"Wait, THAT'S how they wanted me to play?"

[default]

Well combat is ranked and unlocks are based off that so if you want certain unlocks you have to play more aggressively because two factors are the combo meter and the time taken. The ranged shooting is safer but it's a safer bronze instead of a riskier gold or higher.

But why should a player just trying to beat the game (i.e, get to the end) care? He can just sit back and shoot things all day because that's the safest most efficient strategy. It's called dominant strategy theory and it harms the dynamic of the game because it relies on a player's willingness to engage rather than making them engage if they want to progress.

Of course just 'beating the game' could be interpreted as not being the main goal, but rather getting consistent S-ranks in all the levels and acquiring all the unlocks.

My answer to this is simply playstyle...these kind of games are designed to challenge you in some form, by giving you a huge range of mechanics and to utilize as many as possible. Sure, you can just plink away with low-damage ranged weapons, but it's tedious and slow. It's like playing Batman Arkham games using only counter and punch. Can be done, but boy is it boooooring.

How cool is it that you can integrate ranged weapons after an air juggle attack, blast them to keep them in the air while you prepare a downward slam or jump up there too for an aerial rave. The mechanic of holding down buttons for burst fire was incentive enough for me.

Boring and playstyle aren't factors here, it's about creating solid tight mechanics that require a player to engage and learn in order to progress rather than relying on their willingness to be cool or go faster or be inventive. I'm personally a fan of games that require the player to engage and master what is given to them. It makes for a tighter and more memorable experience overall.

Of course it's not applicable to all games, but for hack and slash action games I think it's a good design philosophy. There are always going to be people like the guy I originally quoted who will just use what is objectively the best and nothing else in a way that seriously harms the intended gameplay experience. And he has every right to do that, it's the designers that are at fault.

I haven't played Bayonetta or many DMC games, so perhaps they aren't the best example for what I'm talking about but a lot of games have these issues. Why would you NOT save scum? Why would you NOT walk back to town to heal up for free after killing every monster? Because it's tedious or dishonoroble? That's not how you make a tight game system that consistently and fairly challenges a player and rewards them accordingly, which is what action games are about.

Now I've said 'engage' and 'dynamic' so many times they feel wierd.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Does this count? It's a scene in BioShock Infinite that you don't really play in - and that's the problem.

Spoiler

And then to think that Half-Life 2 did the same thing 9 years earlier, but actually good. As in, the choice is implemented organically through gameplay... If you even choose to make the choice at all.

 

[The Raw Shark]

Snip

It's more of a case of the game not really caring if you don't care. Though I honestly don't know how you manage these states of full battlefield control using the guns because about NONE of the enemies gave me that leisure all the time. Hell not even Devil May Cry 2 let you get away with it that much because when it came to boss battles you couldn't just spam your way through, at least I couldn't. That I'll leave up to whether I suck or not.

OT: Final Fantasy VII Crisis Core
I just kept mashing the X button instead of actually trying to figure out what I was doing the entire time.....

 

[The Wykydtron]

It took me a while to figure out just how important RC is to getting even remotely good at Guilty Gear Xrd, also known as Roman Cancel: The Game. While being about to cancel (almost) anything at the expense of meter is a really solid mechanic, I find it sad that supers are way less important since using meter to Roman Cancel is near always the better option. UMVC3 taught me that you don't have combos until the combo ends with at least one super and I cannot unlearn that. Supers are either glorified high damage wake up moves, cheese, or a gap closer.

I came in from BlazBlue where supers are super impactful and you don't get the meter to spam moves that require meter over the course of the game. You might get one or two Rapid Cancels per game and I only ever see them used as a get out of fuckup free move instead of combo extenders. Roman Cancels on the other hand are fuckin' everywhere. You threw a fireball? YRC that shit to cancel the minimal recovery frames and slow down your opponent (hello Ky.) You hit basically any decent move that leads into a combo? RRC that shit to double your damage.

