Struggling with the difference between a creator-player creating something and a user-player downloading and enjoying it, because in most cases the creator-player also wants to play and enjoy it.
Like... I can build a base that's fun for a rando to walk through... but it won't be fun for ME to walk through.
I wonder if we can do both. Like... have core play that's fun for both the builder and the player, but also decor or secondary play that's primarily focused on entertaining other people.
This entry was edited (11 months ago)
Craig P
in reply to Craig P • • •For example, imagine downloading a replica of a cool space ship.
You enjoy looking at it and walking through it because it's pretty.
You enjoy flying it around and using it because you know how difficult it is to set those mechanics up.
You enjoy the fun secondary systems that exist just for the joy of it, like the beepy wall panels, replicators, and a teleporter that glows and then fizzles out because the game doesn't have teleportation.
Craig P
in reply to Craig P • • •Of those things, the creator will also appreciate all three categories, but the length of time it takes to create the ship is substantially longer than the length of time they'll enjoy just... looking at it.
Embedding functionality will last longer, but awkwardly, that functionality also takes time to develop.
Hmmmm!
Craig P
in reply to Craig P • • •One thing I consider a lot is the idea of scenarios.
Fundamentally, most of the low-structure play in these games is the game barfing up scenarios.
We made a ship that can do this thing because this thing exists. We made a car that drives these surfaces well because that's the race track the game has. We made a helicopter that can put out forest fires because forest fires happen and helicopters exist.
But there's a lot of room for player-created scenarios.
Craig P
in reply to Craig P • • •A lot of streamers create scenarios, ranging from weekly contests to do a thing up to semi-scripted machinema RP.
And players do create scenarios, usually in the form of scripted worlds.
Both of those are quite limited and forced, though. Having to create a scripted universe because you want to show that your space ship can land on a faraway moon is, well, annoying and limited.
Can't mix it with another scenario to create a compelling scene because every world is 'complete'.
Craig P
in reply to Craig P • • •But what if our creations - ships, bases, cars, even characters - could have fragments of scenarios embedded in them that can be fluidly combined?
For example, what if we created a version of the Enterprise that could do a saucer separation... AND baked in the scenario of it happening near a world to crash land on?
You go near the saucer separation button, it pops up a note about the scenario and offers to rearrange your existing universe, put you near a world that exists nearby already.
silverwizard
in reply to Craig P • •Craig P
in reply to silverwizard • • •silverwizard likes this.
Hypolite Petovan
in reply to Craig P • • •@Craig P I'm loosely following the Super Mario World ROM-hack scene, and there definitely is a stark contrast between creator-players and user-players (even if individuals can be either depending on the context).
There is so much playtesting involved in making custom hard levels for Super Mario World that it stops being fun for the creator fast.
However, the main reward for them is seeing how user-players struggle with their creation, and a classic outcome of these projects sometimes spanning several years is a compilation of individual streamer clips experiencing some of the surprises peppered in the levels.