Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Design => Topic started by: Etinarg on June 26, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
-
The discussion about permadeath (http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=3343.0) made me think about why we play games (or may why I play games). And why permadeath is seen as an important part of a game to some players, but not to others ("only permadeath gives meaning to the players actions").
I see two basic types of players:
- The ones who play for entertainment
- The ones who play for the challenge
and maybe this one:
- The ones who play out of curiousity
I think "permadeath" is mostly important for the ones who play for the challenge. It might help the discussion to understand that for the other player types, permadeath is not a core feature to their gaming experience, and forcing them to think alike the ones who play for the challenge is futile, because they expect different things from games (being entertained, learning about new things, even if only relevant in context of the game).
Maybe this can help to relax the discussion a bit, and understand that a feature which is very important thing to some players, is irrelevant or even annoying to the other player types. There is no "true way to play games". As so often, there are many ways, and I'd want to avoid calling one better than the others.
-
Maybe this can help to relax the discussion a bit, and understand that a feature which is very important thing to some players, is irrelevant or even annoying to the other player types.
It's exactly like that. Roguelikes are in many ways the ultimate challenge for a specific type of player and permadeath is an essential part of that challenge.
-
But people who play for challenge are looking to be entertained. And people looking for a challenge are almost always more interested in learning new things about the game than their counterparts.
I don't mind that others aren't looking to be challenged when they play video games, but they should be honest with themselves. Don't use quicksave every five minutes and then claim that what you're doing is even remotely challenging.
-
Yes, the groups are not exclusive and there sure are big overlaps. I just hoped it would help understanding each other to see that challenge is not the only one goal in gaming for people.
Myself, I play little these days, and if I play it's for enterainment and out of curiosity mainly. Challenges are good up to some point, but I guess my level of "good challenge" is very low compared to what roguelike players like. I'm not always using savefiles, often I just accept the death because the game was meant to be played this way, but if I ever make a roguelike, or mod one, I would aim at more forgiving game.
-
I just hoped it would help understanding each other to see that challenge is not the only one goal in gaming for people.
I think this is a weird statement. Don't take this as a personal attack, just my observation, but...
What do videogames offer that books, movies and music do not? Interaction (gameplay)! If the gameplay isn't fun, why bother? Early games were challenging. People liked being challenged. Challenge = fun (then). Games that weren't challenging were seen as failures. Being boring was a cardinal sin.
If an unchallenging game is fun to you, consider Visual Novels, or go for a medium that dispenses with user input entirely (movies/books/music).
Personally, I need my games to be challenging. Graphics that I like can only keep me interested for so long. Music I can get seperately from the game. Story won't keep me playing a game that isn't fun. If it isn't challenging I'm going to lose interest.
To me, permadeath is just a tool to enforce challenge. Vanguard was spot on.
I don't mind that others aren't looking to be challenged when they play video games, but they should be honest with themselves. Don't use quicksave every five minutes and then claim that what you're doing is even remotely challenging.
When I was younger, I thought Half-Life 1 was magical. I was enraptured, glued to the screen.
Then I spent 15 minutes alternating quick-save and quick-load to get through the final boss encounter.
I wasn't having fun then, and when I thought back on the rest of the game a little voice echoed:
"Wow, there was really no way I could have NOT won this game. :("
-
I think games could be appealing for reasons other than as a challenge, but in practice very few can stand without it.
Like, a lot of people play games for their stories, but storytelling in games is a complete joke. There are maybe a dozen games on the planet with competent storytelling.
-
There's a fourth type of gamer, actually - the 100% completionist. I call those guys "expanders" in this blog post:
http://edkolis.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-4-xs-of-game-enjoyment-or-hi-my.html
-
One thing to throw into here is that "challenge" isn't the same thing for everyone. Which means that for some people the enjoyable challenge in a game is to 100% it where for other people it might just be getting through some particular level.
It's also worthwhile to remember that games offer interaction and not just gameplay/challenge. There are plenty of games that have a great story or environment or pleasurable experience in general without having a particular challenge for many players. On the other end of the spectrum many games that the general audience find very challenging are not challenging at all for some people.
For more informed descussions, google up combinations of the following:
Video Game
Player Modeling
Quality of Experience
There has been a very large amount of industrial and academic work on why people play games, and a reasonable amount for video games specifically.
-
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA) is a really good watch. I hate watching videos, and usually don't link to them, but I think this makes a lot of awesome points.
-
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA) is a really good watch. I hate watching videos, and usually don't link to them, but I think this makes a lot of awesome points.
That's a great video! I haven't seen the MDA talked about so clearly in a web video before.
