In which Salk is wrong about respawning

[66341c7b59675Salk]

If you can breathe calmly while playing SS2, you're playing it wrong.

I mean, sure, if you're a wuss who can't handle full-strength SS2, I guess it's better than not playing it at all. But then don't go telling people you've played SS2, because you haven't. You've played a weaksauce, watered-down, decaf imitation. SS2 is supposed to wear you down. It is supposed to stress you out. You are supposed to be motivated to run, and hide, and cower in the dark, and learn the few areas that are completely safe. Quiet time in SS2 isn't handed to you, it's earned.

This doesn't make any sense.

Even under a narrative point, it's wrong to have tension from beginning to end with no time to think or change of pace. You earn the quiet after the storm.  Exploring is something that requires focus and time. Distracting from it with unceasing and repetitive battles (trademark of respawning) is a mistake. Being in the storm from beginning to end is simply bad game design, especially if this is artificially created by respawning, the cheapest and most despicable way to create a challenge for a player.

[66341c7b598fcZylonBane]

Golly Salk, you're right. SS2 is a badly-design game, which is why it didn't win armloads of awards, wasn't influential, and isn't fondly remembered by thousands of gamers to this day. You've even made me realize that apparently I've never explored in SS2 because I was too gosh darn distracted by all that respawning. I must have just imagined enjoying it, I guess.

[66341c7b59a64Salk]

Your sarcasm is pretty weak here, ZB.

Respawning is only one element of the gameplay. System Shock 2 can be a great game in its own right even if the developers had the (poor and stale) idea of implementing respawning. I doubt the game won awards because of it though but rather despite it.

And you (and others) obviously enjoyed respawning as gaming design, for some reason.

To me, it'll always be a sign of a weak hand of cards. A simple bluff. But to each their own.

[66341c7b59da7Olfred]

The idea of the respawning monster is to show that you really are in a fucked up place  which is compromised with monsters. It's a way to create a certain tension where you know that you can't simply just smack em all till everyone is dead and you win. No, you actually have to get to the root of it or otherwise you will face the same end they did.

[66341c7b59f6cvoodoo47]

the thing is, SS2 isn't Doom, where you just clear the level out and proceed to the next one. VB represents a living, breathing environment (sometimes literally). trying to un-live it is a bad idea.

I wasn't very fond of respawning either when I've played the game for the first time all those years ago, but after playing for some time, I had to give in - as mentioned many times before, subtle respawning is an essential part of the game mechanics, and contributes significantly to the SS2 atmosphere. you just aren't supposed to be safe unless you are in a small room with just one door, and aiming a fully loaded gun at it.

[66341c7b5a38dSalk]

The idea of the respawning monster is to show that you really are in a fucked up place  which is compromised with monsters.

This is something you can accomplish without using respawning.

It's a way to create a certain tension where you know that you can't simply just smack em all till everyone is dead and you win.

The point in the game should never be smacking all you find to "win" or else we are back to the arcade game concept of Space Invaders where the objective of the game was to beat the highest score.  Removing respawning from a game doesn't automatically drop the tension but rather change it and prepares you, with a pause, for a new challenge ahead.

trying to un-live it is a bad idea.

I can argue that removing respawning from any game won't cause the game to be "less alive", unless the only component that makes it "alive" is respawning itself, which would be a sad thing to say about System Shock 2.

There is a reason (actually more than one) if there are people like me that can't abide to respawning as design choice. It can be less harmful in a game rather than another but for us, it's always a poor, stale choice and just a patch for lack of better ideas.

[66341c7b5a706voodoo47]

it greatly depends on how the game is constructed. for example, there is no need for respawning in Half-Life, as you just progress further and further, essentially doing that Doom clearing a level thing. SS2 is different - you will be running around back and forth a LOT. hence, you need to repopulate the levels, else they will pose no challenge once cleared out for the first time.

so while I agree that to each their own, I also have to say that if you remove respawning,

You've played a weaksauce, watered-down, decaf imitation.

same goes for easy difficulty - it throws things off balance so massively that it can't be considered a full experience anymore.


and speaking of Doom, ever tried the nightmare difficulty? it completely changes the experience, turning a slow, relaxing monster slaughter into an insane adrenaline-loaded killing spree, respawning being the core part of that.

