Switch Theme:

Designing for Bad Players  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

ValentineGames wrote:
So...everyone is a bad player.
Because everyone makes bad moves...everyone makes mistakes. It's how humans work.

So "good" players is a self imposed mythical statement?


Not exactly. People will make sub-optimal moves, especially when elements of chance are involved, but that's very different from a "bad" move that is incorrect or detrimental. "Good" players exist, making no errors, and very few moves that are likely to turn out badly. It's the difference between losing to bad luck and bad play.

   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter




england

Yeah I call bull on that. A player who makes NO errors? Bollocks if that exists
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Git gud then

   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The progression from bad to good certainly seems like a matter of degree rather than a binary state.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

ValentineGames wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
It's not a great definition, but I think defining 'bad players' as those that will somehow make bad moves it a good enough definition.

So...everyone is a bad player.
Because everyone makes bad moves...everyone makes mistakes. It's how humans work.

So "good" players is a self imposed mythical statement?


When I'm playing games the good players are me and the bad ones are everyone else.
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter




england

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Git gud then

git
ɡɪt/
nounINFORMAL•BRITISH
an unpleasant or contemptible person.
"that mean old git"

I'm confused by why I need a "git"
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





'Git' in American Slanglish is a verb, to develop or become.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Dude, you can just look it up...

https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/git-gud/

   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter




england

sarcasm
ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing, taunting; More
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Sure, OK. :eyeroll:

   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Something I read recently, possibly on here, was that a good player was one that cared to do the work of preparing to do well at the game, whereas a bad player was one that didn't care.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

That's fair - if they're willing to read the rulebook and the mission, that's a good sign that they're interested in playing correctly and playing well

   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I feel like a game needs a hook.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Every game needs a hook, although, it's a little baffling what constitutes a *good* hook, particularly when it's to be rooted in some sort of gameplay mechanic or strategy.

Lately, Horizon Zero Dawn has caught my eye on Kickstarter (though it ends tomorrow). Presumably, the "hook" is the biomechanical beasts, but for whatever reason, the gameplay seems uninspiring. At first glance, it's like a superlight version of Kingdom Death: Monster, a game that I enjoy. It's clean, it's streamlined, it's quick, and it's smooth. But it seems like there's very little (much too little) decision-making or planning to do. Maybe they cut too far?

OTOH, I think about KOG light, and whether it even has a "hook", despite being highly derivative, using the models and many stats from another game. Or whether it's just a really clean little skirmish game.

   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I don't think you really want weighty decision-making or planning in a co-op game. I'm not really a co-op player, but looking at other people's co-op games has been educational in terms of what I'm supposed to be giving feedback about. Insofar as I can tell co-op games need to be simple enough that the max number of players can agree on a course of action without experienced players taking over, and players don't skip on stuff. The hook seems to be the established/successful video game, but shareable around a table.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Curious, but isn't D&D a refereed co-op? OTOH, are the decisions in D&D that deep? Hm.

I look at KD:M, and there is LOT of planning & decision-making. It's fairly weighty, but I think most of that is in the Settlement phase, as you decide how to best configure the team and prepare the settlement, given the resources available. There is a fair bit of tactics coordination during the Hunt, and there's a lot of detail there; I think there's enough variety and surprise that it feels like more is happening, even if the decision tree isn't that deep. I am willing to accept KD:M as an exception that proves the rule.

Maybe the common mechanical hook is presenting the player with multiple meaningful choices, with multiple routes to accomplish them? HZD has a couple choices, but very few ways to do them, so there isn't the apperance of agency. Or it could be that I'm comparing unfairly?

   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I'm not sure the mechanics are really a hook. Which isn't to say there arent, but something needs to catch person's attention and give them confidence that it's worth their time and attention before they try it.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

We start with an assumption that the world and minis are acceptable, but merely having cool minis won't necessarily bring you back to the table. Super Dungeon Explore kinda proves that, where the minis are great, but the gameplay is awful. So something in the gameplay, the gaming experience has to be the hook.

