GAME PET PEEVES

Diablo 2 isn't an RPG now?

I'm going to go stare at the sunset for a good 10 minutes.

People are annoyed by some weird shit.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that people were annoyed by the OPTION to skip an intro. I kind of thought OPTIONS were never bad because they're, well, options.

post=138939
I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that people were annoyed by the OPTION to skip an intro. I kind of thought OPTIONS were never bad because they're, well, options.

Perhaps they are more annoyed that there are reviewers who dislike the fact that you can't skip an intro.

On that note, intros are rarely done well.

post=138914
WolfCoder has it right: RPGs, by their nature of a progressive game (ie- stats increase, skillsets expand, etc...), inherently have an EASY, MODERATE and HARD mode. The start is EASY, middle game MODERATE and endgame HARD. If you have to decouple the difficulty from the game then ur doin it wrong. imho.

EDIT: ha! WolfCoder just reiterated what he said.

He? Well, it's actually kind of rare that I actually play an RPG with difficulty levels in it even for these days.

That's because you live in the distant, archaic past.

The original Shining Force games had four levels of difficulty even though the game was pushover-easy on "Ouch" difficulty. Perfect example of why it's kind of pointless to even have them if it barely makes a difference anyway.

However, in the golden age of games, it was very common to see difficulty settings in non-RPG games. Especially the classic arcade games.

There are always exceptions, I'll have to add. Fire Emblem has distinct Hard, Harder, and Fuck Me modes, but the game was still fun.


But for RPGs, it just strikes me as funny. The game itself could just have parts of it that are harder than the rest (like they had been) and sometimes optional. It just feels as though a properly designed and balanced game doesn't need all these difficulty features. I can see why Kentona agrees since I've heard the heavy use of Excel in Hero's Realm.

I have on SA

(anecdotal evidence is fun!)

There's a line between subjective and objectively bad/good game design (poor analogy: Shitty artists who excuse their lack of skill as 'style', see webcomics). I don't think anybody is saying that adding or lacking difficulty levels will send your game to the graces/gallows but it's presence can help any game by making it available to a larger audience and giving the game more replayability. As far as the player is concerned it is an objectively good game design decision. The problem with difficulty levels comes from the same issue with all gameplay mechanics and features: Scope creep. Everything has its essential and accidental complexity and somebody will have to take the time to implement that and that is effort that could be put to more substantial, or meaningless, pursuits. That's the most important question: Is it worth the effort to implement given the end result, the complexities, and other places to direct effort?

Fuck, what were we arguing over again?

There's no reason to argue over the validity over whatever you say when you never really did any scientific exploration into the subject matter. Don't worry about it Feld. This is why you give details to support what you say if you feel what you say is right and all that nonsense you learned writing English papers.

Of course when that isn't enough, you've got to bust out some science ^^ on these fools and provide harder facts to support your conclusions. Its always nice when you do this because then you start knowing you're right vs. feeling you're right. You could only be intelligibly counterattacked with more science then, yielding only actual progress... Of course anyone here who actually is studying science is typically too tired to care and thus is happy with typical internet arguing. Goes to explaining why we usually never get anything done either the more time we spend in forums~

Remember we are makers arguing, not gamers even though we play all our own games. We would argue about tons of things players might never bring up but they do feel, oh in the highest forces they indeed feel the decisions we make even if they don't realize it.

Hahaha, I almost always use % healing items. However, these were usually 75%/100% or other high % and you could only use them outside battle as they were medical kits. During battle I don't think it makes sense to down an entire pizza in front of your enemy like Ness can, but that's where you would have quick potions you could down and took only a short time to use.

I just think its funny that in FPS games you could be bleeding all over the place with broken limbs, walk over a health pack and just be all fine the next instant >.<

As to the %, I got around it by having say, 25% + 50 HP - so that in the early game it'd be useful, but later on it would be okay for medium damage heals. Um, thingy. (Then again I like adding 1-3% HP healing for things like Antidotes and Salves - just cos. ^.^)

Hate the slow walk/text speed (though I am guilty of text speed alterations ^.~; ) I don't mind slow walk speed so much if it's for something like a small world map (larger ones annoy me) and methinks that if you're gonna make a run button, switch it to make a 'walk' button instead. That way I'm not constantly turning it on/holding down the button. Or better yet, get rid of walk altogether and let me run all the time!

Long intros are alright if they're interesting - not just text on background. (Again, something I'm guilty of).

bahleted