Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (
More info?)
Darrel Hoffman wrote:
> > As for everyone else: you should play games however you _enjoy_
playing
> > them. They're your games, and your computer, after all.
>
> All valid points, but here is the other side of the argument.
>
> -Not wanting to play the beginning of the game over and over.
Because,
> let's face it. The beginning of most RPGs is pretty boring.
<snip>
Absolutely. I can completely understand people who like to reload a lot
(though I do think that people who reload whenever they meet with the
slightest difficulty or when they find themselves in a suboptimal game
state are missing some of the most fun gaming experiences). I do _not_
usually enjoy replaying the beginning of a game over and over again;
it's just that, for me, it's a price worth paying.
> -Not wanting one's fate decided by buggy software. I've yet to see a
game
> where there aren't at least SOME potentially fatal bugs. If I lose a
> character to incompetance or over-confidence on my part, I'm fine
with it.
> But if I lose a character due to a server crash or falling through
geometry,
> or some other bug (healing potions malfunction, accidental spawning
of
> hugely powerful monsters in places where they shouldn't be at the
beginning
> of the game, character stuck in wall and unable to dodge attacks at
crucial
> moment, etc.), I'm going to be seriously pissed.
I completely agree. If I die due to an obvious bug (stuck on walls,
falling through the world geometry), I reload. In games where I know
things like this can happen (Wizardry 8 comes to mind), I don't
actually turn "Ironman mode" on; even though I play Ironman style, I
still want to be able to reload if I'm killed by a bug.
> -Three words. "One hit kills". Personally, I think these should
simply not
> exist in any game, but particularly if you're playing "Ironman" or
> "Hardcore", where death is final.
That depends. There are some games with "one-hit kill" monsters that I
consider to be fair. For example, ADOM and Nethack have basilisks and
cockatrices, respectively, which can kill you with their touch. As long
as it's possible to avoid such monsters or kill them from a distance, I
don't have a problem with them.
Similarly, on Hell (and even Nightmare) difficulty, Diablo 2 has
monsters that can easily one-hit kill the non-melee classes, especially
the Sorceress. I don't see this as a big problem, even in Ironman; if
you can't evade brutal melee monsters with a Sorceress, you shouldn't
be playing on Nightmare or Hell... evasion is a basic skill in that
game.
> And I'm not just talking hugely powerful
> monsters. I'm referring to things like swinging blades that
instantly
> decapitate you, or spikes that kill you on contact, or pits of lava
that you
> can fall into and die, or unavoidable traps that do far too much
damage,
> etc.
Again, there are games with instakill deathtraps that are still fair.
Half-Life 2 is a good example; there are many such traps there; you can
fall to your death, be blown to bits by exploding barrels, sliced apart
by blade traps, electrocuted... the list goes on. But with proper
situational awareness, you need _never_ get caught by any of these
traps. You don't even need twitch reflexes to avoid those traps; just
awareness of your surroundings.
Other games are borderline-unfair, like Severance: Blade of Darkness.
Games with jumping puzzles, or difficult action bits where a mistake
means death.
> The worst is when things like this appear without any sort of
warning.
> You're walking along, and whoops! Trapdoor opens beneath your feet
and you
> fall to your death on the spikes below. Such deaths should either be
> completely removed, easily avoidable, or somehow recoverable, in that
death
> is not final.
I don't actually know any games which have deaths _that_ unfair.
Examples?
> -Not being able to experiment. For me, the most fun in a game
derives in
> playing in as many different ways as possible. That means being able
to
> explore new areas without the fear that you'll be killed instantly by
the
> first monster you see, or being able to try different things, like
what
> happens when you create a character who only fights bare-fisted or
other
> weird stuff like that. A "Death-is-final" system encourages players
to
> create "uber-builds", characters with only the best in equipment and
skills.
This is true; then again, a well-designed game will allow you to do all
these things without guaranteeing your death.
> -PKers. There are people who make it their sole purpose in life to
go out
> and ruin things for other people.
I don't play online much, so I can't really comment on this. I haven't
decided whether I'm going to play "Ironman" if/when I ever play WoW,
for example; I will certainly _try_, on an non-PK server, obviously.
> Anyhow, I think it's a fair bet to say there's just as many people on
either
> side of the fence, so it would be in the best interest of any game
> developper to have both options available. Some people enjoy the
thrill of
> only being allowed to die once, while others want the option to be
able to
> come back to life should the unthinkable occur. Forcing one or the
other
> style of play is not something that I think game developpers should
be
> doing. Rather, giving the player the option to choose how they want
to play
> the game is generally the best strategy.
I agree. Give us maniacs an "Ironman mode", and make saving painless
for the majority. Everyone gets their way.
Incidentally, even though I can (and do) play Ironman in any game, I
appreciate games with an explicit Ironman mode... because it shows that
the developers believe that the game _is_ completable on Ironman. That
is, it usually means that the game is "fair"; no unavoidable
deathtraps, no random instakills, no impossibly difficult bits. And I
think a fair game with decent--but not impossible--difficulty levels is
more fun for everyone, Ironman gamers and reloaders alike.
Laszlo
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram