I’m not sure how many of you have ever thought about the concept of forced fun, and why it is unnecessary.
Fun isn’t decided by how many gimmicks you can pack into a game, this fun is only shortlived, and isn’t why people are playing the game for hours straight.
I would argue that there is 1 thing which can affect the amount of fun it is possible to have in a multiplayer game: who it is you’re playing with. You heard me correct, only one thing.
You can have fun doing anything at all with friends, but you can also have your fun completely taken away from you when you’re playing against people who are far superior to you.
When I say: ‘you can have fun doing anything at all with friends’, I really mean it. Think about the Endure vidmaster, doing it alone or with random players would be incredibly boring for the average player. Yet I had absolute tons of fun playing through it with my friends.
And just about the only thing that can make something not fun to play is when you are being destroyed, ie when you’re playing with superior players to you.
Basically, the first priority is to get a matchmaking system that judges you based on your likelihood to win the game, and so should judge purely on wins/losses. In Reach I am constantly either going up against really easy players or people that can destroy me, noting that for the really easy players it is them who are having no fun.
SO! Once we have made sure that everyone has the capability to have the most fun that a game can offer them, ONLY THEN, is it important to focus on things which make the game fun to play.
I should probably put in here what certainly doesn’t affect how fun the game is to play for the majority (I am excluding competitive gamers here, as their fun is different to an average gamer’s fun). Bloom does not affect how fun it is to play, nor does bullet-spread, nor does responsiveness of a strafe, nor does recoil, nor does hitscan/non-hitscan, nor does base movement speed, nor does map layout, nor does weapon spawns, nor does weapon effectiveness.
NONE of these things affect fun AT ALL in the average gamer’s mind. And so it makes complete sense to adjust these things to be of a competitive standpoint, since it creates fun for them. If we’re going for a utilitarian view of creating fun, creating a competitive core to the game with an accurate matchmaking system is easily the best way forward. It also bridges the gap between competitive and non-competitive gametypes, since if the core of the game is competitive, there will be less differences between the competitive gametypes and the standard gametypes.
Back on topic, we have cleared up doesn’t affect fun, but what does? Challenges, non-repetition, and customization. These 3 things are typically seen in most modern games as what constitutes fun, aside from the core gameplay.
Number 1: Challenges
If people are placed in games against those of near equal skill, the challenge of winning against the other team will be present, but not impossible. The challenge is fun, but not frustrating. This is an easy solution, and is inexcusable to miss out. It also means that the weapons will have a certain amount of skill attached to them, but this isn’t a necessity. This does not intrude on either competitive or non-competitive gametypes, and is universal.
Number 2: Non-Repetition
I would relate this to the sandbox of a game, and an interesting and complex variety of maps. People will get bored of the same weapons/maps relatively quickly, and so it’s important to have a variety of different weapons, which are not only unique in appearance, but have characteristic uses gameplay-wise. Ideally we would get a huge variety of maps with some weapons unique to certain maps, to give people something rare to see and something for people to look forward to. This does not intrude on either competitive or non-competitive gametypes, and is universal.
Number 3: Customization
Unfortunately this is where the line between competitive gametypes and less competitive gametypes is most often crossed. I believe this should be kept out of competitive gametypes, since it would be insulting to the core at which the more competitive players hold dear.
Is it so hard to see that these two playstyles’ needs when it comes to fun overlap so much to the point where it is glaringly obvious. The competitive’s idea of fun doesn’t intrude on yours, they want a large sandbox as much as you do, however in the last 2 Halos the majority of the sandbox has been useless. “They only want to use the BR, Sniper and Rockets!”, this is simply not true, they would absolutely love to use the full sandbox, as long as they all fulfill a niche appropriately and are in balance. Isn’t this what you want aswell? Uniqueness combined with non-overpoweredness.
There SHOULD be 2 sets of gametypes, competitive and social, and that would be it, the only difference being a 1-50 system and no customization.
The actual core of the game, should be competitive, as this doesn’t intrude at all upon the less-competitive aspect of the game, as well as bridges the gap between the two parties.
When responding, please don’t responding with the following flawed arguments:
1 Who said that competitive players can decide how the game plays?
2 MLG’s just full of tryhards.
3 I’m a non-competitive player and I care about bloom/bullet-spread/strafe-responsiveness/recoil/hitscan/non-hitscan/movement-speed/map layout/weapon spawns/weapon tweaking.
4 Don’t tell 343 what to do, it’s their game.
5 Complaining before the game is already out, tut tut tut.
1 If it doesn’t intrude on your style of play, or how much fun you can get out of it, why on earth would you care?
2 And you’re just a casual braindead (see? I can generalise too)
3 No, you’re pretending to care. Have you ever thought, damn, this game is so fun/not fun because the strafe responsiveness is so low?
4 What are these forums for then?
5 I’m not complaining, I’m suggesting.