Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

+

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun


  • Total voters
    273
Lisbeth_Salander;n9330551 said:
It's not about if they're possible (because they are), but rather about how long it's gonna take to create these optional features.

The big chalenge in the whole picture is time,
**SPOILER**
making such design choices should have been already planned during pre production in order to find practical solutions and alternatives during the developing process, making it possible to create secondary options that don't affect the game when switched on or off, assuming this would decrease the developing time in these optional features. I'm not making things up as I go along, I work with projects.
**SPOILER**

Practical solutions that cut off developing time in half could be made now, but would it be possible to make a bunch of brainstorming meetings and figure it out creative ways to implement optional features? Probably. CDPR can try it out, under the condition that it doens't affect the whole project.
Time,and money, are always the major issues with any IT project (or any project for that matter). Mostly time, we can assume CDPR started brainstorming features and systems for CP2077 in 2012 and when W3/Gwent development ended they went whole hog on development. But at this point chances of CDPR redoing any major game systems, no matter how great the ideas we come up with here are, is next to nil, unless, as you say, what we come up with cuts development time.

The "problem" with using mission directions vice markers is you pretty much have to design the games entire map before you can finalize missions. I seem to recall CDPR saying the during W3 they created the map as they went, this is a "minor" problem. It's hardly impossible to do it that way however, one just has to have a final check/walkthrough on all directions given in missions before any mission can be finalized.
 
It has puzzled me for a long time why these "help-features", minimaps, quest markers and the like are simply left as options menu checkboxes or forced on always, and not integrated to the gameplay. That the player has to play the game to achieve them (if he wants to). There used to be games that had, for example, a mapping skill and a mapping kit (if you wanted to have any map). The better you were at it, the more accuracte and detailed your map got. Something like that could well be reintroduced. You have to buy a map if you want one, you have to have a device worn or installed to your eyes if you want a minimap or virtual GPS, you have to have the knowhow (skill) to read the map and/or GPS lest it just look like scrambled eggs. There is gameplay involved in getting your "help features".

Another thing, related to this, I've wondered is why is it not allowed anymore to have a character that is visibly and feelably awful at stuff, why is it always that the character feels like pro and the skill represents not learning the trade but only getting even better at it? Not being able to read (or possibly having dyslexia), not being able to swim, not being able to understand a map or even a GPS, insert thousand more things. Not being able before you make him learn it little by little.

Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay. That should be the mantra in the studio; how to make this or that an interesting and engaging gameplay feature within the Cyberpunk RPG context and framework.
How to make questmarkers offer interesting gameplay, how to make maps and GPS' a gameplay feature, how to make random pedestrians and bystanders offer gameplay... [insert numerous other features]

Forget the fucking options menu toggle-boxes and worrying about how to sell the game to people who are not interested or have to be swayed or bribed to buy it and then pampered and cuddled to keep them playing. Figure out how to give the most the game does through gameplay itself, through the interplay between interesting character systems and world interactivity (bigger and smaller, not everything needs to be worldchanging but everything being something does make a difference).
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9331711 said:
The better you were at it, the more accuracte and detailed your map got. Something like that could well be reintroduced. You have to buy a map if you want one, you have to have a device worn or installed to your eyes if you want a minimap or virtual GPS, you have to have the knowhow (skill) to read the map and/or GPS lest it just look like scrambled eggs. There is gameplay involved in getting your "help features".
I've said for awhile that I thought for CP2077 it would be cool if various HUD features were only available as a cyberwear feature. It would make sense to have this as one of the options in the "tutorial" for using cyberwear or something. Integrates perfectly into the story and serves as a lesson on cyberwear and humanity cost. Boom.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9331711 said:
Forget the fucking options menu toggle-boxes and worrying about how to sell the game to people who are not interested or have to be swayed or bribed to buy it and then pampered and cuddled to keep them playing.

Generally I like what you're saying, but I disagree that adding things like this that add depth to the gameplay would be something that loses sales.

