Games

[icycalm]

Recap, I answered your questions in the relevant threads, just in case you or anyone else would like to follow up on them, so we don't derail this thread any further:

Indeed. Put it up on the front page just in case and I'll have one more editorial gone from my to-do list.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=9075#9075

A line about the "RPG" term I wanted to say to you since your fantastic article on the subject -- I don't think you'll find anybody disagreeing it's some sort of a misnomer. It's just that we all accepted it as a polysemic word.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=9073#9073

[ganheddo]

Doing the same crap over and over mindlessly in order to amass experience points/gold/whatever.

The levelling isn't even the worst part, it's the random item drops. You're eventually "rewarded" for doing something trivial at nauseam. There may even be some minimal thinking to be done, in figuring out how to repeat the sequence as fast as possible, but after you settled on an efficient way to milk an enemy for loot, it quickly becomes a mindless chore. They should really try to get away from this and award items for good performance, instead of randomly spitting them out like a slot machine.

I don't think that collectible stuff is a bad thing per se, but apart from the random drops, they also went too far with the numbers. By introducing so many items, it's almost impossible to balance it all, and not render many of them either useless or game-breaking. At least, most of the weapons in SOTN introduced new mechanics (many also had hidden special moves), potentially changing the way the game could be tackled. Experimenting with all these "collectible mechanics" is one of my favourite aspects of these games, but they fail to make use of this diversity. They're not providing you specific enough challenges, that would demand a more nuanced selection of equipment. An example of a game that does a better job at this is Gran Turismo 2. While the possibility space is huge as well (hundreds of cars with configurable parameters), they restricted most races (e.g. weight and HP limits).

In SOTN you're just thrown into this sandbox, and after you found your way around, you're awarded with a more streamlined experience (play as Richter), that may provide a real challenge. I think it should be the other way around (like in e.g. Goldenye). You should be given a fine-tuned series of challenges, and only after you've proven your understanding of the game, should you be awarded with the tools to toy around and make up your own challenges, if you still want to get more out of the game's mechanics (you could of course also wait for a sequel).

What bothered me most about SOTN was that I always either seemed to be a game-breaking behemoth (where the game becomes boring because you can destroy the most powerful enemies with little threat and you might as well not even bother dodging attacks) or a total weakling (where the game becomes boring because it takes too long to kill enemies or because your halting your progression in the game in order to grind.) You can get in the sweet spot occasionally but it should be up to the developers to find that not the player.

Yes I felt exactly the same. While there are probably hundreds of challenges hidden in SOTN, uncovering them shouldn't be the player's job, and apart from the option to play as Richter, the game isn't helping you (in enforcing the necessary restrictions) either.

One of the major benefits of videogames is that they free us from upholding a game's rules. For the most part, Iga seems to be content with throwing shitloads of stuff into these games, and then hoping that players find something interesting to do with it.

[icycalm]

The levelling isn't even the worst part, it's the random item drops.

The leveling clearly IS the worst part. If you actually sit down to think what makes an action game exciting, you will see that leveling wipes all that away. The random item drops are a detail compared to that. They could give you ALL the items at the start of the game, and the experience would still retain a great deal of challenge if leveling was removed. But remove the random item drops and leave the leveling intact, and the game still loses all the excitement it might have otherwise had.

[Jedah]

We need to explore the definition of grinding in more detail. Isn't it possible to grind in Ninja Gaiden? In Devil May Cry? Every game that has respawning enemies that drop upgrade currency of any form has grinding, hasn't it? The reason why these 2 games don't get flamed is that it needs more effort than a common stat-heavy game (Final Fantasy) in order to gain an advantage over your enemies.

In this moment I need to clarify some things, especially for SOTN:

a) Have you all played SOTN to its 200% entirety before judging it? Without any help from FAQs? Back in 1997 this game could trap you for days before finding out what to do next. And believe me what needed was never to kill 1000 times a specific enemy...

b) Have anyone of you noticed that the difficulty of specific enemies/bosses are not relative to Alucard's stats but to a specific setup of equipment that can only be found with thorough exploration of secret castle regions? Finding these regions is a challenge in itself and more importantly a very satisfying one.

SOTN has so many followers, that its initial value is lost to discussions about killing a rare bird a zillion times. To me the game is much more than how gamers prefer to play it. Its the best Metroid clone. With godamn stats and leveling, but we still have Super Metroid, don't we?

[icycalm]

We need to explore the definition of grinding in more detail.

This will happen in the finished article.

Isn't it possible to grind in Ninja Gaiden? In Devil May Cry?

Yes. And that's a bad thing. This will be discussed in the upcoming reviews of these games.

Every game that has respawning enemies that drop upgrade currency of any form has grinding, hasn't it?

Yep, meaning that this mechanic is evil and should be removed.

The reason why these two games don't get flamed

"Flamed" is a term for gamefaqs-like message boards. Here we say "criticized". Also, I don't really care why other sites do not "flame" these games -- I will certainly be heavily criticizing them in the relevant reviews.

is that it needs more effort than a common stat-heavy game (Final Fantasy) in order to gain an advantage over your enemies.

