17th October 2021, 2:11 PM
Well I'd certainly prefer to have them rather than not, because as I said it raises the game's skill ceiling. When I talk about skill ceiling, I should clarify what I mean because I think this led to a misunderstanding. "Skill ceiling" is how much room for improvement is available to a player, not a measure of the game's inherent challenge. Past whatever challenge the game itself offers, how much further is there to go? This matters for the longevity of the game's multiplayer and also things like speed runs. A low skill ceiling simply means that once one has mastered the skills and learned the tracks, there is very little room to improve from there. The difference between a player that has beaten a course's developer ghost and the theoretical best possible time for that course will be very small. A high skill ceiling means that even past all the challenges a game has to offer, there is a vast set of tricks available that allow for one's capabilities to far exceed what the game has to offer. This would mean that the developer ghost time can be beaten on the order of minutes, not just seconds.
This is a rather fuzzy concept of course and it is dependent on a LOT of things that are outside even the developer's full control, like discovered glitches and unintended methods of play (and emergent gameplay), but as a general rule, the more tools and tricks a game provides and the more flexible the controls allowing for how one uses those capabilities, the higher the potential skill ceiling.
For another example, there's Quake 3 compared to Doom's deathmatch. Quake 3 has so many unique tricks and tactics added to it far above what Doom does that the max skill set is completely alien and beyond anything people of average skill will ever play as. If you compare that to the absolute best of the best in Doom deathmatch, there's not nearly as much difference between the best of the best and an average player.
Real world sports also have skill ceilings, which in the case of older sports we're already starting to see people reach. In the case of things like beating best sprinting times, what one will often see is a period where new "high scores" are being reached year after year for a few decades, and then a plateau is reached. Past that point, new records get set maybe once a decade, then once every couple decades. Why? The absolute pinnacle of human performance has already been hit. There's far little left to attain that hasn't already been done.
For speed runners, a game with a high skill ceiling draw far more interest than one with a low one. A game has to have a LOT of room for potential growth past merely "above average" to make it interesting to watch. That's why games like Super Mario Bros and even Spongebob Squarepants have survived as speedrunning darlings long beyond Marble Madness. Marble Madness has no place left to go at this point. Theoretical maximums have already been hit (as far as we know). Super Mario Bros however doesn't have much time left in the sun itself. It took some time, but we've finally hit that theoretical maximum over and over again there too. New games have to take their place. It's the breaking of previous limits that draw interest, not just reaching the same record over and over.
So, when I say that Mickey's Speedway has a lower skill ceiling, it has nothing to do with how hard it's higher difficulties are. It's that point where there's nowhere left to improve and my interest wanes. Now, Mickey's Speedway doesn't have what I'd call a super low skill ceiling. The drifting is buttery smooth and well designed. However, it's simply true that adding boosts would add an extra potential for speed, an extra skill check the player has to be aware of, and finally an extra set of considerations on just what makes for THE fastest lap time. Is it better to just make the turn sharp, or to try and work an extra turbo in there?
You're right, the game is still fun without it and no racer NEEDS drift turbos to be fun, but it does add something meaningful enough that it would have made the game better.
Anyway, beyond that yes the game is much harder on higher difficulties but I hope I've clarified the confusion behind just what I meant by a skill ceiling enough to make it clear I never was disparaging the game's challenge.
This is a rather fuzzy concept of course and it is dependent on a LOT of things that are outside even the developer's full control, like discovered glitches and unintended methods of play (and emergent gameplay), but as a general rule, the more tools and tricks a game provides and the more flexible the controls allowing for how one uses those capabilities, the higher the potential skill ceiling.
For another example, there's Quake 3 compared to Doom's deathmatch. Quake 3 has so many unique tricks and tactics added to it far above what Doom does that the max skill set is completely alien and beyond anything people of average skill will ever play as. If you compare that to the absolute best of the best in Doom deathmatch, there's not nearly as much difference between the best of the best and an average player.
Real world sports also have skill ceilings, which in the case of older sports we're already starting to see people reach. In the case of things like beating best sprinting times, what one will often see is a period where new "high scores" are being reached year after year for a few decades, and then a plateau is reached. Past that point, new records get set maybe once a decade, then once every couple decades. Why? The absolute pinnacle of human performance has already been hit. There's far little left to attain that hasn't already been done.
For speed runners, a game with a high skill ceiling draw far more interest than one with a low one. A game has to have a LOT of room for potential growth past merely "above average" to make it interesting to watch. That's why games like Super Mario Bros and even Spongebob Squarepants have survived as speedrunning darlings long beyond Marble Madness. Marble Madness has no place left to go at this point. Theoretical maximums have already been hit (as far as we know). Super Mario Bros however doesn't have much time left in the sun itself. It took some time, but we've finally hit that theoretical maximum over and over again there too. New games have to take their place. It's the breaking of previous limits that draw interest, not just reaching the same record over and over.
So, when I say that Mickey's Speedway has a lower skill ceiling, it has nothing to do with how hard it's higher difficulties are. It's that point where there's nowhere left to improve and my interest wanes. Now, Mickey's Speedway doesn't have what I'd call a super low skill ceiling. The drifting is buttery smooth and well designed. However, it's simply true that adding boosts would add an extra potential for speed, an extra skill check the player has to be aware of, and finally an extra set of considerations on just what makes for THE fastest lap time. Is it better to just make the turn sharp, or to try and work an extra turbo in there?
You're right, the game is still fun without it and no racer NEEDS drift turbos to be fun, but it does add something meaningful enough that it would have made the game better.
Anyway, beyond that yes the game is much harder on higher difficulties but I hope I've clarified the confusion behind just what I meant by a skill ceiling enough to make it clear I never was disparaging the game's challenge.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)