Jake

Idle Thumbs 103: A Person-Shaped Thing is a Person

Recommended Posts

It feels like EVE Online on a personal scale, with all the metagame insanity but without the logistical drudgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think Nintendo's decision to drop out of E3 makes a lot of sense. When the WiiU was announced at E3 in 2011, investors realized that Nintendo had lost their minds, and their stock plummeted as a result. Now that the WiiU is out, and has thus far been a disaster people are going to want some good answers. If you don't have any good answers then the best option is silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't played NP, so not much to add to that(aside from the observation that I'm in a similar place as malkav boardgamewise, where my family likes pleasant games about building cities a lot more than games about lying and secret alliances).

 

But I will mention, here's a quote from the last entry in the Neptune's Pride diary on RPS. This is how the guy in first place felt at the end of the game:

 

it turns out that winning within the mechanics isn’t fun.

 

He also observes

 

I don’t feel bad when I backstab a trusting Medic in TF2

 

Is this part of what you were saying, malkav, about Neptune's Pride supporting but not creating the stories of brilliant deception? TF2's Spy essentially comes with a "lie" button and a "backstab" button inside the game, while Neptune's Pride diplomacy is further removed from the actual game controls -- which might make "uncool" friends like ours apparently are ;) less inclined to engage in that aspect of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand that rockpapershotgun article at all. How could you feel bad about betraying someone in a game about Machiavellian diplomacy? It would be like forfeiting a game of chess because you don't want to hurt the little horsies. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this part of what you were saying, malkav, about Neptune's Pride supporting but not creating the stories of brilliant deception? TF2's Spy essentially comes with a "lie" button and a "backstab" button inside the game, while Neptune's Pride diplomacy is further removed from the actual game controls -- which might make "uncool" friends like ours apparently are ;) less inclined to engage in that aspect of the game.

 

Kinda. I'm saying that the diplomacy and deception is made possible by the way the game plays, but is not itself part of the game mechanically nor explicitly required.

 

I don't understand that rockpapershotgun article at all. How could you feel bad about betraying someone in a game about Machiavellian diplomacy? It would be like forfeiting a game of chess because you don't want to hurt the little horsies. 

 

Because the game is about winning a space war. The Machiavellian diplomacy is something that you're using to win that space war, not what the game is mechanically about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does that matter, though? If the game is designed to produce Machiavellian diplomacy, and does produce Machiavellian diplomacy, why does it matter whether or not the game mechanics force you to behave in a Machiavellian way? I'd actually argue that it's a lot more interesting to see Machiavellian behavior emerge from a game design that does not expressly require it. 

 

The classic game of zero-sum, Diplomacy, is exactly the same. Nothing in the rules of Diplomacy requires you to backstab, nor is the game explicitly about backstabbing, but that is, in fact, what the game is about. 

 

I guess what I'm saying if the game designers have the goal of producing a kind of experience, and the game actually does produce that experience, then it's really irrelevant whether the rules of the game insist that you have that experience. This is especially true in social games, which are really about the dynamics between players and not necessarily about game mechanics. A lot of the best social games have very few rules, but those rules successfully produce interesting and fun social experiences (e.g. Eat poop you cat, Resistance, 1000 blank white cards, Diplomacy). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a second there, I thought you were about to insult someone but quickly realized 'Eat poop you cat' is a board game name..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does that matter, though? If the game is designed to produce Machiavellian diplomacy, and does produce Machiavellian diplomacy, why does it matter whether or not the game mechanics force you to behave in a Machiavellian way? I'd actually argue that it's a lot more interesting to see Machiavellian behavior emerge from a game design that does not expressly require it. 

 

The classic game of zero-sum, Diplomacy, is exactly the same. Nothing in the rules of Diplomacy requires you to backstab, nor is the game explicitly about backstabbing, but that is, in fact, what the game is about. 

 

I guess what I'm saying if the game designers have the goal of producing a kind of experience, and the game actually does produce that experience, then it's really irrelevant whether the rules of the game insist that you have that experience. This is especially true in social games, which are really about the dynamics between players and not necessarily about game mechanics. A lot of the best social games have very few rules, but those rules successfully produce interesting and fun social experiences (e.g. Eat poop you cat, Resistance, 1000 blank white cards, Diplomacy). 

 

You don't know if the game is designed to produce Machiavellian diplomacy, though. None of the promotional materials on the game's website highlight Machiavellian diplomacy (I guess we're calling it that now), only features and reviews from other outlets do. Iron Helmet pitches this game as "a different kind of 4x strategy game," not Diplomacy taken to the next level.

