This is a blatant lie, though. There is such a thing as bad game design. If there wasn't, you'd just be able to write down random numbers and rules that don't really work together, and poof, you have a great game.
It's like saying that a car that doesn't have a working engine isn't any worse than a car that runs.
>>43464384 >There is such a thing as bad game design. Many people don't bother maybe because they don't care (for whatever reasons) or maybe because they've never been exposed to similar games with better mechanics.
Look at board games. Most people know Risk. Most people instinctively recognize it for the huge turdfest it is even if they're not dedicated board gamers themselves. Much fewer people know any other area control strategy game so Risk hits the table again. Maybe not often, maybe not with raging enthusiasm and standing ovations but it does. And thus the circle of shit continues.
While this is true, but 90% of the "bad game design" arguments on /tg/ are horseshit by folks who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag. And "this is not well designed," even if true, is not necessarily an impediment to an enjoyable game session. It can be, but it may never even come up for some groups and games - a lot of "problems" people have with games on /tg/ are more about theorycrafting and stroking their autism than any serious, real-world hindrances.
Aside from lack of exposure to other games, and setting aside personal bias about which games are "bad" or not, probably the biggest reason people play bad games is because it's a compromise.
Ask a bunch of people what they want to play - give them a 1st, 2nd, and a 3rd place choice. If your group is *anything* like mine, it's going to come back something like >2 votes for a 40K RPG, but no superhero games >2 for superheroes but no gritty games >2 for a gritty fantasy game (WFRP or ASoIF), but no sci-fi stuff >2 for "no preference, just don't make it suck" >1 vote for the voter's batshit homebrew >1 vote for FATAL from the guy who wants to see the world burn >1 vote for GURPS from the guy nobody likes >6 votes for D&D 3,x, and they're ALL 3rd-place votes
So you end up playing D&D 3.x (which, bias aside, is generally the primary leading example of "bad games"). It's not a game *anybody* really wanted to play. Nobody's really enthusiastic about it, but everyone can *live* with it, and it's not so hated that anybody is listing it as something they absolutely won't* play.
It's not really a "tyranny of the majority." I'm not sure of the actual term, but "tyranny of the mediocre" sounds about right.
>>43465441 >>1 vote for the voter's batshit homebrew >>1 vote for FATAL from the guy who wants to see the world burn >>1 vote for GURPS from the guy nobody likes Also known as average "tg how do I run X" thread
What a lazy argument. If a game has rules that are unintuitive, don't fit the concept they're trying to represent and/or fall apart after X happens, then there's a source of displeasure, and therefore less fun. If the background fluff is poorly thought out tripe or doesn't fit the crunch, that takes away from the game. Sure, you can grab a bunch of friends and laugh at retards humping trees in the park, that doesn't make the retards "fun". It just means you and your friends are a bunch of cunts.
"she's full of fun" antonyms: boredom, misery •a source of this. "people watching is great fun"
synonyms: ridicule, derision, mockery, laughter, scorn, contempt, jeering, sneering, jibing, teasing, taunting "he became a figure of fun" antonyms: respect •playful behavior or good humor. "she's full of fun" •behavior or an activity that is intended purely for amusement and should not be interpreted as having serious or malicious purposes. "it was nothing serious; they just enjoyed having some harmless fun" •(of a place or event) providing entertainment or leisure activities for children. "a 33-acre movie-themed fun park" adjective informal
adjective: fun 1. amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable. "it was a fun evening"
synonyms: enjoyable, entertaining, amusing, diverting, pleasurable, pleasing, agreeable, interesting "a fun evening" verb North Americaninformal
verb: fun; 3rd person present: funs; past tense: funned; past participle: funned; gerund or present participle: funning 1. joke or tease. "no need to get sore—I was only funning"
>>43468722 Fun is actually a really poor factor to use when reviewing games, which is entirely possible and should be done more often than it is.
Specifically because fun is subjective and unquantifiable as you say.
Say that you play a game and you're having fun. Sure, that's good, but there is no way to say that you're having fun BECAUSE of the game or DESPITE it. How much fun you're having depends so heavily on how you are as a person and what people you're playing with and all these factors.
So in fact, games should be reviewed from the context of pretty much everything else except if they're purely fun or not. Sure it can be interesting to hear whether a reviewer had fun playing a game or not and why they think that is, but they shouldn't let it color their review of the game too much.
Stockholm syndrome from being introduced to a bad game. They think all games are roughly as bad or hard to learn, so they stick with it when they could be free.
And some people are just really bad at rules analysis. Some people STILL deny caster supremacy in DnD5e and 3e despite overwhelming evidence. Some people still think Exalted 2e is playable without strong house ruling or an ironclad social contract. Helping these people is like helping the mentally ill - sometimes there's treatment and a breakthrough, but often all you can do is hope.
First they get lured in by some superficially attractive thing, e.g Spess in 40k. Then, after all the time spent wadding rulebooks up their ass and pissing good money down the drain, it becomes a matter of investment bias.
There's also sometimes a weird tribal element. You get people who'll identify with a game playerbase and shit on its 'rival' systems just because it's not 'their' game.
Often because of the time and money requirements people focus on a single game, sometimes a handful, and don't have the opportunity to try others. Thus a lot of people playing bad games simply don't know any better.
>>43465245 >Guy1: Jim's chilli tasted fucking terrible last night. >Guy2: But we had a fun night around the dinner table anyway, and you can't cook at all! >Guy1: So? >Guy2: It means that what you said about his cooking is invalid and you're an autist who doesn't know how to have fun.
>>43463206 It's like digging with spoons. You have this guy who needs to dig a hole, and the first thing he uses is a spoon. He finds that it works, but not as fas as he heard others can dig. He never thinks that there are better tools than a spoon, he just figured that they can work a lot faster. So he spends days and years digging with a spoon eventually he get really good at it, then one day someone shows him a shovel. This new thing is strange and different, he turns away from the shovel and back to the spoon. After all, it's worked well for him so far.
>>43463206 same reason people play games where they get the shit kicked out of them. overcoming the challenge is often its own version of a reward, even if it would be ideal to have a system that worked well.
>>43463206 No game is inherently shit Racial Holy War and FATAL notwithstanding. Even those could be said to not be inherently shit, as despite their god awful mechanics, SOMEONE must have enjoyed them at some point. Maybe not RaHoWa, but who knows? Games are mean to be fun. If someone has fun, then the game is doing its job.
I'm talking about shit like the guy I spoke to two weeks back who called Apocalypse World's design "retarded" and suggested that it be better if it were changed. But his "improvements" were such that players would be stripped of all power and agency, left entirely to DM whim, because he didn't understand the reasons for the existence of components he thought should be stripped out. Not knowing the first thing about what he was doing, he just declared parts of the system to be unnecessary and stupid, like a meth-head with a wrench trying to fix a car.
It's one thing to say "this game didn't play well" -- you don't have to understand game design to say that. It's another to criticize a game's design while not understanding the basic principles of what you're talking about.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.