StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bounty wrote: Once again: it seems people in this thread are approaching games as a chore you need to do to get to a reward, and only the reward matters. This is the antithesis of what gaming should be about; if you just want to get to the end of the story, read a book, if you just want a shiny new upgrade, use a cheat code. If a few minutes of extra gameplay is "repetition" you're obviously not enjoying the game you are playing, and isn't that the point of using videogames as entertainment?

Ideally, dying and respawning should make eager to retry the section where you failed with a new strategy or just plain better gaming. If you don't have that feeling, there is something fundamentally flawed with the game.

This is nominally true, except when the gameplay demands that you HAVE to do something in a very specific manner with no alternative but to do it exactly the way the game designers want you to. When the game's punishing you for trying to be creative, it's just pure shit and it may as well just use quick time elements or something instead.

I've lost track of how many games I've ran into that were otherwise enjoyable except for having one or two specific parts in them that demanded you do something PRECISELY the way the creators want or get killed for daring to step out of bounds.

Ideally, dying and respawning should make eager to retry the section where you failed with a new strategy or just plain better gaming. If you don't have that feeling, there is something fundamentally flawed with the game.

I started a game of Fallout 3 a few weeks ago, and told myself that this time, I would (1) research which perks I wanted to add to my character and (2) I would play on the hardest difficulty setting.

I'm having a blast; because each building or quest I go on is a challenge in itself, each floor or section worth of raiders presents a serious conundrum that I have to approach differently. If I die, I have to change my attack plan and pattern, and I find it enjoyable finding new ways to clear a room (e.g. throw a grenade at each of the three raiders in the room, roll back out the door and get out of the way before one of them sets off the landmines I have placed around the door, and unload my combat shotgun into the last one, hoping he dies before he finishes reloading his missile launcher, which will kill me a point-blank range.)

It's the joy of the successful execution of a well-formed plan. Sure, sometimes I see it as a chore (I'm not looking forward to finding Three Dog's radio station, nor do I want to clear a police station worth of super mutants) but when I pull it off right and stand in a roomful of dismembered bodies after an action-packed battle... that's when you feel good.

weemandando wrote:At least tell us who you work for...

I work as an independent contractor with the community team at 2K Games, the developer of BioShock, BioShock 2, et al.

...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...


Back on topic though - there's been a few examples raised that I think work well in their respective settings:

GTA (especially IV) - you "die" and are taken to the hospital or police station, you're penalised some money as well as there being an obvious in-game time shift. In GTA IV it also allowed you to resume the mission from a checkpoint, which I have to say: "Thank you" for as it cuts out a lot of the pointless repetition.

Titan Quest/Diablo - coming back at a "rebirth" fountain. This makes perfect sense in game, there's usually only a minor time penalty in that you might have to run from your last teleport location to where you died, but you don't actually have to repeat that section of the game again.

DYNAMIC CAMPAIGNS - I've played a lot of games which feature dynamic campaigns and I actually like the challenge presented to you when you lose a mission and have to work to recover from that loss. It's far preferable to do that than to have to grind that mission again trying to find the map's or AI's weaknesses.

So you're okay with death in games (as in "end the current mission, reset the character to a spawn point") as long as it's dressed up with a slightly different game over screen?

You should have said so in the first place.

Bounty wrote:So you're okay with death in games (as in "end the current mission, reset the character to a spawn point") as long as it's dressed up with a slightly different game over screen?

You should have said so in the first place.

I linked to an earlier blog on that topic in my original post.

And I don't find that an ideal resolution by any means, I simply feel that it's a better way to handle it and doesn't needless conform to decades old conventions that aren't even relevant anymore because my PC and consoles don't have a coinslot.

weemadando wrote:

Bounty wrote:So you're okay with death in games (as in "end the current mission, reset the character to a spawn point") as long as it's dressed up with a slightly different game over screen?

You should have said so in the first place.

I linked to an earlier blog on that topic in my original post.

And I don't find that an ideal resolution by any means, I simply feel that it's a better way to handle it and doesn't needless conform to decades old conventions that aren't even relevant anymore because my PC and consoles don't have a coinslot.

That's a rant against limited continues (which need to DIE insofar as they haven't), not against death in videogames.

About the best death mechanic (and also life mechanic) I can think of is in Prinny: Can I really Be the Hero?, where if your demon penguin is killed he is just immediately replaced by one of a thousand other demon penguins. Admittedly this isn't really possible for most games, but it is kind of novel.

I fail to see how many of these things (GTA's respawn at hospital) are really any different than loading a quicksave.

In GTA, you've botched the mission. Do it again. Only instead of being quicksave loaded, you need to walk from a hospital back to the mission.

In System Shock/Bioshock/Prey, it often comes down to 'my ammo is more valuable than my life, therefore I will charge in and punch that enemy to death, die, and keep doing it so I can have enough bullets for the boss'. And in Prey, it's even worse, since you don't need to run back from the respawn shack, you just reappear at your body, with ammo and health recharged.

In Titan Quest/Diablo, sure, you lose actual assets but get to continue. That's okay for those specific game types, where managing your possessions is a key part of the game.

Again, there's a difference between arbitrary or repetitive death/game design, but the issue is WAY more complex than nerds apparently like to think. Let's give a concrete example.

Gears1 has checkpoints all the damn time, and a single press restarts. However, given the complexity of the combat and the inane teammates, this can in many situations be very, very repetitive on a single section.

Enter Gears2. Your own guys can res you, but now badguys can res each other too. The game is now 'easier' insofar as players are going to have to 'load checkpoint' less, but it's also harder in that the badguys act more like they do in multi. The teammate mechanic is enhanced. Weapons with instakill attributes have a stronger niche. Gears2 is easier than Gears1, but it flows better and the SP experience is enhanced (and lasts about the same length of time due to better pacing and level design). Gears2 give a much more cinematic feel, and on harder diffs 'proper death' is more common, making it still very hard.

Then look at Bioshock and laugh because it was designed by cretins. Death = bad, so let's make death totally meaningless in a way that adds nothing!

OH BUT IT HAS STUPID FLUFFTEXT AND FITS THE SETTING LOL I'M A FATTY NERD.

Nephtys wrote:In GTA, you've botched the mission. Do it again. Only instead of being quicksave loaded, you need to walk from a hospital back to the mission.

Fortunately that has been improved since GTA3. VC put in usable taxis at certain points, which were a marginal improvement. SA put in 'trip skip', which was nice, but only if you redid the mission without reloading (which could mean reacquiring weapons). GTA4 put in taxis that are rarely more than ten seconds walk away and instantly teleport you anywhere on the map, plus checkpoints on some of the longer missions.

In System Shock/Bioshock/Prey, it often comes down to 'my ammo is more valuable than my life, therefore I will charge in and punch that enemy to death, die, and keep doing it so I can have enough bullets for the boss'.

The 'create fear by severely rationing ammo' mechanic rarely works well. System Shock at least had powerful melee attacks and infinite laser ammo if you trek back to a recharger. Bioshock usually had ammo-conserving alternative solutions (e.g. hack turrets, lead enemies to them). Prey was just sucky.

Checkpoint driven games are some of the games that piss me off the most. I spent half a day and 18 reloads on a single checkpoint in the first Advanced Warfighter that I almost dropped the game never to play it again. A simple quick save feature would have been infinitely useful to get through this section so that I didn't have to worry about dying from randomly placed enemies and a horde of tanks I had no way to defeat. That game punished you by taking away 15 minutes of your time of you died. If the section was hard enough, you waste even more time. If a game lacks a quick save or hard save option, it automatically scores lower as far as I am concerned.

There are ways of getting around this that don't involve massively sploitable quicksaves, but more 'realistic' 'tacticool' games can't use many of them since players want a) a 'realistic' 'tacticool' 'simulation' of 'advanced' 'warfare' but b) want it to be easy and not frustrating. All they can do is work on better level design, and GRAW has AWFUL level design from this perspective.

Stark wrote:There are ways of getting around this that don't involve massively sploitable quicksaves, but more 'realistic' 'tacticool' games can't use many of them since players want a) a 'realistic' 'tacticool' 'simulation' of 'advanced' 'warfare' but b) want it to be easy and not frustrating. All they can do is work on better level design, and GRAW has AWFUL level design from this perspective.

Snipers on any roof top that you never never reach and your in a city filled with thousands of rooftops. Oh yes, its incredibly fun spending 4 hours per mission slowly scanning every rooftop and advancing forward. And did I mention the enemy spawns are semi random? So that sniper that greased you last round could randomly spawn in one of 5 other points next attempt making your anticipation of him even harder.

Oh I know, I've played it. It doesn't really surprise me though, since it was clearly aimed at the 'simulationist' OFP-esque market full of brutal and unfair silliness. Better level design would be needed to make the game flow better (or simply stepping back from simulationist play like Gears and even Vegas did).

Alyeska wrote:Snipers on any roof top that you never never reach and your in a city filled with thousands of rooftops. Oh yes, its incredibly fun spending 4 hours per mission slowly scanning every rooftop and advancing forward. And did I mention the enemy spawns are semi random? So that sniper that greased you last round could randomly spawn in one of 5 other points next attempt making your anticipation of him even harder.

Erm, that happens to be the point of GRAW. I'll second Stark's comment that, if you want faster gameflow, there's R6V, or GoW.

Although yes, GRAW's level design is poor in the sense that the supposedly tactically flexible maps are too linear and restricted, leaving little room for actual tactics beyond taking cover behind a column and using a teammate as bait. I mean, in GRAW2 there's a MP level where, right at the start, you have to cross a bridge being watched by like a million guards, with no alternative route. Tactical flexibility my ass, thank Dog there's a map editor (unlike R6V and it's most erect dick-move of not having one)