Jump to content

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, a Chunk said:

 

Ignorance.  

That word has very negative connotations to most people though.

 

If a person were going to ONLY focus on either level design or game design, they would be far better off investing time in the more complex (and more capable) tools that are out there.

Having said that, based upon my very minimal experience with it I'd say that it has a lot of potential.  It's obviously supposed to take a lot of really complex tools and make them simple and accessible, and it does this fairly well.  I like the fact that anyone can create and publish a game, and potential have a LOT of people play it.  Good way to get some recognition for your work if you're good enough.

 

 

 

Nah, ignorance is typically of ones own volition. Im speaking of the inability to comprehend whether its just mental immaturity or ultimately impossible. Like purely said, its similar to a childs underdeveloped mind or lack of experience. I suppose if there is a word for it, it would be perceived with negative connotation. Lets say using the earlier context someone tried to explain to haloplayer42069 that hes literally not smart enough to comprehend the elements that are clear to a player at the highest level in a way that becomes acceptable to him. Haloplayer42069 may wholeheartedly believe he has a full understanding when in actuality he just cant comprehend that he doesnt. The end goal in this is how would you bridge that gap in a meaningful and acceptable way for both parties in a professional environment? Although id really like to know if there is a word for this situation.

 

Anyways not super important but its just something ive been thoughtful of recently.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@no god anywhere I think you're kind of muddling the question. If you're trying to describe someone who can't receive/process an explanation because they are limited by their cognitive capacity, the word is probably "slow" or "intellectually disabled", or something like that. If you're trying to describe someone who doesn't hold the right context, but who could otherwise process the explanation, "confused" or "ignorant" would be appropriate. Deliberate ignorance is just evil. But if you are trying to get someone to understand something that you aren't communicating clearly, then that's "miscommunication" - or you are the 'slow'/'confused' person. Or both! That help at all?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, icyhotspartin said:

@no god anywhere I think you're kind of muddling the question. If you're trying to describe someone who can't receive/process an explanation because they are limited by their cognitive capacity, the word is probably "slow" or "intellectually disabled", or something like that. If you're trying to describe someone who doesn't hold the right context, but who could otherwise process the explanation, "confused" or "ignorant" would be appropriate. Deliberate ignorance is just evil. But if you are trying to get someone to understand something that you aren't communicating clearly, then that's "miscommunication" - or you are the 'slow'/'confused' person. Or both! That help at all?

 

 

No, youre missing it entirely but its alright. Its really not important and probably a lack of good explanation from myself.  Thanks for your time though icy. 💋

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

931dbce4cabecd7cbb7fdf5504b23233.jpg.f555983871cd1ea65367118aa159ea97.jpgpuzzles.thumb.jpg.9e43edee8b4c0fb0e6d0482c08c39055.jpg

 

I think FPS maps need to start having difficulty ratings and or skill requirement ratings associated with them. In my opinion FPS maps are essentially competitive logic puzzles that you can use mechanical and mental skills to solve. Each map is going to require differing levels and skill compositions to solve.  Certain players actually require MORE challenge in certain categories of skill in order to stay stimulated, interested and engaged.  When it comes to FPS level design, I DON'T think the one size fits all approach really works.  Some user somewhere is going to take a loss. Be it the map not beinf challenging/engaging enough (boredom) or the map being to challenging/engaging (anxiety). It nice for a product to exist that can hit that sweet spot for it's consumer. 

 

The-five-point-scale-of-knowledge-difficulty-levels.png.77d3f278ffb65732a71ebc77a5eaf87c.png

 

 

I believe that any product not "sized" for it's consumer, has the potential to be damaging and even downright dangerous to it's participant. This is true of any product, but especially those meant to challenge us (FPS games/maps)

 

 

Take for example expert only ski runs. 

experts-sign-indicating-double-black-diamond-run-top-blackcomb-mountain-137878172.jpg.fd959e4982066d5aaefbc6a14a76293c.jpg

 

Should they not exist as an expirence offering simply because they have the potential to damage the participant? Are they immoral, unjust, or lack intergirty because a lesser skilled skier could get seriously hurt attempting them? Are they bad design?  

