Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
I don't see how you can argue that 2011-2014 was diverse when the first two words used to describe 2012, 2013, and 2014 were all "shooting game." 2012 and 2013, in particular, were astoundingly similar for games played in back-to-back years. They were both flywheels shooter games with 1, 2, and 3 point goals, limited payloads, no muzzle velocity, and tiered end-games. Both years also severely lacked design diversity compared to most other games. Sure you can point out exceptions in each game, but every game has a handful of exceptions.
That's not to say I don't like 2012 or 2013 as games. They're two of my all time favorites. But the diversity argument during that timeframe is completely bunk.
|
2013, in my mind, was a weak game. Nice to watch, but sub-par in every other way. However, it's the visual appeal that matters- 2013 was fun to watch, and since everyone else on here seems to think it was by far the best game ever, I'll give it the credit everyone thinks it deserves. We would think of 2012 as an awesome game if 2013 hadn't copycatted half of it.
The thing about "shooting game" is that the majority of games since 2005 have been shooting games, so the 3:1 proportion is perfectly reasonable. I'll agree, though, that 2013 and 2012 were very similar. Their only difference was in how constraining they were, in terms of design diversity, and strategic diversity. 2013 wasn't as tolerant of unique designs.* It also didn't require a huge amount of cooperation between teams when it came to the endgame, and it didn't offer many options for autonomous. Neither game was particularly diverse, but 2013 was definitely the worse of the two.
*Basically, at the level of an average team, there was only one viable design in 2013- a cycler with a 10-point climb. More complex designs (usually) ended up not working well. Those that did successfully have a climber or teleop collector were almost exclusively high-level teams. And yeah, someone is going to make the argument about full court shooters being doable for average teams, but I'm talking about designs that were proven to be viable, even at a high level. 2013 had minimal strategy. Generally, there was nothing beyond "okay, you do your thing, you do your thing, you defend." At least in 2012 you could do more complex strategies without significant losses- see 16 on Einstein.
However, even with the shortcomings I find in 2012 and 2013, they were still undeniable crowd pleasers. Both games were fun to watch, and there's something to be said for an FRC game that is appealing to people who have never even heard of FIRST. Watching a robot climb a pyramid, or sitting on the edge of your seat to see if an alliance would get the triple balance, a good FRC game always has a little fanservice. (hmmm... I wonder why everyone hates 2015) Combine the fanservice of these two games with 2011 and 2014, which had stronger diversity and strategy, and it's a well-balanced combo.