|
Post by Sketcz-1000 on Jul 16, 2012 10:47:18 GMT -5
Come on guys, let's not start fighting over this - I've been sincerely enjoying how we've been fleshing out the conceptual edges of the strategy genre, with differing opinions on what's good, what's bad, and everything else. I've also been enjoying reading specific descriptions of things encountered in other games. Anyway, I apologize that I'm not as "hardcore" as you or whatever, but I just don't get turgid over the idea of permadeath. I probably should amend the text in the main feature to clarify - I specifically meant I liked permadeath as something to keep me on my toes in avoiding it. I would never choose to save my game if a character died, ever (except that one time during my second Valkyria playthrough, where I did it to get a medal). My assumption would be that no one would save after losing a character - are there any strategy games which are even designed specifically around (optionally) losing someone? You'd effectively cripple yourself and possibly lose out on story elements. In OD for example, some characters such as Frank have rather detailed cut-scenes in later missions, such as: when you meet the grandson of his creator, Dr Frankentstein. This is actually a really cool plot development, but you can miss it entirely by letting Frank die in earlier missions. I suppose the philosophical question then is: why bother having permadeath at all if everyone will simply reload if they finish a mission with a dead character? Why not just make it Game Over and force a reload anyway? I like the choice it offers though - do you want to carry on, with missing fingers? It's like the game taunts you to do better, dangling progression in your face like some kind of wicked temptation. Whereas with forced Game Over there is no choice - it's do it again until you do it right. My guys would sometimes fall in OD. The tension of having Herbert drop all his gear (to be lighter and get more turns), to race to within range and revive them, was thrilling. On one occasion two people fell close by, and I popped an item to boost his SPD so his turn came up even faster. Then I had some other guys move close to Herbert to draw fire. That was a good mission. It's like flying games where you end up in a tailspin sometimes - it's fun to get out of, but it sucks to crash.
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Jul 16, 2012 11:00:21 GMT -5
And Johnny, I know there's an underlying stigma to it, but frankly, it's not attached to achievements or trophies, and nobody else is going to know I took the easy way out but me. The way I see it is that I can enjoy the game without having to waste additional hours trying to play it the way I was going to in the first place, and if there's a shame in that, then those people can go fuck themselves; Hope they don't fall off of their high horses trying to do that... When did I say anything about trophies and achievements? Quite frankly, people who complain about permadeath in Fire Emblem are just poor players who can't handle the fact that a game's rules actually punishes players for their mistakes. Personally, figuring out the way to clear a map while keeping all of your characters alive (or at least keeping losses to a minimum) is part of Fire Emblem's appeal for me. It actually encourages players to think out their strategy rather than just blindly attack enemies and hope for the best. I'm not sure why people are willing to put with countless hours of level grinding to defeat a boss in a standard JRPG, but making good use of their intellect and figuring out a good strategy to clear a stage is suddenly "hours wasted". Mastering a game is part of the fun.
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Jul 16, 2012 11:29:00 GMT -5
I suppose the philosophical question then is: why bother having permadeath at all if everyone will simply reload if they finish a mission with a dead character? Why not just make it Game Over and force a reload anyway? I like the choice it offers though - do you want to carry on, with missing fingers? It's like the game taunts you to do better, dangling progression in your face like some kind of wicked temptation. Whereas with forced Game Over there is no choice - it's do it again until you do it right. Sounds right to me. It's basically just a heavy cost if the player wants to continue. The game will only get harder because of it. It kind of reminds me of arcade games. It's extremely unwise to continue because you'll surely just get your ass kicked even faster in the later levels, and you usually don't have all the power-ups and life bonuses to help carry you through the tougher challenges. You'll be credit feeding at an exponential rate as the game goes on. And in these strategy games, you'll be failing at an exponential rate the more characters you sacrifice. But it depends on the game. In some of these strategy games permadeath isn't all too costly if the game is poorly balanced and it only takes a few good characters to carry you through the whole game. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see how people misinterpret jonny's posts next. I see a potential gem at the end of the last one.
|
|
|
Post by zellsf on Jul 16, 2012 12:14:10 GMT -5
I never said any of that. I did however say I didn't agree with you (and why the hell would I apologize for that?) and I did explain why.
You're guessing. Have you actually tried? Played through entire games actually being careful about your characters (because they can die) and continuing after they die, making whatever adjustments to your strategy necessary? That's what I'm wondering if anyone who says this is a design flaw has done.
Of course you won't do that, because as you said yourself, you want to 100% everything. Which is perfectly reasonable, but it's not bad design if a game doesn't cater to that.
