BioShock reviews, penultimate roundup?

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Well thats the complaint, there is no such thing as failure.
Without the possibility of failure, success feels empty.

If you want failure play a sports game. Single player story driven games have never been about that. Even if you had a game that made you start from the beginning if you died it still wouldn't be about failure, you'd still have another chance to save the world. When I was still at school (way back in the early eighties) there was a schoolyard rumour about a game (either for the C64 or ZX Spectrum), which if you died that was it the game would uninstall and mark your machine so that you could never reinstall it. Which sounded dubious even back then, but taking that as the extreme of 'failure' who would waste their money (at today's prices) on such a game.

There are modern games that add a random element to a level each time you reload, and was it Baldur's Gate that claimed to increase the difficulty if you kept reloading? Diablo 2 kept spawning more enemies IIRC, though that really didn't make a difference until the end of the game (and made the beginning levels easier). Severance Blade of Darkness had a rating system, you started at Heroic and could maintain that by only saving once or twice per level. The more times you saved the lower you rating would go, bold, cautious etc. There are things a developer can do to make you avoid dying, but none of them have anything to do with how many times you can save etc. Not without putting the majority of people right off playing the game that is. But if you really want a sense of failure what's really needed is more end movies when you die. Or at least something to show that your death means something to the game. Few games bother with something like Jedi Outcast's cutscene showing Kyle tossed in to a cell after failing the stealth level, or Silent Storm's rocket launch if you die on the last level. Even those two examples were for specific events and not just whenever you died. How much more would it of meant to Halo if you died in the first part of the game and got an endmovie of the Covenant reaching Earth, in the middle part of the game a movie showing all the Halos destroying life through out the Galaxy, or in the last part the Flood escaping the Halo? I sure it would of been far more of a sense of failure than just reloading the last checkpoint.

BioShock on the other hand isn't about saving the world, there are reasons to avoid dying and doing so does fill me with a sense of accomplishment.

I've never heard of such a thing happening with Diablo 2's save system. Perhaps it has happened, but I've never experienced it, and I've spent many, many hours on that game with several characters. And if you're worried about it, it's not too hard to make a back-up of the save folder periodically.

I was referring to NMA's own tech forums, we berate people for only using the one save slot so it's silly to suggest making a game that intentionally forces you to do that. Especially since games don't seem to be QA tested to the same standard these days. I've played games that used a single save system in the past, and have backed up the files. It's annoying, both the act of having to back up a file and the fact that if you want to replay a section of the game just for fun you'd have to start over. I mean am I the only one who played Surface Tension in Half Life again and again, not because of failure but just because it was such a good level?

 

[The Bigs]

I play games to feel like a hero (most of the time). Dying is unheroic. I'd rather die and reappear on a chamber than die than magically warping back in time to the point I had full life and ammo, moments before my death.

I bet, you like Oblivon.

Not true. I've been lurking on these forums since 1999. Played oblivion, but couldn't keep playing... it feels somewhat empty and numb

I understand what you tough of though... I believe I didn't express myself clearly... what I meant is: I must be a hero in all the games I play (true hero, anti hero, hero depending on point of view, whatever). I liked "need for speed: most wanted" more than "test drive" or stuff like that because need for speed had a story (dull meaningless story is sometimes better than no story at all - fake orgasms are better than none at all... debatable, and I know some games which would be better off without a story, but it's just my opinion).
In need for speed I get to "feel like a hero" because I beat everyone and get my car back.

In fallout, I get to feel like a hero because I got the water chip / killed the mutants... doesn't matter if I doomed some people... I still feel like a hero.

My point here is that it doesn't feel heroic to die, and yes, being immortal does detract from that feeling of accomplishment.

games will ALWAYS* be easier than life... how much easier is up to the developer. You can play on the hardestestest difficulty ever, it will still be easy

Will they? Well, I NEVER died in real life, and in games I died quite a few times. Doesn't that show that games are harder than (my) life?

Not at all. You never died in real life, that's why you posted this message. If you were dead, you wouldn't be able to "load". In games you can rest assured that no matter how hard the game punishes you, you'll never get the same amount of punishment as in real life.

The PC life is harder than yours most of the time, true, but games were made to be finished. In real life, no matter how small your problems are, some times you just can't do anything and your only option is to accept your failure and move on. Not true with games.

I was simply stating that if any game does have an immortality scheme set up, then it should be done properly (in a convincing context) otherwise I could find the game unbelievable, and would thus argue difficult to immerse myself in (unless of course I circumvented it with the quick save system).

