What Games Do You Research While Playing?

[Aristophan]

When I play World of Warcraft, I'm frequently task switching to Wowhead to look up information. This seems perfectly fine to me - heck I remember printing out a binder full of maps, recipes, etc back when I played EQ. However, I have mixed feelings about doing so for other games. On one hand, I I don't want to spoil the initial experience, but on the other, I hate it when I miss a trophy or an item or something due to not doing the right thing at the right time. Sometimes, feeling the need to look something up will spoil me on a game, while other times I'm looking up things left and right because that feels like part of the experience.

I got to thinking about this when reading the Demon's Soul's thread. When I first played the game, I didn't want to spoil it, but I got rather frustrated, and when I looked in the hint book, I saw a part about cheesing through an early boss that kind of spoiled it for me (my thought: "I'm supposed to do that?"). Now I see there's a whole wiki for the game, and I wonder about playing through it with a different attitude: when in doubt - look it up.

For purposes of this discussion, I consider "research" as looking up information online or reading strategy guides. Getting some quick advice from a friend or a board like QT3 doesn't count.

[MrCoffee]

Eve Online, generally a map, a killboard and some guide if im doing missions.

[kerzain]

I spent the first three years of my EverQuest experience trying to avoid all the player guides and info sites on the net, I was totally into the exploration aspect and wanted to be surprised by what I found. If I ended up in certain zones like LGuk or something, then obviously I'd hear where everything came from, but I spent most of my time in out of the way places that people generally avoided (which also implied there wasn't much there worth finding, but this gaming style worked for me).

That all changed once I joined a raiding guild, then I spent the last two years of that game actively trying to increase my stats as fast as possible with the help of Lucy and Allakhazam, among many others.

I have also played Eve, and Anarchy Online about a year each. Neither game felt very rewarding towards explorers in my opinion, so I was glued to the web when trying to figure stuff out for those two.

Now days all my 'research' is pretty much restricted to strategy games. I find many manuals to be woefully incomplete, and the net is the next (if not first) logical step in my search for information.

Occasionally I'll be playing an RPG and be forced to look up a quest I'm on if I am unable to complete it, and suspect it might be bugged, but most of the time it's just poor game design forcing me to do so.

Now days I'm reading up on Minecraft and Elemental quite a bit (out of necessity).

[victrix]

This is a fascinating topic to me, partly because for the longest time I was (and still am, to some extent) very much of the 'fuck off, don't spoil anything for me' school of thought. In addition, my work forces me to analyze and break down games to such a degree that I usually have little to no interest in playing the game in question once I'm done dissecting it.

Consequently, on a personal level I've rarely used faqs/guides/external sources of information for games.

In _general_ I think this is a better way to play most games, and definitely a better way to play any sort of cinematic game. However, there are definitely some key exceptions - strategy games of various types are often simply too complex to unravel yourself, either due to inherent depth, or poor communication of concepts.

As some random examples - the Moo1/MoM strategy guides were amazing tools that were not only entertaining, but also helped me enjoy the respective games more. Tactics Ogre is a game that, without a FAQ, I stalled out and stopped playing completely, but when I returned some years later armed with a good grasp of the mechanics, I completely loved (it is one of my favorite SRPGS ever).

I've also had some failure cases - I really tried hard to get into Unlimited Saga and just couldn't do it, even with a detailed systems faq close at hand.

RTS games are in a weird place. They're ripe for strategic and tactical discussion, but so much of what is discussed online is... bad, to put it mildly. That is, there can be (and sometimes is) very good discussion about these games, but far more often, the discussion is of dubious quality, for a variety of reasons (differing skill levels, personal preferences, inherent game imbalances, etcetc).

MMOs of all stripes I'm all about guides for mechanics, and very often for quests - I'm not actually a fan of spoilers in these cases, as I enjoy playing through them myself, but often simply because the game does a very poor job of directing you. In the case of WoW specifically, I'd never look for a guide for a dungeon the first time, playing through the latest expansion 'blind' with my friends is a huge part of the fun for me.

Tools like wowhead or their equivalent for other MMOs are basically indispensible though, simply because the sheer volume of information you need to remember beggars belief, and being able to answer a more obscure question about 'what should/could I equip in this slot' or 'how should I weight this stat' or 'how optimal is this talent build' are all questions (of varying degrees of nerdiness) that database sites and good forums help to answer.

