Red Carpet Regular Member+

"not me! ......... ok, maybe i am" , posted Wed 21 Aug 03:59

quite a thread you got here, DKW. we'll see how i measure up

1. fun factor - agred
one guy's fun is another guy's boredom, but i think i know what you mean here. if the overall game isn't fun, then why play it (other than to see the story)

2. difficulty - agred
easy should be easy and hard you be (imo) extremely hard. the creators of the game should take note of difficulties to try to please everyone

3. baseline for difficulty - indifferent
i think the casual gamer and the internet ranking players should both be used to judge the baseline for difficulty in a game. but creating a game that would only make sense to the elite doesn't sound fun at all, not even for those "elite" players. for example, a game where the odds are always dramatically against you would eventually get tiring. i always enjoy a good challenge, but when there's nothing to face but insane challenges all the time, i won't be having fun anymore. i'll just be tired and would only continue the game just for the sake of completing it

4. challenge - agred
see 3, although i really liked that Gradius for the SNES. i thought it was perfect. what's "Cf.?"

5. difficulty for music games - agred
i haven't played many of these games, but dude, DDR needs more than three freakin' difficulties!

6. to the end - huh?
not sure what your view is here. if it's for unlimited continues (in the arcade, at the expense of your money), i'm with you! games that only let you continue so many times sadden me

7. continue points - indifferent
as for those seemingly insanely difficult stages, i always have this in mind: "the creators put this in for some reason. there's gotta be a way through this." but when i discover that some of those stages really are near impossible, the fun factor goes way down. it makes you wanna just give up
haha, reminds me of Sin and Punishment, some N64 game we were playing at a friend's house. this one "boss" was just freakin' crazy. some bomb thing or something. anyways, you had to fire at it and continue firing until it got close. when it did, you had to slash at is as much as you could. after the third time it swings past you, it kills you no matter how much health you have. anyways, when we were playing it the other day, we were only able to pass it once (my friend beat it somehow, probably by luck. the bomb owned me and Hagen de Merak). it sucks because the game only gave you so many continues. anyways, that certain boss wasn't impossible, you just needed precision with everything you did. i think we could've beaten it easily if we were used to the game and its controls

8. limited continues - HELL YEAH
i agree with you completely

9. keeping power-ups - indifferent
to me, i think it depends on the game. i love Gradius (uh, the SNES one. haven't played any others -_-) and i think it's perfect. but in Contra, it pissed me the hell off every time i died and lost my beautiful beautiful gun and assortment of bombs

10. movelists - FUCK YEAH
hah, i think that's the first i've cursed here. maybe second time. anyways, i COMPLETELY agree with you! i think all freakin' fighting game manuals should come with as much information as possible, including a full movelist. DAMN THOSE KOF INSTRUCTION MANUALS >_< i was very pleased with the plump GGX manual that came with the PS2 version of the game

11. playtesters speaking up - indifferent
yea, playtesters should go with their gut feeling and say what they feel, but i also believe the game's creators have the absolute right to do what they want. if i were ever gonna make a game, i'll gladly listen to any suggestions, but the game will be how i want it. nutz to the fans

12. game morality - disagree
of course, this varies from game to game and situation to situation. here's a few examples
players that do nothing but turtle will always be turtle-y enough for the turtle club. they're lame and incredibly boring to watch. anyways, i have nothing against turtling when you need to. if you don't turtle in some situations, you will die, and that makes you stupid, not brave. for example, my friends (ARGH) have learned that turtling and poking against my Vice in CvS2 and my Clark in kof is one of the few ways to take them down. if they don't, my wacky grappling buddies will rape them
on another note, using a "newbie" option like "cut the health down to 1/3" against one of those zany SNK demigod bosses are not cheap in my book. i usually find those options as charity that i don't want. but sometimes, when fighting cheese, you gotta use cheese

13. "cheat" devices - indifferent
use those devices if you want. i won't stop or lecture you. but you'll never catch me using one (unless i'm extremely bored)

14. new features in aggravating games - agred
i like to complete games without any "charity," but sometimes you have no choice (ie using those options against the demigod SNK bosses, using save states before fighting an incredibly fierce boss, etc)

15. focus of games - agred
i'm sick of seeing heaps of sports games everywhere

16. kidz - agred
i think the "easiest" mode should be a regular challenge for the average kid. but defining the "average kid" is tough. there's a huge span of ages. i remember playing games when i was about 5

---

Lulled with sound of sweetest melody -- The Midnight Carnival

Red Carpet Regular Member++

"Re(1):Poll: Who's with me?" , posted Wed 21 Aug 04:35

1. A game should be fun. This is an absolutely ironclad rule, and all other considerations, including “challenge”, come into account only when this fundamental need has been addressed. A game that’s not fun is worthless.

