 |
Castle Paradox
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ronin Catholic
Deadliest of Fairies
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 530
Location: My Girlfriend
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | That not, but he'll still try to finish the game with as many lives left as possible. It will not lower his will to survive at all. It will just nullify the frustration of having to start over because of losing all lives (assuming he can finish the game with 99 lives). |
The GameBoy Advance version of Super Mario Bros. World saved the number of lives you gain, and allowed them to oveflow 100. This caused me to pick up many more lives than I could possibly ever need; at one point I continuously played the same level to jump in the pit at the start so that I could feel threatened.
This killed my experience of the game.
| Quote: | 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.
|
Not on any version I've played. I take it you played it on PlayStation?
It was extremely difficult on the NES, and still somewhat challenging on the Gameboy Advance(if you ignored all the extra dungeons).
I like the way some games handle this; if you take the Baby Mode they'll give you less satisfying endings, or even none at all.
| 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. |
I'm a 20-year-old hanging around on message boards talking about how games would actually offer a challenge in '87.
| Quote: | | 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 |
I don't give in to the common flow of gamers, I go with the kind of games I like. I wouldn't have liked an easy game from twenty years ago any more than an easy game from now, unless I preferred its graphics or sound or pricetag. Even then, I'd rather go with a recent challenging game than an old easy game.
| Quote: | | . 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. |
Preference for challenge is a fluctuating thing. If you go for challenge now, you may be a retrogamer. In ten years, maybe challenge will be back in style and people like you that want mindless button-mashing will be seen as the ones clinging to the old ways.
_________________
"I didn't start the flame war;
I don't know what you thought here
'Twas that way when I got here"
"I didn't start the flame war;
I can't understand a word you're saying
nor the game you're playing~" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?
Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the thing about games that include death: you're supposed to die. If you weren't supposed to die in a game, they wouldn't include death as part of the game mechanics. So if there's a game with death in it, and you beat it without dying once, the game is too easy. End of story.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie_Power
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It was extremely difficult on the NES, and still somewhat challenging on the Gameboy Advance(if you ignored all the extra dungeons). |
The GBA version didn't even offer normal difficulty, while PS1 did. The GBA version alienates FF1 fans, or even gamers that want a decent challenge. Nothing pisses me off more than the GBA version of FF1.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Joe Man
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 742
Location: S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude 123°43'
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without a real challenge, games cease to be valuable. They then become worthless escapism that does nothing to better us as people. Maybe you'll never have to hadoken someone in real life, but determination and competitive spirit that are the core of most good videogames is still very important in life. Tripping out and altering the rules for the sake of a good easy time can be saved for social narcotics.
_________________
"Everyone has 200,000 bad drawings in them, the sooner you get them out the better."
~Charles Martin Jones
Last edited by Joe Man on Fri Dec 13, 1957 1:21 am; edited 2,892 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msw188
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A difficulty setting does sound a lot more reasonable for a lot of games. I'm glad that you can see that there are games where death (and not just a superficial, almost superstitious fear of it) needs to be included as a core part of the gameplay, and that preferring games without this is personal taste, not 'better' game-making.
Just a few comments, but I hope that we (you and I, Rya) see eye to eye a little better and realize that while it may be okay to have games without death, and/or with permanent saving everywhere, it is also okay to have games without options for these things. Although an easier difficulty setting that does not alter gameplay would be a good option to have in nearly every case. Anyway, the comments.
| Quote: | | ...I kinda fail to see how anyone could enjoy a game that is above his potential to complete. |
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me because of the word "potential". The point is that a game can still be too hard to beat on the first try, but it can still be enjoyable because it is within the player's potential ability. They just may have to work to get better at the game, rather than alter the game to be easy enough for them at their present skill level.
| Quote: | | Do you know any game that was too hard to finish for you and where you still would say that you love it? |
No I do not, speaking strictly logically. Every game I've loved, I have eventually beaten (as you could point out to Moogle1, he DID eventually beat Nethack). However, the inverse question sheds just as much light on the issue:
Do you know of any game that was easy enough to finish on the first try without dying where you still would say that you love it?
My answer again would be no. All of my favorite games have forced me to get better and replay certain areas because I wasn't good enough the first time. And notice I was careful to use the word "area", because I believe in the total challenge of an area as a whole as an important aspect of many games.
| Quote: | | 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. |
Notice that in neither of your examples did you use the concept of saving anywhere. I hesitate to speak for everyone, but I believe that all that the vast majority of the people here have been saying is that some forms of making games easier (especially saving anywhere) just DON'T WORK for certain games. In these cases (games like MarioBros, Dragon Quest, Minesweeper) they DO break some of the focal points of the gameplay, in the same way that having a button that immobilizes your opponent would break the gameplay of a Street Fighter style game. So no, the claim that saving anywhere breaks gameplay is not fully true. But in some games, it is true.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so you guys like really hard games and I like really easy games and I don't think this will change ever so no need to continue discussion this.
However I think games that offer "Rya-mode" are awesome and games that offer "Rya-mode" and "Newbie_Power-mode" are fair, while I totally hate games that only offer "Newbie_Power-mode". The problem is that the only games that you guys accept are the ones that only offer "Newbie_Power-mode" and you don't think offering both modes is fair because you assume everyone else would select "Rya-mode" although you guys yourself say you prefer hard games, so you would probably choose "Newbie_Power-mode" after all or am I wrong?
Isn't that quite a contradiction that on one hand you say you prefer hard, challenging games, but on the other hand you say people would ignore all challenge if they could?
If you don't even come so far into my direction to say "Offering both modes is always best for both groups" then we'll never agree, because I could never admit that games that are no fun for me at all are the only good ones, because then I would contradict myself...
You guys always say "Games without challenge are worthless" and that's really hurting me, because these are the games that I enjoy. You could at least be so nice and word it so that it shows that this is just your opinion like "I don't like games without challenge, but I'm aware that there are other people that like them more than challenging games". Just reread the SB thread about game definition to see what other people write about it. Some can understand me quite well.
For example:
| Quote: | That's fair, they don't like the absence of challenge, you don't like pure chance in your games, as haze said it.. fun is subjective.
But yeah, I'm feelin with you. Strictly challenging/competetive games are only one kind of a multitude of different possible forms of play, though they are in a great majority, and that's what I'm growing tired of as much as you are.
But things are changing.. look at the Wii, look at things like Sand or this site.
We'll see more of these interactive experiences in the future and either the term game will become more inclusive and swallow these types of activities that are now disparagingly referred to as "non games", or we'll call them by a different name. Doesn't really matter as long as they're enjoyed and acknowledged. |
Msw188 is at least trying to go into my direction, though the problem is the same. He didn't enjoy any games that didn't give him a challenge, so he probably is having a hard time understanding that others do as well.
About saving anywhere. Well I guess there are quite some games where saving anywhere isn't the best solution to make the game easy enough to complete. However, not allowing to save anywhere will ALWAYS have the risk that a player dies and wastes playing time. Wasting playing time is frustrating for me.
Actually to quote myself:
| Quote: | The point is there are four things that make me drop an RPG out of frustration:
- I die and would have to replay more than 20 minutes of playing time
- I die repeatly at the same spot
- I notice that I'd need to grind more than one hour in order to be able to continue and the battle system is not really fun
- the game is rather easy but it's no fun because of boring gameplay, story, graphics or music |
Now to your examples (MarioBros, Dragon Quest, Minesweeper), how would you change the game so that none of these four incidents could happen at all?
I'd personally suggest for those games:
MarioBros - If you lose all lives it allows you to skip the level at the cost of all your points and you get 3 lives back. In this case permanent saving is really not needed.