To address your thought on Demon's Souls specifically - I played through it blind and tremendously enjoyed it, but for people who found it daunting, I'd _strongly_ suggest hopping into one of the many active threads on any number of forums and ask for help when you get stuck - that way you can request that the answers you get are less 'cheesy', and possibly more general, without being worried of running afoul of huge spoilers on the wiki. I actually think the community enhanced DS, both in and out of game (due to the really interesting way they implemented 'multiplayer').

I couldn't provide a general rule of thumb, I really think each game needs to be examined - some, I think, really do benefit from external knowledge, either some early and quick hints, continuing guidance, mechanical information, or full and outright spoilers.

There's an interesting thread that's been running on the somethingawful forums for some time that is 'Tell me what I should know about this game before I play it', and it's a lot of generally spoiler free information and advice that tries to help people really enjoy a given game for the first time - I think the wiki is partly updated with info from the thread, dig it up and look up a game you know - it's an interesting idea.

There's also the time right around when a game is released, where you can dive into it with your friends (and the rest of the internet), and discuss your experiences as you play. For some games, this can greatly enhance the experience. For others, you're better off unplugging your ethernet cable :P

[Teiman]

I made some bussines management tools for a webgame called eRepublik, so of course, I researched all the formulas related to economy on the game, so my predictions of profit and per-employee cost where accurate.
[ userscripts.org/scripts/show/55785 ]


I also made some bots for oGame, so some research of how the html client communicate to the server trought GET and POST request where needed. I have also some nice books about AI programming, included some tips from these books on my oGame bot to made it more efficient. It was never very advanced. oGame plays pretty much like a FarmVille with a harsh Eve like PVP FFA. So I automatized the FarmVille part of it.
[ unpublished ]

[interman]

For me it's mostly RPGs. A while back I started on a project where I'd play through all of the main Final Fantasy games, and post screenshots on a forum I administer. I made it through most of them, but I definitely did my share of research while playing, making sure I was doing smart things.

Oh, and Minecraft!

[Hans Lauring]

Viva Pinata.

[Rock8man]

Diablo 2 - I consider the The Arreat Summit (http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/) (the official site) to be an integral part of the Diablo 2 experience. There's just so much information there that's essential to playing the game. The best info is mostly in the "Basics" section, but "Items" is also an integral part of the experience. Me and my friends always have that website on in the background so we can alt-tab to it every time we go back to town. If we're ever waiting for someone during a bathroom break while in town, it's time to Alt-Tab and read up on the next rune-word you're trying to make, or a unique weapon you're trying to find, or a quest reward you're trying to get, or a horadric cube recipe you're trying to complete, etc.

[Mrenda]

Wat?

Tetris? Mario? Etc.

Edit: There was a post just before mine that said if a game was any good it would need to be researched.

[thinkingork]

If the game is any good, and I want to avoid spoilers, then I would usually "research" after I finished the first playthrough.

On the other hand, I completed games in foreign language entirely through strategy guide.



Wat?

Tetris? Mario? Etc.

Edit: There was a post just before mine that said if a game was any good it would need to be researched.


That was mine. It was not worded properly :(. What I meant was that a good game should be easy to learn, hard to master. Then I realized that is not what this thread is about, so I deleted the post.

[Chris Nahr]

I don't play games that require any significant amount of research to progress. Some initial learning investment is fine but I ultimately want to experience the game itself, not spend my time on some website researching the game.

[Mrenda]

I don't play games that require any significant amount of research to progress. Some initial learning investment is fine but I ultimately want to experience the game itself, not spend my time on some website researching the game.


I think that's the biggest problem I have with games at the moment. I ended up realising that most games were simply pattern recognition, that had you figuring out how to achieve what you wanted to do within the game's design without any real freedom, so I gave up on them. I couldn't be bothered going through some designer's little rat maze for a bit of cheese at the end. It first occured to me with adventure games, where I was getting pissed off that my logic was incorrect compared to whatever the designer dreamt up, even if I felt that was illogical. Then it progressed to a lot of other games.

