Jump to content

Palas Atena

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Palas Atena

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

233 profile views
  1. Crazy couple of days, couldn't be here earlier and still can't be here for long. Anyways, I'm gonna number some of the comments (also numbered them inthe quote) that I want to - quickly - talk about. I'm really enjoying this conversation. 1) It's interesting that you would put "motivation" in these terms, meaning something that goes beyond fun, suggesting that it would keep people playing even after they stopped having fun with the game. Unless you meant it's just something extra on top of fun and that people will only play until they get bored anyway. One thing is certain for me, I don't play a game past the point where I'm not having fun it, regardless of how many unlocks/quests/whatever are still left. 2) And that was one of my earlier points, with which you - who's, apparently, on the other side of this discussion's spectrum compared to me - seem to also agree. There is certainly value in a high level character, so why not make that F13's system instead? Have characters unlocked, but give them levels. Sure, maybe you don't get the satisfaction of unlocking the character, but you still get to level it to crazy numbers withouth having to impose the frustration on those of us that don't want - and don't see value in it - to spend all that time just to get a character. Would you be ok with something like that? I still think it's a reasonable middle-ground. 3)Don't be sorry, politics is part of life. I agree with almost everything you said in regards to the value of things and how it's viewed nowadays (this being a keyword here). The argument that you seem to be bringing forward at this point is that games are "socially stratified" and should be as such, so that people can flaunt this and therefore be - help me here, which word should I use? - higher-up/cooler/admired/etc by others. If that's what people want, it's fine by me. But why would I have to take part in this? And this goes back to the middle-ground I mentioned. Levelling characters and getting to walk around in a level 100 LaChappa with a special name, tag, portrait or whatever is just fine. I'm not gonna work towards that, other people might. I just want to play my level 1 LaChappa whenever I feel like it, how is that interfering with others' fun and flaunting and prize-grabbing? I don't see how that interferes. I do see, however, how locking characters may interfere with my experience (caus I've seen it and felt it in other games). Also, I do think people can be content with what they achieved, meaning they worked towards 40 dollars and, in my view, they've earned this game. All those 40 dollars are buying, however, is the right to work towards having the full game. That's where the frustration kicks in the hardest, I think. I think some of us are into gaming to have fun, not to be part of this weird (in my view, of course) society that wants players to acknowledge just how awesome people with different stuff are. I do think that some people play the game for this aspect as well - like you seem to - and that's fine by me. But it seems that, in some aspects, it's not fine by you that I don't get to play the game the way I feel fits me better, which would be picking any character from the start, without having to grind (further) towards it. So it actually doesn't make me more content. Yes, I think we can all agree we all play games differently and want different things from a game, so why not give people just a little bit more options, right? That can't be a bad thing. If you unlock characters but keep a level system in each of them with cool unlocks along the way and something that actually changes the way your name/portrait/character looks at the last level, I'm pretty sure more people could be happy than if there's this locked character (which, like I said earlier, is a pretty clear line in the sand for me) system. I know I'd be absolutely fine with a prestige system. I couldn't agree more with the last part. Prestige and cosmetics are very healthy for the game, specially cause there's the portion of players that want to get and flaunt that stuff, as evidenced earlier in this thread. There are clearly ways to please a greater number of people. I think a prestige system is one of the best for this.
