|
|
 |
| [May 08, 2011, 4:29 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
A Gabe Newell interview offers a clarification of recent comments that "Portal 2 will probably be Valve's last game with an isolated single-player experience." Here's word: “I think what we’re trying to talk about is the fact that, not that we’re not doing single player games. Portal 2 was a pretty good example of what we’ve learned over the years in terms of how to create those experiences. It’s more that we think we have to work harder in the future, that entertainment is inherently increased in value by having it be social, by letting you play with your friends, by recognizing that you’re connected with other people.”
[…]
“That’s the thing that we’re trying to say, is that, single player is great but we also have to recognize that you have friends, and we wanna have that connected as well. So, it’s not about giving up on single player at all, it’s like saying, we actually think that there’s a bunch of features and capabilities that we need to add into our single player games to recognize the socially connected gamer.”
Thanks RipTen via VG247.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 70. |
Re: Valve Single Player Clarification |
May 10, 2011, 15:51 |
Jerykk |
|
|
You tried to suggest that the behaviour of people on these sites is indicative of a certain type of behaviour, the burden of proof is on YOU.
The very existence of sites dedicated to achievements is indicative of the appeal of operant conditioning. I highly doubt achievement websites would exist if people didn't care about getting icons or gamer points. You seem to be familiar with these websites so it shouldn't be difficult at all to provide links to them. The only reason not to do so would be if those websites reinforce my point.
Actually, you were trying to suggest that people don't like achievements.
Please provide an actual quote where I suggest that. This entire argument has been about why people like achievements and why I don't agree with their mentality. I'm pretty sure I never, at any point, claimed that achievements were unpopular.
I've already answers your question as to why I find achievements to be a valuable guide; perhaps you weren't paying attention or you were too eager to form your next argument.
You still haven't answered my question: if the tasks required for achievements are enjoyable to you, shouldn't you be doing them even without the promise of an achievement? There's a big difference between "valuable guide" and "sole incentive." The only reason you'd go out of your way to try to set three scouts on fire at the same time in TF2 would be to get an achievement. Your argument essentially consists of "I like achievements!" without actually analyzing the underlying reasons why.
When you first faced an opposing player with quad-damage in Quake or the berserk pack in Doom did you just give up? Or did you try to find the best way to mitigate their advantage.
Nobody starts with an inherent advantage in Quake or Doom. Everybody starts with the same weapons and abilities. If you want to get better weapons or Quad Damage, you have to work for it.
Do you currently have a list of games that you've worked on? I'm curious to see the work that you've done on balancing a multiplayer game.
You don't need to be a designer to realize that giving a player more/better weapons/items/abilities gives them an inherent advantage over players who lack those things. Let's take TF2, for example. If you have two equally skilled teams and one team has no unlockables, while the other team has every unlockable, are you honestly telling me that that's balanced? There's a reason why unlockables are banned during competitive TF2 play.
When you say competitive multiplayer, if you're speaking of esports your point becomes moot–a strict set of guidelines exists to govern that. If you're not speaking of esports... at that point it's just a game, so chin up, buttercup, and keep playing (or not, as it suits you).
So you basically concede that unlockables are unbalanced. You just don't care. You could have just said that to begin with and saved us both a lot of time.
You've generalized all achievements - read back in the thread and someone has already put your argument to bed on this as inherently false.
No, they haven't. As I've stated repeatedly, you don't need achievements to think outside the box. If doing something is enjoyable, you'll do it anyway. Like I mentioned, when I play stealth games, I go out of my way to avoid killing or incapacitating anyone. There are no achievements or unlockables for this. I do it because I enjoy it. In Tribes, people did all sorts of crazy stuff. Skiing, mine-discing, disc-jumping, mortar-jumping, body-blocking, beacon-stopping... these discoveries were made because players enjoyed thinking outside of the box and trying new things. And these weren't random and pointless tasks that people only did so they could get an icon. They all drastically changed the game and had tactical benefits.
I'm not angry in the slightest, although I do take exception to the rather rude way you refer to me and people like me.
So... you are angry. Taking offense typically results in anger, which you've shown repeatedly throughout this thread. You're very clearly in denial about why you like achievements so it's understandable why you'd take offense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
