i don't get it. i mostly play video games to kill things. oh well.
lemme try re-wording this again
Progression (leveling up, relatively predictable item pickups) and customization can, by my model, serve three purposes:
*incentivizing player progress (item upgrades in Mass Effect, armor and weapon upgrades in A Link to the Past/A Link Between Worlds, leveling up in games where stat increases are not caused by player choice)
*the development of a unique playstyle (different classes in class-based RPGs are a really easy example, like how Vanguards in Mass Effect are highly mobile glass cannons while Soldiers are tough and have great weapon variety but few active powers, or how certain Castlevania titles let the player loosely develop into either a caster or a close-ranged weapon fighter)
*role-playing (which I'd explain in detail but you said you already got that one)
It's the "I don't find this genre to my tastes and this is why" argument
there's nothing wrong with enjoying a Skinner box
calling something a "skinnerbox" is inherently insulting.
Not really? At least, I didn't intend it to be insulting. I was literally just describing the means by which a game like that is fun, in this case it's the promise of material reward at such a pace as to be consistently satisfying.
ok but
couldn't you reduce all of your categories down to this, by labeling say "customization" or whatever as the reward
You are missing the point that this literally isn't intended to be a criticism at all
Just my own process for examining what purposes a relatively ill-defined but still ubiquitous system ("RPG-style progression") can, in varying degrees, serve
yeah I get it I'm just saying that maybe it's really not a useful system of categorization
What would you propose?
I mean, are you arguing that, say, the SPECIAL system of Fallout (talking mainly about the first two), whereby seven broad attributes are combined with some number of skills and a few weird modifiers (being resistant to addiction, being unusually gifted, being prone to disaster) doesn't serve an appreciably different purpose from the customization of Kingdom Hearts (which is almost entirely linear)?
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
And again, I think you're misunderstanding me: It's not so much a simple system of categorization so much as a scale
Something like Knights of the Old Republic, for example, which operates on the d20 system:
*metes out progress at a relatively brisk pace in the form of items, but not as much through leveling because of the somewhat low level cap and the lack of respawning enemies
*has somewhat sparse variety in playstyle; most differences in builds are flavor with there being little mechanical difference between even blasters and lightsabers
*heavily emphasizes roleplaying
...but the overall set of mechanics doesn't serve just a singular purpose
but you could interpret those mechanics, whatever they are, as giving reward to a player for performing certain actions, thus encouraging those actions to be further performed. because that's what a skinner box is. operant conditioning is good for a lot of things.
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
The kill-loot-kill loop of Diablo's gameplay is literally the entire focus of the gameplay, though. It's what the entire series of systems is built to support and the stated appeal for most people
Other games have that cycle in degrees but it's the literal, stated design purpose of Diablo.
And I don't think that's a problem! It's just why the game doesn't appeal to me. If a game has the stats Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Vitality, I want it built in such a way that I can viably play a strong-but-clumsy genius, or a remarkably sturdy idiot, I *don't* want it designed in such a way that upgrading certain stats would only serves the purpose of gimping a character to no discernible end (such as how it's well known that Vitality in the original Diablo is useless). But that's purely a result of my own preference, and there are other games with this same cycle that I can enjoy.
but you could interpret those mechanics, whatever they are, as giving reward to a player for performing certain actions, thus encouraging those actions to be further performed. because that's what a skinner box is. operant conditioning is good for a lot of things.
You may recognize this statement as exactly what I've already said
You just described KOTOR as having progress based on getting items.
I mean I'm looking at this from the outside. I haven't played either game. But you're describing them in a way that suggests you think there is a major categorical difference while not actually describing that differences.
and you said one of the categories is having feedback loops, and then said KOTOR is not like that while describing its feedback loops? if every game has feedback loops it doesn't make sense to have it as a category
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
The kill-loot-kill loop of Diablo's gameplay is literally the entire focus of the gameplay, though. It's what the entire series of systems is built to support and the stated appeal for most people
Other games have that cycle in degrees but it's the literal, stated design purpose of Diablo.
And I don't think that's a problem! It's just why the game doesn't appeal to me. If a game has the stats Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Vitality, I want it built in such a way that I can viably play a strong-but-clumsy genius, or a remarkably sturdy idiot, I *don't* want it designed in such a way that upgrading certain stats would only serves the purpose of gimping a character to no discernible end (such as how it's well known that Vitality in the original Diablo is useless). But that's purely a result of my own preference, and there are other games with this same cycle that I can enjoy.
this to me is tantamount to complaining about the lack of roleplaying opportunities in like, Tetris, or Pac-Man.
Like,
you're entitled to your own preferences or whatever, but, it's a very strange criticism to levy because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the game is actually for.
Diablo is not a roguelike, but it's a descendant of the roguelike tradition and Diablo I was even originally designed as one. Roguelikes are games that are very hard on mechanics and very soft on everything else. That's just how they're built, and that applies to all of Diablo's own stylistic descendants too--Path of Exile, Torchlight, that one with the vampire hunter guy--all of them.
So while no one is going to shame you for not liking these things, it does raise the question of....well, what were you expecting? Criticizing them as RPGs doesn't make a lot of sense, they're not RPGs.
You just described KOTOR as having progress based on getting items.
I mean I'm looking at this from the outside. I haven't played either game. But you're describing them in a way that suggests you think there is a major categorical difference while not actually describing that differences.
Major categorical difference: KOTOR is a game with a defined endpoint. As such, character optimization is possible but not necessary, and there are a wide variety of builds that have more-or-less equal chances of getting the job done. Moreover, playing different builds is encouraged by the systemic focus on roleplaying, and optimization is de-emphasized by gameplay that allows suboptimal builds to still pass through the game with some creativity and luck.
I just don't like it implied that I'm not intelligent because I like Diablolikes (which is a statement that is floated by an oddly large number of people oddly often).
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
The kill-loot-kill loop of Diablo's gameplay is literally the entire focus of the gameplay, though. It's what the entire series of systems is built to support and the stated appeal for most people
Other games have that cycle in degrees but it's the literal, stated design purpose of Diablo.
And I don't think that's a problem! It's just why the game doesn't appeal to me. If a game has the stats Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Vitality, I want it built in such a way that I can viably play a strong-but-clumsy genius, or a remarkably sturdy idiot, I *don't* want it designed in such a way that upgrading certain stats would only serves the purpose of gimping a character to no discernible end (such as how it's well known that Vitality in the original Diablo is useless). But that's purely a result of my own preference, and there are other games with this same cycle that I can enjoy.
this to me is tantamount to complaining about the lack of roleplaying opportunities in like, Tetris, or Pac-Man.
Like,
you're entitled to your own preferences or whatever, but, it's a very strange criticism to levy because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the game is actually for.
It's not a criticism.
I understand what Diablo is for- it's for blowing off steam because killing things to gain more efficient ways of killing things is fun for some people. I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
You just described KOTOR as having progress based on getting items.
I mean I'm looking at this from the outside. I haven't played either game. But you're describing them in a way that suggests you think there is a major categorical difference while not actually describing that differences.
Major categorical difference: KOTOR is a game with a defined endpoint. As such, character optimization is possible but not necessary, and there are a wide variety of builds that have more-or-less equal chances of getting the job done. Moreover, playing different builds is encouraged by the systemic focus on roleplaying, and optimization is de-emphasized by gameplay that allows suboptimal builds to still pass through the game with some creativity and luck.
okay, great. just, none of this is conveyed by "feedback loops" or "Skinner box".
I just don't like it implied that I'm not intelligent because I like Diablolikes (which is a statement that is floated by an oddly large number of people oddly often).
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
The kill-loot-kill loop of Diablo's gameplay is literally the entire focus of the gameplay, though. It's what the entire series of systems is built to support and the stated appeal for most people
Other games have that cycle in degrees but it's the literal, stated design purpose of Diablo.
And I don't think that's a problem! It's just why the game doesn't appeal to me. If a game has the stats Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Vitality, I want it built in such a way that I can viably play a strong-but-clumsy genius, or a remarkably sturdy idiot, I *don't* want it designed in such a way that upgrading certain stats would only serves the purpose of gimping a character to no discernible end (such as how it's well known that Vitality in the original Diablo is useless). But that's purely a result of my own preference, and there are other games with this same cycle that I can enjoy.
this to me is tantamount to complaining about the lack of roleplaying opportunities in like, Tetris, or Pac-Man.
Like,
you're entitled to your own preferences or whatever, but, it's a very strange criticism to levy because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the game is actually for.
It's not a criticism.
I understand what Diablo is for- it's for blowing off steam because killing things to gain more efficient ways of killing things is fun for some people. I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
For one thing I have never liked the "blowing off steam" line because it makes it sound like I'd be out murdering nuns if I did not have a video game to take out all the pent-up aggression I must surely have on.
For another thing I really don't know what this
I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
You just described KOTOR as having progress based on getting items.
I mean I'm looking at this from the outside. I haven't played either game. But you're describing them in a way that suggests you think there is a major categorical difference while not actually describing that differences.
Major categorical difference: KOTOR is a game with a defined endpoint. As such, character optimization is possible but not necessary, and there are a wide variety of builds that have more-or-less equal chances of getting the job done. Moreover, playing different builds is encouraged by the systemic focus on roleplaying, and optimization is de-emphasized by gameplay that allows suboptimal builds to still pass through the game with some creativity and luck.
okay, great. just, none of this is conveyed by "feedback loops" or "Skinner box".
Which is why I'm talking on a forum and not presenting this in a video essay
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
The kill-loot-kill loop of Diablo's gameplay is literally the entire focus of the gameplay, though. It's what the entire series of systems is built to support and the stated appeal for most people
Other games have that cycle in degrees but it's the literal, stated design purpose of Diablo.
And I don't think that's a problem! It's just why the game doesn't appeal to me. If a game has the stats Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Vitality, I want it built in such a way that I can viably play a strong-but-clumsy genius, or a remarkably sturdy idiot, I *don't* want it designed in such a way that upgrading certain stats would only serves the purpose of gimping a character to no discernible end (such as how it's well known that Vitality in the original Diablo is useless). But that's purely a result of my own preference, and there are other games with this same cycle that I can enjoy.
this to me is tantamount to complaining about the lack of roleplaying opportunities in like, Tetris, or Pac-Man.
Like,
you're entitled to your own preferences or whatever, but, it's a very strange criticism to levy because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the game is actually for.
It's not a criticism.
I understand what Diablo is for- it's for blowing off steam because killing things to gain more efficient ways of killing things is fun for some people. I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
For one thing I have never liked the "blowing off steam" line because it makes it sound like I'd be out murdering nuns if I did not have a video game to take out all the pent-up aggression I must surely have on.
I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
Actually means.
Statistics like "Dexterity, Strength, Intelligence, and Vitality" are more interesting to me when I can use them to develop a unique character that I can roleplay or project a personality onto, more or less.
You just described KOTOR as having progress based on getting items.
I mean I'm looking at this from the outside. I haven't played either game. But you're describing them in a way that suggests you think there is a major categorical difference while not actually describing that differences.
Major categorical difference: KOTOR is a game with a defined endpoint. As such, character optimization is possible but not necessary, and there are a wide variety of builds that have more-or-less equal chances of getting the job done. Moreover, playing different builds is encouraged by the systemic focus on roleplaying, and optimization is de-emphasized by gameplay that allows suboptimal builds to still pass through the game with some creativity and luck.
okay, great. just, none of this is conveyed by "feedback loops" or "Skinner box".
Which is why I'm talking on a forum and not presenting this in a video essay
well, great then, you said something we didn't understand, we asked about it, done. happy end.
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
The kill-loot-kill loop of Diablo's gameplay is literally the entire focus of the gameplay, though. It's what the entire series of systems is built to support and the stated appeal for most people
Other games have that cycle in degrees but it's the literal, stated design purpose of Diablo.
And I don't think that's a problem! It's just why the game doesn't appeal to me. If a game has the stats Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Vitality, I want it built in such a way that I can viably play a strong-but-clumsy genius, or a remarkably sturdy idiot, I *don't* want it designed in such a way that upgrading certain stats would only serves the purpose of gimping a character to no discernible end (such as how it's well known that Vitality in the original Diablo is useless). But that's purely a result of my own preference, and there are other games with this same cycle that I can enjoy.
this to me is tantamount to complaining about the lack of roleplaying opportunities in like, Tetris, or Pac-Man.
Like,
you're entitled to your own preferences or whatever, but, it's a very strange criticism to levy because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the game is actually for.
It's not a criticism.
I understand what Diablo is for- it's for blowing off steam because killing things to gain more efficient ways of killing things is fun for some people. I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
For one thing I have never liked the "blowing off steam" line because it makes it sound like I'd be out murdering nuns if I did not have a video game to take out all the pent-up aggression I must surely have on.
List of things I don't think Jane is
violent
stupid
Alright?
I did not necessarily mean that you were saying that, I just don't like the term, and I was explaining why.
I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
Actually means.
Statistics like "Dexterity, Strength, Intelligence, and Vitality" are more interesting to me when I can use them to develop a unique character that I can roleplay or project a personality onto, more or less.
This makes me curious, would you care as much if they weren't called that in the game? Just, represented by colored gems or something instead? Not necessarily that, substitute your own system of organization here.
no I'm just saying that "it's like a skinner box" isnt good b/c most games could be if you squint enough, so ultimately it's really just a measure of how much you, the categorizer, are willing to squint this time around
The kill-loot-kill loop of Diablo's gameplay is literally the entire focus of the gameplay, though. It's what the entire series of systems is built to support and the stated appeal for most people
Other games have that cycle in degrees but it's the literal, stated design purpose of Diablo.
And I don't think that's a problem! It's just why the game doesn't appeal to me. If a game has the stats Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Vitality, I want it built in such a way that I can viably play a strong-but-clumsy genius, or a remarkably sturdy idiot, I *don't* want it designed in such a way that upgrading certain stats would only serves the purpose of gimping a character to no discernible end (such as how it's well known that Vitality in the original Diablo is useless). But that's purely a result of my own preference, and there are other games with this same cycle that I can enjoy.
this to me is tantamount to complaining about the lack of roleplaying opportunities in like, Tetris, or Pac-Man.
Like,
you're entitled to your own preferences or whatever, but, it's a very strange criticism to levy because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the game is actually for.
It's not a criticism.
I understand what Diablo is for- it's for blowing off steam because killing things to gain more efficient ways of killing things is fun for some people. I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
For one thing I have never liked the "blowing off steam" line because it makes it sound like I'd be out murdering nuns if I did not have a video game to take out all the pent-up aggression I must surely have on.
List of things I don't think Jane is
violent
stupid
Alright?
I did not necessarily mean that you were saying that, I just don't like the term, and I was explaining why.
I don't find it fun in the singular instance of Diablo because I find certain elements of its design more compelling when presented in other contexts.
Actually means.
Statistics like "Dexterity, Strength, Intelligence, and Vitality" are more interesting to me when I can use them to develop a unique character that I can roleplay or project a personality onto, more or less.
This makes me curious, would you care as much if they weren't called that in the game? Just, represented by colored gems or something instead? Not necessarily that, substitute your own system of organization here.
That's actually a specific aesthetic conceit that I've thought about a lot.
Short answer: I'd actually prefer your colored gem solution immensely. I fully recognize it's a rather trivial preference, but still. You're talking to the guy who frequently thinks long and hard about the semiotic implications of the differences between Pokemon, Final Fantasy, The Elder Scrolls, and D20's Attribute systems.
(namely, the differences between the descriptive/abstract names of Pokemon's attributes (Hit Points, Attack, Sp. Attack, Defense, Sp. Defense Speed), the prescriptive/concreteish names of D20's and TES's attributes, and the- what I call- pseudoprescriptive/pseudoconcrete attributes of most of the Final Fantasy series (Strength, Agility, Vitality, etc.)
(I view Pokemon and the D20 system's use of Attributes to be more or less sound on a level of just... idk, how they "feel" to me. TES and Final Fantasy "feel" a bit weirder to me. In TES's case- pointing to Morrowind and Oblivion here, mostly- its attribute names suggest roleplaying, but its progression and gameplay style doesn't really allow its attributes to supplement roleplaying. Its skills allow for better RP, but again, the series gameplay emphasizes player expression moreso than character expression. In Final Fantasy's case, I call its Attributes "pseudoprescriptive" or "pseudoconcrete" because even though they share the naming scheme of systems that do emphasize roleplaying, the stats themselves serve the same abstract purposes as Pokemon, whose stat names are "properly" abstract.)
(But that's all very esoteric and ties into my odd mechanics-as-aesthetics sensibilities.)
Comments
couldn't you reduce all of your categories down to this, by labeling say "customization" or whatever as the reward
it's like when people on Tumblr fit the fibbonaci spiral onto random pictures
and yes, this is exactly what I thought when Extra Credits brought up this idea
I mean I'm looking at this from the outside. I haven't played either game. But you're describing them in a way that suggests you think there is a major categorical difference while not actually describing that differences.
Statistics like "Dexterity, Strength, Intelligence, and Vitality" are more interesting to me when I can use them to develop a unique character that I can roleplay or project a personality onto, more or less.
This makes me curious, would you care as much if they weren't called that in the game? Just, represented by colored gems or something instead? Not necessarily that, substitute your own system of organization here.
anyway, this recipe calls for half a tablespoon of salt. i think i am gonna not do that.
That's actually a specific aesthetic conceit that I've thought about a lot.
the A&W Root Beer Pop-Tarts are actually really tasty and I was surprised because the last thing you'd expect a gimmicky Pop-Tart to be is good
In other soda news, Crystal Pepsi is really quite good, albeit very similar to regular Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback. Subtle differences count, though.
...?