[66341c7b5adb0Salk]

SS2 is different - you will be running around back and forth a LOT. hence, you need to repopulate the levels, else they will pose no challenge once cleared out for the first time.

Admittedly, I didn't have the chance yet to play SS 2 so I am just speaking in general terms about respawning as game concept.

I can understand that in specific contexts, it might be less invasive and clumsy than others but in general terms, it's something I'd always avoid. Now, I understand also that there is back tracking and when there is back tracking, respawning is something that happens a lot and I know that each of us can come with their own theory about why something that wasn't there before now is.

But I need a more valid reason than that to feel the immersion is not broken by another wave of the same monsters I killed just few minutes ago (again, I don't know specifically how respawning works in SS 2 but the idea is recycling the same enemies to make you face them again).

I prefer the combat part to be memorable and respawning is a sure way to not make it such. I am much more in favor of scripted battles (my fondest memories come from F.E.A.R.). My tension doesn't keep up if I *know* there are going to be enemies coming at me in waves but rather by not *knowing* when I'll be in danger.

It's a matter of taste, really...

if you remove respawning,same goes for easy difficulty - it throws things off balance so massively that it can't be considered a full experience anymore.

A game's difficulty can be very different from player to player so I am strongly in favor of giving players a varied choice of customization. The original System Shock did this masterfully, understanding that different components of the game could be perceived as frustrating for some players.

and speaking of Doom, ever tried the nightmare difficulty? it completely changes the experience, turning a slow, relaxing monster slaughter into an insane adrenaline-loaded killing spree, respawning being the core part of that.

I played Doom, Doom II and Doom III and while at that time it was impressive and fun, I wouldn't play it again (Doom III evolved a bit from the original concept but not enough to make me want to play it a second time). If I want a game that is strongly driven by continuous combat, I can easily play any FPS online. For a single player experience, I need a different kind of atmosphere.

Lastly, I speak with the utmost respect for you, Zylon Bane, Oldfred and all the other talented modders (including the author of DeSpawn) that share their creation with us end users, knowing that you have valid reasons to want to preserve the game mechanic of SS 2 exactly as it originally is. But on the other hand, you're also modders... And understand that a game can be changed to accommodate different tastes.

[66341c7b5b32aOlfred]

Admittedly, I didn't have the chance yet to play SS 2 so I am just speaking in general terms about respawning as game concept.

Well, than bashing on the whole concept of respawning inside of SS2 is just stupid because you just make assumptions coming from other games.

In SS2 respawning monster DON'T come in huge waves, except when you are clumsy and sound the alarm. But then it still is no fuckton of monsters defeating you but a moderate challenge which you face because you made a mistake.

[66341c7b5b68bSalk]

Well, than bashing on the whole concept of respawning inside of SS2 is just stupid because you just make assumptions coming from other games.

Respawning is part of System Shock 2's game mechanic so there is no assumption here. It's a fact.

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. I played plenty enough games that based their combat system on respawning to know where I stand on this and what my preference is. 

It's like the random fights. I played several japanese RPG to believe I don't need to play one more to judge that random fight is another poor game design choice (grinding).

I am not reviewing the game (that would be indeed stupid, since I didn't play it). I am simply criticizing one aspect of it.

Patronizing tones won't certainly make me change my mind or score you any point on a debate.

[66341c7b5b7cdvoodoo47]

to make it short, SS2 respawning works in such a way that you never know what kind of monster will (or will not) jump you at the next corner. the uncertainty is what keeps people on their toes.

[66341c7b5bb91Olfred]

It's like the random fights. I played several japanese RPG to believe I don't need to play one more to judge that random fight is another poor game design choice (grinding).

It's not as they serve another purpose, the grinding aspect as you mentioned.
You have ne experience reward in the game from it. Albeit the monsters drop loot it's not worth it to wait for the monsters to kill them. The reward is so slim that you might spend more resources on killing them than what you gain. There is also no drop like THE BOOMSTICK™ which only drops from monsters.

