Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

For me, there is a better way to play this game. ***SPOILERS****

This forum is to be used for all discussions pertaining to Troika Games' Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

For me, there is a better way to play this game. ***SPOILERS****

Post by Solipso »

I imagined that before being embraced, my character was a middle-class young man, a security officer with surpassing skills with firearms. He was also a good-looking bachelor with refined tastes for persons of each sex.

I chose Toreador.

Gameplay was agreeable until I got downtown and tried to purge the city of the plaguebearing tough guys. They were too tough. They made me so angry I quit and uninstalled. I was thinking about selling my retail edition to a new/used game store, when I decided to try a replay by using codes from gamefaqs.com.

I used only two codes: ones that allowed me to maximize skills in firearms and perception, consequently maximizing the ranged feat. I imagined that this was not cheating. Since my character was skilled with firearms before becoming a vampire, as a vampire his senses would be enhanced and he would be something of a super-gunman.

Did this destroy the game’s challenge? Hell no! At least not for me. I want to be challenged, but only pleasantly so, not to the edges of and beyond the edges of frustration and anger.

I am well into the game now, into the Warrens 3 level of Hollywood. The game has been agreeably challenging without being too easy. I have faced challenging decisions on how to spend XP among the many skills. Indeed there are enough skills that I can look forward to replaying with another character and clan, using disciplines as well as skills I have not used this time through. And though combat has been easier, it is still challenging. My character is quite susceptible to damage. Furthermore, the game has a good story with interesting characters and subplots, and some puzzles.

I do not miss being frustrated. I do not regret my use of the codes. Because the game does not offer levels of difficulty, I think my use of codes has given me a better way to play.
:)
User avatar
Acleacius
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:20 pm
Contact:

Post by Acleacius »

The most important thing is to enjoy a game. :)
I wouldn't worry about what others think.
I enjoy adding Disipines (you can have up to 5 before your Hot Keys stop working) and trying out different skins, NPCs look so much better in this game, so I use them instead, adding SuperJump is fun too. :)
Trust me, most of the names I have been called you can't translate in any language...they're not even real words as much as a succession of violent images.
User avatar
mr_sir
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by mr_sir »

i agree with Acleacius - what's important is that you enjoy the game. i personally do not like using cheats or walkthroughs but i do so if i get so stuck that i am no longer having fun. what you did sounds like a really good idea to me - gives more meaning to the developing a character part of the game and sticking to it :)
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

Surely I agree with the spirit of both replies. Satisfying divertissement is the whole reason for playing games, it is why I have played so many, and it is why I am playing this one. A hundred years ago we had novels. Then we had movies and TV. Now we have games.

But many game designers overemphasize the importance of challenge. Please spare me from these guys! They try to sharpen the edge of suspense to a point where only some lucky players are able to experience that suspense. Other players end up becoming frustrated and angry.

I made the post thinking that maybe someone who is having difficulty with Bloodlines would have more fun if he or she did something like what I did. Also I was thinking it might help someone involved in the game's development to understand the importance of giving players a selection of levels of difficulty. :cool:
User avatar
yrthwyndandfyre
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:30 am
Location: 100 Miles up the butt of the world
Contact:

Post by yrthwyndandfyre »

Well, whatever the challenge, there is usually a way of defeating it that does not involve a console cheat. VTMB is different, in that there are places where using a cheat code is basically the only thing to do. With Brother Kanker, Jezebel Locke, and even Bishop Vick, though, there are always ways through them without cheating. This extends on into dealings with Andrei at both levels, Grundfeld Bach, the various things in the sewers, the Hengeyokai, Ming Xiao, and even the Sherriff. Typically, it just involves finding the weak spot, and they all have one.
The only thing I constantly cheat myself past is the Werewolf, with God mode. I know there are ways past it without cheating, but since that is a fight that can only be survived, not won, I don't consider playing through it worth the effort, so I cheat through it. If the game designers won't allow me to beat it through my own skill, then I consider it to be a cheat on their part, so I cheat through it.
The barred door in the temple is just a bug, so I cheat through it without remorse. At this point, though, aside from the door and the Werewolf, I don't have to cheat past anything anymore, and my favored character is Tremere.
Sic gorgiamos allos subjectatos nunc
(The Addams family motto: Gladly we feast on those who would subdue us)

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with Ketchup.
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

Thank you for the excellent reply.

[QUOTE=yrthwyndandfyre] With Brother Kanker, Jezebel Locke, and even Bishop Vick, though, there are always ways through them without cheating.[/QUOTE]

I understood that. In fact before I quit, I had defeated all three without using a code (for the easy way past Kanker, I got a hint from a walkthrough). But I have a distaste for long, sweaty, finger-cramping boss battles. And I despise having to reload and reload and reload in order to find the subtle, easy way to success. I believe that game design relying on the save/load function is a failure. After defeating the Bishop, I quit because I was still fairly early in the game, and I did not relish the prospect of a long succession of such battles.

[QUOTE=yrthwyndandfyre]The only thing I constantly cheat myself past is the Werewolf, with God mode....If the game designers won't allow me to beat it through my own skill, then I consider it to be a cheat on their part, so I cheat through it.[/QUOTE]

Darn right! I agree wholeheartedly. YOU DID NOT CHEAT!

I recently played Half-Life 2 on the "Easy" level of difficulty. Trust me; it was not easy. But it was much easier than Hexen II, a sword-and-sorcery action game with a touch of RPG and some excellent puzzle elements. On the "Easy" level of difficulty, the game's bosses make Hexen II just about the most difficult of the 119 PC games I have finished.

Why do games have too many moments of excessive difficulty? Balance is a complex, delicate issue, and to an extent I sympathize with designers responsible for balance. But I also think too many designers are deluded by their own egos. They don't feel satisfied unless they give players some intensely challenging encounters that result in some players being excessively challenged. This is true even though some players are not interested in such encounters, and even though games like VTMB and Deus Ex Invisible War have many good moments not requiring intense combat.

What constitutes excessive? Well, that's why games need a selection of difficulty levels.

I welcome a challenge, but only with moderation. I do not want intense battles that, instead of inducing the euphoria that a designer hopes to induce, only make me intensely angry.:angel:
User avatar
mr_sir
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by mr_sir »

i partially agree with that, but i do like some challenges - especially in the final battles. i find nothing more dissatisfying than a ridiculously easy to kill final boss. i hate it when they are near impossible to beat too though, so i guess its a fine line. i just like a bit of a challenge so its satisfying when you finally defeat the final guy but at the same time not to the point that it gets frustrating. i think the final fight(s) in bloodlines are perfect difficulty wise, but the mini-boss characters are just annoying til you work out easy ways to kill them
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

[QUOTE=mr_sir]i partially agree with that, but i do like some challenges - especially in the final battles. i find nothing more dissatisfying than a ridiculously easy to kill final boss. i hate it when they are near impossible to beat too though, so i guess its a fine line....[/QUOTE]

Sure it's a fine line. With respect to balance, how can you perfectly please every one of the thousands of players who play your game?

But dear mr_sir, if I may disagree with you without blasting you, I would like to say the following:

I have completed (completed mind you, not merely played) 37 computer RPGs, and I have never defeated a final boss character that was ridiculously easy to kill. Sure, some of them were easy to kill, just as easy as they were for you to kill. But why is it that you (and many other gamers who share your viewpoint) found them ridiculously easy to kill?

To me, the most important thing about a game is the story. But I need to be interested in the story. That is, I must become absorbed in it. And I think I can become absorbed in it only if the game has a good amount of action with a compatible degree of challenge.

Challenge, however, does not require intense combat sequences. If I take care to apply experience points to proper skills, if I choose dialog paths that advance my character, if I solve puzzles, if I maintain a high reputation (in VTMB reputation means humanity), I gain satisfaction by understanding that I have built a strong hero. I have accomplished something.

If the encounter with the final boss is easy--or, using your term, ridiculously easy--I am still satisfied. I rationalize that my character is a strong hero, and it is only logical that he should defeat the villain easily. I am then pleased to have finished the story.

Maybe I don't have bragging rights with my friends. I mean, the last time I played Hexen II, I used codes to get past three of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the final boss, Eidolon. But I finished the story, and I was pleased to have vicariously been someone who accomplished great deeds that I can never accomplish in my mundane reality.

So in short I think you, and many other gamers and game designers, are too aligned toward ego and not enough aligned toward intellect. There is too much focus on challenge and not enough focus on story. :)
User avatar
mr_sir
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by mr_sir »

[QUOTE=Solipso]
I have completed (completed mind you, not merely played) 37 computer RPGs, and I have never defeated a final boss character that was ridiculously easy to kill.[/QUOTE]

the final boss in gothic 2 was ridiculously easy - i killed him with just repeated use of a holy arrow spell lol and hardly took a scratch. but i agree with everything you said cos by then my character was capable of taking out armies of orcs so it kinda made sense, but although i got the satisfaction i normally get from finishing the game, i felt a little let down by the fact that it was too easy. easy is not always bad, as it is usually cos your character is built well, but i still like it to at least take a little thinking about lol. to me the difficulty in a battle should not necessarily having a boss that is really hard to kill, just one that needs a little thinking about and strategy to kill - like malek in kotor1 and like the sheriff in bloodlines. the sheriff is really easy to kill, but it takes a bit of thinking about as you have to use the lights etc. and so on. thats what i like in a final battle, not just a boss that is near invincible or dishes out enough damage to kill you in one blow etc.

[QUOTE=Solipso]To me, the most important thing about a game is the story. But I need to be interested in the story. That is, I must become absorbed in it. And I think I can become absorbed in it only if the game has a good amount of action with a compatible degree of challenge.[/QUOTE]

i agree totally with that - the main reason i play rpgs is because of the story in them, and the character development. the story is something which many non-rpgs lack in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Solipso] So in short I think you, and many other gamers and game designers, are too aligned toward ego and not enough aligned toward intellect. There is too much focus on challenge and not enough focus on story. :) [/QUOTE]

sorry but that comes across as a bit offensive and arrogant. how can you judge my intellect or ego? i like games that get me thinking, i like games that get my imagination going, and games that require puzzle solving, developing strategies etc. i hate games that are just about being super powerful so you can kill everything cos you are like a god. which is why i play rpgs and not fps. and the story is the main reason i play.
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

[QUOTE=mr_sir]sorry but that comes across as a bit offensive and arrogant. how can you judge my intellect or ego? i like games that get me thinking, i like games that get my imagination going, and games that require puzzle solving, developing strategies etc. i hate games that are just about being super powerful so you can kill everything cos you are like a god. which is why i play rpgs and not fps. and the story is the main reason i play.[/QUOTE]

My apologies, mr_sir. I made a judgment on you based on what you had written. I am not afraid to say I was wrong, which I have been countless times before.

I am much more pleased with your second reply, because I value gamers who understand that easy is not a synonym for bad.

I do, however, stick to my judgment of the "many other gamers" I referred to. In particular I remember a poster on a Heroes of Might & Magic board. He insisted that "challenge was everything" (and I think my quotation marks are accurate).

Another person who replied to my criticism of excessive game difficulty said something like this, "What's the matter with you, man? Don't you like feeling that hyped-up exaltation after whipping a tough boss." This was after comments I had made about beating Baal (Diablo II: Lord of Destruction).

That was my first time through that game, and because the game had no save-anytime function, the final battle was so intense and anxiety-ridden that it was making me sick. I loathed the thought that if I was killed and could not recover my corpse, I would again need to wade through hordes of Baal's tough lieutenants to again reach Baal. And my resurrected barbarian would not have all the super health potions he had been collecting for the big battle. Fortunately, by the skin of his teeth, he managed to kill the evil Lord.

Did I feel exalted? No, but I was relieved that the game was over. :cool:

(I have since played Diablo II: LOD through twice more, and after studying guides on character development I had good and fairly easy times with the game, especially while playing the Sorceress.)
User avatar
FriendoftheDork
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by FriendoftheDork »

No offense, but to me this is whining. I don't consider myself a "pro" PC player but VtM is not so difficult I have to cheat to get past a boss.

The plaguebearers were actually the first challenge I met in VtM at all, with everything before being really easy. The toughest one was the one in hte sewer, where I had to activate disciplines and use my shotgun in order to kill him, and I think I tried it 3 times to make it because the game lags alot and the bastard sometimes "teleports" right next to me when he seems a bit away.

Also, players tend to forget that blood bags exist in this game, and really if you quit because you can't take a boss without using one to heal yourself you're just to impatent.