That's not to say I don't enjoy games where I have to figure things out, I love Eve Online, and half the time I spend playing it I don't do anything in game. I actually spend my time figuring out the best way of doing things, and achieving results in game. But for some reason that's ok, because it's less of me versus a bad designer and more me versus a proven system that's actually tangeable. The fact that other players interact directly with me might make it more tolerable. (Although I'm completely unsure on this, it's just the first semi-justifiable reason that popped into my head.) And maybe it's because Eve has an internal consistency. Unlike other games where the figures and stats are obscured but without any evocative reasoning to infer results from.

[Zak Gordon]

Elemental ;)

A cheapshot - sorry. But normally i consider it a good thing if a game(mod even, Dune Wars is making me do some background research on 'Dune' as it was a longtime ago i read the books) makes me do a bit of further reading, it normally is a sign of the games depth and appeal to me and the subject manner at hand.

[chequers]

Dwarf Fortress. The end.

[Horrible Oscar]

Any fighting game ever (random example (http://www.dustloop.com/forums/showthread.php?9819-CS-Lambda-11-Combo-Thread)). It's not quite as scary as it looks and official tutorials are getting better, but you still need to figure out a learning approach for seperate characters or ideally get a more experienced friend to show you the ropes.

[serling]

To me, unless you're after some sort of optimal solution for whatever reason, using strategy guides in the capacity I do is usually a sign that the game hasn't expressed some concept, solution or logic clearly enough. Guides feel like cheating to me, because I really, really enjoy exploring the systems and mechanics of the games I play on my own, or through collaborative experiences with other people. Forum chatter is great for interpretations and theories, but once the game turns into hard science, a lot of the fun is gone.

The tendency system in Demon's Souls is an example of a system that, to me, doesn't deserve a scientific dissection, because in the context of the game it's suppose to be this spontaneous, seemingly arbitrary change in the world, based on your actions. I'd much rather figure that out for myself than read a walkthrough on how to behave in order to get a certain result.

The whole concept of sharing personal, emergent scenarios gets a whole lot less interesting once everyone knows exactly how to provoke or manipulate the game world. Still, I do know a lot of games are designed with this social aspect in mind -- Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress being great examples.


I couldn't provide a general rule of thumb, I really think each game needs to be examined - some, I think, really do benefit from external knowledge, either some early and quick hints, continuing guidance, mechanical information, or full and outright spoilers.

Do you think low attention span or willingness to spend time exploring game systems play a role in the equation? People are pretty vigilant about citing bad or 'too complex' game design, but I do wonder some times...

[Ōishi]

No research at all during the first playthrough, afterwards I am either reading the guide and play the game again or just read the guide to complete my picture about the game.

edit: doesn't work for games which never end, but then again I won't play those. A game without an end is like a neverending day. Unbearable.

[IainC]

I'm kind of OCD when it comes to things like RPGs. I'll always have a guide open on a browser because I hate to miss things. I'm more than happy to figure out mechanics and strategies myself but I hate to miss unlocks because I didn't know about a particular interactable object or a hidden area on a map.

[victrix]

The tendency system in Demon's Souls is an example of a system that, to me, doesn't deserve a scientific dissection, because in the context of the game it's suppose to be this spontaneous, seemingly arbitrary change in the world, based on your actions. I'd much rather figure that out for myself than read a walkthrough on how to behave in order to get a certain result.


I'm amused you'd bring up this specific example, as I had exactly the opposite reaction - while almost every other area in the game was about atmosphere, exploration, fear, loneliness, and plain simple common sense, the world alignment system was the one area that I completely hated.

There were some cool events/areas/npcs/items you could only see if you were full black or full white (and in some cases, full black PERSONAL alignment, not the same thing as world), and that stuff smacks of the worst sort of 'don't open this chest in front of you during the tutorial or you can't get the UberSwordOfAwesome' JRPG gamedesign.

I really dislike systems like that that are not only opaque, but also incredibly 'gamey' and mechanical. Even if you DO know how to manipulate world tendency, it's still a pain in the ass to do, slow, boring, and repetitive, everything I hate in games, and everything that DS was *not* to me.

Which segues nicely into the next point...


Do you think low attention span or willingness to spend time exploring game systems play a role in the equation? People are pretty vigilant about citing bad or 'too complex' game design, but I do wonder some times...Absolutely. And to some extent, I fully agree with that complaint.

I genuinely think that any game, even a deep strategy game should be accessible. If it isn't, a designer has failed somewhere, be it a game systems designer, a UI designer, an in-game documentation writer, or a level designer.

I'm willing to make some concessions in exchange for much greater depth of gameplay, but in all my years of gaming, I can only think of a handful of games where the added depth justified any added complexity or user unfriendliness.

Conversely, I can think of a lot of games (good and bad) that were needlessly complex. Either too much bloat, badly explained (or worse, unexplained) mechanics, obtuse controls, or poor UI design.

The industry as a whole has moved away from that sort of complexity, sometimes at the expense of (good) depth - witness the death of the user manual, and the increased ease of use (or dumbing down, depending on your perspective) of many genres and long-running game series.

So to some extent, when a game comes along that _does_ demand more from the player, it's an anachronism, and frankly, with so many great games out there, it can be hard to justify the extra time that the game is asking of you. The payoff must be worth the investment, or you should be spending your leisure time elsewhere.

This problem is multiplied considerably if the game in question is multiplayer, either wholly or significantly, as it creates substantial barriers of entry for enlarging the player base - a significant problem for MMOs and multiplayer strategy games, less so for most FPS titles (the few that I can think of that have tried are now part of the dust of gaming history).

Now with that said, I do think there is a place for games that ask a little more of the player, and give a lot more - I just wish they were more upfront about those requests. They aren't, not always. Either because the developer/publisher/pr is trying to 'hide' the difficulty, or because they don't even realize it's a problem until it's already too late (and the game is being eviscerated, perhaps unfairly, in reviews and on forums).

That's a tough bargain to make though, and it's one reason why genuinely complex games almost always belong to a niche fanbase. They also seem to inspire a particularly rabid brand of fanaticism... deserved or not. The people who play those games view themselves as part of an elite and exclusive club, and anyone who doesn't 'get it' is either an outsider (at best), or a heathen interloper.

I can't say that particular side-effect of complexity is a desirable one (though the same phenomenon exists at the higher levels of play for any multiplayer game that has a high skill ceiling).

But to bring this back around to external research/forums/friends/tutorials/guides/faqs/etc, yeah, in those cases, for those games, whatever they may be, I think they're totally worth it. Can you dive into Dominions 3 or Dwarf Fortress cold? Yes. Would I recommend it? No.

One random psychological point - I find it amusing that people will often react very negatively to the thought of 'cheating' or 'using a guide', in the same manner that so many TBS gamers react negatively to the thought of the AI 'cheating' in some manner - this concept that there should be some sort of fair and level playing field, an unspoken agreement between the player and the game that the player will be challenged, but not frustrated.

That's a pretty demanding request, and precious few games of any genre can achieve that - it's also why certain games from certain developers are received so positively, even if they are objectively 'hard' or 'difficult', because they hit that perfect balance that tells the player 'I beat you because you messed up, not because I cheated, and not because you need to go read a forum to figure me out'.

I mentioned Tactics Ogre before - that game is getting a new PSP remake (not simply a port, a full remake). I'm curious to see how much 'friendlier' they've made the mechanics in that game. Will they remove some features, sacrificing depth, in favor of ease of play? Will it simply be easier? Should be interesting to see.

[mystery]

I don't think I've ever researched a game more than Dawn of Discovery. Without a decent manual, the player-base had to come up with their own strategy guides, spreadsheet applications, and wikis.

[victrix]

I don't think I've ever researched a game more than Dawn of Discovery. Without a decent manual, the player-base had to come up with their own strategy guides, spreadsheet applications, and wikis.

Man I'm backwards from everyone here - I played through the campaign and thought it was a fantastic 'tutorial' that showed me how all the mechanics worked, without boring me to tears, and while entertaining me.

When I finished it (something I rarely do in that sort of game, I really enjoyed DoDs campaign), I went to play custom games/scenarios and was able to slip right in comfortably.

edit: one other point -

I think there are two main types of complexity when we're talking about a game. One is inherent to learning and interacting with the game. Game concepts that are new and unfamiliar, a difficult to use UI or demanding controls. Many complicated game mechanics that interact in strange ways. That sort of thing. The other is complexity when actually playing the game.

I think the latter is a much more interesting area, but if the former enables the latter, it is acceptable, maybe even good. If it conceals, conflicts, or renders the latter unplayable or unenjoyable, it's the bad kind of complex.

The first kind you need help just to play what might not even be a good game, the second kind you want information to help you to explore an interesting game.

