Jump to content

FREE AUGUST TOURNAMENTS 

APEX LEGENDSROCKET LEAGUE

CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, arglactable said:

This is correct, yes, but it doesn't really have any impact at all on the argument I was making. I suspect you knew exactly what I intended. "Good design" can't be expressed as a mathematical proof OR as a repeatable, falsifiable theory. At best, you can establish vague principles, but those are still intrinsically dependent on culture, experience, and personal preference.

This is an insanely deep rabbit hole you're diving down and I don't want to do the conversation disservice by trying to prove otherwise in an overly simplified manner, so I'm just going to say I don't think that is true in the slightest bit. And I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mr Grim said:

Flinch? The hell you talking about woman? Also think it's the repeater that tells you, maybe the plasma rifle as well but I don't remember.

Get shots with a sniper once and tell me there's no flinch. Reticle instantly flicks towards the sky and it made Team Snipers a total chore to play.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Basu said:

Get shots with a sniper once and tell me there's no flinch. Reticle instantly flicks towards the sky and it made Team Snipers a total chore to play.

Oh yeah the sniper does fuck you up, and it's actually significant. At least with the pistol and AR you can completely negate the reticle shift by moving the stick with more than like 5% force. With the sniper there's basically no defense.

 

Fuck I'm supposed to be the h3 and reach kid here. I can't even remember basic things about these games.

Share this post


Link to post

Having feedback specific to controller vibration is a terrible idea just for the very fact that millions of people will be playing on PC going forward with this franchise. 

And the vast majority of games, especially competitive games, are on PC. So developing specific game design around vibration is a completely pointless idea. 

And vibration is horrible even if we're assuming controllers only because it throws your aim off, and you can't guarantee that when a controller rumbles you won't be trying to aim at something in that specific moment. 

And it almost definitely makes a difference. I noticed an immediate jump in my aiming skill when I turned off vibration after using it for like a decade. So it's not just like I tried vibration once and hated it because I wasn't used to it. I noticed it threw my aim off slightly when I was trying to finely control a stick that was buzzing, which makes intuitive sense. 

I think some people might be able to control it well enough that the tradeoff is worth it for the feedback you get when being shot or whatever. But that could also be because of inadequate visual and sound feedback in a game, not that vibration has some guaranteed usefulness for certain people that visual feedback would be superior at conveying. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Vyrst said:

Exaggeratingly Ignorant assumption tho. Do you block Flick your stick around all abruptly? Like do you play with high Stick deadzone and make twitchy movements? because i dont. Legit nah dog i play on 0 deadzone on any game that allows me to. I constantly leave my thumb on stick gliding and surfing it around in weird angles and positions almost like a thumb moving a mouse pointer. Constantly diagonally aiming and whatnot. I dont grid aim at all and i dont even necessarily use movement stick to adjust accuracy either. I just twitch my right thumb. Absolute micro movements. If you do what i do then vibration DOES impact my aim. Unless you have some sturdy metal mitts there

I'll admit that I did exaggerate a tad. And I can see how that post may have come off as somewhat ignorant. But I wouldn't consider myself so, because I can kinda see where you guys are coming from. I just believe that the actual effects are negligible.

However, thanks for going into detail about the specific details of how you aim and how that would be more likely to affect you. This helps add a lot of context to make it much more believable and even got me thinking a bit more about how I myself aim, as well.

I generally don't abruptly flick the sticks, as I am definitely just not a twitch-aiming player. I do like some deadzones, but not too much. Just enough to keep the thumbstick from being excessively sensitive, but I play with max aim acceleration on a fairly low sensitivity (4-5) to compensate just fine. I can only describe how I aim as being slow, steady, and methodical. I typically aim best by 'pacing' my shots to make sure that I am on target before I fire, instead of just trying to shoot as fast as possible and make aim adjustments from there. Kinda like rowing a boat or painting with a brush. And then yeah, I often help line it up with the left stick movement. I wonder how much someone's aim control settings might have to do with it.

As for a sturdy grip? IDK, I don't think that I do, lol. The rumbling just seems to affect my fingers most and apparently dissipates by the time the kinetic energy travels down from my fingers to my palm and then around to my thumb. So I don't have it really shake the whole hand, haha. And the analog sticks don't seem to otherwise budge in the process. Not with modern controllers, anyway. I know it probably sounds stupid but that is what makes sense to me lol.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, VinnyMendoza said:

Having feedback specific to controller vibration is a terrible idea just for the very fact that millions of people will be playing on PC going forward with this franchise. 

