The biggest issue right now in game design

There's an entire fucking continent of unexplored mechanics and totally not discovered genres, that we still can't even imagine.

And It's a giant continent I'm not even aware of even what taxonomy of possible genres it has.
I'm just some faggot explorer at the coast of cuba and I'm like aware beyond Cuba it exist some totally unknown giant as fuck America.

The issue is such, when I try to explain this unknown land of genres that we don't have yet, people usually can't understand what I mean or likely they default to talking in terms of european geography, for when I am trying to talk about the Americas or Africa.

the issue is that most gamers and even game developers lack the mental tools, because of their brain structure, to even be able to conceptualize the characteristics of this entire new undiscovered continent of game design.

So, let's do a basic mental exercise, I do hope this allow me to try to make you even question what you know is possible in game design.

Try to imagine, a really hardcore and dificult game, like elden ring or I wanna be the guy, a fucking e-sport autism shit like starcraft, overwatch, LOL.

But, try to imagine it, totally the same dificulty, and the same level of hardcore and dedicated fanbases.
The same shit.

But, try to imagine it without being killed, or the player being able to being killed or without a game over, or an e-sport competition, where both teams wins at the end of the match.

See?
You can't even understand how to think that shit.
It exist in some place, outside what you can neurologically conceptualize as a male gamer.

But, let me tell you, yes, it's fucking possible, It's possible to do what I mentioned to be some stupid nonsense.
And It's a really unknown continent of entire genres that don't exist yet, that are radically diferent to anything we have now.

Attached: 96c.jpg (461x427, 14.08K)

Attached: yawn.webm (962x772, 299.04K)

games exist because you can win or lose
that's what game theory is all about
that's what being hardcore is all about, you improve your skill you can win or not lose
if you can't lose, there's no challenge

That's the issue.

You lack the mental concepts to even understand that america exist beyond the european continent.

And you're using the argument that America can't exist because it doesn't fit into any european landmark.

Attached: 91e.jpg (600x600, 30.82K)

You lack the mental concepts to understand what already exists and why games work in the first place
Can you describe a 'hardcore' game where you can't lose?

yes, I have the mental tools to even comprehend how to do it, because I had to read and read and read books after books, just to develop the mental tools to conceptualize that America exist.

And I'm telling you, Cuba is real and I need to start making some indie games where I sail to the coast of Venezuela and start exploring the land.

It's a diferent mental model, that's why you can't use Europe to describe brazil.

It's something diferent.

Again, try to even imagine an e-sport tournament where both teams wins in every match.

See?

You're still thinking in terms of european landmarks, but I am talking about brazil.

I'm not even baiting, I spend real effort thinking about solving these issues.

Attached: _91409212_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg (1024x576, 43.7K)

Describe the game where both teams win in every match
Tell us what it would be like and how it would work

Again, I'm just at the coast of the continent.
I don't have decades upon decades of genres being polished like what we have now.

So far this is more like some ideas I have.

Imagine an e-sport tournament, where is like AoEII mechanics, where there's a team of 5vs5 players, where both play in something like LOL, and they work as a basic RTS team, trying to develop RTS tech and develop veterinarian technology, because there's a bunch of randomly spawned ill, hungry, injured farm animals on the map.

Then both teams try to heal and take the most animals to each base, and they spend effort or something, trying to heal them.
But the animals can randomly die because of multiple reasons, even if the team has done everything right.

The match ends when there's not more ill animals on the level.

The team that saved the most, wins.

But again, the tournament wouldn't be about like a normal sport tournament.

It would be more, like a charity event where the teams compete to let's say save 500 animals in the shorter time, or to save more than previous tournaments.

And there's a round robin system of everyone vs everyone matches.
But there's not winner or loser in this tournament.

The tournament is more like about exhibition matches, more than winning and losing.
Because even the poorest team, won in the end of the tournament, because It helped to save some animals that helped the overal score in the tournament.
And there wouldn't be losers or winners in this tournament.

It's hard for me, after reading all these books, to even conceptualize something like that.
It's a radical new thing.

