GWJ Conference Call Episode 183

Certis, I could not agree more with you about not knowing what to say when you are winning, or after the game is won. I play a lot of Left 4 Dead 2 versus mode, and being on the losing end can sometimes send people into the "want to kick a baby" level of rage. It's especially bad when playing on ragin redneck's servers, where the snarespeak mod that runs on there allows you to speak with players on the other team at the end of each round for a good 10-15 seconds. That's in addition to being able to talk to someone when you are pouncing on them, eating their faces and knowing that the lack of response from your opponent is probably because they are trying to not launch into a vitriolic attack about the sanctity of your mother's virtue.

I've tried the encouraging responses, telling people that they are doing well or commending them on a good fight. That seems to come off as condescending. I've tried the "not saying anything at all" routine, but that makes you seem like a smug prick, and if no one is talking at all, it really exudes an uncomfortableness that isn't fun for anyone. So, now, I just try to joke around a bit to try to elicit a laugh or hopefully a smile from someone. After all, we are here to have a good time.

When I'm losing, I still want to kick something. HARD.

A couple night ago while playing BC2, I actually threw my headset at the wall which bent it horribly. I also slammed my keyboard tray hard enough to break it off. I don't consider myself an angry person, but if I'm constantly and consistently dominated in a game after hours and hours of effort (30 hours into Bc2, for example) the rage becomes hard to contain.

I've trained myself to get up and walk away from the computer when I feel the anger coming.

Good because it certainly seems like his aversion is more about Facebook than the games.

Anyway, enough ragging on Cory. I'm going to check out Warstorm and see what it's all about. There are some new games on Facebook that are a little less like Farmville and Mafia Wars (I've been playing Battle Punks, which didn't live up to the hype imho, but is still fun for a week) and I'm interested in seeing where things go.

Oh, and my justification for playing FB games is pretty simple: I can play them at work.

Yeah, that's a dick move. You know what I love though? When the overconfident almost-winner makes a mistake and ends up losing, when he could've easily finished the game if he hadn't been such a gloating wanker.

Case in point: Gears of War. When you down a guy, he just sorta crawls around until you stomp his face or whatever. A lot of teams like to 'save' the last, downed opponent so they can jam smoke grenades him him and simulate gang rape and all that other crap.

If you're playing Execution rules, instead of bleeding out you stand back up after a certain amount of time. The real assholes will wait for the downed guy to stand up and immediately knock them back down or gib them with the shotgun.

I saw this go down once (I was already dead), where three guys were waiting for the last opponent to stand back up so they could continue their little celebration. The guy stood back up, somehow endured a shotgun blast, insta-gibbed two of his oppressors, and ended up killing the third in an extremely close fight. Man it was awesome.

Quick clarification/correction: the MSX was not a "Master System in computer format" but, rather, a PC architecture platform that was an attempt to establish a home computing standard in Japan.

It preceded the Famicom (and the Master System) and, in many ways, actually foreshadowed some aspects of the console scene. For example, some Japanese publishers that are still around today, such as Konami and Hudson, released games for the MSX and, in fact, the Metal Gear and Bomberman series debuted as MSX titles.

Just as with last week's episode, my favorite part came at the end.

Re: Mythical game design vs. The Real World

When I was younger, I thought the most essential quality in an employee was technical skill. In the years that followed, I came to understand how quaint that is. While technical skill is obviously very important, it pales next to temperament.

A guy who's not so skilled (as the hot-shots), but who has a good temperament can be trained. They can learn, thrive, and not irritate the living shit out of you besides. I see no reason why this basic rule of thumb can't be applied to game development.

When humans are involved - and they have a big ego - they can muck things up nicely.

This is glib and there are obviously added factors when thinking how a game company works, but I always say that it's better to assume incompetence before you assume conspiracy. Bad games don't need to be described by master-schemes when they can be better described by a few key bad-seeds spread liberally in the fields.

Shaving with Occam's razor, baby.

Camnipotent and Ragin Redneck (both GWJers)-- best personalities winning or losing I've ever played with, much less the GWJ community, hands down. I don't know how, but the balance humble and hilarious either way the game turns out.

You've never screwed around with a high end PC and the battlesizer, have you?

If there's strategy to hockey video games, I'll never understand it. That said, I love to *watch* hockey.

Warstorm looks interesting.....

Dare I hit the button?

Generally I enjoy Starcraft 2 precisely because I like the thrill of trying to get good at it. If there were no pro-games broadcast on YouTube with commentary explaining what's going on, I'm pretty sure I would not care. It's the goal and the struggle to get better that is fun about Starcraft 2. In that sense, they've done very well as it's definitely a game that rewards skill and punishes ignorance.

The fact that it feels "old school" to do that, it kinda depresses me on some level.

Also Cory if you actually want to understand what's going on, watch a few game commentaries. They take like 10 minutes and teach you so much about how Starcraft 2 works. The replay feature is the #1 reason for the game's success, I think. Which is pretty hilarious considering it was probably a tacked-on afterthought initially.

Mwahahahah.

Hey, thanks man.

The awkward thing for me is blowouts. I can honestly and sincerely say, "Good game," to a well fought or closely fought battle, no matter how short or how long, but the blowouts are kind of awkward. I know it wasn't a good game, and he knows it wasn't a good game.

What am I supposed to say?

As a matter of fact, that's what I default to saying, since it's become habit, but I've gotten flak for saying that. It's like it's some kind of condescending thing to say. I can kind of see how that might be, but I can't really think of what to say instead. Uh, better luck next time? That's even worse.

PS: You guys really need to try out Red Steel 2. It is by no means 1:1 swordplay, but that's actually fortunate, since I imagine that a very small minority of us are actually competent swordsmen. Experience with WSR suggests that the gameplay potential of simulating a nerfbat is alarmingly limited.

Instead, Red Steel 2 combines action with button presses to give you a Tekken-esque experience, only you don't have to remember which button maps to the horizontal slash, since it's mapped to the corresponding action. First person view and the sense of mimicking the action onscreen gives a surprising amount of immersion.