In which Salk is wrong about respawning

[6647162e0fac2Salk]

You made a nice little list there. But I don't see any alternatives. Except you repeating again and again that you like scripted sequences. Something a big chunk of people loathe.

There is a big chunk of people who loathe respawning (hence the creation of mods that remove it in several games). At least I gave you one alternative and I motivated my opinion.

[6647162e0fe0aOlfred]

You stated one alternative which may work for the last item on your list. But that's about it.
I thought you know the best alternatives to make any game that uses respawning a better game. So what I expected was you present them to us.

OK, you can skip the artificial lengthening of a game, that is indeed just lazy game design.

[6647162e10314voodoo47]

you can't just go and say a thing is bad because it's bad (well, you can, but that will inevitably make you wrong whether you like it or not). you need to provide examples, and that means you are not judging respawning as a general concept anymore, but its concrete implementation in one particular game. respawning is just a tool used to, well, spawn new stuff into the game world, and a tool can't be good or bad - what matters is how you use it (see the boiling food analogy a couple of posts back. or, if you want another, ovens can be used to bake bread too feed the hungry, but also to burn people alive).

most of the games out there do spawn new content in one way or another, as already mentioned before, if you have some sort of a living world, you will inevitably have to deal with having to spawn new stuff to keep it alive. even Half Life spawns new AIs at certain occasions, and spawning can also be found in Thief (sound an alarm, the game will throw previously not existing guards onto you. well, technically teleport out of blue rooms, but you get the point). so saying "(re)spawning is bad" is just.. well, I don't want to say stupid, so lets go with misguided.

what you can do, is provide concrete examples of games where this is done poorly, and then we can maybe have a meaningful conversation. I can start;


- Stalker Clear Sky (early version, quite possible that patches and mods fix this): yeah, this sucked. you clear out an enemy camp, go around two corners to sell the junk, and return 5 minutes later to see it fully repopulated with the same AIs like you were never there. a shining example of how to NOT do things. one would expect that some sort of AIs (a different group, maybe wildlife) would move to the cleared spot after some time, but yanking the entire orig crew right out of the river Styx the moment you turn your back is simply dumb.

- Neocron (cyberpunkish mmo): you need to spawn stuff a lot in a mmo, but nasties literally pop out of the ground right under your gun. just NO. you need to have a working ecology at place that would monitor the amount of baddies (and players) in the area, and spawn only when appropriate (no one looking, sane cooldowns etc).

- Batman Arkham Knight (did not play, but watched a LP): drone tanks respawn constantly on the streets, forcing you into repetitive, tiring battles. there is some variation so it's not completely awful, but still not the best way of handling things.

[6647162e10541ZylonBane]

The original Stalker had some poor handling of respawning too. The Garbage area was infamous for the never-ending bandit war against that train hangar. Kill everyone, come back later, it's full of defenders and being attacked again. Would have been nice to at least see different factions controlling it over the course of the game.

[6647162e106a2voodoo47]

"the player slowly tipping the scales in favor of his home faction through non-trivial effort" is what I would like to see there.

and yeah, pretty much all Stalker games are almost worthless without mods that will patch out the stupid.

[6647162e11031Salk]

voodoo47,

no offense but your reasoning is flawed in more than one way.

you can't just go and say a thing is bad because it's bad (well, you can, but that will inevitably make you wrong whether you like it or not). you need to provide examples and that means you are not judging respawning as a general concept anymore, but its concrete implementation in one particular game.

I did provide more than one reason why respawning is a lazy gaming concept (bad). This applies to ALL  games I played that used it.  You really want a list?

respawning is just a tool used to, well, spawn new stuff into the game world, and a tool can't be good or bad - what matters is how you use it (see the boiling food analogy a couple of posts back. or, if you want another, ovens can be used to bake bread too feed the hungry, but also to burn people alive).

Your analogy doesn't apply here for two distinct reasons: 1) I could tell you that I don't like anything that comes out of the oven (let's say I hate the taste of any oven cooked food) - the "tool" to me would be always bad because I don't like anything that can come out of its use and I would still not be "wrong" for thinking so. But most importantly 2) the oven would have more than one function: respawning, while it might have more than one reason of employ, has a single function.

most of the games out there do spawn new content in one way or another, as already mentioned before, if you have some sort of a living world, you will inevitably have to deal with having to spawn new stuff to keep it alive. even Half Life spawns new AIs at certain occasions, and spawning can also be found in Thief (sound an alarm, the game will throw previously not existing guards onto you. well, technically teleport out of blue rooms, but you get the point). so saying "(re)spawning is bad" is just.. well, I don't want to say stupid, so lets go with misguided.

Here you make the biggest mistake. You are talking of spawning and respawning (infinite spawning) as they were the same thing.

I am of course not objecting to spawning  game entities (that would be indeed stupid) but I am objecting to infinite spawning.

what you can do, is provide concrete examples of games where this is done poorly, and then we can maybe have a meaningful conversation.

To me, the conversation is meaningful even in line of theory.

The worst implementation I have ever seen of it was in the otherwise very good game "No one lives forever 2: a spy in H.A.R.M.'s way", where it broke immersion beyond what's even acceptable. Not only became respawning there lazy game design but it literally shattered immersion.

Instead of attacking me personally for having a different point of view which I have motivated fully (you can criticize my motivations, of course - that's something I accept without problems), you can start telling me why you think respawning (not spawning) can be, more or less often, good. I won't tell you that you are "wrong" if you do, the way you like to say to me and even if your reasons for liking it are not something I can truly share it's good for me to see things from a different perspective because it helps growth:  confrontation does that. Conceit doesn't.

[6647162e113f8Kolya]

If I could go through SS2 and clean out levels one by one, it would become obvious that it's a player centric world, where nothing ever happens that isn't a consequence of my actions. If I don't move, no one would ever come by. That would be unrealistic and boring.

Of course the spawning of enemies out of thin air isn't realistic either and sometimes when it's very noticeable it is indeed an immersion breaker. But usually it's not noticeable, it happens somewhere out of sight and there are entrances the enemies may have taken. And so it creates the illusion that stuff happens outside of my own actions, that enemies are patrolling the whole ship, entering the level I'm on, sending backup when something seems amiss and so on. In SS2 respawning creates the illusion of a living and dangerous world that's outside my control. And it works pretty well.

To achieve the same effect without spawning the game would have to be much larger and contain more enemies from the start that move around across large distances. Apart from mundane reasons such as increased production costs, this would have killed SS2's tightness. Newcomers in the game would have gotten even more lost than they already do.

A agree that respawning is a crutch, but all games are made with a limited budget, so corners have to be cut. And the question that remains is how well you achieve your goal despite that. SS2 achieves it very well, as its lasting fame and influence on the games industry has shown.

And as a matter of course you should play the game before you criticize it's mechanics.

[6647162e11ccdSalk]

If I could go through SS2 and clean out levels one by one, it would become obvious that it's a player centric world, where nothing ever happens that isn't a consequence of my actions. If I don't move, no one would ever come by. That would be unrealistic and boring.

Games are meant to have the player protagonist, not a witness. The world needs to be player centric, otherwise you feel you don't have an impact on the events. How can you associate your point of "nothing ever happens that isn't a consequence of my actions. If I don't move, no one would ever come by" to the need of using respawning as only device to accomplish that? I would argue that it's actually the opposite.

Respawning is proof that my advancing the game is not required to make something happen infinitely.

Of course the spawning of enemies out of thin air isn't realistic either and sometimes when it's very noticeable it is indeed an immersion breaker.

When that happens, it's not just a simple immersion breaker. It's a capital flaw. It's respawning at its worst.

But usually it's not noticeable, it happens somewhere out of sight and there are entrances the enemies may have taken. And so it creates the illusion that stuff happens outside of my own actions, that enemies are patrolling the whole ship, entering the level I'm on, sending backup when something seems amiss and so on. In SS2 respawning creates the illusion of a living and dangerous world that's outside my control. And it works pretty well.

The flaw in this is that infinite spawning still works as an endless loop. For me to buy it, I need to have a valid reason to justify that I can't expect the waves to end. Some games would provide me a reason for me to be unable to dispatch an enemy partly or entirely (lack of appropriate means to accomplish that) but no game has ever convinced me there is a sound motive for respawning to happen.

And that's just the immersion part.

