77 réponses à ce sujet

[newcomplex]

Soruyao wrote...

For that to happen, a game would have to have no plot.   It would also have to have almost no save points to eliminate the "trial and error gameplay" that people like this complain about from games where you can save more often.   Never mind the fact that dying and starting the game from scratch is trial and error gameplay.

If anything, old games rewarded patience more than they required skill, since most of them requried you to play them over and over and memorize where every enemy was so that you could get through without dying.

It isn't a prequesite accomplished by filling a bunch of checkmarks on a box.    Its a overarching design philosophy.    For instance, Starcraft allows you to save when you want.    It really has nothing that is a barrier of entry for casual players.    The campaign itself is a "frollicking good time , which anyone can beat easily".    

Yet its clear entering multiplayer that the framework was designed so that gameplay, which is more or less synonmous with "skill", was a priority.     Counterstrike, UT2k4, BF2.    Street Figher.     For instance, MW2 has autoregening health, while the more competitively viable game, BF2, does not.  

Regenerating health is a mechanic done to make the player feel good.    It has nothing to do witha accessibility.    It has nothing to do with anything other then making the player feel good.    I can literally place MW rise to popularity on its health regeneration.    It would be valid.  

Games that focus on gameplay do not implement mechanics to make the player feel good.    They implement mechanics that make the gameplay more enriching as a whole.    Donkey Kong or Pac man is just a very early example of this.    Their isn't a single feature in Donkey Kong that doesn't serve the cohesive whole.    Their are about thirty in Modern Warfare.    

BF2 requires you to work as a team.    Obviously, this results in superior gameplay depth.   Teamplay means that the feedback of happiness is interrupted if someone else ****s up their role.    MW2:   No team roles.  

That flaw existed because we had to start over from the beginning of a game.  That's a mechanic that nobody likes because you get extremely bored with the first level/half of the game, since you always have to play through it to get to the part that actually kills you.    It gets to a point where it's just not worth getting to the part you find actually challenging, and you give up.

With modern games the formula is: One extremely difficult section, and once you've gotten through it you are rewarded with a new extremely difficult section and you don't have to run through that part at all again.

This is more fun because you can be challenged without putting up with the tedium of mechanically blasting through the same level over and over again because the technology was too archaic to remember where you were when you died.

Not really.    This happens when a learning curve fails intergrate the fundemental happy button, the closed feedback loop of  positive player feedback.    A player is as likely to give up playing a small section with saves (think Devil May Cry originals, Ninja Gaidan), as they are being forced to replay the entire game.    The two represent the same thing, the lack of positive feedback that the player will eventually overcome it.  

Tons of people quit ut2k4 once they realize they get wtbqqownt by someone who can actually do crazy **** like detonate shock combos while quadruple jumping off walls.    Which is why more successful shooters came about like Gears of War.    Not because it had better gameplay, but because it had more happy buttons.    

Its best illustrated in retro because retro tech limitations prevented the establishment of a game based on anything else BUT skill, for the most part, with the exception of a adventure game their and a RPG their.

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 11:37 .

[Kenthen]

Soruyao wrote...

If anything, old games rewarded patience more than they required skill, since most of them requried you to play them over and over and memorize where every enemy was so that you could get through without dying.

This.
Back in the days a game was all about memorizing patterns, spawn locations etc because more often than not failing to do so meant an instant death and if not then at the very least you were on the fast track towards dying. And starting the level over. Fail enough times and you'd have to start over from the beginning of the game.

There is no skill involved in that process of trial and error. I beat Contra, for example, on one credit after a few hours because I kept beating my head against the wall.
I beat Battletoads because I'm masochistic and wouldn't stop repeating the same stages over and over until I knew exactly when to jump, what way to move etc. There's no skill involved there. Just trial and error and a ****load of patience.

Modifié par Kenthen, 17 février 2010 - 11:36 .

[krylo]

newcomplex wrote...

Heh.    Thats exactly the point. Those games aren't hard in the hardcore sense, rather their hard in that each are designed to value skill over pretty anything else in their development.    He argues that that is what games should be desgined to value skill first and foremost.    

Difficulty games today exist on a very different level.    How often do you seem the design flaw of "This was too hard, so I gave up"  Appearing in todays games?   Like...almost never.    It was a extremely common flaw yen years ago.    

Brothers.

DMC3.

Normal difficulty, original U.S. release.

I can not count on one hand how many times I died to those things.  You HAD to get better to get through it.  There was no way around that.  Further, end game was far far harder than the first few levels.  The first 'boss' you fight even shows up as a normal enemy later in the game.  A normal enemy that occassionally attacks you in groups.

Increase your skill, or you don't win.

Same goes for DMC1 and 4.  With 4 having a full on 'get lucky or fight every single boss you've fought so far in a row with no saving between them' level.  No way to get through that without extreme luck or much much more skill than you started the game with.

And Demon's Souls only unlocks new checkpoints every time you defeat a boss.  You must increase you skill in the game (or grind forever and a day to over come it with stats, but hey RPG), in order to advance.  You can not advance otherwise.

Ninja Gaiden was the same way.

Yes, you would rarely need to start from the beginning, but then with multiple lives and then multiple continues after that, AND passwords (old megaman games, and metroid)--you almost never had to start from the beginning ANYWAY.

I'm not seeing the distinction.

Edit: 

Kenthen wrote...


I beat Battletoads because I'm
masochistic and wouldn't stop repeating the same stages over and over
until I knew exactly when to jump, what way to move etc. There's no
skill involved there. Just trial and error and a ****load of patience.

OR completely damned ridiculous reflexes.

Man, I kinda want to put in Battletoads now and see if I can get through that race on level 3, again.

Modifié par krylo, 17 février 2010 - 11:41 .

[Soruyao]

A happy button, from what I'm gathering from all this, is a gameplay mechanic that makes the player enjoy the game they are playing.



I would argue that the ultimate purpose of a game is for the person playing it to have fun.



Making a game absurdly difficult is just a "happy button" for people who like absurdly difficult games.

[newcomplex]

Soruyao wrote...

A happy button, from what I'm gathering from all this, is a gameplay mechanic that makes the player enjoy the game they are playing.

I would argue that the ultimate purpose of a game is for the person playing it to have fun.

Making a game absurdly difficult is just a "happy button" for people who like absurdly difficult games.

A happy button is a something that makes the player enjoy the game they are playing for no freaking reason.    I think happy buttons are bad.    Its decadent.   They're like the summer block busters.    You watch them, you had "fun", with friends.    Nothing wrong with that, and they shouldn't be eliminated.    But seriously, watching a movie like Avatar is a far cry from watching say...Mystic Rver....One is media, the other can be conisdered art.    

When you enjoy a game, their should be a specific reason, that mental thought on your behalf, whether reflexual, tactical, or emotional.     At least, if games should transcend beyond being "just a game"

Happy buttons are artificially create moments that are designed to make the player happy wtihout signficiant input that required higher level thought.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 11:45 .

[Kenthen]

Soruyao wrote...

A happy button, from what I'm gathering from all this, is a gameplay mechanic that makes the player enjoy the game they are playing.

I would argue that the ultimate purpose of a game is for the person playing it to have fun.

Making a game absurdly difficult is just a "happy button" for people who like absurdly difficult games.

Yeah but the "happy button" is supposed to sound derogatory whereas enjoying beating your head bloody against a brick wall is hardcore and awesome.

[newcomplex]

Kenthen wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

A happy button, from what I'm gathering from all this, is a gameplay mechanic that makes the player enjoy the game they are playing.

I would argue that the ultimate purpose of a game is for the person playing it to have fun.

Making a game absurdly difficult is just a "happy button" for people who like absurdly difficult games.

Yeah but the "happy button" is supposed to sound derogatory whereas enjoying beating your head bloody against a brick wall is hardcore and awesome.

I said I enjoy Happy buttons.    And thoughtful gameplay doesnt have to be mind numbly hard.    I cited examples from easy games like Mirrors edge, fallout 3, and our own Mass effect earlier.     Almost all happy buttons are found in relatively casual games, but thoughtful game design can stem in a variety of ways (where my opinion differs from the youtube guy).    

Essentially, a happy button is a feature in a game that does absolutely nothing for its overall cohesion but make you happier, without requiring thought input.     Its cycle of closed feedback.    In light amounts its fun.    For instance, rings in sonic could be considered a happy button.    In heavy dosages, it breaks games.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 11:49 .

[Massadonious1]

Yeah, I sure miss the days when every game was a side scroller or Tetris clone.



And don't act like none of you "pure" gamers ever used the Konami code. Being able to gain extra lives through non gameplay means is just as much of a crutch as a cover system or quicktime event.

[newcomplex]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Yeah, I sure miss the days when every game was a side scroller or Tetris clone.

And don't act like none of you "pure" gamers ever used the Konami code. Being able to gain extra lives through non gameplay means is just as much of a crutch as a cover system or quicktime event.

lol, I'm hardly saying side scrollers are the apex of game design.   I was gonna quote myself but the quoting systems to stupid so....

http://social.biowar...60353/2#1263349
http://social.biowar...60353/2#1263524

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 11:53 .

