How RPG fans ruined RPGs: Telengard on the Fiery BioWhore and the True Nature of the Awesome Button

[*-*/\--/\~]

These was a thread split from the Beamdog mod thread, wherein people were talking about how awesome the EEs were, and a counter was put forth arguing that modding in extra stuff not intended to be there makes the game shit. Everyone called those people idiots. And I went to town illustrating why it is indeed shit, and why it was the beginning of turning games into shit. Not publishers, not devs, not mouth-breathers. No, the early players who would go onto the forums and demand more power. Who would download mods that jacked in power that the game had no answer for. And when asked why you would mess with the challenge of the game like that, you said, "It doesn't matter if the game gets easier, as long as it's fun." A number of Codexers were saying just that in the Beamdog thread. And that is, of course, a direct copy of what was said way back when, and what kept being said all throughout the NWN2 lookalike years.

So I pointed to that and said, it's your fault that games god dumb, because you told devs you were fine with it.

People crave power, that's nothing new. Especially those who have little power/influence of their own, like kids (who also happen to have the most time to whine on the forums). Even before games, the most popular Star Wars character was Vader - bad guy or not, it's an embodiment of power. So the devs cater to that and give the players what they want... and frequently go way too far.

People also have a strong aversion to "losing" anything, so locking one skill branch in favour of another one can be a literally traumatic experience for some. And part of the "I want to max all the skills" mindsed is understandable, because many games are so bland and generic that they hardly warrant finishing, let alone multiple playthroughs. Why bother, when the devs settle for throwing randomly generated shit at you? So they complain and get their voices heard.

So the devs are just as much to blame - it is them who is trying so hard to make the players feel awesome by introducing their wet fantasies in the game.

 

[Neanderthal]

Which came first though, customers asking for shit that'd ruin the game or the dev caving and implementing it? I sometimes wonder because when you get shit or mediocre games selling multiple millions...well devs are bound to replicate that aren't they?

From what i've seen so far Codex is far more monocled than most sites, wi a larger spread o tastes and opinions, and one of few sites that dares speak truth without being labelled negative and all that petty shit. But look at other sites and you'll see fuckers who are more than happy wi the decline, who don't want many features, who want less to do, don't want any choices or consequences and fucking shame on you if you suggest any other setting than a renaissance fayre, or say anything against romances, quest markers or streamlining. I mean you'll honestly get fuckers complaining about the different currencies in New Vegas, saying that the few clicks needed to change it were so frustrating. Or that the weapon and armour repair in Betrayal at Krondor was so horrendous, and that they should do away with this chore because baby doesn't want the power fantasy interrupting. Or that MotB should get rid of the central mechanic and reason for the story, because it required a bit of getting used to and learning.

Fuck me I wonder how many modern players would react when they found out that all the writing in the Ultima games needed translating from the old Norse Futhark? You can imagine the squeals of game journalists and idiots facing such a thing needing to be learned, they'd throw a right fucking wobbler.

It makes you wonder how dumbed down you could make a game and still have it appeal? Because it seems like the industry's racing to get there.

 

[Telengard]

People crave power, that's nothing new. Especially those who have little power/influence of their own, like kids (who also happen to have the most time to whine on the forums). Even before games, the most popular Star Wars character was Vader - bad guy or not, it's an embodiment of power. So the devs cater to that and give the players what they want... and frequently go way too far.

People also have a strong aversion to "losing" anything, so locking one skill branch in favour of another one can be a literally traumatic experience for some. And part of the "I want to max all the skills" mindsed is understandable, because many games are so bland and generic that they hardly warrant finishing, let alone multiple playthroughs. Why bother, when the devs settle for throwing randomly generated shit at you? So they complain and get their voices heard.

So the devs are just as much to blame - it is them who is trying so hard to make the players feel awesome by introducing their wet fantasies in the game.

In the beginning, there was more than one philosophical lines of development, not just the line called power fantasy. There were some for those of us who don't like power fantasies. But even the presence of such games offended you. So you destroyed them. And then you spat on their grave and said good riddance to those who don't make power fantasies. But that was just step 1.

