21 hours ago
The controversy around Rosomachi is starting to get tired, but it's motivating to write new #rAZZ thoughts It'
The controversy around Rosomachi is starting to get tired, but it's motivating to write new #rAZZ thoughts
It's all because I saw the argument again from the "what's wrong with that?" when it came to the part where you can't lose.
This kind of argument often arises in discussions around action projects and as if trying to make a point by pointing out that it's a matter of taste and to someone unsuccessful it doesn't seem that way.
On the one hand, preferences certainly affect perception, but on the other hand, you can defend anything.
So let's take a look at the basic logic, and if you think globally, ACTION is when a person presses a button, and depending on the decisions they make on the screen, there's a certain movement, and the timeliness of the commands depends on whether they succeed or fail.
The excitement of the game is often built around a combination of factors, including the time needed to evaluate the situation and take the right action.
Unlike the movies, the most important factor here for immersion, tension and ultimately enjoyment of the process is victory.
The penalty that a game is awarded for a mistake or an untimely action does not have to be high, but it is often what determines the sweet taste of victory.
The game can be hardcore, casual or balancing somewhere in the range between these phenomena. In this context, it doesn't matter. Low or high complexity doesn't make the product bad or good. However, ставка is an important part of the process and increases engagement.
Another important factor is the degree of interactivity that gives room for improvisation while passing.
When we talk about variability, we need to understand that it's not about some great freedom of action, but rather, the number of ways to achieve a goal in the range of a scene or a moment, specifically, whether you need to think about who and how to win, or whether you can do everything using one or two actions.
It's worth noting that there are projects where there's the appearance of diversity, but when out of ten options, they're all equal and don't require some kind of snobbery, it's also boring.
So if the segment doesn't involve improvisation and at the same time doesn't punish for mistakes enough to create a "setting", then such a segment can cause confusion in the player.
Of course, this could be in an episode where the developers wanted to emphasize something else, like a super-tech base or a deep philosophical sense, but when we're evaluating gameplay, the lack of ingredients or variability makes that fragment unsuccessful.
You don't need to measure a quest or a step strategy like that, of course, but for a shooter or a slasher, it's fair.
In conclusion, the lack of risk of losing destroys the very mechanics of engagement: without the risk of making mistakes, our brains don't properly capture the joy of overcoming, and victory loses its value. #game #Strategy #shooter
It's all because I saw the argument again from the "what's wrong with that?" when it came to the part where you can't lose.
This kind of argument often arises in discussions around action projects and as if trying to make a point by pointing out that it's a matter of taste and to someone unsuccessful it doesn't seem that way.
On the one hand, preferences certainly affect perception, but on the other hand, you can defend anything.
So let's take a look at the basic logic, and if you think globally, ACTION is when a person presses a button, and depending on the decisions they make on the screen, there's a certain movement, and the timeliness of the commands depends on whether they succeed or fail.
The excitement of the game is often built around a combination of factors, including the time needed to evaluate the situation and take the right action.
Unlike the movies, the most important factor here for immersion, tension and ultimately enjoyment of the process is victory.
The penalty that a game is awarded for a mistake or an untimely action does not have to be high, but it is often what determines the sweet taste of victory.
The game can be hardcore, casual or balancing somewhere in the range between these phenomena. In this context, it doesn't matter. Low or high complexity doesn't make the product bad or good. However, ставка is an important part of the process and increases engagement.
Another important factor is the degree of interactivity that gives room for improvisation while passing.
When we talk about variability, we need to understand that it's not about some great freedom of action, but rather, the number of ways to achieve a goal in the range of a scene or a moment, specifically, whether you need to think about who and how to win, or whether you can do everything using one or two actions.
It's worth noting that there are projects where there's the appearance of diversity, but when out of ten options, they're all equal and don't require some kind of snobbery, it's also boring.
So if the segment doesn't involve improvisation and at the same time doesn't punish for mistakes enough to create a "setting", then such a segment can cause confusion in the player.
Of course, this could be in an episode where the developers wanted to emphasize something else, like a super-tech base or a deep philosophical sense, but when we're evaluating gameplay, the lack of ingredients or variability makes that fragment unsuccessful.
You don't need to measure a quest or a step strategy like that, of course, but for a shooter or a slasher, it's fair.
In conclusion, the lack of risk of losing destroys the very mechanics of engagement: without the risk of making mistakes, our brains don't properly capture the joy of overcoming, and victory loses its value. #game #Strategy #shooter
