Comments - Aleksander_Rasputin

to Super-humanity...ness

Comming from a past of pen&paper RPGs like DSA, Shadowrun and D&D Superhumanness was the part I always hated the most. The Systems in a way made this possible or encouraged to use the rules to the best possibility.
Which lead to absurd amounts of orks/men/similar like some may know in form of the 3847 orc card from Munchkin.
Or just impossible strong highlevel NPCs to match the players strenght to not lose the tension and difficulty of the game.

This was/is like a vivous circle players start to strong and as they grow in strenght so have to do the NPCs.

I totally agree that one should start as low in skill as possible so that you enter the upward spiral og inhumanness as late as possible.

to Gratuitous resurrection

I might have a proposal for you comming from the Call of Cthulhu universe, to be exactly from the Boardgame "arkham horror" in which if you get "die" you may choose to be treated in the hospital and take on turn to heal,
or
you choose to draw a card which gives you a disadvantage further in the game.
It depends here if you lost all your "psychological" hitpoints, then you draw a psychic disadvantage or if you lost all your "physiological" hitpoint, then you draw a body disadvantage

To your opinion conserning Squad/Teamplay, I have to say, I get your point, but personally I absolutly hate Group PC games. Because the AI is not as responsibly as myself playing and if I play all characters its simply to much to handle for me to actually enjoy.

So far
hopefully structured enough
Yours

to 2.

Im in no way satisfied with the way AI currently works. Im talking about shooter AI`s. They are mostly to dumb, running against walls when Im standing beside them, or too good, hitting in unrealistic godlike ways. As from what I know RTS AI's does seem to have reached a very realistic level.

Totally agree to your view. If we try to illustrate a realitic view of things and a fear of dying this must also apply to the AI

to 3.

I stated some my thought regarding the 3rd of your points above. Especially the gamers choice of saving or not.

Yes this medical system showing you how time/money-costly beeing close
to death can become seems very sound to me, but is missing the psychological side like war-veteran-flashbacks (just to illustrate what I mean)

to 4.

Yes this is the very tricky part. Beeing able to transfer a detailed system in a way that can be thought through by the player.
As an example I would like to mention the game "desktop-dungeons" in which a players death is in nearly every case a mistake that can be prohibited by knowing the system working in the background.

So if we take saving away from the players we have to have a easy to master but realistic game rules.

to 1.

I agree to what you say. I dont know if you didnt finish this one branch of the decision-tree, or if you just left it due to the lenght of the text.
Corresponding to a realistic physiological medical system, imho a psychological system is needed.

I mean how can you justify a complex wound system with hit zones and consequences like "arm wounded not beeing able to wield 2hand weapons" when you miss 50% of the whole system.
We are talking about a realistic transfer of fear of death to everyones screen dont we?

so things like heartbeat, adrenalin level, blood loss, fog of war, psychological consequences because of death, killing, etc. shouldn´t be left out.

In fights you are reduced to actions and reactions due to your training. Your body reacts faster if you dont think about every move. The adrenalin level also "saves" you from aktually feeling the blood loss and pain and what is called "fight or flight" saves you from the psychological consequences till the end of the fight.

So actually the bad time is the time the fighting stopps.

I just felt kind of "forced" to answer to this great post. Despite my lack of programming experience as a normal User its nice to finally find a kind a kindred soulexperienced enough to transform the idea into a game

This post made me realise how the question alone is kind of the holy grail of questions.
Answering to the question :"is saving bad?" with "yes" kind of is the root to the Decision-tree which follows up.

I couldnt agree more. Saving is bad. Decision progresses players normally take cease to apply.
Why risk dying when u could just press F5 and retry endlessly.

But

I've beend playing two PC conversions of console-ego-shooters, beeing "wolfenstein" and "singularity", and I have to say that the System of checkpoints doesnt appeal me either.
Replaying the same scene over and OVER again doesn't do the trick either.
Knowing at which point in time which exact scripted action is going to take place just rips of the exactly same thought progress from the player than pressing F5.

So in essence NOT knowing is the deadly part, and the part to which you revere as no-go and "ripping the player of what he has earned"

My personal logical consequence to that is:

-- Either one tries to walk the line between these two extremes

Or

-- Why not making the "Art of saving" part of the game experience?
Why not lay the choice in the player's hand?

my first thought would be something like:

You may save but you either get a disadvantage for saving or an advantage for not saving. I dont know in a way of extra experience or something.

So the holy grail question is answered. The decisions which follow are answered by you at least in parts.