Edit: FYI: I would've tested some myself, but the only games I actually want to play that has perma-death at the moment are Baldur's Gate II (perma-death very unlikely, and I've played the game enough that I can easily deal with losing a character or two) and Valkyria Chronicles (perma-death very unlikely, and none of the characters that can die have any significance).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2012 12:20:46 GMT -5
And Johnny, I know there's an underlying stigma to it, but frankly, it's not attached to achievements or trophies, and nobody else is going to know I took the easy way out but me. The way I see it is that I can enjoy the game without having to waste additional hours trying to play it the way I was going to in the first place, and if there's a shame in that, then those people can go fuck themselves; Hope they don't fall off of their high horses trying to do that... When did I say anything about trophies and achievements? Quite frankly, people who complain about permadeath in Fire Emblem are just poor players who can't handle the fact that a game's rules actually punishes players for their mistakes. Personally, figuring out the way to clear a map while keeping all of your characters alive (or at least keeping losses to a minimum) is part of Fire Emblem's appeal for me. It actually encourages players to think out their strategy rather than just blindly attack enemies and hope for the best. I'm not sure why people are willing to put with countless hours of level grinding to defeat a boss in a standard JRPG, but making good use of their intellect and figuring out a good strategy to clear a stage is suddenly "hours wasted". Mastering a game is part of the fun. I never said you said it. I just said that since its not connected to live or psn nobody but me is going to know when I'm being a "poor player" and / or take the pussy route. It is fun to master something, but there's a lot of games to play out there and it's nice when they either give you a pussy route or reward you for taking the hard route rather than merely punishing you for being human and not a chess computer. Justjustin: I concur. It's always fun to see his comments and/or the ensuing shitstorm. I'm glad I picked up some jonny2x4ese during my travels; I think a rough approximation (at least Google Translate level is "I don't have a problem with permadeath since I like challenging myself." ;p I never said any of that. I did however say I didn't agree with you (and why the hell would I apologize for that?) and I did explain why. You're guessing. Have you actually tried? Played through entire games actually being careful about your characters (because they can die) and continuing after they die, making whatever adjustments to your strategy necessary? That's what I'm wondering if anyone who says this is a design flaw has done. Of course you won't do that, because as you said yourself, you want to 100% everything. Which is perfectly reasonable, but it's not bad design if a game doesn't cater to that. Edit: FYI: I would've tested some myself, but the only games I actually want to play that has perma-death at the moment are Baldur's Gate II (perma-death very unlikely, and I've played the game enough that I can easily deal with losing a character or two) and Valkyria Chronicles (perma-death very unlikely, and none of the characters that can die have any significance). Um, where did I ask for an apology? BTW, that statement wasn't so much about you not justifying your opinion as it was me telling you in a nice way to not post things in such a an angry sounding manner. I need to be less ambiguous in the future. I guess bottom line is that permadeath doesn't suit my play style too well, but I'm not going to begrudge you for enjoying that kind of hardcore challenge. Sorry if it came out that way. And I do think it would be an interesting experiment if someone did try what you suggested. I might take you up on that.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 16, 2012 12:47:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure why people are willing to put with countless hours of level grinding to defeat a boss in a standard JRPG, but making good use of their intellect and figuring out a good strategy to clear a stage is suddenly "hours wasted". Mastering a game is part of the fun. Part of that is, I think, that it's a quantifiable time investment. The way many RPGs work, if you spend an hour grinding, then you're almost definitely going to be in a better position than if you hadn't. If you spend on hour developing strategy, then technically you may learn something about the way the game works, but that progress is abstract compared to raw numbers. Tangibility is very important when it comes to measuring progress for a lot of people. As for me, my preferred way of handling permadeath is like FFT, TO PSP and Valkyria Chronicles - if a character dies, you have to reorient your strategy to keep them alive, or else risk losing them forever. It realizes that gamers aren't always robots and can make mistakes, giving them an ample opportunity in case they made a misjudgment or if they got a bad dice roll. FE-style permadeath is too rough for me in that regards, but at the same time, removing it totally doesn't solve the issue, either. The game really is built upon making very careful moves - if you remove that aspect totally then it becomes almost inconsequential. Also, I think the nature of permadeath works heavily against the OCD-type mentality drilled into so many RPG players. There's always a sense that if someone dies you'll be missing out on something, be it a later battle down the road, or a plot scene. Or even worse, the sense that you'll be blocked up against a wall and have to restart. Anyone whose played a Fire Emblem game for any amount of time knows that eventually your roster begins overflowing with characters that can act as replacements, so once you understand that, you can deal with acceptable casualities. But even that's fuzzy, because you unless you cheat and look ahead, you can never be sure when, for example, you'll get a new healer or magician.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Jul 16, 2012 13:03:38 GMT -5
I think Crystal Warriors may have been the harshest with Permadeath, honestly.
Yeah, there are other characters, but can you afford to hire them? If you already have 9 characters, you can't hire anyone else to act as back-up (even if you can afford to hire them), nor can you go back and hire characters that you DIDN'T hire earlier in the game.
That, and characters cap out at LV 9. (There are only 16 battles total, but still, it comes together pretty harsh overall)
|
|
|
Post by blackdrazon on Jul 19, 2012 7:50:11 GMT -5
Also, I think the nature of permadeath works heavily against the OCD-type mentality drilled into so many RPG players. There's always a sense that if someone dies you'll be missing out on something, be it a later battle down the road, or a plot scene. Or even worse, the sense that you'll be blocked up against a wall and have to restart. Anyone whose played a Fire Emblem game for any amount of time knows that eventually your roster begins overflowing with characters that can act as replacements, so once you understand that, you can deal with acceptable casualities. But even that's fuzzy, because you unless you cheat and look ahead, you can never be sure when, for example, you'll get a new healer or magician. I think this is my problem with permadeath games. I'm a completionist and that will never change. But I also utterly stink at strategy games, and it seems like that will never change, either. I've been playing them for decades. I love them, get my hands on every one I can, and have probably given my all in attempts to beat dozens, but in the end, I've only beaten... six? Most of which are famous for being easy? Shining Force, Shining Force II (both famously easy), Advance Wars: Dual Strike (easiest game in the series), Heroes of Might and Magic V (fans of III take its difficulty as a joke, and I could only beat it on Easy), Front Mission 4 and Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (another infamous difficulty downgrade). If it helps my credentials any, I'm in the last levels of Advance Wars 2 and HoMMV: Hammers of Fate (on Easy), but in a way, being that close and failing is kind of more embarrassing. But to veer this back to Hikaru Kitsune's original post, I find the condescending attitude of some strategy gamers (speaking in general here) to be irritating and insulting as well, to the point where I avoid communities for such games, but I don't know if a primer would help anything but the attitude problem. I read up thoroughly about every game I play and it never, ever helps enough. Sometimes you just can't do it! It's something I've just come to accept. Sometimes all the experience in the world isn't enough to help.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Jul 19, 2012 8:27:55 GMT -5
Reading up about a specific game is really no good if your tactical basics are junk (and mine certainly are).
I still think a very base-level "how to handle movement, territory control, AI-baiting (ie: how to force the computer into disadvantaged positions despite the fact that they can and often do just sit on their end of the map and wait for you to get close enough to gangrape you with their superior numbers), resource management, and experience distribution in turn-based Strategy RPGs" primer would be extremely useful to incompetent players like myself, if someone ever feels benevolent enough to try making one.
|
|
|
Post by blackdrazon on Jul 19, 2012 8:54:29 GMT -5
Well, if you think it would help, good luck in finding one.
I sort of... hate AI baiting. If you've got to break the verisimilitude to win like that (like Sketch's example of shooting your own characters in the article, or "juggling" in Tower Defence games), I'm vehemently against it. I don't suppose that adds anything to the discussion, except maybe spelling me out as a poor strategy gamer, I just feel I have to say it.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Jul 19, 2012 8:59:05 GMT -5
I don't mean in the 'exploiting glitches' sense, I mean more in the way of knowing the AI's tendencies (ie : Send the guys with a ton of HP and Attack strength after your healers, immediately send their mages to the highest point on the map and nuke you with the extra range it affords) and how to use that to minimize losses on your side.
The computer always has the advantage of not having to worry about the characters _you_ kill not being available for the next battle, so they can do things that would be absolute suicide for you (unless you're playing Shining Force or a NIS game), so watching them and trying to do what they do doesn't help at all.
|
|
|
Post by blackdrazon on Jul 19, 2012 9:06:13 GMT -5
Sadly, juggling has evolved from glitch to feature in the eyes of the TD crowd. I see what you mean, though.
Heh, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Sketcz-1000 on Jul 19, 2012 12:25:20 GMT -5
I sort of... hate AI baiting. If you've got to break the verisimilitude to win like that (like Sketch's example of shooting your own characters in the article, or "juggling" in Tower Defence games), I'm vehemently against it. But why are you against it? If it can be done within a game's system, then what's wrong with doing it? To me, it's little different to when gamers impose abstract limits on themselves (like the aforementioned example of someone trying to beat Ni no Kuni without items).
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Jul 19, 2012 13:15:31 GMT -5
I gotta say- I hate this game already for not letting me skip cutscenes- urgh! edit: Agh! Cynthia's Irish accent "Watched the British and the IRA fighting" - really? That'd mean she was of a decent age in the Easter Rising during WWI Didn't really kick off again for years- d'oh!
|
|
|
Post by mjhc101 on Jul 20, 2012 1:06:44 GMT -5
I mostly agree with the article/review. I did have a correction on a technical point regarding "This is not strategy, this is trial and error." Save/loading for RNG is a strategy. It might be a tedious strategy that heavily reduces the difficulty of a game, you might not like it, but that doesn't mean it's not a strategy or a type of strategy. I'm not a big fan of allowing players to use save/load to get around RNG, either, but it's incorrect to claim it's not strategy. Trial and error is a normal part of most games where the player makes mistakes and learns more about the challenge at hand, then retries the challenge with more skill or knowledge. The player uses RNG reloading to get around difficulty or having to retry a challenge with more skill or more complex solutions. Trial and error isn't an inherently bad thing, but everyone has their opinions on what amount is enjoyable for them. Anyway, check out my Op Darkness guide on gfaqs if you're having trouble. You might pick up some strategies. Pretty sure Sketcz has seen it before since he knows a lot about the game.
|
|