Support NeoGAF

[Forceatowulf]

After 10 years and many tries I am finally getting into Devil May Cry. Being patient and looking at patterns is actually clicking and I made further than I ever had. Everything is cool except for one thing.

What kind of shit for brains thought limited continues and making you start a mission all the way over was a good idea?

It's the boss that's kicking my ass, don't waste my time and make me run through the entire level of respawning enemies for that!

Do the sequels get rid of this junk?

Jesus Christ. People aren't kidding when they say gamers are becoming more and more bitch-made. I mean how dare a game actually challenge you. *rolls eyes*

And if you're looking for something a little more light and with a truck load of checkpoints with little to no respawning enemies you should give Demon's/Dark souls a shot. It's very gamer friendly. I promise.

 

[spekkeh]

House rules are when players decide to make exceptions, or use their own set of rules as opposed to the standard/universal rules to play the game. [C'mon man you study game design.]

Right, but I didn't understand how that was related in anyway to what I said. Also I don't have house rules for simple board games. Also, house rules are generally designed to make the game better for you, so that feels tautological.

But the thing is, you're still downplaying the experiences you gain from those boardgames, such as social interaction, critical thinking, strategic approach, and building a strong metagame. No matter how much production values will placed in the game, at the end of the day, it's still a recreational activity like playing a sport, or how some of you like to compare to books and movies.

Erm how am I downplaying them exactly? You can be more liberal with the rules of board games, leading to interesting social dynamics, but in general they are much less authored experiences where the designer is trying to persuade you through the engenderment of motivation and volition and mediated presence.

The only prob with that, was that earlier, it was as if you were arguing to eradicate those games that reward players for skill. Or as if playing for skill was just an empty reason. It's as if you don't understand why people may find investing into mastery is worthwhile, thus can't respect it.

I do consider it a bit of a base reason. Games are by definition challenges that you overcome. You learned something and get feedback that you got better. This makes you feel good about yourself. You attribute this feeling onto the game. Nothing wrong with that, but I was laughing heartily about someone claiming that true gaming connoisseurs only like games that offer up a high challenge, when it's literally the most up front, simple, uboriginal and therefore (to me) least interesting thing about the games medium.

I never said it should be eradicated.

 

[shadowstar]

Aren't lives and continues a design element carried over from arcade, where the point is to make failure more common to force you to pay more? That need to pay more doesn't exist in the home environment.

When you think about the OP post though, he's complaining about where the checkpoint is as much as anything else.

What kind of shit for brains thought limited continues and making you start a mission all the way over was a good idea?

It's the boss that's kicking my ass, don't waste my time and make me run through the entire level of respawning enemies for that!

He doesn't like that if he fails he has to restart the entire level rather than just the boss fight. If he had infinite continues and infinite lives he would still have an issue with the game.

Also, as others have discussed and rogue-likes have proven, just because a mechanic was implemented to munch quarters, that doesn't mean it can't come to hold other value in terms of design such as challenge.

 

[shadowstar]

I do consider it a bit of a base reason. Games are by definition challenges that you overcome. You learned something and get feedback that you got better. This makes you feel good about yourself. You attribute this feeling onto the game. Nothing wrong with that, but I was laughing heartily about someone claiming that true gaming connoisseurs only like games that offer up a high challenge, when it's literally the most up front, simple, uboriginal and therefore (to me) least interesting thing about the games medium.

Well others disagree and they're not laughing at you. To me and many others in this thread, the challenge of a game is what we enjoy rather than just picking up a book or watching a movie. If I would've watched Journey rather than just played it, I would have the same experience. I can't replace the experience of winning a game of XCOM. I've personally felt way more for a fallen soldier in that game than most other characters a writer has written for me.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

For the next hour, this will be my new Lord and Master.

 

[Arc Christelle]

Right, but I didn't understand how that was related in anyway to what I said. Also I don't have house rules for simple board games. Also, house rules are generally designed to make the game better for you, so that feels tautological.

Not all the time, sometimes it leads to a disordered mess. But I usually avoid them unless I'm at a casino. House Rules or more or less of a mod, than the real thing. Although sometimes it can be fun. Also I didn't mean to sound harsh on you.

Erm how am I downplaying them exactly? You can be more liberal with the rules of board games, leading to interesting social dynamics, but in general they are much less authored experiences where the designer is trying to persuade you through the engenderment of motivation and volition and mediated presence.

I was referencing to the idea that such thoughts can't be invoked over a board game due to conversations that can take place during the game, but your reference to feelings invoked from a narrative driven game actually made me pause to wonder wouldn't it come off as pretentious to a certain extent? I mean most stories provoke some form of thought to a certain degree, but to the player who doesn't seek experience through narrative and beliefs have matured, wouldn't they become turned off by realizing the designer's attempt to make them question themselves or attitudes?

I do consider it a bit of a base reason. Games are by definition challenges that you overcome. You learned something and get feedback that you got better. This makes you feel good about yourself. You attribute this feeling onto the game. Nothing wrong with that, but I was laughing heartily about someone claiming that true gaming connoisseurs only like games that offer up a high challenge, when it's literally the most up front, simple, uboriginal and therefore (to me) least interesting thing about the games medium.

Key word is bolded man. I don't know if you ever spent time trying to experiment with games to discover obtuse methods and shenanigans to abuse the system, but a lot of us get off of that. In irony, I see people who play just for the narrative are like kids who eat the toppings off of pizza and leave the rest.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

Aren't lives and continues a design element carried over from arcade, where the point is to make failure more common to force you to pay more? That need to pay more doesn't exist in the home environment.

Moreover, one could argue it artificially expands the length of the experience. Sure, it's possible to have fun and be rewarded for spending 10-15 hours beating a game that can be speed run in less than 30 minutes, but games have grown and can provide 10-15 hour experiences regardless of your skill level.

How is it "artificial"? A few months ago I played Ghouls 'n Ghosts and restarted the game every time I had to continue. After about ten hours of play, I one-credit-cleared the game. What makes those ten hours where I learned each level less valid than the ten hours it might take to beat an easier game with minimal deaths?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

How is it "artificial"? A few months ago I played Ghouls 'n Ghosts and restarted the game every time I had to continue. After about ten hours of play, I one-credit-cleared the game. What makes those ten hours where I learned each level less valid than the ten hours it might take to beat an easier game with minimal deaths?

Just depends, again, on why one plays games.

I play games for the narrative, experiencing the atmosphere, level design, graphics, sound etc. So replaying a few levels over and over for ten hours isn't going to give me anywhere near the same enjoyment as a ten-hour, narrative-driven game where I die little and am constantly progressing through new content.

Whereas someone that plays for challenge isn't going to like narrative-driven games as much, and will really enjoy something like Ghouls 'N Ghosts and not be at all put off by replaying levels until mastering them all.

Just different strokes for different folks. I'm smart enough to avoid skill-based games like that, and presumably the skill-based gamers are wise enough to steer clear of easy narrative-focused games. So I'm not sure why there's so much bitching between the two groups. There are plenty of games out there for both camps.

 

[SeventhSon]

Once our gaming language changed from "I beat the game" to "I finished the game" we crossed the line from "games" to "content" (often measured in time scale) indicating an impoverishment of the medium, in my opinion.

 

[Tain]

I'm just saying that this 'only people that play for challenge are interested in games' is a demonstrably bogus assertion.

He didn't even say that, unless you for some weird reason consider "novelty" and "challenge" to be two ends of a spectrum.

but idk, you got the phd lol

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Sometimes it's more rewarding when a game forces you to give up, take a deep breath, come back a few days even weeks later, try try again and then finally succeed.

 

[PaulloDEC]

Or we could let some games keep them if appropriate. Binning them would make relatively short shmups and run-and-gun games like Contra IV way too easy. If I could just restart on the same level every time the game would have lasted me two days at best, the whole point is to get better so you want to replay it rather than some modern, lengthy disposable games where you get to the end due to having no real chance of failure and any sense of achievement at completion is just non-existent. The developers wanted to make sure you saw the ending so they did everything bar have the enemies roll over and die as soon as they spawn, and even then they give you infinite lives, regenerating health, infinite continues and saves every ten metres.

That kind of logic led to checkpoint-filled games in which you can use brute force to pass every challenge. You are not asked to master the game's ruleset, you're asked to master the task at hand and move on, like a student who is asked to learn the content of one chapter in his textbook at the time - only to forget it after the test is over.

It's your opinion, yes, but it's not a very good one IMO. This is discrediting the history of the industry, countless classics and genres.

Whether a game has a lives system or not, is an intentional design choice. Devs shouldn't be lamblasted for choosing it.

You all make valid points, and I'll admit I was being a little blunt for effect.

My ideal scenario would be for devs to offer up more options in regards to difficulty right across the board. Keep the lives system for the players who crave an old-school challenge, but for the love of god give put in a lives-free mode for those of us who suck (and/or don't have the time or patience to become grand-masters at every game we play).

A lot of games (maybe even most games) have the reputation among the public of being super-exclusionary simply because they take time to learn. I'm definitely not saying we should be targeting difficulty at those people, but it'd be nice if we could shut them out a little less than we are now.

 

[demidar]

Sounds like God Hand's difficulty system is what people are after.

 

[spekkeh]

He didn't even say that, unless you for some weird reason consider "novelty" and "challenge" to be two ends of a spectrum.

but idk, you got the phd lol

You're right. In a sense they kind of are when you look at player motivations, but of course they're not diametrically opposed; someone like me does like a challenge, and riposte probably doesn't want to play the same game over and over again. I dunno maybe his immediate dismissal of the opinion of people that play for different reasons than his (and other people cheering that line of thinking on) just rubbed me all the wrong way.

 

[Raonak]

I totally agree the yellow orb system in DMC is fucking awful. luckily they fixed it up nicely in dmc3se and 4.
and this is coming from a seasoned DMC fan.

 

[Kageshinzo]

One of the best experiences I had in gaming was when I finally beat The Goonies on the Famicom when I was around 7 or 8. I was so happy that I jumped up, looked at my best friend in their house next door through the window with arms raised in triumph and, in the process, tripped the power cord and broke the Famicom's AC adapter which was plugged into a socket a couple of feet above the floor.

The adapter was fixed although it hadn't become as robust from then on. But that didn't matter because I beat the damn game after days of starting from scratch after every game over. It was an awesome feeling.

OP, stop being a scrub and push on.

 

[Odoul]

YA THRUST YA PELVIS, HUNH!

Ten years late but I filled that harlot's dark soul with light.

I'd like to restate my distaste for this tired mechanic.

A special fuck you to the guy who designed that runaround before the third Nero Angelus fight.

Nice of the game to drop the annoyance before a boss on the last fight.

PS. Nightmare was the suckiest boss in the game. NO reason he needed to be fought three times, when we got Phantom only twice.

PSS. What should be next? Part 3 SE (which I have), 2 (which I hear is rather shitty, but I like chronology/order in my entertainment)?

 

[FoxSpirit]

Propably part 3 SE.

Also, you dislike the mechanic. But you like the pelvis thrusting, don't cha. ;-)

That said, replaying Contra 4. Huzzah. Almost reached the end of stage 2 already on day 1.

 

[Mesoian]

YA THRUST YA PELVIS, HUNH!

Ten years late but I filled that harlot's dark soul with light.

I'd like to restate my distaste for this tired mechanic.

A special fuck you to the guy who designed that runaround before the third Nero Angelus fight.

Nice of the game to drop the annoyance before a boss on the last fight.

PS. Nightmare was the suckiest boss in the game. NO reason he needed to be fought three times, when we got Phantom only twice.

PSS. What should be next? Part 3 SE (which I have), 2 (which I hear is rather shitty, but I like chronology/order in my entertainment)?

3SE, then Bayonetta, then NGS+.

Wonderful 101 for a pallet cleanser.

 

[Blood Diamonds]

I remember when I couldn't beat Cerberus when I first played DMC 3 :")