300 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

There's nothing reasonable about coming into a thread and putting up a red herring to try and counter the thread starter's valid argument.

[Rawgrim]

Yrkoon wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
So, Yrkoon, when you say you know what triggers and successful map tranisition and what doesn't, that indicates that there are mechanics that are not part of the lore,

Says who?  Of course they're part of the lore.   They're also completely  ingame-logical.   An area transition means You're traveling to someplace else.  e.g.   leaving a Building, or Entering a building, or leaving a city, or taking the stairs to the next or previous level.  If you're traveling with a party, then that is exactly what the game is assuming that you're doing:  Traveling. With your party.

And as mentioned by someone else above, you also have the choice to go into the party arbitration screen and Dismiss your party members, thereby allowing you to use that area transition  by yourself, while the rest of your party stays put, right where you left them. As you ordered them to.

This  is in Huge *HUGE* contrast to what  Sylvius is talking about, which is when the game instantly locks a door behind you, arbitrarily, when you did not  order it closed, when you did not trigger an  area transition; when you didn't leave an area at all;   when you didn't do ANYTHING but pass through an open  doorway within the map you're already in.....   And then, this door stays locked, no matter what you do, until the Room's boss is slain, and then the door  just magically swings back open, as if by ESP.  

There is NO purpose or explanantion for such a stupid,  artificial, forced combat-limitation mechanic  except to insure that:  1)  the devs precious cutscenes don't get screwed up, and 2) that their awesome-sauce Boss encounter phases all occur smoothly, without that pesky player getting in the way of the  "plan" with  his/her own creative  strategies  (perish the thought!).

You hit the nail on the head, Sir.

[Fast Jimmy]

AmstradHero wrote...

I never intended nor wanted this to turn into a debate about the BG series, but was merely using that as an example of how arbitrary limitations on movement have existed in BioWare games for a very long time, but apparently the nuance of this was lost because ERMAGERD BG IS PURFEKT.

I feel this is a little disingenious. Why bring up BG at all, except to say "Here's BG, the supposed perfect RPG. And it has examples of gameplay/story segregation! Therefore it is acceptable in all games, for the remainder of history."

BG is a great game/series. But pointing out that it has a flaw doesn't mean that every game created after it can have flaws as well. Its a shallow argument.

Unfortunately the BioWare forums are apparently no longer a place where you get more reasoned debate than not, and that is a shame.

I'm sorry you feel this way. 

[AmstradHero]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

I never intended nor wanted this to turn into a debate about the BG series, but was merely using that as an example of how arbitrary limitations on movement have existed in BioWare games for a very long time, but apparently the nuance of this was lost because ERMAGERD BG IS PURFEKT.

I feel this is a little disingenious. Why bring up BG at all, except to say "Here's BG, the supposed perfect RPG. And it has examples of gameplay/story segregation! Therefore it is acceptable in all games, for the remainder of history."

BG is a great game/series. But pointing out that it has a flaw doesn't mean that every game created after it can have flaws as well. Its a shallow argument.

Like I said, I don't disagree that the locking doors issue can be handled differently, but that there are also other design considerations involved in making those changes. But people apparently don't want to discuss the larger issues involved, which is a loss.

Yes, the reason I brought up BG is because so many people think is it the best game ever, but pointing out that it has the exact same flaws (albeit in a different form) that people bash current games for. The flaws are still present in those old games, but they were there for different reasons and people learned how to game their way around them therefore those players no longer consider them flaws. This is the hypocrisy inherent in the system, and I hate it, and I really don't like how as soon as anyone says anything negative about these old games they are <insert pejorative>.

Again, note that I said that I'm also not a massive fan of locking doors, but I understand the technical reasons why they are there and why they can be difficult to avoid. I'm not saying that is desirable to have potential weaknesses in game design continually appear in games, but at the same time, I hate when people say certain flaws never existed in older games when that's patently false.

I agree that there are some things that BG did better than modern games, but there are definitely areas where modern games do them better. Then there are some areas where both modern and older games have exactly the same flaw, but presented in a slightly different fashion. That's what we have here.

This thread is a great example of why I've been disappointed in the forums of late. I (or someone else) will make a comparison like this, and the rebuttal is "but that's not an area transition, therefore it's completely different" - or a similarly superficial response without consideration of the functional purpose a particular aspect serves within the context of the overall game design. There simply don't seem to be many people willing or interested in making a deeper and more comprehensive analysis of the game design issues as stake but instead focussing on their own pet gripes and complaints because they didn't like feature X and Y from DA:O/DA2. The forums use to have those people, and the discussions were really interesting. It seems that a lot of the forum now is just a superficial complaints session.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 15 décembre 2012 - 02:05 .

[TheRealJayDee]

I've recently bought Baldur's Gate on gog.com and tried getting into it, and although I made it farther than back in the 90s I just couldn't really connect with the game. Whatever this game did or did not has no influence on my support of the OPs plea, which I find reasonable. Also I do not think that the area transisiton mechanic from BG is the same thing as the arbitrarily locked doors issue at hand.

I don't think people are generally opposed to discussing the similarities and differences of recurring game design issues, but neither do I think "but BG did something somewhat similar to this first, but you don't want to talk about this cause you glorify that game and the forums suck anyways" is a good way to start such a discussion.

[AlanC9]

AmstradHero wrote...

Because Sylvius got people arguing and some of them agreed with his case study for different reasons. Now that he considers that he has "won", he has left. That's pretty normal for him.

I never intended nor wanted this to turn into a debate about the BG series, but was merely using that as an example of how arbitrary limitations on movement have existed in BioWare games for a very long time, but apparently the nuance of this was lost because ERMAGERD BG IS PURFEKT.

Unfortunately the BioWare forums are apparently no longer a place where you get more reasoned debate than not, and that is a shame.

I'm not sure Sylvius evaluates these debates in won/lost terms.

As for the substance, I think I said my piece upthread. We get unrealism either way, whether it's silly AI reactions or silly locked doors. So there's no realism option here.

I don't have any problem with using AI exploits when they're available, but I'm certainly not mad at designers who take them away.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 décembre 2012 - 11:15 .

[Rawgrim]

AmstradHero wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

I never intended nor wanted this to turn into a debate about the BG series, but was merely using that as an example of how arbitrary limitations on movement have existed in BioWare games for a very long time, but apparently the nuance of this was lost because ERMAGERD BG IS PURFEKT.

I feel this is a little disingenious. Why bring up BG at all, except to say "Here's BG, the supposed perfect RPG. And it has examples of gameplay/story segregation! Therefore it is acceptable in all games, for the remainder of history."

BG is a great game/series. But pointing out that it has a flaw doesn't mean that every game created after it can have flaws as well. Its a shallow argument.

Like I said, I don't disagree that the locking doors issue can be handled differently, but that there are also other design considerations involved in making those changes. But people apparently don't want to discuss the larger issues involved, which is a loss.

Yes, the reason I brought up BG is because so many people think is it the best game ever, but pointing out that it has the exact same flaws (albeit in a different form) that people bash current games for. The flaws are still present in those old games, but they were there for different reasons and people learned how to game their way around them therefore those players no longer consider them flaws. This is the hypocrisy inherent in the system, and I hate it, and I really don't like how as soon as anyone says anything negative about these old games they are <insert pejorative>.

Again, note that I said that I'm also not a massive fan of locking doors, but I understand the technical reasons why they are there and why they can be difficult to avoid. I'm not saying that is desirable to have potential weaknesses in game design continually appear in games, but at the same time, I hate when people say certain flaws never existed in older games when that's patently false.

I agree that there are some things that BG did better than modern games, but there are definitely areas where modern games do them better. Then there are some areas where both modern and older games have exactly the same flaw, but presented in a slightly different fashion. That's what we have here.

This thread is a great example of why I've been disappointed in the forums of late. I (or someone else) will make a comparison like this, and the rebuttal is "but that's not an area transition, therefore it's completely different" - or a similarly superficial response without consideration of the functional purpose a particular aspect serves within the context of the overall game design. There simply don't seem to be many people willing or interested in making a deeper and more comprehensive analysis of the game design issues as stake but instead focussing on their own pet gripes and complaints because they didn't like feature X and Y from DA:O/DA2. The forums use to have those people, and the discussions were really interesting. It seems that a lot of the forum now is just a superficial complaints session.