Wrong. The reason DMC and Ninja Gaiden do not get criticized for the grinding is because, even WITH the grinding, they still require more skill than a JRPG. Moreover, grinding in those games takes minutes or, at worst, hours, whereas grinding in JRPGs can take your entire life.

It is basically an issue of degree. Several kinds of games have grinding, but some have more than others. Those which have more naturally get criticized more. But all of this is beside the point. Grinding is Evil by definition, and should be eliminated.

a) Have you all played SOTN to its 200% entirety before judging it?

No, and we don't need to. Requiring people to "complete" a game to some arbitrary standard before they can voice their opinion is a defense mechanism unworthy of the kind of people who post in this forum. Just take the criticisms of your favorite game like a man, and don't stoop down to cheap, childish tricks.

Back in 1997 this game could trap you for days before finding out what to do next. And believe me what needed was never to kill 1000 times a specific enemy...

You are mixing points. What does getting "trapped" have to do with grinding? They are obviously two entirely separate facets of the game. Right now, we are only discussing the grinding.

Finding these regions is a challenge in itself and more importantly a very satisfying one.

Again, changing the subject. We are criticizing the grinding here, not the game's exploration aspects.

SOTN has so many followers, that its initial value is lost to discussions about killing a rare bird a zillion times.

This sentence does not make sense. The part before the comma has absolutely nothing to do with the part after the comma. And even if it did, it would still be irrelevant. No one here cares about how many "followers" SOTN has. Britney Spears also has many "followers". In fact, it is a very well proven fact that the more followers something has, the more shit it is, so you are not doing your favorite game any favors by bringing up the fact that it has many "followers".

To me the game is much more than how gamers prefer to play it.

Another sentence that doesn't make sense.

Its the best Metroid clone. With godamn stats and leveling, but we still have Super Metroid, don't we?

At this point you have entirely given up. "Oh, this game may have crappy aspects, but we should excuse it because there exists ANOTHER GAME which DOESN'T have these crappy aspects."

Kindergarten Reasoning 101.

Jedah, if you can't bear seeing your favorite game being lambasted, I would suggest you stop reading this thread, and any other related threads :)

But if you DO keep reading them, and if you DO want to keep posting in them, please make an effort to bring actual arguments to the table -- and relevant arguments.

[bullethell]

The greatest examples of games that force players to grind (kill the same enemies or complete the same repeatable quests) for more in-game currency, experience points or items are of course MMOGs and especially the Korean ones. Korean Lineage II is the king at the moment of the games that require grinding in order to advance and complete tasks.

Grinding in MMOGs is a cheap method of extending a game life without adding new game content.

Grinding in an Action 2D title like Dracula X however affect its difficulty level. Hard bosses become easy and enemies cannot kill you no matter how hard they try. I have finished Symphony of the Night multiple times, I set some rules like not using potions or obtain and use particular items and gear to make this game a challenging experience and be able to enjoy it again.

[mothmanspirit]

And let it be known that I have played all three GBA Castlevanias, and had a great time with them. But how to explain to people that this does not contradict all the above I've written?

See, the games were fun and worthwhile not because of the stupid grinding and backtracking but DESPITE it. This means that if you removed them, you would have some of the best videogames ever.

All the Metroidvanias, except Circle of the Moon, have modes where you can play as a character with fixed stats and all the movement abilities, after you finish the game. Of course, those modes should be playable from the start.

[nloth]

That would at best turn it into a poor man's Castlevania with excessive filler and passages, which under normal circumstances is only there to help increase character stats and attributes.

[ganheddo]

Yes, they're designed with leveling in mind, which (as said) is often a cheap excuse for not having to balance a game properly.

It also doesn't make any sense to hide a better game as an unlockable bonus, by forcing you to play through an inferior one first. If the designer's would've been really serious about it, they would've offered an option to choose between "retard mode" (leveling) and "normal mode" (no leveling) right from the start.

[bullethell]

If the designer's would've been really serious about it, they would've offered an option to choose between "retard mode" (leveling) and "normal mode" (no leveling) right from the start.

You mean a normal mode with a difficulty level that it is enjoyable. Symphony of the Night allows you to play as Richer or Maria (Saturn Version) without the leveling system but the game is even more easier than the original Alucard mode. You can kill all bosses with just the press of a button, holy water special attack. And yes I completely agree with you that these modes should be available from the start without forcing you to complete one mode (possibly you do not care about) to enjoy another. It is just stupid.

[Muzozavr]

Though I haven't played this game, so I can't judge if it applies to this game... I think that maybe the levelling itself isn't the problem, the grinding is??

Diablo I had levelling, but no grinding, since the enemies don't respawn. (Except if you decide to be an asshole, and exploit Leo's resurrected skeletons ad nauseum, or keep starting new games with the same character.)

[Recap]

Obviously the "levelling" itself isn't the problem. Lots of pure action games have the levelling as a core feature and work flawlessly.



The more you talk about the game the worse the picture gets...

I set some rules like not using potions or obtain and use particular items and gear to make this game a challenging experience and be able to enjoy it again.

Any game which forces you to set the rules out of randomness has blatantly failed. The user should never be the designer at any level -- which is in the end why selectable difficulty is another of those terrible features which never helped game design, much like unlimited credits, but that's for another thread.

[bullethell]

You are grinding for experience points in order to reach new levels. New levels make the game easier as enemies and bosses can be killed faster. That is the problem of an action 2D title that has a leveling system, the leveling system makes the game easier. Where you had to sit down and think how to kill a boss, you can just return to previous castle rooms spend time killing the same bat over and over again and gain 3 or more levels to make the boss easier.

[bullethell]

Obviously the "levelling" itself isn't the problem. Lots of pure action games have the levelling as a core feature and work flawlessly.

Yes but only if the leveling system is balanced and does not affect the difficulty level of the game. And that's the main problem of Symphony of the Night, game's easy difficulty level become more easy because of the "levelling".

Another example is the Saturn mode of Radiant Silvergun. While the arcade mode is fine, saturn mode allow you to level up your weapons' power making everything easier.

From lamespot:

Thankfully, Treasure has implemented an interesting way to compensate for the extreme difficulty of this game. Instead of offering power-ups, your weapons gain power like you gain experience points in an RPG. The more you play in Saturn mode, the stronger your weapons get. When you finish the game, it will prompt you to save your status. The next time you play, your weapons will be powered up at the same level as when you last played. For example, at level 1, your guns are only moderately effective against the larger bosses, but at level 32 your guns are knocking them out of the sky so fast it makes your head spin. This enhances the incentive to play the game after you've beaten it: There's nothing better than some serious firepower.

lol

[mees]

Any game which forces you to set the rules out of randomness has blatantly failed. The user should never be the designer at any level -- which is in the end why selectable difficulty is another of those terrible features which never helped game design, much like unlimited credits, but that's for another thread.

Interesting, I have a friend who believes the exact opposite. I think I agree with you, but I haven't really thought it through myself.

[ganheddo]

Obviously the "levelling" itself isn't the problem. Lots of pure action games have the levelling as a core feature and work flawlessly.

The newer Castlevanias (and JRPGs in general) allow you to level-grind until your heart's content, you can't do this in the arcade titles you linked. The problem arises out of "unrestricted leveling". Within the passive worlds of these videogames, time and experience points are infinite resources. You aren't penalized for grinding at will, as nothing ever happens until you trigger the next event that pushes the main storyline forward.


Good games restrict leveling: roguelikes let you starve, 4x4 games like Master of Orion or Civilization pit you against active competitors that force you to act, many SRPGs limit the experience points you can gain (e.g. Langrisser, Vandal Hearts 1), arcade games give you strict time limits or autoscroll, etc...


There are numerous ways to counter the ill-effects of accumulation of power, so that the game doesn't become a cakewalk. A particularly neat example is Ogre Battle, which handled the problem quite elegantly through its "chaos meter", a score that determined the game's various endings: if your troops get too powerful, you're not seen as a hero that liberates the land, but as a ruthless oppressor.




Btw: there's even a Wikipedia page on grinding/leveling.

The idea of having a designed in-game aspect which requires a player to engage in repetitive gameplay elements seems contradictory to good game design, but has been justified in several different ways. The first is that it helps ensure a level playing field.

And isn't that what all game designer's should strive for? lol..

According to the Pareto principle, players with better aim, faster reactions, or more extensive tactical knowledge will quickly dominate the entire game, frustrating the now-powerless vast majority. Thus, by creating a direct correlation between in-game power and time spent grinding, every player will at least have the potential to reach the top 20% (although the Pareto principle will still apply to the amount of time spent grinding). This was explored further in Raph Koster's 2003 presentation Small Worlds.

Grinding is good, cause you know.. Raph Koster said so. "Small Minds" would've been a more apt title.

[Vnonymous]

One of the more frustrating aspects of this is that the designers clearly knew that grinding was a problem - levelling doesn't provide you with many bonuses, and "max level" modes are unlocked after you beat the game, which put a stop to the grinding instantly. "Max 255" mode which essentially allows unlimited grinding is an unlockable too, for some reason.

So there is a better game there - you just have to play through the crap one first. As to the reason why, I'm going to point at the trend towards "consolification" - if the casual babies can't clear the game, they're not going to give you a very good review score, and whine about the "frustrating difficulty" and "vertical learning curve".

[chb]

I still don't understand why they don't make every difficulty level available from the start. Maybe it's because the designers believe they need to have some sort of unlockable to motivate the player? If they didn't force you to play on the easiest mode first but allowed you to choose, they could please both casual and hardcore gamers.

[Vnonymous]

I believe that it is a case of people thinking that hard means what it usually means in games where you can pick the hardest difficulty straight away (i.e. normal). When you have to beat the game first, they don't get complaints from casual babies crying about how hard is too hard.