Do you hate games with trial and error?

You again -_-

xD

You mean the Demon Souls type of games which are only really long because you play the same 10-12h 10 damn times in tiny pieces? :)

Does it teach you for your second come around? Yes, then it's a good design choice. You as a gamer are evolving each time you die in Dark Souls, you'll know attack patterns, and take advantage of level design. I'm not stating it's the perfect experience of either, but dam does it do it well.

I personally wouldn't call it stupid because I've made it past the fire, without the alternative route. You just have to time it, like so many others have. It's not an impossible feat Lulu.

& please do not insult my intelligence just because our taste differ :) No one stated >you< had to appreciate Dark Souls, or even like it. However it 'does' make bold design choices. Even if you're not a fan. The way they make those games could have originally ended up being everything gamers of today don't want. The fact it turned successful shows how they took a bold risk and many gamers appreciate it.

For the record I don't think Dark Souls is amongst the best games ever, nor Bloodborne, but I'd like more games to do the choices they make in the context I've mentioned. If you agree or disagree is entirely your choice. However what you like may not be what's best for the future of games like SoulBorne.

@ianhh6 That's probably my bad, as it's the main series that came to mind on the subject. & kinda brought it up a lot lol.

@Daian That's the one :D

It depends. I generally hate it, but I've played some games where it was there but I was having so much fun it didn't matter. Ori and the Blind Forest's tree escape sequence being one example.

I do not hate games with Trial&Error , you learn more from your mistakes than your successes.

@acp_45:

I'm a big boy.... I'l play whatever I want.

@MrGeezer:

LoL.... damn dude why didn't you mention this much sooner.

Or do you like seeing us go through all that drama ? :(

@RSM-HQ:

Yeah I never said it didn't teach you anything I said it was Stupid......

I know its possible to run in there and pick up all the Items and run away to safety...... AFTER YOU GET KILLED BY IT THE FIRST TIME. What part of that is bold or good ?

Its cheap they knew very well that on your first run you wouldn't sprint to read the message..... hell you might get killed before you have a chance to read the warning. Even if you did sprint you still need a moment to actually read the message...... which is still stupid because you are given absolutely no hints about what the best course of action is to ensure your safety. More often than not a player would attempt to either Block or Roll through the flames...... after all these are the mechanics you are given to defend yourself...... and surprise surprise it turns out they are fucking useless. That is not only cheap but its fucking Sadistic. Thats not an oppinion.... its a fact. They botched that section of the game..... probably deliberately and everybody wants to give them a cookie for it......

"The fact it turned successful shows how they took a bold risk and many gamers appreciate it."

Yeah thats the part that baffles me.... I'm still trying to figure out. Or would you rather I just agree with everyone without doing my due diligence ?

@Lulu_Lulu: You're twisting my meaning again :)

I've repeatedly stated you don't have to agree or even like it, but everything what you stated is good trail and error. You know what to do the second come around and that's the point!

No ones expecting you to like anything, like whatever you want. But that doesn't mean I'll like what you like.

Does that make sense :D

@RSM-HQ:

I never said anything about hating or liking it.... I said it was Stupid. What part of that are you not getting exactly ?

Perhaps I should give you an example..... I hate Chess..... but I don't think its stupid...... do you get it now ?

@Lulu_Lulu: Not that I used the term "hate" recently here. But on that subject, calling a feature many like "stupid" continuously, without a good reason to do so could be summed up as

@RSM-HQ:

WITH OUT A GOOD REASON ?

You better check your glasses and go over what I said in that post again..... its chock full of good reasons.

I can't make you accept them but whatever.... I did my part. And theres nothing more I can do.

Sorry, I didn't check out this thread until just recently.

But yeah, I personally LOATHE needless wastes of time. Some people like that stuff. Why not let everyone have the option to tailor their experience as they please?

I think Fallout 4 is a really good example of this done well. I recall you loathing stat-based RPG's (though I may be mistaken) and I know a lot of people have various problems with Fallout 4. But one thing I can say this game got very close to being spot on is the save system. I think this is especially important in games like Fallout 4 or MGS5, where the ability to customize your personal experience is one of the biggest points of the whole game. And yes, Fallout 4 (and other Fallout games) can absolutely be a trial and error experience where a single wrong move results in a very quick (or instant) death. But my point is that if I get blown up by a mine after clearing a room full of bad guys, don't make me have to clear the room full of bad guys again. The room full of bad guys isn't the part that I have to get better at, since I already successfully did that part. The only part that I have to get better at is the part where I died (in this case, the mine in the hallway). So let me fucking start at that point and stop making me repeat stuff that I already successfully did.

