thestalkinghead

i believe that in a game with saving and loading you can make the game harder (while i appreciate that saving/loading makes it impossible to lose) because you can have scenarios that are totally unfair that would basically take a miracle to accomplish, because with saving and loading it gives the player character magic hollywood/Video game powers that make that impossible task possible, whereas with a game with permadeath/permanent loss of the game it has to be balanced to what the player character can accomplish in one try, a made up example would be like in XCOM with iron man mode off you could have a siege situation where wave upon wave of enemies are coming at you and only save/load magic would make that possible to beat it, but because it was designed with iron man mode in mind that means that a scenario like that would just almost always result in a squad wipe so it wouldn't be in the game. i guess it's really just a point of view thing, but to me saving/loading splits a game up into small chunks that are individually hard/easy on their own, whereas a game without saving/loading the entire game is one big chunk that has to be achievable in one try

ahh i get what you mean, in a way a game with save/loading is impossible to lose (unless you accidentally save yourself into an impossible situation) but the way i see it is that you can fail multiple times until you finally win, and i like that but i just like "trial and error" as an approach to doing things in general so i guess that is why i like saving/loading

i cant really think of a game where it is impossible to i think you are absolutely right it totally depends on the context of the game and actually it is more the "permanent loss of the game" i have issues with (i backed Massive Chalice in kickstarter knowing it has permadeath but in a different context to DayZ). @BenLuke i can't really think of a game that is impossible to lose (except games like adventure games where you can't loses because that isn't the point) but usually in a game where it is very hard to lose eg. plants Vs zombies the challenge is to come up with creative ideas that are still effective and i guess it is sort of similar for games like dwarf fortress that have no win state

it could be a soldier testing chamber run by GLaDOS's army AI brother or some kind of hell dimension with a similar antagonist to GLaDOS where they keep building/spawning new evolving enemies at you depending on how you kill them. man "procedurally generated evolving AI creatures" is something someone has to do, imagine an online multiplayer hoard mode like that where it would be different each time you played, developers you can have that idea for free, infact i will pay you if you make that game

yeah that does sound like a good idea, but from my experience AI is one of those things that hasn't changed in the last ten years, but yeah i can think of a few types of games where an evolving level would be very cool, like a platformer type game where there are multiple types of ways to progress forwards that use different techniques (maybe multiple tools like grappling hooks or portal guns and just plain old jumping) but the more you use one type of way to progress forwards the level evolves to make those techniques harder so you would have to keep doing things differently, or an RTS/tower defence game where each wave tries to counter the base you have built or different enemies spawn on the map depending on how strong your fortress is, or a shooter where there are procedurally generated AI creatures that evolve depending on how you kill them and how long it takes for you to kill them eg. one creature could evolve armour on its head because you keep headshotting it or another creature could develop faster more erratic behaviour to dodge more bullets etc.

i guess it is sort of going off topic, but in a way it sort of relates to permadeath, i totally do like to mess around and just have fun purely with the mechanics of a game (and some games are just mechanics and that is fine) but after a while i need a good reason to keep playing (narrative), and if it is a permadeath game i need a really really good reason to risk my life because otherwise i would just be motivated to stay alive and if there aren't enough things to do that are just about staying alive (base/farm building, escaping etc.) i wouldn't have the motivation to keep playing

it's more that an end game or goal gives me something to aim for and a reason for playing, like if the world isn't in peril because of some demon army or evil wizard etc. why is my character risking their life and what is the point of becoming super powerful if there is nothing to use that super power against, but if the world is in peril there is one idea driving the progression of my character to become more powerful. i would say that if in elder scrolls games it was a time of peace i would want to be a wizard that grows plants and builds buildings and machines using magic not learning fireball spells, but because the world is in danger it feels like the right thing to do to learn fireball spells, it's hard to explain but even a bad story that actually gives me a good reason to do the things i am doing it makes more sense to play it and do the things i am doing, like in day z why are people not escaping the island and why aren't they building castles and farms, if dayz was set in a hell dimension where escape was impossible and building fortresses and farms would anger the hell gods it would make more sense to me as to why that isn't happening

perma-choice is a cool sounding thing, i tried that one chance and i made the right choice i think, i never wanted to undo my choices in the walking dead but you could if you wanted to, and the thing about the walking dead is that because all of the choices end up badly, that sort of means you can't make a bad choice, if the walking dead did have permadeath i would have found it annoying, especially because most of the times i died were as a result of not knowing what to do at the time (in terms of gameplay mechanics, not what i wanted to do) or not clicking on a hotspot in time, i guess you could say that in real life mistakes happen and sometimes you don't quite know how to do things, but i never really feel like mistakes i make in games are anything like mistakes i would make in real life, like i wouldn't accidently press the reload button in my brain and be forced to reload a gun or try to run and jump over something only to decide to jump a split second too late and just fall, so it might be that disconnect from reality that means i feel the need for a save/load option. perma-choice is a thing i would be interested in seeing more of, as long as those choices don't leave me with a game over screen (permadeath) where i have to start from the beginning again

i guess i mean it is a bit basic, and also the fact i either didn't know or forgot about it means it has very little importance to the game where as in chess (as you mentioned) it is very clear the entire time that the goal is to checkmate the other king, and even though a lot of RPGs are basic in their storytelling "boss battle at the end" is just too basic, you could just apply that ending to most RPGs but there is usually a bit more to it, like i feel like diablo is a good comparison (to roguelikes) because it had randomly generated levels but there was actually a story that went with it

ok i probably should have gone there and maybe i misinterpreted it but by saying "but you won't get to see much of them unless you are willing to get better." seems like you were implying that the reason i don't like these types of games is because i am not willing to get better at games. and @Lu I'm not saying you are wrong for liking permadeath i am just trying to explain why it doesn't appeal to me, and maybe those reasons aren't fully formed or coherent so i am just countering people and that can seem argumentative, but i promise i am not angry typing so it shouldn't be read in angry voice

well obviously my goal in playing games isn't to suck at them and i don't play games because i like there to be no challenge in playing them, that isn't the angle that i am coming from and that always seems to be what people that play hardcore games think that people who don't like them seem to think, while to me it seems like people that play hardcore games would love a game that uninstalls the game and makes you wait 24 hours before you can play again it if you die just because the would be "hardcore" still that is like prototype RPG not really a proper goal more like a placeholder before the actual game has been finished

i like to set my own goals but with an actual end goal in mind else it's like having battles but no war, like in fallout 2 i never actually complete it but having the eventual goal of getting the GECK makes my own goal of improving my character by traveling and having random encounters and doing all the side quests have meaning, because they were battles that would eventually help me win the war, but i could set a goal in dayz of getting a good gun and gear but what would be the point, to get more guns and gear? does dungeons of dredmor or dwarf fortress (roguelike version) have a way to win? (ones i have played the most of) because if it does that isn't clear, it just seemed like randomness to me

there are 2 big reason why dayz doesn't appeal to me 1) permadeath, why put the time into playing if you just lose it all when you die 2) no goals or end game, there is nothing to do except survive and survival without a goal is pointless (i think 2 is actually the bigger reason, like if i could escape the island and win i would be more inclined to try it) basically summed up with what i said earlier "what is the point of playing a game you can't win?"

humm, i have not played them, and i have never heard them described like that, i have always heard they are totally hardcore, so i have avoided them, but maybe you're right and i should give them a try (dark souls only because i don't have a PS3)

i am trying to figure out if there is some way that they wouldn't be opposite, like how you can have two totally different games that somehow give you the same feeling when you play it, maybe there could be a way to have something that is similar to permadeath that wouldn't make me feel like it was pointless but also have something similar to loading without it feeling (for people like you) like there is no risk, like maybe there are games that seem to match that description, or just trying to figure out what mechanics could do that. i like a game that is hard even with loading. @I Saw Dasein but what is the point of playing a game you can't win?

I've never had fun dying unless i was just about to respawn/load, like in dwarf fortress the motto or whatever is have fun losing (or something similar) but no, i have fun making an ordered and safe fortress, the whole point is to not lose

i like random levels in a game that is the part of roguelikes i like but what is the point of testing builds with no goal or endgame it's useless knowledge and useless skills if there isn't anything to achieve with that knowledge and skill, if roguelikes had a goal and an endgame like Diablo it would have purpose as i explained there isn't any real risk in a game, the only risk in a game is the risk of not enjoying myself, dying in a permadeath game just makes all you have done go away and to me that isn't fun in fact it's the opposite to fun and because i would wan't to avoid the opposite of fun so much i end up having as little fun as possible just to avoid it

i haven't played a donkey kong game in years, but if you complete a level then die in the second level do you have to restart the game? im my opinion XCOM would definitely be 100% worse if i had to play iron man mode, i wouldn't care about any of the characters and i would play the most boring way i can possibly think of and to me completing it is the the point of that game, even with games like the morrowind series and the fallout series which i generally don't complete the ability to eventually complete it if i want to is one of the biggest motivators for playing it, like the whole time playing i am building a character that can eventually complete it if i wanted to

but would you like donkey kong if you only had one life and because of that were forced to replay the first level over and over? to me i think as you say it "raises the stakes" but it raises them so high that i don't ever want to take a risk because i don't want to have to replay the entire game while taking no risks to get to the part where i died only die again and do that over and over and i would say hotline miami is a mix of permadeath and loading, because you can't save the game during a mission (there are lots of time i would have wanted to) but when you die you don't have to restart the entire game. i just had an idea of how i could like roguelikes and that would be checkpoints (even though i just said i don't like them) because it would be a tense game but have some releases of tension in the form of checkpoints however they were implemented in the game

you would have thought there would be a forum for the game, but apparently he is going to update the engine of the game then eventually add in steamworks, i heard him talk about it in either a video (above) or on the PC Gamer podcast, but i can't remember where

i watch entire series (all seasons) of TV shows in big chunks and i do like to power through games on my first go, but i do have that thing of getting to a point in a game and being completely stuck but then i play it the next day and it isn't even hard anymore, so maybe there is a connection between marathoning TV shows and powering through games, but that doesn't stop that "eureka" moment from occurring frequently by powering though games, i think that is a separate thing

well i don't know if changing the architecture affects their behaviour (except if a room is so far away they can't get to it in time with their schedule) but if it did that would be useful feedback, i think useful feedback would tell you that generally they crowd needs more entertainment or free time etc. would be good

her floating ability made her my favorite

you have played too many games to not see the similarities between games, i recommend playing even more games until they are all similar enough that you look for the differences not the similarities (the differences are the fun part)

i don't think there is a stigma attached to liking nintendo games, but there is one attached to being a nintendo fanboy (as with all fanboys) and anyway if you're afraid of stigmas maybe video games aren't the hobby for you