What are you playing?

[Cybernetic pig]

Yes, it's definitely downhill from there. You get guns in the police station and it turns into a generic puzzle-FPS in the vein of Half Life, rather than the sort of detective-mystery it was up to that point (albeit with a tonne of jumping puzzles). Sanity failures only happen with the monsters you encounter later.

In no way is Cthuhlu a generic FPS. Its the most unique non Looking Glass First Person Shooter out there.
There are more stealth sections further in, the detective-mystery elements remain throughout, its just not the main focus as it is in the beginning, and the storytelling remains strong throughout too. Also it has lean. In my opinion variety (randomly generated doesn't count) is the spice of gaming. If the 20 hour campaign was just a detective mystery throughout that would have bored the shit out of me.

The problem with the sanity system, in both Cthulu and Amnesia (although I wasn't aware the Amnesia one doesn't kill you - I thought it did) is that it's a cheap and artificial "horror" mechanic. If the game developers have done their job properly I should be feeling scared myself, the game shouldn't have to tell me "oh, by the way - what you're seeing right now should be scaring you." By making you play according to the sanity system, I think it makes you play it as a game rather than an experience which isn't the point.

Depends on how you look at it. For me it really adds to the gameplay, yet the game still creeped me the fuck out regardless. I do not think it was their intention for it to be telling you how you should feel (at least not primarily), I think thier goal was for it to add to the gameplay, which it does. Your hands shake when aim down the sights if Jack is scared. He can take his own life. He gets vertigo if you look over high edges and then his vision blurs a little. then you can jack up on morphine if under serious pressure.
There are tons of events that add to your total sanity (an unseen number) that you the player determine, being fully healed and avoiding stressful situations reduces it though I think. Then there is the head fuck effects like jack talking to himself when he is losing it or his teeth chattering. The best thing about the sanity system is it is not scripted, its up to the player to keep Jack sane.

Just let me fucking quicksave.

NEVER! It also wants YOU to have a sanity failure too

Quicksave can be abused, save points are a forced challenge. You have to play the game as if you were Jack yourself, get immersed, if not you'll be punished.
Its the one sure thing about console gaming I prefer over PC (well old-school console gaming anyway).

It does seem like Cthulhu is a crappy console port though, since there is significantly less bugs on the console version too.

[DaveW]

In no way is Cthuhlu a generic FPS. Its the most unique non Looking Glass First Person Shooter out there.
There are more stealth sections further in, the detective-mystery elements remain throughout, its just not the main focus as it is in the beginning, and the storytelling remains strong throughout too. Also it has lean. In my opinion variety (randomly generated doesn't count) is the spice of gaming. If the 20 hour campaign was just a detective mystery throughout that would have bored the shit out of me.

It's certainly not unique in terms of gameplay.

I haven't had much need for stealth, the AI too dumb to do that properly and shooting everyone ended up being the least irritating playstyle. There are no detective-mystery elements further in, at least as far as I've got (the ship) apart from the puzzle where you have to match the switches with the broken tablet, which was fucking stupid. I had to look up the solution and I still didn't understand it. The rest of the puzzles are basic 'turn this lever' or 'find this key' stuff on par with Half Life. I can honestly say I've never used lean in an FPS, either. Maybe in Thief a few times.

Obviously I wasn't expecting the entire game to be like the first half hour, but as soon as the guns came into it the storytelling fell off a cliff. The game became mostly about shooting, and it doesn't even do that very well.

Depends on how you look at it. For me it really adds to the gameplay, yet the game still creeped me the fuck out regardless. I do not think it was their intention for it to be telling you how you should feel (at least not primarily), I think thier goal was for it to add to the gameplay, which it does. Your hands shake when aim down the sights if Jack is scared. He can take his own life. He gets vertigo if you look over high edges and then his vision blurs a little. then you can jack up on morphine if under serious pressure.
There are tons of events that add to your total sanity (an unseen number) that you the player determine, being fully healed and avoiding stressful situations reduces it though I think. Then there is the head fuck effects like jack talking to himself when he is losing it or his teeth chattering. The best thing about the sanity system is it is not scripted, its up to the player to keep Jack sane.

Some of those things are fine - I liked where he starts talking to himself, it's a nice little touch. The elevated breathing, heartbeat etc. - all fine. It's adding to the atmosphere, it's not getting in the way of my experience.

The 'vertigo' effect, however, was fucking annoying along with all the other blur effects they put in. There was a moment where I was trying to aim at one of the sea creatures and the screen kept randomly zooming in and out, which left me trying to run around a room reloading my shotgun while my view was going mental. It didn't feel natural, it felt like the game was trying to force me to feel panicked. I should have been feeling panicked anyway. I should have been worried the monster was going to kill me. Actually, I was just pissed off that the game wouldn't let me see anything.

When I compare that to some moments in Penumbra Overture: running away from the dogs and hoping they weren't following me - I didn't need the developers to put a silly radial blur over my screen to tell me that I was panicked - I felt it.

So sure, it adds some extra stuff to the gameplay. As in, there are more gameplay elements at work (morphine for example). But it's at the expense of ruining the experience.

NEVER! It also wants YOU to have a sanity failure too

Quicksave can be abused, save points are a forced challenge. You have to play the game as if you were Jack yourself, get immersed, if not you'll be punished.
Its the one sure thing about console gaming I prefer over PC (well old-school console gaming anyway).

It does seem like Cthulhu is a crappy console port though, since there is significantly less bugs on the console version too.

Well I keep getting bored and turning it off - I suppose you could say I'm losing my sanity to it. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt by not uninstalling it right now - the developers were clearly trying to make a good game and failed miserably, that's what bugs me.

Save points are an arbitrary challenge. But checkpoints are fine when they're used properly (Call of Duty springs to mind, actually). The problem with them in Cthulu is that they're too far apart and the game is full of bugs and poorly designed situations where not knowing exactly what you're meant to do beforehand leads to you dying. There are several sequences where you have to escape something, and if you take just 2 seconds too long (like, you get caught unbolting/rebolting a door because it doesn't get that you're trying to open it) you die. When you get one of those just before a savepoint and you have to re-do the 10 minute sequence before it - well, that's just stupid.

My issue isn't with save/checkpoints as a general mechanic - although I prefer quicksaves, I think they're fine. It's their implementation in Cthulu that's bad.

[bobby 55]

Borderlands 2 as The Assassin. I was unsure of my choice in the Assassin class, however at level 11 I have a decent sniper rifle, a shield that gives shock damage to melee attackers, and points in the skill tree for weapon and melee damage. It's entertaining and I have to play differently to how I did with Salvador the Gunzerker.

[Cybernetic pig]

It's certainly not unique in terms of gameplay.

Other than the sanity effects, no.

There are no detective-mystery elements further in, at least as far as I've got (the ship) apart from the puzzle where you have to match the switches with the broken tablet, which was fucking stupid.

Well yeah not really, but you can still examine alot of the environment to learn about the world, and you have your collection of evidence which sometimes ties into the puzzles.

Obviously I wasn't expecting the entire game to be like the first half hour, but as soon as the guns came into it the storytelling fell off a cliff. The game became mostly about shooting, and it doesn't even do that very well.

I like the shooting. You have to take into account that there was not alot of FPS games back then with Iron sights. Plus it has lean, no HUD at all, the sanity effects, no auto reload and so on.

Some of those things are fine - I liked where he starts talking to himself, it's a nice little touch. The elevated breathing, heartbeat etc. - all fine. It's adding to the atmosphere, it's not getting in the way of my experience.

The 'vertigo' effect, however, was fucking annoying along with all the other blur effects they put in. There was a moment where I was trying to aim at one of the sea creatures and the screen kept randomly zooming in and out, which left me trying to run around a room reloading my shotgun while my view was going mental. It didn't feel natural, it felt like the game was trying to force me to feel panicked. I should have been feeling panicked anyway. I should have been worried the monster was going to kill me. Actually, I was just pissed off that the game wouldn't let me see anything.

I dont mind the blurring effects, but I understand your problem with them.

Well I keep getting bored and turning it off - I suppose you could say I'm losing my sanity to it. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt by not uninstalling it right now - the developers were clearly trying to make a good game and failed miserably, that's what bugs me.

I disagree. I consider it to be a good game, just a little unpolished.

Save points are an arbitrary challenge. But checkpoints are fine when they're used properly (Call of Duty springs to mind, actually). The problem with them in Cthulu is that they're too far apart and the game is full of bugs and poorly designed situations where not knowing exactly what you're meant to do beforehand leads to you dying. There are several sequences where you have to escape something, and if you take just 2 seconds too long (like, you get caught unbolting/rebolting a door because it doesn't get that you're trying to open it) you die. When you get one of those just before a savepoint and you have to re-do the 10 minute sequence before it - well, that's just stupid.

My issue isn't with save/checkpoints as a general mechanic - although I prefer quicksaves, I think they're fine. It's their implementation in Cthulu that's bad.

[/quote]
Yeah very true there are a couple of vital points that needed a save point. It's the only notable flaw that detracts from the experience overall, for me.
It's a shame you have not enjoyed it that much, because even with its flaws I still think it pisses over most modern FPS. Call of Duty campaign springs to mind.

[DaveW]

I like the shooting. You have to take into account that there was not alot of FPS games back then with Iron sights. Plus it has lean, no HUD at all, the sanity effects, no auto reload and so on.

It was only 2005, quite a few games had iron sights and even freelook by then, it's not like it was released in 1999. I think not having a HUD is a nice idea (I'm adopting the same idea for my own horror-esque game) - but in Cthulu, if you're short on ammo it means you have to keep checking your inventory, which defeats the point. I'm not sure why the sanity effects and lacking an auto reload feature are good things, though. Auto reload in particular strikes me as an oversight rather than a deliberate decision, since reloading is a bit buggy (most games won't let you reload a full magazine, whereas Cthulu does)

When I say the 'shooting' is bad, what I mean is the game just doesn't play well as an FPS - the AI is dumb, moving around means the AI can barely hit you, headshots barely mean anything, and stealth doesn't work very well.

I dont mind the blurring effects, but I understand your problem with them.

If they were subtle, I could put up with them. What I hate is that they stop you playing the game in most cases - like the example I gave climbing down a lift. The radial blur got so strong I couldn't see what was happening so I didn't notice my character was slowly dismounting the elevator cable to eventually fall off.

It's a shame you have not enjoyed it that much, because even with its flaws I still think it pisses over most modern FPS. Call of Duty campaign springs to mind.

CoD is an entirely different game - the only objective way to compare them is to look at what they set out to achieve and I actually think the CoD campaigns are 'better' in that respect, mostly because they set the bar so low.

I think the concept had the potential to be great - I had really high hopes for it at the start because it had reasonable writing and a great atmosphere. It seemed to be building up the tension quite well, too. But in practice I don't think the FPS element worked, and they put too much emphasis on that later on in the game.

[Jaedar]

Not sure I agree about the whole arbitrary challenge thing.

I think we can all agree that it takes more skill to not die for 5 minutes than 10 minutes. Or rather, to kill enemy Y requires a burst of skill, but to make it from the save point before and after enemy Y requires a varying amount of skill depending on where you are between them, and at one point you have the same burst. This certainly takes more skill, and it is not arbitrary in my opinion.

I have issues with a checkpoint based only system, but it mainly goes to the whole "can only save at certain points and you will lose progress otherwise". Even if its done as in recent zeldas where you don't lose progress but your position in the dungeon resets, that's still bad.

