Has anyone ever thought to make Optional Weapons and the Tower Of Valni/Outrealm Grinding Location morally reprehensible?

[JasonGodwin7]

@LeskLyfeld

Shaming the player for using the Tower of Valni is not good design.

Shaming the player for using the Tower of Valni means naming it the “Baby-Safe Training Play Area for Losers”, not the “Helpless Isolated Village” or “Hell Circle Full of Trapped Innocent Killable Souls” or “Tower of Trapped Innocent Babies”, which is what I actually suggested. A basic idea that already became boring because of how one-note it would be. Players are encouraged to not do something that reduces the difficulty of the game in an uninteresting way. Would be more interesting for the player to deal with multiple philosophical and moral questions over the course of the story, some with no easy answers, some where solving problems the right way is easier than solving them the evil way, some where the greater good (tracking down the main villain) means letting their pawns go after getting intel from them and making deals with them even while the Lawful Good Paladin in your party makes it clear he wants the unrepentant criminals slain on the spot.

“Contested”? When people attack me for suggesting something, and attack me by misrepresenting it, it’s like they’re trying to win an argument against me instead of taking part in a discussion with me. I just don’t see value in that. Back when I was a kid I used to get into shouting matches on the internet with random strangers over Sonic The Hedgehog opinions, but now I just don’t see the point. I’m too old to yell about Sonic or Pokemon or Genshin Impact ships or take someone seriously if they get heated over it. If I’ve known someone for ten seconds and my first introduction to them is me and what I said being maliciously misrepresented due to their genuine anger over video game opinions I don’t share, neat. Someone like that doesn’t present themselves as somebody I respect enough to respect their opinions on video game design. There was a time when I kept asking questions here, expecting advice to help me guide my design to make everybody happy, but even putting aside all the anger, too many responses were “Design your game for mass appeal, except when mass appeal conflicts with my personal tastes, and always design it to fit within my preconceived notion of how your dream game should correctly cater to my personal desires”.

“Don’t give bows more range than magic, that’ll make them unbalanced in my theoretical headcanon of how a game I’ve never played might work! However will magic users compete if they can’t counterattack bow users?” - Someone who I haven’t yet told mages can’t counterattack at all in my game.

I have gained self-confidence. I make my games for me. If anybody else likes them, neat. If somebody hates them, write and record a ten hour video essay about it. Let me know if you want to playtest my games when they’re done and you can see how all the moving parts work together. But until then, I don’t see much point to trying to defend ideas that have never worked in Fire Emblem games because mine haven’t been made yet.

[Ysor]

Send me a patch.

[LeskLyfeld]

@JasonGodwin7

Shaming the player for using the Tower of Valni means naming it the “Baby-Safe Training Play Area for Losers”, not the “Helpless Isolated Village” or “Hell Circle Full of Trapped Innocent Killable Souls” or “Tower of Trapped Innocent Babies”, which is what I actually suggested.

That’s still shaming - and still not solid design.

[FuriousHaunter]

@JasonGodwin7

Someone who I haven’t yet told mages can’t counterattack at all in my game.

If you are only suggesting things in the context of your project then make one thread concisely explaining all the mechanics if you want to ask about design decisions, don’t just vague post about your ideas without context as most will apply vanilla mechanics if you don’t explain shit, especially if half of what you say is just waffle.

If you don’t explain your ideas in context they WILL sound awful.
For example if I just said “In my hack barons[generals] have 5 move”
I’d rightly be called out for not doing anything to make them better, but if you add the context of giving them armour march, having access to 3 S ranks in a set W.Rank system, one that gives +3 move, it’s easier to see the vision of a class that has low base move but that can augment it more than other classes.

Also no one is calling your ideas dumb because they’re mad it’s because you don’t explain things concisely or with full context, despite this your post are very long.
You also oft ignore complete, well argued, well mannered counters to the ideas.

I admit i do get a little upset when I respond to your post sometimes but it’s more because they seem absurdly not thought through, your post on RNG for example where really bad, I made a full post explaining why you where wrong, I don’t say this lightly, it’s hard to be objectively wrong on things like game design, but, you where objectively wrong, you made a statement of opinion objectively, and where rightly clowned on, I didn’t attack you for preferring no RNG [I even said it’d be a cool option to include] I merely pointed out all the ways RNG is essential to SRPGs and especially to FE, you ignored it and made the same bad arguments.