And the vast majority of games, especially competitive games, are on PC. So developing specific game design around vibration is a completely pointless idea. 

And vibration is horrible even if we're assuming controllers only because it throws your aim off, and you can't guarantee that when a controller rumbles you won't be trying to aim at something in that specific moment. 

And it almost definitely makes a difference. I noticed an immediate jump in my aiming skill when I turned off vibration after using it for like a decade. So it's not just like I tried vibration once and hated it because I wasn't used to it. I noticed it threw my aim off slightly when I was trying to finely control a stick that was buzzing, which makes intuitive sense. 

I think some people might be able to control it well enough that the tradeoff is worth it for the feedback you get when being shot or whatever. But that could also be because of inadequate visual and sound feedback in a game, not that vibration has some guaranteed usefulness for certain people that visual feedback would be superior at conveying. 

You make a damn good point about PC. And I am willing to believe that it can mess up some people's aim if it can be accepted that others can outright benefit from the gimmick without being negatively affected by it.

My big question is, how can you tell if it actually messes with aiming? As far as improving by removing it, I've always been fairly confident with my aim and honestly it isn't even something that I think I even need to really focus on. Instead mostly more like stuff such as positioning, decision making, and team communication.

I think that it goes without saying that visual/audio feedback should be the priority though. I can live without vibration if necessary, but don't mind it while its there.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, arglactable said:

This is correct, yes, but it doesn't really have any impact at all on the argument I was making. I suspect you knew exactly what I intended. "Good design" can't be expressed as a mathematical proof OR as a repeatable, falsifiable theory. At best, you can establish vague principles, but those are still intrinsically dependent on culture, experience, and personal preference.

I'm not a game designer but I wouldn't want to state that competitive vs noncompetitive is largely a matter of subjectivity. Gameplay elements can still be objectively better for competitive play, such as reduced auto-aim and projectile weapons that require predictive aiming to use properly when required.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, RVG E Nomini said:

Gameplay elements can still be objectively better for competitive play, such as reduced auto-aim and projectile weapons that require predictive aiming to use properly when required.

Oxymoron of the year and we're barely halfway into the year. Chill, chill.

  • Downvote (-1) 3
  • Simms (+1) 1
  • Toxic (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Mr Grim said:

Oh yeah the sniper does fuck you up, and it's actually significant. At least with the pistol and AR you can completely negate the reticle shift by moving the stick with more than like 5% force. With the sniper there's basically no defense.

 

Fuck I'm supposed to be the h3 and reach kid here. I can't even remember basic things about these games.

I had to go back and check to see for myself, and I am astonished to find out that this was actually a thing in that game. Another ding against Reach.

On the other hand, did you know that H4 actually does have Descope? Just only on well, weapons without any scopes on them...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SMARTAN 427 said:

You make a damn good point about PC. And I am willing to believe that it can mess up some people's aim if it can be accepted that others can outright benefit from the gimmick without being negatively affected by it.

My big question is, how can you tell if it actually messes with aiming? As far as improving by removing it, I've always been fairly confident with my aim and honestly it isn't even something that I think I even need to really focus on. Instead mostly more like stuff such as positioning, decision making, and team communication.

I think that it goes without saying that visual/audio feedback should be the priority though. I can live without vibration if necessary, but don't mind it while its there.

Smartan...

  • Heavy Breathing (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SMARTAN 427 said:

I had to go back and check to see for myself, and I am astonished to find out that this was actually a thing in that game. Another ding against Reach.

On the other hand, did you know that H4 actually does have Descope? Just only on well, weapons without any scopes on them...

It's dumb yeah. Granted its very slight for regular guns (and from what it seemed, completely negatable as long as you're moving the stick) But it certainly makes fighting the sniper (and probably the focus rifle too) ass by itself. 

 

What a needless mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Oxymoron of the year and we're barely halfway into the year. Chill, chill.

I don't speak waypoint so you'll have to deconstruct the flaws in my statement for me plz thx. <3

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, yeah, to rag on Reach a fuckuvalot more. 

Why does flinch on vehicle turrets absolutely demolish your ability to aim. If you get shot by a Warthog turret, you're literally cooked just by flinch alone since it sends you to the sky. A Falcon's turret is actually worse. The bullets will bend outside of the reticle to hit you. It melts, has the range of forge world's coliseum room, and has just as much flinch, if not more. Vehicles are actually garbagely bad in this game. And the flinch is literally fundamentally random. And extreme. Worse with automatics, but really noticeable with the precision weapons.

