The average player does not want BALANCE in single player...

E

Eternal

Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
http://kotaku.com/5317726/bethesda-...l-cap-again-could-unbalance-the-game#comments

Its sad but true, read just a handful of comments on this site alone will show you that people like playing nigh omnipotent demigods and couldn't care less if they can beat the game with the screen turned off while lying down the keyboard taking a nap.

Granted if the single player game is to HARD people will cry foul and say the game is broken and stupid (look up some of the complaints about GodHand for PS2, it had plenty of problems but the one thing most people harp on is its degree of difficulty)

Balance is important for me personally to enjoy a game, single player maybe not QUITE as much as multiplayer (which is something that I DEMAND balance in) but it is certainly a very important aspect for my enjoyment. To be honest I'm from the old school and if the game can't be BALANCED so that the difficulty curve is noticable but not excessive then I'd rather have it be leaning on the side of too hard than on the side of too easy. A difficult game can pose a lot more replayability and also makes the sense o-f satisfaction for beating a particularly difficult part much more of a thrill.

I own many of what some would consider "brutally hard" games; Ikaruga, GodHand, Guitaroo Man, Bangai-O, The original NES Ninja Gaidens, to name a handful of the more known titles.

How about you folks how important is single player or multiplayer game mechanics being "balanced" to you?
 
This has been newsposted, but we can extend the discussion to games in general.
 
I like challenge, it's why I play video games.

For me, there's nothing like seeing how long I can last against the cops in Grand Theft Auto IV without using cheats. I liked doing it in San Andreas, Vice City and GTAIII.

God Hand was challenging, but that challenge was good as it kept me on my toes and wouldn't let me put my guard down (you never knew if the guy you just whomped would suddenly turn into a demon capable of killing you in 4 hits).

That sort of crazy talk about letting the player do everything they want is better suited for certain games, games that aren't RPGs.
 
Well, the game itself doesn't have to be balanced, but the difficulty levels do. And for the people who just want to have fun w/o any challenge whatsoever, there's godmode cheats.

Although, I can see how it's much easier to just make the whole game godmode, and not put any work into other levels of difficulty.
 
"The Average Player"

Ohh Great, a pole.

Pole = Biased.

Polish = Epic Win.


You will never find out what gamers want, because no one ever knows what they want. They get something good and say "I want something like this", and then they say it's uninspired.

Take a chance and design a game with some balls and brains.
 
It depends on your def of hard. If you are talking about fast thinking and complicated movements, fighting games should be the hardest.

Some games require patience, some require skills, some involve strategic thinking, and some needs planning and execution. That's why we play games.

Hoshigami was really hard because of the learning curve involved, and the fact that you have to be either great or train a lot.

Disgaea was just tedious...

SMAC required good execution and planning.

Romancing Saga and Unlimited Saga's learning curve was a bit much. I still haven't finished US...

Quite a few of my friends complained about Dragon Quest 8 or Dragon Quarter, but both only requires patience.

As for fingers and combos and such, VF or DW were probably some of the finger bleeders.

Either way, I think it depends on people's own def, skills and interests.
 
I think "Game Balance" is one of the most overrated concepts in gaming, and not because I love to play omnipotent characters. The more balanced a game is, the more synthetic it feels, because the real world is not balanced at all. People who are exceptionally good-looking or intelligent or those that have exceptional skills have a distinct advantage over those who don't. Sometimes I like to play characters who have disadvantages, and "balance" eradicates them right along with the demi-gods.

Excessive emphasis on balance is a pollutant that has seeped into single-player from the multi-player realm.
 
I have actually read on other message boards that people find Fallout 3 difficult. :o
 
Rufus Luccarelli said:
I have actually read on other message boards that people find Fallout 3 difficult. :o
Click to expand...

Thats messed up. "Hard mode" Was pretty easy in my opinion although I can't say I don't enjoy being a all powerful character. Plus that nuclear explosion perk (You lose a lot of health you explode like nuclear bombs) is pretty hilarious. I like the difficulty of F1 and 2 (as at times it can be fairly challenging) but sometimes its fun to be the all powerful bad ass. F3 isn't the first RPG to give you the option to make all powerful characters.
 
Per said:
This has been newsposted, but we can extend the discussion to games in general.
Click to expand...

Yes I know the article was newsposted here (actually before kotaku posted it) I was refering to the comments posted in response to the article not the article itself.

A large majority of the people WANT a game that is unbalanced in favor of the player, even excessively so at times. (Unlimited level cap is suggested by several people in the comments)
 
Whenever Stalker is mentioned on non fan site there are usually tons of comments on how it's too difficult people can't get into it. And at first glance the modding community seems to gravitate to making the game easier, higher weight allowance, all items available from Sidorovich or start with an assault rifle and sniper rifle, no degrading of weapons and armour etc. There's even a mod to make the game play like a typical run and gun shooter.

Though there are some mods that aim to ramp up the difficulty but these mods tend to be imbalanced the other way, throughing out all verisimilitude to make the game as hard as possible. Like making opponents lethal shots, from the other side of the map, with just a pistol.
 
I don't see anything wrong with allowing a PC to become godlike at the end of the game. It's progression, you know? Hell of a lot better than how they did that shit in oblivion.

"Fuck yeah, I'm a GOD. I've conquered the shivering isles and I'm a level 44 badass, swinging my awesome Dawnfang.

Oh look, a rat...

You're fucked, I'm gonna cut you to pieces.

Ten swings of the sword and Dawnfang's enchant runs dry. The rat finally dies, and Dawnfang is half-broken.

