Games: fun or challenge?

[AdamCrock]

Games should be fun but the trick is that "fun" means something different for different people. Personally I like to play casually without an excessive challenge, especially in sandbox games like Skyrim

 

[Hygro]

Only took one experience of getting 100-0'd with no opportunity for input during a lag spike for me to never play "hardcore" again lol.

It happens but it’s rare and you build the expectation into your play style so you can avoid most chances of it. Plus it’s a skill to get back up the ladder when it happens ;7

 

[Kyriakos]

Save points do make the game lose all chalenging traits. Of course it means you have to do less flamboyant stuff than you would if you opt to fall back to the save game.
But what is the point of a game with no risk?
Might as well keep reloading until you get some incredible event at the start, rendering you nearly invinsible.

 

[Lexicus]

I tend to go all-in on games where I can't figure out how to survive past the beginning. I want access to all that late-game stuff (whether it's the strong spells in an RPG or megastructures/superweapons in a game like Stellaris).

In the last year and a half I got into Stellaris and Hearts of Iron IV, both of which I had spend dozens of hours on before I could play them with any amount of success, but otoh I've never gone past Emperor on Civ 4 because I think higher difficulties probably require more micromanagement than I really want to do. So I do like a challenge, but not too much, and the line is totally arbitrary. In strategy games I tend to spend a lot of time tweaking the settings to get the challenge into the sweet spot where I always feel like victory is possible but I still have to work for it.

 

[Estebonrober]

I go both ways on this, sometimes I like a challenge and sometimes I like to just goof off. Particularly in grand strategy games the propensity to play out a story is endearing to me rather then struggle trying to survive. I usually make it a point to beat Civ and such on the highest setting at least once though, just to prove to myself I can still manipulate the game designs. Of course that's part of the problem to strategy games in general. They tend to be manipulable to the point where you know you are sort of cheating, but that's the way to win. . .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Save points do make the game lose all chalenging traits. Of course it means you have to do less flamboyant stuff than you would if you opt to fall back to the save game.
But what is the point of a game with no risk?
Might as well keep reloading until you get some incredible event at the start, rendering you nearly invinsible.

Save points removing "challenge" implies an interesting definition of "challenge". In a game that doesn't generate loot randomly, how does this work?

An interesting place to consider this is Dark Souls. You could have more or fewer bonfires (save points), and unless the removal influences when people upgraded levels this would have literally no impact on speed runs (the most challenging single player aspect of the game) because those cost time they don't want to use. Given the nature of PvP it wouldn't matter there either (bonfires are disabled during invasions regardless).

What it would do is make progressing in the game require longer memorized sequences to learn/get through. This is broadly more challenging (on memory), until it isn't.

I guess it comes down to what skills, precisely, one is attempting to challenge.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess it comes down to what skills, precisely, one is attempting to challenge.

I tried to address that in the poll, with the twitch and strategic options. Looks like most people are interested in a strategic challenge rather than the reflex challenges of a twitch game. That, of course, is skewed by the available sample. Results would be a lot different, no doubt, on a forum dedicated to an arcade style game. What do you suppose people would talk about on a forum dedicated to an arcade style game? Nevermind, I digress.

 

[Kyriakos]

@TheMeInTeam i have in mind strategy games, eg civ3 and europa universalis 3. Where if you risk a war it can ruin you- but if you fall back to a save you may as well try and see what happens.

 

[Lohrenswald]

challenges aren't fun

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@TheMeInTeam i have in mind strategy games, eg civ3 and europa universalis 3. Where if you risk a war it can ruin you- but if you fall back to a save you may as well try and see what happens.

That's an extension of my point.

If you play EU 3 (or in my case, EU 4) for several thousand hours, you can evaluate the risks of war reasonably accurately. Enough that failure is more often a function of developer mistakes rather than player mistakes:

Spoiler :

Anyway, let's say you hit a decision point in 1550. You can save and look at the consequences of each possible major choice, or you can start over in 1444 and play several hours to reach the same decision point again. If you are trying to learn the game, the former has much greater efficiency, while the latter gives you consequences for poor choices. There's a place for both. This is in contrast to save scumming a % chance until you get it, which has a different motivation entirely.

 

[Hygro]

Beating contra 3 with save states makes it a lot easier. Managing your own state is part of it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Beating contra 3 with save states makes it a lot easier. Managing your own state is part of it.

Yeah, in this case you're effectively fabricating extra lives.

Yet this would still speed up your ability to beat a later stage for example, even if you later stop utilizing save states. Stuff like this is why speed runners utilize them + other tool assists in prep for legit runs.

 

[rah]

I didn't answer the poll because some days I really want the challenge and there are days that I prefer to just kick butt.
And there are days that I want to keep resetting because I'm trying to set a time limit and play the 'OPTIMAL' game.

And finally sometimes I'll play just to try to figure out what the HECK is going on. (just started with distant worlds and the learning curve is a tad steep)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I didn't answer the poll because some days I really want the challenge and there are days that I prefer to just kick butt.
And there are days that I want to keep resetting because I'm trying to set a time limit and play the 'OPTIMAL' game.

And finally sometimes I'll play just to try to figure out what the HECK is going on. (just started with distant worlds and the learning curve is a tad steep)

Is that on top of having just started with X3? You are a glutton for punishment.

 

[Ferocitus]

None of the above, I think?
All 35+ years of my fluid dynamics/ AI research has been one long, glorious game.
Every facet of it has been something with a highest (or lowest) possible score, whether it involved computing more significant figures than anyone else, or getting identical results but much, much faster.

Civ is just fun.

 

[rah]

Is that on top of having just started with X3? You are a glutton for punishment.

Yes. And Yes. Consider this one in the category of wanting a challenge.

But I did find a tutorial That takes you through the beginning of the merchant one.
The only real issue I'm having is trading, for some reason it's hit or miss trying to click on the 1 0 screen buying or selling to get the OK button to appear.

 

[Kaitzilla]

It's fun in USWest diablo 2 hardcore classic where:

one misstep and you die.

The ultimate glory is barbarian ears at the end of the ladder season, acquired by wielding the weapons borne of risky grinding.

I quit D2 forever after my lvl 89 Hardcore Assassin got PK'd while trying to kill Baal. (About 2 seconds after being hostiled)
Freaking cheaters ruined D2 along with duped items.

 

[civvver]

You want it challenging enough to be interesting and require thought, otherwise it's just boring. Like master of orion 2, which I've been playing a lot lately, the most satisfying battles are the ones when you have a numerical disadvantage or something but manage to pull off decisive victories through shrewd tactics on the space battle screen.

I don't like games that are so challenging the pigeon hole you into a particular playstyle or force you to mix/max to beat them. Again using moo2 as an example, if you could only win on impossible using a productive empire like tolerant + unified, it would be rather dull. But other play styles work too because the game isn't *too* hard.

That's why I max on civ4 at around king/emperor, because I don't do a lot of tricks like whipping for the perfect overflow, or making the best diplomatic decisions. I like to build an empire and not get bogged down specializing every single city. Some people find that enjoyable though. Like I read some of the wonder bread strategy threads and it seems so time consuming and maddeningly boring to me. But other people like that kind of challenge.

RPG games I want hard enough that it's not trivial, but I still want them easy enough to not die and have to redo things much. I play rpgs more for the story, atmosphere and experience.

I absolutely loathe twitchy games like punishingly hard platformers. I hated Volgar the viking for example and find even Spelunky too difficult to be fun. Stuff like Bastion is fine.

 

[rah]

Still pissed about MOO 3

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I absolutely loathe twitchy games like punishingly hard platformers. I hated Volgar the viking for example and find even Spelunky too difficult to be fun. Stuff like Bastion is fine.

I've been playing a decent amount of ultimate chicken horse lately. I get kicked from games a decent amount, which is awkward since I don't typically say anything at all...it's purely based on gameplay.

Problem with that is that it's a competitive platformer, the whole purpose is to make the courses hard enough to demonstrate separation between the players' abilities that game. It's not like I'm griefing and making the rounds impossible to complete.