More often you choose to respond to the mean and less in depth arguments, you didn’t respond to Xilirite’s post instead you respond to one line from LeskLyfeld’s post, ignore the point, and make the same argument despite the fact it can be countered by “I understood this, it’s still bad”
[No hate but the fact you didn’t discern that you made the same argument that had already been responded to might indicate you aren’t as clever as you think, and that people understand your ideas better than you do.]

@JasonGodwin7

I have gained self-confidence. I make my games for me. If anybody else likes them, neat. If somebody hates them, write and record a ten hour video essay about it. Let me know if you want to playtest my games when they’re done and you can see how all the moving parts work together. But until then, I don’t see much point to trying to defend ideas that have never worked in Fire Emblem games because mine haven’t been made yet.

You haven’t gained confidence you’ve gained arrogance.
You NEVER back down despite all the well reasoned arguments you get.
The thing you did where you kept jumping around discords until you got a response you like is the epitome of this, if you where truly confident you’d just say “I see your point but I still think it’s a good idea” and then you’d just do it, constantly seeking approval and ignoring all contrary opinions, Arguments and information is not confidence.

It’s the same thing conspiracy nuts do, they ignore others out of fear or arrogance because they feel they know better.

[Fringus]

@JasonGodwin7

Back when I was a kid I used to get into shouting matches on the internet with random strangers over Sonic The Hedgehog opinions, but now I just don’t see the point. I’m too old to yell about Sonic or Pokemon or Genshin Impact ships or take someone seriously if they get heated over it.

jason, dude. you do this almost every time though. for someone who generally is saying he’s too old to get into shouting matches, often, as said, you’ve done exactly that. again, bringing up how you only seem to interact with and read the posts of whoever you’re having said shouting match with.

you are still actively engaging in shouting matches when you engage in that type of stuff. contributing to it/ feeding into it helps set that negative tone going forward in the convo.

since as well, people will jump to the idea you’re baiting 24/7 when even here you just seemingly focus on the smallest piece of one users post, while your whole post makes it come off as if you just blatantly ignored anything else said by lesk or any other user.
i’m not asking you to kowtow and drop to your knees and suddenly accept anything said uncritical. but there needs to be some acknowledgement you’ve read what anyone has to say would go a long way towards not adding fuel to the fire on that negative assumption about you

@JasonGodwin7

“Design your game for mass appeal, except when mass appeal conflicts with my personal tastes, and always design it to fit within my preconceived notion of how your dream game should correctly cater to my personal desires”.

okay, jason im asking in utter earnest. where do you feel this has happened? i’d deeply appreciate if you gave actual quotes or heck just a thread name of where this was most prevalent, just something to look at and assess from your POV. ydont even have to do it in thread, i’ll gladly take a DM or smthn. i truly want to know where this is coming from, because as is, even as someone whose seen most of these threads. i’m just not seeing it by in large and i DO wanna understand where this is comin from.

and as well, for the posts that DONT fall under this, i gotta ask then. why don’t you ever seem to reply to them and showcase how those counterarguments “are inherently flawed under critical observation” or irrelevant instead of saying nothing while you keep up a match of yelling at ghost for the millionth time.

because as of right now, this seriously just feeds into the worst possible interpretation that this is a way to toss the baby with the bathwater and justify not giving anyone a seconds worth of time.
while also giving yourself a reason why you seem to ignore what anyone has to say no matter what it is they’re saying.

its good, great even, that you’re making something for you first and foremost. but that doesn’t really make it right how you dismiss so many people while declaring that people are snuffing out the potential of a constructive conversation. doubly so when you appear to treat it as if you cannot ALSO be in any way at fault for a lack of that desired discussion with how you take away most other peoples things.

@JasonGodwin7

I don’t see much point to trying to defend ideas that have never worked in Fire Emblem games because mine haven’t been made yet.

lastly on this one. full on i wanna know and i honest to god hope i dont come off like im trying to pull “gotcha” shit because this line does just have me wondering. what was the point of stuff like your thread on critiquing your new weapon triangle, then?
whats there to say besides just going “cool”? criticism sometimes means having to defend yourself from more unfair stuff and its hard to have a meaningful discussion without disagreement. its also sorta void to talk about because as said. never worked till possibly your (not made) thing, we can only really for now then discuss how its never worked, right?

[DATonDemand]

Jason, as somebody who was part of their highschool’s debate club. I’ve come to a certain understanding when it comes to convincing people. In debate it’s all about dominating your opponent, making better points, showing the most swagger, putting out the most evidence and you NEVER NEVER back down from your points.

There was a time where I held this ideology, highschool getting into debates irl and online. It was until one afternoon that my aunt snapped me out of it, It made me realise I was sacrificing peace and quiet to be right.

