Thirith on 25/5/2019 at 16:37
Yeah, you're right on that one. I realised my mistake after I'd written the post, but then I liked the image of scantily-clad groupies dragging around crates and stuff. :p
Sulphur on 25/5/2019 at 17:06
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
RPS review burns it to the ground.
...
In a game like Pathologic, I want to walk around, explore every corner of the map, talk to all NPCs, follow all quests, all leads. I wanna take my time doing that. And what happens ? In Pathologic 2 the survival-game elements are made stronger, and the time-pressure is increased.In a game like Pathologic, I want to walk around, explore every corner of the map, talk to all NPCs, follow all quests, all leads. I wanna take my time doing that. And what happens ? In Pathologic 2 the survival-game elements are made stronger, and the time-pressure is increased.
RPS had the wrong person review it. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the right person for the job was John Walker (RIP). His Eurogamer review from 2006 for Pathologic was on point and balanced even if it gave the game a 6/10.
So: isn't part of the point of Pathologic that you
can't do everything you want to? At least as far as I can recall, it's never been about getting what you want, or making it easy to find what you need, and it was never about winning. The reason it invokes Epic theatre and defamiliarisation right at the start is because it wants you to observe what's going on instead of getting caught up in a personal win/loss scenario. It's very much about existential dread in a way that only Russia can do; I'd rather have that blade drawn sharp and quick than blunt and slow as it saws right through people's comfort zones.
Which means, yes, it's dramatically unfun, and most people are going to find it massively opaque and unfriendly (punishing you for dying is the most Pathologic thing I can think of, but also sounds essential to the end goal), but I can only assume that was the point to begin with.
Gryzemuis on 26/5/2019 at 17:14
Quote Posted by Sulphur
So: isn't part of the point of Pathologic that you
can't do everything you want to?
No.
Quote:
At least as far as I can recall, it's never been about getting what you want, or making it easy to find what you need, and it was never about winning.
I don't want to "win". I don't want an "easy win".
I just want to play games the way I like it.
I don't care how others think I should play a game. I don't even care how the developers think I should play their game. I play games the way I want them. And usually that means: "very slow". And very calm. Using my brain. Not running around in full panic mode. Or running around with a red haze before my eyes, wanting to kill everything that moves.
The last few years I have spent very little time playing games (compared to the years before). But about half my game-time has been Dark Souls[123]. I am pretty sure most people will not like the way I play those games. I am sure Miyazaki did not intend me to play the game the way I play it. I don't care. :) I play the game in a way that I find fun. (To give you an indication why my DS-experience is probably different from most other people: I find the "challenge" of fighting hard bosses the least appealing part of the game).
Quote:
it wants you to observe what's going on instead of getting caught up in a personal win/loss scenario.
And that is exactly why I want to play slow. And on top of that, I want to spend my time focusing on the environment, the city, the NPCs, the story. And not on game-elements like finding food or doing fist-fights and searching for bandages.
It's ok if those elements are part of the game. But they should not be the core of gameplay. As an example, I played System Shock 2 long time ago (in 2002, I think). SS2 has respawning enemies. Fuck that. So I installed a mod that got rid of the respawning enemies. But I configured the mod so that there would still be a few respawning enemies. I would run into one once an hour or so. That did scare me every time. But it wasn't a nuisance, like the default game-play. I want something similar in all my games. Even when the developers think I should be on my toes all the time.
Quote:
Which means, yes, it's dramatically unfun
I can not imagine why someone would want to make or play a game that is "unfun".
Especially when that game should earn you a living. I fully agree that developers should not try to cater for the masses. Because then you get boring games. But making a game that is not fun for anyone (except the mindless fanboys and utter masochists), that is a bit weird.
Hopefully some day someone will make a mod that changes the game more the way I would like it.
But until then, I won't buy or play it in its current version. Bummer.
Two hype games left: Tangiers (which might never be released) and Scorn (which will be released god knows when).
Sulphur on 26/5/2019 at 18:12
All I'm seeing is blunt refusal to engage with a game on its own terms, and a refusal to accept that's the vision as intended. If you want to sledgehammer your own personal play style into games, that's fine, that's your choice. But if they don't allow you to play it your way because that's not what the intended experience was, I have little sympathy for complaints, elaborate or terse, about how you ought to be catered to. If it's not for you, move on.
And re: being unfun, I'm sure I don't have to tell you this, but I'm going to spell out the obvious anyway: art doesn't have to entertain everyone. It can be about making a point that you don't particularly agree with, enjoy, or relate to, and that's part of its purpose.
Gryzemuis on 26/5/2019 at 22:31
Quote Posted by Sulphur
All I'm seeing is blunt refusal to engage with a game on its own terms, and a refusal to accept that's the vision as intended.
I'm very good at blunt refusals.
As I wrote, I don't care much for intended visions, when playing games. I try to find my own way to enjoy my entertainment. I don't think my refusal is blunt. I played the original. I know what I didn't like about it. The reviewer says that 2 out of 3 of those things got worse. So I'm not gonna bother. I can even explain my reasoning why I am not gonna bother. Nothing blunt about that.
Quote:
I have little sympathy for complaints, elaborate or terse
I wasn't complaining. Just said: "bummer".
Quote:
art doesn't have to entertain everyone. It can be about making a point that you don't particularly agree with, enjoy, or relate to, and that's part of its purpose.
We're not talking art here. We're talking about a game. A commercial game even (I got to pay if I want to play). If they take people's money, they could at least try to entertain some of their customers (as opposed of trying to make a game "unfun" on purpose). And again, I'm not complaining. I just find it weird that a company is intentionally trying to reduce the sales-potential of its product.
Did you buy it ? Are you gonna play it ?
Sulphur on 27/5/2019 at 03:58
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I'm very good at blunt refusals.
...
I don't think my refusal is blunt.
...
I wasn't complaining. Just said: "bummer".
That is some incredible equivocating. Or poor communication skills. Possibly both. In case you're
actually unaware, this is literally a complaint:
Quote:
And that is exactly why I want to play slow. And on top of that, I want to spend my time focusing on the environment, the city, the NPCs, the story. And not on game-elements like finding food or doing fist-fights and searching for bandages.
It's ok if those elements are part of the game. But they should not be the core of gameplay.
As for this:
Quote:
We're not talking art here. We're talking about a game.
This is the most boring discussion possible on the internet. We're not having it. I've got other tedious things to do instead.
And yes, I'm going to play the sequel, obviously.
Starker on 27/5/2019 at 06:54
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I can not imagine why someone would want to make or play a game that is "unfun".
Especially when that game should earn you a living. I fully agree that developers should not try to cater for the masses. Because then you get boring games. But making a game that is not fun for anyone (except the mindless fanboys and utter masochists), that is a bit weird.
I've played games that left me physically sick and shaking and I've played games that frustrated me to no end. Rain World was one of the last of those. Papers Please, Spec Ops: The Line, Far Cry 2, Hotline Miami, Undertale, Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil 4, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus -- all of these have some pretty unfun mechanics and I would argue they are better for it. These are also some of the most memorable games that I've ever played. Wanting all games to be fun is like wanting all stories to have a happy ending.
Thirith on 27/5/2019 at 07:08
Gryzemuis: "Developers shouldn't try to cater to the masses, but they should cater to me!"
... you don't see the teensiest hypocrisy there?
Starker on 27/5/2019 at 07:17
Also, Dark Souls was never about HARD BOSSES. For all the hype, Dark Souls is not actually all that hard, apart from a couple of pretty unfair and frustrating difficulty spikes and some optional content. The difficulty in Dark Souls is more about the growth that comes from hard work and diligence. If you are careful and think about what you're doing, if you explore and experiment, if you're willing to learn and improve, the game will bend to you, and that gives you a feeling of accomplishment that few other games can. You can actually break the game and make it less enjoyable by taking the challenge out of it. I've seen new people level too much in Darkroot Forest or play through the DLC too soon and it made the game frustratingly easy for them.
Gryzemuis on 27/5/2019 at 13:15
I am slightly disappointed about Pathologic 2. Hence the word: "bummer". That is something different than complaining. I didn't pay for development of the game, I didn't pay for a copy of the game. So I am aware I can't complain. I'm not. I'm just disappointed that it turns out Pathologic is not the game for me. Good news: it seems Pathologic has a console. And one can change several settings via the console. Maybe a few weeks or months from now people have figured out how to make time go slower and how to reduce the effects of hunger, thirst, etc. If that happens, I might buy and play the game after all.
I wasn't the first to use the word "art". Quote: "art doesn't have to entertain everyone". I am perfectly fine to not continue that discussion.
Quote Posted by Starker
These are also some of the most memorable games that I've ever played.
Being in a car crash is also very memorable. But I rather not do that. :)
Quote Posted by Thirith
you don't see the teensiest hypocrisy there?
I never wrote that developers should cater to me. I wish developers would make games that they would enjoy themselves. And I wish they would try to make something that is different from the rest. If lots of developers would do that, we might have a broader spectrum of games to chose from. And even though I probably wouldn't like most of them, it would increase the amount of games that people do find fun. And it would increase the chances of games being surprising. I think this opinion is very different from "all games should cater to me".
It won't happen, because even if we could have lots of different games, most developers want to make "the most popular game" to make the most profit. I understand this, so I don't think they "should". I'm not complaining. I just wish they did.
Quote Posted by Starker
Also, Dark Souls was never about HARD BOSSES. For all the hype, Dark Souls is not actually all that hard, apart from a couple of pretty unfair and frustrating difficulty spikes and some optional content. The difficulty in Dark Souls is more about the growth that comes from hard work and diligence. If you are careful and think about what you're doing, if you explore and experiment, if you're willing to learn and improve, the game will bend to you, and that gives you a feeling of accomplishment that few other games can. You can actually break the game and make it less enjoyable by taking the challenge out of it. I've seen new people level too much in Darkroot Forest or play through the DLC too soon and it made the game frustratingly easy for them.
When you read about Dark Souls, google for Dark Souls, read threads on forums, it certainly has the reputation of being a hard game. I sometimes read the Reddit Dark Souls forums. And about half the posts there are: "look at me, I beat this boss, I beat the game, it was soo hard, I am so happy".
I don't want to reduce the difficulty. I want to reduce the tedium. In particularly, one of the design-flaws of Dark Souls is that it punishes bad and new players too hard. It doesn't punish the new players by taking more time. It punishes bad and new players by making the game harder. I think that is wrong. (Not complaining, just stating my opinion). A game should be "easy to learn, hard to master". But in fact, DS is the opposite. Hard to learn, easy once you've climbed the initial learning curve. As an example: when you die, you lose humanity, ember or (in DS2) max-health. If you die a lot, you run out of humanity and embers. Or your max-health goes to 50% in DS2. And you can't summon NPCs (or players) anymore. The game gets a lot harder. Another example: in DS1 at the start you find 3 lightning resins. Advise on the net how to beat the gargoyles: use a resin. The problem here is that you have a limited amount. If you fail the fight 3 times, you don't have lightning resins left. Making the fight a lot harder. Not a problem for good or experienced players. But for new/bad/inexperienced players, it makes the game harder. I don't think that makes sense. Losing souls on death is also not helpful for new players. But it can be overcome. Running out of embers and resins, etc, is different thing.
I took some of the tedium out of the game. I sometimes copy savefiles, and copy them back if I don't want to redo part of the game. (Like the run to O&S). I guess you call that cheating. Or you think I'm reducing the challenge. I don't care. I'm not harming anyone, and the game is more fun for me. Nowadays, I don't need it anymore, because I don't die often enough to run out of important items. But if I hadn't done it during my first runs, I might not have been able to beat bosses. I think it took me 30-50 tries to beat the Nameless King. I can do it in 1-3 tries now. I would not have been able to learn to do that, if I hadn't had unlimited embers. Another example: in DS2, I did the same thing for the run to the Blue Smelter demon. I think From Software understands why I do it. Because in the DS3, the later bosses all have bonfires next to them.
Regardless of the fact that I made the games easier for myself, I am still enjoying it very much.