SECOND, and most importantly. Why does shooting your opponent when they're off target push their reticle to your head without any assistance on their part. WHY is this a thing? Why? You can literally go into a custom and do this with a guest or another player. Your reticle will be pulled to someone shooting you, without assistance. At all. It is a legitimately baffling and dumb fucking "feature". Is there something I'm missing? Am I missing something key here? Because I have NEVER seen this in another game. Ever. Who thought this was okay. THIS is a noobified experience in a game. It unironically aims FOR you as you're being hit, and are close to them but not on target.

Oh, and the DMR still has spread in ZBNS. The Halo 5 pistol is literally the best starting weapon we've ever had. No flinch, no spread, 100% accuracy. As crisp as crisp can be. 

Reach by default is garbage. Reach on updated settings is still horrendously garbage. I can't believe I actually played this day in and out as a kid, lmao.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, VinnyMendoza said:

And vibration is horrible even if we're assuming controllers only because it throws your aim off, and you can't guarantee that when a controller rumbles you won't be trying to aim at something in that specific moment. 

I agree we don't need these vibration things but if we did, and we had an advanced settings for vibration, the ideal situation would be to have it off for shooting/being shot at. So you would only have vibration for things which would not affect aiming (when sprint is at max speed, when you can YY reloading, etc). 

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't want vibration on by default for any other features other than shooting and getting shot personally. Toggling them seems like the best option. I'm on the fence about having vibration used as a tool for timing button combos such as a double shot or a multitude of other ideas such as YY reloading. Seems like it could be overkill in a match, but a training mode that taught you all the intricacies of the game sounds good to me. Have a target practice mode or something and teach the timing of these glitches through visual or vibrating cue. I feel like this can only improve the average skill level of players.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

 

SECOND, and most importantly. Why does shooting your opponent when they're off target push their reticle to your head without any assistance on their part. WHY is this a thing? Why? You can literally go into a custom and do this with a guest or another player. Your reticle will be pulled to someone shooting you, without assistance. At all. It is a legitimately baffling and dumb fucking "feature". Is there something I'm missing? Am I missing something key here? Because I have NEVER seen this in another game. Ever. Who thought this was okay. THIS is a noobified experience in a game. It unironically aims FOR you as you're being hit, and are close to them but not on target.

Holy mother of god that is an awful mechanic. Kudos for finding that. The people over at Bungie were really smoking some weird shit by the time they were working on Reach.

I wonder if Reach on 60 FPS, no fucking motion blur and with v7 or GoldPro settings will finally redeem that game. I fully agree that Reach is utter garbage (vanilla Reach is the worst way to play Halo, period. This includes Super Fiesta and Warzone) and even "fixed" Reach always felt weird to play.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

 

SECOND, and most importantly. Why does shooting your opponent when they're off target push their reticle to your head without any assistance on their part. WHY is this a thing? Why? You can literally go into a custom and do this with a guest or another player. Your reticle will be pulled to someone shooting you, without assistance. At all. It is a legitimately baffling and dumb fucking "feature". Is there something I'm missing? Am I missing something key here? Because I have NEVER seen this in another game. Ever. Who thought this was okay. THIS is a noobified experience in a game. It unironically aims FOR you as you're being hit, and are close to them but not on target.

That's some of the shadiest programming I've ever seen.  Shame on them.  It's one thing to have blatantly stupid mechanics like bloom that are at least conveyed to you, it's another when things are being hidden.

 

I know in Destiny the first attack someone hits you with (PVE) that's not from a sniper rifle or boss hit, will not actually deal damage.  You'll get screen feedback and shake and redness but it just acts as a buffer so you know you're being shot at.  They also prioritized like 85% of your health in the last 10% of the bar so that you always feel like you're barely surviving the fight and iT fEeLs cOoL.  Doom does this as well.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Okay, yeah, to rag on Reach a fuckuvalot more. 

Why does flinch on vehicle turrets absolutely demolish your ability to aim. If you get shot by a Warthog turret, you're literally cooked just by flinch alone since it sends you to the sky. A Falcon's turret is actually worse. The bullets will bend outside of the reticle to hit you. It melts, has the range of forge world's coliseum room, and has just as much flinch, if not more. Vehicles are actually garbagely bad in this game. And the flinch is literally fundamentally random. And extreme. Worse with automatics, but really noticeable with the precision weapons.