Ting
Ting
Ting
Ting
Ting

Dawnfang is repaired.

Well that was a fucking ordeal, I'm not feeling very godlike.

Oh well, onto some ruins.

Hmm... bandits camped outside...

And they're all fully decked in glass/ebony armor and weapons that cost tens of thousands of gold.

Fuck that, moving on.


Hey, a guard riding horseback down the road.

Since everything in this goddamn is nigh unkillable, how about this asshole?

Hey shithead, eat fireball.

STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM. PAY THE MOTHERFUCKING FINE.

Fuck that.


One mighty powerattack from Dawnfang... and his hp doesn't budge.

hit
hit
hit
hit
hit
hit
hit

Hey, it moved a sliver!.

Fuck, this punk in rusted iron gear is stomping me and my armor LITERALLY CRAFTED BY A GOD, better furiously mash my rejuvenate spell.

Out of mana, shit.


hit
hit
hit
hit
hit
hit
hit

Dawnfang breaks. The guard continues to pummel me. I die.

Why the fuck did they need me to save the world in the first place when they've got motherfucking terminator clones like this prick running around?"


Having the PC feel like a destroyer of worlds at the end of the game is MUCH better than the alternative.
 
Since there are lots of unkillable characters in Oblivion, as well as all enemies getting stronger with you, you can't really talk about game balance at all. The issue of all-powerful guards in Morrowind\Oblivion is plain ridiculous, that's true.

Anyway, onto the game balance in general.

It's cool to be able to become a god-like slayer, but there should always be someone able to give you a challenging fight. Like an organisation capable of sending people that will kick your ass if you don't take them seriously and usually would leave you with 10% of your HP and barely any ammo left (bounty hunters).

There are games which simply send more and more enemies with higher attack and hp at you, which is plain annoying (final fight in Far Cry). Game needs to be challenging, but it should require using your brain. For example, you need to find out what weapon is the most effective against the enemy, if you are able to get him off-balance somehow or is there a piece of scenery that can be used as cover\be blown up. Games where you have to shoot 13 strongest enemies, firing lethal shots at you all at the same time, while you gotta jump from ramp to ramp or will die and the main boss is shooting the all-powerful laser cannon at you isn't that kind of challenge I'd like to see.
 
What I really love in singleplayer games is when the enemy really starts kicking my ass, I get pretty much my ass kicked but in last second I can change the situation and win. :>

IMO, Jagged Alliance 2 is a good example of this. You start pretty easy, then you see more and more enemys who really start striking you until they are all around you and your mercs are pretty much fucked up. Then you get the kind of "PANIC!!!" feeling and start bursting out the ammo of your guns until you defeat the enemy soldiers short before they get all of your people down.

Fuck yeah. :>
 
Game balance is an interesting beast. I think there are several ways to look at it though.

A good game has a natural feeling progression with occasional challenges to help push the player into a new situation, the game shouldn't suddenly go easy mode to hard mode unless you are doing something you aren't supposed to (example: Fallout you COULD end up getting destroyed by monsters much stronger than you if you don't follow the gentle guiding hand of the storytellers relatively subtle commands).

True once you get a lot of the items in Fallout you are pretty darn godlike against your average monster of equal level, however there is almost always something out there that can pose a challenge to you (at least in the first one). Even at level 20 with power armor and a plasma rifle a couple of rocket launcher super mutants can make short work of you if you don't heal after each shot. However Fallout was never the most balanced game in terms of combat, each iteration getting easier and easier.

Back during the start of when video gaming became popular (after Nintendo saved it from vanishing by releasing the NES in the west) video games were balanced to be extra difficult, this was done to increase replay value on games as the cartridges could only hold so much information and tended to be rather short. Thus games like Battletoads, or Mario Brothers (The Lost Levels, AKA Mario 2 in JP) were exceedingly hard due to their short nature.

Video gaming has become much more accepted in normal society these days and as such video games have also become more expendable, people tend to beat the game and buy a new one very quickly. Many companies aren't making games from the view of gamers anymore. Its strictly business for many these days, thus its not as important for the client to get their what could be equated as a good value for their purchase. Rather than make sure that everything works and try and cram as much stuff into the game as they can most companies are more interested in turning a 60$ game into a 100$ purchase through downloadable content and patches for serious errors that would typically have never been passed to the player back during the cartridge days of consoles.

Thanks to the success of console gaming these days many companies are using the same type of work ethic and business strategy on computer gaming as well (Capcom/Bethesda/Microsoft/EA/Ect.) and thus video games are becoming easier and easier for the most part that way players can quickly digest the content and be left wanting more content or a new game.

---------

This is of course all personal opinion and speculation and should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
They'd all get frustrated over the fact that something could easily kill them at anytime and quit.

Also, I see people not paying attention to the built in hint system and dying in the exact same way the person before them did.
 
There's a fine line between challenge and frustration. Adventure games are probably a good example for this, as there are puzzles that are hard, but somewhat logical and satisfying to complete, and puzzles that are simply hard by virtue of being obscure, hence becoming frustrating.


Also, arguably much of the people for whom challenge is an attraction have moved to multiplayer for that challenge.
 
Sander said:
There's a fine line between challenge and frustration. Adventure games are probably a good example for this, as there are puzzles that are hard, but somewhat logical and satisfying to complete, and puzzles that are simply hard by virtue of being obscure, hence becoming frustrating.


Also, arguably much of the people for whom challenge is an attraction have moved to multiplayer for that challenge.
Click to expand...

That is a great example, god how many hours did I spend trying to figure out puzzles in Day of the Tentacle. However that is still considered one of the best games ever... hmm :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top