I did a Twitter poll recently:
Most people (almost half!) voted that there "is no default/ideal". That probably sounds like a safe, reasonable choice, but it's really a pretty bold claim to say that there is no default or ideal - certainly at least as
bold as any of the other options.
In second place was "2 player", which did not surprise me. What did surprise me was how close the margin was between "2 player" and "3+ player", though. I would have expected the breakdown to be more like 40% "unanswerable", 40% "2-players", 20% "3+ players" and basically no one voting for 1 player. Actually, I still kind of think that if more people took the poll, it would probably head more in that direction. (more…)
Today we have another episode with Frank Lantz, game designer, writer, and Director of the NYU Game Center. Today's show involved two major topics: execution, and my seemingly crazy idea about how single-player should probably be the "default" number of players for a strategy game (something I'm going to be writing an article about soon). Also, Frank gives some of his own game design faux-pas thoughts near the end of the episode.
There were some technical issues during the recording, so please forgive the somewhat strange format for this episode. Hopefully it's clear enough what we were both trying to say.
If you enjoyed the episode, please spread the word on social media! Or, become a patron at Patreon.com.
Today I talked about how and why games work best with a 50% winrate (even single player games). That's because learning in games is extremely hard due to their inherently complex and ambiguous nature. Getting a loss when you had a 10% chance to win doesn't necessarily tell you much about your choices in that match. In order to learn, you must compare yourself to yourself.
In addition, I talked a lot about why single-player is considered a strange thing for strategy games.