Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i had an interesting experience over a monopoly board game with some family that touches on Game design talking points, you guys might enjoy. I will lay out everything as it happened and then give my interpretation of it...

 

so there was me, my wife, my younger sister, and my baby sister (8) sitting around the board at the table, while my mom was being a back seat driver from to sofa.

 

Everything started off well, i ended up in jail, and the little one offered me her get out of jail free card, which i thought was a good opportunity to reward her generosity, and gave her a whopping 500 bill in return. I thought it was clear at this point that i didn't really care to win, but was just playing for the dumb fun of it..

 

reason being, the game is heavily based on random chance, so to take it seriously was not really in my interest at the time. The little one didn't really understand the game, was either too complicated for her to learn, or she simply didn't care to learn, instead wanting to give her money away on her turns and never buy any properties, that was how she was enjoying it. 

 

So neither me or the little one where taking the game seriously, but just enjoyed being silly about it.

 

Now, my wife and sister on the other hand, they did want to play the game seriously, and didn't like that the little one was giving her money away to me because that broke the game in their eyes, ruining the fairness of it. They accused me of encouraging her behavior because i was benefiting from it. One more point they made was that learning the game rules was important for her, and she is opting out of the learning experience.

 

My mom also jumped in and scolded the little one for not following the rules, and i was shut down by majority vote before any mature conflict resolution could come of it, until after the game when i opened it back up for discussion.

 

I started by acknowledging some of their points as being valid, for example the fact that kids should learn the rules of games and that there are valuable learning opportunities to be had for kids by playing the game as its intended, and also understanding that if they wanted to take the game seriously, they dont deserve to have other derail the game for them.

 

People who play a game and dont take it seriously can have fun any which way it goes, while people who DO want to take it serious and compete can only enjoy it if they have a fair playing field. In the case of monopoly with the central game feature being chance that leads to inevitable unfairness, at least if everyone is playing by the rules, everyone equally has a chance to get lucky or un lucky, vs a kid giving some of their money away to who they want

 

after this i tried to explain my intentions where not to de rail the game and that we all could have had better communication, but my sister couldn't possibly understand why i wouldn't want to take the game seriously, arguing the game is a game of skill and i was making excuses by saying its random. She not design minded like i am but still that frustrated me she can't see how luck based the game is

 

My wife on the other hand, AND THIS IS THE GOOD PART PAY ATTENTION;

 

when we talked it all out, she could see my point, understanding that the game is more luck the skill. Now, i asked her,

"do you still enjoy the game even though in theory its possible for you to make all the right decisions and still lose?"

 

She said yes because she simply enjoyed the engagement of excersing whatever percentage of decision making there is in the game. (paraphrasing) But she also added that, despite the luck based mechanic, she still aims to win.. to which i asked,

"even if you can lose after you demonstrated the most skill?"

 

and she said yes i would be okay with that, because i knew what i was getting myself into, it's how the game is structured from the start so you go into it prepared to be outplayed by forces out of your control (again paraphrasing she does not talk like that XD)

 

and now my aftermath thoughts:

 

Its just like when i play call of duty, i don't go into the experience expecting a balanced and fair competitive game, i know by now after several game cycles thats not what the game is, its a skinner box feel good army super soldier simulator, with some skills that can be exersised and enjoy the engagement of for however long and however often they are available to me. And i don't get mad when the rug is pulled out from underneath me and i get blown up by a claymore because i don't expect a balanced experience going into it

 

I still think it is fair to criticise games that make themselves a judge of competence by including a leaderboards at the end when the game is not balanced for competition. They should be consistent and just have each game be for xp grinding, or make efforts to have a balanced experience.

 

But at the end of the day, if you feel entitled to win based on your merit in every experience that exists despite it's track record for NOT being good at providing that, you are simply banging your head against a steel beam that could have just as easily been walked around

 

1260918535_Forgemapsthumbnail.thumb.png.a0054255c7c5aba3a52c3cef60b4b815.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boyo said:

Why doesn’t Camo have integrity?  

How much are you willing to enter a room with a ghost inside it? And even if you don't go into the room, will you be able to discern when it comes out to follow you? And even if the ghost isn't in that room, can you trust your judgement and wits to deduce where else it could be, or where it's going?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, S0UL FLAME said:

How much are you willing to enter a room with a ghost inside it?

Depends on what advantages I have.  

 

1 minute ago, S0UL FLAME said:

And even if you don't go into the room, will you be able to discern when it comes out to follow you?

Deduction, prediction, and communication are significant skills that should be tested.  

 

2 minutes ago, S0UL FLAME said:

And even if the ghost isn't in that room, can you trust your judgement and wits to deduce where else it could be, or where it's going?

I mean, that’s what we’re testing with Camo, right?  Why are testing those deduction, prediction, and communication skills un-integrilicious?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boyo said:

Tell me here, now, using words and not some hour long unrelated video, how Camo lacks integrity.  You know what kind of person is unpleasant to interact with?  One that never answers direct questions.  

If you were playing devils advocate, and had to answer the question, "how does camo lack integrity?," how would you respond? Would you be capable of forming that argument? 

Edited by no god anywhere
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, no god anywhere said:

If you were playing devils advocate, and had to answer the question, "how does camo lack integrity?," how would you respond? Would you be capable of forming that argument? 

Because it's broken. It takes practically 0 effort to use, and even if you ignore every single way to "play with camo better" it's still a massive advantage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boyo said:

Because it's broken. It takes practically 0 effort to use, and even if you ignore every single way to "play with camo better" it's still a massive advantage. 

Okay its broken, takes no effort, is a massive advantage. That doesn't answer the question. You can do better. How does that translate to not having integrity? 

Edited by no god anywhere
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, no god anywhere said:

Okay its broken, takes no effort, is a massive advantage. That doesn't answer the question. You can do better. How does that translate to not having integrity? 

- Integrity = outcomes proportionate to intentional player input

- For Intentional player input to exist, predictability must be present at every level and at all times as a prerequisite (playing chess in the dark vs the light)

- Visual information is THE primary avenue to start predicting my opponent in Halo (not the only source, but primary)

- Camo subverts Halo's primary source of information through the removal of that information from one player, but not the other, in order to provide its advantage

- Therefore, while not always, camo often violates integrity in practice. It cloaks one half of the chess board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, S0UL FLAME said:

So you already understood what Camo introduces. You just wanted to see if we can articulate it in a specific explanation that was direct, only to see if we could.

 

I'll be keeping that in mind.

You agree that invisible equals unfair?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Camo is at its strongest, such as CE or Halo 5, it proposes a great challenge for the opponent. You'll have a better chance to punish poor use of it with a 3sk Magnum, but it doesn't excuse the near invisible and anti-aim prowess it gives. All you can do is deduce where camo is amidst hot combat, and if you die, good luck with the respawn.

 

Snowballing isn't very healthy, personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, S0UL FLAME said:

Snowballing isn't very healthy, personally.

If this is your belief, would it be fair to say that you would oppose new categories of pick-ups, beyond gun, grenade, and power-up, based solely on the fact that they allow a player who stays alive longer to gain additional advantages (when compared to classic arena Halo with only gun, grenade, and power-up pick-ups)?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Equipment, Armor Abilities, Advanced Movement, and Equipment 2.0 aren't the answer, especially because they're designed so poorly. Map interactivity is the fifth corner, but it has been ignored for so long because of the former attempts. So much potential there, which is why I believe we don't need anything extra. Guns, grenades, melee, vehicles, maps.

 

Keep Halo simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, S0UL FLAME said:

Map interactivity

Which map best embodied the type of interactivity you desire?  What would an ideal implementation of this type of map interactivity look like?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Boyo said:

- Integrity = outcomes proportionate to intentional player input

- For Intentional player input to exist, predictability must be present at every level and at all times as a prerequisite (playing chess in the dark vs the light)

- Visual information is THE primary avenue to start predicting my opponent in Halo (not the only source, but primary)

- Camo subverts Halo's primary source of information through the removal of that information from one player, but not the other, in order to provide its advantage

- Therefore, while not always, camo often violates integrity in practice. It cloaks one half of the chess board.

What were your intentions by asking multi? To waste his time? To bait him into a logic path you'd like to lay out? To test him? 

 

Why not just lay your intentions directly on the table and ask for discussion or a genuine response to whatever thought process you may be having?

 

I could be wrong, but your method here seems shady and I don't like it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ur all bad, camo is fine. I see ppl with camp cross map just fine and slay on site. 

 

just get better. /s

 

 


Maybe camo should remove your HUD, since it makes every part of you invisible that would include the inside screen of your visor.... So no HUD. 

 

Also playing no HUD in halo infinite didn't feel any different it was very weird. Hitting shots just like I had a reticle, maybe even better. So this wouldn't be TOO bad of an issue. Maybe for mouse.

 

 

 

Edited by JB_
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JB_ said:

Maybe camo should remove your HUD, since it makes every part of you invisible that would include the inside screen of your visor.... So no HUD. 

If you were invisible, it would stand to reason that your BMs would be invisible too so, my question is, how do you know when to stop wiping?  
 

I like Camo disabling the user’s HUD though.  Not only would it fit aesthetically but would also take away some of the camo user’s first shot advantage, cuz no reticle, tempering the ability’s advantage.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the player spawn system be predictable?  If predictability at every level is a prerequisite to integrity, does the spawn system need to be predictable too or is that particular element exempt from this requirement?   Does an unpredictable spawn system benefit gameplay more than a predictable one?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for bringing this back up again after we seem to be mostly past it, but I'm kind of with Boyo on Camo.  I have very mixed feelings on it. 

 

I don't see a camo as being inherently unfair, but I don't think it's been implemented well to this point in Halo (CE is definitely the closest because of the lethality of the core weapons). If you asked me if it was broken in any specific game I'd probably have to say yes, but that doesn't mean that it inherently lacks integrity.  Of course this is a slippery slope, because I could literally say that about anything.  Also not sure what I would change to make it work...  I'd be interested in seeing how it would work if you are only camoed when you're moving (when you stop you become visible again) - I think I saw that idea mentioned on Beyond, but don't really remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boyo said:

Which map best embodied the type of interactivity you desire? 

Chill Out is my favorite Halo map, ever. Cold Storage is a close second, and the biggest reason I like it is the portal system. It's also one of the maps I know of that can be played with all of the weapons gone, and still be fun, because of its innate self-balancing through the portal system. No map quite like those two in the scope of Halo's map history. Incredibly unique, and incredibly replayable.

3 hours ago, Boyo said:

What would an ideal implementation of this type of map interactivity look like?  

Halo delved into interactable stuff like ladders, portals, lifts, and mancannons for general use. Some maps have single use geometry changes or gimmicks, like the bridge on Zanzibar, the slow moving lift on Ivory tower, the doors on High Ground, etc. I think it'd be sick if we introduced more creative ways to interact with maps several different ways, instead of just putting in a one-time change or a shallow game changer. Let me elaborate with some hypotheticals.

 

Imagine you're fighting in an ONI base, and there are lights you can disable for thirty seconds in most of the rooms by shooting them. You'd need to activate your flashlight and check your corners.

 

Imagine you're in one of the hydro plants on Reach, and someone can open up the dam to make the water level increase, along with pushing unsuspecting players into a large pool, where they have to swim out. The water would slowly go back to regular levels, but the prospect of someone flipping the switch again is always possible.

 

Imagine you're on Cairo Station, and you can toss fusion coils at the windows to disable sound and introduce low gravity in the sector via space vacuum for a minute, before the window repairs itself and it goes back to normal again.

 

Imagine Big Team Battle on an isolated island, except there's a whole underground part of the map submerged in water, for both underwater vehicles and players to swim in.

 

Imagine a magma powered super drill (except not Rig) that has valves you can shoot that ooze lava over a portion of the map.

 

Imagine a fully destructible wooden cabin on a rainy night with Insurrection caches and weapons hidden in a stone basement.

 

Imagine a Covenant scarab fuel base where there's pools of acid you can traverse to get places faster with the tradeoff of lowered shields.

 

So. Much. Potential!

 

And of course Halo can also have all the kind of maps we have now, and the competitive community can have their stagnant basic stuff, but the sheer level of creativity someone could do with Halo maps is very real. Hell, we can drop the Halo aesthetic and make whatever we want, with all or none of the interactions we can think of. Just make sure they work.

 

Thank you for reading and Godspeed!

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...