CHUD.com Community › Forums › VIDEO GAMES & RPG › Video Games › The issue with Efficiency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The issue with Efficiency

post #1 of 35
7/22/09 at 3:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieron Gillen
That said, I’ve certainly got some takes on why it failed, and – aside from tech and whatever – there’s a core belief they ran with which (I sadly suspect) isn’t true. Bioshock has ran into the same problem too, in a smaller way.

The best example is the Vent issue. People complained a lot about having to crawl through vents constantly. Except, you don’t have to. The skillset in IW is really subtle and there’s dozens of options at any time. But the vent solution is simple and easy and efficient,and people took it every time it turned up and were bored.

(And never experimented with the options as they didn’t *have* to.)

Invisible War was made with the belief that players like doing interesting things. Many of them don’t – they’d rather be boring and efficient, and have to be forced into being interesting.

(In Bioshock, it’s the “I can complete the game with the wrench” thing by respawning and running. Yeah, you can, but it’ll take forever and be really boring. But what sort of person would do that voluntarily? It’s tedious. Some people need the game to force them to stop being tedious.)
Kieron is one of my favourite commentators on videogames. He's written for a few PC gaming magazines, The Guardian newspaper and countless websites (from Eurogamer to the Escapist) and he's been commentating on video games for over a decade. In short I <3 this guy and tend to go out of my way to read his stuff when I can (I even read a four page review of the MMO Darkfall despite having no interest in MMO's or the Darkfall brand just because it was written by him).

Anyways the above quote brings up a gripe I've often had with games fandom and that's about the need to be efficient and the way in which you can ruin a game for yourself. I was reading soylent green's excellent account of his adventures in Fallout 3 in the Fallout thread and it sort of put the point into stark contrast. A lot of the experiences he describes are only gotten by approaching the game from a particular angle, throwing yourself into the wasteland without guides or information and just letting the game happen to them.

I've also been having a conversation recently with a few friends about Red Faction Guerilla and how they found the missions and side missions to get boring because all you had to do was drive a car through buildings all the time. I mentioned to him that I'd done several of the missions in vastly different ways using the jetpack, and rifles, and x-ray sniper rifles, to act in a covert or interesting manner and his reply was 'but why would you bother with that, when it's quicker to smash into everything with tanks'.

I'm sure it's not a new problem, pro-time runs have been around since the dawn of gaming, but I do think that achievements have maybe excarebated the issue. I know a few people who will power through games as quickly as possible just so they can move onto the next game for the next set of gamerpoints. I know a lot of people who attempted the Liberty City Minute achievement right off the bat with GTA and I was surprised that people were willing to rush through a game that had taken me about 70 hours to complete first time through.

Now that my long rambling is done, I ask you, the chewers, what you think about the issue.
Reply
post #2 of 35
7/22/09 at 3:56pm
I think you touched on two different issues.
1. One is the fact that gamers will use the easy route if the game designers didn't plan against it.
If the game rules allow it, why not use a simple "cheat" to achieve your objective.
Some game bugs when exploited essentially become cheats, but most gamers will gladly use them but would never use cheats.

2. The other issue lies with human nature. Games like FALLOUT3 bring out the collector and completist in some gamers. They need to get to 100%, complete everything, see everything, talk and kill everything.
Even when most of the content is basically just randomly generated junk they will gladly have their walkthrough guide with them that safely shows and spoils them every little item and secret.
I think this counts as an addiction of some sorts. If a game provides the framework to be a real perfectionist/completionist/anal collector than there will always be a bunch of people doing all of that.
Even if getting that silly last 50/50 achievement by killing the gazillionth zombie will change nothing in the game, except having that nice little number 50/50.
Some people just find psychological peace of mind in having their virtual life all sorted, organized and neat I guess.
Reply
post #3 of 35
7/22/09 at 4:13pm
I don't have all the context here but sometimes these fancypants game critics belabor their arguments, and this sounds like one of those cases.

This "efficiency" and "Vent issue" stuff is just game balance. If a game offers several solutions to a situation, and one of them is much easier/boring than the others, that's a design flaw. Not necessarily a big one, but a flaw. It shouldn't be on the player to deliberately avoid the option that sucks. Optimally, sneaking in should be as interesting as going in guns blazing, or hacking security, etc. This is of course very tricky or impossible to pull off perfectly, but that should be the goal.

