What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

Kamor · 2019-06-01 13:48:49

Erudaru wrote:

Jason knows all game designers personally (at least the good ones) and they are the only ones he listens to.

The only person who knows all game designer personally is Chuck Norris.

2017 the average game release (only) on steam is 21 a day. We have also multiply country´s. We have developers all over the world. Time is still running, there is no stop button. New developers spread each day. And there are a lot of good developers. I think each day a good developer is born. And you really mean Jason knows all game designers personally. Come on. You can say he knows a lot game designer personally, but not all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4eav7dFvc8

Last edited by Kamor (2019-06-01 14:08:02)

futurebird · 2019-06-01 13:54:30

Spoonwood wrote:

People don't play games because of someone's vision.

Um. That's why I play. It's also why I watch films, listen to music and enjoy other art. Games are an *art form* not just some application to do your taxes. A good game must have a perspective, a vision and *say something* about what it is to be human. You can make suggestions to an artist. Tell them you don't like their art and why if you don't. But it's not your art. It's not your creation.

I think the fact that you look at this game like some kind of product ... rather than art is the root of your frustration. You are like someone who goes to a gallery show and then yells at the artist because she won't paint what YOU want. And it's not the feedback and ideas that you have that are the issue. It's the *yelling*

Spoonwood · 2019-06-01 14:12:48

No game that I have ever played have I ever taken as some sort of meaningful work addressing what it is to be human. I've played games in the civilization series also in addition to OHOL, and never thought anything like that. Why would I? It's a game. It's not some of inquiry or essay or speech or have any serious observational methods or research/summary of research in any meaningful way. Saying a game is about human nature is like saying that Connect Four is about mathematics, because it involves counting and discrete geometry. Actually, Connect Four is more plausibly about mathematics than any *computer* game involving a finite program (is the human mind finite?) is about human nature.

futurebird wrote:

You can make suggestions to an artist. Tell them you don't like their art and why if you don't. But it's not your art. It's not your creation.

No, it's not that simple. Something isn't even art if it's not viewed by someone else. I don't paint the canvas, but I do have the perspective or values which changes those colors into art for me. And so do others for what counts as art or good art for them. A better analogy for an interactive game is something like music made for dancing which comes as meant to be interactive. The drummer doesn't have a beat, and thus people dancing to it is a disaster? May as well call it noise instead of calling it music then, because from the dancer's perspective that's all it is, and the dancer could even be better off without that racket. And the drummer can be wrong, since time is a thing. And people attempting to make art in general can fail, since there work might not have a suitable audience.

And I simply don't believe that you futurebird don't play because of their vision. What they made is NOT their vision. Vision comes as something in the mind, not in reality. You don't read minds.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-06-01 14:12:58)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-01 19:27:47

Very popular post for the OHOL subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/onehouronelife … ar_swords/

Dantox · 2019-06-01 19:39:59

futurebird wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
People don't play games because of someone's vision.
Um. That's why I play. It's also why I watch films, listen to music and enjoy other art. Games are an *art form* not just some application to do your taxes. A good game must have a perspective, a vision and *say something* about what it is to be human. You can make suggestions to an artist. Tell them you don't like their art and why if you don't. But it's not your art. It's not your creation.
I think the fact that you look at this game like some kind of product ... rather than art is the root of your frustration. You are like someone who goes to a gallery show and then yells at the artist because she won't paint what YOU want. And it's not the feedback and ideas that you have that are the issue. It's the *yelling*

I think the problem here is that the vision that jason sold to us (which was a heart-warming civilization building experience) is ending up on a civil-war every now and then with casual deaths every life including yours every now and then.

Spoonwood · 2019-06-01 21:18:48

jasonrohrer wrote:

Tarr's recent videos are a great example of what I need: clear demonstrations of a problem.
Don't just shout REMOVE THE WAR SWORD (a solution). Explain the problem that you're experiencing. Oh, one guy came in and wiped a whole village in 20 seconds, and got away unscathed. That is a problem. Maybe I can come up with a solution for that (a sword cool-down, and you can't hide the sword in a pack, etc.)
Even then, people just kept saying, "REMOVE THE WAR SWORD, IT RUINS THE GAME." Really? Hmm... that can't be right. The war sword itself can't be the problem. It must be something else.

