Limiting the Reload Function

[Brian Koontz]

Partially inspired by a recent thread on the issue, here is something I previously wrote concerning ways for developers to move away from the Reload Function *entirely*... not simply make it less commonplace as is more frequently cited...

Living life above a safety net is unsatisfying, that is the core reason why I am against the Reload Function (time travel to the past at will devices) in games. Part of the booming popularity in multiplayer and MMOG gaming is due to these games lacking a Reload Function, but it remains a developmental *assumption* that it is present in all single-player games, barring short-term action titles like Tekken.

Certain game types make it nearly impossible to avoid the Reload Function. Want a RPG with a single main character who is in danger of being killed at any moment? Whether you choose the Reload Function or accessible Resurrection, there really is no alternative.

Currently since developers see no problem with the Reload Function (at least no formally stated problem) they aren't trying to design games around it. These are the types of design methods used to get around it in situations where normally it is used...

#1: Lets take an example like Deus Ex, a first-person RPG where you control a single character. A design methodology to avoid the Reload Function is to have multiple characters that can be controlled by the player. If one dies the player switches to the next one. So if JC dies the player can, say, control Paul until he dies, then perhaps a NSF leader, etc. The developers would also likely make it harder to die to compensate for no Reload (with scalable difficulty settings as normal).

Now, this kills off scripted plotting, since the developers don't know at what stage the player will die with a given character and thus cannot cover all such scenarios with the dialogue and gameplay. Which means that such things cannot be scripted. In such a scenario there is required emergent (non-scripted) plotting, with scripting only at *big* moments which are few in number to reduce coding work (and thus developmental labor cost).

The benefit is that player action is now critical and part of an epic scope. If as JC Denton you save your brother Paul at the 'ton he will be available to play later, while if you don't he dies... permanently. After the game finishes it gives you a sort of report, a rundown of the events of the game... who died and the outcome of your play.

Another difficulty here is that with different player characters comes different functionality in how those characters perform. If you die as JC and Paul and move to a Non-Augmented lesser-trained NSF commander, different gameplay and perhaps even a different interface is needed to render it.

An easily implemented example of this methodology is in a military war re-enactment. If your player who is a common soldier dies you simply move to possess the *next* soldier, while how often you die affects the outcome of the battle and perhaps even the war.

#2: A fairly easy way to avoid the Reload Function is to not let ANY player action kill off the game. If you want to have a single character throughout the game, then make it impossible to die. Which means the game will no longer be combat-oriented. This is less radical a proposal than it seems... as time goes on and gamers become older on average and the industry matures combat-oriented games become less common. You can easily have goal-driven games without combat... perhaps the goal is to make a million dollars on Wall Street.

MMOGs feature easy Resurrection, and the above remarks can be applied to them as well.

Instead of Resurrection, do a transfer of identity upon your character's death. A sort of WILL is involved here... a formal declaration of your next character is noted, and when your existing character dies you possess the identity of his "successor". My plan is to tie this into familial relationships... having sexual reproduction in-game and then taking over the identity of your child upon death.

My goal is to move away from "*Yawn*... I was just blown to bits but its no big deal... I just use my time travel device to return to the past and to render me unscathed" or "Hehe... I can see this is going to be tough but since I just saved I don't much care what happens."

Meaningful actions with meaningful effects is what is desired. The current state of the industry with rampant Reload Functions does not allow those.

AI cannot occur when the player character is immortal. Page would have given up and committed suicide (the intelligent action) if he knew JC Denton had an infallible time travel device on hand which can even be activated after death along with the ability to flip a switch to reduce the amount of damage enemies do to him (difficulty setting). Page assumes Denton is *normal*... killable. He's 100% wrong of course, as is literally everyone else in the game along with Denton himself.

AI would have Page committing suicide, mass defections of the MJ12 army upon learning that an absolutely immortal and untouchable force is unleashed upon them. Paul would NOT be distraught, he would joke around and say "JC my man, go get 'em!" Simons would beg to be saved rather than undergo a fruitless firefight.

Only when the enemy can WIN are they Intelligent when they fight. If you are facing an untouchable force it is Intelligent to flee.

Killing the Reload Function is about Realism, its about allowing for true AI, its about making for exciting rather than boring gameplay.

JC Denton is SCRIPTED to live. I want to throw scripts on the bonfire. I want JC Denton to be MORTAL.

Time Travel devices do not exist in 2052.

[Met_K]

I give this and your other posts a 1.8 on a scale of 10 on the troll-o-meter.

[Jason McCullough]

JC Denton is SCRIPTED to live. I want to throw scripts on the bonfire. I want JC Denton to be MORTAL.

Time Travel devices do not exist in 2052.

Goddamn it, I can't take it anymore! You're insane! Batshit, completely out of it, wearing tinfoil-hats and talking-about-Majestic bonkers, Brian.

At the very least, the way you write screams it.

Whew, got that out of my system.

[Brian Koontz]

Goddamn it, I can't take it anymore! You're insane! Batshit, completely out of it, wearing tinfoil-hats and talking-about-Majestic bonkers, Brian.

At the very least, the way you write screams it.

Whew, got that out of my system.

I do have an unusual style... it takes some getting used to.

[Ben Sones]

Living life above a safety net is unsatisfying, that is the core reason why I am against the Reload Function (time travel to the past at will devices) in games. Part of the booming popularity in multiplayer and MMOG gaming is due to these games lacking a Reload Function, but it remains a developmental *assumption* that it is present in all single-player games, barring short-term action titles like Tekken.

Sorry, I don't buy that. In fact, I don't even agree that MMORPGs eliminate the safety net. Single-player games let your character die, but allow you to reload and try again. MMORPGs don't let you reload, but they also make it impossible to die--at least not permanently. Aside from the fact that it doesn't "rewind" the game, how is respawning any different than going back to a previous saved game in single-player? If single-player games used the respawn method, would there be any practical difference between that and a system of auto-save points?

In any event, I really doubt that MMORPGs owe their popularity to that particular game mechanic.

[Dave Long]

What the hell is wrong with you, Sones?! Don't encourage him!

--Dave

[deanco]

I don't think it's necessarily better to cause the player more anguish about dying. I think you need to show that your way is better than the accepted system first, before talking about ways it can be implemented.

DeanCo--

[MrAngryFace]

Once again i'll contribute my usual 'WTF'.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I spent several paragraphs thinking this had something to do with how bullets in discarded clips aren't generally wasted in FPS.

[SpoofyChop]

I'm happy to see Brian's posts here on QT3. His cerebral style of gaming insight is a welcome addition to the "fun-centric" style of game writing that everybody else seems so hopped up on.

Yeah, Shoot Club is funny, but where's the serious thought process? I'll tell you where...Nowhere! It's flagrantly absent.

When Tom tells us about the guy who kept hitting the suicide button thinking it was teleport, does he even examine the possibility that this poor soul has a deep seeded desire for self-annihlation? He doesn't! Tom seems so intent on "entertaining the reader" and "tickling the funny-bone" and "helping to sell magazines" and "infotainment" that he has forgotten what the father of computer games, Sid-Meier, may or may not have said about computer games:

"What do you mean turn based dinosaurs aren't fun?!"

I'm hopeful that the editors from "Mensa Gamer Quarterly" will see these thoughtful and semi-non-provacative essays and enlist Brian as an associate editor of the demo disk as soon as possible.

[EDIT]

I'm not sure why I put a dash between Sid and Meier, but I'm hoping somebody may be able to examine the sub-conscious reasoning behind it.

[chet]

Brian, in the alternative universe you call home, was this another post to counter #24? I hope so, I am starting to pull for you over #24.

Go Brian!
Boo #24!

Chet

[Troy S Goodfellow]

While the no-death thing may make sense in an adventure game, I see no need for it in a shooter. And I don't see combat games dying out because of the aging gamer. Hell, who makes games for thirty year old political scientists like me anyway? Besides, sometimes I like to shoot stuff. (I've recently rediscovered the joys of Tie Fighter).

I can reload my game...big deal. It doesn't mean that dying doesn't bug me. I want to win a game and win it well. But forcing me to play a second character that I don't give a damn about in chapter 4 of a five chapter game is just plain silly. If a game is going to be plot driven, then the character that the player plays must be made important to both the story and the character. Simply saying, "well, he's just a a cog in a grander meta-narrative" is not satisfying.

Playing a game without a net should be my choice. Give me a lower score, call me a wimp, whatever. For someone so big on players "owning" their MMORPG game, I'm not sure you should be telling them that reloading is chicken. When I play Europa Universalis, I play through - bad luck and all - because that's part of the joy of the game. When I play Civ, I play through until victory is impossible - reloads kind of defeat the purpose, unless I press the wrong button. But when demons keep killing me, and I want to find a new way around Space Dungeon Alpha, I want to reload.

Troy

[Jim F.]

I think the solution you're looking for was already invented long ago; optional perma-death.

Diablo II is my favorite implentation of this. You can play the game in normal mode, suck up the deaths losing only some gold and, in Nightmare and Hell, some exp. Or, you can play in Hardcore more where you have 1 life to live. You die, you're dead, period. The game is designed where death is always possible, but also always avoidable. You have to be a little more careful in Hardcore, but the game itself is the same.

Many games have failed solely based on either not having a saved game system, or having a completely screwed up saved game system (see also: Alien vs Predator). Developers put in these punitive saved game systems trying to instill a sense of danger into the game that isn't there with games with unlimited, anywhere save systems. What they fail to realize is that not everyone WANTS a mortal character with a real sense of danger. They don't want to have to restart the game because their cat walked in front of their monitor at the wrong time and they didn't see the bus barreling down on their character.

So I think a medium needs to be struck. Don't force people to play without a net, but at least give them the option.

[chet]

Part of the booming popularity in multiplayer and MMOG gaming is due to these games lacking a Reload Function

And the other part is doom?

Chet

[Kyle Wilson]

Living life above a safety net is unsatisfying...

To the contrary. In fact, I think you're wasting brainpower trying to get save/load out of games, when you should be trying to add it to real life.

"Oh, damn, I got hit by a truck. And my last save point was before that awful meeting this morning."

Kyle

[Anonymous]

Wizardry 8-- Save anywhere for those who want it, Ironman mode for those who don't. If they only had Ironman mode, they would alienate the vast majority of their audience, but the folks who like Ironman really like it.

[wumpus]

"Oh, damn, I got hit by a truck. And my last save point was before that awful meeting this morning."
Exactly. That's why we play games and pretend they are our real lives. It's the next best thing! Just ask Bruce Geryk.

[DennyA]

Wizardry 8-- Save anywhere for those who want it, Ironman mode for those who don't. If they only had Ironman mode, they would alienate the vast majority of their audience, but the folks who like Ironman really like it.

Exactly. It's called choice.

Of course, you have that choice in any game that has a save function. If you think "save often" is a copout, then don't fucking save. That's called willpower.

But don't try to impose your macho ironman crap on me just because that's the way you think games should be played. Ironman options are great, but that's not the way things should be designed by default.

Just ask the AvP designers.

[wumpus]

Of course, you have that choice in any game that has a save function. If you think "save often" is a copout, then don't fucking save. That's called willpower.
Well, there is some validity to the argument that developers may use save anywhere as a substitute for proper design of easy, normal, and hard difficulty levels. But that's the very definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater-- if developers are too lazy to balance their game, then you're screwed regardless; at least with save anywhere you CAN derive some enjoyment from the game.

[DennyA]

Very true, Wumpus. Dragon's Lair design -- you have to die to learn how not to die -- is terrible game design.

But an ideal game won't using saving as a crutch.

[Brian Koontz]

Sorry, I don't buy that. In fact, I don't even agree that MMORPGs eliminate the safety net. Single-player games let your character die, but allow you to reload and try again. MMORPGs don't let you reload, but they also make it impossible to die--at least not permanently. Aside from the fact that it doesn't "rewind" the game, how is respawning any different than going back to a previous saved game in single-player? If single-player games used the respawn method, would there be any practical difference between that and a system of auto-save points?

In any event, I really doubt that MMORPGs owe their popularity to that particular game mechanic.

I already posted on this site my backing of Permanent Death for MMOGs (this is Permanent Death WITH something of a Safety Net)... so obviously I agree that MMOGs currently are not taking a good approach with their non-treatment of death.

I've talked to a lot of people over the years who get a thrill out of the possibility of death in a MUD or MMOG... its part of what makes PvP exciting. Even minor penalties for death is better than NO penalties for death which is what the Reload Function enables.

Here are TWO other reasons to support eliminating the Reload Function...

#1: Artificial Intelligence

There is simply no such thing as Artificial Intelligence in a game with a Reload Function.

If the enemies in a game were really *Intelligent* they would know you have the Reload Function at your disposal and they would RUN RUN RUN away from you. Why commit suicide at your hands? Why bother killing you three times when you'll just respawn until they're dead? Only a *total idiot* would fight against an immortal enemy. The smart move is not to play. One of my catchphrases is "Emergent Plot"... the plot in a game should emerge from your actions... not be scripted as currently occurs. ALL of your actions (your mistakes as well as your successes) should guide the plot. I will celebrate the day the Reload Function is no more.