SECOND, and most importantly. Why does shooting your opponent when they're off target push their reticle to your head without any assistance on their part. WHY is this a thing? Why? You can literally go into a custom and do this with a guest or another player. Your reticle will be pulled to someone shooting you, without assistance. At all. It is a legitimately baffling and dumb fucking "feature". Is there something I'm missing? Am I missing something key here? Because I have NEVER seen this in another game. Ever. Who thought this was okay. THIS is a noobified experience in a game. It unironically aims FOR you as you're being hit, and are close to them but not on target.

Oh, and the DMR still has spread in ZBNS. The Halo 5 pistol is literally the best starting weapon we've ever had. No flinch, no spread, 100% accuracy. As crisp as crisp can be. 

Reach by default is garbage. Reach on updated settings is still horrendously garbage. I can't believe I actually played this day in and out as a kid, lmao.

No u

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Basu said:

Holy mother of god that is an awful mechanic. Kudos for finding that. The people over at Bungie were really smoking some weird shit by the time they were working on Reach.

I wonder if Reach on 60 FPS, no fucking motion blur and with v7 or GoldPro settings will finally redeem that game. I fully agree that Reach is utter garbage (vanilla Reach is the worst way to play Halo, period. This includes Super Fiesta and Warzone) and even "fixed" Reach always felt weird to play.

The shitty thing is, we literally a V7 NBNS custom right after, and this shit is still in it. Also things like the two shot beatdown plasma pistol, spread that isn't conveyed to you. It's still a fucking dumpster fire, lmao. 

The better part is, you can use a weapon and make someone who aims at your crotch flinch to your head. They will skirt through all the bodily auto-aim but the reticle will dead stop at their head, and not go past it. So it's literally a headshot aimbot. This game is literally weed incarnate.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

I'm not a game designer but I wouldn't want to state that competitive vs noncompetitive is largely a matter of subjectivity. Gameplay elements can still be objectively better for competitive play, such as reduced auto-aim and projectile weapons that require predictive aiming to use properly when required.

It's incredible that after the incredibly specific and exhaustive arguments made about EXACTLY this, you still think you can say that incredibly reductive summations of complex design choices are "objectively" more competitive/skillful. Part of the problem is that no one has bothered to define what exactly they believe "competitive" means. Yet another huge assumption that is treated as a given. So, let me provide a simple working definition:

Quote

A game or mechanic could be said to be "competitively optimal" if the better player can use superior knowledge, experience, intuition, and execution to succeed against a worse player 100% of the time.

Immediately, we already have a problem. The better player absolutely will not win 100% of the time in any game, so we have to settle for "most of the time." And beyond that how do you define a better player? How do you quantify or measure that? Different players have different subjective strengths. Different strengths will provide more or less of an advantage in different scenarios. Different strengths will be affected more or less by tuning various aspects of the game. Absurd mechanical skill won't help you if you're facing the wrong direction. Smart positioning and situational awareness won't mean much if you miss your shots. Skill is not a single, simple variable that can be controlled for.

We've already covered the draw backs of projectile models and the fact that people seem to only think of lead in terms of a target moving in a straight line at a constant speed. I'm not going to break down the problem with consistently tracking pseudo-random movement with projectile travel. You can watch plenty of clips of high level PC players waving their cross hair back and forth in the middle of an enemy strafe instead of actually tracking their target. There are no big brain lead adjustments involved. In Quake, the plasma gun is not more mechanically demanding than the lightning gun. That is a fact.

"Less auto-aim" is not a clear cut issue either. Or rather "aim assist," which covers a number of different systems used in console games. If we were talking about a binary (on or off), this would be more clear cut. With PC controls, that is a clear cut issue. No aim assist is obviously more competitive. Even that is simplistic because aiming difficulty in general is a multivariate problem. But aim assist in console games is a RANGE of values in turn affected by non-assist tuning values (player and weapon properties chief among them). No aim assist is not viable with console controls. Pure aim-lock is not desirable for obvious reasons. But determining the ideal middle ground for a given game is an exceedingly complex problem and there is absolutely no way to objectively measure the success or failure of a given aim assist tuning. Part of the reason is that it is effectively impossible to clearly define what that means. There is tangential data that can be measured empirically. There is also plenty of qualitative information that can be used to inform that decision. But there are no metrics that correlate exactly to anything resembling "optimal competitive viability."

I think part of the fundamental misunderstanding here is that difficulty is relative. Creating a compelling challenge isn't just about making it as hard as possible. You can't just say "I want players to fail at this X% of the time" and call it balanced. It's a subjective design goal for every game, because there is no way to quantify difficulty in any consistent way, even assuming all players are the same (and they aren't). That's why platformers will still let players jump a certain distance beyond an edge. That's why enemy AI has to strike a balance between being smart and SEEMING fair. That's why aim assist is used for input devices that suck for shooters. These are all things that ease the challenge for players to make the game more satisfying for the target audience. These sorts of concessions exist in all kinds of "hard" games.