Jason take a look at about 3:10 in Tarr's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTOOas0JH6g&t=10s Tarr births a child and his no interest in raising that child. Apparently, another family raises that child (instead hoping that the person behind the child dies and gets reborn as one of their children). Tarr isn't yumming much, if at all, and isn't trying to make his temperature better. Two berries get eaten in a row at one point in time at the very least. Tarr doesn't have a hat on for most of the video, doesn't have anything on her feet for much of the video, and even when she does, it's only one shoe. Tarr moving in a cold, neutral biome already, picks up snowballs, further showing a lack of concern about fertility mechanics. Your original post on what you had dreamt up start off with this sentence:

jasonrohrer wrote:

Still thinking about how to prefer your own current family over other families in your current life (without depending on cross-life effects).

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6301

Thus, Tarr's video provided evidence that the war sword itself is a problem and that it didn't address the underlying issue you were considering.

It just gets more and more baffling the more I think about it.

How in the world could Tarr have played for the sake of her lineage while in an active combat situation?

futurebird · 2019-06-01 21:58:44

I'm not seeing your point spoon. Jason said the video clearly showed a problem... and you seem to be saying "yes this is a problem" as if everyone didn't already recognize that.

Spoonwood · 2019-06-01 22:04:28

futurebird wrote:

I'm not seeing your point spoon. Jason said the video clearly showed a problem... and you seem to be saying "yes this is a problem" as if everyone didn't already recognize that.

Jason said that the war sword cannot be a problem in itself. The video if watched closely thinking about how to play for the sake of one's lineage provides evidence that the war sword itself can be a problem, since it discourages doing so as Tarr's behavior demonstrates.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-06-01 22:05:57)

Tarr · 2019-06-01 22:07:38

Spoonwood wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
Tarr's recent videos are a great example of what I need: clear demonstrations of a problem.
Don't just shout REMOVE THE WAR SWORD (a solution). Explain the problem that you're experiencing. Oh, one guy came in and wiped a whole village in 20 seconds, and got away unscathed. That is a problem. Maybe I can come up with a solution for that (a sword cool-down, and you can't hide the sword in a pack, etc.)
Even then, people just kept saying, "REMOVE THE WAR SWORD, IT RUINS THE GAME." Really? Hmm... that can't be right. The war sword itself can't be the problem. It must be something else.
Jason take a look at about 3:10 in Tarr's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTOOas0JH6g&t=10s Tarr births a child and his no interest in raising that child. Apparently, another family raises that child (instead hoping that the person behind the child dies and gets reborn as one of their children). Tarr isn't yumming much, if at all, and isn't trying to make his temperature better. Two berries get eaten in a row at one point in time at the very least. Tarr doesn't have a hat on for most of the video, doesn't have anything on her feet for much of the video, and even when she does, it's only one shoe. Tarr moving in a cold, neutral biome already, picks up snowballs, further showing a lack of concern about fertility mechanics. Your original post on what you had dreamt up start off with this sentence:
jasonrohrer wrote:
Still thinking about how to prefer your own current family over other families in your current life (without depending on cross-life effects).
https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6301
Thus, Tarr's video provided evidence that the war sword itself is a problem and that it didn't address the underlying issue you were considering.
It just gets more and more baffling the more I think about it.
How in the world could Tarr have played for the sake of her lineage while in an active combat situation?

That video isn't about problems with fertility at all. It's about issues with the sword and combat in general. It highlights how having unlimited snowballs is a problem, it shows off the zombie bug where someone is snowballed then stabbed, it shows issues with how you're able to click someone out of a normal players vision to stab them, we also see why Eves shouldn't constantly spawn next to towns.

If I wanted to make a video about fertility issues and all that jazz I would make one instead of trying to show off pvp issues and then griping about not raising children or playing for a lineage that was meant to die.

Spoonwood · 2019-06-01 22:16:48

It can be both things Tarr. Yes, your intent was not as you say. However, that video does reveal problems with fertility connected to the sword, once one realizes how to watch it that way.

Dodge · 2019-06-02 06:10:14

Spoonwood wrote:

It can be both things Tarr. Yes, your intent was not as you say. However, that video does reveal problems with fertility connected to the sword, once one realizes how to watch it that way.

He was making a video to show the issue with swords, obviously he's not going to take care of the babies....

Is the sword a contraceptive ? Why are you talking about fertility? lol

Did you see him make food? No? Oh i guess swords are the reason people dont make food then...

That's your logic...

