What's One "Old Game" Mechanic That You Don't Miss?

[heronbpv]

Funnily enough, I loved these cheeky difficult settings and always wished more games did it. I think the recent resurgence of arcade style shooters (like Ion Maiden Fury, Amid Evil and Dusk) has brought it back a little bit, but there must be more of these, not less.

[Toric]

Funnily enough, I loved these cheeky difficult settings and always wished more games did it. I think the recent resurgence of arcade style shooters (like Ion Maiden Fury, Amid Evil and Dusk) has brought it back a little bit, but there must be more of these, not less.

I could go either way on idiosynchratic difficulty names, but I can recall my best friend in High School and I had a horrible time with the PC game Messiah because we mistook the difficulty level for the level of mechanical power we'd have. I ask you, who'd choose to be a cherub when you can be an archangel?

[Vinyadan]

I could go either way on idiosynchratic difficulty names, but I can recall my best friend in High School and I had a horrible time with the PC game Messiah because we mistook the difficulty level for the level of mechanical power we'd have. I ask you, who'd choose to be a cherub when you can be an archangel?

In spite of how counter-intuitive this is, cherubs are actually considered higher up than archangels.

[Anteros]

Funnily enough, I loved these cheeky difficult settings and always wished more games did it. I think the recent resurgence of arcade style shooters (like Ion Maiden Fury, Amid Evil and Dusk) has brought it back a little bit, but there must be more of these, not less.

I also enjoy it a bit. It's humor. I literally cannot imagine being so overly sensitive that I'd ever get upset about a video game making an incredibly mild joke with no real intent to offend anyone. Even if it's technically insulting me, I'm a functional adult and I'm capable of understanding that it's all in good fun. Nor do I want to live in a world so sterilized that people are scared to make jokes like that for fear of not being "pc"

[heronbpv]

I also enjoy it a bit. It's humor. I literally cannot imagine being so overly sensitive that I'd ever get upset about a video game making an incredibly mild joke with no real intent to offend anyone. Even if it's technically insulting me, I'm a functional adult and I'm capable of understanding that it's all in good fun. Nor do I want to live in a world so sterilized that people are scared to make jokes like that for fear of not being "pc"

I could take the joke back when I was a kid that barely, if even, understood english, so I'm with you on this one.

I could go either way on idiosynchratic difficulty names, but I can recall my best friend in High School and I had a horrible time with the PC game Messiah because we mistook the difficulty level for the level of mechanical power we'd have. I ask you, who'd choose to be a cherub when you can be an archangel?

In spite of how counter-intuitive this is, cherubs are actually considered higher up than archangels.

That little setback pointed aside, probably the same I always used: the worst difficulty is usually the last in a top-to-bottom list. Or the one twice to the right in a left-right menu selection. The actual phrase used ultimately mattered less, as that was my meta understanding of how games worked, so it disregards language barriers (which was how I figured out the higher difficult levels on Yu Yu Hakusho: Sunset Fighters, which I only got access to as a Japanese cartridge).

[LaZodiac]

Being able to take a joke doesn't mean it's still not necessarily good TO take. I can absolutely take a few punches to the face, but I wouldn't want to.

[heronbpv]

But it is, for developing a sense of humor does you good in the long run. I don't share your sentiment that the game is attacking the player, simply that it's making a snark comment. Which is hilarious.

[Rynjin]

Being able to take a joke doesn't mean it's still not necessarily good TO take. I can absolutely take a few punches to the face, but I wouldn't want to.

Comparing impersonal text that isn't even aimed specifically at you to a punch in the face is kind of absurd.

I'm not gonna go all "sticks and stones", because words can absolutely hurt people, but they really only do so when aimed properly, you know?

[Quizatzhaderac]

Random battles every five steps.

Octopath traveler kinda-sort does this, but it's like ten steps instead and there's more than three random encounters repeated in a dungeon. And there's a fast travel option between towns.

Later Pokemon games do this (onl played Y) but you're either intentionally on grass or need to traverse grass for short periods.

Oldschool games? You could would forget where you were going if the character wasn't facing the same direction because only 5% of the time spent crossing the room involved looking at the room.

Which is hilarious.

I think that's the point of departure. IMHO calling easy mode "wuss" is only a "joke" in the loosest sense, let alone hilarious. If it's actually funny, that's one thing. If it's only a joke in the sense of "we're not actually insulting you, even though we explicitly are", that's much less assuming. Doubly so if the name for hard isn't a joke/attempt at wit.

[heronbpv]

I think that's the point of departure. IMHO calling easy mode "wuss" is only a "joke" in the loosest sense, let alone hilarious. If it's actually funny, that's one thing. If it's only a joke in the sense of "we're not actually insulting you, even though we explicitly are", that's much less assuming. Doubly so if the name for hard isn't a joke/attempt at wit.

A sentiment that, as I said, I don't share, simply like that. Also, going from "Don't hurt me" to "Hell incarnate" is a clear invitation to get better at the game, as the sentiment of beating said difficult level just increases.

[Serenity]

A sentiment that, as I said, I don't share, simply like that. Also, going from "Don't hurt me" to "Hell incarnate" is a clear invitation to get better at the game, as the sentiment of beating said difficult level just increases.

Maybe, but I'd say 'Don't Hurt Me' is at worst borderline when it comes to the complaint. It's not the idiosyncratic nature of the names that's the problem, it's the underlying implication of the ones that are actively insulting that people who play on easier difficulties are doing it 'wrong'.

[heronbpv]

Maybe, but I'd say 'Don't Hurt Me' is at worst borderline when it comes to the complaint. It's not the idiosyncratic nature of the names that's the problem, it's the underlying implication of the ones that are actively insulting that people who play on easier difficulties are doing it 'wrong'.

But that is the vision of people that took it as insult (which is seriously inadvisable, to say the least), not of the people like me that took it for what it is: a joke. So at least can we agree that there are different perspectives on the subject, right?

[huttj509]

But that is the vision of people that took it as insult (which is seriously inadvisable, to say the least), not of the people like me that took it for what it is: a joke. So at least can we agree that there are different perspectives on the subject, right?

There's a difference between "Don't hurt me" and "Can I play, Daddy?" I've not seen anyone complaining about the former. Also a difference when the easiest difficulty slaps a pink bow on the character.

[Anteros]

There's a difference between "Don't hurt me" and "Can I play, Daddy?" I've not seen anyone complaining about the former. Also a difference when the easiest difficulty slaps a pink bow on the character.

I mean...get over it? Or just don't play those games I guess. Neither one is very offensive at all. "Oh no! The video game compared my skill level to a child's!" If the insults were tailored towards certain groups (or actually insulting) then I would get the complaint. Getting upset about something this mild is mind boggling to me. I don't see how you can be that sensitive and also be a functional member of any society.

It's not that different from games that outright refuse to cater to audiences that want a casual experience, and there's nothing wrong with those games either. The games are meant to be played a certain way, and the game is light heartedly mocking you to encourage you to get better.

[LaZodiac]

Comparing impersonal text that isn't even aimed specifically at you to a punch in the face is kind of absurd.

I'm not gonna go all "sticks and stones", because words can absolutely hurt people, but they really only do so when aimed properly, you know?

That is not true. I I said all people who play games on easy mode are losers, which is the exact sort of thing these punching down difficulty names do, I'd be (correctly!) lambasted for being a rude ass bitch. It's not directed at anyone specifically, and the people taking offense are those who "can't handle a joke" I say, but we all the truth. I mean the words I say, and they are insulting. They're not aimed at a specific individual, or even a specific "group" necessarily, but people who have to play easy mode, for whatever reason, has some degree of scratch on them. It doesn't matter if they can take it or not, because being able to take it or not does not stop you from having to take it.

I mean...get over it? Or just don't play those games I guess. Neither one is very offensive at all. "Oh no! The video game compared my skill level to a child's!" If the insults were tailored towards certain groups (or actually insulting) then I would get the complaint. Getting upset about something this mild is mind boggling to me. I don't see how you can be that sensitive and also be a functional member of any society.

It's not that different from games that outright refuse to cater to audiences that want a casual experience, and there's nothing wrong with those games either. The games are meant to be played a certain way, and the game is light heartedly mocking you to encourage you to get better.

It is actually insulting, cause you don't know WHY someone is picking the easy mode. Imagine you're someone with muscular distrophy who has difficulty playing video games, but wants to because you like them. Would you appreciate being put on baby child mode, and being told, implicitly, that by playing this mode you're just a baby and not playing the "real" game.

