Board 8 > Are there times you HAVE felt snobbish about Quality of life additions to games?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Well, "watching" definitely isn't the same as "playing."

Certainly not like how listening to an audiobook is basically the same as reading a book.

*flees*

or another example - is it cheating if I close and reload a Roguelike game mid-level when I'm about to die, and it restarts me at the beginning of the level?

It's not built in to the game - you have to quit and restart to do it.

But they could've saved every time you do an action, like Darkest Dungeon does, and the devs chose not to, so...

all i know is that the only legit way to beat games is while blindfolded and wearing earplugs

I would also count listening to an audiobook as reading the book, heh. Generally the science says it works the same way with the brain, too.

Dels posted...

or another example - is it cheating if I close and reload a Roguelike game mid-level when I'm about to die, and it restarts me at the beginning of the level?

Poor form but not cheating.

To be clear I AM an elitist at some level (mostly a very passive elitist though-- if someone wants to play DMC3 SE on gold mode I'll just say they should try Yellow instead, I won't say they didn't beat the game on gold) I just don't think my feeling on savestates is a thing that makes me more elitist.

And no Wii tossing savestates into the game isn't any better than your emulator doing it. It's just one is company branded-- it still exists outside the boundaries of the game as designed.

As far as beating games are concerned, I have my own criteria for them and don't give a shit what anyone else says or care what they define a game as beaten.

For example, I use save states for many of the NES games that I couldn't beat or find too punishing with limited lives and continues. I usually save at the beginning of a level and when I die or lose my lives, I reload the save state. Battletoads and Adventure Island 1 are prime examples of these. I consider these "beated" by my criteria and don't care what other gatekeepers say.

So I actually like the idea of using savestates in battletoads to practice the game. I actually did that myself and it let me get further in the game. Like battletoads is really awful because the first two stages, and the third stage up to the speeder bikes, they are all super easy but need to be redone every time. It's an annoying time sink.

But if you can't string together a run through it without savestates then you didn't beat it. Straight up. And I question why you did it to begin with-- its not like battletoads has some great story.

(For the record I've never beat battletoads and no longer have any desire to. Have gotten pretty far though.)

In the spirit of this topic, I remember a long while back I made a topic about how much I enjoyed Fire Emblem: Awakening, detailing my experience with the game. I mentioned in the topic about playing on Hard/Casual, and a user (if I remember correctly it was Tcaz but I could be mistaken. It was loooong time back) acted as if I burned his house to the ground lol.

He kept saying I didn't beat the game and how I beat what was a spectre or a phantom version of the game of something of that sort. Dude was pissed like I kicked his puppy or slept with his girlfriend. It was beyond hilarious.

After that I soon came to realize, that was basically the Fire Emblem fanbase in a nutshell.

Lopen posted...

And I question why you did it to begin with-- its not like battletoads has some great story.

Simple answer, I like Battletoads but I can never beat it 'legitimately' as you would call it. Not sure why I did for Adventure Island 1. That game blows but I just did. No real reason. I like beating games and I rather resort to cheating than flat out giving up.

Things I'm elitist about:
Gold Mode DMC3:SE
Fire Emblem in Casual on difficulties lower than Lunatic (the game simply isn't designed for you to be able to cannon fodder all your units into the enemy, the enemies are very seldom able to sweep your team-- Lunatic is wacky enough that it's fair game though imo)
Restarting in roguelikes
Playing on easy mode on a game known for high difficulty

Things I'm not elitist about:
Passwords (though it's usually "why are you skipping parts of the game")
In game codes (kinda depends on the code but in general they're fair game)
Guides (basically studying for a test, it's fine)
Restarting in Fire Emblem when you lose units (non-discerning people will wonder how this is different than casual-- the difference is Fire Emblem is designed for losing units to have weight so "losing the level" when you lose a unit is fine-- though I do quite like no restart runs!)
Infinite continues on arcade ports (this is just simulating having a bunch of quarters)
Spending on Gacha games (makes em easier sure but so does being f2p with good luck)
Playing on easy mode on like 95%+ of games

Things I shouldn't be considered elitist about because it's objectively modifying the gameplay experience:
Savestates - small exceptions here if used very sparingly, for instance if like someone was playing Kingdom Hearts on an Emulator and didn't want to view a dumb cutscene before a battle they were losing at over and over no problem.
Game Genie/Gameshark - small exceptions here for "silly" codes. I gamesharked my Caterpie Flamethrower and Ice Beam just for fun and man he still sucked.

Using a guide is more like an open book test than studying

Eh not really.

There's a lot more to playing a game than knowing what to do. Execution is important, and a guide generally won't remove that requirement

If you can have the guide in front of you as you play, then it's open book.