-
There are plenty of games that have a great story
No there aren't.
On the other end of the spectrum many games that the general audience find very challenging are not challenging at all for some people.
That's fine. I don't have any problems with that. I guess I just don't like that the concept of difficulty in games has become so warped. People should be honest with themselves. Anyone spamming the quicksave key is not looking to be challenged, and should openly recognize that fact.
-
There are plenty of games that have a great story
No there aren't.
On the other end of the spectrum many games that the general audience find very challenging are not challenging at all for some people.
That's fine. I don't have any problems with that. I guess I just don't like that the concept of difficulty in games has become so warped. People should be honest with themselves. Anyone spamming the quicksave key is not looking to be challenged, and should openly recognize that fact.
Perhaps you and I disagree what "story" means. I'm on board with this link:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/12/games-are-the-ideal-place-for-telling-great-stories/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/12/games-are-the-ideal-place-for-telling-great-stories/)
As has been said many times, and is said strongly in the video RylandAlmanza linked, challenge and difficulty are not the same thing at all. Conflating them is a serious mistep.
-
Perhaps you and I disagree what "story" means. I'm on board with this link:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/12/games-are-the-ideal-place-for-telling-great-stories/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/12/games-are-the-ideal-place-for-telling-great-stories/)
I think stuff like X-Com and Dwarf Fortress tell great stories, because they tell your story, and that's something no other medium can do. But those are exceptions rather than the rule.
Bioware and Bethesda make Choose Your Own Mary Sue Adventures where your fantasy/sci-fi hero is the best at everything and everyone loves them, and your job is to choose whether they're nice or mean. Also, the "nice" variant still solves 99% of their problems with violence and racks up a huge body count, but no one has a problem with it.
The Bioshock games are interactive versions of mindless summer action movies, but gamers' tastes have been bent so badly that these games are perceived as deep and profound.
Half Life 2 has good style, but no substance behind it.
That is what is seen as the height of storytelling in games. Not the norm, but the pinnacle which all others aspire to.
As has been said many times, and is said strongly in the video RylandAlmanza linked, challenge and difficulty are not the same thing at all. Conflating them is a serious mistep.
Ok, then what's the difference between the two?
The dictionary definitions I just checked say that challenge can more or less mean "stimulating difficulty." Has Extra Credits found some nuance in the word that I've overlooked, or are they just trying to redefine it for their own convenience?
-
One thing to throw into here is that "challenge" isn't the same thing for everyone. Which means that for some people the enjoyable challenge in a game is to 100% it where for other people it might just be getting through some particular level.
Challenge is indeed not the same for everyone. Differences in skill/ability allow a gamer to subjectively experience the challenge rating of a game as higher or lower than what it was designed to be.
Playing a game to "100%" it is exactly as challenging as the regular gameplay of the game, but it DOES provide a reason to play. It's a goal, not a challenge.
For example, I thought the first Zeboyd Penny Arcade game was easy enough to complete asleep (no challenge) but I didn't raise the difficulty. I still played it for the goal of maximizing synergy between my classes (further lowering challenge). Because I enjoy that.
It's also worthwhile to remember that games offer interaction and not just gameplay/challenge. There are plenty of games that have a great story or environment or pleasurable experience in general without having a particular challenge for many players.
Gameplay is the purest form of interaction possible, and I'll go as far as to say it's the only one. The rest is just the game engaging the player on an emotional level. Like I said, if not for the gameplay, why not be in a different medium altogether? Becoming emotionally involved is fantastic, but you can do that with any medium. It's not "real" interaction.
Games like the Last of Us, Uncharted and Heavy Rain might be fun for some people...
But to me they look just like the old Laserdisc Video Games, but with better graphics. Oh snap!
As has been said many times, and is said strongly in the video RylandAlmanza linked, challenge and difficulty are not the same thing at all. Conflating them is a serious mistep.
The guys at EC are a bit too smarmy for my taste. (That damn voice filter!)
As for their mentioned core aesthetics, almost every one that's not challenge/difficulty/actual gameplay can be found IN A DIFFERENT MEDIUM.
They claim difficulty and challenge is not the same thing, quoting Kirby's Epic Yarn, a game that is impossible to lose. I can only say that that game HAS NO challenge BECAUSE it has no difficulty. To me the two are joined at the hip. A game with no difficulty has about as much challenge as to be completable by just about anyone willing to press buttons long enough, and I feel gamers should have a bit more self-respect than that. To me, playing and enjoying Kirby's Epic Yarn is the same fucking thing as talking at the TV while watching Dora the Explorer.
Story in games: It's either something the player invents on his own volition (Dwarf Fortress, Sandbox games), something that's there but not in the way of gameplay (Etrian Odyssey, Cave Story (?), Red Dead Redemption) or something that's extremely prominent in the game (Heavy Rain; aka I WISH I WAS A MOVIE INSTEAD).
I don't count Oblivion/Skyrim under the Sandbox category because the story
a) is bad. I'd almost call it objectively bad. It's just shite, and people don't pick up on that because they have been systematically culturally starved all their life with garbage like the big bang theory and 2 and a half men.
b) has no fucking connection to the gameplay really. You could have replaced Alduin the dragon with Grobnar the Space Emperor, all the swords with space swords(tm), all the mer and men with eldar and space marines and you'd have had a game that plays just about the same. The game is "story-independant". It's only fantasy because fantasy sells better to the white male gamer demographic. That's not "story in games" in any way I'm willing to respect.
Yes, Planescape Torment had a good story. But when you hear a lot of people saying they "put up with the shitty gameplay" "in order to finish the story", don't you think it would have been better as a book? Or a visual novel? Or an animated movie? Was the greatness of the story amplified in any way by it being in a videogame?
For Cave Story I could say that it was. Sword and Sworcery can claim the same.
There's a lot to be said about the intrinsic value of games and everything connected to them, but I think people should try and evaluate whether we as a society have lowered the standards we have on the entertainment we consume. Also honestly think on what it means to be a videogame, what you expect to get out of it as a consumer that you cannot get elsewhere.
-
Games like the Last of Us, Uncharted and Heavy Rain might be fun for some people...
But to me they look just like the old Laserdisc Video Games, but with better graphics. Oh snap!
You might represent one narrow type of player who wants nothing but action and challenge. Don't think it's the only way to enjoy games. There are lot more things than "mood" or emotions that story may give. For me one of nice things in RPGs is exploration: simply visiting and finding new places. The older I get the less I like fighting against enemies and trying to become a demi-god in stats.
-
They claim difficulty and challenge is not the same thing, quoting Kirby's Epic Yarn, a game that is impossible to lose. I can only say that that game HAS NO challenge BECAUSE it has no difficulty.
There's still some degree of difficulty in Kirby's Epic Yarn. Avoiding damage in any given encounter could be seen as challenging even though the damage never accumulates into any greater consequence. Finding all the collectible items could be seen as challenging as well.
Reaching the end of the game, on the other hand, is hardly challenging at all because of the player's immortality.
-
I just hoped it would help understanding each other to see that challenge is not the only one goal in gaming for people.
I think this is a weird statement. Don't take this as a personal attack, just my observation, but...
What do videogames offer that books, movies and music do not? Interaction (gameplay)! If the gameplay isn't fun, why bother? Early games were challenging. People liked being challenged. Challenge = fun (then). Games that weren't challenging were seen as failures. Being boring was a cardinal sin.
If an unchallenging game is fun to you, consider Visual Novels, or go for a medium that dispenses with user input entirely (movies/books/music).
I want to respond to the highlighted part first. I don't like to be challenged. I like to have it easy.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, it seems you assume that I'm stuck with roguelikes and that I'm complaining. I'm neither. It very long (>15 years) that I regularly played roguelikes, and I'm pretty sure I would enjoy a visual novel.
I just wanted to point out that challenge isn't the only thing that people are interested in - but the term "challenge" has been interpreted in a much wider sense in this thread than I had in mind initally. More or less that everything can be a challenge. Well it can, but then the term "challenge" becomes a bit useless for discussion [1].
So, if we talk entertainment in games that is not challenging (in challenge = threat to the PC's life):
- building, construction: Be it building an equipment set, a monster trap, traffic routes, gardens or social connections. There are many ways "building" and "construction" can be employed in games and they are quite entertaining to some people. One can argue this is also a challenge, even if it is, it's a very differnt sort of challenge than what people mean when they call a roguelike game "challenging".
- exploration, gaining knowledge: It can be difficult, and difficult seems to mean "challenging" to some people. I didn't have this connotation in mind, but again, it's challenging in a different sense than in roguelike games.
Maybe we need to distinguish "violent challenge" like in roguelikes, where the players character is challenged for its life, to "challenging" as in "difficult task, but failure has no harmful consequences to the game".
I had the second sort in mind, which can be used to build entertaining or interesting games, too. Well, as I wrote in the initial posting, not to interesting to all people but to some. And I think it's important to understand that there are people who do not think that the lethal challenge of a roguelike to the PC is fun.
Maybe to put this in the right perspective: I have been playing roguelikes fairly extensively somewhen between 1995 and 1998. Later my interest in playing shrunk, but I stayed around to see what happens in the genre, sometimes I dabbled in game making or game modding. So if you send me to visual novels, I feel a bit surprised, because that came out of nowhere, but I assume it could be something of interest for me. These days I'm neither much of a developer nor a player in the roguelike field.
Edit:
[1] There is a culture growing that wants to relable every problem as a challenge, but that is just trying to hide the nature of the thing behind a word with a more positive attitude. At least in industry this happens.
Edit 2:
I'm not a native English speaker, so it's dififcult for me to choose the right words with the exact meaning. I hope I still could explain my point.
-
I would never have guessed you weren't a native English speaker.
I want to respond to the highlighted part first. I don't like to be challenged. I like to have it easy.
I respect that. You know what you like and you're honest about it.
- building, construction: Be it building an equipment set, a monster trap, traffic routes, gardens or social connections. There are many ways "building" and "construction" can be employed in games and they are quite entertaining to some people. One can argue this is also a challenge, even if it is, it's a very differnt sort of challenge than what people mean when they call a roguelike game "challenging".
- exploration, gaining knowledge: It can be difficult, and difficult seems to mean "challenging" to some people. I didn't have this connotation in mind, but again, it's challenging in a different sense than in roguelike games.
These sorts of things can definitely be challenging, just as much as a combat situation can be. That isn't to say that they always are, but they can be.
-
Maybe to put this in the right perspective: I have been playing roguelikes fairly extensively somewhen between 1995 and 1998. Later my interest in playing shrunk, but I stayed around to see what happens in the genre, sometimes I dabbled in game making or game modding. So if you send me to visual novels, I feel a bit surprised, because that came out of nowhere, but I assume it could be something of interest for me. These days I'm neither much of a developer nor a player in the roguelike field.
If you're not too attached to being able to provide input, Visual Novels really might be worth checking out, if you can find one that matches your interests! Wasn't assuming you were "stuck" with RLs or complaining, heh.
Maybe I've been too hung up on my narrow view of what constitutes a game.
The previous thread got me thinking about videogames, when a game's a game, what counts or not as an actual bona fide videogame, things like that.
Videogames are unique in that you can play them and I guess it really does say something about me that I want gameplay to be challenging. MY favorite sort of games require you to provide input better and faster untill you win or die, and that's how I like it. That's the sort of challenge I seek.
And THAT type of challenge disappears very quickly when you can save/load at will.
And THAT's why permadeath is very important for some types of games.
Dwarf Fortress is a game that's not about all that. It's a game about a different type of challenge;
Construction, management.
But you don't get savestates in DF; you can't return the world to a previous state to avoid a mistake you'll make in a possible future. In effect, you have permadeath+save restrictions.
And that makes DF's challenge real, to me. And having a "real" challenge lets me find the game fun.
This line of thinking won't work for games that would rather just tell a story, but I can't help but stand by my previous statement and question;
-Other genres (Visual novels, movies, books etc) do it better, almost always.
-What does being able to provide input add to the experience? (I'd have liked Xenogears just as much if it'd been an anime series.)
-
Dwarf Fortress is a game that's not about all that. It's a game about a different type of challenge;
Construction, management.
But you don't get savestates in DF; you can't return the world to a previous state to avoid a mistake you'll make in a possible future. In effect, you have permadeath+save restrictions.
And that makes DF's challenge real, to me. And having a "real" challenge lets me find the game fun.
Another facet of this is that Dwarf Fortress tells a story, and any storyteller worth their salt understands the need to make things happen that their audience doesn't want. Without that, there's no tension. And in Dwarf Fortress, the inability to save maintains that tension. Your favorite dwarf dies, and they're gone. They'll never come back. Deal with it. That's why Dwarf Fortress stories are exciting and tragic and dramatic.
It's no coincidence that the absolute worst stories are those where the author projects themselves onto one utterly successful and well-liked character. That's what you get in "story" games with manual saving - the player is the best at everything, never fails, and everyone loves them.
I'm with you though, ever since I started playing shoot 'em ups I've become so disillusioned with other games. Victory is a foregone conclusion. The only question is how much time I'll have to invest to make that happen. And that sucks.
No one has a problem with the possibility for failure in a competitive multiplayer game, but you put it in a single player or cooperative game, and suddenly the whole world thinks you're insane. I think the gaming public is too used to badly designed games where you just suddenly die for no reason, but it's ok because you saved before. They can't fathom playing those games without their safety nets, and they're right - those games would be horrible without them. But there are better games where that isn't necessary.