How players amuse themselves in a game isn't necessarily a barometer for judging the game itself. There's that guy on the internet who's logged thousands of hours in Bubsy 3D looking for bugs and glitches. I don't think that's any kind of testament to the genius of Bubsy 3D's game design.
Reply
post #4 of 35
7/22/09 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieron Gillen

The best example is the Vent issue. People complained a lot about having to crawl through vents constantly. Except, you don’t have to. The skillset in IW is really subtle and there’s dozens of options at any time. But the vent solution is simple and easy and efficient,and people took it every time it turned up and were bored.
This is also how most people live their real lives.
Reply
post #5 of 35
7/22/09 at 4:28pm
This mindset of finding the most efficient way of beating enemies or the game as a whole comes from the fact that for decades, so many games have been about two things: getting a high score or simply reaching the end. Efficiency is the most effective way of achieving those two things. Efficiently avoiding/killing enemies and maneuvering the levels to reach the top of the leaderboard or advance to the next stage.

The example you brought up, Spike, about the guy who only destroyed the buildings by ramming trucks and tanks into it is th perfect example of this. He's still in the mindset that the game is there to be beaten instead of explored. The point of open-world games like Red Faction Guerilla or GTA4 or other games that give you a multitude of options is to tackle situations in a variety of ways and/or to immerse one's self in the narrative, not simply to just beat the final boss.
Reply
post #6 of 35
7/22/09 at 4:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd View Post
This "efficiency" and "Vent issue" stuff is just game balance. If a game offers several solutions to a situation, and one of them is much easier/boring than the others, that's a design flaw. Not necessarily a big one, but a flaw. It shouldn't be on the player to deliberately avoid the option that sucks.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gittes View Post
This mindset of finding the most efficient way of beating enemies or the game as a whole comes from the fact that for decades, so many games have been about two things: getting a high score or simply reaching the end. Efficiency is the most effective way of achieving those two things. Efficiently avoiding/killing enemies and maneuvering the levels to reach the top of the leaderboard or advance to the next stage.

The example you brought up, Spike, about the guy who only destroyed the buildings by ramming trucks and tanks into it is th perfect example of this. He's still in the mindset that the game is there to be beaten instead of explored. The point of open-world games like Red Faction Guerilla or GTA4 or other games that give you a multitude of options is to tackle situations in a variety of ways and/or to immerse one's self in the narrative, not simply to just beat the final boss.
I don't think it's a mindset so much as the definition of "game," but I guess there are two separate issues, depending on how many players a game has.

If you are playing against someone - one or more, human or bot - then too bad, but the efficiency approach is the only way. Any thought you devote to something other than winning the game is an advantage for your opponent(s), and those who do best in the long run will be those who discover the best tactics and use them. (You can make your own social rules against "cheap" tactics, but that just moves the goalposts - eventually you and your group will find a rule system within which you are ruthless.)

In a one-player game, though, there may be less objectivity; there may be no object of the game as such. Spike has his own utility function, to use an economics term, and Spike's strays much further from "winning" than does that of his friends - for them you can assume that winning and maximizing utility are nearly identical - and who am I to say that it is wrong.

(Perhaps a one-player story mode is not a game at all, just a piece of art with which to interact.)

Still, game designers can increase the "fun" for Spike's friends without decreasing Spike's, simply by listening to Count Floyd. For example, depower or remove the tanksmash tactic - now they're both doing it the interesting way, right?
Reply
post #7 of 35
7/22/09 at 5:47pm
Thread Starter 
I'd also like to state for the record that I'm not saying playing efficentley is wrong, and that the way I play is superior, I'm just interested in people who still have an 'arcade' view on games and play to beat them rather than to experience them.
Reply
post #8 of 35
7/22/09 at 5:56pm
Multiplayer games are all about efficiency.

Single player games come down to what is the most fun, if there are actually different routes to the same objective. What is most fun varies from person to person. For some people the most fun is the quickest as they just want to get past an obstacle to get to the next obstacle. I mean, can't we just break this down by the Bartle archetypes?
Reply
post #9 of 35
7/22/09 at 8:00pm
Only RPGs bring out the efficient player in me because I like managing stats and equipment to overcome (hopefully) very difficult enemies.

