|
The thing continuing to drag Warframe down for me is the Nightwave system, which is basically a daily/weekly quest system. These systems are designed to FOMO people into playing every day and I simply hate that feeling. I felt the urge to play it again today but I know if I play again I'll start feeling extra anxious every day until I do my dailies and I don't want to do that to myself. It's so annoying to me because Warframe was basically perfect for me until they put that system in. I'd even put money into the game and everything and now it's ruined. Not unhappy with the time and money I spent up til then though.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2020 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
I will definitely second the idea that it's more fun to grind for something directly rather than grind something to sell for currency to buy the thing you actually want. Especially with the way trades work in Warframe. But even with a nice AH like Diablo 3 had it's not as much fun for me to essentially grind for currency. It feels too much like a job and less like a game when it works like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:After finally diving in and playing the Maldives level in Hitman 2 the New York level seems even worse by comparison somehow. This is how I learned that the second new location for Hitman 2 has been released. Looks like it was late last year? There still seems to be no way to know it exists on Steam beyond going to Hitman 2. Clicking on the Expansion Pass and then scrolling down to see reviews that start with "now that all the content is out". The thing dragging it down is I forgot new content was even due for it and deleted it off my drive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Slay is a nice light strategy game that I've sunk 300 hours into but the one thing I really hate about it is how it handles idle units/buildings. Every turn you can move each of your guys and if you have enough money can recruit from your capital. The game helpfully reminds you if you try to end turn that hey you could move a unit or you could buy something. But only that those things exist. Not specifically what you can move or where you can buy. And there's no way to like flag a unit or building as deliberately idle so if you specifically want to leave something idle the message becomes useless. There's no way to cycle through units or buildings either so you have to scan the map for things every time. It can be real annoying early on when your stuff is spread out all over the place and you want to save for various reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Len posted:So it's Doom then? I just played through Doom 1 and it takes a few levels to actually get all the cool fun guns The original Doom pistol was definitely something dragging the game down. It's entirely worthless and not fun to use at all. Doom is basically a game of "where's the shotgun?" until you find one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Playing Doom 3 still and I killed a demon with exactly 1 health left and the game auto saved and half a second later I’m killed by a guy behind me so the game loads with me half a second from dying now. Tried like 10 different things and nothing works. My last manual save is like 25 minutes back. I remember that being a thing. The Penny Arcade guys made a post or comic about it cause it happened to both of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
DoubleNegative posted:Listing Mass Effect 1's inventory management system in a list of worst ever is unfair for the exact same reason that you never rank professionals and amateurs in the same list. I played through ME1 for the first time since 2011 last week and it's not as bad as you all remember. At a certain point I'll just stop looting anything because it just means more tedious work. I don't think I've ever had a loot system make me actively avoid loot before or since. Certain types of loot? Sure. Vendor everything without bothering to sift through it? Sure. Completely avoiding all loot I can? Only Mass Effect 1.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
My favorite example of this problem is a mission in Assassin's Creed 2 (maybe Brotherhood) where you're infiltrating a play and it's like "make your way to the stage" but there's a trigger on the way they expect you to go to the stage that you have to trigger. If you manage to get to the stage another way the quest just does not advance. It's a problem of quest triggers being more narrow than the quest narrative and it's absolutely not a matter of designers designing 75% of possibilities and missing some small ones. There's a RDR2 quest I've heard about where you basically have to fight people to support your friends or something and people would fail it by fighting from the wrong spot (on top of a roof was one example). And it's like, if you want a player to go to a specific place and fight from there, then make them go to that specific place, then have them fight. Don't tell them to fight and then fail them because they didn't go stand where you put the quest trigger. If you tell them to fight then you put the triggers on enemies you need to kill or NPCs you need to keep alive. But they don't, because they want to add little narrative hooks and if you stand on a roof or enter the stage from the other side then the cutscene looks wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:Something I always hate although this comes from the other direction with regards to difficulty, is when people just don't understand an obstacle and claim the game is bad - there's a really neat puzzle in Anima: Gate of Memories involving moving spikes and a review kept showing them dying at it over and over again as if it was the game's fault that they failed to notice that the spikes were synced to the background music. All you have to do is move with rhythm and basically dance through them but they just didn't notice. It's not even a mandatory puzzle, it only blocks off a totally optional sidequest area, but it's frustrating when you know what they need to do and it's just like "It's an easy thing, just slow down a little." I zone out game music most of the time even on the rare occasions I don't just turn it off. That part would have hosed me too if I needed cues from the music.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
