Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

[The_Grudge]

I've been thinking a lot lately about this post and decided it was finally time to put pen to paper or, keyboard to OS Forum, I guess. I'm posting here because while I don't spend a ton of time on this board, I do find this to be one of the more mature forums on the web. I know I can post this here and get some honest feedback and not some 12 year old kid calling me odd names.

I'll just come out with it okay - I think I like easy videogames. There, I said it. Allow me to elaborate...

Bioshock came out a couple of weeks ago. A lot of the reviews I read didn't really approve of the whole "vita-chamber" thing. For those of you that aren't familiar with the game, a vita chamber is a checkpoint basically. If you die, you automatically respawn inside the nearest vita-chamber. Now, when you respawn and go back to engage the enemy, any damage you inflicted on your enemy before you died remains intact, he doesn't regain all of his health because you died. This is a sticking point for many of the hardcore gamers.

This is where I disagree. I think Bioshock has done something here that most games should look at. Rather than entering the same room 50 times in a row and learning the enemy AI, you have to come back and continue where you left off. I never understood why games are setup the way they are. Some of them almost seem to be setup so that you need to die 50 times to know where everyone is coming from. After the 40th time through a level you can basically say "okay, I'll shoot that guy that comes out of that door up ahead, then grenade the guy that comes out from the door on the right"...you're just basically memorizing the pre-determined AI aren't you?

I guess what I'm saying is, I really like this method Bioshock has employed. Rather than being stuck in a certain part of the game I can get on with it and be a part of the story. It may be easier, but it's more fun.

I enjoy cut scenes and storylines and I don't particularly enjoy grinding it out with a boss or difficult battle for 40 minutes. It would be nice to see more story-driven games that don't always involve constant intense battles.

Would anyone like to expand on my thoughts...or hey, call me crazy if you want!

[JohnDoe8865]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

I agree in a lot of ways. I'm not really a fan of rinse, repeat gameplay. To me sometimes it is a phony difficulty that it creates. It's not so much "hard" as it is a cheap way to extend the gameplay from say 8 hours to 12. I do not enjoy frustratingly hard non-sports games.

Now in sports games it's another story, although I do dispise rubberband AI and catch up logic, but I'll stick to non sports gaming talk. :wink:

[bkfount]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

Prey did something like that too. You never really die, but you come back in the same place with all the same damage done to the enemies.

The flow of the game was better than say, splinter cell, which is highly trial and error.

[Miles_Yuhas]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

I agree with what you said about Bioshock. I use the Vita Chamber's and it keeps the game from getting stale, fighting big daddies hundreds of times.

[Rodster]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden Black used a similar system where if you died so many times in a row the game would help you out by asking if you wanted to try the game on easy.

Metroid Prime 3 has a system where if you lose to a boss so many times in a row it will flash hints on the screen. I think developers do get it and are trying to make games more accessible for the casual gamer that just wants to beat the game without breaking objects out of frustration.

[mgoblue]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

I know what you mean, and this is somewhat why I am completely against sliders. I am not going to, nor should I have to, tinker with sliders to get a game to play right. A game should play well using any of the out of the box difficulties. I used to think sliders are a good idea, but now I think they're a cop out and ruin the quality of games (developers don't put enough time into making a good product, making the user do it instead).

[bkfount]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden Black used a similar system where if you died so many times in a row the game would help you out by asking if you wanted to try the game on easy.

that actually pissed me off in god of war. It was almost insulting to see it ask me if I wanted to lower the difficulty.

[CMH]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

I know what you mean, and this is somewhat why I am completely against sliders. I am not going to, nor should I have to, tinker with sliders to get a game to play right. A game should play well using any of the out of the box difficulties. I used to think sliders are a good idea, but now I think they're a cop out and ruin the quality of games (developers don't put enough time into making a good product, making the user do it instead).

Not to hijack but I agree and disagree.

Sliders are a necessary evil in sports games because there are arcade fans and sim fans.

However, I would prefer that developers make a sport game for both arcade fans and sim fans and allow us to flip a little switch that determines the set playing scale for either format.

So if I'm playing a baseball game and you worry that guys don't want too many foul balls (games take too long or something) then I could flip it to arcade and there ya go. Otherwise, maybe I want a sim-style attempt at foul balls and I could have that option.

The same could be said of games like BioShock though a bit different. Maybe some guys want to use Vita-Chambers while others don't. It's about a playing style.

As long as developers can narrow these things down to two options of arcade vs. sim then "sliders" would be easier to deal with rather than clicking something to the left or right a number of times.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

I wouldn't mind an option a game where if the game is too hard, say have an option that you could turn on that would allow you to respawn at a checkpoint/save point and keep the damage on the last couple of enemies before you died. I personally wouldn't use the feature. If a boss is beating the **** out of me, I like to use trial and error and when I do end up beating him, it feels rewarding continuing on. Keeping the damage inflicted by my character before they died seems kind of cheap to me. I don't really care how long a game takes to beat it - if trial and error prolongs my playing time, so be it, but when I beat a game I want to feel like I was challenged at least a little bit and not like I just strolled through even if I died a couple times.

[HMcCoy]

Re: Do Game Developers Misunderstand Us, Or Am I The Only Wierdo?

I kind of agree with the OP. Personally, I do both depending on the situation, and I think it's cool that the devs let you save anywhere so you can use both methods. The difference with Bioshock is that alot of the encounters aren't scripted, so if you do go back to a save, it isn't always just memorizing a scene, sometimes its completely different.

I think the "never die" mechanic is eventually going to be the new "regenerating health" in most FPS's, which was something that hardcores seemed to consider cheese at first, but then learned to appreciate. These devs are always going to try to make games appealing to the casuals, and non-frustrating difficulty is key.