 

I recently had a discussion with @MultiLockOn and In part of that discourse we talked about my map Day of Defeat. He explained how he found that as an agressor on the map, he could do 7 things right (wether they were actually the right things are up for debate, but for the sake of the example will assume they were)  and 1 thing wrong and get punished for it. (Same type of logic can occur on double black diamond ski runs, you can be doing everything right but making a singular mistake can be fatal) He asserted this was bad design, and the map was too punishing and rewarded disproportional skills (in reference to his skill hierarchy). 

 

I disagreed that it was bad design, but agreed that the map was very punishing. I also understood how he could view it as disproportionally rewarding skills, as it does, it stresses certain skills way higher then others versus the on "par" map. 

 

I explained It was intentionally designed this way as a niche psychological and mechanical challenge for those willing to participate and those seeking a unique map that challenged a unique composition of skills.   I understand how he could come to the conclusion that the GOAL of my design is poor, but I asserted that the design itself was "good" as it fulfilled my design goals. 

 

So what do you guys think?  Should maps have difficulty/skill ratings associated with them?   Is it wrong or bad design to design for specific target audience groups? Should one size fits all design be the objective goal of fps map design? If so, how to we determine what that mean skill level is?

 

Answer all or none of them, I'd love to hear anyone's take on this!!! 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I want to make it clear that I acknowledge there is a responsibility of a designer to create something that is within the reasonable  boundaries of human capability. Obviously it'd be unjust if a double black diamond course had a unavoidable 500 foot cliff drop, but the lines become quite blurry as to what is too challenging and what is not challenging enough, and that will vary from person to person. It's also worth noting that while pioneering challenges that teeter on these boundaries the potential for over stepping them is there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SaltyKoalaBear
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

931dbce4cabecd7cbb7fdf5504b23233.jpg.f555983871cd1ea65367118aa159ea97.jpgpuzzles.thumb.jpg.9e43edee8b4c0fb0e6d0482c08c39055.jpg

 

I think FPS maps need to start having difficulty ratings and or skill requirement ratings associated with them. In my opinion FPS maps are essentially competitive logic puzzles that you can use mechanical and mental skills to solve. Each map is going to require differing levels and skill compositions to solve.  Certain players actually require MORE challenge in certain categories of skill in order to stay stimulated, interested and engaged.  When it comes to FPS level design, I DON'T think the one size fits all approach really works.  Some user somewhere is going to take a loss. Be it the map not beinf challenging/engaging enough (boredom) or the map being to challenging/engaging (anxiety). It nice for a product to exist that can hit that sweet spot for it's consumer. 

 

The-five-point-scale-of-knowledge-difficulty-levels.png.77d3f278ffb65732a71ebc77a5eaf87c.png

 

 

I believe that any product not "sized" for it's consumer, has the potential to be damaging and even downright dangerous to it's participant. This is true of any product, but especially those meant to challenge us (FPS games/maps)

 

 

Take for example expert only ski runs. 

experts-sign-indicating-double-black-diamond-run-top-blackcomb-mountain-137878172.jpg.fd959e4982066d5aaefbc6a14a76293c.jpg

 

Should they not exist as an expirence offering simply because they have the potential to damage the participant? Are they immoral, unjust, or lack intergirty because a lesser skilled skier could get seriously hurt attempting them? Are they bad design?  

 

I recently had a discussion with @MultiLockOn and In part of that discourse we talked about my map Day of Defeat. He explained how he found that as an agressor on the map, he could do 7 things right (wether they were actually the right things are up for debate, but for the sake of the example will assume they were)  and 1 thing wrong and get punished for it. (Same type of logic can occur on double black diamond ski runs, you can be doing everything right but making a singular mistake can be fatal) He asserted this was bad design, and the map was too punishing and rewarded disproportional skills (in reference to his skill hierarchy). 

 

I disagreed that it was bad design, but agreed that the map was very punishing. I also understood how he could view it as disproportionally rewarding skills, as it does, it stresses certain skills way higher then others versus the on "par" map. 

 

I explained It was intentionally designed this way as a niche psychological and mechanical challenge for those willing to participate and those seeking a unique map that challenged a unique composition of skills.   I understand how he could come to the conclusion that the GOAL of my design is poor, but I asserted that the design itself was "good" as it fulfilled my design goals. 

 

So what do you guys think?  Should maps have difficulty/skill ratings associated with them?   Is it wrong or bad design to design for specific target audience groups? Should one size fits all design be the objective goal of fps map design? If so, how to we determine what that mean skill level is?

 

Answer all or none of them, I'd love to hear anyone's take on this!!! 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I want to make it clear that I acknowledge there is a responsibility of a designer to create something that is within the reasonable  boundaries of human capability. Obviously it'd be unjust if a double black diamond course had a unavoidable 500 foot cliff drop, but the lines become quite blurry as to what is too challenging and what is not challenging enough, and that will vary from person to person. It's also worth noting that while pioneering challenges that teeter on these boundaries the potential for over stepping them is there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there is a difference between a 'successful' design and a 'Good' design. A successful design simply fulfills the intended goals set by the designer

 

the word good carries much more objective wieght, it implies a moral standard. any design can be successful, but not every design can be Good.

 

Like i said before i think that when a game makes itself a judge of competence by separating players into winners and losers, there is an obligation on the designers to make sure the space is balanced. how to balance a map and which skills should be valued more im still trying to define carefully, but still it seems pretty obvious to me that winning several gun fights exercises several more skills than pressing a button twice in a row

 

you can make whatever experience you want, just dont make the game a judge of competence if you want to avoid all the moral obligation that comes with that. 

 

And i know that we don't really have a choice to take off the winners and loser brackets in custom games, and forge is a really cool creative outlet, so i think there should be some grace in the community and a understanding that not all maps are designed to be balenced, like mini games or mil-sims. but it is a problem if you want to design a certain experience that conflicts with balanced gameplay and still want it to be respected as a balanced space

1260918535_Forgemapsthumbnail.thumb.png.a0054255c7c5aba3a52c3cef60b4b815.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

 

I think there is a difference between a 'successful' design and a 'Good' design. A successful design simply fulfills the intended goals set by the designer

 

the word good carries much more objective wieght, it implies a moral standard. any design can be successful, but not every design can be Good.

 

Like i said before i think that when a game makes itself a judge of competence by separating players into winners and losers, there is an obligation on the designers to make sure the space is balanced. how to balance a map and which skills should be valued more im still trying to define carefully, but still it seems pretty obvious to me that winning several gun fights exercises several more skills than pressing a button twice in a row

 

you can make whatever experience you want, just dont make the game a judge of competence if you want to avoid all the moral obligation that comes with that. 

 

And i know that we don't really have a choice to take off the winners and loser brackets in custom games, and forge is a really cool creative outlet, so i think there should be some grace in the community and a understanding that not all maps are designed to be balenced, like mini games or mil-sims. but it is a problem if you want to design a certain experience that conflicts with balanced gameplay and still want it to be respected as a balanced space

"It seems pretty obvious to me" I think this is where your judgement falls short, something that SEEMS obvious on the surface layer may actually not be in reality. This is what I've been trying to drive home in my last few post's, sometimes our lack of understanding can cause us to make errors in judgement and things that seem obvious can easily be a result of our own shortcomings. Surface layer reads can be quite deceiving. 

 

If you are referring to beating down as pushing a button twice, and correlating that to victory on Day of Defeat your missing all the mechanical and mental skill that even facilitates being able to do that against a competent opponent. 

 

 

I challenge you AND your teamate to not use your pistol and just push a button twice to win on Day of Defeat. It simply will just not happen against  equally skilled opponents, and if it does, you've used an insane amount of mental and mechanical nade/movement skill in order to engineer situations that allowed you to "push a button twice". 

 

The pistol fights on the map are actually extremely challenging due to the amount of geometry that can uniquely and abruptly obstruct your ability to shoot at a dynamic rate.  Whenever me and purely come close, or beat, @Box_Hoesand @S0UL FLAME I can promise you it ain't by relying on beatdowns alone, rather we have to use cordinated tactical approaches to situations and ALOT of pistol work to suppress there movements and clever /skillful nade usage so we can close In for a kill.  Do the closed in kills sometimes, even more often then not result in a beatdown delivering the final damage blow? Sure!!!! But your absolutely ignoring all the mechanical and mental skill that lead up to that point which is arguably higher then alot of other "pistol maps". 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance is relative to the experience.

 

Don't have time to type but this little abstract gets to the point somewhat. Not perfect but close enough.

 

The category of balance should be interpreted in a much broader sense; that is, there is not only balance in the sense of equal quantities or amounts, but also balance of two or more quantities or amounts maintaining a certain proportion. Then there is structural balance, meaning the mutual adaptability, coordination, and complementarity of different factors and parts inside the same structure. These two manifestations of balance, quantitative and structural, are mutually conditioning and defining. Balance is the temporary and relative unity of opposites. This philosophical generalization reveals the essence of balance, explaining that its existence has an objective universality while pointing out its relative character. Balance and imbalance are in opposition, but each is the prerequisite and intermediary of the other, and each contains the other. Balance can only be achieved with imbalance as its prerequisite and intermediary. Historically, balance has played a dual role: before the decline of a contradiction, it is the demand of and condition for the existence and development of this contradiction; after the contradiction starts to decline, balance preserves the old unity of opposites and becomes the conservative force obstructing progress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty funny to think about how few games really warrant our time in and of themselves. I genuinely believe that if we stripped every modern title of their progression systems, loot, expansions, and updates, and just.. let them be... It probably wouldn't even be a year before the industry crumbled, because we don't actually play games to play games anymore. The idea of a video game, interactive entertainment, is now little more than the vehicle by which we receive our daily dose of distraction from reality, a dopamine hit that previously came in the form of TV, porn, or movies, until we realize that games are the more potent form, a better high, an amalgamation of the entire digital drug game. It's the perfect storm, through which we can milk VASTLY more profit from the individuals who are willing to buy dlc, lootboxes, or even the newest assembly line product year after year after year after year for 60 bucks a pop. The best part is, no matter how far the corporations push, no matter how aggressive, no matter hwo many products are released unfinished, no matter how uncaring they are for the people who buy their games, at the end of the day,  if you're reading this, they knew you would buy cyberpunk. They knew it, you knew it, and whatever the next cyberpunk is, you'll buy that too. And that's how I know we never really had a chance.

 

I still believe there is a pure experience that a game can evoke, but what I am not so sure of anymore is the success of that hypothetically pure experience. We might be past that, we may like our false reality too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westin said:

It's pretty funny to think about how few games really warrant our time in and of themselves. I genuinely believe that if we stripped every modern title of their progression systems, loot, expansions, and updates, and just.. let them be... It probably wouldn't even be a year before the industry crumbled, because we don't actually play games to play games anymore. The idea of a video game, interactive entertainment, is now little more than the vehicle by which we receive our daily dose of distraction from reality, a dopamine hit that previously came in the form of TV, porn, or movies, until we realize that games are the more potent form, a better high, an amalgamation of the entire digital drug game. It's the perfect storm, through which we can milk VASTLY more profit from the individuals who are willing to buy dlc, lootboxes, or even the newest assembly line product year after year after year after year for 60 bucks a pop. The best part is, no matter how far the corporations push, no matter how aggressive, no matter hwo many products are released unfinished, no matter how uncaring they are for the people who buy their games, at the end of the day,  if you're reading this, they knew you would buy cyberpunk. They knew it, you knew it, and whatever the next cyberpunk is, you'll buy that too. And that's how I know we never really had a chance.

 

I still believe there is a pure experience that a game can evoke, but what I am not so sure of anymore is the success of that hypothetically pure experience. We might be past that, we may like our false reality too much.

you should try playing some games that don't have empty reward systems,  or at least don't lean on them. I recommend Hollow knight and Ori 2

 

I completely understand where your coming from of course, When industry meets art form things can get pretty nasty

1260918535_Forgemapsthumbnail.thumb.png.a0054255c7c5aba3a52c3cef60b4b815.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, purely fat said:

Balance is relative to the experience.

 

Don't have time to type but this little abstract gets to the point somewhat. Not perfect but close enough.

 

The category of balance should be interpreted in a much broader sense; that is, there is not only balance in the sense of equal quantities or amounts, but also balance of two or more quantities or amounts maintaining a certain proportion. Then there is structural balance, meaning the mutual adaptability, coordination, and complementarity of different factors and parts inside the same structure. These two manifestations of balance, quantitative and structural, are mutually conditioning and defining. Balance is the temporary and relative unity of opposites. This philosophical generalization reveals the essence of balance, explaining that its existence has an objective universality while pointing out its relative character. Balance and imbalance are in opposition, but each is the prerequisite and intermediary of the other, and each contains the other. Balance can only be achieved with imbalance as its prerequisite and intermediary. Historically, balance has played a dual role: before the decline of a contradiction, it is the demand of and condition for the existence and development of this contradiction; after the contradiction starts to decline, balance preserves the old unity of opposites and becomes the conservative force obstructing progress. 

