Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: SypheDMar on November 20, 2013, 08:23:11 pm
-
For those of you who haven't heard of this, Project M (or Melee 2.0 depending on who you ask) is a Super Smash Bros. Brawl mod whose goal is to bring back the competitive and fast-paced gameplay of Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is the only game I play competitively and is also considered the best in the franchise and is still being played in EVO while Brawl is pretty much dead. Project M also has a goal of attempting to balance all of the characters so that they are all viable in 1v1 tournaments.
The newest version of Project M is bringing an entire new Game Mode called Turbo Mode, a mode where Smash goes to the illogical extreme of "fast-paced". Project M also brings in two returning characters from Melee that were cut out in Brawl, namely Roy and Mewtwo.
I don't think that there's a huge audience for Super Smash Bros. Melee players in this forum, but in case there are like-minded folks or folks who may be interested, here's a trailer for version 3.0 of Project M:
-
Yeah, I've heard about it. I have a friend who's nuts for Melee, and is in love with this game.
I'd be willing to try it, if modding SSBB didn't require modding the Wii and was such a hassle. I'll look into it when it's done and when I have some free time.
-
Melee was the absolute ****, but I never really sank enough time into Brawl to get a good handle on how it differed. Cool to see people are running with this though.
-
MEh.. I dont' own a console, so I play MUGEN...which is basicly every fighting game ever rolled into one. Seriously. Can you say a character selection screen so big that just going trouhg it takes 15 minutes?
I mena loo kat this s***!
https://www.google.hr/search?q=mugen+select+screen&client=firefox-a&hs=Un5&rls=org.mozilla:hr:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=57iNUqCiE4ud7QaVyIGADA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ
-
Melee was the absolute ****, but I never really sank enough time into Brawl to get a good handle on how it differed. Cool to see people are running with this though.
Starting from 11:06 to 15-minute mark, the difference is explained in the Smash Bros. documentary from a competitive Melee player's perspective. It's considered slower and more defense-focused. Something not mentioned in the documentary is that Brawl is also less responsive to controller input.
@Scourge: It's not necessary to hard-mod your Wii, and I think there are ways to play Project M without modding it at all (Gecko OS I think only requires a 2 or less GB SD card). I use Revolution myself because it's less of a hassle (my SD card is greater than 2 GB), but all it is is soft modding, so messing with your hardware required.
-
Melee was the absolute ****, but I never really sank enough time into Brawl to get a good handle on how it differed. Cool to see people are running with this though.
Starting from 11:06 to 15-minute mark, the difference is explained in the Smash Bros. documentary from a competitive Melee player's perspective. It's considered slower and more defense-focused. Something not mentioned in the documentary is that Brawl is also less responsive to controller input.
I can definitely see that, thinking back to when I last played it. Everyone did feel a bit too unnaturally float-y.
MEh.. I dont' own a console, so I play MUGEN...which is basicly every fighting game ever rolled into one. Seriously. Can you say a character selection screen so big that just going trouhg it takes 15 minutes?
Yes, but that's the sort of bog-standard, memorize-twenty-combos, round-done-in-30-seconds fighting game that I personally strongly dislike. Smash Bros. is refreshingly different in that every character uses the exact same control inputs for all of their various special moves, and the emphasis on knocking your opponent off the screen instead of just dealing damage allows for some really crazy stuff instead of just a combo-input twtichfest. Also there are the items...unless you're the "Fox only, Final Destination" type. :p
-
No items, fox only, final destination
I never quite got why people played these games competitively when these games are not at all developed as competitive games in the first place. Why not, ya know. Play an actual competitive fighting game? Like Street fighter/any other 2D fighter or Tekken/VF/DoA/etc?
Project M also has a goal of attempting to balance all of the characters so that they are all viable in 1v1 tournaments.
So they are basically doing what the devs never did.
-
Yeah, these projects all seem to be unfortunately underpinned by an unpleasant attitude that Brawl was 'dumbed down for the casuals', as though it's the devs' job to make sure the game still meets the needs of the physicsbending competitive crowd.
