It's just my opinion of things and I know I'm in the minority here, but when someone asked why I preferred 4.1 to 5, that was one of the reasons. It's been interesting to discuss and sometimes it also helps me put my thoughts in order, when you go through a process of answering specific questions. It's also time consuming, so if I answer again it'll be much shorter, but that doesn't mean I didn't appreciate the discussion :)
I'll start with replying to your last paragraph.
Yeah, it can indeed be some time consuming to write longer posts like this :) I also think that we both have gotten to say much of our opinion on this subject (do you agree?), so no problem with a shorter reply. I also appreciate the discussion :) If we had this conversation face to face in real life, it would probably just take 10-15 minutes hehe. I was hoping to keep my reply on the shorter end now, but looking at it, it probably looks really long. I just had a lot that i wanted to say :)
The way i replied to your post now is that i read through it once, then i went and answered one quote at the time, reading each qoute more carefully and replied after this. This means that there can maybe be some repetition in the answers.
Hopefully it doesnt take too long to go through it. Otherwise, i have also written a shorter summary at the end of my post. It doesnt cover everything, but it covers some of the main points.
Maybe. Or maybe the upgrades are just enough to get through the mission. What ever the case I'm against rewards for failure in EDF.
Yeah, thats fair enough. As i mentioned in my previous post, if Sandlot doesnt give rewards for failing mission in EDF6 (and future titles), i'm also fine with that. So i dont really have any strong opinion on that subject, so its basically the same to me :)
Maybe, if you only look at inferno, but since the criticism I have affects more than just inferno, I still think you're wrong. And even with inferno, there should still be a way to challenge players that want to try it that way, which the series understood previously.
Yeah, i understand your point regarding getting rewards for failing a mission, and based on your point, i would be wrong. But as i mentioned, i think we're talking about kinda two different things right here. I'm just saying that a lot of EDF players need more health and better weapons to progress through the game, especially on inferno difficulty level. Dont you think so too? If there were no rewards for failing a mission, and those players reach a level they think is too hard, those players would likely just replay some of the easier missions and grind for more health there, then progress on to the missions that they've failed. This will of course variate from person to person, depending on how many times he/she wants to replay a mission or not. Not everyone has the interest or patient to play through the same mission e.g 20 times before progressing further, and then maybe facing the same situation for many of the other levels as well. While other might not mind doing this.
I specifically mentioned inferno earlier, but i think this apply to all the other difficulty levels as well to some degree, depending on the player's skill. For a skilled player like yourself, how many times did you fail when you first played through EDF5 on hard (or normal or easy, depending on what you played first)? Did you fail many times or did you beat the game pretty easily? Another player that isnt so skilled might have problems even beating the game on hard, so they might manually grind (playing the same level over and over again) just to be able to progress further on.
I dont think that there are that many people who feel that having to play through easy, normal or hard to begin with in EDF, and getting rewards from failing the missions, that this makes the game so much easier that it removes some of the fun from the game in a noticeable way. Thats basically all i'm saying, and i dont think i'm wrong about that. Do you see what i mean? But as i mentioned, i do understand your viewpoint on this, so you're right that some people could feel different about this as well. Sandlot should at least let people select inferno from the very start of the game :)
Exactly. That's what's fun. There's hundreds of weapons, but if you only use the same 10-20 fully upgraded of them all the time, they feel wasted. When you only do each mission once, you'll need to learn more of them and suprisingly enough, many of them are quite useful, even if only in specific instances.
I enjoy that way of playing and the older EDF games allowed that. This one doesn't, when it upgrades me if I fail or if it forces me to play through 100+ levels upgrading the characters in the process or just upgrading when I'm not even playing them. And as I explained it's quite the hassle to keep track of where you are, so manually adjusting is not a solution.
That is exactly the reason, I'd guess. They're afraid of scaring people away and making them grind through an easy (upper half of the difficulties) playthrough will buff the characters. It's an increased grinding focus, which is evident in every aspect of the game and that isn't the draw of EDF to me. It's what pushes me away from games.
Fair enough. Theres different way to enjoy the game for sure.
Yeah, i can understand it being a bit of a hassle. I just wanted to mention a solution that would make the game "remove" the rewards for failing, by limiting the health yourself. I dont think its necessary to keep an exact track of the progress, you likely know aproximately how much health you earn for each mission, and it can be ajusted based on that. That said, its not possible to limit upgraded weapons though, so its not exactly the best solution that you'd want :) If they just give the option to start fresh on any difficulty level and have an option to turn off rewards for failing a mission, then that would be a solution for everyone.
