Nintendo embraces cheats, more games to have a skip feature.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
People learn in different ways. For some, repetition isn't the key, they have to visualize what they have to do. If the game gives them the visualization, and then they copy it, they have the opportunity to see good level design at hand and accomplish it so that they are prepared for the next challenge. Like I said above, it's not going to be a black screen where they just say "press + button to skip this chapter."Here's another example of how this could be damaging, it's a lot like what happened with GCSE coursework here in the UK and part of the reason it was scrapped in many areas, people were getting their parents to do it all for them using them as a kind of "Win button" at schoolwork. They then had no idea baout the subjects at hand and when they did independent or exam work they couldn't do it. Do you see the problem?
When people get acustomed to their problems just magically disapearing they fail to progress in their understanding, if someone who is used to having things done for them tries to do it themselves they will more than likely fail at it. Say someone plays these games, skips arround a lot and feels great about themselves, then they try an older game say... Ratchet and clank for instance, there is a jump they can't make they just turn the game off instead of trying becuase they are used to not having to try. No imagine a whole genration of Wii gamers grow up with win bottons, they will simply not be able to game without them or have to play stupidly easy games due to their lack of any real experice. We will end up with a market of easy/ ultra skippable games.
Gaming is a learning process like any hobby/ activity and you learn most when you fail, this system allows people to just fast worard the learing process and challanges that can be so rewarding and allow you to access more complex challenges and activities.
BoloTheGreat
[QUOTE="STRETCH-E"]
Biggest 2 defenders in this thread:
One has a Link avatar and a LKS sig, the other has a Metroid sig.
Just sayin'LordQuorthon
And you are Dire Toad, the fanboy that cannot post anything beyond idiotic one-liners.
Woa you go straight to the core there.
I don't remember reading that :cry: Whatever did I sign up to? killerfistRemember to read the small text :twisted:
But thanks I guess:P The avatar shows my my care for avatars, which is non existent.:Pkillerfist:o I thought you looked that way! I got scared for a moment D:
No no no! Not good for them. People will get used to Win buttons and not games, the only reason you progress in skill at a game is coming up against things you will fail at probably more than once, the option is always there to skip it then you most likely will do so and when something harder comes around you will skip that and you end up just being stuck in a position where you have not required the requesit skill to progress in stages. Take Zelda for instance, if you could skip a temple then you may not have learned the lessons for the next temple and thus have to skip that. I think it's damaging to gaming and may end up with even MORE simple games flooding the market. BoloTheGreat
Are there WIN buttons? Buttons you press and just 'Win'?
You know, there are a slew of games that have different difficulty level. Wouldn't people playing the easy level not 'progress in skill'. You make it sound like people will not be able to resist using the 'skipping' feature. Do you think people can't resist playing easy difficulty as of today? Do you think people can't resist googling every problem in Zelda as of today?
Take Zelda for instance. If you think people are going to skip a temple 'because they can' or just want to see the end, then they would just YouTube the ending. But people play 'for the experience'. For the adventure itself. I'm pretty sure they will have the self control to not use it. And if they do: SO WHAT. It doesn't effect you.
You think 'MORE simple games' will flood the market? I think more difficult games will flood the market. If the game is going to be so simple, there wouldn't be a need for this hint feature. I think it makes the designer more open for more difficult playing, because currently if you make a game extremely hard, you may be isolating a group of people that don't such a challenge enjoyable.
And sometimes difficult elements in games aren't all that fun. Just tedious. And could be argued due to poor game design.
I know many that hate the Water Temple in TP. It is possible this temple was just a bad idea.
Someone should start a thread that states "What games were great, but were ruined by one thing."
I think this can bring about more opportunity for different types of difficulty, rather than take away.
