Mass Appeal and Gameplay Depth
Radix
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Redirected from Skill</div><!--quoteo(post=1692930:date=Nov 9 2008, 12:14 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Nov 9 2008, 12:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692930"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 is going to be a game sold for money and it will need to attract people. To do that, it needs to appeal to the people in a very simple level so they can begin learning the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-"Flayra"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Flayra")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do have to watch the gameplay ramp and difficulty and that stuff very carefully, but<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-"Max"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Max")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->… but that doesn’t mean "dumb down." That just means you can ease into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-"Flayra"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Flayra")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct, look at "Star Craft." Star Craft is super complex and still appeals to tons of people because the difficulty ramp is spot on...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are many other examples of popular, complex games. Virtually every sport known to man is incredibly deep. Mortal Kombat (and nearly every other combo-based fighting game) had an extremely unintuitive, extremely rewarding combat system.
<b>Why is there this common undertone in so many peoples' opinions that if a game is complex or deep, that it also must be unpopular?</b> The real market has never dictated that, but it seems to be a popular direction for game developers to go nowadays. <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Can anyone provide evidence that this is a superior methodology for game development (or to the contrary)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, or is it merely an argument out of fear and ignorance, brought on by the fact that some people would rather socialize skill, instead of needing to go out of their way to improve, before they can dominate the best players in the environment?
<!--QuoteBegin-"Flayra"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Flayra")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do have to watch the gameplay ramp and difficulty and that stuff very carefully, but<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-"Max"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Max")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->… but that doesn’t mean "dumb down." That just means you can ease into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-"Flayra"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Flayra")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct, look at "Star Craft." Star Craft is super complex and still appeals to tons of people because the difficulty ramp is spot on...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are many other examples of popular, complex games. Virtually every sport known to man is incredibly deep. Mortal Kombat (and nearly every other combo-based fighting game) had an extremely unintuitive, extremely rewarding combat system.
<b>Why is there this common undertone in so many peoples' opinions that if a game is complex or deep, that it also must be unpopular?</b> The real market has never dictated that, but it seems to be a popular direction for game developers to go nowadays. <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Can anyone provide evidence that this is a superior methodology for game development (or to the contrary)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, or is it merely an argument out of fear and ignorance, brought on by the fact that some people would rather socialize skill, instead of needing to go out of their way to improve, before they can dominate the best players in the environment?
Comments
A game can be as deep and in depth as possible, but the ease of pick-up play should not be sacrificed for it.
Starcraft was a very simple game when it came out but was incredibly polished. Hell, my dad could have played it and he can barely navigate through a computer. Starcraft was also a very fortunate game that was given its depth from the players and that came about purely out of accident. The designers never anticipated mutalisk stacking for example and all the other weird "high-skill" things that there done for it. But they were obvious how to do (e.g. mutalisk stacking is literally is mutalisk stacking) but required a lot of dexterity to do as well. This is a thing they are trying to recreate with Starcraft 2 and a lot of veteran players are resisting because some of the things they learned have become invalidated because of modern advancements put into the game. The fact that there is a improved pathing AI caused a major uproar because people considered being able to best manipulate the broken pathing in the game was a skill. In all fairness it was, since a player who invested themselves in macro can greatly increase their mineral input by directly pathing gathers to their base. But creating a game with a purposefully bad AI would be laughable.
But nevertheless, Starcraft was a easy game to play from the start.
Which should be the same for NS2 because no matter how deep the game is, you can't drown a player once they enter the shallow end of the pool because of its complexity. NS1 was a really busy game and it's not easy to lose track of everything even if you played for an hour or two already.
A game should be deep, not complex.
EDIT: Also, unlike something like Starcraft, NS2 is a team game by default. Starcraft is based on individual skill and if you are matched with someone who is too good, you'll probably be dead in 10 minutes tops. In NS, a loss can drag on for an hour and if you are in a position where you constantly overwhelmed, you'll either have a fun time because you are good enough to make that last stand or just gonna crack because you can't put up enough of a obstacle to the opposing team.
EDIT 2: Have we ever agreed on anything? We seem to represent opposite views.
The ability to individually dominate, however, is not necessarily a consequence of gameplay depth, but rather a lack of incentive for dominant players (and even most players for that matter) to strive towards bettering themselves. If you want to make a complex and deep game popular, there need to be incentives for people to actually spend time getting to learn the game when there are so many easier alternatives of having fun and killing time.
In order to appeal to the masses, the devs need to make the actual combat in NS occur more frequently.
That's interesting, I wouldn't have said that.
What do you mean exactly by <i>frequency</i>? To make the game more frantic in pace?
What do you mean exactly by <i>frequency</i>? To make the game more frantic in pace?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if you take a look at most popular games today you enter a combat situation at least every 10 seconds. In natural selection you can go quite a long time without combat. This affects mass appeal because the masses have low patience and a low attention span and will rage if their pleasure neurons aren't activated periodically and with predictability.
A games popularity is equal to how often their brains release rewards into the system while playing the game.(Dopamine, Serotonin)
Nevertheless, starcraft is a prime example of how the game should work if you ask me.
It is also one of the reasons the combat mode exists at all. If there was some way of not having to fight, ns would be a lot more popular. (fight for control points > fight for map)
when you arnt fighting, u are preparing for a fight and it makes the fight that more entertaining.
the podcast mentioned something about a fight only being exciting if there was something non-exciting before.. if u only fight, then it becomes unexciting. make sense?
when you arnt fighting, u are preparing for a fight and it makes the fight that more entertaining.
the podcast mentioned something about a fight only being exciting if there was something non-exciting before.. if u only fight, then it becomes unexciting. make sense?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is also why usually the spawning is done in waves.
Hm... interesting idea.
I'm more of a fan of pacing. I think what anytime is touching on is how in NS1 the battles are quick and typically sparse, and a few major ones in the beginning can dictate the rest of the game. Sure there are also long siege wars in the pubs and such, but those three fights where the Marines were wiped out in the first 5 minutes of the game usually indicates Aliens win.
I've actually been very happy with combat frequency in NS1. Since we're touting StarCraft, StarCraft battle frequency is in some ways less then NS1. Sure there's those annoying harass moves and scouting, but the first couple of minutes are almost purely macro. At least in NS1 you hit an encounter within 30s of leaving the base.
Also, it's not a matter of battle frequency. As mentioned, building up to a big battle is actually really important. Building up to multiple battles is super sauce. Looking at Left4Dead, the big battles are usually about every minute, but in the meantime you have some room to explore, grab some items, pick off ignorant zombies. These moments of rest actually help heighten the big battles since you're planning, and waiting for that next ambush.
In another game, Empires, you have conflicts almost the entire game. Built for massive 20v20 battles with tanks, there's always a conflict going on. However, you're not always a part of it. Maybe you're the one building the base, or perhaps the flanking move to pick up more refineries. My favorite was hiding behind a hill building turrets. Then our forces pulled back, the enemy charged, and got rockets to the face. I felt good. I didn't actually fight very much, but I helped in a big way, and was happy about it. The fact is, if there's a known conflict, and you're working towards helping it, you feel like you're part of the team and part of the success. If you're meandering around waiting, you lose the momentum feeling and it feels like session conflicts, not an ongoing battle of awesome. And if you're conflict tired, go help somewhere else.
Anyways, kudos if you read the whole thing.
tl;dr: Pacing, not frequency, is king.
Strategy games are strategy games and the strategy players always have something to do. FPS players in NS should also always have something to do and that something better not be holding down E next to a building.
Strategy games are strategy games and the strategy players always have something to do. FPS players in NS should also always have something to do and that something better not be holding down E next to a building.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aw... Empires doesn't count? In case you're wondering it's another FPS/RTS, just more strongly RTS and with tanks and no aliens. Currently not uber popular due to high critical mass for a server and painful GUI for tank customization.
Anyways, the point wasn't that FPS players should be building stuff. I'm simply saying that the right pacing of engagements is what makes the game good. I for one thought the battles in NS1 were fairly well spaced. If you wanted more fights, charge further and be on the front line. If not, hang back and build.
However, the engagements were often too short and too critical, which is what makes people frustrated. If the first 2 engagements can decide the outcome of the game, then there's the potential for the losing them and be stuck in a losing battle for the rest of the game. And considering those engagements can take under 10 seconds, it's not a very fulfilling match. The real beauty of NS comes when there's several engagements and give and take of territory. Sometimes there's long battle for critical areas, sometimes sporadic clashes in lots of places.
Overall, the pacing, at least in my opinion, wasn't the problem in NS1. It was the nature of the battles themselves and how unfulfilling they could be. Take a game such as Dystopia mod where a battle could be for around 30 seconds to 5 minutes, and you feel like that was a good battle. Even better, there's a skirmish part of the battle, the clash, and the mop-up. Sometimes the mop-up becomes the skirmish for the next battle. The point is the development of the battle and even if you are pushed back, you can regain your position. Maybe the teams are still stacked and you can't get past that one objective (a different problem), but the pacing is good (you attack when you want) and the battles fulfilling.
EDIT: this ties into what others talk about when they don't understand how to get better. If the battle is over too quick, you can't realize what went wrong. You're just dead.
Which essence of the game is related to the duration of combat?
Basically the whole low hp ambushers vs vulnerable ranged combat can't be slowed down that easily. At least it gets a little silly if marines and skulks dance around for longer than a few seconds.