I've been trying to get back into COD4 multiplayer but I just don't have the time (or willpower) to memorize maps, spawn points, etc. Its a fantastic game but multiplayer seems to rely soley on efficiency and not fun.
Reply
post #10 of 35
7/22/09 at 9:40pm
I play pretty much every game with the "run in and see what happens" methodology. Except with TF2, where efficiency is key as the expert Spy that I am.
Reply
post #11 of 35
7/23/09 at 4:17am
My best personal experience concerning efficiency vs. fun in games comes from playing Planescape:Torment. At a point in that game your party visited Baator, the Lawful Evil plane of the D&D universe. The battles I had trying to get where I wanted were difficult but fun. They were also kind of time consuming. So after a point I started to abuse the fact that in P:T you didn't have to 'gather your party before venturing onward'. If your character could get to a loading screen your whole party would automatically appear with you afterwards. So at the beginning of each level I'd switch to the thief class, load myself with every bonus giving item and buff my party had, stealth and go all the way across the level undetected. Same with the next one. It was efficient but kind of boring and I soon stopped doing it. Because even though I was using only the game's mechanics, I felt I was abusing an oversight by the developers and therefore wasn't playing the game as it was intended to be played. I felt that I was probably missing stuff.

I have since found that figuring out how the developers wanted you to play the game and trying to stay close to that tends to give you a better experience. Of course in multiplayer all this goes out of the window. All that matters is efficiency. Clicks per minute, build orders, patrol paths, frames per second, spawn points, choke points, that's what matters. You don't build six battlecruisers to do the job six marines could do in multiplayer. In single player, if you have time to waste yes and I often do, but in multiplayer no.
Reply
post #12 of 35
7/23/09 at 4:27am
I think these very good points about multiplayer only really allowing for efficient play are precisely why I fucking loathe multiplayer. I want to explore, take my time, get as creative as a game allows me when I play it.

My god, this thread has finally pinpointed why I'm not a multiplayer guy, why I've always seen single player games as the way I enjoy gaming. I've never really been able to put my finger on it before. It's that Im more creative than I am competitive.

Huh, "The More You Know" and all that...
Reply
post #13 of 35
7/23/09 at 4:35am
Yeah, don't get me wrong. I'm mostly a single player guy myself. My performance in muliplayer tends to start in the top 10% and as everyone starts figuring out strategies and tactics while I keep on doing whatever comes to me, it eventually ends up permanently at the bottom of the rankings. In TF2 for example. When it was new I was always in the top three of every match. I stopped playing for a while and when I came back I was stuck in the middle. The other day I tried playing again and got my ass beat like a circus monkey.
Reply
post #14 of 35
7/23/09 at 5:05am
These are all good points but I'd like to add that a lot of people are just simply uncreative when it comes to gaming. They find their one way of completing something, and it doesn't even dawn on them that there could be other ways of completing a similar mission.
Reply
post #15 of 35
7/23/09 at 5:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsy View Post
These are all good points but I'd like to add that a lot of people are just simple uncreative when it comes to gaming. They find their one way of completing something, and it doesn't even dawn on them that there could be other ways of completing a similar mission.
And I'd argue that this could be because they're not creative but could just as easily be because a lot of people are used to having only one way to beat a game. You whippersnappers and your "choices".
Reply
post #16 of 35
7/23/09 at 1:56pm
Thread Starter 
In terms of multiplayer GTA4 was the most depressing. Rockstar built these massive playgrounds for multiplayer and spent ages making various modes for play and yet the vast majority of maps turned off auto-aim, turned off the radar and degenerated into both teams crouching behind walls waiting to shoot someone in the back with a pistol. A multiplayer experience which should have been crazy and full of opportunities just got turned into CoD4. The same thing is kind of happening to Red Faction. When I've been playing with chewers we've been very objective focused and we tend to win due to the fact the vast majority of the players would rather ignore the destruction aspects of the game and instead chose to perch on mountains or in corners sniping or crouching in corridors (whilst invisible) to rack up kills.
Reply
post #17 of 35
7/23/09 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
In terms of multiplayer GTA4 was the most depressing. Rockstar built these massive playgrounds for multiplayer and spent ages making various modes for play and yet the vast majority of maps turned off auto-aim, turned off the radar and degenerated into both teams crouching behind walls waiting to shoot someone in the back with a pistol. A multiplayer experience which should have been crazy and full of opportunities just got turned into CoD4.
Agreed. I have fond memories of GTA4 sessions with Chewers. There was one where you decided it would be fun to put most everyone in a helicopter, hover over another helicopter, and then jump out one-by-one and and play meat grinder. Awesome. Playing with regular people was a snooze. (Though another Chewer session was versus some irate juggalos, and that one was more entertaining than it probably had any right to be.)
Reply
post #18 of 35
7/23/09 at 7:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Yeah, don't get me wrong. I'm mostly a single player guy myself. My performance in muliplayer tends to start in the top 10% and as everyone starts figuring out strategies and tactics while I keep on doing whatever comes to me, it eventually ends up permanently at the bottom of the rankings. In TF2 for example. When it was new I was always in the top three of every match. I stopped playing for a while and when I came back I was stuck in the middle. The other day I tried playing again and got my ass beat like a circus monkey.
I guess I'm the flip side of that because I always start a campaign, get about 10% into it, and then play multiplayer the rest of the time that game's in rotation. Playing single player is kind of a lonesome experience these days.
Reply
post #19 of 35
7/24/09 at 6:25am
I do like taking the interesting routes, but I wish the game would support them a little more.

In Fallout 3 I tried a few 'limited characters' (only pistols or only fists). It would be fun for a while with a silly wasteland brawler or cowboy. Then I'd run out of pistol ammo, and I'd have tons of rifle ammo and no-one is selling it. OR my brawler would come across a Super Mutant with a missile launcher on top of a building. It basically stopped being fun.

Meanwhile, if you made a character with high intelligence, you could max your stats in most of the categories and make the game a calk walk. Which also wasn't that fun.

Counter example: WoW. 9 classes, each class has 3 or more variations on skill layout which have varying effectiveness in solo and the various multiplayer modes. (IMO Diablo II was similar) Although Blizzard are constantly balancing and re-balancing, most of the times there's a lot of scope to try different things and it's relatively balanced. There are 'cookie-cutter' specs that are the most efficient for the hard-core players, but most of the player base is rewarded for doing whatever they think works.

So the moral of the story is... give me a chance to experiment, but have the discipline to make experimentations interesting and yet balanced.
Reply
post #20 of 35
7/24/09 at 3:04pm
WoW is a terrible perpetrator in the "letting gamers make a game boring" enterprise. Almost everybody who plays WoW plays it the most boring way they possibly can. I was always the odd duck in my guild because I preferred soloing zone to zone doing quest chains and exploring the environment to level as opposed to running the same fucking instances over and over on the off chance ZE BLEU gear would drop. By the time you get to end game, that's all there is. And since my friends that I played with were these same boring assholes, the main reason to play beyond enjoyment of the game disappeared as well.

So I quit.
Reply
post #21 of 35
7/24/09 at 3:39pm
Spike's back?

And WoW is played by everyone in such a rote, arthimetic fashion it might as well be played by a 100 million computers.

It's the rare game in which efficiency is not profoundly rewarded, while creativity resoundingly punished. Hence, the player's focus on actually finding a strategy that works. In multiplayer games, it's when the other team does something unexpected that the fun begins, but single player games rarely have that kind of flexibility.
Reply
post #22 of 35
7/24/09 at 3:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
Spike's back?
Yeah, I sucked it up and got over myself.

MMO's seem designed to completely halt creativity. I know quite a few people who play them and it's like watching someone tackle an Excel chart, with charming graphics.
Reply
post #23 of 35
7/24/09 at 4:24pm
My problem with Guerilla's side missions wasn't the lack of creativity on sale, it was the lack of imagination put into the side missions themselves.

A "rescue hostages" mission repeated ad nauseam is no fun, no matter how you attack each problem. One mission is fine. Attempting to bulk out the game by repeating these seemingly open-ended tasks is defeating the point - making the game into a chore.