[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]People learn in different ways. For some, repetition isn't the key, they have to visualize what they have to do. If the game gives them the visualization, and then they copy it, they have the opportunity to see good level design at hand and accomplish it so that they are prepared for the next challenge. Like I said above, it's not going to be a black screen where they just say "press + button to skip this chapter." Well I was just giving a hypothetical argument for a situation that could arise from over-implementation, i don't think this will kill gaming and i can see why in some respects they have done this BUT this can in no way be spun as a positive thing in my own experice of gmaing the most rewarding victories come after the greatest challenges, im not one of those shouting from the rafters that Nintendo is killing gaming (it's brought the biggest growth to the gaming sector this gen, an irrefutable fact). but this a step in a process that i have seen going on for years, it's simplification for appeasement purposes and it's seeping into more and more games.Here's another example of how this could be damaging, it's a lot like what happened with GCSE coursework here in the UK and part of the reason it was scrapped in many areas, people were getting their parents to do it all for them using them as a kind of "Win button" at schoolwork. They then had no idea baout the subjects at hand and when they did independent or exam work they couldn't do it. Do you see the problem?
When people get acustomed to their problems just magically disapearing they fail to progress in their understanding, if someone who is used to having things done for them tries to do it themselves they will more than likely fail at it. Say someone plays these games, skips arround a lot and feels great about themselves, then they try an older game say... Ratchet and clank for instance, there is a jump they can't make they just turn the game off instead of trying becuase they are used to not having to try. No imagine a whole genration of Wii gamers grow up with win bottons, they will simply not be able to game without them or have to play stupidly easy games due to their lack of any real experice. We will end up with a market of easy/ ultra skippable games.
Gaming is a learning process like any hobby/ activity and you learn most when you fail, this system allows people to just fast worard the learing process and challanges that can be so rewarding and allow you to access more complex challenges and activities.
kansasdude2009
[QUOTE="IronBass"]I don't think anyone here is in position to say what kind of people "should" play videogames or not.
foxhound_fox
I am. I think that anyone not wishing to complete a challenge for a reward should not be playing videogames. Its like playing a board game where you just move your piece from beginning to end without having to complete a single challenge, roll a single die, pick up a single card or buy a single thing. You just start the game, move along the board and then end up at the finish and get to say "I win. yay!"
I don't care about giving gamers help, as long as it has to be unlocked (like Easy mode in DMC3) and doesn't allow a single person to "skip" anything. It takes the "game" out of "video game." "Games" have always been about either competing with friends or against the game itself. There has to be some sort of challenge or test of skill that ends up with a reward. You shouldn't just be able to "skip" over the hard parts and jump straight to the reward... it removes all the meaning of the word "game." In any game, there is always a chance that you can lose... not being able to lose is not playing a game.
What an honor it is to be in your presence. :|
You have got to be kidding me.:roll:If people just want to get the reward, why not? Maybe they just want to fly around with the final wing cap in the next mario game. What's wrong with that? How is that hurting you? Why is that such a bad thing? You may think it's a bastardization of gaming, but it's just different than what you are used to. People are different, you should learn that.
kansasdude2009
This is all like quick travel in Oblivion. Its there, you don't "have" to use it, but its mere presence undermines the overall design of the game. At least in Oblivion, it has a greater effect only on immersion and not difficulty... but its the same idea.
I don't care that people are different... its wrong. WiiFit has you doing challenges for rewards... its incredibly simple, easy and straightforward... yet you are still have to do something in order to succeed. Pressing the "skip" button is not playing the game, its just skipping the game. I don't know why you are defending that. As I've already said, I don't care about real-time tutorials based on player performance... but giving the player the outright ability to skip right to the end removes every challenge from the game.
Sure, you could skip to the last level in Lion King on the SNES... but getting to the end by beating all the in-between levels was the most rewarding... and saying that only "I" prefer that is just silly. Its true, some people are lazy and don't like the challenge... but removing ALL the challenge by adding the "skip" button is just plain wrong and defeats the purpose of calling it a "game." I recognize some people don't like playing the game to get the reward... but just giving them the reward right from the start removes all the purpose of even PLAYING the game.
Are there WIN buttons? Buttons you press and just 'Win'?
You know, there are a slew of games that have different difficulty level. Wouldn't people playing the easy level not 'progress in skill'. You make it sound like people will not be able to resist using the 'skipping' feature. Do you think people can't resist playing easy difficulty as of today? Do you think people can't resist googling every problem in Zelda as of today?
