What Are You Playing, Part 3: The Assassination of my Wallet by the Cowardly Sale

[Zevox]

I never really understood the point in cheating the system in strategy games. At the end of the day you're only cheating yourself of the challenge and thus the fun.

That kind of depends on whether the challenge is fun, though. In XCOM, I'd say the answer is only "sometimes." Sometimes the challenge comes from the combination of the enemies you're facing, the terrain, and your soldiers' abilities, creating a sort of puzzle for you to figure out how best to win/survive. Other times the challenge comes from the RNG just going "lol no" to everything you try to do. Other times it comes from the game's system where enemy groups are triggered to act as soon as you get line-of-sight to them. The first of those can be fun. The other two, not so much, they're mostly frustrating.

[LibraryOgre]

There's a few good inventory mods out there, as I find Morrowind's inventory system pretty horrible by now. At least one for searchable inventory, the late game is a pain otherwise.

Any specific suggestions for an inventory mod? (I'd ask in the TES thread, but I am also the last one to post, so I'm trying to avoid double posting)

[Rynjin]

I never really understood the point in cheating the system in strategy games. At the end of the day you're only cheating yourself of the challenge and thus the fun.

Still, it's a single player game, so if someone enjoys breaking the game more than playing it as intended who am I to tell them otherwise?

Because X-Com is the kind of game where losing certain missions means losing the game: 3 hours after you lost that one mission. You can enter a death spiral state where things become impossible to win fairly easily, and it's sometimes not apparent that it's impossible to win until way later.

[Anteros]

Because X-Com is the kind of game where losing certain missions means losing the game: 3 hours after you lost that one mission. You can enter a death spiral state where things become impossible to win fairly easily, and it's sometimes not apparent that it's impossible to win until way later.

Yes, but the potential to lose the game is what makes it fun for me. The type of game where you can only win or there is very little consequence to messing up is incredibly boring to me. That's why roguelikes and games like dark souls have made such a surge in popularity lately.

That kind of depends on whether the challenge is fun, though. In XCOM, I'd say the answer is only "sometimes." Sometimes the challenge comes from the combination of the enemies you're facing, the terrain, and your soldiers' abilities, creating a sort of puzzle for you to figure out how best to win/survive. Other times the challenge comes from the RNG just going "lol no" to everything you try to do. Other times it comes from the game's system where enemy groups are triggered to act as soon as you get line-of-sight to them. The first of those can be fun. The other two, not so much, they're mostly frustrating.

I think it depends on how much it feels like the player and the AI are playing by the same rules.

The more the asymmetrical the rules of play feel the more likely it is that players will approach it like a puzzle game, and that means using puzzle-like tools like retrying until you find the move that works.

Fair enough. Like I said, people will enjoy games in different ways. To me, replaying a tactical map knowing what to expect and what the enemy will do feels cheap. Kinda invalidates the win. I can certainly see the other perspective of viewing it as a puzzle to solve though.

[Rynjin]

Yes, but the potential to lose the game is what makes it fun for me. The type of game where you can only win or there is very little consequence to messing up is incredibly boring to me. That's why roguelikes and games like dark souls have made such a surge in popularity lately.

The difference is that roguelikes are typically fairly short and you...can't lose Dark Souls, at all unless you stop playing forever.

If I'm playing a game with a 20-30 hour campaign (which X-Com games have) I'm not going to be pleased when the game becomes unwinnable after 15 hours of playtime. I'll just stop playing.

[Lord Raziere]

The difference is that roguelikes are typically fairly short and you...can't lose Dark Souls, at all unless you stop playing forever.

If I'm playing a game with a 20-30 hour campaign (which X-Com games have) I'm not going to be pleased when the game becomes unwinnable after 15 hours of playtime. I'll just stop playing.

I think your definition of losing is not the definition everyone else is using when they talk about this, and is not very useful for discussing the concept Anteros is talking about.

[Rodin]

My general rule is to use a "soft Ironman" system.

Your favorite soldier gets shot in the head? Suck it up, buttercup. Losing characters is part of the game.

Your entire squad goes down in a hail of gunfire? Reload from start of mission, because the campaign is effectively over otherwise.

[Anteros]

The difference is that roguelikes are typically fairly short and you...can't lose Dark Souls, at all unless you stop playing forever.

If I'm playing a game with a 20-30 hour campaign (which X-Com games have) I'm not going to be pleased when the game becomes unwinnable after 15 hours of playtime. I'll just stop playing.

So are you arguing that it should be impossible to lose games you invest a lot of time in? I'm not sure I understand the appeal of that. The threat of losing is what makes it interesting. I'm certainly not playing something like Xcom for the story or exploration. If you lose a campaign then you suck it up, learn from it, and win the next one. It's not like you're losing your whole campaign due to a few bad RNG rolls.

I mean, sure with something sandboxy like Skyrim you expect to be able to save and load and not face consequences, but with a strategy campaign the expectation is that the computer will try to beat you. I had to restart the They are Billions campaign after 15 hours when it turned out I made bad tech choices and couldn't continue without lowering the difficulty and it just made the eventual success sweeter.

[Aotrs Commander]

Very quickly, because I'm off out away for a week in about twenty minutes:

I don't play games to be frustrated. If a game wastes my time, forces me to start over again and again fo whatever reason, I will simply stop and lay something else. Not remotely interested (which is why I will never play a game on ironman).

I don't play for "challenge" anymore than I read a book for "challenge." Hell, the one and ONLY thing I ever do for "challenge" is play table-top wargames. Other than that I simple don't see the appeal. (Granted there is a certain point where things can become too easy, but that it usually only when the puzzle element is not stroing enough.) I simply do not, nor have I ever, gotten any satisfaction over "Doing A Hard Thing." All I ever get at best is relief that I can progess to something actually FUN. I explictly play games (and I ONLY play single-player games on computer) as an escape. I don't drink, smoke, drugs or Significant Others, so games are my equivilent.

[GloatingSwine]

So are you arguing that it should be impossible to lose games you invest a lot of time in?

That is how all video games that allow the player to save at will work anyway.

It is the dominant paradigm and has been for a very long time.

[Rynjin]

That is how all video games that allow the player to save at will work anyway.

It is the dominant paradigm and has been for a very long time.

I cannot think of any single player video game you can actually "lose" as the only way to do so would be to permanently take away your ability to play the game upon a loss state.

[Lord Raziere]

I cannot think of any single player video game you can actually "lose" as the only way to do so would be to permanently take away your ability to play the game upon a loss state.

Again.

Not a very useful definition of loss in this situation, so not one I'm inclined to accept for this situation.

[Rynjin]

Again.

Not a very useful definition of loss in this situation, so not one I'm inclined to accept for this situation.

It is the only useful definition of loss in this context. Otherwise the only alternative is that Anteros is holding the stance that reloading a save when you die in a single player game is somehow undesirable behavior. I do not think that is remotely their intent.

Potentially there is also disagreement on whether strategy games are an exception from this general practice, but that does not mean my definition of loss isn't useful in this context regardless; it just establishes that we disagree on strategy games sharing the same...morals(?) as any other single player game.

[danzibr]

I have continued with my Hollow Knight blind run.

I don't know if anyone else here has played it, but what a beautiful and punishing game! I have, by sheer dumb luck, stumbled across upgrades, but not without dying. Many times.

Of note, Deepnest. Screw Deepnest and burn it with fire.

On the plus side, I met the Grimm Troupe and its leader gave me a little imp that is rather helpful.

Nice! I came to like Deepnest after a while.

I really want to replay HK at some point. Not that I completely completed it the first time (some of the “bosses” are just too hard for me). But I want to redo it because... some people died. So to speak.

Anyway. I just started Feudal Alloy. Fun. Platformer.

Also picked up Cattails again. Reminds me of my late kitty. Mixed feelings.

[Zevox]

So are you arguing that it should be impossible to lose games you invest a lot of time in? I'm not sure I understand the appeal of that. The threat of losing is what makes it interesting. I'm certainly not playing something like Xcom for the story or exploration. If you lose a campaign then you suck it up, learn from it, and win the next one.

Having to restart an entire campaign is certainly something I don't understand the appeal of. The existence of save files obsoleted that problem decades ago, eliminating the need to start over from the beginning any time you lose.