I remember Fry Cry Primal had a hardcore mode with no map and such, perhaps what you are suggesting could be for higher difficulties that the less dedicated gamer will not find appealing.

I've said before that good game design has depth and is good at teaching itself to the gamer.

I feel that older RPG's used to try and hook players with the story, and make the story so good that the player would fight through figuring out the games under-pinnings.
But that doesn't fly in 2017.




 
kofeiiniturpa;n9331711 said:
Forget the fucking options menu toggle-boxes and worrying about how to sell the game to people who are not interested or have to be swayed or bribed to buy it and then pampered and cuddled to keep them playing.

Try pleasing both crowds that are at completely opposite ends with your strategy. It can't be done without flexibility, something my strategy has, but yours doesn't;

You road will lead to a bigger demographic sacrifice than mine. Or perhaps not, since yours pleases mainly casuals, and they're the majority. You reply mentions how CDPR shouldn't care about demographics, but you don't realise that your strategy appeals to the majority of players, while mine also targets the minority. This is due to the fact that without following a flexible strategy, there only lies casuals as the target demographic.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9332921 said:
You road lead to a bigger demographic sacrifice than mine. Or perhaps not, since yours pleases mainly casuals, and they're the majority.

Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I do not think CDPR is "dumbing down" anything. I played the Witcher games, which I discovered this year, multiple times before going directly to playing the next one, within a span of a couple months.
I did not get the impression they were dumbing down anything.

If anything, combat was more complicated in TW2 than TW1, and combat in TW3 had more depth with being able to use useful potions during battle, where in the previous game all I ever used were "Swallow" and "Cat."

I often hear, "It would be cool if game had 'x" ...but then that would limit it's market appeal."
And I simply disagree with that statement. It doesn't matter what it is. It's a matter of implementation.
 
But to be fair, I said that CDPR has made some "dumbed down" choices through the years. I used the "dumbed down" term in the sense of making things more accessible to casuals. This is due to the fact that when implementing any asset it will certainly have a tendency to be inclined to either casuals or hadcores, and considering one of them is the majority, they will certainly chose casuals, as they have made in the past. What kofeiiniturpa thinks is that CDPR is going to chose these assets to be inclined to the hardcores, something that clearly didn't happen with the Witcher franchise.

We all know what road CDPR is going to (priorize casuals), what I offered was a flexible alternative to please a broader demographic (please both hardcores and casuals while still priorizing casuals), without changing CDPR's goals. What kofeiiniturpa suggested is for CDPR to completely make a 180° turn and change their road, in other words to change their goals (to start priorizing hardcores).

Making a 180° turn at this time during mid development, is unrealistic. And even if that happened, it would please only the minorty, something that could not be good for sales.

NukeTheMoon;n9332981 said:
TW2 than TW1, and combat in TW3 had more depth with being able to use useful potions during battle, where in the previous game all I ever used were "Swallow"

makes sense
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9332921 said:
Try pleasing both crowds that are at completely opposite ends with your strategy.

I'm precisely trying not to, and I think CDPR shouldn't either. It's a pointless task that only leads to a product that does everything badly or lukewarmly at best. Make the game clearly an RPG with as few corners cut as possible, or make it an action game and make it good at it. My choice would obviously be the former and the latter pushes me away, but I'm not calling the shots.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9332921 said:
You road will lead to a bigger demographic sacrifice than mine. Or perhaps not, since yours pleases mainly casuals, and they're the majority. You reply mentions how CDPR shouldn't care about demographics, but you don't realise that your strategy appeals to the majority of players, while mine also targets the minority.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Are you even responding to me?

NukeTheMoon;n9332981 said:
I often hear, "It would be cool if game had 'x" ...but then that would limit it's market appeal." And I simply disagree with that statement.

I'm not very fond of it either, but it seems to be the general consensus among... everyone that added depth and reduced simplicity hurts sales. And CDPR head himself has said that Witcher 1 was "too hardcore" and hence they made Witcher 2 the way they did.

NukeTheMoon;n9332871 said:
I feel that older RPG's used to try and hook players with the story, and make the story so good that the player would fight through figuring out the games under-pinnings.

Not in my experience. Older RPG's were most often almost solely about gameplay and the storyline was pretty rudimentary just to have something there. I'm of course looking beyond the old Fallouts and Infinity engine games -- those games added more to their stories, but were still usually more about gameplay.

Rawls;n9332161 said:
I've said for awhile that I thought for CP2077 it would be cool if various HUD features were only available as a cyberwear feature.

Yeah, why not.

Though I would still add to it that, that it would add to the gameplay if the character needed to know how to use that stuff. I mean you can install a GPS to your head, but if the cahracter doesn't have an idea how to read a map... what good does it for him. And stuff.


EDIT............................

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333001 said:
What kofeiiniturpa thinks is that CDPR is going to chose these assets to be inclined to the hardcores, something that clearly didn't happen with the Witcher franchise.

Whoa there silver. I do not think they will, I'm hoping they would at least to some degree.

And I try not to thnk they are making a Witcher game here and hope that they realize they don't need to copy it.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333001 said:
What kofeiiniturpa suggested is for CDPR to completely make a 180° turn and change their road, in other words their goals (to priorize hardcores). Making a 180° turn at this time during mid development, is unrealistic.

A 180 from what?
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9332921 said:
Try pleasing both crowds that are at completely opposite ends with your strategy.

kofeiiniturpa;n9333071 said:
I'm precisely trying not to, and I think CDPR shouldn't either. It's a pointless task that only leads to a product that does everything badly or lukewarmly at best. Make the game clearly an RPG with as few corners cut as possible, or make it an action game and make it good at it. My choice would obviously be the former and the latter pushes me away, but I'm not calling the shots.

Okay, you're telling me the game shouldn't be flexible in order to please both crowds?

kofeiiniturpa;n9333071 said:
I'm hoping they would at least to some degree.

Now you're telling me the game should be flexible? Hmmm. It seems like there's a contradiction in your posts.


If someone here doens't believe a developer can please both crowds he should really play Witcher 3.


kofeiiniturpa;n9333071 said:
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
kofeiiniturpa;n9333071 said:
A 180 from what?

Are you even reading what is being discussed here? see this:

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333001 said:
We all know what road CDPR is going to (priorize casuals), what I offered was a flexible alternative to please a broader demographic (please both hardcores and casuals while still priorizing casuals), without changing CDPR's goals. What kofeiiniturpa suggested is for CDPR to completely make a 180° turn and change their road, in other words to change their goals (to start priorizing hardcores).
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9333071 said:
I'm not very fond of it either, but it seems to be the general consensus among... everyone that added depth and reduced simplicity hurts sales. And CDPR head himself has said that Witcher 1 was "too hardcore" and hence they made Witcher 2 the way they did.


Not in my experience. Older RPG's were most often almost solely about gameplay and the storyline was pretty rudimentary just to have something there. I'm of course looking beyond the old Fallouts and Infinity engine games -- those games added more to their stories, but were still usually more about gameplay.

Depth doesn't reduce sales.
Requiring the player to understand the depth without teaching the player the depth of the game in a competent way, does hurt sales. Worlds of difference.

Saying that "TW1 was too hardcore" is euphemistic, to say the least, which is what I expect when creators describe their own content.

TW1 wasn't "too hardcore".
The inventory system was a mess. The combat was archaic. There was too much filler, constantly finding plants for potions and going back and forth between zones like a delivery man. Other aspects, like creating potions with a base like Rubedo, to have a damage bonus go along with the health effect of Swallow, were badly explained and not demonstrated.

Also, complexity and depth, are not same thing. That may appear to be grasping at straws, it is not. You can make something that should be simple, like menu navigation, arguably an important aspect of RPGs, needlessly complicated, and it doesn't add any depth.

Increased complexity is necessary to additional depth, but a deep game with poor implementation will just shove it in there and expect the player know about it with no warning, and add unnecessary complexity in the execution.

