Twitch Plays Pokemon Somehow Manages to Beat The Game - Update
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All hail the coming of the Dark Lord, Miltank!Charli said:
Untrue. The block puzzles were untouched. Democracy is pretty much the reason they made it out of Victory Road before any wipe could happen. Of course, that's just in regard to Victory Road. As for your etc.Alleged_Alec said:
Also untrue. Everyone feared that the Safari Zone would be the end of this journey. In actuality, the time limit function from the original game was hacked out, making the odds of obtaining Surf much more desirable. So, yes, the game was changed, and depending on one's outlook, one could either add "and only for that one particular area" or "and for what would have been the most amazing obstacle to tackle."drakonz said:
Exactly. If people really wanted to 'beat the trolls' then they shouldn't have had to change the rules of the game to do it. The trolls weren't the ones who resorted to cheating, after all. Thus, team democracy is the team that lost.Dango said:
Even if it had been all anarchy all the time, the winning move would simply have been not to play if you use that logic. Because Safari Zone had its time limit removed from the start. Anarchy can't have it both ways.teamcharlie said:
In any case, all the people divorcing anarchy from democracy and vice versa are missing the true value of seeing them as one whole, like a homeless drunk with multiple personalities and schizophrenia who fluctuates between long periods of complete instability and small windows of sobriety/lucidity. I swear, the anarchy/democracy dynamic as one unit is far more beautiful to behold when looked at that way.
Also, there were quite a few bots who both pushed for and at times maintained anarchy. So yes, there were some trolls who cheated.
This. We got past it, we didn't crush it under our boot heel in glorious victory. Demo for Safari? Sure, it was understood from the start the streamer would remove the step count so it's no big deal if he neglected to do that because democracy and we used that instead. Any time after that though was just unnecessary and even affected our achievements with anarchy. We set up a kick ass team with Democracy, used it to protect that team, even used it to move Bird Judas into the first slot at the end. All of this, in my mind, took away from everything we'd bulled through the hard way, and just left us with getting it done, not kicking its ass. All in all though, as my fist time playing any pokemon game it wasn't bad.Dango said:
There's no time limit but rather a step counter, and this was most definitely not removed from the game. We met the step limit in at least one of our tries and were booted out. It had been understood, based on comments in the stream description, that he'd do this but he felt the introduction of democracy obviated this action.fieryshadowcard said:
I'd say this is less of an impressive act and more like very strong evidence of how piss easy games have become.
You couldn't defeat Final Fantasy 1 like this, and you definitely couldn't beat an action game like MegaMan or Ninja Gaiden like this.
You couldn't defeat Final Fantasy 1 like this, and you definitely couldn't beat an action game like MegaMan or Ninja Gaiden like this.
The game was released in 1996. -___-immortalfrieza said:
And obviously you couldn't beat an action game via Twitch. You couldn't beat "Dear Esther" via Twitch either, because you can't accurately point a 360*360 degree camera using up-down-left-right, nor can you properly set walking distances. That's why they chose a game that doesn't require any precision.
The problem with democracy mode is that it was added in the middle of the game. And there wasn't any technical reason the game would be unwinnable otherwise, as opposed to the safari zone change (which, as you say, was in the game from the beginning). People just got impatient. Personally, I never really cared whether Twitch Plays Pokemon would ever actually finish the game. Millions of people have beaten the main story in a Pokemon game before. What I did care about was how far they could get purely in 'anarchy' mode. Unless somebody runs the same experiment again, and they're unlikely to get the same turnout, we'll never know. I think all we have learned is that Pokemon by committee is really slow and kinda dull to watch.fieryshadowcard said:
I know, and games have only gotten even easier since then.lacktheknack said:
Doesn't matter. The very fact that they can have people randomly inputting commands while others troll them means that the game is pathetically easy, and that's not a good thing.
