I feel like to a degree something like this has happened to the movie industry. Most big makers have observed what seems to get the best reception and are capitalizing on it by creating movies that are just based off existing ones. I haven't seen a new movie that was based off a completely original idea in years
Yeah, I can't even count how many reboots/sequels/spin-offs we've heard about or hit theaters this year, between Disney classics like Jungle Book and iconic franchises like Mad Max. A lot of them are actually good movies, but it's getting pretty tiring having nothing but familiar concepts being re-introduced to us with pretty CGI and big ticket actors. And there are new, original films coming out, too. But it's hard to remember those when the reboots/spin-offs are the only movies we want to talk about. I mean, Chris Pratt is in a relatively original-looking sci-fi thriller that's coming out pretty soon, and it looks pretty good, but everyone's talking about Rogue One, which might just end up suffering from the same flaws as Force Awakens: being exactly everything we expcet from a Star Wars movie. And everybody else who doesn't care about Star Wars is talking about what Marvel movie is coming out next, or what characters should get solo films, or what actors should play them. Then there's people worrying about how the Power Rangers characters look, or if Assassin's Creed will break the tradition of bad videogame movies. With all these people invested in their favorite franchises' Hollywood treatment, it's hard to spare more than a penny for their thoughts on the movies that are based on nothing but the director' and writer's vision.
spinningninja2 Agreed. It feels the best viewing now is tv series - Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, The Wire, Dexter. Every movie now is a comic book or a sequel, I'm now tired of Marvel, D.C. and Star Wars franchises, AAA sandbox games, their shallow depth and their mass marketing. I like original ideas, and I want those ideas explored with depth. Ex Machina, Her, The Imitation Game, Moana are recent movies that explored something original (ideas, technology, history, culture), I don't expect everyone to like them, but they are doing something new!
Yeah, TV is still producing lots of great and interesting shows, Netflix too. Between the film industry and TV, TV is definitely more original at the moment, but they've got their fair share of rehashes/reboots too. Let's not forget all of the comic book-inspired TV and Netflix shows. Again, most of these shows are great (excluding Cartoon Network's reboots), but when the last original thing that really stood out to me (that my memory allows me to think of at the moment) was Stranger Things, which I watched last November, then there's something frightening happening to the entertainment industry. It's called running out of ideas, and I pray that it won't last long.
There is always a different approach to tackle on the world. One would choose to go ahead with what they think will work; a leap of faith to some. Another would choose to learn what data was left behind by those who went on ahead. Some would use the data as a guide to polish themselves, and another would use it as a limit or a boundary to how far they would let themselves go.
I heard this argument when 'Dragon Age' was considering love interests for DAI. They said that because very few players in Origins were choosing to play as Dwarves, that a Dwarf would not be marketable as a romanceable option, despite Varric's popularity. I know that by the time DAI was being developed, DA2 was just an overall flop (despite all the love for what it did well) that BioWare wanted to forget. But this is an example on how metrics dropped a potentially heavy ball in not giving their current fanbase something unexpected and appreciated.
As someone who does data-driven design, one of the huge problems is when non-technical people get involved in analysis. Data is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. Done properly, it can be very helpful for minimizing uncertainty (a HUGE boon for approvals, as anyone in the industry knows) and delivering players what they want. Done incorrectly, it produces stagnation and blown calls. Ultimately though, design is about vision. And a large component of vision is the credibility of the visionary. Forgetting that vision, for whatever reason, throws out the baby with the bathwater.
Zach Barth always talks about an interesting way they use metrics. They release a "beta" with all the mechanics and most of the puzzles that will be in the final game just out of order. Then they collect tons of metrics on each one and use that to order the puzzles and get the right learning curve.
Sucker Punch, the developers of the Infamous series, looked at which of the endings was most popular, and based their sequal on that (hint, it's the good ending)
Well I see a big potential in this concept of metrics, but mainly for pilot games, you know, a short version that you make with the main concepts and short resources and you put on a server to see the reaction of people. If you place your metrics in the right places, you can get a very detailed information about what people liked or disliked of the game and take this data as starting point so you can expand those things that people liked and reduce those who they didn't, but I see a big potential for innovation here, I mean of course the data will not tell you that a portal gun will be a hit, but you can make a demo and see the reaction of the players so you will have an idea about what would be the reaction for such concept fully developed.
