Support NeoGAF

[Red Scarlet]

all of these are bad luck which doesn't really factor on any skill. you equip something to help out with it if you can.

Poker involves skill and luck. Try a low level game. It isn't simply a 'read what is on a paper and it will go perfectly'. I can link you the first half of my FF1 on PS1 video where I was around level 9 at the halfway point of the game. Ask Dragona about doing a low level FF6 run; it isn't just following directions from something written, either. Also there's the whole thing with trying something out on your own; there's nothing to 'follow' aside from what you know and have learned about the game and performing (like a solo game in this or that; I did one for DQ3,4,5,8 on my own without any prior knowledge about how doable they were or where I could get stuck, some badguys that were something to scoff at in a regular play can become deadly and if you are good at it, you may overcome them. You may be lucky in some cases too).

I am in the glacier area of FF7 around level 24 from just reading. My higher than lowest level is just from collecting enemy skills and because I don't kill off 2 people before ending bosses.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. Any game is easier if you read what to do. However, just reading is not enough whether the game in question is some boss in Halo, a tricky puzzle in a Metroid game, or a strong boss/area in an rpg.

I should have said for me about little stimulation. What if I add the stipulation of not limiting oneself though? I find that playing a final fantasy game normally it's very simplistic for me and is easy. do anything obvious to reduce damage(protect type things), heal when you feel you need to, repeat maximum damage attack on all other turns. am I missing something that can make this more fun?

I'm sorry if i made you mad by picking on a genre you like. i used to love it myself.

Well, in more balanced games, the really strong attacks sap a lot of your 'power potential' (typically MP), so in those you can maybe do the really strong attack a couple times and then be low on MP and can't do that anymore. As for FF games, it depends on the game. I try to use the weakest attack I can that does the job to conserve resources instead of blowing stuff away.

I'm currently playing through Lunar, trying to finally go through it. And I don't know why, but some regular battles can be really hectic to survive and not get wasted. And depending on the character, I may only be able to use the strong attack that does good damage to badguys a handful of times and that's it. So I have to weigh my options and try to be stocked up on stuff to recover HP or MP. It seems to matter on the specific game in question..some can probably be blown away by using super strong stuff constantly, while others appear to not allow the player to do that and have to decide when it's good to use a strong spell or to use weaker ones or conserve MP. At least that's how it is to me.

I've played through some rpg's and other games 40+ times, and there are still some parts that I may have problems with in a normal play or specialized play. And some of those times I still breathe a big sigh of relief after getting past the part in question. And that's part of why I keep coming back.

Do I even really like RPG's anymore though? All I mainly play are two specific series and for one, I'm not a big fan of almost half of the games in them.

I'd like to imagine that I can play some games, rpg's or not, semi-quickly or effectively because I am at least decent at playing them and performing well while playing. I count being able to beat a boss in an action game and beating a boss at level 5 instead of 10 as the same type of thing; skill and knowledge gained from playing the game and trying to go through more efficiently.

 

[Lapsed]

Attention to Anihawk and Amir0x : Lapsed incoming .

He'd probably say that's because games before where more like arcade games, meaning a high difficulty level, frequent deaths, and simple addictive gameplay.

:lol I wasn't going to jump in this thread, but after that post I now feel obligated. I'm on the same wavelength as Fresquito.

The business model for the games industry in the 80s was the arcades. (The 8-bit and 16-bit home consoles would then mimic the arcades at home.) Each arcade machine would use flashy graphics and outside art to attract a potential customer. After a quarter (or two), the game had limited time to 'win' over the customer. If the game wasn't fun for the first few minutes, the customer would think the game sucks and move to another machine. It was critical that the game be addictive and fun immediately. But since the target was the customer's quarters, high difficulty meant frequent continues which equaled frequent quarters. (It's worth noting that Miyamoto's game design education came from the arcades and from analyzing arcade gamers' reactions.)

Somewhere along the line, the business model changed with an emphasis for content. In order to get a one time $50 from a customer, games put emphasis on their 'content', on their 'huge worlds', their 'epic stories', or whatever else. As Fresquito says, multiplayer experiences remain with an empahasis on playing. However, games sell mostly due to their single playing experience. Lack of a lengthy single player experience often kills a sale since a gamer fears "Oh no, I will beat it soon and get bored."

One area I think is fascinating is the MMORPG business model. These games started out with subscriptions based on time such as hours. So in order to gain more money, MMORPG put emphasis on time sinks. In order to complete a dungeon, it would take five hours (instead of a more rational half an hour) with a nice item at the end. This meant the customer, baited by the nice item, would spend five hours for the dungeon which meant five hours of additional revenue.

MMORPGs' subscription model eventually turned to monthly payments which they are today. However, they still carry that legacy emphasis of time sinks. In World of Warcraft, the time you spend in instances is atrocious and unneeded. Blizzard believes that in order for players to value something, it required time invested. As far as I'm concerned, this broke WoW especially at the later levels. I once walked out of a raid saying, "Is anyone actually enjoying this?" Raiding was never fun, but people did it for the carrot at the end. This was the most serious and persistant complaint made to Blizzard by the players. I quit so I don't know if Blizzard corrected this with WoW's expansion. But if MMORPG's business model didn't begin with more time player played = more money for company, then those major 'time sinks for items' may never have existed.

Aside from the changing business model, I think another major contributor would be the budget and staff size. Back in the 80s, when Sid Meir didn't like a game and said he could make one better, Sid Meir did not post on GAF complaining about the game (had there been a GAF). Instead, he declared himself game designer and began working on his own game. Today, it is much harder to do that.

In the 80s, game creation was very design centric. There was no such thing as 'game genre'. The designer was mostly in control. He/she (yes, there were many female game designers then) would carefully craft the gameplay. It was this close attention that made the game fun to play. In the early 90s, game creation began to become production centric. Publishers became in charge and budgets skyrocketed. I think the tipping point was the original Wing Commander. After that game came out, all future games demanded 'high production values'. The rising budgets and demand for more storage space would bankrupt Origin, as it would many other small companies, but the die was cast. The staff to make a game kept getting larger and larger. The lone game designer artfully crafting gameplay in his garage is long gone. Now, we have game 'directors' who coordinate these large teams. Today, it feels (to me) that gamers don't play games, they experience them as if software is now little more than a parade of production values. While the arcade game designer focused on making the game addictive and fun so the customer wouldn't walk away, now designers rely on a 'chore' and 'reward' combo.

Something needs to change on the business end before such 'old school' games can be made consistently. Online distribution is no panacea however; even Xbox Live Arcade's costs are shooting up.

 

[Grayman]

I'm not trying to start a big argument with you. So i'm spending a lot of time trying to write this fairly.

I see more skill and luck in playing poker than in playing any jrpg i have played. FF7 low level: anywhere I was stuck was as simple as reading the guide and inputing those menu commands, i think that is easier than beating a boss in an action game with textual help.

For trying out on my own I would usually just play the games normally and rarely have trouble. Anything tricky isn't that hard to figure out, "oh he counter attacks if I use magic".

Battle after battle are usually the same and played with the same formula. kill monsters effectively, heal up when needed, play with as much urgency as needed. Against bosses use my more powerful attacks, against waste of time fights just press attack and save magic resources for healing spells.

My older games are still fairly enjoyable through nostalgia but I won't seek out any new turnbased - or derivatives of them - rpg games the gameplay doesn't do anything for me. I will try another srpg game since FFT still seems to have enough depth to me.

In relation to the thread, I won't pickup a gamesave halfway through FF7 if I want to beat up some monsters for a short time. There is no gratification in that even if it is one of my favourite games for the experience of playing large parts of it.

 

[Mar]

words

Another great post. As far as I'm concerned you are the best poster on GAF.

The stuff you said about WoW is especially right on the money.

In response to the OP. I can see what you're saying (with your revised comment further into the thread). I know at least for myself that I've been pretty much placing the finishing of the game as the most important factor. It seems to be impossible for me to just have fun with a game without conquering it. If I get frustrated with a game I have been known to ban it from ever being played again, even if I found some parts of it to be some of the most fun I've had. Case in point would be Guitar Hero and Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz.

Why is it that I can just turn my back on something that I have fun with just because of a few frustrating elements? Is it the preconception of what gaming is these days, that without finishing the game there's nothing to be said for it?

Having said all this though. I do think (depending on the context of the game) that an end is quite important. The days of being the world champion at a game by spending 17 hours straight clocking the score aren't gone (many still go for these records). But I myself have never understood the appeal. I prefer a set end where you are presented with your score and / or time.

 

[fresquito]

yet another great post

Thanks, you nailed exactly what I mean

 

[JBetts]

Games are what you make them.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

A lot of stuff....

The staff to make a game kept getting larger and larger. The lone game designer artfully crafting gameplay in his garage is long gone. Now, we have game 'directors' who coordinate these large teams. Today, it feels (to me) that gamers don't play games, they experience them as if software is now little more than a parade of production values. While the arcade game designer focused on making the game addictive and fun so the customer wouldn't walk away, now designers rely on a 'chore' and 'reward' combo.

Something needs to change on the business end before such 'old school' games can be made consistently. Online distribution is no panacea however; even Xbox Live Arcade's costs are shooting up.

okay...lapsed, I usually tend to agree with a lot of the stuff you post, even though I might not post it. Here is where I strongly disagree with you and anyone else that short changes the devs of today (sort to speak). Oh and i'm not trying to be smarmy if I come across that way. Its a subject I am kinda passionate about.