Put simply, a good game....
has depth
introduced a piece at a time
that is implemented in the simplest way that fully serves the purpose
that is demonstrated to the player
that the player repeats in order to internalize the demonstration
the player spends a limited amount of time practicing whatever particular aspect that has been introduced
some time is allowed for it to settle in with other aspects already introduced
and then an addition piece is added

Depth does not need to mean reduced sales. It does mean that it requires thought and planning to it's integration.
More games that not fail to do that, then blame commercial failure on the "deepness" of their product. It's bullsh*t, always has been.




We may disagree about what you and I found appealing about the RPG's of yesteryear. I didn't like the combat of Fallout, I liked the setting and the story. Same thing for many other of turn-based RPGs,
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9333211 said:
Okay, you're telling me the game shouldn't be flexible in order to please both crowds?

I'm telling you that try to please everyone and you probably will not please anyone. Of flexibility I haven't said a word yet.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333211 said:
Now you're telling me the game should be flexible? Hmmm.

I'm saying the game should be clear about what it is and what it tries to do. That if it is made an RPG, it will contain familiar tropes and play in a certain way and require a certain approach; that if you are looking for - for example - a slick casual FPS experience, you are not going to get it with this game.

If someone here doens't believe a developer can please both crowds he should really play Witcher 3.

I have played it. *shrug*

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333211 said:
Are you even reading what is being discussed here?

You quoted me and commented on my post. Not the other way around. I also couldn't quite decipher what you were drawing by telling me that "I'm losing a larger demographic but perhaps not because I cater to casuals".

NukeTheMoon;n9333221 said:
Depth doesn't reduce sales. Requiring the player to understand the depth without teaching the player the depth of the game in a competent way, does hurt sales. Worlds of difference.

You are preaching to the choire; I have tried to push this idea for quite some time. Try telling that to all the developers out there with those ever simplified "RPG's" designed for simpletons with the attentionspan of a goldfish or people who don't even like RPG's (but like it when a game is called one).

NukeTheMoon;n9333221 said:
We may disagree about what you and I found appealing about the RPG's of yesteryear. I didn't like the combat of Fallout, I liked the setting and the story. Same thing for many other of turn-based RPGs,

That's fair. I didn't (and don't) put these aspects on a line to be measured against eachother though. And I usually don't suffer through bad gameplay (or what I consider bad) in order to get the story. The story I can neglect, though if the game is fun to play.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9333261 said:
I'm telling you that try to please everyone

Theres a big difference between pleasing a broader demographic and pleasing everyone.

kofeiiniturpa;n9333261 said:
"I'm losing a larger demographic but perhaps not because I cater to casuals".

You almost completely disconsider casuals, because of this after the first disastrous release that was focused entirely on hardcores, the Cyberpunk franchise would certainly focus on the opposite polar extreme: the casuals themselves.

kofeiiniturpa;n9331711 said:
worrying about how to sell the game to people who are not interested

Some ideas might scare the hell out of some gamers, while others do not, having such ideas without giving consideration to "those who are not interested" is a huge mistake, if you're interested in making money that is. Any developer has to consider their current demographic and the ones they're about to conquer.

How to make questmarkers offer interesting gameplay, how to make maps and GPS' a gameplay feature, how to make random pedestrians and bystanders offer gameplay... [insert numerous other features]

You really think these will be inclined towards hadcore features in CP2077?

I'm treating the fact that CDPR will consider casuals as inevitable, but you're seeing it as optional.

And even though those ideas are nice, that doens't mean it's necessary to completely exclude some "optional features", to let hardcore chose what pleases them. Optional features is not to make a whole bunch of them, but a few important ones.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9333391 said:
Theres a big difference between pleasing a broader demographic and pleasing everyone.

You were speaking about complete opposites, though. Did you mean there's something in between them that can be neglected and hence "broader audience" and not "everyone"?

