That's seriously the point you're going with?
Printable View
That's seriously the point you're going with?
No, but since your comparison didn't make much sense, I figured I'd go the other way with it. The point is that it's absurd to think that everyone only plays a game once. If a game is good and you enjoy it, why shouldn't you play it more than once? Not everyone has a pile of shame, and sometimes you just want to play a certain game again.
Not everyone feels the same way you do. Hell, I enjoyed Bioshock so much that I played through it three times.
This game is absolutely incredible. Just did a pair of overnight sittings and then some, it's so good.
You're arguing against a point that wasn't even made. Go read Hero's post. I don't think that everyone only plays a game once. Hell, if I had the time, I'd love to play some games again. But it's also absurd to think that everyone has time and lack of interest in other games to play every or even any game multiple times. The price of a game should never dictate how many times you play through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
This is why randomly generated content is both a blessing and a curse
If done well, that almost always warrant another playthrough...especially loot finding games like the Diablo series. I can't imagine anyone who has only played through that once.
Of course, the detriment is that you lose a lot of cohesion of competent level design and gameplay progression.
Random generation is still a scarcely-tapped resource. Its use in adventure/action games hasn't evolved much since Fushigi no Dungeon's long corridors joining rectanglular rooms host to small selection pools of too-similar enemies. Its potential is obvious, but no one seems to be willing to put in the work.
The problem is, between the "long corridors joining rectangular rooms" of today and the awesome randomly generated games of tomorrow there lies tons of experiments and failures like Hellgate London and developers today just cannot risk it.
Seems like the solution could be "semi-randomized enemy encounters in a defined level structure", just get something dangerous to pop up every now and then to keep you on your toes. Full randomization isn't always fun (unless it's Spelunky), locked down enemy locations suck if you're replaying a game.
Some middle ground can be struck, I think!
That's what Left 4 Dead does. I can't think of any other examples.
Left 4 Dead does it really well. Games seem to be hesitant to kill the player off straight away though, and Left 4 Dead really doesn't have much of a problem with that.