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)
WHY DOES DYING HAVE TO SUCK?
Posts
bahlete442456234996
View playlists
Close
The regular player should always get the full experience without having to feel left out just because he isn't all that good. These are games. And they are supposed to be enjoyable.
Yes. And part of a definition of a 'game' is the concept of losing and penalization.
Seriously I wonder how many of some of you guys who are in the 'games should never be punishing ever and everyone always wins' have ever played or been interested in any sport? If you're not good enough, you lose/bad stuff happens. It's part of the game!
I'm going to have to admit that people have brought up some good points against straight game-over screens. Still, I'm not a big fan of repeatable battles. If the player is losing then they should feel the desperation of trying to stay alive and then feel the agony of defeat, not just be able to click "Retry" at the slightest hint of danger. Trying to scrape through battles I clearly have no right to win has always been one of my favourite things about epic boss battles in RPGs and when you pull it off it is a really good feeling. Making things too easy takes that feeling of success away.
This is still working under the assumption that there is zero penalty for losing, which doesn't have to be the case. The whole point of the retry screen is to cut out the tedium associated with RPG death - walking back to where you were, redoing the same battles, scenes, and puzzles over and over until you get it right. Imagine if Diablo let you jump back to the floor 17 that you died on, skipping floors 1-16 which are utterly devoid of life because you've already cleared them out. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to achieve here, and you can do it pretty easily by applying the penalty (be it EXP loss, gold loss, loss of rewards, or whatever you feel is appropriate), and then calling the "skip all of that cutscene and walking bullshit and jump back into the action! Y/N" screen.
The game I hate dying in the most is Final Fantasy Tactics because every goddamn battle takes like 30-60 goddamn minutes.
The less shit I already did and have to redo, the less game-overs bother me.
The less shit I already did and have to redo, the less game-overs bother me.
Neophyte
155
post=133532Okay, I agree! But let me explain what Chaos is talking about (in case you were talking about us).
Yes. And part of a definition of a 'game' is the concept of losing and penalization.
Seriously I wonder how many of some of you guys who are in the 'games should never be punishing ever and everyone always wins' have ever played or been interested in any sport? If you're not good enough, you lose/bad stuff happens. It's part of the game!
Let's say it was a game of basketball, 1 on 1. You just dominated five scrubs who thought they were better than you. Finally, somebody who's better than you comes up and dominates you.
If you wanted to play that guy again, why would you have to go back and beat the last five scrubs you played? You know their strategy, you know how they play. You don't know (or haven't figured out yet) how that better person plays, though. That's where the challenge is!
I want people to die when they play my game or any game. You're not always going to win (that's not fun anyway). But it has to be legitimate and the penalty shouldn't be something dumb.
Players want hard battles, but don't want to redo everything between between the save and the fight itself. Seems simple enough. So why don't RPGs deliver that: challenging battles with minimal penalties for dying?
This is obviously a pretty hot topic. Still working my way through the OP and haven't had time to read everyone's posts yet.
I just want to say that when possible I am getting the habit of including a save point (and sometimes a full restore) right before most of the difficult battles in my games. In particular, To Arms! will do this.
This all sounds like issues in dungeon design rather than difficulty in boss battles. That or I am having trouble separating the two concepts in my mind with regards to this discussion.
post=133536post=133532Okay, I agree! But let me explain what Chaos is talking about (in case you were talking about us).
Yes. And part of a definition of a 'game' is the concept of losing and penalization.
Seriously I wonder how many of some of you guys who are in the 'games should never be punishing ever and everyone always wins' have ever played or been interested in any sport? If you're not good enough, you lose/bad stuff happens. It's part of the game!
Let's say it was a game of basketball, 1 on 1. You just dominated five scrubs who thought they were better than you. Finally, somebody who's better than you comes up and dominates you.
If you wanted to play that guy again, why would you have to go back and beat the last five scrubs you played? You know their strategy, you know how they play. You don't know (or haven't figured out yet) how that better person plays, though. That's where the challenge is!
I want people to die when they play my game or any game. You're not always going to win (that's not fun anyway). But it has to be legitimate and the penalty shouldn't be something dumb.
That's an okay analogy! And the answer to that in games nowadays is 'save points' The concept of a save point in a strategically placed area allows the player to play that guy who's better at you in basketball with little fuss.
What I'm against those, is the analogy of something like this; after playing those five scrubs and that guy comes and dominates you, instead of you just losing and that's it (and having to play him again), he goes "Well, who likes losing! I don't want to make this LESS FUN for you, so you can play me again, but I'll give you 15 points off the bat, break both my legs, and if you suck so bad to STILL lose to me, you know what, I'll forget all about it and tell everyone you won anyway!"
Not having the looming game over screen does mean that occasionally you can just start gaming the game and whack at something for a while and then retrying. (Like in Bioshock...)
This, in my opinion, is why Bioshock was less good than System Shock 2. (That and the absence of SHODAN. <3 )
While you might be sarcastic, doesn't that create the same kind of tedium as rewatching a cutscene? You are using the same tactics over again and only changing them once you reach the point where you failed, and the more you fail the more you have to bear through the same shit over again. This makes me quite thankful that save files exist.
IMPORTANT POINT!
The difference is that going back to the beginning in a platformer FORCES YOU TO GET BETTER. Your reflexes improve as you navigate obstacles that were once challenging with panache and aplomb. The same is not at all true of rewatching a cutscene. Rewatching a godamn cutscene does not make you better at an RPG. That is the distinction.
Tonfa
150
It seems this issue has less to do with the gameover screen and more with the time involved.
Answer: Make better dungeons. If there is more than a 20 minute gap between savepoints ever it the game is doing something horribly wrong in design, not the choice to use a game over screen.
Edit: Also use sceneskip sceneskip is rad
Answer: Make better dungeons. If there is more than a 20 minute gap between savepoints ever it the game is doing something horribly wrong in design, not the choice to use a game over screen.
Edit: Also use sceneskip sceneskip is rad
Drakonais
2787
My first play through of Bioshock I played for about half the game without dying because I had no idea what would happen. When I realized it just warped you to a nearby vita-chamber with lots of health and eve, a part of me died. Save anywhere + virtually no penalty for death? It didn't feel right, but I just fell to abusing it.
By the end, I fought the last boss half-heartedly because there's even a vita-chamber there too.
I agree it could be easier on the player. Maybe provide a choice of whether to remove a painfully large amount of gold or restart at the last save?
By the end, I fought the last boss half-heartedly because there's even a vita-chamber there too.
I agree it could be easier on the player. Maybe provide a choice of whether to remove a painfully large amount of gold or restart at the last save?
Tonfa
150
post=133543
I agree it could be easier on the player. Maybe provide a choice of whether to remove a painfully large amount of gold or restart at the last save?
If this is the case the player will literally never choose to not reload their save.
post=133540You should get EXP for watching cutscenes.Not having the looming game over screen does mean that occasionally you can just start gaming the game and whack at something for a while and then retrying. (Like in Bioshock...)This, in my opinion, is why Bioshock was less good than System Shock 2. (That and the absence of SHODAN. <3 )While you might be sarcastic, doesn't that create the same kind of tedium as rewatching a cutscene? You are using the same tactics over again and only changing them once you reach the point where you failed, and the more you fail the more you have to bear through the same shit over again. This makes me quite thankful that save files exist.
IMPORTANT POINT!
The difference is that going back to the beginning in a platformer FORCES YOU TO GET BETTER. Your reflexes improve as you navigate obstacles that were once challenging with panache and aplomb. The same is not at all true of rewatching a cutscene. Rewatching a godamn cutscene does not make you better at an RPG. That is the distinction.
Seriously. Some games it takes EFFORT to watch them. You ought to be rewarded.
"god. that dialogue was ESPECIALLY trite and painful to read. But I got 500 EXP"
I'm going to have to admit that people have brought up some good points against straight game-over screens. Still, I'm not a big fan of repeatable battles. If the player is losing then they should feel the desperation of trying to stay alive and then feel the agony of defeat, not just be able to click "Retry" at the slightest hint of danger. Trying to scrape through battles I clearly have no right to win has always been one of my favourite things about epic boss battles in RPGs and when you pull it off it is a really good feeling. Making things too easy takes that feeling of success away.
I agree with this. A lot. I don't think I favor the idea of mid-battle reloads.
not just be able to click "Retry" at the slightest hint of danger.
Ideally this kind of person would be hitting retry immediately and forever because bosses are made of murder, but that is another topic altogether.
b) allowing the player to save anywhere, that way they are only penalized if they make an honest mistake (like forgetting to save for a floor or two).
The problem with this (someone may have mentioned) is that Save Anywhere is incompatible with random treasure/other dice rolls. People will just be tools and reload until they get the best result. Saw this a lot in beta testing and feedback for Everything Turns Gray,
Tonfa
150
post=133550not just be able to click "Retry" at the slightest hint of danger.Ideally this kind of person would be hitting retry immediately and forever because bosses are made of murder, but that is another topic altogether.
*HELLGOD casts INFERNODOOM*
"brb gonna reload for a different turn 1"
...it does take something away from that feeling.
in battle reloads would be even worse.
I don't know if this is WHY I liked Demons Souls...but I REALLY, REALLY liked Demon Souls.
It was just like...HOLY SHIT....this is how ALL video games used to be...what the fuck happened?
That's why Demons Souls and older Castlevania games are very popular to a certain crowd.
I don't know if this is WHY I liked Demons Souls...but I REALLY, REALLY liked Demon Souls.
It was just like...HOLY SHIT....this is how ALL video games used to be...what the fuck happened?
