next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

Please help keep (=WDG=) alive

• Server rules
• Forum rules
• Join us
  
• Clan members
• About the clan
• Server stats
• WDG YouTube Channel
• WDG Downloads
• IRC Webchat

Steam groups:

• WDG community
• WDG clan group
• WDG Battlelog Platoon

Our allies:

• [NuB] TF2 clan
• Velocity Gamers Hub
• Destination Gamer

GoG Links:

• Wix Discord
• Wix IRC channel

TF2 Links:

• Official TF2 Blog
• TF2 Steam Forum
• The Fort 2

October 2025

Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31
	Birthdays
Uzz919 (29), FlowingEye (36), Karthus (35)
	Upcoming Events
Upcoming Birthdays: Uzz919 (29), FlowingEye (36), Karthus (35)

[Brahms]

Why not a thread about game design in general?

To start us of, what do you guys think about games that it sucks to lose in? Personally I won't spend much time on them because I don't really have enough time to get good enough at games to win at them all the time.

[Mr Chug]

Depends on a few things for me; length of an individual 'round' of a game, amount of bullshit involved through levels/unlocks, dependency on luck, size of team I'm playing with, etc. For example, Battlefield games:
- rounds are 20-30 minutes (ish?)  which is a pain to battle through and lose
- unlock bullshit is ridiculous (at least in BC2). Doesn't matter if weapons are perfectly balanced and suit different play styles; if I won't unlock a weapon more suited to my play style for 30 levels, I'm going to be a liability.
- there aren't many dice rolls involved, so that helps
- team sizes are large, and this is the key: no one cares about losing because it's accepted that you can play well individually and still lose as a team (because noob team).

Therefore: if you make it to high levels, losing doesn't suck because your individual score is more important. For me, I didn't stick with battlefield due to the early levels putting me off- I don't mind losing to a veteran player because he's better than me, but when I lost because he's got better equipment than me it just sucks, and that's poor game design.

[Leftism]

You mean immersion, Brahms?

Intuitive controls (so I'm not thinking about what button does what) and a rich range of sounds (ambient especially) are strong factors for immersing myself into a game.

[DeadlyAvenger]

I don't mind whether I win or lose, as long as I had fun in the process.

If you're not having fun because you're losing you should play a different game.

But if you have fun when you're winning, does that mean you still shouldn't play the game any more?

Don't tink I ever sed dat bruv. You either misinterpreting me or I is well inarticulate at describing my points.

I think I was making a counter point. If you're having fun and winning but there's a chance you could be losing and not having fun - should you stop playing that forever? Does the fun from winning outweigh the not-fun from losing?

I think for me, it's less about winning or losing as a team and more on whether or not I played to the best of my ability. If I played well but we still lost then I don't mind losing. If I played badly and we won then it feels like my team carried me. If I played well and we won then that's when you get the most enjoyment as you feel like a credit to the team.

For some games - winning or losing is pretty irrelevant to how much fun you're having.

[Mr Chug]

League of Legends is a good example of a game that can absolutely suck to lose, but the joy of winning outweighs it (most of the time). Think Deadly's referring to your not wanting to spend much time on them, because it sucks to lose on the way to getting good enough to win, B. For me it's the opposite; games like LoL and Assassin's Creed MP suck to lose at, but the rush of winning and enjoyable gameplay make the learning curve bearable. I gave up on Battlefield because I just didn't enjoy it on its own due to feeling as threatening as a light breeze when going up against level 50s, where the level advantage is much more pronounced. Battlefield doesn't suck to lose at in normal play.

[Karthus]

Theres 2 factors IMO that make a multiplayer game no fun to lose at.

First, if its a teambased game and not 1v1, this can be very frustrating already. If youre an above average player or just know that you did well in this round (f.e. BF3) and then still lose because your team is shit, it can be very annoying because you know you were not the deciding factor on this loss at all. League of Legends or Dota is a good example for that aswell, bad players in your team can have such a big influence on the games outcome in Moba games and its highly frustrating to see your team lose because someone else fed the enemy team. I currently dont play any 1v1 game, I used to play some Warcraft 3 back in the day and Worms Armageddon and even if I lost I know that it was entirely my fault, so I didnt feel "betrayed" from the games mechanics or any teammates I have, as you said in the shoutbox Brahms, 1v1 games like Chess or just singleplayer games like Spelunky or Diablo dont impact you as much when you lose at them because you know that YOU did something wrong, not someone else.

Second, the game design can be a deciding factor if a game sucks. For example if you know already that you cant win a round in BF3 because youre behind 300 tickets, well you lost, but since its an automated game youre playing that means youll have to wait another 100 or 200 tickets for the round to end, meaning you will waste another 10 minutes in a game you know you cant win anymore. Everyone that played SMNC knows this feeling, a game there can be decided in the first few minutes already if you give their commando a shitton of kills early on, there is no chance for you to come back, but since it takes the enemy team to level up their stats to actually be able to destroy your turrets and your base, you will sit in this game for another 10 minutes knowing you cant change the odds anymore. This happens alot in LoL aswell, when your team is behind like 20 kills before youre even able to surrendervote is highly frustrating and you just know youre wasting your time because the game wants you to.

[Berath]

I don't like losing in games where I'm losing to people who are better equiped and higher level because they've been playing longer; games with progressively better unlocks. It makes me feel I needn't even bother.

This is something putting me off returning to BF3. I know I'll log on and get slaughtered simply because by this time, most players will have unlocked everything.

One of the things I appreciate about TF2 is that if you find yourself get killed all the time (not counting random spam/crits etc), it's down to skill levels of you, your team and your opponents; one reason why I don't like some of the newer weapons is that they skew this. Plus, because there aren't any levels, a long-time player can jump on a server with a completely new player and both can play together, the only difference between them being skill and experience (I'm only talking pub play here).

In my experience, in most other multiplayer games, if you are new and low level, higher and more experienced players want little to do with you because you stop them having fun.

I also think games need to look at their audience and actually consider what sort of game they are. LoTRO is an example. LoTRO is very story-driven and has attracted many who are not traditional gamers (many in my kin only play LoTRO and never gamed before but were attracted by the Tolkien link). Throughout the game, there is an ongoing story running alongside the adventures of the Fellowship. Initially you were required to group to complete some of the parts, other parts were quite tricky, but Codemasters has now nerfed it all, so it can be completed easily by one player. They were finding many of the casual story-loving players were getting frustrated and were not having fun because they were there for Tolkien and story first.

They still have demanding instances and Raids for the experienced, more traditional players.

[DeadlyAvenger]

I never have and doubt I ever will play a game with as much of a learning curve of League of Legends. I'm level 18 now, have played a pretty considerable number of games over a considerable number of hours and I still don't know what's going on half the time.

After all the time I've played the game I still:
- Follow build guides every time I play as I have very little idea what to buy when
- Can't find items in the shop and end up going through every category
- I only own about 5-10 champs, I just about know which lane they go but have no idea for the other 100s (?) of champs which means I have no idea what I'm likely to be up against
- Suck at team fights (generally targeting the wrong player)
- Sometimes have no idea what I should be doing once laning finishes (is it really as simple as either being with your team or farming a lane?)
- Don't really know how to jungle
- Only have about 3-4 champs I consider myself to know how to play

In contrast, I played Tribes:Ascend for a couple of hours and knew most of how the game works.

Another game that supposedly has a pretty steep multiplayer curve is Starcraft - but I've spent less time playing that and am at a level where I know what's actually going on when I play.

just singleplayer games like Spelunky or Diablo dont impact you as much when you lose at them because you know that YOU did something wrong, not someone else.

Except when you lose because of a stupid game mechanic (i.e. QTEs) or because the game decides to autosave at a point when you have very little ammo, no health and are being shot at (ref: Max Payne).

[Karthus]

Thats something else, I was mainly referring to legitimate deaths in singleplayergames where you know you did something wrong.

[Mr Chug]

Something like Dwarf Fortress is the extreme case of 'sucks to lose'- with DF, you enter a game knowing full well that your fortress WILL FALL eventually, but the fun comes from getting there. As my last few dwarfs are fleeing for their lives because I dug too deep and got ambushed by a demon, I'm already planning my next fort, because I know I'm going to enjoy the experience without having to worry about winning.

Edit: just to clarify, even though DF games last ages and have a lot of bullshit, I've found it generally doesn't suck to lose more than once, since if you don't want to lose, you don't play Dwarf Fortress.

[DeadlyAvenger]

Thats something else, I was mainly referring to legitimate deaths in singleplayergames where you know you did something wrong.

I know - but dying (repeatedly) because a stupid game mechanic (not because of a lack of skill/experience) is a sure fire way to ruin some of the fun of a game.

[Berath]

I agree with Deadly...LoL is a very unsympathetic game to newcomers which can definately=not fun.

There is so much background stuff you need to know outside the basic mechanics, and whilst you're trying to pick it all up, you're letting your team down so no-one has fun.
This is why I prefer SMNC - fewer champs/pros and builds, much more manageable to learn but there is  still enough teamplay and strategy required to get your teeth into.

But hardest thing in any multiplayer is how to integrate new players with old players. Some like LoL don't bother and just try to decrease the learning curve, others introduce buddy schemes...there is a MMO that does this, I forget which.

Thinking about game mechanics..Alice Beyond Madness is interesting. It's amazing to look at but sometimes the speed of the graphical effects gets in the way of the responsiveness required during combat or whilst completing puzzles. That is frustrating.

[Brahms]

Lots of good points.

I would say to Berath though that the default weapons in BF3 are still the best guns. Ask disco, he rages about it everytime we play.

Chug raises a good point about Dworf Fortress. Other games like this are roguelikes, Dark Souls, Spelunky. You are probably going to die whatever happens. The death might be super frustrating too, however the act of playing the games themselves is fun, so losing at them isn't a big deal.

Part of this is a mental thing. Some people are competitive about things and are concerned with beating themselves / others / arbitary challenges. Other people are not, or are competitive about different things.

Personally I find that w/games the advantages of winning are so poor that I cannot play a game that is fun when losing and so will only play games that are fun no matter what (never play blorfield on my own), or not take games seriously (lol)

Leftism makes a good point about immersion, I get a lot out of a grand bf3 engagement whether i win or lose. The great graphics, sound design and animation really help with this. Nice big levels where you can spend a bit of time thinking "This is all very nice isn't it" help too.

[Brahms]

I also play games that are so easy I don't lose (but are still fun)

[r007]

As I consider myself mostly a casual gamer, I somewhat concur. But, where do you draw the line? Does it already suck enough to bury yourself in lava in Minecraft and lose a whole inventory's worth of swag? Or is that still just mildly annoying?

I think much of it boils down to frustration potential.
Consider for example Lode Runner, for the Commodore 64. You've got three lives, where after you lose the last one you restart from Level 1. So losing at a high level incurs an insane amount of "UUUGH I need to go through ALL OF THIS again!".
OTOH in, say, Mass Effect, when I mash derp on the Keyboard and get up from cover right into an Instadeath, it's not that much of a big deal, because at the very worst, I restart from the last autosave, which are pretty well-placed I think.

So is a game better the less frustrating a death is? Or does it take out the challenge?