The quick fights are rewarding once you get the hang of it. Right positioning, changing positions during the fights, movement usage in general and the target priority are all very situational. Longer fights would at least reduce the importance of the positioning and emphasize the ability to track the alien.
--
I don't know if NS fights are too short for learning. If you get ambushed, you should learn to check the corners and ect. At least I've always felt almost every death could've been dodged with some different approach, far more than in games like CS or DoD.
The quick fights are rewarding once you get the hang of it. Right positioning, changing positions during the fights, movement usage in general and the target priority are all very situational. Longer fights would at least reduce the importance of the positioning and emphasize the ability to track the alien.
--
I don't know if NS fights are too short for learning. If you get ambushed, you should learn to check the corners and ect. At least I've always felt almost every death could've been dodged with some different approach, far more than in games like CS or DoD.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see your point. However, I've also been in the same room with people who get very frustrated when they seem to die instantly. Or, even better, feel like they have no chance. Perhaps this is also a function of skill gaps and not purely duration of battle.
If I may rephrase myself, I would argue that the battles are too crucial at times and thus unfulfilling. The shortness of many battles simply adds to the problem. In games like Quake 3 or DotA, the first few kills don't make people go "oh dear, that's the game, turtle in base". In NS1, on some occasions, a quick wipe of either team in the first few engagements precludes a one-sided match. People should feel like they have a chance to come back and improve. This is also partially compounded by the complexity of NS1 and creates a feeling of helplessness. Not only can get not seem to get better (duration and complexity), they are also stuck in a losing battle.
On the other hand, there are other games of huge complexity that people play very regularly. For example, DotA has a huge initial learning curve, and yet it's one of the most popular games around. Also, just by looking at hero and items, you can see there's massive depth and complexity, not to mention engine mechanics such as animation canceling that you can learn to get better. The difference is that people stick with it. Why? They see others having fun, they can find easy tutorials, and every game, even if they get ganked at the beginning, there's the option to farm and support the team. NS1, you get ganked too early and it's gg, except you know it's gg but the game drags on for another 10-15 minutes. This might also be attributed to DotA's individualism. One person can in fact carry the team. So, even if you stink, you can feel the joy of victory as your team gets pulled along by this other phenomenal player. In NS1, there were often carries, but it felt like a one-man show because you're supposed to be more of a team.
Anyways, that's enough from me for now. Feel free to flame and such.
I think that's the point. At a low level of play they don't matter as much. As you get better each battle takes on more significance. It maintains gameplay depth while not making the lower levels of play too frustrating.
The best way to approach the outlined problem would be to introduce <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104981&st=0&start=0" target="_blank">mobile sentries and build bots</a> to public play. This way, it introduces a less extreme slope for public play since players no longer count for as much and leaves competitive play almost completely unchanged. (who wants to spend a bunch of resources on ineffective units that will die as soon as they cross a skulk?)
What you're proposing is bordering on contradictory. I'll make up for a useless team with useless bots? I know that's an oversimplification, but that is the essence of what you're saying. It's also not a solution for the players on the ground, since now they're not even playing the game.
Maybe more frequent, less decisive battles would help alleviate the problem.
Not quite. Bots won't be useless against pub walker skulks because pub walker skulks won't have the organization (good gorges that can keep their range advantage) or movement skill to win. If you can pick your fights right and maintain a 3bots:1pubskulk ratio (with critical mass being 9 bots, a point when head on skulk attacks become a waste of time), you should win without help from your team.
Since the commander is winning the game, the marine team on the ground will be free to explore the game and fight an untroubled war. After a while, the alien team will realize that gorges are the counter to the mobile sentries and the commander will have to compensate by clever tactics. Everybody wins.
The critical point is making sure we also don't leave out a smooth transition in the middle since we keep talking about low and high level stuff, but that's for another topic.
While I'm not a huge fan of auto turrets bots since I dislike NPCs, I like your thinking anytime.
A games popularity is equal to how often their brains release rewards into the system while playing the game.(Dopamine, Serotonin)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you risk making Natural Selection a game for children of 10 years old with microphones, Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and a fresh 100 dollar bill in their pocket that daddy gave them with patience no longer than their attention span at school. Patience should be rewarded, not thrown out for the cheap thrill.
Besides, by your theory, frequency of brain-released rewards shouldn't be the only thing considered but also the quantity. So doing the correct behavior and building resources should be more rewarding in the end as you would win, and winning is the biggest reward you can get in natural selection.