Having to gather your party before entering the map or a different hub in the game, isn`t the same as locking the players inside a room (for no reason) each time they encounter a boss.

[Sir JK]

The point, however, is that neither is a more realistic/verisimilar abstraction. Doors automatically closing under combat is not inherently more verisimilar than invisble walls hanging in the air that the entire party have to cross together or never eating despite food and hunger being said to be part of the setting. They're all abstractions intended to gloss over things.

The doors stand out as particularly jarring, yes. They're considerably less subtle than the other two examples suggested. But not having a problem with area transitions or hunger while complaining about the doors is disingenious because all it does is show that you apply arguments for verisimillitude/realism selectively. It pretty much says that you're fine with unrealistic elements, just not that one.

But more crucially, it obfuscates what you actually want. Instead or aguing about it from a realism perspective, discuss what you want to gain from having the doors not auto-close. Arguing in favour of scouting, or using the enviroment to your advantage or any other tangible reason you may want.
Atmosphere is great and all... but the sensation of it is largely subjective and a largely useless metric. Arguing against something based on the benefits it restricts however, is far more honest and much more useful. Then we're discussing gain and loss, which makes it much easier to see what we get out of something rather than if a largely arbitrary distinguishing line is crossed or not.

Besides... if the only problem is with autoclosing doors, then technically the problem could be "solved" by having an area transition into the boss' arena. That way there's no autoclosing doors and thus the "realism" has been upheld and the players have to fight the boss the way the designers wanted it to be fought.
But that's not really the outcome anyone in this thread wants, is it?

[Fast Jimmy]

To use a poor analogy, the suspension of disbelief is a magic trick.

We, as gamers, understand that the trick is going on. We understand that the magician needs to hide the ball under a blanket before making it disappear, or pulling a rabbit out of a hat instead of just magically making it appear in their hands.

Locking the doors behind us is tantamount to this magic trick.

[HTTP 404]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Memory constraints.

If not for this console peasants would have their dilapidated contraptions burnt to ash.

this is very true but I don't think the constraints are because of the console "peasants" or that you are a PC "snob" but the constraint of the engine bioware used in DA2.  Maybe the new engine can handle this in DA3.

Also I want to point to Skyrim on the consoles still remember how you left an area down to the dagger you drop in some random bear cave.

[AmstradHero]

Rojahar wrote...
You'd think they'd want to improve on their attempted illusion to make it less jarring and obvious (or at least consider it), rather than just rudely deriding and dismissing Sylvius for offering constructive criticism.

The problem is that Sylvius is well known by the developers and other forum members for his repetitious arguments pushing his own agenda because he wants games to custom made for him and to hell with anyone else's preferences because they're breaking the reality of the world and his particular brand of roleplaying. There's only so many times you can go on the roundabout before it gets boring.

That aside, as I've stated before, this isn't a straightforward problem and there are many things to consider, but many that have jumped on Sylvius' bandwagon are bogged down in the superficial concerns or their specific likes and dislikes as opposed to the full gamut of gameplay design issues at hand. That's shortsighted and useless in the context of the entire gaming experience.

Part of the issue at hand limitations due to AI and cutscene requirements, but also the desire to force players to learn and engage in new combat strategies that the game and its designers are trying to teach them because those tricks can/will be needed in order to succeed in future fights. Boss fights or encounters with limitations are trying to teach players those new tricks because they'll likely need them for future encounters, and if the players can simply retreat or otherwise game their way around the situation, they're going to hit a massive brick wall in the future and they'll likely stop playing the game in rage and frustration. That is not a desirable situation.

Another issue to consider is that RPGs are generally considered to have exploration as a key part of their gameplay. The ability for players to go forward and back throughout levels in order to cover old ground to retrieve loot they didn't pick up before, solve puzzles or the like is at odds with the need to create enclosed encounters and push gameplay.. Push gameplay is far easier to achieve in a 1st/3rd person game with height differentials, physics or similar mechanics that allow designers to permanently shut off a return path, but many RPG fans dislike this as well because they more actively feel like they're being pushed along a particular path when compared to other genres that implement the same tactics. Temporarily locked doors or other such equivalent setting-based mechanisms provide the required push mechanics to ensure the player keeps moving forward towards the set goal that they must reach in order to progress the game, but subsequently allow the potential for players to explore (in case they missed something the first time) or re-explore.

Both of these are key game design issues at stake in terms of managing these encounters - which people seem to want to happily dismiss because "it's not like BG" or "it's not completely realistic". Instead we've had people provide "arguments" like "it's different and I don't like it". Not only do those arguments provide zero evidence to support their case, they're also incredibly shallow and boring.

What I would like to see is some constructive critique, proper mechanic analysis, and alternative ideas so as to
have a proper meaty discussion about these (and other) design issues. Please feel free to step up to the plate.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 17 décembre 2012 - 05:59 .

[Rawgrim]

AmstradHero wrote...

Rojahar wrote...
You'd think they'd want to improve on their attempted illusion to make it less jarring and obvious (or at least consider it), rather than just rudely deriding and dismissing Sylvius for offering constructive criticism.

The problem is that Sylvius is well known by the developers and other forum members for his repetitious arguments pushing his own agenda because he wants games to custom made for him and to hell with anyone else's preferences because they're breaking the reality of the world and his particular brand of roleplaying. There's only so many times you can go on the roundabout before it gets boring.

That aside, as I've stated before, this isn't a straightforward problem and there are many things to consider, but many that have jumped on Sylvius' bandwagon are bogged down in the superficial concerns or their specific likes and dislikes as opposed to the full gamut of gameplay design issues at hand. That's shortsighted and useless in the context of the entire gaming experience.

Part of the issue at hand limitations due to AI and cutscene requirements, but also the desire to force players to learn and engage in new combat strategies that the game and its designers are trying to teach them because those tricks can/will be needed in order to succeed in future fights. Boss fights or encounters with limitations are trying to teach players those new tricks because they'll likely need them for future encounters, and if the players can simply retreat or otherwise game their way around the situation, they're going to hit a massive brick wall in the future and they'll likely stop playing the game in rage and frustration. That is not a desirable situation.

Another issue to consider is that RPGs are generally considered to have exploration as a key part of their gameplay. The ability for players to go forward and back throughout levels in order to cover old ground to retrieve loot they didn't pick up before, solve puzzles or the like is at odds with the need to create enclosed encounters and push gameplay.. Push gameplay is far easier to achieve in a 1st/3rd person game with height differentials, physics or similar mechanics that allow designers to permanently shut off a return path, but many RPG fans dislike this as well because they more actively feel like they're being pushed along a particular path when compared to other genres that implement the same tactics. Temporarily locked doors or other such equivalent setting-based mechanisms provide the required push mechanics to ensure the player keeps moving forward towards the set goal that they must reach in order to progress the game, but subsequently allow the potential for players to explore (in case they missed something the first time) or re-explore.

Both of these are key game design issues at stake in terms of managing these encounters - which people seem to want to happily dismiss because "it's not like BG" or "it's not completely realistic". Instead we've had people provide "arguments" like "it's different and I don't like it". Not only do those arguments provide zero evidence to support their case, they're also incredibly shallow and boring.

What I would like to see is some constructive critique, proper mechanic analysis, and alternative ideas so as to
have a proper meaty discussion about these (and other) design issues. Please feel free to step up to the plate.

Once again you are completely missing the point. Sylvius, and others, are voicing constructive criticism. Wanting things in a game that makes sense, is not a bad thing. Immersion and suspension of disbelief is an important factor in rpgs (for most people).

Temporary locked doors is not a setting based mechanic. If it was based on the setting somehow, it would be in the Lore of Thedas.

"its different, and I don`t like it". Not sure if i have seen anyone actually say that, but i can understand if they did. If you have an element that works well in games, and everyone is happy with it, why change it? And why change it to something alot of people don`t like? You allready had a winner. Keep using it.

Lots of people have offered plenty reasonable and well thought out explanations and "evidence". You just keep ignoring it.


And still you ask for constructive criticism and whatsnot. the thread is full of it. Read it.

[AmstradHero]

Rawgrim wrote...
Once again you are completely missing the point. Sylvius, and others, are voicing constructive criticism. Wanting things in a game that makes sense, is not a bad thing. Immersion and suspension of disbelief is an important factor in rpgs (for most people).

"its different, and I don`t like it". Not sure if i have seen anyone actually say that, but i can understand if they did.

No wonder you can understand, because you were one of those people.

Rawgrim wrote...
Having to gather your party before entering the map or a different hub in the game, isn`t the same as locking the players inside a room (for no reason) each time they encounter a boss.

I pointed out at length, why area transition limitations were exactly the same mechanically - in that they were constraining player movement until particular criteria were met. Your retort? "it isn't the same". As I said, there's no evidence to back up your claim except "no, it's not"

Rawgrim wrote...
Lots of people have offered plenty reasonable and well thought out explanations and "evidence". You just keep ignoring it.
And still you ask for constructive criticism and whatsnot. the thread is full of it. Read it.

Perhaps you should read the thread again. I've offered lengthy discussions as to the gameplay considerations involved and their ramifications. I've even said that I don't necessarily think locking doors is a good thing but I've established alternatives and the problems involved with them. I, Sir JK, and others, have explained that there are a multitude of abstractions and disconnects between the reality of the setting and the mechanics and design of the game.

You quoted my entire last post filled with alternative discussion threads about game design and ignored every single one to come back to your one line of "Temporary locked doors is not a setting based mechanic." The only reason I can see you doing this is that you don't even want to have a discussion, you just want to argue.

As such, I see no point wasting any more time on providing rebuttal to arguments that are bereft of evidence or depth.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 17 décembre 2012 - 07:11 .

[Rawgrim]

AmstradHero wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Once again you are completely missing the point. Sylvius, and others, are voicing constructive criticism. Wanting things in a game that makes sense, is not a bad thing. Immersion and suspension of disbelief is an important factor in rpgs (for most people).

"its different, and I don`t like it". Not sure if i have seen anyone actually say that, but i can understand if they did.

No wonder you can understand, because you were one of those people.

Rawgrim wrote...
Having to gather your party before entering the map or a different hub in the game, isn`t the same as locking the players inside a room (for no reason) each time they encounter a boss.

I pointed out at length, why area transition limitations were exactly the same mechanically - in that they were constraining player movement until particular criteria were met. Your retort? "it isn't the same". As I said, there's no evidence to back up your claim except "no, it's not"

Rawgrim wrote...
Lots of people have offered plenty reasonable and well thought out explanations and "evidence". You just keep ignoring it.
And still you ask for constructive criticism and whatsnot. the thread is full of it. Read it.

Perhaps you should read the thread again. I've offered lengthy discussions as to the gameplay considerations involved and their ramifications. I've even said that I don't necessarily think locking doors is a good thing but I've established alternatives and the problems involved with them. I, Sir JK, and others, have explained that there are a multitude of abstractions and disconnects between the reality of the setting and the mechanics and design of the game.

You quoted my entire last post filled with alternative discussion threads about game design and ignored every single one to come back to your one line of "Temporary locked doors is not a setting based mechanic." The only reason I can see you doing this is that you don't even want to have a discussion, you just want to argue.

As such, I see no point wasting any more time on providing rebuttal to arguments that are bereft of evidence or depth.

You are just bein deliberatly daft now.

[Yrkoon]

AmstradHero wrote...

Rojahar wrote...
You'd think they'd want to improve on their attempted illusion to make it less jarring and obvious (or at least consider it), rather than just rudely deriding and dismissing Sylvius for offering constructive criticism.

The problem is that Sylvius is well known by the developers and other forum members for his repetitious arguments pushing his own agenda because he wants games to custom made for him and to hell with anyone else's preferences because they're breaking the reality of the world and his particular brand of roleplaying. There's only so many times you can go on the roundabout before it gets boring.

Except that there seems to be tons of  community agreement with his stance here.  Funny that.

Maybe you should read this thread again.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 décembre 2012 - 12:32 .

[Nightdragon8]

Well.. the Arishok duel... in DA2.... I mean honestly.... I think at that one time I could have given the thumbs up for a quicktime event... beacause handling it in the classic DA way.... ouch....

Honestly maybe not a quicktime event but it really needed to be handled better....

[Raydenos256]

David Gaider wrote...

esper wrote...
Whille it would be much better if it was always justified, I think this is just one of these examples where gameplay thrumps story ntegration.

Pathfinding, enemy ai, combat design and so forth have to be taken into consideration and for it to work sometimes it will have to be restricted to a certain area.

This is indeed the case. While I won't speak for the gameplay designers on the matter, this really seems to be one of those things where what seems to be reasonable in theory adds an incredible amount of complexity in practice.

I cannot believe that in the age we live in, it is that hard to write a dynamic AI which is "self aware", which does not require set paths to move and to act, and to see how big is the room in which it is and obstacles are in front of it.

I can understand that in the times of good old Baldur's gate this was not possible because of the lack of computing power, but we've got 2013 people  please make it so the AI driven enemies aren't just "scripted dummies" which cannot do anything other than what they have been scripted to do, and act only within a specific room.

If the AI could "think" for itself, every encounter with the same boss/enemy would be different because it would react to what my characters are doing and act accordingly, anticipating my actions and trying to stop me from performing them. That's how a human being would act and I would not expect anything less from the "self aware" AI.

This would add (a lot) to the game's replayablility.

Modifié par Raydenos256, 15 janvier 2013 - 11:23 .

[Raydenos256]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You didn't used to artificially constrain encounters. This is a relatively new feature in BioWare's games.

Therefore, it cannot be necessary.

This is making the assumption that our games are functionally created and executed in the exact same way (on the same platforms, for the exact same purposes).

They aren't.

There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation. There cannot be.

Sure there is. It's why someone can take 50 shots in combat, and survive gigantic explosions and being turned into solid ice, but during a cinematic a single crossbow bolt that hits is deadly.

Combat gameplay has always been an abstraction element of RPGs, going back to PnP. Once it became visual, it was still a visual abstraction. This is the way it's always been. It's a bunch of rules compiled together in order to make something fun and enjoyable. Justifications exist to explain the abstractions since the abstractions make it inherently unrealistic, but they're just justifications.

The player's decision-making would be rendered impossible by such a divide.

Players do it all the time. They have no problems one shot "murder-knifing" someone, when their counterpart takes 200 bludgeoning hits to the head while on fire in the combat immediately preceding said murder-knifing.

Great idea Alan. Why don't you guys make a difficulty mode in which IT IS REAL. I mean, one crossbow shot kills, both our character and our enemies, where the enemies have the same "power" as we do, where the enemy can be as deadly as we are, but at the same time let us avoid shot by ducking, dodging, using mana shield etc.

This would really make an exciting combat encounters for your most dedicated players :-)

Modifié par Raydenos256, 15 janvier 2013 - 11:25 .

[AlexJK]

Raydenos256 wrote...

I cannot believe that in the age we live in, it is that hard to write a dynamic AI which is "self aware", which does not require set paths to move and to act, and to see how big is the room in which it is and obstacles are in front of it.

I can understand that in the times of good old Baldur's gate this was not possible because of the lack of computing power, but we've got 2013 people  please make it so the AI driven enemies aren't just "scripted dummies" which cannot do anything other than what they have been scripted to do, and act only within a specific room.

If the AI could "think" for itself, every encounter with the same boss/enemy would be different because it would react to what my characters are doing and act accordingly, anticipating my actions and trying to stop me from performing them. That's how a human being would act and I would not expect anything less from the "self aware" AI.

This would add (a lot) to the game's replayablility.

I think you've misunderstood or misinterpreted something. AI routines are certainly not limited in the way you seem to think; enemy AI is more than capable of reacting to what your characters are doing. RPG mechanics do get in the way of this, however, for example threat generation. Human players know that it is completely illogical to keep bashing the enemy tank while the archers and mages pick them apart from a distance. There's nothing stopping the AI from reacting that way too, except for established RPG mechanics that say it shouldn't.

As to whether it will antipate your actions and "try to stop you from performing them", it's not a matter of "can it" but "should it". Would that be fun? I think that might be in part what David is referring to.

Modifié par AlexJK, 15 janvier 2013 - 11:35 .

[Jonata]

Nonsense.

Arguing about this particular game feature is like arguing about RPGs having levels and spells listed in a HUD or a game having the pause button. It's a videogame, guys. It has to have certain features in order to be played.

[FoxShadowblade]

I'd rather the game be so damn good it draws me continually forward.

If I turn around, the game is doing something wrong.

[nicethugbert]

I agree. It comes across as cheap, thoughtless.