 |
Castle Paradox
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Moogle1 defined a long challenge as "strategy" and a short challenge as "tactic". |
No, I didn't. Please don't put words into my mouth. You can have a purely strategic game that only has one minute of player interactivity. Let's suppose I make an RPG where you can decide what your characters are going to equip, but you have no control over the battles. You need to plan your strategy before heading into the battle, but you have no control over the battle tactics. On the other hand, I can make a 30-minute battle with very little in the way of strategy and it'll still require tactical decisions.
| Quote: | | 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? |
My answer would be that it depends whether the game was fun to begin with. If I die a few times, that doesn't change whether the game as a whole is enjoyable.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
msw188
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 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. |
Oh, I was pretty unclear on this. I do enjoy going through dungeons because I enjoy turn-based battles and long-term resource management, as well as the concept of fighting against failure. So the retrial of the dungeon is fun in the sense that it is another chance for me to test my strategical planning against a full dungeon. It's not fun in the sense that I wish that I had been more careful or clever the first time. But that's MY failing, not the game's. My failure should make me have to try the dungeon as a whole again. If it doesn't, the whole sense of having fun beating an entire dungeon is lost for me.
| Quote: | | 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. |
This sounds interesting, but it is a little different from what I'm talking about. In DQ, it's not only finding things and choosing when to use them, it is also choosing what is best to spend your money on, knowing that you will probably never be able to afford everything. Just another twist on the kinds of MEANINGFUL choices offered to the player.
| Quote: | | 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? |
It depends, and this is where finely tuned gameplay is key. If I can understand what I'm doing wrong and how I need to improve, then I will probably continue. In other words, if I can recognize that there are things I could be trying that I am not (maybe that support skill I thought was worthless is actually more cost-effective in here; maybe I should actually map out the dungeon instead of trying to go by memory and guess when I forget), then I will continue trying, probably for well past two hours. But if I cannot grasp that within the game, I probably wouldn't have even lasted two hours.
Also, this is all dependant on the fact that this was a game I enjoyed to begin with, so it was probably a gameplay system that I enjoyed (like a DQ-style, turn-based battle, exploring and survival RPG). I would never try to get better at games whose systems I don't enjoy in and of themselves, like first-person shooters or most puzzle games. And I don't expect you to want to get better at DQ. I just don't think that the first-person shooter should offer an invincibility mode just so people like me who don't enjoy the game enough to want to get better at it can just breeze through whatever parts they want, because I know that in my case, my experience would be hurt by the inclusion of an option to save anywhere in Dragon Quest games.
I'm not making this up, by the way. When I played DQ VI for the first time, I had the option of using save states. Although I tried not to use them too often, I did use them from time to time in dungeons to be able to take back wrong turnings and other mistakes. It was only after getting through the majority of the game that I realized how much less I was enjoying the game, and I figured out that this was the reason. I replayed it being much more strict about save states (only used when I had to turn the game off in a hurry, so basically like Save Markers, borrowing terminology from the other thread), and it was better, but there was still a certain fakeness to it. I was imposing the challenge, not the game. In this sense, I was removed from the game-world. I sometimes think that if Enix had been able to translate a real version of DQVI to these shores for console, it might have become one of my favorite all-time games.
I fully understand that others might not feel this way, and find the whole thing irrelevant. That doesn't change the way I feel about playing and enjoying games.
EDIT: Moogle1 posted while I was typing and editting this beast. You'll see that my answer to Rya's question is quite similar to his.
_________________
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: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Drizzle
Well I already noticed that I can't explain you why saving anywhere in Darkavern doesn't change the gameplay, but maybe you can look at it that way: The problem in Darkavern is that this game has basically really low challenge (because most traps / enemies can't be avoided by player skill), on the other hand is is really hard (see Moogle1's article for the difference). And when you die and have to replay the game, the sections you have already passed before will have zero challenge, because you already know the exact path to go to reach your old point without dieing for sure. And because there is zero challenge, there's no point in forcing the player to redo it. The only reason to force the player to rewalk everything is to "punish" the player. And punishing the player out of no reason, just because he was unlucky and walked into a death trap, is not what a game should do imo.
@Moogle1
| Quote: | | Tactics involve short-term planning |
| Quote: | | Strategy involves long-term planning |
I guess I interpreted this wrong then? Because for me it clearly sounds like strategy is always for long challenges and tactics is always for short challenges.
If you think like this:
| Quote: | | You can have a purely strategic game that only has one minute of player interactivity. Let's suppose I make an RPG where you can decide what your characters are going to equip, but you have no control over the battles. You need to plan your strategy before heading into the battle, but you have no control over the battle tactics. |
Then your sentence:
| Quote: | | What Rya is proposing is an effectual elimination of strategy. That would make me sad. |
Is false.
If anything I'm proposing to elimate long-term challenges, but in no way I propose eliminating pre-battle thinking.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| msw188 wrote: | | I just don't think that the first-person shooter should offer an invincibility mode just so people like me who don't enjoy the game enough to want to get better at it can just breeze through whatever parts they want, |
But what if there is a first-person shooter where you hate the gameplay, but you love the story, graphics and music. You'd want to play it through really fast and be able to ignore the gameplay. An invincibility option would make that possible for you.
_________________
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 |
|
|
The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?
Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well I already noticed that I can't explain you why saving anywhere in Darkavern doesn't change the gameplay, but maybe you can look at it that way: The problem in Darkavern is that this game has basically really low challenge (because most traps / enemies can't be avoided by player skill), on the other hand is is really hard (see Moogle1's article for the difference). And when you die and have to replay the game, the sections you have already passed before will have zero challenge, because you already know the exact path to go to reach your old point without dieing for sure. And because there is zero challenge, there's no point in forcing the player to redo it. The only reason to force the player to rewalk everything is to "punish" the player. And punishing the player out of no reason, just because he was unlucky and walked into a death trap, is not what a game should do imo. |
Having to remember where the traps are is a memory game. You have to retrace the steps that were successful and attempt new ones. It's a lot like a maze. I get that it isn't your type of game, so I'll leave it at that. But it's clear that some people really enjoy the concept and perhaps the game wasn't made for you. (Or me, really, I quit the game after about 5 deaths myself.)
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually it's easier to remember the correct path instead of the location of the traps. And that's actually a really easy challenge... I didn't quit because I couldn't remember all the traps after all, I quit because I didn't want to go the same way and read the same dialogues over and over.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Jack
the fool
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 773
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | msw188 wrote: | | I just don't think that the first-person shooter should offer an invincibility mode just so people like me who don't enjoy the game enough to want to get better at it can just breeze through whatever parts they want, |
But what if there is a first-person shooter where you hate the gameplay, but you love the story, graphics and music. You'd want to play it through really fast and be able to ignore the gameplay. An invincibility option would make that possible for you. |
First of all, why would you buy the game if you didn't like the gameplay, and second of all, why not just look it up online?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd so buy a game if I don't like the gameplay but am able to skip it (with something like invincible) if the story, music and graphics are good. Hell, some games I'd play for the music alone.
Although you are correct that watching someone else playing it is another option (which is not always available either, though).
_________________
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 |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | @Moogle1
| Quote: | | Tactics involve short-term planning |
| Quote: | | Strategy involves long-term planning |
I guess I interpreted this wrong then? Because for me it clearly sounds like strategy is always for long challenges and tactics is always for short challenges. |
Yeah, you did. It's not the length of the challenge, but the ahead-ness of it. Strategy is about planning, tactics are about execution. If you're never penalized for what you did five minutes ago, then you're never required to plan ahead: your planning doesn't matter.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MultiColoredWizard
Come back, baby!
The Breastmaster
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1232
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hey moogle1, i'm going to seattle again in 2 weeks. we need to find out how we're related already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's what you keep saying!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?
Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was reading old PVP comics and I stumbled across one that relates (somewhat) to our current topic. Can anyone guess which character would be Rya? (No offense meant here, Rya.)
_________________
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 11, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh. I can see irony in the statement "PC games are way too complex" as well, when you consider that games like The Sims are best sellers.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Onlyoneinall
Bug finder
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Drizzle wrote: | I was reading old PVP comics and I stumbled across one that relates (somewhat) to our current topic. Can anyone guess which character would be Rya? (No offense meant here, Rya.)
|
 Ha ha, CP vs Rya, simplified.
_________________
http://www.castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=750 Bloodlust Demo 1.00
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Journalists love these types of discussions. :p
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
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