#2: Realism

The Reload Function makes you into a SUPERHERO. You cannot be killed. You cannot be stopped. You can only be slowed down. You can at BEST be frustrated and *permanently* stopped (you stop playing the game).

Is this then the SUCCESS of the enemy? To make you stop playing the game? Should the enemy jump up and down in joy at that result? THEY no longer exist when you stop playing the game... the best they can do is to annihilate themselves!

This is part of the act of making computer games for adolescents. The same crowd that... feeling powerless themselves love to feel SUPER powerful in other mediums... such as when playing computer games.

I want to bring HUMANITY to computer games. Kill off Superheroes. Kill off Immortality. Introduce Realism. Introduce Emergent Plot. Introduce Player Creation of their own Game. Introduce the Epic. MOST of this sort of thing is *only* well-suited to the MMOG genre... which is why my identity is so closely tied to that genre.

I represent a more mature approach to games. A more ambitious approach to games.

Much of my focus on improvements to the MMOG genre is to enable Epic gaming... the MMOG genre is the only one where the Epic is possible yet it has not yet come close to achieving this.

[wumpus]

You can at BEST be frustrated and *permanently* stopped (you stop playing the game).
That's pretty goddamn permanent as far as I'm concerned. People like to win. If you prefer a humiliating kick in the crotch, just go to work. This is entertainment we're talking about.

[Aszurom]

Heard much about Tekki? You can save the game between missions when you want to turn off your xbox, but you CANNOT reload a save if you DIE. If you're dead, it's back to mission #1. Really.

This brings great meaning to the big red eject button. It will also disgust the living shit out of anybody who makes it to the last boss fight and dies.

Ya know what I call this a sign of? Probably a VERY short $200 game that needed to artificially lengthen itself.

[Ben Sones]

Hell, who makes games for thirty year old political scientists like me anyway?

Since you fall square in the center of the PC game player age demographic... pretty much everyone does.

I already posted on this site my backing of Permanent Death for MMOGs (this is Permanent Death WITH something of a Safety Net)... so obviously I agree that MMOGs currently are not taking a good approach with their non-treatment of death.

I actually agree with this, nominally, that character death could be more interesting in MMORPGs. Certainly in their current form, it is an almost inconsequential event. But I think working any sort of permanent death (or even death with serious consequences) into current MMORPGs would require a fundamental rethinking of how developers approach these games from the ground up. If you tried to integrate a permanent death feature into, say, DAoC, it would probably suck. These games are designed around the idea of steady advancement and intense time investment. The frustration of losing all that time that you invested would be pretty significant, so your "serious death" mechanic would have to add a lot to the game in order to balance that out. Most likely this sort of mechanic would work better in a game less focused on levelling.

[Jason McCullough]

The only way permanent death would be acceptable in MMORPGs is if permanent death has little or no long-term effect on the "fun" of the gameplay.

[Sharpe]

One of the problems with permanent death (and stiff death penalties) is that it runs across a problem when the game also features a high level of difficulty. If the game is very challenging, that usually means there is a significant chance of losing an ecounter and dying. I know some gamers who feel that unless there is a definite possibility of dying, an encounter is "too easy" and unchallenging. The problem is, in nearly all MMORPGs to date, the players fight many many (often thousands or tens of thousands) of battles. It is common to have a DOAC session where the party slaughters 500 to 1000 monsters. When you are fighting a lot, even a small chance of death means that inevitability, you WILL die. Its just a matter of statistics. I know the hardcore types want the *risk* of death that can be avoided by skill, but the problem is, all these games feature random elements, which means that inevitably, if you have the combination of risk, random factors, and numerous combats, then the players will in fact die, on occasion, no matter the skill etc.

If you make it so that dying can be totally avoided then there are many players who will consider that unsatisfying and unchallenging.

Its a catch 22 IMO. Now if you changed the underlying paradigm to have far fewer combats, and if you changed victory from Boolean win/loss to something more complex, then maybe perma-death could be worked in. But that would be fundamentally different kind of game, and given the untested nature of its marketability, I don't see any companies trying that in the near future.

In the long run, of course, the solution to all MMORPG issues is increased competition and the hoped-for proliferation of niche games trying new paradigms. Given market conditions I don't think we'll see this in the next 1 or 2 years but I can imagine innovative games coming in 5 to 10 years.

Dan

[Dave Perkins]

Of course, you have that choice in any game that has a save function. If you think "save often" is a copout, then don't fucking save.

Amen!

What's so complicated about that!

[Brian Koontz]

Hell, who makes games for thirty year old political scientists like me anyway?

Since you fall square in the center of the PC game player age demographic... pretty much everyone does.

I'd like to see where you are getting this information. All reports I've seen place the median age for non-MMOGs at 21 (or very close) and at 24 (or very close) for MMOGs. Neither from personal experience nor from reports can I imagine 30 being a possibility.

I already posted on this site my backing of Permanent Death for MMOGs (this is Permanent Death WITH something of a Safety Net)... so obviously I agree that MMOGs currently are not taking a good approach with their non-treatment of death.

I actually agree with this, nominally, that character death could be more interesting in MMORPGs. Certainly in their current form, it is an almost inconsequential event. But I think working any sort of permanent death (or even death with serious consequences) into current MMORPGs would require a fundamental rethinking of how developers approach these games from the ground up. If you tried to integrate a permanent death feature into, say, DAoC, it would probably suck.

I would prefer if you had read my previous words on the issue. I have provided two parts of a series titled something like "MMOG Design Ideas" which details design aspects that make Permanent Death positive.

One such aspect is to make the continuation of life positive SOCIALLY. You are not only a member of a guild or guilds which encourage your continued life and not only do you as an individual do so, but you are a member of a city and you economically (and perhaps militarily) contribute to that city, so the city rulers protect you in order to perpetuate your benefit to them. Going along with this is providing the city rulers POWER over city membership... gates will let members in, banned members have to sneak in or conquer if they want entry, and prospective members have to petition. This also encourages EPIC (large) battles (which are battles over cities and within cities for control of the government) and moves away from the mostly individualistic battles that most MMOGs provide.

Another such aspect is to enable what I call Transferral of Identity. You assign an "heir"... it benefits you (statistically and perhaps materially) to have this heir be your child... sexual reproduction should be present in this game. If you don't have a child you can transfer into a random pool... or BUY an heir from perhaps an orphanage.

Also, I want to place a substantial amount of character power in the hands of the player. Instead of having everything reliant on character stats, the game should require player knowledge and use that knowledge (which of course is not lost upon the death of a given character). I'd like to eventually get rid of character stats altogether and have an entirely player-power driven game, but I haven't figured out how to make that work.