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333391 said:
You almost completely disconsider casuals

Almost. I'm challenging the idea that these "casuals" need to be specifically catered to at the expense of the design.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333391 said:
Some ideas might scare the hell out of some gamers, while others do not, having such ideas without giving consideration to "those who are not interested" is a huge mistake, if you're interested in making money that is.

There are gamefranchises that do just well by being more specifc genre-games, are fine with not being blockbusters and are not trying to lure in "everyone". They might not threathen GTA V, CoD or Skyrim, but they do just fine with what they are.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333391 said:
You really think these will be inclined towards hadcore features in CP2077?

Why not? What do you make out of what I said, those few general and unspecific examples to make a point? What do you suppose I suggested?
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9333401 said:
You were speaking about complete opposites, though. Did you mean there's something in between them that can be neglected and hence "broader audience" and not "everyone"?

WIthout neglecting them is possible to gather a broader audience.


Why not? What do you make out of what I said, those few general and unspecific examples to make a point? What do you suppose I suggested?

Here is you answering "why not".

kofeiiniturpa;n9333401 said:
There are gamefranchises that do just well by being more specifc genre-games, are fine with not being blockbusters and are not trying to lure in "everyone". They might not threathen GTA V, CoD or Skyrim, but they do just fine with what they are.

Why not? Because of the inevitable urge of companies in the whole industry to sell more. The difference between CDPR and the others is that they can sell more without destroying some of their artistic freedom.

kofeiiniturpa;n9333401 said:
Almost. I'm challenging the idea that these "casuals" need to be specifically catered to at the expense of the design.

I really, really hope that can be achievable. But wouldn't CDPR need to make a marketing campaign based on lies to gain attention from the casuals, since without it casuals would not be interested by the game's true hardcore content, or as someone mentioned previously, they would be obligated to gain the attention from the majority by using elements that aren't gameplay such as graphics, but there lies a subject that you an I agree on: the importance of gameplay for a lot of crowds including casuals, specially if you want players to spend a lot of time playing the game through long periods of time (something that is fundamental when creating a popular franchise).
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9333461 said:
WIthout neglecting them is possible to gather a broader audience.

So are you suggesting that the polar opposite ends of the spectrum should be attempted to serve,but the middlegrounders should be neglected? If yes, that doesn't make any sense at all.

If there was a drawn scale, "Casuals" ------------- "HC's", they should at least aim for somewhere quarter away from either end with the game and with that gather the midgrounders and people from the end of the scale. Swap the "cauals" for action game (Battlefield, GTA V) and "HC's" for "RPG" (Fallout 2, Wizardry 8) to get a clearer idea.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333461 said:
Here is you answering "why not".

Please reveal to clouded eyes the purpose of your passage.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333461 said:
Why not? Because of the inevitable urge of companies in the whole industry to sell more. The difference between CDPR and the others is that they can sell more without destroying some of their artistic freedom.

Why not what?

Lisbeth_Salander;n9333461 said:
But wouldn't CDPR need to make a marketing campaign.based on lies to gain attention from the casuals

No they wouldn't, and I'd urge them not to. If a "casual" is not interested, he doesn't need to be. Good design will find an audience. Your view seems to be that there are two kinds of people, these "hardcores" and those "casuals" who seem to be likened to children and simpletons not being able to follow a thought from inhale to exhale and still absolutely need to be catered to without any doubt or else you're out of business. But there are people in between retards and elitists to provide you sufficient audience even if you had a game that required some thinking in how it works. This is not a binary world. Good design will find an audience.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9333611 said:
Good design will find an audience.

