Great topic!

So what elements are essential to "Way of the Fist"/"Way of the Gun" design?

Taking Tony Hawk Pro Skater as an example of "Fist" design, I''d say freedom of interaction w. the environment is a major factor, along w. consistency of that interaction. For example, if you see a rail 20 ft. from a halfpipe, and a bench lined up near that, you know that you can land a grind from the pipe to the rail, and hop from the rail to the table, choosing which grind style for each, and which moves to combo in between. This allows the player to approach the game as a means of expression, as opposed to a puzzle to be solved. (well, kinda. . . ) If THPS were a classic "Gun" style adventure game, this scenario would be either hard-coded by the designer, or simply impossible. The player would not be able to approach the game from this semi-creative standpoint, and would instead be looking for clues as to which grinds, etc. were viable to advance the game.

(THPS does have these, but even though these goals are implemented well, they serve to prove your point of incompatability, because judging from the limited sample of the ten people playing in my apartment, there seems to be two types of Tony Hawk players- those who try to beat the game, and those who are as happy in Free Skate mode as anything else. The one group is annoyed by the parts of the game the other group finds most fascinating. Hmm, Finishers="Gun" style gameplay, Escapists="Fist" style gameplay?)

So that seems to be one factor- the expressiveness allowed by the game engine, hinging on the freedom & consistency of interaction.

Any others?

If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal

I''m not familiar with that game, so I can''t comment on it.

I think we want to keep design (game mechanics and whatnot) separate from the play style of end user. Mostly because we have firmer control over the design and it''s easier to examine.

Either way can offer a variety of options for the player.

A way of the gun design usually offers a variety of ''guns'' - disposable, upgradable game tokens. The game emphasizes quick and/or precise thinking (or reflexes). The player gains significant advantage from optimization - finding the best use for a narrow set of skills or units.

So Diablo players optimize their equipment, micromanage their skill and stat point distribution, all to pursue a narrow goal (kill things more effectively). They measure success or rewards in incremental steps. It''s a way of the gun design, but the player has quite a wide range of choices.

Maybe I am wrong ,but , in simple words, it''s about whether you allow indirect skill development or not.If you allow the improvement of a skill by factors that are not primarily involved in that skill then you are on "the way of the fist", otherwise you are on "the way of the gun".Now , I say , there is no such thing as the "way of the fist".In no other way than by practicing intensely with associated factors will you get to master a skill.Meditating under icy snowfall and then getting good at fist fighting is a thing that the martial arts master wants to make us believe it''s true, but it''s not.Every martial art master that I know was primarily a brute, and so were the oriental ones.The psichic part came later in much the same way the chivalry code of honour came in West - to temper and give a moral support to the fight.

Just an opinion,
Jabba

The Truth Is Not To Be Spoken In A Loud Voice

Bingo! The way of the fist is pure fantasy. But it can make for good fiction.

We, the game makers, get to decide if our game world is realistic or not.

Way of the fist is both improvement through abstract or indirect methods and a design that represents improvements as qualitative changes rather than quantitative.

A way of the fist game design focuses the player decisions on broader strategies, on developing styles rather than practicing singular actions. The improvments are not disposable tokens.

My argument is that games which try to provide this fantasy are better served by way of the fist design elements. Those elements are weakened when they are connected to gun design elements - it breaks the fantasy.

On the other had, if your game mechanics are primarily way of the gun design, then way of the fist design elements will be out of place.

quote: Original post by Jabba

Now , I say , there is no such thing as the "way of the fist".In no other way than by practicing intensely with associated factors will you get to master a skill.Meditating under icy snowfall and then getting good at fist fighting is a thing that the martial arts master wants to make us believe it''s true, but it''s not.

Every martial art master that I know was primarily a brute, and so were the oriental ones.

That''s rubbish. Meditation is about focus and concentration. You don''t win fights with techniques, you win with your mindset. Psychology has been the key to survival for all mammals on this planet since the beginning of time.

In general, actual fight experience is the best way to get the desired mental training, but for obvious reasons this is dangerous. And combat experience does little to improve other areas of your mind and personality which like it or not, are a part of martial arts.

I''d suggest that since you seem to have such a low opinion of martial artists, that you make an effort to find a really good, knowledgeable instructor.

quote:
The psichic part came later in much the same way the chivalry code of honour came in West - to temper and give a moral support to the fight.

Your point is what? Martial arts don''t exist without a certain amount of mental and spiritual training - that''s why it''s an "art" not a science.

quote: Original post by JSwing

Bingo! The way of the fist is pure fantasy. But it can make for good fiction.

Obviously I read more truth in what you were saying than you intended.

There is a fundamental difference between your "way of the gun" and "way of the fist". You said it was about "character development" i.e. learning.

And it is. Out of millions of life forms on this planet, humans and some types of monkey, are different. Why? Because they can learn without actually having to practice the task. For example, a dog can be trained to use a stick to press a button which is out of reach. But a human (or great ape) can figure it out for themselves.

This "way of fist" thinking allows us to learn something and then find a way of applying this knowledge in other circumstances. It''s mental development as oppose to simple repetitive training.

It''s interesting that the previous poster suggested repetitive training was the important part of martial arts. This is an argument often had in the MA community. It''s fairly typical that Westerners and "hard styles" go by repetitive training, whilst "soft styles" use training methods which focus on confrontational adaptability and inner strength.

In summary...

Whether you thought they do or not, the way of the "gun" and "fist" exist as biological and psychological fact.

E- Ahh, you''re right. I shouldn''t have said the way of the fist is pure fantasy. There are real world equivalents. Fair enough.

But I still think the idea that way of the fist beats way of the gun is fantasy. Good fantasy though - makes for some great fiction.

quote: Original post by JSwing
But I still think the idea that way of the fist beats way of the gun is fantasy. Good fantasy though - makes for some great fiction.

Fair enough. I would say that there''s a lot more factors involved with determing the winner than just which "method" each character uses. The way of the fist won''t always defeat the way of the gun, but likewise, the way of the gun won''t always defeat the way of the fist.

The simple truth in conflict, particularly one-on-one, is that even though you and I may use different strategies (, MA styles, weapons etc.)... it''s not strategy x vs. stragegy y, it''s still human x vs. human y.

But that''s why it''d be good if you could add the proper balance between the two "ways" into a game. People do generally form their own opinions about how best to develop themselves, the more a game can allow this the better.

i think good games combine both. take racing, i can go around the track again, and again, and eventually set an unbeatable lap, way of the gun, the games dead. but introduce a dyno, gear ratio, and suspension toggel, on a drag race, way of the fist. im entertaind untill i find the best setup, but change tracks and i have to find a new balanced setup for that track. whatever keeps you on your toes

Disagree, L7.

What you''ve described I would call pure way of the gun. Improving your joystick skills is a narrow, focused activity -it''s aim.

And changing your car around is still way of the gun. You are simply given a choice of different guns - disposable, upgradeable equipment - for each setting.

You improve by optimizing your setup for each track - choosing the best guns for the job.

That doesn''t make it a bad game though.