Weird Sandwich posted:Bloodborne's faster paced combat was balanced around being able to regain health through the rallying system though, which DS3 lacks in comparison. Not to mention parrying in Bloodborne having a more generous window. In general Bloodborne is a game that was built specifically to suit a faster pace of combat, while DS3 had the faster pace grafted on to an already existing combat system that it doesn't suit nearly as well. I found it a problem right away personally. It didn't stop me from playing, but the combat almost immediately felt like it was moving way too fast for its own good. It made it feel very clunky. Dark Souls combat has always been somewhat clunky if you broke it down, but it fit the slow and deliberate pacing. DS3 just tried to push dark souls combat further than it realistically could go. This kinda thing is fairly common in sequels I feel but I can't actually think of a good example of a sequel pushing the original's system too far except Dark Souls 2 funnily enough, which wanted you to fight groups far more than its actual combat system itself wanted. It's not that you can't make it work, but it gives off a very "this system wasn't designed for this" feel.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Thought of a couple: Hotline Miami 2 pushed larger rooms onto its shooting system and stretched it to breaking. Super Mario Sunshine pushed Mario 3ds mechanics too far, requiring more precision than it was ideally suited to.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Leal posted:One day a game will have magic be as awesome as Dragon's Dogma The big thing dragging Dragon's Dogma down for me was how utterly horrible it was to fight golems as a magic damage class. And spirits as a physical damage class. You just literally can't kill them with your abilities and your pawns are so horrifically useless in these fights. It's literally something I get flashbacks about whenever someone talks about Dragon's Dogma magic. It's why I'm posting now. I saw your pictures and the image of a golem reared up in my head. 
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
I always forget the pendant so I end up just dodging the shadow rain or whatever it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
grittyreboot posted:I'm playing Baldur's Gate for the first time and I'm really enjoying it. My biggest gripe with it is when you're in an area with a lot of traps. The damage traps are annoying but the web traps really suck. A lot of times you set them off when there's no enemies around to at least make it tense, so you just gotta wait for a full minute until the game lets you move again. You have to just run your group through the dungeon, quickload when they hit a trap, and THEN stand next to where you know it is and detect it. Actually detecting traps as you go takes way too long. Traps are just straight up not good in the BG series.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
I've just come back from the parallel universe where BotW never had durability and literally everybody thought it was a stupid idea whenever I suggested the game should have weapon durability.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2020 05:50
|
|
|
Most people are like "why all the weapons?" instead of "why don't all these weapons break comically fast?" though. The rest make comically large piles of weapons to screenshot like they were some deranged skyrim hoarder.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
The Moon Monster posted:There's basically zero joy when you find some cool new weapon because it's just going to break after half of an encounter and get swapped out for one of the endless piles of clubs enemies are dropping. I think this is a point that gets glossed over by a lot of people. Weapons are so disposable that you essentially never have individual weapons outside of the Master Sword (which yes is probably a better axe/hammer than a weapon). You just have some amorphous collection of weapons where each one is more-or-less interchangeable. You might as well just delete every weapon and go back to Link having a starter sword and then a master sword (or a couple tiers). Imagine a system where every few seconds of combat the game pauses and then won't continue until you pick a meaningless menu item from a samey list and then it continues until the next abrupt pause. That's the combat system BotW has for me because of its durability. I'm not pissed when my weapon breaks. The weapon was always worthless and ephemeral to me from the moment I picked it up. I'm pissed because now I have to pick a new weapon I don't give a poo poo about to keep fighting. It would be different if weapons were made an actual resource. I can't say I'd like it, but there would at least be a point to it if you had a limited amount of weapons you had to carefully manage because they weren't dropping infinitely. Like ammo in a survival horror game. Or if weapons broke but could be repaired in town so you had to go through your weapons and thus not stick with a single one and it would limit how long you could stay in the field. But no, it's just complete annoyance. And you do stick with a single weapon the whole run - the "whatever the gently caress I have because who gives a poo poo" weapon.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2020 11:48
|
|
|
First time I fought Fume Knight I was using a massive 2handed mace. It took me so many tries but the windows were way too small to regularly hit him with one of those (well hitting was not the problem, hitting and recovering before I got hit was). So I switched to the trusty rapier and just clowned on him. They needed to add like a tiny slowdown to him and a few other bosses when they received a huge hit to balance out the weapons. You can't have 2hander stun trivialize the fight, but tight windows punish them too hard.
Phigs has a new favorite as of 10:27 on Jul 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 10:08
|
|
|
Samuringa posted:Being a magic user in most fantasy games suck poo poo, that's a little thing dragging an entire setting down. Yeah that's true. I love magic but most games I start with a warrior type because it's so common for magic to be rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
The Moon Monster posted:To be fair that was at least as much because of Oblivion's busted-rear end scaling system where having a lower character level made you relatively stronger. I never played Morrowind so I can't speak to that game. When I play Oblivion I target a specific level to stop at because your damage stops scaling at a certain point well before enemies stop scaling (if they ever do) if you level well. So after a certain point you're literally just making your enemies take longer to kill each time you level. I think the best 2 spots are 10 for the master key or 20 for all quests available.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I think something that would help these sorts of games is mixing in some actual combat moves and real fighting styles, Arkham Batman and Spiderman PS style, where the stuff you build and unlock actually changes the way you fight and the different poo poo you can do instead of just having enough armor, potions and a strong enough sword or whatever. I think this is dangerous though. I think some games should go that way, but not every game should. There is value to pure RPG combat (character and/or roll based, with players only making decisions) that isn't replicated in action combat (player driven). It's like how turn-based combat was seen as obsolete and to be replaced by real time and yet now we have a renaissance of turn based games because no it actually turns out that real-time is different, not strictly superior. I would actually say Skyrim combat is CLOSE to being good for what it is trying to achieve. If you see Daggerfall/Morrowind as trying to take tabletop systems into the first person realtime genre and Oblivion/Skyrim being a refinement of that then I think it does a decent job of retaining the character-focus of RPG combat. All it really needs is better AI behavior and hit reaction to sell the combat. It doesn't have to be skilled combat. You swing your weapon by clicking your mouse instead of declaring an attack to the GM. Definitely I would like to see good action combat in RPGs, but only in addition to instead of replacing the playerskill-less RPG combat of games like Skyrim.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
Walton Simons posted:I'm still reasonably new but I feel like Into the Breach keeps giving me situations that are literally unwinnable. Just had one at the end of the first island (so no upgrades) where the boss and an enemy moved into a position where it would either lose the game by doing 4 grid damage or destroy my best mech, so effectively losing the game since it was my first turn. I looked and looked and looked but there was no way out of it and it's frustrating because there was nothing I could do. Sometimes destroying your best mech on first turn is legit the move and you can still win from there. Also it is definitely one of those games where you miss a lot of potential moves at the earlier stages of play. I actually ended up stopping playing because there's a point where it feels like you just always win. Like NoEyedSquareGuy said above the bugs always give you an out and if you get good enough at recognizing that and have decent positioning beyond that you'll always be able to win because the game doesn't really punish you long-term because enemies replenish up to a cap so there's minimal long-term planning really needed. Just do the best thing this one turn. Then the next. It is fun getting to that point though so don't let me discourage you. Just think of it more like a puzzle game than it initially appears.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:"telltale died because everyone realized their games are actually bad" is a real galaxy brain take I tell you what I don't think it's too far off. I played the first walking dead and liked it okay and thought "if they change up a few things and push the concept a bit further I'll get the next one" and whelp. Was good enough for me to play 1 of them, was probably good enough for others to play 1-3 or whatever before they got sick of no advancement too. At a certain point novelty wears off and repeated problems build up annoyance until people have enough. Or other people advance a medium/genre and you're stuck looking not as good as before. I wouldn't say they were always bad, but like pretty-much anything they were always flawed, and spamming out tonnes of them while making almost no changes or improvements brought out those flaws.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:This. The downfall of Telltale is well documented and shockingly it has gently caress-all to do with "everyone suddenly universally agreed with my opinion, that all of their games were trash garbage, and they instantly shrank into nothing and disappeared overnight Sales of their games were in steady decline. Clearly their financial model imploding is what killed them, but never changing or improving on their formula was a contributing factor. If every game sold like Walking Dead 1 they would have been fine. Their style was enough for some people, but clearly a lot of people who played their games at least once weren't interested in a second or third or x however many more servings of the same dish. Or at least not at that frequency.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 14:04
|
|
"
|
