Storytelling in Games Thread

[jubeh]

I lost to vagina dragon the first time because that wizard kept shooting me in the back. He got his, though.

Also yeah, the idea of leveling up as batman is kind of ridiculous when he is like the peak of what a person can be.

[CypressDahlia]

The idea that accessibility somehow means that a game is ez mode is really backwards.

Hey, don't tell me. I'm not the one designing these games. This seems to be the train of thought for most developers as games become progressively easier for the purpose of appeal. And the games which are hard are specifically marketed as "hardcore", creating what is now the chasm between casual and hardcore gamers. Clearly there is a division in the gaming audience and marketing teams are catching onto this.

EDIT: Actually, Clock's example of giving Batman bulletproof armor is a perfect example of this. "Hey, guys, if this game is too hard...we should put in a method to make it easier so we don't lose a portion of our audience." And such is grinding in RPGs.

And yeah, remember in the Dark Souls thread I said I went back to Undead Asylum way too early. Stray Demon basically raped me the first time because his attacks are pretty much unblockable and the attack pattern is variable in that he might simply spam magic over and over again. You really needed to tank through the fight, especially if you're not a dex-based fighter. And visiting the catacombs early on in the game is a similar scenario as you won't have enough stamina to withstand the barrage of melee attacks that those creeps in the Tomb of Giants dish out. Nor will you have the STR to wield powerful, heavy weapons in the game that are necessary to defeating these enemies at any rate faster than a snail's pace. So basically DS uses statistical barriers to create "invisible walls" that determine where you can and can't go. That is my point.

Whereas, say I got a .2x soul multiplier for every time I parried an attack. Parrying is something players of DS rarely do unless they're confident in the situation (like fighting an enemy multiple times weaker), at which point it's not even necessary. It's a difficult skill that offers no reward, whereas it could effectively be used as a mechanic through which a player can circumvent grinding and topple said "invisible walls". Sadly, even parrying becomes totally irrelevant by the end of the game whereas in like KH, even when fighting Sephiroth you're still fkin parrying. Like, the mechanics stay relevant.

[jubeh]

And yeah, remember in the Dark Souls thread I said I went back to Undead Asylum way too early. Stray Demon basically raped me the first time because his attacks are pretty much unblockable and the attack pattern is variable in that he might simply spam magic over and over again. You really needed to tank through the fight, especially if you're not a dex-based fighter.

Not at all. I'll spoiler it for dudes that like to figure out fights for themselves.

SPOILER! :

You literally just need to stay on his left. When he jumps up, break lock on and run to the side. Get a few hits in. If he pauses at all during his normal patter, he is using the aoe attack. Just roll away. Otherwise, all of his other attacks only hit you in the front including that explosive aoe cone. This fight is a joke once you figure that out. I ended up dropping my shield and armor so I could run to the side easier. If you do it right you shouldn't ever get hit anyway.

And visiting the catacombs early on in the game is a similar scenario as you won't have enough stamina to withstand the barrage of melee attacks that those creeps in the Tomb of Giants dish out. Nor will you have the STR to wield powerful, heavy weapons in the game that are necessary to defeating these enemies at any rate faster than a snail's pace. So basically DS uses statistical barriers to create "invisible walls" that determine where you can and can't go. That is my point.

While this is true for the most part (ie mobs being strong to discourage you), dark souls is exceptional since it can be beaten at level 1, naked. You just have to get into the mindset that survival is more important than killing mobs, so getting out of a situation is considerably more important than killing everything you come across. One of my favorite things about dark souls is that there are battles that are better left avoided.

Like the first time I played dnd I thought it was hyper weird that you got more xp from finding gold than you did from killing monsters, since gaming had perverted my expectations somewhat. The logic was that if there was an unbeatable monster guarding treasure, you should be rewarded for luring it away or tricking it, and not just for combat. While you don't get rewarded for stuff like that in dark souls, you do survive thus potentially saving any souls you could have lost.

Whereas, say I got a .2x soul multiplier for every time I parried an attack. Parrying is something players of DS rarely do unless they're confident in the situation (like fighting an enemy multiple times weaker), at which point it's not even necessary. It's a difficult skill that offers no reward, whereas it could effectively be used as a mechanic through which a player can circumvent grinding and topple said "invisible walls". Sadly, even parrying becomes totally irrelevant by the end of the game whereas in like KH, even when fighting Sephiroth you're still fkin parrying. Like, the mechanics stay relevant.

I find it weird that you're making such a bold statement about an entire community of players. A lot of the guys I summoned into my world were parry machines. In my dual fist run I parry all the time just because the animation is ridiculously badass.

And parrying is not irrelevant at all at the endgame.

SPOILER! :

As in it makes gwyn ez mode if you just parry his shit all day.

And the silver knights

And invaders?

[CypressDahlia]

The first time I fought Stray Demon he basically just spammed magic constantly and the rate at which I was doing damage, it would've taken like a good hour just to kill the dude by smacking him once, rolling, smacking again, rolling, etc, etc. going for 2 or 3 hits and dodging was impossible with my stamina at the time. At that point, I think any player would logically assume that they just weren't strong enough to fight the guy and go to either 1.) grind or 2.) progress in a different direction. I guess we just approached the boss at different times.

