Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

FF MMORPG HatersFollow

#52 Aug 29 2010 at 11:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
GuardianFaith wrote:
Quote:
I have to admit I did try WoW, just to see what the big deal was all about. I felt like I fired up my Sega Genesis and start playing


I'm so confused when I hear this. WoW on max settings is amazingly crisp and bright. The detail in wood, stone, landscape, etc is still pretty to look at to this day. I prefer the animations in ffxi but I can't say I think the graphics are anywhere near the clarity of WoWs. Standing next to a 500ft high mountain in WoW is really like being there with the scale at which they build the game. Not only that but I can actually fly up to the top and jump off if I want to! let the flaming begin.


It's not a question of better graphics; it's a question of preferred art style. Some people prefer colorful, exaggerated art like WoW and others prefer darker, calmer tones like XI.

You can't declare one to be "better" any more than you could go to a museum and declare one portrait better than another. It all comes down to preference.

I think they both look fine, but some people just strongly prefer one art style to the other.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#53 Aug 29 2010 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
1. I don't care who plays FFXIV as long as there are other people playing, the community is well rounded and the game is fun.


This is the main reason for not caring. In XI you knew that the other people around you either loved the game or had a heroin like dependence on it. The community made the game, and the community is made of people that either came to it on their own or were open minded enough to give it shot and fell in love with it. Do you really want the people that were bullied into playing around? I don't.
#54 Aug 30 2010 at 4:23 AM Rating: Good
***
1,146 posts
BRizzl3 wrote:
I know a lot of people who are like this:

Me: Hey FFXIV is coming out and it looks pretty cool.
Them: Oh is that Online?
Me: Yeah, it's their new MMO.
Them: I tried FFXI and I hated it.
Me: This isn't FFXI, it's a new game. Not an expansion, it uses the same races basically but everything else is different.
Them: I can't wait for SWTOR!
or an alternative to this last comment
Them: Nothing beats WoW and when Cataclysm comes out it's gonna be even more the best!

This bothers me because people aren't even willing to listen to what the game is about, or hear about any of it's new systems before they shun it, f#&@ers.


I know how you feel. Most of my firends played or are still playing WoW.
At least most of them won't get Cataclysm as they finaly got bored with the game.
So I tried to get them to play FFXIV and some of them are really interested. But one of them makes me mad.
Although he claims to be interested in FFXIV he keeps ******** around because of stupid things like:
- his GFX card is to slow but he won't buy a new one just for this game
- the benchmark won't run on his machine so the developers suck
- if the controls can't be configured to his tastes he won't be playing the game because it's impossible to play with other settings

I gave up on trying to convince him. I guess it would be best if people like him wouldn't even think about joining if they can't accept changes or that they won't be able to play with outdated hardware.
____________________________

Final Fantasy XI
Server: Quetzalcoatl
Name: Kyana (retired)
Jobs: THF75 PLD70 BST70

#55 Aug 30 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
UncleRuckusForLife wrote:
Silverwyrm wrote:
Quote:
I quit WoW a year and a half ago, but I had my fun with the game. For me, WoW was an activity between me and my friends and the game's approachability really helped in that regard. I cherish the great Vent conversations we had more than the game we played. When my friends quit, I quit. So whenever I hear people say WoW was "easy" it makes me wonder if they were only playing the game for/by themselves.


wow IS easy, not sure how your saying its not. Anyways, after my friends quit I did too, everyone else was a jerk or plain didn't care I had no reason to stay. In XI, even after my friends quit (they always do..) there was plenty of friendly people ingame to keep me there. I'm hoping that the same will be the case for me for XIV (I know my friends will quit after the first or second month, they ALWAYS do, every game)

Anyways, my brother wont play this game because its named FFXIV and he believes they should do name it something else. Eh, oh well.


Saying "wow is easy" is easy to do. Actually proving wow is easy by completing Heroic LK 25 man or being a gladiator for all of the arena seasons is something only a small small fraction of the community can claim. Hanging out in Dal is easy. doing ICC 10 and 25 normal mode(expecially now with the 30% buff) is easy but actually doing the true end game isnt nearly as easy.


And yet none of that is representative of the trial you get to play for WoW. I know, I tried it. By the end of my first night, I was something like lvl 12 in maybe 2 hours. It was insanely easy, nothing aggroed, and I couldn't find anything that even closely resembled a story. At least you could run through M1-3 (maybe up to M2-1 or -2) in XI by the time you were 12. I ended up not playing the remaining time of my trial because I was so bored.

Maybe you're absolutely right. Maybe things get better later on. But I couldn't find any indication of that, and I felt their trial version and the early stages of the game definitely did a poor job of showing that.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#56 Aug 30 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
**
800 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
So yeah. Vanilla/BC raids and former "endgame" 5 mans like BC heroics (at level 70) and 5 man level 60 instances (at level 60 or lower) were challenging. Everything added to the game after LK is unbelievably easy in comparison. And people still manage to @#%^ it up and cry for more nerfs.


This is exactly why I'm glad SE doesn't cater to every whim of the playerbase. Blizzard and Turbine (and others I'm sure) end up making their games easy enough so that most of the players can experience all the content. I don't blame them, more players = more money. But again, just because a 12 year old can complete most of the game doesn't mean I'll find it enjoyable too (no offense to any 12 year olds). I hope FFXIV is actually challenging to level, not just a challenging engame.

In MMOs the squeakiest wheels tend to not understand the dynamics of MMOs. Oiling them waters down the game for everyone.
#57 Aug 30 2010 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Links in this post are work safe, but should still be clicked at your own peril.

You know...

I remember back in the old days of the NES when games were actually hard. Some of them just had moments of intense difficulty, some of them were just insane, some of them were not fair by design, some were elaborate guessing games with "start over" being the reward for failure, and in most cases, there was nothing you could do about it.

Used to be that beating a game was both a challenge and an accomplishment. Nowadays, people think the mere act of purchasing a game entitles you to be able to beat the game no matter how good or how bad of a player you are. This never used to be the case. There used to be games that most people just quit and would never beat because the game was just too hard for them.