Deus Ex is still the one that strikes me most (not the sequel) as attempting to give me constantly unique real world decisions to make and then giving me rewarding and believable ways of going about making those decisions.
Reply
post #24 of 35
7/24/09 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios
I have since found that figuring out how the developers wanted you to play the game and trying to stay close to that tends to give you a better experience.
I feel like this quote encapsulates a way of thinking found throughout this thread, and I find it to be positively maddening. Can the experience be improved if the player goes about creatively exploring a game’s content? Sure. Should the player be expected to in order to extract enjoyment from it? No. It is not up to the player to make the most of a failure in design, and to act as though it is just holds everything back.

A video game can actually convey complex ideas without requiring the player to run around, collect every item, talk to every possible NPC and discover every nook and cranny of a gigantic sandbox. A great example of just this is Shadow of the Colossus.

Why is it fine to bash directors for telling rather than showing, but then do the reverse when it comes to video games? Do we think so little of the medium? Do we just assume video games are so far below film that we not only expect such failures, but put it upon ourselves to make the most of them?
Reply
post #25 of 35
7/24/09 at 6:05pm
Thread Starter 
Shadow of the Colossus is a bad example in your case, because for that game to have any meaning whatsoever you've got to be on the developers wavelength and find a melancholy bleakness in your actions. If you approach the game as a series of objectives to be beaten then you're not going to see the point of it all.

What I'm talking about isn't completionism but experimentation and immersion and their's a difference between those two.

Dan, I can understand your basic issue in that the four types of side missions are packaged in exactly the same way (and the Guerilla Raids are INSANELY repititous). But I think the nuance of the House Arrest missions is in their positioning and the geography of the area but that's a personal taste thing. A lot of people got pissed at GTA's go to point B, kill guy, mechanic but I enjoyed the missions because of alterations to the template that kept things fresh, Red Faction does a similar thing by constantly upgrading your weaponry. I just solved a House Arrested by jet packing on top of the building with the hostage and using the Eraser gun to snipe down through the building and take out the guards, before I went and freed the hostages without sounding an alert.
Reply
post #26 of 35
7/24/09 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall
Shadow of the Colossus is a bad example in your case, because for that game to have any meaning whatsoever you've got to be on the developers wavelength and find a melancholy bleakness in your actions. If you approach the game as a series of objectives to be beaten then you're not going to see the point of it all.
I disagree, the completion of the objectives is inextricably linked to the response the developers are attempting to elicit. The game is built in order to draw these emotions out, not with secondary objectives, but in how they present your actions.

I honestly don’t see experimentation and immersion being inextricably linked.
Reply
post #27 of 35
7/24/09 at 7:39pm
Thread Starter 
But essentially in Shadow of the Colossus you have nothing to do but go down a set path and feel mournful. It's more of an art installation* than an actual game because whilst it does have gameplay mechanics, it's actually attempting to deconstruct games in a way that only works if you buy into the emotional investment the developers are trying to create and in terms of EFFICENCY I don't really think the issue comes into SotC at all because there's zero room for interpretation or divergence in how you tackle a problem. Each colossus has a very basic pattern to its defeat and it's finding and exploiting this pattern which garners you victory, unlike something like say Red Faction where you are presented with multiple ways of achieving your goal or something like Red Faction where you have direct influence with the enviroment and your characters skill set.

*I hate that hardcore gamers think that the only way to champion their medium is to turn it into something which conflicts entirely with the basic concept of gaming. Indie games like Passage are seemingly designed to garner an emotional impact and they do this by actually limiting the level of interactivity available to you. Games don't need to be art to be a viable medium, all they need to be is good.
Reply
post #28 of 35
7/24/09 at 7:53pm
But that’s what I’m saying, you’re not given the freedom to act particularly inefficiently, and yet, it is still capable of conveying a rather complex set of ideas. Basically, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it’s the players fault for being disinterested in secondary objectives, that being inefficient with their time is important to fully enjoying the experience.