Here’s the thing jason, humans are impossibility emotional. You can argue as logically as you want but if you make the other side angry/troubled, nothing will get through. This is why debates where one side is constantly cutting off the other never ends in peace. Because both sides already know they’re not gonna change their stances it doesn’t matter what each of them say.

Also yknow, don’t make bible length replies heh

[JasonGodwin7]

@DATonDemand

bible length replies

Using a standard font, the average bible has around 1,200 pages. As a book, the bible is as thick as “The Lord of the Rings” and similar fantasy novel epics. My stance is that I should make art for me and people who like what I like and disregard what haters say. People who dislike my work aren’t haters. People who hate me over it are haters.

[Fringus]

yeah dat was right. we’re all being fucked with LMFAO

[2WB]

@LeskLyfeld

The OG Fire Emblem (hardly recall whether it was 1 or 3) has the Marth Disguise situation where you get to choose who is the scapegoat for Marth to escape - giving you a choice.

A brief aside before a real post, this is an fe11 invention; and it also doesn’t exist if you play on the higher difficulties.

@JasonGodwin7

Shaming the player for using the Tower of Valni means naming it the “Baby-Safe Training Play Area for Losers”, not the “Helpless Isolated Village” or “Hell Circle Full of Trapped Innocent Killable Souls” or “Tower of Trapped Innocent Babies”, which is what I actually suggested.

And this is still - as LeskLyfeld said - bad design. You are telling the player You should be stronger than that! Just get good!

This is the worst and most toxic of mindsets and it actively pushes people away from attempting the game because it makes them feel bad for daring to have the opinion that they are in fact not very good at the videogame and would rather grind instead.

Believe me, the bad player already knows they’re bad. They are trying to have fun, and insulting them for having fun is just ridiculous. If a developer message said to you, outright, “This gauntlet is doable, beat it” - and you sit there and slam your head into it for three hundred hours -

Are you having fun doing that? If you are, then that’s good. But there are a lot of people who don’t have fun attempting the same challenge more than three to five times. They just want it to be done at that point. They’ve felt the struggle, frustration; and they’re not having their experience enhanced by doing it a dozen more times. Why would you then take the opinion that these people, who are not having fun but want to continue, deserve to be kicked while they’re down?

Now, you might want to say I’m being ridiculous, but that is exactly what this is. That is why this is bad game design. Because it really does feel that way. It does not create narrative interest to be told, when I’m struggling to win, that if I have my characters go kick puppies they’ll get really strong.

It makes me go “Wow, the developer is dumb,” and either a. have my characters kick puppies while I wish literally anything else was happening, or b. quit the game and write a bad review. What you want is players to weigh the moral choice there. How much do you care about these digital puppies versus beating the game?

And that really depends on how interesting the rest of the game has been, and my feelings towards puppies.

To quote @SgtSmilies, because it’s a very perfect quote;

It’s just such a good idea, like
You might have these principles, but when your back’s really up against the wall, what do they mean to you?
that’s a fucking cool question to ask your player
and then the answer is “not worth 1 max HP that’s for fucking sure, i’d rather die.”

This, despite being about Megaman Battle Network 4’s Dark Chip system, perfectly encapsulates the problem. The penalty for using the mechanic and its reward are completely untenable ones.

In the case of puppy-kicking, the penalty is my emotional state. Except, two things- first, because in this situation, I’m stuck, I can’t progress unless I do this action. My options are do the morally bad thing, or continue smashing my head into a wall that I have lost all interest in attacking, or not play your game. At some point, I’m just going to pick the last one, because both of the first options are actually the same penalty - my mood decreases.

And second, to me, you the developer are the one kicking the puppies, because you’re the one who decided that kicking puppies was how the player gets to grind.

@JasonGodwin7

“Don’t give bows more range than magic, that’ll make them unbalanced in my theoretical headcanon of how a game I’ve never played might work! However will magic users compete if they can’t counterattack bow users?” - Someone who I haven’t yet told mages can’t counterattack at all in my game.

As I said last year;

@2WB

A developer never [thinks they’ve gone far with their changes]. It’s your baby. Noticing you’ve strayed too far is hard, because you’re so deep in the weeds of the blood of the project.

This sort of thing becomes apparent when, in defense of a system, that you have to bring up another system. I don’t think the example you’re using is a bad one, and even enjoy it at a glance, but the required interplay between systems to make them feel good means there’s high complexity and FE just doesn’t have that as a base assumption. It’s incredibly minimal on these elements.

