Quote:
Originally Posted by Grozmok
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Without that challenge you lose the group centric sense of accomplishment that you get in EverQuest and other games (to some degree).
|
I'm thinking of Diablo 2 Hardcore mode right now. If you died it was permanent. There were various stages in the game where you'd be caught inbetween crowds of monsters and it was split second choices that could save you or kill you. It was a good challenge, but the problem is the perma-death mechanic encouraged you to stay in lower level zones to squeeze every drop of experience from it before going to the harder zones. As a consequence, it became more like a grind. Inevitably, I still died anyway too, mostly to random critical hits or misjudging the number and severity of enemies. Once or twice I died because of a lag spike. My highest level was a 47 paladin. I don't regret it, since dying and losing everything permanently is never going to be an easy thing, unless all the value of those things is removed or replaced over time.
What I'm saying here is I'm not convinced PUNISHMENT is necessary to give a game challenge. It might be necessary to hook adrenaline junkies, but challenge is another beast. A challenge is like trying to get a good score - for yourself - in golf. Punishment is like having to restart ALL holes everytime you fail to get a hole-in-one. The key to take away is golf and other games are fun not because of any punishment (unless you're hooked on adrenaline) but because of the process of learning the game and getting better with time. Few humans if any would learn to walk if they had their legs cut off if they failed their first attempt.
I think repetition and punishment can be ways to divide players and to allow for some to rise above others, but this normally applies to competitive games and only the most mediocre. Lets face it, some players are better able to tolerate repetition or punishment and thus better able to rise up and over others. This is as opposed to making better choices which is hte preferred method to divide players, so some can rise above others. I think developers of games turn to tactics like using repetition or punishment because it's cheaper to produce. Producing gameplay which urges players to make intelligent decisions requires more effort.
I think challenge increases the sense of accomplishment for both soloing and grouping. I think what you said has to do with the synergy between group members being better and more rewarding if it's a challenge.
I think a challenge is also somewhat subjective. If I was playing golf a challenge for me would be making an inferior score. Tiger Woods would cast scorn. Either way, I rise up in the ranks as I improve.
Sometimes I wonder if people take up challenges they tend to be better at. For example, I remember enjoying the hell out of nintendo games when I was growing up. My sister, on the other hand, died repeatedly and didn't enjoy them as much. Thing is, I died a lot too, but I had better reflexes than her. The difficulty curve for me was not as extreme as it was for her because of my better ability to play the game.
Why do I enjoy tactical games more than story games? Like I can enjoy the hell out of combat and figuring out ways to winning, but slogging through a story or scene is much more boring to me. Maybe this is because I don't follow a story as well or don't get attached as much emotionally to hte characters. I've always thought of myself as sensitive, but I've rarely connected with others on a deep emotional level.
So how do you make a game please to everyone if challenge is somewhat subjective and different players have different aptitudes and thus different players respond differently to the same challenge?
May I ask what your post was in response to?