   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Agreed. Especially since its SO easy to just substitute a proxy model you like better that is roughly the correct size. The game needs to be fun. And preferably opponents available.

Example: I think bolt action is a FAR better game then 40k. And Konflikt 47 is an amazing weird war ii setting with really neat stuff. But i have noone to play with out here. So i dont buy it.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/01 07:53:36


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?

It's pretty impressive especially if you think 40k is a bad game, as it pulls in and holds players regardless. I'd love to fail that badly.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Nurglitch wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?

It's pretty impressive especially if you think 40k is a bad game, as it pulls in and holds players regardless. I'd love to fail that badly.


It is impressive but also explainable.

Right now WE are well aware of how many other games are on the market. But somebody who does not play wargames in general is not. There are no big standees promoting bolt action. There are no shelves in a store promoting it. Nobody has a display for deadzones. 40k can afford it's marketing so 40k is the only one that really gets marketed. Couple that with the cost and time investment and it's difficult for most players who start in 40k (because it's all they knew about) to justify playing anything else when it's 1) harder to get and 2) WAY harder to find opponents for. No reason to buy into a game you can't actually play.

It's less that GW has failed that successfully and more that all it's far more competently made competition has failed to market themselves properly and truely build their player base.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
barboggo wrote:
For me and a lot of my friends the hook in a game like 40k is the setting which is delivered primarily via lore and art direction. A great game is a nice bonus, but if the lore and art are really good, then even just a functional game would be enough incentive for me to want to stay inside the world.

40k is one of those awesome IPs where the lore, art, and game have all managed to stay incredibly aligned and "thematically true to itself" over the years, while still presenting what is pretty much an "anything goes"-style universe that captures players' imaginations. Lesser IPs often struggle with staying focused and with retaining a sense of identity and thematic cohesion while expanding out their universes. Others have the problem of simply being too specific with their themes or too niche with their settings and not leaving enough to the imagination. I think the fact that the term grimdark is a commonly heard meme that is also basically synonymous with 40k speaks volumes on the strength of its worldbuilding.


You do realize, of course, that 40k is both a bad game and barely holding together via volumes of FAQ and errata, without which, it would be very difficult to call it even a functional game?

It's pretty impressive especially if you think 40k is a bad game, as it pulls in and holds players regardless. I'd love to fail that badly.


It is impressive but also explainable.

Right now WE are well aware of how many other games are on the market. But somebody who does not play wargames in general is not. There are no big standees promoting bolt action. There are no shelves in a store promoting it. Nobody has a display for deadzones. 40k can afford it's marketing so 40k is the only one that really gets marketed. Couple that with the cost and time investment and it's difficult for most players who start in 40k (because it's all they knew about) to justify playing anything else when it's 1) harder to get and 2) WAY harder to find opponents for. No reason to buy into a game you can't actually play.

It's less that GW has failed that successfully and more that all it's far more competently made competition has failed to market themselves properly and truly build their player base.

Maybe. That ties back to making the game appealing. I don't find WWII wargaming appealing. I'm not sure how anyone could make a WWII game appealing enough that I'd actually want to play it, let alone encourage others to play it with me.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






And if it was only wwii games then you would be on to something. But 40k is not the only sci fi game on the market and AoS is not the only fantasy game on the market. So where is all of that?


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Not going to argue that 40k is a good game in a mechanical sense, but as an ecosystem it is actually the perfect vehicle for delivering a thematically rich experience that a lot of people want.

I'm not much of a wargamer so it's likely that some of the other games you mentioned aren't really targeting me. A quick google of Bolt Action and Deadzone shows me that they're both products that are going for a more straightforward take on their themes without any kind of twist. Classic sci-fi and WWII. For a dedicated wargaming fan perhaps that is enough of a hook. For mass mainstream appeal though it probably needs more.

The artwork looks serviceable but not particularly inspiring. If the artwork (including minis) and presentation were really phenomenal that might be enough of a hook to sell the theme. Something like Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is a good example of how to make a fairly straightforward theme/scenario feel stylistically fresh and compelling to the mainstream.

Based on what I've heard it sounds like the mechanical aspects of these games and their rules are likely much more tightly designed than 40k, whose rules are probably kind of a sprawling mess by comparison. To be honest, whenever I feel the urge to find a tighter and more "balanced" board/tabletop game experience, one of the first things I look for is mediocre art. Usually the art won't exactly be bad since those games will have had some measure of success in order to stay afloat (and success usually buys okay art at least), but it is very rare that we see anything approaching the quality of worldbuilding and IP development that is immediately perceptible in 40k.

It ultimately comes down to a few things. 40k has an incredibly compelling setting with great lore, awesome art, fantastic miniatures, and a tabletop game where you get to see all of that stuff play out in real life.

When everything else is so good, the game part of it only needs to be just functional enough as a platform for delivering the art/setting, hopefully in a way that doesn't get too repetitive or simplistic too quickly. That is why tabletop purists might look down on 40k and why 40k has greater mass appeal than any other game. Other games with very tight rulesets may be the perfect experience for hardcore tabletop gamers but meanwhile 40k is drawing in players who initially may have only been interested in the art or the lore. Now if 40k was ONLY art/lore then that would be a problem because at that point as a product category it will be competing against other products that are only art/lore, like graphic novels or books or I dunno, point and click adventure games or something. The game part of it, as mediocre as it is, is what makes 40k stand out. The fact that 40k has incredible setting, top notch art direction, great miniatures, and a good enough game where it combines all of those strengths into one epic tabletop session, that, is what gives it that powerful, unique value proposition compared to all of its competitors.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/03 00:20:24


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






You are welcome to your opinion.

But 40k the game does not do a good job of making you feel like you are experiencing the lore of 40k. It does a good job of playing long, drawn out, slogs in which players take turns swinging a massive club that is their entire army at each other while the other person looks at their phone until they have to roll ineffectual overwatch or make some armor saves.

I have never seen someone be fully engrossed in the game by turn 3 when it's not their turn. Especially during the movement phase. The game is designed to go for 2 or 3 more turns AFTER that point. That doesn't sound epic, or like the exciting stories, or like anything most people would want to dedicate many hours of their day doing. As big as 40k is it's still a tiny niche hobby mostly because of how inaccessible and bad of an experience it is for the larger population.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/03 04:16:15



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Lance845 wrote:
But 40k the game does not do a good job of making you feel like you are experiencing the lore of 40k.


Amusingly, 40k does an incomprehensibly better job of being 40k than Bolt Action does of simulating any sort of WW2. I always chuckle when anybody thinks BA is a "good" game, when it's probably the most obviously gamey WW2 game out there. Garbage sim.

   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Is it sold as a WW2 sim or as a game themed on WW2 though?

Almost nobody cares to play sims these days, they are too complex and complicated, tracking too many things, themed games on the other hand can be good games if they convey the proper feeling.

GW games always historically had issues in bringing the fluff they had for their world on the tabletop, I really do not know about the last editions of both their main games.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

The intro blurb from the manufacturer says:

World War II Wargaming

From Blitzkrieg to North Africa, from the Russian Front to the D-Day Landings, Bolt Action puts YOU in command of the most brutal and famous battles of the Second World War.

Assemble and paint your brave men and armoured tanks, field them on a table-top battlefield, and use all your strategy, cunning and luck to defeat your opponent.


It's clearly marketed as a simulation, placing YOU in the actual battles of WW2.

Their Store sells D-Day's Pegasus Bridge, and yet the scale is obviously wrong:

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/04/wargame-design-futility-of-realistic.html

While it may not be a hard sim, a WW2 game should at least model the basics of rifle fire

   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: