Sometimes it stays closer to the top. Sometimes it stays closer to the bottom. Aside from your persistence, lack of challenge is sometimes valuable in life. Consider sleep; rest; sun bathing; getting a massage; sitting with family around a fire late at night, staring into the flames, lightly chatting. This is why Flower sells, and not just to sub-humans, but with real people who have challenging jobs and need down time to recuperate. A person who never needs down time has an entire life of downtime.

Banding takes competitive multiplayer and tries to insert an ideal challenge curve. It brings the challenge up for the strongest players, and brings the challenge down for the weakest. Bitching because you lose a few times because of a blue shell is for players who are barely better than their competition and can't tolerate the loss. If you are really that good at the game then you'll win the long run. Man up and accept a few losses. You should enjoy the pressure. Similarly, the weaker players who are given a boost are given more opportunities to improve.

If you want to improve your straight racing skills play Forza. Mario Kart is for interacting with your friends on the track, not for comparing lap times; and even if you do want to do that there's a mode for it. The game is about narrowly dodging shells, zooming past one another, seeing each other screw up and living inside your interactions. It is a game about what happens when two buddies are near each in a game where fun shit happens. "Yelling" is a good thing. I mean yelling in a positive way, when you're having fun.

NSMB is a fine game. Games sell because they provide. I don't sit around and judge the masses. I don't believe in a "sub-human." That's bullshit for people who can't interact with everyone so they blame someone else. That doesn't take courage. Judgment is for the weak. Acceptance is for the strong, because it puts the burden of responsibility on yourself, not everyone else.

I also like NSMB. I played it with my step-siblings, who are much younger than me, by 10 years. There are 3 of them. We played all the way through the game. It was pretty good. I had to stay aware of their behaviour to succeed, and they just tried not to die. It was challenging in a new way. It challenged my platforming skills because I had to be so reactive to their stupid bullshit, and it challenged my abilities to predict their behaviour.

Whenever I see someone slam it, and listen to their description of their experience playing it, there is always this pattern: "I tried to play it like a typical platformer, and everyone else got in my way, therefore I died, therefore I perceived the game as random, therefore it is bad." It is not bad. It is different. It takes more communication with your partners, and a deeper understanding of their habits, and even on top of that, avoiding them is still quite challenging.

Games go from "easy to hard." To the player they fluctuate between easy and hard, but that's because the player is increasing his skills as he progresses. The challenges in the game themselves are easy then hard. The only difference between this structure and rubber banding is the implementation. Both adjust challenge based on player skill. Banding just does it with multiple people simultaneously. That is a harder thing to do right.

[gimymblert]

By the way nintendo game are notorious for their absence of skill ceiling, I mean look at time trial in mario kart to see there is plenty skill just for driving alone, items only pills up on the skill needed (there is way to avoid blue shell, it's different in every game). I have watch someone talking about driving strategy for mario kart snes for 4 hours, 2 of them just for driving. Try doing arrow circling with pit in brawl and actually do improvisational combo with them.

The problem is that so called hardcore really want a kind of "feel good" cheap difficulty and challenge, the kind of challenge that is ego stroking.

[Graham-]

It's all about the ego.

[Charlie Sheen]

imagine a mod of Super Mario Bros where the next level you're going to play is determined based on how many times you die in the current level. so if you dont die at all the next level will be hard, whereas if you die like 10 times the next level will be easy. now of course, someone who's playing the game for the first time won't notice any of these rules and as a result will be immersed as much as possible. the best he will notice is that the levels are randomly generated. but sooner or later he will notice that these levels are not exactly random but tied to what HE does, and as soon this happens the immersion will be gone since these rules make aboslutely no sense whatsoever within the context of the world. i mean, for fucks sake, what does falling in the pit have to do with what's the next level? it's downright idiotic.

are you getting what im saying here? you see, there ARE good games which let you adjust the difficulty within the game. take, for example, Dark Souls where you can choose to go to Catacombs and play a very challenging game or go to Undead Burg where you can play an easier game that will let you improve your physical strength and in turn make the Catacombs easier. same shit BUT DONE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAMEWORLD. now look back at that SMB example and tell me: what sense does it make to think "oh, I won't be able to tackle the next level if it's way too hard so I'm just gonna change it by falling 10 times in the pit"?

there is still a way to counter balance rubber banding ... scoring system, basically you enjoy the journey but then the game tell you you didn't do really well and where that you and can do better which compel you to try harder!

scores are as bad. they too make no sense whatsoever within the context of the gameworld.

