People (/v/) should focus on one game at a time so an awareness of quality is prevalent. Do you want to play WoW: WotLK Classic? Do you think another experience would better funnel popularity and would potentially outperform WoW?
Quality is objective; you can optimize your time. Everybody would like the same thing because physiology builds from basics, so the more systems you stimulate, the more fun you have. Delayed gratification exists, so you can start with 2D games or 2D gameplay and enjoy natural advancements of the industry for however long you can keep up with nutrition to repair and replace cells, defining youth, but, while singleplayer games are likely to be remade by AI, at least graphically, so that waiting for 21:9, ~4k 144Hz is an option, multiplayer games have similar potential but require players: Games worth playing may be popular in the future because of knowledge on what makes games fun, but some games make you really skillful, so becoming proficient is exciting; you should play multiplayer games while they're relevant because you might not get to experience them later, multiplayer is where the most strategic, dynamic, lastingly playable, and thus fun gameplay is, and experiencing popular games with others is one of the most exciting experiences. You should know what's fun so that you can naturally build excitement.
A few notes:
•Game design is not about "taking risks"; games are simple and easy to make: GTA games were made in 1 year; a few developers is enough to make a couple of characters, items, areas, and activities per day and have an MMO of content in one month; and any engine module (character generation; strategic landscape production) could be made for $4k (which is 200 hours at $20/hr.). Discussion can reflect this, and opinions can not be satisfied with mediocre budgeting, design philosophy, or feature variety: depth.
•Multiplayer is really important; competitive games are the most popular, lucrative, and lastingly playable.
1/2
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
•1v1 is the best way to balance a game.
•An open world is important; more options is more designable strategy (simultaneous characters and a persistent world make MMO the best genre).
•Objectivity in quality of literature, art, gameplay -- design, advertisement, and journalism -- is easy to do; a company that makes and advertises perfection while providing a natural environment for political optimals ("you would be better doing [this] while we're still at these levels of technology / miraculousness / science") would be the best company with the best game(s). Make what's physiologically and scientifically optimal. Science defined fun as far back as 1985. "Fun" has been surpassed by specific qualifiers in accuracy of predicting "still playing after 8 months". All you have to do is tell players what's motivating and have strategic gameplay and let them feedback-loop what's rewarding (noticing performance, strategizing, making plays, and thinking about possibilities). More specifically, "getting things" is an OK reward, but what's really motivating is mastery, feelings of control of the direction of the character and the world, and social relevance / status. When people are aware of this, they notice what's fun, building excitement and enjoyment of the game. It's a lot deeper than the documented science because a lot of notions can be used to build excitement because people want to think about all aspects of the game. Getting an advantage is an example of something everybody wants to do so much that they'll math and simulate. Intuitiveness, interactivity, and storyworth are examples of notions that more deeply describe what players want. The truth is that linguistic variety: depth correlates up to all physiology. If you can describe it, you can understand what the best option is and what is fun.
2/2
Multiplayer is the worst thing to happen to video games. Prove me wrong.
Make an argument first.
Esports, achievements, micro transactions, always online, invasive drm. Your turn.
>Esports.
Doesn't have inherent negatives.
>Achievements.
Have been mostly singleplayer correlative.
>Microtransactions.
Didn't come from and isn't an inherently multiplayer feature; microtransactions aren't even a problem when done correctly.
>Always online.
Singleplayer game have been always-online, and multiplayer games being online is reasonable.
>Invasive DRM.
I haven't had a problem with DRM at all, singleplayer or multiplayer.
In addition to what was mentioned in the OP, AI is mediocre; real players are readily-available excitement, strategy, and thus fun.
Subjective or wrong.
Same with everything you say. Opinion based. Wrong. Unproven. Etc.
Then you should be able to argue it.
As you should be able to argue my points :^)
The difference is that I have a list of points relevant to video games; you're free to try and critique what's mentioned or suggested.
They're all wrong and subjective though, so that difference is irrelevant. If you want, I'll fire up a Twitch stream and we can debate your moronic ideas right now since you seem to be free.
>They're all wrong and subjective though
Not an argument.
Also,
Not an argument.
Furthermore, you're dodging and trying to weasel out of the challenge. We need to argue on Stream and let the audience decide.
You can't come into a thread, post a lot of off-topic nonsense, and expect to be respected.
You can't make a thread of pure nonsense, and people to accept it. Now, you can either debate me on Twitch, and defend your nonsense, or quietly sit down and leave the thread. Everyone here is dismissing your autism
postan in a nutriments thread