Combat is a little bit too annoying?

[DecayWolf]

First let me say that this game has an amazing sound track, very good story and I'm enjoying playing it alot.

But there's one thing that keeps bothering me, the auto encounters are way too often, and doesn't add anything to the story really. Each character has some strength and weakness, if used correctly, all encounters would be pretty easy.
Before someone suggest to decrease the encounter spawn, I would say that I am already out leveled, I mean I'm getting 1 - 2 levels per battle, if I keep doing less battles, then eventually I'll hit a wall, due the enemies will keep getting stronger, while I won't.

I kinda understand why the FF combat director said that turn based combat makes he want to sleep, it's because it's freaking repetitive and boring. If this game was set with less encounters (stat wise, balanced), it would be so much better. The combat itself ain't the problem, the repetitive strategy required combied with the high frequency is.

[Hinnyuu]

If you want a challenge, you can go pretty far with very little fighting - in fact, there's even a challenge run people came up with that involves not leveling on the Sphere Grid AT ALL. You can still complete the game, though it'll be very hard. Of course, you don't need to go that far - you can reduce the encounter frequency and find yourself with battles that can perhaps be more fulfilling than they otherwise would be.

But like with any FF really, the truly satisfying battles are mostly reserved for the postgame combat. I can't really remember any game in the (main) series where this was any different. And there is some damn good postgame content both in FFX and X-2 (the latter especially has lightyears better combat, arguably the best in all of FF).

I'm not disagreeing with you, of course. While it may be a FF thing, it's true that certain aspects of combat aren't the series' most strong point. Unfortunately it is what it is, until we get some more comprehensive combat mods going. That can take years, but as we've seen with games like FFVII, which has some outstanding and fiendishly difficult mods, it can be well worth the wait.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

i would suggest doing what i am doing :

everytime you reach a new area , activate x4 Speed (F1) , full health and over drive (F2) and increased encounter rate (F3) and mash through a few fights until it takes you quite a few fights to even gett 1 Sphere level , then switch to "no encounters" , that way you arent under levelled and save time by not running into encounters all the time

especially mi'hen highroad is awful without "no encounters" savepoints are way too few , its a really long road and imo Spawnrates are too high by default ( in besaid you get 2-3 encounters in the time you get like 5-7 on Mi'hen highroad

[Hinnyuu]

Certainly an option.

Another possibility is to use an editor and give everyone Capture weapons from the start, allowing you to work on your Monster Arena captures from the start of the game. That way, at least there's purpose to your early game fighting and you'll save yourself from going through it again for postgame.

One of the advantages of PC is that you have a lot of options to modify your game in the way that suits your own taste best.

[DecayWolf]

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

If you want a challenge, you can go pretty far with very little fighting - in fact, there's even a challenge run people came up with that involves not leveling on the Sphere Grid AT ALL. You can still complete the game, though it'll be very hard. Of course, you don't need to go that far - you can reduce the encounter frequency and find yourself with battles that can perhaps be more fulfilling than they otherwise would be.

But like with any FF really, the truly satisfying battles are mostly reserved for the postgame combat. I can't really remember any game in the (main) series where this was any different. And there is some damn good postgame content both in FFX and X-2 (the latter especially has lightyears better combat, arguably the best in all of FF).

I'm not disagreeing with you, of course. While it may be a FF thing, it's true that certain aspects of combat aren't the series' most strong point. Unfortunately it is what it is, until we get some more comprehensive combat mods going. That can take years, but as we've seen with games like FFVII, which has some outstanding and fiendishly difficult mods, it can be well worth the wait.

I guess I'll reduce the encounters and see what happens. If I get waay too out leveld, I can just grind a bit to catch up. Higher level monsters would be faster to level up anyways.
The combat spawming is starting to drive me crazy.

Originally posted by Warfighter:

i would suggest doing what i am doing :

everytime you reach a new area , activate x4 Speed (F1) , full health and over drive (F2) and increased encounter rate (F3) and mash through a few fights until it takes you quite a few fights to even gett 1 Sphere level , then switch to "no encounters" , that way you arent under levelled and save time by not running into encounters all the time

especially mi'hen highroad is awful without "no encounters" savepoints are way too few , its a really long road and imo Spawnrates are too high by default ( in besaid you get 2-3 encounters in the time you get like 5-7 on Mi'hen highroad

Well, I really don't like cheating, and it's not like the game is hard currently.
I think that lightning road was much worse to travel than high road.

[Hinnyuu]

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Well, I really don't like cheating

Is it, though? It seems to me like "cheating" is a bit of a misapplication of the term when it comes to a strictly single-player environment. You may be breaking the rules, you may be modifying the game, but there is really not one to "cheat" since you're the only player ever affected by what you do in any way, shape, or form. You are adult enough to be trusted with the responsibility of making your own fun, and don't let the constraints of game developers stop you - who, after all, design for profit centered around the watered-down and averaged-out expectations of a theoretical concept of a player that isn't actually you. It's the power of PC gaming, and I urge anyone to make use of it to the fullest.

[DecayWolf]

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Well, I really don't like cheating

Is it, though? It seems to me like "cheating" is a bit of a misapplication of the term when it comes to a strictly single-player environment. You may be breaking the rules, you may be modifying the game, but there is really not one to "cheat" since you're the only player ever affected by what you do in any way, shape, or form. You are adult enough to be trusted with the responsibility of making your own fun, and don't let the constraints of game developers stop you - who, after all, design for profit centered around the watered-down and averaged-out expectations of a theoretical concept of a player that isn't actually you. It's the power of PC gaming, and I urge anyone to make use of it to the fullest.

