Author Topic: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death  (Read 86131 times)

Endorya

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The non-purist roguelike lover
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #75 on: April 11, 2014, 08:41:52 AM »
Not if the choice most players will make sucks. Think about it: They make the choice you think they want (and I absolutely agree that most will make that choice). They play through the game and they're like: "Hey, this was just a standard RPG with mediocre map design and very little structure in terms of monster placement etc. I could still do the same saving and reloading crap I always do, but it seemed like everything was pretty much the same. A lot of time, all I had to do was keep reloading and doing the same thing and I could get past the hard parts. There was no story, no plot, nothing. This game sucks and I'm telling all my friends."

Sorry to say this but this comment of yours is simply too damn flawed. You are, yet again, viewing the whole issue based on your personal preferences and you are assuming from start that it will be something bad because it seems you always base your comments regarding this issue with the inflexible roguelike player perspective. You put the shoes of a casual player to have an argument but you still face the whole thing with a mind of a pure roguelike player.

Two of my good friends started to play ADOM because I introduced them this game. They would never end up being hooked on it if it wasn't for save scumming. Later 3 other friends of theirs actually started to play ADOM with save scumming also. 1 month after 2 of these persons started to play it with permadeath, they were in fact hardcore roguelike players, they just didn't know it. The truth is, if it wasn't for save scumming, easy mode, cheating, dishonoring yourself or whatever you want to call it, ADOM wouldn't have gained 5 more players turning 2 of them into permadeath players. Can you all frakking understand now the consequences of having multiple game play modes?

Having someone saying: "Hey, this was just a standard RPG with mediocre map design and very little structure in terms of monster placement etc." without even trying other game play modes would be a completely idiot. But instead that opinion you could in fact hear something like: "Hey, this was a great experience way above a standard RPG, with good map design and very rich in terms on content." - You should really think out of the box once in a while, unless of course you somehow believe to be the true holder of what is right or wrong. Me on the other hand, I just adding more options so people can freely choose what they enjoy most. I'm not forcing anyone to play under specific terms they might not be fond of and I'm definitely not against having the permadeath option even though I don't personally enjoy it.

Even if a game somehow fails to deliver any excitement (I'm using excitement here as it seems you have an issue with the word fun) to most players (permadeath players or not) then the problem is located in the game on not with the options presented in it in terms of having permadeath only or checkpoints or saving. Bad designed games will always suck, despising how many awesome / appealing features they may have, unlike good designed games which have their features properly implemented. But even good implemented games won't appeal to everyone, though games with more game playing options have greater chances of succeed.

Do you understand what I'm saying in this post of mine? Will you continue to say how wrong it is to have multiple choices for game play? If so, just tell me in your next post so I can ignore this whole discussion onwards.

@LazyCat
I could wish you good luck with your further posts regarding this subject but unfortunately luck won't do you any good as these type of inflexible opinions simply remind me of religious people whose disposition to acknowledge alternatives is simply non existent.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 10:09:46 AM by Endorya »
"You are never alone. Death is always near watching you."

Vanguard

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 1112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #76 on: April 11, 2014, 09:24:25 AM »
Where are you going with this question?

You were talking a lot about the importance of skill.  I wanted to gauge good you are at roguelikes so I could use that as a barometer of what you really know about roguelike skill.  The answer I got is "unimpressive but better than expected."

But your answer came with another benefit.  The methods you used to approach permadeath play and how you felt about it made something really clear, and it lies at the heart of this whole stupid argument: you do not like to be challenged.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #77 on: April 11, 2014, 09:34:05 AM »
The truth is, if it wasn't for save scumming, easy mode, cheating, dishonoring yourself or whatever you want to call it, ADOM wouldn't have gained 5 more players turning 2 of them into permadeath players.

This.


Quote
@LazyCat
I could wish you good luck with your further posts regarding this subject but unfortunately luck won't do you any good as these type of inflexible opinions simply remind me of religious people whose disposition to acknowledge alternatives is simply non existent.

I don't think they have much more to say. They have realized by now they were wrong all along, it will just take a few years for them to actually admit it. Cheer up, we're winning!


Vanguard

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 1112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #78 on: April 11, 2014, 09:37:54 AM »
Will you continue to say how wrong it is to have multiple choices for game play?

The option to play either a good or a bad version of a game is worse than being only permitted to play the good version.

Endorya

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The non-purist roguelike lover
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #79 on: April 11, 2014, 09:51:54 AM »
Will you continue to say how wrong it is to have multiple choices for game play?

The option to play either a good or a bad version of a game is worse than being only permitted to play the good version.

And do you realize that both options can be either good and bad. Good for ones and bad for others. This makes the "good version" you mention to be entirely subjective, which only fortifies my position that having multiples options is always better than just one. I honestly don't know how can I make this any more clear.

Again, another pure, inflexible rogueliker comment was thrown at me.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 10:12:26 AM by Endorya »
"You are never alone. Death is always near watching you."

Endorya

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The non-purist roguelike lover
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #80 on: April 11, 2014, 09:53:56 AM »
I don't think they have much more to say. They have realized by now they were wrong all along, it will just take a few years for them to actually admit it. Cheer up, we're winning!

Never underestimate the inflexible minds. The only thing they can do now is repeating themselves over and over. Anyway I'm done with this. I have a massive game project to develop and I'm loosing precious time with this leading-nowhere-discussion.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 10:05:30 AM by Endorya »
"You are never alone. Death is always near watching you."

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #81 on: April 11, 2014, 09:57:10 AM »
But your answer came with another benefit.  The methods you used to approach permadeath play and how you felt about it made something really clear, and it lies at the heart of this whole stupid argument: you do not like to be challenged.

I don't like to challenge my patience. Just as you don't like to challenge your reflexes and play action games with only one life. But it's ok, because it's optional. What is your objection about if you could still play the way you want to?

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #82 on: April 11, 2014, 10:14:29 AM »
The option to play either a good or a bad version of a game is worse than being only permitted to play the good version.

Says who? Hitler?



rust

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #83 on: April 11, 2014, 10:43:27 AM »
I don't think they have much more to say. They have realized by now they were wrong all along, it will just take a few years for them to actually admit it. Cheer up, we're winning!

Yes, The Enlightened One, by babbling nonsense in a few threads you have actually proved that the road roguelikes are following for many years is completely wrong. Thank you for opening my eyes.

Vanguard

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 1112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #84 on: April 11, 2014, 11:03:10 AM »
I don't like to challenge my patience. Just as you don't like to challenge your reflexes and play action games with only one life. But it's ok, because it's optional. What is your objection about if you could still play the way you want to?

You only want to fight enemies when they can never beat you (through save abuse) or when you already know in advance how to beat them (Pixel Dungeon was tedious and repetitive before you knew how to beat all of the enemies, but you truly enjoyed it afterwards).

You describe Brogue as "torture" because of its difficulty.  You must have liked the rest of the game well enough since you bothered to make your own modified version with a difficulty-trivializing save feature.  You want that same difficulty-trivializing feature to be in every game, even ones that are explicitly designed to exclude it.

These things all point to one conclusion: you hate being challenged.

Also, my favorite genre is shmups i.e. permadeath action games.

Endorya

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The non-purist roguelike lover
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #85 on: April 11, 2014, 11:05:46 AM »
Ok lets chill out a bit guys. I'm actually starting to feel bad for this whole thing as this discussion bears roots from my previous thread. I think we all have said enough and we all have made our points quite clear. I ask each one of you to just let it go now. I'm not coming back here as this is a closed subject to me.
"You are never alone. Death is always near watching you."

mushroom patch

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #86 on: April 11, 2014, 12:51:22 PM »
Not if the choice most players will make sucks. Think about it: They make the choice you think they want (and I absolutely agree that most will make that choice). They play through the game and they're like: "Hey, this was just a standard RPG with mediocre map design and very little structure in terms of monster placement etc. I could still do the same saving and reloading crap I always do, but it seemed like everything was pretty much the same. A lot of time, all I had to do was keep reloading and doing the same thing and I could get past the hard parts. There was no story, no plot, nothing. This game sucks and I'm telling all my friends."

Sorry to say this but this comment of yours is simply too damn flawed. You are, yet again, viewing the whole issue based on your personal preferences and you are assuming from start that it will be something bad because it seems you always base your comments regarding this issue with the inflexible roguelike player perspective. You put the shoes of a casual player to have an argument but you still face the whole thing with a mind of a pure roguelike player.

I am astonished you two continue to make this mendacious argument. It's not merely my personal opinion. It's the opinion held by roguelike gamers and designers for over thirty years, before games that gave you these wonderful options you talk about even existed.

Quote
Two of my good friends started to play ADOM because I introduced them this game. They would never end up being hooked on it if it wasn't for save scumming. Later 3 other friends of theirs actually started to play ADOM with save scumming also. 1 month after 2 of these persons started to play it with permadeath, they were in fact hardcore roguelike players, they just didn't know it. The truth is, if it wasn't for save scumming, easy mode, cheating, dishonoring yourself or whatever you want to call it, ADOM wouldn't have gained 5 more players turning 2 of them into permadeath players. Can you all frakking understand now the consequences of having multiple game play modes?

Your friends, because of the design of ADOM, must have known they were breaking the rules of the game. In your pseudo-roguelike proposal, they would not be breaking any rules. This is a fundamental difference.

Quote
Having someone saying: "Hey, this was just a standard RPG with mediocre map design and very little structure in terms of monster placement etc." without even trying other game play modes would be a completely idiot. But instead that opinion you could in fact hear something like: "Hey, this was a great experience way above a standard RPG, with good map design and very rich in terms on content." - You should really think out of the box once in a while, unless of course you somehow believe to be the true holder of what is right or wrong. Me on the other hand, I just adding more options so people can freely choose what they enjoy most. I'm not forcing anyone to play under specific terms they might not be fond of and I'm definitely not against having the permadeath option even though I don't personally enjoy it.

I refer to the previous statement. Your friends knew that they were not supposed to replay the same losing situations to throw out the bad outcomes. As a result, their appreciation of the game is influenced by knowing the rules and values behind it, which is what you're against.

Quote
Even if a game somehow fails to deliver any excitement (I'm using excitement here as it seems you have an issue with the word fun) to most players (permadeath players or not) then the problem is located in the game on not with the options presented in it in terms of having permadeath only or checkpoints or saving. Bad designed games will always suck, despising how many awesome / appealing features they may have, unlike good designed games which have their features properly implemented. But even good implemented games won't appeal to everyone, though games with more game playing options have greater chances of succeed.

Your belief in the power of options is mistaken. People do not always make good decisions. The belief that your player will make good decisions or even the decisions that are best for him is naive. 

By the way, I'm not saying permadeath or close analogues are the MSG of video games that turn bad games into good games. I can see why you're so upset with me if you really think that's what I'm saying, though. I'm saying that it's a fixture of the genre and with good, defensible reason. I completely agree that there could be and indeed are lots of crappy rogulikes with permadeath. The point is that the good ones wouldn't be as good without it.

Quote
Do you understand what I'm saying in this post of mine? Will you continue to say how wrong it is to have multiple choices for game play? If so, just tell me in your next post so I can ignore this whole discussion onwards.

Yes, of course, you've made yourself very clear. I do not say multiple choices for game play are wrong, only that one particular choice is wrong for roguelike games. I repeat, the save file reloading conventions of roguelike games and permadeath in particular are great and it's important that save scumming be delegitimized by game rules against it, even if it's possible to do it anyway by tampering with data files.

Quote
@LazyCat
I could wish you good luck with your further posts regarding this subject but unfortunately luck won't do you any good as these type of inflexible opinions simply remind me of religious people whose disposition to acknowledge alternatives is simply non existent.

I wish LazyCat luck too. He's doing God's work in these threads.

jim

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #87 on: April 11, 2014, 04:49:34 PM »
Well, I guess one option would be to introduce a simple score system that resets when you die. A number of early arcade games followed that basic formula. I'd certainly be interested in playing a great roguelike that either allowed you to continue with a score of zero, or to end the game with a good score. Would that satisfy everyone? Along those lines: the ability to save a limited number of times, with each save reducing your score, etc.

I think the only option I'm opposed to is the one where the basic game design allows players to get the high score (or the best ending, or the tastiest cookie) while repeatedly saving and/or dying. There should be a reward for being hardcore, even if it's a rather meaningless one -- like a high score.

Obviously I have nothing against anyone here - I didn't really scan the entire thread for vitriol before posting the first time.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #88 on: April 12, 2014, 12:17:41 AM »
These things all point to one conclusion: you hate being challenged.

Patience. It is my patience that I don't like to challenge. As long as you are generalising you will not be able to differentiate different kinds of difficulty and understand they challenge different types of skill. You are confusing tedious with difficult.

LazyCat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death
« Reply #89 on: April 12, 2014, 01:16:03 AM »
Your friends, because of the design of ADOM, must have known they were breaking the rules of the game. In your pseudo-roguelike proposal, they would not be breaking any rules. This is a fundamental difference.

Rules should say that when you die you have to throw your computer out of the window. That would make it even more difficult and exciting. So much better. Who disagrees should of course be put in jail until they understand it's all for their own good.