I had this argument with a friend. He was raging about dark souls not having quicksave and quickload while he was bashing his head against a black knight way before he's supposed to be able to kill one. He was dying quite a bit and raged that he couldn't save before the attempt. As he explained, he could pull the parries off with like 80% chance, but any failed one would kill him and he'd need at least 5 in a row to win. I understand what he's saying, but I don't like this brute force attempt to overcome challenge. Because the game forces you to redo a section of the game before another attempt it means you can't easily brute force it because of the breaks between attempts. So an 80% success rate won't cut it, you need to be able to do it way more reliably(or waste a lot of time. Or just come back later when its more appropriate for your character).

In short what I'm trying to say is that allowing for quicksaves anywhere can allow for "luck" letting you get through and not actually overcoming the challenge.

[Cybernetic pig]

It was only 2005, quite a few games had iron sights and even freelook by then, it's not like it was released in 1999.

Yeah but they were all straightforward and in my opinion boring military shooters (campaign not multi)

I think not having a HUD is a nice idea (I'm adopting the same idea for my own horror-esque game) - but in Cthulu, if you're short on ammo it means you have to keep checking your inventory, which defeats the point.

How so? You are meant to just have a general idea of how many bullets you have overall from an inventory check every now and then, or even count your shots.

Auto reload in particular strikes me as an oversight rather than a deliberate decision, since reloading is a bit buggy (most games won't let you reload a full magazine, whereas Cthulu does)

Im not sure wether being able to reload when full is an oversight or a design decision. But judging by the other mechanics (realism based- no auto reload, no HUD) i'd say its a design decision.
No Auto reload is most certainly a design decision though, since your gun makes a clicking sound when you try and shoot when out of ammo in the chamber/clip IIRC, and it's awesome. Automatic gameplay blows.

When I say the 'shooting' is bad, what I mean is the game just doesn't play well as an FPS - the AI is dumb, moving around means the AI can barely hit you, headshots barely mean anything, and stealth doesn't work very well.

All the best games have dumb AI Headshot multiplier is reasonable in my opinion. Stealth I hardly use so cannot comment on. I never noticed that moving around means they can barely hit you but I'll take your word for it.

If they were subtle, I could put up with them. What I hate is that they stop you playing the game in most cases - like the example I gave climbing down a lift. The radial blur got so strong I couldn't see what was happening so I didn't notice my character was slowly dismounting the elevator cable to eventually fall off.

Ha Ha Ha player sanity -1.

CoD is an entirely different game - the only objective way to compare them is to look at what they set out to achieve and I actually think the CoD campaigns are 'better' in that respect, mostly because they set the bar so low.

Agreed, to some extent.

I think the concept had the potential to be great - I had really high hopes for it at the start because it had reasonable writing and a great atmosphere. It seemed to be building up the tension quite well, too. But in practice I don't think the FPS element worked, and they put too much emphasis on that later on in the game.

Meh I very much enjoy the shooting. It's not perfect but it's certainly not broken. Handles better than DX thats for sure and I like DX's shooting so there you go. I know the years between the two releases are fairly large but I was just using it as an example that im not fussy about the shooting because ive been shooting since Doom. The shooting could be better but it holds its own.

Also it was the developers first game and according to wikipedia they went through hell so I think it turned out great considering.

Snip

Agreed.

Whilst quick load/save is optional, it's so hard to not just abuse it to overcome a challenge. I am sure all of us here have abused it at some point.

[DaveW]

Not sure I agree about the whole arbitrary challenge thing..

I do see your point Jaedar - I'm not really sure if arbitrary was the right word for me to use - I'm not sure what word I'd use instead, mind you..

In a standard FPS scenario, let's say there's a 10 minute gap between checkpoints. You breeze through the first 8 minutes and then a difficult enemy at the 9 minute mark keeps killing you. What I mean is that having to redo that first 8 minutes which you got through easily isn't adding any extra challenge - therefore, it becomes arbitrary. A quicksave means I can save before that enemy without having to waste time doing the 8 minute sequence over and over.

Yes, it means that you can get a degree of luck by brute forcing it - so it may take 10 attempts to get through the first 8 minutes, then you quicksave - it takes you 15 attempts to get through the enemy at 9 minutes etc. - but if you're playing it that way..well, you're only ruining the experience for yourself. If you're going to brute force it like that, you're probably willing to brute force it with a checkpoint system - all the game designers are doing in that situation is boring the normal players by making them replay the same parts over and over!

I think having a decent spread of checkpoints is fine, though. I've never had an issue with them in CoD, thankfully - often I die because the AI is unfair* so I'd hate to keep going back because of lazy programmers.

*As in you can stand next to a teammate who isn't getting shot at, and the enemies will only shoot you. Or you can be running in a group of teammates and only you are shot at.

Yeah but they were all straightforward and in my opinion boring military shooters (campaign not multi)

If you say so - but all I meant is that it wasn't some breakthrough moment in gaming. The only reason iron sights are widespread now is because there are a lot more military shooters.

How so? You are meant to just have a general idea of how many bullets you have overall or even count your shots.

I don't know anyone who would count their shots in an FPS. Which is exactly my point.

Let's say the intention was to make the player focus on the game rather than 'stats' (ammo/health). The problem is that when you make those two stats paramount to the game, people will just look for that information in the inventory instead. You can't afford not to see that information to survive, especially when an injury deteriorates and could eventually kill you. So you haven't stopped that behaviour - you've just changed it and made it more irritating, which ultimately makes it feel more like a game. You've just done the opposite of what you wanted to do!

That's why in my own game the health will regenerate (to stop people paying close attention to their health/medkits and just play the damn game) and a simple tally on the notes page which can be glanced at to give an indication of your ammo. Plus, you'll be able to turn that off if you want to.

I never noticed that moving around means they can barely hit you but I'll take your word for it.

Remember the first hostile sequence very early on where you're being chased through the streets? I ran through all of that - I didn't use any kind of stealth and got shot about 3 times.

I mean, I'm thankful i didn't have to use the game's shitty stealth mechanics to get through that section. But I'd have preffered decent AI instead.

Meh I very much enjoy the shooting. It's not perfect but it's certainly not broken. Handles better than DX thats for sure and I like DX's shooting so there you go.

Also it was the developers first game and according to wikipedia they went through hell so I think it turned out great.

Pretty much everything is better than DX's shooting. That's because DX's shooting is awful, and one of the reasons I prefer HR (because it's a great FPS and RPG)

But yeah - the fact that the development team were at least trying to make a decent game is the only reason I haven't given up on it. Yet. I think it's a crap game, even when I'm being kind to it - but I appreciate the intention.

[Cybernetic pig]

I edited my last post RE: Auto reload.

About keeping an eye on health packs and ammo, im not quite sure what you mean, you personally constantly check up on those stats when you have no constant on-screen display of them?
Myself I make an automated mental note each time I pick stuff up I guess, never really thought about it until today. Or if I do forget it takes roughly 5 secs to check your inventory.

But if you want regen health in your game just so the player can "play the fucking game" then why not have regen ammo too?

Prod with the recharging prod.

For me ammo and health pack management is playing the game. Standard mechanics that I expect in a single player shooter in fact (well I dont mind when health packs are used on collision with the player too, but that is dated).

I'll play your game once it is released (freeware?), but I'll certainly bitch about regen health Cool you have gone with no HUD though.

*As in you can stand next to a teammate who isn't getting shot at, and the enemies will only shoot you. Or you can be running in a group of teammates and only you are shot at.

Ha ha I noticed that in CoD too, fucking useless teammates in that game, not that you need them though.

I like it when a game does allow you to save anywhere, but limits the amount of saves you can use per level. That solves your problem you were describing about dying just before reaching a checkpoint, whilst still offering a challenge.