It's probably this one you're thinking of then:
Yeah, thats the one, thanks! Thats pretty amazing, you're a really great player! I had big problems completing that mission on inferno. I never tried it offline however, i only tried it online with 2-3 other people, and i failed probably 50+ times before finally finding a group of people who had a good strategy.
Also, just wondering, how did you find another player near you who is equally as good? :)
Those hard weapons are too much of an advantage and you'll have to keep track of which weapons you've earned after every mission. It's not an option. Too much hassle in practice.
How do you mean with too much of an advantage? When you start playing on inferno and get weapons early on, arent those weapons already better than what you recieve for playing on hard? So basically, you wont use the weapons you get on hard difficulty when playing on inferno (unless that you want that of course).
It's a new save slot started directly on inferno, each mission done once. Once you've beaten the game in a save slot, starting in slot two for instance, will allow you to begin on hardest and inferno right from the beginning. The completion carries across save slots (and thank god, because if we had to do 100+ levels every time we start a new slot, we'd give up on the game).
Ok, i understand :)
I expect it to be easier and even more grinding focused, like moving from 4.1 to 5. That's the trend of the industry and the direction the series is going.
I'm not sure that they will increase the reward for failed missions even more. I think the current drop is a good balance. It would surprise me if they increase this number even further (like you get 50% for failing a hard mission, i cant see them increasing this). But i think they will keep giving rewards for failed missions (excet for on inferno). I think most people prefer it to be like this. I'm not sure if many have complained to Sandlot about it either for the to acknowledge it, but who knows. We'll see sooner or later :) I expect EDF6 to be out in 2020.
I also expect that EDF6 will put of a pretty good challenge like the previous EDF games. But of course, this is subjective, as some players are better than others. For me, all EDF games i've played have had some pretty challenging levels, even if i've had higher health.
I don't agree with that. I don't have a relativistic attitude towards game design and believe it is possible to identify connections between elements we'd consider "good" or "bad". That's not to say, you can't play with conventions (like 1001 Spikes do by having a template built around good unfair design, where general consensus would normally be that unfair design is bad, which says more about player preference than the design itself) or even use loose connections to ones advantage. The point is there are different "right" ways to introduce mechanics to players or do a set-up/iteration on something, just as there're wrong ways to do it. When I say the modern industry oftentimes mistake loot, grinding, levels and similar for good design, I'm painting with a very broad brush, not really commenting on any individual levels of specifics titles. And with many games or sections in games today, the individual connections between elements don't demonstrate sufficient understanding of how to connect or gradually build on what they've introduced. Instead they throw in the slot machine as a clutch and let players have loot to find, levels to raise and then let players grind the same pitiful sections over and over again. It's a compulsive loop, but in an addictive, more than a mechanically interesting way.
if we were gonna discuss it further, it would take it's own thread and I'm too time limited atm to be interested in that - and would also prefer to do it in Danish - so let me try and boil it down to the essence of how I view many modern games, instead of demontrating by going through the time consuming process of examining games individually.
Yeah, this is a big subject indeed, so i will also try to keep it somewhat short.
I do agree that there are certain norms within game design that people can agree upon what makes a good game or not, definitely. Some design choices are almost unanimous agreed upon that will make a game more enjoyable. I could have been more clear on that in my previous reply. So i agree with that sentiment.
The only thing i was getting at was that its subjective when it comes to if someone enjoys a game mechanic or not. If someone wants to include a game mechanic in their game, its not like people can say "hey, thats an objectively wrong (or right) way to design a game, and thats an objective fact". Theres so many different tastes in gaming, so everybody is just as much right and wrong when it comes to what they like or not :) Do you see what i mean?
The reason why i said this in my previous reply is because you said "IMO people mistake grinding with actual good game design :)". Maybe i'm misunderstanding your point here, so please correct me if i'm wrong, and i do realize that you said "IMO", but i read this as you're saying that people are basically wrong for liking grinding mechanics, based on that you're not a big fan of that yourself (from what i understand at least). And that they only think that they enjoy it, but are mistaken, and that they actually dont like it after all. If people like this, or dont like it, its no right or wrong answer to that.
On a very broad level when you play a grinding game, try asking yourself if you would still be playing it, if we removed the slot machine (the loot, grinding, levels and similar)? If that's the case, the game probably has some interesting elements, but if you're only there to see numbers go up, there's also a chance you're playing a glorified slot machine. If you love that design, great, but if you're like me, it's mostly (there are exceptions) not what I would call interesting design, and potentially damaging these days, where many companies are consumed by service plans, in which players are meant to dedicate their lives to any given game. And basically you can only do long running games in a couple of ways: Grinding or versus. Real content is expensive (in terms of how many hours a player can spend on it versus what it cost to make), but new loot is "free" (again, in terms of how many hours a player can spend on it. A relative cost, not actually free). So with companies aggressively targeting the service model, you get a ton of games, where slot machines have replaced actual good design.
