But What is Challenge (A GTA Discussion Thread)

[Nachtfischer]

"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.

That was just a side note, I do not whish to explore further (at least not yet, until we have resolved open misunderstandings or disagreements).

 

By the way, you are being the very opposite of constructive with your posts here.

[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?

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.

Sooo ... and a definition is what? Challenge can't be defined objectively.

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).

I disagree (see I say it clearly now). Don't Starve isn't boring at all to me. Neither is PZ which should suffer from the same problem.

Btw the reason why people overreact because of your posts, isn't because they are immature and hollow, it is because you have a tone in your posts that renders you as an ego-tripping dude who looks down on others who can't grasp his elaborate views of gaming (no offense). Why? Because you present your arguments as facts.

[Nachtfischer]

 

Challenge can't be defined objectively.

What? A definition is by definition (lol!) objective. You can easily define "challenge = apple" and work from there. I just don't think anyone would use that definition in his everyday life! The one in this thread though is quite reasonable and commonly used, I think.

 

 

I disagree (see I say it clearly now). Don't Starve isn't boring at all to me. Neither is PZ which should suffer from the same problem.

To me PZ isn't based on exploring rules as much, it's more about the exploration of the generated space, about the experience. I thought Don't Starve was rather boring after I saw everything there was to see. The exploration of the world was not as interesting as the exploration of the mechanics (i.e. what can I build, what can I research etc.). I've seen lots of people agree with that sentiment actually. By the way, I don't strongly dislike Don't Starve. I just think it could have been better (and it's just the same with GTA).

 

 

Why? Because you present your arguments as facts.

Only if I believe they are. Which holds true for anything I've said about GTA in connection to the definition of "challenge" used in this thread (again, that's objective as long as we're all using this specific definition). I can still be wrong, though. But I have yet to see a counter-argument using the same definition of challenge.

[RoboMat]

 

 

Challenge can't be defined objectively.

But I have yet to see a counter-argument using the same definition of challenge.

 

Oh the irony ...

[Nachtfischer]

 

 

 

Challenge can't be defined objectively.

But I have yet to see a counter-argument using the same definition of challenge.

 

Oh the irony ...

 

So, you didn't read the first part of my post? Cool!

[k12314]

So you think GTA isn't challenging because you think it isn't. That's pretty much your argument. You're basing everything off of your own tastes and acting like your own thoughts on how games can and cannot be challenging are set-in-stone rules. I find Grand Theft Auto challenging because it requires skill to not get mowed down in a gunfight. That doesn't mean everyone else thinks so, but that doesn't make it any less challenging to ME. A "challenge" is subjective, determined by what someone sees as a challenge.

[Nachtfischer]

So you think GTA isn't challenging because you think it isn't.

No, I explicitly don't. Read the rest of the thread please... *sigh*

[RoboMat]

I did read the first part of your post. 

 

This "discussion" is superfluous. I even gave you an example how GTA offers challenge, which you totally ignored - either because it doesn't fit your (see? subjective!) definition of challenge or because you couldn't see the argument from my point of view.

[k12314]

 

So you think GTA isn't challenging because you think it isn't.

No, I explicitly don't. Read the rest of the thread please... *sigh*

 

 

I did, which is why I'm not going to argue with you. See RoboMat's post above.

[Manuls]

 

So you think GTA isn't challenging because you think it isn't.

No, I explicitly don't. Read the rest of the thread please... *sigh*

 

So, you didn't read the second part of his post? Cool!

 

"A "challenge" is subjective, determined by what someone sees as a challenge."

and my addition to objectify: "and what challenges him" and to generalize: "leave space for failing".

 

I think this is mere a relative discussion than an absolute. So keep it subjective.

[Rathlord]

I think it's hilarious that he hasn't responded to my previous post, personally. On top of "I'm right because I think so," add "Oh shit, he's right... better ignore it" to the mix. This is like a party!

 

Here's the post I'm referencing, for clarity:

 

 

 

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 be 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 stretched the limits of my brain power, reflexes, leadership, and muscle memory.