Looking back at earlier EC episodes, the "metrics driven" game design is analagous to the "FOO strategy" often found and utilized by players. Some developers have a vision of great works of art that they want to make for the gaming world, and some are just out to make money. The way I see it, metrics-driven game design is pretty easy to spot, and will identify which companies are just in it for the money, and which are out to deliver a great work of gaming art.
Actually, metrics are one of the areas I specialize in, specifically using it to predict trends. The problem is that it's too boring of a subject for me to do professionally, I like coding and storytelling. I have used metrics to give brick and mortar companies an advantage in sales.
+Vector Lightning I think that that would be very easy, if you put a couple of counters you can see how long the player was exploring, how many times he was fighting and against what classes and levels or enemies, if he was wearing the best gear or just basic armor etc, also what did the player do after finding good gear or garbage, etc.
That's more or less what achievements are for. Every time you see "Achievement unlocked!" that's a little bit of info the devs just learned about you. And generally achievements correspond with a lot of the different milestones that would appeal to the different player types.
mw2 was extremely metricised (does that word exist?) They had data about everything, and everything was built as consequence to that data. and it worked. The industry knows what we want, and it delivers. I can't see anything wrong about that
+herman1francis Because they had data from other similar games. You can't make anything innovative and different because you have no metrics to base it on. That's the point of this video.
+herman1francis What +Hannah-Alyssa said. Also, even the best metrics can only give a narrow view. Things internal to the player, like their thoughts and experiences while playing the game, can't be measured, so the resulting data lacks important context. *Why* did the player choose a particular gun over another? Why did they go a different direction from the one the game was trying really hard to direct them toward?
lol does ir better. it mixes what it learns from the pro scene with what commes out of the common players to provide a more balanced, better experience for both
santi tama Well, when I wrote that comment I had not played LoL, but as a now more educated person involving such matters, I would have to agree with you.
Unfortunately, they shoot themselves in the foot in the case of CSGO, they do the later of thing of falsely believing their decisions are correct based on numbers or by listening to a select crowd instead of the veterans of the game because it was by popular demand, they implement it and it completely cocks up the game until they remove it. Then they don't learn from their mistakes. Very annoying if you're one of the community members how already know what is truly good for the game and many people have pointed it out with scientific graphs and research, pictures and videos, you name it! And... Yet, somehow... It seems to go under the radar :|
Lack of beta client. Updates that completely broke the game only to be fixed later. Listening to people who have been playing the game 2 weeks rather than the guys on the Steam Powered User Forums CSGO group who have been playing for 15 years. Introducing weapons that don't fit the series (CSGO added the first auto-pistol.. which makes pistol rounds have no brains) 64tick servers (which means less accurate real-time events online) forced post-processing, movement issues (CSGO being far faster than previous games in the series) accuracy issues, hitbox issues... many many things. It's slowly being improved, but REALLY slowly. And listening to incompetent players who have no idea what they're talking about simply hurts their reputation further. I mean I adore Valve but even I'll call BS on the csgo dev team at times. Recently, a lot of their updates have been decent, some dodgy, but for the most part good... so we're getting there.
Definitely an area where WT got into a hotspot with battle rating, a case for using metrics carefully and knowing what they mean. They attempted to use a plane's survivability as well as its points earned (don't remember whether they used RP or SL) to determine battle rating. The issue, as many WT players will share, is that once a plane or tank has a reputation for being undertiered, noobs gravitate towards that vehicle hoping for an easy win, sometimes not recognizing that it isn't necessarily a forgiving aircraft. This brings down the battle rating (BR) even more and a vicious cycle ensues. Personally, the situation with the F6F having a lower BR than the F4F indicates to me that a lot of this is propaganda based. Planes with good reputations are played in the hopes that it will be easy. When they are not, the large number of people that were caught off guard by how difficult a plane is to fly cause the initial drop in BR, leading to the rest of the cycle where people see a "good" plane with a low BR and drive it down more. Than the exact opposite seems to be happening with planes that are considered overtiered. It didn't bother me at first, but for a while it seemed like there would be no end to the Zero's BR increase. I tend to think that this problem is the inverse of the former in every way. They start with negative publicity, causing players to be reckless in their encounters with these planes. Higher kill rates mean BR goes up, but players often still have the impression that it is a bad plane from what they have heard about it, so they assume it is overtiered. This means noobs gravitate away from these planes, and only players that either don't mind a challenge or already know how to play it well remain. This, in turn, increases the BR and the trend continues in a cycle not unlike natural selection. I have heard they are planning on a total overhaul, but it could be a while.