Open book tests don't guarantee you'll get a 100 on the test either if you don't know where the answer is.

Like something that has very little in the way of gameplay like Ace Attorney using a guide for that is like an open book test

Even stuff like RPGs though reading how to beat a boss might help but it's not going to always have you reach the solution like an open book test

And obviously more action based games it helps even less

Like on the extreme end I used a guide on Guilty Gear XX Mission Mode to give me ideas to try and beat the missions.

I guarantee you it is not at all comparable to an open book test. Some missions took me hundreds of tries even with the guide. Because actually executing matters.

I know you're more of an RPG guy too but RPGs there are plenty of battles where a guide is not just going to win it for you.

If I died while playing Death Stranding, I always reloaded the game rather than scurrying around in the afterlife or whatever getting some my stuff back

Would still definitely argue I beat that game

I don't really find reset scumming to be comparable to savestates in general.

Well yeah, playing a game isn't a 1 to 1 corollary to a written test, but having open access to the notes is more like an open book test.

Studying is more comparable to a training or tutorial mode if the game has one.

I just think because the notes don't enable you to get a 100% on the game in and of themselves like an open book does on a test that it's not really the same.

Actually doing the thing is analogous to memorizing the answers here.

It's basically because open notes for a test is inherently more useful than open guide on a game, pretty much.

If you have the guide while playing = open book
If you read/watch a guide and then play the game = studying

During a test if you have your textbook open you aren't going to convince the teacher you are studying...

It's not analogous because for a game there is more than just filling in the right answer to play a game.

Like I guess it'd be analogous to an open book driving test if you really want it to be one to one.

Which would allow you to ace the written section but not so much the road section.

As someone who has taught students of all different education levels, let me assure you that an open book test is not a guarantee that everyone gets 100%, even if all the answers are right there and holy shit just look up the answers it isn't hard how did you get a 67% on this

I have gotten like 90% on open book tests. I'm aware they're not auto 100%s

Still help way more than Guides for games that aren't VNs though

We have internal terminology for features that exist in a game. We have the term save-states. There's no trouble specifying which were used. But there are still different ways to use save-states. Being able to revert any action could be used to avoid starting the game from the beginning, redoing a hard section, or having to repeat a grind after failing. You can also use it to undo every single time you get hit. The thing is, games have limits and save-states, depending on software have far fewer. Like, there are QoL and original content mods and then there are trainers for setting your stats however you want, too.

But defining whether you beat a game doesn't truly matter because whether you beat a game doesn't truly matter. As long as you're happy with what you did.

man what happened here

Punnyz posted...

man what happened here

Board 8 happened

okay, i'll bring up another sort-of-adjacent topic:

how do people feel about roguelikes where items don't tell you what they do before you pick them up?

i just play those with a wiki open on my second monitor and look it up every time.

is it a "quality of life" change if a game does tell you what the item does in advance, or is it a legit gameplay difference, and you're "cheating" if you look them up in a game that doesn't display them?

This topic feels like a weird portal back into 2010 where gamers were really fucking annoying in a much more different way than they are today.

I'm sure I have some dumb opinion related to a QoL feature but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Like, unless you count stuff like having a lives system with infinite continues? In that instance though, I shit on lives being completely arbitrary but it's not like it impacts the quality of the game, it's just designers being dumb.

Even reading through the topic I'm struggling to think of one I'm really snobbish about.

All I can really say is that I've been playing the Mega Man Zero/ZX Collection, and HOLY FUCK am I thankful there's an infinite lives mode in this collection. I don't understand how anyone could play through these games without it; some sections are straight-up brutal.

Dels posted...

how do people feel about roguelikes where items don't tell you what they do before you pick them up?

Not as good as other Roguelikes
Well, it's not that bad if you don't have the description until you've picked one up for the first time ever. If you don't have a clear description while carrying it or even when you've used it, that's stupid. Just means you're supposed to play with the wiki open.

for the people that bring up Fire Emblem... you don't reset every time you lose a unit, right?

neonreaper posted...

for the people that bring up Fire Emblem... you don't reset every time you lose a unit, right?

If it's a normal playthrough yes, if it's a weird challenge run it depends on the importance of the unit. Also depends on the game mechanics though -- FE4 maybe not because reviving units is easy, and newer games have time rewind so it's a non-factor.

neonreaper posted...

for the people that bring up Fire Emblem... you don't reset every time you lose a unit, right?

