I didn't mean to imply that all that was directed at you. I babble, but you are taking me a little out of context too, so lets be fair. I never implied people are dumb for not being good to that they should play GIRLY TBS GAMES (Well, I said TBS is a very real option. I'm not saying TBS is bad!).... people just (and they do this ALL THE TIME) assume they're better than the guy who just beat them because of some goofy reason or another. Also yeah, great players are often CLUELESS about their own game, balance wise, though it is still usually some of the best players who understand the balance the best (oddly usually not THE best, but the guys just under that. I couldn't begin to tell you why, but I think it has to do with the best players being so good that everything is super skewed for them, while the simply great players still have perspective).
BUT there is some things that I absolutely do not agree with you on (or at least something I view as an unrealistic expectation) that does not result from either of us being a little flippant.
it's the job of game designer to make fun games that as many people as possible should enjoy.
This is wrong. It's the job of a game designer to make games as fun as possible for whatever group they want to make it for. IWBTG is designed to appeal to a very particular niche as much as possible. You gotta leave people behind to avoid mediocrity and quite often, but be super great to some people, you gotta leave a lot of people behind. This isn't a very good generalization to make about what game designers should or should not be doing. It's not good to have that sense of entitlement either. I don't buy games and expect them to pander to me, I buy games when Is ee "Oh hey, this is a game thats designed to be something I like!"
To go with what you're saying, the theoretical game you describe sounds really fucking boring. I'd never play it in a million years! It actually sounds BACKWARD to me, but if someone made it and you loved it and it had it's own little community that wanted something a little bit more realistic (but obviously not actually realistic), then cool, whatever, have fun! I play flight sims, which are probably the BORINGEST BORING THINGS EVER TO BORE BORINGTOWN (Edit: Correction, that goes to my flight sim buddy who also plays SUBMARINE sims. That is the boringest genre!)... but hey, I don't care! :D
The best games allow players of all skill levels to play together, without disproprotionately penalizing skilled players
This is cute and all, but no. If you're having a team based game then yes, this should be the goal. If you're making a party game then yes, this should be the goal in normal situations, but if you're talking about a game that is primarily played in a 1v1 style like Star Craft, the game is about COMPARING SKILL I've never played a game that was a good 1v1 competitive game and was also accessible and was easy for people of diverse skill levels to play together fairly. I guess in MAGIC LAND that might be somehow possible, but generally the concessions necessary to do that would certainly hurt the game. Starcraft is particularly rough but is also the most successful competitive game ever.
Also again, the engineer example has no actual relevance. It works because he can benefit from the skills of OTHER PLAYERS, same as the medic. When their are no other players, well... There goes everything!
The main mistake I think you're making (and the thing I am failing to communicate) is that you need to provide different paths to victory so that players with different proficiencies have options that fit their expertise.
Each requires skill, and perhaps there is some overlap, but not the
same skills. Right now there is some variation between factions in games, but for the most part those factions are not very different when you boil it down.
I mean if someone's bad at everything and is also a douchebag, then no, that's not a player any game designer should be appealing to. I also agree that games that appeal to the lowest common denominator are dumb and INCREDIBLY BORING.
I disagree that the engie example is pointless. Yes, I am taking a character who is from a team-based game, but the aspects of his play that I am talking about transcend the team aspect of the game.
Imagine it as a 1v1 arena. You get a gun, and the gun does most (but not all) of your shooting for you and is far more accurate than you could hope to be, but you must decide very carefully where to place that gun. You must anticipate your opponent's decisions and take the terrain and the goals of both players goals into account. On the flip side, you must wait for the gun to build, you have to support it, and your mobility is curtailed. Non-retarded engie players know and understand these things are all very different from conventional play and they know that these are all trade-offs so that the game is still fairly balanced and interactive. In all these regards, the engie is very different from the scout, soldier, heavy, etc. who are the more 'classic' FPS options.
@ Makaris: I already said a while back that Starcraft is what it is. I don't hate SC or think it's a poorly made game. It's worst offense to me is that an industry leader had a great opportunity to be bold and different and instead opted for the safe option. But no, that doesn't mean I think SC2 is a bad game (even if I did think that, I would have no right to such an opinion without having played it).
I just kind of let SC start this discussion because like I said, it was a missed opportunity that is a living reminder of how far we
haven't gone (since the original SC was revolutionary but most RTSes have tried to ape that or WCIII since then). But there's nothing wrong with SC or SC2 in and of themselves.
@ both of you: I don't want a low skill ceiling at all . I want there to be different skill ceilings in the same same game. So players who are good at X can excel using X and players who are good at Y can excel using Y. There ARE multiple skill ceilings right now: macro vs. micro, but after 15 years, it's time to get some
more skill ceilings or a different dynamic.