You can read and reply to posts and download all mods without registering.
We're an independent and non-profit fan-site. Find out more about us here.
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.
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.
trying to un-live it is a bad idea.
You've played a weaksauce, watered-down, decaf imitation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The way respawning is used can be more or less deleterious but it's always a poor design choice.
Wait, the guy who's been criticizing respawning in SS2 all this time has never even played it?
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.
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...
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.
Again, I am not criticizing respawning in SS2. I am criticizing respawning, period.
He was offering criticism on Deus Ex/GMDX last year, a game he also mentioned he had not played.
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.
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.
He got that
So, generally speaking, what do you think are the better alternatives to respawning?
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?
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.
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.
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!"