Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ASSAULTING PLAYERS WITH THE NERF BAT
Posts
Liberty
View playlists
CloseI'd like to point out that you're saying 'this is no fun' when to your players it may very well be what they think is fun. You can't tell someone that the way they choose to play a game is not fun if they're choosing to play that way because they find it fun. If they didn't find it fun they'd just move on to another game instead. Yes, there might be cases of people playing a certain way because it's easier, but a lot of the time if they think it's fun to play one way, then to them it's fun to play that way.
I mean, some people think that playing 4 White Mages in FF1 is a good time. If they want to do that, then let 'em. Sometimes the challenge of a broken/hard-to-use class is some peoples' cup of tea. Just, you know, make it an option - have balanced classes but have broken ones too. If they don't want to play broken, they have the option of non-broken.
Hell, if it really annoys you, give them the option of classic version.
Paper Sorcerer is a good example of this, actually. Now the game itself can be a bit broken depending on your class choices at the start, but you can eventually replace what characters you have and get them up to level pretty fast, too. There's an 80s version, though, that is hard-as-balls for any who want to torture themselves on an already-pretty-hard game. Most weapons/armour/items are randomised drops so there's a chance that even playing on easy you'll have a difficult time getting through... or completely cheese it. To make the balance a little better you can purchase weapons at the current level of power enemies are at (and there are some set drops just to make sure you have a couple of things on you that are at the right level of power), but it can be a challenging game.
It's still a lot of fun, though, even if you pick the hard-to-use classes, or go with an easier party. (I like to include a mix of broken/balanced in my own party. I go with Vampire, Skeleton and Imp, though I'm thinking of swapping out Imp for Troll instead - but hey, you can swap your team on the fly which is fun).
More choices means more chances for players to play how they want to play - and the funnest way for them is how they want to play. Not how the developer wants them to play.
I mean, some people think that playing 4 White Mages in FF1 is a good time. If they want to do that, then let 'em. Sometimes the challenge of a broken/hard-to-use class is some peoples' cup of tea. Just, you know, make it an option - have balanced classes but have broken ones too. If they don't want to play broken, they have the option of non-broken.
Hell, if it really annoys you, give them the option of classic version.
Paper Sorcerer is a good example of this, actually. Now the game itself can be a bit broken depending on your class choices at the start, but you can eventually replace what characters you have and get them up to level pretty fast, too. There's an 80s version, though, that is hard-as-balls for any who want to torture themselves on an already-pretty-hard game. Most weapons/armour/items are randomised drops so there's a chance that even playing on easy you'll have a difficult time getting through... or completely cheese it. To make the balance a little better you can purchase weapons at the current level of power enemies are at (and there are some set drops just to make sure you have a couple of things on you that are at the right level of power), but it can be a challenging game.
It's still a lot of fun, though, even if you pick the hard-to-use classes, or go with an easier party. (I like to include a mix of broken/balanced in my own party. I go with Vampire, Skeleton and Imp, though I'm thinking of swapping out Imp for Troll instead - but hey, you can swap your team on the fly which is fun).
More choices means more chances for players to play how they want to play - and the funnest way for them is how they want to play. Not how the developer wants them to play.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Liberty
I'd like to point out that you're saying 'this is no fun' when to your players it may very well be what they think is fun. You can't tell someone that the way they choose to play a game is not fun if they're choosing to play that way because they find it fun. If they didn't find it fun they'd just move on to another game instead. Yes, there might be cases of people playing a certain way because it's easier, but a lot of the time if they think it's fun to play one way, then to them it's fun to play that way.
This.
If someone is playing a way that isn't fun, that's 100% on them. It shouldn't be your job as dev to make up for someone who can't choose to play a "suboptimal" way because of some compulsion: it's their brain problem, so it's on them to find a way to manage it. Nobody else can do that for them, because nobody else knows their brain like they do.
You gotta trust players to hold up their end of the deal and play the way that's fun for them.
Now if you want to alter the gameplay because exploits mangle the effect you want, that's fine. My objection is just to the idea of trying to second-guess playstyles. (I mean, shit, a lot of people would assume "use Game Genie to godmode the shit out of everything" isn't a fun way to play, but that was my favorite way to play a lot of games, because for me the fun was the aesthetics, and having to focus on not dying took away from that. Different players, different fun.)