While their might not be as many people "working in garages" to create these games, I think it is truly unfair to even speak like that is a bad thing. A lot of developers go that extra mile to research the source material in which they are drawing their inspiration from, in order to create an experience that they feel we will enjoy. Look at Kojima who listens to his fans. Not only did he change his game because we bitched about it, but in order to make the game what it is, he went out into actual fields to learn more about the subject matter. Samething Criterion did with Black and Ubisoft did with Splinter Cell. Stuff like that is more than the "business model". And even though in the days of old, you might have had a guy working on a game, the idea for that game started in the exact same place they start today: the head. No difference. (maybe I am taking what you said literally...long day at work. Apologies in advance)

I don't even know where to start about this whole thing about gamers experiencing them and not playing to play, and only playing to get the carrot at the end of the stick. WHERE were you and everyone else when Street Fighter 2 or even galaga hit the arcades. People have ALWAYS played games like this and that includes chess, checkers, squares, and any other game created at any point in time. This is nothing new. Its also called competition.

Also, you can't forget about the people that actually enjoy playing games like that. Some of us view the extra bonus content as part of the experience. Just like a lot of us enjoy breaking the game apart bit by bit, speedrunning it, handicapping ourselves, etc...because it is all apart of the experience.

I love oldschoolgames. Plz don't get me wrong when I say this. I play them all the time and I am still learning how to play a ton of the old games differently (thanks Scarlet for the SM help). I for the life of me, can't see where you guys are coming from. I've been a gamer for 20 years now, and...I think you all are really off the mark in this thread.

I really don't want to break off into a larger rant (I still don't see what you all are getting at), but I think you guys are all assuming a lot of things about gamers and the industry (not that I know everything).



Oh...as for arcade developers. They damned sure weren't pure. Their were reasons games were built as hard as they were.

 

[Taichu]

I tend to agree with the original poster's sentiment, though not entirely. For instance, I absolutely loved Yoshi Touch & Go on the DS, because it provides a constant challenge. There is no end scenario, but I am compelled to play to break my scores. I pick it up every now and then, and it is still as fun as the day I bought it. The same goes for Elite Beat Agents. New Super Mario Bros., on the other hand, was fun when I first played the game, but subsequent plays aren't as satisfactory. I seriously doubt I'll pick up this game again.

Some games with endings offer new modes upon completion of the main game, which I enjoy. Take for instance the recent Castlevania games. Julius/Richiter mode take you through the same game, but provide a new challenge and keep the game "fresh." I like it when games take this route. I guess the two best historical examples of this is Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda on the NES.

I think today's versions of "endless" games are extremely well-done multiplayer games that remain fresh no matter how much you play. Super Smash Bros Melee on the Gamecube has to be my most played game ever due to the perfect multiplayer experience.

 

[Odysseus]

if a game isn't worth finishing, it isn't worth playing

 

[ProphetZG]

It's always about finishing the game. The quality of the experience just determines whether or not you'll get there and how much you'll accomplish on the way to that goal

Me, being fairly ancient - I can tell you that way back in ye olden days there were no endings to accomplish. The only thing we had was the, as you aptly wrote, "quality of the experience" - and the desire to beat our own high scores or get to higher levels.

And it was really all quite fun. I can recall when games with endings started rolling around. I remember thinking to myself that it was both cool, yet cheap. It was cheap because an ending meant you couldn't get so good at a game (we're mostly taking arcade games here, which were the vanguard of videogaming back then) anymore that you could last a really long time on one quarter, since twenty minutes later (no matter how skilled you got) the end credits would roll and the game was over. But it was cool because games started feeling more story-like. The rest is history - now most games are cinematic epics, or try to be.

I should also add - maybe my early 80's arcade roots are partially why I rarely finish a modern game (unless it's truly absorbing AND I have time to bother). I was so trained to simply enjoy the "quality of the experience" that getting to the end is really never a concern of mine - I never feel pressured to do that the way many other people seem to. And I still constantly go back to playing arcade games, simply for the careless fun of the gameplay they offer.

It's all a matter of background and taste really. Whether you play for the experience, or to "beat the game" - as long as you're enjoying it, then you've accomplished the real primary goal of any videogame.

 

[ProphetZG]

if a game isn't worth finishing, it isn't worth playing

But what if there is no "finishing" to be had?

Some games simply don't have endings (aside from you losing and getting a Game Over screen), and aren't meant to. And they can still be very much worth playing.

 

[Red Scarlet]

I'm not trying to start a big argument with you. So i'm spending a lot of time trying to write this fairly.

I see more skill and luck in playing poker than in playing any jrpg i have played. FF7 low level: anywhere I was stuck was as simple as reading the guide and inputing those menu commands, i think that is easier than beating a boss in an action game with textual help.

For trying out on my own I would usually just play the games normally and rarely have trouble. Anything tricky isn't that hard to figure out, "oh he counter attacks if I use magic".

Reading the guide or watching a video can do that for any type of game. There are many examples of different types of games where reading what to do or even seeing it do not mean that it will be a piece of cake to replicate the results from the text or the video in question.

There's still plenty of stuff I cannot do in Metroid Prime despite seeing them done multitudes of times, as there is stuff I cannot do in many RPG's after reading or seeing them done. One thing that comes to mind was the Holy Bevelle Mausoleum in FFX-2; I had to make my own way through the bottom floors as what was written down was not working, including the strategies posted for the bosses at the bottom of it. I became better at fighting the previous bosses of the dungeon because I learned how to fight them, something that is done in action games as well.

Battle after battle are usually the same and played with the same formula. kill monsters effectively, heal up when needed, play with as much urgency as needed. Against bosses use my more powerful attacks, against waste of time fights just press attack and save magic resources for healing spells.

Almost any other game can be broken down in a similar style too. I just don't see how you simply state one cannot get better at an RPG when it's a game just like any other game and you can become more skilled at it and perform better, just like getting to the flag pole in Super Mario Bros more efficiently. You learn how to play it and hone your play.

 

[Grayman]

I see menu usage as the main interaction with the game, the rest is knowledge and time spent more than skill. Something in metroid has timing and precision as well as knowing what you are doing.

I'd like to be proven wrong here. Got anything interesting I should try near the start in FF7/8(*), xenogears, DQ8 that will make me think of it as more than a spreadsheet? After wednesday night I can put five or ten hours into a game like those.

*last time i tried this game from the start I quit before the cave because of the slow start. I am not a fan of it at all and based on it's mechanics I would use some encyclopedia type info on drawing and crafting to avoid countless hours of clicking on every spot of the map, winning and destroying every card, and drawing every monster.

also have FFT and FFTA but i already think FFT is dynamic and takes some thought during a battle no matter how many times you do it.

 

[Dalauz]

Well DOOM/Halo, DMC and Yakuza (fighting system) are games like the OP said. I had fun just moving around and punching/shooting things. Yakuza "shifting" feeling is great as using the shotgun/pistol in DOOM/Halo and chain combos/wall jumping-walking in DMC. For example, Gears didnt "click" on me and i just played it to finish it, dont get me wrong, its a great game.

 

[Red Scarlet]

Play through any of those faster than last time or at a lower level, and congrats you are likely better at the game. Just like beating a Mario game without dying or dying fewer times or going through Devil May Cry 3 with fewer continues/deaths. Keep at it and continuously improve, and voila you are more skilled at the game now, whatever type of game it is.

Using knowledge gained and hitting a button in an rpg isn't any different than doing the same thing in any other type of game. If you perform better, you possess more skill.

My FF1 example is a culmination of my acquiring the knowledge of what to do, what to try and when, and performing at what is to me, a much higher level than 5 years ago. To me, that's due to my being better at the game now than I used to be, just like how I was able to beat this or that game faster than I used to be that was more of an action game.

 

[Pureauthor]

I can't speak for anyone else - I play a game to have fun, and I don't care if I'm no good at the game if I'm enjoying myself.

If there's a reward for me enjoying myself - bonus. If there's a patch where I'm not having fun in the game I'll slog through for a bit, especially if I had fun prior. But unless the fun picks up in a hurry, the game is running on borrowed time.

 

[Warm Machine]

This entire discussion is just plain strange.

The core gameplay is what makes any game entertaining or not. Just because there is a finite end point in the game doesn't decrease the enjoyment from the game or invalidate it somehow. Even when the game is completed the user is free to return to it and replay the game all they want.

Sure, in many old games such as Asteroids or Defender the basic principles of flying and shooting were satisfying enough and could entertain (and still entertain) gamers. As games evolved into other genres levels with definite change had to be added. Platformers especially suffer from this as running and jumping around the same few screens of platforms interestingly enough cannot sustain the same entertainment value as the randomization and user interactive physics of something like Asteroids because the environments need to be more tailored to suit the gameplay style. Sure, Donkey Kong had 4 levels that looped but the goal as a game player was just seeing and beating those 4 levels moreso than continual play.

Also I can point to many many examples whereby the gameplay of modern games has nothing to do with completion but continual enjoyment of the core experience. An FPS game like CS for GOW in multiplayer is essentially level after level of continually enjoying the core gameplay competing against others. Same can be said for almost any racing game or RTS. I can replay Crazy Taxi or any open world game without the end goal being a requirement and instead enjoy the main gameplay.

Gaming really hasn't even changed in this regard nor has it gone wrong. Game styles from before still exist but they have evolved.