A game throwing a hard challenge at me that I need to attempt many times to pass can certainly be fun. I lost count of how many times I had to attempt the fight with Genichiro in Sekiro before I overcame him, but learning to do it and then ultimately triumphing over such a difficult fight was thrilling and fun, and I was ultimately a lot better at the game after doing so. A game forcing me to throw away my progress and start over from the beginning after I've already spent a lot of time getting far into it sounds like something that would just make me go "well screw this game, then," and find something more fun to play that isn't going to waste my time like that. (A modern game, anyway - a very old one that didn't have save files at the time it was made I might deal with if it were otherwise fun. But those are also all going to be much shorter than a game like XCOM.)

It's not like you're losing your whole campaign due to a few bad RNG rolls.

In XCOM, it sure seems like that's entirely possible, if those bad RNG rolls come early enough in the game. You only start with eight soldiers, so two missions where you full wipe means game over at the most extreme end of things. More likely three, since you'll almost surely recruit some more troops if something as bad as a full squad wipeout occurs once, but still quite possible. The early game is also when the RNG is the most volatile in XCOM, since your characters have minimal stats and as few options in combat as they ever will, yet enemies are still plenty lethal, frequently capable of killing a soldier in a single successful shot.

[factotum]

I simply do not, nor have I ever, gotten any satisfaction over "Doing A Hard Thing." All I ever get at best is relief that I can progess to something actually FUN.

This is so scarily close to my attitude I had to double-check to make sure I hadn't written it. The one thing that has always been true about me is that if I'm playing a game with an actual *story* (e.g. not just random maps like Civ6 or Stellaris) then I like to finish it, and anything that stops my progress in that regard is just irritating.

A game throwing a hard challenge at me that I need to attempt many times to pass can certainly be fun. I lost count of how many times I had to attempt the fight with Genichiro in Sekiro before I overcame him, but learning to do it and then ultimately triumphing over such a difficult fight was thrilling and fun, and I was ultimately a lot better at the game after doing so. A game forcing me to throw away my progress and start over from the beginning after I've already spent a lot of time getting far into it sounds like something that would just make me go "well screw this game, then," and find something more fun to play

I don't have a problem with a hard challenge if I feel that I'm actually improving at it. If I don't improve after several attempts, that's when I'll be giving up. Yakuza 0 is a case in point--I got to the first boss fight and could not defeat him no matter what I tried; I even dropped the difficulty to Easy and he still killed me when he had the merest smidgeon of health left. I was never the best game-player in the world and my reactions aren't the same now I'm topping 50 that they were when I was 20, but why should that mean I'm denied the ability to finish a game I've paid good money for? Developers really need to start taking older gamers into consideration, IMHO, the hobby's been going for 40+ years now and a lot of people who were there near the beginning are distinctly chronologically challenged these days.

[Lord Raziere]

It is the only useful definition of loss in this context. Otherwise the only alternative is that Anteros is holding the stance that reloading a save when you die in a single player game is somehow undesirable behavior. I do not think that is remotely their intent.

Potentially there is also disagreement on whether strategy games are an exception from this general practice, but that does not mean my definition of loss isn't useful in this context regardless; it just establishes that we disagree on strategy games sharing the same...morals(?) as any other single player game.

Not to my point of view.

It seem more like your trying to force a definition of loss he doesn't agree with and assuming thats the only valid way to define it. People don't view the game itself as the opponent, the game is the setting for the opponents and every boss is a single challenge with which I can win or lose at, and Dark souls follows this definition where loss is defined as losing against an opponent, and I lose something if that happens: souls. Therefore loss is when I lose against an opponent within the game and the game being deleted because you lose against an entire game is just infuriating stupidity. your definition is not useful because it assumes a binary of 100% run or complete loss when much of gamer culture is figuring out how define your own conditions of winning and losing which may or may not involve the entire game. people can play games in different ways and therefore define what is loss to them. I doubt you'll convince a speedrunner who lost a lot of time on a part of their run will say they've won even if they finish a game.