Secondary objectives should add flavor, the majority of the experience should be obtained through play that is required. And yes, I have a certain distaste for games that come within a country mile of the term “sandbox.”
Reply
post #29 of 35
7/24/09 at 7:56pm
Thread Starter 
But it's not about secondary objectives or sub-missions. It's about being presented with a room full of enemies and having the option to hack into the security system to use their guns against them, or turn off the lights to sneak through, or engage them in combat using your powers, or hack a secondary door to sneak through a backdoor, or crawling through a vent and choosing to always crawl through the vent because it's easier.
Reply
post #30 of 35
7/24/09 at 8:10pm
Sure, but then the issue isn’t people being unimaginative, it’s the—apparent—liberal placement of vents.

A game like WoW, which has been written off rather derisively in this thread, has had to deal with similar issues since its inception. That Blizzard has always sought to strike the right balance between the plethora of options available to its players is one of the primary reasons why WoW is still relevant to this day.
Reply
post #31 of 35
7/24/09 at 8:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
Shadow of the Colossus is a bad example in your case, because for that game to have any meaning whatsoever you've got to be on the developers wavelength and find a melancholy bleakness in your actions. If you approach the game as a series of objectives to be beaten then you're not going to see the point of it all.
Let's say you and I both play Colossus, or any other game with a linear story mode. As Devin has pointed out and I think we both agree on, there are two separate elements of this: the game parts and the movie parts.

During the game parts, you and I will have different goals. Actually, we'll have the same goal with different paths to it. I will try to achieve fun by pushing myself to defeat each objective as well and efficiently as possible. You will try to achieve fun by finding the most interesting avenues as long as they're not repeats of what you tried on the last objective. (If the game is designed well, neither of us should be met with a crappy experience.)

But that has nothing to do with how you and I treat the movie parts. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard with no time for cutscenes and I skip them so as to continue racking up points. But it's just as possible that you skip the cutscenes so as to get back to fucking around in the sandbox. I think you are assuming that "efficient" players don't care about story and all the other arty stuff as much as your kind of player, but I don't think there's any reason to think so. The two parts of a video game are separate and how a person approaches one doesn't determine how he approaches the other, or more importantly, the whole.

I actually think Colossus is more effective for people like me, who dove in to the ruthlessness of killing, only to be worn down with it and then directed elsewhere at the end. I didn't have to guess what the developer wanted me to do, I just did what the design led me to do.

ETA: I'm not trying to put Colossus as the pinnacle of gaming or anything, just a good one that we all know and like and agree on the general meaning of.
Reply
post #32 of 35
7/24/09 at 8:33pm
On Wow, I do think we can talk about the typical raider as min-maxing efficency freaks.

I wasn't really like that. I played every class to level 20 and tried several specs for each. And I played through every starting zone for every race too. When I teamed up with a friend of mine, I'd always annoy him because I'd do the craziest riskiest tactics just to see if it would work. I did play 3 characters through to the final level (in burning crusade), but it was mainly to see the quests/stories from both Horde and Alliance perspectives.

Many friends I know never had a top level character and never did the multiplayer dungeons. All these approaches and playing styles are possible within the scope of the game.

The interesting point is what proportion of players do what is fun or what they feel like, and how many are in it to get the 'teh purples!!'*

*eg. The best weapons and equipment available.
Reply
post #33 of 35
7/24/09 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMushnik View Post
Agreed. I have fond memories of GTA4 sessions with Chewers. There was one where you decided it would be fun to put most everyone in a helicopter, hover over another helicopter, and then jump out one-by-one and and play meat grinder. Awesome. Playing with regular people was a snooze. (Though another Chewer session was versus some irate juggalos, and that one was more entertaining than it probably had any right to be.)

Completely, dicking around in GTA4 online is probably one of my favorite gaming pastimes.

With Chewers especially.
Reply
post #34 of 35
7/24/09 at 11:50pm
I miss our epic Faggio races.
Reply
post #35 of 35
7/25/09 at 3:10am
Kimbell basically explained what took me forty two posts to try and get at, so I’ll just move on from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriegaffe View Post
The interesting point is what proportion of players do what is fun or what they feel like, and how many are in it to get the 'teh purples!!'
The overwhelming majority of WoW players are those that never hit the level cap, and if we raise that threshold to players that never see endgame content, that number reaches dangerously close to 95%.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games
CHUD.com Community › Forums › VIDEO GAMES & RPG › Video Games › The issue with Efficiency