Why do we have to have our games tell us no?

[The_Lost_King]

There was a thread about how someone thinks stealth action games are stupid because even though they love stealth they felt they should go with combat because it was easier. I found it silly that they couldn't just stealth, I mean come on it is a perfectly viable option if you love it pick it. but no, he wanted the game to make it impossible for you to win in a straight up fight if he gets detected.

I think you are talking about me [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.401912-I-have-a-gripe-with-games-that-combine-stealth-and-action].

I like it when people talk about me. However, I don't like it so much when people misrepresent my views. Please refrain from doing so.

Also, hello.

My point was not that I felt I should go with combat because it was easier. Rather, I said that the availability of action made playing stealth nothing more than an exercise in playing with your food. The point of stealth is to not be spotted, yes? In a game where the action approach is viable, being spotted has no consequences. You just kill whoever spotted you and whoever else turns up, then move on. Maybe crouch-walk past the bodies in a pathetic attempt to maintain the illusion that you're playing a stealth game.

It's like playing an action game with god-mode turned on. One of the major points of an action game is to avoid damage or death, yes? What would happen if you took that away by making yourself invulnerable? You could just ignore the enemies and walk past them to the end of the level. You wouldn't be playing an action game anymore. I suppose you could pretend you were by killing a few helpless enemies along the way, but really, what's the point?

That's why your game needs to say "no" every now and again. As in, "No, you really shouldn't get spotted by every guard from here to the ends of the earth without consequences in a stealth game." Or "No, you shouldn't be able to ignore enemies in an action game."

You could play solitaire with a deck already fully sorted with the cards in perfect order, but what's the fucking point? Some games benefit from more freedom. Some don't. It's all about striking the correct balance.

If you have a horrible balance of limitations and freedoms, then just because your player can choose not to exploit it, doesn't make your game suck any less.

Now, this guy?

I like this guy. This guy gets it.

I am sorry for misrepresenting your views and have edited the OP. You know I just thought of a solution to your problem. Easier difficulties you can run and gun, but in the harder difficulties fighting is a lot harder and it is harderto survive if you are caught, not impossible, but almost.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Spellmaking in oblivion didn't really add anything meaningful to the game. All the spells you could make were things you already had, you could just put a hundred trillion damage on a fireball. As much as I liked using the spell that shoots lightning and paralyzes myself for comedic effect, from a game design perspective it didn't really do anything good.

I will agree with you on one thing though, if I want to join every faction ever that's my prerogative.

 

[solemnwar]

BUT (as you can see its a big but) the moment my warrior who only casts flame can become the Archmage (who should arguably be the best mage in the Collage).

Just because you're in charge, doesn't mean you're the best (insert joke about politicians here?). Generally, people in charge aren't the best fighters, or writers, or whatever skillset is needed in the job they are in charge of (although they are sometimes), but they're the best at organising people, recognising strengths and allotting people to where they would be best needed, etc, etc. Basically, you're good at all that boring stuff leaders need to concern themselves with to stop their organisation from collapsing in on itself into anarchy. Yaaay.

I have more of a problem with the fact that you are the only person who has any inkling on how to solve a problem in the whole of Skyrim I'm surprised they can even put on their boots, them Skyrim folk... but that's a problem in RPGs in general.

 

[Dogstile]

There was a thread about how someone thinks stealth action games are stupid because even though they love stealth they felt they should go with combat because it was easier. I found it silly that they couldn't just stealth, I mean come on it is a perfectly viable option if you love it pick it. but no, he wanted the game to make it impossible for you to win in a straight up fight if he gets detected.

I think you are talking about me [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.401912-I-have-a-gripe-with-games-that-combine-stealth-and-action].

I like it when people talk about me. However, I don't like it so much when people misrepresent my views. Please refrain from doing so.

Also, hello.

My point was not that I felt I should go with combat because it was easier. Rather, I said that the availability of action made playing stealth nothing more than an exercise in playing with your food. The point of stealth is to not be spotted, yes? In a game where the action approach is viable, being spotted has no consequences. You just kill whoever spotted you and whoever else turns up, then move on. Maybe crouch-walk past the bodies in a pathetic attempt to maintain the illusion that you're playing a stealth game.

It's like playing an action game with god-mode turned on. One of the major points of an action game is to avoid damage or death, yes? What would happen if you took that away by making yourself invulnerable? You could just ignore the enemies and walk past them to the end of the level. You wouldn't be playing an action game anymore. I suppose you could pretend you were by killing a few helpless enemies along the way, but really, what's the point?

That's why your game needs to say "no" every now and again. As in, "No, you really shouldn't get spotted by every guard from here to the ends of the earth without consequences in a stealth game." Or "No, you shouldn't be able to ignore enemies in an action game."

I'm going to use splinter cell conviction here, because it is an excellent example of the games i'm talking about. People said it was far to easy because if you were spotted because you could just kill the enemies. The problem with this is that you're meant to be a badass. Sam Fisher is a highly trained agent who was in the gulf war and has literally been killing people his whole life, there is no reason to be gimped in terms of combat unless its a mission that specifically states in big letters "DO NOT GET DETECTED" (which the game needed, i admit).

The thing is, if you wanted to be a badass who could dive into a room, spray an assault rifle, kill the 4 furthest guards and punch one in the throat, you can do it and its within the games universe. Likewise, if you wanted to stealth missions, you could easily do it, given practice. There is nothing stopping you from restarting once you've been spotted, if you really want.

Arbitrarily gimping my options of play just because you can't control your impulses seems mighty selfish.