Okay #1 wintermuet you didn't even respond to my arguments, you only used an argument from authority to say that you are right without providing any points of your own.
#2 - If you actually look at the quotes you supplied does absolutely nothing to support your argument. In one they changed the game to meet the satisfaction of the players by not letting their experience drop below 100 percent, the drop to 50 percent is what they didn't want, and making the drop 100 percent is exactly what the beta testers wanted. In the other it simply talks about making it easier to get into and more enjoyable. Where in there is there anything that says game players don't know what they're talking about and game designers often times go against the community and restrict the freedom and flexibility of their players?
Design concepts vary, these are not points that can be outwardly refutable at all.
its all opinion in the end.
but my opinion still remains that people often want things that make their game experience worse.
This opinion of mine is learned from experience, often following challenging games during their development cycles.
My favorite games seem to mirror this core philosophy: designers know more about what you (collectively) want than each of you do. If you are unchallenged, sure, you might enjoy it to ease boredom for a while, but its unlikely you will remember the game in 10 years and be like 'man, games these days suck in comparison"
the good and the great are separated by concepts like this.
I think your knowledge of yourself is probably not as absolute as you may think (I can almost guarantee you have liked things you didn't expect to like before, and disliked things you thought you would like), but that is a deep argument i'm not willing to pursue here. Agree to disagree :smile.gif:
winter once again you are speaking for people you know nothing of.
winter once again you haven't actually responded to anything anyone has said
winter once again you are attempting to restrict other players.
winter once again you are speaking for game designers without offering any real proof or reason
winter once again your main argument for forcing other players to a certain play-style is entirely centered around your own opinion.
winter for the first time you are now misinterpreting what makes Minecraft enjoyable for a lot of people. (Myself included) Challenge is not the thing that makes Minecraft fun, building is, creativity is, and the sandbox style is what makes it fun. If you gave me all the challenge and combat and nothing else, the game would be ****. If you put me in peaceful with no challenge or monsters, I would still have a lot of fun, and I wouldn't doubt a lot of others, and dare I say most people would as well.
Also to turn the argument around, I propose that you actually like the difficulty always on peaceful, and even though you think you like playing on hard, you really don't. A lot of people would agree with me that building is fun in minecraft, and thus you really want to play on peaceful because I would still find that enjoyable. Lets not make it an option, but force everyone to always and forever be on peaceful without any monsters. [/sarcasm]
A lot of people would agree with me that building is fun in minecraft, and thus you really want to play on peaceful because I would still find that enjoyable. Lets not make it an option, but force everyone to always and forever be on peaceful without any monsters.
Better yet, lets make it an option they choose at the beginning that makes them work around their choices.
Have you ever played the game fallout?
One of the games core philosophies was repercussions for actions. This is what has made the game have, to this day, 12 years later, a still VERY obsessed fanbase, and this same studio designed what are commonly hailed as some of the the best rpgs for the computer that have ever been made (baldurs gate games, fallout, planescape torment, etc)
From Tim Cain, developer and lead designer of Fallout:
In your opinion, what are the key ingredients that every RPG should have?
In a good RPG, you should be able to make a good variety of starting characters and then develop them in very different ways. Your choices should affect the game in meaningful ways, both in the ongoing game and in the ending you get. Of course, the game should be fun to play and easy to interact with, but that’s true for every genre of game.
If you know a lot about the CRPG genre (which minecraft is going to be somewhat similar to, in the end, although far more sandboxy), you know that gameplay doesnt start after you choose your initial setting, but rather as soon as you click 'new game'. The initial choices (for example, in morrowind or oblivion) should have a HUGE effect on the game, every choice should both constrain some options, and open up new ones. This creates diveristy of game experiences on each unique save file, make the game FAR MORE replayable.
Difficulty shouldn't be permanent on single player. I mean, why would you care if someone else is cheating their way through their isolated game? SMP is another story. Difficulty needs to be set at server level.
