- May 1, 2013
- Reaction score
- First Language
- Primarily Uses
yeah caravan just sounds like a **** design they should have caught.
i'm not saying that every idea is a good idea or should be implemented into a game. but if the core game is good and they want to add in something fun to do that belongs in the world space i dont have a problem with it.
I have a problem with it because it tends to detract from the core experience being created. It interrupts the flow of the actual game, in most instances, and distracts the player from the product you had told them you were selling them.
Is "Gwent" any good? Probably? I dunno, never played it. Does it interrupt the flow of The Witcher 3 to play it? Interrupt the narrative? The story? The primary gameplay loop? Or, does it synergize with all of those things?
That's the problem I tend to have. Why are you selling me "The Witcher 3" and then getting bored with your project partway through and dumping another game on me that ultimately detracts from the experience I paid for, and then hoping I like this new game you've dumped on me?
At minimum, it seems like the dev team suddenly developed Multiple Personality Disorder and couldn't organize their project coherently enough to keep it to only a single game and a single experience.
Maybe instead of 2 gigs of a different game jammed in here, I would've preferred 2 more gigs of the main story content because that was so much better.
Maybe I'll feel differently about mini-games when more games adopt better stances on "removing them" for players that don't want them.
1. Ability to click a box on installation that says you don't want it, so it isn't installed and wastes disk space. Or, even, the ability to install JUST the mini-game, if I like only the mini-game.
2. Ability to turn them off entirely for the game in the options menu.
3. No achievements or unlockables that exist from playing these games (no in game advantage for engaging with them).
Then, maybe I'd soften my stance on mini-games.
not everyone comes into game dev with common knowledge on how things work or what has already been done. rpg maker is targeted towards people with little to no know how to create games. which is fine it makes a good starting point to build from. but not everyone starts on equal footing. there are some devs on here that probably could be working at some big studios but luckily we're blessed with their knowledge
i come from the perspective of i like learning how things work, so yeah i sometimes redo things others already have done just so i can see for myself how it's accomplished. just to satisfy my own curiosity.
There's a difference between discovering something because it's "The Christmas Ham" type situation, and one where you put in effort to discover something that you can google in 5 seconds.
For those not initiated into "The Christmas Ham" story, here's the abridged version:
A woman is cooking Christmas dinner for her in-laws. She cuts the ends of the ham before cooking and serves it to the family. The in-laws are perplexed by her cutting off the ends and ask her why she does that. So, having never really thought about it, goes, "I'm not sure, that's just the way my mom taught me to do it, so I do it that way."
But, the thought bothers her. So, she asks her mom after a week of mulling it over.
Her mom says, "I don't know why I do it either. But, my mom always used to cut the ends off the ham too, so that's just the way I learned how to cook it."
So, the woman, not deterred in the slightest goes to her grandma, who is thankfully still alive and asks.
"Grandma, why do you cut the ends off the ham for Christmas Dinner?"
And the Grandma, not missing a beat goes, "Oh! That's because when your mom was growing up, we were poor and all we had was this small pan to cook a ham in. The only way I could get it to fit was to cut the ends off the ham, then it would fit in the pan."
This is the difference between "Everyone just does it because everyone does it" and "People do it because there's a known reason why you do it that way".
Why does everyone have a combat system heavily reliant on just numbers and granting tons of levels? Because everyone does it. Very few people have ever looked at this critically (I'm one of those people, because that's the sort of person I am with any feature or system or anything. I want to know why it's done the way it is, so I can understand how it works in order to iterate on it, or to remove the stupid bits of it).
That's what we're ultimately discussing at this point. People willing to give the reason why it's just not done, and others going, "no, I don't care why it's not done, I'm going to waste time coming to the same conclusion everyone else did 30 years ago".
i'm always a firm believer in trying to succeed no matter how many attempts in takes. many things we use today and think little of were made because someone didn't give up trying. people can look insane until they succeed, then they are praised for doing what others thought couldn't be done. flight for example, who would have thought massive pieces of metal could one day fly millions of people across the earth. people thought they were crazy for trying, until they succeeded.
The problem with your line of thinking is that you're applying it across the board, and you're using a small minority of people to propose a generalized rule for the rest of them. Put simply, you're trying to use the exception to make the rule. Reality doesn't work that way.
As for the other place your viewpoint falls apart is just in that you're talking about people doing things that haven't ever been done before. Not things that are "outright proven to be 100% impossible", but just things that haven't yet been accomplished. Birds can fly, so why can't people? Surely there's a way to do that. So, you keep trying until it's accomplished. Nature showed us it can be done, so just by understanding how it works, we can mimic it. Meanwhile, nobody spends 100% of their life trying to push against a single wall in the hopes that a different mindset or mood will suddenly allow them to phase through it into the room beyond it.
This is why it's important to recognize your own limitations and to cease trying when you know something is beyond you.
I can never be an astronaut. I am not wired for it, nor do I have the discipline to maintain that peak physical fitness (among a few of my other genetic defects, that disqualify me). But, I'm not going to waste my time and my life trying to be an astronaut. Trying again and again and again and again and again to no avail, for no purpose, on something that just isn't possible.
if someone can accomplish that then i have a little faith that a simple mini game can be implemented well.
I'm not saying a mini-game can't be implmented well. But so few ever pull it off, that you may as well be promoting buying lottery tickets. Sure... SOME people win the big jackpot... but that doesn't mean you should spend your money buying dozens of tickets every week in the HOPE that it'll be you.
So, unless you've got a very tangible skillset and mindset that would allow you to consistently pull that off... I simply recommend not wasting your time on it. Because... frankly... you're not qualified to pull it off, and you're only deluding yourself that you are.