WE GET IT you dont like the sword, instead of pointing it out all the time explain what you would like to be changed about the sword for it to be better and not ridiculous arguments as to why it should be removed.

Oh btw without the sword what would prevent towns to be one huge mess with everyone from server on it? language? nope

I agree tho that swords should not target necessarly other family members but depend on the alliances there is and on a political system, but they just got added so obviously we are not there yet if that even ever happens.

Spoonwood · 2019-06-02 13:22:46

Dodge wrote:

Is the sword a contraceptive ? Why are you talking about fertility?

The game gets put out as one about parenting:

JasonRohrer wrote:

a multiplayer survival game of parenting
and civilization building

http://onehouronelife.com/

On top of that, when Jason first discussed motivation for swords, his post started with this:

jasonrohrer wrote:

Still thinking about how to prefer your own current family over other families in your current life (without depending on cross-life effects). If you have to choose between two kids, you should always feel a gameplay reason to choose your own.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6301

But, Tarr didn't choose his children in the sense of choosing to care for them, and the only choice you get about children once born in this game is "do I pick this child up or not?" (or stab or shoot them I suppose). Tarr isn't parenting. Tarr abandons her child (and no, the child was not me), and abandonding a child isn't parenting.

With Jason having said:

jasonrohrer wrote:

As I've said many times, I want your decisions in the game to matter, at all levels. I want running a successful village to be hard, and I want you to care enough to get good at handling that challenge. I want town leadership to be necessary, because the challenge is so difficult, and I want disagreements and politics to unfold around that leadership. I want the survival of your family to really matter to you.

it's plausible that the original post where swords got proposed indicates that Jason had an intent for swords to encourage people to care about their family surviving. The video provides evidence of the contrary. It provides evidence that the sword encourages a woman to NOT CARE AT ALL about their family surviving. And though perhaps *some* exceptions exist, in the majority of cases the sword just discourages people from playing for the survival of their family.

The sword does NOT fulfill the original motivation behind it, and simply won't do so. War swords don't work well with people playing for the sake of their lineage, because that requires parenting, and for anyone using a war sword, they just won't be parenting in terms of anything effective for children surviving in this game. Therefore, it should get removed from the game.

Dodge wrote:

WE GET IT you dont like the sword, instead of pointing it out all the time explain what you would like to be changed about the sword for it to be better and not ridiculous arguments as to why it should be removed.

Dodge, if I'm just stating my preference, why on Earth can I point to Jason's post where he talks about his motivation for something that become the sword? Do you think my preferences are Jason's or something? Because I'm pretty sure that even people who disagree with me just don't believe for a second that Jason and I have the same preferences.

Additionally, I do NOT see you stating any reason here as to why swords are good. So, really Dodge, you have merely projected your tendency to say something is good without reason onto me.

Dodge wrote:

Oh btw without the sword what would prevent towns to be one huge mess with everyone from server on it?

I don't know what you're asking here Dodge. It's not a clear question. Before the sword towns were not a huge mess, nor was everyone on the server in a single town.

Dodge wrote:

I agree tho that swords should not target necessarly other family members but depend on the alliances there is and on a political system, but they just got added so obviously we are not there yet if that even ever happens.

No, it's been a few weeks. It was version 224 and we're on version 236.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-06-02 13:28:10)

Dodge · 2019-06-02 13:37:23

@Spoonwood You're just evading everything i say because you have no arguments.

"Is the sword a contraceptive ? Why are you talking about fertility?

"The game gets put out as one about parenting:"

You're saying sword prevent fertility.

So i ask you do sword prevent a woman to be fertile? are they contraceptive? if no then they dont prevent fertility and you're WRONG

"The sword does NOT fulfill the original motivation behind it, and simply won't do so. Therefore, it should get removed from the game."

It does actually it prevents everyone from the server from being in the same village, so again you're WRONG.

"Additionally, I do NOT see you stating any reason here as to why swords are good. So, really Dodge, you have merely projected your tendency to say something is good without reason onto me."

I just told you the reason "to prevent everyone from the server to be in one village"

Seems like you're filtering what you like and ignoring what you dont.

"I don't know what you're asking here Dodge. It's not a clear question. Before the sword towns were not a huge mess, nor was everyone on the server in a single town."

Before the sword update villages and lineages where 1000's of tiles separate from each other so having everyone from server in one big village was not a concern.

"No, it's been a few weeks. It was version 224 and we're on version 236."

It's been what a month or so?

You really need to learn patience...

