[quote="deadeye":9fk2tq58]If you're complaining about the trial-and-error aspect of gameplay then it seems to me that you just want game content spoon-fed to you. No offense.[/quote:9fk2tq58]
That's exactly what this is not about. You're oversimplifying what I was saying by putting a 'Games should be easy and all users should be able to get through them in the first run' phrase into my mouth.
That's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to 'surprise' a player by deaths that he can't possibly foresee.
[quote:9fk2tq58]Why should there be a warning that a rock is going to fall on your head? The rumbling room is warning enough. Be careful. Look around. If you get hit on the head, you learned a lesson. Next time you'll be more careful.[/quote:9fk2tq58]
Take any person, I don't care how experienced he is in terms of games - I'm _very_ sure that everyone dies at the first try here. I take a step forward, the rock falls down, 1 second later I'm dead. In reality, I'd hear the rumbling, I would hear the rock falling off the cliff and I could jump away. But in games, especially in 2d games, I can't 'be careful', cause I can't freaking look upwards to see if it's safe to take a couple of steps or if the rock's coming down to kill me. It's about putting the player into a dangerous, risky situation - but the wrong solution is to just kill him 5 times until he learned exactly how the rock is going to fall and then let him follow that pattern. That's no fun, that's just being a marionette.
[quote:9fk2tq58]So you're easily frustrated. I can understand that. I don't have the time or energy to master every hard game that comes my way either, and I get frustrated at hard games too. But that doesn't mean that when I have a moment to play a game, I want every step of the game explained to me. It ruins the experience.[/quote:9fk2tq58]
Again, not what this is about. It's not about making a game idiot-proof, but if a game takes away a lot of my senses, meaning I can't anticipate what's coming cause I don't see it - nor do I hear it - why the fuck am I getting killed at this stage? I had no chance of knowing beforehand what pattern the designer had in mind. Me running forward, stopping, walking a couple of steps backward and forward again - that's retarted. It's like you'd put a safe into a game and just expect the user to know what the code is, but if he fucks up 50 times, you'll tell him.
It's not about me being frustrated quickly, I'm making a living through being frustrated and solving problems all day - And when I spend time on a game, I want it to entertain me, not making me work my ass off by figuring out what sorta idea the designer had in mind.
[quote:9fk2tq58]The only warning or tutorial any game should need, in my opinion, is "It's dangerous to go alone. Take this." The original Legend of Zelda took me literally months to beat. The joy of that game was in the discovery, in the trial and error. You wander into a place where you shouldn't be yet, you're screwed. No warnings. You learn the rules as you go.[/quote:9fk2tq58]
Yet, that was 20 years ago and look at how Zelda has evolved. It's not fucking unfair anymore like Zelda 2 was (worst title in the series), it's fair now. I haven't played the newest title and thought the Cel Shading stuff was pretty boring, but if I compare A Link to the Past with the original Zelda, I mean... there's no comparison in terms of quality.
[quote:9fk2tq58]You want artificially extending gameplay? It isn't getting a nasty surprise that kills you instantly... it's making the player struggle with a wonky, non-standard control scheme for a section of game that has very little to do with the plot. Challenge the Yeti to a snowboarding contest. Fly a bird up the river... and pop balloons. What the hell?[/quote:9fk2tq58]
Yeah, but those are just examples of bad design choices. That doesn't mean that expecting the player to know what'll happen in the next scene is a good design choice. It's just less shitty than what you've listed above.