Vid for the EMP room or it didn't happen.

I felt the splinter cell conviction demo was way too easy. It really makes me miss how chaos theory was. Even taking out all 5 guys in the first room at the same time was way too easy.

Players should have a choice to play a game in a boring way. It is thier own fault for being lame, and it rewards a player who actually thinks and tries to make the game do cool things.

i kind of relate this idea to me playing devil may cry games. I bought one of them after being taken in by the massive combos and stylish moves you can pull off, but when i actually played the game i felt like i could get the same result by just hitting, doing the uppercut move and hitting in the air e.t.c

It was the same with bioshock, despite buying it with the intention of being really creative, if the game didn't punish you for not being creative i found myself constantly giving into my impatience and approaching it far more as 'kill these guys quick before they kill you and think about it afterwards' rather than treating the combat as i guess a pseudo-sandbox.

Far Cry 2 was one of the worst games ever rant about that.

Whats that song at the beginning of your rant vids? It sounds so fucking familiar but i can't put a name to it.

Interesting rant, Anthony. Say, should I get the old Splinter Cell games for the GameCube? They always looked pretty interesting but I never actually bought them.

Couldn't agree more. The balance between allowing/encouraging/forcing players to be creative with the game, or the feedback they get from playing it 'standardly' is a fine line. The two examples you said, Odin Sphere and Bioshock, are both very good. I haven't played the SC: Conviction demo yet, but from what I can tell it seems as you say it is. You can just shoot everyone, but the game opens up when you use stealth and the mechanics instead of just bulldozing your way through.

also i suppose you get graded in devil may cry games, but there didn't seem any reward other than achievements which i knew i would never achieve, unless i put a ridiculous number of hours into them.

I think Metal Gear Solid is another good example, You could breeze through that using nothing but the tranq gun and not use any real stealth if you were quick enough.

@Grimlock king Isn't it from knights of cydonia?

@Grimlock king Isn't it from knights of cydonia?

@Mirax: I didn't know the games were available for gamecube, especially when you consider the games in the Splinter Cell series after the first one had excellent online features, online being something the gamecube was deficient in.

@ReverendAnthony: I disagree with your tranq-dart MGS4 sentiment. MGS4 is most tense and exciting when you try to play with minimal loss of human life, and staying truly hidden. It forces you to pay attention to a lot more. Sure, the game is SLOWER (unless you do a stealth speedrun), but it usually isn't boring.

But in Splinter Cell: Conviction, I was slightly dissapointed that I couldn't do as I had done in the previous games and move through the levels in a ghostly way, with none of the enemies hardly aware of my presence, and without having to actually kill any of the enemies I come across (however, I do understand that narratively we are playing an angrier, more murderous Sam Fisher). It's true that if I wanted to do a no-death runthrough the demo, I would NEVER see the mark and execute feature (and in fact, I couldn't even get through the beginning of the level, as it forces you to take 3 lives before giving you absolute full control of the game), but I think the kind of difficulty and tension I would experience would be interesting to work through.

But, I will say that playing Splinter Cell: Conviction the way the game seems to be meant to be played is a remarkably fun experience. I am very happy to see that you're enjoying this iteration of the Splinter Cell series. I think making a Sam Fisher that's more willing to kill not only makes the game more fun, but sets it apart from other stealth games like Metal Gear.

Well I suppose some players are boring. If you make a game totally about freedom, its going to be boring: like far cry 2, which requires creativity. But if you make the game too linear, you force the more creative players from ever feeling any freedom in the game.

So do these games ever cross? the linear action presentation vs the DYI action in some games?

Well, maybe. Games with classes generally handle this well. If you want, you can pick a soldier class and be suuuuuper boring. Or you could pick something interesting (adept from mass effect 2) and have more fun with it.

so games should just have different ways to play, but still have a good presentation and fun

Bangai-O Spirits by Treasure is a great example in allowing freedom without sacrificing fun. It's a fairly underrated DS game, a kind of stage-based bullet-hell puzzle-shooter. There might be some sort of designed optimal path for each level, but you can usually use whichever combination of weapons you want and come up with your own personal strategy.

I actually really hated this game at first until I had a moment of clarity and then I loved it. It's definitely worth checking out.

It was my first expereience of a proper non-linear shooter but I thought the original Far Cry was brilliant and encouraging different approaches. I also thing that the post Halo industry adopted 2 weapon model has hurt a lot of shooters in this area.

It kinda looked like Anthony had big head mode on.

if i go bored of something, its because i choose to be bored. freedom.
if you are bored, why would you let yourself get that way? their are plenty of things you can do to spice things up.

getting a no-kill playthrough of mgs4 should not only consist of tranqing somebody in the face, there are so many ways to acheive that goal and practicing the just one way of doing it is not gonna end well for you.

i got the trophy on the ps3 version of bioshock1 one for no vita-chambers turned on and playing it on impossible or whatever the hardest diff is called, it will force you to use all available resources, even when one hit killing splicers by tele-throwing dead splicers at them. harder difficulties can do alot of things to reduce boredom, but that is only up to you to decide in the end.

I'm currently going through GTA4 again. The first time i played through it i was on board the release hype train. i ripped through the game, did everything the game wanted me to do and completed all the missions. I didn't really rate it very highly as a GTA game. This play through there is no pressure to finish it before somebody ruins the story. Because of my knowing what is going to happen im not too bothered about rushing through the game. I am having sooo much more fun. There are so many things to do in this game and i had missed them all. I dont just mean bowling, darts, vigilante n all that stuff that has been made. I'm talkin about gently prodding people down the street and watching euphoria in action, listening in on NPC's everyday lives, reading the in-game interweb posts, putting bullets in peoples arse's and just watching the life & weather cycles. The GTA4 world is a wonderful place to be. i am so happy that i have gone back to it and given it another chance because I had missed so much. To all the GTA4 haters, i know that san andreas had a nicer map, i also know that vice city was the epitome of cool and yes GTA3 did it all first. but, GTA4 is so evolved its amazing... roll on GTA 5 :D
fin

The song is Knights of Cydonia by Muse.

Those Mario challenge videos are fucking amazing...

BioShock 2 got real easy once you got the Research camera, no matter what achievements you were going for.

ahh, thanks for putting my mind at ease guys, that shit had been bothering me since first watching these last year, can't believe it was a damn song i played in gh3 countless times

first rev rant i've bothered to watch in a long time.

i remember a while back i recommended hitman - blood money to a friend. it's probably one of my favourite games, but he came back to me and said it was boring. just because he could go through the game shooting the targets in the face and running away, he thought that was the best way to play. needless to say he never saw a single silent assassin rating.

same guy also hated DMC4. i watched him play, and he just kept using the same moves over and over. always got a rubbish style rating, but hey he wasn't dying so why not?

in conclusion, my friend is boring. there's no other way i can rationalise it. it wasn't the games fault. both of them actually have systems that reward creativity, and he just didn't want to be creative.

Assassin's Creed II is a good example.

There's one assassin mission that I did this weekend where, since I hadn't played in a while, I had started to approach it in probably the most boring way possible. In particular, I went for a poison kill just to feel like a bad ass an watch him spaz out from a nearby bridge. But I ended up getting noticed on another target and had to redo it. Second time through, I realized that same guy had a path that walked by a bench, which ended up being a cool stealth kill that I hadn't seen before. likewise, the one I failed ended up having a great crowd assisted double kill I hadn't thought of.

There's no real right way in a scripted sense, but there's certainly a boring "All I have to do is do this. whatever" way and a "Well, the game is kind of suggesting that I have this other option... Oh! Neat! i didn't think that would work!" way.

I think the option should be there to be boring, especialyl if you game has something its trying to push beyond its cool gameplay (Narrative, points accumulation, speed running, etc) that you as the player may want to check out. But really smart design will have that interesting option that's being suggested to the more interesting player that's interested in the depth of the gameplay.

Then again, one of the things I hate to hear "Well all you had to do was spamm hard attack. whatever" when a game may have alot of intersting, not-so-utilitarian aspects to its systems. Boring players irk me, but I can understand the want to be boring sometimes. :/

Multiplayer games tend to do this fairly well in terms of player choice. MAG, Killzone, lots of other multiplayer games can be played with your favorite gun - but if you look at the trophies, ribbons or medals, the game encourages you to get 30 shotgun kills in one game or use this weapon or that skill.

For single player games, I think that those that offer "difficulty" settings also achieve a bit of player choice. If you just want to use one weapon/skill you can often do this on the "easy" mode, whereas more difficult modes often give the AI certain resistances that force the player to be more selective in their weapon choice or playing style.

Games that allow me to be boring, are boring games to me. I think great games should always encourage dexterity.

No one has mentioned Final Fantasy Tactics? Interesting.

It definitely has the combination of 'Cool Stuff' and being boring, at least in my opinion. Surely one can run through the game with 4 ninjas and Cid, just dominating everything, but this is incredibly boring. Effective, yes, but hardly interesting. At the same time, you can go the complete opposite way, using every class in delicate dance of death. Calculating time spells onto a Summoner to get out Odin faster. Mediating enemies to your side and having them attack their old team-mates while your Chemist shoots them in the face and throws X-Potions around like candy. A Black Mage drawing out the spirit of a katana from his side job as Samurai - you get a boost to mag pwr as a mage, of course. There's an infinite number of interesting combos in this game (which are entirely optional and easily missed for the afore-mentioned 'Dream Team'), but also a slight punishment for not using them. I say slight in that certain fights are more difficult without certain classes around, and EVERY fight is more difficult if you refuse to think harder than 'move forward...hit in face.'

I think you had a rant some time ago regarding player punishment. I don't recall what side of the fence you fell on in that video but I think that is the main issue here. While I don't think the game needs to end the second you get spotted (although I read it has that mode in co-op, which is cool) I do think it should present more of an obstacle than simply wasting a minute or two of your time while you mulch everyone in the room. At the very least this should be the case on Realistic difficulty. If you choose that option you are saying, "yes, I would like harsh punishment for failure. I am up for it."

I was actually thinking about something similar the other day, and think you captured the problem quite well: if a player is 'forced' to be creative, and use endless combos and tactics to get through a boss, the game has to walk a fine line to not just make it annoying, like you are being made to jump through a bunch of artificial hoops simply to meet the game designer's definition of 'creative'.

At the same time, allowing that freedom can make things boring. I found MGS 4 o be this: I just plowed my way through most encounters.

I think games have to do a better job at rewarding creativity. Either through achievements as you noted, or making it clear through gameplay narrative and objectives, what kind of bonus you get for being creative. For example, tie the "don't use a health pack" route into getting a special cut scene, or special reward either at the end of a chapter or series of chapters, or at the end of the game.

Also, make this objective clear to the player through a secondary mission briefing, dialogue, or whatever, and not just as an achievement. Casual "hardcore" gamers like myself (no Wii or party game crap, but I only have a chance to game anywhere from 4 - 8 hours per week), often don't care about trophies or achievements, but I will go out of my way to accomplish a secondary mission if it is presented at the start of the level. Developers just have to be more creative on what that secondary objective is: rather than 'find the two hidden suitcases' or 'kill Bob if you see him', make the objective "turn in three health packs to Miguel at the end of the level and get a special stock attachment for your assault rifle". Maybe then you only start with two health packs, and there are one or two hidden in the level. This would encourage exploration AND creative play.

Conviction is boring because its dumbed down for console kids. LOOOK HGUYS UNLIMITAD AMMO LOOOOOOL.

I'd argue system shock 2 did this best.

For me, I've always enjoyed being able to plow through a game without thinking If I wanted to. Your right about bioshock 2 really making you use everything at your disposal. If you dont, then you go to a vita-chamber. Then again if you want to get an achievement you have ot not die, forcing you to think of ways to take on your opponents creatively enough to survive the battle.

I guess i'd have to say that if a game like splinter cell conviction or bioshock 2 offers so many ways to progress, its prett much unavoidable that there will be a boring way trough. Sometimes I want to be able to cheese my way through a game. Resident Evil 5 is a good example. On your first playtrough you'll struggle with weak weapons and ammo, which makes the game more tense. Then as you go through the game, you unlock tools to make the game easier(infinite ammo, rocket launcher, magnum, etc.)The game rewards you for struggling through your first playthrough with a easy way out on any subsequent playthroughs. wether or not you make the game easy is also a choice. You could just not use infinite ammo or RPG's, but ultimatly most players will take those things, because they've done the game in arguably the most interesting way that it can be played and now the want to be boring.

It's an interesting topic to say the least but in regards to your main question

"If the player is boring, whose fault is that? Should games force players to not be boring, at the expense of the player's personal freedom?"

I believe that the player should have the right to be boring, and developers have to walk a thin line between being to limiting and to free. The people making the game should definetly push players somewhat to play the game the way they want you to play it, but they should never force you down that path. Because sometimes, I wnat to be boring.

I can't really relate since I always seem to strive to use verything the developers created for the player to use (also, I always strive for a non-seen first playthrough)

But at the same time, should every developer be forced into this kind of direction of development?

And how did you kill them all in 2 seconds? Does that include the one in the monitoring room?

I guess it depends. If the game is really good and interesting then the players will want to replay it and do more experimentation. If it's just something to slog through though I know I'll take the fastest path of least resistance.

If anything though I think giving the player so many options just shows the lack of imagination most players have. I'm ashamed to admit I beat most levels in Scribblenauts using the same items each time.

Achievements can encourage one to play more creatively but I would say difficulty levels is what should force a player to take advantage of the game mechanics on offer. On easy one should be able to breeze through with one or two guns/powers, on any difficult setting higher, more should be demanded of he player.
I would also like games to increase, on higher difficulties, the A.I. of opposition rather than HP, and in turn for the need to use the variable game mechanics to defeat smarter enemies as opposed to HP heavy enemies.

