On March 22 2013 13:04 Aerisky wrote: 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.
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".
Not sure if you even answered the correlation between where you spawn and difficulty, and that you really do not die in FPS. If so, it was lost for me.
Is it more reasonable to respawn further back to a checkpoint/saved point?
You being kept at the battle rather than away from battle, seems more tensionlike for me.
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.
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.
Didn't killed enemies stay dead in Bioshock 1+2? If so then it is a streamlining effect.
Yeah, this what I meant by hyperbole from whiny elitist players. So many people bitching about how there's no punishment for screwups, the entire game is easy-mode, on and on.
In reality it's just an FPS where a squad mate has support abilities? So basically we've had a couple pages of mouth-frothing rage over having White Mages in video games?
On March 22 2013 13:04 Aerisky wrote: 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.
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".
Not sure if you even answered the correlation between where you spawn and difficulty, and that you really do not die in FPS. If so, it was lost for me.
Is it more reasonable to respawn further back to a checkpoint/saved point?
You being kept at the battle rather than away from battle, seems more tensionlike for me.
Respawning further back necessarily requires you to replay said battle and learn to deal with it. If you want to get deconstructionist then I believe that being able to finish a hard point also feels more rewarding than respawning with full health and finishing off enemies; being kept at a battle only rejuvenated seems to imply that the battle will go much more easily in your favor after the respawn--after all, you get your health back, while you're playing against npc characters of which there is a limited number (and which have limited health).
The alternative would be to leave you depleted of ammo/respawn with less health which also would be undesirable because you could get caught in a loop of respawning only to die again or what have you, so it seems more likely that you will, in fact, be revived and given health+ammo. This seems to imply the above paragraph, though I could be way off on this. That's all I have to say, really, and I'm sure there will be some reasonable solution. Agreed with Greentellon.
Well, I concede that I may be overreacting to what seem to be pure rumors.
In my opinion the autosaving checkpoint-system (preferably with infinite "profile slots") games use is the best way to handle this. Prevents mid-combat saves and it has that "you screw up: you lose time" -component. Let's just hope that the early reports on how Bioshock Infinite handles this are inaccurate.
I dont think a game can be immersive if the consequences for failure are minimal. It just doesnt work, it breaks the flow of the game. If you get immersed in your character and the world and your objective, then presumably death would carry some serious consequences, so if I fuck up and die and just get immediately respawned with little to nothing lost and all my previous progress saved then the immersion is simply broken because I am made painfully aware that my character exists in a universe where I am immortal and the bad guys are not, I really hated this system in bioshock 1. If failure doesnt carry significant consequences, then how can a game that takes place in an environment that is ostensibly trying to kill me be immersive?
Although im whining about this particular aspect of the design, I still expect the gameplay to be very solid on the whole. I think this discussion just comes down to how challenging we want our shooters to be, which is of course subjective.
On March 24 2013 22:22 PassiveAce wrote: I dont think a game can be immersive if the consequences for failure are minimal. It just doesnt work, it breaks the flow of the game. If you get immersed in your character and the world and your objective, then presumably death would carry some serious consequences, so if I fuck up and die and just get immediately respawned with little to nothing lost and all my previous progress saved then the immersion is simply broken because I am made painfully aware that my character exists in a universe where I am immortal and the bad guys are not, I really hated this system in bioshock 1. If failure doesnt carry significant consequences, then how can a game that takes place in an environment that is ostensibly trying to kill me be immersive?
Although im whining about this particular aspect of the design, I still expect the gameplay to be very solid on the whole. I think this discussion just comes down to how challenging we want our shooters to be, which is of course subjective.
Dying in general would remove "immersion" from a game. You're dead. Should be GG and have to completely restart by definition of immersion. At least in Bioshock 1 they had vita chambers which kept dying as part of the game and still made sense of it. Compared to games like say ghost recon or CoD in which you die and you just redo a section of the game. That's not keeping immersion to me. I'd rather respawn immediately due to some in game lore mentioned mechanic than redo the same part 50 times. I played dark souls and their respawn also makes sense due to the lore of the game. I don't mind redoing something if that's the way it's been explained in game. But having to redo something just for the sake of "difficulty" or a time sink or as a form of punishment is stupid.
The game is pretty damn good from what I have read and seen. Might not be for everyone but I'll definitely check it out.
People who think this is anything like COD or tries to appeal to that crowd just because they saw the cover have no clue whatsoever. This is probably one of the most unique shooters/games you will see in the next couple of years.
I'll just leave this here: ^Probably the best review I've ever seen for a video game from whom I believe to be the best and most intelligent reviewer out there, Adam Sessler.
seriously lol, of all the criticism you could give bioshock you call it a codclone? Have you ever played a bioshock game or are you a robot programmed to shit on things?
EPT
I don't really want to play it