[CustodianV131]

Hmmm most games really. But then I like to read a lot anyway. Part of the reason I visit here so often I guess. :)

I really enjoy having some offline material to keep me connected to games. Backgrounds on RTS, MMO's, but also the likes of Civilization and such (Civfanatics for the win!). Quite a bit of fan-fiction also. Strategy/hints & tips, Build orders ect, also but online after I tried really hard myself.

[Teiman]

Is hard to see why "Cheating AI" is bad?

For the player, the player play a pseudo-PvP experience, not a "Player versus Enviroment" experience, a Omniscient AI is enviroment. It removes the curtains, and shows who really is the cheaterous Wizard of Oz.

For the game and in general sense any form or art an craft: lazyness is bad, and cheating is often the lazy solution.

For the inmersion the game is tryiing to create: is bad, because destroy it.

The original command & conquer can be ruined the moment you discover the AI choose target scanning the map from left to right, and choosing the first soldier it find. It also make for a easy counter-attack, you place a cheap soldier somewhere away from your real forces.

[JM]

Revenge of Koontz: Babelfish edition

[Oghier]

Every game. I will usually skip spoilers for anything story-based, but scouring the forums is a big part of any game I enjoy.

[serling]

There were some cool events/areas/npcs/items you could only see if you were full black or full white (and in some cases, full black PERSONAL alignment, not the same thing as world), and that stuff smacks of the worst sort of 'don't open this chest in front of you during the tutorial or you can't get the UberSwordOfAwesome' JRPG gamedesign.

This only seem like a problem because you want to exhaust the system for what it's worth, though. I understand the need to go 'under the hood' of the game if you want to maximize your build, be as effective as possible, or see everything in the shortest amount of time possible. But I'm just looking for a great experience that adapts the world based on how I play my game -- I like a bit of mysticism and magic behind the goings on! Whether that system works or not is an entirely different discussion as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that the system itself seem shallow and mechanical once you understand it, but unless you're interested in exploiting the inner-workings there's nothing to really criticize. Nothing forces you to learn or even acknowledge the tendencies when you play the game. It just changes your course. To me, that would be like dissecting the Director A.I. from Left 4 Dead. I mean, why would you ever do that unless you were hellbent on acquiring every conceivable edge there is?

I'm guessing you have a more analytic approach to playing games than I do, based on what you said you did for a living :)



One random psychological point - I find it amusing that people will often react very negatively to the thought of 'cheating' or 'using a guide', in the same manner that so many TBS gamers react negatively to the thought of the AI 'cheating' in some manner - this concept that there should be some sort of fair and level playing field, an unspoken agreement between the player and the game that the player will be challenged, but not frustrated.

When I use the term 'cheating', I'm more referring to the act of cheating myself out of the things I love about games. It has nothing to do with giving myself an unfair bias or edge. I'm okay with developers tweaking A.I. and what not if it's in the benefit of a better challenge or a more interesting game.

[merryprankster]

The two games I do/did a lot of research for are Demon's Souls and Monster Hunter. For me though most of this research was based on item upgrades trees and resources, not actualy walkthroughs of levels and such.

Both these games have pretty complicated branching upgrade paths. Since resources are rare in both games I like to know what path I want to follow so I don't waste materials.

I have looked up item locations are tendancy events in DS, as well as monster weaknesses for MH. Mabye that's a bit spoilery, but given the complexity of these games I just don't quite have time to figure all of that stuff out on my own.

[ElGuapo]

Who are all these people?

Good topic though. I try to go through a game without help, but on the 360 my inner achievement whore has be wondering how I get those little dings. For instance, recently in Mafia 2 I noticed you get an achievement for (slight spoilers) not having the alarm go off when stealing the gas stamps. I did the mission but after the alarm going off when I opened it I thought "I wonder how I deactivate the alarm". It made sense it'd be in the basement but I looked it up anyway. (end slight spoilers)

Anyway, I generally try not to spoil/research too much but some games beg for it. For instance in Fallout 3 I tried to play through without a guide but found myself wondering at all the fun stuff I missed. What I'd typically do is come upon a quest or area, explore it/finish it, then go back and read about all the choices or things to see that I missed.

Now if you area talking about (and you weren't) researching games completely outside of the game itself . . . that comes down to wargames and complex games. For instance, when playing Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, I actually started reading armor tactics book by German generals, field manuals from the US army (about using artillery suppression before a charge forward and combined infantry/armor tactics) and historical accounts of battles. Doing that really immersed me in the game. I did the same thing with Rome:Total War, started reading about and researching battles and tactics in general, plus about Roman history in general.

[Durns]

Does the Civilization 2 manual count? I'd have that pinned open to a reading slate next to the screen at all times. My ten year old mind wasn't developed enough to hold everything about the game in it at the same time. The death of the encyclopedia-thickness game manual was a tragedy - you could really tell that they knew and loved their game what with all the detail poured into those pages.

Also Everquest - I had a self-made book of maps and would charge through zones frantically hammering /loc to ensure the x and y coordinates were going the correct way. Along with sense heading and feign death every 6 seconds of course (being able to reliably tell which direction you were going early in the game was a godsend - especially when leading groups into new areas).

[Lynxara]

In Shin Megami Tensei games I inevitably break down and go look for a demon fusion guide once the going gets tough. Before that I try to be sporting and just do fusions with whatever demons have clearly maxed their levels/abilities.

[RepoMan]

I bought and read a few books on WWII military tactics when I was all excited about Combat Mission: Barbarossa. However, I then wound up never actually playing it :-P Still helped me a bit in Company of Heroes, though.

[StGabe]

I research a lot of games but stay away from walkthroughs and spoilers. I am usually just looking for more background and discussion of the games core mechanics. I am answering questions like:

"How does this vaguely defined skill work?"
"Is the following build balanced and fun?"
"Are there any parts of the game that are fundamentally broken but avoidable?"
"What sorts of things should I consider when strategising about this particular game that might not be obvious?"

And that works pretty well. Walkthroughs seems like cheating to me. Answering the above questions doesn't. Any sufficiently deep gameplay makes for some really interesting discussion and should not be so trivial that a little forum reading ruins it.

Diablo 2 and Demon's Souls are great examples of games where I'd do this. Another is Dragon Age. I developed an idea for a character then I did some research to make sure that the idea was going to be fun. After that I mostly stopped all research. Another obvious example is Starcraft 2 where the time I've spent talking about and reading about the game approaches the time I've spent playing the game itself.

[Reldan]

Any fighting game ever (random example (http://www.dustloop.com/forums/showthread.php?9819-CS-Lambda-11-Combo-Thread)). It's not quite as scary as it looks and official tutorials are getting better, but you still need to figure out a learning approach for seperate characters or ideally get a more experienced friend to show you the ropes.

Is it bizarre if I say I was actually researching your random example link just a few days ago?

But yeah, for me it's fighting games and RTS games. I did do some one-time research on Team Fortress 2 because I didn't understand how the new Crafting mechanic worked when I got back into it after a hiatus, but I typically don't do research on most FPS games.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Demon's Souls . . .

Honestly, I'll do some amount of research on any game where I think it will make the experience more enjoyable. If I'm stuck, if it's a competitive multiplayer game and I need to surmount the learning curve, if I don't understand how something I want to use works, if I'm looking for some decent mods, etc.

[maxle]

Dead Space. Specifically because I hate having to try to figure things out when they may insta-kill me and the game uses save points. Like, I just came to some bizarre air filtration system that basically consists of jets of flame (!) pulsing in a regular pattern, and wanted to make sure there wasn't anything particularly irritating I needed to know about beforehand, as the last save point was a good fifteen minutes or half an hour earlier, and I didn't feel like backtracking. So, alt-tab, go to the wiki, look up the sequence in the guide, then proceed.

[Aristophan]

I research a lot of games but stay away from walkthroughs and spoilers. I am usually just looking for more background and discussion of the games core mechanics. I am answering questions like:

"How does this vaguely defined skill work?"
"Is the following build balanced and fun?"
"Are there any parts of the game that are fundamentally broken but avoidable?"
"What sorts of things should I consider when strategising about this particular game that might not be obvious?"

I like these questions.



Diablo 2 and Demon's Souls are great examples of games where I'd do this. Another is Dragon Age. I developed an idea for a character then I did some research to make sure that the idea was going to be fun. After that I mostly stopped all research.