There are ways to go about making idiosyncratic difficulty names, and taking a wild swing at the player, on the assumption they can avoid it or just don't care is not the way to do it.

[Driderman]

That is not true. I I said all people who play games on easy mode are losers, which is the exact sort of thing these punching down difficulty names do, I'd be (correctly!) lambasted for being a rude ass bitch. It's not directed at anyone specifically, and the people taking offense are those who "can't handle a joke" I say, but we all the truth. I mean the words I say, and they are insulting. They're not aimed at a specific individual, or even a specific "group" necessarily, but people who have to play easy mode, for whatever reason, has some degree of scratch on them. It doesn't matter if they can take it or not, because being able to take it or not does not stop you from having to take it.



It is actually insulting, cause you don't know WHY someone is picking the easy mode. Imagine you're someone with muscular distrophy who has difficulty playing video games, but wants to because you like them. Would you appreciate being put on baby child mode, and being told, implicitly, that by playing this mode you're just a baby and not playing the "real" game.

There are ways to go about making idiosyncratic difficulty names, and taking a wild swing at the player, on the assumption they can avoid it or just don't care is not the way to do it.

Or you could choose just not to be offended by the name of a difficulty level in a computer game. Seems like a lot energy to care about if words in a game implies you're a child...

I mean, I get why you'd be offended if it was something actually offensive like "easy mode is for homosexuals" or something in that regard, but for the difficulties discussed, I sincerely hope anyone with a handicap playing games has something better to do with their time and energy than getting worked up over what is more or less just another wording for "kid gloves".

[Vinyadan]

"kid gloves".

Isn't that from Goat Simulator?

[LaZodiac]

Or you could choose just not to be offended by the name of a difficulty level in a computer game. Seems like a lot energy to care about if words in a game implies you're a child...

I mean, I get why you'd be offended if it was something actually offensive like "easy mode is for homosexuals" or something in that regard, but for the difficulties discussed, I sincerely hope anyone with a handicap playing games has something better to do with their time and energy than getting worked up over what is more or less just another wording for "kid gloves".

They're not wasting their time getting upset, they're rolling their eyes and saying to friends "ah this sucks" and then playing the game.

But there's only so many times you can do that before it starts to wear on you. I'm able to endure some ****, but the fact that I can and have endured it doesn't mean I WANT too. Even if I can brush it off, it's still something that hit me, even a little, and death by a thousand cuts is a thing.

[Velaryon]

This isn't exclusive to older games, but I really hate when you face an enemy, defeat that enemy, and then the game proceeds as if you lost. This is doubly obnoxious if losing to the enemy results in failure to progress.

Either make the fight super difficult/impossible and then let me progress after being defeated, or don't make me play through the battle at all.

[Erloas]

I think we need to leave the "take a joke" thing because it isn't going anywhere and the people that don't understand why it is a problem aren't going to figure it out here. There is a lot more to say on it, but it all doesn't fit in this thread and most of it isn't appropriate for these forums.

This isn't exclusive to older games, but I really hate when you face an enemy, defeat that enemy, and then the game proceeds as if you lost. This is doubly obnoxious if losing to the enemy results in failure to progress.

Either make the fight super difficult/impossible and then let me progress after being defeated, or don't make me play through the battle at all.

It is especially annoying when you've not only beat them, but beat them thoroughly and with no difficulty at all.
It is even more annoying when they "surround you" with a few more mooks than normal and suddenly you can't win the fight in a cutscene even though the game has shown you over and over again that you can beat them without even trying.
But that is almost always a case of bad writing more than anything else and it happens in virtually all mediums, plenty of movies do essentially the same thing.


To go back to the "too many skills" thing earlier and the complaint about Wastelands 2 in particular, having just finished replaying the game a couple days ago, without grinding or doing anything unusual, I had every non-combat skill at 9-10 (max) by the end. With the exception of bartering, but I ended up with like 15-20k of scrap so it's hardly like I needed it, and every character had max in their weapon, but I didn't have all the weapons between the party, I even had several with a dozen skill points just sitting around because I didn't have any reason to put them to anything.

[heronbpv]

@Erloas:
Nor do the people that take that as a problem is going to figure out it isn't because it's just a joke, for just as I said, there are different points of view on the subject, but alas, agreed on leaving the case closed myself.

@On Topic:
As for a old mechanic that I do not miss: RPGs with sprawling large dungeons, without in-game auto-mappers. If the dungeon is small, it's ok because you get the gist of the layout in time (e.g. Shining in the Darkness for the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, which was first person even). But when the dungeons are too big and/or too confusing (e.g. Phantasy Star 2 for the same console, which is also very difficult and with ridiculous random encounter rates), it could easily overwhelm. That's when the good and old method of mapping by hand comes into play, but I was never all that good at it, and it consumed more time that I could spend grinding.

[Erloas]

As for a old mechanic that I do not miss: RPGs with sprawling large dungeons, without in-game auto-mappers. If the dungeon is small, it's ok because you get the gist of the layout in time (e.g. Shining in the Darkness for the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, which was first person even). But when the dungeons are too big and/or too confusing (e.g. Phantasy Star 2 for the same console, which is also very difficult and with ridiculous random encounter rates), it could easily overwhelm. That's when the good and old method of mapping by hand comes into play, but I was never all that good at it, and it consumed more time that I could spend grinding.

I think this is one that 100% depends on the genre and style of the game. Minecraft doesn't have an automapper by default and I think that is very fitting for the game. At least when MC is viewed as a survival game, when it is a free form builder then it should. That is of course one of those things that is commonly added with mods, and even in survival mode you can plug the seed into a website and build a map, but those are things that the player actively has to do to fit a desire for divergent gameplay styles. There are also games like Tarkov where realism* is very important and it would break the verisimilitude they're working for.
*yes there is a lot about any shooter that isn't realistic but they've removed pretty much every UI helper and similar that they could.

The main question is: is getting lost/not knowing where you are a key point to the game design or is it simply a way to force players to waste time?

[Rynjin]

I think this is one that 100% depends on the genre and style of the game. Minecraft doesn't have an automapper by default and I think that is very fitting for the game. At least when MC is viewed as a survival game, when it is a free form builder then it should. That is of course one of those things that is commonly added with mods, and even in survival mode you can plug the seed into a website and build a map, but those are things that the player actively has to do to fit a desire for divergent gameplay styles. There are also games like Tarkov where realism* is very important and it would break the verisimilitude they're working for.
*yes there is a lot about any shooter that isn't realistic but they've removed pretty much every UI helper and similar that they could.

The main question is: is getting lost/not knowing where you are a key point to the game design or is it simply a way to force players to waste time?

I actually forget that Minecraft doesn't have a map by default since I believe JourneyMap is the single most commonly used mod, to the point that it even shows up on servers meant to be largely Vanilla. It may as well be added by default because a server or modpack that doesn't use it is as rare as hen's teeth IME.

[heronbpv]

I think this is one that 100% depends on the genre and style of the game. Minecraft doesn't have an automapper by default and I think that is very fitting for the game. At least when MC is viewed as a survival game, when it is a free form builder then it should. That is of course one of those things that is commonly added with mods, and even in survival mode you can plug the seed into a website and build a map, but those are things that the player actively has to do to fit a desire for divergent gameplay styles. There are also games like Tarkov where realism* is very important and it would break the verisimilitude they're working for.
*yes there is a lot about any shooter that isn't realistic but they've removed pretty much every UI helper and similar that they could.

The main question is: is getting lost/not knowing where you are a key point to the game design or is it simply a way to force players to waste time?

As an aside, I knew pretty close to nothing about Minecraft until very recently when I watched some gameplay from A_Seagull on youtube. I always thought it was just some kind of open world block builder, so the lack of an automapper on it seems a bit too much (and I indeed don't remember seeing one in his videos). Are there enough recognizable landmarks to serve as references, at least?

But yes, I agree with your point, the design of the game should dictate if an automapper is needed, and also how it's implemented. But in the case of an traditional RPG (think Final Fantasy or Phantasy Star), if the game includes gigantic dungeons with labyrinthine interiors as part of the regular challenge, I fail to see a reason not to include one, outside of budget.

[DataNinja]

As an aside, I knew pretty close to nothing about Minecraft until very recently when I watched some gameplay from A_Seagull on youtube. I always thought it was just some kind of open world block builder, so the lack of an automapper on it seems a bit too much (and I indeed don't remember seeing one in his videos). Are there enough recognizable landmarks to serve as references, at least?

You can build your own landmarks, at least, plus there are in-game maps that you can craft that will map your surroundings as you move, and it'll also show your position on it (as well as the positions of other maps showing that area). During my short foray into Minecraft, that's something I immensely enjoyed - just slowly building up a gigantic wall that was a huge map of the area surrounding my home. ...I do understand why people'd love a minimap or auto-mapper. Especially with waypoints.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But yes, I agree with your point, the design of the game should dictate if an automapper is needed, and also how it's implemented. But in the case of an traditional RPG (think Final Fantasy or Phantasy Star), if the game includes gigantic dungeons with labyrinthine interiors as part of the regular challenge, I fail to see a reason not to include one, outside of budget.

Pardon, but I read this as

"Sorry, but if the game includes gigantic labyrinthine interiors as part of the regular challenge, I fail to see a reason to not negate that challenge and obviate the purpose of the maze-like interiors entirely."

The whole point IS the difficulty, which you solve by either manually mapping or remembering landmarks. A minimap would defeat this, and trivialize a substantial portion of the engagement and entertainment value.

Then again, I'm also one who cut their teeth on the Wizardry series, starting with the original, so I'm no stranger to manually mapping.

[warty goblin]

Pardon, but I read this as

"Sorry, but if the game includes gigantic labyrinthine interiors as part of the regular challenge, I fail to see a reason to not negate that challenge and obviate the purpose of the maze-like interiors entirely."

The whole point IS the difficulty, which you solve by either manually mapping or remembering landmarks. A minimap would defeat this, and trivialize a substantial portion of the engagement and entertainment value.

Then again, I'm also one who cut their teeth on the Wizardry series, starting with the original, so I'm no stranger to manually mapping.

Personally, I don't particularly enjoy getting lost. So games without maps negate a lot of their potential entertainment value.


Here's one: I am of the view that when Supreme Commander came up with strategic zoom, any RTS or TBS over a large landmass has no business not having at least some version of it. The ability to get a decent and immediate overview of the strategic situation is far too useful, and renders the classic minimap in the bottom of the screen at the very least obsolescent.

Alas, because halfway decent RTS games are about a common as hen's teeth in this benighted age, I will tolerate this lack in any that do come along.

[Vinyadan]

I think that Supreme Commander still needed the minimap. Otherwise, I felt half-blind when playing it, because, once in a while, you do need to zoom in, and then you are completely unaware of what's going on elsewhere. Probably the best option would have been to play with two monitors, a main one for zooming and a secondary one with the map, but I never could try that.

I say that it needed a monitor for the minimap because of just how many units there could be on the map, and the vast distances they could need to go. By comparison, Age of Kings had a beautiful, small minimap that also showed units under attack (complete with audio and video signals when the attack started outside your view), but it was possible because of the smaller scale of the game.

[heronbpv]

Pardon, but I read this as

"Sorry, but if the game includes gigantic labyrinthine interiors as part of the regular challenge, I fail to see a reason to not negate that challenge and obviate the purpose of the maze-like interiors entirely."

The whole point IS the difficulty, which you solve by either manually mapping or remembering landmarks. A minimap would defeat this, and trivialize a substantial portion of the engagement and entertainment value.

Then again, I'm also one who cut their teeth on the Wizardry series, starting with the original, so I'm no stranger to manually mapping.

That's when the choice of how to implement it comes in play. If part of the challenge is to brave the interiors, then make the automapper do the same you are going to be doing manually. Even better, gate it as a resource, just like Shining in the Darkness did (you had to either spent mana to cast a spell or buy/drop a consumable that took precious and very limited inventory space to access a view of your surroundings only). Also, never show the whole map, just your current position and direction, and all the squares around you have already visited.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't mind insulting difficulty options. If I'm playing on easy because I'm just looking to blow through some bad guys I know that's what I'm doing. The game can make fun of that.

I'm more likely to be insulted if I'm actually trying but I'm still stuck in difficulty "easiest", regardless of whether it has an insulting name. Because that makes me a bad player. The game double dog daring me to try something harder does not.