Don't you think the "no penalty on death" trend is going a bit too far?

#71Kungfu KenobiPosted 10/12/2012 11:37:35 PM
This is something Halo:Reach did well with it's mix of difficulty settings and customizable skulls.

I'd certainly appreciate something like that in Borderlands.
---
Check out www.axemurderingworms.com . And remember kids: Sound isn't music, Books aren't stories, This is not a pipe, and The medium is the message.
#72zidane7007Posted 10/13/2012 12:12:23 AM
jackypacky123 posted...
eco master posted...
From: jackypacky123 | Posted: 10/12/2012 8:15:11 PM | #047
Another sad example of a person who doesn't know to read.

He can read, he's solving your issue for you. The game shouldn't have to do what you can easily do yourself.


Yes, yes it should. It was discussed earlier in this same thread. Learn to read. If you already know how to, read.


You know, if you want people to sympathize with you, you should really stop being so condescending.

This is a matter about which I have always kept my opinion to myself. As an earlier poster mentioned, fun is subjective, so the way everyone has fun will be different depending on the person. In addition, what a person considers to be challenging is also subjective.

I will use my own opinions of challenge here as an example. Let me start by saying that I don't care what tc or anyone else actually thinks of this opinion, and I have a right to not care given to me by the definition of subjectivity.

Challenge, to me, is not something that is addressed in most games. In your average video game, challenge is simpky attained by raising the health of your opponent(s), raising the damage they do, and even giving them powers that would otherwise break the rules of the game in some cases. Now, while this is definitely an increase in challenge in a certain light, as you obviously have to be more skilled to handle a situation in which the cards are stacked against you, I do not consider this to be an entertaining way to challenge the player. Elements that create an entertaining challenge to me are those that stimulate my intellect in some way by integrating more strategy into the situation. For example, if on higher difficulties or certain parts of the game, enemies were to cooperate more efficiently, and present themselves to me as an actual team instead of several single-minded opponents with a psychic connection to each other so that as soon as I shoot one of them, they all are instantly aware of where to shoot. Now obviously the type of thing I'm talking about would involve much more complicated ai than the average game has, but for me at least, it would present a more rewarding challenge.

Now, this topic is primarily focused on penalizing death, which I will now cover. I explained challenge in the last paragraph because death is itself a part of the challenging experience that a game can bring. The problem with this is that, as a few other posters mentioned, penalties from death generally just involve taking time away from the player. Because video games are a medium of entertainment that are specifically tailored to bring fun to the user in an interactive fashion, this type of penalty is simply not effective as part of the formula for an entertaining game. The two most commonly complained about games in terms of death penalty are, to my knowledge, Bioshock and the Prince of Persia game from 2008. Having played both of those games, i believe that those systems are actually on the right track towards how death should be handled. We have to understand that we are placing ourselves in a virtual environment where the gravity of actual death cannot be properly portrayed to the player by doing anything short of deleting the player's save data. Anyway, both of these systems kept the challenge focused on the gameplay by shortening the time lost from dying, but still leaving the player with whatever daunting task ahead that killed them in the first place. It just seems inefficient to have to sit through several loading screens and replay content that you just did instead of being able to progress. An example of how this can be a problem is death in World of Warcraft (continued in next post)
---
Intel i5 2500k @ 4.3 Ghz, MSI Geforce GTX680 Twinfrozr Ed, 8 gb DDR3 RAM @ 1600 Mhz.
PSN: zidane7007, XBL: Basstardfish
#73RetroPS2ftwPosted 10/13/2012 12:29:49 AM
This isn't a persuasive essay thread, is it?
#74zidane7007Posted 10/13/2012 12:38:07 AM
(Continued from my previous post)
Death in World of Warcraft, specifically when it comes to progressing on a raid boss. Here, the challenge comes from learning the mechanics of the fight and how to survive long enough to kill the boss. The punishment of death comes not from the process involved in returning to life, but in the disappointment that the boss was not defeated. The actual process of having to run back to your corpse, run back through the dungeon, repair your gear, and reapply buffs is not a challenging factor, but a frustrating one. This punishment does nothing to provde satisfaction upon defeating the boss when compared to the challenge of the actual fight. The death itself is just a bunch of bad feelings that prolong the experience and frustrate the player. This idea can be applied to most other games as well. When I get killed in a game, I don't want to think about the laborous process of getting back to where ai was, but rather how I can get past where I was. In this way, the challenge, and through it the entertainment that you claim is dependent on such challenge, exists almost exclusively in the progression through the game, not the time lost upon death.