Aside from multiplayer cheating which is much worse.
Single player cheating would break the laws of game balance, resulting into a trivial gemaply experience, not intended when the game was created, otherwise it simply would be different.
There are different categories of games, generally RPGs involves combat strategy, character
development (personal and fightness skills) combined with a rich story telling. Playing a RPG without the combat part, would be the same than playing a novel, which isn't the proposal.
The game has many combat mechanics, 'rock/paper/scissor' style combined with an according challenge level, which supposed to the grid development versus the monsters level from the area, if one isn't in harmony with the other, then there's no balance.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

If you want a challenge, you can go pretty far with very little fighting - in fact, there's even a challenge run people came up with that involves not leveling on the Sphere Grid AT ALL. You can still complete the game, though it'll be very hard. Of course, you don't need to go that far - you can reduce the encounter frequency and find yourself with battles that can perhaps be more fulfilling than they otherwise would be.

But like with any FF really, the truly satisfying battles are mostly reserved for the postgame combat. I can't really remember any game in the (main) series where this was any different. And there is some damn good postgame content both in FFX and X-2 (the latter especially has lightyears better combat, arguably the best in all of FF).

I'm not disagreeing with you, of course. While it may be a FF thing, it's true that certain aspects of combat aren't the series' most strong point. Unfortunately it is what it is, until we get some more comprehensive combat mods going. That can take years, but as we've seen with games like FFVII, which has some outstanding and fiendishly difficult mods, it can be well worth the wait.

I guess I'll reduce the encounters and see what happens. If I get waay too out leveld, I can just grind a bit to catch up. Higher level monsters would be faster to level up anyways.
The combat spawming is starting to drive me crazy.

Originally posted by Warfighter:

i would suggest doing what i am doing :

everytime you reach a new area , activate x4 Speed (F1) , full health and over drive (F2) and increased encounter rate (F3) and mash through a few fights until it takes you quite a few fights to even gett 1 Sphere level , then switch to "no encounters" , that way you arent under levelled and save time by not running into encounters all the time

especially mi'hen highroad is awful without "no encounters" savepoints are way too few , its a really long road and imo Spawnrates are too high by default ( in besaid you get 2-3 encounters in the time you get like 5-7 on Mi'hen highroad

Well, I really don't like cheating, and it's not like the game is hard currently.
I think that lightning road was much worse to travel than high road.

its not really cheating if its a feature in the game ( FFXED isnt in the game but i wouldnt consider it cheating either , FFX has a "unlock all items" cheat , with FFXED i can just give me 99 of certain items that are annoying to get like Key spheres while not having all the others

also like Hinnyuu said

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

You may be breaking the rules, you may be modifying the game, but there is really not one to "cheat" since you're the only player ever affected by what you do in any way, shape, or form.

i love X but it just aged worse than XIII ( which already is 8 years old aswell ( jp release))

[DecayWolf]

Well, each one if their own preferences. :)

[Hinnyuu]

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Aside from multiplayer cheating which is much worse.
Single player cheating would break the laws of game balance, resulting into a trivial gemaply experience, not intended when the game was created, otherwise it simply would be different.
There are different categories of games, generally RPGs involves combat strategy, character
development (personal and fightness skills) combined with a rich story telling. Playing a RPG without the combat part, would be the same than playing a novel, which isn't the proposal.
The game has many combat mechanics, 'rock/paper/scissor' style combined with an according challenge level, which supposed to the grid development versus the monsters level from the area, if one isn't in harmony with the other, then there's no balance.

While true in a way, keep in mind that "as intended" is a VERY iffy concept. Not only because these games are designed by dozens if not hundreds of people and are one big congealed compromise, but also because as I mentioned earlier these games are designed around being sold, and that implies a target audience - since the game lacks anything like difficulty settings, ever player, from the most casual to the most experienced hardcore gamer, is getting the same game. To think that the same game would be equally as satisfying to that diverse an audience is, in my mind, ludicrous. The reason it is this way is practicality and economics - it simply doesn't pay to diversify game modes to a degree that would reflect the diversity of the audience. But there is no reason to just accept that fact if you have the power to change it - for yourself, and without forcing it upon anyone else in the world but you. (You rightfully said that multiplayer is a whole different discussion, in a whole different planet, nay, a whole different universe. But this is SP-only)

Also, you are implying that all modification involves lowering the difficulty. Putting aside the discussion as to whether that is inherently a "bad" thing or what it does the developer "vision", it's simply not true. Many people adjust the difficulty both ways - perhaps lower in some respects, but higher in others. Me personally, I can't make games hard enough for my taste. I love going absolutely ham on story-driven RPGs and it's basically become a regular thing for me to mod them to accommodate that, cranking the difficulty all the way to eleven, and then some. The result is often very far from that developer "intent" or "vision" but I don't give a hoot. I like it infinitely better that way, and I'm very well aware of the fact that if anyone made a game like that to sell it would probably shift 3 copies (2 of them to me, 1 to the girl whose mom misclicked when she got her a present). But if I COULDN'T mod those games, I probably wouldn't buy them (and indeed have stopped buying console games entirely for that very reason).

Now, just to briefly touch upon the difficulty thing - much of what people perceive as "difficulty" is actually something else. Most often it's "tedium", just filling time without any REAL chance of a failure state. Don't tell me you were ever going to Game Over against that Mi'hen Dingo in a million years. Skipping that isn't reducing the difficulty, it's reducing tedium. While the line between the two is admittedly blurry, the beauty of it is that you don't need a clear-cut, objective definition - because the entire POINT of it all is that it can be a SUBJECTIVE decision. And should. As you rightly said: to each their own. But too many people don't reflect enough on "their own" and remain trapped in an irrational prison of their own preconceptions. I invite anyone to think a bit, and reflect. You may be surprised by what you can unlock for yourself with a little creativity, and how it will change your outlook on games. Heck, there's title's I've been playing constantly for over a decade just because I find ever new ways of modifying them. If that isn't some good value right there I don't know what is. And I'm hopeful that this game, too, will one day be modded in ways as complex and as rich as e.g. FFVII.

