Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 14:47:32 GMT -5
Dammit Mousey. You linked 3 people over to that site and crashed it. Do you feel liek a hero yet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 16:42:14 GMT -5
I enjoy beating the crap out of other players and earning rare/very difficult achievements
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Sept 19, 2014 17:01:35 GMT -5
It's nonsense that Killer and Explorer are opposing traits.
I love to explore new worlds... and then kill everything there.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Sept 19, 2014 17:17:01 GMT -5
Some of the questions are real bull plop. I took the quiz using my experience as a PlanetSide 2 player moreso than anything else. Needless to say, there were a ton of non applicable answers, often times two that were not applicable in the same question, thus demonstrating the dichotomous flaw and assumption. In some cases, the answers were not even applicable, though I could abstract out to determine a rough estimate of how I would behave if the question were applicable. Some of the questions or answers were non sequiturs, and some of the proceeding questions were invitations to inconsistency from earlier questions. There was one that had the answers that were essentially the same, because a sword twice as powerful than any other or similar would naturally be an antecedent to being the most feared on the server. I chose feared because it's far more flexible as to the 'why'. Apparently, I'm a KEAS at 67, 60, 53, and 33% respectively. "Killer Explorers like to feel immersed in a virtual worlds and see themselves as a great villain or crusader within that world. They seek out challenges against other players, but they are going to find all the areas of that world. Trust an KE to know all the best ambush spots and sniper perches." Sure, I can buy it, but the test is dumb. I want to be notorious, true, but by results rather than bragging. I would like world PVP more than arena PVP. Positional advantage is great, and important part of many competitive games. Edit: It's nonsense that Killer and Explorer are opposing traits. I love to explore new worlds... and then kill everything there. Yeah but they're not I just got it bro I should refresh before posting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 18:39:51 GMT -5
A lot of these questions start with "On an MMORPG..." and I'm thinking "**** MMORPGs." For most of them I'm stuck sitting in a room killing the same monster for hours on end so you can walk out with a bag of shiny trinkets that sell for a smaller bag of trinkets on the market. The combat experience is usually ass, and you can bet that partying up with randoms is going to shaft you in the long run. Chances are being in an MMORPG generally means you're not the killer type unless it somehow has godly combat mechanics. Other questions are heavily dependent on the game you play. "Would you rather defeat an enemy or explore an area"? That's vague. Am I defeating a level 2 goblin or Ogremoch the destroyer of worlds? Are we discovering yet another dungeon filled with rats and Draugr, or are we entering a jungle city hovering in the freakin' sky that's being run by the god of tits and wine? Anyways, here's my results: I don't want to kill anyone; I just want to build my way into a position where someone's attempts to kill me are laughable. It's the Abzan way.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Sept 19, 2014 19:51:28 GMT -5
Yeah. I don't consider myself that much of an explorer. More of a killer. Must have answered the questions wrong. Some answers had an explanation and often the explanation didn't really match why I would choose that answer... But if I went for the other explanation, the answer wasn't what I agreed with. Kinda dumb.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 20:00:59 GMT -5
Butt I enjoy being a prooed.
I think it would be interesting to see games broken down into these four sects and analysed that way as a critiquing guideline. Games with better, more complex and innovative combat systems can have a Killer ranking above par. Maybe there will eventually be a game out there that gets a high Social ranking because they figured out how to make a relationship that transcends "give her enough crap, now press X to **** her". Explore tallying focuses on the interesting aspects of the lore and the effort placed into world building- something that's pretty gosh darn golly gee whiz important in world design that many players simply overlooked. Achievement can be the score for stuff like quest design. Do you have to go through a Draugr dungeon in every other quest? Do you feel like an adult playing a toddler's game? Do you feel like you have no fricking clue what you're doing, where you're supposed to go, or how to beat a certain tough enemy? This is all theoretical BS, but interesting theoretical BS.
I find 'Killer' a little too edgy for my tastes. Combatant, Warrior, Fighter, and Warmonger are all terms that sound more neutral.
|
|
Usagi
True Bro
Grin and Barrett
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Usagi on Sept 19, 2014 20:27:32 GMT -5
This is fun. I guess this makes sense. I usually play MMOs alone and I like to heavily research all the stats in games, which is basically why I'm on this board in the first place. ePeen™ is pretty important to me but I don't like to flop it around, I just like to feel accomplished without having to do any actual work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 20:47:39 GMT -5
Floppy ePeen™, heh heh.
Honestly I'm not sure how to foresee a fifth archetype, I imagine it'll eventually surface after loads of trial and error. Until then it's arguably irrelevant to ask such a thing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep on the lookout for it. It's like asking for a 6th mana colour in MTG; if that ever happened its mechanics would likely overlap heavily into other colours. Even artifacts decks struggle to be interesting, let alone viable.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Sept 19, 2014 22:15:27 GMT -5
Yeah. I don't consider myself that much of an explorer. More of a killer. Must have answered the questions wrong. Some answers had an explanation and often the explanation didn't really match why I would choose that answer... But if I went for the other explanation, the answer wasn't what I agreed with. Kinda dumb. well you did tie. Also it's worth noting that "explorer" also includes learning details about the mechanics of a game. I mean I guess, but I don't think the questions are geared that way.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Sept 19, 2014 22:30:38 GMT -5
Pretty interesting, would be more interesting if there was multiple types of tests, not just for MMORPGs.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Sept 20, 2014 0:15:24 GMT -5
I don't need a test to tell me I'm a cold bluded killah.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Sept 20, 2014 2:33:20 GMT -5
Killer: 75% Explorer: 60% Socializer: 60% Acheiver: 53%
I was surprised, because I'm a super conceited person that gets a legitimate high off of explaining things to people even if they already know it.
But then I wasn't surprised because tests like this are dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on Sept 20, 2014 23:56:20 GMT -5
It told me that I'm a "power bottom". Not sure what that means maybe I will google it sometime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 0:51:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Sept 22, 2014 9:21:33 GMT -5
Takes one to know one kittypuffball.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Sept 22, 2014 10:16:52 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that means you're gay. ... and that you won't have to work too hard at it.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Sept 22, 2014 22:20:20 GMT -5
I don't think I play enough MMOs for it to give me accurate results. I'm definitely more achiever than anything in reality, but I don't see why any of these are mutually exclusive. I like to get achievements for killing things throughout the world with friends.
|
|
kittymulcher
True Bro
Packing my bags for the misty mountains
Posts: 446
|
Post by kittymulcher on Sept 24, 2014 1:21:01 GMT -5
I'm an explorer-achiever. I like knowing the mechanics behind the game, I actually read the lore, I like story driven quests. I need to know the ins and outs of the game to enjoy it.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Sept 24, 2014 17:39:25 GMT -5
While the test itself might have serious design issues, the categorization itself has some merits. I don't even need to take the test to know I am a socializer-killer, achiever? maybe a little bit. Explorer: not much at all. Also, since most Den bros are CoD fans it's safe to say that everybody here has "advanced" killer traits (to the point that we need detailed stats to perfect our killing, or die trying )
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Sept 25, 2014 15:29:47 GMT -5
Leeeroyyyyy Jeennnnkkkkiinnnnssss
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 19:18:47 GMT -5
Magic the Gathering has their own player archetypes, and this lets their design team create cards/formats for the different types of players in their playerbase. This is an article written by a Magic: The Gathering guru who recently got into League of Legends. The TL:DR version is that Timmy likes to have fun with the game; he wants big, stompy things that are usually overkill but create a spectacle. Johnny enjoys tinkering with the mechanics of the game; he prioritizes knowing game mechanics and elaborate setups over everything. Spike is out to win, and he's more than willing to do whatever it takes. This makes game mode design imperative. Developers designing any kind of multiplayer experience need core modes, a couple interesting twists on those core modes, and maybe a few moshpit slogfests to keep their playerbase playing. Full article here
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 0:30:44 GMT -5
I used to think of myself as a Johnny, but that's when I almost religiously played MTG. A lot of games don't let the players express themselves at all or have their meta cracked. Outside of TCGs Johnnies are harder to pick out. They'll use those bad weapons, play a QuickFix Offense, but I only do that in MTG because I buy bulk commons/uncommons. This is a common example of a card designed for Johnnies. You're paying mana to throw your hand away; what's the point of that? Most Johnnies forced to build a deck around this card would snap into a Hellbent deck. Hellbent only works when your hand doesn't have any cards in it; so why not have cards to make process go by faster and make a midgame rush happen? I guess I sit at being a Timmy. I like my slogfests. I like fun, and I only like winning because winning is fun. If I was a Spike in MTG I'd go out, grab a decklist in my budget, slowly assemble a deck, play in several tournaments, and have an existential crisis if my deck falls apart on me.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Nov 22, 2014 2:34:09 GMT -5
Seeing how I've never played Magic or LoL (I tried the tutorial, quit afterwards) it was a little difficult trying to relate what games I have played to it and I'd probably say more Johnny like, with a slight leaning towards Spike.
I'm looking at it from a Yu-Gi-Oh point of view and I'd say I went for combos a lot, but more subdued combos than what the examples were. I generally built a deck around high defense and high damage, without special summons, and would rely on magic or traps to weaken my enemy and to strengthen myself. Looking back I guess they were sort of theme based, but obvious exceptions were made if a card had really good defense or offense I could forgive it not fitting my theme.
EDIT 1: Also all of this makes me want to emulate Yu-Gi-Oh: Eternal Duelist Soul for the GBA again. Loved that growing up. EDIT 2: God I forgot how effective a Harpie Lady deck was. Okay, so definitely a Johnny, dos combos making a 1300 attack card buff up to 2500+
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 13:34:29 GMT -5
ive always thought johnny meant more of "goes out of their way to be unique," which i find really easy to pick out in many games. From what I've read in other articles on the same topic Johnny "uses the game to express themself"; being unique is a big chunk of that category. In hindsight One With Nothing should be more of a case of Johnny leaning towards Spike. This hybrid subtype prioritizes knowing every strategy in the game and how to make it at least somewhat viable. They have the most research done on the game, the most flexible, and the most likely to pull out that stupid epic deck nobody in the history of MTG ever conceived of. Contrasting that to Johnny meshing with Timmy these players stick themselves into a corner of a game on purpose and try to revolve around single playstyle or a specific element. There's shotguns enthusiasts, monored all day e'ry day, that guy who plays nothing but Yoshi in SSB, and soforth.
|
|
|
Post by bmac39 on Nov 22, 2014 22:03:53 GMT -5
I don't play MMORPG's. Regardless,
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Dec 5, 2014 9:03:30 GMT -5
Since I'm stupid and couldn't copy the picture.. and also don't play mmorpgs.
Killer: 60- Explorer: 53 - Achiever: 53 - Socializer: 33.
I failed all criteria. New low score! And it said I failed at achieving...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 3:05:34 GMT -5
There are 10 things every game needs: 1) A Goal 2) Rules 3) Interaction 4) A Catch-Up Feature 5) Inertia 6) Surprise 7) Strategy 8) Fun 9) Flavour 10) A Selling Point
I think anyone can look at these basic elements and see how each game contains these things, but what about fun? Be it mild or wild everyone plays games to experience fun of some description. But what is fun? What is it? WHAT. IS. FUN? WHO MAKES THE FUN TICK?! WHAT THE FLYING FU- What is fun? Baby don't hurt me- don't hurt me- no more. Fun is believed to be associated with the idea of novelty; being flooded with new information. A player is forced to think differently and deal with all the new, compelling problems they have to solve. The best games understand this principle thoroughly; it's why games often start out simple and become more complex/hectic as things progress. It starts off with a novel idea and throws in more and more novelties in to keep things interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 15:17:51 GMT -5
what does that even mean? Okay, maybe that one isn't as obvious, either. Inertia describes a game state where one party will do something that can win them the game if nothing is done to upset it. It sets a clock; it either forces the other player to disrupt the other player, OR put an even shorter clock on the opposing player. That forces interaction and is a common way to make a game interesting. Inertia is the assurance that the game will end at some point; preferably before the players get bored.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 0:01:59 GMT -5
When Mark Rosewater discusses game design he uses a term called Lenticular Design. It describes the different ways a player sees the game as they grow more experienced with it. A lot of game developers that make intensively complex games understand this concept, but Rosewater is probably the first to give it its own term. Lenticular Design is the art of making the complexity of a game hidden until a player discovers it for themself. It's useful for making a low skill floor and a high skill ceiling without compromise, and a lot of the most mechanically intrinsic games out there use this. For instance the TF2 stock rocket launcher is just a weapon to a new player. To a veteran it can hamper an opponent's movement, which is useful for a follow-up shot or an ubered target. It can also serve as an engine to transfer health into mobility, and for that a simple weapon suddenly gets a lot of complexity. In an article Rosewater wrote ( archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/293) he describes how Lenticular Design affects magic the gathering, and a lot of it transfers over to gaming in general. Some of his guidelines have a lot of overlap, but he basically says: -An item can be neglected because nobody understands what it does, or they understand what it does and don't see how it can bring value over another setup. -The more experienced a player is the further they'll think ahead. This means new players need to see some immediate use to an item or they won't use it. -New players will go out of their way to maximize the use of their new stuff. (There is one brave soul out there who swatted down a sentry with a Homewrecker.) The best part of lenticular design is how it's a non-intrusive way to teach players about new strategies to try out. TF2's unlock system is brilliant in the sense that a lot of stock loadouts get a secondary weapon. Whether intentional or not, it was convenient for newer players who will probably spam and miss a lot. They're not the best setups at the pro level, but for a new player they are.
|
|