And I guess the parry thing is just a difference in experiences. At the point where I was regularly encountering black phantoms they were such tanks that parrying was not nearly as effective for them as baiting out an attack and going for a backstab. But human-sized enemies only make up like 40% of the game's enemy population so backstabbing and parrying are relevant only half the time, at best. I don't remember parrying once past Anor Londo except against invaders. And, even then, it was more efficient to go for the backstab.

[jubeh]

Stray demon...doesn't use magic? Like he makes explosions if thats what you mean. You break lock on so you can run, instead of roll, so you can conserve stamina. I get what you're saying, but I think dark souls is a bad example of your point because you can accomplish anything in the game, aside from literally impossible shit like doing lost izalith without the ring, through sheer perseverance.

Also parrying invaders is good because of the psychological edge you gain. I do it whenever somebody's using a low speed weapon, due to the nature of lag. Backstabbing seems efficient, but only because of lag. Otherwise you just circle each other for hours until somebody gets bored.

edit: Its also worth noting you dont see parrying a lot because as of right now none of the weapons with high crit are actually any good. Until the patch comes there's no point not to use an electric weapon.

[CypressDahlia]

well I mean it hits through your shield so I just refer to it as magic. Yeah maybe explosion is a better term.

And yeah, I understand you can do things through sheer perseverance but that's exactly the point I was trying to make. That weighs time in as a heavier gameplay factor than skill. Surely, I could go back to the Tomb of Giants at level 1 and pick away at those enemies little by little. I mean, they're not MUCH harder than the enemies at the Undead Church and fighting them is no different except for massive damage and HP upgrades. But it's like...do I really have the time to do that? Why can't there be a system where if I play skillfully I can circumvent that huge investment of time? And I would argue that just running past them naked would entail not experiencing a majority of the game.

[jubeh]

Your idea is sound but thats not the game that dark souls is. I don't have a problem with your overall point at all, I just disagree with your criticisms of the game.

[Inksprout]

Dark Souls aside, are you saying that games should never cater to 'casual players' or just that designers need to be smarter in how they scale for different skills levels? I think the distinctions people make between hardcore and casual gamers are a little unfair. It seems that 'hardcore' gamers believe those who are not as skilled at them do no take games as seriously as they do, and it seems like maybe you're suggesting that because of that reason they don't deserve to have easier difficulty settings to allow them to enjoy the same games as you.

I'm sure you are aware of the number of different things that go into making a gaming experience such as artwork, character development and story, enjoying these aspects of a game generally has nothing to do with how skilled you are at the actual game play. In addition to this a core aspect of any game is a sense of flow, and having achievable goals. For people who are serious about games, who love to play them and are interested in playing a variety of them but don't necessarily have a lot of time to sink into it or are just not that skilled its useful to have some options to make the game easier. They shouldn't be consider less of a 'gamer' for that.

I agree that some games do a bad job of creating scaling difficulty, but the issue goes both ways. You can't just say games should only cater for hardcore players anymore than someone can say they should cater only for casual players. Having said that I don't find a game more appealing just because it's renowned for being easier, but I do find it frustrating if the game is insurmountably challenging with no options to make it any easier.

[CypressDahlia]

No, no, no. The point is not that RPGs are too easy. The point is that RPGs don't really have difficulty. The factor of difficulty in an RPG is a direct relation to how much time you're willing to spend on grinding, in most cases. In other words, there is no being "good at" or "bad at" most RPGs. It's all determined by how strong your characters are, which is independent of player skill. And, though this maximizes appeal by giving casual players a synthetic way to "get better" at a game, it holds back players who want to be rewarded for skill and/or do not want to bother with extensive grinding. Imagine that you and I started playing FF7 at the same time and both wanted to get to level 10. We'd have to spend equal amounts of time fighting enemies in almost identical ways to reach that goal. You might be the more skillful player, or I might, but it would be entirely irrelevant as we're forced by the shoddy character growth model to approach and accomplish the goal in the same way. But say we both started Kingdom Hearts at the same time and wanted to reach level 10. If you are the more skillful player, you might reach level 10 an hour before I do just by parrying blitzballs on Destiny Island. You were able to use your skill to circumvent the need for grinding and, in turn make your character stronger in proportion to your ability. Whereas I'm still running around Traverse Town smashing Shadows for minimal EXP.

In short, I'm proposing that an RPG should somehow factor player skill into the formula and eliminate the necessity of grinding. The idea of only getting stronger by grinding is repellent to gamers who don't have a lot of time, nor does it make much sense. It's also very limiting as to how one chooses to progress in a game. So I have nothing against casual gaming. I just hate that RPGs hold back players that want to take more risks or play more intelligently.

[Inksprout]

Ah ok, I understand what you mean now. I get a bit touchy when people start debating about casual and hardcore gamers. I totally agree with your feelings on this. I've never understood why you would want to deliberately create game that was boring through having lots of grinding. That's my main problem with pokemon at the moment. I used to be able to play it fine, perhaps I was just more willing to spend time leveling my pokemon. Now I just find it too tedious. The story is so generic and the special features just seem dull. I can't access any of the online content so it just seems like a giant pointless grind fest with derpy pokemon designs.