Respawning monster is not the big meal of the game, it doesn't even qualify as sidedish. It's more like that extra bag of ketchup you order because without it there is something missing from it and it's just way better with it.

I can understand what you want to say, but only because something might not be the best option in one game doesn't necessarily make it bad in another one. (I except broken stuff here, I mean like real design choices).
I would happily continue this with you as I take joy in such discussions about games and game designs. But let's do it in a dedicated thread as it's kinda leading this thread in another direction than the supposed one. And you should have played the game to at least have a same base.

[66341c7b5c015ZylonBane]

Wait, the guy who's been criticizing respawning in SS2 all this time has never even played it?

The way respawning is used can be more or less deleterious but it's always a poor design choice.

No. Respawning is a tool. A very broad class of tool that can be used in many different ways and the result can be good or bad depending on HOW it's used.

Here's an example of an unquestionably good game with respawning: Pac-Man. Pac-Man has respawning. You kill a ghost monster and it respawns. Without respawning, it would be ridiculously easy. It would barely be a game at all, really.

Then there's games like AvP, or zombie apocalypse games, where not being able to kill them all is the entire point. At best you can swat down the ones in your immediate path and keep moving to your next objective but you'd better not stop because they'll just keep coming.

Or how about open-world games? Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Witcher, Stalker, and so on. These are designed so the player revisits areas many times over the course of a single game. If these games didn't continuously repopulate the world with enemies, players would rapidly find themselves with environments entirely devoid of challenge.

So all of the above examples not only wouldn't be improved without respawning, they would SUCK without respawning. Therefore, your categorical rejection of respawning as a game mechanic is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

[66341c7b5c5b9Salk]

Real classy to open a topic with the title "In which Salk is wrong about respawning"...

There is no right or wrong in liking or not liking respawning.

Wait, the guy who's been criticizing respawning in SS2 all this time has never even played it?

Again, I am not criticizing respawning in SS2. I am criticizing respawning, period.

Here's an example of an unquestionably good game with respawning: Pac-Man. Pac-Man has respawning. You kill a ghost monster and it respawns. Without respawning, it would be ridiculously easy. It would barely be a game at all, really.

I think Pac Man in its original form is barely a game. I bet you Zylon Bane play it regularly and often enough in your home arcade machine parked in the kitchen but I am sorry to tell you I don't.  And not just because of the respawning element, but because it belongs to that category of arcade games I mentioned before whose goal is to beat a high score.

The point is not "easy" or "difficult" the way you like to put it, but rather "good" or "bad". There is no game that is made "good" - in my opinion - by the use of respawning while I experienced playing several games that were made worse by it.

Or how about open-world games? Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Witcher, Stalker, and so on. These are designed so the player revisits areas many times over the course of a single game. If these games didn't continuously repopulate the world with enemies, players would rapidly find themselves with environments entirely devoid of challenge.

I am not particularly fond of any of these games you mentioned, to tell you the truth. I played Fallout and Fallout 2. I enjoyed the latter more but definitely not because of the respawning element and not because of the random encounters. On the contrary, I have good memories of carefully designed Fallout 2 encounters (battles) that had a meaning and served a real purpose. Respawning doesn't serve anyl purpose other than keep you busy with duplicated and derivative content. It doesn't provide any sense of growth or any kind of new insight. It's dull, artificial and, consequently, boring.

So all of the above examples not only wouldn't be improved without respawning, they would SUCK without respawning. Therefore, your categorical rejection of respawning as a game mechanic is...

...time for some juvenile fun, ZB. No worries... if you ever get bored with this you can still return to Pac Man or Pong... In the latter the ball respawn all the time. Guaranteed fun.

[66341c7b5d0eeJoin2]

Wait, the guy who's been criticizing respawning in SS2 all this time has never even played it?

He was offering criticism on Deus Ex/GMDX last year, a game he also mentioned he had not played.
You can offer first impressions, nothing more. Salk, get out of here and play both these games. I cannot comprehend the daily thought processes of a guy that regularly hangs around forums dedicated to old games he hasn't even played.
Not to mention these are probably two of the very greatest pieces of home entertainment. Get out and don't return until you acquire the knowledge required to criticize the system in-depth.