[krylo]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Yeah, I sure miss the days when every game was a side scroller or Tetris clone.

And don't act like none of you "pure" gamers ever used the Konami code. Being able to gain extra lives through non gameplay means is just as much of a crutch as a cover system or quicktime event.

Sir, I resent the thought.  Why I would never pause my game and press up up down down left right left right A B select start.

Not ever.

And certainly not enough times to still have it memorized twenty years later.

[Kenthen]

newcomplex wrote...

Kenthen wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

A happy button, from what I'm gathering from all this, is a gameplay mechanic that makes the player enjoy the game they are playing.

I would argue that the ultimate purpose of a game is for the person playing it to have fun.

Making a game absurdly difficult is just a "happy button" for people who like absurdly difficult games.

Yeah but the "happy button" is supposed to sound derogatory whereas enjoying beating your head bloody against a brick wall is hardcore and awesome.

I said I enjoy Happy buttons.    And thoughtful gameplay doesnt have to be mind numbly hard.    I cited examples from easy games like Mirrors edge, fallout 3, and our own Mass effect earlier.     Almost all happy buttons are found in relatively casual games, but thoughtful game design can stem in a variety of ways (where my opinion differs from the youtube guy).    

Essentially, a happy button is a feature in a game that does absolutely nothing for its overall cohesion but make you happier, without requiring thought input.     Its cycle of closed feedback.    In light amounts its fun.    For instance, rings in sonic could be considered a happy button.    In heavy dosages, it breaks games.    

In that case, you're right, you're absolutely right.
I simply went with the assumption of what you meant because I get to hear this stuff constantly and it's almost always people praising ye olde days of having to run in blind, die, remember what killed you and repeat, often with a sense of smugness that they feel incredibly entitled to.

krylo wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Yeah, I sure miss the days when every game was a side scroller or Tetris clone.

And
don't act like none of you "pure" gamers ever used the Konami code.
Being able to gain extra lives through non gameplay means is just as
much of a crutch as a cover system or quicktime event.

Sir, I resent the thought.  Why I would never pause my game and press up up down down left right left right A B select start.

Not ever.

And certainly not enough times to still have it memorized twenty years later.

I honestly don't know the Konami code by heart. People say everyone born in those days should know it but I don't and people always point and laugh at me as a result. At one point I considered throwing myself off a bridge.  Not really, but still. Every moment I live is torture.

Modifié par Kenthen, 17 février 2010 - 11:57 .

[Grey_Spectre]

I couldn't watch past the first five seconds. Yahtzee is hilarious but these awful impersonators have the most excruciating voices ever.

[newcomplex]

In a nut shell, heres my theory.

Games are only excel as a valid literature or art if it incorporates its main aspect in a artistically relevant manner. Specifically, Feedback.   The game has no other merits in which it can hope to compete with movies, or books.   A game that seeks to emulate a movie or a book will always fall short because it is not a movie nor a book.  The game must demand feedback from the player, and produce feedback, that illicit thought, emotions, etc. This can range from the complex, like Mass Effect 2, drastically change the world, to the simple, such as the feeling of awe and grandeur upon entering Oblivions vast world, to the subtle like in mirrors cleverly placed hand and feet movements, and reflections, that inflect upon the player the sense of interaction, of freedom. This all leads to happiness anyway, enjoyment of the medium.

Decadent design is design that serves no purpose within the cohesive whole the game except to induce a closed feedback chain with he player. The player is given an action that is second nature action that yields rewards that the player interprets as happiness. This can be sonics rings, MW2 health regen, Smashbros Weapons, w/e...The main point of these is to yield happiness, not induce increased depth. This can extend even farther, removing complex mechanics altogether in favor of simpler, or easier to preform actions that are made too look hard, to induce happiness.

The alternative positive design would be games as games. The sole purpose of these games is to provide a game play challenge for the player to overcome, whether competitive or not. The game makes no pretense of artistic expression, nor should it sacrifice depth for a mindless "happiness button".

Of course, games can be more then one, but only if the game is just so extraordinarily vast (like an MMO, which is usually all three in equal amounts), or if their is a huge game play divide (multiplayer/single player)

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 12:11 .

[Sibbwolf]

I couldn't take this video seriously.



Don't think it should be, either.

[Aidunno]

newcomplex wrote...

Heh.    Thats exactly the point. Those games aren't hard in the hardcore sense, rather their hard in that each are designed to value skill over pretty anything else in their development.    He argues that that is what games should be desgined to value skill first and foremost.    