-
Yeah, I think "competitive" play is kinda missing the entire point of SSB. It's meant to be FUN, so instead, a bunch of megadouches decide to squeeze all the innocence out of it and turn it into nothing but math and twitch reflexes. How about no.
-
Yes, but that's the sort of bog-standard, memorize-twenty-combos, round-done-in-30-seconds fighting game that I personally strongly dislike. Smash Bros. is refreshingly different in that every character uses the exact same control inputs for all of their various special moves, and the emphasis on knocking your opponent off the screen instead of just dealing damage allows for some really crazy stuff instead of just a combo-input twtichfest. Also there are the items...unless you're the "Fox only, Final Destination" type. :p
Wouldn't that depend on the characters you download? I'm no fan of cheap characters with super-exploitable combos.
And given that Mugen is incredibly moddalbe, a smash bros battle mode probably already exists
-
No items, fox only, final destination
I never quite got why people played these games competitively when these games are not at all developed as competitive games in the first place. Why not, ya know. Play an actual competitive fighting game? Like Street fighter/any other 2D fighter or Tekken/VF/DoA/etc?
Most fighting games played as "actual competitive fighting games" tend to demand a high physical price, as you have to react to threats with a 5-or-more step action in 1/60th of a second. As Mongoose mentioned, every character in SSB uses exactly the same controls, and there are no "QCF,HCB+XY" inputs that have to be performed in response to a specific stage in an incoming combo, and let's not even mention things like Ivy's special input throws from the Soul series (I've never ever seen anyone pull those off outside of training).
Besides, there are people who will play anything competitively.
Yes, but that's the sort of bog-standard, memorize-twenty-combos, round-done-in-30-seconds fighting game that I personally strongly dislike. Smash Bros. is refreshingly different in that every character uses the exact same control inputs for all of their various special moves, and the emphasis on knocking your opponent off the screen instead of just dealing damage allows for some really crazy stuff instead of just a combo-input twtichfest. Also there are the items...unless you're the "Fox only, Final Destination" type. :p
Wouldn't that depend on the characters you download? I'm no fan of cheap characters with super-exploitable combos.
Yes, it strongly depends on which characters you download, given that you can re-create a wide variety of other fighting games to a high degree of accuracy (not 100% accuracy if they require tag-team functionality, although that's been requested so many times we may eventually see it). There are characters that are so broken that they win the fight before it begins (yes, some people actually do this), and then there are some characters that couldn't defeat a wet paper bag (the extreme version of this being the "punching bag" character that is exactly what it sounds like). Most people prefer characters to be somewhere in the middle. :P
And given that Mugen is incredibly moddalbe, a smash bros battle mode probably already exists
Given that the 1.1 beta adds zoom functionality to stages, this may actually be possible now, if someone were to spend an inordinate amount of time on it.
-
Yeah, I did play a bit of Mugen ages ago in a college video game club, and it seemed like the main purpose was to generally reproduce the fighting styles of a bunch of different franchises, along with all sorts of other craziness obviously. The best one I saw had to be that douchebag Light from Death Note, where you'd win with a single button-press by him using his book. :p
-
on the subject of mugen: Saltybet.com
-
No items, fox only, final destination
I never quite got why people played these games competitively when these games are not at all developed as competitive games in the first place. Why not, ya know. Play an actual competitive fighting game? Like Street fighter/any other 2D fighter or Tekken/VF/DoA/etc?
Project M also has a goal of attempting to balance all of the characters so that they are all viable in 1v1 tournaments.
So they are basically doing what the devs never did.
Now, I don't even play these games (only because of the fact I've gone down the Playstation road) but games are what you make them. If a game is good it's worth playing competitively. And there are so many top characters from top games built into such an acclaimed game, I can totally see why a competitive scene could build up. It's kind of like saying *insert game/sport X* shouldn't be played competitively because it wasn't designed to be.
-
Project M is amazing regardless of your stance on competitive smash bros. If you sit down and play the thing, you're presented with a responsive game engine filled with fun to play characters who are pretty well balanced with respect to each other. The only shame is that the game wasn't like this to begin with!
-
If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.