 

As for gameplay, Candy Land produces Machiavellian diplomacy if played by competitive people. The design is almost irrelevant. Certainly, a game can have mechanics that encourage backstabbing, like in Diplomacy. The combat rules there all but require cooperation in the short term for a game that only has one winner in the long term, so of course there will be backstabbing. But any game with social interaction and a single victor has the same, more or less. The difference between board game and Game of Thrones is the competitiveness of the players, not the design of the game.

 

That's why I like it when a game systematizes and incentivizes diplomacy in a way that encourages non-competitive people to be more proactive and involved. I always come back to the Dune board game (less so the ugly Fantasy Flight remake) as a perfect example of this. It's an insane knife-fight in a locker, but there are strong reasons both to make alliances (shared faction powers and resources) and break alliances (lower victory conditions). It produces much more interesting and nuanced diplomacy than any game of Diplomacy, which always seems to devolve into fear-mongering among the weaker and less competitive players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for gameplay, Candy Land produces Machiavellian diplomacy if played by competitive people. The design is almost irrelevant.

 

This is maybe not the best example; Candy Land is entirely based on chance and involves literally no choices or strategies of any kind, so I'm not sure how Machiavellian diplomacy could arise from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is maybe not the best example; Candy Land is entirely based on chance and involves literally no choices or strategies of any kind, so I'm not sure how Machiavellian diplomacy could arise from that.

 

Yeah, I was going to say Risk, but I wanted to reference a baby game for babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know if the game is designed to produce Machiavellian diplomacy, though. None of the promotional materials on the game's website highlight Machiavellian diplomacy (I guess we're calling it that now), only features and reviews from other outlets do. Iron Helmet pitches this game as "a different kind of 4x strategy game," not Diplomacy taken to the next level.

 

I understand what you mean, but I don't think it really matters. As long as the players treat it as a game intended to produce Machiavellian behaviour--and everyone I know that has played the game plays it in that way--then it doesn't really matter what Iron Helmet thinks the game is about. 

As for gameplay, Candy Land produces Machiavellian diplomacy if played by competitive people. The design is almost irrelevant. Certainly, a game can have mechanics that encourage backstabbing, like in Diplomacy. The combat rules there all but require cooperation in the short term for a game that only has one winner in the long term, so of course there will be backstabbing. But any game with social interaction and a single victor has the same, more or less. The difference between board game and Game of Thrones is the competitiveness of the players, not the design of the game.

 

I don't think that's true at all. Games different wildly in terms of how much diplomacy can take place within them. Lots of games have some space for diplomacy, but few games turn on them. It's nearly impossible to win a game of Diplomacy without making an alliance, while you could easily win a game of Agricola without striking a single deal with another player (in fact, that is the norm). Games like Diplomacy and Neptune's Bounty have very specific mechanics that encourage Machiavellian diplomacy: simultaneous turns, hidden information, and an absence of in-game remedy for betrayal (by this I mean there is no rule-based recourse for a broken deal). 

 

That's why I like it when a game systematizes and incentivizes diplomacy in a way that encourages non-competitive people to be more proactive and involved. I always come back to the Dune board game (less so the ugly Fantasy Flight remake) as a perfect example of this. It's an insane knife-fight in a locker, but there are strong reasons to make alliances (shared faction powers and resources) and break alliances (lower victory conditions). It produces much more interesting and nuanced diplomacy than any game of Diplomacy, which always seems to devolve into fear-mongering among the weaker and less competitive players.

I've never played Dune, so I don't really know. My personal preference for games based on social-interaction is that the rules be minimal. When I play a social game, the interesting part (for me) is the social interaction, so I prefer that the rules step back and let the players focus on what is important. That's why I prefer Resistance as a social game to something more elaborate like Shadows of Camelot. I also think that's what makes Neptune's Pride and Diplomacy successful: they recognize that the interaction between players is what produces the narrative,and that more complex game mechanics would get in the way of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does that matter, though? If the game is designed to produce Machiavellian diplomacy, and does produce Machiavellian diplomacy, why does it matter whether or not the game mechanics force you to behave in a Machiavellian way? I'd actually argue that it's a lot more interesting to see Machiavellian behavior emerge from a game design that does not expressly require it. 

 

The classic game of zero-sum, Diplomacy, is exactly the same. Nothing in the rules of Diplomacy requires you to backstab, nor is the game explicitly about backstabbing, but that is, in fact, what the game is about. 

 

I guess what I'm saying if the game designers have the goal of producing a kind of experience, and the game actually does produce that experience, then it's really irrelevant whether the rules of the game insist that you have that experience. This is especially true in social games, which are really about the dynamics between players and not necessarily about game mechanics. A lot of the best social games have very few rules, but those rules successfully produce interesting and fun social experiences (e.g. Eat poop you cat, Resistance, 1000 blank white cards, Diplomacy). 

 

But Diplomacy is actually the example I was going to bring up - it is completely impossible to win Diplomacy by yourself. You simply do not have the mechanical ability to achieve the victory condition without wheeling and dealing with other players. So it is a game that is explicitly and mechanically about diplomatic interaction. Since it is also a game that only one player can win, this diplomacy must inherently involve duplicity and backstabbing. Other social games similarly mechanically enforce such player interaction. It doesn't matter how many rules they have, just that those rules act to ensure heavy player interaction and politicking. By contrast, as far as I can tell Neptune's Pride mechanically is a fairly light strategy game with mechanics that deal with research, production, combat, and force positioning. The diplomatic struggles that players are reporting are a layer they bring to the table that's made more viable by strategic mechanics and lengthy real-time maneuvering that give plenty of time for diplomacy and allow tricks with timing. But if nobody playing the game bothered to interact, someone would still win, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Neptune's Pride the First wasn't designed with such tactics in mind, but I think it's fair to assume that things in the sequel have been streamlined towards enabling devious, Machiaellian diplomacy, considering how all coverage of the first one was so focused on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Diplomacy is actually the example I was going to bring up - it is completely impossible to win Diplomacy by yourself. You simply do not have the mechanical ability to achieve the victory condition without wheeling and dealing with other players. So it is a game that is explicitly and mechanically about diplomatic interaction. Since it is also a game that only one player can win, this diplomacy must inherently involve duplicity and backstabbing. Other social games similarly mechanically enforce such player interaction. It doesn't matter how many rules they have, just that those rules act to ensure heavy player interaction and politicking. By contrast, as far as I can tell Neptune's Pride mechanically is a fairly light strategy game with mechanics that deal with research, production, combat, and force positioning. The diplomatic struggles that players are reporting are a layer they bring to the table that's made more viable by strategic mechanics and lengthy real-time maneuvering that give plenty of time for diplomacy and allow tricks with timing. But if nobody playing the game bothered to interact, someone would still win, no?

I would put it like this. Neptune's Pride strongly encourages and incentivizes short-term cooperation. It doesn't not mechanically enforce cooperation, but a player who does not participate in the diplomatic aspect of the game is at a significant disadvantage and will probably lose. The game mechanics promote this kind of play through hidden information, simultaneous turns, and non-enforceable agreements. So while in one sense the players bring the "diplomatic layer" in from outside of the game, the diplomatic layer is also essential to doing well in the game. There is a reason that people chose Neptune's Pride, and not Risk or Candyland, in order to facilitate that diplomatic experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean, but I don't think it really matters. As long as the players treat it as a game intended to produce Machiavellian behaviour--and everyone I know that has played the game plays it in that way--then it doesn't really matter what Iron Helmet thinks the game is about.

 

I admit I don't really follow your point, then. Without the design argument, which you brought up yourself, all you're saying is games that allow Machiavellian diplomacy produce Machiavellian diplomacy, which is good. I don't disagree, but I also don't think it's the merit of a given game, even one as successful and popular as Neptune's Pride. Unless the designer take great pains to factor out player interaction, as in Euro games like Agricola, backroom dealing and betrayal form the bulk of any game with a single victor. Like you say, most games merely need to stay out of the way and let it happen on its own.

 

The problem I have and I think malkav11 has, which you don't really address, is that only one type of player really benefits from anarchic player interaction: a hyper-competitive player. Players who don't like confrontation or who are too cautious are usually left out in the cold, but different and more regimented systems can be designed to allow them their own play style. In that light, I think it's fair to criticize Neptune's Pride for privileging one type of play and therefore one type of player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I don't really follow your point, then. Without the design argument, which you brought up yourself, all you're saying is games that allow Machiavellian diplomacy produce Machiavellian diplomacy, which is good. I don't disagree, but I also don't think it's the merit of a given game, even one as successful and popular as Neptune's Pride. Unless the designer take great pains to factor out player interaction, as in Euro games like Agricola, backroom dealing and betrayal form the bulk of any game with a single victor. Like you say, most games merely need to stay out of the way and let it happen on its own.

 

The problem I have and I think malkav11 has, which you don't really address, is that only one type of player really benefits from anarchic player interaction: a hyper-competitive player. Players who don't like confrontation or who are too cautious are usually left out in the cold, but different and more regimented systems can be designed to allow them their own play style. In that light, I think it's fair to criticize Neptune's Pride for privileging one type of play and therefore one type of player.

Without getting too far up my own butt, the reason I don't think Iron Helmet's opinion of their game matters in terms of design is basically 'death of the author'. If all of the players that play Neptune's Pride think it is a game about diplomacy, then the fact that Iron Helmet thinks that it is a game about a space war is basically irrelevant. A game is 'about' whatever the players think the game is about. So my general point is that as long as everyone goes into the game thinking that it is a game about diplomacy, then the game is successful if it facilitates and allows that diplomacy.  I think Neptune's Pride succeeds on that front. 

 

I do agree with you both that this kind of design won't appeal to everyone. But that's true of any kind of game. Criticizing Neptune's Pride for appealing to some players but not others would like criticizing Agricola for appealing to number-crunchers, or criticizing Counter Strike for only appealing to FPS-fans. The whole reason most people play Agricola is to crunch numbers, the whole reason people play Counter Strike is to enjoy an FPS, and the whole reason to play Neptune's Pride is to have a competitive social experience. 

 

Malkav's point, as I understand it, is that mechanically Neptune's Pride is not "inherently interesting". I disagree, because I think the mechanics produce particularly interesting results, even if the mechanics aren't themselves original or satisfying. It is true that the interesting results depends on having players that are invested in the gameplay, but in my view that is true of practically any social game. For example, 1000 Blank White Cards has no essentially rules and requires players to be creative and engaged, but I would argue that it both produces interesting results and is fun to play, and is therefore inherently interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put it like this. Neptune's Pride strongly encourages and incentivizes short-term cooperation. It doesn't not mechanically enforce cooperation, but a player who does not participate in the diplomatic aspect of the game is at a significant disadvantage and will probably lose. The game mechanics promote this kind of play through hidden information, simultaneous turns, and non-enforceable agreements. So while in one sense the players bring the "diplomatic layer" in from outside of the game, the diplomatic layer is also essential to doing well in the game. There is a reason that people chose Neptune's Pride, and not Risk or Candyland, in order to facilitate that diplomatic experience. 

 

This is true if there are players that do participate in the diplomatic aspect of the game, but not true if people are just focusing on building ships and moving them around. And frankly, that's true of most any multiplayer game. For example, in Urban Dead, people who linked up externally at forums or whatever were massively more efficient and effective than soloists or people using in-game mechanisms. But the game absolutely did not encourage or enforce that sort of behavior - in fact, the game's own mechanisms deliberately limited the ability to communicate.

 

 

 

Malkav's point, as I understand it, is that mechanically Neptune's Pride is not "inherently interesting". I disagree, because I think the mechanics produce particularly interesting results, even if the mechanics aren't themselves original or satisfying. It is true that the interesting results depends on having players that are invested in the gameplay, but in my view that is true of practically any social game. For example, 1000 Blank White Cards has no essentially rules and requires players to be creative and engaged, but I would argue that it both produces interesting results and is fun to play, and is therefore inherently interesting.

 

Although it's an opinion I do hold, it's not my point. My point is that I don't believe that the game qua game is creating the interesting interactions because the interactions exploit the game mechanics rather than being propelled by the game mechanics. It responds to aggressive, competitive, and Machiavellian players more so than some other competitive games (though I would posit that they will bring at least some of that experience to any competitive game, to a degree and with an ease that depends on that game's design), but it is not a design that innately requires that people become that kind of player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, if a game's design gives rise to consistently interesting player behaviour, it doesn't much matter whether the behaviour is "propelled by the game mechanics" or not. 

 

Another analogy: poker doesn't require bluffing as part of its design. Noting about poker's design innately requires players to become bluffers. But bluffing is an important facet of poker that players must learn to use in order to reliably succeed. As a player of poker who enjoys bluffing, why should I care whether the game Is "creating" the bluffing or whether players are just exploiting a game mechanic? It makes no functional difference to my enjoyment of poker or poker's success as a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I do want to say that I am an incredibly non-competitive person and Neptune's Pride 2 has been tons of fun. I don't buy that it only appeals to a certain kind of gamer. If anything, the streamlined mechanics make someone like me, who's generally not into strategy games, to try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, if a game's design gives rise to consistently interesting player behaviour, it doesn't much matter whether the behaviour is "propelled by the game mechanics" or not. 

