- Posts: 2027
- Thank you received: 3096
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
×
Talk about whatever you like related to games that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Catch-up mechanisms are a band-aid: CHANGE MY MIND
01 Oct 2018 19:56 #282560
by dysjunct
Replied by dysjunct on topic Catch-up mechanisms are a band-aid: CHANGE MY MIND
To stick with the metaphor, band-aids are not great, but they are better than open wounds. I don't mind them when they are well-integrated with the theme, and don't feel artificial.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Erik Twice, Oatmeal
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
01 Oct 2018 20:34 #282563
by Whoshim
Replied by Whoshim on topic Catch-up mechanisms are a band-aid: CHANGE MY MIND
Concerning 'git gud', it can be used arrogantly, but it does have a kernel of truth.
I find that there is generally a stark contrast between popular older video games and newer ones. In older video games (for example: Mario), if you did not build the requisite skills, you could not complete the game. There are still games like that. However, I feel that the market is dominated by titles that allow you to make it through single player even without developing much skill at all.
When looking at board games, I think that there are some games that are designed competitively. I cannot remember which designer/publisher wrote it, but they felt that players needed to be able to lose on the first turn. Otherwise, why play that first turn. I tend to prefer this style of game. With this style of game, if someone complains about balance, but more experienced players find the game balanced, then a politer 'git gud' is warranted (hopefully by sharing some advice, etc.). In a CCG that I played at a high level, I would go onto the forums and see complaints about particular cards. Those cards were often not really that great. Once you learned more about how to play, they were not a problem. Also, Dark Souls is a punishing game that does require skill to get through.
On the other hand, some games are designed to be social experiences. They are focused more on having everyone sit down to the table and enjoy themselves over the course of the game. In such games, making sure that everyone feels they have meaningful decisions is important. If that requires some catch-up mechanism, then so be it. I find that most of the people I know enjoy these sorts of games.
I don't see a problem with a game having catch up mechanisms. I think it is the result of a different design philosophy. There are many kinds of people, so there are many kinds of games. I prefer competitive games that can punish you from turn 1, but I understand why others do not.
I find that there is generally a stark contrast between popular older video games and newer ones. In older video games (for example: Mario), if you did not build the requisite skills, you could not complete the game. There are still games like that. However, I feel that the market is dominated by titles that allow you to make it through single player even without developing much skill at all.
When looking at board games, I think that there are some games that are designed competitively. I cannot remember which designer/publisher wrote it, but they felt that players needed to be able to lose on the first turn. Otherwise, why play that first turn. I tend to prefer this style of game. With this style of game, if someone complains about balance, but more experienced players find the game balanced, then a politer 'git gud' is warranted (hopefully by sharing some advice, etc.). In a CCG that I played at a high level, I would go onto the forums and see complaints about particular cards. Those cards were often not really that great. Once you learned more about how to play, they were not a problem. Also, Dark Souls is a punishing game that does require skill to get through.
On the other hand, some games are designed to be social experiences. They are focused more on having everyone sit down to the table and enjoy themselves over the course of the game. In such games, making sure that everyone feels they have meaningful decisions is important. If that requires some catch-up mechanism, then so be it. I find that most of the people I know enjoy these sorts of games.
I don't see a problem with a game having catch up mechanisms. I think it is the result of a different design philosophy. There are many kinds of people, so there are many kinds of games. I prefer competitive games that can punish you from turn 1, but I understand why others do not.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ChristopherMD
- Offline
- Road Warrior
Less
More
- Posts: 5225
- Thank you received: 3758
01 Oct 2018 20:45 #282564
by ChristopherMD
Replied by ChristopherMD on topic Catch-up mechanisms are a band-aid: CHANGE MY MIND
I hate games that you lose for not making the optimal move on turn 1. Why even play the rest of the game after that? Unless its something really short I'm either king-making or a bot for the rest of it. I'd rather at least be eliminated so I can do anything else. Maybe play a video game since I can restart those right away when I've lost.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
02 Oct 2018 01:07 #282568
by Whoshim
I like games that you can lose on turn 1 because it makes your decision meaningful. However, games like that should offer multiple paths to victory. So, essentially, there is not one "best" move turn 1. There are moves that are so bad they can make you lose, but there are a number of possible opening moves that can lead to victory.
The easiest example (due to familiarity) is chess. Moving a pawn in front of your rook first is generally giving up too much control of the middle and is generally a path to defeat. However, there are a number of other opening ideas that can be played.
If there is only one "best" move on the first turn, I would argue that the game should just start with the board set up after that point.
I like games with a wide variety of options. If there is a wide variety of options, some subset of options will be strong and others will be weak (generally). I like being able to learn over time which options are stronger than others.
Replied by Whoshim on topic Catch-up mechanisms are a band-aid: CHANGE MY MIND
ChristopherMD wrote: I hate games that you lose for not making the optimal move on turn 1.
I like games that you can lose on turn 1 because it makes your decision meaningful. However, games like that should offer multiple paths to victory. So, essentially, there is not one "best" move turn 1. There are moves that are so bad they can make you lose, but there are a number of possible opening moves that can lead to victory.
The easiest example (due to familiarity) is chess. Moving a pawn in front of your rook first is generally giving up too much control of the middle and is generally a path to defeat. However, there are a number of other opening ideas that can be played.
If there is only one "best" move on the first turn, I would argue that the game should just start with the board set up after that point.
I like games with a wide variety of options. If there is a wide variety of options, some subset of options will be strong and others will be weak (generally). I like being able to learn over time which options are stronger than others.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Colorcrayons
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.645 seconds