Go ahead. Play some NES games. I'm not prepared to make suggestions that would be illegal, but... get ahold of some old NES games.

Suggested reading material:

Battletoads
Castlevania II
Ghosts N' Goblins
Mega Man 1
Ninja Gaiden
TMNT 1
Top Gun


I'll even let you use save states on them if you want. Go ahead. ****, I'll even let you use a game guide (but if you're a real man, you won't). Beat any 4 games on that list and then come back and tell me how hard games are lately.

Poster's note: not responsible for anyone ending up in a sanitarium as a result of attempting these games.

Extra Credit: I wanna be the guy.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#58 Aug 30 2010 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

Suggested reading material:

Battletoads
Castlevania II
Ghosts N' Goblins
Mega Man 1
Ninja Gaiden
TMNT 1
Top Gun


I'd also like to suggest:
Deja Vu (4/10 in difficulty)
Solstice (5)
Astyanax (4)
Rygar (7)
Contra (6)
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (2)*

Though not impossible to beat (had a few of these beat before middle school), these games sometimes prove a bit too difficult for newer gamers. Of course, with modern wonders like internet walk-throughs, a couple of these games don't seem so bad to some anymore. Without them, I've seen some pretty tough gamers crumble.

*For some reason, a lot of people thought Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was a hard game, but I'd probably put it at a 2, worst.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#59 Aug 30 2010 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
PLDXavier, Defender of Justice wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

Suggested reading material:

Battletoads
Castlevania II
Ghosts N' Goblins
Mega Man 1
Ninja Gaiden
TMNT 1
Top Gun


I'd also like to suggest:
Deja Vu (4/10 in difficulty)
Solstice (5)
Astyanax (4)
Rygar (7)
Contra (6)
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (2)*

Though not impossible to beat (had a few of these beat before middle school), these games sometimes prove a bit too difficult for newer gamers. Of course, with modern wonders like internet walk-throughs, a couple of these games don't seem so bad to some anymore. Without them, I've seen some pretty tough gamers crumble.

*For some reason, a lot of people thought Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was a hard game, but I'd probably put it at a 2, worst.


Yeah, trying some of these like Zelda II and Castlevania II will drive you bonkers. Deja Vu and Shadowgate (how could you mention Deja Vu and not mention Shadowgate?) were doable without a guide but just required thought. Shadowgate was a LOT harder than Deja Vu, not just because of the fact that you had to keep at least one torch burning AT ALL TIMES or instant game over, but also because the game managed to find such creative ways to kill you for doing the wrong thing, or even doing the right thing at the wrong time.

Oh, and I forgot The Immortal. Talk about a game that's virtually unbeatable without a guide; If you forgot to get an item early in the game, you were permanently @#%^ed and it was impossible to beat the game.

EDIT: Zelda 2 was difficult for the same reason Startropics and Castlevania II were; the game was not so much "hard" except that you needed to figure out where to go without having any sort of guide back when the game came out. The enemies are rather similar but you can quickly find yourself wandering around lost without a guide. Guides make Startropics, CV2, and Z2 significantly easier and reduce them to playing skill and reflex/timing. When they were released though, the difficulty was all in the fact that you had no idea where to go. Metroid had a fair amount of this, too. So did Blaster Master.

EDIT2: Oh, speaking of Startropics, I nearly forgot. The game includeda letter in the box. Later in the game, you were instructed to immerse the letter in water and it revealed a 4 digit code that you needed. Without this code, you could not progress. Well, you could brute force it. Should take less than 10,000 guesses. Ditto for Who Framed Roger Rabbit where a character tells you to give them a call, and gives you a phone number. An ACTUAL phone number that had a pre-recorded message, greeting anyone who called it and telling you what to do next in the game. The phone number has been long since decommissioned so like the Startropics letter, Internet guides are a must.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 12:23pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#60 Aug 30 2010 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
I remember trying to land on an aircraft carrier in Top Gun. I think it happened. Once.

#61 Aug 30 2010 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
**
800 posts
Kierk wrote:
I remember trying to land on an aircraft carrier in Top Gun. I think it happened. Once.



The solution is the Power Glove. (8:50 in the video)

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 12:08pm by Hydragyrum
#62 Aug 30 2010 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,233 posts
I'll be on the fence for the remainder of the discussion, but I'll just give you my views. I played FFXI for about 4 years, and WoW now for approaching 3 years.

FFXIV looks to be similar in fashion and community as FFXI was, which is probably the main reason that I stayed with FFXI for as long as I did, and why I plan to stick with FFXIV for a long time. It was so immersive that it was hard to put down even when you were frustrated with it. I've been in the beta now since P3, and do not have anything bad to say about the system other than UI issues, and I wish my computer was better so I could enjoy the graphics more.

with WoW, I have never been immersed in my character. Because different jobs required different characters entirely I had to experience some semblence of storyline/quests with all of them, which was annoying and time consuming. Dungeons have always been easy, but with successive expansions have only gotten easier and easier. The problem even with higher tier raiding is that the bulk of the community is still so casual that its hard to find even groups of 10 or 25 competent enough to complete the normal modes, let alone the heroic modes. (even with the 30% buff, /facepalm) I've probably leveled at least 9 or 10 characters to level cap now, and there are still parts of the game I've missed or never seen because once you out level it, it's completely obsolete with no reason to explore new places other than hey there might be an easter egg out here.

Easy or not, WoW is just as involved as any other MMO, FFXI & FFXIV included. It just seems like they just cater to casual players and whiners more than other MMO companies, which is fine, and a great idea from a financial standpoint, which is why they have so many more subscribers than other MMO's despite in my personal opinion, an inferior game.

So why do I still play WoW? Because there are parts of it I enjoy, namely the level grind up, gaining/learning/using new fun abilities and seeing parts of the worlds I may have missed the last time up. This most recently has been me using almost exclusively the dungeon finder to get a new Warrior up (now 75). Raids the first couple of times are new fun and exciting but quickly get boring and dull, unlike Dynamis where even though it's pretty much the same thing for some reason it always held me for so much longer.

I've never been that good at PvP, but never felt it was necessary. The highest I obtained in WoW was a 2000 ranking in a 5's group sometime during TBC, after which my class of choice was made inferior to another class I had leveled but being forced to switch because of mechanics changing was quite annoying to me.

FFXIV will have its pro's and con's. It will have it's time sinks and grinds. It will have casual players and hardcore elitists. Until it's complete and we have a much better understanding of the game as a whole, we're not going to know how to compare the two properly. Right now I feel like FFXIV has a lot to learn from both it's predecessor, it's players, and other MMO's, but it's still my game of choice.
____________________________
"I'm gonna get nice and drunk, then play video games until my eyes bleed." Charlie (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia)
#63 Aug 30 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Paracleets wrote:
So why do I still play WoW? Because there are parts of it I enjoy, namely the level grind up, gaining/learning/using new fun abilities and seeing parts of the worlds I may have missed the last time up. This most recently has been me using almost exclusively the dungeon finder to get a new Warrior up (now 75). Raids the first couple of times are new fun and exciting but quickly get boring and dull, unlike Dynamis where even though it's pretty much the same thing for some reason it always held me for so much longer.


I have to say; I felt like WoW raids were far more engaging and fun due to scripted battles and such, compared to Dynamis which is just a bunch of killing. I was a leader in a Dynamis LS for several years and while I enjoyed Dynamis more than the raids, it was largely because of the people I did it with moreso than the event itself. Salvage was a lot more fun than Dynamis too.

WoW's biggest problem is that you'll find that in every group of 10/25, there's always a few people who just aren't pulling their weight and really don't care that they aren't. FFXI has players like that too, but WoW seems to be more rampant than XI in terms of having players who just don't care about contributing to the overall group. The problem is that most people don't want to commit to a guild that does this content (or aren't good enough to get accepted by one) so they ending up getting a pickup group for everything. And since pickup groups are, by nature, largely comprised of people who are not dedicated raiders, they tend to have spectacular failure rates. Anyone who has joined a few pugs in WoW is well aware of the near-godlike ability of some players to die in ways that were previously thought impossible, and that anything that -can- result in someone dying -usually will-.

A WoW pug is similar to the result of if people not picked for the NFL draft got together and made their own team. You'll probably end up with some people who know what they're doing, but they're pretty much doomed to failure.

Once you get a group that doesn't have any mouth-breathers in it, most of the content is absurdly easy. The only hard part is getting a group that doesn't have mouth breathers in it.

So yeah, my major gripe about WoW goes beyond the fact that most of the game is easy and goes into the fact that most of the players are idiots. FFXI had some idiots too, but most of them tended to ragequit before getting too far.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 1:54pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#64 Aug 30 2010 at 12:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Links in this post are work safe, but should still be clicked at your own peril.

You know...

I remember back in the old days of the NES when games were actually hard. Some of them just had moments of intense difficulty, some of them were just insane, some of them were not fair by design, some were elaborate guessing games with "start over" being the reward for failure, and in most cases, there was nothing you could do about it.

Used to be that beating a game was both a challenge and an accomplishment. Nowadays, people think the mere act of purchasing a game entitles you to be able to beat the game no matter how good or how bad of a player you are. This never used to be the case. There used to be games that most people just quit and would never beat because the game was just too hard for them.

Go ahead. Play some NES games. I'm not prepared to make suggestions that would be illegal, but... get ahold of some old NES games.

Suggested reading material:

Battletoads
Castlevania II
Ghosts N' Goblins
Mega Man 1
Ninja Gaiden
TMNT 1
Top Gun


I'll even let you use save states on them if you want. Go ahead. ****, I'll even let you use a game guide (but if you're a real man, you won't). Beat any 4 games on that list and then come back and tell me how hard games are lately.

Poster's note: not responsible for anyone ending up in a sanitarium as a result of attempting these games.

Extra Credit: I wanna be the guy.


Read this and had a flashback to the **** level in TMNT where you had to swim through coral to disarm the bombs on the dam. As a kid I beat every game on the list except for Battletoads and Top Gun. These games are easily in the top 10 most frustrating games ever made. There haven't been games since that have been nearly as aggravating as these monsters. Anyone that doesn't believe that think about this: The phrase "The game is cheating." came about when these games were ruining young lives.

Edit:

Kid Icarus should be on the list too.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 11:18am by SkinwalkerAsura
#65 Aug 30 2010 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
Go ahead. Play some NES games. I'm not prepared to make suggestions that would be illegal, but... get ahold of some old NES games.

Suggested reading material:

Battletoads
Castlevania II
Ghosts N' Goblins
Mega Man 1
Ninja Gaiden
TMNT 1
Top Gun


I've beat Mega Man 1, and TMNT 1 for sure. Also from the other guys list I've beat Zelda II. You should maybe have Faxanadu on here, and definitely Metal Gear 1.

EDIT: Downloading IWBTG now, looks cool lol. You can check out N for some more extra credit too. http://www.metanetsoftware.com/

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 2:18pm by BRizzl3
#66 Aug 30 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BRizzl3 wrote:
Quote:
Go ahead. Play some NES games. I'm not prepared to make suggestions that would be illegal, but... get ahold of some old NES games.

Suggested reading material:

Battletoads
Castlevania II
Ghosts N' Goblins
Mega Man 1
Ninja Gaiden
TMNT 1
Top Gun


I've beat Mega Man 1, and TMNT 1 for sure. Also from the other guys list I've beat Zelda II. You should maybe have Faxanadu on here, and definitely Metal Gear 1.


Haven't played Faxanadu. I know I left off Contra. Also left off Back to the Future, Friday the 13th, A Boy and his Blob, Silver Surfer, Bart vs the Space Mutants, Yo! Noid, and plenty other hair-pullingly difficult titles.

The NES was the breeding ground for unbelievably difficult titles.

For that matter, it was also a breeding ground for titles with horrible quality gameplay too.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#67 Aug 30 2010 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BRizzl3 wrote:
EDIT: Downloading IWBTG now, looks cool lol.


Let us know how far you get before you give up and slam your keyboard into your monitor in frustration and rage.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#68 Aug 30 2010 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,233 posts
I never got to do Salvage or any of the new endgame stuff like Campaign, and it was always about the people. What I preferred about non-scripted fights is that anything can happen. In WoW with "required raiding addons" such as DBM, you know exactly what's going to happen and when, and can prepare accordingly way before hand, sure this isn't just a tank and spank but if you can control the random stuff it's not all that different once you understand how it works. Thus why 90% of raiding groups will continually wipe on one fight til everyone understands it, clear it once and then it's on farm. Where as in Dynamis, you could clear it 100 times and full wipe to a rogue blm mob that gets loose or whatever.

To me, the funnest end game fights in WoW are usually the Gear checks, with quick enrage timers. (Curator comes to mind, early in TBC), but in FFXI it was the Ultimate Mob Groups in Dynamis-Beaucidine (I forget their names, for the item to unlock the full upgraded Relics) because you had to get really, really creative to kill some of them because there was nothing like Tankspot videos to show you how to do it back then.

____________________________
"I'm gonna get nice and drunk, then play video games until my eyes bleed." Charlie (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia)
#69 Aug 30 2010 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,233 posts
IMO Bubble Bobble was quite possibly the hardest NES game I ever played. Even 10 years after, playing with an Emulator and Savestates, it still took me multiple tries per level then by the time I beat it a couple days later, I got a message saying "Bad End" and it started over.
____________________________
"I'm gonna get nice and drunk, then play video games until my eyes bleed." Charlie (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia)
#70 Aug 30 2010 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Paracleets wrote:
I never got to do Salvage or any of the new endgame stuff like Campaign, and it was always about the people. What I preferred about non-scripted fights is that anything can happen. In WoW with "required raiding addons" such as DBM, you know exactly what's going to happen and when, and can prepare accordingly way before hand, sure this isn't just a tank and spank but if you can control the random stuff it's not all that different once you understand how it works. Thus why 90% of raiding groups will continually wipe on one fight til everyone understands it, clear it once and then it's on farm. Where as in Dynamis, you could clear it 100 times and full wipe to a rogue blm mob that gets loose or whatever.

To me, the funnest end game fights in WoW are usually the Gear checks, with quick enrage timers. (Curator comes to mind, early in TBC), but in FFXI it was the Ultimate Mob Groups in Dynamis-Beaucidine (I forget their names, for the item to unlock the full upgraded Relics) because you had to get really, really creative to kill some of them because there was nothing like Tankspot videos to show you how to do it back then.


DBM makes easy fights even easier. I do agree though that while I prefer scripted fights, I simultaneously disliked that "learning the fight" was a lot of trial and error until you figured out what the boss does and when, and that people won't even invite you to fights if you don't already know them (Link achieve!)

Paracleets wrote:
IMO Bubble Bobble was quite possibly the hardest NES game I ever played. Even 10 years after, playing with an Emulator and Savestates, it still took me multiple tries per level then by the time I beat it a couple days later, I got a message saying "Bad End" and it started over.


I think it's Ghosts n' Goblins that does something similar; you beat the game, which is already annoying enough, and it tells you "Okay that was the fake ending, now do it for real and you start over".

You know when you do paper rock scissors and you win, and the other person is like "Okay, but that was practice; this time is for real!" It's that, except that you already wasted several hours of your life.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#71 Aug 30 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
BRizzl3 wrote:
Quote:
Go ahead. Play some NES games. I'm not prepared to make suggestions that would be illegal, but... get ahold of some old NES games.

Suggested reading material:

Battletoads
Castlevania II
Ghosts N' Goblins
Mega Man 1
Ninja Gaiden
TMNT 1
Top Gun


I've beat Mega Man 1, and TMNT 1 for sure. Also from the other guys list I've beat Zelda II. You should maybe have Faxanadu on here, and definitely Metal Gear 1.

EDIT: Downloading IWBTG now, looks cool lol. You can check out N for some more extra credit too. http://www.metanetsoftware.com/

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 2:18pm by BRizzl3


I never played the original Metal Gear. I did have (and beat) Faxanadu, though, and debated putting it on my list. While Faxanadu was a somewhat challenging game, mantras made things considerably easier than a lot of these other games. Unless you had the version with the effed up font ("Nello. I sell tools.") and often wrote down an incorrect mantra. But having a mantra to fall back on was the big reason why I ended up leaving it off. While not one of the toughest games I played, it's still one of my favorites (and one of the few I saved from a house fire a long time ago).
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#72 Aug 30 2010 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
Let us know how far you get before you give up and slam your keyboard into your monitor in frustration and rage.


I made it past the apples but I can't get past the clouds and spikes. I think I need to give this game a rest for now lol.
#73 Aug 30 2010 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BRizzl3 wrote:
Quote:
Let us know how far you get before you give up and slam your keyboard into your monitor in frustration and rage.


I made it past the apples but I can't get past the clouds and spikes. I think I need to give this game a rest for now lol.


Smiley: lol

Jump to the first cloud, jump to the second cloud. When it is almost all the way up, walk off the right side and fall to the left, then jump in midair to the left most cloud and it will go up as well.

Mind the falling spikes when you get up to the top.

You can also check youtube for video walkthroughs.

EDIT: Also, they are not apples. They are "delicious fruit". They are eaten by the townspeople. They must first be poked with a 10 foot stick to remove them, then they are boiled three times before they are safe for consumption.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 3:33pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#74 Aug 30 2010 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Deja Vu and Shadowgate (how could you mention Deja Vu and not mention Shadowgate?) were doable without a guide but just required thought. Shadowgate was a LOT harder than Deja Vu, not just because of the fact that you had to keep at least one torch burning AT ALL TIMES or instant game over, but also because the game managed to find such creative ways to kill you for doing the wrong thing, or even doing the right thing at the wrong time.

