Are power-maxers the majority?

Facehat · 2000-07-06T09:19:24

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about whether or not there is an audience for games that discourage power-maxing. I believe that non-powermaxers are actually the majority. Players are only power-maxing because that is the optimum strategy. I doubt many players truly enjoy the power-maxing itself, instead, they just want to become powerful -- and power-maxing is their vehicle to do so. If we can provide them with interesting and alternative ways to become strong and powerful, then players will not need to powermax. Of course, the problem is that players are already so used to power-maxing that the first thing they''ll try to do when they enter the game is go kill some stuff. How do we solve this? (note: I''m stealing many of landfishes ideas here ) First, when a player dies the character should be gone. They have to create a new one. Second, monsters should be extremely tough for low level players to kill, making them look for other ways to advance after they lose a couple of characters. Finally, just explain to the player the games philosophy during the training/tutorial. To reiterate my point, IMO the players who really like to powermax are just the vocal majority. If you can make a good game that follows a different system, I bet you''ll get more players then other games do. ---------------------------------------- Whenever I see an old lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk, my first instinct is to laugh. But then I think, what if I was an ant and she fell on me? Then it wouldn't seem quite so funny.

Game Design and Theory Game Design

Started by Facehat July 03, 2000 11:30 AM

12 comments, last by Facehat 23 years, 9 months ago

Paul Cunningham

122

July 05, 2000 10:19 PM

Is there a difference between playing to achieve and playing to win? If i play to achieve a goal them am i playing to win. Not always.

Taking diablo online, who is playing to win. That is, what are they winning?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Nazrix

307

July 05, 2000 11:02 PM

Well, I think "win" was being used in the context of achieving. "Winning" as in being the best at whatever (killing stuff, casting big fire balls, etc.)

People are playing Diablo to get to the next level and eventually kill Diablo for the most part.

"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself. "Just don't look at the hole." -- Unspoken_Magi

Nazrix

307

July 05, 2000 11:06 PM

That's also why I often don't like games to be too linear and confining...'cause there's only one path to go (one way to "win"). Too much linearity makes the concept of "winning" even more evident in the players' minds.

...at least IMHO...

Well if bashing linearity doesn't get the fish of land back...nothing will

"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake

Edited by - Nazrix on July 5, 2000 12:08:21 AM

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself. "Just don't look at the hole." -- Unspoken_Magi

Paul Cunningham

122

July 06, 2000 09:19 AM

Well lets say that a row of achievments equals a goal. This i''m happy with :-). So it could be said that some players play to achieve and others play for a goal. Here we have 2 slightly different gamers which could be the game gamers depending on their mood.

When a gamer plays to achieve would it be fare to say that they are powermaxing less than the player who plays for a goal?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Are power-maxers the majority?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Are power-maxers the majority?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines