 |
Castle Paradox
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
msw188
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A few comments follow:
| Quote: | | 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? |
I shouldn't speak for everyone, so I will speak for myself. The problem is not that I think that people will always choose the easiest option, although this might be the case. The problem is that some of your suggestions on making games easier contradict the concept of what some games are based upon, and including them even as options is detrimental to the experience of the game by those who would enjoy it as it was. Furthermore, (and now I do believe that I am speaking for nearly everybody who has replied to you), I have difficulty believing that the extreme 'Rya-mode' that you have endorsed would be a fun option to many people at all. Most people that I know like to work at things and improve at them; the satisfaction comes from completion, and if the work required to do so is engaging and 'fun', then the game is a success.
In regards to your suggestions about my examples:
| Quote: | | 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. |
Suggestions like this are what make people speak offensively to you. The Mario Bros games are designed in such a way that the levels get HARDER as you go. If you are dying repeatedly on level 3-4, what makes you think that allowing you to pass on and try the harder levels beyond that is a good idea? The game is designed so that, through repetition, the player becomes better at the game.
I understand that these games are not enjoyable for you. I've already mentioned how offering easy ways out like the option to save anywhere hurts the experience for players like me who want to be immersed in the game world. Some of your suggestions (like the EXP-rate slider) would also be difficult to implement in terms of the player knowing the proper rate for his preferred challenge level. I do not understand how you could claim that these games cause you to die repeatedly in the same spots (point 2) and yet claim that the games are easy but boring (point 4). The idea of scoring points also greatly changes the focus of the gameplay (I would not like their inclusion, although having them off by default wouldn't be bad). I have no idea how your suggestions about point 4 could be considered "completely optional, so that you can still play them the traditional way that doesn't break the gameplay..."
Also, this is sort of nitpicky about wording, but I found it a bit offputting that you said that the battle system should be "improved to be real time instead of round based". This would, in my opinion, be at best a drastic change, and certainly not an improvement. I remember how relieved I was, after getting tired of Final Fantasy III (VI), when I bought Breath of Fire 2 and it was turn-based instead of 'real time'. There are still people, and not just me, that hope for OHR support of a turn-based battle system.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I forgot to also mention that I'm surprised that you think the Dragon Quest games are too "linear". I'm not sure which games you have played, but in my experience they are almost too open in some cases (although I enjoy this aspect). The only Dragon Quest games that I have played that felt too linear to me were the first one (historically forgivable perhaps, but I have no desire to play that game again) and the fifth (disappointing, although necessary perhaps to allow the plot to flow smoothly). Maybe the seventh and eighth as well, depending on how you look at them.
_________________
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 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Onlyoneinall wrote: | | Not necessarily true if like JSH said, they're pressed for time |
Actually I don't see how amateur developers can be pressed in time since they don't earn any money for it. I mean even if they live by themselves, it won't kill them if they needed 6 years for a game.
A better excuse would probably be that they can't keep up their motivation long enough so they need to create a game fast or it was during a contest.
| Quote: | | 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. |
I always thought I'm bad at graphics but then I realized that if you invest enough time into them everyone can make rather good ones.
| Joe Man wrote: | | since books are highly subjective while games are highly objective (content-wise), |
Everything is highly subjective, but we had that already.
| Quote: | | and completely reworking a game is hardly analogous to making the graphics better |
Actually reworking the graphics would consume much more time than adding any of the features I suggested.
| Quote: | | considering it would indubitably differ from the developer's vision, it's not even fair to call it better at all. |
Depends on the change if it's better or not. Besides if the developer changes the gameplay himself it'll still be the "developer's version", you can't really assume that he is not honest to himself if he drastically changes the gameplay in one of his games, maybe he realized the game is not enjoyable for himself.
| pharo212 wrote: | | Yes, actually. It was fun, but it soon lost my attention, due to lack of plot, and no clear goal. |
Yeah, but it was fun, and it's a game. If you lose your attention it just means it's time to move to the next fun game.
At least those games don't try to suck out as much free time out of the user as possible by adding forced replay. It's just "Play as long as they are fun".
| msw188 wrote: | | The problem is that some of your suggestions on making games easier contradict the concept of what some games are based upon |
But there's nothing wrong with that. If there are people who don't like this concept and they'd enjoy another optional concept, then give it to them. The people that enjoyed the concept as it was can just choose their mode and are completely uneffected by the additional features.
It's basically like minigames in RPGs. They completely break the gameplay mechanism. Some people find them more enjoyable than the game itself and some people find them less enjoyable than the game itself. There are quite some people who completely skip all minigames in a game.
| Quote: | | I have difficulty believing that the extreme 'Rya-mode' that you have endorsed would be a fun option to many people at all. |
I'm sure it will be.
Actually good example are Ragnarok Online private servers. Many people play on them, not because they don't have any money, but because they have higher exp rates. Those exp rates basically reach up to 10000x exp. If you compare the amount of people who play on official servers or on private 1x exp rate servers with the people who play on higher rate servers you'll figure out that 98% of the players play on servers with a higher rate than 1x. More than 90% even play on server with a rate higher than 10x.
You guys are basically the players on the official servers that have a big grudge against those who play on higher rate servers and keep saying those players are lame and that the gameplay is totally broken if you play RO on a high rate server.
But by no means they are a minority.
| Quote: | | The Mario Bros games are designed in such a way that the levels get HARDER as you go. |
Okay then, let's say if you skip the level by dieing you'll get an alternative path that's actually easier. Or just some harder parts on the next stage are made easier by adding some blocks and removing some enemies.
| Quote: | | Some of your suggestions (like the EXP-rate slider) would also be difficult to implement in terms of the player knowing the proper rate for his preferred challenge level. |
Add words next to the exp rate. For example if it's 1x it says "nightmare" if it's 2x and 3x it says "hard", if it's 4x and 5x it says "normal" and anything higher says "easy". The player could also figure it out by himself pretty much. If he notices that he needs grinding he knows that he should raise the rates and if the player already knows himself "I like really challenging games" he might start with 1x directly to begin with.
| Quote: | | I do not understand how you could claim that these games cause you to die repeatedly in the same spots (point 2) and yet claim that the games are easy but boring (point 4). |
Oh you should have read that as "Even if it was easy, it'll still be boring to me".
| Quote: | | The idea of scoring points also greatly changes the focus of the gameplay |
It doesn't change the gameplay at all, though. The focus of the gameplay only changes if the player wants that.
| Quote: | | turn-based battle system |
Turn based battle system are the most boring invention in RPGs ever, I can't understand how anyone can like them... they are sooo boring. >-<
The only game series with a turn based battle that I really enjoyed was Phantasy Star and I'm almost sure I only enjoyed it because of the good soundtrack.
| Quote: | | I'm sorry, I forgot to also mention that I'm surprised that you think the Dragon Quest games are too "linear". I'm not sure which games you have played |
Oh sorry, I only played part 7 and 8, if the others are better then I take that back. Also, even if the game lets you go anywhere, if there's only one place to continue the story always then I'd always call the game completely linear.
_________________
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: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
OH MAN YOU ARE SO RIGHT! I am NOT joking! You've totally swayed me with your last post! It bathed me in A WHITE LIGHT!!
SO I AGREE! I TOTALLY HATE games that tell ME what to do. I should be telling the GAME what to do! If I want a SANDWICH, it should get up and GO GET ME ONE! IF I want LOCKE to jump around and kill bosses IN ONE HIT, it should just let me do it! Why should there's be CHALLENGE or DIFFICULTY, cause I'm just playing for FUN! I don't want to THINK!
| Quote: | | Yeah, but it was fun, and it's a game. If you lose your attention it just means it's time to move to the next fun game. |
YEAH!!!! I totally bought FINAL FANTASY XII, and then it was telling ME that I HAD to pick COMMANDS from a MENU, and I was like, "Oh, no you didn't!" I WAS SO BORED! It cost $50, but I was like, "I'M BORED, NEXT GAME." So now I live in A BOX!
| Quote: | | Add words next to the exp rate. For example if it's 1x it says "nightmare" if it's 2x and 3x it says "hard", if it's 4x and 5x it says "normal" and anything higher says "easy". The player could also figure it out by himself pretty much. If he notices that he needs grinding he knows that he should raise the rates and if the player already knows himself "I like really challenging games" he might start with 1x directly to begin with. |
YES!!!!! I am SOOO tired of games that make me PLAY THEM! I should be able to make it to where I can put my PAPERWEIGHT on the controller so that I can GO FISHING! And those NON-MODERN GAMERS are so stupid, they'll make it so that they can't go fishing! I'm gonna catch me some HALIBUT! IT'S GOOD EATIN'!
_________________
Calehay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Onlyoneinall
Bug finder
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry to say this Rya, but my mind is relatively lucid right now, and I am starting to see why everyone seems to be driven bonkers by your opinions.