[Rynjin]

This is so scarily close to my attitude I had to double-check to make sure I hadn't written it. The one thing that has always been true about me is that if I'm playing a game with an actual *story* (e.g. not just random maps like Civ6 or Stellaris) then I like to finish it, and anything that stops my progress in that regard is just irritating.



I don't have a problem with a hard challenge if I feel that I'm actually improving at it. If I don't improve after several attempts, that's when I'll be giving up. Yakuza 0 is a case in point--I got to the first boss fight and could not defeat him no matter what I tried; I even dropped the difficulty to Easy and he still killed me when he had the merest smidgeon of health left. I was never the best game-player in the world and my reactions aren't the same now I'm topping 50 that they were when I was 20, but why should that mean I'm denied the ability to finish a game I've paid good money for? Developers really need to start taking older gamers into consideration, IMHO, the hobby's been going for 40+ years now and a lot of people who were there near the beginning are distinctly chronologically challenged these days.

Kuze is designed for you to also fight him in Rush style, if that helps. "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" because Kuze floats like a blimp and stings like a Mack truck in that first fight with him.

I got my ass whooped twice trying to fight him in the Brawler style, and did still die once in Rush, but got a feel for the pattern and beat it on the 4th try.

Yakuza 0 (as my initial entry into the series as well) seems to suffer a bit from it being the 7th game in the series, at least in terms of difficulty for a new player. Having gotten a feel for the same basic mechanics across 6 other games now over the last couple of years, I don't think I'd find Y0 very challenging anymore, but it feels punishing to start because, ironically, it IS made for older gamers: the people who've been playing the Yakuza series since 2005.

Not to my point of view.

It seem more like your trying to force a definition of loss he doesn't agree with and assuming thats the only valid way to define it. People don't view the game itself as the opponent, the game is the setting for the opponents and every boss is a single challenge with which I can win or lose at, and Dark souls follows this definition where loss is defined as losing against an opponent, and I lose something if that happens: souls. Therefore loss is when I lose against an opponent within the game and the game being deleted because you lose against an entire game is just infuriating stupidity. your definition is not useful because it assumes a binary of 100% run or complete loss when much of gamer culture is figuring out how define your own conditions of winning and losing which may or may not involve the entire game. people can play games in different ways and therefore define what is loss to them. I doubt you'll convince a speedrunner who lost a lot of time on a part of their run will say they've won even if they finish a game.

In neither case are you losing the game, though, it's losing a challenge. A speedrun is a distinct challenge that can be lost, a Nuzlocke is a distinct challenge that can be lost, a boss fight is a distinct challenge that can be lost, yes. But I feel like most people would agree with me that single player games cannot truly be "lost" in most senses (I actually did think of one as I was writing this: games with bad endings that double as a distinct failure state for the game as a whole). The prevalence of the joke phrase "Are ya winnin' son?" seems to imply it if nothing else; implying that you can win or lose a single player video game is kind of laughable at an abstract level, and makes you seem out of touch.

[Lord Raziere]

I've actually seen the memes the phrase is from Rynjin, its often to imply that they aren't winning.

also your feeling that people agree with you is not evidence. and just because people play the game in certain ways doesn't mean they're not playing the game. who died and made you the king of videogames? you don't get to define what is or isn't winning the game for other people. Especially not just because you feel something. Please stop that, its rude.

[Rynjin]

I've actually seen the memes the phrase is from Rynjin, its often to imply that they aren't winning.

also your feeling that people agree with you is not evidence. and just because people play the game in certain ways doesn't mean they're not playing the game. who died and made you the king of videogames? you don't get to define what is or isn't winning the game for other people. Especially not just because you feel something. Please stop that, its rude.

You can feel free to use a different definition (so long as you actually clearly define what that is, so we both know what the other is talking about), I'm just saying what I use and have seen most people I've interact with use. Before this conversation I have never heard someone refer to dying in a single player game as "losing the game". Neither in a colloquial sense or an academic one (in classes or game design theory videos).

[Anteros]

I cannot think of any single player video game you can actually "lose" as the only way to do so would be to permanently take away your ability to play the game upon a loss state.

By that logic restarting your xcom campaign isn't losing either then, so your whole point is moot.