Dragon Quest - Well this is a game that fails at all 4 points. To fix the first point, you either need to add permanent saving or at least frequent save points, or add a skill that brings you back to the location you died when used. To fix the second point the only thing I could imagine is something like when you die at the same battle three times it allows you to retry the battle with doubled stats. Add a point system so that each battle gives you points, but if you win the battle with doubled stats you won't get any points and if you die you lose some points. Points should be repeatly saved so even if you reload after death you won't get the points back. To fix the third point, you'll need to increase exp and gold by at least 5 times. Even better let the player choose an exp rate between 1x and 10x.
To fix the last point, the game flow needs to be improved a lot, more sudden events, less linear progress and the battle system should be improved to be real time instead of round based or at least uses a completely new system in each part of the series.
Minesweeper - The only fix that makes sense here at all is to make the field even more customizable, but unlike the games I think bad off, Minesweeper already offers a good customizability. If I set it to the largest field possible and only select to place 10 mines, then everyone who isn't brain-damaged should be able to complete it. The only real fix that it would still need is to let it place the mines AFTER the first user click (so that the first field you select is never a mine, but before it reveals the field, the mines have to be placed).
Alright then, see if you added those features to the games they'd actually be enjoyable by me as well. All those features can be made completely optional, so that you can still play them the traditional way that doesn't break the gameplay if you enjoy that one more.
In the end it just all comes down to "games should be enjoyable" or as someone said on SB "The intent of fun is what makes it a game". Regardless of what is fun for a certain person (opinions will always differ anyways).
_________________
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 |
|
|
JSH357
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 1705
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stop playing games. They're too hard for you, man.
Haven't you ever heard of children's literature? You realize that there are books that are more 'challenging' to read than others by default, right? Personally, I wouldn't want William Faulkner to edit his novels so that any ordinary dumbass could read them, even though I'm not a big fan. They lose essentially all of their value if written in a clear, direct fashion. Some books are written for adults and some are written for people with much higher reading levels than others. If you think that makes children's literature inherently better than 'adult fiction,' you are a dumbass.
The same principle should apply to most artforms, including games. It's fine if you just want to play god games, but stop telling us we have to change our games to fit your interests. The audience you fall into is only a percentage of gamers, and most indie developers probably aren't going to target this crowd for two reasons: first, indie developers tend to have a clear vision of how their game is going to come out; they don't want some player to totally destroy the meaning of their game by dicking around. Second, it's really a lot of trouble to implement the kinds of options you want to have, and indie developers are generally pretty pressed for time unless they live in their parents' house without contributing to the bills.
If you want to make an OHR god game, then by all means, give it your best shot. Just accept that nobody else here wants to make one, and not every "modern gamer," as you put it, believes in the same principles as you do.[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Um, this thread isn't about forcing anyone to change his game. It's just a game design discussion where I stand the point that games that aren't too hard are more fun. I explained why, gave various examples, showed well-explained opinions of other people and finally explained how to modify games to make themmore enjoyable by people like me. I also pointed out that I'm aware that there are also people who prefer challenging games over "play for play" games and hence both types of games are needed. Finally I came to the conclusion that a perfect game would be a game that is enjoyable by both groups.
That's it summarized from my viewpoint.
Nowhere did I try to express that less challenging games are always better, neither did I say that all games should be completely devoid of challenge.
| Quote: | | children's literature |
It's basically the same as with games. The quality of the games is independant from how easy it is to understand. A children's book CAN be better than some adult fiction, but it could also be the other way around. However for a person that doesn't understand the "adult fiction", a children's book is ALWAYS more enjoyable. Children prefer children's books over adult fiction to begin with.
| Quote: | | first, indie developers tend to have a clear vision of how their game is going to come out; they don't want some player to totally destroy the meaning of their game |
This is actually a good argument. That's why I also always say that in the end it's the responsibility of the creator if he wants to change the game or not. Giving suggestions can never hurt, though. I mean you guys also gave suggestions on my game, so you can't consider them too bad.
| Quote: | | Second, it's really a lot of trouble to implement the kinds of options you want to have |
That's more of a lameass excuse though. It's the same as saying "The graphics are only bad because I didn't want to bother with them too much". If you don't put your best effort into a game you deserve it when someone says it's bad, I mean you are even obligated to tell yourself "I could have done that better". That even includes myself, I didn't put effort into the music in Fatal Maze so I think I deserve it when Moogle1 says that the music is a big downside (by the way only one song is from Motoi Sakuraba :p).