I actually just stopped play WT, I wanted to buy a lot of the planes just so I could use them but after a few minutes of looking I found out it was too expensive(this game has some serious price gouging issues). So then I started to grind for a few weeks before realizing there was no way I was going to get to the jets in a reasonable amount of time. And this is coming from someone that likes grinds... I had no idea about all this ranking stuff I pretty much just looked for planes that did what I wanted. I'm glad I stopped playing though, games balanced off of stats is always a disaster I ran into this back in 2012 I believe with Starhawk(or when ever it released). Results were terrible.
Baddassattuide Actually, I don't like grinding but I love the game. I think part of it is that many of my favorite planes are lower tier anyway (A6M2, P-40, Bf-110, to name a few). RB events is nice because it doesn't use BR at all, just what planes participated in what battles, though it can still be pretty unbalanced due to being extremely asymmetrical, but Gaijin is doing better on that. I think the fact that you like grinds might explain precisely why it didn't work for you though. I don't think about the grind, because unlocking the next plane isn't something I really think about except that it is a new experience. If you are watching your XP (or in this case RP) bar go up and enjoy waiting for that moment when you level up like in DCUO, then it could be a looong time. I usually just approach each game like a 3D action-packed chess match and get my enjoyment that way.
Wish more developers would put in a Online function that gathers info about their games while people play. Like what Bioware does with Mass Effect 2 and 3. No need for the consumers to report the bugs, the devs should see them.
D&D has this problem. They say that no one is going to lvl 20 when in reality they don't go to lvl 20 because there isn't any content for lvl 20 and they aren't creating any lvl 20 content because no one is playing to lvl 20
Most commercial garlic salt has too much salt in it. I'm a DIY kind of guy and prefer to mix my own from garlic powder and fine-ground salt. Even then, it's still not the answer to every food. Garlic and salt can never do the job of black pepper. Now, imagine if McCormick gathered metrics on how we combined and used all of our food flavoring agents... God help us
You miss understood something. Metric in social games, better, metric using a minimum viable products do not retain the creation to repeat the same thing over and over. Its actually a great tool towards innovation (you can see that in the "lean start-up" method) . In your video you miss a important step on analyzing this spectrum. Using a MVP and fast feedback you can lower the price of releasing a game (or any new product) to the point of being viable, even not having the data to support it (at first). And then, after just a few weeks, you can rapidly retrieve the data from the minimum release and see if the idea is really profitable, or accepted by the costumer. This can be used to learn and change your game to better adapt to your public. In the end this practice reduce the space between consumer and industry making possible for the industry to focus only in things that are well accepted for the costumer, AFTER experimenting with the game and learning from the results. In the Portal example i would say that for the lack of data the best thing would be invest in release a demo and test it with a small group. Depending of the results we could decide to put money on the project, to change it a little bit and do it or to deny it. THIS is learning through metric, is not only repeating what you know that will be good, is using it to focus in what is engaging and accepted without wasting time in what we think is going to be this things. Is doing new stuffs but learning with than. Time is a little short so i have to wrap it up ;D Thanks for reading (if anyone did) and if you are interested in learning about metric and learning practices i strongly recommend "the lean startup" by Eric Ries.
The people playing social games are probably not the same as the ones playing the AAA games, so all the credits to the social games that brought a new people to play, they might someday play triple A's games
Yup pretty much how it's been going but I see some hope like Pokemon creating Pokemon legends. Shows that in the right circumstances some game companies are willing to try
I think metrics are perfect for polishing though. I feel this game industry of releasing a new title every year or so to expand on a series will just create stagnation and a sour taste with every release. I think we need to take from this metric system and release an amazing game, then over the next two or three years, polish and enhance it with DLC's and balancing. Well, at least for multi-player games, it would just make sense.
Also Social games cost a shit ton of money to get past lvl 10. I don't really like games like Farmville and shit like that it is just... to much money to go into it at the end of the day I could have used it to buy a good game that I don't have to wait 4 hours to play.
Don't get me wrong guys but:I _still_ think that it should be the choice of the player if he offers this "metrics"data to the company.I know, they are an essential part of developing games. But do you want to see what happens when this gets out of control? Search your PC for the term "iesnare",check out iovation with Google.I bet you did not sign up for this, but still nearly every game uses this feature.It saddens me to see this development - and they are not doing this since yesterday.