But yeah - the fact that the development team were at least trying to make a decent game is the only reason I haven't given up on it. Yet. I think it's a crap game, even when I'm being kind to it - but I appreciate the intention.

Your opinion makes me sad I'd give it 8 or 9/10. Crap he says. ha. Can anybody else vouch for this game?

I would like you to play System Shock 2 and see what you have to say about it.

[DaveW]

I edited my last post RE: Auto reload.

Ah. Well, I'm still not sure..if it was any other game I'd agree with you but given everything else, it strikes me as lazy programming more than anything. Personally I prefer automatic reload, so intentional or not I don't think it was a good decision.

About keeping an eye on health packs and ammo, im not quite sure what you mean, you personally constantly check up on those stats when you have no constant on-screen display of them?
Myself I make an automated mental note each time I pick stuff up I guess, never really thought about it. Or if I do forget it takes roughly 5 secs to check your inventory.

Yes. Cthulu attaches a high importance to health - and since the visual indicators aren't particularly helpful, not having them on the HUD just means people will look at the inventory screen instead. Same goes for ammo, to some extent.

It depends on what you're hoping to gain from removing the HUD. Personally, I'd see the benefit as trying to stop the player concerning themselves with the intricacies of the game and play for the experience - in which case you haven't actually stopped that behavior by removing the HUD. But I gather you like it being removed to make it more realistic, though even then that information is still available in a UI.

But if you want regen health in your game just so the player can "play the fucking game" then why not have regen ammo too?

Prod with the recharging prod.

There are two reasons for not having unlimited ammo: suspension of disbelief and playstyle.

Regenerating health is clearly a suspension of disbelief. But, you accept that most FPS games are not going to be realistic in this respect - no one can get shot several times and survive, even with medical kits. Ammo, on the other hand, is something physical. It's hard to believe that something is magically appearing in your gun. It requires a much greater suspension of disbelief and just feels a bit silly. The prod would be an exception, since that could conceivably 'regenerate' - and I'd argue that it would've been better to make it less effective but unlimited in Deus Ex.

Then there's playstyle. Giving a player a machine gun and saying "You've got unlimited ammo" encourages a game-like playstyle - "Knock yourself out". Whereas giving them a machine gun and saying "You've got 60 rounds" encourages a more realisti playstyle - "Use it wisely". This exact mechanic is exploited in turret sequences where you're (usually) given unlimited ammo and told to go fucking mental.

So, that's why not. In reference to my game in particular it would encourage players to shoot everywhere and play it like a game, rather than taking a cautious approach and taking care about each shot.

For me ammo and health pack management is playing the game. Standard mechanics that I expect in a single player shooter in fact.

I'll play your game once it is released (freeware?), but I'll certainly bitch about regen health

I find both pretty tedious, but ammo management I can deal with depending on the game: managing your inventory in Stalker is a bit different to CoD telling you to be reasonable with your ammo. Health kits, though, are something I'm glad have disappeared. But then, I generally play games for the story (or overall crazy fun) - health-kits are detrimental to both I think. I can understand if you prefer simulation-based gameplay why you'd prefer to have health-kits, though. But I don't think you should expect all FPS's to be a realistic simulation - some games are intended to just be fun.

Depending on how much time I put into it, it'll probably be a paid-for release. But feel free to bitch about regenerating health all you like. In the end, my focus is on story and experience and I'm removing any obstacles to that. Unnecessary game systems are an obstacle.

[Jaedar]

Yes, it means that you can get a degree of luck by brute forcing it - so it may take 10 attempts to get through the first 8 minutes, then you quicksave - it takes you 15 attempts to get through the enemy at 9 minutes etc. - but if you're playing it that way..well, you're only ruining the experience for yourself. If you're going to brute force it like that, you're probably willing to brute force it with a checkpoint system - all the game designers are doing in that situation is boring the normal players by making them replay the same parts over and over!

Except then the game is not so well designed. I hate to go all.... this.. on you but:
The 8 minutes before the boss should prepare you for the boss if they're well designed. Beating them should be practice for the 'exam' that is the boss fight or whatever at 9 mins. If they're not, the boss should have a checkpoint right before it. This is typically the sort of thing you should catch during playtesting.

no one can get shot several times and survive

There are records of people getting shot with dozens of bullets and living.

All you need is getting lucky enough not to have anything vital perforated

. Ammo, on the other hand, is something physical. It's hard to believe that something is magically appearing in your gun.

Uhuh, yet we clearly buy that the bullets are magically teleporting from the half spent clips on the ground into complete full mags on our body and that the same happens when we reload an unspent mag. The bullets are not automagically appearing in your gun, they're automagically appearing on your person, which is what they're doing already anyway.

Then there's playstyle. Giving a player a machine gun and saying "You've got unlimited ammo" encourages a game-like playstyle - "Knock yourself out".

Well, you'd still have reloads.

But then, I generally play games for the story

This is why we can't have nice things

I honestly don't really see the difference between health management and ammo management aside from the fact that ammo is usually easier to come by(each time you kill an enemy typically). Although in the stalkers games you typically get both ammo and medkits each time you kill someone so....

[Cybernetic pig]

Then there's playstyle. Giving a player a machine gun and saying "You've got unlimited ammo" encourages a game-like playstyle - "Knock yourself out". Whereas giving them a machine gun and saying "You've got 60 rounds" encourages a more realisti playstyle - "Use it wisely". This exact mechanic is exploited in turret sequences where you're (usually) given unlimited ammo and told to go fucking mental.

Exactly, here is the point you are missing with non-regen health. "use it wisely" applies for health too. Regen health encourages "Knock yourself out", as long as you dont actually die of course.

I find both pretty tedious

Im gonna be immature here and say for such an intelligent guy you play like a fucking noob. That is my analysis of you, chalked up.
People like you is why people like me rarely get fun games anymore But I can only reluctantly respect your opinions I suppose.

EDIT: Jeadar beat me to it, albiet more maturely.

I can understand if you prefer simulation-based gameplay why you'd prefer to have health-kits, though. But I don't think you should expect all FPS's to be a realistic simulation - some games are intended to just be fun..

Nope nothing to do with simulation on this one, its plain fun. Doom, Mario, System Shock you name it, all would have been lesser experiences if they had blasphemous regen health.

[YeomanTheCastle]

The way I see it, if you're an independent game developer, you shouldn't need to cater to anyone. You shouldn't listen to other people telling you how to make a game. If I were a game developer, and I put in a feature like health regen, and someone doesn't like it, I'm just going to shrug and say "so fuck, it's my game and I'll make it however I want to make it. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.". I can understand an AAA developer needing to cater to an audience because sometimes you simply can't afford to do otherwise, but otherwise I'm strongly against developers catering to a particular audience.

I don't know if that's at all relevant to the current topic, and I don't really care. I'm half drunk and half asleep. Just want to get that out there.

Im gonna be immature here and say for such an intelligent guy you play like a fucking noob. That is my analysis of you, chalked up.
People like you is why people like me rarely get fun games anymore But I can only reluctantly respect your opinions I suppose.

This makes you look like a prick. Just sayin'.

[Cybernetic pig]

but otherwise I'm strongly against developers catering to a particular audience.

This is EXACTLY why the majority of modern games suck. "Games shouldn't cater to just gamers, but to grandmas too".

Likewise Barbie riding Club should cater to grandads too yes?

The only reason I can slightly agree with that statement is because of insane production values. I hope you dont believe that statement should apply to all industries too, not just the game industry.

This makes you look like a prick. Just sayin'.

It does? I called him a noob. Not exactly offensive at all. I also called him intelligent, which surely cancels out any offense caused from calling him noob (if any).

[Jonas]

What are all these AAA games that strive to appease both the traditional 15-30-year-old male demographic as well as their grandmothers?