Also it's not only a game about parenting but also a simulation of civilisations, which means social and political systems, economie and yes war.

So your argument about "IT DOES NOT BENEFIT LINEAGE" or something like that, is flawed....

Spoonwood · 2019-06-02 14:49:43

Dodge wrote:

@Spoonwood You're just evading everything i say because you have no arguments.
"Is the sword a contraceptive ? Why are you talking about fertility?
"The game gets put out as one about parenting:"
You're saying sword prevent fertility.
So i ask you do sword prevent a woman to be fertile? are they contraceptive? if no then they dont prevent fertility and you're WRONG

No, I didn't say that swords prevented fertility. My original comments about temperature and yum were about fertility though. Tarr is focused on war and doesn't care much about temperature and yum (she didn't come with a bowler hat or shoes on feet, at the very least clogs probably could have gotten made in where she got born... an adze is quick even if it doesn't exist). Since Tarr doesn't care much about temperature and yum, she isn't focused on fertility. What people want to do with swords is simply not compatible with people trying to play in the best way for the sake of their fertility. Birthing a child can still happen, so fertility is NOT prevented. However, having a child is less likely, and people who use swords just aren't likely to try to enhance their fertility while using a sword.

Dodge wrote:

"The sword does NOT fulfill the original motivation behind it, and simply won't do so. Therefore, it should get removed from the game."
It does actually it prevents everyone from the server from being in the same village, so again you're WRONG.

No, it doesn't. Laughably bad really Dodge. There is no one cause as to why everyone doesn't live in the same village, as there exist many different means as to how people have different villages. Eves spawning in different spots. People finding different value in different spots, rightly or wrongly. The inconvenience of the language barrier. People not having the same last name and thus family wars erupting (which sometimes happened BEFORE swords existed). Additionally, and this is how your statement gets laughably bad, you haven't made any sort of connection between people living in different villages and them playing for the survival of their family. Your argument doesn't even go through except by mere assumption. Just stating a premise and conclusion is poor as a matter of form. You need reasoning to get from your premise set to your conclusion. There's no reasoning for what you said Dodge.

Dodge wrote:

"Additionally, I do NOT see you stating any reason here as to why swords are good. So, really Dodge, you have merely projected your tendency to say something is good without reason onto me."
I just told you the reason "to prevent everyone from the server to be in one village"

No, Jason did NOT have an objection to everyone living in the same village. Go read what he wrote. It was about lineages, not villages.

Dodge wrote:

"I don't know what you're asking here Dodge. It's not a clear question. Before the sword towns were not a huge mess, nor was everyone on the server in a single town."
Before the sword update villages and lineages where 1000's of tiles separate from each other so having everyone from server in one big village was not a concern.

A very strange thing to say Dodge. Go read Jason's original post on the swords. Swords were NOT invented to solve some problem of people coming together, because then the consequences of people coming together would have had to have been the initial problem. It wasn't that way though. Again, here's the post: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6301 Jason states "the problem", as far as that metaphor goes, up front:

jasonrohrer wrote:

Still thinking about how to prefer your own current family over other families in your current life (without depending on cross-life effects).

He ends the post by restating "the problem":

jasonrohrer wrote:

I'm looking for other ideas to give the "otherness" of other families some gameplay consequence.

Jason had said on previous ocassions this, which signals the same "problem" (and Jason uses a problem based framework... go read the initial post to verify that... him talking about his perspective has merit):

jasonrohrer wrote:

As I've said many times, I want your decisions in the game to matter, at all levels. I want running a successful village to be hard, and I want you to care enough to get good at handling that challenge. I want town leadership to be necessary, because the challenge is so difficult, and I want disagreements and politics to unfold around that leadership. I want the survival of your family to really matter to you.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6087

Dodge wrote:

Also it's not only a game about parenting but also a simulation of civilisations, which means social and political systems, economie and yes war.

No, it's NOT a simulation of civilizations. It's about *building* civilizations. Civilizations aren't built by soldiers, but by carpenters, construction workers, leaders and teachers who lead people or help them develop, merchants, literal money makers, news sources, and the like. Soldiers either loot other civilization or PROTECT a civilization that exist. But, protecting a civilization is not building a civilization, because building a civilization involves making something new. Soldiers who protect only keep the process of building civilization on going in the same direction or preserve civilization. Neither of which is building a civilization.