 

Another analogy: poker doesn't require bluffing as part of its design. Noting about poker's design innately requires players to become bluffers. But bluffing is an important facet of poker that players must learn to use in order to reliably succeed. As a player of poker who enjoys bluffing, why should I care whether the game Is "creating" the bluffing or whether players are just exploiting a game mechanic? It makes no functional difference to my enjoyment of poker or poker's success as a game.

If a game's design gives rise to consistently interesting player behavior, it's because it's propelled by the game mechanics. Otherwise it would not be consistently present when that game is played. it matters because a game that creates that sort of behavior can be relied upon to produce that enjoyment, whereas a game that merely facilitated that sort of behavior requires you to play with particular people. This by no means diminishes the enjoyment to be had when you play with those people, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked Nick about the commercials they talked about from this episode and he provided me this link to NeoGAF, which pretty much contains these three commercials. The Thumbs crew weren't exaggerating.

 





Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a bad year for Nintendo so it's surprising to me that they don't use the opportunity to remind the big mainstream press outlets that they exist. I don't think Entertainment Weekly and USA Today care about Nintendo Direct, but they're the type of press who propelled the Wii into everyone's face.

 

The Wii U's biggest problem is core audience credibility; the mainstream press outlets did not help when they reported the Wii U as being an accessory instead of a new console. Skipping the E3 press conference, where the core audience gets disappointed that they try and talk to everyone and the mainstream press outlets can't keep up, and instead running separate presentations focused on one specific audience, is not actually a bad move. (The blue ocean strategy that Nintendo have been employing is to disrupt a market with a new product that brings in a previously existing 'core' audience alongside a new 'expanded' audience. This is why a few years ago Nintendo straight-up told everyone Animal Crossing was for 'core' gamers, because it was on the Gamecube. When Nintendo say 'core', they're not trying to avoid saying 'hardcore' because it's a fucking stupid word, they have a specific meaning in mind. The idea is that the core audience gives the new product credibility, and the expanded audience gives the new product sales. The DS had both, the Wii had one, the Wii U has neither.)

 

Actually the Wii U's biggest problem is that it's a pain-in-the-ass to do cross-platform stuff and Nintendo doesn't know how to build a developer ecosystem, so it's not like they're going to deliver what their audience are wanting anyway. (The ecosystem on the DS happened despite Nintendo, it appears; Game Boy developers treated with benign neglect apparently gradually built a little network that transfers over to the new system when it's released.) It seems very, very unlikely to me that Nintendo will address this, but not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if games advertising gets too annoying i would pirate the game and get the version without adverts, the PC is the great equaliser when it comes to corporate madness, i wouldn't mind the way TV shows and music videos get funded by advertising eg. product/logo placement and quick 10 second adverts (loading screens) it would just be the in your face annoying advertisement i would hate.

 

also it is weird that you only recently heard of kerbal, i guess it is just one of those things about indie games some good one are just gonna slip through the gaps.

 

also i think if a game is only good if played with friends (not random people) it is not a good game, but i am not a social gamer so i don't really value other people playing my game unless they are just replacements for poor AI like in most good multiplayer games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until very recently, I thought the WiiU was some sort of educational hook, like an ebook tablet that plays educational games and downloads textbooks, or a channel on the Wii with educational programming.

 

Also re the above poster, I wouldn't buy any version of that game, ads or no ads. (Also, how about some punctuation and capitals there ee cummings?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to like the WiiU. I am a lifelong Nintendo fan and have bought all of their systems including the Virtual Boy but in the last few years my interest in what they are putting out has dropped off substantially. The WiiU is their first system I have not purchased and there are 2 main reasons why:

 

  1. Moore's Law: The WiiU has pretty outdated specs, I mean, it probably could have been released 4 years ago. Technology advances very rapidly and it simply won't be capable of doing what developers need it to do for a lot of next gen games once the other new consoles come out. I sometimes feel like Nintendo is pulling a fast one on me by trying to sell old hardware with a fresh coat of paint.
  2. Games: I'm probably missing some here but the last new major IP I can recall from Nintendo was Pikmin on the Gamecube. Every other major release since then seems like it has been yet another iteration on one of their main franchises that have been around for over 20 years. I think it was around the time Mario Galaxy 2 came out that I just completely stopped being excited about a new Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc... I mean seriously, Miyamoto needs to start doing mushrooms again so he can spawn a few more brilliant ideas while hallucinating and sipping tea in his garden.

I hope I'm wrong and if the WiiU starts kicking ass I'll shut up and buy one. Also, just kidding about Miyamoto, drugs are bad. Except when they cause moments of pure artistic brilliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now