Different games have different losing states. Losing in Mario happens when you run out of lives. Losing in a strategy game happens when your mistakes mount up and make winning impossible. It's slower and more insidious, but that's the nature of the slower paced gameplay. There has to be some sort of stakes to make the game interesting, whether it's story progression or ability to lose. The whole "it's completely impossible for the player to actually lose" is a fairly new phenomenon that came about due to games being much longer and more story based, and I personally don't like it carrying over to other genres.

Having to restart an entire campaign is certainly something I don't understand the appeal of. The existence of save files obsoleted that problem decades ago, eliminating the need to start over from the beginning any time you lose.

A game throwing a hard challenge at me that I need to attempt many times to pass can certainly be fun. I lost count of how many times I had to attempt the fight with Genichiro in Sekiro before I overcame him, but learning to do it and then ultimately triumphing over such a difficult fight was thrilling and fun, and I was ultimately a lot better at the game after doing so. A game forcing me to throw away my progress and start over from the beginning after I've already spent a lot of time getting far into it sounds like something that would just make me go "well screw this game, then," and find something more fun to play that isn't going to waste my time like that. (A modern game, anyway - a very old one that didn't have save files at the time it was made I might deal with if it were otherwise fun. But those are also all going to be much shorter than a game like XCOM.)


In XCOM, it sure seems like that's entirely possible, if those bad RNG rolls come early enough in the game. You only start with eight soldiers, so two missions where you full wipe means game over at the most extreme end of things. More likely three, since you'll almost surely recruit some more troops if something as bad as a full squad wipeout occurs once, but still quite possible. The early game is also when the RNG is the most volatile in XCOM, since your characters have minimal stats and as few options in combat as they ever will, yet enemies are still plenty lethal, frequently capable of killing a soldier in a single successful shot.

I would daresay that if I got my squad wiped in 3 consecutive missions that I deserve to lose the campaign, yes. The odds of that happening due to bad rng rather than poor tactics or decisions on my part seem rather incredibly low. It's not Fire Emblem where one bad roll can kill your Lord and give a game over.

[Rynjin]

By that logic restarting your xcom campaign isn't losing either then, so your whole point is moot.

Different games have different losing states. Losing in Mario happens when you run out of lives. Losing in a strategy game happens when your mistakes mount up and make winning impossible. It's slower and more insidious, but that's the nature of the slower paced gameplay. There has to be some sort of stakes to make the game interesting, whether it's story progression or ability to lose. The whole "it's completely impossible for the player to actually lose" is a fairly new phenomenon that came about due to games being much longer and more story based, and I personally don't like it carrying over to other genres.

The new X-Com games are story based games though. It has an actual plot that plays out the exact same way in every playthrough, the events leading up are just different.

It's not like playing Stellaris or even something like Total War: Warhammer (which does have individual "plots" of a sort per character). I think calling it a strategy game isn't quite accurate to begin with. "Tactics game" maybe fits more (especially since a lot of X-Com-alikes call their games "[Franchise Name] Tactics").

I would daresay that if I got my squad wiped in 3 consecutive missions that I deserve to lose the campaign, yes. The odds of that happening due to bad rng rather than poor tactics or decisions on my part seem rather incredibly low. It's not Fire Emblem where one bad roll can kill your Lord and give a game over.

It's real hard to account for the Sniper Chosen dropping into the map randomly and oneshotting your strongest unit from out of your LoS, as a quick example of how a single bad roll could lose you the entire campaign.

[LibraryOgre]

Been trying to get into Morrowind, having finished Daggerfall. I think I need to find an easy leveling mod... I just can't get into going back into this, again, trying to make it all work.

[NigelWalmsley]

I cannot think of any single player video game you can actually "lose" as the only way to do so would be to permanently take away your ability to play the game upon a loss state.

When I lose a game of League of Legends or Starcraft II or Magic: Arena, those games don't uninstall themselves and then permanently backlist me. But we still all agree that I've lost in some meaningful sense of the term. Certainly there are some games where you can't really "lose" so much as "give up", but there are definitely single player games where you can lose in pretty much the exact same sense you lose a multiplayer game. Most obviously, most variations of card solitaire. Arguably things like Starcraft II Co-op count as well, since while there's another player, you're on the same side.