These games are designed around the idea of steady advancement and intense time investment. The frustration of losing all that time that you invested would be pretty significant, so your "serious death" mechanic would have to add a lot to the game in order to balance that out. Most likely this sort of mechanic would work better in a game less focused on levelling.

Very good, my dear Watson!

Levelling, ANY sort of upward spiral actually where you begin a pauper and end a king, has to be destroyed before Permanent Death can be fully appreciated. There are few things worse in today's MMOGs than the Hampster-friendly treadmills.

Another aspect of this is to move games away from killing, period. Killing and being killed should be a tremendous moment, an epic moment, something unforgettable. Something RARE. The only people for whom killing should be more common are those who make it their life's work... assassins, military warriors, etc... the "run of the mill" player should be a city-dweller, however.

What I see happening here is that those people who have more *exciting* lives... explorers, pioneers, adventurers, bandits, assassins, city and guild leaders, members of the military... will also have far RISKIER lives... and much less of a life expectancy. Which is absolutely perfect.

The risk of death. The reward of excitement. A balancing act.

The less risky paths will still be exciting. You might compete to get your fur pelts sold at a higher price, or hire an assassin to kill a guild rival, or run an inn, or become a renowned castle builder.

Here are a couple things I HATE in current MMOGs...

1) Little difference in gameplay between players

Its either camp/berserk/camp/berserk ad nauseum or make things (craft) FOR people who camp/berserk/camp/berserk...

I want the gameplay to be vastly different from player to player. One player in the city militia, one a prostitute, one a fisherman, one an assassin, etc, with vastly different gameplay. MMOG developers currently think VARIETY is a four-letter word.

2) Enforced Equality and a lack of the Epic

Everyone is allowed to kill monsters. Everyone kills monsters that behave similarly. Everyone kills monsters that have no culture, no intelligence, no realistic birth, no LIFE. Everyone uses these kills to gain power. Everyone derives their monetary power from doing this or from selling things to people who do this. **YAWN**. Epic this is not.

[Met_K]

The lambs of the apocalypse are upon us.

[Anonymous]

baaa.

[Alan Au]

Hey Brian, did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? People might respond more favorably to your posts if you weren't so stubborn about proclaiming yourself an expert with the one true viewpoint. It doesn't help that your posts are so long.

Yes, I agree that without the real possibility of failure, victory is unrewarding. At the same time, you want to avoid frustrating the player if at all possible. Many games have an Iron Man mode where the player can choose to disable quicksaves (partially to avoid temptation, I suspect), but the player makes that choice consciously.

Your complaint about game AI misses the point completely. Game AI is not true AI. Although they are built using the same techniques, the end goal of game AI is to lose in as entertaining a manner as possible (according to one of the more popular schools of thought, anyway).

As for the realism issue, that's a whole separate topic. You want to kill off the "superhero" aspect of games? I thought that being a "superhero" was the whole point. Otherwise, you're just a peon running around in the world, and your actions are irrelevant. Oh wait, that's what most modern MMOGs are like right now... ;)

- Alan

[Anonymous]

Here's an anti-saving mechanism:

Each save could be written directly in the Windows "System" folder, randomly replacing an OS file. Every time you save you run the risk of further trashing your computer. It cool be called the "Pool of Radiance" system.

[Brian Koontz]

Hey Brian, did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? People might respond more favorably to your posts if you weren't so stubborn about proclaiming yourself an expert with the one true viewpoint.

Your idea of "favorably" and mine are not similar.

My idea of "favorably" is for someone to mount an extremely impressive attack upon my words.

Your idea of "favorably" is for someone to agree with you.

Have I said enough?

It doesn't help that your posts are so long.

Considering that some novels are 500+ pages long, my posts seem brief enough ;). I have a large CWR (content to word ratio), which is the important thing.

Yes, I agree that without the real possibility of failure, victory is unrewarding. At the same time, you want to avoid frustrating the player if at all possible. Many games have an Iron Man mode where the player can choose to disable quicksaves (partially to avoid temptation, I suspect), but the player makes that choice consciously.

I'll expand your understanding of the situation here...

The idea is to design games in which saving is not important. I covered one such design element (transferral of identity which can be done in any kind of game).

Another such design element is to reduce or eliminate the role of killing in games. If failure within a game means, say... getting a divorce or losing your job, then "life goes on" so to speak.

What happens with the Reload Function is that it severly reduces gameplay, since everyone follows the "successful" path through the game. Entire ways to play the game are lost not because these ways are valueless to the player but rather because they are deemed *non-optimal*.

Optimizing your power in a game is a Tyrant... it monopolizes gameplay and thus *destroys* the vast majority of what is possible within a game.

ANOTHER design element change to make Destroying the Reload Function do-able is to reduce or eliminate the Meta-Design of success/failure gameplay.

So much of most games is obviously linked to success/failure. FPSes have the obvious failure of dying, the success of killing. Success is picking up powerups, failure is missing powerups.

One way to kill off the hyper success/failure model is to raise the complexity of success. Its often incredibly OBVIOUS during gameplay when you should Reload. Raising the complexity muddies the waters.

Your complaint about game AI misses the point completely. Game AI is not true AI. Although they are built using the same techniques, the end goal of game AI is to lose in as entertaining a manner as possible (according to one of the more popular schools of thought, anyway).

My point is that it should be possible for the game to BEAT you, and not in the classical sense (such as Arcade games) which beat you by making you run out of quarters or frustrating your efforts.

Real intelligence. Emergent intelligence, ideally. But for now...

Why does anyone want to "win" a game? It is to succeed, to excel at the game. To conquer, to dominate.

Is it possible to win a game, to REALLY win a game, where you are an invulnerable Superhero and everyone else is a clueless "artificial intelligence" moron?

Taking a more *serious* approach to artificial intelligence not only introduces far more attractive losing, but it introduces winning as well.

Your enemies in the game should be trying to "win" the game as well, not just frustrate YOUR efforts and get you to stop playing the game.

As for the realism issue, that's a whole separate topic. You want to kill off the "superhero" aspect of games? I thought that being a "superhero" was the whole point. Otherwise, you're just a peon running around in the world, and your actions are irrelevant. Oh wait, that's what most modern MMOGs are like right now... ;)

What do you think I mean when I say I introduce Humanity into games?

What do you think Humanity is?

Mortal, Mundane, Ignorant, Epic, Deep, Realistic.

Humanity is made up of both Kings and Paupers. Of people with limited lifespans and thus unlimited ambitions.

Your actions are as relevant as you make them.

When the game designer MAKES you into a superhero you can take no value from that. And he is making everyone ELSE into superheroes as well.

But when you, as a Mortal, create your own life you can take value from that.

As much value as you created.

[Met_K]

[snip]
As much value as you created.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

You make Derek Smart's replies look short and sane!

[Alan Au]

My idea of "favorably" is for someone to mount an extremely impressive attack upon my words.
Your idea of "favorably" is for someone to agree with you.
Have I said enough?
Too much, actually. When did I give you my definition of "favorably?" Quit putting words into my mouth. It's annoying. Here's the definition lifted from the Merriam Webster site.
fa·vor·able
Pronunciation: 'fA-v(&-)r&-b&l, 'fA-v&r-b&l
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : disposed to favor : PARTIAL b : expressing approval : COMMENDATORY c : giving a result that is in one's favor <a favorable comparison> d : AFFIRMATIVE
2 : winning approval : PLEASING
3 a : tending to promote or facilitate : ADVANTAGEOUS <favorable wind> b : marked by success
You may safely assume that I had something like this in mind and not your weird "impressive attack" definition.
I have a large CWR (content to word ratio), which is the important thing.
Actually, that's the problem. Your CWR isn't nearly large enough to justify the long posts.

The idea is to design games in which saving is not important. I covered one such design element (transferral of identity which can be done in any kind of game).

Another such design element is to reduce or eliminate the role of killing in games. If failure within a game means, say... getting a divorce or losing your job, then "life goes on" so to speak.
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? I agree that a game shouldn't rely on the save mechanic to provide gameplay. By the same token, a game shouldn't rely on the lack of a savegame mechanic to provide tension. Two sides of the same coin.

What happens with the Reload Function is that it severly reduces gameplay, since everyone follows the "successful" path through the game. Entire ways to play the game are lost not because these ways are valueless to the player but rather because they are deemed *non-optimal*.
Game design is about smoke and mirrors, i.e. the balance between the player's perceived freedom and the designer's narrow vision. Maybe this is a flaw in modern game design. More likely it's a practical way to combat scope creep. Take a look at the What Makes Losing Fun (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=930) thread and the discussion about dynamic campaigns.

Optimizing your power in a game is a Tyrant... it monopolizes gameplay and thus *destroys* the vast majority of what is possible within a game.

ANOTHER design element change to make Destroying the Reload Function do-able is to reduce or eliminate the Meta-Design of success/failure gameplay.

So much of most games is obviously linked to success/failure. FPSes have the obvious failure of dying, the success of killing. Success is picking up powerups, failure is missing powerups.

One way to kill off the hyper success/failure model is to raise the complexity of success. Its often incredibly OBVIOUS during gameplay when you should Reload. Raising the complexity muddies the waters.

Yes yes, you said all this earlier. See my previous response.

My point is that it should be possible for the game to BEAT you, and not in the classical sense (such as Arcade games) which beat you by making you run out of quarters or frustrating your efforts.

Real intelligence. Emergent intelligence, ideally. But for now...

Why does anyone want to "win" a game? It is to succeed, to excel at the game. To conquer, to dominate.

Is it possible to win a game, to REALLY win a game, where you are an invulnerable Superhero and everyone else is a clueless "artificial intelligence" moron?

Taking a more *serious* approach to artificial intelligence not only introduces far more attractive losing, but it introduces winning as well.

Your enemies in the game should be trying to "win" the game as well, not just frustrate YOUR efforts and get you to stop playing the game.
It sounds to me like you subscribe to the other school of game AI, which espouses the idea that programmers should strive to create the most effective possible AI. I would argue that this only contributes to the whole save/load problem, because the player doesn't want to lose. I will however concede that winning isn't the only goal of a game. Then again, you've stated elsewhere (http://www.sirlin.net/.ubb/Forum15/HTML/000005.html) that winning in the only thing that matters. Please make up your mind.

What do you think I mean when I say I introduce Humanity into games?

What do you think Humanity is?
I said nothing about humanity. I didn't even mention it at all. I was just addressing your 'superhero' argument.

Your actions are as relevant as you make them.
That is unless your actions are irrelevant, which is presumably what happens when the player is a peon instead of a hero. You can still derive emergent gameplay from such a gameplay model, but how this is either more 'mature' or 'epic' is still unclear to me.

- Alan

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Hell, who makes games for thirty year old political scientists like me anyway?

Since you fall square in the center of the PC game player age demographic... pretty much everyone does.

I'd like to see where you are getting this information. All reports I've seen place the median age for non-MMOGs at 21 (or very close) and at 24 (or very close) for MMOGs. Neither from personal experience nor from reports can I imagine 30 being a possibility.

Actually Ben's right on me being in the majority demographic. Most of the industry's numbers put the average gamer at around 28. I'm a little over the hill, but not much. I still don't think this makes me the target demographic, though. Travelling to EB and seeing a DOA Xtreme Volleyball Calendar didn't help, either.

Brain, if you want to have a strong attack on your words, you have to get some focus. Are we debating MMORPGs again or the reload function?

Your argument that truly intelligent AI would know you had a reload function is just plain silly. You want an AI to know that it's just a game? So much for suspension of disbelief. I bet you were the kind of kid who refused to fall down when his friends shot him in "cowboys and indians". All I expect from AI is a reasonable challenge. I don't want an existential debate over the nature of computer-ness.

If you want to write an epic, MMORPGs are not the place to do it. Epics are by their very nature unique. The idea of Jason getting the Golden Fleece one week, and Joe Blow the next week kind of takes the wind out of Jason's sails. But if Joe is paying Aeetes a subscription fee, he has bought his chance to get the fleece. If you want to write epics, write screenplays or novels. Or single player RPGs - Baldur's Gate was epic.

There have been lots of games with no reload function - the Roguelikes come to mind - but they remain a niche genre because the lack of a reload make it impossible to learn from mistakes and move on. While playing Ancient Domains of Mystery, I went around whacking karmic lizards before I realized that this was the cause of my bad luck. Well, no reload, so I either had to live with it or start from scratch - forty hours later. I lived (and died) with it. I'd rather have had a reload.

Troy

[Dr Fear]

I have a large CWR (content to word ratio), which is the important thing.
No, you don't. You write a lot (for a messageboard poster) but you repeat yourself, and then later contradict yourself, and all of your posts seem like they left their context back at whatever messageboard you pulled them off of from six months ago because you were so impressed with your extremely intelligent posts that you thought you'd dredge them up again. Here's the problem -- you're the only one that's impressed. You're not insightful or interesting, except in the "hey look at the dork" kind of way. Do you save these old posts on your hard drive or something? Is pulling them up again your way of mentally flexing your muscles in the mirror? If so, it doesn't stop your arguments from getting taken apart by anyone who makes the dubious decision to expend the effort to do so. I thought that having your arguments so comprehensively trashed by Jessica and others in that bizarre Doom thread, you would have learned. I guess you don't learn from your mistakes. Maybe you should have a talk with whoever programmed your AI.

[Brian Koontz]

My idea of "favorably" is for someone to mount an extremely impressive attack upon my words.
Your idea of "favorably" is for someone to agree with you.
Have I said enough?

Too much, actually. When did I give you my definition of "favorably?" Quit putting words into my mouth. It's annoying. Here's the definition lifted from the Merriam Webster site.
fa·vor·able
Pronunciation: 'fA-v(&-)r&-b&l, 'fA-v&r-b&l
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : disposed to favor : PARTIAL b : expressing approval : COMMENDATORY c : giving a result that is in one's favor <a favorable comparison> d : AFFIRMATIVE
2 : winning approval : PLEASING
3 a : tending to promote or facilitate : ADVANTAGEOUS <favorable wind> b : marked by success
You may safely assume that I had something like this in mind and not your weird "impressive attack" definition.

I safely assumed you had something like that in mind when I wrote "Your idea of "favorably" is for someone to agree with you".

I was contrasting this concept of favorably with *mine*, of...

1 a: Encouraging of impressive attacks

1 b: Inspiring an opposition viewpoint

I have a large CWR (content to word ratio), which is the important thing.

Actually, that's the problem. Your CWR isn't nearly large enough to justify the long posts.

Long posts? You must have real problems reading novels.

Hmm... must be that 15 second attention span I've heard about.

Out of curiosity, why is it better to write 200 100-word posts than 100 200-word posts?


Why didn't you just say that in the first place? I agree that a game shouldn't rely on the save mechanic to provide gameplay. By the same token, a game shouldn't rely on the lack of a savegame mechanic to provide tension. Two sides of the same coin.

Getting rid of the Reload Function has many benefits, one major one being Realism. There is much more value in killing the Reload Function than simply raising tension.


Game design is about smoke and mirrors, i.e. the balance between the player's perceived freedom and the designer's narrow vision. Maybe this is a flaw in modern game design. More likely it's a practical way to combat scope creep. Take a look at the What Makes Losing Fun (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=930) thread and the discussion about dynamic campaigns.

All that has to happen is for the game design to allow for enjoyment no matter what actions the player takes. THEN there is no problem eliminating the Reload Function, since the player can't "kill himself off".

Now... in order for there still to be success/failure in the game there has to be different results based on the player's action... but failures must not result in the end of the game.

How about in a Good/Evil game if you have enough failures while playing the "Good" side, you are forced to switch over and play the Evil side? Gameplay remains consistent and enjoyable yet your failure is obvious.

Or in a Story game if you sufficiently fail you get a cutscene displaying that yet you continue in a different context.

What I'm seeing here is the idea of Dynamic Identity. Success means you continue as "yourself", or you get to choose your identity while failure means you are forced into an "inferior" (yet equally enjoyable to play) identity.

This suits the Gameplay fanatics and suits the Power gamers who want rewards for success.

It sounds to me like you subscribe to the other school of game AI, which espouses the idea that programmers should strive to create the most effective possible AI. I would argue that this only contributes to the whole save/load problem, because the player doesn't want to lose. I will however concede that winning isn't the only goal of a game. Then again, you've stated elsewhere (http://www.sirlin.net/.ubb/Forum15/HTML/000005.html) that winning in the only thing that matters. Please make up your mind.

My post there was an attack upon Sirlin's restriction that Playing to Win is the only way to play, although in many respects I agree with Sirlin. Sirlin is correct on his insights into Scrub psychology. I also agree that the "pure" way to play *competitive* games is to play to win.

How you came to your mysterious conclusion based on my theme of "Playing to... what?" is anyone's guess.

Your actions are as relevant as you make them.

That is unless your actions are irrelevant, which is presumably what happens when the player is a peon instead of a hero. You can still derive emergent gameplay from such a gameplay model, but how this is either more 'mature' or 'epic' is still unclear to me.

The game designer is responsible for providing the means for a player to be *either* a peon or a hero, or whatever lies between. The greater the variety of gameplay, the more *types* of heroes there will be.

Some players will be happy to be peons, others will want to be heroes but be incapable of it. And some will be heroes. The players' actions are as relevant as they make them.

Game designers can't force players to be heroes. But they can ALLOW it.

Lets take a look at what I am contrasting...

Levelling treadmill: Heroism is a matter of Longevity mainly and Efficiency secondarily, and both require a whole lot of Hack 'n Slash and/or assisting Hack 'n Slash.

Now... Longevity and Efficiency aren't BAD things but to make them the be all and end all of MMOG gaming is silly.

The greater the variety of gameplay present in a game, the more ways there can be to excel. By killing off the Monopolization of Power based on the Levelling Treadmill (all other forms of power in such games are nearly irrelevant) you open up gameplay.

It should be completely viable to do Fishing *full-time* in a MMOG. Not viable in terms of "enjoyment" but in terms of Power. Jacques Cousteau should be able to exist in a MMOG, as an example.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I'm still not sure how we got from the debate over the reload function to your continuing fascination with fishing in MMORPGs. I'm also not sure what naturalist and undersea explorer Jacquese Cousteau has to do with epic fishing. Wouldn't Ahab be a better example? Not a fisherman, but moreso than Cousteau.

I'll probably regret asking this, but what is place of rules and limits in your vision of games? The thing about games is they have rules. This is what distinguishes them from free-form play. Even RPGs have rules - lots of them - to define what kind of behavior is off-limits. If I want my super powerful wizard to wear armor, I have to accept that the armor will restrict his spell-casting ability. If I want to make tanks in Civ3, I need oil so I better trade for it or fight for it.

In your vision of the perfect game, you have players' actions determing whether they play the superior/inferior game model, but considering that failure in missions can take a number of forms, I am assuming that you want more than one alternative, especially if you want the player to have as much freedom as you usually advocate. But programmers and designers have time, money and technical limitations. Do you have more than ideas here, or are you just rambling about some Platonic Form of an MMORPG?

Troy

[Alan Au]

I safely assumed you had something like that in mind when I wrote "Your idea of "favorably" is for someone to agree with you".

I was contrasting this concept of favorably with *mine*, of...

1 a: Encouraging of impressive attacks

1 b: Inspiring an opposition viewpoint
So you're going to go around making up arbitrary definitions for words? I'm certainly opposed to that viewpoint.

Actually, that's the problem. Your CWR isn't nearly large enough to justify the long posts.

Long posts? You must have real problems reading novels.

Hmm... must be that 15 second attention span I've heard about.