Step 2. If you tell the devs it's okay to dumb the game down, then how is it their fault when they decide to do it? More than a decade ago, when my people tell you that doing so is not a good idea, that it'll ruin the intricate balance of combat, and you laugh at us, call us grognards (yes, history is repeating itself), then shove us out of the industry and hobby, how is that the devs' fault? You got what you wanted. You got your power abilities added to the games. Games changed to suit your fancy, and people like me disappeared.

And those first few years after we were gone were great, weren't they? With the devs and the Biowhore catering to your every whim? Whoring to your every desire? Oh, but the ride got a little bumpy there towards the end, eh? In the years before Kickstarter.

Well, you did teach the Biowhore to be a whore. You did tell her to make games as you wanted them, not in the ideal state that they could be made. You demanded power, damn the consequences. And that's what you got. Power, with consequences.

Consequences are great, aren't they? That's real RPG.

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

In the beginning, there was more than one philosophical lines of development, not just the line called power fantasy. There were some for those of us who don't like power fantasies. But even the presence of such games offended you. So you destroyed them. And then you spat on their grave and said good riddance to those who don't make power fantasies. But that was just step 1.

Step 2. If you tell the devs it's okay to dumb the game down, then how is it their fault when they decide to do it? More than a decade ago, when my people tell you that doing so is not a good idea, that it'll ruin the intricate balance of combat, and you laugh at us, call us grognards (yes, history is repeating itself), then shove us out of the industry and hobby, how is that the devs' fault? You got what you wanted. You got your power abilities added to the games. Games changed to suit your fancy, and people like me disappeared.

And those first few years after we were gone were great, weren't they? With the devs and the Biowhore catering to your every whim? Whoring to your every desire? Oh, but the ride got a little bumpy there towards the end, eh? In the years before Kickstarter.

Well, you did teach the Biowhore to be a whore. You did tell her to make games as you wanted them, not in the ideal state that they could be made. You demanded power, damn the consequences. And that's what you got. Power, with consequences.

Consequences are great, aren't they? That's real RPG.

Well, if you are taking this into the "you this, you that" department.... no. I did no such thing. My only communication with a developer was getting banned from Craphesda forums for drawing attention to their lies and all the stuff they dumbed down.

I merely tried to explain why the masses behave this way. It's a simple "Psychology 101" issue and the devs should be aware of it, therefore ignoring the whining. That is why I consider it their fault as well.

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

Which came first though, customers asking for shit that'd ruin the game or the dev caving and implementing it? I sometimes wonder because when you get shit or mediocre games selling multiple millions...well devs are bound to replicate that aren't they?

From what i've seen so far Codex is far more monocled than most sites, wi a larger spread o tastes and opinions, and one of few sites that dares speak truth without being labelled negative and all that petty shit. But look at other sites and you'll see fuckers who are more than happy wi the decline, who don't want many features, who want less to do, don't want any choices or consequences and fucking shame on you if you suggest any other setting than a renaissance fayre, or say anything against romances, quest markers or streamlining. I mean you'll honestly get fuckers complaining about the different currencies in New Vegas, saying that the few clicks needed to change it were so frustrating. Or that the weapon and armour repair in Betrayal at Krondor was so horrendous, and that they should do away with this chore because baby doesn't want the power fantasy interrupting. Or that MotB should get rid of the central mechanic and reason for the story, because it required a bit of getting used to and learning.

Fuck me I wonder how many modern players would react when they found out that all the writing in the Ultima games needed translating from the old Norse Futhark? You can imagine the squeals of game journalists and idiots facing such a thing needing to be learned, they'd throw a right fucking wobbler.

It makes you wonder how dumbed down you could make a game and still have it appeal? Because it seems like the industry's racing to get there.

That is why I rarely visit the "other sites". :D But this development is not exclusive to the games industry in any way... anything that becomes massively popular seems to go this way of catering to the lowest common denominator. Morons are numerous, morons have $$ to spend, therefore morons dictate the mainstream way.