I agree with you here. Fallout wouldn't be nice with an immortality / resurrection system implemented. It fits with some settings and not with others. A WWII game with immortality would suck too.
And it should be done properly, as should ALL things [no exceptions] developers want to implement in ANY game.

When I said "the immortality scheme in Torment had a pretty big impact on how I viewed the gameworld", I didn't mean it in a wholly negative sense or anything, in case that's where you got your "don't die!!!" point from.

No, I read your post and you have a point. My "don't die!!!" thing was to xdarkyrex. I'm a hardcore fallout fan, but a casual gamer... I like my games easy and I hate when they make games too hard for me, and I hate when they implement "checkpoints" and remove my ability to save whenever I want.

He does have a point here tho:

perhaps a setting system, along the lines of
-forgiving (infinite lives and respawns and anytime saves)
-moderate (autosaves only and resurrection with penalties for dying)
-brutal (save on quit only, severe and massive penalties for death)

that would be nice and please everyone (I know, that's impossible)

real games should be different than real life (in my opinion at least. I can understand you thinking otherwise) because real life sucks.

There are a lot of people whose lives don't suck.

I didn't mean to say "life sucks lets become EMO"... I meant to say that real life sucks because, if you're shot on the leg, you don't "lose hitpoints", "get slowed down" or anything like that. You're [nearly] immobilized for a few weeks at best, and if you don't stop the bleeding, you could die.

If you get shot in the chest, chances are you'll die.
[notice I'm talking about games, where there's no hospital avaliable and you must take care of yourself]

besides, if you get shot once, it WILL be easier to shoot you a second time, and your ability to retaliate is greatly reduced, no matter where you were hit (some places affect that more than others, obviously)

an example: Half Life. Even with the HEV suit, I wouldn't last 10 minutes in that hellhole. As soon as I got my hands on a gun, I'd use it to suicide.

That's what I meant by "real life sucks". If ***YOU*** were in rapture, you'd probably die in the first hour.
My life doesn't suck. It would suck if I were in any of those games.

To make fallout a thousand times harder, remove the option to talk to people about the same things... just like real life: you say something stupid, you're stuck with it, people ain't forgiving you, and you have to deal with the consequences. That would suck huh?

No.

Explain yourself

Probably make the game so hard to the point of being unplayable

Do you have some problems with not saying stupid things in RL or something?

Don't flame me if you don't have a point. Why do you think my argument is stupid?

Take fallout again: In case of a nuclear holocaust, the ones who didn't die on the horrible balls of fiery doom would die on the [much more] unforgiving hellish wastelands

They do.

Didn't get it. Your answer doesn't make sense. Please elaborate.

I play games to feel like a hero (most of the time). Dying is unheroic. I'd rather die and reappear on a chamber than die than magically warping back in time to the point I had full life and ammo, moments before my death.

How about a game that gives player a reasonable challenge?

Keyword: reasonable

I'm all for games that "gives the player a reasonable challenge". What's reasonable for you may be too easy or too hard for me. A difficulty slider comes in handy here and, if done properly, would provide a "reasonable challenge" for both of us, who have different skill levels.[/quote]

I play games they way they are meant to be played.
But I would like one that is meant to be played in the way I am talking about, where death is a big deal.

And just because a game has unrestrictive saving doesn't mean that it is meant to be played with you saving every five seconds. Face it death hasn't been a big deal in gaming since, well ever, and it's never likely to be in single player. Unrestrictive saving doesn't make death meaningless. Lack of response to your death (end movies, stastics etc) makes death meaningless.

Maybe forcing you to watch a 10 seconds movie of your corpse when you died [in bioshock] could add some motivation for you not to die... it's an idea, but really hard to implement (easy to program, hard to think of a way it would work without everyone hating it)

I'd like to comment more but this post is already too big

 

[Sorrow]

I didn't mean to say "life sucks lets become EMO"... I meant to say that real life sucks because, if you're shot on the leg, you don't "lose hitpoints", "get slowed down" or anything like that. You're [nearly] immobilized for a few weeks at best, and if you don't stop the bleeding, you could die.

If you get shot in the chest, chances are you'll die.
[notice I'm talking about games, where there's no hospital avaliable and you must take care of yourself]

besides, if you get shot once, it WILL be easier to shoot you a second time, and your ability to retaliate is greatly reduced, no matter where you were hit (some places affect that more than others, obviously)

an example: Half Life. Even with the HEV suit, I wouldn't last 10 minutes in that hellhole. As soon as I got my hands on a gun, I'd use it to suicide.

It depends on a game type - I wish RPGs would finally develop a system that doesn't involve unrealistic HPs - it reads to overusing violence.

To make fallout a thousand times harder, remove the option to talk to people about the same things... just like real life: you say something stupid, you're stuck with it, people ain't forgiving you, and you have to deal with the consequences. That would suck huh?

No.

Explain yourself

Because actions and consequences are a part of roleplaying.

Probably make the game so hard to the point of being unplayable

Do you have some problems with not saying stupid things in RL or something?

Don't flame me if you don't have a point. Why do you think my argument is stupid?

I didn't say that your argument is stupid. I said that it's valid only if you are unable to not say stupid things.
It's possible to play Fallout without saying stupid things.

 

[Tagaziel]

It depends on a game type - I wish RPGs would finally develop a system that doesn't involve unrealistic HPs - it reads to overusing violence.

Not going to happen. A game will *always* use hit points, as that is the nature of computers - everything has to be laid out in numbers.

Because actions and consequences are a part of roleplaying.

Is a game a chore or pleasure? Why should it be forced?

 

[pkt-zer0]

Not going to happen. A game will *always* use hit points, as that is the nature of computers - everything has to be laid out in numbers.

I might not be correctly understanding what you're trying to say here, but...
HPs being used is only a result of design decisions, not technical limitations. Keeping track of wounds of various types and severity, with varied consequences, would lead to gameplay quite different from traditional HP-based systems - and it wouldn't be impossible to implement, either.

 

[Sorrow]

Is a game a chore or pleasure? Why should it be forced?

Why exactly a game with NPCs that react realistically would be a chore?

 

[The Bigs]

I didn't mean to say "life sucks lets become EMO"... I meant to say that real life sucks because, if you're shot on the leg, you don't "lose hitpoints", "get slowed down" or anything like that. You're [nearly] immobilized for a few weeks at best, and if you don't stop the bleeding, you could die.

If you get shot in the chest, chances are you'll die.
[notice I'm talking about games, where there's no hospital avaliable and you must take care of yourself]

besides, if you get shot once, it WILL be easier to shoot you a second time, and your ability to retaliate is greatly reduced, no matter where you were hit (some places affect that more than others, obviously)

an example: Half Life. Even with the HEV suit, I wouldn't last 10 minutes in that hellhole. As soon as I got my hands on a gun, I'd use it to suicide.

It depends on a game type - I wish RPGs would finally develop a system that doesn't involve unrealistic HPs - it reads to overusing violence.

I agree, but it would take loads of brainpower to come up with a system that doesn't use hit points yet still has a way to verify your health (which doesn't regenerate - unlike in Call of Duty 2), doesn't use stimpacks / health kits / etc, realistically calculates weapon damage, yet manages to not be impossibly difficult

To make fallout a thousand times harder, remove the option to talk to people about the same things... just like real life: you say something stupid, you're stuck with it, people ain't forgiving you, and you have to deal with the consequences. That would suck huh?

No.

Explain yourself

Because actions and consequences are a part of roleplaying.

I exaggerated a bit. But for your first run, with only one chance, it would be a lot harder... What I meant to say is: If fallout had happened in real life and YOU were the vault dweller, chances are you'd screw up in some point, someone (or a group of people) would get pissed ate you and you'd die.
It's easier to compare if you forget about your real life and think of yourself as an undercover agent spying on the Russian mafia... and they suspect it: You really need some godlike communication skills, or you'd die. Such is the way in fallout (if you had like 5 HP max and could only play the game once, on the first try) ---> that's what I meant

Probably make the game so hard to the point of being unplayable

Do you have some problems with not saying stupid things in RL or something?

Don't flame me if you don't have a point. Why do you think my argument is stupid?

I didn't say that your argument is stupid. I said that it's valid only if you are unable to not say stupid things.
It's possible to play Fallout without saying stupid things.

Sorry, my mistake... I understood "Are you retarded? why do you keep saying those stupid things"

instead of what you meant

but anyways, in real life there would be a near infinite number of possible answers for any given question, and no preset answers for you to choose from

 

[Sorrow]

I agree, but it would take loads of brainpower to come up with a system that doesn't use hit points yet still has a way to verify your health (which doesn't regenerate - unlike in Call of Duty 2), doesn't use stimpacks / health kits / etc, realistically calculates weapon damage, yet manages to not be impossibly difficult

IIRC such system is used in The Riddle of Steel. It looks very good, especially damage tables with entries like "Pelvis destroyed, with massive bleeding".

 

[The Bigs]

I agree, but it would take loads of brainpower to come up with a system that doesn't use hit points yet still has a way to verify your health (which doesn't regenerate - unlike in Call of Duty 2), doesn't use stimpacks / health kits / etc, realistically calculates weapon damage, yet manages to not be impossibly difficult

IIRC such system is used in The Riddle of Steel. It looks very good, especially damage tables with entries like "Pelvis destroyed, with massive bleeding".

But then... realistically speaking, you should die with no pelvis
do you die when that happens?
And if so... doesn't it make the game hard?

 

[Sorrow]

That's a level 5 crushing wound - it's mortal .
There are 5 wound levels - from mere scratches and bruises to catastrophic wounds.

It's relative - it can make game easier, because you can do the same to your opponents.
It can make game harder, but IMO high HP's make games harder, because they encourage unreasonable challenges and make combat more random.

 

[Kyuu]

It's annoying, both the act of having to back up a file and the fact that if you want to replay a section of the game just for fun you'd have to start over. I mean am I the only one who played Surface Tension in Half Life again and again, not because of failure but just because it was such a good level?

Well I just meant to point out that Diablo 2 wasn't a good example. And it's also not in this case, because in Diablo 2, you can replay any section of the game you want again and again without having to reload or anything. It's just the way the game works.

And no, you're not the only one to reply Surface Tension multiple times. I also thoroughly enjoyed "On a Rail."

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Maybe forcing you to watch a 10 seconds movie of your corpse when you died [in bioshock] could add some motivation for you not to die... it's an idea, but really hard to implement (easy to program, hard to think of a way it would work without everyone hating it)

I wouldn't of minded seeing a short movie that showed the process of how your body gets to the chamber and gets revitalised. But that wouldn't of really put me off dying (unless it had been unskippable) any more than waking with less ammo and supplies and still your enemies to deal with. I thought that the process interrupted the flow of the game a lot less than reloading, though it was still something to be avoided if only for the pain of having to backtrack from the chamber to where you were.

Well I just meant to point out that Diablo 2 wasn't a good example. And it's also not in this case, because in Diablo 2, you can replay any section of the game you want again and again without having to reload or anything. It's just the way the game works.

Diablo 2 is one of those games I wouldn't and haven't replayed so I'll take your word for it but if people can just copy the save file, why bother restricting the saves? There are a lot more interesting ways to reward/punish players than just restricting saving. For instance Call of Duty 3 had an achievement for completing a level without dying or using a checkpoint, if a console game can track if you die or reload then games can adjust themselves for people who reload or die constantly, whether if that means making a level easier for casual gamers or tougher for the hardcore.

 

[Kyuu]

... if a console game can track if you die or reload then games can adjust themselves for people who reload or die constantly, whether if that means making a level easier for casual gamers or tougher for the hardcore.

Aye, I think that sort of system has even been used before, although I can't think of any specific examples. Although, I wouldn't particularly like that, as I'm the sort of person who, if I encounter a portion of the game that's kicking my ass, I never give in and ease up on the difficulty, if that option's available. I get hugely frustrated and may curse many times, but I'll do it again and again 'til I get it right.

I'd like to point out that I do, in fact, agree with you, for the most part. A save anywhere, anytime system can and does work the best for many different kinds of games, and allows a person to pretty much play however they wish. However, a system like Diablo 2, where your progress is saved automatically as you go along, with no loading or reloading occuring (outside of when you start the game, of course), and dying requires some kind of game mechanic outside of the save system (go and fetch your corpse to recover your equipment) works well, and I actually prefer it for Diablo's style of play. It's also how MMOs are handled, for obvious reasons.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Aye, I think that sort of system has even been used before, although I can't think of any specific examples. Although, I wouldn't particularly like that, as I'm the sort of person who, if I encounter a portion of the game that's kicking my ass, I never give in and ease up on the difficulty, if that option's available.

I don't remember it ever being used to decrease the difficulty, but games have claimed to get harder if you constantly reload (BG?). Not saying I'd like that either way, just saying that there's lots of options for developers none of them preclude the use of unrestrictive saving.