A lot of people would agree with me that building is fun in minecraft, and thus you really want to play on peaceful because I would still find that enjoyable. Lets not make it an option, but force everyone to always and forever be on peaceful without any monsters.
Better yet, lets make it an option they choose at the beginning that makes them work around their choices.
Have you ever played the game fallout?
One of the games core philosophies was repercussions for actions. This is what has made the game have, to this day, 12 years later, a still VERY obsessed fanbase, and this same studio designed what are commonly hailed as some of the the best rpgs for the computer that have ever been made (baldurs gate games, fallout, planescape torment, etc)
And just about every Bethesda game had a difficulty slider in the options menu as well as the ability to have multiple saves, thus allowing the player to reload if the messed up and quickly chose other actions.
Your argument is invalid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one shall be able to drive us from the wonderland that ZUN created for us."
-ChaosAngel092
A lot of people would agree with me that building is fun in minecraft, and thus you really want to play on peaceful because I would still find that enjoyable. Lets not make it an option, but force everyone to always and forever be on peaceful without any monsters.
Better yet, lets make it an option they choose at the beginning that makes them work around their choices.
Have you ever played the game fallout?
One of the games core philosophies was repercussions for actions. This is what has made the game have, to this day, 12 years later, a still VERY obsessed fanbase, and this same studio designed what are commonly hailed as some of the the best rpgs for the computer that have ever been made (baldurs gate games, fallout, planescape torment, etc)
And just about every Bethesda game had a difficulty slider in the options menu as well as the ability to have multiple saves, thus allowing the player to reload if the messed up and quickly chose other actions.
Your argument is invalid.
Terrible concepts in the games that definitely detracted from the entire core philosophy in the game.
The games were good, and conceptually sound, not perfect.
Everything else in the game screamed 'tis decision is final SO THINK ABOUT'.
All decisions in game should be that way.
Or, like I said before, the way they did it in new vegas is best.
If you put it on the hardest setting, a popup says "are you sure? this will disable being able to change the difficulty slider"
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
8/3/2010
Posts:
47
Member Details
Multiplayer will have Server-Set Difficulty sometime, but I don't think anyone wants to be killed by monsters while building if they set on a Easy & up permanent difficulty or being unable to get some materials on Peaceful permanent difficulty.
Better yet, lets make it an option they choose at the beginning that makes them work around their choices.
Have you ever played the game fallout?
One of the games core philosophies was repercussions for actions. This is what has made the game have, to this day, 12 years later, a still VERY obsessed fanbase, and this same studio designed what are commonly hailed as some of the the best rpgs for the computer that have ever been made (baldurs gate games, fallout, planescape torment, etc)
And just about every Bethesda game had a difficulty slider in the options menu as well as the ability to have multiple saves, thus allowing the player to reload if the messed up and quickly chose other actions.
Your argument is invalid.
Terrible concepts in the games that definitely detracted from the entire core philosophy in the game.
The games were good, and conceptually sound, not perfect.
Everything else in the game screamed 'tis decision is final SO THINK ABOUT'.
All decisions in game should be that way.
Or, like I said before, the way they did it in new vegas is best.
If you put it on the hardest setting, a popup says "are you sure? this will disable being able to change the difficulty slider"
Thats probably the best medium ground.
So let me get this straight
Step 1: Give games that are really good (albeit without the best coding) as an example of your argument.
Step 2: Wait for someone to use those games as an example against your argument that benefited gameplay
Step 3: Proceed to call everything you disagree with a bad feature and everything you agree with a good feature, basically destroying your whole first point about how those games can be good examples.
Step 4: End up in the exact same spot you were before..
Step 5: no profit.
I was quoting the design philosophy of the game.
The design philosophy.
The part in discussion, ya know?
Go up and look at the part that I underlined in the quote from Tim Cain.
Even good games make some mistakes, but the design philosophy is what made it good.
Some parts of the game failed. It's not a perfect game without fault.
Just because I used it as an example doesn't mean I'm not allowed to disagree with aspects of it, like I said, I was quoting its design philosophy, not the game as being 'perfect in every way'.
@ wintermuet This is entirely a personal choice issue, and not one that needs to be addressed in the game with a draconian "I am a real man" button. If someone cannot leave the slider alone, they're not hurting anyone, not even themselves. If someone else feels they're not having the "right" fun, that's honestly irrelevant, if they are enjoying their own game how they see fit.
Ever see someone put half a bottle of ketchup on an extra-well done steak? That. Personally this would make me gag, but if it's on someone else's plate, good for them. That's how they like it. You can't force people to eat blue rare and only blue rare just because you believe the high quality of the steak deserves a better cooking method. You aren't eating it so it honestly isn't your concern. Be horrified, yes, if you want, but you have no business knocking their plate over and giving them steak the way you like it.
You can't call video games art and then tell people how they should appreciate it, that isn't how art works. People get what they want out of it, not what someone tells them they should.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from will_holmes »
Quote from anon »
Every time I come to these forums, I think more and more that I'm the only person who plays Minecraft normally.
Every time I come to these forums, I think more and more that there is no such thing as playing Minecraft normally.
Terrible concepts in the games that definitely detracted from the entire core philosophy in the game.
The games were good, and conceptually sound, not perfect.
Everything else in the game screamed 'tis decision is final SO THINK ABOUT'.
All decisions in game should be that way.
If it was such a terrible concept then why was it included in so many games?
If decisions were so final why are players allowed to have multiple saves and go through with both?
All decisions in games should be that way?
Every one?
I like a challenge as much as the next person, i prefer to play games on hard and not reload or reset anything, but let's be honest here.
You have said the games have a large fan-base that loves these games.
Out of all the forums for any game.
Out of every argument I've seen.
You are the only person to have said that the games were worse of just because of a difficulty slider.
Your angry that the player can change the difficulty mid game even if they change it to make it harder because they feel like it's to easy and vice versa people can change it to an easier setting if they find it to hard. this is one of the reasons the games are able to be so widely loves, because people can cange the difficulty depending on their play style without going halfway through the game going "this is reather hard, i'm looking for a more casual game." and having to start a new game.
And even in New Vegas, they can still keep their old saves, which are on, guess what a lower difficulty
People play games for fun.
Some people think a good challenge is fun.
Some people like a more casual game.
You seem to care about how people play their games in single player.
throughout this entire thread your posts have screamed "Stop liking what i don't like" and "Play it how i want you to play it!"
It's single player, as i have said before, people will find a way to change the difficulty one way or another. Even if someone has to make a third party program to do it, people will.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one shall be able to drive us from the wonderland that ZUN created for us."
-ChaosAngel092
I think permanent difficulty is mostly a bad idea, but I wouldn't mind the hardest difficulty being permanent as long as you can't change it by accident. I also wouldn't mind an icon that shows you haven't changed the difficulty.
I do truly understand what people are saying about fewer options often being better and not knowing what you want as well as a game designer, but I have to say that I don't think permanent difficulty is something notch wants us to have. He's the game designer, not you. Notch gave us the option to change difficulty, even though there are many options he didn't give us (if you don't believe me, check out the suggestions forum), and I believe he made the right decision in doing so.
My personal reasons for not wanting change are that I like to build things, so I almost always have it on peaceful, but I may want to build things like mob traps, farms, etc, that lose their purpose or don't work at all on peaceful.
Yes that is all fine and good in an RPG game, and it even happens in Minecraft. Although a big thing about minecraft is not being stuck or forced into something because you chose it earlier. A great part of minecraft is the freedom to be enjoyed while playing.
Te single player experience is something that matters to more than just the people who play it.
It matters to notch. this is relevant to his interests.
he needs it to be good, and memorable.
if people cop out and ruin their game experience and make it forgettable, this may make it more fun for tem as a time waster in the short term, but I doubt notch wants you to play the game 'because youre bored' but rather 'because you enjoy the challenge'.