I also have a large pile of papers with maps, translations and puzzles from the old ultima games and similar... just waiting for some kickstarter dev to make me wipe the dust off it. Mainstream reviews of such a game would be damn hilarious.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

There is nothing wrong with the awesome button. As the poster above me said, all entertainment media are mostly targeted at morons. Reality television, Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey books, Miley Cyrus music, etc. The problem with the video game industry is that unlike these others, it hasn't matured yet to the point where it can cater to more niche audiences as well. You don't hear sophisticated people bitch as much about endless comic book movies or Justin Bieber, because they can go and watch a French movie from Sundance or listen to some indie music. With video games, there are some things like that right now, like Dwarf Fortress for example, but overall, the industry is too focused on chasing the big bucks right now, and not enough on the niches yet. But with things like Kickstarter, and cheaper development tools that are bound to come as technology improves, that should be changing. We shall never have the mainstream gaming scene as we did before, but it should get better than now.

 

[a Goat]

Fuck me I wonder how many modern players would react when they found out that all the writing in the Ultima games needed translating from the old Norse Futhark?

If you're referencing Ultima 7 only, it's probably one of the easiest-to-get-into RPG's from DOS era.

 

[Telengard]

While I am on the subject of options, I suddenly realize I must be far more explicit.

It is not the addition of options itself to a game that causes problems. It is the fact that options were added that the game had no answer for. When the game can't answer, that breaks the combat balance. And when asked why you would ever do such a thing, you said it was fun. That broken combat was great stuff as long as the game felt awesome fun.

So for the devs, why put in all the work to make challenging combat when even the proto-Codexians announce they don't care squat about that? When the Codexians abandon the core of combat balance, who is left for the devs to cater complex combat to? I mean, you kicked my people out, so you were all that's left, and you announced that you don't care if combat is broken.

Now, I'm sorry that the Biowhore don't make you min/max anymore (which is all you really want, anyways). I know that aspect of all this is hard to take. But the thing is, the real kicker is, the Biowhore still doesn't actually make casual games. Dungeon Siege, now that's a casual RPG. And that's not the Biowhore. The Biowhore still makes your power fantasies with large character sheets (and those kinds of character sheets are things which casuals don't like). Which is why the Biowhore and SCL and Beamdog forums are filled with people saying the exact same things you have been saying here, as well as in the past. The Biowhore is still making games designed for you, just as you taught her to make them. But now she makes them for people who are like you but who have an even bigger power fantasy than you do - who care even less about broken combat, as long as it's still awesome.

It's a rough kick in the nuts, I know. But that's whores for you.

 

[Neanderthal]

If you're referencing Ultima 7 only, it's probably one of the easiest-to-get-into RPG's from DOS era.

Not specifically VII, all later Ultimas featured Futhark for signs and stuff, ripped straight from Tolkien i think. I agree though that the Black Gate was definitely the most accessible of the series, if you could use a mouse you could play it, but i've seen complaints about no quest markers, no journal, no navigation from folk who didn't pick up a sextant, having to feed your party members, having to arm and armour them etc. Apparently it is now almost unplayable, which is a fucking ridiculous complaint for any of the Ultima series.

 

[Lhynn]

While I am on the subject of options, I suddenly realize I must be far more explicit.

It is not the addition of options itself to a game that causes problems. It is the fact that options were added that the game had no answer for. When the game can't answer, that breaks the combat balance. And when asked why you would ever do such a thing, you said it was fun. That broken combat was great stuff as long as the game felt awesome fun.

Nonsense, no game breaking mod is popular. and "AI" (lets call it scripting, and lets just say the most popular modification to biowares games is the one that improves the scripting) was never good enough to even be able to counter shit that was already in the game, so it basically had the exact same response whatever you threw at it. You make it sound like we lost something when we gained variety, but we didnt.

So for the devs, why put in all the work to make challenging combat when even the proto-Codexians announce they don't care squat about that? When the Codexians abandon the core of combat balance, who is left for the devs to cater complex combat to? I mean, you kicked my people out, so you were all that's left, and you announced that you don't care if combat is broken.