However minecraft (and similar random procedural simulationist game like DF) would be a game for you, there is no difficulty curve it's all up to you how hard the game is without artificial system (hide in shelter or brave the unknown).

yeah, except that minecraft is void and DF is too ugly to look at (minecraft is ugly too but the first issue overshadows it).

You just said nothing is inherently anything, then immediately imply that banding is inherently bad, literally two sentences later.

only apparently so. in reality, there is no contradiction whatsoever. kinda lazy to explain this tho lol.

When a player dominates the competition in Mario Kart the resulting experience isn't that interesting for anybody. It isn't interesting for the leader, or the followers, because neither is challenged. If a challenge is too easy consistently it becomes boring.

so that's why we have democracy, right? the strong people got bored of being so strong and the weak got bored of being so weak, so we decided to pretend that everyone is equal so we can at least pretend we're having fun. not sure what i just said, but sounds deep man.

anyways, good players should seek out good/better players not resort to self-deception lol. that's for weaklings.

Consider sleep; rest; sun bathing; getting a massage; sitting with family around a fire late at night, staring into the flames, lightly chatting.

i dont do any of these lol. sleeping is so boring which is why i never want to go to sleep. sun bathing lol. getting a massage wtf. i can barely get myself to sit with my family tbh. waste of my time. and starring into the flames i only do if my mind is busy thinking about things (which is also what happens when i sit down with my family lol). lightly chatting? dont know whats that.

so why should i play flower? makes no sense!

--

okay, i wanted to reply to all of your points but i got bored too early. maybe another time.

[Uykered]

Fabulous posts Mr Sheen!

[gimymblert]

Don't play game, play simulation, game are abstract arbitrary rules to create an emotional journey, game are just not for you : P

It's not democracy it's "fun", nobody want to be bored, if they are bored, nobody play, if nobody play the game is pointless. Game are for player not game designer.

[Charlie Sheen]

the problem with you guys is that your language is cancerous. and it's not just you; it's a pandemic.

see for example:

Don't play game, play simulation

but all videogames are simulations! there is not a single videogame that's not a simulation. tetris, for example, is as much simulation as gran turismo is. they are just different shades of the same.

game are abstract arbitrary rules

lol. all rules are abstract ffs! what you mean is something else and that something else has absolutely nothing to do with abstraction but with theme. tetris, for example, isn't "abstract" (actually it is, just as much as other games are), it's just a little weird considering it's about blocks falling down.

i dont know what "arbitrary" means here, so im parsing your statement as "games are rules" lol.

to create an emotional journey

all journeys are emotional, at least all the good ones (but so are the boring ones too, but just a different shade of emotional you see).

consider, for example, that the very point of videogames -- that the very point of simulations -- is to fool you into thinking you are taken to another place, a kind of place that is better than real life. if real life can give you "emotional journeys" then so can videogames. am i being clear?

[gimymblert]

My language is cancerous WTF!

A simulation mean you should simulate something that exist in the real world into a world a representation, tetris is own reference therefore is not a simulation. As tetris is a world without any reference that itself it is abstract, that's pure logic here.

All arbitrary (which mean made up without any reference) rules are not emotional journey, you just made a syllogism.

[Charlie Sheen]

My language is cancerous WTF!

hahaha. but dont worry! scientists are working on the cure. in the mean time, you should check radiotherapy which is to say you should stop talking lol.

but really, dude, if you can say something funny like this:

"random procedural simulationist game"

that's a sure sign of cancer! four words! "procedural" -> all videogames are procedural, "simulationist" -> all videogames are simulationist, and "random".. is just random. and what are we left with? nothing but a game.

and then you go on arguing that simulations simulate things that exist in real life.. yeah dude, minecraft totally exists in real life! i mean, i saw a creeper the other day and ive just finished building my house made out of lego blocks.

and then you go on to say that tetris does not refer to anything but itself lol. but how did alexey create it in the first place for fuck's sake? did such question ever occur to you? how did alexey come up with the idea if tetris referred to itself? he just pulled it out of thin air? makes no sense whatsoever.

[gimymblert]

Minecraft simulate much more than tetris and imitate aspect of life, at least creeper are predator or monster, those does not exist solely in minecraft. There is bit of abstraction, but yeah it's mostly a simulation aka A REPRESENTATION.

Tetris takes cues from constructivism wich is a russian movement toward abstraction but does not attempt at being a simulation of this. Whatever you can't be more abstract since it takes inspiration in abstraction.

Procedural is short for procedural generation in case you are really stupid.

But there is no point to discuss any further if you are curbing the meaning of the world to your own view AND view them as absolute when these are not.

End of discussion

[Charlie Sheen]

But there is no point to discuss any further if you are curbing the meaning of the world to your own view AND view them as absolute when these are not.

translated:
"But there is no point to discuss any further if you are speaking your mind AND speaking your mind."

now that at least shows that the author is confused.

and the full translation would be:
"But there is no point to discuss any further if you are going to try to change my mind."



but how hard is it to understand that tetris simulates BRICKS and GRAVITY? are you going to tell me that tetris invented gravity? no, you're going to tell me that BRICKS and GRAVITY are not enough! and you're going to tell me where exactly you draw the line! if only you could! what's more likely however is a massive spam of randomly cooked up ideas as to where the line should be drawn -- basically a test of my patience, a cheap trick used by people who don't want to sit down and think for themselves first.

but, let me cut that shit right away: all videogames are simulations and no line could be drawn between the one that is not and the one that is. instead, we can say that some videogames are SMALLER and some BIGGER simulations and that's it.

so what's exactly that the guy told me in his earlier post? basically to play complex simulation games. but not the ones which simulate such "abstract" things as bricks!

[gimymblert]

gravity is 9.8 m/s : P not in tetris
And what make you think it's vertical movement?
Or abstract thing like rubber banding : D

[DavidCaruso]

Christ, Charlie is pretty much dominating this thread, and probably better than I could have done (too busy last few months to spend large chunks of time in topics like this). Great read.

As for the current topic, can we at least all agree that games that aestheticize a larger subset of reality (i.e. advanced gun physics and robots in a 3D recreation of New York City) are better than games that aestheticize a smaller one (i.e. gravity and brick arrangements in a void), and the larger this subset grows the closer you get to the spirit of so-called "procedurally generated stories" simply by the size and scope of the world's possibility space increasing? I'm using that word because saying "simulate" seems to confuse some people in this topic because, hey wait, robots with advanced guns don't actually really exist in New York City, huh what, how can you possibly simulate something that "doesn't exist".

[gimymblert]

Obviously with an HP bar or a skill tree, that's simulation for you! Not counting the CYOA social dynamics.

[Sharkoss]

Posting in a thread.

[Charlie Sheen]

gravity is 9.8 m/s : P not in tetris

but how do you know that? how do you measure things like that in a simulation? there does not seem to be a way! at least not in tetris.

i think you're confusing yourself here because programmers like to think of speeds in terms of pixels per second. and that, just like everything else, is a fiction, a fiction that is useful during programming. but once you complete the game and give it to a player THERE ARE NO PIXELS ANYMORE. players do not see pixels, thank goodness! for if they did it would mean the game is bad.

And what make you think it's vertical movement?

what makes me think im somewhere else? simulation of course.

Obviously with an HP bar or a skill tree, that's simulation for you! Not counting the CYOA social dynamics.

sure, HP bars simulate health, what's so strange about it? or would you prefer visual cues instead? or would you prefer our avatar yelling "I AM DYING! I AM DYING!"?

[gimymblert]

Ok this game is for you then :/

http://kotaku.com/5962631/this-digital-boyfriend-game-is-like-dating-cleverbot-except-even-more-hilariouscreepy

[gimymblert]

More on topic and less nagging

http://norfolk.cs.washington.edu/htbin-post/unrestricted/colloq/details.cgi?id=804

[Graham-]

I'm sure a more fair race would be interesting but would have made the game less successful.

i dont care what makes it successful.

You should.

imagine a mod of Super Mario Bros where the next level you're going to play is determined based on how many times you die in the current level. so if you dont die at all the next level will be hard, whereas if you die like 10 times the next level will be easy. now of course, someone who's playing the game for the first time won't notice any of these rules and as a result will be immersed as much as possible. the best he will notice is that the levels are randomly generated. but sooner or later he will notice that these levels are not exactly random but tied to what HE does, and as soon this happens the immersion will be gone since these rules make aboslutely no sense whatsoever within the context of the world. i mean, for fucks sake, what does falling in the pit have to do with what's the next level? it's downright idiotic.

are you getting what im saying here? you see, there ARE good games which let you adjust the difficulty within the game. take, for example, Dark Souls where you can choose to go to Catacombs and play a very challenging game or go to Undead Burg where you can play an easier game that will let you improve your physical strength and in turn make the Catacombs easier. same shit BUT DONE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAMEWORLD. now look back at that SMB example and tell me: what sense does it make to think "oh, I won't be able to tackle the next level if it's way too hard so I'm just gonna change it by falling 10 times in the pit"?

Ok, so you're talking about narrative consistency here. I agree that consistency takes the cake most of the time. It is important to have a game be consistent. When we throw in achievements and what have you and they make the player de-immerse(?) then they are destructive. No question.

Banding does not inherently force a narrative to be inconsistent. Banding is just very easy to implement poorly. Any kind of rich adaptable challenge logic is. Consider the free-pass the newer Mario games gives to players who die 8 times in one level (maybe what you were referencing).  

Any kind of logic, difficulty balance, whatever, requires the skill of the designer to integrate with the "game world." Even rising challenges in RPGs, stronger and stronger monsters, requires the justification: you are going to more dangerous areas etc. Sometimes RPGs don't do this - often they don't in several places - and it hurts the game.

Scoring, banding, it's all the same. Angry Birds kicks ass with its 3 stars.

Consider sleep; rest; sun bathing; getting a massage; sitting with family around a fire late at night, staring into the flames, lightly chatting.

i dont do any of these lol. sleeping is so boring which is why i never want to go to sleep. sun bathing lol. getting a massage wtf. i can barely get myself to sit with my family tbh. waste of my time. and starring into the flames i only do if my mind is busy thinking about things (which is also what happens when i sit down with my family lol). lightly chatting? dont know whats that.

Italics mine. Lightly chatting is socializing. You know, when you're hanging out while going for a walk? Maybe you're in line somewhere? Maybe you're visiting your Mom and you're in the kitchen cooking something and she's messing around over there?

The italics: you've stumbled onto the very reason games don't have to be challenging. When you are busy facing the challenges given to you by the rest of your life you want activities to complement that. It's the same with Flower, with RPGs, with anything that lets you relax. Even driving counts. If I am busy talking to a friend, and focused on them, I don't want to do a Sudoku. That would distract me. Though maybe I could have a beer, or drive, or ... play a game: something that would complement my core focus.

I have a friend who doesn't like people very much. He is an excellent programmer, very logical, low tolerance for annoyances and people who are wrong, or don't get to the point. He programs and programs. He socializes just fine, he just can't tolerate bullshit. He is a lot like Icy. His opinions on games are a lot like Icy's. When I first read Icy I saw him in it. He doesn't understand why anyone would want to play an RPG. He wants his games to challenge him directly. He views RPGs as filled with arbitrary diversions.

I _love_ RPGs - my first serious genre. I love people. Even if they don't like me I usually find myself in the middle of some kind of social conflict. When I play games I want to stretch my mind, because sometimes the people around me are slow, but I also want to unwind. I want to let all of my mixed feelings unroll and sort themselves out. I want to reflect and grow as a result of the unresolved shit hanging around in my head. Games that mix story and challenge do exactly that. That's why I love RPGs.

so why should i play flower? makes no sense!

You're right.