EPTAlso i think the way games handle it these days is pretty good. I never use quicksave, i only rely on autosave checkpoints as i feel that is how the designers intended it. Get through this section without dying and you get a checkpoint as a reward.
New Bioshock: Infinite - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
herberck
Germany44 Posts
Also i think the way games handle it these days is pretty good. I never use quicksave, i only rely on autosave checkpoints as i feel that is how the designers intended it. Get through this section without dying and you get a checkpoint as a reward. | ||
|
FromShouri
United States862 Posts
| ||
|
Yacobs
United States846 Posts
On March 22 2013 00:07 Dracolich70 wrote: I think you suffer from tunnel vision. Of course I can't convince you, like I did Iranon, because you do not have an open mind, and I even highly doubt you even actually spend time to read and ponder about what I write. Of course I pondered what you wrote. Your entire argument relies on looking at the issue in black and white with no room for nuance. You seem to believe that dying and having to spend 5 minutes getting back to where you were is quite literally equivalent to dying and spending 2 seconds to get back to where you were. How can you not see that this simply isn't true? Nobody LIKES losing a game. That is a significant part of what incentivizes you to play the game well... you don't want to lose. If you are revived instantaneously whenever you fail in a game, you are no longer incentivized to play well. This completely kills all form of tension from the game because you are never worried about failing. Like I said, if you are interested in video games as a form of interactive movie then by all means -- buy this game and enjoy it. But don't tell me that this type of design is beneficial to me when it's clearly only beneficial to people with your taste. | ||
|
Dracolich70
Denmark3820 Posts
On March 21 2013 23:42 radscorpion9 wrote: Not entirely sure of some of your points, like scaling proportionately is impossible. That may be, but that would pretty much mean that no game has been able to do this, which then argues for that games aren't really well balanced. In some sense that is true, since gamers are so very different, and much broader spectrum of skill than when I started gaming 30 years ago. Each game decision whether it being respawning of enemies, you, resources, amount of checkpoints, are all decided by the overall balance of difficulty. Some fail, where the game is simply too frustrating, ie no save option, too far between checkpoints, while others appear too easy, and resource gathering/redoing are just timesinks. Few plays for the timesinks, but the overall feel of the game. Sometimes the feel of the game is you are basically fucked all the time, but it really only caters to a niche of players.Just want to say this is a pretty interesting view, its difficult to conceive of a game that removes resource gathering, and has instant respawn, but which is still fun to play. It would be nice to see some good examples of this, but at least so far, I think Bioshock: Infinite is probably an example of a game that didn't successfully implement this idea, just because the difficulty didn't scale proportionately. And in some sense it is impossible for difficulty to ever scale proportionately with a vita chamber, or instant respawn while the enemies you killed before you died are still dead. In that case, even if the game were more difficult, it would just become a very tedious process of dying and killing, with no real challenge. The only way to save the player from this is through artificial restrictions (i.e. loading your game, not using vita chambers or equivalent resurrection mechanisms), in which case you run into the same problem as before. Combined with the fact that you lose a lot of realism, and thus immersion, from respawning after you die (while your enemies are still dead, and with a new clip in your gun), it may be that the old method still works best. Not sure how you end up with it works the best how it is, when you have already ranked up the problems with the old method, accommodating some of my viewpoints. | ||
|
Dracolich70
Denmark3820 Posts
On March 22 2013 01:22 Yacobs wrote: The first part is you not reading or comprehending much. I never said it was equivalent. This debate is not revolving in the two systems being similar, but one removes past design decisions of respawning upon death, either from a checkpoint, reload from an autosave/quicksave. For some reason you feel more accomplished that you had to go through things you have already removed, because of a design decision. I find them as needless timesinks, but of course less harsh than permadeath, or far between checkpoints with no options to save at any point by choice. What is similar, however, is that really do not die, as you respawn in all FPS.Of course I pondered what you wrote. Your entire argument relies on looking at the issue in black and white with no room for nuance. You seem to believe that dying and having to spend 5 minutes getting back to where you were is quite literally equivalent to dying and spending 2 seconds to get back to where you were. How can you not see that this simply isn't true? Nobody LIKES losing a game. That is a significant part of what incentivizes you to play the game well... you don't want to lose. If you are revived instantaneously whenever you fail in a game, you are no longer incentivized to play well. This completely kills all form of tension from the game because you are never worried about failing. Like I said, if you are interested in video games as a form of interactive movie then by all means -- buy this game and enjoy it. But don't tell me that this type of design is beneficial to me when it's clearly only beneficial to people with your taste. If no one likes to lose, and I agree, then going down, rather than not, is the main punishment, which I have already said. The tedious things can't be. They might only amplify the frustration. If you play like you do not care, just because you are instantly respawned to the point you came, is like arguing against reloading after a save - if one remembered to save, or if the game didn't, then the problem is you. The game is not harder, because you need to respawn 5 mins past, and redo what you have already accomplished, which makes what you have already accomplished seem unrewarded as it gets erased(maybe). In my view what a person really wants is beating what beat them, and not a whole lot of other stuff that they have already done before this point. It seems odd, you say I look in black and white, and not nuanced, when you stand like a kid jumping up and down, because you do not want to see an alternative solution to another solution from the past. And this being without doing much other than watching a stream, and then whine about unlimited ammo, instant respawn when you fall to your death, and lastly that you get a sniper rifle evocated(which is also odd, considering the amount of games that have this type of weapon presented to them at the prober moment; handed to them). ---------------- I think youre missing the point here a little bit. Its not about the game being super difficult, its about the tension that is needed to keep you immersed. If you cant really die youll never feel scared (maybe scared is too strong a word) and youll just grind through the story to see the beautiful art and environments. Having to replay sections you already completed is boring but that is how it works. Because you dont want to replay sections youll try your best to beat everything on first try and thats where the tension comes from. Sorry my english isnt that great but i hope you get my point. It was you that talked about skill, mind you. I just gave you a rebuttal on the matter.Also i think the way games handle it these days is pretty good. I never use quicksave, i only rely on autosave checkpoints as i feel that is how the designers intended it. Get through this section without dying and you get a checkpoint as a reward. And yes, it is about the tension that is needed to keep you immersed, which is kind of what this game seems to do, rather than remove you from the action, teleport you to somewhere else, and start some parts over. First you called this new system boring, and now you call the old one boring, but cling to the fact that is how it works. Secondly, it is really replaying sections that I perhaps played to perfection already, that I need to redo. In these sections I did not fail, and yet I have to redo it. Thirdly, I get all your points. Your English is fine, and I think your are getting your points across. I know how the old system works. I have gamed for 30 years, and have never used a trainer, walkthroughs, tips, cheats, and do like games that are difficult. Difficult can be many things. Some leads to frustration, while others do not. Fourthly, I think the kind of scaredness, that you (for good reasons) want to be there, are scared of the wrong things. You are scared then not because of the factor that killed you, but the factor that you need to redo things you have already done. To me that is just as bad as calling a game difficult, because the game designs are awful, unintuitive, or what else that doesn't directly relate to the core of the game, but bad decisions. | ||
|
ArcticFox
United States1092 Posts
On March 22 2013 01:48 Dracolich70 wrote: The first part is you not reading or comprehending much. I never said it was equivalent. This debate is not revolving in the two systems being similar, but one removes past design decisions of respawning upon death, either from a checkpoint, reload from an autosave/quicksave. For some reason you feel more accomplished that you had to go through things you have already removed, because of a design decision. I find them as needless timesinks, but of course less harsh than permadeath, or far between checkpoints with no options to save at any point by choice. What is similar, however, is that really do not die, as you respawn in all FPS. If no one likes to lose, and I agree, then going down, rather than not, is the main punishment, which I have already said. The tedious things can't be. They might only amplify the frustration. If you play like you do not care, just because you are instantly respawned to the point you came, is like arguing against reloading after a save - if one remembered to save, or if the game didn't, then the problem is you. The game is not harder, because you need to respawn 5 mins past, and redo what you have already accomplished, which makes what you have already accomplished seem unrewarded as it gets erased(maybe). In my view what a person really wants is beating what beat them, and not a whole lot of other stuff that they have already done before this point. It seems odd, you say I look in black and white, and not nuanced, when you stand like a kid jumping up and down, because you do not want to see an alternative solution to another solution from the past. And this being without doing much other than watching a stream, and then whine about unlimited ammo, instant respawn when you fall to your death, and lastly that you get a sniper rifle evocated(which is also odd, considering the amount of games that have this type of weapon presented to them at the prober moment; handed to them). I don't see why having the option of turning on the "1999 mode" from the start would be a problem. Having to play through the story on "easy mode" the first time to unlock the hard mode makes little sense from a design perspective -- just have it as a selectable difficulty from the start, and then everyone's happy. No one has ever complained in the past about a story having multiple difficulties to play on, so you can experience the story however you like. Personally I play FPS games on easy or normal, because I'm awful, and I still feel the tension in this way, but I have to play my RTS games on Hard/Brutal to get the same feeling. That's why these options exist, and having them taken away seems to be detrimental to the overall atmosphere of the game. Alternately, is there no way to reward someone for staying alive longer? Like, if you keep dying and falling off ledges and such, Elizabeth gets pissed at you and will only toss you pistols and knives, but as you start performing better, she trusts you with her shotguns, flamethrowers, etc. It just seems there should be a better way to deal with this problem of people of varying skill wanting to play through your game, since different difficulty levels were introduced sometime in the 80s, and isn't exactly a new concept. | ||
|
Dibella
Germany79 Posts
On March 22 2013 01:08 FromShouri wrote: This game any good? Came bundled with my XFX 7850 but i gotta redeem it and download it. That said, if it isn't worth downloading I'll just eat the free serial because I know I won't play Lara Croft haha. Probably not. Just look at the Cover. They want to catch the CoD Kiddies with that one. Expect lesser Atmo/Story and more ACTION!!!!! | ||
|
Dracolich70
Denmark3820 Posts
When it comes to "is there no way to reward you for staying alive longer?", I am not sure, but you are then arguing for penalty for sucking, which could lead to the game simply needs to be played from start, as your integration with her is the main part. I do not think most will think that is very nice. There are such games, but in my experience they lead to some frustration, as much as they delight. Of course if could be done, if they weren't devastating times when she chose to punish you for sucking and then giving you means to suck even more. The idea is not bad, but I think works against people sucking. The part concerning regain what was lost through doing better, seems like a good idea. Maybe one with more difficulty settings. Since different levels were introduced, while still not an option in all games since then, and now, could mean that it is time for trying new things. I agree that it seems inflexible, and they rather suggest that all play the same experience with the same difficulty setting. It is not unheard of that a game needs to be completed at a certain level to unlock a harder one, though I do not agree with it. I will keep judgments till I play Bioshock Infinite, when I fully understand what they are trying to do, which will first happen when I experience it firsthand. I do not agree with it being detrimental to the gaming experience/atmosphere with less skill levels. On the contrary. You get exactly what the developer envisioned, not a watered down, or a testosterone version, but the very balance they aimed for. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Back in the real days of video games, game over was game over. If you wanted to keep going, you had to pay for that right. | ||
|
wUndertUnge
United States1125 Posts
In any case he breaks down different types of failure and psychologies of failure, but most importantly for this discussion punishment. Back in the day, games were much more punishing. Like the poster above said, you had to pay to play. With home systems, though, that just wasn't feasible and the market changed. Remember the old school sierra games? In any case, I haven't played or seen much gameplay for BioShock.I, but it is interesting to note the different levels of difficulty people want out of games. And juuls argues that there has to be the potential to fail in a game, otherwise we just get bored. With that said, I'm hopeful that Levine and team know what they're doing, and if its not apparent now that different challenges other than finding ammo, weapons, or health will emerge. Maybe they'll find unconventional ways of challenging then player and protagonist other than living or dying. | ||
|
RagequitBM
Canada2270 Posts
Too many people are reading into "hardcore" and "hand-holding." I play games to challenge myself, and master the mechanics. I don't play them just to progress through them as fast as I can. And I believe that's kind of what Yacobs was going for. This game does not seem to offer this for me. I'll still probably play through it because I love the atmosphere of bioshock. It just won't be a game I spend too much time on. | ||
|
Infernal_dream
United States2359 Posts
On March 22 2013 05:28 RagequitBM wrote: I think a lot of people are arguing something completely different with Yacobs. When I play games, I want dying to send me back. I don't think my progress is "erased." When I play Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon, and died, I got sent back, however the section I beat is still in my mind. And as you keep playing, you keep getting better. Maybe some extremely difficult sections take an hour or two, but during that whole time you're improving. Then when you finally conquer the game, you sit t here with a sense of accomplishment. Too many people are reading into "hardcore" and "hand-holding." I play games to challenge myself, and master the mechanics. I don't play them just to progress through them as fast as I can. And I believe that's kind of what Yacobs was going for. This game does not seem to offer this for me. I'll still probably play through it because I love the atmosphere of bioshock. It just won't be a game I spend too much time on. The counter argument though is that bioshock has never been a game about difficulty. It's never been about having to improve or scavenging for ammo and things like that. It's been a game about immersion in the art and story. So why would people make a big deal about difficulty for this particular one when the past two weren't ever difficult. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 22 2013 05:39 Infernal_dream wrote: The counter argument though is that bioshock has never been a game about difficulty. It's never been about having to improve or scavenging for ammo and things like that. It's been a game about immersion in the art and story. So why would people make a big deal about difficulty for this particular one when the past two weren't ever difficult. The real question is, if the respawn chamber(thing) can be turned off, why should anyone care? My girlfriend and I are on vastly different skill levels with when it comes to 3D shooters, so the respawn chamber is welcome for her. I on the other hand, will be turning it off and playing the game on the hardest difficultly I can find. When it comes to single player games that are so story driven, have the option to set the game for a level where the player can enjoy it is important. People who want hardcore games are great, but difficulty should not bar other players from enjoying the game. | ||
|
Dracolich70
Denmark3820 Posts
I think a lot of people are arguing something completely different with Yacobs. When I play games, I want dying to send me back. I don't think my progress is "erased." When I play Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon, and died, I got sent back, however the section I beat is still in my mind. And as you keep playing, you keep getting better. Maybe some extremely difficult sections take an hour or two, but during that whole time you're improving. Then when you finally conquer the game, you sit t here with a sense of accomplishment. What is the point of you remembering the section you did fine in, when the actual focus is where you made an error? You are now far removed from the obstacle. You learn little from repeating what you already can handle. You learn from overcoming what you can't.Too many people are reading into "hardcore" and "hand-holding." I play games to challenge myself, and master the mechanics. I don't play them just to progress through them as fast as I can. And I believe that's kind of what Yacobs was going for. This game does not seem to offer this for me. I'll still probably play through it because I love the atmosphere of bioshock. It just won't be a game I spend too much time on. This is indeed not a decision about HC or handholding, but keeping the immersion and storyline afloat, rather than disrupted, which means you deal head on with the actual problem that took you down, rather than moving you back, which is another design decision made in multitude of games already. Why would you want a game to send you back upon failure? Why not just restart the game from beginning upon death, then? | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
| ||
|
Dracolich70
Denmark3820 Posts
On March 22 2013 13:04 Aerisky wrote: You do not die in any FPS. You respawn somewhere. The only better alternative to a complete non-breaking immersion would be permadeath.Well yes, but if it's going to be Prince of Persia-esque where you literally can't die, that would be silly enough to break immersion imo. Maybe it'll be different on harder difficulties. I see no correlation between difficulty and where you respawn, just timesinks in one case. | ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
THAT troubles me a lot. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 22 2013 14:18 Greentellon wrote: What is the difference between "save-scumming" and "infite respawns on the spot"? Save-scumming resets the state, so that you can't simply spam respawns to beat a boss. Every time you load from a saved game before boss, boss resets. With "infinite respawns on spot", bosses and enemies do NOT reset. Thus it dumbs the game down, and it dumbs the skill needed down because you can just infinite-spawn enemies to death with no consequences. THAT troubles me a lot. That entirely depends on if the game actually just treats 0 Health as "Instant full life". I imagine there's a shit-ton of hyperbole coming out from whiny elitist players. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
On March 22 2013 13:36 Dracolich70 wrote: You do not die in any FPS. You respawn somewhere. The only better alternative to a complete non-breaking immersion would be permadeath. I see no correlation between difficulty and where you respawn, just timesinks in one case. And I personally also do not enjoy multiplayer constantly-respawning fps games. Unless you're talking about respawning in campaign in which case I'm pretty sure it's still at checkpoints instead of exactly where you stood. Admirable reductio ad absurdum but I do know where I would draw the line and I feel it's reasonable. Of course it story progression-wise it will just save you time, but bioshock where there's a lot of suspense, tension, and excitement/struggle to stay alive would, just in my opinion, stand to lose from near-instant respawning pretty much where you were. I haven't seen the game but I was just basing my comments off what some of the other people had been saying. It probably won't be THAT bad but I just don't like the idea of getting tossed supplies and health/"lives". | ||
|
Dracolich70
Denmark3820 Posts
On March 22 2013 14:18 Greentellon wrote: Depends on when and where you are allowed to save. A save does not reset anything, but continues from where you saved upon load, which could be in mid-battle if allowed. You still feel accomplishment from not needing to be respawned/reloaded. Elizabeth is sort of a sidekick, who has powers that compliments the players. If you find that having some sort of priest reviving you midbattle is dumbing down, then we must disagree. Using her powers drains her, and could harm her. If you suck, she hurts more. Usually when you have some sort of sidekick, then challenges ahead are usually adjusted to this notion.What is the difference between "save-scumming" and "infite respawns on the spot"? Save-scumming resets the state, so that you can't simply spam respawns to beat a boss. Every time you load from a saved game before boss, boss resets. With "infinite respawns on spot", bosses and enemies do NOT reset. Thus it dumbs the game down, and it dumbs the skill needed down because you can just infinite-spawn enemies to death with no consequences. THAT troubles me a lot. Didn't killed enemies stay dead in Bioshock 1+2? If so then it is a streamlining effect. | ||
| ||