But what is skill ? The skill to simply memorise positioning or how to exploit poor AI like in the "old days". The skill to adapt to changing environments and conditions... sure, this is possible but only really available in multiplayer where you are playing against other opponents. The skill to memorise 100 key press combinations... I could go on...

newcomplex wrote...
Difficulty games today exist on a very different level.    How often do you seem the design flaw of "This was too hard, so I gave up"  Appearing in todays games?   Like...almost never.    It was a extremely common flaw yen years ago.    

It wasn't a case of being "too hard so I gave up". It was more of a case of "I can't find the pattern required to beat it". If not that then it was mostly because they were boring.. I don't read technical manuals/dictionaries for fun either. Never had a game which was simply too "hard".  Did find plenty of games which were too complex for little return and which I gave up on after a short while. Also played some (adventures for example) where I gave up simply because I couldn't find the "pixel" on the screen I needed to which was the clue to progress. Thankfully this system no longer exists. Settlers (original 1994) did indeed get really hard but it was hard as in a puzzle. You simply had to learn that to succeed place X here to get access to Y there.

Example games which I feel set benchmarks for playability (not a be all and end all list) are Eite (1984) , The Sentinel (1986), Another World (1991) and of course X-Com UFO Enemy Unknown (1993). Were these games too hard ? No but they did provide a potential challenge and you can see a progression. Another world and X-Com both had storylines and the idea of completion which a lot of earlier games didn't. This in turn leads to... What is the point of having a story (and the investment of its creation) if only a few people can complete it. Hence why games like X-Com had difficulty levels.

Modifié par Aidunno, 17 février 2010 - 12:34 .

[Geofftheted]

10/10 anyone who didn't like the vid, doesn't understand/ know about one, or all of the vids sources. Seriously as far as parodies go this was spot on.

[Madame November]

I thought this video was hilarious, even though I disagree with pretty much everything he said. What proves him wrong, without question, is that even the "serious gamers" like the games he is poo-pooing." All that said, I am a t w a t...<3

Modifié par November Cousland, 17 février 2010 - 01:24 .

[SirVincealot]

No discussion of the "happy button" can be coherent without the understanding that the button in question varies from user to user.



Someone mentioned "summer blockbusters" as short-hand so I will use the metaphor: TRANSFORMERS2 does not push any of my "happy buttons" as it evidently does for millions of other users; if box-office results can be extrapolated to mean anything.



Ergo: to dismiss my experience of MASS EFFECT because it pushes my "happy buttons" - without having first asked me what those are - is the essence of not knowing what one is talking about.



SirV

[RighteousRage]

This is like a parody of a parody of a parody or something

[SirVincealot]

one more thing: the argument against storytelling in games is invalid.



Because games have not yet told a compelling story is no reason to hold that they never will. The same false paradigm (only books tell stories or only books tell "good" stories) can be extended to all other arts that use storytelling but are not books: comics, radio plays, puppet theater and, of course, movies.



"I don't watch movies for the story! If I want a story I'll read a damm book! There's a million of them!" - this sort of drivel is no argument and has no place in an intelligent discussion on storytelling in art.



SirV

[RighteousRage]

I thought the Deus Ex story was pretty compelling...

[Ryzaki]

This is hilarious.I liked his video on Fable though. Mostly cause it was true. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 février 2010 - 03:16 .

[Soruyao]

newcomplex wrote...

A happy button is a something that makes the player enjoy the game they are playing for no freaking reason.    I think happy buttons are bad.    Its decadent.   They're like the summer block busters.    You watch them, you had "fun", with friends.    Nothing wrong with that, and they shouldn't be eliminated.    But seriously, watching a movie like Avatar is a far cry from watching say...Mystic Rver....One is media, the other can be conisdered art.    

When you enjoy a game, their should be a specific reason, that mental thought on your behalf, whether reflexual, tactical, or emotional.     At least, if games should transcend beyond being "just a game"

Happy buttons are artificially create moments that are designed to make the player happy wtihout signficiant input that required higher level thought.   

Okay, now here is where I get really confused.  Are you saying regenerating health is bad because there is no lore/realism reason for it, or because there is no gameplay reason for it?   The realism argument I can kind of see.   In real life, people don't pop behind cover and magically regenerate their health.   However, if a happy button is a situation where realism is compromised to make the character enjoy their game more, this casts a very wide net indeed!   Extra lives are a happy button by this definition, as is grabbing a health pack and rubbing it on your face and healing a gaping chest wound, or even not having your game completely self destruct when you die.  (There's no starting over from the title screen in real life!)

Every game that sacrifices reality even a little bit is doing so for the benefit of the player, IE to make them feel good.   Have any of the games from the good old days that were hard done this?  Definitely.