I find the duplication and reenacting of the same challenge a poor way of entertaining me as a gamer. Since this is my opinion, it can't be labelled "right" or "wrong" as people here want to do. You can only agree or disagree. People that agree with me are the same ones that use DeSpawn either before or after playing the game one first time.

To achieve the same effect without spawning the game would have to be much larger and contain more enemies from the start that move around across large distances. Apart from mundane reasons such as increased production costs, this would have killed SS2's tightness. Newcomers in the game would have gotten even more lost than they already do.

It's possible to achieve the same without using respawn. I can mention an arcade inspired game from the Bitmap Brothers called "Chaos Engine" where at the end of each level you could get various statistics, one of which being about how many enemies you met out of a total number. The game is full packed with combat action and it doesn't use any kind of respawning. This could be done on a Amiga 500 without investing millions of dollars.

And as a matter of course you should play the game before you criticize it's mechanics.

You'd be right if I was criticizing System Shock 2 as a game. It would indeed require that I play it first, obviously. But I don't feel the need to play a game that has respawning to have the right to say I don't like respawning and that there is no way that you can use it "good".

[6647162e11e5fOlfred]

A level based game is much different than an open world game.
They have a fixed frame of actions and environment and usually a predetermined course of action for the player. You won't revisit the same location again. If you would in fact revisit a location in another level it surely would be repopulated.

And I'm still waiting for a response.

[6647162e1201cvoodoo47]

if by respawning you mean "the game will spawn an AI and send it to bash the player each time you kill its previous instance", then yes, I agree, this particular implementation of (re)spawning is bad, and should be fixed (main reason I've patched the RttUNN SS2 FM).

still doesn't mean that dynamic AI creation is flawed as a concept - again, you absolutely need this when creating living, breathing worlds.

[6647162e123d4Salk]

A level based game is much different than an open world game.

Granted. Is System Shock 2 an open world game?

And I'm still waiting for a response.

When possible, I already gave you an alternative.  I find curious that you defend one gaming concept but want me to provide several alternatives to it. Perhaps because scripted encounters are not to your liking? Then welcome aboard to the "we have an opinion" boat.

When the alternative is not possible, you play the game anyway, if you find it has other elements that made it worth playing. The fact that you play it anyway doesn't mean that respawning is good. But this concept seems to be a bit hard to grasp around here.

[6647162e12798Salk]

if by respawning you mean "the game will spawn and AI and send it to bash the player each time you kill its previous instance", then yes, I agree, this particular implementation of (re)spawning is bad, and should be fixed (main reason I've patched the RttUNN SS2 FM).

I should have clarified that I intend infinite respawning. Spawning is the creation of game entities ONCE. Respawning is creating the same entities again a number of times. Infinite respawning is when you create the same entities over and over in a endless loop.

I object to the last.

still doesn't mean that dynamic AI creation is flawed as a concept - again, you absolutely need this when creating living, breathing worlds.

I have nothing whatsoever against that, being a necessary step to provide interaction.

[6647162e128d4voodoo47]

I agree with that - mindlessly creating the same AI over and over again is indeed a bad thing. not many games do this, fortunately.

[6647162e12ecaOlfred]

Granted. Is System Shock 2 an open world game?

It's definitely not level based.
It depends how you see open world. Most part of the game you are able to roam freely on the ship and even revisit locations you don't need to go anymore. Only when you reach certain milestones you won't be able to access specific areas anymore. For example a room getting decompressed.
I still wouldn't call SS2 fully open world but it's as open as it can get.

But again, I thought we (at least the two of us) were speaking about respawning in general.

When possible, I already gave you an alternative.  I find curious that you defend one gaming concept but want me to provide several alternatives to it. Perhaps because scripted encounters are not to your liking? Then welcome aboard to the "we have an opinion" boat.

Previously you said that (infinite) respawn can be fully avoided and replaced with better systems. I merely want you to proof your statement. I don't like to move on to the next step if you haven't even completed yours.

If I would start on why scripted sequences are bad game design we probably need to fork the thread again so let's not get on to that after you finished your statement.

[6647162e134f6Salk]

But again, I thought we (at least the two of us) were speaking about respawning in general.

We are. It was just a question to understand whether or not respawning in System Shock 2 exist in an open world.

Previously you said that (infinite) respawn can be fully avoided and replaced with better systems. I merely want you to proof your statement. I don't like to move on to the next step if you haven't even completed yours.

