| 1 |
@jackyzhou554
|
1 |
@jackyzhou554
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Just to be clear, nobody's saying big games never ever end or it's impossible to have impact. They drag but eventually someone wins. Most people who don't enjoy big games are strong players who are still relatively good in large team environments and understand how to have impact, but are bored by the repetition of viable options and are frustrated by the reduced agency relative to smaller teams or 1v1. It's not a gap in understanding, these players typically represent the higher tiers of RTS ability.
|
3 |
Just to be clear, nobody's saying big games never ever end or it's impossible to have impact. They drag but eventually someone wins. Most people who don't enjoy big games are strong players who are still relatively good in large team environments and understand how to have impact, but are bored by the repetition of viable options and are frustrated by the reduced agency relative to smaller teams or 1v1. It's not a gap in understanding, these players typically represent the higher tiers of RTS ability.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
What people are complaining about is a constriction of options pushing everyone toward passivity and punishing interaction. Note that basically all of the options you mentioned are designed to avoid interaction, in fact, not one of them involves two units fighting over territory. You may have more players, but most of them are playing solitaire. In pedagogy these are actually distinct versions of play (parallel vs. interactive) which support different types of learning and correspond to different stages of development.
|
5 |
What people are complaining about is a constriction of options pushing everyone toward passivity and punishing interaction. Note that basically all of the options you mentioned are designed to avoid interaction, in fact, not one of them involves two units fighting over territory. You may have more players, but most of them are playing solitaire. In pedagogy these are actually distinct versions of play (parallel vs. interactive) which support different types of learning and correspond to different stages of development.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
It's okay for you to prefer passive options and games that facilitate them, but characterising this as "creative" feels like a stretch. It's just a different set of parameters that rewards a style that you enjoy. It cuts out large sections of the game in exactly the same way small teams or 1v1 does.
|
7 |
It's okay for you to prefer passive options and games that facilitate them, but characterising this as "creative" feels like a stretch. It's just a different set of parameters that rewards a style that you enjoy. It cuts out large sections of the game in exactly the same way small teams or 1v1 does.
|
|
|
8 |
\n
|
|
|
9 |
Edit: I'm not personally interested in arguing over which side is "correct". We have our preferences and those are unlikely to change through discourse alone. But I think if people are going to argue, that needs to start from an understanding of why preferences diverge.
|
I feel Zero-K isn't fun for half the ppl involved in big games