Overly simplified and incorrect.immortalfrieza said:
Twitch could win a game of chess even with people trying to put in troll moves if given enough time. That doesn't make chess pathetically easy, it just means that it's well suited to Twitch.
Twitch could win a game of "Day of the Tentacle", even with trolls. Try it, it's not easy. It's really bleeding hard, actually, as are most adventure games of that type.
The commands aren't "random", the goal-oriented people were trying to actually proceed towards the goal. And they did, given 300 hours. That's not "random commands".
Also, why is gaming getting easier, if it really is (I think it has more to do with people getting better at games), "not a good thing"? Under what circumstances is a lack of rage-quitting undesirable? If you're going to say "I like a challenge", then good for you. Stick with the Souls games and retro gaming if you like challenge and leave the rest to the audience that likes them. If, however, you have a good non-personal reason why easy games are bad, please explain.
I feel like there's more to it than that. Here's the thing really, Pokemon is a turn based RPG. In turn based RPGs, you can overcome just about every enemy by grinding if you do it enough, and the mob got enough coordination that they spent an extended period of time grinding in order to prepare for the elite four. Even Persona 3 the Answer, a epilogue to a hard game cranked up to eleven made by a developer that admits they get off to the frustrated tears of gamers can be overcome by grinding a lot. So really this "games are too easy" thing just feels like it comes out of nowhere.immortalfrieza said:
A worthy end to a befuddling and fascinating social experiment. I really hope someone writes a paper on this.
It's not to say hard games don't still exist, obviously they do, but they are the minority these days. Any RPG can be beaten by simply grinding, that's true, but not only is grinding rather boring by it's very nature and thus detaches the player from the experience, no actual skill or effort is involved.erttheking said:
A game that any random person could pick up and beat with hardly any real effort defeats the entire point of playing that game to begin with. One of the main reasons people play games in order to feel like they are actually accomplishing something, and making a game pitifully easy greatly diminishes that accomplishment. I'm not asking for games to become so hair-pullingly difficult, I'm asking for games to pose a reasonable amount of challenge, at the very least enough that random crowd commands can't beat it.lacktheknack said:
For all intents and purposes it is random commands, since even without the trolls dozens of people who all have different ideas as to what they are supposed to do at any given moment are sporadically giving out commands to the game and the game has to follow all of them, at the most it's a controlled chaos.
Well you better take that up with the original makers of turn based RPGs, because that's the way its been since they were first created.immortalfrieza said:
It's true the turn based games have always allowed for grinding your way up to beat anything, but before you had to either bite the bullet and actually try using a little strategy and skill to win or grind for hours straight. In short, you still had to earn your progress in some manner, either through ability or patience. Now you can basically stride right up to the next boss and beat it with little more time and effort needed than the experience from the fights you'd get into just to reach that boss.erttheking said:
No... no, it doesn't defeat the entire point of playing the game to begin with. See, nothing has a 'point', unless we as thinking beings decide that we want it to have one. Now, if you want to be narrow-minded and decide that the only 'point' a game can possibly have is that it require a significant degree of effort to not fail forever, that's your prerogative - but it's also wrong, because I can also give it other points - to entertain, to deliver an interesting story, to kill time - see? I can do it too. Moreover,immortalfrieza said:
See, you can ask for that, and there are in fact many games that fit that descriptor, and you can choose from any one of them, as I'm fairly sure you know. However, it's somewhat unreasonable, and I'm sure you know this as well, to imply that all games should be games that you happen to like, and meet your particular standards. It's also particularly disingenuous to imply that Pokemon, a game made for and primarily marketed towards young children, should meet your definition of challenge, and that the fact that is doesn't is an irrefutable sign of how the world is just going downhill.immortalfrieza said:
I mean, there are some things that have elements to them that I don't happen to care for, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it's just a thing that I happen to not like. I just keep in mind that the world doesn't revolve around my understanding of things, and that a thing can be perfectly good and still be something that I don't like.