Thread 718057248

What are some great game design tragedies

That is, cases of things being bad but only because the players can't help themselves, when they could easily be good if everyone just tried

For example
>game is infinitely more fun and memorable with a self-imposed challenge like no fast travel
>everyone will use it all the time, complain the game is not fun or memorable, and complain if there's no fast travel

>game is infinitely more fun if you don't look up anything about it
>everyone will just use a guide and then claim the game didn't challenge or surprise them

>etc

>board would be better if everyone just ignored the schizos instead of engaging with them
>everyone feels compelled to reply and take the bait every time

>>718057248 (OP)
>one weapon is slightly better than all the others if you use it perfectly
>everyone uses it but sucks with it and whine constantly

>multiplayer games have the potential to be wonderful with performance-based individual Elo scores
>everyone naturally gravitates to the team-based scoring systems that are more frustrating and inaccurate but also more engaging and remove individual responsibility

>>718057248 (OP)
>game is infinitely more fun and memorable with a self-imposed challenge like no fast travel
Why make it a self-imposed challenge? I blame the developers in this situation for not trusting their game design. Just remove it. Imagine how garbage Shadow of the Colossus would be if you fast traveled to the bosses and then back.
The PROBLEM usually is that developers themselves use cheats/hacks/console to get around the map fast because it's obviously a waste of time for them to walk over and over when they're testing the game daily. So they lose sight of how a player would feel like playing the game for the first time. This leads to one of two bad situations:
1. They add fast travel because that's how they test the game themselves.
2. They don't add fast travel, but they don't compensate by making the world more rich in discovery and actually interesting to traverse, because they themselves used fast-travel when testing, so it ends up with boring filler slog.
It's also no coincidence that level design goes to shit in the Dark Souls series once fast travel becomes a commodity.

Anyway, for me a great game design tragedy is being too much of a completionist and leaving no stone unturned before moving to the next level even though it might be a better experience to just go with the flow. i.e.
>I'm supposed to get into a bandit camp. I come in from the front, I pass the speech check and the guard lets me in.
>but wait, let's go back and check the other place
>the other place has a secret tunnel that also leads in the bandit camp
>but wait I saw a cliff I could climb on the left
>the cliff lets you also parachute in the middle of the camp
>but wait let me check behind the bandit camp
>yep there's a hidden door I can access with my rogue
So I end up doing "all" the content that was possible meant for a "replay", effectively wasting time solving the same problem several times and spoiling myself the other solutions making further runs meaningless.

>multiplayer game like Overwatch reaches a perfect equilibrium of heroes and maps
>would be fun forever if it stayed like that
>markets dictate that new characters and maps HAVE to be added so the game can stay "fresh" and "relevant"
>fun game gets buried by a bloated mess, it's technically still there but you can never play it again

>>718057248 (OP)
>What are some great game design tragedies
Appealing to the imaginary, casual "wider audiences", or worse: the "modern audiences" woke-tards (= American zoom zooms).

Up until 2006, every business had a single golden rule:
Figure out and pin-point your actual customer, and do your best to appeal to them.
If you did not know your very target audience's gender, age with the accuracy of ONE year, average hobbies, location, wealth, investment rate... you were already lost.

>>718057747
There is no simple way to score individual performance in team based games.
People hate feeling responsible for their own failures and love to blame the others. This is why 1v1 games aren't as common anymore and games with heavy RNG are the norm.
Men love to cooperate and compete at the same time, this is just tribalism us vs them.
The real failure of modern multiplayer games is how we stopped making "friends" because we don't see same players anymore. Dedicated servers / lobbies where you met same people were peak multiplayer experience.
It's basic game theory or morality for that matter.
OP image is retarded because what is the best for All is the best for You and vice versa.
/autistic ramblings off

>>718058336
>OP image is retarded because what is the best for All is the best for You and vice versa.
That is not how the egotistic individual thinks

>>718058994
you're a fucking moron if that's what you take from the post

>>718057821
>Why make it a self-imposed challenge?
The clue is in the rest of the post
>complain if there's no fast travel

>>718057248 (OP)

No fast travel makes BotW an 10/10 game. It makes it feel like a true journey.

>>718058336
>There is no simple way to score individual performance in team based games.
There is, those systems are already in place, for example games might give out more or less ranks for winning depending on your contributions to the team so someone who was carried will get only a small amount of ranks for winning, in an individually ranked system that person would lose ranks or gain nothing even if they're on the winning team

>>718059683
The whole point of the thread is that we don't get what's best for all because everyone individually chooses what they think is best for them, everyone always bitches about team Elo but avoids games that rate individual performance because they don't want to take responsibility of failure and forced 50% winrate is addictive and engaging

>>718060123
fucking moron