Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
HONEST CHALLENGE, AND POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
Posts
bahlete442456234996
View playlists
Close
Shadowtext
120
So would you guys consider Braid a wussified game for four year olds? Did you find it too easy for your Gamer Pride(TM)?
Neophyte
155
author=Max McGee link=topic=3052.msg60192#msg60192 date=1233618076You're pretty good at RPGs, so I can see why you thought this. I haven't played through the latest Starless Umbra release, so I'm not sure how it stands. But I dunno, generally the beginning of any game is pretty easy (except like Fallout 3 where it's reverse). Add that to how good you are at RM and just RPGs in general and that is probably the reason why you thought it was pretty easy. Like I said though, it's been awhile since I've played the game so who knows.
I think you're missing the point. I never died in Starless Umbra AT ALL and that is why I quit. I'm not advocating for punishing the player for dying; save points should be plentiful, and located AFTER long cutscenes. But it should be at least POSSIBLE to die.
And no, Braid is awesome.
author=Shadowtext link=topic=3052.msg60206#msg60206 date=1233621739
So would you guys consider Braid a wussified game for four year olds? Did you find it too easy for your Gamer Pride(TM)?
What the...?
Gamer pride has nothing to do with it. Overcoming challenges is satisfying. Man, you so craaaaaazy.
author=Shadowtext link=topic=3052.msg60206#msg60206 date=1233621739
So would you guys consider Braid a wussified game for four year olds? Did you find it too easy for your Gamer Pride(TM)?
Did you pick this just because it doesn't have a game over? That's a ridiculous example that is totally irrelevant. The challenging part of Braid is the puzzles, not fighting enemies or risks of game over. Besides that, Braid is an exception to a lot of rules and is a very unusual game - find a more standard example to support your argument.
Even if it were a good example, it has nothing to do with people that want a good challenge.
maladroithim
1495
author=Feldschlacht IV link=topic=3052.msg60157#msg60157 date=1233610783In the new Prince of Persia, you cannot die, and you do not return to any sort of "restore" points. This, obviously, makes the game incredibly easy.
And that is why I fucking hated it.
But it is exactly the same as a checkpoint and reload system. It just doesn't reload and instead shows you an animation where you are deposited at the last checkpoint.
S. F. LaValle
1069
author=Karsuman link=topic=3052.msg60326#msg60326 date=1233680566
Did you pick this just because it doesn't have a game over? That's a ridiculous example that is totally irrelevant. The challenging part of Braid is the puzzles, not fighting enemies or risks of game over. Besides that, Braid is an exception to a lot of rules and is a very unusual game - find a more standard example to support your argument.
Even if it were a good example, it has nothing to do with people that want a good challenge.
Why is Braid a bad example? Why is it irrelevant to Shadowtext's argument? It's a simple question, and I think it's completely relevant.
Do you think Braid is too easy? Whether the answer is yes or no, did you ENJOY playing it? If you liked it, would you prefer it to be more challenging? Would the game have been more enjoyable if you were able to fail (that is, actually die when an enemy touches you or you fall in a pit)?
The main point I want to make here is that if you're saying Braid has an excuse to be easy, on what grounds?
author=brandonabley link=topic=3052.msg60329#msg60329 date=1233681060
But it is exactly the same as a checkpoint and reload system. It just doesn't reload and instead shows you an animation where you are deposited at the last checkpoint.
From the sounds of it, its more like a "when you die you instantly respawn at full life", kinda more like a savestate than a checkpoint making it possible that you can just throw a mess of bodies at any enemy and you'll win eventually.
S. F. LaValle
1069
author=GreatRedSpirit link=topic=3052.msg60349#msg60349 date=1233690413
From the sounds of it, its more like a "when you die you instantly respawn at full life", kinda more like a savestate than a checkpoint making it possible that you can just throw a mess of bodies at any enemy and you'll win eventually.
That's exactly what it is. In fact, you don't even have health. You can't die, you can only be in trouble and be "saved".
In this instance the punishment of having to reload and retrace your progress is eliminated. Enemies are very few, it's common not to encounter any before reaching a boss. And, as I mentioned before, you are not released by a boss fight until you win. Interesting, no? Makes you wonder what the motivation behind that design choice was.
I guess my opinion is just too different here. I've always enjoyed difficult games.
*goes off to play Maximo and Mega Man 1*
*goes off to play Maximo and Mega Man 1*
author=S. F. LaValle link=topic=3052.msg60360#msg60360 date=1233691584
That's exactly what it is. In fact, you don't even have health. You can't die, you can only be in trouble and be "saved".