Dragon Age is a good example for me. I started playing with a mage, and I wanted him to be on the back line flinging fireballs and casting heals. I knew there was no healing class in the game going in, but what I didn't realize how long it would take to get a healing spell. After going through several areas, I met a character who had a heal, and I thought I could learn the spell from her, but once I got back to camp I realized I couldn't. Finally, I looked up the information, and in order to get the spell I had to cross the whole map, go through a city passing many people who wanted to give me quests, and get to the right store in order to buy the manual. The alternative was to buy the Warden's Keep DLC. I kind of stopped playing after that since I felt I had to step out of the experience to play it the way I wanted to play. In that case, the research spoiled the game for me, but if I had done some more beforehand, maybe I would have had a better experience.

[Murbella]

I like these questions.



Dragon Age is a good example for me. I started playing with a mage, and I wanted him to be on the back line flinging fireballs and casting heals. I knew there was no healing class in the game going in, but what I didn't realize how long it would take to get a healing spell. After going through several areas, I met a character who had a heal, and I thought I could learn the spell from her, but once I got back to camp I realized I couldn't. Finally, I looked up the information, and in order to get the spell I had to cross the whole map, go through a city passing many people who wanted to give me quests, and get to the right store in order to buy the manual. The alternative was to buy the Warden's Keep DLC. I kind of stopped playing after that since I felt I had to step out of the experience to play it the way I wanted to play. In that case, the research spoiled the game for me, but if I had done some more beforehand, maybe I would have had a better experience.
Nitpick, but this is incorrect. A mage does not need any special sub class to be a good healer. I think you can even start with the heal spell (all you need) as it is a tier 1 spell with basically no requirements. Dragon Age was a bit unique because there is no healing class and healing magics are just treated as normal spells so it was a bit of a disconnect for people.

The subclass in question is good, but it is only a group heal which you don't need (although it is nice of course for much later on in the game).

It is also perfectly possible to play without anyone having any heal spells until you get the spirit healer party member, even on the hardest difficulty.


Anyway, for me: Almost any jrpg. I like jrpgs, likely more than most. What i don't like is how often jrpgs will have non obvious triggers that you miss and because you didn't tell your sister that you aren't really related and you love her, the world ends up exploding and you lose the game, only you don't realize you just lost the game until 15 hours later. The tree structure of dialog/options is too obvious in jrpgs very often, which makes me REALLY want to use a faq to make sure i don't screw myself. The few western rpgs that give you serious choices tend to be a bit more fluid.

Although for basically any good rpg i will spend a bit of time thinking about what class i want to be and how i want to customize them, likely including some looking in to related forums and faqs on what works well together.

[maxle]

What i don't like is how often jrpgs will have non obvious triggers that you miss and because you didn't tell your sister that you aren't really related and you love her, the world ends up exploding and you lose the game, only you don't realize you just lost the game until 15 hours later.
I'm pretty much entirely unfamiliar with JRPGs, so...examples?

[Murbella]

Persona 4. You don't lose the game i guess, but you don't get "The Ideal Ending."

[Jason McCullough]

In Disgaea accidentally killing any ally means no best ending (http://faqs.ign.com/articles/425/425667p1.html). Some of the others are hilarious though.

[Aristophan]

Nitpick, but this is incorrect. A mage does not need any special sub class to be a good healer. I think you can even start with the heal spell (all you need) as it is a tier 1 spell with basically no requirements. Dragon Age was a bit unique because there is no healing class and healing magics are just treated as normal spells so it was a bit of a disconnect for people.

The subclass in question is good, but it is only a group heal which you don't need (although it is nice of course for much later on in the game).

It is also perfectly possible to play without anyone having any heal spells until you get the spirit healer party member, even on the hardest difficulty.

Yeah - sorry it was a year ago and I forgot the details. Looking up Spirit Healer on the wiki, I think I was after the rez spell, and I had a specialization point that I wanted to spend on healing. Again I didn't want the spirit healer party member, I wanted to be the healer. Thanks for the correction.

[arakyd]

Roguelikes. I spoil myself silly.

Strategy games. I was into chess before I discovered computer games, and it permanently affected the way I think. The more that other people have played and replayed a game, thought about how to play the game, and written thoughtful things about how to play the game, the better I tend to like it.

I get bored of games, and even entire genres, that don't have much replayability and don't have experiences that can be substantially improved by reading about other people's experiences of playing the game and their thoughts about how to play it better.