Setup randomness helps limit the "flowchartness", I feel. Also, limited and identifiable random elements such as hit rates are also perfectly acceptable and indeed can create some extra thinking on the fly... though I'd like FFT a lot less if everything had, say, 50-60% hit rates, so you can go too far with this. (Mostly a knock on some styles of D&D here!)
Imagination. To imaginative individuals, the real world is often too plain and ordinary. High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy.
Artistic Interests. High scorers on this scale love beauty, both in art and in nature. They become easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained nor talented, although many will be. The defining features of this scale are interest in, and appreciation of natural and artificial beauty. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts.
Emotionality. Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly. Your level of emotionality is average.
Adventurousness. High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and experience different things. They find familiarity and routine boring, and will take a new route home just because it is different. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines. Your level of adventurousness is low.
Intellect. Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests.
Liberalism. Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility toward rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties.
'Imagination. To imaginative individuals, the real world is often too plain and ordinary. High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy.The correlation he's found so far is between the fantasy/realism levels of a game. And note that people might play games for different reasons (like Alex plays WRPGs not for the nonlinear parts) but the parts of the world that appeal to people tend to related to their imagination score.'
"Emotionality. Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly.This one seems to correspond to the level of melodrama that people enjoy in their game storylines. (This was the part in his talk where he brought up the case of someone with 0 in emotionality who said "it's not OK if characters cry." I'm actually curious to see if there's a link between people who like Valkyrie Profile and this one. (Certainly one of Super's big complaints about the game is how Lenneth gets too EMO in the A-ending)."
" Adventurousness. High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and experience different things. They find familiarity and routine boring, and will take a new route home just because it is different. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines. Your level of adventurousness is low.Yeah, already discusssed this one. Open World vs here's a known system to play with."
" Intellect. Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests.This one he just linked with "Do you like puzzles in games/puzzle games". And note that this doesn't necessarily mean "puzzles", like the BS that Zelda games make you do."
"Liberalism. Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility toward rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties.So...........this one he was trying, and failing to link to "do you prefer storylines which confirm the ancient wisdom of the past, or storylines that overthrow a regime", and was getting back answers of "Does it matter?" from pretty much the entire spectrum."
Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy describes confidence in one's ability to accomplish things. High scorers believe they have the intelligence (common sense), drive, and self-control necessary for achieving success. Low scorers do not feel effective, and may have a sense that they are not in control of their lives.
Orderliness. Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules. They keep lists and make plans. Low scorers tend to be disorganized and scattered.
Dutifulness. This scale reflects the strength of a person's sense of duty and obligation. Those who score high on this scale have a strong sense of moral obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining. They are likely to be seen as unreliable or even irresponsible.
Achievement-Striving. Individuals who score high on this scale strive hard to achieve excellence. Their drive to be recognized as successful keeps them on track toward their lofty goals. They often have a strong sense of direction in life, but extremely high scores may be too single-minded and obsessed with their work. Low scorers are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy.
Self-Discipline. Self-discipline-what many people call will-power-refers to the ability to persist at difficult or unpleasant tasks until they are completed. People who possess high self-discipline are able to overcome reluctance to begin tasks and stay on track despite distractions. Those with low self-discipline procrastinate and show poor follow-through, often failing to complete tasks-even tasks they want very much to complete.
Cautiousness. Cautiousness describes the disposition to think through possibilities before acting. High scorers on the Cautiousness scale take their time when making decisions. Low scorers often say or do first thing that comes to mind without deliberating alternatives and the probable consequences of those alternatives. Your level of cautiousness is average..
Friendliness. Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly and it is easy for them to form close, intimate relationships. Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved.
Gregariousness. Gregarious people find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding. They enjoy the excitement of crowds. Low scorers tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. They do not necessarily dislike being with people sometimes, but their need for privacy and time to themselves is much greater than for individuals who score high on this scale.