Out of curiosity, why is it better to write 200 100-word posts than 100 200-word posts?
When did I say that? You're probably right though; I shouldn't be wasting more than 15 seconds on your posts.

Getting rid of the Reload Function has many benefits, one major one being Realism. There is much more value in killing the Reload Function than simply raising tension.
Why is realism a benefit?

All that has to happen is for the game design to allow for enjoyment no matter what actions the player takes. THEN there is no problem eliminating the Reload Function, since the player can't "kill himself off".

This argument is fine, except that it seems to contradict your earlier argument:

The Reload Function makes you into a SUPERHERO. You cannot be killed. You cannot be stopped. You can only be slowed down. You can at BEST be frustrated and *permanently* stopped (you stop playing the game).

Are you in favor of character death or not?

My post there [Sirlin's site] was an attack upon Sirlin's restriction that Playing to Win is the only way to play, although in many respects I agree with Sirlin. Sirlin is correct on his insights into Scrub psychology. I also agree that the "pure" way to play *competitive* games is to play to win.

How you came to your mysterious conclusion based on my theme of "Playing to... what?" is anyone's guess.
I came to my conclusion after proposing the idea that winning isn't everything (http://www.sirlin.net/.ubb/Forum15/HTML/000005.html), which you disagreed with.

The greater the variety of gameplay present in a game, the more ways there can be to excel. By killing off the Monopolization of Power based on the Levelling Treadmill (all other forms of power in such games are nearly irrelevant) you open up gameplay.

It should be completely viable to do Fishing *full-time* in a MMOG. Not viable in terms of "enjoyment" but in terms of Power. Jacques Cousteau should be able to exist in a MMOG, as an example.
What does this have to do with limiting reload functionality?

- Alan

[Brian Koontz]

I'm still not sure how we got from the debate over the reload function to your continuing fascination with fishing in MMORPGs. I'm also not sure what naturalist and undersea explorer Jacquese Cousteau has to do with epic fishing. Wouldn't Ahab be a better example? Not a fisherman, but moreso than Cousteau.

I like the Fishing example because its mundane... an ideal thing to highlight the possibilities for Epic gameplay (that the Epic *emerges from* the mundane). I also like to stay consistent in my examples.

My "Epic Fisherman" example is best highlighted by Cousteau... this accords with my prior example of "deep sea fishing". The general idea with the example is that the "fisherman" gets into exploration of the seas, discovering new things. Or... the Epic emerges from the mundane. What is there deep in that dark sea? Its costly and dangerous to find out... is it worth the risk? What strategies are used to undergo it?

To me THESE questions are far more worthwhile than "Where should we hunt?" The insane Camp/Berserk cycle... the hamster-friendly Levelling Treadmill all but eliminates human creativity... human *Innovation*.

The reason only peons exist in MMOGs is because that's all the Game Design ALLOWS to exist. Very little difference exists between a Level 1 Peon and a Level 50 Peon, which is a travesty considering the game revolves around travelling from 1 to 50!

Where is the EPIC in today's MMOGs?

The day that MMOG players take a look at the game they play and say "We have created a world" and *Understand* that creation... THAT will be the day that MMOGs have become successful.

Or as I say from time to time...

FUCK Everquest's "You're in OUR world now".

Rather, its "You're in YOUR world now".

I'll probably regret asking this, but what is place of rules and limits in your vision of games? The thing about games is they have rules. This is what distinguishes them from free-form play. Even RPGs have rules - lots of them - to define what kind of behavior is off-limits. If I want my super powerful wizard to wear armor, I have to accept that the armor will restrict his spell-casting ability. If I want to make tanks in Civ3, I need oil so I better trade for it or fight for it.

The general idea is to re-design the MMOG (and to an extent non-MMOGs) to make it greater. Any time you are dealing with Design you are dealing with rules (rules are what defines the design). Certainly in the sense that Variety is good some rules are less *restrictive*, but in many MANY ways my kind of MMOG is actually *more* restrictive. For example...

I seek to destroy Globalism. As such, I limit player movement in many ways. No teleporting of any kind. Stamina, food intake requirements, etc. AND the fact that governments (run by players) have control over say... who is allowed entry into cities. In a game with Permanent Death, travel is going to be very risky (best done in guarded caravans perhaps).

Notice the fact that I brought up Doom as a major inspiration for MMOGs. Fast/Frenetic movement-related gameplay. This element of Meta-Design will have to be destroyed before my kind of game can exist.

I am moving from a Character based system to a Player based system. I'd love to have a pure Player based system where you have no character that interfaces with the game... YOU interface with the game (I believe the term is "Avatar"). A major problem with this is that it doesn't work well (at least without some new ideas) with Permanent Death, thus Characters are still in play. If anyone has a solution to this problem I'd like to hear it.

In your vision of the perfect game, you have players' actions determing whether they play the superior/inferior game model, but considering that failure in missions can take a number of forms, I am assuming that you want more than one alternative, especially if you want the player to have as much freedom as you usually advocate. But programmers and designers have time, money and technical limitations. Do you have more than ideas here, or are you just rambling about some Platonic Form of an MMORPG?

With the superior/inferior identity in games, I am talking about single-player games and specifically about the Reload Function in such games. Instead of KILLING the player (and making him Reload) upon failure, a solution in conjunction with eliminating the Reload Function is to force him to shift identity (in Good/Evil games, force him to switch to the opposite side). The "opposite side" isn't inferior in GAMEPLAY (which is the key)... its inferior in identity (the player clearly "failed" within the game but he maintains the same quality of gameplay).

More than two identities are fine, but as you mentioned it raises issues to have "too many" identities. So the answer is "at least two or more if the situation dictates it".

Killing off the Reload Function is easier than you think.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Killing off the Reload Function is easier than you think.

Sure, it's easy to kill, but do we want it dead? You make many arguments that the reload function is unrealistic or restricting, but you can't get around the fact that it is expected. And expectations can only shattered if there's clearly something better being offered.

Take your alternate life option where one failure will lead you to another track. Leaving aside the issue of what happens when the player always fails (how many tracks are there?), without reload, a great majority of players will never see the complete "proper" mission series without playing the same levels over and over again. After all, he can't reload to a previous save, right? If this isn't a recipe for frustration and boredom, I don't know what is.

I don't see how any of this serves the player, anyway.

Troy

[Brian Koontz]

Out of curiosity, why is it better to write 200 100-word posts than 100 200-word posts?
When did I say that? You're probably right though; I shouldn't be wasting more than 15 seconds on your posts.

I find it quite telling that people spend plenty of time on the 'net, but can't spend more than 15 seconds doing any one thing.

I mean I like variety TOO, but I don't take it to insane limits.