Take Zelda for instance. If you think people are going to skip a temple 'because they can' or just want to see the end, then they would just YouTube the ending. But people play 'for the experience'. For the adventure itself. I'm pretty sure they will have the self control to not use it. And if they do: SO WHAT. It doesn't effect you.
You think 'MORE simple games' will flood the market? I think more difficult games will flood the market. If the game is going to be so simple, there wouldn't be a need for this hint feature. I think it makes the designer more open for more difficult playing, because currently if you make a game extremely hard, you may be isolating a group of people that don't such a challenge enjoyable.
And sometimes difficult elements in games aren't all that fun. Just tedious. And could be argued due to poor game design.
I know many that hate the Water Temple in TP. It is possible this temple was just a bad idea.
Someone should start a thread that states "What games were great, but were ruined by one thing."
I think this can bring about more opportunity for different types of difficulty, rather than take away.
flazzle
Wait! Where in the patent did Nintendo mention anything about "skipping" or "WIN button"? It's a HINT system. The game shows you how a certain part is solved and then you go HAVE to go back and play it. The patent clearly states that you can't save the progress if you haven't played a certain part.
"The solution would turn a game into a full-length cut scene of sorts, allowing players to jump into and out of the action whenever they wanted. But when played this way, gamers would not be able to save their progress, maintaining the challenge of completing a game without skipping or cheating."
http://kotaku.com/5127251/nintendo-patent-reveals-potential-paradigm-shift-in-design
I peobably wont use it.
Guess I must be the only person in the world that over 22 years of gaming have a ton of games that I stopped playing half way or 3/4 of the way through because I hit a section or boss that I just couldn't clear. Yes, part of the fun is beating the challenge, but that challenge can also turn into frustration. After a while, you get a new game and just move on.
People always go on about how games now are art and how important the story and depth is. If that's true, then even the leakest players should be allowed to experience the full potental of that artwork.
As for the games becoming easier, we're already in the age of infinate lives, 100 cheackpoints per stage, no penalty deaths. Does this really make that big a difference?
[QUOTE="HenriH-42"]How? Cheats have always been here.... what he means is, nintendo is dying. dying inside. their soul is fading.Gaming is dying.
Jono789
I find it surprising that no one has commented on how nintendo views their customers. They don't want competent online because losing makes people "feel bad." They don't want people to feel too troubled to solve a puzzle so they introduce a feature that shows you the answers to Zelda puzzles. They don't want people to feel too troubled to beat their already fairly easy games so they introduce a skip feature.
Nintendo thinks the casual base is full of idiots and they're desperately trying to keep their attention as if they're fearful that they'll wander away from gaming if they find it too hard or unpleasant in any way.
I find it surprising that no one has commented on how nintendo views their customers. They don't want competent online because losing makes people "feel bad." They don't want people to feel too troubled to solve a puzzle so they introduce a feature that shows you the answers to Zelda puzzles. They don't want people to feel too troubled to beat their already fairly easy games so they introduce a skip feature.
Nintendo thinks the casual base is full of idiots and they're desperately trying to keep their attention as if they're fearful that they'll wander away from gaming if they find it too hard or unpleasant in any way.
hakanakumono
I lose all the time in Brawl and Mario Kart. They are taking away the losing in ONLINE? Since when?
Do you know exactly how this is going to be implemented or are you just speculating?
ITT: people who don't know thedefinition of the word "optional".
You say this defeats the purpose of the game? Don't use it then. That way you can feel good knowing that you beat the game without using those cheats.
[QUOTE="STRETCH-E"]
Biggest 2 defenders in this thread:
One has a Link avatar and a LKS sig, the other has a Metroid sig.
Just sayin'Brawl578
I guess that means we're smarter than cows and lemmings since we know what optional means.
Of course the fact that its option means that it doesn't hurt gamers. But it destroys the integrity of the games. Lots of kids play nintendo games and its important for videogames to exist as a challenge worth beating, rather than a challenge worth skipping for them. For one thing, its good for their character. For another, they're not going to become "core" gamers because they're going to avoid any games that are too much of a challenge for them, because they wont be able to cope with no skip function.
God some of you people make me ashamed of modern gamers. Elitists who only think that games should be played one way and are only for one type of people.