Would you show me where I said that?

I said that respawning as game element - when possible - can be substituted with more realistic, less repetitive action sequences. And I mentioned scripted sequences, indicating it's a superior solution. I also made clear that this was my opinion and that it was my right to believe respawning is bad no matter the context, its harm being more or less prominent depending on how intrusive it is. I also said that respawning can be a "necessary evil" in those games that are completely dependent on it.

I am not so convinced it's necessary for open world games like the Elder Scrolls chapters are, because even if it's an open world, it's supposed to still represented as finite like Earth. So a realistic approach would to present you with a finite number of NPCs, making sure that the player face consequences such that it would be impossible to "empty" the virtual world. Realistic constraints are not an obstacle but would rather make the world more credible.

You wanted another alternative to respawning, right? Here I have just given another one to you...

If I would start on why scripted sequences are bad game design we probably need to fork the thread again so let's not get on to that after you finished your statement.

Not really. This thread's title is "In which Salk is wrong about respawning". It's enough to tweak it a little further and add "and scripted sequences" so we would not be off topic.

One day we might discuss the difference between irony and sarcasm as well...

[6647162e136e9Olfred]

Don't start an argument on gaming with realism. If you are truly realistic you have a simulation.

In games like Elder Scrolls you are superior to the enemies which are there for you to be defeated. You gain experience and improve your character to a degree which is out of bounds of anything realistic. Presenting the player with a finite amount of beings he can encounter would eventually end in him wiping out the entire world. Something which is pretty much an unrealistic scenario.
And I'm speaking of games where you have to single handedly kill everyone, don't come me with Civilization or Hearts of Iron.

And I don't hate scripted sequences in general. They can be used quite well. But in most cases they are just too fixed.

[6647162e13d76Salk]

Don't start an argument on gaming with realism. If you are truly realistic you have a simulation.

You are trying to tell me that I should discount realism and credibility of the world building factor unless it's a simulation I am playing? I couldn't disagree more.

In games like Elder Scrolls you are superior to the enemies which are there for you to be defeated. You gain experience and improve your character to a degree which is out of bounds of anything realistic. Presenting the player with a finite amount of beings he can encounter would eventually end in him wiping out the entire world. Something which is pretty much an unrealistic scenario.

This is only the scenario that you are limiting yourself to. Where is it written that your character needs to grow in a way that would make opponents easier to dispatch? The game could be build in such a way that the opponents become tougher too and it would be plausible that they are not static. It's not even such an original idea. I am surprised I even had to mention it. In this context. Not only that, but if reckless actions would end the game, the player would think well about the consequences of his choice. But of course, respawning makes all simpler... and duller.

And I'm speaking of games where you have to single-handedly kill everyone, don't come me with Civilization or Hearts of Iron.

There are many games where you must single handedly kill everything that moves and you will have more coming at you forever as long as you last. Those are the kind of games I personally despise. They show lack of creativity, realism and tend to be mechanical in structure. I'd rather go shoot the ducks at the amusement park because the experience would be equally deep.

And I don't hate scripted sequences in general. They can be used quite well. But in most cases they are just too fixed.

They are fixed in all cases, since they are scripted. But I believe strongly in the first time experience. If a game satisfies me completely the first time I play it, it's already proven it was worth my time (and money). The replayablity factor is an extra that would elevate its status even higher but in my case it's not a requirement and neither is a minimum "length". I leave this to the quantity over quality people.

And you still didn't tell me where I allegedly stated that "(infinite) respawn can be fully avoided and replaced with better systems." unless you mean I intended to say that in some cases it can, which is true, as I proved it.

[6647162e14623Olfred]

The way respawning is used can be more or less deleterious but it's always a poor design choice. I don't need to play System Shock 2 or any other game to know that because there is no way that any game can use respawning in a good manner.

Here you say that any developer who used respawning made a poor design choice and it can never be used in a good manner. For me it implies that when you have a choice, there is also a better decision which could have been made.

You are trying to tell me that I should discount realism and credibility of the world building factor unless it's a simulation I am playing? I couldn't disagree more.

No, I'm trying to tell you that you can't pick a game which features many unrealistic aspects and say "oh, only this one thing is bad because it isn't realistic".
If you want to use that as an argument you either need a fully realistic game or don't us it as argument at all.