STRONGLY AGREE. Nuff said

2. If a game has a range of difficulties, especially if there are five or more, the easiest difficulty setting should be very easy. (E.g., someone who’s never seen the game before can beat it in no more than 8-10 hours, give or take a few depending on the type of game.) If the easiest difficulty is not easy, and, in fact, is nearly as hard as the hardest difficulty setting, the game is clearly flawed and should not be released until this gross error is corrected.

STRONGLY AGREE. Nuff said.

3. The ideal baseline for determining the difficulty of a game is a fairly casual gamer; not completely ignorant, but not a supreme master of any game, either. I.e., right down the middle. Internet Ranking players and the like should never be used, because they are invariably the most elite of the elite and find nothing too difficult; designing the game to their specifications will invariably make it hell for the vast majority of people who are actually going to play it.

Agree. Most of it, except for the Internet Ranking thing. I believe most players, when mastered a certain game, wants to know how he/she fares with other gamers. This should be made an option which could only be turned on by true experts (getting a secret code or something.)

4. Making “challenge” the one and only objective when designing a game is deplorable, and often results in an unbelievably difficult game that’s fun for about a few minutes and then completely unbearable and unplayable. (Cf. Gradius series, Xybots, Rolling Thunder 2...)

Agree. Games shouldn't be too difficult...Let people have their chance in mastering the game first. But for sequel games, there should be some alternate ways for experts to enjoy the game as well. CF Metal Slug 3 - You can take the submarine route for a more difficult challenge or go through the easier jungle route.

5. In a music or similar game, the ideal arrangement is for there to be a wide variety of songs that range from extremely easy to extremely hard. There should not be a gross overabundance of either super-easy or super-hard songs. Furthermore, if there’s a “beginner” level, that level should not contain ANY problematic songs.

Errrr...Are you referring to games like DDR, Beat Mania etc? I suppose I agree, yeah. I do not have any problems with the difficulty levels for these games.

6. In a plane shooter, platform side-scroller, or any other game where it’s possible to get killed very quickly, there should always be a way for someone who isn’t an elite ultra-hardcore supreme master (or maybe even a rookie) to continue to the end, even if it costs a fortune. (Anyone who has a problem with this is free to get the hell out of the damn arcade.)

Errrr...Isn't this already one of the objectives for such games? You get to continue the game when you finish your lives by inserting more credits, no? That is how the game earns money...

7. Forcing the player to repeat the same stage over and over and over without any chance of getting through (cf. Rolling Thunder 2, Ghosts ‘n Goblins, Strider) is ridiculous. It adds no “challenge” whatsoever; it just causes monumental frustration. Likewise, continuing a game at an earlier part of the level or even a previous level is absolutely insane and completely defeats the purpose of continuing.

Strongly agree. It is frustrating to continue from the level again when you are beating the boss of that level. That is just stupidity. The final boss can perhaps regain some life points back if player loses all the lives in a level and wishes to continue from that spot, but hell no please do not continue from the level again.

8. There is no reason whatsoever for either limited continues or no continues permitted past a certain point. No. Reason. Whatsoever.

STRONGLY AGREE. Games can be made such that there are hidden secrets should you win a game without continues. But for the non-experts, please let them have the fun of kicking the final boss's butt if they are rich enough.

9. For any game where the player’s success is heavily dependent on power-up items AND where it’s very easy to get killed (I’m talking Gradius here, can you tell?), the player should not lose all the friggin’ power-ups at the start of each new life. There should be at least one or two “permanent” items.

Agree. One or two power-ups should remain. But for games like Metal Slug, it is ridiculous to have the weapon you are still carrying each time you die.

10. If you design a fighting game with a strange, completely counterintuitive system, make movelists that take up a full page each and require a whole day of game time just to test all the moves, and throw in several aircraft carrier-loads of features and styles and stances and modes and counters and enhancements and tweaks and twiddles, you really shouldn’t act all shocked when most of the people who play it turn into “button mashers”.

Neither agree or disagree. Fighting games have a steady base of fans that are not "button mashers" and who are looking out for innovating features and moves. If you are a "button masher" for a fighting game, either you quit, get someone to teach you how to play it properly, or be mentally prepared to fail at all fighting games.

11. Playtesters should always trust their gut feelings and not be afraid to point out particularly annoying, irritating, vexing, infuriating, or just plain horribly designed parts or stages of a game, even if there’s nothing “technically” wrong with them. (Cf. Truck stage in T2: Judgment Day, helicopter attack in same game, endless wall-banging in Super Sprint, Supreme Overlord Clock in Silent Scope, practically everything about Xybots.)

Errrr...I suppose I agree.

12. Nebulous, loaded words such as “honor” and “cowardice” and “correctness” and “cheapness” etc. etc. have absolutely no relevance to any video game.

Disgree. There are "cowardice" and "cheapness" in games. CF Final Fight - Cody has a bug where you hit a few punches, turn around quickly, turn around to face opponent quickly again, hit a few punches...Repeat n times...Making use of bugs to win a game isn't the right and fun way to do it, no matter how difficult it is to do the bug.

13. “Cheat” devices, codes, features etc. are for those who need them. Since video games are not friggin’ life and death matters (see #1 and #11), they’re perfectly acceptable. It’s nobody’s business except that of the user. (In the case of online gaming, it’s the responsibility of the game’s administrators to find a way to block out unfair codes and make sure everyone’s playing by the rules.)

Agree to a certain extent. There are real-life medical/psychological cases whereby gamers can't face reality because they have been excessively using game cheats to win games, and realise that when they can't "cheat" in real life, they got emotional and broke down. Gamers must learn to understand that the difficulties of games are there for a reason.

14. If a cheat code, special feature, save state option etc. makes a game that’s frustrating, irritating, infuriating, absolutely no fun, and way too hard actually fun to play, this is a good thing and should be encouraged. If a game is aggravating even with cheat codes (hello, Bloody Roar 3!), this is a sign that the game was a colossal mistake from the ground up and should’ve never left the drawing board.

Strongly Agree. Nuff said. Games that are too difficult shouldn't be marketed.

15. The market for a home console is, at least theoretically, every gamer in the country. Therefore, it makes no sense to focus obsessively on just one or two genres of games, and it’s ridiculous to give an inordinate amount of attention to a tiny handful of overhyped, overrated games. And of course, there should be a wide range of difficulties and complexities.

Strongly agree. Many game companies are too obsessed with making profits, and are reluctant to R&D on new variety of games that might be too unconventional. This discourages innovation and variety in the gaming industry, which is bad.

16. Children play video games too. Many of them don’t have access to cheat devices. They should be accommodated as well.

Strongly Agree. Nuff said.

Your posts are always interesting, DKW. Don't think minority voices often go unheard in boards. I often look forward to your posts, actually. I post a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I have a lot of meaningful things to say...

---

Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master

"Re(1):Poll: Who's with me?" , posted Wed 21 Aug 05:32

Ishmael
142th Post

Regular Customer

"Re(2):Poll: Who's with me?" , posted Wed 21 Aug 10:02

1. Agreed.

2. Another personal fave of mine is when the easy setting is easy right up until the very end where it switches back to being hard. If you're going to have changing difficulty settings keep it consistent.

3. The US arcade version of SSF2T is a good example of this problem. In my area out of all the SF players there was only one person I knew of who had the patience to try and play the CPU. Marketing a game to one guy in an entire city doesn't seem like the smartest financial move.

6. Very true. Why set up barriers that keep players from wanting to spend their money?

7. I think this is more a problem with older games than more recent titles [or at least I haven't encountered this as much recently.] While it was possible to beat a game like Strider without dying you had to be fanatical about the game to do that well. While that may mean that a player will spend more money learning a game they like it also means that they are spending less on a lot of other games out there that they try once or twice but then give up on because the learning curve is too high.

8. The mindset that lives for limited continues is something I will never understand. It reminds of how some people were complaining when the PSX port Strider 2 had infinite continues. Did they as players have so little willpower that they couldn't keep themselves from continuing on their own and needed the game to set limits for them?

10. While I enjoy games that reward you the longer you play them game creators should remember to make sure that the game can be played by different skill levels. For every Akira in VF4 there should be a character that can be played straight out of the box.

11. I suspect a number of games slip through with little playtesting due to release date timelines or lack of budget and personnel.

13. Plus it's sometimes just plain fun to cheat your way through a game!

14. Along those lines is that cheats and whatnot should be available from the beginning. One of the crazier things I've seen recently is the idea that you have to do really well at a game in order to unlock options that make the game easier. Who is that benefiting?

15. I actually think there are more types of games for more types of players out there than ever before. It's certainly better than the days when most everything was either a platformer or a fighter with a half-assed game engine.

16. I agree, although those little buggers seem to be able to get good real fast.

---