Dodge wrote:

So your argument about "IT DOES NOT BENEFIT LINEAGE" or something like that, is flawed....

Apparently you can't even summarize the argument accurately, and if you can't do that, then you just didn't understand the argument. It's not about what benefits the lineage by some sort of predetermined measure. It's about *the players PLAYING* for the sake of their lineage.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-06-02 14:50:11)

Erudaru · 2019-06-02 14:56:18

Kamor wrote:

The only person who knows all game designer personally is Chuck Norris.
2017 the average game release (only) on steam is 21 a day. We have also multiply country´s. We have developers all over the world. Time is still running, there is no stop button. New developers spread each day. And there are a lot of good developers. I think each day a good developer is born. And you really mean Jason knows all game designers personally. Come on. You can say he knows a lot game designer personally, but not all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4eav7dFvc8

Thought so. Jason is delusional then.

jasonrohrer wrote:

If you do have that much experience, I already know you personally, because if you've been making games that long, we've already crossed paths. I'm probably calling you on the phone for advice directly.

Dodge · 2019-06-02 15:39:15

@Spoonwood

"No, it's NOT a simulation of civilizations. It's about *building* civilizations. Civilizations aren't built by soldiers, but by carpenters, construction workers, leaders and teachers who lead people or help them develop, merchants, literal money makers, news sources, and the like. Soldiers either loot other civilization or PROTECT a civilization that exist. But, protecting a civilization is not building a civilization, because building a civilization involves making something new. Soldiers who protect only keep the process of building civilization on going in the same direction or preserve civilization. Neither of which is building a civilization."

Oh boy. You're that kind off person that corrects everyone about their grammar dont you?

Yes it's about civlizations in general, even if the word "building" is used it doesn't mean it's only about building them it's about all the interactions and systems that exists and have existed in human history.

I see the issue here, you lack something called COMMON SENSE you need everything explained with the exact words and terminology or else you dont understand, which is the reason for so much miscommunication with you....

And yes swords are ONE of the reason why different families dont group up in the same big towns, obviously if your lineage can easily get killed if they are with another one it wont happen as often...

If you read the update where he added the swords : https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6395

He states: "But that doesn't mean civilization will turn into one giant, sprawling mush. Just as I've brought you all together, I've also added a few other things to help you maintain some separation. You're not building that tower to heaven together quite yet."

So yeah he added languages and swords to prevent civilization to "turn into one giant, sprawling mush" it seems like you dont realize why the swords were added.

But again you're assumptions are WRONG.

"Apparently you can't even summarize the argument accurately, and if you can't do that, then you just didn't understand the argument. It's not about what benefits the lineage by some sort of predetermined measure. It's about *the players PLAYING* for the sake of their lineage."

Yeah exactly what i was thinking i didn't use the "correct" words so you dont seem to understand.

Not everything added in game is about lineage mechanic like i said earlier it's a simulation of human civilizations.

And human civilizations and history is more interesting than your narrow, two dimensionnal point of view.

Last edited by Dodge (2019-06-02 15:40:35)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-02 16:08:58

Dodge wrote:

So yeah he added languages and swords to prevent civilization to "turn into one giant, sprawling mush" it seems like you dont realize why the swords were added.

That post you linked to is from May 12th AFTER the change got implemented. The post I've referred to is from May 7th, this one: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6301. So, there isn't evidence that the POTENTIAL BUT NOT KNOWN issue Jason was trying to solve was as you describe, since motivation precedes action. The issue of people not playing for their lineages is also a known issue, in so far as such can accurately get described that way.

Dodge wrote:

Not everything added in game is about lineage mechanic like i said earlier it's a simulation of human civilizations.

No, it's about *building* civilizations. If Jason means something else, then he should say something else. You simply refuse to take his words seriously by trying to throw your desired interpretation of what he says, as if this game was Sid Meier's Civilization 42 or something, instead of just going with what he says. He says civilization *building*, NOT something else. Common sense implies that mature people say what they mean, because they usually do say what they mean. Jason is a mature person. You've basically implied him immature or stupid by trying to say 'oh he must really mean this' instead of just sticking to what he said.

And again, go back and look at the May 7th post. Jason says there that the sword was intended to be about lineage mechanics. So, it's irrelevant to say that not everything is about lineage mechanics, because that's what swords were about. Again, go look at the May 7th post.

