Are Hardcore Gamers Not Ready for Conseq ...

As some of you may remember, back at E3 2007, when Peter Molyneux first started showing off Fable 2, he introduced a few novel concepts. One was the one-button combat. The other was a system of failure where the hero never actually died. To quote from this preview: ''If you lose in combat, there has to be consequence... there has to be a cost,'' he explained, ''but the hero never dies. If he's beaten up to the point where he can't take it anymore, he drops to the ground, and then there's a 'cost' to getting back up -- which can be gold or experience points or something. The thing is, while he's down on the ground, the bad guys are still beating him up...and the injuries he sustains in that state will scar him, and those scars are permanent. Regardless of whether you pay the price or not, the hero will get up eventually, but the longer he's down, the more disfigured he'll become...and his physical appearance will affect how other characters in the game react to him.'' As we know from GDC, the combat system remains the same. What, then, happened to this feature? When Lionhead was playtesting Fable 2, and figuring out what parts of the game people liked and what parts they didn't, one of the major things that stood out was that the hardcore gamers that they had testing the game hated the death system. They couldn't stand that when they lost, their character would bear permanent scars that had consequences in the game world. In fact, many players preferred restarting the console (imposing a standard ''die, restart from checkpoint'' system) to the system that existed in the game. They didn't want to face permanent consequences in the game due to their failure. Because this mechanic playtested so poorly among those gamers, it is no longer in Fable 2. Such a death mechanic goes against the videogame norm that has existed as long as the industry: when you screw up, there are no penalties for failure besides lost time and energy (perhaps lives), things that exist outside the game itself. The gamers in those playtest sessions could not accept a system that went against that assumption of how failure systems should work in games.Are we as a community so set in our expectations of what games should be that we cannot accept systems that challenge those assumptions? Are you, posters of System Wars, for or against those penalties for failure? I, for one, would like to see more games challenge the things that many of us take for granted, and push the limits of what a game can be. What do you think about this? Are Hardcore Gamers Not Ready for Conseq ...
Hardcore gamers want to be entirely in control so they can best guide their way through the optimal path of a game. Maybe that path through Fable 2 involves not being hideously disfigured.At any rate, I personally think it sounds like a decent idea. I guess it depends on just how much effect it has on people's reaction to me, and also how much that change in reaction changes the way the game plays. Am I going to have a tough time now in the game because I keep getting beat up and disfigured? That could severely effect my enjoyment of the next 20+ hours or however long the game is... Are Hardcore Gamers Not Ready for Conseq ...
Best game for consequences? Steel betallion:)Not fast enough in hitting that eject button? lol erase your save! i loved that!
I wouldn't like it, but I like to experiment in the game worlds. Such a system would hinder that to a degree.Edit: I guess this means I'm that casual gamer your mother warned you about. ;)
[QUOTE=''WilliamRLBaker'']Best game for consequences? Steel betallion:)Not fast enough in hitting that eject button? lol erase your save! i loved that![/QUOTE] Haha, I would HATE that! :)
[QUOTE=''Corvin'']Hardcore gamers want to be entirely in control so they can best guide their way through the optimal path of a game. Maybe that path through Fable 2 involves not being hideously disfigured.At any rate, I personally think it sounds like a decent idea. I guess it depends on just how much effect it has on people's reaction to me, and also how much that change in reaction changes the way the game plays. Am I going to have a tough time now in the game because I keep getting beat up and disfigured? That could severely effect my enjoyment of the next 20+ hours or however long the game is... [/QUOTE]I guess that's the thing. We don't know any of the specifics about how the mechanic worked. For all we know, it could have just really sucked. So it's hard to say with certainty that they didn't like it solely because of the existence of consequences. It definitely gives different incentives. If you face permanent consequences for death, you're encouraged to play it safer. There's actual risk for what will happen if you screw up. But is that solely bad, or does it lead to a more realistic and intimate experience? If your actions lead to lasting consequences, it might make everything in the world mean that much more.
I'd much rather see more realistic weapon consequences in games than just physical disfiguration. Games like Oblivion just let you use your weapon until it just breaks and to me that's just crap. If a weapon is on the verge to falling apart then everything should be effected, how you use it, it's physical appearance, how much damage it causes etc.

I have the same problem with shooters. Guns jam, overheat, and fall apart in combat. Games in the past have just had the quich first of having a cool down period for the gun. Things like beach landings, water combat, muddy terrain all effect how a weapon works (except for the AK47 of course). A shooter in this day and age should incorporate the idea that there are consequences for your weapon depending on what sort of terrain you're fighting on.

To be honest, I wouldn't care if my character became horribly disfigured. It would be a lot more interesting though if my rifle jammed or my sword became blunt and rigid and I had to rely on a different strategy until I was able to repair my weapon or find a new one.

Very very interesting. It's a shame that they didn't keep this mode asit would have made for a unique gameplay experience.
This game sounds promising. My only gripe is only one button melee attack. It just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Hopefully I''ll be proved wrong and it turns out to have a lot of depth in the combat. But this game should have a lot of replay value which makes the purchase worth it imo.
If gamers really cared for the consequences, whats to stop them from reloading their last save point right before dying?
[QUOTE=''Tiefster'']I'd much rather see more realistic weapon consequences in games than just physical disfiguration. Games like Oblivion just let you use your weapon until it just breaks and to me that's just crap. If a weapon is on the verge to falling apart then everything should be effected, how you use it, it's physical appearance, how much damage it causes etc.

[/QUOTE] :| the weapons wear does affect its attack power in Oblivion
Someone said it, because players aren't in control of the situation. Even if look at other gaming situations were a player might not be in full control, he can easily learn from his mistake and basically do a redo. The system that Fable 2 seems to impose doesn't seem to allow that redo system - unless you count restarting your console to your nearest save point. This is in conflict with the tried and tested idea that video games allow for the player to be in full control of his sorroundings, from knowledge of what is happening, or what could happen, to how that could impact the situation.For the most part, I kinda like the idea, however, I too would feel somewhat frustrated going into scenarios where I don't know much and getting beat down affecting the remainder of gaming experience. So for the most part, I think that if a player is able to prepare for the situation, then that drastically effects the redo idea; it's almost like learning ahead then putting what you know into practise, like taking a test.
I think there should be a choice, if you want the no die thing, or continue from last save.
Save game before fight, lose fight, reload last save. :DWould be neat though if that happened, that your character in the game actually got physical scars on his body.
I'm all for games breaking out of the norms in relation to real life... but I'm also all for the games that break out of the norms or think outside of the great box of clich閟 created by hundreads of established franchises over the years.So, yes, I'm definitely dissapointed by the news.
I love games with consequences Steel betallion being my favorite that game wasworth the 200 dollars i originally played, Games with consequences make you think they make you make multiple saves just to get all the extra stuff.Which is why i dont like alot of JRPGs cause there are no real consquences.
[QUOTE=''elbow2k'']Someone said it, because players aren't in control of the situation. Even if look at other gaming situations were a player might not be in full control, he can easily learn from his mistake and basically do a redo. The system that Fable 2 seems to impose doesn't seem to allow that redo system - unless you count restarting your console to your nearest save point. This is in conflict with the tried and tested idea that video games allow for the player to be in full control of his sorroundings, from knowledge of what is happening, or what could happen, to how that could impact the situation.For the most part, I kinda like the idea, however, I too would feel somewhat frustrated going into scenarios where I don't know much and getting beat down affecting the remainder of gaming experience. So for the most part, I think that if a player is able to prepare for the situation, then that drastically effects the redo idea; it's almost like learning ahead then putting what you know into practise, like taking a test.[/QUOTE]I think that was part of the challenge that was intended: to be able to ''think on your feet'': to be able to handle the unknown and still come out of it alive. So you're walking into an unknown situation. You have to look around and figure out just where the trouble can come. At least, I think that was the idea. Perhaps the fact that the trouble can itself come from angles not easily imagined (this being a fantasy-oriented title) may have placed too much stress on the player.
I really like this idea, but I can see where supposedly ''hardcore'' gamers might not like actually having consequences.
[QUOTE=''hellhund'']I really like this idea, but I can see where supposedly ''hardcore'' gamers might not like actually having consequences.[/QUOTE]I dont think it's that. It's the fact that hardcore gamers know through experience that--at least in gaming--''Bang, you're dead'' moments happen pretty often and can come from pretty unexpected places.
[QUOTE=''HuusAsking''][QUOTE=''hellhund'']I really like this idea, but I can see where supposedly ''hardcore'' gamers might not like actually having consequences.[/QUOTE]I dont think it's that. It's the fact that hardcore gamers know through experience that--at least in gaming--''Bang, you're dead'' moments happen pretty often and can come from pretty unexpected places.[/QUOTE] Maybe I'm the only one like this, but I can't help but invite disaster upon myself in games. If I see a dark alley, even if it's out of the way and seems to offer me no benefit for exploring it, curiosity will get the best of me and I'll go skipping into it.Basically, I can't help but poke sleeping guard dogs with sticks just to see what happens.