[DecayWolf]

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

While true in a way, keep in mind that "as intended" is a VERY iffy concept. Not only because these games are designed by dozens if not hundreds of people and are one big congealed compromise.

No really, not all games were triple A, also in the game development history, it was been noticed that if theere was specializated profissional working on different areas, the product quality would be higher, thus more desirable for purchases.
Games like GTA V does have hundrends of workers, but some are testers, musicians, artists, programmers, bugger fixer, writters...
You see, it's not a convulated conjuntion of ideas. In any game development would always have a lead for each major deparment area. When it comes to difficult and balanceament, a smaller fragment of the team would work into a individual person intetion and mind, not a democratic poll.
Sure some times there are exceptions, for instace FF tactics, it has merged ideas from two persons which had completely different ideas on how the game should be played in combat, thus a new hybrid was born, but these cases are rarier, generally speaking there is always someone with the last say and more autority.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

but also because as I mentioned earlier these games are designed around being sold, and that implies a target audience - since the game lacks anything like difficulty settings, ever player, from the most casual to the most experienced hardcore gamer, is getting the same game. To think that the same game would be equally as satisfying to that diverse an audience is, in my mind, ludicrous.

Not everyone share the same opinion, that's a universal fact, but more on difficult in games later.
Grind oriented games has always been balanced on the party level, if the party is under leveled, then it would be harder, if the party is equal, should be normal, if it's over leveled it should be easier. This line of thinking is specially true in older games, which FFX does make part of. The lack of difficult selection wasn't due develoment cost per say, it is, because the game has tools to balance itself, being harder or easier depending on different playstyles.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

The reason it is this way is practicality and economics - it simply doesn't pay to diversify game modes to a degree that would reflect the diversity of the audience.

The above quotation adress this as well.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

But there is no reason to just accept that fact if you have the power to change it - for yourself;

As I said earlier it would break the balance law. Below I'll talk more about it.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

Now, just to briefly touch upon the difficulty thing - much of what people perceive as "difficulty" is actually something else. Most often it's "tedium", just filling time without any REAL chance of a failure state. Don't tell me you were ever going to Game Over against that Mi'hen Dingo in a million years.
Skipping that isn't reducing the difficulty, it's reducing tedium. While the line between the two is admittedly blurry, the beauty of it is that you don't need a clear-cut, objective definition - because the entire POINT of it all is that it can be a SUBJECTIVE decision.

You see, I've come with the a similar perception about the correlation of difficult and the time needed to accomplish, being merely hours wasted in vain, but these aren't all cases.
For instance, if we talk about a grand strategy game, you would be incorrect by default, since once the difficult bar is scaled higher, it would require a better pragmatic planning of the steps ahead, otherwise it would be inavitable to not fail and get 'game over.' Also just to name an example, TW:WH, I can conquer lands on legendary difficult as fast as my armies could reach these regions, it simply couldn't be any realistical faster than that.
Another example could be shooter games, or like I like to call them, "point clicking games" which when the difficult scales, generally speaking it envolves into a faster pace time chain of reaction, from the toes when moving around, from the eyes when spotted the enemy, sending a direct signal to the brain cells to move the right army mouse into the correct place in order to 'fire.' You see, it ends as a very specific skill test, rarely it envolves additional use of strategy these days.

You would be 100% accurate and correct, if it was a grinding game which never in any moment, would present a threating challenge which could result in 'game over/defeat,' in FFX we've some wall tests checks, which are called Bosses or Boss fight if you will. If a party is too weak, or if the strategy (party composition, weapons/armor used, items, skills) is not correct, then the party will fail and there will be game over. Thus, over leveling would completely destroy the bosses purpose which is a 'check test' per say, on the player progression on the world rule set. Arbitrarly reducing the difficult, would completely negate the purpose of bosses or understanding the combat mechanics.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

And should. As you rightly said: to each their own. But too many people don't reflect enough on "their own" and remain trapped in an irrational prison of their own preconceptions. I invite anyone to think a bit, and reflect. You may be surprised by what you can unlock for yourself with a little creativity, and how it will change your outlook on games. Heck, there's title's I've been playing constantly for over a decade just because I find ever new ways of modifying them. If that isn't some good value right there I don't know what is. And I'm hopeful that this game, too, will one day be modded in ways as complex and as rich as e.g. FFVII.

You see, I always preferred to play something once, beat it and the move on. Recently I have been forced to change my ways, due the honest lack of option. Attempting to experience different things, often result into wasted time.

I can understand the desire to replay something good, due it's value, and I also can understand that chaning a few things, could completely remake how things used to be, however in the very end, Tidus still would be Tidus, Spira still would be Spira.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

Also, you are implying that all modification involves lowering the difficulty. Putting aside the discussion as to whether that is inherently a "bad" thing or what it does the developer "vision", it's simply not true. Many people adjust the difficulty both ways - perhaps lower in some respects, but higher in others. Me personally, I can't make games hard enough for my taste. I love going absolutely ham on story-driven RPGs and it's basically become a regular thing for me to mod them to accommodate that, cranking the difficulty all the way to eleven, and then some. The result is often very far from that developer "intent" or "vision" but I don't give a hoot. I like it infinitely better that way, and I'm very well aware of the fact that if anyone made a game like that to sell it would probably shift 3 copies (2 of them to me, 1 to the girl whose mom misclicked when she got her a present). But if I COULDN'T mod those games, I probably wouldn't buy them (and indeed have stopped buying console games entirely for that very reason).