As for my thoughts on the system, I think it is fucking fantastic and very suitable for the game. To perfect it would be to ensure the player never visually witnesses a spawn & perhaps a reasonable difficulty curve would be introduced (first half of the game = minimal spawning. second = frequent) which would correspond naturally with the idea of the many getting stronger by the minute.

This doesn't make any sense.

Even under a narrative point, it's wrong to have tension from beginning to end with no time to think or change of pace. You earn the quiet after the storm.  Exploring is something that requires focus and time. Distracting from it with unceasing and repetitive battles (trademark of respawning) is a mistake. Being in the storm from beginning to end is simply bad game design, especially if this is artificially created by respawning, the cheapest and most despicable way to create a challenge for a player.

Well, technically there is plenty of calms from the storm. AI don't just spawn in and bum rush you unless an alarm is activated. They spawn into the game world in a patrolling/wandering state wherein they are unaware of the player's location. Most rooms (with some exceptions) are completely safe to stand around in and do whatever when the AI is in this state, as long as they don't wander in and spot you.

Again, I am not criticizing respawning in SS2. I am criticizing respawning, period.

He got that, and then told you why you were wrong in various different contexts. Respawning can be done badly, thankfully in most renowned games (such as this one) it is done well.

[66341c7b5ddd4Salk]

He was offering criticism on Deus Ex/GMDX last year, a game he also mentioned he had not played.

This is false. I played Deus Ex but I never finished it. I was waiting for the release of some modifications and I still am. Luckily for me I have plenty of games to fall back on and I have my own modding projects. I'd be curious to know what "criticisms" I offered about Deus Ex, by the way... (never played GMDX and never will, with all due respect...)

Get out and don't return until you acquire the knowledge required to criticize the system in-depth.

You are telling me that to criticize respawning I need to play each game that has respawning as game element? I find this ludicrous. I guess I should also taste every dish that has an ingredient I loathe before I can say I don't like that ingredient. But of course you would all say that I am criticizing the dish.

As for my thoughts on the system, I think it is fucking fantastic and very suitable for the game.

And those are your thoughts that you or nobody else have the right to enforce on anybody. This is a place of discussion, not a place where you tell others how to think or what to do.

Most rooms (with some exceptions) are completely safe to stand around in and do whatever when the AI is in this state, as long as they don't wander in and spot you.

This has nothing to do with respawning. I am not objecting to danger or challenge, I am objecting to respawning which is something you are so convinced you understand.

He got that

No, he didn't. And obviously neither did you.

Wait, the guy who's been criticizing respawning in SS2 all this time has never even played it?

Going back to the culinary metaphor, I am saying I am disgusted by the taste of pepper and you all keep saying: "Go try it in this risotto and you will change your mind and realize you've been wrong all along!".

[66341c7b5dfb8voodoo47]

actually yes, trying out the dish with the ingredient that you are not particularly fond of to see whether it works for you would be the proper thing to do, so there's your own metaphor biting you in the ass.

I, for example, am not particularly fond of rosenkohl (no idea what the english name is, google it), but it does work well for me when oven baked with potatoes, spicy sausage, eggs and cheese sauce.

[66341c7b5e197ZylonBane]

Rosenkohl is a Brussels sprout. I think I like the German name better. And they're pretty awesome roasted with bacon.

As for respawning being like pepper... no. Respawning is such a generic technique, it's more like saying you don't like boiling. Some things are great boiled. Some things are terrible boiled. Clearly Salk recognizes at some level that respawning can work well, because he sidestepped or outright ignored the many examples I provided where it does in fact work really well. He's just too hard-headed to ever admit being wrong.

And to clear up another point-- saying you don't like respawning is an opinion. On the other hand, saying that respawning is "always a poor, stale choice and just a patch for lack of better ideas" is a statement of fact. As has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread, this statement is wrong. If you had instead said, "I have played several games in which respawning was done poorly, thus leaving me with an irrational negative opinion toward ALL games that use respawning."... well, that would be a statement of fact that I'd agree with.

What the heck, here's another example of you being wrong about respawning-- turn-based strategy and "god" games. Those could barely function at all without new entities constantly being spawned into the world. Wipe out a city's defenses, come back later, and hey, more defending units! OMG respawning. Successful village growing its population? Spawning!

[66341c7b5e3deSalk]

What is irrational to me, and I realize I am alone here but I am not saying I am right and you are wrong (which is something you instead feel entitled to do), is that you don't realize you are defensive about a game (or several) that use respawning only because you enjoyed them and pretend that everyone else follow suit.

Zylon Bane, I didn't ignore any of your examples. I talked about Pac Man (which I played), about Fallout (which I played as well) and, if you like to know, I played recently Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass: a good game that also has respawning (like all Zelda games). Does respawning make it a good game? No... Is it somewhat necessary to the game mechanics? Maybe. Pac Man would not be a game without respawning, granted. So? I also played several of Bethseda's Elder Scrolls games and found them very artificial and pretentious: each new chapter (after Daggerfall, I tried Morrowind and Oblivion), was Daggerfall 2.0, Daggerfall 3.0 and so on... With the "random" generated maps of dungeons looking the same and the cloned people greeting you  in each village. I guess you like that.

And voodoo47, I don't believe my example is biting me at all in the ass. Speaking of you and Rosenkohl, the truth is either 1) You don't really loathe Rosenkohl 2) You like a dish so much that you eat it despite one ingredient being that. The latter is what I have done with some very good games in the past. I played them because they were very good in their own right even if respawning (or random encounters) were part of it. A name? Final Fantasy VII, one of my favorite game ever. It has random encounters. It's a masterpiece.  I still hate random encounters.

In this sense, ZB's approach is this time more appropriate when he talks about boiling. I could in fact say I hate all boiled food and that's an opinion, which I can motivate just like I did for respawning. I have the absolute right to hate boiled food, thinking grilled food, fried food is the superior cooking choice (heck, even microwaved) because there is not a  "right" or "wrong" method.

I have not the slightest problem saying I am wrong about something. But I do have a problem with the single minded.

[66341c7b5e4d2Olfred]

So, generally speaking, what do you think are the better alternatives to respawning?

[66341c7b5ead7Salk]

So, generally speaking, what do you think are the better alternatives to respawning?

That's a good question, Olfred.

To answer, we must first consider why the idea of respawning has been (ab)used in the first place in games that don't really need it (granted, there are games that couldn't work without it, like ZB pointed out). I won't consider multiplayer games here, for obvious reasons.

In those single player games where respawning is a simple "ingredient" that can be removed, the reasons why it's employed can be multiple and cumulative:

• It is used to provide a potentially unlimited number of combat sequences
• It is used to advance characters' levels (similar to the "random encounters" method which is the other side of the same coin)
• It is used to (try and) make you always feel on your toes
• It is used to (artificially) lengthen the overall duration of the game
• It is used to repopulate areas that would otherwise not present the player with new combat sessions
• It is used to coerce you into action

Though ultimately the real reason it's so widely used is that it's a very cheap and commonly accepted game concept.

Respawning (or infinite spawning) bases its own reason on quantity over quality, duplication and derivation. Zylon Bane says I enunciate "facts" when I instead meant opinions. But in this case, I am talking "facts". Respawning is a endless loop that presents you with something that you have originally already dealt with and by this definition, it can't be any different than how I described it.

My alternative to it is - when possible - rather simple: lower the number of encounters for those games that can still function with this change and make each of them unique and significant. Ideally, make them be poignant and have direct consequences on the story arc. Respawning is mindless and doesn't ever advance anything.

Not every game can opt for this solution and even those that could, often prefer not to because there are really many that do not object to respawning. Some do but are not very vocal (unlike me) but the fact that a mod like DeSpawn has been requested and was not even the first attempt to remove respawning from System Shock 2 proves that I am not alone. And I bet all these other people have played the game from beginning to end. Can you say "go play the game first before you criticize respawning" to them too?

I personally love Knights of the Old Republic where practically all fighting sequences are triggered by scripts and are very rarely used to fill up the nothingness. It helps avoid the "been there, done that" syndrome that would otherwise kick in.

Another factor to consider is realism: respawning provides an infinite sequence of opponents, cloning the same fight over and over, forcing the player to relive through what has been done before. In most cases, there is no plausible reason why this would happen. It breaks immersion.

I spoke of my preference but ultimately to give an educated answer we should work on a per game basis.

Thanks for reading (assuming you just didn't skip to the last line )...

[66341c7b5ebf8Olfred]

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.

[66341c7b5f1f5ZylonBane]

And I bet all these other people have played the game from beginning to end. Can you say "go play the game first before you criticize respawning" to them too?

Those people aren't you. You're like people who salt their food before they've even tasted it. They exist, and they are terrible. People who don't like SS2's respawning even after having played it are terrible for different reasons.

My alternative to it is - when possible - rather simple: lower the number of encounters for those games that can still function with this change and make each of them unique and significant. Ideally, make them be poignant and have direct consequences on the story arc. Respawning is mindless and doesn't ever advance anything.

Aha, finally it comes out-- you don't actually like playing games. You're just in them for the plot advancement and "experience", and consider anything that gets in the way of that (aka "gameplay") to be a nuisance. This explains your dislike of simple arcade games and open-world games, where most of the entertainment value is derived from the gameplay itself.

Anyway, by your logic, every enemy type should only be encountered once, ever, because after that it's no longer a unique experience. I'm imagining you at a soccer game-- "Pfft, guy kicking a ball again? Seen it already. So repetitive! Lazy game design!"

[66341c7b5f7f9Salk]

Those people aren't you. You're like people who salt their food before they've even tasted it. They exist, and they are terrible. People who don't like SS2's respawning even after having played it are terrible for different reasons.

You represent that kind of person that should never be given any power because you'd abuse it at the first opportunity (and the name of this topic proves it easily enough): legislator, judge and (I expect) executioner in one person. I find such people not only terrible but also very dangerous.

Aha, finally it comes out-- you don't actually like playing games.

It's very likely I don't like some games you play (what other mindless, repetitive games do you like other than Pac Man? If you make a list I can be more precise). Your own interaction with non-aligned thoughts makes it easy work: since somebody doesn't like the game you like then it means they don't like gaming. I criticized respawning and motivated my opinion fully. But it's convenient for you to overlook that because it's harder to have arguments than to make sarcasm, isn't it?

You're just in them for the plot advancement and "experience", and consider anything that gets in the way of that (aka "gameplay") to be a nuisance.

This is particularly stupid. Gameplay is any kind of interaction  of the player with a game under a specific pattern of rules. It doesn't require respawning, which is just an aspect of it. A very ugly one. There is no way for you to prove that what I play is devoid of gameplay because any game puts "something in the way" to challenge you.

This explains your dislike of simple arcade games and open-world games, where most of the entertainment value is derived from the gameplay itself.

I played and liked many arcade games and had much fun with a good number (I have probably left a small fortune in a few machines 30 years ago). The fact I don't like game mechanics like in Pac Man, Space Invaders or Asteroids is because I evolved from them in line with game development. Respawning is, as game concept, primitive and mind numbing. It forces you down the same pattern over and over and doesn't advance the game in any way.

Luckily for the guys at Quantic Dream (and indirectly, for people like me) or guys like Jordan Mechner and Eric Chahi in the past , not everyone is as limited as you are when it comes to opening new frontiers in game development. It requires people with guts and ideas.

Anyway, by your logic, every enemy type should only be encountered once, ever, because after that it's no longer a unique experience.

Ideally, yes.

I'm imagining you at a soccer game-- "Pfft, guy kicking a ball again? Seen it already. So repetitive! Lazy game design!"

I am a big soccer fan (I am italian and Genoa fan since birth and before) and I have been playing soccer for many years so you are showing (again) you didn't really understand much of me.

Truth to be told, I kinda like that. I have the utmost respect for ZB the modder but there's where it ends.