I don't think it's that simple, though. There are two reasons/scenarios why
1. Take the first example I used; competitive games. There's a 'net total' factor that has to be considered when nerfing things, 'Will this be good for the community'? If you make a competitive game and its unbalanced to the point where 1000 people are using the best character, who is so good, to regularly give out assbeatings to the 100,000 people who are using the other characters (disregarding), then yeah, you might want to give that a second look, because you fucked up.
2. There is a consideration for 'Hey, this is the game I made, I want it to be enjoyed in this manner'. It sounds ridiculous at first because we're talking about a video game, the peak of interactivity, but it's not really ridiculous when you think about it; I'm not talking about 'hey, you beat the game using only white mages how dare you', but it's less about FUN FUN FUN FUN and at least a little about wanting your players to experience a work of art that they won't if they just exploit the fuck out of it.
Taking your viewpoint to its logical conclusion, why not supply the player with Level 99 with 99 of everything? You're right, that's dumb, and the reason is that every developer at least intends to guide their players along a certain tour the way they designed the game. It's not telling the player 'Hey, your view of fun sucks/doesn't count'.
It's not trying to invalidate a playstyle, but it's just saying 'hey, this is the way I want my game to be played' You're the creator; you do what you want. If your players don't like it, they can find another game to play.
1. Take the first example I used; competitive games. There's a 'net total' factor that has to be considered when nerfing things, 'Will this be good for the community'? If you make a competitive game and its unbalanced to the point where 1000 people are using the best character, who is so good, to regularly give out assbeatings to the 100,000 people who are using the other characters (disregarding), then yeah, you might want to give that a second look, because you fucked up.
2. There is a consideration for 'Hey, this is the game I made, I want it to be enjoyed in this manner'. It sounds ridiculous at first because we're talking about a video game, the peak of interactivity, but it's not really ridiculous when you think about it; I'm not talking about 'hey, you beat the game using only white mages how dare you', but it's less about FUN FUN FUN FUN and at least a little about wanting your players to experience a work of art that they won't if they just exploit the fuck out of it.
Taking your viewpoint to its logical conclusion, why not supply the player with Level 99 with 99 of everything? You're right, that's dumb, and the reason is that every developer at least intends to guide their players along a certain tour the way they designed the game. It's not telling the player 'Hey, your view of fun sucks/doesn't count'.
It's not trying to invalidate a playstyle, but it's just saying 'hey, this is the way I want my game to be played' You're the creator; you do what you want. If your players don't like it, they can find another game to play.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=LibertyYou are so, so, so, SO wrong. That is not how the human brain works at ALL. There are so many other reasons why people keep playing a game.
If they didn't find it fun they'd just move on to another game instead.
And more importantly, my goal is to keep them from ever experiencing the not-fun situation in the first place. Why trick them into trying to play the game a way that is not fun, and then let them leave the game over it, when I can make it fun instead?
The way different people experience fun isn't actually that different. When you overcome an external obstacle, it's fun. If something stops feeling like an obstacle, it stops feeling fun. Each new obstacle you overcome feels fun again. There are a few other ways to have fun, but that's the method that video games typically evoke. When you do the exact same thing over and over for forty hours, and it causes all obstacles to play out identically, it's not fun. That's not something that changes from person to person based on what they find fun. That's just a fact. They might still be having fun some other way despite the fact that the obstacles aren't fun - like via fantasizing about the scenario - but if the overcoming-obstacles part of the game were working correctly they'd be having fun both ways.
author=SoozYou are so utterly and completely wrong that you should stop doing this forever and never look back. This is literally your ONLY JOB. Getting the player to do things that are fun is the actual definition of game design. If you can't even imagine doing it, then gtfo or just stick to doing pixel art; you are worthless as a gameplay designer.
It shouldn't be your job as dev to make up for someone who can't choose to play a "suboptimal" way because of some compulsion: it's their brain problem, so it's on them to find a way to manage it. Nobody else can do that for them, because nobody else knows their brain like they do.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Please excuse me, my brain interpreted Sooz's post as a boss fight
Guys, I think we all started by playing games, so the situation below should be familiar to you.
Getting a cool game you enjoy playing, then you get some cheat codes and break the game completely, if's fun for the first few minutes, and then it stops being fun and you never touch the game again.
This nerf/fun talk is very similar.
Side note: Whoah, I never expected to agree so much with LockeZ on something...
Getting a cool game you enjoy playing, then you get some cheat codes and break the game completely, if's fun for the first few minutes, and then it stops being fun and you never touch the game again.