We've to agree here, public mods most often tends to reduce the difficult than increase it.
In this particular case, we're talking about reducing it.

Chess was meant to be played following it's rules, the horse has it's movement, the tower has it's movement, the bishop, the peon.
A poker game, should also follow it's rules. A strategy game should follow it's rules.
A RPG should follow it's rules, FFX should follow and respec it's game design decision, since the skill tree (grid), level design, boss design, monsters desigh were explicity planned around it. Playing a game not how it supposed to be played, would destroy the original intetion of fun, since the balance wasn't be respected.
Also as I said earlier, Grind games difficult are based on the party level primaly.

A game design is the very core of it's foundation. It's like building a tower of cards, removing one from the very bottom and hoping it keeps itself stable, it won't.

[Hinnyuu]

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

The lack of difficult selection wasn't due develoment cost per say, it is, because the game has tools to balance itself, being harder or easier depending on different playstyles.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. Are you saying that difficulty settings aren't necessary, because you can always just choose to play with one hand only (or the variant equivalent)? That's incredibly facile thinking, not to mention it sacrifices depth and complexity which often detracts from the game experience rather than add to it. I don't want to do LESS in my game - I want to pull every lever, every last resort, and I want to have to do so. FFX is a joke to experienced players, it's trivial to absolutely destroy it with minimal effort if you know what you're doing. Heck, the final superboss (Penance) is a deterministic 100% success fight where no single character will ever die as long as you follow the pattern. What am I supposed to do to make that harder on myself, deliberately screw up? Do you consider that fun? Do you think that saying "let's not use skill x" is a meaningful handicap? Do you like taking away game mechanics?

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

You see, I've come with the a similar perception about the correlation of difficult and the time needed to accomplish, being merely hours wasted in vain, but these aren't all cases.

No, they're not. Which is why I've said "often".

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

For instance, if we talk about a grand strategy game, you would be incorrect by default, since once the difficult bar is scaled higher, it would require a better pragmatic planning of the steps ahead, otherwise it would be inavitable to not fail and get 'game over.'

That's oversimplification. There's tons of mechanics in games like that designed as more tedium than ACTUAL difficulty. The extent of them varies from game to game and genre to genre but it's almost universally present in games above a certain complexity (i.e. not something like chess etc.). Often that's desirable, and not just an evil redundancy - but it still shouldn't be confused with true difficulty.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

You would be 100% accurate and correct, if it was a grinding game which never in any moment, would present a threating challenge which could result in 'game over/defeat,' in FFX we've some wall tests checks, which are called Bosses or Boss fight if you will. If a party is too weak, or if the strategy (party composition, weapons/armor used, items, skills) is not correct, then the party will fail and there will be game over.

I'm not sure why you're explaining something this obvious, but you've correctly identified one of the sources of actual difficulty. In FF in particular, bosses are usually the difficulty gates (though some trash mobs have been known to cause headaches as well, from time to time).

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Thus, over leveling would completely destroy the bosses purpose which is a 'check test' per say, on the player progression on the world rule set. Arbitrarly reducing the difficult, would completely negate the purpose of bosses or understanding the combat mechanics.

That's a gross overgeneralization. Not even counting games like FFVIII where you can't actually overlevel, you're implying static concepts of difficulty that are somehow concrete rules integral to the game's enjoyment. That isn't the case. It's all fluid, subjective experiences, and the degree to which difficulty and tedium exist and become one another varies from player to player and even for single players over time. I don't lose Blitzball games, for example. Ever. It's been 10 years since people scored a single goal against me. Other people struggle with it, a lot - just browse these forums. To them, BB is difficulty, and the rewards for it are a meaningful achievement gated through that difficulty. For me, this is 100% pure tedium. I will never lose, and know I never ever will. Going through the same games required to get that reward is not a meaningful experience for me. To suggest that difficulty is some inherent immutable property of the game developer's vision is grossly oversimplifying and quite frankly insulting to the variety of gamer personalities and preferences.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

You see, I always preferred to play something once, beat it and the move on. Recently I have been forced to change my ways, due the honest lack of option. Attempting to experience different things, often result into wasted time.

I can understand the desire to replay something good, due it's value, and I also can understand that chaning a few things, could completely remake how things used to be, however in the very end, Tidus still would be Tidus, Spira still would be Spira.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. I'm not talking about rewriting a game's story or its characters (though there are certainly mods out there that do go very far in that respect). Are you suggesting that a game's flavor and its mechanics are completely inseparable concepts and you can't change one without negatively affecting the other? Or are you saying that you can't experience renewed interest on a mechanical level despite familiarly with the story component? I don't know about you, but I'm capable of discrimination in that respect, and it's no problem for me to be content with a game's story yet critical of its mechanical aspects. Take FFVIII - it's a long-time favorite and a true classic. The story is great, so are the characters. Wouldn't change a thing. But mechanically it's a bit shallow and nothing is particularly hard. Enter one of the hardcore difficulty mods - without changing one bit about the story or characters, the brutally challenging difficulty and re-scripted fights from those mods, as well as some previously non-existent encounters, greatly enhance the overall game experience for me. I don't care that Aeris still dies and that Cloud still was never in SOLDIER - that's an experience on an entire different level. But I do care that suddenly any random trash mob can and will wipe the floor with me, that I have to fight tooth and nail against every random caterpillar, that I need to pull out all the stops and use every consumable to get through. That, on a mechanical level, provides entertainment to me that's completely separate from the story, without affecting it one bit. And it has a lot more longevity than the original ever had, enough to still have me playing it after all these years.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

We've to agree here, public mods most often tends to reduce the difficult than increase it.
In this particular case, we're talking about reducing it.

We can talk about whatever you like, because you can DO whatever you like. And as I said earlier, "the difficulty" isn't a thing because it's a fluid and subjective concept. You do you. I don't judge mods by "does this reduce difficulty", I judge them by "what does this bring to the table for my own enjoyment" and I don't see a need to frame it in ways other than my own personal, subjective experience. (Still talking SP-only games, of course)

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Chess was meant to be played following it's rules, the horse has it's movement, the tower has it's movement, the bishop, the peon.
A poker game, should also follow it's rules.

All those games you mentioned are MULTIPLAYER games. The discussion is FUNDAMENTALLY different the instant any other person is involved. You don't break the rules of chess because you're playing against someone else, and forcing them to adhere to your subjective interpretation of fun infringes upon theirs. Different story, different book, different entire friggin library.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

A RPG should follow it's rules, FFX should follow and respec it's game design decision, since the skill tree (grid), level design, boss design, monsters desigh were explicity planned around it. Playing a game not how it supposed to be played, would destroy the original intetion of fun, since the balance wasn't be respected.

That's quite the statement to make. WHY should these games follow "their" rules? Rules that were, as I said earlier, explicitly designed to fit a wide audience - necessarily making compromises for extreme ends of the spectrum. Do you think it would be a good idea to make, say, shoes that are all the same average size? Or do you think that it's better if they are a tight fight? The difference of course is that it's not economical to produce 20 versions of the same game - so you compromise, and you average out. Those "design decisions" are made around an AVERAGE player, their skills and their expectations. Unless you think you fit that category perfectly (and all power to you if you do), you'll have to admit that you're just accepting that compromise. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, practical concerns are absolutely a valid thing in product design. But that doesn't invalidate the option to make things BETTER. Yes most people just by ready-to-wear clothing, but not one would argue that a bespoke suit wouldn't be a better fit - or are you saying that no, modifying it to fit your body goes against the clothes designers intention when they averaged out the cut for the respective size?

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

A game design is the very core of it's foundation. It's like building a tower of cards, removing one from the very bottom and hoping it keeps itself stable, it won't.

I'm not even sure what to respond to that. How does this metaphor make any sense at all in this context? Should I just come up with another, equally vapid and meaningless metaphor? How about "Only dead fish go with the flow"? Or "If you spend your life coloring within the lines you'll never learn to think outside the box"?
The very idea that there is just one "tower of cards" is ridiculous. There's any number of them, straight, pyramid, with many stacks or few - and they're all using the same cards. Just because YOUR tower collapses if you take out a card here or there, doesn't mean mine will. Ok let's stop it now. This is meaningless drivel without any real content.

[DecayWolf]

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. Are you saying that difficulty settings aren't necessary, because you can always just choose to play with one hand only (or the variant equivalent)? That's incredibly facile thinking, not to mention it sacrifices depth and complexity which often detracts from the game experience rather than add to it. I don't want to do LESS in my game - I want to pull every lever, every last resort, and I want to have to do so. FFX is a joke to experienced players, it's trivial to absolutely destroy it with minimal effort if you know what you're doing. Heck, the final superboss (Penance) is a deterministic 100% success fight where no single character will ever die as long as you follow the pattern. What am I supposed to do to make that harder on myself, deliberately screw up? Do you consider that fun? Do you think that saying "let's not use skill x" is a meaningful handicap? Do you like taking away game mechanics?

Then we're two to not understand, because I clearly stated that the game could be easier or harder depending on how someone play a grinding game, by being over leveled, normal leveld or under leveled.

If you want to play with your own feet that's up to you.

Firstly you say that I should play using cheats, now you say this game is too easy with a trivial difficulty level. If it's too easy, then why using cheats at first place?
The concept of any grinding game by default is controlling the difficult by the user level, so it's obvious if I become over leveled there won't be any challenge left to be had. Also when you mentioned if one knows what they're doing, were you indirectly refering to items, such divine weapons/armor and such? While they certain makes part of the game design, it also known that some items are either missable or too grinding to get, which simply doesn't equate as default equipament value. Also it's very well known that in any RPG, in any difficulty, the best gear tends to break the difficult, turning the game into a cake walk.
So if you were referring "if one know what they're doing" as epic gear, then obvious.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

That's oversimplification. There's tons of mechanics in games like that designed as more tedium than ACTUAL difficulty. The extent of them varies from game to game and genre to genre but it's almost universally present in games above a certain complexity (i.e. not something like chess etc.). Often that's desirable, and not just an evil redundancy - but it still shouldn't be confused with true difficulty.

"true difficult" would be any increase of skill necessary to accomplish the same goal. Additional gameplay time is secondary for that matter.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

I'm not sure why you're explaining something this obvious, but you've correctly identified one of the sources of actual difficulty. In FF in particular, bosses are usually the difficulty gates (though some trash mobs have been known to cause headaches as well, from time to time).

You said the difficult level only increases the amount of time needed to achieve anything.
I explained the difference between increasing the difficulty being directly linked with the skill requeriment in the previously post. And also explained why FFX level desigh would not hold it's intended gameplay balance if cheats were being used to become over leveld.

If when increasing the difficult, the game doesn't become more challeging and would only adds extra time, then it's just waste of time. I've clearly stated the reasons why FFX can not be categorized on such group.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

That's a gross overgeneralization. Not even counting games like FFVIII where you can't actually overlevel, you're implying static concepts of difficulty that are somehow concrete rules integral to the game's enjoyment. That isn't the case. It's all fluid, subjective experiences, and the degree to which difficulty and tedium exist and become one another varies from player to player and even for single players over time. I don't lose Blitzball games, for example. Ever. It's been 10 years since people scored a single goal against me. Other people struggle with it, a lot - just browse these forums. To them, BB is difficulty, and the rewards for it are a meaningful achievement gated through that difficulty. For me, this is 100% pure tedium. I will never lose, and know I never ever will. Going through the same games required to get that reward is not a meaningful experience for me. To suggest that difficulty is some inherent immutable property of the game developer's vision is grossly oversimplifying and quite frankly insulting to the variety of gamer personalities and preferences.

Game level desigh, monster stats, boss stats, where planned assuming the player would be at X point into the Grid sphere, would've acquired Y and Z spells/skills, you've Y and T weapons/armor/items, then implement the the enemies which are meant to offer a fair resistance equal to what was acquired, not more nor less, then tested, retested and tested some more, that's how the difficult progressively scales. That's how games were developed.
I'm not talking about personal preferences, I'm not talking about FFXIII.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. I'm not talking about rewriting a game's story or its characters (though there are certainly mods out there that do go very far in that respect). Are you suggesting that a game's flavor and its mechanics are completely inseparable concepts and you can't change one without negatively affecting the other? Or are you saying that you can't experience renewed interest on a mechanical level despite familiarly with the story component? I don't know about you, but I'm capable of discrimination in that respect, and it's no problem for me to be content with a game's story yet critical of its mechanical aspects. Take FFVIII - it's a long-time favorite and a true classic. The story is great, so are the characters. Wouldn't change a thing. But mechanically it's a bit shallow and nothing is particularly hard. Enter one of the hardcore difficulty mods - without changing one bit about the story or characters, the brutally challenging difficulty and re-scripted fights from those mods, as well as some previously non-existent encounters, greatly enhance the overall game experience for me. I don't care that Aeris still dies and that Cloud still was never in SOLDIER - that's an experience on an entire different level. But I do care that suddenly any random trash mob can and will wipe the floor with me, that I have to fight tooth and nail against every random caterpillar, that I need to pull out all the stops and use every consumable to get through. That, on a mechanical level, provides entertainment to me that's completely separate from the story, without affecting it one bit. And it has a lot more longevity than the original ever had, enough to still have me playing it after all these years.

Context "with a little creativity, and how it will change your outlook on games. Heck, there's title's I've been playing constantly for over a decade just because I find ever new ways of modifying them. "

You stated that you can play the same game for decades, as long you can modify it's gameplay mechanics to few anew.
I said I don't usually play the same game twice, regardless, because the story would still be the same, because I need something new and fresh.
Yes, the mechanics could completely overhaul how the game is played, but the world would still be the same.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

All those games you mentioned are MULTIPLAYER games. The discussion is FUNDAMENTALLY different the instant any other person is involved. You don't break the rules of chess because you're playing against someone else, and forcing them to adhere to your subjective interpretation of fun infringes upon theirs. Different story, different book, different entire friggin library.

The be my guest and translate what I've said into a single person boardgame or video game for what matter.
The rules are the structure which will make it function, if one rule is not followed, the gameplay will not flow as intended.

I would wish to give a example of a single person board game, but they're rare to find, since our specie is sociable, thus we don't enjoy to play a game by ourselfs.
But just give yourself a second to imagine if a game explicity says to draw 3 bad events at the end of the turn, then since you're alone, you've decied to draw just 1 or none, the game just won't be as fluid as it's meant to be.

In a game development, there was a lot planning behind the scenes, the levels were designed to be accordinly. If I become over leveled, then there won't be any resistence left to be had, thus no challenge.

Not saying that FFX is a hard game, but it would definitely become significantelly easier if I become over leveled. Just to be very direct here, I don't want, I don't find it enjoyable by the slighest extent.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

That's quite the statement to make. WHY should these games follow "their" rules? Rules that were, as I said earlier, explicitly designed to fit a wide audience - necessarily making compromises for extreme ends of the spectrum. Do you think it would be a good idea to make, say, shoes that are all the same average size? Or do you think that it's better if they are a tight fight? The difference of course is that it's not economical to produce 20 versions of the same game - so you compromise, and you average out. Those "design decisions" are made around an AVERAGE player, their skills and their expectations. Unless you think you fit that category perfectly (and all power to you if you do), you'll have to admit that you're just accepting that compromise. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, practical concerns are absolutely a valid thing in product design. But that doesn't invalidate the option to make things BETTER. Yes most people just by ready-to-wear clothing, but not one would argue that a bespoke suit wouldn't be a better fit - or are you saying that no, modifying it to fit your body goes against the clothes designers intention when they averaged out the cut for the respective size?

I never said anyone shouldn't do what they want to and do what I want to do.
I've superficially tried to explain several times by now, that a level design is a calculated conjuction of the all elements present to deliver what the developers believe it would be the most fit experience overall.

If the developers wanted to release a game without any challenge, they would've developed a novel game, not an RPG. If they did developed an RPG, it's because they believe their system is entertaining and challeging enough for the audiences. Above all else, I believe this is the most enjoyable way to play a game, and I really don't care to whom seek to ease the challenge.

FFX isn't a hard game.
FFX is a Grind game, which by default the difficult is direct connected with the party level primarly.
I don't see a point on cheating to get free levels. I'm not looking for a easier game. I'm not having difficulty playing this game. The OP was about a completely different subject.

If someone wants to use cheats, go ahead, I'm not stopping anyone, infact I couldn't care less, but I simply won't start using cheats just because someone thinks I should.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

I'm not even sure what to respond to that. How does this metaphor make any sense at all in this context? Should I just come up with another, equally vapid and meaningless metaphor? How about "Only dead fish go with the flow"? Or "If you spend your life coloring within the lines you'll never learn to think outside the box"?
The very idea that there is just one "tower of cards" is ridiculous. There's any number of them, straight, pyramid, with many stacks or few - and they're all using the same cards. Just because YOUR tower collapses if you take out a card here or there, doesn't mean mine will. Ok let's stop it now. This is meaningless drivel without any real content.

Well then, go take care about your tower of cards and leave mine alone. :)

__
Edit: Btw I get that you're trying to help, and thanks for that.
But if I became under leveled, I would rather to have fair fights until I somwhat catch the correct level, rather than utilize tools to easen/speed the battles.

[Hinnyuu]

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Firstly you say that I should play using cheats, now you say this game is too easy with a trivial difficulty level. If it's too easy, then why using cheats at first place?

I'm not even sure what to say, it's like you haven't read a word I've written earlier. It's because difficulty isn't just one static concept, it's a SUBJECTIVE quality. To someone who has never picked up a FF game, certain fights can be a significant challenge. To me, who's been playing FF for over two decades, it's a joke. And that's not because of being overleveled or underleveled, I can and have beaten the game in NSG quite easily.

That's sort of the point of why mods are as great a thing as they are. How has that not been made abundantly clear by my posts so far?

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

"true difficult" would be any increase of skill necessary to accomplish the same goal. Additional gameplay time is secondary for that matter.

And what "skill" is required to beat those Mi'hen Fangs, or any other interchangeable mooks that make up the bulk of RPG trash mobs? Please. Defeating Goblin Pack #5000 has never involved any skill other than being able to cope with tedium.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

You said the difficult level only increases the amount of time needed to achieve anything.

No, I didnt'. I said that there is a difference between something that is difficult, and something that takes time, and that the two aren't always the same. So, really, literally the opposite of what you think I said.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Game level desigh, monster stats, boss stats, where planned assuming the player would be at X point into the Grid sphere, would've acquired Y and Z spells/skills, you've Y and T weapons/armor/items, then implement the the enemies which are meant to offer a fair resistance equal to what was acquired, not more nor less, then tested, retested and tested some more, that's how the difficult progressively scales. That's how games were developed.
I'm not talking about personal preferences, I'm not talking about FFXIII.

You're not talking about anything, really. Because my point has never been that the games work differently - they work "as intended". My problem is that those INTENTIONS are hardly anything to go by, because they're a watered-down average meant to appease the largest possible (commercial) audience. There is no reason to accept that as an immutable status quo, as long as you have the power to do something about it. And on a PC, we usually do. Whatever the devs intended is irrelevant - it's what the actual, individual PLAYER wants that counts.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

You stated that you can play the same game for decades, as long you can modify it's gameplay mechanics to few anew.
I said I don't usually play the same game twice, regardless, because the story would still be the same, because I need something new and fresh.
Yes, the mechanics could completely overhaul how the game is played, but the world would still be the same.

If that doesn't hold your interest, that's perfectly acceptable. Not everyone is super into the mechanical side of things. But if you're not, and it's more tedium to you than an attractive aspect of gameplay - wouldn't that be MORE reason to do away with the most tiresome parts rather than less?

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

The be my guest and translate what I've said into a single person boardgame or video game for what matter.

I did. And the result is that only one player matters there, not the dev, not some invisible judging force, just you. No rules but the ones you set on yourself, everything else is a needlessly limited mindset that decreases your options and your potential for enjoyment.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

The rules are the structure which will make it function, if one rule is not followed, the gameplay will not flow as intended.

Correct. And that's the point. As I've now stated who knows how many times.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

I would wish to give a example of a single person board game, but they're rare to find, since our specie is sociable, thus we don't enjoy to play a game by ourselfs.

Okay now I feel like I'm being trolled. "We don't enjoy playing games by ourselves", he said on a forum about a 100% single-player game.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

But just give yourself a second to imagine if a game explicity says to draw 3 bad events at the end of the turn, then since you're alone, you've decied to draw just 1 or none, the game just won't be as fluid as it's meant to be.

Whatever "fluid" is supposed to mean, but sure, it doesn't work as the creators thought it would. That doesn't mean that's a bad thing. Creators are humans and capable of error. They're also subject to economic concerns that don't have to be constraints for individual players. I don't have to sell a single copy of my modded games. I don't need anyone to like it but myself. Whatever the devs "intended" doesn't matter.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

Not saying that FFX is a hard game, but it would definitely become significantelly easier if I become over leveled. Just to be very direct here, I don't want, I don't find it enjoyable by the slighest extent.

That's fine, and I think people have offered plenty of options that can get around that issue. If you choose not to make your game more fun for yourself because you're afraid someone is sitting behind you with a rule book, that's entirely on you. The options are there, but that's all they are - your choice is what matters in the end.

Originally posted by DecayWolf:

I never said anyone shouldn't do what they want to and do what I want to do.
I've superficially tried to explain several times by now, that a level design is a calculated conjuction of the all elements present to deliver what the developers believe it would be the most fit experience overall.

Most fit for WHOM, though? Certainly not for me. So why are you so convinced it would be for you?

[DecayWolf]

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

I'm not even sure what to say, it's like you haven't read a word I've written earlier. It's because difficulty isn't just one static concept, it's a SUBJECTIVE quality. To someone who has never picked up a FF game, certain fights can be a significant challenge. To me, who's been playing FF for over two decades, it's a joke. And that's not because of being overleveled or underleveled, I can and have beaten the game in NSG quite easily.

