Welcome to "Fainting Simulator" Everyone Wins just for Showing up!

[morgezuma]

Who needs a challenge? Not you! Let other players face risk and get their thrills at the prospect of achieving victory against all odds. For you, victory is guaranteed! Grind for glory, brah! You can be a winner just for showing up.

Tired of losing? Want game developers to hold your hand and assure you that there will be no ups and downs, only ups and more up up ups! Just buy "Fainting Simulator" for the win! No one loses in Fainting Simulator.

And we have many versions of this game. 1. Deep Rock Galactic 2. Valheim 3. Empyrion Galactic Survival 4. V-Rising 5. Etc. etc. These are all fainting simulators. Some players love them, and more power to them, I am glad they are having fun. Other players feel completely ripped off because nothing in the game description warned us that these games are fainting simulators, and we simply can't enjoy games where you are immortal and just grind for guaranteed progress without any way to lose the game.

Lazy game designers don't provide settings that allow all players to tune the game to suit their needs. Better designers provide a full range of risk vs reward dynamics. For example: Subnautica, Green Hell, The Long Dark, Frost Punk, and many more. Many game designers manage to please everyone including casual game lovers who want to explore without risk as well as hardcore types who need permadeath to be the result of running out of oxygen 1000 meters below the sea or getting ganged by angry natives while lost in the jungle.

Everyone should enjoy gaming the way that suits them. You enjoy your way, and other enjoy their own way. And, everyone should know what they're getting before they buy the game. For my part, I'm just not going to buy games on Steam anymore if "fainting simulators" are disguised to look just like the type of games I actually enjoy (the kind that provide a sense of adventure by placing rewards behind risky obstacles).

For me, it's $40 lost when I find out that when I kill the boss, he's dead, but if he kills me, I just respawn and try again until success. Or look at me, I'm a vampire that got burned to death by the sun, and the wind blew away my ashes, but hello, friendly little elves collected my ashes, restored my health, and tucked me back into my coffin so that I can try again, 1000x if need be. Every achievement is mine, every epic thing is mine, I just need to grind for it, that's all. That kind of game is desired by some players, I say let them enjoy it. But let us know in the description! That way, players who enjoy that kind of game can buy it and those who find them meaningless can avoid them. That's transparent and honest, which builds trust.

Let us have a tag to identify games that involve combat, don't include fatal consequence, and all progress and achievement is guaranteed if you simply grind for it. What should the tag be called? Any ideas?

Here are a few suggestions:
Grind for glory
Fainting simulator
Everyone wins
No losing
Care Bear
No Consequence
Immortality sim

[Boblin the Goblin]

Everyone is Invited a écrit :

how about run a steam company simulator, where you have to over price junk games and broken hardware, combat forum disapproval , and market manipulate both customers and mega corps. to get the cheapest employee numbers with the highest possible profit, all while dodging lawsuits and maintaining a zero liability exposure.

crisis events would incluce

Free game forum posting
nobody is real posting
Mega corp canceled another .OS
Holiday Event Promotions
New Game release that Corpo wants a discount on where player profits suffer.
players would have to pay out of profit for forum posting shills to counter forum threads

Steam doesn't price the games. Weird how for 'broken hardware' they are out of stock from sales.

Guess only actual customers understand how Valve works.

[morgezuma]

Tanoomba a écrit :

morgezuma a écrit :

I quickly discovered there is no way to NOT survive. Therefore, it's not a survival game.

Sure it is. It's just a survival game that's forgiving and doesn't punish the player harshly for failing.

Isn't your problem solved by sticking to games tagged with "permadeath"?

Most games that allow permadeath settings are not tagged permadeath. If they were, or if the game description made a point to mention it, this problem would be solved. Example: The Long Dark and Green Death are both survival games which allow permadeath (I think The Long Dark even requires it), yet neither one is tagged "permadeath", I just checked, including checking the extended list you can see by clicking the "+" symbol next to the main tags.

So far, it seems there is no solution. I took a huge dump on V-Rising review section for wasting my time with a product that was not as described. I refunded the purchase. The game is not bad, but the company described it as a survival game and I quickly figured out the game won't let you NOT survive, and the game is really just an Action/RPG Diablo clone with crafting, base building, and drinking blood for buffs, not for survival.

In addition to my review, and my thread here, I also left a suggestion in the suggestion box of the company to add survival settings to the game or adjust the description to reflect the actual game play.

My hope is that game companies will take care to describe the characteristics of their games more accurately because that will better serve them, Steam, and players.

In The Long Dark, you will shoot at wolves, and rabbits, but that doesn't make it even remotely similar to FPS. If the company behind The Long Dark described it as a FPS, they'd piss off a lot of FPS fans and everyone would suffer for it. Similarly, if V-Rising is sold as a survival game, survival fans are going to be pissed off because it's actually just an Action/RPG with crafting and building.

Diablo is not a survival game just because I drink a potion, Mario Bros is not survival just because I eat a mushroom. Lets be honest and lets give honest reviews when game companies tell us their game is what it isn't.

[Crazy Tiger]

Then why don't you simply apply the tag "permadeath" to the games you want them to have?

[peppermint hollows]

I find it difficult to believe that the OP did extensive research and somehow did not find out or realise the game doesn't have permadeath or any option for such - if it exists, it's usually mentioned. I also find it hard to believe they managed not to figure out that the game doesn't have permadeath within the 2 hour refund limit.

[Leonardo Da Pinchi]

SlowMango a écrit :

So the complaint is games don't give a perma-death and force you to start over from the beginning?

More, the complaint is games don't make you immortal and without consequence so you can breeze through it.

Regardless, tags are user generated.

[morgezuma]

Leonardo Da Pinchi a écrit :

SlowMango a écrit :

So the complaint is games don't give a perma-death and force you to start over from the beginning?

More, the complaint is games don't make you immortal and without consequence so you can breeze through it.

Regardless, tags are user generated.

Do we have here two quotes that both understood essentially the opposite of what I'm saying?

First, let me mention that tags are not the only problem that need fixing. Game companies are falsely describing their games to match whatever is currently popular.

But my main point is that there are a lot of games that offer easy settings and painless respawning to players that want that AND offer hard settings including permadeath settings to players who enjoy those settings. In this way, they please a range of players and when they describe their games as "survival", it is accurate, because the settings exist to enjoy an easy or hard survival experience. Examples: The Long Dark, Green Hell, Frost Punk, Subnautica, Planet Crafter, and many more that offer a full range of experiences AND accurately describe the game they are selling.

Then there are games which describe themselves exactly the same way, but don't do any of what I just described above. There is no way to not survive, yet they call themselves survival games because the genre is hot right now. In these games, doing stuff like eating, drinking, recharging, etc. are simply optional buffs that are not essential to survival. Buffs and needs are not the same thing. Also, there is no death, only fainting. So needs maintenance can be ignored. But if you want buffs, you eat, drink, whatever. Like Mario eats a mushroom before he goes to save the princess. Mario is not a survival game and shouldn't claim to be.

The second style of game can be great. There are players that love to have progress without setbacks. Such action/rpg games like Valheim, V-Rising, etc please a lot of players and that's great. The only problem is, rather than explaining that they are Action/RPGs with crafting/basebuilding, they make the false claim that they are somehow a survival game despite the fact that you can't NOT survive, survival is guaranteed, every epic thing will be yours if you grind long enough, there is not death, only fainting. The possibility of dying simply isn't coded into the game in any way, shape, or form. If you can't die, it's not about survival. You see, survival is about avoiding death, not avoiding fainting. But these fainting simulators can be fun for people that like them so they deserve a tag that honestly describes them.

If fainting simulators describe themselves as survival games a gamer that liked a fainting sim like V-Rising or Valheim or Emperyion Galactic Survival may think "oh joy, I love survival games" then he ends up buying an actual survival game because those fainting sims misled him. Now he owns The Long Dark and hates it because he was led to believe that survival games are about fainting, not dying. He may have never seen a "game over" screen and get PTSD.

[Leonardo Da Pinchi]

morgezuma a écrit :

Leonardo Da Pinchi a écrit :

More, the complaint is games don't make you immortal and without consequence so you can breeze through it.

Regardless, tags are user generated.

Do we have here two quotes that both understood essentially the opposite of what I'm saying?

First, let me mention that tags are not the only problem that need fixing. Game companies are falsely describing their games to match whatever is currently popular.

But my main point is that there are a lot of games that offer easy settings and painless respawning to players that want that AND offer hard settings including permadeath settings to players who enjoy those settings. In this way, they please a range of players and when they describe their games as "survival", it is accurate, because the settings exist to enjoy an easy or hard survival experience. Examples: The Long Dark, Green Hell, Frost Punk, Subnautica, Planet Crafter, and many more that offer a full range of experiences AND accurately describe the game they are selling.

Then there are games which describe themselves exactly the same way, but don't do any of what I just described above. There is no way to not survive, yet they call themselves survival games because the genre is hot right now. In these games, doing stuff like eating, drinking, recharging, etc. are simply optional buffs that are not essential to survival. Buffs and needs are not the same thing. Also, there is no death, only fainting. So needs maintenance can be ignored. But if you want buffs, you eat, drink, whatever. Like Mario eats a mushroom before he goes to save the princess. Mario is not a survival game and shouldn't claim to be.

The second style of game can be great. There are players that love to have progress without setbacks. Such action/rpg games like Valheim, V-Rising, etc please a lot of players and that's great. The only problem is, rather than explaining that they are Action/RPGs with crafting/basebuilding, they make the false claim that they are somehow a survival game despite the fact that you can't NOT survive, survival is guaranteed, every epic thing will be yours if you grind long enough, there is not death, only fainting. The possibility of dying simply isn't coded into the game in any way, shape, or form. If you can't die, it's not about survival. You see, survival is about avoiding death, not avoiding fainting. But these fainting simulators can be fun for people that like them so they deserve a tag that honestly describes them.