I wish RPGs and other character driven games would follow through with things like that a bit more. Some way of making flavor/character choices feel a bit more weighty. Like imagine there's a range of options your character could go for but the ones available to you are dependent on how you've played your character. Or a reputation system that is just about how people react to you based on how you've acted in the past. Mass Effect's paragon/renegade system would have been a lot more fun if it was just a system of determining which badass things you could say or what cutscene triggers you had access to. I think RPGs have a great opportunity to reward players in pure roleplay ways that hasn't been properly explored.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:The hell are you talking about. Not me, but pretending like a meaningless choice is an actual choice is like pretending there's a pit in a platformer and jumping over it. It's something you can do and it might make it more fun for you, but you are literally making up things that don't exist in the actual game. There has to be a difference between choices for choice to actually exist. If I offer you coffee and ask if you want milk then just put milk in it regardless of what you say I have not actually offered you a choice even though I've gone through all the superficial motions as though I were giving you a choice. I agree that there was more to the choices given in the Telltale games at first. They did a great job of making it feel like your choices matter. Which is frankly just as good for as long as the illusion lasted. If you can put on the box that you have meaningful choices and then fool the player into believing it then that's perfectly fine. But the very second the illusion is broken, giving that player the same false choices becomes worthless, and players found out long before Telltale kept trying to fool them. It was not a trick that they could keep on pulling for the same returns.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
I quit Baba on the first puzzle with the move keyword. It just felt like so far away from what I'd come to Baba for that I just didn't want to keep going with it. Which is kinda the same criticism as the sokoban one. Weirdly I'm happy I played the game even though I played for only 2 hours and quit long before the end. Such a fun little concept, it just apparently didn't have enough legs on its own?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:That part where your character is injured or something and can only walk very slowly Escape from Tarkov Getting into a firefight and winning/losing them but getting all hosed up and having to slowly drag your grunting and gasping dude to the exit before something else kills them and you lose all your loot gets pretty intense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:I liked Horizon because it gates little to none of its side-content or mechanics behind the story, after the prologue. When you finish the seventh mission the world's your oyster and you can spend thirty hours ignoring the plot before running out of things to do. Not quite what you're looking for but in Skyrim shouts are locked behind the main quest that also unleashes giant cliffracers onto the map. So I always feel like I have to choose between getting to enjoy the shouts or having to put them off so I can enjoy the map. And if I decide to put off the main quest then all those dragon walls are just useless, deleting a lot of the more interesting exploration rewards until I decide to advance the main quest again. Phigs has a new favorite as of 19:38 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Slay the Spire I hate how half the boss energy relics have annoying drawbacks that basically turn off an aspect of the game. I just started a relic swap run where I got the no gold relic and it was like why the gently caress would I want to turn every shop into a blank space? Shops are really interesting decision points and a payoff for all the fighting and numerous events. It's just signing up for a garbage unfun run so I abandoned it instantly. The potion one is just as unfun and the rest/upgrade ones are almost as bad. gently caress balance man give me a fun relic. Half the time I'd trade a boss relic for a random rare/common one if I could because at least those might change the way your deck plays, not just make uniformly more powerful while turning off meta aspects of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:Playing through Skyrim again and I am always surprised how a game can make the reward chests at the end of a dungeon so useless. There is almost never anything useable in them. Just weird to have to decide whether even looking at the end reward for a section of the game is worth the few seconds it would take to even check the contents. Skyrim has the loot quality of a placed items game and the loot system of a randomly generated loot game. It really does not work at all even before you consider that player crafted stuff is just better anyway most of the time. It really needed to have interesting bespoke and hand-placed loot like in a Baldur's Gate or whatever. Morrowind was a little bit like that,m some hand placed items and some random loot. I don't know why they didn't go deeper down that route. Random chests can contain random stuff sure, but getting some unique cool item out of a specific dungeon would make exploration so much more worthwhile.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Portal 2 really limits where you can put portals in general, I found. The approach to puzzle design seems entirely different, more focused on putting portals in specific pre defined spots in the right order, eliminating the need to figure out where to put them in the first place. I get why they changed it to be a simpler process because Portal 2 is much more focused on writing than puzzling, but I missed being able to put a portal on any surface in a room just to see what I can pull off. The white paint had the potential to solve this but it's superficial in execution because there's still only one intended place you can put a portal on your newly coated surfaces to move on. This was super obvious to me because I hate puzzles generally but Portal 1 managed to trick my brain into liking it and Portal 2 definitely didn't. The 2 titles perfectly straddled the line in my brain defining puzzle and problem. There's no functional difference between putting a portal on one big white wall and putting a portal on one tiny white spot on an otherwise brown wall, but somehow my mind interpreted the first as solving the problem my way and the second as following exact designer intent. One felt like problem solving, the other felt like copy the designer. It kinda blew my mind at the time. Luckily the coop was more Portal 1 style goodness or I'd have straight up hated Portal 2.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Diablo 2 was another exception to the extra damage always being good because you got everything you needed from gear and stats did so little in comparison so you just put in the minimum stat requirements for gear and then pumped vitality (health) because it was the only thing that was always relevant.bewilderment posted:Soulslikes have been moving towards this for a while but eventually the curtain is going to be pulled back and you'll just dress up as a mage and equip mage abilities if you want to be a mage and get all armored up and equip greatsword if you want to sword dude and all those soul-levels and so on will no longer actually matter or be a part of the experience. Being able to just switch everything at the drop of the hat is super loving lame though. Why even have specs then? Just let me use everything at that point. Honestly if I was making a spiritual successor to Diablo 2 I'd be tempted to just make dozens of classes (maybe even make em named heroes like mobas) with no customization beyond gear. Just like premade singer barbs and WW barbs and zerker barbs and etc instead of making skill trees or the whatever the gently caress you call Diablo 3's system. Phigs has a new favorite as of 14:28 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
Yeah that's how I played Diablo 2 as well. I'm thinking having lots of different characters would feel the same so long as gear was interesting enough. So you'd get your specific characters to play through the game over and over while getting your theorycraft on with the gearing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
Wouldn't that be the same if you played a druid and found out you didn't like the class? I mean, I played hours of Diablo 3 only to realize I hated the entire game. There's no respec for that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
Len posted:No, see, the way Diablo 2 skills work is they have synergies. If you spend points on Skill A it makes Skill G better, Skill B does the same and so on. Yeah but what I'm talking about is you could level a class in Diablo 3 and not really know how it plays until an equivalent amount of time because you don't have the skills or runes you expect to use. Then when you have the whole class on hand you realise you don't like playing it. And when that happens you have to reroll because there's no inter-class respec. Why is that different from your build being something you don't like. I get that wind druid is one of those builds that starts out real slow and doesn't come online until late, but that's not a feature of the talent trees, its something specific to the build. The same could happen in the Diablo 3 system if a class just didn't have good build options until much later into the game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:I'm of two minds when it comes to stuff like ARPGs because I've been on both sides of the divide. I'd say I lean more towards casual player over hardcore super optimizer, but I'm not a total stranger to the latter. These 2 (obscure runewords and no respecs) are not the same. And it's not elitist to want no respecs. If you think of a bad build as a failure state just like death in a roguelike, asking for respecs in Diablo 2 is the same as asking to just ignore death in a roguelike. And remember that Diablo actually came from roguelikes. The game was built on a genre foundation where failing until you manage to get through the game is entirely part of it. Your character is disposable because they're supposed to die/succeed and be rerolled. In which case it doesn't matter that you made a permanent choice for your character because the character itself is impermanent, making all spec choices impermanent. Diablo and Diablo 2 carry that same feeling and a bunch of players pick up on that and play the games that way. Making correct spec choices is as much about successfully navigating through a game system to help achieve victory as it is a way to customize your character. IF you think about it that way. Then if you can just freely respec, what is the point of a spec? It undermines the entire point of the mechanic when viewed from this perspective. As much as I hate Diablo 3 it got it right in that if you're not going to lock people into specs you should just do away with the idea and streamline it into something like the pick 4 abilities and their runes system. I mean honestly they should have just done away with levels beyond like 5-10 or so to tutorialize and drip feed abilities. If your character is a vessel for blowing up monsters and gathering loot then why even have the character progression vestiges from when Diablo was about getting through the game? Most people who love Diablo 3 treat the leveling process as a chore to get through anyway because the game they play should not really contain that system. The key problem is that Diablo 2 is a very full and schizophrenic game. It doesn't know exactly what it is like more modern games in refined genres do, it only knew it was a successor to its previous entry. It's legitimately several games worth of modern game made at a time when there were comparatively few games so there were essentially multiple different playerbases crammed into one game. The part of Diablo 2 I liked is just not for you. And the systems I like in the game can seem completely pointless to you because