yeloson: (Default)
[personal profile] yeloson2015-12-14 09:59 pm
Entry tags:

Forced difficulty

For the last few weeks I've dipped my toes into Bloodborne.  This is a recent addition to a growing genre of difficult games - the most famous being the Dark Souls series. 

A core element to the game is this: enemies can take you out in about 3 hits or so, they can swarm you, and many are set up in places to ambush you.  If you die, you lose your experience points (blood echoes) unless you can fight your way back to the place you died and take out the enemy and get them back.  If you go back to the safe zone, all the enemies respawn.   So the only thing which actually stays with you, no matter what, is the experience points you have spent on items or leveling up.

EXCEPT...

At the beginning of the game, until you reach the first boss, you can't level up anything.

So, you can't grind your way up to reach the first boss, you're going to have to make your way there, without any leveling, just on skill and trial and error.

I'm not totally sure how I feel about this.  

On one hand, it means players can't just grind up early and cruise through - you're forced into a lot of dangerous and harrowing situations, and you're forced to use core gameplay skills (dodging and counter attacking, caution and exploration) to get there, and you will know how hard things can get.

On the other hand, the length of time you are effectively stuck without making any permanent gains is a high barrier of entry.  It definitely pumps up the tension for me, but not necessarily in a good way - I end up only playing once a week, and for a short bit, mostly pushing a little further and learning a new part of the map rather than sticking through.  I think if the game told me up front I'd feel a little better about it, but leaving it as a "oops, find out the hard way" feels dickish and a little bit like an unnecessary hurdle.

Anyone else playing this, or encountering similar mechanics/design and have some thoughts?



yeloson: (Default)
[personal profile] yeloson2015-11-29 10:55 am

Controlled action vs. randomized trouble

Played a bunch of Flashpoint recently.  It's a boardgame where everyone is a firefighter trying to save people from a burning building.  On your turn, you have 4 action points, which you spend to move around, put out fires, drag people out, and so on.  At the end of your turn, you roll dice to see where/how the fire spreads.

So on every turn, you know exactly what you're going to do, but the dice can lead to more or less manageable situations.

What I think is interesting about this is that you never feel completely useless - you just feel like you have to prioritize your choices, and sometimes even with the best of reasoning, the dice go against you and you can't do anything except adapt.  The dice don't take out short term immediate outcomes, they build up the results over time.

In contrast, a lot of RPGs make your success of actions randomized - you may or may not succeed, which leads to feeling useless and "whiff factor" much more often.
yeloson: (Default)
[personal profile] yeloson2015-11-14 12:12 pm

What's Game Design Geek Out?

This is a community aimed to be a conversation space to talk about games of all sorts, and how they work and what you love about them.

This is not a formal design space - you don't have to be a "game designer" or publisher, or making a game.  You can be someone who just enjoys playing games and talking about what works or doesn't work and why it's cool and so on.

Posts that fit here:

- "Let's geek out about game X! How it works, what strategies help?"
- "Let's compare games in this genre!"
- "I love games that use this mechanic/strategy!"
- "This company does a good job at X / or a bad job at X type of games/experience"
- "I had a really good experience at this space/convention/etc. / I had trouble at this space because of this behavior..."