Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9756884" data-attributes="member: 7026617">And?  But they could have gotten what mattered to them done before dying.  Unless all that really matters to them in the end is surviving.I haven't suggested its better; what I have suggested and stick to is that if games without death in combat can't produce tension, then in the end, the only thing mattering to the player is there character survival, and yeah, I think that's a really narrow view of what the combat (and game as a whole) is about in the first place.  So, yeah, I'm critical of that.Really?  Point at the message where I said the first part of that first sentence.  I may have in practice said that if you can't get value out of games that don't have that your view of games is shallow, but those are not the same thing.  They're not connected points, and the only way I think you can have connected them with me is if you've conflated me and another poster critical of your view that there's no tension without death.  What I've said is you don't need death for there to be tension and stakes, and I think a view where you do has tunnel vision; I've said nothing about having death as part of the stakes being bad.I also don't have to let it pass and not say I don't think its a narrow, and yeah, if you like, kind of shallow view.  Don't want responses to opinions, don't post them.</blockquote>