You sir, are why we can't have nice things.
-
Oh, Burn!
-
Yeah, I think "competitive" play is kinda missing the entire point of SSB. It's meant to be FUN, so instead, a bunch of megadouches decide to squeeze all the innocence out of it and turn it into nothing but math and twitch reflexes. How about no.
The problem with Brawl is that it's just slower and less rewarding overall regardless of how it's being played. There are all sorts of strange design decisions and oddities in the game that I can't figure out why they ever happened.
-
If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.
You sir, are why we can't have nice things.
I don't even like competitive play myself. I just mean it will spawn competitive play.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. A game balanced to allow competitive play doesn't have to eliminate casual play. You can have both. Games are what you make them. Another person will play a game totally differently to how you will.
-
Yeah, I did play a bit of Mugen ages ago in a college video game club, and it seemed like the main purpose was to generally reproduce the fighting styles of a bunch of different franchises, along with all sorts of other craziness obviously. The best one I saw had to be that douchebag Light from Death Note, where you'd win with a single button-press by him using his book. :p
Ok, now I have to track down that character...just so I can beat the living snot out of him.
I'm not worrierd, as I have "You are already dead"Kenshiro, Ikki "you will wish you were already dead" Phoenix and Chuck "the God-Emperor" Norris on my roster.
-
The best one I saw had to be that douchebag Light from Death Note, where you'd win with a single button-press by him using his book. :p
Hmmm... how does that work? Could you interrupt him whie he's writing your name? And the Death Note doesn't kill you right away, could you still win if you took him out before the timer runs out on you? :)
-
it kills you right away if you want it to.
-
it kills you right away if you want it to.
I presume you mean the Death Note, not the move. Yes it does, but you have to write specific instructions for it. However, I suppose Light could have done that before the match, but then, he could use the Death Note before the match too...
I found it:
Cheap! Good luck with that whoever it was who said they want to beat the crap out of him! :lol:
-
I beg to differ
-
Awesome! :lol: :pimp:
He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... :)
-
Awesome! :lol: :pimp:
He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... :)
Chuck Norris is invulnerable because he doesn't have a hitbox; the Death Note looks like it works via hitboxes, so no, it won't work on him. Which doesn't change the fact that there are still an entire slew of characters that win by deleting their opponent's "standing" state, making them lose without ever touching their lifebar. Nothing is more pointless than trying to find the cheapest character in MUGEN, because there are already five bajillion of them, and they're all at the most absurd power level it is possible to reach with a MUGEN character (whoever is in the P1 slot wins when two of those fight).
-
Awesome! :lol: :pimp:
He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... :)
Chuck Norris is invulnerable because he doesn't have a hitbox; the Death Note looks like it works via hitboxes, so no, it won't work on him. Which doesn't change the fact that there are still an entire slew of characters that win by deleting their opponent's "standing" state, making them lose without ever touching their lifebar. Nothing is more pointless than trying to find the cheapest character in MUGEN, because there are already five bajillion of them, and they're all at the most absurd power level it is possible to reach with a MUGEN character (whoever is in the P1 slot wins when two of those fight).
Thanks.
Why does the 1p slot win?
-
Why does the 1p slot win?
Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.
EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.
-
Why does the 1p slot win?
Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.
EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.
I see. Thanks.
I suppose they'd get old pretty fast, but these two I enjoyed seeing because I enjoyed watching Death Note very much, and I quite like the Chuck Norris jokes. Perhaps the story is similar for why people make them, because it amuses them.
-
Why does the 1p slot win?
Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.
EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.
I see. Thanks.
I suppose they'd get old pretty fast, but these two I enjoyed seeing because I enjoyed watching Death Note very much, and I quite like the Chuck Norris jokes. Perhaps the story is similar for why people make them, because it amuses them.
By "these characters", I'm referring to the ones that I was talking about, that instantly win before the round even starts without any user input whatsoever. I really don't see the point (unlike "unbeatable joke characters" like Light, or Chuck Norris; I have Phantom of the Server's "Rare Akuma" in my character roster, for example).
-
If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.