they support a playstyle you don't engage with at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:Uh...many modern roguelikes literally allow you to disable permadeath (or save your game or whatever equivalent) because it turns out a lot of people don't like their games to be highly punishing and how it makes failed runs feel like a waste of time. Also most modern roguelikes boil their experience down to like, an hour, and not however long it takes to realize you hosed up your character because it turns out putting literally any points into The Bad Stat rendered your character worthless or w/e. "I wish this game did not have X" is not elitist. Some people have this idea that people only want <perceived harsh mechanic> because they want other people to suffer or to lord something over the plebs. I'm describing how a person can actually want the restriction for their own sake. Yeah you can turn off permadeath, but if you value permadeath you won't turn it off. Same for respecs. I value the lock in nature of specs so that's why I don't want respecs. I figured wanting permadeath was a more relatable punishing mechanic to desire since an entire genre is built around it. Wanting permament specs is clearly niche, and it's clearly a preference that is never going to be catered to by the industry as a whole in future, but it's something I would genuinely prefer for sake of my own personal enjoyment. And I'm hoping we see some indie games that try to build around the mechanic. Like a roguelike where building your spec around the gear that drops and/or monsters that are spawning is a big part of the game. And no, choosing not to use a mechanic is not the same. If it was then permadeath would be pointless because people who want it could always just delete their character when they die in any game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
bony tony posted:I don't understand why this is such a hot-button issue. Is it sunk-cost fallacy, or do you need a large epeen to be able to defeat the hard game and brag to all your gamerbros? Easy mode means more people can enjoy the game, surely that's worth something. Difficulty sliders are loving terrible and it's actually funny you chose Doom as an example because it is by far a massive exception to the rule. In Doom the map maker essentially makes a different map for each difficulty in terms of monster and item placement. The map designer directly controls the way each difficulty plays so they can (if they choose) cater to every difficulty individually. Most games do not do this. Most games just boost enemy HP or lower loot spawns or some other automated way of changing difficulty. Which basically means that there is one carefully designed difficulty and every other difficulty is just some bullshit modifier that results in every other difficulty being less polished. Play legendary on Skyrim and compare to the default difficulty for an example of how that feels. In a game like Dark Souls either the development teams spends a lot of extra time developing and polishing each difficulty to the same standard, meaning they get to spend less time just making the base game, or some difficulties get the shaft. Considering how rushed parts of Dark Souls were there's good reason to believe an easy mode would have made the game worse if it was anything but some ugly rush-job. And which difficulty gets the shaft? In Dark Souls it's probably the easy mode because they were targeting a niche at that point. But other games? Probably the easier, more mass market appeal mode would be the one to get the attention. There's also value in boosting the zeitgeist and shared experience of games like Dark Souls by everyone playing the same game. It's legitimately annoying to run across talk/advice for a game only to realize it's for a difficulty you don't even play so it doesn't really apply to your game. And for Dark Souls specifically it's only as good as it is because it is balanced as well as it is (though it could be better), a badly balanced easymode could easily have killed its public perception and made it sell less. That's why a lot of people don't like the idea of an easy mode in Dark Souls (I don't care about easy mode in DS for the record). And yes also there are elitists. But there are legit reasons not to want an easy mode. Developer time is not free, and difficulty sliders are not a replacement for development time. Honestly games should just come with cheats like Doom did. If the developer doesn't want to put in the full effort, just let the player tweak it themselves. Sliders are terrible. Tiggum posted:Yes? You've just made a very good argument for the exact opposite of the point you were trying to make. Then why does an entire genre essentially built around the concept of enforced permadeath exist? If there was no value to it what would be the appeal? Phigs has a new favorite as of 14:14 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Len posted:Getting some real "you cheated not only the game but also yourself" vibes from this thread Separate discussion really, but is this a bad thing? Is it actually a bad thing for a person to quit a game because it is too hard for them after they've played some decent portion of the game. Obviously if you play 30 minutes bashing your head against the wall and hating it and then quit that's not a great deal at $60. But what if you get halfway through a game and quit? I played Baba is you and quit the second it threw a timing puzzle at me but I didn't feel ripped off. I enjoyed the parts I did play and it was a neat game to experience. You don't have to beat a game to have experienced it. If you get through half of bloodborne and the game beats you then that is your story of bloodborne. It's absolutely the kind of story where if it was a movie or a book you could see the protagonist dying or giving into madness or despair at that point. It's like your own little personal bad ending.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 19:47
|
|