You've got El with her uppercut super, never seen during combos but a pretty damn good "fuck you, now lose half your HP" to any fuckboy trying to get on top of you. You've got Sol with Dragon Install for the cheesiest "I win now" powerup mode ever made and to a lesser extent Ramlethal's Blender Trance which, if it hits them, the mildest outcome for her will turn the momentum of the game in her favour no matter what. Which can be terrifying because if you give a half decent Ramlethal an inch, she can easily take a mile.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I remember when I was playing bayonetta for the first time my friend was getting annoyed with me because I would just casually walk around enemies shooting them from a distance. I was rarely getting injured for the longest time in the game and it drove him insane.

Before I let out, just know that I'm saying this jokingly, like how you would tease a friend.
Now.

You son of a *****, you're the worst. I mean, yeah, you can play that way but you you run through Devil May Cry only using Ebony & Ivor- of course you would, stupid question, heck, I might.

I guess that's why hack-n-slashers and the like have score systems and the guns don't do much damage and typically the enemies have redundancies to prevent such strategies. Just so I get an idea, what difficulty were you playing on?

EDIT: Alright now I just read the rest of the page and it seems people are already talking about this thing so on second thought, never mind, you don't have to answer, I don't want to drag you into something.

Anyway.

That actually reminds me of a similar story of when I thought I was SO GOOD at Mortal Kombat X and then my friend beat me simply by spamming a straight gunshot.
I was pissed, then I thought "Huh, you don't suppose playing on Easy and never learning how to block might've led to this, mm?"
Now I play on MEDIUM, tremble before my might!
Let's see you win with Erron Black NOW, John!

Oh right, as long as I'm here.
I once solved a puzzle in Portal 2 by blocking a laser with a camera instead of a cube.
I figured it out like, the third time around but I like my camera strategy, I think it's funny.
I'd go into detail, but I learned that describing test chambers and how to solve them with words is kind of a nightmare so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Neverhoodian]

It's actually funny that you bring up Jedi Knight, since I'm part of the game's modding community. Yeah, it very much is a Doom/Quake-inspired, arena FPS. Heck, frantic multiplayer matches are half the fun in that game, or all for a lot of remaining players.

*Checks profile*

So you are...and a prolific one at that.

I'm a longtime lurker when it comes to the JK modding community. It's great to witness ongoing enthusiasm for such an old game. Hell, I wouldn't be able to play Jedi Knight at all anymore if it weren't for the community-made patches and fixes for modern operating systems.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Literally any game that has abilities that grant you temporary upgraded stats or buffs.

Seriously, I have never bothered with those elements in games. Repeatedly shooting/hacking/beating/blasting things has served me pretty well so far. So when I get stuck on a level or in an area in such games, its usually because I didn't use some buff/debuff or I didn't level it up high enough.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

My answer to this is simply playstyle...these kind of games are designed to challenge you in some form, by giving you a huge range of mechanics and to utilize as many as possible. Sure, you can just plink away with low-damage ranged weapons, but it's tedious and slow. It's like playing Batman Arkham games using only counter and punch. Can be done, but boy is it boooooring.

How cool is it that you can integrate ranged weapons after an air juggle attack, blast them to keep them in the air while you prepare a downward slam or jump up there too for an aerial rave. The mechanic of holding down buttons for burst fire was incentive enough for me.

Boring and playstyle aren't factors here, it's about creating solid tight mechanics that require a player to engage and learn in order to progress rather than relying on their willingness to be cool or go faster or be inventive. I'm personally a fan of games that require the player to engage and master what is given to them. It makes for a tighter and more memorable experience overall.

Of course it's not applicable to all games, but for hack and slash action games I think it's a good design philosophy. There are always going to be people like the guy I originally quoted who will just use what is objectively the best and nothing else in a way that seriously harms the intended gameplay experience. And he has every right to do that, it's the designers that are at fault.

I haven't played Bayonetta or many DMC games, so perhaps they aren't the best example for what I'm talking about but a lot of games have these issues. Why would you NOT save scum? Why would you NOT walk back to town to heal up for free after killing every monster? Because it's tedious or dishonoroble? That's not how you make a tight game system that consistently and fairly challenges a player and rewards them accordingly, which is what action games are about.

Now I've said 'engage' and 'dynamic' so many times they feel wierd.

Forcing a player to use mechanics of a game just because they are there can be done well, or horribly from experience. But this is now spanning all manner of games, I confess my point is made pretty closely in line with action/third person fighting games in mind, but I can see your point. I mean, save scumming in a game like XCOM kinda defeats the purpose right.

One example I can think of in the rebooted DMC was the heaven/hell powers or whatever, where you had red enemies and blue enemies that forced you to use certain attacks and powers on them, I found that more frustrating than anything, despite being a new mechanic implemented into the series (I'm not alone in this, from several reviewers). And I guess DMC franchise as a whole *does* incentivize the player by giving combo scores, points to unlock stuff, for being more creative and badass. In fact, by re-using the same move, your score rewards decrease exponentially. And without the rewards and upgrades, you simply can't unlock new stuff/abilities, making the game a LOT harder.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Command and conquer red alert 2.

I replayed it recently and as it turns out making more buildings of the same type makes building units faster.

I found this out after beating it countless times over the years, it was one of the games from my childhood that I absolutely loved and it confuses me that I had the patience to wait for the extraordinary long build times to get the forces together to destroy the ai. It just blows my mind how easy the game gets when you know this. You no longer have to be very very careful on what you build and how you use them, instead you could just zerg rush the enemy. I dont know whether i should be happy or embarrassed that i bet it on the hardest difficulty not knowing that, I put it down to a misspent youth..

Wait...what!? I must have spent dozens upon dozens of hours on the game without realizing this. I never bothered building two production facilities, since you could only produce from one of them anyway, but this...changes everything. How the hell do you make a mechanic like this and not explain it once in the entire game? Jesus christ.

 

[default]

My answer to this is simply playstyle...these kind of games are designed to challenge you in some form, by giving you a huge range of mechanics and to utilize as many as possible. Sure, you can just plink away with low-damage ranged weapons, but it's tedious and slow. It's like playing Batman Arkham games using only counter and punch. Can be done, but boy is it boooooring.

How cool is it that you can integrate ranged weapons after an air juggle attack, blast them to keep them in the air while you prepare a downward slam or jump up there too for an aerial rave. The mechanic of holding down buttons for burst fire was incentive enough for me.

Boring and playstyle aren't factors here, it's about creating solid tight mechanics that require a player to engage and learn in order to progress rather than relying on their willingness to be cool or go faster or be inventive. I'm personally a fan of games that require the player to engage and master what is given to them. It makes for a tighter and more memorable experience overall.

Of course it's not applicable to all games, but for hack and slash action games I think it's a good design philosophy. There are always going to be people like the guy I originally quoted who will just use what is objectively the best and nothing else in a way that seriously harms the intended gameplay experience. And he has every right to do that, it's the designers that are at fault.

I haven't played Bayonetta or many DMC games, so perhaps they aren't the best example for what I'm talking about but a lot of games have these issues. Why would you NOT save scum? Why would you NOT walk back to town to heal up for free after killing every monster? Because it's tedious or dishonoroble? That's not how you make a tight game system that consistently and fairly challenges a player and rewards them accordingly, which is what action games are about.

Now I've said 'engage' and 'dynamic' so many times they feel wierd.

Forcing a player to use mechanics of a game just because they are there can be done well, or horribly from experience. But this is now spanning all manner of games, I confess my point is made pretty closely in line with action/third person fighting games in mind, but I can see your point. I mean, save scumming in a game like XCOM kinda defeats the purpose right.

One example I can think of in the rebooted DMC was the heaven/hell powers or whatever, where you had red enemies and blue enemies that forced you to use certain attacks and powers on them, I found that more frustrating than anything, despite being a new mechanic implemented into the series (I'm not alone in this, from several reviewers). And I guess DMC franchise as a whole *does* incentivize the player by giving combo scores, points to unlock stuff, for being more creative and badass. In fact, by re-using the same move, your score rewards decrease exponentially. And without the rewards and upgrades, you simply can't unlock new stuff/abilities, making the game a LOT harder.

Oh, it's not really about FORCING a player to use anything specifically such as your DMC example. I myself prefer organic gameplay that allows me to approach and handle situations however I like. I love being able to beat a game with anything and everything. Level 1 runs in Souls games where you're limited to a tiny healthbar and a handful of crappy wooden weapons for the entire game have been some of my favourite gaming experiences.

I don't even like enemies that, for example, have to be made vulnerable with a hammer attack or shot in the eyes with an arrow. But what I'm talking about is designing your game so the intended gameplay is what is required of the player to make progress. Doing things like spamming projectiles in Bayonetta or picking off enemies with poison arrows out of aggro range in Dark Souls essentially break the game for large portions and all the depth and flow of the gameplay is gone in favour of a safe option. Because there's no risk/reward or skill involved, just time investment for a guaranteed win. Which is boring and silly and relies on the goodwill of the player.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

-Apparently by repelling the alien invasion in Xcom, and winning the game, I was playing it wrong.

-Command & Conquer 4, by playing the game solo, I was apparently playing it wrong.

-Skyrim, by waiting to visit the Greybeards until I was level 61 I was apparently playing the game wrong (The shout damage at that level seems to cause the Greybeards to agro on to you, seems to be ok as long as you visit them before 25).

It seems like common sense to me, that if a Dev wants you to play the game a certain way, that they should curtail your options. Giving us the players the ability to go nuts and do as we please is all well and good, but they second we are punished for choosing to complete the mission/game our way and not as they intended, is a dick move.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

snip

snip

Oh, it's not really about FORCING a player to use anything specifically such as your DMC example. I myself prefer organic gameplay that allows me to approach and handle situations however I like. I love being able to beat a game with anything and everything. Level 1 runs in Souls games where you're limited to a tiny healthbar and a handful of crappy wooden weapons for the entire game have been some of my favourite gaming experiences.

I don't even like enemies that, for example, have to be made vulnerable with a hammer attack or shot in the eyes with an arrow. But what I'm talking about is designing your game so the intended gameplay is what is required of the player to make progress. Doing things like spamming projectiles in Bayonetta or picking off enemies with poison arrows out of aggro range in Dark Souls essentially break the game for large portions and all the depth and flow of the gameplay is gone in favour of a safe option. Because there's no risk/reward or skill involved, just time investment for a guaranteed win. Which is boring and silly and relies on the goodwill of the player.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. Cheesing tough bosses in Dark Souls definitely takes a lot of the soul *cough* out of the game, especially when you've been busting your ass to get to said boss in the first place. Some of it is goodwill of the player, some of it is players actually looking for exploits or glitches because the game is so damn hard as it is. Which I can dig too, when in the case of speedrunners.

I guess game design can be very tricky in this regard. Some of the exploits or cheese factor may not be so evident in test runs, or discovered too late in development phase to be a serious problem. I think people don't complain about them too much in Dark Souls because of the difficulty curve that exists there in the first place! At least Dark Souls has a pretty fair control system where you really have no one to blame but yourself and impatience at failure, but you would have even less people complaining about it if the game was cheap and people used exploits simply out of frustration rather than challenge.

 

[hermes]

It took me a fairly long time in Final Fantasy 8 to learn that "Draw" is the way to acquire most powerful spells and replenish your mana. I used to use some 1st level magic on enemies until I run out and then spam items and summons... Once I learned that, the game became a hell of a lot more manageable.

 

[aba1]

I remember when I was playing bayonetta for the first time my friend was getting annoyed with me because I would just casually walk around enemies shooting them from a distance. I was rarely getting injured for the longest time in the game and it drove him insane.

I guess that's why hack-n-slashers and the like have score systems and the guns don't do much damage and typically the enemies have redundancies to prevent such strategies. Just so I get an idea, what difficulty were you playing on?

I was actually just playing on normal maybe if I was playing on hard I wouldnt' have been able to do that XD

 

[Spider RedNight]

Wait... you mean in Skyrim, there are roads instead of having to climb mountains by scaling the sides and becoming ethereal every time you fall so you don't die?

Hhhhuh. Might make things easier. I'll do that riiiight after I'm done climbing up the side of this mountain.

This pretty much applies to anything where the game is like "use this to get to this point" and I'm like "I can't hear you I'm busy at the place you told me to get to a specific way" - like in the Pre-Sequel where Moxxi's like "here I'll make it EASY for you and take this way" and I figure that's not the way I went at all.

Also evidently you're supposed to have trouble with the Archdemon at the end of Origins and not spam the ballista until you get the thing in a stun lock. Who knew.

Also also apparently you're supposed to go to Kashyyyk first in KotOR? Well oops, I didn't realise how easy it was 'til I suffered through Tattooine first.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Undertale. For some reason the game wanted me to play the game either as if I were a genocidal murderer or a tree-hugging hippie, with no middle ground at all.

 

[Neonsilver]

A few months ago I finally had the time and motivation to play sw:kotor1 through. I started as a scoundrel, so I got bonus damage whenever my enemy is not able to act. So I invested in the force ability to stun opponents. What points I didn't use for that I could have probably used in a better way, but it was unnecessary. During the entire game I didn't experience a single fight were I couldn't just spam stun and then kill them quick with one or two attacks. I had only in rare cases problems because I was unlucky and the enemies resisted very often.

Then I got to the final battle against Malak and he is pretty much immune against a strategy that works in every single battle beforehand. Thanks to the now useless build I couldn't really do anything against Malak while he could nearly oneshot me.

 

[Schadrach]

Also also apparently you're supposed to go to Kashyyyk first in KotOR? Well oops, I didn't realise how easy it was 'til I suffered through Tattooine first.

KOTOR? You mean that game where you simply choose not to level up between when the tutorial requires you to gain level 2 and when you become a Jedi, then go from "just trained" to "level 9 and 7 of them are in Consular" immediately? The sudden jump from "limping along" to "abnormally badass force-mage" made the rest of the game as simple as raining force lightning on anything that looked at you funny.

 

[TelosSupreme]

It's actually funny that you bring up Jedi Knight, since I'm part of the game's modding community. Yeah, it very much is a Doom/Quake-inspired, arena FPS. Heck, frantic multiplayer matches are half the fun in that game, or all for a lot of remaining players.

*Checks profile*

So you are...and a prolific one at that.

I'm a longtime lurker when it comes to the JK modding community. It's great to witness ongoing enthusiasm for such an old game. Hell, I wouldn't be able to play Jedi Knight at all anymore if it weren't for the community-made patches and fixes for modern operating systems.

Aw, now I feel special!

It is always cool to see more people share appreciation for more obscure PC classics. JK and MotS have some of the most dedicated fans I know of, which is funny since I actually know a good deal of them personally. We've kept this beast going for years with every hardware and firmware update that comes to the point that I'm amazed we haven't completely broken it.

You should absolutely join one of our games some time!

 

[Shymer]

The single player campaign of Battlefield 4 wanted me to play slowly apparently. If you rush into the level, you can very easily get behind where the enemies spawn. Enemy soldiers and civilians pop out of thin air around you. Things break.

At least I hope that is just an indication that it wants me to play slowly and methodically. It might actually point to the fact the single player campaign is a bit broken.