Tbh chance is only ruining stuff that is very competative. In other games it can bring an extra fun factor to it :3
Change is gooooood
Picture by: Hogopogo
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
Just watched the video and I think he raises an interesting point.
Personally, I do not mind playing linear adventure games with a good story at all - such as The Last of Us, which to be fair he didn't sound too negative about - and I still think the way a story like that is delivered is more powerful than in a film/book, but I agree there is definitely more potential in games.
As a sidenote, I feel there is also a danger in giving the player too much control over things, especially when it's done for all sorts of little things like making breakfast etc. (which in my eyes is just a poor way of trying to fix not having enough good gameplay)
I was going to catch up on what others have said in this thread, but then I saw the walls of text and was like nope
Personally, I do not mind playing linear adventure games with a good story at all - such as The Last of Us, which to be fair he didn't sound too negative about - and I still think the way a story like that is delivered is more powerful than in a film/book, but I agree there is definitely more potential in games.
As a sidenote, I feel there is also a danger in giving the player too much control over things, especially when it's done for all sorts of little things like making breakfast etc. (which in my eyes is just a poor way of trying to fix not having enough good gameplay)
I was going to catch up on what others have said in this thread, but then I saw the walls of text and was like nope
GrandmasterD wrote:
I don't think I've ever played a game with true choice. KOTOR has impressed me in the past but that's the exception rather than the rule. Fable started off well as it introduced something that was fairly unique but its sequels completely ruined it as the choices made don't really influence much.
What about the Witcher? I've heard it has branching paths and many different endings, all of which are done well and have like 10-15minutes of content each(the Witcher 2 specifically).
I've been meaning to play The Witcher 2, but I kinda wanna finish the first game before that, but I just can't get over how bad the combat in the first game is D:
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
As a person who's played a lot of table-top rpgs, I can say that the randomization of dice rolls is just a part of these games that you learn to embrace. I have sat through sessions where I ran another person's character as well as my own and watched where I basically only rolled well for the character that wasn't mine...and that sucked, but it makes sense in real terms.
It doesn't belong in a video game only because video gamers don't want to deal with the idea of it, not because it doesn't fit within the confines of roleplaying or even largely combat based games. If chance didn't fit in those kinds of games, table-top games like D&D and Pathfinder RPG wouldn't be near as popular as they are.
You're completely missing the reason why chance is so prevalent in board-games. I can explain this if you're interested.
Meiyjhe wrote:
Tbh chance is only ruining stuff that is very competative. In other games it can bring an extra fun factor to it :3
Thank you for your intelligent and elaborate comment on the nature of the problems with chance. --.--
I know you might want to chime in by writing some one-sentence garbage, but please, don't. We're better off without it. This isn't Youtube/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook.
Google has a job title called "Head of Black Community Engagement"..
I don't know whether to cry or laugh.. or both.
I don't know whether to cry or laugh.. or both.
Searz wrote:
What about the Witcher? I've heard it has branching paths and many different endings, all of which are done well and have like 10-15minutes of content each(the Witcher 2 specifically).
I've been meaning to play The Witcher 2, but I kinda wanna finish the first game before that, but I just can't get over how bad the combat in the first game is D:
I have not played the Witcher so I cannot judge on that one. My first rpg to ever play was KOTOR, the second to ever play was Skyrim. I've always been playing RTS/TBS games so I can't judge too much regarding the rpg games. However I'm fairly certain of the fact that The Witcher is, like KOTOR, more of an exception to the rule.
Latest Legend wrote:
I think Dillbutt is making a point here. I wouldn't want to start a battle and from the first moment know what the exact outcome will be. AI, Damage, Counters, if it's all predictable it's, well, predictable. I'd rather have some bad luck than constantly being tempted to think out if I'll manage something. In multiplayer games I think it would be great to remove "chance" as you define it, because then the other players form the necessary unpredictability.
He's in fact making several. Though most of them are bad.
Lifebaka said some things on predictability that I agree with. Predictability in the short term is GOOD. And these kinds of systems would obviously only entail predictability in the short term.
Why? Because unless you can predict the direct result of your action you cannot even make a reasonable plan for later events. And in a game with 600 different pokemon, each being able to learn like 50 moves, the sheer amount of possible outcomes alone should be enough to indicate how unpredictable things can get even if you remove chance from the equation(especially if my suggested changes would be applied).
Quoted:
I really think that chance is a constant when it's defined, in a theoretical environment like software. Can you please explain why you say this is false?
You're taking a chance, a percentage-based variability, and calling it the same as a constant. You're taking 50% chance to do 2dmg and calling it the same as 1dmg. Stop this ********.
I mean, come on.. This is just silly...
Quoted:
What I mean is that the chance is a constant. If I give you a sword and I say it's fifteen pixels long, you start taking this into account when you consider if you can hit something(I'm invincible by the way). If I say it deals around five damage you start complaining. Why? It's a constant in the same way as the length is. The actual damage you deal probably won't be constant, but you know it won't, because I just told you that it's around five damage, not exactly five. So you need to take this into account too.
Are you freaking kidding me? >.>
That's a terrible example.
Not to mention false, once again(as explained above).
Quoted:
You're right, I went overboard with my open-world statement, but I do think we shouldn't expect Battlefield to create a whole environment that can be walked around freely just for some storytelling features. I think they could better put some time in that other environment where the player will be shooting things up, assuming cut-scenes take less time to create for those games. I actually wouldn't know for sure if that's true. Or isn't walking around freely what you mean with choice? There already is plenty of choice in the gameplay of Battlefield(walking, aiming, shooting).
... how MMS games have you played, really? (Modern Military Shooter)
Quoted:
But not being able to do something is a bit different indeed. Missing or dying instantly just 'cause isn't something I like either. But if a sword deals 4-7 damage I'm fine with that. Even if the sword keeps on dealing 4 damage, if the skill or preparation of the player is high enough he'll eventually defeat the enemy.
You're clearly misunderstanding how the element of chance work in cases like this. He will not eventually defeat the enemy, he will usually defeat the enemy. He will not always be able to do it and not because he's not skilled enough, but because he doesn't roll the correct number on the dice, so to speak. And that's the problem with chance.
But then again I'm not sure you understand the element of chance at all considering some of the things you've written..
"Blizzard spoke thus; Thou shalt not BM. And the players replied Nay, I shall Play my hand with Lethal already on the board. And so Blizzard sent unto them this Brawl of Yogg, As a lesson for their sins of Pride and Greed, for he is the Prophet of Madness and RNG. On that day, the tavern descended into an era of chaos and darkness, until the weekend passed and everyone forgot all about it. Amen. Book of SMOrc, Verse 20, Chapter 4." - Feam T
Searz wrote:
He's in fact making several. Though most of them are bad.
Lifebaka said some things on predictability that I agree with. Predictability in the short term is GOOD. And these kinds of systems would obviously only entail predictability in the short term.
Why? Because unless you can predict the direct result of your action you cannot even make a reasonable plan for later events. And a game with 600 different pokemon, each being able to learn like 50 moves, the sheer amount of possible outcomes alone should be enough to indicate how unpredictable things can get even if you remove chance from the equation(especially if my suggested changes would be applied).
I'd like to add that chance isn't the only way these days to create unpredictable behaviour. Genetic algorithms and Artificial Neural Networks are examples of AI algorithms that allow it to remain unpredictable without the involvement of random chance.
Compare it with every day life. The laws of physics allow you to calculate the precise path a basketball will follow after you threw it. However if I'd ask you to score a three-pointer, you're not likely to accomplish that without any training despite being able to calculate the trajectory the ball should have in order to score that point. AI can be created in the exact same way, once that's done, you can train it using Artificial Neural Networks.
GrandmasterD wrote:
I can't argue with D&D or other roleplaying games because I haven't played them and thus am not familiar with their core mechanics.
Feel free to ask if something comes up that you'd like explained. I'm just tossing out examples that seem relevant, but I really don't expect anyone to have played every single game I bring up, especially as I have been and probably will continue to mention both traditional and video games here.
GrandmasterD wrote:
Games that do not employ random chance to be a core element should keep the occurance of random chance to the absolute minimum.
I can agree with this, in general, but I think that having random chance as a core game element doesn't necessarily make the use of chance acceptable, either. Even games that use random chance as a core element can suffer for it; Fire Emblem and XCOM both are examples that I keep coming back to on this front.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
If chance didn't fit in those kinds of games, table-top games like D&D and Pathfinder RPG wouldn't be near as popular as they are.
Mm, I'm not sure about that. I think that D&D's popularity comes more from it being the best known tabletop RPG and a major pioneer in the genre. Pathfinder's popularity rides off the backlash against D&D's 4th edition. Everything else in the tabletop RPG genre is waaaaaay under those two in popularity. I mean, I'm relatively deep into tabletop RPGs, and I've only played a handful of other systems. World of Darkness and its derivatives is fairly well known, as are the Warhammer 40K Roleplaying systems, but after that it gets really obscure really quick.
Searz wrote:
Lifebaka said some things on predictability that I agree with. Predictability in the short term is GOOD.
Remind me to expand on this later. I've got a way to link it to the idea that chance isn't inherently a bad thing. I'm just a touch pressed for time right now.
Similarly, I'll have to come back to all the stuff about choice. I just don't have the time to write something worth reading right now.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
Remind me to expand on this later. I've got a way to link it to the idea that chance isn't inherently a bad thing. I'm just a touch pressed for time right now.
No need. I think that has been addressed properly already.
"We've had a few gloomy years with bad console ports, and what do we get in the light at the end of the console-tunnel? A tablet OS ported to PC." - Atlas Tasume, on Windows 8
You need to log in before commenting.
It doesn't belong in a video game only because video gamers don't want to deal with the idea of it, not because it doesn't fit within the confines of roleplaying or even largely combat based games. If chance didn't fit in those kinds of games, table-top games like D&D and Pathfinder RPG wouldn't be near as popular as they are.