Playing a game the wrong way.

[ItchyxBritches]

to be frank, it's a game, there is NO wrong way to play it.

OT, I play the assassin's creed games, yet I can play for hours-long sessions without doing a single quest

omg me too. I usually just hunt guards and try to get really creative kills.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

my halo-reach spartan having no-sense of teamwork, often abandoning the other troops or ignoring orders to look for better guns or easter-eggs

That's got to be the best way to play Halo in general. Not just Reach either. Halo 2 is the best one to play if you want to cheat the system. I can't remember the name of the level but it's the second or third (you crash land in New Mombasa, starting the level in a downed Pelican).

Anyway, after the first firefight when you clear out that first building, you can go into the alleyway and jump up the awnings until you get to the roofs where the snipers spawn in. From there you can ninja your self through about 60% of the level. You can even go off to the sides and jump off the map. From what I remember, it was something not as widely known as the Banshee glitch in Halo one, level...5? Silent Cartographer.

Both are great exploits.

 

[SenorNemo]

F/A-18 OIF is a fairly realistic simulation of the F/A-18C and D hornet. Like in real operations, the Hornet is supposed to engage hostile air and ground forces with a variety of missiles and bombs, using its advanced avionics to monitor and control the combat environment.

I, on the other hand, load up on external fuel tanks and charge in, full afterburner, gun armed, radar locked in STT mode, to take on the MiGs berserker style. It works too, most of the time, though sustaining damage is par for the course.

 

[DexterNorgam]

1. You're confusing easy mode, which has that message come up, and "very easy" mode which is a hidden mode accessible by holding down the back button at the main title screen. I posit that the very easy mode (which if you haven't played you cant know how much it gimps the difficulty of the game) which is not only not encouraged for new players like easy mode, but actually hidden... is an entirely different thing. I used it for unlocking endings after beating the game on normal.

Fair enough, except it still doesn't hold since, if the devs didn't think it should be in there, they wouldn't have put it in there.

2. Dev's cant be trusted with such things, why would they care if you gyp yourself out of the joy of beating a challenge?? They already have your money.

Holy crap. "Devs can't be trusted with such things?" Talk about hubris. The developers have more reason to care whether players feel ripped off since they want you to buy their next game, as opposed to SHFGs [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys][0] who have no reason to weigh in on the issue of how others play the game, other than just to flip out their e-peens.


[0] TVTropes alert. Beware its event horizon. You have been warned.

1. It does hold up. You just can't admit you were wrong. Who said anything about it not belonging in the game?? Of course it belongs, thats why they put it there. (duh) I even used it myself so that I could expedite seeing the endings I not chosen on the first play through. I hold that the devs hid it for a reason.

2. its not hubris. Its economics... if you're using "very easy" mode on your first play through why not just wait a day and youtube the cutscenes, saving yourself 60 bucks and 4 hours of playing puzzles so boringly easy you can win them by rubber banding your left stick in the "up" position.


*sits back and waits for the inevitable "but, but, what if I have fun spending money stupidly and being bored by puzzles that are too easy!?! what if thats my definition of fun!!!???"

 

[targren]

1. It does hold up. You just can't admit you were wrong. Who said anything about it not belonging in the game?? Of course it belongs, thats why they put it there. (duh) I even used it myself so that I could expedite seeing the endings I not chosen on the first play through. I hold that the devs hid it for a reason.

I did admit I was wrong about which mode you meant. Now you need to read the OP and see how you are wrong. "By the wrong way I mean not in the way the developers intended or in a way that doesn't fit at all with the context of the game."

Obviously, any sort of difficulty mode, intended or not, was put in by the devs, and thus does not fit that definition. Hiding it is irrelevant. If they didn't want it in the game at all, it would have been trivial to disable it completely. Whether or not YOU like it is equally irrelevant, the developers put it in there, intentionally. Therefore, it is not "wrong" in the context of this discussion.

2. its not hubris. Its economics... if you're using "very easy" mode on your first play through why not just wait a day and youtube the cutscenes, saving yourself 60 bucks and 4 hours of playing puzzles so boringly easy you can win them by rubber banding your left stick in the "up" position.

Now you're just being ridiculous. You said explicitly that you know better than developers. I suggest you look up the word "hubris."

But, to feed you anyway: That would suggest that it's rather important that the developers make the game fun on top of the engaging storyline. Once again, nobody other than DexterNorgam gives an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid whether or not DexterNorgam has fun on easy or very easy mode. It's there if the players want it, and it can be safely ignored if they don't.

 

[ItchyxBritches]

What if doing the inevitable is my deffinition of fun?

 

[DexterNorgam]

1. It does hold up. You just can't admit you were wrong. Who said anything about it not belonging in the game?? Of course it belongs, thats why they put it there. (duh) I even used it myself so that I could expedite seeing the endings I not chosen on the first play through. I hold that the devs hid it for a reason.

I did admit I was wrong about which mode you meant. Now you need to read the OP and see how you are wrong. "By the wrong way I mean not in the way the developers intended or in a way that doesn't fit at all with the context of the game."

Obviously, any sort of difficulty mode, intended or not, was put in by the devs, and thus does not fit that definition. Hiding it is irrelevant. If they didn't want it in the game at all, it would have been trivial to disable it completely. Whether or not YOU like it is equally irrelevant, the developers put it in there, intentionally. Therefore, it is not "wrong" in the context of this discussion.

2. its not hubris. Its economics... if you're using "very easy" mode on your first play through why not just wait a day and youtube the cutscenes, saving yourself 60 bucks and 4 hours of playing puzzles so boringly easy you can win them by rubber banding your left stick in the "up" position.

Now you're just being ridiculous. You said explicitly that you know better than developers. I suggest you look up the word "hubris."

But, to feed you anyway: That would suggest that it's rather important that the developers make the game fun on top of the engaging storyline. Once again, nobody other than DexterNorgam gives an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid whether or not DexterNorgam has fun on easy or very easy mode. It's there if the players want it, and it can be safely ignored if they don't.

Sigh, you still don't get it.

Its not about what I like or dislike. Its about extracting the most value from the purchase. If the devs wanted players jumping straight into very easy mode for their first playthrough they wouldn't have hidden it, AND explicitly (using the correct usage of this word I might add..) state that easy mode is for the purpose that people keep crying to me about.

Talk about hubris, keep trying to talk down to me while not using explicitly correctly. I would like for you to please quote where I said I know better than a dev... I'll wait.

 

[targren]

Sigh, you still don't get it.

Its not about what I like or dislike. Its about extracting the most value from the purchase. If the devs wanted players jumping straight into very easy mode for their first playthrough they wouldn't have hidden it, AND explicitly (using the correct usage of this word I might add..) stating that easy mode is for the purpose that people keep crying to me about.

And yet, they felt that there was a reason to keep the VE mode in the game, hidden or not. Funny how the same devs you said "couldn't be trusted" are now in agreement with you. So playing on Very Easy is still not "wrong" in the context of this discussion.

And all of your reasoning before this ridiculously flimsy "economics" thing you've been trying to pull out were entirely subjective, which means it is about what you like and dislike.

You are not important enough to decide what "value" everyone else extracts from the game. You might like the ego boost you get from beating it on hard mode. Someone else might not care about the gameplay nor the story, and just like the art. So your "economic" claim is just as flawed as your others.

Talk about hubris, keep trying to talk down to me while not using explicitly correctly. I would like for you to please quote where I said I know better than a dev... I'll wait.

"Devs can't be trusted with that." That is an clear statement that you are right and the developers are wrong. (protip: "explicit" != "verbatim")

 

[OdyCay]

playing game wrong? the first time i played fallout 3 i left the vaul blow up megaton and killed all in rivet city, follwoed by the republic of dave, then bigtown, and ended the spree with that town with the super heros (cant remember the name). i kinda think i played the game wrong. (of course i had tgm on)

 

[DexterNorgam]

Sigh, you still don't get it.

Its not about what I like or dislike. Its about extracting the most value from the purchase. If the devs wanted players jumping straight into very easy mode for their first playthrough they wouldn't have hidden it, AND explicitly (using the correct usage of this word I might add..) stating that easy mode is for the purpose that people keep crying to me about.

And yet, they felt that there was a reason to keep the VE mode in the game, hidden or not. Funny how the same devs you said "couldn't be trusted" are now in agreement with you. So playing on Very Easy is still not "wrong" in the context of this discussion.

And all of your reasoning before this ridiculously flimsy "economics" thing you've been trying to pull out were entirely subjective, which means it is about what you like and dislike.

You are not important enough to decide what "value" everyone else extracts from the game. You might like the ego boost you get from beating it on hard mode. Someone else might not care about the gameplay nor the story, and just like the art. So your "economic" claim is just as flawed as your others.

Talk about hubris, keep trying to talk down to me while not using explicitly correctly. I would like for you to please quote where I said I know better than a dev... I'll wait.

"Devs can't be trusted with that." That is an clear statement that you are right and the developers are wrong. (protip: "explicit" != "verbatim")

Right, Explicit means verbatim. Verbatim means (drum roll please) "in the exact words" or word for word. Which clearly I did not do. Which means you're still using it wrong.

Now, if you want to trust developers to have your enjoyment of the game at heart as opposed to making money you are welcome to do so, I mean there's never been a developer who cut corners or rehashed previous material, or made games overtly simplistic in order to make a ton of money or anything... *cough ACTIVISION cough*

I never said I was important, you keep saying that I am saying things that you are actually inferring, (look that one up too if you have to) and honestly its getting tiring. Its clear you disagree with my opinion, which you are allowed to do, even though you cant make a decent case for why, which is also allowed. I don't really care enough to try further to make you understand and see things correctly, so at this point I am content to continue to let you be wrong and terminate this conversation. I think its called agreeing to disagree.

 

[targren]

"Devs can't be trusted with that." That is an clear statement that you are right and the developers are wrong. (protip: "explicit" != "verbatim")

Right, Explicit means verbatim. Verbatim means (drum roll please) "in the exact words" or word for word. Which clearly I did not do. Which means you're still using it wrong.

Wrong, "explicit" does NOT mean "verbatim." Assuming you are not simply being obtuse, I will assume you are not aware of the notation "!=" which means "not equal to."

Now, if you want to trust developers to have your enjoyment of the game at heart as opposed to making money you are welcome to do so, I mean there's never been a developer who cut corners or rehashed previous material, or made games overtly simplistic in order to make a ton of money or anything... *cough ACTIVISION cough*

What does that have to do with anything? Are you really functionally illiterate? The premise of the thread was "playing the game wrong" where "wrong" is defined as "in a way the developers did not intend." You said that playing a game on an included difficulty mode was "wrong" in that sense, which is clearly incorrect. You attempt to justify it first with endless subjective statements about "fun" and then about "economic value," completely ignoring that you missed the point to begin with or, more likely, just felt like "trolling the carebears."

 

[DexterNorgam]

lol... ok kiddo. You're right. the fact that there is an explicitly stated easy mode for the purpose of viewing the story means nothing, nor does the fact that very easy was hidden by the devs, nor does the fact that the reducing value for money spent on the game by shortening the total time played by three-quarters of the average time...

I never once said I knew more or better than the developers you inferred that. Really, you did, I promise, look it up.

What is it with escapists inferring and taking their inferences as explicit statements...

But again, I don't really care to argue with you about it anymore, haven't for about 3 replies, but I guess you wont be satisfied unless I tell you that you're right. and I'm wrong, forget sincerity or anything but man you really told me. You're SOOOO right. There, feel better?

Whats really funny about this is that you started bitching at me because you thought I was being some kind of elitist about playing it on something other than easy, let alone VERY easy, you haven't correctly understood one thing I've said. Yet you keep wanting to fling insults because I haven't previously just said you were right to shut you up... Lesson learned, next time someone says something ridiculous on this forum, probably about the legalization of child porn, I'll just agree with them because reading these smarmy attempts at talking down to me from people who cant read just gets old.

 

[targren]

lol... ok kiddo. You're right. the fact that there is an explicitly stated easy mode for the purpose of viewing the story means nothing, nor does the fact that very easy was hidden by the devs, nor does the fact that the reducing value for money spent on the game by shortening the total time played by three-quarters of the average time...

And you do it again. You're taking your own subjective idea of "value" (minutes of playtime) and applying it universally, which puts you solidly in the wrong.

You also ignore the fact that the very easy mode was hidden and NOT removed. Even though you may not have any knowledge of programming, it should be obvious after a moments thought that if they had wanted it removed completely, they could have done so. In fact, it would have been easier than leaving it in as a "secret." And you assume that "easy" means "easy enough" for everyone.

 

[DexterNorgam]

wow more words after I said your right....

You do realize that you will never be right, I hope. But I'll just keep saying it until you shut it.

I'm sure you've never heard anyone complain that a game wasn't good value because it was too short... but you're right. Happy now?

you ignore the devs saying easy was for that purpose EXPLICITLY... and call me out for ignoring your battle-cry of "ITS IN THE GAME" lol... same cry of every glitcher and cheat out there by the way...

Seriously. I dont give a fuck anymore kid. I am of the opinion that if you play catherine on very easy for the first or only playthrough, you are doing it wrong. I don't give a fuck what you think about it, but hey, you're right... lol

You're so right...

 

[Dirzzit]

You guys want to keep talking about this, msg each other. Thread hijacking is frowned upon here.

 

[Blackpapa]

To me, playing a game for competition is playing a game wrong. Games are meant to be fun, therefore, they should be played just for the enjoyment of playing, not for bragging rights or a shitty trophy and a crappy but overpriced Razor keyboard.

WRONG!

Playing online competitive games and not working in a team, not communicating and not doing your damn best to win.

Nothing wrong with working with a team, nothing wrong with communicating, but if you're playing for anything but just the fun of playing you're not playing it right. Doing your damndest to win is NOT playing for the fun of it, therefore, that is playing it wrong. I don't care if I win or lose, I don't care about my KDR, I play for shits and giggles.

That being said, I disable VOIP in every game I play online, because I don't want to hear the competetives bitching and moaning because I'm not playing it their way. Not everyone cares about their KDR, these players need to figure it the fuck out and deal with it.

You're right about the K/D ratio. Often it's faster to suicide yourself or get killed than run back for supplies. Sometimes tactical maneuvering isn't the best way and that spawnpoint your team leader placed on the edge of the enemy objective allows you to zerg the enemy. Even if you get 1 kill on 4 deaths it's still strategically viable if the enemy has his supply lines stretched thin and can't reinforce the position in time.

In short: playing for K/D ratio or points is wrong in team-based games. You play to win!

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Subjectivism is such a boring arguement; a refuge for false intellectuals who hide behind it like some magic shield while claiming a fake moral high ground for "considering all points of view", rather than their "closed-minded" opponent who actually dares to have an opinion.

OT: Playing fighting games by yourself. Outside of unlocking characters or practice, there is really no point and I consider it to be a waste of time. Find a human opponent, or find something better to do.

 

[Drummodino]

Well, there ARE people who played Vanquish as a straight up typical third-person-shooter.

Thereby not experiencing the whole point of the game and getting bored of it.

The game PENALIZES you for staying in cover, so why would you treat it like you average cover based game?!

It just boggles my mind.

Basically this. It ain't gears of war people!

 

[AdumbroDeus]

To me, playing a game for competition is playing a game wrong. Games are meant to be fun, therefore, they should be played just for the enjoyment of playing, not for bragging rights or a shitty trophy and a crappy but overpriced Razor keyboard.

In case you haven't realized, people enjoy competitive play, competition is in and of itself fun.

...So what about those of us who don't find a challenge fun? I'm in that group. I don't enjoy 'hard'. I play games for the story, and for the fun of being a badass, not because it's difficult to beat. Matter of fact, difficult is actually a turn-off, it's tedious and I don't enjoy tedious.

Then you're missing out on aspects of the game that require it to be difficult enough to challenge you.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I played Morrowind, and if you've ever seen the Morrowind 16 minute speed run, then I copied that. Shizz was so cash.