It must be that fast/frenetic thing... "Make my reality fast and frenetically changing!"

Getting rid of the Reload Function has many benefits, one major one being Realism. There is much more value in killing the Reload Function than simply raising tension.

Why is realism a benefit?

I've been through this before on this site, although that was with respect to MMOGs.

The general idea is reality that emerges from the game (and then can be used in traditional reality and in other contexts within digital reality).

My conjecture is that Realism is better suited for this cross-pollenation, as providing a common Bedrock for the experiences. I provided the example of learning about American Philosophy based on Realistic actions within a MMOG.

I am attacking the viewpoint of "Games should be wild and crazy and NOT realistic because they are totally seperate from the rest of reality... that's the point of them. An *escape from* traditional reality."

I want inter-relationships between the various contexts of reality. No escape... the various contexts might not be looking at each other but they have to value the other contexts... and take their actions within a SOCIAL SETTING (the setting comprised of the various contexts of reality).

All that has to happen is for the game design to allow for enjoyment no matter what actions the player takes. THEN there is no problem eliminating the Reload Function, since the player can't "kill himself off".

This argument is fine, except that it seems to contradict your earlier argument:

The Reload Function makes you into a SUPERHERO. You cannot be killed. You cannot be stopped. You can only be slowed down. You can at BEST be frustrated and *permanently* stopped (you stop playing the game).

Are you in favor of character death or not?

Permanent Death in MMOGs (Permanent CHARACTER death, not player death). Permanent Death in non-MMOGs (Permanent CHARACTER death, not player death).

Both of these exist in contexts where its not especially easy to die. Quake these games are not.

How you came to your mysterious conclusion based on my theme of "Playing to... what?" is anyone's guess.
I came to my conclusion after proposing the idea that winning isn't everything (http://www.sirlin.net/.ubb/Forum15/HTML/000005.html), which you disagreed with.

You talked about non-competitive games, where the gameplay doesn't revolve around winning in the standard competitive win/loss scenario. I said that players in such games still have GOALS where they either succeed (win) or fail (lose) based on how they accomplish them. A player in The Sims might want to accumulate a certain amount of materials for one of his players' homes, for example. Whether you want to say this viewpoint is a matter of "winning is everything" is up to you, especially considering in the *very same thread* I pointed out value in other methods of playing even WITHIN competitive games.

The greater the variety of gameplay present in a game, the more ways there can be to excel. By killing off the Monopolization of Power based on the Levelling Treadmill (all other forms of power in such games are nearly irrelevant) you open up gameplay.

It should be completely viable to do Fishing *full-time* in a MMOG. Not viable in terms of "enjoyment" but in terms of Power. Jacques Cousteau should be able to exist in a MMOG, as an example.

What does this have to do with limiting reload functionality?

Hmm... you'd think 15-second humans would be the BEST suited to handling two concurrent themes running in the same thread.

Perhaps once they've been "evolved" to 5 seconds...

[Alan Au]

What does this have to do with limiting reload functionality?Hmm... you'd think 15-second humans would be the BEST suited to handling two concurrent themes running in the same thread.
You can start a new topic if you want to discuss MMOGs. Oh wait, you already unsuccessfully tried that, didn't you...

Perhaps once they've been "evolved" to 5 seconds.
Did it ever occur to you to stop wasting people's time, or are you too busy evolving to the 5 second level?

If you have something useful to say, that's fine. If you're going to simply use condescending language and level insults at people, you shouldn't be surprised by the demeaning responses you get. You make wumpus and Met_K look like model forum members.

Take your alternate life option where one failure will lead you to another track. Leaving aside the issue of what happens when the player always fails (how many tracks are there?), without reload, a great majority of players will never see the complete "proper" mission series without playing the same levels over and over again. After all, he can't reload to a previous save, right? If this isn't a recipe for frustration and boredom, I don't know what is.

I would actually like to see the flip side, namely making the "losing path" missions more easily available to players. I get the feeling that so many players are so caught up in the winning path that they never see much of the content devoted to the losing path. The Panzer General campaign (as mentioned in the other thread) is a great example. In fact, I don't think I've ever played Sevastopol.

- Alan

[Troy S Goodfellow]

You're probably, right Alan, that most players are too focused on winning to see the options available. The big difference, though, is that you can easily "throw" a game and lose on purpose to alternate missions once you know they are there. This depends on knowledge, naturally, and the game designer should be upfront as to the consequences of success and failure in a given scenario. Losing is always in the players' control. Winning isn't.

This is easier to do in a strategy campaign format than a shooter or action game as Brian seems to be suggesting here.

Troy

[Alan Au]

This depends on knowledge, naturally, and the game designer should be upfront as to the consequences of success and failure in a given scenario.
That's true. If nothing else, it'd be nice to know that your preformance has a real consequence on the outcome of a game. I've seen a couple of action games that try this, like Starfox 64. Of course, it was still maddening because the win-path occasionally required superhuman feats of manual dexterity. Actually, having a reload function would have helped significantly, because as I recall, you lost all of your powerups when you restarted a particular mission.

- Alan

[Brian Koontz]

You can start a new topic if you want to discuss MMOGs. Oh wait, you already unsuccessfully tried that, didn't you...

I've started a few threads on MMOGs, and replied to some more. Its not important to me to analyze the results, but my general impression is that I'm pleased.

Perhaps once they've been "evolved" to 5 seconds.
Did it ever occur to you to stop wasting people's time, or are you too busy evolving to the 5 second level?

I spend as long within a context as it takes, whether its 5 seconds or 5 years. I'm not a jumping jackrabbit flitting from place to place, Alan Au.

I put the quality of my posts up against anyone's.

If you have something useful to say, that's fine. If you're going to simply use condescending language and level insults at people, you shouldn't be surprised by the demeaning responses you get. You make wumpus and Met_K look like model forum members.

I have posted a great deal of content on this forum, along with some decent insults. Good content and insults are both quite pleasurable and useful to bestow. Insults are an artform as well.

Wumpus and Met_K are fine forum members. Met_K is quite *sparse* in his verbage and he has a one-track personality but he executes that personality well (he should, given all the experience he has in it) while Wumpus I'm less sure of as I've had less contact with him and I'll admit he seems amateurish. But maybe that's just my lack of experience with him talking.

Met_K is nice for nostalgia too... he reminds me of Usenet except with a better sense of humor.

Besides, with people like ME around isn't it nice to have someone like Met_K to provide a contrast? You've really gotta like the simplicity of Met_K's posts, and you've really gotta appreciate the fact that noone else is like Met_K... one is plenty.

[Murph]

Whoo, boy -- wumpus is gonna be mad when he hears you calling him "amateurish!"