1st July 2007, 5:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 1st July 2007, 6:08 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
Okay let me put it this way. Knowing everything I'm going to encounter in advance is interesting, ala a strategy game for example, but on the other hand, for the sheer thrill of adventure, I like not knowing what's coming up or having to revise my knowledge of how the world works.
To put it another way, I like needing to apply the scientific method to discover the inner workings of the world I'm in. Our universe is basically one big undocumented system, for example, and you need to poke and prod to get some understanding of what's going on. Of course the difference is in a game you can peel back the veil of reality and take a look at some hex to sorta "cheat" and figure out how it all works.
All that said, internal consistancy is fun too, and even I have my limits and annoyances for lack of consistancy in a game that otherwise DOES go for the internal consistancy style. Here's an example. Super Smash Bros. On the one hand, I have no problem with impossible things like the Master Hand or the crazy rules that apply in those missions. Those are pretty much defined as "irregular events" in and of themselves and I love them all for doing weird things you can't do. HOWEVER, that stops with me playing a standard VS match against CPU opponents, normal rules. If I suddenly saw the AI doing stuff that is outright physically impossible, I'd be frustrated. Mind you, they would pretty much have to to have a chance of beating someone that's basically figured out exactly how those bots will react in any given situation, but again, in those situations, I want consistancy. Soul Calibur's adventure modes as opposed to standard arcade modes are another example of where I'll welcome inconsistancy on one hand and be upset about it in another. Actually I can think of a number of fighting games where AI can pull off impossible combinations of moves back to back, or with odd timing, if only because the AI doesn't actually input the button codes but just uses the move directly (it should have to go through the internal code motions of inputting the button codes I'd say, not that hard to program really as any controller input can be fed into that same module from another module instead).
Hmm, another example is those Pokemon Stadium games, and their Round 2 modes specifically. Pokemon is all about internal consistancy. Everything plays by the same rules (AI just like humans can run out of "PP" for moves and be reduced to struggling). However, Round 2, which is harder anyway due to superior move sets, better AI scripts and higher stats on the pokemon you face (all still attainable through legitimate means for you the player), gets harder for one very big annoying and stupid reason. Namely, the AI has "fixed dice". In round 2, anything with random effects is weighted in the AI's favor. So, that move that instant kills but only hits 1 in 5 times suddenly starts working (for the AI) 3 in 5 times. THIS is an example of internal inconsistancy I can't stand. It's a cheap way to increase difficulty to simply allow the computer to do stuff that's impossible. Actually Perfect Dark had a similar thing with it's "Dark Sims". While Perfect Sims were as good as they could get the AI without cheating, Dark Sims just plain cheat. They have incredibly high accuracy on guns that fire in a sporadic pattern (it's impossible for a human player to get perfect strings of headshots at a distance with a frickin' reaper, because the shots go pretty much everywhere), and also, most notably, they can move at insane and impossible speeds, but only when you aren't looking. Here, I'll accept it but only because it's just an option for multiplayer (and special "unusual rules" missions, which already defy a lot of rule sets anyway) and not how the bots ALWAYS work.
So, I have standards, but I still want them to keep making games that lack this internal consistancy for the fun they prodive as well.
To put it another way, I like needing to apply the scientific method to discover the inner workings of the world I'm in. Our universe is basically one big undocumented system, for example, and you need to poke and prod to get some understanding of what's going on. Of course the difference is in a game you can peel back the veil of reality and take a look at some hex to sorta "cheat" and figure out how it all works.
All that said, internal consistancy is fun too, and even I have my limits and annoyances for lack of consistancy in a game that otherwise DOES go for the internal consistancy style. Here's an example. Super Smash Bros. On the one hand, I have no problem with impossible things like the Master Hand or the crazy rules that apply in those missions. Those are pretty much defined as "irregular events" in and of themselves and I love them all for doing weird things you can't do. HOWEVER, that stops with me playing a standard VS match against CPU opponents, normal rules. If I suddenly saw the AI doing stuff that is outright physically impossible, I'd be frustrated. Mind you, they would pretty much have to to have a chance of beating someone that's basically figured out exactly how those bots will react in any given situation, but again, in those situations, I want consistancy. Soul Calibur's adventure modes as opposed to standard arcade modes are another example of where I'll welcome inconsistancy on one hand and be upset about it in another. Actually I can think of a number of fighting games where AI can pull off impossible combinations of moves back to back, or with odd timing, if only because the AI doesn't actually input the button codes but just uses the move directly (it should have to go through the internal code motions of inputting the button codes I'd say, not that hard to program really as any controller input can be fed into that same module from another module instead).
Hmm, another example is those Pokemon Stadium games, and their Round 2 modes specifically. Pokemon is all about internal consistancy. Everything plays by the same rules (AI just like humans can run out of "PP" for moves and be reduced to struggling). However, Round 2, which is harder anyway due to superior move sets, better AI scripts and higher stats on the pokemon you face (all still attainable through legitimate means for you the player), gets harder for one very big annoying and stupid reason. Namely, the AI has "fixed dice". In round 2, anything with random effects is weighted in the AI's favor. So, that move that instant kills but only hits 1 in 5 times suddenly starts working (for the AI) 3 in 5 times. THIS is an example of internal inconsistancy I can't stand. It's a cheap way to increase difficulty to simply allow the computer to do stuff that's impossible. Actually Perfect Dark had a similar thing with it's "Dark Sims". While Perfect Sims were as good as they could get the AI without cheating, Dark Sims just plain cheat. They have incredibly high accuracy on guns that fire in a sporadic pattern (it's impossible for a human player to get perfect strings of headshots at a distance with a frickin' reaper, because the shots go pretty much everywhere), and also, most notably, they can move at insane and impossible speeds, but only when you aren't looking. Here, I'll accept it but only because it's just an option for multiplayer (and special "unusual rules" missions, which already defy a lot of rule sets anyway) and not how the bots ALWAYS work.
So, I have standards, but I still want them to keep making games that lack this internal consistancy for the fun they prodive as well.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)