Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
Fun fact that most people don't know - My degree is Computer Science with a concentration in Game Design. So, the following is based primarily on that...
Let's say we are designing a game. Obviously there is a set path we want the player to follow to advance through the level. There's a couple different options we have.
1) We can incentivize that path with things like points, power ups, or just cool visual experiences (Carrot)
2) We can penalize them (death, point loss, waves of enemies) for alternate paths. (Stick)
3) We can force them down that path by not allowing any other options. (Rails)
All three options are perfectly valid and have their uses.
The Rails options isn't really viable for the GDC. Linear games don't allow teams much strategy and just straight up aren't fun for FRC. Plus, it's pretty hard to do this when you don't control everything the players can do like you do in a game. (Wanna block off an area? Put up an invisible wall)
Now, the Stick method is one that the GDC favored this year. "Play this game the way the developer intended or you will be punished" is a viable approach and some games excel with it. Personally I've always found that it chafes to play these games. There's very little freedom and you often see crazy high penalties for alternative play styles and the metagame quickly becomes stale because it's not a function of strategic play, merely executing more effectively.
The Carrot method, in my opinion, is optimal for game design. 2013 encouraged teams to play the game they wanted by making it easy enough to play the game that the penalty for being even a 50% shooter wasn't that high. Think of this as the pick up and play factor. There were lots of ways to play and teams tried them all to varying degrees of success.
Now, why this is relevant to FRC and why I dislike this game...
The Stick and Rails patterns are just lazy design. There, I said it. This game was just lazy. Properly incentivizing scoring so as to discourage defense takes a lot of work but it creates better FRC games. Much in the way that discouraging camping in FPS games takes a fair bit of work but creates less boring games.
Couple that with the high degree of difficulty of executing successfully (scoring) and the penalty for failure being high? You're going to produce not only a bad game but a toxic community. One need look no further than DOTA/LOL to see what happens with a hard game that has a high penalty for failure. (There's a reason I never got into those games; I don't like being called a 'feeding noob' or whatever the derogative du jour is)
So, I don't like this game because it IS, by almost every measure I was taught, a bad game. It is lazily designed, difficult, and punishing and has created a toxic community.
|
Hard and punishing games do not always create a toxic community. I'll point you towards Dark Souls 1 and 2, where the game is extremely punishing and exceptionally difficult, and still enjoyed by millions of fans.
One needs to look no farther then DOTA/LOL to see what happens with a hard game that has a high penalty for failure. LOL is the most successful esports game to date, with over 3 million people watching the world championships and over $17 million in prize money, coupled with hundreds of smaller tournaments.
Unfortunately, comparing FRC to video games isn't exactly the best choice. You can choose not to play a certain game, and go play another one instead. The same thing applies to sports. You don't like basketball? Well there's football and soccer and baseball etc. etc. You can't say, "Oh I don't like Aerial Assist so I'm going to play Rebound Rumble instead."
There just simply isn't a parallel here.