|
|
 |
| [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.
 |
| 75. |
Re: Valve Single Player Clarification |
May 11, 2011, 00:47 |
Jerykk |
|
|
You've asked me to supply you with data to support your false conclusions. I'm not interested in participating in a farce like that, so feel free to source and cite your own points. Until such time as you do I think I, and anyone else reading this can conclude that you don't have a leg to stand on. I think we can consider this point addressed.
I've asked you to supply data to support YOUR conclusions, not mine. If your data does indeed support your argument and refutes mine, why on earth would you choose not to use it? That doesn't make any sense.
You said "Nobody enjoys doing the actual tasks required to get these achievements." It seems that your argument shifts anytime we actually focus on what you're saying. It's a little disingenuous, J. I think we can both consider this point addressed.
You're failing to distinguish between rewards and the process of attaining those rewards. In this case, the rewards are achievements. In that quote, I clearly state that people don't enjoy the tasks required to get achievements. I never said that people don't like the achievements themselves. That's the whole point of this argument. People are willing to complete silly/random/useless tasks in order to be rewarded with achievements. Without the reward, there is no incentive to complete those tasks because the tasks themselves are not enjoyable.
eSports tend to standardize loadouts to eliminate variables for players; it's less an issue of imbalance and more an issue of streamlining.
I don't think you understand what balance actually means. The whole point of standardizing loadouts is to ensure that skill is the only factor in a player's success. eSports focus entirely on skill, so that's why they don't want any other variables (like unlockables) involved.
I did answer your question, and you've once again ignored what I've written to reduce the argument to what you'd like it to say. I can't really be held accountable for your lack of reading comprehension, so please go back and read the thread again.
You said that you enjoy the tasks required to get achievements. You did not explain why you wouldn't perform these tasks anyway if there were no achievements involved. Actually, I think you said that you would have performed these tasks if you had thought of them yourself. But therein lies the problem: you wouldn't have thought of these tasks yourself because they are random and silly. They don't serve any practical purpose during gameplay and they don't offer any tactical advantage.
Just like you have to work to achieve your unlockables. We've now established that you're comfortable with imbalances, we're just talking about timescale; matches versus longer periods of time. I think we'll score this one a point in my favour, eh?
Sepharo refuted this point rather well so I'll just refer you to his post.
Yes, I think that players with stock weapons can indeed level an opposing team in TF2, no matter their loadout.
If both teams are equally skilled and one team has all the unlockables and the other has none, you honestly think that the team with unlockables has no advantage? Choice is an advantage. Different weapons and items are better suited for different playstyles, as you said. The team with unlockables can adopt more playstyles than the team without unlockables. That's an advantage. For example, if they are playing on a capture point map and a Soldier has the Buff Banner unlockable, he can give everyone around him mini-crits for a length of time. Conversely, the Soldier with no unlockables has a shotgun. While the shotgun may help the Soldier get individual kills, it does not offer any benefits to his teammates. In this situation, the Buff Banner clearly gives the team with unlockables an advantage.
One would think you would celebrate any game mechanic that gets more players to do that in more games.
You're not paying attention. The emergent tactics that players discovered in Tribes had significant impacts on gameplay and forced players to come up with counter-tactics and strategies. All of these discoveries worked towards the fundamental goal of winning matches. How many achievements do this?
No, I think you're the one that's angry. You're irrationally reaching for any point to support your argument, and you're doing your best to shift the goal-posts when you're unable to make a point.
I don't see anything irrational about my argument. I'm pretty sure I've been completely consistent as well. You can tell yourself otherwise but you really should take a look at your own claims first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
