Creation: The side of games where the players CREATE things, games such as many of the SIM games, where you create a world, a city, an ecosystem, a household, or an antfarm... Games where the focus is on creating things to be the best they can be, Generally.
Destruction: The side of games where players are out to kill things, DESTROY things, beat other players, and be the strongest and most powerful. The violent side, for the most part.
Which is better?
It seems like Byond is, to start with, most ideally suited for the creation side. Creation games tend to be less demanding as far as action; they don't require bullets to be flying around, things to be exploding, and all of that to be happening continually, like many action games do. Most creation games also don't require a player "twitch" factor where it's up to the player to do their best at targetting and directing their attacks through the lag.
Then there is the frustration side. You're more likely to get pissed off at an action game where you spent 20 minutes building up your character, only to have someone stronger run by and mow them down in 2 seconds. And that means frustration. This doesn't generally happen in creation games (which exclude RTS), since the focus is on making things better, not destroying someone else's work.
Just some thoughts.
ID:193842
 Oct 13 2001, 6:19 am
|
|
|
Oct 13 2001, 6:57 am
|
|
Nebathemonk
 |
i so heartaly agree. I believe creation is the way to go. I have a huge lego city in my basement. but my friend destorys it all the time, very annoying. Any way, as some people know i have a bit of a temper, and getting pked with out a chance really ticks me off. So i like to build cities and have people come by, look at them and say "nice work", and then we become mortal enemies, becuase all they said was "nice"... so i say that creation grames are better un the long term, but blow-em-up, frustrating, gore games are fun for just an afternoon when your really bored. (just don't make your character to good, or you'll hate being killed)
|
I think BYOND is probably better suited for "creation" games because, as you mention, it's tough to do your typical bullets flying around with this system. The classic game of destruction is an action game and action may be BYOND's weakness. Though I don't feel one type of game is inherently superior to the other and enjoy both, and after all my major game is largely built around killing things, getting stuff, and increasing in skill.
Z | |
Zilal wrote:
I think BYOND is probably better suited for "creation" games Or in your case games of "screwing your fellow players over". Almost all of the Z games are doing just that besides Lexiconomy. | |
Or in your case games of "screwing your fellow players over". Almost all of the Z games are doing just that besides Lexiconomy. You obviously have no appreciation for the finer points of Lexiconomy strategy. | |
Foomer wrote:
Well honestly, most multiplayer games are about that in the first place. That's a rather cynical attitude. To be sure, most multiplayer games are competitive in nature, and winning these generally requires that everyone else loses. But there are a good many games that aren't very cutthroat in their competition. | |
Heh, I worked on a game for awhile using Logo (this never got far, it was just a dumb little thing) that was completely team based victory. I may convert it to BYOND and finish it some time, I think the powerlevelers/thing-builders would like it.
| |
I myself am compelled to create. That is, of course, the essence of life. Pure Potential. People love to create things, stand back and say "I created this" Thats what BYOND is all about!! :-D I love to create games where people can create stuff all day. It somehow releases something inside us, to be able to create something from nothing. Theres a little Megalomaniac inside us all that screams for Possibility!!
But on the Real: I can't seem to grasp the concept of Combat, so all of my games revolve around creation :P | |
Foomer wrote:
That "cutthroat attitude" is up to the players, not the game, but most games allow for it. Players can have as much cutthroat attitude as they want--but it's not going to do anything unless the game allows them to act to seriously undermine the efforts of other players. Suppose, for instance, you've got a Tetris-style game where players simply play their own, independent games and then compare scores, and just for good measure, there's no communication between players whatsoever. Nothing anyone does is going to make anyone else do any worse; it's a contest on each player's part to do the best that they can, period. Few games approach this extreme and I imagine that they're not particularly popular, but that doesn't mean that every game out there is a no-holds-barred screwfest. | |
That's not quite the multiplayer I'm refering to, which was where everyone plays all at the same time, in the same game.
| |
Foomer wrote:
That's not quite the multiplayer I'm refering to, which was where everyone plays all at the same time, in the same game. Amazingly enough, this has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that even in head-to-head multiplayer games, the degree to which players can deliberately screw up one another varies. I said that that was an example of minimizing the head-to-head aspect almost down to nonexistence--there's still a wide range of levels of competitiveness even when players are directly competing and interacting with one another. | |