“Mages can’t counter” is an incredibly foreign idea to any fire emblem player. If you don’t say it, how could we possibly guess it?

The amount of context your elaboration has completely flips the bit on its head! That’s why people are - your words -

@JasonGodwin7

When people attack me for suggesting something, and attack me by misrepresenting it, it’s like they’re trying to win an argument against me instead of taking part in a discussion with me. I just don’t see value in that.

Because, very simply, they aren’t attacking you. They’re saying that, with the context they have (or lack thereof), the idea sounds bad, and are annoyed with you because you keep doing things like this - at which point I can only again repeat this essence:

@2WB

Then why are you asking for critique?
You have a vision. You don’t want to change it.

If you’re asking people for their opinions, you have plenty of options.

Listen to them, ignore them. Engage with them, figure out what their concerns are.

But really, really, really for absolute certainty, look at the elements that are constant! When people are fighting you, what are they actually saying?

They are certainly not saying you’re bad*. They’re saying that, with no extra context, they think X thing isn’t cool.

@JasonGodwin7

People who dislike my work aren’t haters. People who hate me over it are haters.

What if I hate you because you clog the forum with posts and despite being here over a year making them continue to make ones that look poorly thought through?

Or how you, I don’t know, continue to totally ignore any well reasoned point.

* Yes this is me saying you’re being a bad poster.

[topazlight]

@JasonGodwin7

It feels like [people are] trying to find fault in my arguments instead of forming counterarguments to them…

That’s… at least half of what a counterargument is? Arguing against something is inherently going to involve finding and pointing out flaws in the original idea. Please try to understand, pointing out flaws in an idea is not inherently malicious in nature. To refine an idea and make it into the best possible version of itself requires identifying that idea’s flaws and how to rectify them. There are people who are just mean-spirited, but there are also a lot of people who are genuinely trying to help you make the best version of your project by making you aware of the shortcomings of the ideas you present so you can address them.

@JasonGodwin7

My stance is that I should make art for me and people who like what I like and disregard what haters say.

This is just fine. This is how you should make art, actually. I don’t think anybody worth listening to is mad at you about this.

@JasonGodwin7

People who dislike my work aren’t haters. People who hate me over it are haters.

This is not what’s happening. People are becoming very frustrated with you because, as can be seen in the fact that you only chose to reply to this one point from one post out of a bunch of much more in-depth replies giving you earnest feedback, you do not actually appear interested in what other people have to say in response to the ideas you put forth, which calls into question what your aim is by sharing them online in the way that you do to begin with.

Vitriol in such discussions as this is, of course, uncalled for, but people thinking that your ideas do not sound good, and explaining why they feel that way, is not “hating you over it”. Not all feedback you get is going to be positive, and “constructive feedback” and “positive feedback” are not synonyms. Sometimes the most constructive feedback one can give is to point out the shortcomings of someone’s idea so they can address them.

I do not mean this unkindly, and I haven’t really participated in these discussions until just now, but it doesn’t seem that you are fully engaging with the discussions you start and profess to wanting to see proceed amicably. Any discussion is a two-way street (or, I guess, a street with a “way” for each participant). You need to make an effort to engage with others in good faith, too. Please, try not only to remember that, but to put it into practice.

[Ericc]

why do you people keep responding to his terrible threads/posts (rhetorical)

[cb1052]

[quote=“topazlight, post:52, topic:23773, full:true”]). You need to make an effort to engage with others in good faith, too. Please, try not only to remember that, but to put it into practice.
[/quote]

engage?

[JasonGodwin7]

I had no idea you felt this way about Undertale. Though Undertale is not the only game to try and play with the concept of tying difficulty to personal or moral choices. In Fallout you can screw over some innocent people and steal their Water Chip if you don’t feel like being a good person that day and putting more effort in.

And “Clog”? I once saw a forum that would label each forum post with how many posts per day that user made, and how many posts that user made in total. Fairly certain my scores here wouldn’t agree with the claim that I’m “clogging up the site”, if they were visible.

But at the end of the day, does it matter if I respond to someone who says “Giving archers more mages is a terrible idea because it stops mages from counterattacking them” by saying “mages can’t counterattack anyone in my game”? I’ve won the argument by reminding this person he or she is unaware of all the moving parts that must come together to make a game and its balance, but why did it have to become an argument in the first place instead of a constructive discussion?

Does it matter whether I bring up Aerith’s death in Final Fantasy and Pankraz’s death in Dragon Quest as an argument for forcing loss upon the player, or Undertale’s Genocide Route and Neutral Endings as an argument for changing or worsening the story created by the player’s actions based on those actions?