Just like it did with Witcher 3? Your strategy is to keep doing what has been done and expect different results. If CDPR follows your steps, perhaps CP2077 won't be in the top 10 most selled games of the year it will be released, just like Witcher 3 wans't back in 2015.

kofeiiniturpa;n9333611 said:
Please reveal to clouded eyes the purpose of your passage.
Definition of ad hominem:
  1. : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an ad hominem argument
  2. : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
This is the exact moment where you stopped arguing and started to use feelings.

kofeiiniturpa;n9333611 said:
Why not what?
Proof by assertion:
  • "Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies."
Having a hard time reading, sir? Perhaps I should repeat myself. Why not? Because of the inevitable necessity for companies to expand their profit.


kofeiiniturpa;n9333611 said:
So are you suggesting that the polar opposite ends of the spectrum should be attempted to serve,but the middlegrounders should be neglected? If yes, that doesn't make any sense at all.
If there was a drawn scale, "Casuals" ------------- "HC's", they should at least aim for somewhere quarter away from either end with the game and with that gather the midgrounders and people from the end of the scale. Swap the "cauals" for action game (Battlefield, GTA V) and "HC's" for "RPG" (Fallout 2, Wizardry 8) to get a clearer idea.

Perhaps you did not realize that my whole point is to defend a flexible middle ground. But the difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that the game will probably be inclined to either a hardcore or a casual side, "probably" because of what CDPR has done with Witcher 3, that is to make Witcher 3 more inclined to casuals.

In all this discussion I classify "Casuals" as a half, and "Hardcores" as the other half. There are middle grounders and I'm not neglecting them, I use these two terms to simplify things. Discussions always tend to go to personal insults or pure beliefs, specially when both sides are using rationalistic speculation, perhaps the more plausible of these sides is the one which uses more plausible arguments.

I don't defend CDPR to please any extremity of the gaming community.
 
Last edited:
As long as CDPR continues to have a "Story" gameplay mode (what I play Witcher 3 on, because I totally suck at FPS) for combat difficulty I'll be "OK with it" if it turns out CP2077 is a player skilled FPS.

Ideally they'll have an option to use character skills for combat (call it RPG mode) probably with a pause feature and tab targeting, for those that want to play CP2077 as an RPG rather then an FPS.

Lastly, with luck we'll have the option to turn off quest markers and use the directions (presumably) provided in mission journal entries (or street addresses).

It's not impossible to (more-or-less) satisfy "hard-core" and "casual" gamers IF and ONLY IF a developer takes the time (and expense) to create game systems that cater to both. But almost no developers/publishers even try this however. Here is another place I think CDPR could further enhance their reputation of making "games for gamers", and with any luck at all, set a new trend in game design/development.

"Gee wiz Mr(s) Corporate-greedy-management, that little polish company managed to create a game that didn't piss off half their potential customer base, maybe we should consider doing things they way they did to improve our sales?"
 
Lisbeth_Salander;n9334431 said:
Having a hard time reading, sir?

You get more and more cryptic with each passing post and it's increasingly unclear to me whether you responded to what you read or to something you thought you read, that I may well have.

For example: I have no idea why you're posting the definition of ad hominen (no-one's used one, aside from you questioning my ability to read) or what you think "Why not?" means because it seems you have some speacial meaning for it. I also have no idea why you think I want to "repeat" something and "expect a different result". Repeat what? How? Where have said that? You seem to misinterpret my words and then attribute stuff to me I have no idea I even implied it; and when I question that you ask me if I can read.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9334431 said:
Just like it did with Witcher 3? Your strategy is to keep doing what has been done and expect different results.

Don't assume that Witcher is the only way to design a game. I've said plenty of times in these boards that I specifically want them to distance themselves from Witcher and other blockbusters to as far as possible and try to do something different. That of course often nets the response "different for the sake of being different" from some people and then we are at a position where nothing can be done but copy pasting because trying out something different is somehow pretentious.
 
Last edited:
I have to say that it does seem to me like some kind of missunderstanding has happened here between kofeiiniturpa and Lisbeth_Salander during the past few days... because I am as confused as Kofe to some of what your (Lisbeth's) posts are refering to when it comes to kofe... where some of the replies aimed at kofe almost seems like they where ment for someone else, but somehow where aimed at kofe instead... or just a general missunderstanding between the two of you, as to what each of you are refering to.