Bayonetta 2, well, Nintendo themselves are publishing it and sponsoring it/throwing money at it, so there's your answer, they won't lose that advantage Bayonetta 2 gives them. And Mega Man, sadly, has never been very profitable despite his popularity. Mega Man 2 is still the best-sold Mega Man game. And that's sad.
all those programmers discuting about metrics, they should be discuting more important things like WHERE IS KINGDOM HEARTS 3?, WHY CAPCOM IS KILLING MEGA MAN?, BAYONETTA 2 MUST BE PUBLISH TO ALL CONSOLES, NO BLUE SHELL IN THE NEXT MARIO KART GAME, MORE FREEDOM IN THE SOUL CALIBUR CREATION, WHAT REALLY HAPPEN AT THE END OF BIOSHOCK INFINITIVE, DEAD OR ALIVE UNDRESS EDITION WITH A NEW CONTROL THAT WE CAN USE WITH ONE HAND...(WHY DID I WRITE THE LAST ONE)
I have a feeling that this is why Battlefront is such a piss poor game and why it lacked so much of what the fans loved of the original series, because they were basing the numbers off of games like Battlefield rather than going for a more interesting and unique design like how Battlefront I and II originally were.
So that's why people are complaining World of Warcraft is becoming progressively 'dumber' and not progressively 'better', and I disagree with those people. When I started playing WoW again, both the official and a private cataclysm server, I found that, simply put, MoP, though the supposedly shallower, dumber, too-newbie-friendly expansion, was just more engaging than cataclysm.
It definitely is more engaging. Another complaint I often see is that without the talent trees there supposedly is less choice with the current system, though the reality was that everybody skilled their tree the same to stay useful in both PvP and PvE instances. Now there are less options but also more differences in kind, especially in the monk class, hitting the levels where you can pick a new skill or feat now feels fun again.
Two years later, this video was essentially a harbinger of the future of gaming...
In a lot of their older videos where they postulate about the future of a certain genre or business practice, they've been dead-on quite a few times.
Hjernespreng I remember them saying that Microsoft will capitalize on the kinect before the X1 came out.
Kyle Hart "...unless they make their next console kinect-compatible or something."
GiggaGMikeE
Truth as much as you can get. Metrics cannot make good games without other factors influencing them :3
extra credits plz :(
I feel like to a degree something like this has happened to the movie industry. Most big makers have observed what seems to get the best reception and are capitalizing on it by creating movies that are just based off existing ones. I haven't seen a new movie that was based off a completely original idea in years
Yeah, I can't even count how many reboots/sequels/spin-offs we've heard about or hit theaters this year, between Disney classics like Jungle Book and iconic franchises like Mad Max. A lot of them are actually good movies, but it's getting pretty tiring having nothing but familiar concepts being re-introduced to us with pretty CGI and big ticket actors. And there are new, original films coming out, too. But it's hard to remember those when the reboots/spin-offs are the only movies we want to talk about. I mean, Chris Pratt is in a relatively original-looking sci-fi thriller that's coming out pretty soon, and it looks pretty good, but everyone's talking about Rogue One, which might just end up suffering from the same flaws as Force Awakens: being exactly everything we expcet from a Star Wars movie. And everybody else who doesn't care about Star Wars is talking about what Marvel movie is coming out next, or what characters should get solo films, or what actors should play them. Then there's people worrying about how the Power Rangers characters look, or if Assassin's Creed will break the tradition of bad videogame movies. With all these people invested in their favorite franchises' Hollywood treatment, it's hard to spare more than a penny for their thoughts on the movies that are based on nothing but the director' and writer's vision.
spinningninja2 Agreed. It feels the best viewing now is tv series - Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, The Wire, Dexter. Every movie now is a comic book or a sequel, I'm now tired of Marvel, D.C. and Star Wars franchises, AAA sandbox games, their shallow depth and their mass marketing. I like original ideas, and I want those ideas explored with depth. Ex Machina, Her, The Imitation Game, Moana are recent movies that explored something original (ideas, technology, history, culture), I don't expect everyone to like them, but they are doing something new!
Yeah, TV is still producing lots of great and interesting shows, Netflix too. Between the film industry and TV, TV is definitely more original at the moment, but they've got their fair share of rehashes/reboots too. Let's not forget all of the comic book-inspired TV and Netflix shows. Again, most of these shows are great (excluding Cartoon Network's reboots), but when the last original thing that really stood out to me (that my memory allows me to think of at the moment) was Stranger Things, which I watched last November, then there's something frightening happening to the entertainment industry. It's called running out of ideas, and I pray that it won't last long.
I agree with Allison at the end there.
Garlic salt is the answer to everything.
+AuraSwordsman true
you mean garlic _bread._
+AuraSwordsman i put it on cereal
Seriously.. this is my new favourite channel... period
Could you do an 'update for 2016' revisit of this concept. A lot has changed in the last, almost 4 years. Rock on.
I don't think that's posable now
There is always a different approach to tackle on the world. One would choose to go ahead with what they think will work; a leap of faith to some. Another would choose to learn what data was left behind by those who went on ahead. Some would use the data as a guide to polish themselves, and another would use it as a limit or a boundary to how far they would let themselves go.
I'm thinking it's about time to update this episode and see where the industry is now. My guess is that EC is too depressed to touch this subject.
I heard this argument when 'Dragon Age' was considering love interests for DAI. They said that because very few players in Origins were choosing to play as Dwarves, that a Dwarf would not be marketable as a romanceable option, despite Varric's popularity. I know that by the time DAI was being developed, DA2 was just an overall flop (despite all the love for what it did well) that BioWare wanted to forget. But this is an example on how metrics dropped a potentially heavy ball in not giving their current fanbase something unexpected and appreciated.
As someone who does data-driven design, one of the huge problems is when non-technical people get involved in analysis. Data is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. Done properly, it can be very helpful for minimizing uncertainty (a HUGE boon for approvals, as anyone in the industry knows) and delivering players what they want. Done incorrectly, it produces stagnation and blown calls. Ultimately though, design is about vision. And a large component of vision is the credibility of the visionary. Forgetting that vision, for whatever reason, throws out the baby with the bathwater.
Zach Barth always talks about an interesting way they use metrics. They release a "beta" with all the mechanics and most of the puzzles that will be in the final game just out of order. Then they collect tons of metrics on each one and use that to order the puzzles and get the right learning curve.
Blizzard. In 2011 I never would've forseen this would be them 8 years
Achievement get: Finish an episode on time.
Sucker Punch, the developers of the Infamous series, looked at which of the endings was most popular, and based their sequal on that (hint, it's the good ending)
Update needed!!!
Everyone should really watch this video. It's not really *new* per say, but its something alot of people loose sight of.
Well I see a big potential in this concept of metrics, but mainly for pilot games, you know, a short version that you make with the main concepts and short resources and you put on a server to see the reaction of people. If you place your metrics in the right places, you can get a very detailed information about what people liked or disliked of the game and take this data as starting point so you can expand those things that people liked and reduce those who they didn't, but I see a big potential for innovation here, I mean of course the data will not tell you that a portal gun will be a hit, but you can make a demo and see the reaction of the players so you will have an idea about what would be the reaction for such concept fully developed.
No, we don't eat controllers. That is for sure. Allison is one of the best animators ever.
With Lean Startup you can try new ideas and use metric to see if they are liked, and then polish or change.
3:55 "Fantastic" lol
Looking back at earlier EC episodes, the "metrics driven" game design is analagous to the "FOO strategy" often found and utilized by players. Some developers have a vision of great works of art that they want to make for the gaming world, and some are just out to make money.
The way I see it, metrics-driven game design is pretty easy to spot, and will identify which companies are just in it for the money, and which are out to deliver a great work of gaming art.
Actually, metrics are one of the areas I specialize in, specifically using it to predict trends. The problem is that it's too boring of a subject for me to do professionally, I like coding and storytelling. I have used metrics to give brick and mortar companies an advantage in sales.
Grr, playlist watching screwed up where this posted.
Could metrics be used to count player types? As in, Bartle's Taxonomy player types?
+Vector Lightning I think that that would be very easy, if you put a couple of counters you can see how long the player was exploring, how many times he was fighting and against what classes and levels or enemies, if he was wearing the best gear or just basic armor etc, also what did the player do after finding good gear or garbage, etc.
That's more or less what achievements are for. Every time you see "Achievement unlocked!" that's a little bit of info the devs just learned about you. And generally achievements correspond with a lot of the different milestones that would appeal to the different player types.
tele = remote in Greek (see tele-vision, tele-phone etc.), so tele-metry is remote measurement
mw2 was extremely metricised (does that word exist?) They had data about everything, and everything was built as consequence to that data. and it worked.