Many games including Alone in the Dark and Alan Wake let you skip chapters. But when Ninty does it it's wrong? It didn't ruin those two games from being acceptable (well Alone in the Dark was bad for a totally different reason). And many great game, such as Earthbound, allow you to skip a boss and come back to it later. What's wrong with that? You know doing something later when your actually good at it but still beat the game and all the bosses?
Whether the game does it the Alan Wake sty le or Earthbound sty le it doesn't matter. I'm sure you still have to beat all the levels before getting the ending. You don't know how the system is implemented so why complain about it now?
[QUOTE="kansasdude2009"]You have got to be kidding me.:roll:
If people just want to get the reward, why not? Maybe they just want to fly around with the final wing cap in the next mario game. What's wrong with that? How is that hurting you? Why is that such a bad thing? You may think it's a bastardization of gaming, but it's just different than what you are used to. People are different, you should learn that.
foxhound_fox
This is all like quick travel in Oblivion. Its there, you don't "have" to use it, but its mere presence undermines the overall design of the game. At least in Oblivion, it has a greater effect only on immersion and not difficulty... but its the same idea.
I don't care that people are different... its wrong. WiiFit has you doing challenges for rewards... its incredibly simple, easy and straightforward... yet you are still have to do something in order to succeed. Pressing the "skip" button is not playing the game, its just skipping the game. I don't know why you are defending that. As I've already said, I don't care about real-time tutorials based on player performance... but giving the player the outright ability to skip right to the end removes every challenge from the game.
Sure, you could skip to the last level in Lion King on the SNES... but getting to the end by beating all the in-between levels was the most rewarding... and saying that only "I" prefer that is just silly. Its true, some people are lazy and don't like the challenge... but removing ALL the challenge by adding the "skip" button is just plain wrong and defeats the purpose of calling it a "game." I recognize some people don't like playing the game to get the reward... but just giving them the reward right from the start removes all the purpose of even PLAYING the game. No it doesn't. A game is nothing more than a person interacting with something on screen. If they don't want to play all the in-between levels to get to their reward, I don't see a problem with that. You define games how you would like to see them made, but you are not everybody.
In Oblivion, they put the quick travel in to skip what would be really boring to most players. In this, what you call skip feature (even though we don't know if it will actually just SKIP the challenge... the patent doesn't point that way), there is much more incentive to play the game than in Oblivion quick travel. Most people will probably use the feature to see what they have to do, and then do it themselves. And again, if you don't like it, just don't use it.
I seriously think your argument is just to argue at this point. I can PLAY a game even if I was to just skip to the end and fly around as mario with his wing cap. I, personally, wouldn't do that, but someone else might want to. It's not wrong, it's different.
[QUOTE="Brawl578"]
[QUOTE="STRETCH-E"]
Biggest 2 defenders in this thread:
One has a Link avatar and a LKS sig, the other has a Metroid sig.
Just sayin'hakanakumono
I guess that means we're smarter than cows and lemmings since we know what optional means.
Of course the fact that its option means that it doesn't hurt gamers. But it destroys the integrity of the games. Lots of kids play nintendo games and its important for videogames to exist as a challenge worth beating, rather than a challenge worth skipping for them. For one thing, its good for their character. For another, they're not going to become "core" gamers because they're going to avoid any games that are too much of a challenge for them, because they wont be able to cope with no skip function.
Well, what about Easy, Medium, and Hard difficulty settings on all other games. Is it really that different?
The one guy from GameTrailers that makes all the predictions says he plays all the games on the Easy level first so he knows what to expect when he plays it on a harder level.
And what's this about 'skipping'. Was it reported that there was skipping?
[QUOTE="Brawl578"]
[QUOTE="STRETCH-E"]
Biggest 2 defenders in this thread:
One has a Link avatar and a LKS sig, the other has a Metroid sig.
Just sayin'hakanakumono
I guess that means we're smarter than cows and lemmings since we know what optional means.
Of course the fact that its option means that it doesn't hurt gamers. But it destroys the integrity of the games. Lots of kids play nintendo games and its important for videogames to exist as a challenge worth beating, rather than a challenge worth skipping for them. For one thing, its good for their character. For another, they're not going to become "core" gamers because they're going to avoid any games that are too much of a challenge for them, because they wont be able to cope with no skip function.
When you learn to ride a bike, you use training wheels. This skip function is the "training wheels" of games. they gradually learn to rely less and less on the function as they get better at playing the game.Wait! Where in the patent did Nintendo mention anything about "skipping" or "WIN button"? It's a HINT system. The game shows you how a certain part is solved and then you go HAVE to go back and play it. The patent clearly states that you can't save the progress if you haven't played a certain part.
"The solution would turn a game into a full-length cut scene of sorts, allowing players to jump into and out of the action whenever they wanted. But when played this way, gamers would not be able to save their progress, maintaining the challenge of completing a game without skipping or cheating."
http://kotaku.com/5127251/nintendo-patent-reveals-potential-paradigm-shift-in-design
LordQuorthon
I think more people should read this post. >_>
When you learn to ride a bike, you use training wheels. This skip function is the "training wheels" of games. they gradually learn to rely less and less on the function as they get better at playing the game.Shinobishyguy
Poor analogy. When "skipping" something, you don't learn, you just skip. Showing the player how to do something, then making them do it will make them learn. Just allowing them to go past it without doing it themselves, won't make them learn a thing.
Doesn't matter to me, you aren't forced to use them
Well since I'm not really ever going to use this, it means nothing to me. I know it would be useful for people who are plaformingly challenged lol. Not a big deal to me. Better than making the game stupidly easy. (even though these are Nintendo games so they'll be stupidly easy regardless lol)
[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]When you learn to ride a bike, you use training wheels. This skip function is the "training wheels" of games. they gradually learn to rely less and less on the function as they get better at playing the game.
foxhound_fox
Poor analogy. When "skipping" something, you don't learn, you just skip. Showing the player how to do something, then making them do it will make them learn. Just allowing them to go past it without doing it themselves, won't make them learn a thing.well again...YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
what part ofthat don't you understand?
[QUOTE="LordQuorthon"]
Wait! Where in the patent did Nintendo mention anything about "skipping" or "WIN button"? It's a HINT system. The game shows you how a certain part is solved and then you go HAVE to go back and play it. The patent clearly states that you can't save the progress if you haven't played a certain part.
"The solution would turn a game into a full-length cut scene of sorts, allowing players to jump into and out of the action whenever they wanted. But when played this way, gamers would not be able to save their progress, maintaining the challenge of completing a game without skipping or cheating."
http://kotaku.com/5127251/nintendo-patent-reveals-potential-paradigm-shift-in-design
I think more people should read this post. >_>
Yeah, this has been totally ignored.[QUOTE="kansasdude2009"][QUOTE="LordQuorthon"]
Wait! Where in the patent did Nintendo mention anything about "skipping" or "WIN button"? It's a HINT system. The game shows you how a certain part is solved and then you go HAVE to go back and play it. The patent clearly states that you can't save the progress if you haven't played a certain part.
"The solution would turn a game into a full-length cut scene of sorts, allowing players to jump into and out of the action whenever they wanted. But when played this way, gamers would not be able to save their progress, maintaining the challenge of completing a game without skipping or cheating."
http://kotaku.com/5127251/nintendo-patent-reveals-potential-paradigm-shift-in-design
IronBass
I think more people should read this post. >_>
Yeah, this has been totally ignored.Its SW, why would it be acknowledged? :P
Yeah, this has been totally ignored.[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="kansasdude2009"]
I think more people should read this post. >_>
ActicEdge
Its SW, why would it be acknowledged? :P
I guess haters will continue to hate even in the face of contradictory evidence.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="IronBass"] Yeah, this has been totally ignored.Shinobishyguy
Its SW, why would it be acknowledged? :P
I guess haters will continue to hate even in the face of contradictory evidence."I guess haters will continue to hate even in the face of contradictory evidence."
sig that one
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="IronBass"] Yeah, this has been totally ignored.Shinobishyguy
Its SW, why would it be acknowledged? :P
I guess haters will continue to hate even in the face of contradictory evidence.Yeah, that's basically wehat SW is. You can completely disprove a theory and people will still hate or change the subject. How many "Halo Sucks", "Wii has lower standards", "PS3 has no games" threads need to be disproven before people get that it is false? My guess is about 100,000, we are halfway there. Keep fighting the good fight!!! :P
well again...YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.what part ofthat don't you understand?