Okay, so that can't be it.   Maybe a happy button is a gameplay mechanic that is implimented that makes a player feel good without serving a gameplay purpose.    I'll get further but I'll tell you right now that this is impossible.   A gameplay change makes a player feel good by modifying gameplay in such a way that makes the game flow better.    Regenerating health is a good example, especially since you used it earlier.   Regenerating health only eliminates situations where you're "kind of dead but not really" and you have to avoid fights and pray you find a health kit in time.  Sometimes you solve the problem by backtracking halfway back up the level you just cleared and stomp over all the corpses of your enemies while you grab that health kit you remember passing earlier.  Does this make the game harder?  I would argue that it does not.

Health kits are a difficulty neutral concept.   When you have health kits, difficulty is decided by an interaction between how prevalent those health kits are and how quickly enemies deplete it.   For instance:  Half life 2 is a very easy game to clear on it's default difficulty. (Does half life 2 even have multiple difficulties? I'm not sure.)  Because your character is a tank, and can take about 11 rockets to the face before he dies, and there are health kits absolutely everywhere.   The marathon games serve as a counterexample, because they use almsost the exact same system, but health recharge stations are incredibly sparse and enemies cut through you like you're made of butter.

However, health kits are a gameplay slowing concept.  When they are rare, they promote extreme caution and significant backtracking.  When they are common, they eliminate all challenge.

Regenerating health is also a difficulty neutral concept.  MW1 was a much more difficult game on it's hardest difficulty than halo 2/3 were.  This is partly because of how squishy you are in the modern warfare series, and partly because enemies respawned infinitely until you reached a certain point.   (This caused you to have to be constantly pushing forward, which could be extremely difficult to do.)   When regenerating health is present, difficulty is tuned by how quickly health regenerates and how quickly enemies can cut through that health.

What regenerating health does do is allow a player to spend more of their game time playing the game, and less time wandering around in search of health.   A player with regenerating health will be extremely cautious (in single player), because if he exposes himself for too long he'll be cut to bits, and he will want to maximize the amount of damage he can do when he is vulnerable.

The discussion of regnerating health wouldn't be complete if we didn't discuss multiplayer competetive gaming.   Does regenerating health make the game easier?   If it does, who exactly does it make the game easier for?   There is a very wide spread of skill in games like halo 3 and MW2, and there is a wide spread of successfulness.   No matter what I do, for instance, I will never reach a 50 in halo 3's multiplayer.    I simply do not have the reflexes and quick thinking (or the dedication!) to survive against the best the halo community has to offer.    Regenerating health does little against those people, because I will never live long enough to regenerate my health.    They will grab the sniper rifle and then relentlessly snipe me every time I try to step out of my spawning area.

In halo, regenerating health encourages focused team play, (because having two people shooting one target is a better chance that target will die before he takes cover) it encourages weapon control, (because power weapons are key to finishing people off quickly so that they can't recover) and it encourages use of cover.  (because cover is almost worthless in a game with a health bar, because it just becomes a game of "do I have enough health to take his shots to the face and kill him?")

Regenerating health matters even less in the modern warfare series, where most combat scenarios play out over a fraction of a second. (Even without head shotting someone, even the weakest gun will kill someone in what seems like less than a second.)   I have much less experience with MW1's multiplayer because I only rented it, but I can tell you that there was a wide spread of skill in that game.   There were people who would just stomp all over me, and there were people who had no chance against me.    There were several gameplay design features that I took issue with, but I can tell you that I very RARELY got shot and didn't die.   (The only times this ever happened were when another player and I shot each other and I barely won.   In those situations, if there were no regenerating health, I would have no chance in the next combat scenario I entered.)

Regenerating health also allows a game to make a player extremely squishy and vulnerable.  With health kits, a player can't be made to be too vulnerable because the game will become prohibitively hard.   (For instance, a single rocket to the face kills master chief, on any difficulty, and on heroic/legendary, a single snipe to the face kills him.  This is okay, because these can be dealt with through tactics and planning.  Or reflexes in the case of rockets.  Wheras, in marathon, you could be shot for a good while without dying, but if you did that you might as well  jump into some lava because you won't live long enough to heal.)

So in conclusion:  Is regenerating health a happy button?   If you define a happy button as a gameplay feature that people like, then yes, it's a happy button.    However, people like it because it encourages a type of gameplay that is more fun for them while still allowing them to overcome challenges and become more skilled.   I would argue that it's prevalence is due to it being a good gameplay device rather than a tool to mollify the noob masses.

Modifié par Soruyao, 17 février 2010 - 10:32 .

[Ashton808]

I found it funny!

[Gorn Kregore]

Wannabe Yahtzee is fail.