As for learnability, I think it's important that the ease of learning how to play as a basic marine or as a skulk is paramount. However, that is not to say that higher life forms have to be simple to use and/or simple to understand. I would argue that it's even better to leave it up to the user to discover the details of the game. It's comparable to explaining the main plotline to a movie before you sit down and watch it. If you know what's coming next, it sort of takes the fun out of it. Interactivity goes only as far as being able to interact to your fullest and knowing fully the controls to play. Once they know how to play basic marine or skulk, their interactivity with higher classes (whether it be fighting them or playing as them) will grow simply by playing the game.
There's that part in a nice science fiction horror movie in which I don't want to know everything there is to know about the alien before you have to fight it. The only thing which should be explained for higher life forms is a brief description and a brief summary of weapons which they use. To promote NS2, I'd like to see a web site done like a movie trailer, treating you like you were a marine getting briefed on the mission before getting sent out to a base potentially with the Kharaa there. The frontiersmen are 'sketchy' on some details but they tell you what they 'know'. It adds a level of excitement and playability which will tempt a lot of new players for ns2. At that point, if they can play basic marine or skulk well enough, whether they stay or not will depend on how veterans treat them, not how fun the game is.
Cheap thrill or not, it is one of the reasons you play video games. This statement is the equivalent of "if you have a little less fun, you will weed out everybody you don't want in the community" which is false under all conditions. You should also make up your mind, do you want your friends to be interested in the game or not?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Besides, by your theory, frequency of brain-released rewards shouldn't be the only thing considered but also the quantity. So doing the correct behavior and building resources should be more rewarding in the end as you would win, and winning is the biggest reward you can get in natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mental withdrawal from bodily hormones is nearly instantaneous because they act nearly instantaneously. Due to the nature of the brain's reward center, the quantity of hormones released isn't as important as feeling the rush again.
So I take it you don't like to play natural selection classic very much? I can only assume that since the only way I can imagine that you'd think your friends wouldn't be interested in a 'delayed reward' system such as natural selection is if you too weren't much interested. Otherwise, if you don't mind, why should they? If any player base needs constant attention to keep them interested, they would be the veterans. Everything is interesting and new for newbies. Newbies don't switch on natural selection because it isn't interesting enough but for other reasons.
I don't feel we should throw in google ads and minigames in natural selection because the resource strategy aspect of the game is too long and boring. Besides, that's why there's combat mode.
Odds are if your friends said they thought natural selection was boring, they probably wouldn't have liked it with any bells and whistles you could have possibly added. Even if you could, I doubt I would have enjoyed playing that version very much. I enjoy playing natural selection for the actual fighting but not only, and quite frankly, I don't think it's an accurate assumption to claim that natural selection should be made to fit that genre like it were team fortress or some other 'shoot shoot kill kill' mod for half-life.
I guess I must have been exercising my pain threshold since 1.04 then. I can't believe I only figured it out now.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can only assume that since the only way I can imagine that you'd think your friends wouldn't be interested in a 'delayed reward' system such as natural selection is if you too weren't much interested. Otherwise, if you don't mind, why should they?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=103049&hl=" target="_blank">Have you ever attempted to introduce your friends to natural selection?</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If any player base needs constant attention to keep them interested, they would be the veterans. Everything is interesting and new for newbies. Newbies don't switch on natural selection because it isn't interesting enough but for other reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Veterans are people too. Hey, we need veteran benefits!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't feel we should throw in google ads and minigames in natural selection because the resource strategy aspect of the game is too long and boring. Besides, that's why there's combat mode.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The resource strategy aspect of the game isn't long and boring, holding down E is needlessly long and boring. If more skulks attacked marines and more marines reinforced to the same exact spot they died in a few second ago, NS would be a better tolerated game all around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Odds are if your friends said they thought natural selection was boring, they probably wouldn't have liked it with any bells and whistles you could have possibly added. Even if you could, I doubt I would have enjoyed playing that version very much. I enjoy playing natural selection for the actual fighting but not only, and quite frankly, I don't think it's an accurate assumption to claim that natural selection should be made to fit that genre like it were team fortress or some other 'shoot shoot kill kill' mod for half-life.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no real correlation between increased combat rate and strategy.
A) Phase gates
B) If getting across the map were so easy, so would getting into your opponent's base. What sort of game would that produce? I'm thinking the incredibly short and frustrating kind
<!--quoteo(post=1693234:date=Nov 12 2008, 07:52 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Nov 12 2008, 07:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no real correlation between increased combat rate and strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I'm facing three times the skulks, I'm not going to perform three times better, so I'll die a lot quicker. Only way to remedy that is if I could arrive back at that spot three times faster, and if I could return three times faster, it means I can reach the hive three times faster with three of my buddies. Changes things a bit. If you oversimplify things by saying increased combat rate means having a faster game, perhaps ultimately it's true, but the game isn't the same but in fast forward. Strategy completely changes.