BerrypickerAF · 2019-06-02 18:10:38

Damn Jason, I didn't know you knew the entire game dev community personally! I asked my buddies who've been in the industry for 20+ years about it, and they didn't know who you were?
I guess they're not big enough huh.. they only worked on small unknown stuff like Lego Universe, Warhammer40k online, and developed the official Walmart VR training game, so it must just be their mistake for not having met you yet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Last edited by BerrypickerAF (2019-06-02 18:14:31)

Spoonwood · 2019-06-03 01:57:34

jasonrohrer wrote:

Don't just shout REMOVE THE WAR SWORD (a solution). Explain the problem that you're experiencing. Oh, one guy came in and wiped a whole village in 20 seconds, and got away unscathed. That is a problem. Maybe I can come up with a solution for that (a sword cool-down, and you can't hide the sword in a pack, etc.)
Even then, people just kept saying, "REMOVE THE WAR SWORD, IT RUINS THE GAME." Really? Hmm... that can't be right. The war sword itself can't be the problem. It must be something else.
And sure enough, the problem was the griefer dance, which has been with us for a whole year, but never really highlighted to me in a clear way. I mean, a year ago, people were telling me to just remove knives.

Thinking more on this, nope, "the problem" was NOT the griefer dance. There's also been a griefer who has griefed a low population server where all of the people who have run towns have complained about. It's the same problem. There existed some discussions of how entrances to city walls could get blocked off. People have mentioned immovable structures, instanteous ones. Tarry spots aren't always watched, and someone mentioned once that a tarry spot had been griefed. The 'griefer dance' doesn't have relevance in such a situation, because an intelligent player catching them could easily get missed. The same problem exists here as the other situations (or at least it can). Let's suppose that immovable structures got removed in a suitable way and the other form of griefing has a good solution to it. Well, other forms of griefing might come into existence, so that would just address another symptom of the problem and not everything can get thought out ahead of time, since how things will work players in the end isn't predictable. So, what can we say as the problem, other the uninformative word of 'griefing' or 'unuseful griefing with respect to game design'?

Here was the problem, if we must insist that there must exist some unique problem (the assumption of one problem doesn't have a good justification):

Too little player accountability.

There was no way to hold Tarr accountable, because of his speed, and he didn't care about getting killed in the end. A griefer trying to block off a tarry spot might have too little accountability, because who knows if she gets caught? A griefer on a low population server has less player accountability (though, for any griefers out there, there's fewer people out there... is that going to do much for your sadistic tendencies?).

And here's the thing, people not being able to curse outside of one's lineage in comparison to people being able to curse outside of their lineage, that lowers player accountability.

And the sword lowers player accountability also, because it takes less time for the blood to go away than if someone uses a knife or bow and arrow.

Solbusaur · 2019-06-03 21:58:17

Spoonwood wrote:

But, Tarr didn't choose his children in the sense of choosing to care for them, and the only choice you get about children once born in this game is "do I pick this child up or not?" (or stab or shoot them I suppose). Tarr isn't parenting. Tarr abandons her child (and no, the child was not me), and abandonding a child isn't parenting.

Tarr was griefing and showing off how broken the sword was, griefers usually never care for their lineages. They live a life only to cause grief, so parenting and building civilisations is completely out of the picture here, thus talking about raising babies in this video is irrelevant. Using someone who doesn't play/never plays (in this case, a griefer) the way Jason intends isn't a good way of showing that Jason's ideas don't work

Spoonwood · 2019-06-04 05:12:50

Solbusaur wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
But, Tarr didn't choose his children in the sense of choosing to care for them, and the only choice you get about children once born in this game is "do I pick this child up or not?" (or stab or shoot them I suppose). Tarr isn't parenting. Tarr abandons her child (and no, the child was not me), and abandonding a child isn't parenting.
Tarr was griefing and showing off how broken the sword was, griefers usually never care for their lineages. They live a life only to cause grief, so parenting and building civilisations is completely out of the picture here, thus talking about raising babies in this video is irrelevant. Using someone who doesn't play/never plays (in this case, a griefer) the way Jason intends isn't a good way of showing that Jason's ideas don't work

Tarr was playing OHOL. The core concept of OHOL is that you care for your offspring.

jasonrohrer wrote:

The core idea in this game is that you care for your offspring because they are the future that gives what you accomplish in the game meaning.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5806

So, it's always relevant to talk about raising babies.