Sometimes you have to load in these kinds of games, but that's because you don't know the bosses and their attacks/weaknesses.

I played yesterday and faced Bach, a boss I have had some problems with before. Now I killed him with only 3 shots from the Jaime Sue... the fight wasn't even a challenge because of this. And even the last boss (tower) was piece of cake with celerity 5, firearms 10, by first shooting the guy with my Uzi and then on the roof taking him out from afar with the Jaimie Sue. I never used as single blood pack and never reloaded once. And this is considered the toughest fight in the game.
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]No offense, but to me this is whining. I don't consider myself a "pro" PC player but VtM is not so difficult I have to cheat to get past a boss.[/QUOTE]

Why did you make this reply? Apparently you are just taking an opportunity to brag. You have had an easy time with the game; I had a hard time before I used the codes. Now I am having much fun. As the first two repliers noted, that is what is important.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]Sometimes you have to load in these kinds of games, but that's because you don't know the bosses and their attacks/weaknesses.[/QUOTE]

A game design that relies on the save/load function is a failure.

A genuine roleplayer never wants his character to die. He should be able to go through the entire game, agreeably challenged and having fun without feeling the disappointment and failure of dying. It is the responsibility of the game designer to have the game give information and clues that will prevent a conscientious, responsible player to understand the weaknesses of a boss well enough that a reload is unnecessary.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]I never used as single blood pack and never reloaded once. And this is considered the toughest fight in the game.[/QUOTE]

Good for you. :rolleyes:
User avatar
mr_sir
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by mr_sir »

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]No offense, but to me this is whining. I don't consider myself a "pro" PC player but VtM is not so difficult I have to cheat to get past a boss. [/QUOTE]

this thread is discussing how using a few cheats made the game more enjoyable. whether you agree with using cheats or not, someone saying that they prefer it with cheats is not whining.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]I played yesterday and faced Bach, a boss I have had some problems with before. Now I killed him with only 3 shots from the Jaime Sue... the fight wasn't even a challenge because of this. And even the last boss (tower) was piece of cake with celerity 5, firearms 10, by first shooting the guy with my Uzi and then on the roof taking him out from afar with the Jaimie Sue. I never used as single blood pack and never reloaded once. And this is considered the toughest fight in the game.[/QUOTE]

like all bosses in bloodlines, bach is really easy to kill using the right strategy. but sometimes its nice to have fun and the easy way is often pretty boring so using cheats etc. may make the fight more enjoyable as you can do it how you want to do it (i don't use cheats but i do see that they can be beneficial in making a game fun if it is just frustrating you).

[QUOTE=Solipso]My apologies, mr_sir. I made a judgment on you based on what you had written. I am not afraid to say I was wrong, which I have been countless times before.[/QUOTE]

no worries :) i agree with the points you are making in this thread, i just guess i didn't explain it too well lol.
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

Thank you mr_sir. You're right. I was offering hope to players who had difficulties similar to mine.

I was complaining, but I was not whining, and if players do not complain, games do not improve. :)
User avatar
Obsidian
Posts: 1619
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Obsidian »

So far so good, but I'd like to remind you all to play nice.

This forum is generally very little work for me, and I appreciate that.
The waves came crashing in like blindness.
So I just stood and listened.
User avatar
FriendoftheDork
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by FriendoftheDork »

[QUOTE=Solipso]Why did you make this reply? Apparently you are just taking an opportunity to brag. You have had an easy time with the game; I had a hard time before I used the codes. Now I am having much fun. As the first two repliers noted, that is what is important.[/QUOTE]

I don't feel a need to brag. This game wasn't easy the first time I played it, but I'm glad it is challenging enough for me to play more than once. I think you could have fun with this game without cheating as well. You don't need a maxed out feat to progress.


[QUOTE=Solipso]
A game design that relies on the save/load function is a failure.

A genuine roleplayer never wants his character to die. He should be able to go through the entire game, agreeably challenged and having fun without feeling the disappointment and failure of dying. It is the responsibility of the game designer to have the game give information and clues that will prevent a conscientious, responsible player to understand the weaknesses of a boss well enough that a reload is unnecessary.


Good for you. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

I disagree, almost every game I've played relies on the ability for the gamer to load if things don't turn out good. If there is no chance of that happening, then the game isn't challenging enough. All the good CRPGs I've played, you had to load once or twice during the game at least. Fallout, Torment, Baldur's Gate, even Morrowind.

As a roleplayer, I don't want to die, but I need the possibility of my character dying, be it CRPG or P&P. And really, we all have to fail some times, it makes the victories that much sweeter.

My point is not to brag, even though it may appear so, my point is that with perserverence you should never have to cheat. A game where you have to cheat to continue is too hard.

[QUOTE=mr_sir]this thread is discussing how using a few cheats made the game more enjoyable. whether you agree with using cheats or not, someone saying that they prefer it with cheats is not whining.[/QUOTE]

"Gameplay was agreeable until I got downtown and tried to purge the city of the plaguebearing tough guys. They were too tough. They made me so angry I quit and uninstalled."

This is the part I consider whining. It may not be the most diplomatic way to put it, but it's my opinion nonetheless.
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]I don't feel a need to brag.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I understand. You were just trying to say there's no need to use codes for this game. That's settled.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]I disagree, almost every game I've played relies on the ability for the gamer to load if things don't turn out good.[/QUOTE]

I believe that only some designers, and therefore some games, rely on the save/load. Other designers do not think they are relying on it. They see it as a way for a player to take a break from the game at any time and to return to it from the point where he left off. How many designers and games deliberately rely on the save/load, and how many do not, I do not know. Certainly many players rely on it, I for one. And many players have abused it, as have I.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]As a roleplayer, I don't want to die, but I need the possibility of my character dying, be it CRPG or P&P. And really, we all have to fail some times, it makes the victories that much sweeter.[/QUOTE]

Yes, death must be a real threat, but you don't have to die. An important thing that makes real life interesting is the danger of death. Nevertheless, Mr. FriendoftheDork, have you lost interest in real life because you have never died? Do you need to be killed and resurrected in order to make your real-life accomplishments "that much sweeter?"

A game should be more than just a game. Especially for an RPG, a game should be an immersive experience. You should identify with your character. When your character dies, you die (vicariously). But when your character dies and the game forces you to reload, the element of immersion is lost. You have failed because your character has died, and the game has failed too because the element of immersion has been interrupted. If the game were as immersive as possible, when you character dies it would be GAME OVER! No reloads. Sorry, bud, you'll have to buy another game.

When your character dies and the game requires you to reload, what was an experience has now become only a game, and you are just the same-old nobody, punching keys on a computer.

It's okay to break from a game because you need to work, get some exercise, eat, sleep, etc. You have not failed for that. You character is still living. But it's never okay for your character to die and for you to reload. That's just not entertaining.

In real life, nature convinces us that death is real. In a game, it is the responsibility of the designer to convince the player that death is real. Therefore the game world needs to be convincing. By the same token it is the responsibility of the designer to create a game that allows a reasonably intelligent, genuinely role-playing player to never have to feel the vicarious pangs of death (that is, the disappointment of reload) to be convinced that death is real.:angel:
User avatar
FriendoftheDork
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by FriendoftheDork »

[QUOTE=Solipso]
I believe that only some designers, and therefore some games, rely on the save/load. Other designers do not think they are relying on it. They see it as a way for a player to take a break from the game at any time and to return to it from the point where he left off. How many designers and games deliberately rely on the save/load, and how many do not, I do not know. Certainly many players rely on it, I for one. And many players have abused it, as have I.

Yes, death must be a real threat, but you don't have to die. An important thing that makes real life interesting is the danger of death. Nevertheless, Mr. FriendoftheDork, have you lost interest in real life because you have never died? Do you need to be killed and resurrected in order to make your real-life accomplishments "that much sweeter?"

A game should be more than just a game. Especially for an RPG, a game should be an immersive experience. You should identify with your character. When your character dies, you die (vicariously). But when your character dies and the game forces you to reload, the element of immersion is lost. You have failed because your character has died, and the game has failed too because the element of immersion has been interrupted. If the game were as immersive as possible, when you character dies it would be GAME OVER! No reloads. Sorry, bud, you'll have to buy another game.

When your character dies and the game requires you to reload, what was an experience has now become only a game, and you are just the same-old nobody, punching keys on a computer.

It's okay to break from a game because you need to work, get some exercise, eat, sleep, etc. You have not failed for that. You character is still living. But it's never okay for your character to die and for you to reload. That's just not entertaining.

In real life, nature convinces us that death is real. In a game, it is the responsibility of the designer to convince the player that death is real. Therefore the game world needs to be convincing. By the same token it is the responsibility of the designer to create a game that allows a reasonably intelligent, genuinely role-playing player to never have to feel the vicarious pangs of death (that is, the disappointment of reload) to be convinced that death is real.:angel:[/QUOTE]

It's true, not all games rely on save/load. Just 90% of all RPGs and FPSs I've ever played. In any case, it's a significant amount and I for one don't think the option of loading contra always starting over if **** hits the fan improves the game. Now don't confuse this with RL. I don't want to do, and my character sure doesen't either. But as a player, I want to believe my character can die, and if I don't I might as well just turn on God mode and then get tired of playing in 15 minutes. You haved to seperate character and player, no matter of it's an rpg or even if you're just identifying with the main character of a movie.

I can understand how excessive death in this game can be tedious - the load screen get boring real fast if you get it two or three times in a row. But I'd rather load a few more times in the beginning to ensure that the game remain afterwards. A game where I never had to load once could be fun the first time through, but it would have zero replayability.

I don't need to die in real life. I need to fail though, at whatever I'm trying to, as long as there is a chance of picking up myself. I never want to get into a real life-or-death situation, because failing here there is no turning back - but luckily there is in a computer game. Thus I can enjoy exiting combat in games with no risk to myself.

In a normal RPG, when your character die you make a new one. Usually, there are new stories every week, so you don't lose out on much. In a CRPG this is inconvenient as there is only ONE storyline, and if you die and make a new game you have to play the entire game over again, which frankly is alot more boring than loading at some point and trying the part you had difficulty with again. The responsibiity of the game designer is simply to make an enjoyable game, and to do that you need to please everyone. The game can't be so hard that most gamers can't play the game through without cheating, yet it can't be so easy that better gamers get bored to quickly with it. Since it's impossible to make it perfect for everyone, some will find the game a bit too difficult while some will find it too easy. Thank god we have the save/load function so that the ones that think it too hard still can make it with some patience.

I have spoken. Ugh!
User avatar
Solipso
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Solipso »

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]I for one don't think the option of loading contra always starting over if **** hits the fan improves the game.[/QUOTE]

I am not saying to get rid of the save/load feature. It has its uses. I am saying that neither designers nor gamers should rely on it for the sake of game balance and to prevent a character's death. It should never be relied on!

A designer who relies on it is a designer who has copped out with respect to creating an alternate-reality game experience. A reliance on the save/load tarnishes the roleplaying experience. A designer's job is to simultaneously create a game world that convinces a player that a character can die, while allowing a reasonably intelligent player to finish the game without having his character die.

The character should not die, not even once! I am about as confident of this as I am of anything.

Now I don't mean to be presenting The Absolute that philosophers are always seeking. There are exceptions. For example in both Diablo II and Dungeon Siege II, your main character can die and be resurrected without your having to reload.


[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]Now don't confuse this with RL. I don't want to do, and my character sure doesen't either. But as a player, I want to believe my character can die[/QUOTE]

No you don't want to confuse one reality with another, but I am sure that as an appreciater of a good RPG, you do want to believe in the game's alternate reality. You want to project yourself into that world, but only vicariously. You want to believe in that world's characters, you want to believe in your character, and you do want to believe that your character can die. But if you rely on the save/load function, in the back of your mind you are copping out. You are not really believing in your character.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]A game where I never had to load once could be fun the first time through, but it would have zero replayability.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. Diablo II as well VTMB has a good selection of characters that make a replay worth your while even if you never had to reload the first time through.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]I don't need to die in real life. I need to fail though, at whatever I'm trying to, as long as there is a chance of picking up myself. I never want to get into a real life-or-death situation, because failing here there is no turning back - but luckily there is in a computer game. Thus I can enjoy exiting combat in games with no risk to myself.[/QUOTE]

No. This point is invalid. You have already said that you don't want to play a game in God mode. But here you are essentially saying that you do want to play in God mode, using the save/load feature as God.