That's one of the nice things I liked about some old school games like Doom. They only make you waste as much time as you want, but it also doesn't make the game any easier unless you want it to. And regardless of what happens, you only have yourself to blame. Is the game too hard because you keep getting killed? Well, that's your fault for not saving often enough. It's manual save, no one's stopping you from saving whenever you feel like it. Is the game too easy because you have the ability to save whenever you want? Well, that's STILL your fault. Since it's a manual save, no one's forcing you to save. If you think the ability to save anywhere makes the game too easy, then exercise some goddamn self control and stop manually saving so goddamn often. The biggest downside I see to this is that some people may think that having to stop and manually save takes them out of the experience.

So, okay, fine. Put in automatic checkpoints, so you can still play the game without having to worry about stopping the game to save. The only condition being given the option to turn the auto-saves off.

EVERYONE wins. People who don't like to stop the game to manually save can simply play the game and let the auto-save handle everything.

Hardcore gamers who think the auto-save saves too often can simply turn off automatic checkpoints and go longer before saving.

Casual noobs who don't like wasting their time replaying stuff they already successfully did can save in between automatic checkpoints so that they only have to replay the parts that they're actually having trouble with.

Everyone wins. You want to make the game harder by forcing yourself to replay stuff that you're not having any trouble with? That's your choice. You have other stuff do do and loathe wasting your time replaying easy parts just to get to the part that's actually hard? That's your choice. Either way, you can't blame the game, you only have yourself to blame. The game isn't forcing you to waste any more time than you want, and it's not forcing the game to be any easier than you want by making you automatically save progress when you aren't ready.

Any way it goes, you STILL have to legitimately beat the hard parts in order to make progress. The ONLY difference here is how long a stretch of game you have to clear before having to repeat shit that you already did. Some people like that repetition, some people dislike that repetition, so put in some manual fucking save options, so that people only have to waste as much time as they want to. Then, if anyone has an issue with checkpoints being too close together or too far away, that's their own faults since they are the ones who decide when progress gets saved.

Life is one big trial and error.

Bringing out "I wanna be that guy" and pointing at it for being a unfair platforming game when it's designed to be an unfair platforming game, is like pointing at a block of cheese and wondering why it can't replace the building quality of a brick.

Personally I will get frustrated if there is alot of trial and error, partially why I can't get into the Dark Souls series but I wouldn't say I hate it. Simply cause most games have some degree of trial and error in them. That's part of games challenging you in therms of enemies, traps, puzzles, quicktime events etc.

So no I don't hate games with trial and error in them, just when I'm not capable of overcoming those trials after a repeating process.

I know that some games are built around trial and error, and memorizing stuff after dying, so I'll accept that.

However, if there's something that trial-and-error based games should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER have, it's LIVES. ;)

@MrGeezer:

Yes thats right.... I hate me some stats big time.

As for your save system....Thats actually a genius idea. There's just one variable you didn't account for. And that variable is: People Can be Complete Idiots sometimes.

Look people want a game that forces them to repeat those sections.... if you use a manual save system they are not going to ignore.... they will save often and they will complain about the game being too easy. Thats just how gamers think and you can see how developers have their hands full dealing with this type of gamer.

Its just like the "JC Penny's Effect".... it was a briliant idea and it backfired because people are idiots. Idiots ruining everything.

Look I know its wrong to say people are idiots but believe or not thats what they taught us back when I was doing some simple programming. After writing up a program we had to go back and "Idiot Proof" it (no seriously.... thats a real thing) to make sure that idiots don't ruin all our hardwork and make the program crash. So uhm yeah...... thats why I call people idiots...... school made me this way ;)

I thought Dark Souls and Mirror's Edge were two of the best games last console generation.

I think that clearly illustrates my position on trial and error.

Max Payne 3 have a perfect gameplay and it's cool.

But are people really such idiots that they'll have that much of a problem with that kind of save system? I mean, this isn't really my idea. I brought up Doom as an example, but I recall that kind of manual save system being fairly common on PC games even earlier than that. And granted, Doom was ONLY manual save, if I remember correctly. Not counting the beginning level checkpoints, which doesn't really count since they were too punishing to be a viable option. (Seriously, that stripped you of all your weapons and you start the level over with a pistol. If you couldn't beat the level with a shotgun, rocket launcher, and BFG, then a checkpoint system that's this punishing essentially amounts to "load up your last manual save file".) But I also recall that Half-Life 2 had a manual save plus automatic checkpoint system. And granted (as far as I can remember), Half-Life 2 didn't have the option to turn the automatic checkpoints off. But Fallout 4 does.

Seriously, this is not my idea. It's a natural progression of the kinds of save systems that have been going on for decades. And Fallout 4's save system gets damn close to perfection (my only real gripe being file management; I have to scroll all the way down to delete old files rather than scrolling up to the old file or highlighting multiple files at once).

And yeah, all those games have had various complaints about them. But complaints about the save systems? I've just never really heard any serious uproar over that. For all the complaints that people have had over Half-Life 2 or Fallout 4, I've never really heard ANYONE complaining that the save system sucks because it's giving them too many options to save their progress in the manner that best suits them.

It depends...

@MrGeezer:

Don't underestimate the Idiot. They will always surpass your expectations. I learned that not too long ago.

My view is that if something is not prepared for is surprising then the lesson to learn from it is to prepare for the unexpected. You could be utilizing precious time to prepare for random or unexpected encounters rather than lamenting about it.

Actually I MISS games with trail and error. Variety is a good thing but way too many new games are too easy. Want' to have something like Thief or System Shock 2 (thank God the sequel is coming... let's hope it's good).

@Cloud_imperium:

Brute Force Solutions are easy.

@BranKetra:

You do realise thats a Paradox right ?

Preparation requires insight and information...... in other words you must have some idea of what to expect.

An unexpected surprise is just that.... its unexpected. You can't prepare for it let alone expect it. Attempting to do so is not Preparation...... its Paranoia.

@Lulu_Lulu: Let me give you an analogy to help you understand that concept.

A fifteenth century knight (man or woman) has a sword, shield and wears full plate armor. This plate armor is forged by a blacksmith in the kingdom with the intention of protecting the blacksmith's knighted ally.

The purpose of the shield and armor is for self-defense when engaged in combat. With his or her understanding of combat from that time period, there is an awareness of dangerous physical attacks that may transpire. What is not known is from what direction the attacks shall come from at any given point in time during combat.

Essentially, plate armor is designed for expected attacks, but attacks from directions at any point in time are not expected by the blacksmith, so it protects from virtually every direction.

This same methodology can be applied to games with surprises. You might not know when something is coming, but you do know that it might, so a steady awareness of possibilities can reduce the surprise of seemingly random events that cause frustration and failure.

Furthermore, freedom of thought is a metaphorical pillar of any democratic society. How you act with your thoughts in mind is your choice and not necessarily paranoid.

I hope that helps.

@BranKetra:

Good Analogy...... but theres nothing unexpected about the scenario you proposed

My turn...... say your knight has to cross a bridge...... some bandits lying in wait cut the ropes and he falls into a ravine...... he drowns because his armor is too heavy.

Look we analogies are pointless. I'm assuming you wouldn't have said what you did if you had an example where this actually happened in a game. It would help your point if you did that instead.

@Lulu_Lulu: I am not sure what you mean.

An oversight does not invalidate something if, in and of itself, it makes sense. I think you are conflating validity with soundness.

Also, it is quite clear that analogies can serve a purpose. If you recognize the value of analogies, you can relate multiple concepts together, so you can think of events in which this applies to your own experiences.

@BranKetra:

The fundamental difference between your analogy and an actual game is that Your analogy is a consequence of real life. Its random and unpredictable and most importantly.... it sucks donkey balls........ if it was a game these so called oversights would be design flaws. In an actual game these so called "oversights" can be ironed out. Failure to do so is bad design.

I feel like not having any room for error or expectation ruins the whole point of what a game is.

Hi there and welcome to the forums.

Please only respond to threads that have been active in the last few weeks. Over a year old is too old.

Thanks!

-Byshop