I am arguing for art. Bold, emotional, unique, risky art. And that’s not an argument I have to win because art isn’t an argument and artistic freedom isn’t up for debate. If the art I create isn’t to your subjective taste, good for you. I’m not just arguing for art in general, I’m arguing for my art. And my art isn’t even done yet, so the people arguing that my ideas could never work and are fundamentally bad ideas misunderstand the relationship between artist and critic.

[theghostcreator]

This is the last post I’m making on these asinine threads

All we are asking you to do is act in good faith with the discussion you yourself started. So far you haven’t done that. We’re not asking you to agree, we’re asking you to be candid with us.

THAT’S why your threads clog the forums while others don’t. These should be in a concepts thread. You’re not asking for feedback or even anything more than “yeah this is cool I agree with everything”.

Maybe one day you’ll want to have an honest conversation with the people on this forum but until then

Refer to the Xilirite post.

[DATonDemand]

Yo we boutta make a whole 300 page essays based on this thread lol

[KaidenMelon]

@JasonGodwin7

And “Clog”? I once saw a forum that would label each forum post with how many posts per day that user made, and how many posts that user made in total. Fairly certain my scores here wouldn’t agree with the claim that I’m “clogging up the site”, if they were visible.

At the end of the day you have made multiple threads that could have ultimately just been one thing, keeping your design ideas to one thread would have also worked to fix this and keep your ideas more concise instead of what we have now.

@JasonGodwin7

But at the end of the day, does it matter if I respond to someone who says “Giving archers more mages is a terrible idea because it stops mages from counterattacking them” by saying “mages can’t counterattack anyone in my game”? I’ve won the argument by reminding this person he or she is unaware of all the moving parts that must come together to make a game and its balance, but why did it have to become an argument in the first place instead of a constructive discussion?

Bringing such things up without mentioning them beforehand doesn’t mean you win anything. You don’t even need to admit anything, just clairify and move on. But you seem to have been having a really hard time following through with that. There is no “winning” in these arguments, because they are pointless with this sort of behavior.

@JasonGodwin7

Does it matter whether I bring up Aerith’s death in Final Fantasy and Pankraz’s death in Dragon Quest as an argument for forcing loss upon the player, or Undertale’s Genocide Route and Neutral Endings as an argument for changing or worsening the story created by the player’s actions based on those actions?

No. It does not matter. Do what you want, but don’t throw a fit if people end up not liking it.

@JasonGodwin7

I am arguing for art. Bold, emotional, unique, risky art. And that’s not an argument I have to win because art isn’t an argument and artistic freedom isn’t up for debate. If the art I create isn’t to your subjective taste, good for you. I’m not just arguing for art in general, I’m arguing for my art. And my art isn’t even done yet, so the people arguing that my ideas could never work and are fundamentally bad ideas misunderstand the relationship between artist and critic.

Yes this isn’t an argument. So there is no point to make these threads to begin with. Do your own thing, you don’t constantly have to idea guy stuff and argue, just do what you think works for your own project and refine if you think it is needed. At the end of the day, what you find fun is all that matters. If you are having a good time making something, good for you.

[Enjin]

play Ozma’s prophecy, Legacy of Sorrow and The Beginning to The End.

[Vesly]

i’m lost and i seem to have stumbled into a sea of text, please send help

[DATonDemand]

@theghostcreator

This is the last post I’m making on these asinine threads

I-it’s like an addiction bro, we keep replying help!!! aghhh

[2WB]

@JasonGodwin7

I had no idea you felt this way about Undertale. Though Undertale is not the only game to try and play with the concept of tying difficulty to personal or moral choices.

Undertale doesn’t… fit here at all. With one exception, it is very much not trying to be difficult - that would get in the way of the point of the game’s narratives.

Like, this is such a non-sequitur I am completely lost as to how to begin.

@JasonGodwin7

I’ve won the argument
[…]
but why did it have to become an argument in the first place instead of a constructive discussion?

Because there was no argument: they responded to a given premise that was incomplete. The onus was on you to explain the context when asking the question.

Elaborating that the context is different than assumed means that you failed to give the question correctly - there was no possibility of being constructive because of this failure.

Also, winning arguments isn’t exactly the point of asking people for design advice. There isn’t that much truth to be had - a lot of experiences are very subjective. You shouldn’t be trying to win an argument: You should be trying to acquire perspectives and other peoples’ reasonings behind their opinions.