10 die hard fans are worth more than a hundred fans that will move on and forget your game after theyve gotten bored of it because its too easy to get from point A to point B.
skill curve is an important aspect of games, and the skill curve should be represented by the gameplay, not by an 'instant win' button.
winter Notch couldn't care less how we play Singleplayer.
Also you said yourself, he wants it to be memorable, so what he should do to make it memorable is not make it a pain in the ass, and let players play the way they want to.
I think everything that could be said has been said in these last few posts, so now I urge anyone who disagrees with this idea and/or wintermuet's reasoning to let this topic die.
winter Notch couldn't care less how we play Singleplayer.
Also you said yourself, he wants it to be memorable, so what he should do to make it memorable is not make it a pain in the ass, and let players play the way they want to.
I think everything that could be said has been said in these last few posts, so now I urge anyone who disagrees with this idea and/or wintermuet's reasoning to let this topic die.
You ninja'd my edit.
like I said.
10 hard core fans who will remember the game experience are worth more than 100 game people who thought it was fun but ultimately just beat it and moved on and forgot about it.
the degree of challenge and the design of the skill curve is what makes this.
Te single player experience is something that matters to more than just the people who play it.
It matters to notch. this is relevant to his interests.
he needs it to be good, and memorable.
if people cop out and ruin their game experience and make it forgettable, this may make it more fun for tem as a time waster in the short term, but I doubt notch wants you to play the game 'because youre bored' but rather 'because you enjoy the challenge'.
10 die hard fans are worth more than a hundred fans that will move on and forget your game after theyve gotten bored of it because its too easy to get from point A to point B.
skill curve is an important aspect of games.
to be honest your comment of 10 die-hard fans being worth more than 100 entirely depends on the situation.
10*$13=$130
100*$13=$1300
if minecraft were to become a series then 10 die hard fans may be more worthwhile because they'll keep buying games in the series, but for a one-shot game 100 fans is much better business wise.
If difficulty was made permanent, people who are new to the game might start off on easy, not knowing how hard the game can be, only to find out they have a lot of fun, but would like more of a challenge.
If they were late in the game they might not want to have to start a new world, they had already done so much and built so many things they love.
If difficulty is kept on a slider, they can easily up the difficulty instead of being forced to part with all their cool creations.
As with the New Vegas method, let's say they found it really easy on easy, and think normal won't be to much different, so they go straight to hard, only to find it's actually a lot harder than they were expecting. They would like to go back down to normal, but now they're locked in this hard difficulty.
The player in this case is still forced to delete their world and go make a new one, loosing all their cool creations.
your experience may not be memorable on a lower difficulty setting, but thats your experience and your preference.
You should not speak for everyone and say that "but they're ruining their experiences! I know what's best! They don't know what fun is!"
because currently, that's what you're coming off as.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one shall be able to drive us from the wonderland that ZUN created for us."
-ChaosAngel092
As an admin you alone would have control of the difficulty.
Therefore, you can keep the difficulty permanent.
Problem status = solved
As for single player, just ignore it. People will cheat in games one way or another, and people will switch difficulty one way or another.
What someone does in single player is their business.
Do i care what they do in single player?
Ahem. : "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
-ChaosAngel092
Design concepts vary, these are not points that can be outwardly refutable at all.
its all opinion in the end.
but my opinion still remains that people often want things that make their game experience worse.
This opinion of mine is learned from experience, often following challenging games during their development cycles.
My favorite games seem to mirror this core philosophy: designers know more about what you (collectively) want than each of you do. If you are unchallenged, sure, you might enjoy it to ease boredom for a while, but its unlikely you will remember the game in 10 years and be like 'man, games these days suck in comparison"
the good and the great are separated by concepts like this.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
I think your knowledge of yourself is probably not as absolute as you may think (I can almost guarantee you have liked things you didn't expect to like before, and disliked things you thought you would like), but that is a deep argument i'm not willing to pursue here. Agree to disagree :smile.gif:
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
winter once again you haven't actually responded to anything anyone has said
winter once again you are attempting to restrict other players.
