Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5142681" data-attributes="member: 4937">Err... hmmm..&nbsp; I was thinking of things more like Nethack, King's Quest, Bard's Tale, etc.&nbsp; I know virtually nothing about console games, but the general consensus seems to be that while the newer FF's are better games than the older ones, they are in fact easier.I'm not going to comment on this except to say that with a module like TH, a group playing 1e 11th level characters does not necessarily possess a strong advantage over those playing 1e 3rd level characters.&nbsp; How many groups would have failed to get through your 4e Ultimate Delve with characters that were 12 levels higher than the ones you used - say 18th level Paragons rather than 6th level characters?&nbsp; That is what I'm referring to when I talk about changes in how difficulty is measured.Better =/= Harder.Harder =/= Better.However, I can assure you that while Diablo is essentially Nethack with better graphics, the ASCII version of the game is the far more difficult one.&nbsp; Which one of those two classic and admirable games is better is not to me an interesting question.&nbsp; Sometimes I might enjoy playing either one.&nbsp; But the question, &quot;Why must numbers go up?&quot;, is not I think answered by saying, &quot;Well, duh, obviously the numbers being bigger means a better game!&quot;&nbsp; I was advancing a position on why game designers decide it is a good idea to make numbers go up.&nbsp; To that question, I don't feel my answers are contridictory.&nbsp; Numbers go up because the designers are cateering to a particular popular experience in a game, and some might argue the essential experience of a game - the illusion of success.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5142681, member: 4937"] Err... hmmm.. I was thinking of things more like Nethack, King's Quest, Bard's Tale, etc. I know virtually nothing about console games, but the general consensus seems to be that while the newer FF's are better games than the older ones, they are in fact easier. I'm not going to comment on this except to say that with a module like TH, a group playing 1e 11th level characters does not necessarily possess a strong advantage over those playing 1e 3rd level characters. How many groups would have failed to get through your 4e Ultimate Delve with characters that were 12 levels higher than the ones you used - say 18th level Paragons rather than 6th level characters? That is what I'm referring to when I talk about changes in how difficulty is measured. Better =/= Harder. Harder =/= Better. However, I can assure you that while Diablo is essentially Nethack with better graphics, the ASCII version of the game is the far more difficult one. Which one of those two classic and admirable games is better is not to me an interesting question. Sometimes I might enjoy playing either one. But the question, "Why must numbers go up?", is not I think answered by saying, "Well, duh, obviously the numbers being bigger means a better game!" I was advancing a position on why game designers decide it is a good idea to make numbers go up. To that question, I don't feel my answers are contridictory. Numbers go up because the designers are cateering to a particular popular experience in a game, and some might argue the essential experience of a game - the illusion of success. [/QUOTE]

Verification