You sir, are why we can't have nice things.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. A game balanced to allow competitive play doesn't have to eliminate casual play. You can have both. Games are what you make them. Another person will play a game totally differently to how you will.
This may be the most brilliant thing you've ever said on HLP.
I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.
There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players. But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.
-
Awesome! :lol: :pimp:
He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... :)
It would depend who hits first.
Chucks moves are specials that the player has to preform. Dunno about Light.
There are plenty of powerfull characters, but as long as they require stup time or can be stopped, it all good.
For example, Archer from Fate Stay Knight requires you to pull all seveal specials. Each special recites one part of his incantation. One the incantation is complete (the incantation verses carry over into the next round), Unlimited Bladeworks is activated and all of Archers attack change. His regular punches and kicks now each activate rains of swords and stuff. He can still be killed, but this makes him very powerfull. Oh, and UBW carries over in the next round!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQOIFIGR31o
Phoenix Ikki has 4 insta-kill moves, 3 of which require a lot of setting up (fill up the energy bar, active a special state that deplates it and marks a death skull, then fill it up again. You can fill up to 3 death skulls), and the 4th that can only be executed when near death. With timing they can be blocked or dodged, but if they hit - death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t0B-qFRAHo
Kenshiro has the famous ATATATATATATATATA attack, that insta kills, but it's difficult to pull off and oyu have to be standing next to the opponenet. The other one kills the opponent in 30 seconds if it connects, but it's not easy to hit an opponent with it, since it always hits an exact spot a few meters in front of him, and can be dodged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jev2myoPLW0
No-input ones are crap.
That said, there are several verison of Chuck, some having hitboxes.
Also, THIS is what happens when you try a Chuck Norris vs. Chuck Norris fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDLijN2MVY
Pure brillinace by the coder.
-
If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.
You sir, are why we can't have nice things.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. A game balanced to allow competitive play doesn't have to eliminate casual play. You can have both. Games are what you make them. Another person will play a game totally differently to how you will.
This may be the most brilliant thing you've ever said on HLP.
I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.
There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players. But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.
There's a difference between playing against people that challenge you and turning it into some sick circus of an "e-sport."
-
There's nothing wrong with playing the game competitively, there's everything wrong with demanding the game be designed for competitive play.
-
I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.
There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players. But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.
Don't get me wrong, I like competitive gaming and I like 'the sick circus of e-sports'. I just never quite understood how SSB Melee managed to become a competitive game. As that documentary said (something ive heard several times before), Nintendo is a terrible terrible company for the hardcore gaming crowd. They don't want to support tournaments and such. And its pretty clear that SSB Melee was purely an accidental hit for the hardcore crowd. They never intended that game to be played that way. Very evidently by how they seemingly tried their hardest to make Brawl into a 'casual' game.
Thats why I never quite got the crowd for SSB Melee. Its not being 'played the way it was meant to be played'
-
Why does the 1p slot win?
Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.
EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.
I see. Thanks.
I suppose they'd get old pretty fast, but these two I enjoyed seeing because I enjoyed watching Death Note very much, and I quite like the Chuck Norris jokes. Perhaps the story is similar for why people make them, because it amuses them.
By "these characters", I'm referring to the ones that I was talking about, that instantly win before the round even starts without any user input whatsoever. I really don't see the point (unlike "unbeatable joke characters" like Light, or Chuck Norris; I have Phantom of the Server's "Rare Akuma" in my character roster, for example).
Heh. Okay, now I see. :)
If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.
You sir, are why we can't have nice things.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. A game balanced to allow competitive play doesn't have to eliminate casual play. You can have both. Games are what you make them. Another person will play a game totally differently to how you will.
This may be the most brilliant thing you've ever said on HLP.
I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.
There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players. But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.
What a nice thing to say. :)
I too am surprised. Good example with the ways Freespace has been made into diferent things. So which is which? Anime is Wings of Dawn, is Comedy JAD? Horror is Transcend, RTS I think the Homeworld thing did that? Tower Defence no idea. Symphony, no idea. Epic, Blue Planet?