winter once again you are speaking for game designers without offering any real proof or reason
winter once again your main argument for forcing other players to a certain play-style is entirely centered around your own opinion.
winter for the first time you are now misinterpreting what makes Minecraft enjoyable for a lot of people. (Myself included) Challenge is not the thing that makes Minecraft fun, building is, creativity is, and the sandbox style is what makes it fun. If you gave me all the challenge and combat and nothing else, the game would be ****. If you put me in peaceful with no challenge or monsters, I would still have a lot of fun, and I wouldn't doubt a lot of others, and dare I say most people would as well.
Also to turn the argument around, I propose that you actually like the difficulty always on peaceful, and even though you think you like playing on hard, you really don't. A lot of people would agree with me that building is fun in minecraft, and thus you really want to play on peaceful because I would still find that enjoyable. Lets not make it an option, but force everyone to always and forever be on peaceful without any monsters. [/sarcasm]
Better yet, lets make it an option they choose at the beginning that makes them work around their choices.
Have you ever played the game fallout?
One of the games core philosophies was repercussions for actions. This is what has made the game have, to this day, 12 years later, a still VERY obsessed fanbase, and this same studio designed what are commonly hailed as some of the the best rpgs for the computer that have ever been made (baldurs gate games, fallout, planescape torment, etc)
From Tim Cain, developer and lead designer of Fallout:
If you know a lot about the CRPG genre (which minecraft is going to be somewhat similar to, in the end, although far more sandboxy), you know that gameplay doesnt start after you choose your initial setting, but rather as soon as you click 'new game'. The initial choices (for example, in morrowind or oblivion) should have a HUGE effect on the game, every choice should both constrain some options, and open up new ones. This creates diveristy of game experiences on each unique save file, make the game FAR MORE replayable.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
And just about every Bethesda game had a difficulty slider in the options menu as well as the ability to have multiple saves, thus allowing the player to reload if the messed up and quickly chose other actions.
Your argument is invalid.
-ChaosAngel092
Also shadow just provided the best counter-argument I've seen in this thread yet.
Terrible concepts in the games that definitely detracted from the entire core philosophy in the game.
The games were good, and conceptually sound, not perfect.
Everything else in the game screamed 'tis decision is final SO THINK ABOUT'.
All decisions in game should be that way.
Or, like I said before, the way they did it in new vegas is best.
If you put it on the hardest setting, a popup says "are you sure? this will disable being able to change the difficulty slider"
Thats probably the best medium ground.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
/thumbs down towards the suggestion.
So let me get this straight
Step 1: Give games that are really good (albeit without the best coding) as an example of your argument.
Step 2: Wait for someone to use those games as an example against your argument that benefited gameplay
Step 3: Proceed to call everything you disagree with a bad feature and everything you agree with a good feature, basically destroying your whole first point about how those games can be good examples.
Step 4: End up in the exact same spot you were before..
Step 5: no profit.
The design philosophy.
The part in discussion, ya know?
Go up and look at the part that I underlined in the quote from Tim Cain.
Even good games make some mistakes, but the design philosophy is what made it good.
Some parts of the game failed. It's not a perfect game without fault.
Just because I used it as an example doesn't mean I'm not allowed to disagree with aspects of it, like I said, I was quoting its design philosophy, not the game as being 'perfect in every way'.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
Ever see someone put half a bottle of ketchup on an extra-well done steak? That. Personally this would make me gag, but if it's on someone else's plate, good for them. That's how they like it. You can't force people to eat blue rare and only blue rare just because you believe the high quality of the steak deserves a better cooking method. You aren't eating it so it honestly isn't your concern. Be horrified, yes, if you want, but you have no business knocking their plate over and giving them steak the way you like it.
You can't call video games art and then tell people how they should appreciate it, that isn't how art works. People get what they want out of it, not what someone tells them they should.
If it was such a terrible concept then why was it included in so many games?
If decisions were so final why are players allowed to have multiple saves and go through with both?
