A (random) chance to win

[Erik_Twice]

You know the drill. Poor Bobby can't beat you. It's a fact of life. You are better than him. While he is crashing against the walls you are already in lap two, when he turns around the corner you headshot him.

But he still wins from time to time: The designer gave players a random chance to win without any skill.


There are many examples of this. In TF2 you can get a "crit" and kill everything with a single Sticky Bomb. In Super Smash Bros Brawl there's a random chance to trip and fall, leaving you open to attacks.


What do you think about this? Do you think they fulfill their intented function? Do you think they water down the game and make it worse? Does it make games more popular?

Discuss!

[AppleQueso]

as long as there's an option to turn that shit off, it's fine with me

[vlame]

i just discovered this 1 in 512-ism in street fighter world warriors, where there is a 1:512 chance your character will auto-block or auto-special move without putting the proper input.

it's interesting but stupid.

[Pabstblueribbon]

I think Nintendo is guilty of doing this a lot lately. I bought Mario Party 8, having not played any of the ones since 1 or 2. There seem to be a ton of more random elements that lets anyone win. Same with Mario Kart Wii compared to Mario Kart 64. The further behind you are in the Wii version, the more likely you are to get awesome items, and I've seen people get that bullet bill in 8th place and end up winning the match. In the 64 version, you could get any item in any place, which made it way more interesting if someone in second got a blue shell or something like that.

I think the idea is to make games that anyone can play and win at more often, in order to get more casual gamers interested, at least with these two titles. I think its kind of lame myself, but would make sense as a business decision. The more people that can play these games without getting the snot kicked out of them every time, the more likely they are to buy the game.

[markeconrad]

I think Nintendo is guilty of doing this a lot lately. [...] Same with Mario Kart Wii compared to Mario Kart 64. The further behind you are in the Wii version, the more likely you are to get awesome items, and I've seen people get that bullet bill in 8th place and end up winning the match. In the 64 version, you could get any item in any place, which made it way more interesting if someone in second got a blue shell or something like that.

I agree that's frustrating as hell, but it was similar in Mario Kart 64. You couldn't get any item at any time, but I think the skill vs luck balance was better in Mario Kart 64. Mario Kart Wii is over the top sometimes with items.

[MrPopo]

I don't have a problem with this, because even with these random elements you still can clearly see the better people winning out over multiple games. Sure, it means that occationally you'll lose to someone who is not as good of a player as you, but I think that makes things more fun for those who aren't top tier. And as long as you make tournament matches best of X you should be able to see the better player coming on top consistently over the long run. And if two players are so evenly matched that a random element is what decides who wins overall that really doesn't matter either; there's already a bunch of random elements outside the game that could affect them just as well. An ill-timed sneeze, for example.

[BoringSupreez]

It depends on the type of game, really. If it's a strategy game, or a party game, then I love random stuff. If it's a platformer, or a racing game, or an FPS, then I hate it.

[YoshiEgg25]

I think this rears its head in Pokémon battles most often. Granted, the better player will typically win. However, and I've heard it hundreds of times, critical hits and moves missing the target, among other things (all-encompassingly called "hax"), are a common complaint, especially when a player that would routinely sweep a team loses because of seven straight misses from a move that hits 90% of the time.

[Erik_Twice]

Interesting responses everyone. To me the problem is that it waters down the main experience of the game.

When I get lucky and win because of that, it's not fun. If I get beaten because the enemy rolled a crit, it's not fun. There's no fun to be had, because the fun is not winning, it's the process and lucky crits cut that process in half.

Same with Mario Kart Wii compared to Mario Kart 64.

Very true.


@YoshiEgg25

In pokémon it's really annoying because it punishes good play. Stone Edge is still the best option to use even if it misses a a fifth of the time.

Crits don't add to the thinking process, the best option with crits would be the best option without crits.

I don't think crits were added to let everyone win tough. It's just standard RPG fare.

[NintendoLegend]

I remember playing the Pokemon trading card game -- and quitting because of cards that, if a coin flipped heads, they would deal damage and be invincible for a turn. Gave my whole collection to some guy I knew. Hated it.

Basically: Except for a very few rare exceptions where it is emphasized for thrilling effect, the less luck = the better.