That's sort of the point of why mods are as great a thing as they are. How has that not been made abundantly clear by my posts so far?

I can play any game or serie that I've never played before on the maximum difficult level, without any problem.
So what exactly is your point? Some people might have the need to cheat beacuse they can't beat a game? FF is a easy and at same time a hard game? Depending on individual experience. How any of this is minimaly relevant to me, to the OP or to the discussion at all?

I don't care if you use cheats, if you like to use cheats, if anybody in the earth does the same, I won't, take the hint.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

And what "skill" is required to beat those Mi'hen Fangs, or any other interchangeable mooks that make up the bulk of RPG trash mobs? Please. Defeating Goblin Pack #5000 has never involved any skill other than being able to cope with tedium.

Don't be dense.
The context was, you claiming that difficult is directly linked with extra hours of pointless gameplay, as you've classified as "tedium"

I have explained the connection between increasing the difficult also require to increase the individual skill requeriment aka group 1, and raising the difficult and not having a increased amount of skill needed, just time to complete aka group 2.

FFX in specific can not be classified on the second group, for a group of reasons.
1 - Bosses.
2 - Tactical combat strategy.
3 - Synergy of general composition (party,skill,abillities,items, buffs/debuffs, etc.)
4 - Strength and weakness.

If in FFX there was no bosses, or if the entire game was filled garbo trivial cake walk enemies, without ever being threating, then yes it would belong to group 2, but then cheats won't be necessary. =/ And also it's not the case, though.

The spam encounters might be pointless, doesn't add anything to the story, aren't challeging.
I've OPed this, but some parts of the game, aren't mindless combats, namely bosses encounters.
Solution? Disable auto encounters, fixed. I don't need free levels, I don't want free levels. If it happens that I became under leveld, then I'll catch up doing fair battles, which also should be harder than if I wasn't under leveled.

Let me repeat here, I'm not looking to use cheats, I won't use cheats, because otherwise it would make 'special' encounters less interesting, I'm not finding the game hard. Take the hint and go preach to your dog, how important cheats are.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

No, I didnt'. I said that there is a difference between something that is difficult, and something that takes time, and that the two aren't always the same. So, really, literally the opposite of what you think I said.

On that we've an agreetment then.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

You're not talking about anything, really. Because my point has never been that the games work differently - they work "as intended". My problem is that those INTENTIONS are hardly anything to go by, because they're a watered-down average meant to appease the largest possible (commercial) audience. There is no reason to accept that as an immutable status quo, as long as you have the power to do something about it. And on a PC, we usually do. Whatever the devs intended is irrelevant - it's what the actual, individual PLAYER wants that counts.

Glad you think this way. Now pay atention when I say that I won't be using cheats and stick it deep in your mind.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

If that doesn't hold your interest, that's perfectly acceptable. Not everyone is super into the mechanical side of things. But if you're not, and it's more tedium to you than an attractive aspect of gameplay - wouldn't that be MORE reason to do away with the most tiresome parts rather than less?

Post game is nothing more than a grind fest, which by my definition is a blood waste of time in my book. Now, this part of FFX can easily be classified on group 2, mindless time wasting.

No, I'm really not interested in FF post game mechanics, but I wasn't referring to FF games specifically, I said in general, I like to play ANY game once, beat it and then move on. No more nor less.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

I did. And the result is that only one player matters there, not the dev, not some invisible judging force, just you. No rules but the ones you set on yourself, everything else is a needlessly limited mindset that decreases your options and your potential for enjoyment.

Believe it or not, but it's my own decision to not use cheats, and I do find this to be the more enjoyable approach, thank you.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

Correct. And that's the point. As I've now stated who knows how many times.

Yet, somehow you believe your preferences is more important than mine, and cheating won't affect the game balance, or if you agree it would, you simply don't care.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

Okay now I feel like I'm being trolled. "We don't enjoy playing games by ourselves", he said on a forum about a 100% single-player game.

By any chance, did you miss the word 'board game?'
Because if you did, I was specifically referring to these type of games for a single player experience.

Please, name 3 single person board games which are 'fun,' enlight me with your knowledge about the subject. It's not likely that our specie focus on interactive social tedences, like talking in a forum on the internet, rather than be playing a single player RPG game alone, no we aren't like that, at all.

Video games and board games are completely different things.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

Whatever "fluid" is supposed to mean, but sure, it doesn't work as the creators thought it would. That doesn't mean that's a bad thing. Creators are humans and capable of error. They're also subject to economic concerns that don't have to be constraints for individual players. I don't have to sell a single copy of my modded games. I don't need anyone to like it but myself. Whatever the devs "intended" doesn't matter.

Consider fluid as how everything should function.
Except from selling mods not being officially legal, I did notice that you like to modify things. Be happy, do whatever works for you.

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

That's fine, and I think people have offered plenty of options that can get around that issue. If you choose not to make your game more fun for yourself because you're afraid someone is sitting behind you with a rule book, that's entirely on you. The options are there, but that's all they are - your choice is what matters in the end.

You mean a person who suggested I copy what he's been doing, because he finds it more enjoyable? And you that clearly want me to do the same, because your opinion is clearly more important than mine?
Well, let's see, we've 7 billion people in the world, if we subtract 2 from this pool, how many would give the exactly same answer?
Well, there's only 6.999.999.998 people left to vote on the poll of which is most correct way to play a single player game.

Chances are it will be a 100% in one side, right?

Originally posted by Hinnyuu:

Most fit for WHOM, though? Certainly not for me. So why are you so convinced it would be for you?

Of course not for you, of course. You might even open a thread to talk more about it.

[Hinnyuu]

Is this just one huge troll and I've just been gotten, big time? It has to be, right?