In this instance the punishment of having to reload and retrace your progress is eliminated. Enemies are very few, it's common not to encounter any before reaching a boss. And, as I mentioned before, you are not released by a boss fight until you win. Interesting, no? Makes you wonder what the motivation behind that design choice was.
Not for me. As much as I hate games going GAME OVER please wait bgm playing LOAD GAME please wait loading (hope this isn't a memory card) BACK TEN MINUTES AGO (hope you didn't get a rare drop in the mean time), if I beat a boss because I died 50 times and hit him once per death I wouldn't get any sort of accomplishment out of it. I'd perfer a checkpoint was at the start of the boss fight. This way you don't win WW1 style and you don't have to repeat the same old tedious crap of getting to him over and over.
That's just me though, and having multiple/customizable difficulty levels can accomodate for everyone! (levelDie4lyfe)
Anaryu
8848
Are we really talking about 2 things as one here?
a. Difficulty of a game element (fight, puzzle, boss, platform, room, etc. This is what the topic sounds like it's about but isn't really discussed much)
b. Cost of retry (immediately able to try again, having to load a save with an average X minutes or replay, etc)
I think generally we can all agree we like to have (a) be challenging and rewarding, but it seems like (b) is the real deal-breaker.
Is it just me or is this whole thing really another place where we're limiting ourselves by talking more about 'what has been done' instead of coming up with and trying out new methods?
A solution doesn't truly speak until it's been done either. Right now we're fighting about what we like and our pride and junk instead of coming up with cooler solutions and using them...
a. Difficulty of a game element (fight, puzzle, boss, platform, room, etc. This is what the topic sounds like it's about but isn't really discussed much)
b. Cost of retry (immediately able to try again, having to load a save with an average X minutes or replay, etc)
I think generally we can all agree we like to have (a) be challenging and rewarding, but it seems like (b) is the real deal-breaker.
Is it just me or is this whole thing really another place where we're limiting ourselves by talking more about 'what has been done' instead of coming up with and trying out new methods?
A solution doesn't truly speak until it's been done either. Right now we're fighting about what we like and our pride and junk instead of coming up with cooler solutions and using them...
S. F. LaValle
1069
author=Anaryu link=topic=3052.msg60372#msg60372 date=1233695411
Are we really talking about 2 things as one here?
a. Difficulty of a game element (fight, puzzle, boss, platform, room, etc. This is what the topic sounds like it's about but isn't really discussed much)
b. Cost of retry (immediately able to try again, having to load a save with an average X minutes or replay, etc)
I think generally we can all agree we like to have (a) be challenging and rewarding, but it seems like (b) is the real deal-breaker.
Is it just me or is this whole thing really another place where we're limiting ourselves by talking more about 'what has been done' instead of coming up with and trying out new methods?
A solution doesn't truly speak until it's been done either. Right now we're fighting about what we like and our pride and junk instead of coming up with cooler solutions and using them...
That's exactly why I've been trying to cut through the dismissive replies and bring to light an actual topic of discussion. It seems like everyone believes the topic is about legitimizing easier or less stressful gameplay when that isn't really the case. I can understand if that was missed as the original post was pretty damn long. =)
The original question was: instead of punishing a player for failure, can we reward them for success? It's obviously not a black and white as this, but that's what's up for discussion. There is no yes or no answer, it depends on the type of game, pacing, and the other stuff I've mentioned in previous posts.
Shadowtext's argument was this: if you could attract more satisfied gamers by adopting the mentality of rewarding skill instead of punishing failure, wouldn't you want to? The answer to that also isn't black and white, but in what instances could it be appropriate, and in what instances would it not work?
Obviously we all know that sacrificing a game's difficulty to achieve a greater gamebase is not something most of you want to achieve. I don't believe in that either. I'm arguing that you could adopt Shadow's idea and still have your game as challenging as you wish. Discuss.
AeroGP
64
As I mentioned earlier, that's not easy to do. Even if you could find a happy medium, players that associate the cost of replay with genuine challenge are likely not to compromise on that experience. It's all rooted in the player's perception of what makes a game fun for them. Someone who plays games like Mega Man on a daily basis may come to anticipate having to go through the motions every time they lose, and feel alienated when that process is not there.
The real question is whether allowing this is fundamentally wrong. Shadowtext's basis for believing so is that the other 80% of people who play games are forced to fight with the 20% who like the masochism for the attention of developer's support, and that's unfair.
In my opinion, it's one thing if you don't care about catering to as wide an audience as possible, but it's another to call that "bad game design." If "wussies" want to play your game and succeed at it, why deny them the right? Some preconceived elitist notion that they shouldn't be playing in the first place, or should be reading a book instead?
The real question is whether allowing this is fundamentally wrong. Shadowtext's basis for believing so is that the other 80% of people who play games are forced to fight with the 20% who like the masochism for the attention of developer's support, and that's unfair.
In my opinion, it's one thing if you don't care about catering to as wide an audience as possible, but it's another to call that "bad game design." If "wussies" want to play your game and succeed at it, why deny them the right? Some preconceived elitist notion that they shouldn't be playing in the first place, or should be reading a book instead?
This one time I played a (non RM) game known as "Mafia."
I love all things Mob-genre. So I loved this game.
But when I did that damned racing mission for the 80,000,000th f*cking time, enough was enough.
There is a difference between Challenging and DAMNED IMPOSSIBLE. (Another example of Damned Impossible is ABL's driving minigame. Maybe I just suck at driving minigames.)
I have no real qualms with very hard fights, dying in fights, etc. But there are some minigames that just don't ever let you win... at least ABL's was optional. I feel this was a good choice. If you're going to have an impossible minigame, make it avoidable in some way. That pleases everyone.
But yeah, I think that if you die in a fight, you should die and face some kind of consequence for it. Not a huge one, but something to let you know that "DYING SUCKS." Kind of like how we can't touch a stove without receiving some pain input - we are being told that we are doing something incorrectly.
I love all things Mob-genre. So I loved this game.
But when I did that damned racing mission for the 80,000,000th f*cking time, enough was enough.
There is a difference between Challenging and DAMNED IMPOSSIBLE. (Another example of Damned Impossible is ABL's driving minigame. Maybe I just suck at driving minigames.)
I have no real qualms with very hard fights, dying in fights, etc. But there are some minigames that just don't ever let you win... at least ABL's was optional. I feel this was a good choice. If you're going to have an impossible minigame, make it avoidable in some way. That pleases everyone.
But yeah, I think that if you die in a fight, you should die and face some kind of consequence for it. Not a huge one, but something to let you know that "DYING SUCKS." Kind of like how we can't touch a stove without receiving some pain input - we are being told that we are doing something incorrectly.
Remember that games are often about training the player. Punishing the player for infractions - whether it be losing a fight or failing to pickpocket somebody - and having a suitable suitable consequence is totally appropriate. They will eventually get the gist and adjust their strategy to conquer the challenge.
That was the original purpose of games - what made them fun. Hell, Pong follows that rule.
This isn't to say you should make impossible tasks. You shouldn't. But it always has and always will be an issue of audience, and ST's statements simply shouldn't apply to every game. Most games, even.
That was the original purpose of games - what made them fun. Hell, Pong follows that rule.
This isn't to say you should make impossible tasks. You shouldn't. But it always has and always will be an issue of audience, and ST's statements simply shouldn't apply to every game. Most games, even.
A dynamic difficulty level. You do good, the game gets harder. Enemies start getting meaner (and I don't mean HP/ATK+) and it pushes you to keep up. However when you screw up the game gets easier and starts pulling its punches. Enemies aren't as eager to use their fuck off attacks or don't hurt the player when he makes a small mistake. The game works to keep the player at a difficulty they can work with (and hopefully have fun on) and when they improve the game kicks it up some more to keep the player on their toes and if its too much, it goes back down to let the player practice more.
Man, God Hand is such an awesome game.
Man, God Hand is such an awesome game.
author=GreatRedSpirit link=topic=3052.msg60430#msg60430 date=1233711269If only that were possible in RM. Without an incredibly overcomplicated CBS, at least.
A dynamic difficulty level. You do good, the game gets harder. Enemies start getting meaner (and I don't mean HP/ATK+) and it pushes you to keep up. However when you screw up the game gets easier and starts pulling its punches. Enemies aren't as eager to use their fuck off attacks or don't hurt the player when he makes a small mistake. The game works to keep the player at a difficulty they can work with (and hopefully have fun on) and when they improve the game kicks it up some more to keep the player on their toes and if its too much, it goes back down to let the player practice more.
Man, God Hand is such an awesome game.
If you've got something to handle encounters it should be possible. When an encounter occurs the game can check what difficulty the player is on and spawn an appropriate encounter. If the player does well they get closer to the next difficulty level but if they do poorly then they'll drop a bit.
Now telling if the player did well or not might be tricker. Something simple like winning and running/losing might do it, but you don't want players just running to control their difficulty or because they just want to reach the next area/tired of encounters.
Now telling if the player did well or not might be tricker. Something simple like winning and running/losing might do it, but you don't want players just running to control their difficulty or because they just want to reach the next area/tired of encounters.