No. But I don't judge people who do. Abuse of restarts is still better than casual though which is nigh impossible to lose.

i think we all essentially feel the same way, which is that it's cool if you want to use any means available to you to complete a game on your own

it's when you go out and start complaining about the experience you got, or bragging about it in some sort of way, that it gets grating

as an interesting note, a few of the board games i play online have QOL stuff that you can't get in real life - an income display that automatically sums a bunch of stuff on your player's mat, or open scoring when you actually tally people's score at the end of the games. the former is relatively uncontroversial (but has some holdouts) and the latter is quite controversial among strong players.

ohhh yeah, i've played some Dominion online and the automatic point tracker was contentious. nevermind deck tracking!

You try beating Hector Hard Mode without restarting. You'll quickly change your tune on Fire Emblem resets.

Big Bob posted...

You try beating Hector Hard Mode without restarting. You'll quickly change your tune on Fire Emblem resets.

I have, actually! Only after several playthroughs with restarts though

Some of HHM is way way easier if you're okay with units dying though.

Like imagine Battle Before Dawn if you don't care about Nino or Jaffar surviving. Euphoric.

Why wouldn't I restart a FE map if a unit died

If they die I don't get to see the rest of their Supports

Honestly if you mostly know what you're doing no restart Fire Emblem is easier in general.

Like the game gives you more than enough units to get through the game with a few casualties. You can't be losing a character every map or anything but not having to redo a level a few times per game because of a fluke crit or misremembering reinforcement timing or whatever is nice.

Wait people play FE without permadeath? Yeah that would honestly make the strategy of the game feel brain dead at that point. The permadeath is what makes those games so intense.

there's absolutely a ton of elitism in SRPGs

nobody admits to losing or making a mistake. you think people are really gonna restart a 20+ hour run because they fudged one level up? Of course not. They're going to reset and either own it or pretend they didn't

banananor posted...

there's absolutely a ton of elitism in SRPGs

I agree with this statement.

Soulsborne fans (I myself am a huge one ) are only matched if not outright surpassed in elitism by none other than SRPG fans with Fire Emblem being the absolute worst of them.

I struggled like hell with Radiant Dawn but managed to complete it without losing a unit after so many restarts and struggles so yeah I loved that they included 'casual' from Awakening and onwards where I don't wanna restart a Mission just because one of my units ended up missing an attack and getting countered with a crit.

haven't played much FE but i can't imagine continuing a run after a unit dies.

like i'd feel like i was behind and missing out for the entire rest of the game, would absolutely kill the experience.

not to mention the stress of knowing that if i get too many deaths it might fuck up the game permanently and make me too weak and make me have to restart from the beginning? i couldn't play like that.

Axl_Rose_85 posted...

I struggled like hell with Radiant Dawn but managed to complete it without losing a unit after so many restarts and struggles so yeah I loved that they included 'casual' from Awakening and onwards where I don't wanna restart a Mission just because one of my units ended up missing an attack and getting countered with a crit.

Radiant Dawn lets you save whenever you want, you should never have to restart an entire mission in that game...!

neonreaper posted...

for the people that bring up Fire Emblem... you don't reset every time you lose a unit, right?

There's nothing wrong with that because it's just treating it as a loss. Like if your lord dies you would just start the map over from the beginning

I usually restart because I only use the units I like and if they die I'd miss them

For Banjo Kazooie, losing notes on death took an A rated game and dropped it to C for me.

banananor posted...

there's absolutely a ton of elitism in SRPGs

nobody admits to losing or making a mistake. you think people are really gonna restart a 20+ hour run because they fudged one level up? Of course not. They're going to reset and either own it or pretend they didn't

No you just keep playing. Very few mistakes will end a run outright no matter how much of a bummer they are in the moment

Certainly not a poor level up either lol

Of course what Mzero said is valid too there's nothing wrong with restarting for really bad blunders because it's basically just like your lord dying.

this isn't really a quality of life thing but maybe it was intended to be one. I hate how in most of the newer etrian odyssey games they lock the progression of your skills beyond arbitrary caps. like you need to defeat the second stratum boss or reach level 30 before you can unlock certain skills beyond a certain point on the skill tree. really incredibly dumb.

in the original games you could invest as far as you wanted into whatever path of development you wanted. would this allow you to make OP builds early on? yes, that's the point. the entire game is about making builds. players should be rewarded for making strong builds, not prevented from making them. could it also cause players to overly invest in skills that didn't give much return if they weren't careful? also, yes.

funny thing is that EO1 and EO2 were incredibly punishing when it came to fixing your builds. with the newer games I actually have no problems with the fact that they make it easier to reset your skill points. I think that's a great feature that makes your build diversity in the game even better and allows you to test out different options without being penalized. what I hate is the fact that I can't invest in the skills I want until the game tells me that I'm allowed to.