 |
Castle Paradox
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?
Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | If I make a mistake in my resource management, either through battle mistakes or 'map-based' mistakes (going the wrong way), then I should have to retreat and attempt the dungeon as a whole once more. Otherwise I have never really been challenged by the dungeon, I have only been challenged by single choices one at a time throughout the dungeon. |
Wow, well said. I think that's an excellent way to put it.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here I feel compelled once again to bring up the distinction between tactics and strategy. Tactics involve short-term planning: how should I maneuver to avoid getting hit? Strategy involves long-term planning: what items should I bring into the dungeon so that I have enough HP left for the boss?
What Rya is proposing is an effectual elimination of strategy. That would make me sad. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clamps
Slayer of the Moon
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| msw188 wrote: | | If I make a mistake in my resource management, either through battle mistakes or 'map-based' mistakes (going the wrong way), then I should have to retreat and attempt the dungeon as a whole once more. Otherwise I have never really been challenged by the dungeon, I have only been challenged by single choices one at a time throughout the dungeon. |
That, I think, isn't really a constant. Screwing up should certainly hurt you, but there comes a point where challenge stops being fun. If I run out of potions three-quarters of the way through the dungeon, I should be punished for my mistake, but walking all the way back to town, buying more potions, and walking all the way back to where I was, is just kind of tedious.
I think specifically of Shadow Hearts 3, a really good game (though I prefer the second). SH3 has a store right there in the dungeon, selling everything you need. It's still a fairly challenging game, because of the difficulty of individual encounters, and a battle system that makes getting back attacked an extremely dangerous experience. If I messed up and ran out of potions (Thera Leafs), I only had to go back to the part of the dungeon with the store in it. The game was still challenging, and the punishment harsh, because I had to fight several random battles on the way, without healing items. But it wasn't tedious.
Punishing the player for mistakes is good, but making the player jump through fifteen minutes of hoops is just annoying, I think.
| Quote: |
And this is another good thing about random encounters. If I had to replay a certan portion of a dungeon because of a late mistake, and the entire dungeon was exactly the same, it would get boring very quickly. But random encounters ensure that I can never predict exactly what will happen in the dungeon, so I must be careful of how I manage my resources every time I try to overcome the dungeon. |
Provided you don't just buy 99 potions. Level grinding can make any game (that allows it, I guess) easy. If you leave a dungeon halfway through and come back, you're probably a bit better leveled. If you don't level up, you're probably just holding the esc key.
| Quote: |
It also adds pressure when deep in the dungeon. The thought of having to retreat yet again is not a pleasant one; this is a motivator. It causes the fear of enemies that you do not like, but I do. I don't fear a death that just forces me to retry me strategy for the last five minutes, but I do fear a death that causes me to retry a half hour's worth of playtime. |
Yes, because THAT WOULDN'T BE FUN. Would you enjoy a game that punched you in the balls every time you died, because you feared death? I wouldn't.
Besides, how much time you have to replay isn't really a good barometer of challenge. These guys (non-worksafe language) are savestating after nearly every successful jump, and are generally only replaying the last 2 seconds, but it's still and incredibly challenging game (Watch the video labeled "WATCH THIS, EVERYONE" for a good example of how even a short section of a game with savestates can be incredibly challenging. He does end up replaying the level in the whole, but I'm not saying that isn't challenging, just that really short bits can be. It's an extreme example, but the point stands. Again, F-bomb warning. Lots of them.)
I play Devil May Cry 3 on Gold Mold. If I die, I generally only have to replay the last five to ten minutes, yet it's one of the most challenging mainstream games ever made.
| Quote: |
I'm not pulled in by fear of dark, scary creatures that pop out of no more and are supposed to make me jump in my seat, but I AM pulled in by the slowly sinking feeling that I'm not going to survive this trip through an 8bit cave. If I want to feel immersed in a game-world, I need to feel in danger when the characters are in danger. I want to personally feel the need to (find better equipment/learn stronger spells/find the fastest through a cave), because if I don't, I'm screwed. This helps me to identify with the main character a LOT more than dialogue and cut scenes. |
Mixed levels of agreement. I like challenge too, but I think your definition is simply tedious and annoying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie_Power
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If I run out of potions three-quarters of the way through the dungeon, I should be punished for my mistake, but walking all the way back to town, buying more potions, and walking all the way back to where I was, is just kind of tedious. |
RPGs tend to have teleportation spells to help you get out of dungeons and help you get back into town. Not only will you have a better idea of the dungeon which you can have a path to get through it faster, but you may have gained some weapons/armor from chests and gained a level for some of your characters to help you for the 2nd run.
| Quote: | | Yes, because THAT WOULDN'T BE FUN. Would you enjoy a game that punched you in the balls every time you died, because you feared death? I wouldn't. |
Should you be rewarded for dying? At least in Dragon Quest you are teleported back somewhere and are allowed to keep your experience level and items you collected.
| Quote: | | These guys (non-worksafe language) are savestating after nearly every successful jump, and are generally only replaying the last 2 seconds, but it's still and incredibly challenging game (Watch the video labeled "WATCH THIS, EVERYONE" for a good example of how even a short section of a game with savestates can be incredibly challenging. He does end up replaying the level in the whole, but I'm not saying that isn't challenging, just that really short bits can be. It's an extreme example, but the point stands. Again, F-bomb warning. Lots of them.) |
Compare this to the actual Super Mario World where the levels are designed as a whole, because save states are not a feature on the SNES. The levels are designed so people can complete it without having to pause much (other than using the pause button) and having a fluid fun experience with breaks taken between levels.
Kaizo is designed more for hardcore players, and likely had save states in mind. It is also the kind of game where you can't just save state anywhere you want to, or you may get stuck and die anyway, which is why it works. There are games where saving anywhere would not work because it would be too easy to abuse.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Clamps
Slayer of the Moon
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Yes, because THAT WOULDN'T BE FUN. Would you enjoy a game that punched you in the balls every time you died, because you feared death? I wouldn't. |
Should you be rewarded for dying? |
That's not what I said. In fact, I said the opposite
[quote]Screwing up should certainly hurt you, but there comes a point where challenge stops being fun[/quoe]
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | These guys (non-worksafe language) are savestating after nearly every successful jump, and are generally only replaying the last 2 seconds, but it's still and incredibly challenging game (Watch the video labeled "WATCH THIS, EVERYONE" for a good example of how even a short section of a game with savestates can be incredibly challenging. He does end up replaying the level in the whole, but I'm not saying that isn't challenging, just that really short bits can be. It's an extreme example, but the point stands. Again, F-bomb warning. Lots of them.) |
Compare this to the actual Super Mario World where the levels are designed as a whole, because save states are not a feature on the SNES. The levels are designed so people can complete it without having to pause much (other than using the pause button) and having a fluid fun experience with breaks taken between levels.
Kaizo is designed more for hardcore players, and likely had save states in mind. It is also the kind of game where you can't just save state anywhere you want to, or you may get stuck and die anyway, which is why it works. There are games where saving anywhere would not work because it would be too easy to abuse. |
That's not the point. The point is that "challenging" doesn't need to be "long".
Anyway. Argument Later. Shadow Hearts now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie_Power
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Screwing up should certainly hurt you, but there comes a point where challenge stops being fun |
Alright, but right now I am concentrating on trying to avoid "not enough challenge".
| Quote: | | That's not the point. The point is that "challenging" doesn't need to be "long". |
A decent Dragon Quest or FF-style dungeon isn't long and tedious. Usually about 30 minutes, and that is counting side tracking to get treasures, unlocking passages, and fighting random battles. If you need to get out and go through again, your trip may still be challenging depending on circumstances, but not as long.
Of course, there are old games that practically require you to draw a map, so I say to you: Do so. It will probably help you quite a bit.
_________________
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 Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack
the fool
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 773
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Um, even games where you can save anywhere can be way longer than other games. It's just that the programmers needed put more effort into those. |
I'm not entirely sure what this is directed at, or what point you were trying to prove. I was answering your question about why people think playing for 30 minutes is more fun than playing for 1 minute; but rereading the question, it sounds really idiotic.
I could understand if you meant playing for less time at an increased difficulty, but you're suggesting playing for less time at the same difficulty, which just makes the challenge easier, and doesn't prove whether or not you could accomplish the same thing at an increased time and level limit.
This is like saying, instead of running the entire stage in Super Mario, I should just have to jump the first pit; because hell, if I can make that one, I should be able to make the rest of 'em.
| Quote: | | As I explained earlier only the fun you have in a fixed time period really counts, because simply explained, if you play 50 1 hour games that are AAA fun, you'll have more fun than if you play 1 50 hour game that is only A fun in the same time. |
I obviously can't argue with this. If I had tons of AAA quality shorts games to play, why would I bother with the measly A long game. However, this is where the human mind plays a part, somebody else might find the quality of all those short AAA games, to actually just be A games, and the long A to be AAA. Its all a matter of opinion; that little word you've been throwing around since you came here.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Jack
Yeah I won't argue that people have different opinion about games and obviously if a game is AAA fun for you that doesn't mean that everyone enjoy it at all. However my original point here was that here a big need of change in gameplay occured, because some decades ago it was impossible to find 50 AAA games in a year. You basically only had money for one or two games, so obviously, you still would buy 1 or 2 A games that are really long instead. However these days games got a lot cheaper and there are like 5000000+ games you can download for free. It's not as hard to find enough short AAA games anymore to fill your free time. That's why these days I wouldn't really count "Length of fun" as an important factor in games anymore, although obviously when I find an AAA game I'm always disappointed when it ended, but it's still better than playing an A game for 50 hours imo.
I guess it also depends on the motivation you have to actually find good games, since it's not that trivial (that's why in my first thread I directly asked if there are any good games I should play so I don't waste so much time trying everything out, but it didn't work out too well).
| Quote: | | I'm not entirely sure what this is directed at, or what point you were trying to prove. I was answering your question about why people think playing for 30 minutes is more fun than playing for 1 minute; but rereading the question, it sounds really idiotic. |
I think you mixed something up. Here I wasn't talking about "Total game time" I was talking about the "length" of a single challenge. Moogle1 defined a long challenge as "strategy" and a short challenge as "tactic". So basically I'm saying I think a challenge that requires "tactic" is always better than a challenge that requires "strategy". This is totally independant of the length of the game. Let's say every battle can mean your end but you can save anywhere that the challenge is always during the battle (1-2 minute challenges), but there might still be 50 battles. On the other hand the challenge could be to finish the dungeon and there are 50 battles as well, then you only had a single challenge but which would take 50-100 minutes. I can't really like that.
Clamps basically explained already why I dislike challenges at a certain point of duration.
This duration basically adds up by the number of times you died (if you have to replay 30 minutes of the dungeon twice then the time is already 60 minutes). And my personal borderline is around 20 minutes.
In Darkavern it was basically an add-up problem (not exact numbers):
1 minute -> die
another 2 minutes -> die (3 total)
another 3 minutes -> die (6 total)
another 4 minutes -> die (10 total)
another 5 minutes -> die (15 total)
another 6 minutes -> die (21 total)
gave up
msw188 really seems to love long challenges, but here I'm on the side of Clamps. I guess this is really just personal taste, although it's hard to believe me that msw188 actually likes games with 1 hour long dungeons where he dies after 45 minutes (or has to retreat). I mean the fear to die in the dungeon might be nice, but only if you end up surviving in the end. And here we are back at the "game difficulty" discussion where I want to say that a dungeon shouldn't be too hard so that it doesn't force you to retry it multiple times even if you are not good enough and thus an optional game difficulty would always be nice.
Honestly the problem with Dragon Quest (new ones) isn't that the dungeons are too long. The main problem of Dragon Quest is that it forces you to grind really much especially due to money reasons (and if you die you lose half of your money, reason enough for me to press reset rather than keep my exp). If they'd just make a 5x gold rate this game would already be somewhat enjoyable. They wouldn't even need to raise the exp you get, just remove the awful grinding aspect.
Or is there anyone here that enjoys grinding by default?
_________________
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 |
|
|
Joe Man
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 742
Location: S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude 123°43'
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like grinding, so I don't play or make games with it.
_________________
"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: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, my taste is a little different than that of some people. The part that the Drizzle quoted really sums it up, I guess. I get bored by 'short' challenges that can simply be retried until the correct 'tactics' are found and employed. I far prefer 'long' challenges where re-trial is not fun, and the pressure is on to be prudent and strategic the first time.
The whole grinding thing comes into play a bit as well. In my estimation, it should be nigh impossible to buy 99 of anything at any given time. Part of what makes DQ games (all of them, not just the new ones) so much fun is that you have to spend carefully. Unless you do enjoy grinding for hours at a time (literally) to be able to afford everything, but I'm guessing that very few people enjoy that. The key to these games is that resource management is also carefully balanced in the money sense as well; if you had a 5x GP rate, you'd practically never be out of cash and you'd be able to buy anything you liked. This is rediculous; the game might as well just eliminate currency altogether and give you all of the necessary resources and equipment as soon as you reach a safe-haven.
| Quote: | | So basically I'm saying I think a challenge that requires "tactic" is always better than a challenge that requires "strategy". |
This is the fundamental disagreement about enjoyability. I am essentially the opposite, which is why RPGs became my favorite genre to begin with. But this is just a matter of taste, and nothing any of us say is going to convince anybody to change their mind, I'm guessing.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Clamps
Slayer of the Moon
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| msw188 wrote: | | Yes, my taste is a little different than that of some people. The part that the Drizzle quoted really sums it up, I guess. I get bored by 'short' challenges that can simply be retried until the correct 'tactics' are found and employed. I far prefer 'long' challenges where re-trial is not fun, and the pressure is on to be prudent and strategic the first time. |
Well, I like games that are fun.
| Quote: |
The whole grinding thing comes into play a bit as well. In my estimation, it should be nigh impossible to buy 99 of anything at any given time. |
I do kind of agree with you there. Shadow Hearts (I'm mentioning it a lot because it's what I'm playing right now) has extremely rare and powerful Third Keys, Fifth Keys, and Seventh Keys that let me make a bunch of extra attacks. You can't buy them at all, and they are very precious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Um, even with 5x gold rate you'd still not be able to afford all the stuff offered in DQ. For example, I'm now in an ice area where the monster get really strong and have dangerous ice spells. When I reached that place I had 6000 gold from previous fights. The ice spells are really problematic, however the town there offers equips that strongly protect you against ice spells. However these equips cost up to 13800 gold. Considering that each of the 4 heroes would need 2 of those and let's say the average price is 10000 gold then you'd need 80000 gold to fully equip yourself. The 6000 gold I earned so far is laughable compared to that. I'd still need 74000 gold. And each battle I do in that area only gives me 100 gold on average. So that's... 740 battles I'd need to do just to afford all equips, that's more battles than any RPG should have in total. Even with 5x rates, I'd have reached that place with 30000 gold, so I'd still need 50000 gold. Each battle gives 500 gold on average then... so I'd still be 100 battles to be able to afford everything. But in the 5x gold situation I might at least decide to only buy one armor for each hero so that I'd only need 10000 more gold and that's only 20 battles, while the 740 battle situation is just hopeless and makes me not wanna play this game anymore...
| Quote: | | Well, I like games that are fun. |
Yup, me too.
msw188, so let's say you play a really hard game with 1 hour long dungeons that are really challenging. Now you play it and enjoy it along until you reach a dungeon, that's too hard for you to conquer even after 2 hours trying. Will you drop the game or keep on playing?
_________________
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 |
|
|
Joe Man
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 742
Location: S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude 123°43'
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not fond of japanese-style RPGs for various reasons (I don't have much American RPG experience). They don't really capture my imagination too well, the battle system is, in my opinion, symbolically flawed, and the whole idea of walking in a straight line while pretty things happen along the way just isn't my cup of tea.
I will take this moment to say that Paper Mario is a wonderful exception to this general rule. The stories were perhaps short of enthralling, and the pace was fairly slow, but it has character and was hella fun.
I'd better stop myself before I start writing a complete reviews of the Paper Mario series. My point is, the saving system in Paper Mario. You were limited to save points, often with little health replenishing mushroom blocks nearby, rather than saving wherever you want or only saving outside of dungeons, but these provided two things. First of all, they divided dungeons into manageable chunks, putting a bit more emphasis on the individual puzzles and battles than the dungeon as a whole, while still putting in the strategic element of deciding whether to trudge to the next block or to backtrack and perhaps have to face some random battles again.
On the other hand, there's the ever-strategic Advance Wars. My favorite DS game, Advance Wars DS (which I actually haven't even beaten yet), is heavily strategic, and each scenario must be taken on all at once. This is really fun. It can take hours, doing scenarios over and over trying to find the best strategy or even just one that will let me survive, but I don't mind at all because the planning and execution are so enjoyable.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
JSH357
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 1705
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Um, even with 5x gold rate you'd still not be able to afford all the stuff offered in DQ. For example, I'm now in an ice area where the monster get really strong and have dangerous ice spells. When I reached that place I had 6000 gold from previous fights. The ice spells are really problematic, however the town there offers equips that strongly protect you against ice spells. However these equips cost up to 13800 gold. Considering that each of the 4 heroes would need 2 of those and let's say the average price is 10000 gold then you'd need 80000 gold to fully equip yourself. The 6000 gold I earned so far is laughable compared to that. I'd still need 74000 gold. And each battle I do in that area only gives me 100 gold on average. So that's... 740 battles I'd need to do just to afford all equips, that's more battles than any RPG should have in total. Even with 5x rates, I'd have reached that place with 30000 gold, so I'd still need 50000 gold. Each battle gives 500 gold on average then... so I'd still be 100 battles to be able to afford everything. But in the 5x gold situation I might at least decide to only buy one armor for each hero so that I'd only need 10000 more gold and that's only 20 battles, while the 740 battle situation is just hopeless and makes me not wanna play this game anymore... |
You're not supposed to actually grind until you can afford a full set of that armor. You're supposed to buy one, maybe two, and decide which character gets to equip it, then come up with a strategy for handling the enemies. You can also run from battles, which people seem to forget a lot. The key is to both use your head and grow a pair. Even if a party member dies, you still won't have a game over. This situation is possible to overcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?
Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | In Darkavern it was basically an add-up problem (not exact numbers):
1 minute -> die
another 2 minutes -> die (3 total)
another 3 minutes -> die (6 total)
another 4 minutes -> die (10 total)
another 5 minutes -> die (15 total)
another 6 minutes -> die (21 total)
gave up |
So your solution would be that when you die you can start up exactly where you died? Don't you see how this essentially negates the death effect? Most everyone agreed with you that the traps needed work. They were too deadly. But the solution to that problem is not to eliminate the penalty of death. Death is supposed to be inconvenient. There are other ways to make it less difficult while preserving the integrity of the game. If the goal is to write on paper, you don't use a hammer and chisel. Your solution is too extreme.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah... |
|
| 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
