Nutcase said:
GuerrillaClock said:
Crazzee said:
Everyone keeps mentioning frustration, but that's the thing: It doesn't have to be. It's kind of a way to FORCE people to avoid the frustration of dying. You fear for your character's life rather than just getting killed, reloading your save, running in, rinse and repeat.
But why should gamers be forced to do anything?
Games have rules. As long as you play the game, you are forced by them. If there are no rules, there is no game.
I don't want to spend my gaming life fretting about a character because 100 hours of hard work could be wiped out just around the next corner.
It's not like you are forced to. You can play some other game. Right now there are almost no games which feature long-term character development and permanent death. There are many of us who'd like to see a few such games being made into the mainstream. If you are not convinced, you would still have the 99% of forgiving games. Why would you want to deny us the 1%?
Getting killed repeatedly is frustrating enough, and I think most gamers see having to do a certain section again punishment enough for a failure. Good games can make you fear things (or feel anything they want you to, in fact) without having to resort to cheap, shitty mechanics like this.
Oh? How do you propose to make the player fear death in Steel Battalion if not with this "cheap, shitty mechanic"?
OK, the "play something else" card that you seem to be playing here is totally irrelevant. If I didn't like a game, I would play something else, of course. That hardly affects the fact that the idea is dumb.
Yes, games have rules. Of course they do, but, again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If a gamer wants to try something out, they should be free to do so without the fear of having hours of hard work brushed into the bin. If I want to attempt a shortcut in a racing game, my car shouldn't be at risk of exploding, because it would make the risk-taking and excitement that people play games for redundant. If I want to try flanking someone in a shooter, and it doesn't work out, why should I have to die permanently just for trying something off the wall?
Fire Emblem is the only series that I've played (never played Diablo 2) that did this mechanic well, and I admit it could be made to work in games where you control a party of characters, as in Fire Emblem it wasn't game over when you let someone die, but it was a harsh punishment. What I am taking issue with is the idea that gamers should be forced to spend hours tiptoeing around a level without wanting to make progress because they know everything they've done so far will be scrubbed off if they put a foot wrong. First and foremost, games are toys. They need to entertain. If a game wants to pass itself off as art, that's fine too, but it needs to be entertaining first for it to fit the bill of a good game. If people want to play a game like that so they can shout about being 'hardcore' on the forumz, then I'll happily let them, but it won't change my mind that permanent character deaths in most games are a ridiculous and unnecessary idea.