Oh, and I forgot The Immortal. Talk about a game that's virtually unbeatable without a guide; If you forgot to get an item early in the game, you were permanently @#%^ed and it was impossible to beat the game.


I couldn't mention Shadowgate because I've never played it Smiley: lol As for The Immortal, I never played that either. Reminds me of Stephen King's The Mist, though. To kill the monster at the end of the game, you needed a gun that you find in the store's closet. The only problem is that there's no mention of a gun anywhere in the game, even when you "examine room" in the closet. You had to know to "get handgun" in that scene or you were totally screwed. IIRC, even if you had the gun, it was a randomized shot on whether or not you actually managed to hit the monster with your shot. So even after all that, you might still "miss" and die right at the end.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 3:40pm by PLDXavier
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#75 Aug 30 2010 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
Jump to the first cloud, jump to the second cloud. When it is almost all the way up, walk off the right side and fall to the left, then jump in midair to the left most cloud and it will go up as well.

Mind the falling spikes when you get up to the top.

You can also check youtube for video walkthroughs.

EDIT: Also, they are not apples. They are "delicious fruit". They are eaten by the townspeople. They must first be poked with a 10 foot stick to remove them, then they are boiled three times before they are safe for consumption.


I'll try it... Lol @ the "delicious fruit"!
#76 Aug 30 2010 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
PLDXavier, Defender of Justice wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Deja Vu and Shadowgate (how could you mention Deja Vu and not mention Shadowgate?) were doable without a guide but just required thought. Shadowgate was a LOT harder than Deja Vu, not just because of the fact that you had to keep at least one torch burning AT ALL TIMES or instant game over, but also because the game managed to find such creative ways to kill you for doing the wrong thing, or even doing the right thing at the wrong time.

Oh, and I forgot The Immortal. Talk about a game that's virtually unbeatable without a guide; If you forgot to get an item early in the game, you were permanently @#%^ed and it was impossible to beat the game.


I couldn't mention Shadowgate because I've never played it Smiley: lol As for The Immortal, I never played that either.


WHAT? Smiley: yikes

Go play Shadowgate now. I'll let you go on the Immortal (although I highly suggest watching a video walkthrough; all the enjoyment of the game with none of the pain and anguish) but you have to play Shadowgate if you liked Deja Vu.

Also, Maniac Mansion is pretty fun, albeit a casual variant of the other two. For that matter, all LucasArts DOS games were friggin sweet. Monkey Island, Zac McKraken and the Alien Mindbenders, Loom, and Indiana Jones and whatever movie he was in that they had a game off of, the one with the ***** and the grail that I feel like I should be slapped for not remembering the name of.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#77 Aug 30 2010 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
the one with the ***** and the grail that I feel like I should be slapped for not remembering the name of.


Temple of Doom?
#78 Aug 30 2010 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BRizzl3 wrote:
Quote:
the one with the ***** and the grail that I feel like I should be slapped for not remembering the name of.


Temple of Doom?


Last Crusade.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#79 Aug 30 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
OOooooooh yeah.
#80 Aug 30 2010 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,535 posts
PLDXavier, Defender of Justice wrote:
And yet none of that is representative of the trial you get to play for WoW. I know, I tried it. By the end of my first night, I was something like lvl 12 in maybe 2 hours. It was insanely easy, nothing aggroed, and I couldn't find anything that even closely resembled a story. At least you could run through M1-3 (maybe up to M2-1 or -2) in XI by the time you were 12. I ended up not playing the remaining time of my trial because I was so bored.


To be fair, the starter content is six years old, and has changed very little in that time - it adheres to an older school of design, one that was more relevant when EQ was the top dog.

This is part of why the new expansion is completely remodeling the "old world" - Blizzard is aware that the level 1-58 content is outdated and bears little resemblance to more recent content, and so are taking the opportunity to reshape the older content to match their current design philosophy.



Mikhalia wrote:
Used to be that beating a game was both a challenge and an accomplishment. Nowadays, people think the mere act of purchasing a game entitles you to be able to beat the game no matter how good or how bad of a player you are. This never used to be the case. There used to be games that most people just quit and would never beat because the game was just too hard for them.


Of course, those older games were still heavily influenced by arcade game design. Arcade games generate revenue by having the player insert coins, so arcade games were designed specifically to kill the player as often as possible - and thus, so were older console games.

However, console games have no such "insert coin" mechanic, and this is a major design consideration (along with other technological advancements, such as saving becoming trivially available to every game), one that took some time for developers to wrap their heads around; and furthermore, the development community's understanding of difficulty and challenge has evolved over the last few decades.

Also it's important to notice that there's a difference between Nintendo Hard and Fake Difficulty, and despite the disclaimer, most forms of fake difficulty are, in fact, bad.



Anyway, I personally don't see anything wrong with allowing most players to be able to complete a game, especially as more and more games are driven by narrative. This is, after all, why we invented difficulty levels - so the people who want to finish the game can do so, and the people who are looking for a challenge can find one.

To quote Ernest Adams (on the subject of "easy mode" needing to actually be easy):
Quote:
"But," I hear a legion of old-time game designers cry, "that means he'll finish the game too soon!" Oh, yeah? Too soon for what? Too soon for your ego is what you mean, because you've still got that outmoded notion that the player is your adversary. He isn't. He's your audience, the person you're trying to entertain and provide enjoyment to. And if that means the whole thing only takes him two hours, well, so be it; it was his choice. He can always go back and play it again on a harder setting.
#81 Aug 30 2010 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
**
800 posts
BastokFL, you have a nice post, but MMOs are in fact closer to arcade style games than to single-player console games. There IS a coin-inserting mechanic, the monthly fee. Unfortunately instead of making genuinely hard content in MMOs to keep players playing, they've added grinds and time-sinks to extend playtime. By making end-game easy enough for everyone to complete MMO designers are shooting themselves in the foot because that means most people actually WILL complete endgame, run out of content, and leave. Again, the typical response has been to add grinds or time-sinks. But it could have been avoided altogether by keeping the content difficult. (I'm mostly speaking about my own experiences in LoTRO here.)