This nerf/fun talk is very similar.
Side note: Whoah, I never expected to agree so much with LockeZ on something...
author=kentona
Speaking of PVP, it is the BANE of online games. So many interesting skills and playstyles are NERFED for the sake in balance in PVP. Fuck that shit. Fuck PVP. It is such a game-killing feature. Inevitably, parity between the two factions is achieved by having classes that mirror each other - which is a dull design decision in its own right ("Our game has 8 classes to choose from!!" actually its just 4 duplicated, with one side having more menacing class names).
Fuck PVP.
what if the item that trivialized an entire class' pvp gimmick was left in for ages until the PvE content started to use it and it finally got nerfed?
Anyways for SP stuff I'm pretty deep in the "devs have the right to suck it" camp. I'm with Feld for MP stuff though, it's like playing a sports game and finding that One Weird Trick where you do a flick shot and score every time and nobody is having fun with another 24 to 24 game that just trades goals. Or the classic trap builds. I've done enough D&D to recognize when the writers heads were soundly so far up their own asses you'd need dynamite to fix their shit.
Related video:
Crystalgate
694
One reason to nerf overpowered builds is to make multiple other builds appealing. Taking the scenario LockeZ described, playing the sorcerer like a toolbox instead of a one trick pony does sound more fun. However, I would only be able to enjoy the toolbox style of play if it has any merits over the one trick pony. Having a toolbox and choosing the right tool for the job is not fun if I know there's an omni-tool that does all jobs better. I'm hardly the only one who feels that way.
So, by nerfing one build, multiple other builds can become more fun.
So, by nerfing one build, multiple other builds can become more fun.
author=LockeZauthor=Sooz
It shouldn't be your job as dev to make up for someone who can't choose to play a "suboptimal" way because of some compulsion: it's their brain problem, so it's on them to find a way to manage it. Nobody else can do that for them, because nobody else knows their brain like they do.
You are so utterly and completely wrong that you should stop doing this forever and never look back. This is literally your ONLY JOB. Getting the player to do things that are fun is the actual definition of game design. If you can't even imagine doing it, then gtfo or just stick to doing pixel art; you are worthless as a gameplay designer.
You getting one someones case about fun in a game? That's adorable. Sooz, if you're reading this, lets make a game together sometime.
Theres more to life and games than just fun, unless you like shitty mobile games that feed purely off addiction methods.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
The shitty skinner box stuff in mobile games is a FANTASTIC example of a reason why someone would keep playing a game even when they don't find it fun. That's exactly the sort of thing I meant when responding to Liberty.
So... Can we chill a little bit? No reason to attack someone's character for an opinion that you don't agree with.
@Sooz: Going to defer you to Feld's post, since he explained the flaw with the logic of your argument much better than I possibly could.
The thing is, designers actually are expected to make games that have some longevity factor to them. This doesn't mean "make playing a game your day job," it means making your game engaging enough so that even when the player has to break, they can feel confident about going back to it and still have fun playing. It's an aspect of psychology that great designers know how to manipulate, in the same way you, as an artist, manipulate thought processes through your illustrations.
So what does that have to do with the "subjective" aspects of fun? People have studied what types of fun are "long-lasting" and have a broad appeal and what doesn't. Using a cheat code/glitching a game provides fun in the sense of novelty, not to mention that it actually feels like you are being a badass by "breaking the rules" of the game, but those bits of the game are not directly part of it for a reason: They can severely impact the experience that is intended for the player, and make it less fun as a result.
Another example, take a game like Minecraft. The players that like to destroy other player's shit and flood the magnificent bases they built with lava do it because it's fun for them, but can you say the same about the victim of the experience? You can't. That's where lines need to be drawn and balance changes need to happen; because your goal as a designer is to create an experience that everyone can enjoy without having to suffer at the expense of a niche audience. It's an idealistic goal, but it's certainly possible to get close to achieving.
@Sooz: Going to defer you to Feld's post, since he explained the flaw with the logic of your argument much better than I possibly could.
The thing is, designers actually are expected to make games that have some longevity factor to them. This doesn't mean "make playing a game your day job," it means making your game engaging enough so that even when the player has to break, they can feel confident about going back to it and still have fun playing. It's an aspect of psychology that great designers know how to manipulate, in the same way you, as an artist, manipulate thought processes through your illustrations.