Combat was always broken, i dont remember the goldbox games reacting to my movements in any special way. And KoTC was praised for its IA AND the breadth of its options.

Now, I'm sorry that the Biowhore don't make you min/max anymore (which is all you really want, anyways). I know that aspect of all this is hard to take.

Bullshit, bioware never made us minmax in the first place. And all we are asking for is actual rpg systems. Fallout was never predicated on its difficulty, nor did people introduce new shit into the game that could imbalance it further than putting points into the weapon skill youll be using.

But the thing is, the real kicker is, the Biowhore still doesn't actually make casual games. Dungeon Siege, now that's a casual RPG. And that's not the Biowhore. The Biowhore still makes your power fantasies with large character sheets (and those kinds of character sheets are things which casuals don't like).

Does it? i dont know where you come up with this shit, its an outright lie and im not even surprised you are not bothering to show examples.

Which is why the Biowhore and SCL and Beamdog forums are filled with people saying the exact same things you have been saying here, as well as in the past. The Biowhore is still making games designed for you, just as you taught her to make them. But now she makes them for people who are like you but who have an even bigger power fantasy than you do - who care even less about broken combat, as long as it's still awesome.

yes, we all know they changed their audience for a more casual one. But it was because it was profitable, not for some made up reason in that delusional brain of yours.

It's a rough kick in the nuts, I know. But that's whores for you.

sure, whatever.

 

[Reapa]

i disagree with everything even though i've only read the first 2-3 posts. in my opinion all that was done wrong was fucking console 3rd person crap and the idiotic implementation of a cooldown combat system a la wow instead of d&d.
to expand a bit: wtf is the purpose of 3rd person over the shoulder camera? i don't fucking get it. does it have something to do with view distance? do they use it on consoles to make sure the shit can load fast enough to keep people from throwing them against the wall? you want to show off graphics you do it 1st person. you want tactical display you do it birds eye view or iso.
cooldown combat system in a RTwP game??? it works for wow where it's all real time and you have to sync with other people. what the fuck does it do for RTwP?
if this sounds like some crazy rant it's because it's all the thought i'm willing to give to the subject. nevertheless i do feel i've nailed the biggest issues.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

After reading some of this thread, I'l just say what I've heard before.... Limitation forces us to be creative and manage what we have and that's where the reward and fun happens FOR US. The probelm is MOST people don't have fun/reward this way. So we get left alone in the cold dark outside. We get bitter or angry if we feel despised, ignored and discriminated.

Above all, this is CnC to me. Choices and Consequences. Not everybody likes CnC. Check out this poll:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/poll-what-type-of-fag-are-you.99821/
Popular of fagism is in this order:
1 Story
2 Exploration
3 Combat
4 Systems
5 Choices and Consequences

And there you have it. It's the least popular fagism. It makes sense. My preferences never seemed popular.

EDIT: I try to produce this by playing games on high diffulcities or making rules. For example, I've been playing Baldur's Gate and I don't reload a save unless my main character dies. I never reload if a group member dies or I lose some items somehow or any other reason. Part of the fun, for me, is surviving the negative consequences. It's a habit I've grown into. I can't say exactly when it happened, but I suspect those days playing punishing early console games had somehting to do with it. You know what I mean by that? I mean when you die and have ot restart a level, over and over, until you get it perfect. That's how I played games and that's what I expected and it's what I still expect today. I can't seem to enjoy it otherwise. Is it a bad habit? Maybe. But sometimes I think it's instinctive. I also liked playing FPS games where natural skill with the mouse and teammates is involved. Somehow, it's got to feel like I MUST get it right and it's not easy to get it right. It's borderline torture, but I NEED it.

I think this is why I always played on PVP servers in MMORPGs. It started with EQ/UO. Enormous consequences sometimes if you got caught alone and and unaware. I THRILLED in that. I NEEDED it. I still do.

Got to say however I don't also enjoy/want real life heavy consequences. Just in games. It's mixed up.

I still puzzle over all this. It's mysterious, like asking if there's a God?

 

[a Goat]

Popular of fagism is in this order:
1 Story
2 Exploration
3 Combat
4 Systems
5 Choices and Consequences

The problems is that people say "story" and when asked about what is good story in their mind they answer Fallout. Which doesn't really have good story nor writing but has good C&C and quest design.

 

[Telengard]

I mean when you die and have ot restart a level, over and over, until you get it perfect. That's how I played games and that's what I expected and it's what I still expect today. I can't seem to enjoy it otherwise. Is it a bad habit? Maybe. But sometimes I think it's instinctive. I also liked playing FPS games where natural skill with the mouse and teammates is involved. Somehow, it's got to feel like I MUST get it right and it's not easy to get it right. It's borderline torture, but I NEED it.

I think this is why I always played on PVP servers in MMORPGs. It started with EQ/UO. Enormous consequences sometimes if you got caught alone and and unaware. I THRILLED in that. I NEEDED it. I still do.

Got to say however I don't also enjoy/want real life heavy consequences. Just in games. It's mixed up.

I still puzzle over all this. It's mysterious, like asking if there's a God?

Actually, that's fairly normal. There are mountain climbers, gamblers, and the like who thrive on real life risk. But lots of people don't like that sort of thing, yet they do enjoy having their skills tested. So, going all the way back to the ancient board games, lots of games are tests of skill, and there have always been those who actively seek to be challenged when they play those games. These people don't just want to win, they want to compete. They want to overcome difficult obstacles in order to succeed. Because the very act of overcoming is what makes success taste sweet.

Just having things handed to you doesn't offer that kind of fix. Sure, people like praise, and lots of praise gives them funny feelings in their pants. But even so, that's just not them same as the fix. Lots of video games used to be based around the concept of giving people that fix. Putting obstacles in their way and challenging them to overcome them, making each obstacle harder and the challenge greater the farther they proceeded.

However, different people want different things from their entertainment. Even just in RPGs, we used to peg people into four different groups (and later 7), with each group wanting a different sort of entertainment. You had the grognards, tacticians, power gamers, and casuals. Of those four, the group most into the power fantasy were the power gamers, for obvious reasons. And the thing is, the whole concept of challenge just doesn't fit with the concept of the power fantasy. The whole idea of a power fantasy is that you get to lord your dominating power over your domain. Thus, if something ever truly challenged that power, it would break the fantasy.

A quick illustration: take two games that have a very similar gameplay setup: the Arkham games mentioned in this thread and Weaboo Codexian favorite Dark Souls. Now, the basic underlying structure of both games is quite similar. However, their approach to player interaction with the game is quite different.

Dark Souls gives your character remarkably few tools in his arsenal. Your movelist is tiny. Your spells are few and must first be found. There aren't many special items. Put that together, and it leaves you with few options when facing an enemy. You may not even have all the tools that could be available to you, since most have to be found. Your enemies have few options too, but that is normal in games, and it's the same in the Arkhams. Plus the Dark Souls enemies have the usual weak AI issues. Howsoever, your character is frequently outnumbered and almost always outgunned. The game is specifically designed to put you in a position where your tools are few, and you must harness your knowledge and skill with those few tools to overcome the difference in power between you and the enemy. Or, second choice, grind your way to power. Or, third choice (but only for non-Codexians, of course), develop your social skills, invite some friends over into your domain, and slaughter those things that challenge you through the power of friendship. (Dark Souls isn't all old school, after all.)

In contrast, Arkham is all about giving you options. The Bat starts with a bunch of tools and abilities that already places him far above the mooks he faces. And then he gets even more. He is always outnumbered, but never outgunned. He can defeat everyone he faces at the touch of a single button. Or if he feels like it, he can utilize his many gadgets and abilities to wrack up a score multiplier while he defeats them all. Or he can defeat everyone through stealth and fear, if he feels like it. Plus, he can usually simply run away and hide at any time, since he has superior range and movement to everyone he faces, as well. He is the Bat, and nothing can really ever stop him. Because if it ever did, if the game was just as brutally hard and gave you as few tools as Dark Souls does, he wouldn't feel like the Bat anymore. He wouldn't be fulfilling the needs of the power fantasy. And the same goes for God of War or Rhys or any of the others.