Attached: 0d7.jpg (680x471, 26.07K)

>The team that saved the most, wins.
Then the other team loses
You said both teams would win
Games are about winning or losing. You're essentially saying "dude what if 2+2 was actually 5 you're just not open minded enough to see"
You don't understand how games work

I hope he's still around after the cough

>But, try to imagine it without being killed, or the player being able to being killed
Warioland 3
you're welcome OP

Again, I'm just an explorer, I'm not even native to this continent.

The point wouldn't be that a team wins or another loses.
there's not winners or losers.

All teams won, because all teams helped the others to reach the goal, helping the most animals.

Even the weakest team, still won, still helped heal what they could.

Imagine an earthquake and there's 20 rescue teams, every team rescued more than 20 kids, but the last one, just was able to rescue a baby.
See?

It's stupid to even argue this team even lost.
Even if they could only save a single baby, that's still something people would celebrate, all teams at the end would make a party because they all won.
They all saved at least a single kid life.

Games used to be possible because of non diversity focused higher education simply brought the people together to take the risk of making Wolfenstein.

wario still uses the old concept of domination and defeating the rival.

It's not what I mean.

I mean something where you, the npc and the enemy all won in the end.

Are you talking about real animals or the goal of the game?
If you're describing a game where people help each other, instead of hinder each other, that's a co-op game, or PvE
The enemy is a computer-controlled opponent, or the game world

ITT some mexican high not making sense

Technically in mount& blade or dark souls you can't lose, since there's no game over in either. You can't even die in m&b

Shhh, don't spoil it

There are lots of games where you can't really lose, but they aren't competitive
For them to be competitive you'd need to create a win condition

No, because that's still thinking in the old european geographical terms to describe brazil.

co-op or PvE still has losers, the AI.

Talking about mario where the goombas and koopa troopas also win in the end.
Talking about making mario but where the enemies can't be killed or defeated, nor mario can be defeated or hurt.
But still the same overal game.

I don't even have concepts to describe brazil, and I don't want to star using european landmarks to describe brazil.

It's a totally diferent land.
The point is, that still would be a hardcore continent, filled with hardcore shit.
But is totally diferent from europe.

I'm telling you, design a hardcore game without the player or enemies getting hurt or being able to be both the player and the enemies be killed and without a game over.

Maybe, but they're still games. Wasn't that the point?

a game where you can't lose isn't hardcore
difficulty comes from being able to lose

A training session can be intense even though there is no winning or losing. That’s about the extent of what I can imagine. Practicing Tekken with the highest level CPU in training mode. Or level 9 smash with 99 stock. So it can be intense while removing winning or losing as a mechanic. Beyond this, what is there?

that's the point.

replace competition with cooperation.

You can still have a hardcore gameplay with cooperation.

By example, people do it all the time IRL.
Giving food to homeless people, is fucking hardcore, hardcore as fuck, but there's not a way to lose the game of giving food to poor homeless hungry people.

Cris, take your fucking meds and stop shitposting on Any Forums
also, Petro won

Try to feed as much homeless hungry people IRL and tell me is a casual activity.

Or shelter as many stray dogs IRL.
Not casual shit.

You, good sir

Please address this
Is this somewhat along the lines you are thinking? I’m trying to pick up what you’re laying down.

replace competition with cooperation.

You can't lose a game of giving food to hungry poor people.

you could play co-op Factorio with the aliens turned off and just build the biggest base you can
But that's boring for most people, and definitely not an esport, people don't want to see that, they want to see competition
Because if you can't lose there's no incentive to actually do well

sex

Yes, but how is giving food to poor people a game? It sounds more like just an objective or a goal. Also, you sound like I do when I’m really high.

No.

cooperative games can't have winners or lossers, because even the last player still won, because he helped the others to solve the obstacle.

Is not possible to lose a cooperative game.

You can still make a cooperative game as hardcore as you want.

>Is not possible to lose a cooperative game.
Yes it is, co-op just means you're fighting aginst the computer

It's just an example.

There's also shit, like you can replace the concept of game over, and the concept of being killed, with the concept of being stuck and not being able to progress.

That's another core concept of the ones I meant.

I have others like having no direct form of combat.