 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| Rock, paper and scissors |
|
 |
Anonymous Poster |
|||
 Posted - 2/28/2002 8:34:04 AM |
||||
| Rock/Paper/Scissor enhance games fun. some of the reasons I am thinking of, but there are many others! : - each player personnality can pick what he likes the most and still have chances to succeed. - it extends game lifespan. when you are tired of a race and set of strategy, when you mastered it fully, you can pick another one and discover new aspects. - it breaks player boredom. you can choose one race/unit, try a few, and switch to another one when you start to get bored. Also in multiplayer games, your intelligent opponents will attack your weakpoints and force you to change your strategy, rethink, and break what would have became a boring rince/repeat strategy. it's hard to test, because when a player strats to find a winning strategy that no other player found a counterattack for, players tends to switch and follow that winning player strategy, and people start to think that strategy breaks the r/p/s rule you explained. so the line between a good strategy and an always winning strategy is thin. We, players, ask game company to release patches to balance characters, races, units, but maybe we just didn't realise the right counter-attack. Or we followed the 'fashion' : everybody does nuke opponent with this unit, so it must be the only way to go, let's do it too ! The r/p/s concept is also widely found in MUDs (roleplaying text based games) and other online games (browser based : utopia, dominion, conquest, ...). -- Aethyr. |
||||
|
||||
|
Anonymous Poster |
|||
 Posted - 3/1/2002 4:01:29 AM |
||||
| Good read, and valid points. Except this fellow has obviously never played DooM in mulitplayer very much  BFG9000 the be all and end all? I think NOT - gimme my super shotty and well see if a BFG wielder can stop me... Whether by chance of design, DooM is still the most balannced yet varied FPS to ever hit the HDs, inluding such excellent yet flawed works as Half-Life Deathmatch. The FPS genre is one which desperately needs a new evolutionary period or paradigm in order to maintain its freshness and viability, yet its multiplayer has failed to develop much beyond DooM and Quake. Even the most creative mods of any popular sucess are fundamentally can be reduced to DM and Team DM. I certainly agree that game BALANCE remains one of the key barriers that is barring its progress, and one which recieves remarkably little attention. |
||||
|
||||
|
JasonTConnell Member since: 1/16/2002 From: PA, USA |
|||
 Posted - 3/4/2002 10:51:00 AM |
||||
| Ya win some, ya lose some. Yeah, FPS needs a kick in the butt. i thought Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was the answer, and while i have not played it multiplayer, other than the demo, I feel it lacks something. Every single game lacks something. that's why I am on Gamedev.net, that's why I want to be a game designer/programmer, and that's why I play games all the time. I play games all the time to find these things that the games lack. I do not have any great ideas for the FPS genre, which is probably the general concensus of everyone making FPS games. I do however have some great ideas for RTS games, one of which i'm making right now, and some great ideas for games like the Monkey Island series... a game like that would just be a pleasure to make... it's like being an author/storyteller and a game maker in one. my rts is not going to have any kind of story though. but i guess that's enough bytes of crap to post. talk to ya. Jason "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something." -Plato http://www.jasontconnell.com |
||||
|
||||
|
Anonymous Poster |
|||
Posted - 8/31/2005 2:54:53 AM |
||||
| Im wondering if the rock paper scizzors approach also applys to enemys vs Weapons, eg. In halflife 2, you start with a pistol, and the enemies are easy to kill, then, as you go on, you get better weapons, and better enemies... |
||||
|
||||
|
Anonymous Poster |
|||
Posted - 8/31/2005 4:16:50 AM |
||||
Quote: This is a simple escalation of enemy strength and player strength (hopefully balanced to keep difficulty constant or slightly increasing to account for player experience), with the purpose of introducing new content (i.e. the enemies and weapons) into the game to keep it interesting. Weapon choice for a FPS isn't likely to produce a true rock-paper-scissors element: designers try to make every weapon and tactic sometimes useful, but it is a mostly static choice because you are simply selecting the best strategy to shoot a given enemy; there is little feedback from the enemy and little variety in defense. Sometimes (especially in Half-Life) the optimal strategy can be nontrivial to find and/or difficult to pull off, but it isn't subject to change during the course of a single fight: the monster is likely to attack you in its usual way whatever you do. In multiplayer games opponents are equal and there are more ways to counter strategies: take a sniper by surprise from behind, if you are a sniper occasionally watch your back, dash through exposed places while the sniper is distracted, wait in ambush or use suppresive fire where enemies might rush in, use area effect weapons before entering a place, and so on. |
||||
|
||||
| All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
