D-Cire, per usual is spot on.
What I was trying to do was get the developer to think and use reason. I believe that he's defending his game, not explaining his design.
The reason this developer couldn't/wouldn't answer my question is because this developer is too young/inexperienced to grasp design theory, but also that the developer is attached to a deeply flawed design because they lack the experience and skill to change it.
This has to do with the fact that they aren't starting from a blank slate, but rather a ripped source code.
In the end, this user isn't answering the question for a variety of reasons:
1) They lack the skill to change this.
2) They lack the experience to come up with something better.
3) They lack the reasoning skills to see that there is a problem in the first place.
4) They mistakenly believe that this design isn't problematic because it's been used in other games.
5) They cannot comprehend that someone could see flaws that they do not.
I wanted to try to lead this user to a point of view that I felt was valid. They were free to disagree, but instead of discussing the issue rationally they dismissed any opposing views without consideration based on the assumption that "This is what naruto games do." and that I just don't understand the genre.
What this user doesn't understand is that game design doesn't care about genre. Genres are a series of trope/mechanics that are all individual design considerations.
This user isn't experienced enough to realize that ALL games must justify the existence of every individual component. You don't have to play the game to understand the mechanic or the constraint so long as it's explained to you. However, some constraints just don't work in reality because your assumptions about what implications they would have are wrong. So there is a limited degree of testing that needs to be done to see if the theory actually works. However, I think it goes without saying that what we're talking about here is nothing new or innovative. We're talking about something deeply flawed that violates conventions that have proven to be successful and adheres to conventions that have proven to be failures.
So yeah, I knew the guy was new, so I didn't want to be mean to him. That's why I asked questions. (And also, he's right. I don't know about his game. Asking the questions gives him a chance to explain his design process. Which he failed to do spectacularly. If you can't justify your design, and can only defend it, it's poorly designed. Period.)
i think you just explained it alot better then i did i coul;dnt explain it in detail because he wasnt familair of how the naruto thing works thus i cant explain something that he has no knowledge of in detail.
| |
Daiguren Hyourinamru wrote:
i think you just explained it alot better then i did i coul;dnt explain it in detail because he wasnt familair of how the naruto thing works thus i cant explain something that he has no knowledge of in detail. I explained what Ter was asking you, and the answer to it. I just did so in both Naruto, and generic terms. You however need to accept that Ter's advice is correct in this situation. You have design flaws in your game that need to be handled and revised accordingly. | |
Daiguren Hyourinamru wrote:
i think you just explained it alot better then i did i coul;dnt explain it in detail because he wasnt familair of how the naruto thing works thus i cant explain something that he has no knowledge of in detail. I've already mentioned that setting is not an excuse for being unable to explain gameplay mechanics. I don't need to know anything about Naruto for you to explain your gameplay mechanics to me. If you can't explain your gameplay mechanics well to someone who doesn't know your setting, it means you haven't put thought into them. You have to remember that nobody knew the setting behind Final Fantasy when Final Fantasy I came out, yet they managed to design gameplay mechanics that were able to be communicated to their players. I recently thoroughly explained Dark Souls' gameplay mechanics to Yut Put, and did a good enough job to interest him in playing the game. He completely rethought everything he knew about game design after playing the game. He didn't need to know intricate lore for me to explain the way the mechanics worked. | |
well i understnad what your trying to say however if majority of my player find it alright i see no reason ATM to fix something that isnt broken but to just expand on it
| |
I'm sorry, this completely disregards the entire meaning behind this post. 'It isn't broken, why fix it?'; you're fixing the part of it that's wrong. You're making it better.
| |
*sigh* as i was saying AT THE MOMENT i see no reason to fix it if everyone is okay with it keyword AT THE MOMENT why? because there other things i have to do before i can get to that
| |
I wasn't saying to do it right now, nor was I saying that in relation to the specific topic you two were on about. I am merely saying you should acknowledge issues present and actively resolve them. That's how things improve, that's how you improve the quality of the source.
| |
AT THE MOMENT Okay, fair enough. | |
There isn't, and that's the point he was trying to get across. He was just trying to make the person realize it on their own rather than flat out stating it in a manner that he would protest.