nothing about that quote struck me as explaining why "balance is relative to the experience" or what you mean when you say that, but i'd like to hear you explain that more, i might agree depending on what you meant 

1260918535_Forgemapsthumbnail.thumb.png.a0054255c7c5aba3a52c3cef60b4b815.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

you should try playing some games that don't have empty reward systems,  or at least don't lean on them. I recommend Hollow knight and Ori 2

 

I completely understand where your coming from of course, When industry meets art form things can get pretty nasty

I've played a lot of games. For the past couple of years multi and I have played 2's in almost everything that lets you

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Box_Hoes said:

Everyone who dogs me for buying cod ... if you bought cyberpunk you’re even more DOG

 

 

 

 
agree with the whole porn thing anyone who watches and doesn’t think it’s hurting your brain you’re wrong. Porn is gonna promote the most beta male generation, END THE CYCLE OF DOG 

 

I must be built different. This is interesting to me because after watching a few of her videos she's dead wrong on every level. At least in my case. Do you guys really have these problems so severely that you'd consider this a quadruple nld post? That sucks. 😟

Edited by no god anywhere
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, no god anywhere said:

I must be built different. This is interesting to me because after watching a few of her videos she's dead wrong on every level. At least in my case. Do you guys really have these problems so severely that you'd consider this a quadruple nld post? That sucks. 😟

I suggest you read into it more, there are some really interesting articles about the topic 

 

to be fair video games and a bunch of other shit probably morph your brain as well 

090020E6-BA6D-48F5-834F-8DC38FE386D3.jpeg

Edited by Box_Hoes
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, no god anywhere said:

I must be built different. This is interesting to me because after watching a few of her videos she's dead wrong on every level. At least in my case. Do you guys really have these problems so severely that you'd consider this a quadruple nld post? That sucks. 😟

I think everyone was just supporting a positive message, but yes I also thought that video was a little wack. Saying that the primary reason people watch porn is because they have a deep-seeded trauma or sadness they want to cover up is just... stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love when everyone brings up Halo 3 (me included) to showcase halo 3's lighting system. While I do love it, bungie and most developers FAKED a lot of it... The most famous screenshot I can think of H3 is this one with the brute and the smokey godray shining down on him...

😁😝

 

TOO BAD IT'S FAKE IT'S ALL A LIE. /s

 

3664795-halo3.jpg

 

b98f986b2647f8aea86b6130e89a8e7e.jpg

 

I love seeing how shit was done

Edited by JB_
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JB_ said:

I love when everyone brings up Halo 3 (me included) to showcase halo 3's lighting system. While I do love it, bungie and most developers FAKED a lot of it... The most famous screenshot I can think of H3 is this one with the brute and the smokey godray shining down on him...

😁😝

 

TOO BAD IT'S FAKE IT'S ALL A LIE. /s

 

3664795-halo3.jpg

 

b98f986b2647f8aea86b6130e89a8e7e.jpg

 

I love seeing how shit was done

What do you mean fake?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JB_ said:

I love when everyone brings up Halo 3 (me included) to showcase halo 3's lighting system. While I do love it, bungie and most developers FAKED a lot of it... The most famous screenshot I can think of H3 is this one with the brute and the smokey godray shining down on him...

😁😝

 

TOO BAD IT'S FAKE IT'S ALL A LIE. /s

 

3664795-halo3.jpg

 

b98f986b2647f8aea86b6130e89a8e7e.jpg

 

I love seeing how shit was done


Course they faked it, it was 2007 - still more of an artistic achievement than the stuff I see today

 

2 hours ago, Westin said:

I think everyone was just supporting a positive message, but yes I also thought that video was a little wack. Saying that the primary reason people watch porn is because they have a deep-seeded trauma or sadness they want to cover up is just... stupid.

 

Many do - but the underlying issue is most often one of self-esteem, and that’s super difficult to treat in terms of causal incidents. Many users actually cause more of those kinds of self-esteem related issues just by dipping into the pool, so to speak. Self-reinforcing self-destructive behavior is tough to shake and tough to dig through, because there can be layers upon layers of development in the disease. But hey, what do I know, I only studied philosophy, not forensic psychology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...