The industry knows what we want, and it delivers.
I can't see anything wrong about that
+herman1francis Because they had data from other similar games. You can't make anything innovative and different because you have no metrics to base it on. That's the point of this video.
+herman1francis What +Hannah-Alyssa said. Also, even the best metrics can only give a narrow view. Things internal to the player, like their thoughts and experiences while playing the game, can't be measured, so the resulting data lacks important context. *Why* did the player choose a particular gun over another? Why did they go a different direction from the one the game was trying really hard to direct them toward?
Valve uses metrics really well in Dota 2 by using the pro scene as a judge of what they should do with certain characters.
lol does ir better. it mixes what it learns from the pro scene with what commes out of the common players to provide a more balanced, better experience for both
santi tama Well, when I wrote that comment I had not played LoL, but as a now more educated person involving such matters, I would have to agree with you.
Unfortunately, they shoot themselves in the foot in the case of CSGO, they do the later of thing of falsely believing their decisions are correct based on numbers or by listening to a select crowd instead of the veterans of the game because it was by popular demand, they implement it and it completely cocks up the game until they remove it. Then they don't learn from their mistakes.
Very annoying if you're one of the community members how already know what is truly good for the game and many people have pointed it out with scientific graphs and research, pictures and videos, you name it! And... Yet, somehow... It seems to go under the radar :|
thesilverw0lf Truth.
Lack of beta client. Updates that completely broke the game only to be fixed later. Listening to people who have been playing the game 2 weeks rather than the guys on the Steam Powered User Forums CSGO group who have been playing for 15 years.
Introducing weapons that don't fit the series (CSGO added the first auto-pistol.. which makes pistol rounds have no brains) 64tick servers (which means less accurate real-time events online) forced post-processing, movement issues (CSGO being far faster than previous games in the series) accuracy issues, hitbox issues... many many things.
It's slowly being improved, but REALLY slowly. And listening to incompetent players who have no idea what they're talking about simply hurts their reputation further. I mean I adore Valve but even I'll call BS on the csgo dev team at times. Recently, a lot of their updates have been decent, some dodgy, but for the most part good... so we're getting there.
3:39 you know, Portal was actually inspired by an already existing game, Valve hired the guys who made that game to help them with Portal
Definitely an area where WT got into a hotspot with battle rating, a case for using metrics carefully and knowing what they mean. They attempted to use a plane's survivability as well as its points earned (don't remember whether they used RP or SL) to determine battle rating. The issue, as many WT players will share, is that once a plane or tank has a reputation for being undertiered, noobs gravitate towards that vehicle hoping for an easy win, sometimes not recognizing that it isn't necessarily a forgiving aircraft. This brings down the battle rating (BR) even more and a vicious cycle ensues. Personally, the situation with the F6F having a lower BR than the F4F indicates to me that a lot of this is propaganda based. Planes with good reputations are played in the hopes that it will be easy. When they are not, the large number of people that were caught off guard by how difficult a plane is to fly cause the initial drop in BR, leading to the rest of the cycle where people see a "good" plane with a low BR and drive it down more.
Than the exact opposite seems to be happening with planes that are considered overtiered. It didn't bother me at first, but for a while it seemed like there would be no end to the Zero's BR increase. I tend to think that this problem is the inverse of the former in every way. They start with negative publicity, causing players to be reckless in their encounters with these planes. Higher kill rates mean BR goes up, but players often still have the impression that it is a bad plane from what they have heard about it, so they assume it is overtiered. This means noobs gravitate away from these planes, and only players that either don't mind a challenge or already know how to play it well remain. This, in turn, increases the BR and the trend continues in a cycle not unlike natural selection.
I have heard they are planning on a total overhaul, but it could be a while.
I actually just stopped play WT, I wanted to buy a lot of the planes just so I could use them but after a few minutes of looking I found out it was too expensive(this game has some serious price gouging issues). So then I started to grind for a few weeks before realizing there was no way I was going to get to the jets in a reasonable amount of time. And this is coming from someone that likes grinds... I had no idea about all this ranking stuff I pretty much just looked for planes that did what I wanted. I'm glad I stopped playing though, games balanced off of stats is always a disaster I ran into this back in 2012 I believe with Starhawk(or when ever it released). Results were terrible.
Baddassattuide Actually, I don't like grinding but I love the game. I think part of it is that many of my favorite planes are lower tier anyway (A6M2, P-40, Bf-110, to name a few). RB events is nice because it doesn't use BR at all, just what planes participated in what battles, though it can still be pretty unbalanced due to being extremely asymmetrical, but Gaijin is doing better on that.