All of these games are structured very similarly, but most are a power fantasy, and the one is a challenging dungeon crawler. And that core design difference hugely influences the type of games that result. Wanting that challenge isn't weird or even that unusual, though it has become unusual in the world of video games, where designers now only talk about power fantasy and player empowerment.

 

[Juggie]

So the OP says having more character customization options is a bad thing? And having options that the game doesn't support and if you choose them you're screwed is the pinnacle of game design. And you have to figure which ones are good on a meta level.

I'm not against having character builds that don't work, because you're combining options that don't synergize well. I'm against options that are outright useless. This is pure bullshit in and of itself.

Saying that giving options to the player and making them viable is what killed BW games is even greater BS. Isn't having plethora of play styles what Codex likes about games such as FO?

Not saying BW actually gave us real options to choose from in DAO (I think precise opposite is the truth). Just that this isn't the cause of the game's lack of quality.

 

[DavidBVal]

However, different people want different things from their entertainment. Even just in RPGs, we used to peg people into four different groups (and later 7), with each group wanting a different sort of entertainment. You had the grognards, tacticians, power gamers, and casuals.

The danger of simplifications like this is that you believe they truly portray reality, and thus everything you elaborate from here is invalidated. There have never been 4, or 7 types of RPG fans; most RPG fans are appealed towards several of the game aspects, and often about all of them, with different priorities, or at the most not caring about some of them. And these preferences evolve within time, or change for just a particular game which is unusually good in one of its aspects. Otherwise, we'd have 3 or 4 separate genres.

Of those four, the group most into the power fantasy were the power gamers, for obvious reasons. And the thing is, the whole concept of challenge just doesn't fit with the concept of the power fantasy. The whole idea of a power fantasy is that you get to lord your dominating power over your domain. Thus, if something ever truly challenged that power, it would break the fantasy.

Power Fantasy can't exist without a challenge that you eventually overcome, and new challenges that keep your gained power being tested. At least for me and for anyone else not being an instant-gratification-whore.

Videogames try to trigger some of the most gratificating human instincts: fight enemies, build things, become strong, gain wealth, explore, make friends. There's nothing wrong in that. Is there a trend to satisfy these instincts too easily and straightforwardly? Absolutely, but it's not just RPGs, not just even games. Watch a movie, or read a book: everything has to be dynamic, entertaining, funny AND sexy all the time, beginning to end. Don't dare to explain anything, or to make things confuse, obscure or open to interpretation: select among the several formulae that are proven to entertain the public, maybe combine two of them, and call yourself a "creator". Welcome to the 21st century show business.

This trend is not the fault of the RPG players, at all. It's the fault of the excessive mercantilization of the entertainment industry, and how the huge investments lead to "safe formats" that you can prove that returned the investments in the past.

 

[Mustawd]

Step back. What Telengrad is describing can be applied to a lot of media outside RPGs; Movies, music, books...FFS look at all the Michael Crichton, Steven King, etc. books written for a more casual reading audience.


Meaning that the audience is inadvertently telling the provider of a service or product what it wants in said service or product. And because the audience is not discriminatory enough, aka voting with their feet by not buying the damn shit, then shitiness of the product or service ensues and we don't even realize it.

 

[Infinitron]

Isn't having plethora of play styles what Codex likes about games such as FO?

You're asssuming Telengard is a typical Codexer. This is a call-out thread that's attacking large portions of the Codex readership. He must be frustrated at how many of them aren't getting it because tl;dr

That said, I don't think the kind of choices a game like Fallout offers is what he has in mind here (except the aimed shots, maybe)

 

[Mustawd]

You're asssuming Telengard is a typical Codexer. This is a call-out thread that's attacking large portions of the Codex readership. He must be frustrated at how many of them aren't getting it because tl;dr

Don't even see it as tl;dr TBH. His walls of text are pretty interesting really. Kind of puts his whole Super Hero RPG argument we had a few months ago in the proper context.

 

[Juggie]

You're asssuming Telengard is a typical Codexer. This is a call-out thread that's attacking large portions of the Codex readership. He must be frustrated at how many of them aren't getting it because tl;dr)

I think I'm starting to understand his point now (the walls of text didn't get it across very well).
He's saying games lacking challenge suck. Then he says that in games with a powerful PC enemies tend to be unable to provide good enough challenge. So the only solution is to limit the power of the PC. And having options kill challenge because enemies can't counter them properly (e.g. Blink kills most of the challenge in Dishonored).

While I agree with the lack of challenge being problem way too often I don't agree limiting PC power and especially players' options is a good solution. I also don't agree that increasing the number of options decreases the challenge. At least not directly. Only as a consequence of the AI not being aware of the all the system's mechanics.

Systems with few options tend to be too simple. Simple systems can be mastered too quickly and then get boring. Being too good at something usually makes it less fun. Especially when there's nothing to challenge your skill anymore.

 

[Mustawd]

Don't think he's saying that options, in and of themselves, are the problem. But that players' power fantasies have basically created a situation where having ALL THE OPTIONS TO BE AWESUM basically kills any challenge of the game..because well, what's the point of being AWESUM if people can defeat you?

It might be a bit far fetched to say that IMO. But he also talks about how calls for mods on existing games are basically ways to break the game with the ability to be super uber powerful. And thus the game mechanics can't handle it. His thesis is that game companies went straight to the source and just went ahead and created broken, popamole, power fantasy games because that's what non-grognards (aka filthy casuals) want.

So he's basically calling a lot of the codex of bunch of poseurs, and that we're really just a bunch of casuals who want to be uber powerful. Seeing all the love Baldur's Gate's popamole mess gets around here then I tend to agree with him.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Well, they take it further than that. If I complained about all characters in Skyrim being able to swim by default/no skill needed, they'd suggest to just pretend and keep character out of the water, pretend to drown, play Argonian, etc. Why not just have swimming as a skill then? Because they want their freedom/choices cake and eat it too. The game recognizes your dress for the purposes of defense, but some weirdos will go so far as to pretend that commoners are admiring their wealthy attire as they stroll the streets of Solitude.

It's satisfying to have the game recognize or react to what you are doing, like a GM would, like the people in your party would, like reality often does. I guess my problem is people dick sucking praising the game for "allowing" such majestic roleplaying when it's all in their head and they could do it with any video game, basically. They can use this to justify any dumbing down, and the Bethestards and their ilk do.

Funny thing is that people (NPCs) did recognized armor, clothes value and or its lack ad commented if they seen Moon and Star ring on your fingers in TES III Morrowind. RPGs are regressing like Adeptus Mechanicus does in WH40K.

 

[Machocruz]

I have another take on the Awesome Button: it's Bioware's action game envy colliding with their inability to craft a good melee action system/ their desire to maintain their image as makers of RPGs. They want or need the sales they see action games ( which are more immediately accessible) getting but cannot design something like a God of War*, either because of technical ability or desire to stay within arms distance of the RPG genre. I lean towards the former, because if they could make a Dragon's Dogma caliber ARPG
it would be far better than what they did with DA2 and DAI.

*Not really a fan, but these games rake in more mainstream dough than Platinum's superior action games.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

(.....)

The problem with the 'awesome button' is that it takes control away from the player. It isn't awesome for my character to do a brilliantly timed tripple somersault to stab the lear jet in the cockpit while it's taking off, while dodging the heat-seeking lazer sharks and impregnating the supermodel taken hostage, if I have absolutely no choice over how it's done, not even the choice to fuck it up. Yahtzee is 100% right on this - I want as much control as possible, with the game being a means of transcending my flimsy mortal body, and the ideal control scheme would be a neural net activated by thought. More reasonably, at least give a fucking jump button, a roll button, let me choose between different attacks, and that way I CAN feel 'awesome' doing it, because it's a series of moves that I've chosen and pulled off.

And that's true even if it's utterly unchallenging - not that challenge doesn't matter, but it's a different problem. Deus Ex 1 is very easy, but terrific in terms of control. You can do pretty much all the things expected from an 'awesome button', but you're choosing each movement directly and the game controls well enough for you to string that awesome shit together with ease. An 'awesome button' is a copout. It says 'we couldn't make a control system that was intuitive enough for you to do anything that felt awesome, so we're just automating that instead'.

My tolerance differs depending on the game. The Batman 'Arkham' games have a combat system that's basically a slightly more complex 'awesome button', but I forgive it because it's Batman, so it isn't about building up skill/expertise and learning to pull it off, and the predator maps, at least, do give you a fair bit of freedom to 'make your own awesome'.

(.....)

I disagree strongly with your bolded statement. It doesn't jive with the first paragraph. Being able to control your character isn't interesting to me if there's no challenge. However, if it's too hard or it's mind numbingly repetitive then I'll lose interest. Obviously, a difficult game is going to kill me, so I'm going to fail a number of times. I expect that. But the draw is the challenge. It's why I play. You act as though it doesn't need to be there, but it has always needed to be there for me.

(.....)
The difficulty of translating the powers of superheroes into video games is crazy huge. And that is because of the usual dichotomy of the superhero in a video game. It's totally awesome in a comic book to watch a superhero beat up on five guys at once and never get hit. Express that in a video game, though, and it comes out as trash mobs from one of the game to the other, with an occasional emotional boss fight that also isn't that challenging. So, a many decades problem of design has always been: how does one make the player feel like a superhero, but still keep them engaged in the game?

And Rocksteady pulled it off. Which is just fucking crazy. They kept the challenge low, so you could feel like the Bat, but despite that, despite letting you win by pressing just one button by itself, they keep the game engaging from one end to the other. You've got to respect a company that pulls something like that off, even if you believe in different design principles, 'cause that is legend.

So in the prior quote Azrael says the Batman "Arkahm" games have a slightly more complex Awesome button and you've been hailing it as the anti-christ. And yet here you're rescinding? I smell something shifty, like fish, but more like squid or mushrooms or chinese porcupine. Can you elaborate because my brains are crashing and I got no bug fixes for this.

Because what you seem to be saying is an awesome button can work if the game is made the right way, completely contradicting yourself and that of others whom apparently are agreeing with your main thoughts.

EDIT: If somebody is playing a game for the story or the atmosphere or just because it's got Batman in it--and they also like a slighty more complex awesome button--then I have no qualms. You can have your cherry flavored ice cream and I'll keep my peach rainbow. I might even try your cherry flavored ice cream, since I like to sometimes behave differently. Maybe you'll do the same. No threats, no worries. But if anybody is thinking all games should be low challenge or it be absent, that's different. That's when it's red alert and my assets are on lockdown and you should expect full retaliation for any attacks on my territories. See, different opinions are great, but only if people can play what they like. If they can't then don't expect peaceful utopian community.

(Also want to add a lot of people c hoose more relaxed games because they've been busy or got a stressful life as it's. Their idea of entertainment is something slower and at ease. These people I have nothing against. Especially parents. This is not to say however a person working overtime can't also want a tense punishing game. It all depends. Conversely, I tend not to understand people who have relatively uneventual lives who prefer relaxed games. They already have relaxation.)

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Thanks Telengard, this theory was interesting enough to convince me to stop lurking.

It really comes down to impulsivity doesn't it? Sure you can spend time building up skills working and establishing a good life... or you live hand-to-mouth, reflexively smoking crack in tenement housing. The irony about power fantasies is that you develop a tolerance to them: you cannot continue to feel powerful unless you eventually overcome real challenges. Contrivances like the awesome button may have their place in video games, but it is not front and center.