I think you're asking the wrong questions. My answer to any of these depend entirely on the situation. Some people prefer competition or exploration over socializing, but it's very hard to say anything about this in general. Look up Bartle's Taxonomy (outdated but solid) and share with us what exactly you're trying to figure out here.
Well, I'm first and foremost in need to understand what 20 year old find fun.
I am 42.
Lets take a for instance:
if I played a scenario map like mine with a friend (versus him would be more accurate), I would prefer our fight to make a decisive HE wins or I win.
I'm not too sure on that for this younger generation, which some of you are part of.
20 years ago, when I did sc maps for friends (6 or so) .. I had sealed in my brain that the answer was easy.. when a player or two lose early .. they get another hero, another "side" objective.. something to get to see the rest of the game unfold
no one gets left out
no one ever need rage quit the game.. wait in a lobby or other ...
See what I mean? i'm too old for this shit :KappaRoss:
ty .. u still the Moz.. been thinking about changing my ava tar back to comedian, better PR (i mean which do YOU prefer? Do you dota? Do you starheroes :D do you tower defense? Do you campaign? What do you love moz? We need to know what YOU like, you brainiac you! <3
ps : i am slow, but i am good at everything :KZskull:
i'm up to achievers and explorers and glued to the ceiling.. things haven't changed since the start, video games are a curious beast, fascinating shit!
Yeah, i remembered preferring the 8 (with implicit or explicit differentiation <3 ) .. i wrote a paper once on expanding it to include differentiation if the decision to act is "game oriented" or "versus the game default gameplay and purely user axiom", 20 years ago lol.
Well, I'm first and foremost in need to understand what 20 year old find fun.
The issue is, '20 year olds' aren't a homogenous group. What they find fun differs wildly. Some of them don't even play games. In that sense your audience is too big. I'd focus on specific genres and see what players in those genres tend to like from other games.
ty .. u still the Moz.. been thinking about changing my ava tar back to comedian, better PR (i mean which do YOU prefer? Do you dota? Do you starheroes :D do you tower defense? Do you campaign? What do you love moz? We need to know what YOU like, you brainiac you! <3
I like all sorts of games, but I primarily love anything that's either A) 'elegant' or B) 'good co-op'. By elegant I mean those games where everything just comes together; the game tries to tell a story, the mechanics feel like the right approach in doing so, the characters are believable and the visuals work for the story the game is trying to tell. Think Portal, which really is a series of pretty philosophical themes wrapped up in a cynical sort of humor and made accessible to every player through it. The characters are believable in the world, the portal mechanic helps further the story (through the puzzles) and the relatively clean looks just feel right (and help make the game lightweight, mechanically). With good co-op I mean the type of games where you really have to work together with your buddies intensely to succeed. Think something like Trine, where you cannot complete levels if you don't know what your allies can do and if you don't communicate with them, as opposed to a game like Team Fortress two, where co-operation helps your team to reach its goal but is really not required (you can make plays on your own perfectly well).
To be fair though, I'm studying and delving into game design and it's pretty extraordinary for someone to even know what exactly they like as consciously as I do. And I don't say that to be arrogant, but to point out that a lot of players have no idea what they like: they just pick up games that look cool to them, possibly in one specific genre, and then go from there. Few people have distinguished what they like further than a single genre, and could tell you, for example, why they prefer Overwatch over Team Fortress 2 or vice versa.
For SC2, the simplest is to just make what you think will be accessible to get people playing. From that point, it doesn't matter if you made a JRPG-style map or a full-blown macro-scale risk-like turn-based Strategy game.
Do ai vs your hero, however, other heros, or other players must kill the target too, whoever kills the target first wins.. this is my last post for the night, bye! :)
I agree, most people like to ignore what they like and live through it without an afterthought, which is fine. i'd rather have people tell me they don't know and jot down what they actually play (which may or may not make them realize what it is they do like) than individually theorycraft.
I know what I like, but what i like is detective work within a free world.
So i'm f cked without a "fan base" of player I can rely on to playtest it :(
because I need to establish if my enigmae are do able by someone who has never touched it (even if it is in "x" number of tries) ..
whatever the case may be (my map's specific gameplays/concepts are experienced as lame by users and no one likes it enough to invest in it or my original gameplays revolutionize the rts genre), I feel that the objective must be to get where I am in trouble, where I am unsure and I don't know what the answerr/outcome is.. that is where i am at, so why try to do anything otehr?
Making a game that uses several distinctly different gameplays I feel is bound to start out very small and I am fine with it.
If you could choose the gameplay goals in a melee/hero multiplayer competitive map (which is what I am doing right now)
what do you choose?