Assertiveness. High scorers Assertiveness like to speak out, take charge, and direct the activities of others. They tend to be leaders in groups. Low scorers tend not to talk much and let others control the activities of groups.
Activity Level. Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace.
Excitement-Seeking. High scorers on this scale are easily bored without high levels of stimulation. They love bright lights and hustle and bustle. They are likely to take risks and seek thrills. Low scorers are overwhelmed by noise and commotion and are adverse to thrill-seeking.
Cheerfulness. This scale measures positive mood and feelings, not negative emotions (which are a part of the Neuroticism domain). Persons who score high on this scale typically experience a range of positive feelings, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy. Low scorers are not as prone to such energetic, high spirits.
ExtraversionQuoteExcitement-Seeking. High scorers on this scale are easily bored without high levels of stimulation. They love bright lights and hustle and bustle. They are likely to take risks and seek thrills. Low scorers are overwhelmed by noise and commotion and are adverse to thrill-seeking.He linked this one with high-action thrill-seeking aesthetics. So like...Resident Evil 4 kind of stuff I guess.Which...well...actually, I think there might be an issue with the standardized test being used here. A lot of the questions were stuff like "would you do an activity that might get you injured?" (in my case: what? No, why would I do that?) But does that mean I avoid games with flashes and explosions? Err...no, there's no real risk, it's a game.
QuoteActivity Level. Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace.I'm going to have to ping Jason for more detailed notes on this one, as I'm having trouble remembering from memory.I believe he had linked it to the quantity of activities offered. (So GTA would have a high quantity, and Touhou would have a low quantity).
Quote from: metroid composite on May 06, 2012, 03:30:48 PMQuoteActivity Level. Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace.I'm going to have to ping Jason for more detailed notes on this one, as I'm having trouble remembering from memory.I believe he had linked it to the quantity of activities offered. (So GTA would have a high quantity, and Touhou would have a low quantity).Just wanted to note that I think this one is spot-on and not nearly enough people talk about this facet of games. I tend to like high-Activity games that switch gameplay modes often and do at least one or two modes -extremely- well while interspersing them with other -related- tasks to keep things fresh and engaging. Games that I would have never expected to like - NieR and Mana Khemia come to mind - have ended up being some of my favorite games of all time despite not even focusing on the storytelling tropes that I tend to like. Games that mix up the tasks -and- focus on my favorite tropes and gameplay styles of course end up being my "Djinn-bait" games - Disgaea, Suikoden, Tales. Notably, my own lifestyle tends to be pretty uh... high-energy in both social and work-related fields. Sometimes I wish for a more steady schedule... but I think I'd end up very bored if it ever happened.
Secondarilly, I honestly expect people that are high on Excitement Seeking will tend not to be particularly hardcore gamers most of the time. With it being such a low risk activity I honestly don't see how they could keep engaged to the same degree as those lower on the scale
Right, and similarly I'm just thinking of people like Elfboy where he wants his megaman to be megaman, and his RPGs to be RPGs, and games that try to do both and don't completely excel at one or the other (like modern Castlevanias) can just fuck off.
Quote from: Grefter on May 06, 2012, 10:43:18 PMSecondarilly, I honestly expect people that are high on Excitement Seeking will tend not to be particularly hardcore gamers most of the time. With it being such a low risk activity I honestly don't see how they could keep engaged to the same degree as those lower on the scaleOr maybe they play like...EVE Online, where at any moment you could be at risk of having hundreds of hours of work getting blown up by a PvPer.Have I mentioned that I have an excitement seeking of zero, and basically would not play EVE Online even when I was working for CCP, in large part because the thought of getting blown up by someone much more powerful and losing all my stuff was just so very distasteful?
Trust. A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous.
Morality. High scorers on this scale see no need for pretense or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally find it more difficult to relate to the unstraightforward low-scorers on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth.
Altruism. Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need. Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfillment.
Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way.
Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people.
Sympathy. People who score high on this scale are tenderhearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy.
