The difference between Casual & Veteran.

[Capybara007]

15 minutes ago, ZombieDupe said:

You would understand better if you took a course in game design or something, with experience in more well-designed games (this one is definitely not it by a massive margin, even if exceptional mechanics are presentable), I don't know what to tell you anymore because I'm not sure what to say to provide a better understanding of the issue at this point.

I dont want to assume that you took a game design course, but assuming you did, a dev from this game already told you that their decisions arent based on traditional game design, the way you describe it sounds like if klei devs are extremely stupid regarding game decision, which is not the case. To be honest this game simply isnt for you if you want traditional game design.

[Mike23Ua]

I’m the creator of this thread and even I don’t understand the issue at this point Zombiedupe.

I made this thread with the intention players of varying skill levels could come up with clever ideas on how we can each get content updates that benefit our playstyle. For example: Some players want RNG encounters from small mobs, and other players who enjoy the game the way it is now- Does not want those random mob encounters.

There even some players who want the world to progress in difficulty with a “Through the Ages” type update the more in-game days pass but I also know that a world that progressively becomes harder would translate into 

“How long can less experienced players play and enjoy their worlds before they become so un-enjoyable that they need to be erased and started over fresh?”

THAT is the point of this thread- How do you “Actually” Add new content… without that new content interfering with people who never wanted all the changes?

[ZombieDupe]

20 minutes ago, Capybara007 said:

I dont want to assume that you took a game design course, but assuming you did, a dev from this game already told you that their decisions arent based on traditional game design, the way you describe it sounds like if klei devs are extremely stupid regarding game decision, which is not the case. To be honest this game simply isnt for you if you want traditional game design.

Could you even begin to describe me what the 'traditional game design' even is? To me design in general is flexible overall and how good it is entirely depends on what works and doesn't and to me a lot of what Klei have done just doesn't work, and you realise it the more you play the game (which is why it's difficult to give any proper critical feedback akin to that of someone like Freddo Films about the game unless you have put hundreds of hours into it or someone took the time to explain it to you in a shorter amount of time while you played with them and you never lost focus) and understand its systems and how to overcome them. Someone who hasn't got their grasps to that level with that amount of time invested into the game won't be able to assess it and of course be confused and present points that are easy to agree until you understand the technicalities of a lot of things associated with the point and their potential alternatives better.

 

13 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

I’m the creator of this thread and even I don’t understand the issue at this point Zombiedupe.

I made this thread with the intention players of varying skill levels could come up with clever ideas on how we can each get content updates that benefit our playstyle. For example: Some players want RNG encounters from small mobs, and other players who enjoy the game the way it is now- Does not want those random mob encounters.

There even some players who want the world to progress in difficulty with a “Through the Ages” type update the more in-game days pass but I also know that a world that progressively becomes harder would translate into 

“How long can less experienced players play and enjoy their worlds before they become so un-enjoyable that they need to be erased and started over fresh?”

THAT is the point of this thread- How do you “Actually” Add new content… without that new content interfering with people who never wanted all the changes?

The answer to that question to an extremely boiled down summary would be "good game design" but as many have expressed before, that tells you little to nothing unless you already understand its fundamentals to a great degree. The details of approaching such issue cannot be expressed with a single post. Imagine a game's design like the variable traits of a human brain and a person's behavior and you want to change that behavior in some form for the betterment of the person themselves because of an issue, or countless issues they are struggling with. There is no single simple answer that would explain every solution to almost every problem that would also not cause additional problems. That is unless you found a suitable solution that ultimately accounts for most of these things, and the only way you could realistically do that is if you understand most of it thoroughly enough. A person who does not understand may backlash against an idea that would actually benefit them because on surface level it appears as though it would ultimately hurt them instead, and to some degree I'm seeing a lot of users express that here.

Like with the dragonfly fight for example, making larva jump over walls, I mentioned as a starting change for a more engaging battle. Many people would be annoyed using ice staves because of how finnicky they are in changing targets and the fact you have to hit each larva at least 3 times, or the giant health pool of 500 for each making melee annoying, and so on. You don't stay at changing the way walls are approached alone, but it would be a start at giving players a better perspective on pushing through before better ideas in regards to ice staves or melee and many other tactics can come flooding in, because you could realise you like the concept, but you don't like the frustrating execution of that concept. Sitting in comfort of using walls and demanding it is kept as is just avoids that great potential completely, and I think players are hurting themselves ultimately by asking for this method to stay in place as is.

[Mike23Ua]

So uhh they put Marvels Avengers on Xbox Gamepass..

and in this off-topic spoiler below I will pick apart that game without providing any actual SPOILERS for that game.

Spoiler

decided to download and beat the game: Avengers wasn’t a TERRIBLE game but they made many questionable design decisions that prevented it from being a “Great” Game-  The first one you notice right off the bat- in a game that wants you take its story line seriously: You run around collecting loot boxes and smashing crates with upgrade pick-ups in them: Taking what SHOULD have been a immersive experience and turning it into yet another Arcade Pick Up collecting, Gear Equipping Brawler.

For all the ideas Avengers rips from the Batman Arkham Games: It fails to execute anything Solid in game design..

Personally I liked the story for Avengers, what I DID NOT LIKE was how most combat scenarios boiled down to smashing the ranged attack button and hitting a glowing door.

There were no puzzles, there was ONE segment of actual stealth, and.. more importantly the game has you swapping through Avengers just as soon as you rescued one, to the point that the “New character you just unlocked will only be played for like 15-30 minutes”

The only character you really get to play a lot of: Is Kamala Kahn (for obvious reasons)

Avengers expects you to fall into this “always on a quest for better gear and gear upgrades type playstyle, a method that WORKS for Destiny 2 or even Borderlands.. but when you try to do that with the AVENGERS it just falls flat on its face- it didn’t take me long to realize I was just playing a Destiny 2 Reskin with my favorite Marvel Heroes- And Characters can Fly or stretch their arms like rubber bands- But they had OUT of Bounds and actual wall barriers preventing True Freedom of Flight or Movement.

I was able to beat this ENTIRE GAME without ever bothering with the gear system except Auto Equip. (yeah it’s seriously that bad you’d rather just ignore it..) Gear COULD have been cool: Cosmetically changing the appearance of your character to look and perform the way you want them to.. but in Avengers- Gear does nothing but determine if your character level is high enough to fight the enemies you need to smash.

To top ALL of that off, The game is titled THE AVENGERS so I went into it expecting to be able to do all the cool Coop team up stuff you see in the movies (like how Spider-Man catches a ride on Thor’s Hammer by slinging his webbing at it when Thor throws it in the films)

In This game… the only time you “Team-Up” to do anything is in a dedicated Cutscene or if your lucky, against a mechanical robot boss with a Quick-time event.

I wanted to be able to turn Ms Marvel into a gigantic rubber band Slingshot to propel Hulk who is holding Black Widow in his gigantic hand into the air to high up locations/weak points on enemies.

NONE of that exists in this game: Now you may be asking why am I going into a long off-topic TLDR about the Avengers game right? Because AVENGERS is a Clear-Cut example of a game that “Could have been great..” but it’s own Questionable Design choices to turn what should’ve been a serious immersive super hero game (like the Arkham games that came before it..) into a glorified Destiny 2 clone, that makes it feel like an arcadey beat em up at best.

It got its attention off its NAME and players bought the game expecting THE AVENGERS- I’m sad to say that all this entire game managed to do for me: Was make me highly disappointed at What Could have been a true Marvel. (Yeah I did that on purpose)

Now THAT Spoiler- Is an actual example of a highly popular dare I say even Globally known franchise being straight up BAD VIDEO GAME DESIGN.

With Dont Starve Together- You go into it expecting what made the original game so great (yes zombiedupe the original DS game was great…) It didn’t have a franchise built off of it, it didn’t have the entire world expecting it to live up to its name like the game I just ripped apart in the spoiler, Dont Starve was ITS OWN THING-

In a sea of games that played largely the same with not very many genuine NEW ideas and everything just feeling like a copy and paste from ONE game into Another- Dont Starve was a breath of fresh air among the quickly growing stale copy & paste gameplay formula other franchises were using.

Dont starve didn’t Have anything it needed to live up to it was Klei’s own wacky creation with the entire design philosophy being: The player can use whatever tools they give us to craft or use to play the game the way we WANT To Play it.

And.. People found their own unique ways to play & enjoy it.. I’m no game designer- but even I can tell you Klei didn’t want Dont Starve to be like Normal games that were on the Market..

Being different is what made people love it.

You may not agree, but when I literally just compared it up to what should’ve been a best selling game based entirely off it being a well known licensed property- it’s really hard to argue against.

The TL:DR- I think YOU only think DSTs design is bad… because your wanting it to be something it’s NOT.