If the only goal is to see a number go up, then that would be boring very fast, at least for me personally. So i can agree with that. For me, there has to be other elemets to the game that also makes it fun. This means that if a game doesnt have other interesting factors to it, then the grinding element also becomes boring.
Grinding as an isolated mechanic is usually boring, so the game has to offer other interesting elements as well. This is why i think grinding as an added mechanic can enhance a game and make it more fun. There has to be a good balance and the combination of everything.
I know you're talking more broadly, but are there any specific gaming mechanics you wish to see more of that you personally would find to be more interesting? Just wondering, mostly in regards to what you said about that slots machines have replaced actual good design. Or do you think its basically impossible to do long term games without that mechanic? Because like you say, having to create brand new content "all the time" (like new maps, missions, coming up with new mechanics) takes a lot of effort. Some developers are pretty efficient with coming up with new cosmetics and things like that though. I guess it can be debated how much of those things goes as 'real content' however, but i think it can add more long term enjoyment to the games at least (as long as the game in itself is fun to play to begin with).
I dont think theres many service based games that are really ment people to have their lives dedicated to them. I know you're talking more broadly about the subject, but do you have any examples of games that are like this? From what i've seen, basically all of these games can be played in your own pace. The only case i've heard of more dedication are stuff like World of Warcraft where people play in a clan/guild, and kinda feel dedicated to that cause, so to speak.
And that's not a direction I want EDF to go in.
I understand, but i dont think we have to worry too much about the direct EDF is taking. I mean, maybe the rewards for failing a mission will still be there, but overall, i think the game will continue to be much of the same. I expect EDF6 to have those ~100 different missions, maybe adding or replacing a class with a new class, have some new weapons and vehicles, new enemies etc.. And i'm fine with that :) I just mean that i dont think EDF will start including payed lootboxes, or take a direction like that, if that is the direction you mean. They could have easily have done that with EDF5 and Iron Rain, but they didnt. But we'll see :)
I don't consider randomization a flaw in itself. It's the way you collect boxes and the difficulty being wittled down gradually, by raising stats that bother me. When you do that in an action game, if feels like I'm getting through by just spending time. I want to overcome a challenge because I got better, not grind my way through it.
There are exceptions, where design of that type can work, but EDF is not one of them, and it comes with the unfortunate addition of having to collect boxes, which isn't stimulating.
I understand. Thats fair enough.
That's because you're there for the slot machine :p
And that's why we view this so differently.
Well, both yes and no. If the game didnt have the randomized drops, i'd still play it. I played Iron Rain for about 90 hours after all :) Its not like i find the EDF games themself to be very boring, but i want to have some progression to work towards and make it to "the end", so to speak. As i mentioned above here, its more about having an extra element to the game that makes the game as a whole more interesting. To me, its no different that you say that you enjoy EDF games for the ridiculousness. If they removed that from the EDF games, would you still play them as much?
Speaking of ridiculousness, another thing i felt was missing from Iron Rain were all the voice commands. I love to throw out some voice commands while playing online like "EDF!! EDF!!" and "Wooooooah!", stuff like that, haha :)
Like I said it's a worse game in most regards, so it's not worth comparing to. They don't have to do away with randomization, but what I would like to see, would be more fixed challenges. Stuff you can't grind your way through. I don't mind if it's there for those that like it, but allow people that enjoy the challenge to ignore it, like EDF games before 5.
I understand, fair enough. They could perhaps add an option to turn rewards for failed missions on and off, i wouldnt mind that at least.
That might also say something about how we look at games differently or maybe I'm reading too much into it, but trophies don't really mark an end point for me, if I like the game.
It really depends on the game itself for me. Its not like i necessarily completely stop playing a game simply because i've 100% it (or gotten the platinum trophy). I could have been more clear on that in my previous post. I've probably spend 20-30 hours in EDF5 after getting to 100% because i wanted to help other players, and it also gave me a chance to upgrade some of my weapons, just for fun. I've also played games like Soul Sacrfice Delta (PS Vita game) for quite a bit after getting the platinum trophy (was trying to unlock all the power arms in the game just for fun, eventhough they are not tied to any trophy).
I just mean that once i reached 100%, i've usually seen most what the game has to offer, and i'm happy with that :) Its not too much different from beating a retro game on the harderst difficulty level for examples, feeling that you've completed everything the game has of content.
Or to take another example, God of War is one of my favorite games series in the past 15 years or so, but i have not played any of the remasters. The reason for this is because i've already played and beaten the original games, so i feel that i've already seen what the games have to offer. Even if the remasters added trophies as an insentive to replay the games, that doesnt make me want to replay the games. I usually like trophies, but its not like they're an absolute must for me. It falls back on what i said earlier about that there needs to be a good combination of mechanics. One good mechanic might not be enough for me to enjoy a game :)
What marks the end point in a game for you? For example, you said that you dont go for 100% in the EDF games, do you keep playing the inferno missions many times over again after you've finished the game? Or do you usually quit the game after beating it once?
For me, trophies are just a bunch of challenges that the developers have added to the game. I often enjoy doing such challenges. Same reasons why some people like to do speedruns etc.. They want to see if they can complete certain challenges. Its not something that have to be done, but many people find these things/goals to be enjoyable.
I've also been playing games in general since the late 1980's, and i own probably more than 600-700 physical retro games. Its not really to brag, but i just mention that to show that i dont absolutely have to have some randomized or lootboxes type of mechanic, or trophies, to enjoy a game.
Same here and grinding can be done well. It's just when you have companies interested in getting player's hooked for as long as possible, you get... The modern industry, where the majority of AAA games suddenly have loot and grinding and crafting, with a few (mostly first party) exceptions.
I understand what you mean. For me personally, i havnt really been bothered by this. I cant recall ever spending a single cent on any of these lootboxes, yet i've enjoyed many games with these mechanics. You're right that it can be an addictive thing, but its also possible to enjoy it without being addicted to it, or it being harmful (as people getting addicted, so that they spend tons of money on it for example, and they cant really control the spending habit). So i dont think its all bad, but i also think its important to focus on the cases were people can be addicted (which can be said about a lot of things however. but still).
I've played a mobile game for well over a year now, which has random drops to it, and i still havnt spend any money. I usually feel that the lootbox fees are too high of price, so i just play the game regularly. And just to take a specific example, Call of Duty. Those games have added lootboxes, but i dont feel that the game has any less content compared to the previous CoD games because of that. So i havnt felt that the lootboxes takes anything away from the games, but rather just adds something to it, which is optional.
Mostly, yes. I just feel like numbers going up have become too dominant in what there is to work towards, often to the detriment of the rest of the design, that oftentimes isn't interesting enough - boring even - if you remove the numbers. It didn't use to be like that. Try playing games that are older and notice how grinding numbers is mostly used in RPGs. What changed? Well, when companies are trying to maximize retention factor, it's no wonder it's started poisoning everything (not litterally).
Fair enough, and you're right that it is a mechanic that has been used more and more. Personally however, i dont feel that its that bad. I dont think there are that many games that basically just have number increasing for "no reason". Theres usually some goal with doing that, like unlocking some content for example. And often being optional. Or do you have any specific examples of these games that you're thinking about? I know that you speak more in general about this, but i'm just wondering. But, it comes down to what one enjoy to play, so its just a matter of opinion :)
And yeah, your right that RPGs (and action RPGS like Diablo) were usually the games that had these random drops and grinding indeed. But since people enjoyed (and still does) those game mechanics, this can also be a reason why more games started using them. Like you mentioned, you dont see the randomization mechanic as a flaw in itself. That said, i dont think its a secret that the randomizing is a good way to monitize things as well, so i dont argue against that :)
Just wondering, which game did you mean that shouldnt be compared in that case?
Thanks :)
-----
Summary:
I know i've mentioned this a few times already, but just to repeat myself, i understand that you dont want to get the rewards for failing a mission. If they remove that from EDF6, i would be fine with it :) Or maybe even give an option to turn it on or off. And i wouldnt mind if they let you start fresh on every difficulty levels.
When it comes to whats good or bad gaming design, i'm not sure how i could shorten it down too much based on what i said above here. But basically, i first read your earlier point as some type of criticism towards people for liking random drop mechanics and stuff like that. Reading your follow up reply, i guess that maybe that wasnt really what you were trying to do, so please correct me if i'm wrong. But that is why i mentioned that its a matter of opinion, because in the end, what matters is if people enjoy playing a game or not :)
For me, the random loot drops is there to enhance a game. The grinding mechanic alone is not enough to keep me interested in a game. It has to be an addition to an already interesting game, otherwise it wont do much good. I wont play through a game that i find to be really boring just to see a number go up or anything like that.
When it comes to the future of EDF, i expect it to be much of the same going forward (new levels, new weapons, vehicles and enemies, maybe a new class etc.). They might keep the rewards for failing a mission, but i dont think they will include lootboxes or anything like that. They could easily have done that with EDF5 and Iron Rain, but they didnt.
EDIT: I added and edited some of the text.