Shinobishyguy
I fully understand it. My argument is against it being there in the first place, allowing people to use it.
I fully understand it. My argument is against it being there in the first place, allowing people to use it.foxhound_foxWhy do you care that much about what other people is allowed to do with their videogames ?
[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]well again...YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
what part ofthat don't you understand?
foxhound_fox
I fully understand it. My argument is against it being there in the first place, allowing people to use it. Pardon me, but how is it any of your business how other people play games? You don't want to use it, and you don't have to. If other people need help, you have no right to say they shouldn't get it.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I fully understand it. My argument is against it being there in the first place, allowing people to use it.IronBassWhy do you care that much about what other people is allowed to do with their videogames ?
I actually understand his point. In this particular situation, I completely disagree with him but sometimes there are mechanics in games thatcan ruinpart of theexperience because they are there even if they don't have to use them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but maybe this is what he means.
I actually understand his point. In this particular situation, I completely disagree with him but sometimes there are mechanics in games thatcan ruinpart of theexperience because they are there even if they don't have to use them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but maybe this is what he means.ActicEdgeOf course there are mechanics that ruin games. But optional mechanics? Nope.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I actually understand his point. In this particular situation, I completely disagree with him but sometimes there are mechanics in games thatcan ruinpart of theexperience because they are there even if they don't have to use them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but maybe this is what he means.IronBassOf course there are mechanics that ruin games. But optional mechanics? Nope.
I suspose that his point is that sometimes those optional mechancis are detrimental since although the game was built for you to not have to use them, completion of objective and etc, can heavily rely on them which means if you don't use it you are making things harder for you. Why he is against a hint system in a simple Mario game that most gamers won't use is beyond me since I doubt he's even going to buy it lol.
Of course there are mechanics that ruin games. But optional mechanics? Nope.[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I actually understand his point. In this particular situation, I completely disagree with him but sometimes there are mechanics in games thatcan ruinpart of theexperience because they are there even if they don't have to use them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but maybe this is what he means.ActicEdge
I suspose that his point is that sometimes those optional mechancis are detrimental since although the game was built for you to not have to use them, completion of objective and etc, can heavily rely on them which means if you don't use it you are making things harder for you.
Thats why gamers will play the game for the challenge and skip out on the skipping.The option is there solely for the casuals.
I actually understand his point. In this particular situation, I completely disagree with him but sometimes there are mechanics in games thatcan ruinpart of theexperience because they are there even if they don't have to use them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but maybe this is what he means.ActicEdge
Thank you. I already gave the example of quick travel in TES IV: Oblivion. Its there, you don't have to use it, but it will still be there to be a huge detriment to the immersion factor. I even use it in Oblivion out of convenience some times, when I don't want to waste time riding my horse through the bland and repetitive countryside (had it been better designed, I would been more interested in walking). However, as soon as I got Shivering Isles, I didn't have any desire to use it, because the game world compelled me to explore and find all the little secrets hidden in the countryside.
My idea for something like quick travel in Oblivion, would be to give it some sort of randomized punishment/reward for using it. Such as an "event generator" that it puts you through as you use it. Certain times you use it, you could have an uneventful journey, with nothing lost or nothing gained. Other times, you could have a tough time against some big enemies, but that could net you some fancy loot just for using quick travel. You can choose to take the fastest possible route and take a big risk going through the woods, or the safest route along the paths. Everything about quick travel in vanilla Oblivion is just plain wrong and just because I have the "option" of using it, doesn't stop it from being an inherently bad thing.
Giving the player the option of just skipping to the end of the game at the push of a button completely undervalues the "game" itself. I fully support tutorials and the other part of the system, its a great thing to have built in FAQ's... but to SKIP parts in a game because its too hard is just plain wrong. It makes absolutely no sense. Plenty of Wii games are really "easy" but all of them make you do something in order to get a reward. You should always have to do something in order to advance... you should never be able to just push a button and skip over something you don't want to complete because its too hard.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I actually understand his point. In this particular situation, I completely disagree with him but sometimes there are mechanics in games thatcan ruinpart of theexperience because they are there even if they don't have to use them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but maybe this is what he means.
foxhound_fox
Thank you. I already gave the example of quick travel in TES IV: Oblivion. Its there, you don't have to use it, but it will still be there to be a huge detriment to the immersion factor. I even use it in Oblivion out of convenience some times, when I don't want to waste time riding my horse through the bland and repetitive countryside (had it been better designed, I would been more interested in walking). However, as soon as I got Shivering Isles, I didn't have any desire to use it, because the game world compelled me to explore and find all the little secrets hidden in the countryside.
My idea for something like quick travel in Oblivion, would be to give it some sort of randomized punishment/reward for using it. Such as an "event generator" that it puts you through as you use it. Certain times you use it, you could have an uneventful journey, with nothing lost or nothing gained. Other times, you could have a tough time against some big enemies, but that could net you some fancy loot just for using quick travel. You can choose to take the fastest possible route and take a big risk going through the woods, or the safest route along the paths. Everything about quick travel in vanilla Oblivion is just plain wrong and just because I have the "option" of using it, doesn't stop it from being an inherently bad thing.
Giving the player the option of just skipping to the end of the game at the push of a button completely undervalues the "game" itself. I fully support tutorials and the other part of the system, its a great thing to have built in FAQ's... but to SKIP parts in a game because its too hard is just plain wrong. It makes absolutely no sense. Plenty of Wii games are really "easy" but all of them make you do something in order to get a reward. You should always have to do something in order to advance... you should never be able to just push a button and skip over something you don't want to complete because its too hard. Again, where do you get the right to tell me or anyone else how to play our games? If you think it ruins the experience, then feel free to ignore it! But go around telling us how to experience products that we have bought with our own money. I don't remember electing you as president of gaming.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I actually understand his point. In this particular situation, I completely disagree with him but sometimes there are mechanics in games thatcan ruinpart of theexperience because they are there even if they don't have to use them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit but maybe this is what he means.
foxhound_fox
Thank you. I already gave the example of quick travel in TES IV: Oblivion. Its there, you don't have to use it, but it will still be there to be a huge detriment to the immersion factor. I even use it in Oblivion out of convenience some times, when I don't want to waste time riding my horse through the bland and repetitive countryside (had it been better designed, I would been more interested in walking). However, as soon as I got Shivering Isles, I didn't have any desire to use it, because the game world compelled me to explore and find all the little secrets hidden in the countryside.
My idea for something like quick travel in Oblivion, would be to give it some sort of randomized punishment/reward for using it. Such as an "event generator" that it puts you through as you use it. Certain times you use it, you could have an uneventful journey, with nothing lost or nothing gained. Other times, you could have a tough time against some big enemies, but that could net you some fancy loot just for using quick travel. You can choose to take the fastest possible route and take a big risk going through the woods, or the safest route along the paths. Everything about quick travel in vanilla Oblivion is just plain wrong and just because I have the "option" of using it, doesn't stop it from being an inherently bad thing.
Giving the player the option of just skipping to the end of the game at the push of a button completely undervalues the "game" itself. I fully support tutorials and the other part of the system, its a great thing to have built in FAQ's... but to SKIP parts in a game because its too hard is just plain wrong. It makes absolutely no sense. Plenty of Wii games are really "easy" but all of them make you do something in order to get a reward. You should always have to do something in order to advance... you should never be able to just push a button and skip over something you don't want to complete because its too hard.
I get what you mean but according to the patent, the game shows you how to get past the situation but then you have to do it yourself. I don't see a problem with that since you aren't actually skipping anything more so then having someone show you the right way then imatating it. That's how I learned how to play games so I'm really not against this. But yeah, your point is valid, mechanics that aren't essential ut are still in the game deter you from using the proper way because the mechanic is suspose to be taken advantage of. The game will have it built in mind. Its not like say items in Yoshi's Island where you won't use them unless you need them but there is a punishment (loss of the item)and there presence doesn't really deter you from not using them since all the means to get through the level are provided before hand. Am I on the right track or off a little?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment