Why do single player gamers like high stakes stories but...

[Men_in_Boxes]

So subjectivity is irrelevant to the discussion...

No. You started changing the topic to a weird moral discussion about gambling addiction.

Nope, the "respawn" is just delayed. In both modes the stakes are equal. The "time loss" and the idle time is different.

The time investment IS the stakes therefore they can never be equal.

You want high stakes? Play a single round of Warzone and delete the game to never play again if you die.

A game that's not built around permadeath will never leverage the full potential of the concept. You should know this.

Games with permadeath are usually built around the concept. Best example are rogue likes, you usually have to start again, but usually still make some kind of progress.

True, but 99 percent of single player games are built around the concept of a good like player. IE not permadeath.

 

[arvfab]

You started changing the topic to a weird moral discussion about gambling addiction.

That was only part of my reply to that part of your comment. And I didn't want to put it on the morality of it, sorry if I somehow offended you.

The time investment IS the stakes therefore they can never be equal.

So it is also for example in Soulslike: you die, you have to repeat part of the level and risk to lose any progression if you die again before getting your souls back.

And that's what I'm trying to say from the beginning: in any kind of game, there is some kind of risk.

A game that's not built around permadeath will never leverage the full potential of the concept.

What would you do differently? Let's say a game like The Last of Us, where there is a permadeath mode. Which changes would there be to leverage the full potential of the concept?

True, but 99 percent of single player games are built around the concept of a good like player. IE not permadeath.

And? Most of the games have different difficulty levels. Players have a choice. If you play online, you have different difficulties too: from @Sircaw - like noob level, to competitive pro-players, but there it's totally random or - if implement - you have "skill based" matchmaking, where for you, the player, the difficulty looks always the same.

 

[Sircaw]

And? Most of the games have different difficulty levels. Players have a choice. If you play online, you have different difficulties too: from @Sircaw - like noob level, to competitive pro-players, but there it's totally random or - if implement - you have "skill based" matchmaking, where for you, the player, the difficulty looks always the same.

I said grats to you on your PS5 pro purchase today, and this is how you repay me.

And you can forget about me being a godfather to your kids, that ship has sailed now.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

That was only part of my reply to that part of your comment. And I didn't want to put it on the morality of it, sorry if I somehow offended you.

Not offended. Just pointing out its irrelevance to the discussion.

So it is also for example in Soulslike: you die, you have to repeat part of the level and risk to lose any progression if you die again before getting your souls back.

And that's what I'm trying to say from the beginning: in any kind of game, there is some kind of risk.

Again, I agree all games have risk.

The discussion is really centered around the relative low amount of risk in the majority of SP games compared to the high risk in their narrative.

The gameplay risk should work along with the narrative risk to build a more compelling experience.

What would you do differently? Let's say a game like The Last of Us, where there is a permadeath mode. Which changes would there be to leverage the full potential of the concept?

The Last of Us was built around the God like, Infinite lives, frequent checkpoints experience. The tacked on permadeath mode is completely an afterthought that 99% of players won't play. You have to build around the concept from inception.

And? Most of the games have different difficulty levels. Players have a choice. If you play online, you have different difficulties too: from @Sircaw - like noob level, to competitive pro-players, but there it's totally random or - if implement - you have "skill based" matchmaking, where for you, the player, the difficulty looks always the same.

Players have been conditioned to accept this design flaw over the decades. As technology and game design advance, the flaw grows and becomes more obvious.

If you want the player to feel like a God, then the narrative should support the gameplay experience.

 

[Hatefield]

Uh, single player games literally give you the option for a challenge in amy game.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Uh, single player games literally give you the option for a challenge in amy game.

Challenge is not stakes. Challenge is not consequence.

This is what people are misunderstanding.

 

[arvfab]

You have to build around the concept from inception.

Please provide some examples.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Please provide some examples.

Rimworld, XCom, FTL, Spelunky

These are all games where stakes and consequence are baked into the narrative from inception. These are gamers games.

 

[Systemshock2023]

Why not get into gambling if you are looking for that kind of thrill?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Why not get into gambling if you are looking for that kind of thrill?

It's not gambling as much as it is a more compelling simulation.

 

[Systemshock2023]

XCOM. A game where you blast someone with a shotgun 3cms away from you and miss...

 

[Hatefield]

Challenge is not stakes. Challenge is not consequence.

This is what people are misunderstanding.

And what are the stakes in an online game? A dick measuring contest with stranger?

 

[DarkLordOtaku]

I'm not sure I understand the premise of the OP's post?

There are many games with high stakes gameplay built in. Just to name a few, things like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original Sin 2, Darkwood, etc. all offer options for permadeath, or permanent loss of party members. In some cases, these stakes could mean burning a save file with 50+ hours of gameplay on it.

That seems relatively high stakes, short of some sort of Akagi death game where the player's blood is siphoned every time they botch a frame perfect dodge or something.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm not sure I understand the premise of the OP's post?

There are many games with high stakes gameplay built in. Just to name a few, things like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original Sin 2, Darkwood, etc. all offer options for permadeath, or permanent loss of party members. In some cases, these stakes could mean burning a save file with 50+ hours of gameplay on it.

That seems relatively high stakes, short of some sort of Akagi death game where the player's blood is siphoned every time they botch a frame perfect dodge or something.

The reason I don't count the games you listed is because most gamers keep multiple save files during their play through. Once a non ideal outcome occurs in the game, they just load up the save file they want.

Those titles are built with the developers knowing that.

Games with stakes and consequence can not have manual saves.

 

[DarkLordOtaku]

The reason I don't count the games you listed is because most gamers keep multiple save files during their play through. Once a non ideal outcome occurs in the game, they just load up the save file they want.