Making something more difficult doesn't inherently make it more competitive. Silly extremes like aiming with the face buttons or playing a game without vital visual information demonstrate this point pretty clearly. If you make it so hard or ambiguous that everyone is struggling to perform basic actions consistently, it's not going to be a compelling competitive game. This is why I have brought up consistency more than once and why abstruse, unintuitive bullshit like "bullet sway" is an awful, awful idea for a competitive game. Making a game technically "harder" in a way that even the best players will not meaningfully account for is in no way an objective improvement to the skill ceiling. You could make a game so impossibly difficult that it might as well be random, but would that be a very competitive game? No. So the issue becomes how difficult do you want the game to be? And in what ways? For what kind of audience? That is not an objective line of reasoning.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Fire (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arglactable said:

If you make it so hard or ambiguous that everyone is struggling to perform basic actions consistently, it's not going to be a compelling competitive game. 

Depending on your definition of "compelling" here, not true. There is a wealth of competitive merit in a game where a person must carefully plan and precisely execute even the most basic actions, in fact this is where the concept of a playstyle can often thrive most. The problem is that it simply becomes a spectator nightmare that no one wants to watch or try to comprehend. The opposite side of the spectrum has the same problem - make all the mechanics exceedingly easy, and you remove almost every element of organic tension from the experience, relying instead on things like close scores and in-game happenstance to create entertainment. Keep in mind that both of these kinds of experiences can be balanced and quote/unquote "functional". They're just not interesting, to play or to watch. That's what the happy medium does for us. 

As to your problem of making objective statements on what constitutes skill, it's really not that controversial, or rather it's being misconstrued here. A skillful mechanic is simply one that broadens the skill gap by raising the skill ceiling, lowering the skill floor, or both - or one that establishes a broad skill gap initially. It's not difficult to establish a criteria for that, you pretty much already did it. A mechanic is skillful or has a high skill disparity/ceiling if it: 

  • Cannot be reliably executed by even the best players (e.g. a TSK)
  • Responds intuitively and reliably to player input (e.g. not random spread)
  • Corresponds to a raw ability, e.g. reflexes, precision movement, mental processing, etc. 

Your bit about the best players not winning seems pretty irrelevant. You said yourself that the game is a mix of different skills that intertwine to form a player's basic skill level, i.e. their ability to win matches. That doesn't make shooting skill subjective. If a player hits less shots than the other player, he's objectively worse at shooting (in that game). He can still win if he has superior positioning, map awareness, team coordination, etc. Those are not quantifiable skills because they don't have direct in-game quanta, but shooting is because it does. If, then, one adjusts the shooting mechanics so that the former player can now shoot better while the latter player's shooting ability isn't improved proportionally - and indeed, across the board, players who generally couldn't compete on shooting level are now able to hang with players who used to be better - that mechanic has shrunk the skill gap, it's less skillful now. That's why:

1 hour ago, arglactable said:

No aim assist is obviously more competitive. Even that is simplistic because aiming difficulty in general is a multivariate problem.

The results are not, and that's all that matters, because you can't define "skill" any other way than having an ability that lets you defeat your opponent. 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arglactable said:

 This is why I have brought up consistency more than once and why abstruse, unintuitive bullshit like "bullet sway" is an awful, awful idea for a competitive game. Making a game technically "harder" in a way that even the best players will not meaningfully account for is in no way an objective improvement to the skill ceiling. 