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

 

 

Your posts are full of contradictions. You criticize games for things, then backpeddle and say you're not. You define everything by your own terms that have no function in rational conversation. It borders on Alice in Wonderland-like absurdity to even carry on a simple conversation about gaming with you.

[k12314]

I think it's hilarious that he hasn't responded to my previous post, personally. On top of "I'm right because I think so," add "Oh shit, he's right... better ignore it" to the mix. This is like a party!

 

Here's the post I'm referencing, for clarity:

 

 

 

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 be 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 stretched the limits of my brain power, reflexes, leadership, and muscle memory.

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

 

 

Your posts are full of contradictions. You criticize games for things, then backpeddle and say you're not. You define everything by your own terms that have no function in rational conversation. It borders on Alice in Wonderland-like absurdity to even carry on a simple conversation about gaming with you.

 

If this is a party, I'll go get the chips and dip.

[MashPotato]

How on earth is this thread still going? Everyone simmer down a bit, eh?

[Rathlord]

How on earth is this thread still going? Everyone simmer down a bit, eh?

 

A healthy debate never dies! Unless someone leaves. Or I get bored. Or many other things. Shhh!

[Nachtfischer]

your (see? subjective!) definition of challenge

 

What the hell? I never even gave a definition! Rathlord provided ONE possible definition of "challenge" for us to have a basis on which to discuss objectively.

If you fail to understand that I can not help you.

 

 

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

2) 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.

3) 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.

 

1) I assume you're talking about games in the colloquial sense in the sense of "videogames" in general. And as I repeatedly stated: Of course they should not all have permanent failure or even challenge.

 

2) Again, you're then not using the definition of challenge you gave yourself, lol.

 

3) Oh, so now we're talking WoW and not GTA? Of course raids and dungeons in WoW are a challenge you can lose. Your "logical" conclusions you claim to draw from anything I said are totally ridiculous.

 

 

1) I think it's hilarious that he hasn't responded to my previous post, personally. On top of "I'm right because I think so," add "Oh shit, he's right... better ignore it" to the mix. This is like a party!

 

2) Your posts are full of contradictions. You criticize games for things, then backpeddle and say you're not.

 

1) Cut the trolling, will you?

 

2) They are not. Show me a specific contradiction and I'll show you it isn't one. You simply didn't understand. I did never "backpeddle" the tiniest bit throughout this whole thread. There's really no reason to.

[Maderas]

Reading through this thread I'm not even sure who is arguing what anymore, so I'm just going to frame a general response that isn't directed at anybody in particular.

 

If "A task or situation that tests someone's abilities" is the objective definition for 'challenge' being used in this thread, then I don't think it's fair to say sandbox games inherently lack challenge just because the game doesn't formally challenge you with a win/loss objective. If a sandbox game has challenging combat then the combat is challenging whether or not you choose to partake in it. Saying the sandbox game has no challenge in that example would be the same as saying a game like Dark Souls (note that I have not played Dark Souls; I just see it held up all the time as the de facto example of a 'challenging' game) has no challenge because you can choose to spend all your time sitting in the safe tutorial area... and if checkpoints/continue options after death remove challenge, then it's impossible for any game other than roguelikes with permadeath to be challenging.

 

Now, if you're imposing rules on yourself to artificially inflate the challenge in a game, say, "I'm going to attack everyone I see using only the worst weapon I possess", then obviously you would not take those self-imposed rules into consideration when you're evaluating the overall challenge of said game.

 

All that aside, and in my opinion, GTA games aren't usually very challenging on the whole. They're more concerned with being accessible and fun - lock on targeting, aim assist, things like that. There's obviously challenge there to be found, though. Surviving with a five star wanted level isn't particularly easy unless you're cheesing the game somehow like hiding in a building with only one blocked entrance. Some missions may be difficult. There may be optional secondary missions that are hard. Etc.

[Nachtfischer]

Ah, finally a real answer!

 

I don't think it's fair to say sandbox games inherently lack challenge just because the game doesn't formally challenge you with a win/loss objective.

But that's exactly what an inherent challenge would have to provide. I mean, how can you find the combat challenging in our sense of the word here, if you don't even know (i.e. the system does not explicitly/inherently tell you) if you have to win the combat? In a true sandbox you can pose a challenge upon yourself called "I have to lose 50 fights in 10 minutes!" And the point is: This challenge is as good as any other in the context of the sandbox. Because it is a sandbox. It does not value your interaction with it. There are no "good" or "bad" moves in such a system.

 

As far as I know, Dark Soul explicitly wants you to beat the game. There's a well-defined ending point (there are even multiple ones, I think). Obviously you can sit around all the time, but that does not help you in reaching the implicit goal of the game.

 

EDIT: Oh, and concerning the "unfairness". I never said sandboxes would lack challenge. I think they do not have it. And if they have it, there's an inherent conflict going on in the system. It's not at all a critique of a sandbox system to say that it has no challenge. It's a plus.

 

EDIT 2:

and if checkpoints/continue options after death remove challenge, then it's impossible for any game other than roguelikes with permadeath to be challenging.

It is a shame we attribute "permadeath" specifically to roguelikes anyways. Tetris has permadeath. Pacman has permadeath. Monopoly has permadeath (and 99 % of all board games out there).

We have to look at specific systems, though. Continues don't automatically remove challenge. In some arcade brawler, you might be able to continue after death, but you'll usually lose your score up to that point. So you'll probably (maybe) fail the inherent challenge of beating the highscore. In the end it's still a challenge you can absolutely lose!

[Maderas]

But that's exactly what an inherent challenge would have to provide. I mean, how can you find the combat challenging in our sense of the word here, if you don't even know (i.e. the system does not explicitly/inherently tell you) if you have to win the combat? In a true sandbox you can pose a challenge upon yourself called "I have to lose 50 fights in 10 minutes!" And the point is: This challenge is as good as any other in the context of the sandbox. Because it is a sandbox. It does not value your interaction with it. There are no "good" or "bad" moves in such a system.

 

 

As far as I know, Dark Soul explicitly wants you to beat the game. There's a well-defined ending point (there are even multiple ones, I think). Obviously you can sit around all the time, but that does not help you in reaching the implicit goal of the game.

 

Does a game have to have a defined ending point in order to be challenging, then? Is it possible to win a game if it does not end after that 'win' condition has been met? Or does it merely need to give you an overall objective which will cause the game to end if you lose?

 

Let's take The Elder Scrolls as an example. Oblivion and Skyrim both give you an objective from the very start, the first step on a main quest that culminates with you saving the world - and, ostensibly, if you ignore this quest, the world will end/be enslaved/bad things will happen. Does that mean these sandboxes are challenging, or does the lack of a concrete "you have lost, the world is now ending, game over, please restart" mean they are without challenge?

 

What about the first Fallout 1? It could, in many ways, be considered a sandbox - you were free to explore as you chose and do as you wanted. If you ignored the main objective for too long, however (recover a water chip) the game would end in failure and you'd be forced to start over. Does that mean Fallout 1 was challenging?

 

I'm not trying to come across as being combative, I'm just genuinely curious as to how you'd define it.

 

 

It is a shame we attribute "permadeath" specifically to roguelikes anyways. Tetris has permadeath. Pacman has permadeath. Monopoly has permadeath (and 99 % of all board games out there).

We have to look at specific systems, though. Continues don't automatically remove challenge. In some arcade brawler, you might be able to continue after death, but you'll usually lose your score up to that point. So you'll probably (maybe) fail the inherent challenge of beating the highscore. In the end it's still a challenge you can absolutely lose!

 

Wouldn't trying to beat the high score be a self-imposed challenge unless the game explicitly listed it as a goal and punished you for failing that goal? In most fighting games the objective is merely to beat the level without dying; in your suggestion, if I'm understanding your definition correctly, each stage should compare your score to the highest recorded one and the game should end if you didn't beat it - assuming 'beat the high score' is the overall objective of the game.