Those titles are built with the developers knowing that.

Games with stakes and consequence can not have manual saves.

But many games in this genre, including the ones I mentioned, also feature options to lock your game to a single save file, which cannot be manually reloaded outside the title screen. In some scenarios, when your party members, or your player character dies, the game immediately auto-saves over your only game file.

They can likewise be more punishing by preventing pausing during combat, further increasing your risk of irreversible mistakes.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

But many games in this genre, including the ones I mentioned, also feature options to lock your game to a single save file, which cannot be manually reloaded outside the title screen. In some scenarios, when your party members, or your player character dies, the game immediately auto-saves over your only game file.

Games are developed based on the expected experience of the majority of its players. A permadeath mode can not simply be tacked on. The concept must be built into the main experience for 100% of the audience.

The Last of Us has quick TTK, few player choices, linear design etc...because Naughty Dog knew the average player would die 28 times during a full run. Their permadeath mode has to be subjected to that assbackwords design because that's how the vast majority of it's players will experience the game.

Jack of all trades - Master of none.

They can likewise be more punishing by preventing pausing during combat, further increasing your risk of irreversible mistakes.

To truly understand why these modes are cheap imitations you have to play games like FTL or Rimworld to get it.

Games with consequences play in the margins of degree. Games like The Last of Us do not.

 

[DarkLordOtaku]

Games are developed based on the expected experience of the majority of its players. A permadeath mode can not simply be tacked on. The concept must be built into the main experience for 100% of the audience.

The Last of Us has quick TTK, few player choices, linear design etc...because Naughty Dog knew the average player would die 28 times during a full run. Their permadeath mode has to be subjected to that assbackwords design because that's how the vast majority of it's players will experience the game.

Jack of all trades - Master of none.


To truly understand why these modes are cheap imitations you have to play games like FTL or Rimworld to get it.

Games with consequences play in the margins of degree. Games like The Last of Us do not.

While I respect that you disagree with the examples of games I provided as being punishing games, your OP suggested you were not aware of these titles, or at the very least wanted someone to explain why punishing games are unpopular. I provided these examples to help demonstrate that clearly some players do enjoy challenging gameplay in single player games.

You've also volunteered Rimworld and FTL as comparisons of the examples I provided, both of which are incredibly popular titles. Though, it's unclear whether you consider them to be punishing, or simply other examples of games which restrict pausing to increase difficulty.

Your posts seem to suggest that what qualifies as a "high stakes" game is not only extremely narrow in definition, but also that this narrowly defined type of game will never sell or receive critical acclaim like games such as TLOU. If your OP inquiry about why players do not like high stakes gameplay, is sincere, then I here is my response in kind.

As you've defined it, "high stakes" are not only games with high stakes, but also inclusive of many of these peripheral assumptions. These peripheral assumptions have created a very niche game, which will in turn only appeal to a niche audience looking for those specific features. When a game becomes defined so narrowly, it's easy to demonstrate that there are few examples of success within its nichely defined category.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

While I respect that you disagree with the examples of games I provided as being punishing games, your OP suggested you were not aware of these titles, or at the very least wanted someone to explain why punishing games are unpopular. I provided these examples to help demonstrate that clearly some players do enjoy challenging gameplay in single player games.

This is not really a topic of challenge. It's a topic of stakes and consequences. I can see how the two might be viewed as related

You've also volunteered Rimworld and FTL as comparisons of the examples I provided, both of which are incredibly popular titles. Though, it's unclear whether you consider them to be punishing, or simply other examples of games which restrict pausing to increase difficulty.

I view difficulty as a separate discussion entirely.

Your posts seem to suggest that what qualifies as a "high stakes" game is not only extremely narrow in definition, but also that this narrowly defined type of game will never sell or receive critical acclaim like games such as TLOU. If your OP inquiry about why players do not like high stakes gameplay, is sincere, then I here is my response in kind.

I actually don't think this. I view the last 10 years as the market showing real signs that players naturally wants more stakes and consequences in their games. Battle Royales continues popularity, the extraction shooter genre, Souls-likes, and roguelites are all much more popular today than they were 10 years ago. I think the industry is slow to move out of the old model because that's all we've ever known.

As you've defined it, "high stakes" are not only games with high stakes, but also inclusive of many of these peripheral assumptions. These peripheral assumptions have created a very niche game, which will in turn only appeal to a niche audience looking for those specific features. When a game becomes defined so narrowly, it's easy to demonstrate that there are few examples of success within its nichely defined category.

I don't see it that way. I think people naturally want emotion filled games and the industry is slowly starting to figure out how to do that via gameplay.

 

[DarkLordOtaku]

This is not really a topic of challenge. It's a topic of stakes and consequences. I can see how the two might be viewed as related

I view difficulty as a separate discussion entirely.

I actually don't think this. I view the last 10 years as the market showing real signs that players naturally wants more stakes and consequences in their games. Battle Royales continues popularity, the extraction shooter genre, Souls-likes, and roguelites are all much more popular today than they were 10 years ago. I think the industry is slow to move out of the old model because that's all we've ever known.

I don't see it that way. I think people naturally want emotion filled games and the industry is slowly starting to figure out how to do that via gameplay.

It seems that players do want high stakes and consequences in their games then. The reason being that people naturally want emotion filled games, which is being conveyed via gameplay.

If this is a genre of game that you like, I would suggest you take a look at Darkwood for the holiday season. I think there will be many aspects of that game which appeal to you.

 

[arvfab]

I think the industry is slow to move out of the old model because that's all we've ever known.

You must be very young to say that. Games earlier didn't have any save at all. A game over meant starting from the beginning.