What you want is to say, hey, all games should offer ALL THESE OPTIONS. But maybe the designers had specific goals in mind and specific ideas, and for them to make everything to have an included 'Super Easy Mode' for genres of games that you're apparently not good at. But come on dude, you can't seriously expect every single game to bend backwards and offer like a bunch of options so that if you come across a challenge, it'll push it aside for you. I mean, the point of a lot of these games is to give you a specific challenge to some minimum. What you are saying is that it should be easy and sensible to make it so all the games that you die in (hence, it becomes boring or no fun) should then offer an option to bypass that.
The problem I have here is that this sort of mentality is fine... for certain games, but not all! Like Mario Bros. You argue if you die in a level, it should let you pass it while losing all your points, or as recently said offer an alternate easier path. I say that's not the game's vision, its purpose is, as mentioned earlier to get progressively harder to challenge you to become better and have a sense of achievement. You know... it's basically self-growth.
But now you say, yeah that's fine for those gamers who want that, but for those who don't, it should offer 'Super Easy Mode'. Well maybe the point of the game isn't to have a 'Super Easy Mode'! Like I said, some games are cool with that because they are flexible for that sort of thing but what you are asking for is too much. If all games offered this, then all games would essentially become the same thing. You could play any game and go through 'Super Easy Mode' and beat it without any problem. Your argument that it's the gamer's choice is countered by the temptation that is difficult to fight. It also would potentially ruin first impressions and whatever mental impressions you have of the game that would adversely affect the rest of your gameplay experience with it.
I gotta ask you this man, what kind of life do you hail from? All I vaguely recall is you're some 23 year old computer programmer. The problem I have with your attitude that every game should give the option of holding your hand is that this isn't how it always works. If you get a D- on a test, you're not going to be given the option to take an easier test so you can get an A. No matter what aspects of life you look at, things are structured so that you can't just walk the easy street, unless you are born into it or something. In fact, I'm thinking of this one bitch I hold a grudge against in particular who goes through life like that. If her life was a video game, it'd basically be Super Mario Bros with 'Super Easy Mode'. She fails the first level, so the game lets her continue onto the second level with an easier path.
In the same aspect, this causes her to zip through the levels, whether or not she passes or fails, but she develops no growth. Most video games are out there the way they are because well... most people want a challenge and to have growth. Obviously 'modern gamers' don't want every single game to have 'Super Easy Mode' or most games would have it out there.
Also, where the hell do you get your statistics from? Of everything you've posted, that is what annoys me the most because as far as I can tell they are absolutely baseless and are just what you predict off the top of your head from what few gamers you have actually had interactions with. Granted people cheat in MMORPGs to get to high levels and crap fast, but first of all those games have absolutely no point to them aside from being cash cows for companies, and if you do cheat your way to level 99 as opposed to actually working up to it the way you're supposed to, the level of achievement you feel is not as great.
In any case, I would assume most of the people here in this community would be more agreeable if you said say, difficulty options should be offered for every game as opposed to they should have a 'no challenge' option. I think most of them understand your points to a degree, but I'm not sure you understand why everyone is getting so blazed up (except maybe msw188) about what you're saying.
_________________
http://www.castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=750 Bloodlust Demo 1.00
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronin Catholic
Deadliest of Fairies
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 530
Location: My Girlfriend
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Riceeater wrote: | | Turn based battle system are the most boring invention in RPGs ever, I can't understand how anyone can like them... they are sooo boring. >-< |
Well, I love turn-based battle systems. For me, they are the most enjoyable part of the RPG genre. I understand perfectly that many people don't like them, but then I also understand that many people don't enjoy the taste of broccoli or grapefruit. ^_^
| Ryu.Racequitter wrote: | | The only game series with a turn based battle that I really enjoyed was Phantasy Star and I'm almost sure I only enjoyed it because of the good soundtrack. |
The only series with turn-based battles I remember specifically not enjoying was Phantasy Star, and that's because the menus didn't quite seem to play the way I felt they should.
| Rya.Rongondis wrote: | | It's basically like minigames in RPGs. They completely break the gameplay mechanism. |
No, they don't. A minigame doesn't "break" a game unless it offers unfair rewards that do damage to the rest of the game's ballance.
| Rya.Rosenoser wrote: | | Everything is highly subjective, but we had that already. |
I take the opposite view, that almost nothing is subjective.
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | I always thought I'm bad at graphics but then I realized that if you invest enough time into them everyone can make rather good ones. |
I can make better graphics than many people, but even my best is not all that great. I may spend several hours trying to make one sprite, and it may still be noticably worse than five minutes' worth of effort from a more talented artist.