 

EDIT - What's your opinion of Don't Starve's level of challenge, by the way? I gather you thought the game had problems, but I think most people would agree that 'beating' Don't Starve (assuming you play the Adventure Mode or whatever it was called) is legitimately difficult.

[Nachtfischer]

Does a game have to have a defined ending point in order to be challenging, then? Is it possible to win a game if it does not end after that 'win' condition has been met? Or does it merely need to give you an overall objective which will cause the game to end if you lose?

It has to have a win condition and a game-end condition (together they define a loss condition). Here's a neat article on the topic.

 

Elder Scrolls: These systems are kind of a weird blend of a sandbox and an actual game. Anyways, yes, you can win, but not lose the system. The fixed and defined end of an Elder Scrolls game sees you winning, "beating" the game. There's no other possibility. And there's a reason for it: You're the hero! How could you ever lose? You can maybe "lose" a single battle, but not really even that because you'll just reload. It's like if we're playing Chess and anytime you put me into checkmate I go: "Well, then I'll roll back 10 moves!" or something. And this reloading is part of the game. And it has to be, because it's actually a story-heavy sandbox, in which it makes no sense for it to just "end". The strengths of the Elder Scrolls game do clearly not lie in imposing any sort of "challenge" upon the player or in being contests of decision-making. And everybody actually knows that. (Because everybody will jump to the premature conclusion: That does not say that they're bad systems. Something not being a "game", a decision-contest, a "challenge" or whatever is not a value judgement.)

 

 

Does that mean Fallout 1 was challenging?

Yeah, freedom about which move to make next does not mean you can't lose. Although thinking about it, technically Fallout 1 lets you reload anytime, too. It's more aware of its gamey-ness than Elder Scrolls, though.

 

I'm not trying to come across as being combative, I'm just genuinely curious as to how you'd define it.

Oh, you're not! Your posts are by far the most reasonable reactions to the whole topic yet.

 

 

Wouldn't trying to beat the high score be a self-imposed challenge unless the game explicitly listed it as a goal and punished you for failing that goal?

Yes. But most games implicitly do so. Some have a rather lose winning condition going on, like you can put your name on a "top ten list" if you beat any score in the top ten. But if you don't, then you don't. It just "muddies up" the winning condition a bit, but it's still the implicit goal and therefore a challenge. Another well-fitting article.

 

 

In most fighting games the objective is merely to beat the level without dying

Some are. The thing is, if there is a score, then that implies that it has meaning. Well, it should have. Obviously there are some games making really bad use of score (like Super Mario Bros. where it's just a vestigial "Well, we have to have a score in a videogame, don't we?" thing) and that are actually about completion (Mario explicitly tells you that at least, you have to go through all the levels to save the princess... which makes it even weirder to have a score inside it, but it basically says: "Ignore it!"... so it's kind of a non-issue and just adds a little useless noise to the system).

 

EDIT: Replying to your edit above. Don't Starve is somewhere between a game and a toy. It allows for exploration of the system's inherent rules. That's explicitly meant to be a part of it. Then however, it does have challenge. You're even given a score (although nobody really knows if it's important, I guess). There's also some ultimate winning condition. And you can die permanently. It's basically just full of fundamentally different things and wants to be kind of a "one size fits all" system. A problem that many modern videogames have. They sort of fit everybody, but they don't really fit anybody.

[Guest]

Lets derail this thread towards happiness and rainbows.

And happiness puking rainbows.

That makes no sense!

[Nachtfischer]

Now that it's finally starting to make some sense, you want to derail it? What a terrible attitude to take!

[Guest]

They don't call me the derailer for nothing

The derailerer

[EnigmaGrey]

They don't call me the derailer for nothing

The derailerer

They will call you something different in the the future, perhaps . . .

Keep the course.

[Guest]

 

They don't call me the derailer for nothing

The derailerer

They will call you something different in the the future, perhaps . . .

Keep the course.

 

 

The course has been kept, grey one.

 

Enjoy your freedom for now.

[Rathlord]

Replying via phone so it's going to take a moment for a coherent reply.

Challenge- n. (CHalənj) A task or situation that tests someone's abilities.