Bullet away isn’t that unintuitive if you have a basic understanding of physics. Bullets should maintain their velocity in whichever direction you were moving when you shoot. In fact, if you are going to have projectile bullets you should have bullet sway or you would have to lead your target by even more. The bullet would lag behind you and your target if you are strafing with the target. You’d miss even more shots and it would feel even less consistent. Besides, CS has specific spray patterns for each gun which in my opinion is a hundred times more unintuitive than bullet sway and yet it is both extremely popular and considered very competitive. Also, saying the best players don’t meaningly account for something doesn’t mean much since things like reflex’s and raw mechanical skill are hardly ever meaningfully accounted for. The first time you go duck hunting you might miss because you don’t understand how to aim the weapon. You can’t just point at the duck and shoot. Once you learn how to aim in front of the duck and follow through with the barrel it becomes second nature. Competitive skeet shooters probably aren’t putting to much conscious thought into the physics of the shotgun pellets when they are knocking fast moving targets out of the sky left and right. 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think bullet sway is really the right hill to die on. If you were trying to come up with a reason that something being so difficult to use could damage a skill gap as a whole you'd be trying to direct attention to things like avg kill times becoming so long that map positioning was nigh meaningless as a way of displaying a negative side effect of an extremely difficult to use weapon. You wouldn't be saying the shooting takes less skill but that the game as a whole lost layers of complexity due to weapon tuning which at some point would have to be a net loss. If you draw it out far enough you create a game where nobody ever scores or wins despite everything being quite consistent and skillful mechanically. None of this exists in a vacuum and trying to debate as if it does in either direction is a cool thought process but distinctly divorced from reality at some point. You could stay convincingly objective with the broad strokes in game design but when it comes to deciding exactly where you cross the line and lose skill gap overall in the big picture of the game I'm not sure anyone can really objectively do that.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/23/2019 at 5:16 PM, arglactable said:

Tone policing is a chicken shit move. I did not insult you once in the previous post. Even if I did, it's not an excuse to pretend there was no substance, which is largely untrue of most of the posts that people on here ignore because someone was being a meanie while having the wrong opinions. Of course, this kind of passive aggression from you and other forum regulars is considered very mature and totally different from actually insulting someone directly like an adult.

That's a laudable goal in theory, but there isn't and there never will be objective truth outside of mathematics and physics. That is the nature of the arts and humanities. The only way you're going to reach any semblance of an objective standard given such a complex, situational issue (design) is by making incredibly reductive assumptions about what is or is not desirable. The lack of a verifiable objective standard has no relation whatsoever to the utility of debate. In fact, it's exactly WHY debate is useful. Not all opinions are created equal, but more than one can be valid. And this is exactly the issue I'm talking about. Different people like different games for different reasons. Different games have different design goals and different approaches for accomplishing them. Patently ridiculous extremes like aiming with the face buttons have nothing to do with that fact.

It's a line or reasoning that relies on premises that you never demonstrated. You do this all the time and don't seem to realize it, since the Guitar Hero example you provided is EXACTLY that again. You haven't established what reductive personal definition of "skill" you're using and yet you've gone right ahead and suggested that without the primary defining visual information of the entire game, the skill required would be unchanged. Not only is that not an assertion you've supported in any real way, but it's absurd. Of course Guitar Hero would be more difficult without the visuals it was literally designed around and assuming there is enough feedback remaining to do much but press random buttons, if would require more skill to succeed consistently. It would also be a vastly less enjoyable game, but that is another issue entirely.

Literally all of the things you listed are feedback. They are direct, consistent, identifiable results of your actions that you can use to judge your success. They all serve the same communicative function in that capacity. You are again operating with an arbitrary definition that you never outlined. What you have rightly identified is that "successful spring jump" is not very SPECIFIC feedback. I understand what your argument is, but what I'm telling you is that NOT providing information or providing less means requiring more of the player. It makes the game harder. Sometimes that difficulty is desirable and sometimes it isn't, but to suggest that it simply has no impact on the skill requirement is ridiculous.

It's the only argument I made.

This is what I mean by personal preference. You don't think it's parallel, despite the two examples being functionally identical, because you like the element of difficulty and/or "skill" that the same basic principle introduces to one and not the other. I think that is a fair argument to have, but both impact the skill requirement. The part of the spring jump that you don't think has any relation to "skill" is exactly what arguably makes projectile weapons more difficult to aim. It is ambiguous and the player has to infer that missing information with what they ARE given.

And no, it absolutely did make it easier to shoot. I don't even understand how you would think it doesn't (or would think that such a claim requires no real explanation). If you can clearly see where your bullets have gone, you can make adjustments much more easily. If you can't, then your only feedback on where your bullets went is HIT or MISS (assuming some sort of hit indicator).

Part of the execution is knowing the timing and being able to identify it consistently based on the existing feedback in the game. If you explicitly tell them the timing, that is making execution easier. There is a fundamental difference between knowing when to release a button based on experience, muscle memory, and context and knowing when the release a button because the game explicitly tells you when to press a button. The question here is not WHETHER it makes it easier. It is whether making it easier in that way is desirable. The answer to that is largely subjective, as the responses on this issue have clearly indicated.

Having this feedback rumble exclusive is only part of the issue. I absolutely think that would be problematic. Not only do I never play with rumble on, I generally have no interest in playing FPS games with a controller. But that's not really the issue I'm addressing here. I'm addressing the erroneous claim that giving the player more explicit, specific feedback doesn't make things easier and the accompanying assumption that achieving consistency with less information doesn't require more SKILL. And further, I would suggest that ambiguity can be a good thing. Not all aspects of a game need to be explained in exhaustive detail, as was less common before modern AAA had current cookie cutter game design best practices and overbearing UX that basically assume their player base has a double digit IQ and the attention span of a walnut. That is particularly true of niche, emergent mechanics like spring jump. Maybe some things are best left to be discovered by the players. Players who care will figure it out. The players who don't (the majority of the population) will not notice or care about niche rumble feedback, just as I'm sure most controller players in Apex aren't terribly concerned about optimal slide velocity or the rumble that indicates that.

I don't think that's obvious at all. If the game gave you a clear, specific indicator of when to do it, it would be vastly easier to learn and to execute consistently. Execution is not just about reflexes. Whether that difference in difficulty is actually desirable is the point of contention. The same question  for explaining every emergent mechanic in the game to the player-base.

"Good design can't be expressed as a mathematical proof OR as a repeatable, falsifiable theory"

 

Generally speaking, it seems that everyone will at one point or another go boldly forth unto the world, shouting this assertion from the rooftops and in the faces of any who would question it until they are red in the face. They say that all experience is subjective. Design is not a science, and is only another word for and art. Objective truth does exists, but of course 'only in mathematics and science'.

 
Therein lies the trouble.
 
First of all, the very suggestion that Objective truth does exist, but only in mathematics, as if math doesn't form the foundations of reality to the perforation of all other things, only serves to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject and how it relates to art or design. The statistically derived 'golden ratio' comes to mind. More than this, for a person to be qualified enough to claim something so bold, it would suggest that they know enough about the intrinsic nature of both design and mathematics to simultaneously know beyond any doubt that those natures aren't verifiable. When I read something like that, I can assume one of two things.
 
First, I could assume that you understand design theory (which is basically psychology) and its relation to objective truth to a degree that allows you to definitively and precisely point out both where that objective truth lies, or doesn't, without any apprehension.
 
Second, I could assume that you just haven't thought about it. I could consider the fact that you haven't designed a single map, game, character, level, or story (that I know of) and that you, along with most everyone else, have defaulted to the comfortable ignorance of complete and unfaltering belief in something that you likely don't understand, all while fervently denying any possibility of an alternative.
 
If you're reading this, you can probably tell which I assume, and you probably think I'm pretentious for it. Bear with me. On the contrary, I would say that the most arrogant thing anyone could claim would be an absolute denial of standard, or that your own personal experiences are just as important as any standard. To claim that there is no intrinsic hierarchy of value within the human spirit, and that there isn't a striking degree of psychological similarity on the subconscious level of all humans, and that good design is therefore unpredictable, is not only foolishly wrong, but extremely self-serving. 
 
I know this, because I've lived it. It's incredibly easy, especially as a designer, to subscribe in this way. Oh how I could repent of my past repentance, if nothing I did, or made, or said was falsifiable. If the metric for 'good design' becomes whatever I make it, then I can always feel assured that my creations do not energize in vain. If my own goals are the only goals that matter, then I'm always a winner.
 
It should be apparent at this point that I no longer personally live by those ideas. Although, come to think of it, I never did truly 'live' by them, but used them only to comfort myself psychologically. With that being said, I can tell anyone reading this that while the adoption, or even consideration, of principled design theory roasted my ego alive, it made me a much, much better designer than I would have ever been otherwise. I went from making what was essentially the same map repeatedly for years, to improving markedly. Eventually, after a thousand and 1 horrid Reach maps, I would make a not-so-terrible Halo 4 map, then another, and so on. I would learn from my mistakes, aggregate the trends of my mistakes into the early formations of a design theory, and eventually create an entire set of principals that were not only verifiable, but consistent with what my peers were simultaneously discovering, and have now used to surpass me and break into the industry as professionals. Now, my creations have been featured in Matchmaking or tournament play on several occasions, I have won several contests, and feel that it is finally my time to join my friends in the industry.
 
Weird flex, but okay?
 
That's the thing. I don't feel remarkable, or that my successes validate any arguments. Maybe that list of 'performance' is off-putting, but I urge anyone reading this to look at it from a different perspective. I'm generally incompetent, or at least that's how I choose to view myself. When you choose to believe in the truth of behavioral psychology, or even a truth that runs deeper, your flaws are revealed. The useless parts of you are burned away in the light, and it can really sting. I do not define what is good or bad, I only do my best to interpret what works and what doesn't. I do not define the merits of satisfactory design, I simply attempt to understand them.
 
That's my experience thus far. While I'm miles from writing a detailed and convincing thesis on objective truth, I'll continue to wield it to my benefit, and continue to occasionally help others wield the same potential whenever I can, as my peers have done for me.
 
TL/DR; Movement is random, Projectiles are icky, and that's subjective
 
Xandirt out
 
 
 
 
 
  • Like (+1) 8
  • Fire (+1) 1
  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Xandrith said:

"Good design can't be expressed as a mathematical proof OR as a repeatable, falsifiable theory"

 

Generally speaking, it seems that everyone will at one point or another go boldly forth unto the world, shouting this assertion from the rooftops and in the faces of any who would question it until they are red in the face. They say that all experience is subjective. Design is not a science, and is only another word for and art. Objective truth does exists, but of course 'only in mathematics and science'.

 
Therein lies the trouble.
 
First of all, the very suggestion that Objective truth does exist, but only in mathematics, as if math doesn't form the foundations of reality to the perforation of all other things, only serves to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject and how it relates to art or design. The statistically derived 'golden ratio' comes to mind. More than this, for a person to be qualified enough to claim something so bold, it would suggest that they know enough about the intrinsic nature of both design and mathematics to simultaneously know beyond any doubt that those natures aren't verifiable. When I read something like that, I can assume one of two things.
 
First, I could assume that you understand design theory (which is basically psychology) and its relation to objective truth to a degree that allows you to definitively and precisely point out both where that objective truth lies, or doesn't, without any apprehension.
 
Second, I could assume that you just haven't thought about it. I could consider the fact that you haven't designed a single map, game, character, level, or story (that I know of) and that you, along with most everyone else, have defaulted to the comfortable ignorance of complete and unfaltering belief in something that you likely don't understand, all while fervently denying any possibility of an alternative.
 
If you're reading this, you can probably tell which I assume, and you probably think I'm pretentious for it. Bear with me. On the contrary, I would say that the most arrogant thing anyone could claim would be an absolute denial of standard, or that your own personal experiences are just as important as any standard. To claim that there is no intrinsic hierarchy of value within the human spirit, and that there isn't a striking degree of psychological similarity on the subconscious level of all humans, and that good design is therefore unpredictable, is not only foolishly wrong, but extremely self-serving. 
 
I know this, because I've lived it. It's incredibly easy, especially as a designer, to subscribe in this way. Oh how I could repent of my past repentance, if nothing I did, or made, or said was falsifiable. If the metric for 'good design' becomes whatever I make it, then I can always feel assured that my creations do not energize in vain. If my own goals are the only goals that matter, then I'm always a winner.
 
It should be apparent at this point that I no longer personally live by those ideas. Although, come to think of it, I never did truly 'live' by them, but used them only to comfort myself psychologically. With that being said, I can tell anyone reading this that while the adoption, or even consideration, of principled design theory roasted my ego alive, it made me a much, much better designer than I would have ever been otherwise. I went from making what was essentially the same map repeatedly for years, to improving markedly. Eventually, after a thousand and 1 horrid Reach maps, I would make a not-so-terrible Halo 4 map, then another, and so on. I would learn from my mistakes, aggregate the trends of my mistakes into the early formations of a design theory, and eventually create an entire set of principals that were not only verifiable, but consistent with what my peers were simultaneously discovering, and have now used to surpass me and break into the industry as professionals. Now, my creations have been featured in Matchmaking or tournament play on several occasions, I have won several contests, and feel that it is finally my time to join my friends in the industry.
 
Weird flex, but okay?
 
That's the thing. I don't feel remarkable, or that my successes validate any arguments. Maybe that list of 'performance' is off-putting, but I urge anyone reading this to look at it from a different perspective. I'm generally incompetent, or at least that's how I choose to view myself. When you choose to believe in the truth of behavioral psychology, or even a truth that runs deeper, your flaws are revealed. The useless parts of you are burned away in the light, and it can really sting. I do not define what is good or bad, I only do my best to interpret what works and what doesn't. I do not define the merits of satisfactory design, I simply attempt to understand them.
 
That's my experience thus far. While I'm miles from writing a detailed and convincing thesis on objective truth, I'll continue to wield it to my benefit, and continue to occasionally help others wield the same potential whenever I can, as my peers have done for me.
 
TL/DR; Movement is random, Projectiles are icky, and that's subjective
 
Xandirt out
 
 
 
 
 

Unbelievably self obsessed, not fooling anyone 

  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.