Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5947621" data-attributes="member: 6668292">This is true. And reasonably stated. The statement I replied to wasn't, in my opinion.Again, this is true for some people. Not for others. There are quite a few games that I've played for fun (even made up) that are based around imbalance.Years ago, when I used to play Super Smash Bros. (on the N64) with my friends, we'd make up mini-games to play. Baseball (two players of Ness hitting a full-powered Samus blast back and forth until it hit someone), dodgeball (one guy throwing shells at three people cramped up in the Star Fox level, near the fin), etc. One of the games we made up was the Juggernaut game, where the damage was set to 50%, and handicaps were set to 1 (lowest) for three players, and 9 (highest) for the juggernaut. He'd proceed to kick ass until everyone was dead (unless a victory happened, as happened infrequently).The point is, the imbalance was the point of the game. To other gamers, imbalance may not be the point, but it might enhance their fun. And that extends to the "fellow players" of the guy who might reject strict balance in a game. And, again, I think your statement of "there are ...those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining" pretty much implies that their fellow players don't think likewise. And that's misleading, in my mind, or at least overgeneralizes things.Wish I didn't need to in non-humor threads. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification