Castle Paradox Forum Index Castle Paradox

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 Gamelist   Review List   Song List   All Journals   Site Stats   Search Gamelist   IRC Chat Room

Game Difficulty Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Castle Paradox Forum Index -> The Arcade
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rya.Reisender
Snippy




Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Drizzle
I already said that I kinda want to exclude MMORPGs / Multiplayer in this argument because my opinion on them is different than on Singleplayer. In Multiplayer the better player is basically responsible for the other player to have fun, not the game itself. The reason why so many people like MMORPGs are not the game mechanics, but rather the people they play with. Ever tried playing WoW alone on an emulator? Or playing an MMORPGs without a friend and without people talking your language? You'll get bored really quick.

The reason why they are popular is not because they offer a challenge, it's because it's completely in the player's hand if they play for a challenge or not.

In fact that's what I want to promote. Don't force a challenge on the player, make it optional.

Quote:
And Rya, I forgot to mention, you should note that everyone here is a modern gamer. We're not a bunch of 60 year olds hanging out on a message board talking about how good video games used to be back in '83.

Modern gamer doesn't have to do with age. It has to do if you go with the common game flow or not. Like, if games get easier overall each year and you like easier games, they you are a modern gamer. Also includes if some famous game community leader says "JRPGs suck, let's not play them anymore" and you follow this, then you're a modern gamer. If you go against the change of games over time and prefer games like they used to be, you're old-school.

Quote:
Rya, I wonder what you think about cheating in games like Counterstrike that are entirely multiplayer. Does Player One's enjoyment of using Aimbots and wallhacks supercede Player Two-Sixteen's enjoyment of a fair competition?

I'm against cheating in multiplayer. As I said it's the better player's responsibility to make the game enjoyable for the other player in multiplayer games.

Quote:
Okay, that might have been uncalled for. I still stand by my last topical post though, and I'm curious as to whether you really disagree with it, Rya. It was back on page 3 or so. Basically I pointed out that you wouldn't include an option to turn off the 'fear factor' in a horror game, because that fear was the point of the game. In the same way, some games are designed to challenge players to complete an area as a whole, and cause them to fear the death of their characters.

I'm pretty sure I replied to this. I said something along the lines that a really good game can create this fear factor without the possibility to die. Just adding death traps everywhere or removing permasave is just the "lameass easy way to implement it".

Quote:
Dragon Quest series

Dragon Quest series is like the only series that stays completely old-school forever. It has still quite some fans, but not as many as "almost half of all gamers".

Quote:
I also still stand by my viewpoint that certain styles of games can survive as mindless entertainment, but that RPGs fail in this regard to a lot of people. The point of many RPGs is to think about and plan what you are doing rather than be driven by instinct (as in many other video games). Do you really believe that there are many RPGs that focus more on the telling of a story, or the showing off of special effects? If you are truly convinced that these things are what draw the majority of people to role-playing video games, then I do have to submit that we will probably never agree on how these games should handle their difficulty.

Well, RPGs could focus more on telling the story or showing off special effects, but I think all RPGs should be different from each other anyways. The main flaw of RPGs and that's why many 'modern gamers' have this "LOL JRPG" attitude is that they are all the same and they somehow totally ignore going the the common gaming flow. Shooters and all the 'message' games that popped up recently, really go strongly with the flow. Also all those new games that introduce completely introduce new gameplay and can't even be categorized at all go with that flow. RPGs didn't do that yet indeed. But reasoning it like "Hey traditional JRPGs are still successful, so we should just keep creating traditional JRPGs" is bad. I rather think "RPGs are one of those genres that still need to be improved a lot" and I think we as amateur game designers are responsible to show a new way for RPGs to be going to. Otherwise the whole genre will die eventually (not really but I just had to write that).

Edit: In other words, only because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it's not possible.
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Calehay
...yeah.
Class B Minstrel



Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 549

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rya.Reisender wrote:
@Calehay
@Moogle1
I can't really continue discussing with you if you just deny the facts.


L...
O...
L...

I've denied nothing. You've presented various ideas that worked in your favor, and called them "facts."

If you plan on ACTUALLY having a discussion about "Difficulty in Video Games," I suggest that you think through your argument next time, as it's clear that you haven't.

I could go through all of these posts and point out every single opinion/general observation that you've touted as fact, but since you seem to be set in la-la land, I'm not going to waste my time.

You are a terrible debater, and you don't have the fortitude to back up your opinion. If you didn't want to actually have a debate about this, then why open this thread at all? So you could throw your useless "facts" in everyone's face and skim at the curtails of pretentiousness about things you clearly have no idea about?

But I suppose it doesn't matter. Your folly on game design is going to thrive as long as you stay on this forum, and I can only hope that the people around you have the wit to realize everything you say is a joke.

So I'm done. Don't bother responding. I can't continue discussing with you if you won't bother to think.
_________________
Calehay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Rya.Reisender
Snippy




Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Calehay wrote:
I've denied nothing.

Calehay wrote:
No, you didn't.

Calehay wrote:
No, you don't.



Edit: http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopic.php?t=12425
I'll let others talk for me, quite some good replies there.
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)


Last edited by Rya.Reisender on Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Calehay
...yeah.
Class B Minstrel



Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 549

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rya.Reisender wrote:
Calehay wrote:
I've denied nothing.

Calehay wrote:
No, you didn't.

Calehay wrote:
No, you don't.


Astonishing.

I said no, apparently I've denied the "facts."

Those quotes have nothing to do with any "fact" you presented.

If you can't realize that "I've denied nothing." is a response DIRECTLY to your comment about denying the facts, then you clearly have no comprehension skills.

Try reading all the words in a post and mull over them before trying to catch me in a trap, mm-kay?
_________________
Calehay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Rya.Reisender
Snippy




Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've denied something there, so "I've denied nothing" is false. If you really think that I can't differentiate between fact an opinion, then test me! List different sentences and I tell you if it's fact or opinion.
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
msw188




Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry Rya; I really didn't want to join the negativity here, but you seem to get less and less reasonable as we go. Or maybe we still misunderstand each other. So let me get a couple things straight. I disagree with you that 'modern gamers' want penalties completely removed from their games. I disagree that the better player has responsibility for the lesser player to have fun in a multi-player game. I disagree that the concept of needed self-improvement is disliked among 'modern gamers'. What I can agree to is that SOME GAMES may be more fun for a lot of people with less punishment for failure.

And that's great. But there are some key operative words there. "Some", not "all". "A lot", not all. And very importantly, "less punishment", not "no punishment". I don't think that anyone can agree universally on what the 'correct' amount of punishment is that a game should be able to dish out for failure, but very people will believe that the term is absolute zero. That would mean, for example, that getting hit by an enemy would have no effect on the player in a sidescroller.

And now we come to it. If there is so little room for agreement, why not let the player decide their own difficulty level? The game should still be entertaining even if the player decided to make it absurdly easy, right? Well, some games may be able to do this, but I contend that some cannot. 'Old-school' RPGs are the prime example. They were designed carefully to allow for immersion in a fairy-world, filled with Lord of the Rings-esque adventure and danger. Dungeons were constructed in such a way as to be feared by the player and REQUIRE him to think. Without this mechanic, the game experience is lost and the game itself is worthless.

Games that require thinking and/or getting better are NOT obsolete. It may be true that they are less popular than games that do not require thinking and/or getting better (although I disagree with you on that), but even if so, there are people who want that out of games. Trying to say that all games should have difficulty optional in the sense of infinite lives, or omnipresent permasaving, or invincibility, robs these players of their experience. The existence of the option is enough.

I find it particularly rediculous that you can claim:
Quote:
I think that all RPGs should focus on something different

but fail to see that some RPGs focus on this very fear of death, and NOT through sensual but impotent fear a la horror games (fearing death without it being possible), but actually knowledgable fear, as in realizing that your resources are running low and you may not outlast the dungeon, so it is time to either retreat or start taking greater risks.

Finally, how can you reason that RPGs need to change? What makes your conception of 'modern gamer' opinions best for these games? Given the popularity of certain styles of RPGs, we cannot even be sure that these opinions are in a comfortable majority. How does one define what is a 'better' game between two that focus on different sources of entertainment, and for different people? Remember, a classic RPG cannot offer options to entertain both your 'modern gamers' and your 'old-school gamers'.
_________________
My first completed OHR game, Tales of the New World:
http://castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=161

This website link is for my funk/rock band, Euphonic Brew:
www.euphonicbrew.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner



Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rya.Reisender wrote:
I'm against cheating in multiplayer. As I said it's the better player's responsibility to make the game enjoyable for the other player in multiplayer games.