++++++++++++
Killing an ai target (players individually as enemies)
Killing an ai target (players individually as temporary allies)
Killing a target (your opponent)
Bringing vulnerable npc/units to a specific location safely
(fighting a common enemy ai) making the ai focus on your opponent
++++++++++++
Destroying enemy units against melee type of fights
Destroying enemy units against scripted type of fights
++++++++++++
One off (your hero dies = game over)
Revive dead heroes a set of times
Unlimited revive heroes
++++++++++++
Thank you for voicing your opinion (on any part of those questions that are making me develop split personalities :P
o.. and hf
@houndofbaskerville: Go
I think you're asking the wrong questions. My answer to any of these depend entirely on the situation. Some people prefer competition or exploration over socializing, but it's very hard to say anything about this in general. Look up Bartle's Taxonomy (outdated but solid) and share with us what exactly you're trying to figure out here.
It also matters hugely what you are good at. If you make something fun, the format matters a lot less.
Well, I'm first and foremost in need to understand what 20 year old find fun.
I am 42.
Lets take a for instance:
if I played a scenario map like mine with a friend (versus him would be more accurate), I would prefer our fight to make a decisive HE wins or I win.
I'm not too sure on that for this younger generation, which some of you are part of.
20 years ago, when I did sc maps for friends (6 or so) .. I had sealed in my brain that the answer was easy.. when a player or two lose early .. they get another hero, another "side" objective.. something to get to see the rest of the game unfold
no one gets left out
no one ever need rage quit the game.. wait in a lobby or other ...
See what I mean? i'm too old for this shit :KappaRoss:
ty .. u still the Moz.. been thinking about changing my ava tar back to comedian, better PR (i mean which do YOU prefer? Do you dota? Do you starheroes :D do you tower defense? Do you campaign? What do you love moz? We need to know what YOU like, you brainiac you! <3
ps : i am slow, but i am good at everything :KZskull:
Bartle's Taxonomy anhahhahahahahhahahaha
you ze best moz
i'm up to achievers and explorers and glued to the ceiling.. things haven't changed since the start, video games are a curious beast, fascinating shit!
Yeah, i remembered preferring the 8 (with implicit or explicit differentiation <3 ) .. i wrote a paper once on expanding it to include differentiation if the decision to act is "game oriented" or "versus the game default gameplay and purely user axiom", 20 years ago lol.
ty, you extra moza u
The issue is, '20 year olds' aren't a homogenous group. What they find fun differs wildly. Some of them don't even play games. In that sense your audience is too big. I'd focus on specific genres and see what players in those genres tend to like from other games.
I like all sorts of games, but I primarily love anything that's either A) 'elegant' or B) 'good co-op'. By elegant I mean those games where everything just comes together; the game tries to tell a story, the mechanics feel like the right approach in doing so, the characters are believable and the visuals work for the story the game is trying to tell. Think Portal, which really is a series of pretty philosophical themes wrapped up in a cynical sort of humor and made accessible to every player through it. The characters are believable in the world, the portal mechanic helps further the story (through the puzzles) and the relatively clean looks just feel right (and help make the game lightweight, mechanically). With good co-op I mean the type of games where you really have to work together with your buddies intensely to succeed. Think something like Trine, where you cannot complete levels if you don't know what your allies can do and if you don't communicate with them, as opposed to a game like Team Fortress two, where co-operation helps your team to reach its goal but is really not required (you can make plays on your own perfectly well).
To be fair though, I'm studying and delving into game design and it's pretty extraordinary for someone to even know what exactly they like as consciously as I do. And I don't say that to be arrogant, but to point out that a lot of players have no idea what they like: they just pick up games that look cool to them, possibly in one specific genre, and then go from there. Few people have distinguished what they like further than a single genre, and could tell you, for example, why they prefer Overwatch over Team Fortress 2 or vice versa.
For SC2, the simplest is to just make what you think will be accessible to get people playing. From that point, it doesn't matter if you made a JRPG-style map or a full-blown macro-scale risk-like turn-based Strategy game.
@houndofbaskerville: Go
Do ai vs your hero, however, other heros, or other players must kill the target too, whoever kills the target first wins.. this is my last post for the night, bye! :)
thank you for input-output <3
I agree, most people like to ignore what they like and live through it without an afterthought, which is fine. i'd rather have people tell me they don't know and jot down what they actually play (which may or may not make them realize what it is they do like) than individually theorycraft.
I know what I like, but what i like is detective work within a free world. So i'm f cked without a "fan base" of player I can rely on to playtest it :(
because I need to establish if my enigmae are do able by someone who has never touched it (even if it is in "x" number of tries) ..
whatever the case may be (my map's specific gameplays/concepts are experienced as lame by users and no one likes it enough to invest in it or my original gameplays revolutionize the rts genre), I feel that the objective must be to get where I am in trouble, where I am unsure and I don't know what the answerr/outcome is.. that is where i am at, so why try to do anything otehr?
Making a game that uses several distinctly different gameplays I feel is bound to start out very small and I am fine with it.
moza forever <3
ty alex for posting