Anxiety. The "fight-or-flight" system of the brain of anxious individuals is too easily and too often engaged. Therefore, people who are high in anxiety often feel like something dangerous is about to happen. They may be afraid of specific situations or be just generally fearful. They feel tense, jittery, and nervous. Persons low in Anxiety are generally calm and fearless.
Anger. Persons who score high in Anger feel enraged when things do not go their way. They are sensitive about being treated fairly and feel resentful and bitter when they feel they are being cheated. This scale measures the tendency to feel angry; whether or not the person expresses annoyance and hostility depends on the individual's level on Agreeableness. Low scorers do not get angry often or easily.
Depression. This scale measures the tendency to feel sad, dejected, and discouraged. High scorers lack energy and have difficult initiating activities. Low scorers tend to be free from these depressive feelings.
Self-Consciousness. Self-conscious individuals are sensitive about what others think of them. Their concern about rejection and ridicule cause them to feel shy and uncomfortable abound others. They are easily embarrassed and often feel ashamed. Their fears that others will criticize or make fun of them are exaggerated and unrealistic, but their awkwardness and discomfort may make these fears a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low scorers, in contrast, do not suffer from the mistaken impression that everyone is watching and judging them. They do not feel nervous in social situations.
Immoderation. Immoderate individuals feel strong cravings and urges that they have have difficulty resisting. They tend to be oriented toward short-term pleasures and rewards rather than long- term consequences. Low scorers do not experience strong, irresistible cravings and consequently do not find themselves tempted to overindulge.
Vulnerability. High scorers on Vulnerability experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress. Low scorers feel more poised, confident, and clear-thinking when stressed.
I know naught of this "Gspot" of which you speak.
This one seems to correspond to the level of melodrama that people enjoy in their game storylines. (This was the part in his talk where he brought up the case of someone with 0 in emotionality who said "it's not OK if characters cry." I'm actually curious to see if there's a link between people who like Valkyrie Profile and this one. (Certainly one of Super's big complaints about the game is how Lenneth gets too EMO in the A-ending).
Everyone knows tactics and strategy are totally based on a lack of randomness in battles! </mandatory semi-serious troll comment>I can get where people are coming from here. To you, stuff like that isn't fun. But... I have to side with Grefter and Jim on this one. I'll stick to the SRPG example though, if people don't mind. NEB is right in terms of damage in battle needing to be somewhat predictable to a given point (example, everyone pretty much knows what a bullet will do to you). That point is of course different for people. My thought is that it shouldn't really be until you attack a unit the first time. Knowing what you'll do to something BEFORE you attack it the first time seems counterintuitive. I'd prefer if more SRPGs left you in the dark until then (with things being relatively consistant after that point). Sure, you can put in skills for more veteran units to give you a good estimate, but honestly a game that would truly trigger the fight or flight response would be interesting to me. Some people might find a game in which retreat is a viable and even necessary option sometimes unfun, but eh. Very few wars have been won by winning every single battle. I think at this point it's necessary to give objectives more complex than "Win Battle" to progress the genre. Of course, probably requires better AI, better planning/scripting/writing, etc. I guess it would take a special kind of game to implement this correctly, but at this point we SHOULD be asking more of our game producers. Pretty much goes with my whole "Putting strategy back in SRPGs" thing. There aren't that many games that truly force strategic thinking that the DL has played, by and large. There's Brig, GoC, probably missing some. It's not about winning the battle, it's about winning the war. Winning the battle is tactics. FFT, for example is way too linear, and while you're kept appraised of how you fit into the larger war effort, it's all about the next battle, and restricts your long-term planning as such. There's very little actual strategy there going by Clauswitz's definition. Plug FFT's engine into, GoC's map system and you instantly have the potential for an amazing fucking game (which they sort of kinda did with Brig!). Technology pretty much limited the scale this was able to be implemented on. But as it progresses, so should the genre.