[Rynjin]

When I lose a game of League of Legends or Starcraft II or Magic: Arena, those games don't uninstall themselves and then permanently backlist me. But we still all agree that I've lost in some meaningful sense of the term. Certainly there are some games where you can't really "lose" so much as "give up", but there are definitely single player games where you can lose in pretty much the exact same sense you lose a multiplayer game. Most obviously, most variations of card solitaire. Arguably things like Starcraft II Co-op count as well, since while there's another player, you're on the same side.

There are some, but it is very much not the dominant paradigm. And none that I know of involve even a rudimentary narrative.

[NigelWalmsley]

There are some, but it is very much not the dominant paradigm. And none that I know of involve even a rudimentary narrative.

How about the campaign mode of any game with a campaign mode? I don't see any fundamental difference between "you lost this match of Starcraft II, would you like to play another" and "you lost the All In campaign mission, would you like to play it again". In both cases, you failed in a clear and obvious way, but you could still eventually achieve whatever your personal goal is, be that reaching some rank on the ladder, or clearing the campaign.

[Zevox]

I would daresay that if I got my squad wiped in 3 consecutive missions that I deserve to lose the campaign, yes. The odds of that happening due to bad rng rather than poor tactics or decisions on my part seem rather incredibly low. It's not Fire Emblem where one bad roll can kill your Lord and give a game over.

But is a game where early on your soldiers will often die in one shot (or get hit and live but panic, making them useless for a turn, and consequently putting themselves and the rest of the party in great danger) and are taking shots at enemies with success rates that are typically between 50%-70%, cover and range depending, and enemies are doing the same. I wound up losing three of those starting eight troops, and had close calls with a number of others, due to the kind of RNG that started this conversation. And that's on the normal difficulty, where the RNG is apparently still partially rigged in your favor. I could definitely see a pure RNG loss happening.

[Mechalich]

But is a game where early on your soldiers will often die in one shot (or get hit and live but panic, making them useless for a turn, and consequently putting themselves and the rest of the party in great danger) and are taking shots at enemies with success rates that are typically between 50%-70%, cover and range depending, and enemies are doing the same. I wound up losing three of those starting eight troops, and had close calls with a number of others, due to the kind of RNG that started this conversation. And that's on the normal difficulty, where the RNG is apparently still partially rigged in your favor. I could definitely see a pure RNG loss happening.

The odds of having 5 individual 50% rolls go against you in a row are 1/32, or roughly 3%. Since in X-COM such a sequence, say two misses by your troops, three hits by the enemy, can easily turn a mission into a wipe early on, such a loss is very possible. A not insignificant percentage of all players who play X-COM for any meaningful amount of time will experience something along those lines.

[NigelWalmsley]

If you're relying on 50/50s going your way in XCOM, that's generally a sign you're making tactical mistakes. You can and should be relying on guaranteed damage from rockets/swords/grenades, cover destruction, or just flanking to get shots that are much better than that. Five 50/50s in a row is 3%, but five 80%s in a row is .03%. To the degree that you can lose to pure RNG, it only really happens in the first couple missions, which means that the overall impact is fairly low.

[Zevox]

If you're relying on 50/50s going your way in XCOM, that's generally a sign you're making tactical mistakes. You can and should be relying on guaranteed damage from rockets/swords/grenades, cover destruction, or just flanking to get shots that are much better than that. Five 50/50s in a row is 3%, but five 80%s in a row is .03%. To the degree that you can lose to pure RNG, it only really happens in the first couple missions, which means that the overall impact is fairly low.

The 50/50s are shots against enemies in low cover - which you very much do have to take sometimes. The 70%s are the ones against enemies you've flanked or blown up their cover with grenades. Typical shot against an enemy with no cover in early XCOM2 seemed to be 70-75% chance to hit, unless you were particularly close, which is generally inadvisable at that point in the game. Still quite missable with bad RNG, as I found out on numerous occasions.

Also, sword attacks? Early in the game, bad idea. They need some upgrades before they're potent enough to warrant use, and getting in close puts you at greater risk of death from other enemies.