Given that griefing should get used to positive game effects, then griefing also has to work in a manner consistent with the core game concept. This video does show, and I think you agree, that griefing does not involve people caring for their lineages. Griefing does not work in manner consistent with the core game concept. So, the entire notion that griefing can get used to positive game effects is suspicious, if not refuted also.

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-04 15:54:30

In my experience designing games and playtesting them with thousands and thousands of people over fifteen years, players are very good at experiencing problems, and calling attention to problems, and having valid individual experiences. Players are bad at understanding the sources of those problems, and thus, players are very bad at solving those problems themselves. This is a general observation, and not true in all cases.

It may be something like an individual economic actor trying to understand the macroscopic forces that are shaping the economy that they are part of. From where they are at, all they can see is that "prices are too high." They are too close and too involved to see the real problem, whatever that is.

This is part of the reason that I added the game recording feature back when I was working on Inside a Start-filled Sky. Players were complaining about overarching problems with the game ("not very fun," "too grindy," that kind of thing), but unable to articulate the source of those problems, and definitely unable to provide useful potential solutions to those problems ("maybe you need to add a boss to the game").

But, by simply watching them play (via recordings that they sent me), I could instantly see what was causing the problems, and being able to clearly see the cause helped me to eventually settle on solutions to these problems.

And this is a wide-spread "best practice" throughout the industry. During playtesting, don't listen to verbal feedback from players. Just watch silently as they play your game. I've even been on the other end of that, when testing a game made by a friend's company. He and I are peers as designers, and he obviously respects my design instincts, but when I was playtesting his game, he basically wanted me to shut up and play (they were videotaping both the screen and my face while I was playing).

Unfortunately, OHOL is such a long-form and variable game that watching a lot of recordings isn't practical. But I've definitely refined the tutorial a ton by watching streamers struggle with certain parts. Heck, I refined the tutorial a ton by watching my wife struggle with it, back in the day. That's where the /hatchet filter system came from in the first place.

lychee · 2019-06-04 16:17:15

Welcome back, Jason!

So basically the point is to stream more and record as much as possible?

jasonrohrer · 2019-06-04 16:38:16

Well, that's tough, because lives are long, and watching it all takes a lot of time.

In a linear game, or a single player game, it's very easy to zero in on a problem spot. Which is why it's easy to iron out player confusion and such in the tutorial.

But if you stream a life, how do I even know where to look to spot an over-arching problem?

In fact, many of the problems that need solving aren't even happening at the "single life" level, but large-scale patterns across many lives. Even a problem like "clutter" is a trans-generational problem, as a simple example. So you could show me a stream of a life where clutter was a problem, but even that won't get to the bottom of it.

So, returning to the original post, I need clear descriptions of your experience of problems.

Spoonwood · 2019-06-04 16:58:34

jasonrohrer wrote:

... tutorial

What you don't mention comes as more revealing than what you mention.

The method you use for the tutorial only will give you feedback as to how clear the tutorial is with respect to what it tells players. The watching people play the tutorial part is fine, but it's incomplete. You need to watch people playing the tutorial AND then see them playing their first game, because that then shows how relevant the tutorial ends up to people's play experience. I've seen this happen on Twitch, but it's been a while since I watched one and Twitch videos only last so long. It's not likely to be two hours to do this at least once, and may well be under 5 hours if you watched 3 different people play the tutorial and then play the game once.

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2019-06-01 13:48:49

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#52 2019-06-01 13:54:30

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#53 2019-06-01 14:12:48

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#54 2019-06-01 19:27:47

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#55 2019-06-01 19:39:59

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#56 2019-06-01 21:18:48

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#57 2019-06-01 21:58:44

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#58 2019-06-01 22:04:28

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#59 2019-06-01 22:07:38

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#60 2019-06-01 22:16:48

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#61 2019-06-02 06:10:14

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#62 2019-06-02 13:22:46

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#63 2019-06-02 13:37:23

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#64 2019-06-02 14:49:43

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#65 2019-06-02 14:56:18

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#66 2019-06-02 15:39:15

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#67 2019-06-02 16:08:58

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#68 2019-06-02 18:10:38

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#69 2019-06-03 01:57:34

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#70 2019-06-03 21:58:17

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#71 2019-06-04 05:12:50

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#72 2019-06-04 15:54:30

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#73 2019-06-04 16:17:15

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#74 2019-06-04 16:38:16

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

#75 2019-06-04 16:58:34

Re: What I actually, generally need when you give me feedback about OHOL

Board footer