Fang Talks


Something about (multiplayer) versus games has been bothering me lately.

And it’s not that the games are doing anything wrong per se, I’m just being a bad player. But the thing is, that’s something they should take into account. Sounds weird, and it is, because it isn’t exactly what I mean. Hear me out. The most exciting moments in games are the really close and clutch ones, right? Where neither side has a significant advantage to completely overwhelm the other, where it’s pretty much anyone’s game until the very last moment.

Ideally, you should design your game for that. Optimize the amount of the during which comebacks are possible, or at least seem feasible. Most all of the matches I’ve played recently have been cakewalks for one side. Either I stomp hard, or I get stomped hard. Neither of those are particularly fun. The former is not challenging at all, while the latter comes with a frustrating feeling of helplessness.

Now there’s nothing wrong with the games for letting such scenarios happen, and it’s probably just me, but in some cases things like that can be partially mitigated by better matchmaking or tweaking the game flow’s design. Reduce snowballing, open up opportunities. All while keeping in mind good play should still be rewarded in the long run.

But secretly I’m just whining because I long for tight one-on-ones, if you know what I mean.
~ Fang


  • 26/02/2016 (1:03 PM)

    Unfortunately any time someone tries to balance a game they just ruin it further. Balancing is, almost ironically, a delicate balance.

  • 26/02/2016 (2:26 AM)

    Like your birds. They could keep the scores closer, couldn’t they? Would that get pushback from users?

Post a comment

Your email will stay hidden, required field are marked with a *.

Experimental anti-spam. You only have to do this once. (Hint: it's "Fang")