[6647162e14bcfSalk]

Here you say that any developer who used respawning made a poor design choice and it can never be used in a good manner. For me it implies that when you have a choice, there is also a better decision which could have been made.

Yes, if there is a choice, it's better to avoid respawning but I didn't say it's always possible to replace it systematically. It depends on the game design. But only those games that use respawning as key element belong to this latter category and luckily, they are either so primitive that they belong to a museum or so dull that I'd never consider wasting my time on them. Sometimes the element of respawning can be simply removed when it's just used to artificially extend a game's average completion time (I have mentioned this too).

No, I'm trying to tell you that you can't pick a game which features many unrealistic aspects and say "oh, only this one thing is bad because it isn't realistic". If you want to use that as an argument you either need a fully realistic game or don't us it as argument at all.

So in my example above, what element that I spoke of is NOT realistic? The fact that the number of NPCs is finite? The fact that they grow in skill just like the protagonist does in order to make the combat session challenging at each moment in the game?

Or on a serious tone, do you mean to object that I can't demand realism because there is real time and game time in play? Or that I can't demand realism because there are fictional elements introduced in a virtual world?

The framework is fictional but that doesn't mean that all that happens in it must be discounted because of it. Else, by this twisted kind of logic, I could justify the most implausible events to happen, including blatant disregard of the laws of physics (which is a trademark of infinite respawning) simply by saying: "Oh well, what do you expect? It's not a simulation..."

[6647162e15ba2Olfred]

Yes, if there is a choice, it's better to avoid respawning but I didn't say it's always possible to replace it systematically. It depends on the game design.

So here you say that there are games where respawning monsters are the best course of action (as it might be the only option to realise what you want to achieve).

Sometimes the element of respawning can be simply removed when it's just used to artificially extend a game's average completion time (I have mentioned this too).

I won't deny that.

So in my example above, what element that I spoke of is NOT realistic? The fact that the number of NPCs is finite? The fact that they grow in skill just like the protagonist does in order to make the combat session challenging at each moment in the game?

OK, let's do a simple example of why this might not be the best way of handling it.
You have a game where you progress with your character and get stronger.
Now at some point of the game you have to walk through sewers and encounter some rats. As this might be early in the game they actually hurt you and you have to fend them off. After exiting the sewers you might have killed 20 rats out of the 100 which were present (as we don't allow respawning we need to have the sewer filled somewhat realistically).
After hours of playtime and considerably gaining power you decide to go into the sewers without the need to go there, just for whatever reason you decided to do it.
Suddenly all of the remaining 80 rats turned into some fucking hulk rats and you have a hard time fending them off.

Does this sound realistic to you?

Or on a serious tone, do you mean to object that I can't demand realism because there is real time and game time in play? Or that I can't demand realism because there are fictional elements introduced in a virtual world?

If a game is set in a virtual world and does run some consistency along the path with it. You can still use your common sense about realism inside this virtual world.
You are set in this world and become stronger through some game system. Which is fine. And at the end of the game you usually face some really strong evil guys and some big boss.
So compared to the beginning where you were really weak and everything you faced was on a similiar weak level. All the enemies you face towards the end of the game are also that amount stronger. So if they are so evil, why didn't they already pillaged and killed everything you faced in the beginning (good, neutral and maybe evil alike).
That is the amount of realism I speak of.

[6647162e16578Salk]

So here you say that there are games where respawning monsters are the best course of action (as it might be the only option to realise what you want to achieve).

No, I am saying that some games are built around respawning, which is the key game element mechanic (ZB used Pac Man as example). In such games, respawning is the only course of action. Best and worst.

OK, let's do a simple example of why this might not be the best way of handling it. You have a game where you progress with your character and get stronger. Now at some point of the game you have to walk through sewers and encounter some rats. As this might be early in the game they actually hurt you and you have to fend them off. After exiting the sewers you might have killed 20 rats out of the 100 which were present (as we don't allow respawning we need to have the sewer filled somewhat realistically). After hours of playtime and considerably gaining power you decide to go into the sewers without the need to go there, just for whatever reason you decided to do it. Suddenly all of the remaining 80 rats turned into some fucking hulk rats and you have a hard time fending them off. Does this sound realistic to you?

Absolutely not. The rats should still be equally challenging. When I spoke about opponents becoming tougher I obviously referred to those who can realistically, like the protagonist, improve their skill through training and/or acquisition of additional means of offense and defense. Not rats. If you backtrack to the sewers you will face the same rats which won't cause you much distress and won't distract you from that ONE REASON that brought you back there, which is obviously not meeting the rats. Is it?

If a game is set in a virtual world and does run some consistency along the path with it. You can still use your common sense about realism inside this virtual world. You are set in this world and become stronger through some game system. Which is fine. And at the end of the game you usually face some really strong evil guys and some big boss. So compared to the beginning where you were really weak and everything you faced was on a similiar weak level. All the enemies you face towards the end of the game are also that amount stronger. So if they are so evil, why didn't they already pillaged and killed everything you faced in the beginning (good, neutral and maybe evil alike). That is the amount of realism I speak of.

We are here talking about something different here. You are asking me to offer a plausible scenario for more powerful actors in the game to have a consistent and plausible behavior. It's up to the talent of the screenwriter to make it so. It's quite a difficult task and it is a fundamental element of a successful gaming experience (in my opinion, of course).

In your specific example, there could be a series of reasons for antagonists to delay the execution of their plans: 1) in accordance to the growth of the protagonist, they also could have been weaker at start to gain more power at a later stage 2) it could be that the antagonists needed time to plan and form allegiances of various kind 3) it could be that at that time, there was no real gain in investing time and resources towards a specific task 4) it could be that some element in the game (a target, a land, a goal) gained importance and changed its status from negligible to capital. And so on... I could go on but I think you get the idea.

And I want to remind you that I am not a game developer, not a (screen)writer, and not certainly among the brightest to populate this forum or others. It seems to me I could still motivate and argument my position in a pretty hostile environment, where mine was the only voice at support of a position that is surely not alone.

[6647162e176f7Olfred]

Absolutely not. The rats should still be equally challenging. When I spoke about opponents becoming tougher I obviously referred to those who can realistically, like the protagonist, improve their skill through training and/or acquisition of additional means of offense and defense. Not rats. If you backtrack to the sewers you will face the same rats which won't cause you much distress and won't distract you from that ONE REASON that brought you back there, which is obviously not meeting the rats. Is it?

So that one time I passed farmer Joe (who was on equal strength at that time), he was so inspired by my presence that he put his rake down and instead trained day and night just to always be on equal strength?

In your specific example, there could be a series of reasons for antagonists to delay the execution of their plans: 1) in accordance to the growth of the protagonist, they also could have been weaker at start to gain more power at a later stage 2) it could be that the antagonists needed time to plan and form allegiances of various kind 3) it could be that at that time, there was no real gain in investing time and resources towards a specific task 4) it could be that some element in the game (a target, a land, a goal) gained importance and changed its status from negligible to capital. And so on... I could go on but I think you get the idea.

1. So it would have been possible to always beat the boss?
2. What a good convience that RIGHT at that time you decide to go on the epic quest to defeat him. Oh wait, we could say a spy got information about that. But then we are running on a timer. Another thing which you probably consider as bad game design.
3. If you have evil motives and there is opportunity to do something bad you probably would take it. I'm not only talking about the boss of the game, it could also be bandits or something.
4. Again, a timer thing.

And I want to remind you that I am not a game developer, not a (screen)writer, and not certainly among the brightest to populate this forum or others.

Neither I am.
Even though I am a hobbyist when it comes to game development. That's not my job.

But when I don't see the bigger image of something or don't have much experience in a subject. I wouldn't be so blatant about my opinion and see it as the only right choice.
Everything does have it ups and down, it's not about that you use it, it's about how you use it. And this is where I see you in the wrong.

[6647162e18352Salk]

So that one time I passed farmer Joe (who was on equal strength at that time), he was so inspired by my presence that he put his rake down and instead trained day and night just to always be on equal strength?

No, if for some reason you have to eliminate a farmer it's fair and realistic to expect this to be a minor challenge, having an easy target to dispatch. But if that farmer Joe had a personality, a story behind his presence, something that characterized him then you won't just think how "difficult" is to beat the crap out of him but rather whether or not you should do it because it's obvious from your example that we are talking of a harmless person. In an open end world, how hard is to dispatch someone shouldn't really be the only factor.

1. So it would have been possible to always beat the boss?

You should be convinced that, given another set of circumstances, it would have been possible. But then there would not be any game. How well the game is written is going to sell this to you in a credible manner or not. But it's definitely something that can and has been accomplished before.

2. What a good convience that RIGHT at that time you decide to go on the epic quest to defeat him. Oh wait, we could say a spy got information about that. But then we are running on a timer. Another thing which you probably consider as bad game design.

Shouldn't you just let me say whether or not I consider timer a bad design? I spoke against respawning, not against timers. In scripted sequences, there are triggers and sometimes timers. Since I am supporting scripted encounters, a more reasonable assumption would have been to think I am in favor of their use. Unless it's a timer that respawns enemies, of course...

3. If you have evil motives and there is opportunity to do something bad you probably would take it. I'm not only talking about the boss of the game, it could also be bandits or something.

Why? If I am evil must I also be stupid? I know that in many games (and not only) they like to equate the two things but reality is quite different. Not to mention that there would be all the discussion about "do evil people believe they are evil?". The stereotypical villains in games don't really make a good example here. If there is opportunity to do something bad, I will do it only if it advances my cause. 

But when I don't see the bigger image of something or don't have much experience in a subject. I wouldn't be so blatant about my opinion and see it as the only right choice.

I could easily say the same about you and all the others. You do believe you see the bigger image of something?

Everything does have it ups and down, it's not about that you use it, it's about how you use it. And this is where I see you in the wrong.

I repeat. There are so many ways that people could prove me wrong about something. This is not the case. You are not proving I am wrong. And neither did anybody else that tried. Simply because you cannot prove an opinion wrong. You can only prove I state incorrect facts.

My original statement was that respawning is an horrendous game concept that should be removed and/or replaced whenever possible. I provided motivations that you are free to not accept as valid reasons.

You can tell me infinite spawning is not dull and mindless, that it's not derivative (this is something that you should prove to me though), that it's not a mere replication (here too you must prove me that it's not true), that it can be done creatively (how?). Passing the ball on your court here... I have finished defending my position.

You can agree or disagree, but not tell me I am wrong.

[6647162e18c67ZylonBane]

Games are meant to have the player protagonist, not a witness. The world needs to be player centric, otherwise you feel you don't have an impact on the events.

If a game is intended to be a blatant power fantasy, then yes, you want the entire world to feel centered on the player. But if the game is attempting to make the player feel like they exist in a real world, then making it all obviously centered on the player, with things only happening in reaction to and because of the player, is BAD, because it breaks immersion. Of course at a technical level in a single-player game everything really is centered around the player, but the point is to make it not obvious, to create the illusion of a larger, autonomous world. The original Half-Life provides an excellent example of this. Through careful environmental design and scripted AI battles, Valve created a world that, as you press through it, gives the impression that a whole lot of stuff is going on that doesn't directly involve Gordon Freeman. This was a very good thing for the game, because when you did inevitably save the day, it felt like a triumph over the entire massed forces of two powerful armies, and not just the relatively few enemies you'd personally encountered.

So what the heck, let's consider a scenario in which SS2 does not use respawning. Instead, there is a finite, predefined population of monsters in the game space. SS2 takes place on a giant research starship and its military escort, so we're talking a lot of mutated crew and robots. As a point of reference, a Nimitz class aircraft carrier typically carries around six thousand crew. So we're running a realtime simulation of all these thousands of AIs, even in maps that aren't currently loaded. They're wandering around, moving between decks, being directed to your current position when you're spotted by security cameras, etc. Now the important question is this: From the perspective of someone who's playing the game normally--just trying to survive and accomplish their objectives--what is the difference? If an enemy walks through a door because his simulation brought him there, vs the game just pseudo-randomly creating him there, what does it matter to the player? It can't matter to the player, because the player doesn't have enough information to determine whether that enemy "really" existed before walking in. Likewise, in a game that only lasts a few hours, with normal player behavior the difference between infinite enemies and a finite but very large number of enemies is no practical difference at all. So what's a smart developer to do? Waste a massive amount of RAM and CPU resources on a world-spanning AI simulation, or create a spawning system that consumes very little resources, yet still yields a statistically near-identical enemy encounter rate? Again I ask you, in actual subjective terms, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?