Jump to content

Soldat Du Christ

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • NLD Points

    3,464 [ Donate ]

Soldat Du Christ last won the day on January 16

Soldat Du Christ had the most liked content!


About Soldat Du Christ

  • Rank
    Couldn't miss me if you tried
  • Birthday 11/17/1994

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. so you don't think it can be evil as long as the game doesn't exalt the evil behavior or pretend it is actually righteous? i mean, for me that's the minimum, obviously a game like HATRED which glorifies mass murder sprees is evil, even the world will agree with that..
  2. here's a good question, is it true that certain games can be evil even if they are fairly balanced? and I'm not just talking about themes and narratives, but the actual skills that are exercised. Like among us for example, which has a very fun and engaging competitive formula, when playing as a traitor, rewards you for lying, falsely accusing, and generally confusing the other players. As much as I enjoy playing as the good guy investigators, whenever I get picked to play as the imposter, I find it convicting how good I can be sometimes at playing a sociopathic liar. Look, ignore whether or not among us is a balanced game, there are adjustable settings, whatever, assume it is balanced and think about the implications of my thesis. Right now i'm leaning more towards it's not good to reward this, as fun as it may be
  3. i think you are just re asserting your premises without explaining why you think it's random, or what you mean when you say random, which is really the issue here... randomness as in it's imposable to calculate? if this is what you mean, then to what degree? do you think there's no possible way a player can calculate when/if/how/where these 'pop outs' will happen? or that the calculations are too vague and therefore you might as well equate it with random?
  4. At what point does probability percentages become bad or good? Is it objectively bad design if every possible outcome cannot be deducted to certainty? Popping in an out of cover whether it's a corner or a pillar, exercises ones ability to reduce patterns in their movement by being unpredictable. And as for the one on the receiving end of the cover popping, they are exercising their ability to look for patterns in the player that they have demonstrated over several encounters to exploit them, increasing their chances of success. This is seemingly random, but that perceived randomness is mitigated when one pays attention to the enemy players habits, treating them as if they are flawed individual and not a robot with random calculations.
  5. https://jessesoldatduchene.wixsite.com/portfolio Feedback welcome
  6. I think overwatch might be the best competitive fps game out right now, combined with all the team strats i agree it way more mental than physical, which is great. You'll have a harder time convincing me of that on just about every other fps, all the "high iq" or "best plays of CS history" i've seen in highlight compilations of CSGO for example, are always underwhelming and obviously came down to the individuals ability to aim and those skills you shared at the bottom most can be assorted into the mental category while the others need to be defined more, will still probably end up falling into mental as well, they will either fall into mental or motor
  7. I don't think that one tiny limb which makes up 1% of a persons motor muscle groups should ever compete even close to the same level as someone who is exercising several mental muscle groups interchangabley Don't think i can put it more simply than that I'm open to changing my mind, but this seems so obviously wrong to me
  8. I agree and understand you can break down "thumbs" more accurately than i did, but still even granting what you said, do you think it is fair to have that skill overwhelm all other mental skills? Or do you agree with chunk and think that i'm overhyping how dominant it really is? Or do you just think its all fair game whether or not it is dominant over mental skills? You can only blur the lines between mental and motor so much, yes they are linked through our nervous system but they are classified differently for a reason, and are intuitively understood to be different things
  9. It all depends on context, thumb war for example exercises thumb skills, but i don't have a problem with that game because there is very little if any mental skill that can be exercised to gain an advantage, it's all about proportions... it's not necessarily that thumb skills are always bad to be rewarded, but that it should never overwhelm an entire category of skill, namely Mental I'm trying to approach everything from a bottom up point of view, not top down. If you just examine video games intuitively without breaking down all the a priori assumptions i believe most people will come to the intuitive understanding that thumb skills are fine because it requires practice and precition, but if you break skills down into their overarching categories: Mental and Motor, you will see how completely disproportionately rewarding the two categories are Most games exercise these mental skills even to a minimal degree, some more than others: Processing capacity ( how MUCH information you can gather and compartmentalize in order to think laterally and several steps ahead Processing speed (how fast you can gather and process information that leads to decisions) Processing extrapolation (reasoning off incomplete data, induction & deduction) And then heres the motor skills exercised in games... ...Thumbs 💩 See what i mean?
  10. It does not follow that because games feature finger inputs, they therefore have a meaningful impact on the outcome of a match. Whether or not inputs have a meaningful outcome depends on how much is demanded and how much is rewarded And i'm fine with video games being completely separate from physical sports, even though they could theoretically be merged as VR becomes more developed, but most importantly whatever skills are present they need to be rewarded proportionate to their value i'm sorry if it makes you upset but thumb skills are not more valuable than mental skills, the problem is they are treated as if they are more valuable by how disproportionately rewarding it is I think one reason why people flinch at the idea of nerfing aiming skill is that it would sacrifice engagement, BUT this is only if you don't have a creative mind and can't think of other ways to add engagement back in through other means In Overwatch there a character named winston who has a auto lock on weapon, so how did the developers make up for this loss of engagement? The gun can lock on to as many as three targets at once without sacrificing any more ammunition or damage per second, so the player is rewarded ALOT by optimising their position and encouraging a crowd control role. This is just one example, you don't have to give everyone auto tracking weapons, just find creative ways of making gunfight more mental!
  • Create New...