This concept can be extended even further to the idea that ammo refills when you die in BL2. Let me first sidebar by saying that you are still in a very early part of the game, and the money lost on death is based on how much money you have, whereas ammo continues to be cheap throughout the game. Because of this, it becomes extremely inefficient to die just to refill ammo for the 90% of the game that you have not yet experienced. Anyway, if the game did not refill your ammo upon death, all it would mean is that you have to make your way back to an ammo vendor and spend money for more, after having already paid a fee for dying. In additin, you may have to trek past enemies while having no ammo, which could result in a cycle of death and inability to defend yourself until you run out of money and/or quit. Now, personally, I open EVERYTHING in Borderlands, and I check every vendor each time I pass it, so I am never short on ammo. But if I was, I know that I would appreciate not having to waste what could be a substantial amount of time going to places that I have no reason to be just to get ammo, when all I really want is to improve my performance from last time and defeat my opponent to whom before I had lost. This time sink, as in World of Warcraft, does nothing to enhance my experience, and actually detracts from it by inspiring frustration and lowering my capacity to have fun.

Also, as I already mentioned, it would be redundant for it not to refill your ammo upon death, as it already yanks money from you when you die. Just think of the fee upon death as one that includes ammo in the price of resurrection.

On top of that, bosses refill their health, enemies respawn, and you have to retrace your steps to where you died, as you obviously were in that location for some purpose. As you can see, the time sink upon death is actually quite substantial in this game, between having to regain cash, kill extra enemies, and whittle down that boss's health yet again.

Now keep in mind that, as I said near the beginning of my first post, this is all subjective. The great (and awful) thing about concepts like these are that they are all about perspective. This is why it's hard for us to all come to the same conclusion about these things, because we are seeing them frim all kinds of different angles, and we all have reasons for why our perspective makes the most sense.

One last thing, why shouldn't you have to make your own rules, if you want such specific things from the game? The game already does so much for you, are you really so limited in your imagination that you can't fill in the rest?
---
Intel i5 2500k @ 4.3 Ghz, MSI Geforce GTX680 Twinfrozr Ed, 8 gb DDR3 RAM @ 1600 Mhz.
PSN: zidane7007, XBL: Basstardfish
#75zidane7007Posted 10/13/2012 12:56:56 AM(edited)
jackypacky123 posted...
Of course I quoted it, it is too hilarious to be completely deleted. Normally people who is used to discuss on the internet can, you know, discuss on the internet without insulting or making a fool of themselves. Oh, but you are an exception. Reported again.
I will give you some advice just because I like you: In real life, disrespecting and insulting can make you look like a badass, but here, it is just sad.


This will probably be my last post in this thread. Clearly, judging from the immaturity you've shown here, I won't be getting anywhere by saying anything further, but here goes anyway.

First of all, you hypocrite. You reprimand someone for "disrespecting and insulting" in the same post in which you disrespected and insulted that same person. And just about every response that you have posted has been condescending or insulting to the person to which you were replying.

Hypocrite again. In several places in this thread, you specifically question the posters' ability to read instead of discussing the points that they made. And yet, in this same quoted topic, you complain about how people should actually discuss things on these message boards. Refer to my earlier posts for what should be considered actual discussion.

Lastly, disrespecting and insulting people certainly does NOT make you look like a badass in real life. It's even more sad in real life than it is here! At least here you can act like a jerkwad in relative anonymity, but take that crap to someone's face and see how that goes! People tend to not appreciate jerkwads! Please don't go saying things like that! Please! The last thing this world needs is more people who think that being rude and being a badass are synonymous.

Screw this s***, I'm going to bed. x_x
---
Intel i5 2500k @ 4.3 Ghz, MSI Geforce GTX680 Twinfrozr Ed, 8 gb DDR3 RAM @ 1600 Mhz.
PSN: zidane7007, XBL: Basstardfish
#76Kungfu KenobiPosted 10/13/2012 3:13:48 AM
From: zidane7007 | #074
On top of that, bosses refill their health, enemies respawn, and you have to retrace your steps to where you died, as you obviously were in that location for some purpose. As you can see, the time sink upon death is actually quite substantial in this game, between having to regain cash, kill extra enemies, and whittle down that boss's health yet again.


I can think of plenty of times enemies did not respawn, or bosses did not regain health. It's not subjective.

If the enemies did respawn, and the bosses did always regain health, I'd have more respect for the death mechanics as-is

From: zidane7007 | #072
the gravity of actual death cannot be properly portrayed to the player by doing anything short of deleting the player's save data.


Subjectively, I disagree. I always feel it way harder when I die in games featuring permadeath. It changes how I play, and (provided the game is TOO B.S.) makes me much more invested in what's going.

It's moot though, because I don't feel permadeath is the right answer for Borderlands anyway.
---
Check out www.axemurderingworms.com . And remember kids: Sound isn't music, Books aren't stories, This is not a pipe, and The medium is the message.
#77WhiteNutsPosted 10/13/2012 3:44:10 AM
Kungfu Kenobi posted...
From: zidane7007 | #074
On top of that, bosses refill their health, enemies respawn, and you have to retrace your steps to where you died, as you obviously were in that location for some purpose. As you can see, the time sink upon death is actually quite substantial in this game, between having to regain cash, kill extra enemies, and whittle down that boss's health yet again.


I can think of plenty of times enemies did not respawn, or bosses did not regain health. It's not subjective.

If the enemies did respawn, and the bosses did always regain health, I'd have more respect for the death mechanics as-is

From: zidane7007 | #072
the gravity of actual death cannot be properly portrayed to the player by doing anything short of deleting the player's save data.


Subjectively, I disagree. I always feel it way harder when I die in games featuring permadeath. It changes how I play, and (provided the game is TOO B.S.) makes me much more invested in what's going.

It's moot though, because I don't feel permadeath is the right answer for Borderlands anyway.


Again, not getting to the core of a discussion as pointless as this (seeing as it is completely subjective), but I want to point out that enemies respawn after a specific amount of time. So if, you're fast you probably won't have to deal with them again, but if you are, for instance, dieing a lot of times at a certain point and are forced to tread back many time you will probably have to clear the area again.

As for bosses, they always regain health in single player. On Co-op, they won't regain health if at least one person on the team is alive. They will, however, regain health if the whole team wipes at the same time.
#78Dissius1Posted 10/13/2012 4:11:38 AM
What really astounds me is that no one has caught onto the troll-factor here. Not to mention "Learn to read" is a moddable insult.
---
Plain Ole Fox-Man
"Hate me, but do it honestly."
#79natchu96Posted 10/13/2012 4:16:20 AM
Dissius1 posted...
What really astounds me is that no one has caught onto the troll-factor here. Not to mention "Learn to read" is a moddable insult.


We noticed. They don't seem to care, though.
---
Official Lopunny of the Black 2 Boar . . . wait, how did THAT happen?!?
#80zidane7007Posted 10/13/2012 9:13:07 AM
Kungfu Kenobi posted...
From: zidane7007 | #074
On top of that, bosses refill their health, enemies respawn, and you have to retrace your steps to where you died, as you obviously were in that location for some purpose. As you can see, the time sink upon death is actually quite substantial in this game, between having to regain cash, kill extra enemies, and whittle down that boss's health yet again.


I can think of plenty of times enemies did not respawn, or bosses did not regain health. It's not subjective.

If the enemies did respawn, and the bosses did always regain health, I'd have more respect for the death mechanics as-is


Well obviously the matter of me explaining how the game mechanics work is not subjective. I was just referring to the rest of my explanation that was all based on my opinion of those systems. If we argue that the enemies should respawn with full health every single time you die, then wouldn't that just be a checkpoint system? The way this game explains death is that your dna is digistructed into a new physical form instantly upon your untimely death, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense if everything that you had accomplished reset itself as soon as you die, every time. But the enemies do respawn, and that was the point I was trying to make. I figured since we all play the game here, we would all have understood that I didn't mean every single time that you die they respawn, but I guess I should have been more clear about that. Thanks for bringing that up.

As for the rest of it, it's still subjective.
---
Intel i5 2500k @ 4.3 Ghz, MSI Geforce GTX680 Twinfrozr Ed, 8 gb DDR3 RAM @ 1600 Mhz.
PSN: zidane7007, XBL: Basstardfish