But I am confident that somewhere inside you, you really do not want to rely on it. You want to have a rip-roaring experience that is 100% challenging and that makes you feel special. It's the designer's resonsibility to give you that experience, without giving you the disappointment of death.

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]The responsibiity of the game designer is simply to make an enjoyable game, and to do that you need to please everyone....Thank god we have the save/load function so that the ones that think it too hard still can make it with some patience.[/QUOTE]

Maybe the designers of Tetris and of Bad Mojo were simply trying to make an enjoyable game, but the designers of Half-Life 2 and VTMB were trying to do more than "simply make an enjoyable game." They were trying to create an experience of an alternate reality.

A designer probably cannot please everyone perfectly, but he can give a game a selection of difficulty levels (which VTMB does not have). He can also try to achieve the ideal game design I have been suggesting: one that convinces a player that his character can die, while also allowing a player to finish without having his character die and with a strong feeling of accomplishment.:angel:
User avatar
yrthwyndandfyre
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:30 am
Location: 100 Miles up the butt of the world
Contact:

Post by yrthwyndandfyre »

[QUOTE=FriendoftheDork]No offense, but to me this is whining. I don't consider myself a "pro" PC player but VtM is not so difficult I have to cheat to get past a boss.

The plaguebearers were actually the first challenge I met in VtM at all, with everything before being really easy. The toughest one was the one in hte sewer, where I had to activate disciplines and use my shotgun in order to kill him, and I think I tried it 3 times to make it because the game lags alot and the bastard sometimes "teleports" right next to me when he seems a bit away.

Also, players tend to forget that blood bags exist in this game, and really if you quit because you can't take a boss without using one to heal yourself you're just to impatent.

Sometimes you have to load in these kinds of games, but that's because you don't know the bosses and their attacks/weaknesses.

I played yesterday and faced Bach, a boss I have had some problems with before. Now I killed him with only 3 shots from the Jaime Sue... the fight wasn't even a challenge because of this. And even the last boss (tower) was piece of cake with celerity 5, firearms 10, by first shooting the guy with my Uzi and then on the roof taking him out from afar with the Jaimie Sue. I never used as single blood pack and never reloaded once. And this is considered the toughest fight in the game.[/QUOTE]

This is all very true. To the point, part of the problem of killing bosses is to find a weakness and exploit it, which generally makes things stupid easy. By the time I got to Desaan in Jedi Outcast, I had an armpit-full of arms, and given that, a decidedly strategic deployment of them gave me a very good chance from the get-go. I later learned how to take him on with just a light-sabre with great effect. That was after, however, I learned to take out a ATAD with just a light-saber. Not because it was necessary, but because I was testing my skills. Everybody said it couldn't be done. I believe the word 'impossible' means "I don't understand the problem well enough". So I sought to understand the problem. Frustrating, yes, but now I can do something that virtually nobody else can do.

In many places in VTMB, the analogue prevails. I had the devil's own time with most of the bosses until I gradually realised what their weaknesses are. That contributes to the replay factor of the game. I'm still learning weaknesses, and the ease of playing increases every time I find one. Nowadays, Bishop Vick is a pansy, but there was a time when he was all but unbeatable. Same goes for Andrei, the Chiropteran Behemoth, Ming Xiao, and most of the high-level bosses. They've gone from panthers to kitty-cats. I'm still trying to find better ways of defeating them. I'm also running out of ways, so the replayability is starting to wear out. This, however, after nearly 2 years of play.

Having said that, and lauded the game designers on their skills, I can't kill the werewolf by force of single combat. BAD, BAD, GAME DESIGNERS!! Invincible God-Monsters? BAD. Difficult to kill God-Monsters? Trying, yes. Difficult, yes. Frustrating, yes. Permissible? Of course. I'm reminded of the God-Boss in Return to Wolfenstein. He can only be killed by blind luck, and I consider that attribute to be anathema to the whole atmosphere and purpose of an RPG. It defeats the point of the game. If an invincible God-Monster is the best they can do, then they're not trying hard enough.

Tough? That I can live with. Impossible or sheer luck? I hate that.
Sic gorgiamos allos subjectatos nunc
(The Addams family motto: Gladly we feast on those who would subdue us)

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with Ketchup.
Post Reply