All decisions in games should be that way?
Every one?
I like a challenge as much as the next person, i prefer to play games on hard and not reload or reset anything, but let's be honest here.
You have said the games have a large fan-base that loves these games.
Out of all the forums for any game.
Out of every argument I've seen.
You are the only person to have said that the games were worse of just because of a difficulty slider.
Your angry that the player can change the difficulty mid game even if they change it to make it harder because they feel like it's to easy and vice versa people can change it to an easier setting if they find it to hard. this is one of the reasons the games are able to be so widely loves, because people can cange the difficulty depending on their play style without going halfway through the game going "this is reather hard, i'm looking for a more casual game." and having to start a new game.
And even in New Vegas, they can still keep their old saves, which are on, guess what a lower difficulty
People play games for fun.
Some people think a good challenge is fun.
Some people like a more casual game.
You seem to care about how people play their games in single player.
throughout this entire thread your posts have screamed "Stop liking what i don't like" and "Play it how i want you to play it!"
It's single player, as i have said before, people will find a way to change the difficulty one way or another. Even if someone has to make a third party program to do it, people will.
-ChaosAngel092
I do truly understand what people are saying about fewer options often being better and not knowing what you want as well as a game designer, but I have to say that I don't think permanent difficulty is something notch wants us to have. He's the game designer, not you. Notch gave us the option to change difficulty, even though there are many options he didn't give us (if you don't believe me, check out the suggestions forum), and I believe he made the right decision in doing so.
My personal reasons for not wanting change are that I like to build things, so I almost always have it on peaceful, but I may want to build things like mob traps, farms, etc, that lose their purpose or don't work at all on peaceful.
Tarman summed up what I was going to say so..
Edit: as did FFShadow and iperferpi
Thanks guys.
It matters to notch. this is relevant to his interests.
he needs it to be good, and memorable.
if people cop out and ruin their game experience and make it forgettable, this may make it more fun for tem as a time waster in the short term, but I doubt notch wants you to play the game 'because youre bored' but rather 'because you enjoy the challenge'.
10 die hard fans are worth more than a hundred fans that will move on and forget your game after theyve gotten bored of it because its too easy to get from point A to point B.
skill curve is an important aspect of games, and the skill curve should be represented by the gameplay, not by an 'instant win' button.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
Also you said yourself, he wants it to be memorable, so what he should do to make it memorable is not make it a pain in the ass, and let players play the way they want to.
I think everything that could be said has been said in these last few posts, so now I urge anyone who disagrees with this idea and/or wintermuet's reasoning to let this topic die.
You ninja'd my edit.
like I said.
10 hard core fans who will remember the game experience are worth more than 100 game people who thought it was fun but ultimately just beat it and moved on and forgot about it.
the degree of challenge and the design of the skill curve is what makes this.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
to be honest your comment of 10 die-hard fans being worth more than 100 entirely depends on the situation.
10*$13=$130
100*$13=$1300
if minecraft were to become a series then 10 die hard fans may be more worthwhile because they'll keep buying games in the series, but for a one-shot game 100 fans is much better business wise.
If difficulty was made permanent, people who are new to the game might start off on easy, not knowing how hard the game can be, only to find out they have a lot of fun, but would like more of a challenge.
If they were late in the game they might not want to have to start a new world, they had already done so much and built so many things they love.
If difficulty is kept on a slider, they can easily up the difficulty instead of being forced to part with all their cool creations.
As with the New Vegas method, let's say they found it really easy on easy, and think normal won't be to much different, so they go straight to hard, only to find it's actually a lot harder than they were expecting. They would like to go back down to normal, but now they're locked in this hard difficulty.
The player in this case is still forced to delete their world and go make a new one, loosing all their cool creations.
your experience may not be memorable on a lower difficulty setting, but thats your experience and your preference.
You should not speak for everyone and say that "but they're ruining their experiences! I know what's best! They don't know what fun is!"
because currently, that's what you're coming off as.
-ChaosAngel092