I'd rather wipe to a difficult "raid" 9 times out of 10 and have a 100% item drop than complete said raid easily every time only to have a 10% drop rate at the end.
#82 Aug 30 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
BastokFL wrote:
To be fair, the starter content is six years old, and has changed very little in that time - it adheres to an older school of design, one that was more relevant when EQ was the top dog.

This is part of why the new expansion is completely remodeling the "old world" - Blizzard is aware that the level 1-58 content is outdated and bears little resemblance to more recent content, and so are taking the opportunity to reshape the older content to match their current design philosophy.


Fair enough. I'd be willing to give the trial another go when they've finished with that. I hold no grudge against the game, it just wasn't what I was looking for at the time.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#83 Aug 30 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
BastokFL wrote:
Anyway, I personally don't see anything wrong with allowing most players to be able to complete a game, especially as more and more games are driven by narrative. This is, after all, why we invented difficulty levels - so the people who want to finish the game can do so, and the people who are looking for a challenge can find one.


In terms of single player gameplay, I mostly agree, but in terms of online gameplay, I disagree.

For one, it's unfair to "casual players" to make the game so difficult that only the best of the best can beat it.
On the other hand, it's unfair to non casual players to make the game so easy that it is not challenging to them.
And to introduce a mode where you can select your difficulty and still get the same rewards, this is horrible, because it doesn't give players an incentive to do harder content.

It's kinda like running a race and everyone gets a trophy. The trophy is inherently devalued by giving it to everyone.

I'm not against the idea of content being accessible; I'm against the idea of catering to the lowest common denominator and the notion that every person who completes the content is entitled to the same reward regardless of difficulty or effort.

Since we're on the subject of WoW, take for instance the fact that hard mode raids do in fact have better gear drops than normal modes do. I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to the notion of letting the player choose the difficulty, just so long as the rewards for doing something on "Hard" are better than doing it on "Easy".

That's the problem; too many people want the content to be easy enough that they can do it and -also- want the best gear. These things should be mutually exclusive. If you can't beat the game on hard, you don't deserve the good ending. If you're willing to put in the extra time and extra effort to beat the game on hard, then you have earned the better ending.

So yeah; like I said, I'm not against the notion that content should be accessible, but I do feel that by design, some things should be aimed at casual players and give casual rewards and other things should be harder and have better rewards for the people who can do them.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#84 Aug 30 2010 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,535 posts
Hydragyrum wrote:
BastokFL, you have a nice post, but MMOs are in fact closer to arcade style games than to single-player console games. There IS a coin-inserting mechanic, the monthly fee. Unfortunately instead of making genuinely hard content in MMOs to keep players playing, they've added grinds and time-sinks to extend playtime.


What do you mean, "added"? MMOs have pretty much been grindfests from day 1.

And the analogy isn't quite exact. In an arcade game, you put in more money when you run out of lives, but if you're good enough, you can complete the game on a single coin. In an MMO, you pay the same monthly fee, on the same schedule, regardless of how well or poorly you're playing.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the conversation had drifted to single player games at that point.

Quote:
By making end-game easy enough for everyone to complete MMO designers are shooting themselves in the foot because that means most people actually WILL complete endgame, run out of content, and leave.


As opposed to the old system where, instead, players find themselves excluded from endgame, never even see the content, and leave.



This is, after all, the reason why WoW's raiding model has changed so much over the years. In the base game, with it's 40-man raids and needing to farm specific gear for specific encounters, only a tiny portion of the player base even got to set foot inside a raid. In Burning Crusade, with it's 10-man starter raid feeding into tiered 25-mans, more people got to see raids (though still not enough by Blizz standards), but many guilds would have problems with retention, as players would gradually outgear a guild's current progression level and, rather than wait for the rest of the guild catch up, switch to a more progressed guild.

Wrath of the Lich King has seen raid participation much higher than before - and yet, even with all the talk about "Wrath raiding is easy-mode", only 1 in 7 raiding guilds has beaten the Lich King on 25-man, and 2/3 of raiding guilds haven't even beaten him on 10-man. Regular difficulty. 1 out of 5 raiding guilds haven't even cleared the first wing of Icecrown Citadel on 10-man normal, i.e. the easiest part of the current raiding tier.

Quote:
Again, the typical response has been to add grinds or time-sinks. But it could have been avoided altogether by keeping the content difficult. (I'm mostly speaking about my own experiences in LoTRO here.)

I'd rather wipe to a difficult "raid" 9 times out of 10 and have a 100% item drop than complete said raid easily every time only to have a 10% drop rate at the end.


Difficulty doesn't drive retention - players generally prefer making slow but steady progress to having a risk of making no progress at all.

And difficulty is hard to maintain without resorting to "fake difficulty" - either the encounter becomes trivial as players become more experienced and better-geared (e.g. Kirin), or else the player base simply gives up in frustration before the encounter is solved (e.g. Absolute Virtue - which, incidentally, will be beaten more often as players are now able to out-level the encounter).
#85 Aug 30 2010 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
BastokFL wrote:
Wrath of the Lich King has seen raid participation much higher than before - and yet, even with all the talk about "Wrath raiding is easy-mode", only 1 in 7 raiding guilds has beaten the Lich King on 25-man, and 2/3 of raiding guilds haven't even beaten him on 10-man. Regular difficulty. 1 out of 5 raiding guilds haven't even cleared the first wing of Icecrown Citadel on 10-man normal, i.e. the easiest part of the current raiding tier.


Remember how I said before that 70% of people who attempt WoW quit before level 10. Combine with my comments about pugs and the fact that anyone can make a guild (and what better reason to make a raiding guild than because none of the good guilds will accept you, so hey; start your own and invite some more bads).

The fact that ****** players can't beat easy content does not mean the content is difficult. It means the players are ******. Eventually a game needs to come to a point where it just says "Okay, we're not making this any easier; it's already too easy. If you can't beat it, suck less."

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I still insist that content does not need to be nerfed and re-nerfed and re-re-nerfed and re-re-re-nerfed until my cat can walk across my keyboard and beat it for me. Eventually you gotta draw the line somewhere.

The problem is that there are just some genuinely terrible players who think that their inability to beat easy content means the content is too difficult and refuse to accept the fact that if every group you are in fails, you need to consider the fact that every group you are in has you in it, and perhaps it's not "everyone else" that is the bad player.

I'm not saying -you- you; but saying that at some point, content needs to be challenging enough that some people cannot beat it. The object of the game is to give your players walls to block them, force them to conquer the wall, and then reward them for doing so. If everyone can beat the content then it's just a speed bump.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#86 Aug 30 2010 at 5:45 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,535 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
That's the problem; too many people want the content to be easy enough that they can do it and -also- want the best gear.


Well people like that just need to be slapped repeatedly.

Quote:
These things should be mutually exclusive. If you can't beat the game on hard, you don't deserve the good ending. If you're willing to put in the extra time and extra effort to beat the game on hard, then you have earned the better ending.


I get what you're trying to say here - on the other hand, it depends on how the ending is "better". If you have to play on hard to get the only ending that actually makes sense or concludes the story... well, I probably wouldn't approve. (No, developers, a splash screen that reads "try again on a higher difficulty" is not a real ending.) But more fanservice, better ending aesthetics, extra achievements (which are great, because they give you provable bragging rights), those are all good (not to mention possible in-game rewards).
#87 Aug 30 2010 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
I get what you're trying to say here - on the other hand, it depends on how the ending is "better". If you have to play on hard to get the only ending that actually makes sense or concludes the story... well, I probably wouldn't approve. (No, developers, a splash screen that reads "try again on a higher difficulty" is not a real ending.) But more fanservice, better ending aesthetics, extra achievements (which are great, because they give you provable bragging rights), those are all good (not to mention possible in-game rewards).


I love the games that say try on a harder difficulty and then when you beat it again on the harder one it has THE SAME $&@!*$^* ENDING!!!
#88 Aug 30 2010 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
The fact that sh*tty players can't beat easy content does not mean the content is difficult. It means the players are sh*tty. Eventually a game needs to come to a point where it just says "Okay, we're not making this any easier; it's already too easy. If you can't beat it, suck less."


To a point - but on the other hand, there is no objective standard for difficulty. The only way to tell whether or not something is difficult is to gauge how successful people are when they attempt them.



And for what it's worth, the changes to WoW raiding in Cataclysm suggest that Blizzard themselves feel that Wrath raiding is a bit too easy - hence their making tank and damage dealer rotations require more decision-making, making healers going out of mana a real risk again, and making players even more responsible for their own survival.

Quote:
I'm not saying -you- you; but saying that at some point, content needs to be challenging enough that some people cannot beat it. The object of the game is to give your players walls to block them, force them to conquer the wall, and then reward them for doing so. If everyone can beat the content then it's just a speed bump.


Granted, and I don't think games need to be set up so that "easy mode" has a 100% completion rate, or even that such a thing is possible - some people are simply "too dumb to live", after all. No matter how easy you think something is, you will be astounded by the sheer variety of ways people can find to fail at it.

I'm sure you could make a game where you run along a flat stretch of ground to a flagpole at the end with no enemies to deal with and some player would STILL fail to beat it.
#89 Aug 30 2010 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,535 posts
BRizzl3 wrote:
Quote:
I get what you're trying to say here - on the other hand, it depends on how the ending is "better". If you have to play on hard to get the only ending that actually makes sense or concludes the story... well, I probably wouldn't approve. (No, developers, a splash screen that reads "try again on a higher difficulty" is not a real ending.) But more fanservice, better ending aesthetics, extra achievements (which are great, because they give you provable bragging rights), those are all good (not to mention possible in-game rewards).


I love the games that say try on a harder difficulty and then when you beat it again on the harder one it has THE SAME $&@!*$^* ENDING!!!


The princess is in another difficulty? :P
#90 Aug 30 2010 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
BastokFL wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
That's the problem; too many people want the content to be easy enough that they can do it and -also- want the best gear.


Well people like that just need to be slapped repeatedly.

Quote:
These things should be mutually exclusive. If you can't beat the game on hard, you don't deserve the good ending. If you're willing to put in the extra time and extra effort to beat the game on hard, then you have earned the better ending.


I get what you're trying to say here - on the other hand, it depends on how the ending is "better". If you have to play on hard to get the only ending that actually makes sense or concludes the story... well, I probably wouldn't approve. (No, developers, a splash screen that reads "try again on a higher difficulty" is not a real ending.) But more fanservice, better ending aesthetics, extra achievements (which are great, because they give you provable bragging rights), those are all good (not to mention possible in-game rewards).


Well let's oversimplify this.

We'll introduce a dragon. There is a Casual Mode, an Easy Mode, a Normal Mode, and a Hard Mode.

Fight breakdown:
Casual mode: Dragon has claw attack, wing attack, AoE stomp for damage in front
Easy Mode: Claw Attack with 50% chance to double hit, Wing attack, AoE stomp for damage in front and sides, Fly + Wing buffet for AoE stun on left and right sides.
Normal Mode: Claw attack has 75% chance to double hit, Wing attack with chance of knocking back all players on one side of the dragon (not front or rear), AoE stomp for damage all around boss, Fly + wing buffet for blind and stun on both sides, Fire breath front conical AoE, Tail swipe for massive rear damage.
Hard Mode: Claw attack always double hits with 25% chance to triple hit, Wing attack always knocks back all players on one side and stuns, AoE stomp for for damage all around boss, Fly + wing buffet for blind and stun on both sides, followed by breath attack and lands with AoE stomp + AoE Terrorize/Fear, Fire breath front conical AoE, Tail swipe is OHKO, Summons two Drakes midfight and flies into air, spitting down occasional fireball. Each Drake has same attacks and HP as Easy Mode version.

Loot pools:
Casual mode: No loot at all. Yes, none. You read that right.
Easy mode: 1-2 pieces of loot (e.g. Sword with +8 STR, Shield with +8 VIT, Staff with +8 INT)
Normal mode: 2-4 pieces of loot (e.g. Sword with +12 STR, Shield with +12 VIT, Staff with +12 INT)
Hard mode: 3-6 pieces of loot (e.g. Sword with +15 STR and +5 DEX, Shield with +15 VIT and -3% Damage taken, Staff with +15 INT and +5% damage to Fire and Ice spells)

Normal mode is the intended mode of completion and has gear that should be considered good, and is a relatively challenging fight.
Easy Mode is for people who are unable to complete normal mode, but still want to receive some sort of reward. The fight has been made notably easier and the gear is decent, but not spectacular.
Casual mode is there for people who "just want to beat the content" and don't care about loot.
Hard mode is intentionally insanely difficult and more than likely less than 5% of the people who attempt this fight should be capable of winning. Skill, luck, and timing are HUGE factors and the rewards for beating this mode are not overwhelmingly overpowered, but are significant enough that the gear is worth the challenge.

Stole a couple ideas from WoW and FFXI dragon/wyrm fights.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#91 Aug 30 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
The princess is in another difficulty? :P


Mario is missing from this difficulty?
#92 Aug 30 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
163 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

For one, it's unfair to "casual players" to make the game so difficult that only the best of the best can beat it.
On the other hand, it's unfair to non casual players to make the game so easy that it is not challenging to them.
And to introduce a mode where you can select your difficulty and still get the same rewards, this is horrible, because it doesn't give players an incentive to do harder content.

It's kinda like running a race and everyone gets a trophy. The trophy is inherently devalued by giving it to everyone.

I'm not against the idea of content being accessible; I'm against the idea of catering to the lowest common denominator and the notion that every person who completes the content is entitled to the same reward regardless of difficulty or effort.


This reminds me of the episode of Penn & Tellers: ******** where they point out this very fact. If you do better then someone else, or do something on a higher difficulty, then your reward should be greater. It's like we're affraid of saying "you don't get a trophy because you didn't win" because then that would be mean. I couldn't agree more with Mikhalia
____________________________
So I rated you up for no good reason, big deal. Wanna fight about it?
#93 Aug 30 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
***
2,120 posts
RSquires wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

For one, it's unfair to "casual players" to make the game so difficult that only the best of the best can beat it.
On the other hand, it's unfair to non casual players to make the game so easy that it is not challenging to them.
And to introduce a mode where you can select your difficulty and still get the same rewards, this is horrible, because it doesn't give players an incentive to do harder content.

It's kinda like running a race and everyone gets a trophy. The trophy is inherently devalued by giving it to everyone.

I'm not against the idea of content being accessible; I'm against the idea of catering to the lowest common denominator and the notion that every person who completes the content is entitled to the same reward regardless of difficulty or effort.


This reminds me of the episode of Penn & Tellers: Bullsh*t where they point out this very fact. If you do better then someone else, or do something on a higher difficulty, then your reward should be greater. It's like we're affraid of saying "you don't get a trophy because you didn't win" because then that would be mean. I couldn't agree more with Mikhalia


I remember that crap when I was little and forced into some swimming classes despite having a pool at my home...at the end of the thing we had races and everyone got a ribbon...I think I got like a 7th place ribbon & a 2nd place ribbon from a 1on1 race against the best swimmer. That was just kind of a slap in the face to me, I rather have nothing than that...

Edit
Penn & Teller B.S. is an awesome show...



Edited, Aug 30th 2010 9:20pm by TwistedOwl
____________________________

#94 Aug 30 2010 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
I can't remember what game it was... I want to say one of the Halos or one of the CoDs... I'm pretty sure it was an FPS...

Anyway, the game had a ranking system based on percentile that divided people into brackets. One bracket was for the top 5% of players, the next was for 6%-15%, the next for 16%-25% and so on, etc so that you were grouped with players of similar skill.

And EVERYONE whined because EVERYONE wanted to be in the top 5% bracket and there was much moaning and wailing and gnashing of teeth surrounding frustration over the fact that they could not be "the best".

That's the problem. Everyone can not be the best. A few people are the best. Some people are very good. Some are good. Others are average. Others are below average. Others are poor. Others are terrible. It wouldn't be "average" if EVERYONE was "above average". By the nature of the word average, it would imply that only half of people can ever be "above average" or better at any given time.

If you rank 200 people, it is only logical to assume that 100 of them will be in the top 100, 50 of them will be in the top 25%, 20 of them will be in the top 10%, and only ten people can be in the top 5%. You cannot have a game with 200 players and declare that all 200 of them are in the "top 5% of players". It doesn't work that way.

So yeah, let the content have multiple difficulty levels and let the rewards be comparable to the difficulty completed. The best gear should be reserved for the hardest difficulty and should only be completable by a tiny percentage of players, and the easiest difficulty should be beatable by 95% of players and should reward no loot, or at best a token "I beat the boss on super easy mode and all I got was this T-shirt" piece of gear.

I'm fine with the knowledge that some pieces of gear, like relic weapons and such, are just too difficult for me to get. I'm also fine with content so hard that I can't beat it. It gives me room to improve myself and it gives me something to work towards getting better at.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#95 Aug 31 2010 at 12:22 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
550 posts
BRizzl3 wrote:

Them: I can't wait for SWTOR!


This game is going to rock. I'm in a multiplayer rpg world with a team full of NPC's I get to talk to and advance storyline with. I love nothing better than being in a multiplayer world and interracting with my NPC's all day.
____________________________
XI - Draiden 75DRG/75COR (Sylph, Retired 08)


1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 24 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (24)