  2. Not gonna quote everybody, but still wanted to contribute some more. This one will be a bit broken, so forgive me. It seems that to some people the game actually dies once it's "capped" and the only reason to come back is to get more stuff and unlock more stuff, which is weird to me. But "weird" is not an argument, just a statement. The game that I played the most in my life (Dota) had no unlocks. When Dota 2 came around I basically sold every cosmetic I ever got. But from what I'm seeing, I'm part of a minority here. I've always - and clearly still think - thought that games shouldn't limit my experience (other than with the actual limits of the game. Not flying in F13, for instance, isn't a limitation so much as something that's just not part of the game.) and tell me how to enjoy them. As someone pointed out (and I think this feeling is shared by others as well), they would like to force people to not play the same character over and over. I'm against that sort of thing (forcing people to play a certain way) and, in a sense, it seems that the progression system works as something like that. Forceful, that is. Someone used the TotalBiscuit argument of having more money than time so why not pay to unlock stuff? But from what I understand, F13's system is "level-to-unlock" only. There's no money involved. So you either have time, or... Well, that's your only option. Game longevity was also mentioned, along with something like "if the game doesn't hold its own", meaning that progression is a bit of a life-support for games. As the argument itself mentions, however, that's for games that can't hold themselves up for what they are. What scares me about this is the truth in this statement. What scares me about it is thinking that maybe this system was put in place exactly as a life-support for a game that doesn't hold its own. It would deeply disappoint me. Again, I'll use the one example I have, which is Dota. What holds it in place is its core gameplay, which is there from the start. You can unlock some cosmetics and whatnot, and that does improve the longevity. So why not do something like it here? Why lock core gameplay behind it? A lot of people here said they don't mind the grind or having to unlock. Would you mind if there was no such thing? Would you ask for the grind to be implemented if it wasn't there? Cause there's one thing I never saw (and please, link me to it if you know where to find something like this, I would love to see it): someone asking for a game to lock stuff behind levels and progression. Before the last thing I want to say, I'll just address the "it's too late" argument. This might sound cliche, but it's never too late to discuss ideas and to improve things. Maybe at launch it will have a god-awful progression system, then what? Too late, so just move on? I disagree with being passive and just eating whatever I'm given and I understand how that might annoy some people. But things change in time, usually in long stretches of time, not in an instant. Which is why having conversations like this is so important. Maybe this game will never change, who knows? Maybe they'll never patch a new progression after launch either. But these choices aren't made by devs alone. If players say they don't mind or don't care, then whatever happens is on them. I'm hoping that even if it is too late to change that for launch, that they can change it later down the road. I'm not willing to wait until then to start this conversation. This is part of gaming culture. So maybe this thread isn't going anywhere regarding F13's launch right now, but it's going somewhere. It's sure giving me a lot to think about and it's sure helping me understand how other gamers think and feel about the issues. So... On to the last. Only one person actually answered my question, but I think there's something to take away from that one answer anyway: they said it would suck if they had to unlock stuff and other people didn't. Maybe I didn't word my question properly, but would it be a problem even if you had the choice between a locked or unlocked version of the game? Cause if even then there's a problem, this becomes a whole other aspect of progression which doesn't really concern the game itself, but the people. It seems that you would want progression (given you'd even make that choice to begin with - and as someone pointed out, why wouldn't you ask for free stuff (even though it's not really "free")?) for your own enjoyment, but knowing that someone else didn't have to go through that same grind is what was the problem. That leads us (or at least, me) to this thought: why do people even care how others enjoy the game? If you (and now I'm talking in general, not to the person that answered the question) choose to go down the road of unlocking stuff, grinding and levelling, why do others have to do the same? Again, it just seems to me that a progression system that unlocks core aspects of the game is limiting people's options, limiting their very experience of the game. I can't wrap my head around this idea and understand why would that ever be ok. It seems that some people that enjoy locked content can actually only enjoy it when others have to go through the same thing. "They didn't earn it". But what's the actual problem in this? It seems that fun has become conditional, as in the amount of fun I extract from this game has a huge correlation to how other people play/unlock/enjoy this game. I keep bringing up Dota and I know how much it sucks to have one person in your team just being awful, so of course the way someone plays can impact the fun to be had in team-games. I've had games of Dota that made me want to pull my teeth out, but that was never ever ever caused by someone that had a different cosmetic item. Having locked characters is a whole other kind of deal. I have to go to work, so I'll cut this short. But that's something I think it's worth considering: do you want people to have a choice when it comes to the way a game should be experienced? And just a final jab towards that "not going anywhere" remark, I think this has been a very nice conversation so far that's been bringing up all sorts of thoughts about this matter.
  3. That's why I've been saying in a few of my posts that I'd love for a dev to talk about this. Cause I'm not sure they do know what's challenging or downright easy (or frustrating, or satisfying), so why not tell us a little bit about what they're thinking? Of course we want to believe they're doing great work. But if F13 turns out to be a chore, that'll be just another game out there with a nonsensical progression. I still think that having characters unlocked would be the best move, then just have achievements and other stuff be unlockable for the grinders. But if they think locking characters makes for a satisfying experience, how are they balancing the frustration of the rest of us of not having things available? Sure, it's a matter of choice, but it seems to me that setting it so that you have to unlock characters along with everything else might be too much. From my personal experience, for instance, I didn't get Siege cause it had a system like this. Other people I know didn't buy that game either for the same reason. They loved the free weekend, but they would never buy something that they then would need to unlock. It just seems to me that locking characters is such a visible line in the sand that it might be wiser to just make characters available and keep achievements, trophies, whatever, locked behind progression. Like I said earlier, maybe just make each character have their own level and have things go from there. So I guess another fair question is: is the middle-ground in this issue having characters locked or unlocked? If we had to actually draw a line on what's locked, what would it look like? I'll try to "draw" a representation: 6 Characters / 20 Characters + achievements + abilities + trophies + portraits + titles + character levels or maybe something like: 26 Characters / the other stuff I mentioned Or some other way of dividing it? I'd prefer it the second way. Now there was one other thing I wanted to talk about, but I wasn't sure how to put it (and I'm still not completely sure I should) cause it's even more of an emotional side of the conversation. But after thinking about it, it might be worth putting it out there: F13 is clearly catering to the fans of the series. It feels to me, however, that this system forces (and let's not kid ourselves, progression is forced. Like I said in an earlier post, if there was a choice, I would choose to have everything unlocked. I think most gamers would. But it would be an amazing experience to release a game - and now I'm just thinking out loud - that would give you the option the first time you launched it - and the first time only - between "Play Locked Version" or "Play Unlocked Version", then see what people would choose) fans - and everybody else - to play the game the way the devs want it to be played before the fans - and everybody else - can experience the game the way they want to, play the Jason they love the most, play the counselor they think is cool/looks good/dies well (Chad), etc, etc. In a way, progression tells you how to experience the game, when I think it should be the other way around: people should experience the game how they want (and that includes mastering a character before moving on, for instance, so win-win there). Progression doesn't give us that choice. Or rather, not being able to choose between progression or no progression. As a fan, if I have to grind to unlock my favourite Jason or counselor, it might not be worth it. F13 is supposed to be this amazing game, but I don't get to experience it fully before grinding for levels? That doesn't make sense to me, from a fan's perspective. I realize this isn't exactly debatable cause I already put it under a certain light, but I still think it's a strong argument and something to take into consideration. And now that I think of it, I'm glad I brought that up, cause I'd like to hear from people (not just the devs): would you have a problem with people choosing (if they could) to play and unlocked F13? With people having the choice, from day 1, of which characters to play? If so, why? I'm really interested in the answer to this. Would any of you have a problem with people being able to play whichever character they wanted? If so, why?
  4. I think I could live with something like that. Would be nice to know how long it takes, though. I have a suspicion it's more on the annoying side at the moment, from what I've heard from beta players. Thank you for those cents. But yea, it was exactly what I was saying earlier. When the frustration surpasses the satisfaction, it's just not worth it.
  5. I agree with this. To me the biggest problem is locking characters behind a grind-wall. Oh, yeah, it's definitely changed. In my eyes, for worse. But that's not the point here. I'm suggesting a middle-ground for this issue. Yeah, Diablo has a "progression", in the sense that every game has a start, middle and end. I'm talking about "Account Progression", though, not game progression. Of course, playing Diablo 1 or 2 and starting the game off with The Grandfather pretty much eliminates the game itself. I don't consider the items in that sort of game to be "locked", just like the car keys in F13 aren't "locked" in any way. I agree that it's another way to keep people engaged, but at the expense of the other portion of the playerbase (the ones that don't appreciate or enjoy the grind). Like you said, there are different ways to implement unlockables. So F13 doesn't have to have locked characters and still be able to give players valuable unlockables and things to work towards. I think you agree with me on this. My biggest issue with the current unlock system is that it benefits a portion of the playerbase, but punishes another. A middle-ground would be a much better place for it to be, I'd think.
  6. I want them to explain their thoughts and, hopefully, change their minds on the subject. Now you got me cause the only one I've played there was Elder Scrolls (and just Skyrim). That said, though, Skyrim also has every race unlocked from the start. And I get the preference argument, but there's a way, like I said before, to make it so every side can enjoy the game. That's a good example of a system that forces people to play a certain way. Even if there is unlocking, it could be more flexible and - who knows - completely different. I'm glad you shared your thoughts.
  7. Regarding achievements, trophies and badges, I'm sure there could be stuff like that for killing everybody in a match, utilizing every kill in the game, surviving after 20min, being the first survivor, etc, etc. All of which would not require the game's characters to be locked behind levels to exist. Regarding a game with no direction (which I understood you saying as "no progression", correct me if I'm wrong), I have been given games like that. Many, many, many times. To name a few: Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter 2, Civilization, Diablo 1 and 2 (never seen 3, so I don't know), Dota, Grim Dawn, Counter-Strike. None of these games have characters (or in cs' case, guns) locked behind an account level. Yet, I finished all of those games (except for Dota and CS, for obvious reasons) several times. Cause they're fun and I wanted to see the ending with different characters, I wanted to go through the game with different characters (in some cases, at the same time. As in play a little with Hero 1, a little with Hero 2, so on...) I'll take Dota as an example of an online-only game. Once you download it, you can use every single hero in the roster. Everything you get from "progressing" is - quite literally - useless. Meaning you don't unlock the core of the game, just some cosmetics and whatnot. I understand unlocking stuff is satisfying, at a deep level in our brains. To me, however, that satisfaction is clouded by the sheer frustration of knowing I can't enjoy the full game before playing X hours. That frustration could easily be avoided if they just made character levels. Have them unlocked, but give them levels. Levels that hold behind them special titles, name-tags, portraits, whatever. That way people who want and enjoy the grind can work towards something without hindering the rest of us that just want to pop in the game for the fun of the game, not for the achievements. Is that so unreasonable to ask? Tell me I'm not crazy. If I were given the option - in any game - between two links: "Download Locked Version" and "Download Unlocked Version", I would always choose the unlocked version. I think most gamers would. Maybe I'm wrong. It would surprise me if I were, though. Surprise and sadden me a little, too. Games without unlocks aren't fun? So basically what's fun, in your argument, is the act of unlocking things and without it no core gameplay can hold its own. I named a few games earlier in this response. Do you find any of them to be fun? Keep in mind that unlocking cosmetics/getting achievements and unlocking core elements are two very, very different things. --- I'll repeat the question to the devs if they somehow get a hold of this thread: why? Why is this system a thing in F13? What's the reasoning behind it?
  8. I gave it a lot of thought on where to post this and decided that "feedback" was a good enough category (but if this falls more under "general discussion", then if someone could kindly move it I appreciate it), even though I'd also like to understand the reasoning behind certain things besides just giving my feedback from - disclaimer - the perspective of someone who hasn't played the game. My biggest (and so far only) issue with the game, is this so-called levelling system. The (infamous) system in which people have to play in order to unlock other aspects of the game. In this case, characters. My question would be "why?". But let me elaborate a bit more. Why does a game like F13 need such a system? Which would also bring us to the question of why any game (and, more specifically, which kind of game) needs a system like this. I'll start this by telling a few of my personal experiences with this argument and then try to broaden the spectrum until it's a more general approach. So... Whenever I bring this up to people I'm bound to, at one point or another, hear the following: "Well... It's a way to keep people engaged, it gives them a reason to play the game". I'm always baffled by that argument. Why do people need a reason to play a game other than "it's a great game"? Are games not good enough nowadays to keep people entertained for more than a few hours before they're "looking for reasons" to keep playing it? Is F13 good enough to keep people entertained? Another thing I'm bound to hear is: "this system helps people understand and learn to play the game before they move on to harder characters". The logic behind this argument is that people can't be trusted with how they approach the game. Maybe they'll ruin it for everybody else that's playing online with them. As gamers, however, we all know new people will more than likely lose, horribly, regardless of which character/hero/weapon/etc they pick, even if it's labeled "noob-friendly" or "recommended starter". Now, I think people know better how to enjoy their own game. Meaning also they know better how they enjoy mastering (or not) characters, for instance. Some people wouldn't mind, for instance, playing Diablo 1 until the end with the Warrior before moving on to the Rogue, then after finishing the game again, moving on to the Sorcerer. For those people, a level-to-unlock system means nothing, cause that's how they play the game anyway. Other people (like myself) would start Diablo 1 with the Warrior, play for a little while, then move on to the other two to see what they're all about. In this case, a level-to-unlock system would only serve the purpose of limiting my experience. So, in the imaginary case of Diablo 1, having a system such as this would be meaningless at best, and taking away one way to play the game at worst. I am glad D1 doesn't have a system like this. Maybe I don't want to fully master a character before I move on to another. Why can't I have that choice? Why can't others? Level-to-unlock systems limit the experience and the way people play the game, which reflects on how much they enjoy the game. I can speak for myself, it changes how I enjoy and perceive the game as a whole. Now, as an even broader stroke, this system is the backbone of free-to-play games. And of course they are. People need money and free games need a way to make money, which is the progression system. Being part of this thing is the "price" you pay for playing a free-to-play game. F13 is not f2p, however. Unless they're planning on making more money by allowing people to pay for early unlocks of characters, this levelling system makes no sense. Again, its only functionality (I was gonna say "purpose", but I don't think it's on purpose) is to limit the experience of those who don't want to play a few select characters to exhaustion before moving on to others. Another thing I hear in discussions, this time regarding F13 specifically, is "well, you haven't played the game, you don't know how the progression works, maybe you unlock stuff very quickly". But if that's the case, then the system is meaningless yet again. Why have a progression at all if every game you play unlocks a new dude (I'm not saying that's the case, it's obviously just an exaggerated example). Even that's besides the point, cause it's not about whether the system is generous or not, it's about it existing in the first place. That brings me back to the question I'd like answered, which is "why?". Why is there such a system in this game? Are you planning on making more money by charging for unlocks? If not, then what's the reasoning behind it? I could try to respond to remarks before they're even made, but I'll cut this short and end it here. I do hope to hear from a dev on this, but we'll see what happens. To me it all just seems like an awful idea. So why? What's the reason for this system to exist in F13? PS: I would also like to know if the "official Discord" (the one in which the devs drop by now and then) is actually owned by one of you devs. Cause today I was talking about this exact subject (levelling-to-unlock) to another user - both of us using the respective "@name" to communicate - when a mod very kindly told us to shut up about the issue and that the discussion was over. I thought that was very, very weird. I wasn't talking to the general public and neither was the other user, we were just talking to each other without opening a new private window, but somehow the mod felt it was her duty to stop that conversation. So, if that Discord has anything to do with the dev team (and even if it doesn't have anything to do, maybe the owner of that discord will see this), consider this my complaint towards the moderation of that channel. EDIT: Thank you for your answer regarding this thing, bewareofbears.
  9. I've been playing games on pc for over 20 years now. All-time favourites include Diablo 1, Doom 2, Dota, CoD 4, Nosgoth (rip), SolForge.
×
×
  • Create New...