Besides many of my suggestions are rather easy to implement. Even something like exp rates or death counters can be easily plotscripted.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Calehay
...yeah.
Class B Minstrel
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 549
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: |
| Quote: | | children's literature |
It's basically the same as with games. The quality of the games is independant from how easy it is to understand. A children's book CAN be better than some adult fiction, but it could also be the other way around. However for a person that doesn't understand the "adult fiction", a children's book is ALWAYS more enjoyable. Children prefer children's books over adult fiction to begin with. |
Then go play children's games.
Here's a good suggestion for you:
My 5 year old niece in law loved this game. Surely you both are of similar mind.
You can't argue that some children's books are better than some adults books, so let's slap them together in one package. They're two different things. I don't really think that's the best analogy, however.
_________________
Calehay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | If I set it to the largest field possible and only select to place 10 mines, then everyone who isn't brain-damaged should be able to complete it. The only real fix that it would still need is to let it place the mines AFTER the first user click (so that the first field you select is never a mine, but before it reveals the field, the mines have to be placed). |
Actually, that's already the case in the Windows version. Even if you max out on mines, you'll never explode on the first click. You might explode on the second click, but that's your fault.
So if you max the field size and min the mines, you'll usually win in the first click. It's more difficult to lose on that setting.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did anyone try out 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 |
|
|
Calehay
...yeah.
Class B Minstrel
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 549
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Did anyone try out Sand? |
Ok. So what?
_________________
Calehay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Onlyoneinall
Bug finder
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya wrote: | | That's more of a lameass excuse though. It's the same as saying "The graphics are only bad because I didn't want to bother with them too much". If you don't put your best effort into a game you deserve it when someone says it's bad, I mean you are even obligated to tell yourself "I could have done that better". |
Not necessarily true if like JSH said, they're pressed for time and also, that's not a particularly good example because maybe they did do their best job in graphics, but they are just not good at it. It doesn't mean they can't improve, but it doesn't mean it's an excuse either.
Also, here's a non-challenging game which I would assume is to Rya's tastes, but only if you like hamsters:
http://www.maniform.com/stuff/hamster.htm
_________________
http://www.castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=750 Bloodlust Demo 1.00
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Man
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 742
Location: S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude 123°43'
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | You guys always say "Games without challenge are worthless" and that's really hurting me, because these are the games that I enjoy. |
I'm so sorry, I must apologize on behalf of all of us; factually unintelligent people like ourselves tend to have offensive opinions.
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | The quality of the games is independant from how easy it is to understand. A children's book CAN be better than some adult fiction, but it could also be the other way around. However for a person that doesn't understand the "adult fiction", a children's book is ALWAYS more enjoyable. Children prefer children's books over adult fiction to begin with. |
While I can't condone the book/game analogy, since books are highly subjective while games are highly objective (content-wise), I suppose I will defend your book argument by saying The Giving Tree was far superior to Maus.
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | That's more of a lameass excuse though. It's the same as saying "The graphics are only bad because I didn't want to bother with them too much". If you don't put your best effort into a game you deserve it when someone says it's bad, I mean you are even obligated to tell yourself "I could have done that better". |
Actually, it's not, and completely reworking a game is hardly analogous to making the graphics better. In fact, considering it would indubitably differ from the developer's vision, it's not even fair to call it better at all.
_________________
"Everyone has 200,000 bad drawings in them, the sooner you get them out the better."
~Charles Martin Jones
Last edited by Joe Man on Fri Dec 13, 1957 1:21 am; edited 2,892 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pharo212
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Did anyone try out Sand? |
Yes, actually. It was fun, but it soon lost my attention, due to lack of plot, and no clear goal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
