My point was that my TD was popular specifically because I stuck to my initial belief that a game should not cater to what players think they want. When players asked for something to be made easier, I made it more difficult just to spite them. Designing a game should feel like you're a dungeon master, not like you're just trying to get players to play with you.
I hate games that give you what you need so you can always win. Look at Half Life 2... it's a terrible, terrible game. Ammo boxes EVERYWHERE. Seriously. What the hell? You come across a giant walking strider robot, and there's conveniently a box of infinite rockets nearby? How is that fun? It just makes the game lame. Players shouldn't always be guaranteed a victory. I bet Newell was thinking "hmm, I bet players would like more rockets here. So I'll give them rockets."
Crysis... it had so much potential to be an incredible game. Yet it was ruined with a single poor design decision. Health regeneration. Can you believe that? All it took was one poor choice and the game is completely ruined. Health regeneration took out every single piece of necessary strategy, and replaced it with "shoot twice, duck, wait, recover, shoot twice, duck, wait, recover, repeat..". They did this because of what players said about their previous game, FarCry.
Yet games like this still continue to sell. And the industry appears to be going further and further in this direction.
Then you agree with me!
Hard TDs are an exception. Most of the people play dumb TDs. Your playerbase was made of people that like challenges, and you were lucky they decided to beat your game and got together; but the dumb people play the dumb games. There's always a niche of "hardcore" players, that manage to bump a map. But the fact is that people like dumb games, and when I want to play a TD, no one's playing the hard ones, which makes me sadface.
I hate when the players don't get punished (that sounds a bit cruel, but well xD) so agree with that "ammo everywhere" and "regeneration" parts. I know story sometimes compensates for gameplay, but the replayability and the challenge of beating it is more important, imo. That's why I love the old good arcades.
Ah, the good old arcade games. Predictable but fun. Especially on the hardest difficulty setting. You know exactly what the attack patterns of a boss are, but even if you do, it still takes skill to beat them (1 wrong move and its game over).
To me, that's not skill, that's rote memorization. It's also very boring (again, to me), because there's no actual strategy or thinking involved, just "how well can you execute this predefined series of actions"....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then you agree with me!
Hard TDs are an exception. Most of the people play dumb TDs. Your playerbase was made of people that like challenges, and you were lucky they decided to beat your game and got together; but the dumb people play the dumb games. There's always a niche of "hardcore" players, that manage to bump a map. But the fact is that people like dumb games, and when I want to play a TD, no one's playing the hard ones, which makes me sadface.
I hate when the players don't get punished (that sounds a bit cruel, but well xD) so agree with that "ammo everywhere" and "regeneration" parts. I know story sometimes compensates for gameplay, but the replayability and the challenge of beating it is more important, imo. That's why I love the old good arcades.
Ah, the good old arcade games. Predictable but fun. Especially on the hardest difficulty setting. You know exactly what the attack patterns of a boss are, but even if you do, it still takes skill to beat them (1 wrong move and its game over).
@caparosmith: Go
To me, that's not skill, that's rote memorization. It's also very boring (again, to me), because there's no actual strategy or thinking involved, just "how well can you execute this predefined series of actions"....