I think the fact that you like grinds might explain precisely why it didn't work for you though. I don't think about the grind, because unlocking the next plane isn't something I really think about except that it is a new experience. If you are watching your XP (or in this case RP) bar go up and enjoy waiting for that moment when you level up like in DCUO, then it could be a looong time. I usually just approach each game like a 3D action-packed chess match and get my enjoyment that way.
3:09 - Either there is a picture of that cloud with every combination of fingers, or pure destruction looks the same from all angles. Maybe both.
I don't know why the road going up to the cliff is "not going anywhere." That is very obviously the entrance to the bat cave.
If any of you found the hidden picture of cave Johnson in portal 2, it's my friends dad who is in the picture.
Image at 1:42 is exactly what I like doing with my games!
I feel feel this especially in this day and age
3:23 best panel
Wish more developers would put in a Online function that gathers info about their games while people play.
Like what Bioware does with Mass Effect 2 and 3.
No need for the consumers to report the bugs, the devs should see them.
But how do metrics would work if my console or pc is never connected to internet?
How can I find trends on my games?
Industry is my favorite recurring computer, I think.
D&D has this problem. They say that no one is going to lvl 20 when in reality they don't go to lvl 20 because there isn't any content for lvl 20 and they aren't creating any lvl 20 content because no one is playing to lvl 20
3 years later ... Nothing has changed only that gaijin goomba from game theory can't think of original episodes so hes doing them around this show :D
LAWL
It's confirmed! It'll be coming out at about the same time as the HD remake of the original Deus Ex and Shenmue 3.
Why does it show GoW when he was talking about FPSs?
Gaming Philosophy. I like this.
nice outro music
Fore sight is the answer to the best game.?
Am i the only one who thought this will be about whether useing Km/h or MpH in on Speedometers?
I was expecting something about how you give players ways to compare items, choices, etc
obviusly Km/h
waited for km/miles
I have not lol just curious, what's a frood?
Bland spaghetti? Garlic Salt. Icy roads? Garlic Salt. Vampire slugs? GARLIC SALT!
Yup, seems legit.
Most commercial garlic salt has too much salt in it. I'm a DIY kind of guy and prefer to mix my own from garlic powder and fine-ground salt. Even then, it's still not the answer to every food. Garlic and salt can never do the job of black pepper.
Now, imagine if McCormick gathered metrics on how we combined and used all of our food flavoring agents... God help us
4:33 Kenny Salt
You miss understood something. Metric in social games, better, metric using a minimum viable products do not retain the creation to repeat the same thing over and over. Its actually a great tool towards innovation (you can see that in the "lean start-up" method) . In your video you miss a important step on analyzing this spectrum. Using a MVP and fast feedback you can lower the price of releasing a game (or any new product) to the point of being viable, even not having the data to support it (at first). And then, after just a few weeks, you can rapidly retrieve the data from the minimum release and see if the idea is really profitable, or accepted by the costumer. This can be used to learn and change your game to better adapt to your public.
In the end this practice reduce the space between consumer and industry making possible for the industry to focus only in things that are well accepted for the costumer, AFTER experimenting with the game and learning from the results.
In the Portal example i would say that for the lack of data the best thing would be invest in release a demo and test it with a small group. Depending of the results we could decide to put money on the project, to change it a little bit and do it or to deny it.
THIS is learning through metric, is not only repeating what you know that will be good, is using it to focus in what is engaging and accepted without wasting time in what we think is going to be this things. Is doing new stuffs but learning with than.
Time is a little short so i have to wrap it up ;D
Thanks for reading (if anyone did) and if you are interested in learning about metric and learning practices i strongly recommend "the lean startup" by Eric Ries.
Undying praise
The people playing social games are probably not the same as the ones playing the AAA games, so all the credits to the social games that brought a new people to play, they might someday play triple A's games
I bet you could make the world's most awesome fork.
basicly, metrics are useful for things like balancing features but shouldn't be relied on solely.
Yup pretty much how it's been going but I see some hope like Pokemon creating Pokemon legends. Shows that in the right circumstances some game companies are willing to try
I think metrics are perfect for polishing though. I feel this game industry of releasing a new title every year or so to expand on a series will just create stagnation and a sour taste with every release.