The best such example I know of is Warcraft 3, what mods have been created for that. Some things made are simply lighthearted, others serious, especially in the case of Defence of the Ancients, which is a great example of the game not being played "the way it is supposed to be". Still others have pulled the game right out of it's genre. The game itself has it's single player campaigns, and also it's competitive side with serious money up for grabs for the best players.
For me, if they made a game (talking about Smash Brothers now) which satisfied both competitive gamers and casuals, they can do it again. They don't HAVE TO, but it sounds like if they don't, then they lose those customers to Melee and Project M.
-
@ Trashman
Thanks for the links. I'll check those out later. I already checked the 2X Chuck one and I agree, brilliance on the part of the coder. :)
-
I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.
There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players. But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.
Don't get me wrong, I like competitive gaming and I like 'the sick circus of e-sports'. I just never quite understood how SSB Melee managed to become a competitive game. As that documentary said (something ive heard several times before), Nintendo is a terrible terrible company for the hardcore gaming crowd. They don't want to support tournaments and such. And its pretty clear that SSB Melee was purely an accidental hit for the hardcore crowd. They never intended that game to be played that way. Very evidently by how they seemingly tried their hardest to make Brawl into a 'casual' game.
Thats why I never quite got the crowd for SSB Melee. Its not being 'played the way it was meant to be played'
Spoon, I think it simply comes down to the fact it's a good game, and pulls in characters from all sorts of genres and top games to attract people. It also is a straight up player vs player game. If a game is good enough, people will sink many, many hours into it, and the competitively inclined will see the ultimate way to enjoy the game as to test themselves against other such players. It seems perfectly natural and understandable to me. Don't let the cuteness cloud your vision, when you strip away all the packaging, look at what you're left with. I've watched some videos once on Youtube of high level players duking it out, and I thought it was fun to watch, fast, furious, explosive action.
-
I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.
There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players. But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.
Don't get me wrong, I like competitive gaming and I like 'the sick circus of e-sports'. I just never quite understood how SSB Melee managed to become a competitive game. As that documentary said (something ive heard several times before), Nintendo is a terrible terrible company for the hardcore gaming crowd. They don't want to support tournaments and such. And its pretty clear that SSB Melee was purely an accidental hit for the hardcore crowd. They never intended that game to be played that way. Very evidently by how they seemingly tried their hardest to make Brawl into a 'casual' game.
Thats why I never quite got the crowd for SSB Melee. Its not being 'played the way it was meant to be played'
Lorric said most of what I would've said, but I'll add one more point. Despite the developers' intentions, Smash Bros. Melee is extremely competitive and technical with an ever-changing metagame. That's why, after all these years, it's still so fun and deep. It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players. Compared to Super Smash Bros. 64 and Brawl, both of which have a dying community, Melee is still going strong.
Here's another example. Star Craft is (depending on who you ask) a great game. Yet I doubt that Blizzard expected it to be played as a Korean national pastime for over a decade as a 1v1 micromanagement clickfest. The only difference is that Blizzard (and later Blizzard-Activision with Star Craft 2) supported the community-made phenomenon.*
I apologize if I mistake some of the forum posters' intentions as dismissive when you don't mean to. Following the Smash Bros. Melee tournament scene since 2005 has made it quite difficult to not be biased. I thoroughly enjoy watching and emulating the best Melee players dukiing it out over watching the Chicago Bulls disappoint for another season.
*I've never owned, watched, nor followed Star Craft in my life, so I hope I'm not wrong. I really can't imagine that the devs created Star Craft as a competitive singles game since Major League Gaming and the idea of eSports hasn't been around in the US yet.
-
It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players.
Can't agree with that.
When a developer makes a game, he makes it with a certain playstle or experience he wants to convey - in other words there is a "proper" way to play it. For example, Amnesia is meant to be a game of hiding and runnign away from monsters, beign pwoerless and feelign dredd. If a glitch exists that makes you invulnerable or a mod that adds guns is made, that doens't make either of those the right way to play.
The players can influence how it CAN be played. Not how it should be played.
-
I don't think that's quite what he meant by that, Trash. It's more a question of now how the game is played, itself, but more a matter of how people want to enjoy the game.
Take for example the game, Oblivion.
The game was designed so that players can go straight for the story missions, or can wander around doing side quests or whatever. They can be a fighter, a mage, a rogue, a brawler. They can be good or evil or both or neither. But all of those choices are built into the game, you might say those are all the way that it's "meant" to be played.
But different players will take enjoyment in different ways, that may have never been envisioned by the developers. Some players might choose to play it like a survival sim, foraging for food and shelter and avoiding conflict. Some might play it like an exploration game, refusing to fast-travel or even break into a run so that they feel immersed. Some may use it as the ultimate role-playing game, where their character actually acts like a person would inside the game. Each of these, while allowed by the game engine, were probably not intended to be the "right" way to play the game. That doesn't make them wrong, just different.
-
It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players.
Can't agree with that.
When a developer makes a game, he makes it with a certain playstle or experience he wants to convey - in other words there is a "proper" way to play it. For example, Amnesia is meant to be a game of hiding and runnign away from monsters, beign pwoerless and feelign dredd. If a glitch exists that makes you invulnerable or a mod that adds guns is made, that doens't make either of those the right way to play.
The players can influence how it CAN be played. Not how it should be played.
You're right in that the possibility of doing something doesn't make it the "right" way to play, but conversely, doing something the developer didn't intend doesn't make it the "wrong" way to play, either.
-
It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players.
A few of them are sure as Hell trying to, lately.
-
It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players.
Dead wrong. It's the devs that make them game, it's the devs that make the rules. You have no power over that, nor should you.
-
It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players.
Dead wrong. It's the devs that make them game, it's the devs that make the rules. You have no power over that, nor should you.
The developer creates a space of possibilities, the player explores it.
The developer can encourage how a game is played, but can rarely enforce it.
You're confusing the underlying mechanics with agency.
That being said, players can (and do) change the rules of many games to better suit them.
-
The developer can encourage how a game is played, but can rarely enforce it.
Ya, I guess EVE proved that just right. Devs eventually gave up.
-
The developer creates a space of possibilities, the player explores it.
The developer can encourage how a game is played, but can rarely enforce it.
I don't see what enforcement has to do with anything. (in this case, with being "right" or "wrong")
That being said, players can (and do) change the rules of many games to better suit them.
That's why modding exists.
But that has no bearing on it being correct.
-
Hey look, there's a whole tumblr devoted to playing games in ways that were not intended: http://nowrongwaytoplay.tumblr.com/
Playing as a pacifist-illusionist in Skyrim? Playing The Legend of Zelda (the first one) with no sword? Playing the Sims 3 without a home? All within the original creator's games, all without mods (I assume), and all very different from what may have been intended.
-
The developer creates a space of possibilities, the player explores it.
The developer can encourage how a game is played, but can rarely enforce it.
I don't see what enforcement has to do with anything. (in this case, with being "right" or "wrong")
If nothing stops you from doing something, it's not the wrong way to play the game. Period.
That being said, players can (and do) change the rules of many games to better suit them.
That's why modding exists.
But that has no bearing on it being correct.
"Changing the rules of the game" != "Modding the game".
-
Why do I want it?
That is the question I ask myself when purchasing anything. What the maker intended it to be used for is irrelevant to me. Even the smallest of children can be seen engaging in this concept when they shun the toy for the box it came in. They're not bothered about the toy, but they see some fun to be had with the big box.
I play games the way I want to. A good example is the Elimination game mode in Timesplitters 2 and Timesplitters Future Perfect. These are FPS games, and the way to win is to be the last man standing. So the easiest way to win is simply to run and hide while everyone slaughters each other, then clean up what's left. I like having lives more than standard deathmatch type stuff. But engaging in battle is simply counterproductive. So I came up with a workaround, and sank many many hours into my new version of the game.
As normal, when people run out of lives, they are eliminated, until one person is left. You can have up to 10 bots in play with you. So if it's me and 10 bots, what I do is the first person eliminated, their score is their number of kills. The second person eliminated is their number of kills X2. The 3rd person eliminated is their number of kills X3. And so on, with the last person standing getting their kills X11. So it's quite possible for instance to be the last man standing but have 4th place win thanks to a monster kill count. So you have to balance survival with killing. It's great fun, a normal deathmatch you just run around trying to kill with little regard for your own safety, but this way, it really matters.
-
I am honestly quite surprised at the number of people who believe that there is a right way to play a game. I'm also relieved to see all those willing to defend the player as the ultimate decider. I'm hoping that those who thought otherwise have been convinced to think differently, but if that hasn't happened yet, we can agree to disagree.
I don't really have anything further to add to the argument since everything I can think of regarding how-to-play has been said already.
So back on topic, I've very briefly mentioned Turbo Mode in the opening post. In short, it is the developers of the mod creating a mode so extreme that it is "anti-competitive". Here's the video that started it all:
-
I am honestly quite surprised at the number of people who believe that there is a right way to play a game. I'm also relieved to see all those willing to defend the player as the ultimate decider.
I'm surprised the viewpoint exists at all. It's not a question I've ever seen come up before. I delight in playing my games my way. And in squeezing as much replay value as possible out of them. Of course, usually I and the maker are one in the way they made it and I play it, but that is still because I choose to play it that way.
-
If nothing stops you from doing something, it's not the wrong way to play the game. Period.
Again, there is no connection between something being enforced and being right/wrong.
No one is enforcing a "don't wear underware on your head" rule, it's still wrong.
"Changing the rules of the game" != "Modding the game".
Actually it is.
Unless you are referring to self-made "rules" that aren't hard-coded.
Like "I will play the game without using the gun".
-
I am honestly quite surprised at the number of people who believe that there is a right way to play a game.
Of cource there is.
But that can mean something or it can mean nothing.
If you're having that much fun, does it matter to you if you are "right" or not?
It's kinda like the objective vs. subjective morality thing. You either believe it exists or it doesn't. Yet ultimatively it affects little. For me, I see it as a factual thing. Like color. That thee is green. Does it matter at all when I'm climbing it? Not really. Yet it's still a factual thing.
After my 3rd playtrough of Crysis I modded the game to allow mroe weapons. I changed the balance a little. It was a "wrong" way to play...but I didn't care. Because being right or wrong in that case was utterly irelevant.
-
Unless you are referring to self-made "rules" that aren't hard-coded.
Like "I will play the game without using the gun".
That is exactly what we're referring to. That you can play a game just a different way within the confines of the way it's built, and enjoy it multiple different ways, many of which were not intended.
But again, "not intended" is not the same thing as "wrong".
-
I guess you can also play Deus Ex while killing people. But where's the fun in that.
-
augmented legs, regen and dragon's tooth mother****er
-
If nothing stops you from doing something, it's not the wrong way to play the game. Period.
Again, there is no connection between something being enforced and being right/wrong.
In the real world, yes, there is no connection between enforcement and morality. This is the world of video games, however.
No one is enforcing a "don't wear underware on your head" rule, it's still wrong.
Why?
-
Again, there is no connection between something being enforced and being right/wrong.
In the real world, yes, there is no connection between enforcement and morality. This is the world of video games, however.
Since when is there a connection in videogames?
Why?
Probably because it's UNDERweare. Made to be worn under your cloths and not on your head.
-
Probably because it's UNDERweare. Made to be worn under your cloths and not on your head.
Yes... and in the real world, that might be relevant.
-
Today's the release date!
For those who want to try it out (requires you to have a 2 GB or less SD card):
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/r4nca2sv6fcqx/3.0%20Mirror%20%5BOff-Site%5D
Download the noHomebrew version.
Just unzip it directly into your SD card, insert SD card into your Wii, go to the Stage Builder in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and Project M should load. No modding required.
-
Neat! Downloading now.
Can I use my current Wii SD card, the one with all my saves and junk, or could there be potential complications?
-
It's probably best to have it cleaned up and formatted to be safe, but try it out if you like! Also make sure it's 2 GB or less. Otherwise, it won't work, and you may have to wait for two days for a new launcher. I'm in that boat right now. :<