I don't disagree with that, but it probably shouldn't be a placed in a connecting point. I like that some of the Wolf stuff makes you go into corners you wouldn't likely go otherwise.

I don't mean to underestimate my FPS acumen, but I will say I'm one of the worst players who read this forum. After getting blindsided once by that guy I've not had to fight him again because I'm hauling butt through there (I usually do regardless--I usually have appointment with a Devil Walker).

I guess it requires some FPS acumen to know that hauling butt away from a enemy is a good strategy because almost always enemies will follow you only so far.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

I wouldn't say complete control. There'd be no challenge then. But I think the ability of the player to overcome the challenges should rest solely in their control.

Gotta disagree. The player is not God. Most challenges? Sure. Possibly even the vast majority. But all? No. Sometimes you just have to run away, and sometimes there's no getting out alive.

That probably does explain the whining about the endings of Mass Effect 3 and Fallout 3, among other things.

I feel better about game universes where the player isn't the biggest or only thing there is.

You've just triggered a connection in my head. I realize now how being an arcade junkie in the 70's/80's made me the kind of gamer I am today.

Asteroids and Defender imbued very key concepts firmly into my medulla.

Thanks Narc.

That's interesting. I started playing arcade games in the mid 80s... Asteroids and Defender were certainly still popular, but something about those games always rubbed me the wrong way. I think that when compared to other games I was playing at the same time, those classics felt like they were just designed to screw me. They were still fun, because they were exciting and had some great mechanics. But given the choice, I would rarely spend my quarters on them because I knew it might only take 30 seconds before something out of my control ended the game for me. The first arcade games I was really drawn to were fighting games; I loved the fact that I could watch someone play, learn how they fought, then throw down a quarter and see if I could counter them. Those games still devoured my quarters, but every time I lost I felt like it was because I had done something wrong, not because the fates had conspired against me :)

Bingo. 50/50, live or die.

I've firmly embraced 'random' for almost as long as I've been a sentient boy.

- M

That's fine, because that's a design choice and the player has to decide to take that risk. His choice to hit the button, so victory is still ultimately under his control.

There's a section in the original Lunar where you need to get an item to build a balloon to progress in the game. The item randomly drops form monsters in the Desert. THAT is bad, since you just have to keep fighting, waiting for the drop with no control over it.

All right. I think I get it. I play asteroids at arcades even today, because it's $.25 and the new games are like $1.50. The hyperspace button is an oh shit button when you are being overwhelmed by asteroids that moves you to a safer spot on the map. You used this to understand the technique of retreating, or as I think Sarge calls it, advancing towards future victories.

Except sometimes the spot would be even worse and you would explode.

Bingo. 50/50, live or die.

I've firmly embraced 'random' for almost as long as I've been a sentient boy.

- M

Except sometimes the spot would be even worse and you would explode.

That said, I still think starting the Sepiks strike and turning around is the fastest and most reliable method-- again, if you have a full fireteam. Otherwise you're just trolling randoms when you run in the opposite direction to do a patrol and then quit out when you're done.

You can't do patrol during a Strike--all the missions are disabled. The most you can do is wait for public events.

That is true. You can do Queens bounties, but if you're doing those, just kill the queenbreaker. This only works for events, yes.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

I wouldn't say complete control. There'd be no challenge then. But I think the ability of the player to overcome the challenges should rest solely in their control.

Gotta disagree. The player is not God. Most challenges? Sure. Possibly even the vast majority. But all? No. Sometimes you just have to run away, and sometimes there's no getting out alive.

I feel like That only works if there is a way for the game to continue on failure. For instance, heavy rain changing the storyline if one of the main characters dies.

Maybe we are talking about different things, but if something has to happen for you to win that is beyond your control, then I don't think that works. Basically, at any given moment there should be some combination of inputs that results in victory, except if the player made a bad choice or something. You may not have the knowledge or skill to give those inputs, but it's something learnable.

Do you think it would work better if the player kills all the enemies in Dock 13 first, then the Queenbreaker comes out of the wall like that Archon in Restoration at the beginning of the game? I think that would make sense, as then you only end up facing him when you WANT to.

That said, I still think starting the Sepiks strike and turning around is the fastest and most reliable method-- again, if you have a full fireteam. Otherwise you're just trolling randoms when you run in the opposite direction to do a patrol and then quit out when you're done.

You can't do patrol during a Strike--all the missions are disabled. The most you can do is wait for public events.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

I wouldn't say complete control. There'd be no challenge then. But I think the ability of the player to overcome the challenges should rest solely in their control.

Gotta disagree. The player is not God. Most challenges? Sure. Possibly even the vast majority. But all? No. Sometimes you just have to run away, and sometimes there's no getting out alive.

That probably does explain the whining about the endings of Mass Effect 3 and Fallout 3, among other things.

I feel better about game universes where the player isn't the biggest or only thing there is.

You've just triggered a connection in my head. I realize now how being an arcade junkie in the 70's/80's made me the kind of gamer I am today.

Asteroids and Defender imbued very key concepts firmly into my medulla.

Thanks Narc.

You're welcome?

Not sure the connection you mean.

Myself, personally, I had a complicated relationship with arcades. My mom was not a fan of them (whose is?) and myself I felt the way about them that people feel now about MMO grind and stuff designed to addict players. The only way to play a game to completion without paying more than the initial quarter was to be good enough at the game to not die. The only way to practice was to play and die and pay over and over. That, to me, sort of felt like abuse, rather than challenge, because you couldn't possibly know what to expect until you'd seen it, and you had to pay to see it. Most games were not made so as to be beatable on first play.

Ironically, though, I'm not necessarily upset by the idea of paying full price for a game and then being unable to access all of it's content because I'm not good enough, because at that point practice only costs me time, not more money.

Yah, I'm not talking about any of that.

Defender and Asteroids had Hyperspace buttons. 'nuff said.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

I wouldn't say complete control. There'd be no challenge then. But I think the ability of the player to overcome the challenges should rest solely in their control.

Gotta disagree. The player is not God. Most challenges? Sure. Possibly even the vast majority. But all? No. Sometimes you just have to run away, and sometimes there's no getting out alive.

That probably does explain the whining about the endings of Mass Effect 3 and Fallout 3, among other things.

I feel better about game universes where the player isn't the biggest or only thing there is.

You've just triggered a connection in my head. I realize now how being an arcade junkie in the 70's/80's made me the kind of gamer I am today.

Asteroids and Defender imbued very key concepts firmly into my medulla.

Thanks Narc.

You're welcome?

Not sure the connection you mean.

Myself, personally, I had a complicated relationship with arcades. My mom was not a fan of them (whose is?) and myself I felt the way about them that people feel now about MMO grind and stuff designed to addict players. The only way to play a game to completion without paying more than the initial quarter was to be good enough at the game to not die. The only way to practice was to play and die and pay over and over. That, to me, sort of felt like abuse, rather than challenge, because you couldn't possibly know what to expect until you'd seen it, and you had to pay to see it. Most games were not made so as to be beatable on first play.

Ironically, though, I'm not necessarily upset by the idea of paying full price for a game and then being unable to access all of it's content because I'm not good enough, because at that point practice only costs me time, not more money.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

I wouldn't say complete control. There'd be no challenge then. But I think the ability of the player to overcome the challenges should rest solely in their control.

Gotta disagree. The player is not God. Most challenges? Sure. Possibly even the vast majority. But all? No. Sometimes you just have to run away, and sometimes there's no getting out alive.

That probably does explain the whining about the endings of Mass Effect 3 and Fallout 3, among other things.

I feel better about game universes where the player isn't the biggest or only thing there is.

You've just triggered a connection in my head. I realize now how being an arcade junkie in the 70's/80's made me the kind of gamer I am today.

Asteroids and Defender imbued very key concepts firmly into my medulla.

Thanks Narc.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

I wouldn't say complete control. There'd be no challenge then. But I think the ability of the player to overcome the challenges should rest solely in their control.

Gotta disagree. The player is not God. Most challenges? Sure. Possibly even the vast majority. But all? No. Sometimes you just have to run away, and sometimes there's no getting out alive.

That probably does explain the whining about the endings of Mass Effect 3 and Fallout 3, among other things.

I feel better about game universes where the player isn't the biggest or only thing there is.

Grottos

If it's a lower level char, I see a problem with this path.

Depends what you mean by lower level, I guess. If one is familiar with the route you can sparrow right through there.

That said, I still think starting the Sepiks strike and turning around is the fastest and most reliable method-- again, if you have a full fireteam. Otherwise you're just trolling randoms when you run in the opposite direction to do a patrol and then quit out when you're done.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

I wouldn't say complete control. There'd be no challenge then. But I think the ability of the player to overcome the challenges should rest solely in their control.

I keep thinking of Half-Life 1. That would be a great choice for brand new people. You literally start on rails, getting used to a 3d space, and then by the end are leaping over aliens tossing grenades in their brains.

We were almost done with a "Kill 100 without dying" bounty when a wolf pack dropped right on her position and murdered her immediately. She was at 98 kills at the moment.

Gosh that's annoying. I feel really bad for you guys. This is a terrible introduction to shooters! :(

Is it?

Probably? Speaking from my own experience of watching my partner start with Fallout 3 (which BeardFade's story reminds me of). Moving around in a 3-d space was hard enough for her, much less defeating enemies way beyond her capabilities. The Queenbreaker is like having a Deathclaw at the entrance to Megaton for someone that just learned how to not stare at the floor.

Are video games supposed to be places where nothing bad ever happens, or where every aspect of the world is under the complete control of the player, even when there's more than one player?

No of course not I agree with this. But long time players easily miss how difficult it is for people that have NEVER played. I can pick up a shooter nowadays and do relatively ok thanks to decades of playing similar games with similar tools. Newcomers have it rough.

Grottos

If it's a lower level char, I see a problem with this path.