And this is after five years of practicing with the engine, which came after ten years of playing around with crayons and MSPaint.
| Rya.R_R wrote: | | Actually reworking the graphics would consume much more time than adding any of the features I suggested. |
It's not about time. You see, Super Mario Bros. would still be essentially the same game if you replaced the font with random squiggles, blanked out the blocks, and drew Mario backwards or upside-down. Likewise, it would be essentially the same game if the graphics were done with modern 3D polygons, or even just more complex sprites.
Let me to compare games to cakes.
The game is like a cake, the bread beneath the frosting is what matters. The type of frosting put on it, and the way it is decorated, have very little effect. If the cake beneath the decoration is undercooked, or the wrong ammounts of things like leavening and flour were put in it, the cake will still be horrible no matter how well you decorate it. On the flipside, even an ugly cake will be recognized as good if it was prepared properly.
What you're doing is asking us to change the baking recipe in profound and fundamental ways, and then telling us that it's no different from changing the decoration.
Now, I understand that not all people like cake; some like pie, some like gelatin, and some like pudding. What you're doing is, in a sense, asking us to bake cakes to the consistency of pudding, because you hate using forks or don't like chewing your food.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course I can't expect every game to change, especially not just because I said it. As I stated before this is just a game design discussion and I'm just trying to prove my point that less challenging games are easier to make less frustrating. In fact there are ways to make challenging games not frustrating, but these ways will always only work for certain groups of people.
I'm referring to an ideal that will probably never be realized: All games are enjoyable by all persons. And I'm just theoretically speaking by saying "Hey if all games offered options for all kinds of players, then we could realize a world where all games can be enjoyable by all players"
You see my personal motivation is just to make games that I think could be good, good. I mean, if a game is really really awful, I won't even comment on it, neither giving suggestions on how to make it better. If there's a good game I really like and can't see any flaws, I will only tell others how great it is and won't give suggestions either. Of course if someone would suggest to change the game I'd instantly say "Nooooo", but if that person then says "Well okay I understand that other people like it as they are, so just implement my suggestions optional", I'd think "Okay, as long as I can still play it as I loved it I won't complain", I won't start with massive hatred against that person just because that person's idea doesn't reflect the gameplay I loved.
The only game type where I end up giving suggestion is when I like the game a lot but think "Hey if you change this and that, then it'd be much better" and then I suggest this. I feel obligated to suggest it. Even if I think "Hey it probably won't be used, but I should at least try to make it more enjoyable for me".
It's like asking a girl if she wants to go out with you even if you're not sure that she says yes. And I'd hate people that'd come and hit me just because I asked that girl. >-<
| Quote: | | Also, where the hell do you get your statistics from? |
For Ragnarok Online private servers it's easy to tell for me. I'm developing the actual emulator and have a quite good overview. But you can also easily see it when you visit a private server that offers a low rate and a high rate server at the same time. Usually the low rate server will have around 10-100 players while the high rate server has 500-2000 players.
| Quote: | | In any case, I would assume most of the people here in this community would be more agreeable if you said say, difficulty options should be offered for every game as opposed to they should have a 'no challenge' option. |
Well as I said I only went to the extreme to fully really assure the game can't be frustrating. There are often better ways to either make the challenge actual fun or to reducing the challenge but trick the player so he thinks there's actual high challenge. But those really good ideas are often hard to do, mostly because only really good game designers will have really good ideas for it.
Oh well.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Newbie_Power
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As I stated before this is just a game design discussion and I'm just trying to prove my point that less challenging games are easier to make less frustrating. |
You overrate frustration as a negative factor. There is such thing as too much frustration, but most people can handle certain degrees of frustration as long as the challenge makes the game fun and enjoyable.
| Quote: | I'm referring to an ideal that will probably never be realized: All games are enjoyable by all persons. And I'm just theoretically speaking by saying "Hey if all games offered options for all kinds of players, then we could realize a world where all games can be enjoyable by all players"
|
Might as well stop now.
| Quote: | You see my personal motivation is just to make games that I think could be good, good. I mean, if a game is really really awful, I won't even comment on it, neither giving suggestions on how to make it better. If there's a good game I really like and can't see any flaws, I will only tell others how great it is and won't give suggestions either. Of course if someone would suggest to change the game I'd instantly say "Nooooo", but if that person then says "Well okay I understand that other people like it as they are, so just implement my suggestions optional", I'd think "Okay, as long as I can still play it as I loved it I won't complain", I won't start with massive hatred against that person just because that person's idea doesn't reflect the gameplay I loved.
The only game type where I end up giving suggestion is when I like the game a lot but think "Hey if you change this and that, then it'd be much better" and then I suggest this. I feel obligated to suggest it. Even if I think "Hey it probably won't be used, but I should at least try to make it more enjoyable for me". |
While this argument protects yourself, you also fail to consider other people. Adding saving anywhere in Darkraven would certainly not have made the game more fun for a lot of people that are fans of this style of game. The design decision that was made and is being implemented in the end is far better than simply adding saving anywhere to the game, whether it would have made it fun for you or not.
| Quote: | | For Ragnarok Online private servers it's easy to tell for me. I'm developing the actual emulator and have a quite good overview. But you can also easily see it when you visit a private server that offers a low rate and a high rate server at the same time. Usually the low rate server will have around 10-100 players while the high rate server has 500-2000 players. |
_________________
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 |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | It's like asking a girl if she wants to go out with you even if you're not sure that she says yes. And I'd hate people that'd come and hit me just because I asked that girl. >-< |
I have NO IDEA how this analogy is supposed to fit. I've heard odd analogies before, but you have beaten them all..
| Quote: | | For Ragnarok Online private servers it's easy to tell for me. |
Oh, so we are talking MMOs now?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Man
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 742
Location: S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude 123°43'
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Joe Man wrote: | | since books are highly subjective while games are highly objective (content-wise), |
Everything is highly subjective, but we had that already. |
No. Stories, at least good ones, have complex subtle character interactions and are open to various interpretations. Games, at least ones that have goals, are simply about looking at the situation, breaking it down logically, and solving the problem, which, while it might have various solutions, all boil down to the same thing, as is the nature of logic. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Quote: | | and completely reworking a game is hardly analogous to making the graphics better |
Actually reworking the graphics would consume much more time than adding any of the features I suggested. |
That can be true, if you're a lazy ass about the whole thing. Of course, I would refuse to be any more than that if the point is to let players be lazy asses. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Quote: | | considering it would indubitably differ from the developer's vision, it's not even fair to call it better at all. |
Depends on the change if it's better or not. Besides if the developer changes the gameplay himself it'll still be the "developer's version", you can't really assume that he is not honest to himself if he drastically changes the gameplay in one of his games, maybe he realized the game is not enjoyable for himself. |
You should tell Henrik Ibsen that. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | pharo212 wrote: | | Yes, actually. It was fun, but it soon lost my attention, due to lack of plot, and no clear goal. |
Yeah, but it was fun, and it's a game. If you lose your attention it just means it's time to move to the next fun game.
At least those games don't try to suck out as much free time out of the user as possible by adding forced replay. It's just "Play as long as they are fun". |
Which is another reason developers don't toss in your mode. Because it's only fun for a half-hour. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | msw188 wrote: | | The problem is that some of your suggestions on making games easier contradict the concept of what some games are based upon |
But there's nothing wrong with that. If there are people who don't like this concept and they'd enjoy another optional concept, then give it to them. The people that enjoyed the concept as it was can just choose their mode and are completely uneffected by the additional features. |
Don't give us bull like that. Games are supposed to be about what the developer wants them to be about, just like a book is supposed to be about what the author wants it to be about. Jude The Obscure is not a happy book. If you want to read a happy book, find a different book, like Curious George. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | It's basically like minigames in RPGs. They completely break the gameplay mechanism. Some people find them more enjoyable than the game itself and some people find them less enjoyable than the game itself. There are quite some people who completely skip all minigames in a game. |
This isn't even worth addressing. Least not here. We've already had debates on that. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Quote: | | I have difficulty believing that the extreme 'Rya-mode' that you have endorsed would be a fun option to many people at all. |
I'm sure it will be. |
Perhaps we should stick with legitimately debatable topics. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Quote: | | The Mario Bros games are designed in such a way that the levels get HARDER as you go. |
Okay then, let's say if you skip the level by dieing you'll get an alternative path that's actually easier. Or just some harder parts on the next stage are made easier by adding some blocks and removing some enemies. |
This is actually a concept that some game developers have been toying with. Fl0w was supposed to reflect that idea. I mentioned that earlier here. But, the thing is, this is one of those things that would be a huge effort to implement.[quote="Rya.Reisender"] | Quote: | | Some of your suggestions (like the EXP-rate slider) would also be difficult to implement in terms of the player knowing the proper rate for his preferred challenge level. |
He's right. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Quote: | | I do not understand how you could claim that these games cause you to die repeatedly in the same spots (point 2) and yet claim that the games are easy but boring (point 4). |
Oh you should have read that as "Even if it was easy, it'll still be boring to me". |
Take out "Even" and it would apply to everyone else. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Quote: | | The idea of scoring points also greatly changes the focus of the gameplay |
It doesn't change the gameplay at all, though. The focus of the gameplay only changes if the player wants that. |
This is more of your bullshit "the player is always, ALWAYS right" idealism that we still disagree with. I'm sorry, but game developers are still entitled to artistic license. | Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Quote: | | turn-based battle system |
Turn based battle system are the most boring invention in RPGs ever, I can't understand how anyone can like them... they are sooo boring. >-<
The only game series with a turn based battle that I really enjoyed was Phantasy Star and I'm almost sure I only enjoyed it because of the good soundtrack. |
While I think that the current system is symbolically flawed, and usually poorly implemented, the system itself isn't too bad.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Clamps
Slayer of the Moon
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been on a hard game kick, recently, so I thought I'd offer my two cents.
I've been obsessed with Devil May Cry 3. It's considered one of the hardest console games in existence by IGN.
I've started a new game in Hard, and I notice that the increased damage enemies do is causing me to pay a lot more attention. The first few enemies are basically pallette swaps with slightly different attack patterns. On the normal difficulty, this just affected what color enemy I was slashing. On the higher ones, I *really* pay attention to the slight differences between the blue guy with a scythe, the red guy with a scythe, and the gray guy with a scythe.
Increasing the difficulty increased how much I had to think about the game. It also made little differences a lot more important.
On the other hand, it's interesting how High Difficulty can make some fights really fun (all three Vergil fights), and others incredibly annoying and frustrating (Beowulf). I don't really know why that is. I lose to Vergil 3 ten times in a row, but I *enjoy* it. Even beating Beowulf is a pain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Calehay
...yeah.
Class B Minstrel
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 549
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THE WISEST MAN I KNOW wrote: | | Moon color beam in transit with plant in face of curb towards sight. Entranced who dare eat of wiener in Piedmont with James Earl Jones. Glory be who up shoot in gravy. Rant Mister Nemesis in ocean view, "Come eat up of the bratwurst." Amen. |
The point?
Everytime I read one of Rya's posts, it seems like this above. I can only assume, through some sort of time-space mysterium, that when Rya reads our posts, it looks like the above.
The solution?
Stop kindling this madness and go make some games.
_________________
Calehay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwinHamster
♫ Furious souls, burn eternally! ♫
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1352
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Stop kindling this madness and go make some games. |
You mean like SUAWOYG?
Isn't that how things used to get done around here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, except it's historically SUAMYG.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwinHamster
♫ Furious souls, burn eternally! ♫
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1352
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moogle1 wrote: | | Yes, except it's historically SUAMYG. |
Whatever you say, Old Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clamps
Slayer of the Moon
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More detailed thoughts, from the whole thread.
| Quote: | | You have to look at it from a game designer's point of view more than anything here, especially since this IS A community of game designers. If you're designing a game, especially one that is elaborate and a person spends hundreds of hours envisioning their dream, they can't just compensate and let you play any way you want. |
I don't know if CP has a profanity rule, so I'll spare you my initial reaction.
The point of games is to be PLAYED. I don't care how many hundreds of hours you put into the game. If it's not fun, I won't play it. This is somewhat separate from the difficulty thing, I know, but I feel it's worth mentioning.
The will of the game designer is secondary to making a game that is good.
*Cough*
If you can save anywhere, you can save in a position you can't get out of, and lose your game. That's just annoying.
My issue with challenge isn't how hard something is, but why. Darkmoor Dungeon has a lot of really hard bosses. Many of them are the good kind of challenging. Some of them aren't. The Aegis were good challenging.
The Cleric Sisters, on the other hand, make me angry.
The Sister's gimmick is that they all summon two more when alone. Which means that you have to kill one, and VERY CAREFULLY manage the HP of the other two, so that you can kill them both with a spell. If you messed up the timing, or got a hit that bit more damage than you expected you had to basically start the whole fight over again. This meant the fight was not only hard, but very aggravating.
Its hard to explain why this is so unfun, and the fight with the 3 Aegis, which can go on forever if you screw up, isn't. I think it's the general sense of progresslessness. |
|
| 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