If fainting simulators describe themselves as survival games a gamer that liked a fainting sim like V-Rising or Valheim or Emperyion Galactic Survival may think "oh joy, I love survival games" then he ends up buying an actual survival game because those fainting sims misled him. Now he owns The Long Dark and hates it because he was led to believe that survival games are about fainting, not dying. He may have never seen a "game over" screen and get PTSD.

Your main point is you're upset games labeled survival games don't have the immersion you want, but fail to realize tags, again, are user generated.

[Tanoomba]

morgezuma a écrit :

Game companies are falsely describing their games to match whatever is currently popular.

You are assuming dishonesty when a more likely explanation is simply that not everyone has the same definition of "survival" as you do. The fact that many people tagged those games as "survival" demonstrates that clearly.

Game genres are not clear-cut and there is a lot of room for personal interpretation. While it can certainly be fun to discuss their application as an academic exercise, it's not feasible or practical to suggest the industry adhere to your personal standards.

[Knee]

Tanoomba a écrit :

morgezuma a écrit :

Game companies are falsely describing their games to match whatever is currently popular.

You are assuming dishonesty when a more likely explanation is simply that not everyone has the same definition of "survival" as you do. The fact that many people tagged those games as "survival" demonstrates that clearly.

I am having flashbacks of people arguing about what the RPG genre really means

[BJWyler]

morgezuma a écrit :

snip

What you think a "true" survival game comprises is as irrelevant as what I think a "true" RPG game is. Games rarely fit into a singular myopic category and categories of games aren't relegated to a narrow myopic viewpoint.

Whether or not you find the specific information you happen to be looking for in any resource (I rarely fail to learn all I need from a game after watching a few full video or stream playthroughs), you have the remarkable resource of fourms for which you can ask any question to get the details you are looking for. Once again, a resource that has never really failed me.

[morgezuma]

BJWyler a écrit :

morgezuma a écrit :

snip

What you think a "true" survival game comprises is as irrelevant as what I think a "true" RPG game is. Games rarely fit into a singular myopic category and categories of games aren't relegated to a narrow myopic viewpoint.

Whether or not you find the specific information you happen to be looking for in any resource (I rarely fail to learn all I need from a game after watching a few full video or stream playthroughs), you have the remarkable resource of fourms for which you can ask any question to get the details you are looking for. Once again, a resource that has never really failed me.

That's rich, because here in the forums I hear people calling Valheim a survival game because you get buffs from eating but you can't die no matter what, survival is not an option, the designers made it a requirement. But hey, if Dev says it's survival, fanboi gonna agree. Doesn't need to make sense.

[Crazy Tiger]

Knee a écrit :

Tanoomba a écrit :

You are assuming dishonesty when a more likely explanation is simply that not everyone has the same definition of "survival" as you do. The fact that many people tagged those games as "survival" demonstrates that clearly.

I am having flashbacks of people arguing about what the RPG genre really means :fscared:

Or simulator, adventure, roguelike and just about any genre or tag there is. I've seen people in heated debates because Sleeping Dogs has the Racing tag. Yes, there are quite a lot of races in the game, so the tag is appropriate.

People often seem to forget that tags aren't limited to genres or such, but can be applied because of available mecehanics. A game having survival mechanics, even without immediate threat of death, still has a correctly applied survival tag.

[BJWyler]

morgezuma a écrit :

That's rich, because here in the forums I hear people calling Valheim a survival game because you get buffs from eating but you can't die no matter what, survival is not an option, the designers made it a requirement. But hey, if Dev says it's survival, fanboi gonna agree. Doesn't need to make sense.

BJWyler a écrit :

What you think a "true" survival game comprises is irrelevant

[feytharn]

Note to self: Get to my grocery store and demand they stop grouping strawberries with fruit and tomatoes with vegetables.

I get what you are going for, but you might need to face the fact that genres as well as tags are a pretty broad brush. If you prefer a narrower definition, that is fine - but the way to go isn't asking a store to redefine, it is to look for yourself if a product is delivering what you wan't to have before purchasing it.

[morgezuma]

feytharn a écrit :

Note to self: Get to my grocery store and demand they stop grouping strawberries with fruit and tomatoes with vegetables.

I get what you are going for, but you might need to face the fact that genres as well as tags are a pretty broad brush. If you prefer a narrower definition, that is fine - but the way to go isn't asking a store to redefine, it is to look for yourself if a product is delivering what you wan't to have before purchasing it.

Right, so lets promote that The Long Dark describe itself as a FPS (because you can shoot rabbits) so that FPS fans will spend their money, find out that Steam allows game companies to intentionally mislead consumers knowing that many of them will fail to get refunds for various reasons. Healthy market, that one, good choice.