But What is Challenge (A GTA Discussion Thread)

[KodiaxPride]

Care to elaborate?

He wants to slip his sausage into your love canal and moan passionately as you vomit blood.

[Xydonus]

 

Care to elaborate?

He wants to slip his sausage into your love canal and moan passionately as you vomit blood.

 

 

He's had donkeys of experience in that regard.

 

So Enigma tells me..

[KodiaxPride]

 

 

Care to elaborate?

He wants to slip his sausage into your love canal and moan passionately as you vomit blood.

 

 

He's had donkeys of experience in that regard.

 

So Enigma tells me..

 

 

Pedro juice made him loose, in the anal regard. But think nothing of it, for he'd rather fuck it, than relinquish his roll as bard.

fin

[Nachtfischer]

Ah, so this is what happens to a more thorough and serious discussion in this forum. Good to know. Anybody, please just close the thread.

[Pixel Bombs]

^^^^Pfftfptft omg what???

 

(directed at KodiaxPride, just didn't want to quote him.)

[EnigmaGrey]

Ah, so this is what happens to a more thorough and serious discussion in this forum. Good to know. Anybody, please just close the thread.

He's been . . . discouraged . . .

This thread will endure.

[Nachtfischer]

Seriously, if either nobody has to say something useful or the topic has simply been covered completely (which might well be, I in contrast to some other users here didn't think it was worth a discussion or even thread to begin with), this thread is done.

So am I. I will refrain from posting and keep my babbling on places less immature and hollow.

I'm sure you're all fine with that. Bye.

[Rathlord]

That was one person and it was his only posts. I'm not sure any community has the prescience to see the bad eggs before the ever post. I don't know whether you're discouraged by that or by the fact that people disagree with you.

Either way judging an entire community based on that seems more "immature and hollow " than anything else I've seen today.

[nasKo]

Care to elaborate?

I find the discussion kinda pseudo-philosophical.

What is a game where you can't just "restart"?

Unless I am not aware of games with a self-destruction feature, your interpretation of challenge (as far as I understood it) seems to be appropriate in a gladiator arena where the loss condition means you're dead.

While you're saying that GTA offers little to no challenge, I didn't see you providing an example where a game posed a good challenge at any point in time.

I may just be ultimatively misunderstanding you?

[RoboMat]

If you think restart and checkpoints ruin a challenge then you haven't played Dark Souls yet... but that probably isn't a game because it cloaks itself in 3d, story and stuff that isn't relevant ... xD

 

Btw all games define a loss condition. In PZ you lose loot, in GTA you lose money, in Dark Souls you lose your own Sanity ... so I'd say that makes the game a challenge.

 

I would love to hear how the perfect game should be crafted in your opinion, because quite frankly a game based on your perception of what a game should be sounds pretty shitty to me (no offense) ^^

[Rathlord]

And furthermore games can't all and shouldn't all be made challenging by being a game over on fail.

Good games can and should limit progress with challenging gameplay, not arbitrary mechanics. I've played plenty of games with easy respawning that were challenging.

For all of its many, many flaws World of Warcraft used to e a legitimate challenge. Gear was a necessity, but even then often 1% or less of the population was beating the endgame content. Being one of them myself a long time ago, I can tell you those fights stretches the limits of my brain power, reflexes, leadership, and muscle memory.


Edit: Love me some of that sadistic Dark Souks style challenge.

[willow512]

The whole argument is moot as far as I am concerned. The underlying premise that for any game to be fun requires it to be challenging. Clearly this is not true. 

 

GTA is in it's basis an open world story game. You partake in the story, and that is the fun. You can also make your own story by immersing yourself in the world and just hanging out. It does not require any challenge to accomplish that. I'm not saying it does not have any challenge, I'm saying it does not require it.

 

I've played hours and hours of previous GTA versions, most of that time I have spent lollygagging around because I enjoy seeing what's there. Following a random NPC with a telephone around just to hear what he's saying. Or riding through the city looking for spots that I haven't seen before. The best parts of GTA for me don't hold any challenge at all.

 

In GTA 5 I'm very much looking forward to mountainbiking the outdoors or diving to some of the wrecks. I suppose I will enjoy the story line but I'd buy the game even if it didn't have any missions.

[Rathlord]

I agree with you completely willow- games don't have to be challenging to be fun. But for me personally, for a game set up how GTA is, it would need to be challenging for me to enjoy it.

In that regard the point really isn't moot. I'm not suggesting everyone judges the game on the difficulty, just asking if there was challenge to measure it by my own standards.

[PK'EZ-54]

TF2 isn't challenging. All you have to do is press w and mouse 1. Yet some people say that is fun. No idea what they are talking about.

[Nachtfischer]

The underlying premise that for any game to be fun requires it to be challenging.

Wrong. Where did you get that from?

 

GTA is in it's basis an open world story game.

Right. That's why it should not have challenge.

 

What is a game where you can't just "restart"?

Well, obviously a game that you can actually lose? Like... Tetris? When you restart it, you reset the whole system. When you "respawn" in GTA, you're right back in.

 

 

then you haven't played Dark Souls yet... but that probably isn't a game because it cloaks itself in 3d, story and stuff that isn't relevant ...

1. I've played it. It's sort of okay-ish. The checkpoints are stupid, though. But the system wouldn't work without them.

2. 3D, story and "stuff" is not a reason for something not being a game. (Oftentimes for it being a bad game, though!)

 

 

Btw all games define a loss condition. In PZ you lose loot, in GTA you lose money

What? In PZ you die and have actually lost the game. Or do you mean a variant without permadeath? In GTA you just respawn.

 

 

Concerning "ideal games" in my opinion (since somebody asked):

That's a topic to write several books about. I've started by creating dozens of articles over the last years, but I hope to get there someday.

Anyways, here are some examples of very well crafted games: Puerto Rico, For The Win, Acquire, Through The Desert, Dominant Species, Samurai, Battle For Hill 218, Peloponnes, Wabash Cannonball, Diaballik, Saint Petersburg, Outwitters, Defense Of The Oasis.

 

EDIT: Oh and Rathlord... "by the fact that people disagree with you"? I didn't see anybody actually disagreeing yet. Just misinterpreting and/or overreacting. If there was actual disagreement, please point me to it. Thanks!

[Guest]

Don't think anyone can change your mind, as you only read the opposite of what everyone says...

Hopefully this thread won't lead into a fight

Or else /thread...

[Nachtfischer]

Don't think anyone can change your mind, as you only read the opposite of what everyone says...

I don't even know what you're trying to say here?

[Xydonus]

I don't even know what you're trying to say here?

 

 

To be honest; that's how I feel about most of your discussions here.

 

It's a bit of a head scratcher, especially your last statement about open-sandbox = not challenging.

[nasKo]

Getting a major hipster vibe now.

 

I still don't see how challenge requires loss in the sense of having to start all over again, like it's some kind of set-in-stone definition.

Why isn't it challenge when I can still fail?

[willow512]

The underlying premise that for any game to be fun requires it to be challenging.

Wrong. Where did you get that from?

I'm sorry, did you miss the rest of the thread?

 

 

 

GTA is in it's basis an open world story game.

Right. That's why it should not have challenge.

Where do you come up with these rules? Why should it suddenly NOT have challenge? It should immerse you into an open world, into a story, that's a must, challenge or the absence of it is not a requirement.

[Nachtfischer]

It's a bit of a head scratcher, especially your last statement about open-sandbox = not challenging.

What I'm trying to say is: It can't be inherently challenging, because a sandbox has no inherent goals. That's the whole point of a sandbox. It provides constrained interaction without a specific goal. You make up your goals. You create your own challenge. It's however NOT part of the rules of the system. I mean, an apple is not "challenging" in itself, just because you can make a challenge out of throwing it as far as you can.

 

 

I still don't see how challenge requires loss in the sense of having to start all over again

Challenge as defined for this thread is a "test". A test requires being able to fail. Failing at a test is losing. Losing is starting all over again (see below).

 

Why isn't it challenge when I can still fail?

You can't fail. The system does not tell you "you lose". It's not built into the rules. You can just "walk away".

 

I'm sorry, did you miss the rest of the thread?

I don't think so. But maybe you did? I mean, I explicitly stated it's not about something being "fun" or not on the first page...

 

Where do you come up with these rules? Why should it suddenly NOT have challenge? It should immerse you into an open world, into a story, that's a must, challenge or the absence of it is not a requirement.

1. I come up with them from seriously thinking about interactive systems for several years now. (No, that's not an argument, but since you asked...)

2. "Suddenly"? I never said it should have challenge. In fact, I repeatedly stated how I think it should embrace its sandbox nature even more!

3. Yes! Immersion, that's it. That's what these systems I call "toys" or "fantasy simulations" are meant to do! And I definitely see GTA's strengths in this sector (by the way, I think that's even largely agreed upon).

To elaborate on 3.: I strongly believe there are different interactive machines, that have a very specific value to the human mind. On a fundamental level I call them toys (bare interactive systems, "sandboxes", "simulations" --> allow exploration of the inherent rules), puzzles (a specific goal, one or multiple pre-defined solutions, a binary solution state --> allows pure mental problem-solving), contests (comparison of the physical or mental degree of perfection of multiple participants --> allow a measurement of this degree), games (contests of ambiguous decision-making --> create understanding).

[RoboMat]

Well, I don't care for subjective opinions. Anyone can have any opinion. Cool! So what? Why even discuss that? That's why I wanted to start by defining "challenge". So than we can actually have a fruitful and objective discussion!

 

So you want an objective discussion about an (as you said yourself) subjective topic such as challenge? 

 

Oh and Rathlord... "by the fact that people disagree with you"? I didn't see anybody actually disagreeing yet. Just misinterpreting and/or overreacting. If there was actual disagreement, please point me to it. Thanks!

You gotta read between the lines man.

 

I love how you say that there is no challenge to games like GTA because you can't fail. I disagree. 

 

 

What I gather from your posts is that you suggest that  a game only can have a real challenge when the player can lose "everything". Maybe you should think a bit more about your "toys" and "interactive systems" and why frustration ~= challenge. 

[Manuls]

Defining challenge is no challenge.

 

Edit: This was not meant as a challenge.

[Nachtfischer]

 

Well, I don't care for subjective opinions. Anyone can have any opinion. Cool! So what? Why even discuss that? That's why I wanted to start by defining "challenge". So than we can actually have a fruitful and objective discussion!

 

So you want an objective discussion about an (as you said yourself) subjective topic such as challenge? 

You didn't understand. I wanted "challenge" defined, because people implicitly assume different definitions of such a word. When it's defined however, we enter the realm of objectivity in the context of this definition.

 

 

What I gather from your posts is that you suggest that  a game only can have a real challenge when the player can lose "everything". Maybe you should think a bit more about your "toys" and "interactive systems" and why frustration ~= challenge.

Do you assume, I'd want the player to lose everything in GTA? Or Skyrim? Or Minecraft? Or Diablo? Or whatever persistent 1000 hour system there is? Obviously not, that's ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true! These systems need persistence. A toy with permadeath ends up utterly broken. Something like Don't Starve heavily suffered from that inherent conflict: You explore the system as a player, but as your character (permanently) dies, you have to "re-explore" (which is inherently boring). Your character has forgotten everything, but you still know it. It's clearly a conflict of wanting to be a game and a toy at the same time, and it ends up being a highly inefficient game and a toy becoming boring rather quickly.

 

EDIT: If you disagree with the statement that there's no challenge in GTA, then you simply disagree with the given definition of "challenge" in this thread. I'm not saying that's wrong, but to have an objective discussion, we have to assume a common definition (or change it now and start a new discussion!).

In fact, I think you could (reasonably!) re-define "challenge" for GTA to have it.  And I'd likely think that's a bad thing.

[Manuls]

"In fact, I think you could (reasonably!) re-define "challenge" for GTA to have it.  And I'd likely think that's a bad thing."

 

Wow thats some destructive communication.

 

So you offer him one way to go, then expect him to succeed and then subvert his argument.

 

EDIT: Schopenhauer would be proud.

 

Ah what the hell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right