@Rosen
I once had a FFT party consist of one bard and 4 dancers. The only moves they did were dancing and singing. The dancers did Slow Dance (enemy Speed -1) while the Bard sung Cheer Song (teammate Speed +1). Once the enemies were completely helpless anything at all could be done to them.

A buddy of mine abused Mediator skills to modify team stats Brave and Faith. He permanently made Brave 97 and Faith 03 to make physically tough characters who were pretty much immune to magic, then gave them all Blade Grasp. This made them unhittable, as well as immune to magic. Friggin' invincible team.

I think Mass Effect 2 invokes different play styles depending on class. I have played the game twice, once as a male soldier and the second as a female adept. The choices i had to make and the attention i had to give to each situation as an Adept to make the missions successful resulted in a much more fulfilling experience. There was something inherently exciting about not running through the game firing at everything but rather proceeding with respect to environment and abilities. It resulted in a higher connection with my teams as well as constantly changing team members to get the most out of everyone's abilities.

Oh in the case of Bioshock 2, higher higher difficulties should remove the Vitachambers altogether.

What about the devil may cry series with all its skills and weapon you could get though out the game

ScottyG:
"I'm ashamed to admit I beat most levels in Scribblenauts using the same items each time."

That's the thing, though: I think most of us did, and I don't think we're entirely to blame for that. I can't help but wonder if the entire idea of giving the player a goal will just naturally make all of us default to the easiest, quickest method of completion just because that's how human beings are wired.

I don't have an intelligent comment on game design but I would like to say that you have found the perfect level of beard.

I just finishes the game, and I can honestly say that Metro 2033 is one such example. I played through the game as the same time as one of my friends, and we would talk about our experiences each day we played. Though both of us thoroughly enjoyed it, we both played the game entirely differently. Sections that he thought had to be blasted through, I figured out how to stealth all the way through, and vice versa. Our endings were completely different, as well.

I know you hate the game and all...but that doesn't mean this isn't true!

I think a game should subtly reward the player for using more creative ways to complete objectives. Like how in Infamous players would earn more xp from killing enemies in more outlandish ways than simple shooting them in the face.

Also just wondering if, aside from Scribblenauts and Little Big Planet, are there any games that offer chances to use creativity that doesn’t involve killing people?

Shameless self promotion: I kind of address this same issue in my passive gaming post.

I think the gamer does have some responsibility to his own fun, it shouldn't rest entirely on the developers. The fact that they make the game playable for those who take less creative routes is a credit to their design abilities.

I tried playing Scribblenauts without ever repeating an item. It didn't work, mostly because there are only so many words for rope. Perhaps my vocabulary just wasn't up to snuff.

Here's what I think: Until the AI in these games improves, the boring method of rushing in and mindlessly killing everyone will always work because you only have to be smarter than the computer.

Also, there shouldn't be any Achievement points associated for beating a game on Easy. It's not really an achievement, in my eyes at least.

@VashTS gotta agree with ya, it's all about game difficulty. I remember a few moments from early Metal Gear Solid where I would try to rush in and gun everyone and get my ass handed to me. Result: needed to be clever about it. Chances are, the demo was simply TOO EASY.

Huh, I could've sworn I saw this one last week

Harvey Smith touched on this in the Deus Ex: Invisible War Post-Mortem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGIdYl2oN74 about 3:50)
They took the system from the first game, where skills and augmentations sometimes overlapped, and they pared it down to a simpler interface to remove redundancy and improve the mechanics. Having done that, though, they shat all over the immersion and it ended up being really dissatisfying as a sequel to the first game.

You touched on it, too, in your difficulty rant, where you talked about how you didn't enjoy Snake Eater to its fullest extent (until you played on Extreme) because you were able to go through the game without fully utilizing everything the gameplay mechanics had to offer. Personally, I played MGS3 on Normal like you played it on Extreme (although, I played Subsistence, I'm not sure if that makes a difference) not because I had to, but because I thought it was awesome that I could.

I don't have a concluding point I just thought I'd bring these things up.

One game I kinda feel is like this is Valkyria Chronicles. You could blitz through most missions by abusing Alicia and just running to the enemy base using defense and evasion orders and win quickly while ignoring most enemies and their reinforcements or you can plan out intricate strategies and adjust on the fly which makes the game way more interesting

Interesting questions you pose Anthony. I'm questioning if the demo promotes using the mark and execute ability or if at the beginning they were merely showing the player that it exists. Through text, the devs do tell the player that they have access to a bunch of other gadgets, by telling the player how to switch to the grenades,cameras, etc but in no way does the level promote the use of said gadgets.

The conundrum is it would be great to be thrown in a situation where taking the time to set up an attack with certain gadgets would give you a great advantage, but the seemingly only way to explain to the player that this is the case, they would have to tell them exactly how to set it up which would give little satisfaction, if any.