default header

Theory

Why Versus Multiplayer Games Are Worse Games Than JRPGs

Moderator: JC Denton

Why Versus Multiplayer Games Are Worse Games Than JRPGs

Unread postby icycalm » 24 Mar 2021 19:16

Why Versus Multiplayer Games Are Worse Games Than JRPGs
https://culture.vg/features/art-theory/ ... jrpgs.html

https://arch.b4k.co/vst/thread/450749/#450937

Anonymous wrote:>>450749
mediocre argument for a good position. The point of video games isn't to prove who has a better wholistic understanding of warfare. It's an aesthetic experience. You're meant to ENJOY it. Do you remember how that felt? think back to gaming when you were 8.

The argument against compfaggotry in rts is that it obliterates the aesthetic experience in favour of a meta-related outcome, the power-trip of winning. a game that needs something outside of itself to be worth playing is a shit game. Learning competitive rts to a high competitive level isn't interesting or fun. if we were to remove the 'competition' aspect these games would be considered shit. imagine if the experience of becoming an rts champion were a single player affair. The 'campaign mode' or whatever of the game is just the same handful of contextless deathmatch scenarios over and over again thousands of times against an enemy that moves so fucking fast that your primary problem will always be doing really fast and accurate logistics. Remove the knowledge that you're making another person feel bad when you win and competitive rts is just the ultimate padded game.

OP your last paragraph argument is okay but ultimately comes down to why we should just make strategy games turn based. note that good turn-based games never really get ruined by compfags because there's only so much external stuff you can do to boost your performance before we all reach that level plain of 'who can actually think this through better?' Though this does happen to turn based games too, but generally takes longer and isn't as severe, see this clip of bobby fischer talking about chess opening theory for a good rundown on the fate of all games people start to take seriously for reasons other than the sheer aesthetic experience of playing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P349BdHUxlc

also read this
https://culture.vg/features/art-theory/ ... jrpgs.html
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Re: Why Versus Multiplayer Games Are Worse Games Than JRPGs

Unread postby icycalm » 04 Aug 2022 01:57

https://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/607668787/#607673814

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the genre, you block low or high. Sometimes the difference is simply whether you're blocking or not, but so that blocking isn't a silver bullet, you have to block CORRECTLY as well, meaning that on offense your responsibility is to find a way to open up your opponent.

Technically the matter then is not of level of skill, but level of UNskill, which is difficult/impossible to properly synthesize or simulate. Generally the approach is basically just leaving it to RNG, which renders mixups essentially impossible; if you go for an empty jump, crouch, but then do a standing overhead, then you may trick a human opponent, but for the input-reading RNG-rolling AI, all that matters is the attack at the end and whether or not it decided to block it. As such, doing highs and lows isn't particularly worth anything, because what we would need to do is prescribe a level of INability to keep up, which would be arbitrary and pretty hard to even put in any functional terms--I honestly like icycalm but this is where his versus multiplayer games essay misses the mark, it's not about how good at the game we can make AI since any bedroom MUGEN programmer can make one so strong that it's unbeatable, it's about making them properly UNskilled so as to be able to actually fall for mixups like a human can. Essentially, a gigantic component of the design of these games winds up amounting to nothing against AI opponents.


The essay he quotes isn't concerned with making AI believable to humans. It's concerned with the bogus claims of the "esports" players that they're above all interested in tough competition, whereas the reality is that they're interested in causing humans sadness.

Nothing I have written is contradicted by the quote above, but the author isn't smart enough to grasp this. Hell I think I even mention somewhere that researchers are finding that in order to make the AI more believable to humans they have to introduce stupidity to it. But this has nothing to do with my point, which is that "esports" players will not want to play against AI no matter how good it gets, because it can't feel sadness.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands


Return to Theory

cron