So what does that have to do with the "subjective" aspects of fun? People have studied what types of fun are "long-lasting" and have a broad appeal and what doesn't. Using a cheat code/glitching a game provides fun in the sense of novelty, not to mention that it actually feels like you are being a badass by "breaking the rules" of the game, but those bits of the game are not directly part of it for a reason: They can severely impact the experience that is intended for the player, and make it less fun as a result.
Another example, take a game like Minecraft. The players that like to destroy other player's shit and flood the magnificent bases they built with lava do it because it's fun for them, but can you say the same about the victim of the experience? You can't. That's where lines need to be drawn and balance changes need to happen; because your goal as a designer is to create an experience that everyone can enjoy without having to suffer at the expense of a niche audience. It's an idealistic goal, but it's certainly possible to get close to achieving.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=iddalaiI flipflop so much that if you stick around long enough you can expect to eventually agree with me on almost every topic
Side note:Whoah, I never expected to agree so much with LockeZ on something...
author=LockeZ
The shitty skinner box stuff in mobile games is a FANTASTIC example of a reason why someone would keep playing a game even when they don't find it fun. That's exactly the sort of thing I meant when responding to Liberty.
That is also a fantastic example of what I consider a wrong use of psychological manipulation in videogames. Fake fun/enjoyment.
author=LockeZ
I flipflop so much that if you stick around long enough you can expect to eventually agree with me on almost every topic
I'll hold you to that!
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=iddalai
Guys, I think we all started by playing games, so the situation below should be familiar to you.
Getting a cool game you enjoy playing, then you get some cheat codes and break the game completely, if's fun for the first few minutes, and then it stops being fun and you never touch the game again.
I have literally never had this situation happen to me. IDK, maybe I'm the weird one and have some kind of bizarre inhuman brain that can enjoy things on its own terms. vOv Either way, apparently I'm missing something others deem important for the argument here, so I'm out.
Nah, I cheat or take advantage of exploits in various games too and I can still enjoy them. It depends on the game and exploit but what I usually focus on is whatever streamlines the game. I have a small handful of scripts I throw into various RM games for example and I'll throw them in as needed (or for one game, change some settings. One set the Ace animation speed to be even slower than default and holy shit fuck that). Sometimes I'll use them to fuck around with games I've beaten, like customizing a monster team in FFT from the word go instead of whenever I want to use comes up normally. I've used a cheat engine table to experiment with various item combos in the Binding of Isaac when I was getting tired of the base game and its rng.
However that doesn't mean I'll just pop on infinite HP cheats or whatever when I play. I play God Hand without the High Side Kick cancel exploit because stunlocking everything is boring. I even played through Ocarina of Time a year back with a buddy and we didn't even just wrong warp to the ending credits!
My general mentality is that I'll try it vanilla (except XP games not running at 60 FPS) first but if the dev is going to throw shit my way I'll shit back. Or I want to try something else with a game that I feel I got everything out of and want to try something new. I can't speak for others (see people who play Adventure Capitalist instead of Shark Game) but that's how I roll.
Sorry for continuing this derail
However that doesn't mean I'll just pop on infinite HP cheats or whatever when I play. I play God Hand without the High Side Kick cancel exploit because stunlocking everything is boring. I even played through Ocarina of Time a year back with a buddy and we didn't even just wrong warp to the ending credits!
My general mentality is that I'll try it vanilla (except XP games not running at 60 FPS) first but if the dev is going to throw shit my way I'll shit back. Or I want to try something else with a game that I feel I got everything out of and want to try something new. I can't speak for others (see people who play Adventure Capitalist instead of Shark Game) but that's how I roll.
Sorry for continuing this derail
jstomp
0
As a player of many popular MMORPGs, there's nothing worse than sweeping changes which completely render a playstyle useless.
Do it slowly over time. Slowly nerf abilities and test how it affects gameplay. You can turn knobs slowly.
Most devs just completely go full overkill mode to squash a playstyle and that's nothing but frustration for players.
So, to answer your question as to how to keep players from getting pissy over it... do it slowly over time so it's barely even noticeable.
Do it slowly over time. Slowly nerf abilities and test how it affects gameplay. You can turn knobs slowly.
Most devs just completely go full overkill mode to squash a playstyle and that's nothing but frustration for players.
So, to answer your question as to how to keep players from getting pissy over it... do it slowly over time so it's barely even noticeable.
