233 réponses à ce sujet

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Punishing people for playing the game on low difficulty? No. That's not acceptable.

Why is that? There's nothing wrong with rewarding gamers who persevere with story-related rewards. Plenty of games do this already. If those people are really so disappointed about being denied content due to difficulty, then they can man up and increase the difficulty.

"Man up."

Do you "man up"? Do you "man up" sitting on the couch, staring at a screen, and pressing buttons on a plastic controller. Is that "manning up"?

Oh please, this again? Gaming requires certain physical and mental skills just like any other sport or hobby. You can downplay or belittle anything if you reduce it to its most basic essentials, as you did here with gaming. Would you dismiss a world chess champion because all they do is "move pieces of plastic on a board"?

Modifié par someguy1231, 21 août 2013 - 01:53 .

[KaiserShep]

What would be an example of a story related award granted for accomplishing the same exact mission on higher difficulty?

[someguy1231]

KaiserShep wrote...

What would be an example of a story related award granted for accomplishing the same exact mission on higher difficulty?

In Max Payne 2, the only way for Mona Sax to live in the end is to complete the game on the hardest difficulty.

[David7204]

Gaming's a 'sport' now, huh?

But you're wrong. And the reason is simple. The purpose of basketball is to play basketball. There's no other goal. The purpose of building model airplanes is to build model airplanes. There's no other goal. The purpose of pottery is to make pots . There's no other goal. There's no means to an end, it's an end in itself.

But there are goals to playing video games besides beating difficult levels. Like enjoying the story, for example. That's a huge one. It can and often is and means to an end. I've played through games with crap gameplay because I was interested in the story.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 01:56 .

[o Ventus]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You knew what I was talking about. No need to be such an obnoxious wise-ass. ;

It's not even objectively wrong. Game = interaction between man and machine through game-mechanics, resulting in gameplay.

Mass Effect has less gameplay, and more cinematics instead, hence Mass Effect is, in my opinion, less of a game that the old Fallouts, which have vastly more gameplay and more game-mechanics.

If you have to justify yourself with "in my opinion", then it isn't an objective truth. It isn't like there's a 1-10 scale of "gamey-ness" that each game adheres to. Otherwise, CoD is the most "game" game in human history.

The older XCOMs aren't "less" of a game because they removed the ability for the aliens to invade the players' bases, like they were able to do in the older games.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

Gaming's a 'sport' now, huh?

Games have been "sports" ever since the 80's. E-sports didn't take off until around 2005.

[David7204]

The only reward for beating a more challenging opponent in basketball in a casual game is the satisfaction of being a more challenging opponent. That's all you get. And that's absolutely enough.

Likewise, the only reward you should get for beating a game on harder difficulty is satisfaction from beating a game on harder difficulty. It shouldn't affect anything else. It's absolutely enough.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 01:59 .

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

Gaming's a 'sport' now, huh?

www.polygon.com/2013/7/12/4518936/competitive-gaming-recognized-in-u-s-as-a-pro-sport

Yes, it is.

David7204 wrote...
But you're wrong. And the reason is simple. The purpose of basketball is to play basketball. There's no other goal. The purpose of building model airplanes is to build model airplanes. There's no other goal. The purpose of pottery is to make pots . There's no other goal. There's no means to an end, it's an end in itself.

But there are goals to playing video games besides beating difficult levels. Like enjoying the story, for example. That's a huge one. It can and often is and means to an end.

And I believe that one of the ways to enjoy the story is (or should be) higher difficulty levels. If the game's story tells us the enemy is a deadly threat, they should feel that way in gameplay. In any case, it's irrelevant to me that there are multiple goals in games. I believe many story-based games should change the story in both minor and major ways depending on the difficulty. Difficulty levels can mean alot more than just giving enemies more health and higher damage.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

The only reward for beating a more challenging opponent in basketball in a casual game is the satisfaction of being a more challenging opponent. That's all you get. And that's absolutely enough.

Likewise, the only reward you should get for beating a game on harder difficulty is satisfaction from beating a game on harder difficulty. It shouldn't affect anything else. It's absolutely enough.

If's funny, the way you misuse the word "should".

[David7204]

It can make the game more challenging in other ways. But it shouldn't affect the story. The optimal way to play a video game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

Players should never be punished for enjoying themselves and rewarded for doing things that aren't fun.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 02:04 .

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

The only reward for beating a more challenging opponent in basketball in a casual game is the satisfaction of being a more challenging opponent. That's all you get. And that's absolutely enough.

For a casual game? Yes. For the NBA Finals? No.

David7204 wrote...
Likewise, the only reward you should get for beating a game on harder difficulty is satisfaction from beating a game on harder difficulty. It shouldn't affect anything else. It's absolutely enough.

Not all video games are equal. Nor are all basketball games, as I mentioned above. If basketball games can reward certain teams with the NBA Championship, then video games can reward certain players if they beat it on the hardest difficulty.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

It can make the game more challenging in other ways. But it shouldn't affect the story. The optimal way to play a video game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

Players should never be punished for enjoying themselves and rewarded for doing things that aren't fun.

Define "fun".

And be sure to do it objectively, because you seem unable to distinguish objectivity from subjectivity, judging by this tread.

Modifié par o Ventus, 21 août 2013 - 02:07 .

[David7204]

So then stop demanding Mass Effect be something it isn't and isn't going to be. Go play Dark Souls. Go play Ninja Gaiden. Go play Super Meat Boy. If Mass Effect isn't at fault, then it isn't at fault.

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

It can make the game more challenging in other ways. But it shouldn't affect the story. The optimal way to play a video game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

Players should never be punished for enjoying themselves and rewarded for doing things that aren't fun.

Like I said before, David, for some players (including me), the challenge is the fun. Stop assuming all gamers share your definition of "fun".

[KaiserShep]

Mass Effect's primary selling point has always been the story elements and how choices made by the player affect it anyway. Locking story content out based on combat difficulty would have been a mistake, and it's better that it doesn't have this.

[David7204]

And you can have that. You're completely free to play games on the hardest difficulty and enjoy the fun and satisfaction from the experience. Nobody is threatening that. You're perfectly free to enjoy the optimal story on the hardest difficulty and have fun.

Stop demanding that players who don't find that fun are punished.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 02:11 .

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

So then stop demanding Mass Effect be something it isn't and isn't going to be. Go play Dark Souls. Go play Ninja Gaiden. Go play Super Meat Boy. If Mass Effect isn't at fault, then it isn't at fault.

I never "demanded" anything. And I do play those other games (besides Dark Souls).

It's funny because prerelease statements (see the May 2011 Gameinformer cover feature) actually tote ME3 as being harder than the previous entries.

[KaiserShep]

Not sure how they could determine that ME3 was harder than the others. ME2 has a wild difficulty curve with its missions. Mordin and Garrus' recruitment missions are arguably more challenging than the first few missions of ME3 on normal difficulty. The Praetorian on Horizon is worse than Kai Leng on Cronos station on Normal. Let's not forget our beloved Krogan warlord in ME1 if you go to Therum first.

[o Ventus]

KaiserShep wrote...

Not sure how they could determine that ME3 was harder than the others. ME2 has a wild difficulty curve with its missions. Mordin and Garrus' recruitment missions are arguably more challenging than the first few missions of ME3 on normal difficulty. The Praetorian on Horizon is worse than Kai Leng on Cronos station on Normal. Let's not forget our beloved Krogan warlord in ME1 if you go to Therum first.

IIRC (because I don't have the magazine with me), the exact words were "about 30% more difficult", relative to the difficulty level. 

E.g. ME2 Normal is the same as ME3 Casual.

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

And you can have that. You're completely free to play games on the hardest difficulty and enjoy the fun and satisfaction from the experience. Nobody is threatening that. You're perfectly free to enjoy the optimal story on the hardest difficulty and have fun.

And I believe that integrating the game's difficulty into the story would be an excellent way to tie story into gameplay. Mass Effect has always claimed to be about player choice affecting the story. If the player is going to be spending at least half of the game in combat, why not work the way in which they experience that into the story too?

David7204 wrote...
Stop demanding that players who don't find that fun are punished.

No. They deserve it. They're the reason games are being dumbed down so much lately. Like I said earlier, cry me a river.

[The Heretic of Time]

o Ventus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You knew what I was talking about. No need to be such an obnoxious wise-ass. ;

It's not even objectively wrong. Game = interaction between man and machine through game-mechanics, resulting in gameplay.

Mass Effect has less gameplay, and more cinematics instead, hence Mass Effect is, in my opinion, less of a game that the old Fallouts, which have vastly more gameplay and more game-mechanics.

If you have to justify yourself with "in my opinion", then it isn't an objective truth.

So? It's not objectively wrong either (which is what you said). What IS an objective truth though is that Mass Effect has less gamplay and less RPG mechanics than for example the old Fallout games. I based my opinion on that fact.

[nevar00]

Well then that would be terrible.

Sorry but forced death of a main character in a supposed RPG?  Forced death of a squadmate?  In a side quest?  I'm not seeing the point of it other than "cheap emotional response".  Garrus is a cool guy and all but I don't see why he'd go and sacrifice his life for the Krogans in a random side mission.  That'd be lame.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Punishing people for playing the game on low difficulty? No. That's not acceptable.

Why is that? There's nothing wrong with rewarding gamers who persevere with story-related rewards. Plenty of games do this already. If those people are really so disappointed about being denied content due to difficulty, then they can man up and increase the difficulty.

"Man up."

Do you "man up"? Do you "man up" sitting on the couch, staring at a screen, and pressing buttons on a plastic controller? Is that "manning up"?

Yes.