Part of the reason of that is that I have seen some posts that you make Lisbeth, where the quoting and who was pointed to having said it seemed wrong... the only one I can find now though was one involving me (only one partly because I don't feel like spending hours on trying to find the others... because I would litterally spend multiple hours on it if I did it, and I want to spend most of my day in playing an old favorit of mine, Suikoden 1... XD ). It happend in post nr 67 in this thread (posts numbers can be found in the upper right corner of the posts). In that post I am credited as having said "I was starting to think I'm the ugly duckling around here.", when in fact it was kofe who said that. This means that I am uncertain if you ment to reply to kofe's "ugly duckling" comment, or if you ment to reply to something I said in my post (where I had quoted kofe saying that duck part, so I could reply to it), but where you maybe somehow accidentally erased what I had said in my post, which left kofe's ugly duckling comment... and your reply to "me" and the "ugly duckling" part there did not seem to be related at all (it did seem to fit with the quote from Eltyris that you had in there though). So yeah, that did make me confused about who or what you ment to quote from me or kofe, or if you maybe only intended to reply to Eltyris and just forgot to compleatly delete the text connected to me (or kofe)... so yeah, I was confused. XD

This means that currently I don't know if there has just been a missunderstanding between kofe and Lisbeth at some point in you guy's back and forth posting string... or if there has been some kind of mistake with handling the quoteing aspect of the posts you made Lisbeth (I can't recall ever having encountered kofe quoting things wrong for as long as I have been here)... or what ever happend here. XD



There also seem to be a missunderstanding about the word hardcore... that maybe each of you are maybe refering to different kinds of "hardcore" things here. Because, for example, "Hardcore gamers" is not the same as "Hardcore game-mechanics"... you don't need to be a "hardcore gamer" to play games with "hardcore game-mechanics" (although... it usually helps if you are... XD ).

A "hardcore gamer" is someone who spends massive amounts of time in playing games, spends time on really going in depth with them... be it on pure knowledge about the game and how things work in it etc (attribute stats, skills, and all that stuff in rpg's) so you can handle any situation that comes up... or pure keyboard and mouse training on getting really good at your twitch and FPS skills as a player so that you can whip that crosshair right on target etc. You can be a hardcore gamer no matter what the actual "kind" of game you play, full blown pen and paper like videogame rpg's, or your average FPS game, or hell even something like candycrush (or what ever that game is called).

Where as "hardcore game-mechanics" is something entirely different... this tend to often refer to systems which are usually highly complex, often has a lable of "old school" (but not always), tends to usually refer to games where the players mind is more importent (you can often pause in the game, or it's turnbased or something) then their ability to handle the controls (like you have to be in things like FPS games)... these games and game-mechanics tends to cater to very specific groups of people... to people who enjoy those kinds of game-mechanics... a group of people who today tends to be sort of in a minority of all gamers in general. I am thinking games like Baldur's Gate, and Fallout 1-2, rogue-like games, and all those grand stratagy kinds of games, etc. Although, cRGP's and Grand Stratagy games for example tend to go down different kinds of "hardcore game-mechanics" routes (and as such pulls in a slightly different crowds of people).

The same can be said for that whole "casual" thing... where there is a difference between a "casual gamer" and "casual game-mechanics"... where casual game-mechanics tend to be very simple and easy to understand, and ment to be possible to pick up pretty much instantly, and what not. Where as a "casual gamer" is not really people who only play casual games, but are people who don't spend as much time on games, and dont go as deep into games, as a "hardcore gamer" will do. A casual gamer can play anything from Candycrush, to Dragon Age: Origins, to Europa Universalis... it's just the amount of time, and how deep into the games complexity they dive, that is the difference between a casual and a hardcore gamer.

On top of that, the same person can be both a hardcore gamer AND a casual gamer at the same time... because the player might be a hardcore candycrush player, but is at best a casual Europa Universalis player, or vice versa. XD


So yeah... there might be some levels of missunderstanding going on here between the two of you, kofe and Lisbeth. XD
 
Top Bottom