I think we need to take from this metric system and release an amazing game, then over the next two or three years, polish and enhance it with DLC's and balancing. Well, at least for multi-player games, it would just make sense.
Well you could say that movie have done the same. In fast games are growing up like movies did when think about it.
Did he really say "In First Person Shooters, what weapons" when it shows the game case for Gears of War. D:
I remember Erin.
Garlic Salt IS the answer to everything!
2:03 KONO DIO DA
"What is the worst thing in the universe?"
"Garlic salt."
"What is the best thing in the universe?"
"Garlic salt."
/universeexplode.exe
I see you sneaking autodesk signs into your pictures... I'm watching you O_O.
I agree.
Also Social games cost a shit ton of money to get past lvl 10. I don't really like games like Farmville and shit like that it is just... to much money to go into it at the end of the day I could have used it to buy a good game that I don't have to wait 4 hours to play.
Garlic salt does taste great though.
You clearly haven't read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams... The answer is definitely 42.
123 vids congrats
why the hell is a video named "Are You a Psycopath? Take the Test" recommended for me!!!!!
Garlic salt is the answer to everything though!
Garlic salt is the most delicious substance
Wow! This is old!
ooooooh, I thought gdc was games done quick.... that explains it
Don't get me wrong guys but:I _still_ think that it should be the choice of the player if he offers this "metrics"data to the company.I know, they are an essential part of developing games. But do you want to see what happens when this gets out of control? Search your PC for the term "iesnare",check out iovation with Google.I bet you did not sign up for this, but still nearly every game uses this feature.It saddens me to see this development - and they are not doing this since yesterday.
OK guys, how about this: 42 garlic-salt hot dogs!
Garlic in general is the answer to everything.
catchy ass beat
SHIT, YES! I need to get some of that stuff.
Sadly. The triple A studios just keep driving games into the ground. 😢
Working on as a game designer in a mobile game company, I can happily say that game design is no longer something I value or think of highly in life.
Games done cool
if life was a game... you could talk all about life.
Bayonetta 2, well, Nintendo themselves are publishing it and sponsoring it/throwing money at it, so there's your answer, they won't lose that advantage Bayonetta 2 gives them.
And Mega Man, sadly, has never been very profitable despite his popularity. Mega Man 2 is still the best-sold Mega Man game. And that's sad.
So wait like in The Walking Dead Game we see what we did such as who lied to or who we chose to live.
Now don't get me wrong, but you guys used to say that a lot.
4:12 Inaccessable niche product ^__^
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nah, that's the answer to the ultimate question.
...I like garlic salt...
What about a peanut butter sandwich?
yes
indeed
but dont tell anyone
my restaurant will get less popular if people know the secret :F
*Looks at Facebook social games*
Yeah, of course.
all those programmers discuting about metrics, they should be discuting more important things like WHERE IS KINGDOM HEARTS 3?, WHY CAPCOM IS KILLING MEGA MAN?, BAYONETTA 2 MUST BE PUBLISH TO ALL CONSOLES, NO BLUE SHELL IN THE NEXT MARIO KART GAME, MORE FREEDOM IN THE SOUL CALIBUR CREATION, WHAT REALLY HAPPEN AT THE END OF BIOSHOCK INFINITIVE, DEAD OR ALIVE UNDRESS EDITION WITH A NEW CONTROL THAT WE CAN USE WITH ONE HAND...(WHY DID I WRITE THE LAST ONE)
garlic salt and duct tape that is!
2 words, Gajin Goomba
i thought that was 42?
i love garlic salt:)
Did they say First Person shooter and show Gears of War. Hmm
I have a feeling that this is why Battlefront is such a piss poor game and why it lacked so much of what the fans loved of the original series, because they were basing the numbers off of games like Battlefield rather than going for a more interesting and unique design like how Battlefront I and II originally were.
So that's why people are complaining World of Warcraft is becoming progressively 'dumber' and not progressively 'better', and I disagree with those people.
When I started playing WoW again, both the official and a private cataclysm server, I found that, simply put, MoP, though the supposedly shallower, dumber, too-newbie-friendly expansion, was just more engaging than cataclysm.
It definitely is more engaging.
Another complaint I often see is that without the talent trees there supposedly is less choice with the current system, though the reality was that everybody skilled their tree the same to stay useful in both PvP and PvE instances. Now there are less options but also more differences in kind, especially in the monk class, hitting the levels where you can pick a new skill or feat now feels fun again.