Excuse me?! No! When I play TF2, it's my responsibility to help my team win, not to worry about whether [MMR]lollersk8rboi is enjoying himself. I'm guessing you also think it's the responsibility of the wealthy to make sure everyone has enough money? I'm sorry, but that's not how life works!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Jack
the fool




Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 773

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rya.Reisender wrote:
Edit: http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopic.php?t=12425
I'll let others talk for me, quite some good replies there.


What's really funny is that nearly everyone in that thread is saying a game needs both rules and a goal.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?




Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I already said that I kinda want to exclude MMORPGs / Multiplayer in this argument because my opinion on them is different than on Singleplayer. In Multiplayer the better player is basically responsible for the other player to have fun, not the game itself. The reason why so many people like MMORPGs are not the game mechanics, but rather the people they play with. Ever tried playing WoW alone on an emulator? Or playing an MMORPGs without a friend and without people talking your language? You'll get bored really quick.

The reason why they are popular is not because they offer a challenge, it's because it's completely in the player's hand if they play for a challenge or not.


You can't just exclude MMORPGs and multiplayer just because they don't agree with your stance. That's not the way it works. Multiplayer is the most popular type of game right now.

Also, you're right, the reason people play MMORPGs is for the people they play with. Because people are more challenging to play against. But you're wrong that people play it to choose their level challenge. No one chooses to grind for fun.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Rya.Reisender
Snippy




Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@msw188
This is going in circles now, though. I don't really want to be as extreme as that, maybe games should just offer a difficulty setting. I mean I personally don't die in many RPGs at all and I enjoy those RPGs. But there are other RPGs where I die like Shin Megami Tensei or Dragon Quarter and exactly those games turn into my most hated games rather quick. So my followup conclusion can only be "An RPG is only enjoyable if you don't die" (for me) and the only way to fully assure it is making death impossible. That's why I have to take on this extreme opinion. And I kinda fail to see how anyone could enjoy a game that is above his potential to complete.
Do you know any game that was too hard to finish for you and where you still would say that you love it?

And saying that adding saving anywhere or making the game easier would break the gameplay, is not fully true. I mean let's say Darkmoor Dungeon doesn't allow to make a single wrong move in battles or you die. Changing Darkmoor Dungeon so that you can do 5 things wrong before you die does make the game easier, but you still will need to think out a tactic so the normal gameplay stays the same. You can also play FF1 on easy type for example (I think you get 3xexp and 3xgold there) and it's way more fun this way for me, because it basically just removes all the boring grinding, while the gameplay, story, music and graphics remain the same.

Actually I agree that games that require challenge are NOT obsolete. I even agree that there should be games with the "fear" that you described, but if a game is too hard for many people, it'll cause a lot frustration and will get less fans. If you offer a difficulty setting where on easy you basically won't die if you don't play really stupid, but it's actually still possible to die, people who got frustrated previously will have the option to now try the game again on easy, and probably at least half of the people that got frustrated will eventually end up liking the game after all.
The hardest mode still should be there to cause the strongest fear factor.

Quote:
Finally, how can you reason that RPGs need to change?

I wouldn't call it "reason" more like "suggesting". I guess that's a personal taste, though. That I think every game should be something new and no game should copy a previous one just because that one was successful. I'd rather play a game like Passage than another Dragon Quest.

You have to understand that (in many points) I don't want to express "All games must change because they suck now", I want to express "Give the games an option to be enjoyable by 'Rya-types' as well".

Quote:
Excuse me?! No! When I play TF2, it's my responsibility to help my team win, not to worry about whether [MMR]lollersk8rboi is enjoying himself. I'm guessing you also think it's the responsibility of the wealthy to make sure everyone has enough money? I'm sorry, but that's not how life works!

I wanna argue that games are there to escape from reality and only because real life sucks doesn't mean games need to, but we had that already and you'll just reply "I'm against escapism". So let's just ignore that. That you don't feel responsibly for other people to have fun just shows that you are not a good-hearted person (at least not in that aspects anyways). I was more referring to playing with friends though, not with "[MMR]lollerssk8rboi" who is probably asian and 12 years old. I'm imagining playing a Beat 'em Up with your friend. If you're too good for him, you have to let him win occasionally or he'll get frustrated. That's what I meant. But you guys already stated that you dislike gamers that get frustrated because they never win... but then that's just confirms my "not very good hearted" theory. ^^'
Although that's philosophical... the good old "Is hurting people a good thing when it helps people to improve?" discussion.

Quote:
What's really funny is that nearly everyone in that thread is saying a game needs both rules and a goal.

Their reasoning and way they discuss about it is really good imo, I'll adapt to everything they say. Btw, I never said that rules aren't needed. Goal is questionable (in the thread it's discussed as well). In a discussion like that there's not really a yes and no, even if more than half said no goal is needed that wouldn't mean anything. Discussions like that are just there to understand different viewpoints and ways of reasoning.

Besides they made me realize two things:
1. I should have said "Videogame" and not game. "A game needs a challenge, rules and a goal. A videogame does not necessarily." I was always referring to videogame when I said game earlier.
2. In English there are two words "play" and "game" while in German there's just one word for it, so I didn't really differentiate between those two.

Quote:
You can't just exclude MMORPGs and multiplayer just because they don't agree with your stance.

Wait, that's wrong, if I say something myself I can refer to anything I want. If I say "You can only play videogames alone" and then you say "No, there are multiplayer games" and then I say "I meant singleplayer games" the only logical reply is "Oh okay then" and not "You can't exclude multiplayer" (trivial example, I hope you still get my point).
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Newbie_Power




Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You have to understand that (in many points) I don't want to express "All games must change because they suck now", I want to express "Give the games an option to be enjoyable by 'Rya-types' as well".
Games are already being made to satisfy both parties. You are simply not satisfied enough, and want an extreme that would hinder the other party.
_________________

TheGiz> Am I the only one who likes to imagine that Elijah Wood's character in Back to the Future 2, the kid at the Wild Gunman machine in the Cafe 80's, is some future descendant of the AVGN?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rya.Reisender
Snippy




Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are the one who keeps talking against my suggestions. Also I'm always only asking for an option for it... like "Rya-mode" and "Newbie_Power-mode" option in every single OHR game would be cool.

If there's an OHR game already with "Rya-mode", there's no reason for me to suggest anything, then it'd be your turn to suggest adding the "Newbie_Power-mode".


This is a game I want to show you, it has no challenge or goal, yet it's very enjoyable and it fascinated me for hours:
http://chir.ag/stuff/sand/
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
pharo212




Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rya.Reisender wrote:
@msw188
This is going in circles now, though. I don't really want to be as extreme as that, maybe games should just offer a difficulty setting. I mean I personally don't die in many RPGs at all and I enjoy those RPGs. But there are other RPGs where I die like Shin Megami Tensei or Dragon Quarter and exactly those games turn into my most hated games rather quick. So my followup conclusion can only be "An RPG is only enjoyable if you don't die" (for me) and the only way to fully assure it is making death impossible. That's why I have to take on this extreme opinion. And I kinda fail to see how anyone could enjoy a game that is above his potential to complete.
Do you know any game that was too hard to finish for you and where you still would say that you love it?


Yes, I do. I have never completed a game. NEVER. Do I hate games? No. I love them. I had to use cheats to get G & W in SSBM (That was because all the ways to unlock him didn't work.) I loved SSBM, its one of my favorite games. Do I suck at it? Yes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner



Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rya.Reisender wrote:
Do you know any game that was too hard to finish for you and where you still would say that you love it?


For 15 years, NetHack.

I'd rather lose in a really amusing way than win in a way that doesn't challenge me.

Quote:
I wanna argue that games are there to escape from reality and only because real life sucks doesn't mean games need to, but we had that already and you'll just reply "I'm against escapism". So let's just ignore that.


Life does not suck. This is probably the root of your other problems. Life comes with one difficulty setting -- hard -- and if you can't figure out how to enjoy it, then it's no wonder you don't like other games like it. Life is pretty good -- the graphics are incredible, the interactivity is rich, and I've never noticed any server lag. It does feature permadeath, but the replay value is incredible and the game world is so vast that it's literally impossible to achieve 100% exploration. If that doesn't sound good to you, what does?

Quote:
That you don't feel responsibly for other people to have fun just shows that you are not a good-hearted person (at least not in that aspects anyways).


So we're stupid AND jerks.

I can live with that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Newbie_Power




Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not against difficulty modes... I am thoroughly against changing the honest to goodness game mechanics themselves if the game is meant to be challenging, because honestly, easy modes tend to never reward the player with anything for completing the game anyway.
_________________

TheGiz> Am I the only one who likes to imagine that Elijah Wood's character in Back to the Future 2, the kid at the Wild Gunman machine in the Cafe 80's, is some future descendant of the AVGN?


Last edited by Newbie_Power on Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Castle Paradox Forum Index -> The Arcade All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 6 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group