Live data from Hacker News

The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

111–120 of 149 posts

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#111
Well, Ebrietas and Rom in Bloodborne are the only two monsters that aren't actively hostile, and both have lore backstories (including their genetic relationship) explaining that. Killing Ebrietas is optional, which works against the idea that the game is setting you up to question the ethics of monster-killing; many players don't even realize they can walk away from Ebrietas, because the game absolutely primes you to just get in and start whacking.

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, IMO something that has infected modern mainstream TTRPG: Monsters hardly run away, even if a fireball just killed half of you. One thing B/X AD&D got right were the heavy use of Moral Checks, e.g. Check their morale on first death in enemy party, when half have died, etc. In fact, fighting is deadly and scary. And these morale checks differentiated undead as that enemy that knows no fear and had no morale ch…

I wonder, could Morale checks have been inherited from Chainmail? I could see them coming from a wargame…

I believe it did, actually. Morale checks are pretty common in war games.

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#113

> Contrary to Flowey’s advice, the game can be finished without a single kill, leading to a special ending, but this pacifist route is markedly more difficult. ...huh? This is very much not true. The most difficult[0] encounters happen on the Genocide route, in which you powerlevel like it's a normal JRPG until the encounters run out. Pacifist is only slightly harder than a "No Mercy" neutral run[1]. For the first tw…

I think "the pacifist route is more difficult than the default route" and "The pacifist route is the hardest way to play the game" are two different statements. The article said the first, but you're reacting as if it said the second.

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#114
Well I'm no gaming enthusiast so I have a very limited range that I can fully enjoy at my low accomplishment level.

Must be quite the opposite of a real gamer, so I naturally like the simpler and less complex approach.

More or less the easy stuff, and I'm not completely alone.

I think first and foremost, a particular game should be fun from quite early on before you have developed much deep experience, and then any progress through different levels should be logical and straightforward.

In both respects from my simple-minded starting point I guess I enjoy it most when it's about as rewarding as finishing off an order of french fries :)

Talk about excitement rising to melancholy amounts . . .

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#115
post #12

> As a result, the game offers no easy satisfaction of hacking and slashing through weaker opponents. Besides the questionable morality of kill=experience=progress in typical hack'n'slash or roguelike, what started to irritate me in there as I grew older as well, was the stupid mechanics where crowds of enemies described as intelligent humanoids (i.e. not animals or robots) facing clearly overpowered high-level PC (f…

That's because the only thing that became "realistic" were the graphics. People don't really want realism anywhere else, because realism means infinite complexity. They just want to hack'n'slash.

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#116
My own anecdote related to this idea was on a playthrough of Skyrim.

I was between objectives and wandering through the map. I came across one of the ubiquitous caves which I decided to enter. I was attacked by some generic low-level bandits and I cleared the cave.

After dispatching the enemies I was looting through the cave and came across some letters. They detailed a tale of a family that came on hard times in a nearby town and were forced homeless by circumstance, how they were trying to rebuild their lives, etc. I looked around the cave and could tell the individuals mentioned in the letter were accounted for in the cave. I mean, they were generic bandit models but the designer had matched them to the narrative.

I thought about the situation. I was this extremely high level wizardy kind of build trekking though the wilderness and I came across an encampment. When I barged into their makeshift home they rightly were like "get out". And then I slaughtered them all with no reason and was now deciding if the clutter was worth packing and re-selling.

I more or less stopped playing Skyrim after that.

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#117
post #17
post #12

> As a result, the game offers no easy satisfaction of hacking and slashing through weaker opponents. Besides the questionable morality of kill=experience=progress in typical hack'n'slash or roguelike, what started to irritate me in there as I grew older as well, was the stupid mechanics where crowds of enemies described as intelligent humanoids (i.e. not animals or robots) facing clearly overpowered high-level PC (f…

Game developers (mostly... hopefully?) try to optimize for the "fun" aspect of a game, not the "realism of the flight/flight instinct" aspect

You definitely don't want too much realism, for most games - you probably don't want to manage bathroom trips! We just assume it happens "off camera"

But when humanoid enemies behave in plainly stupid ways it's a real immersion-breaker for me. I've been gaming a looooong time, so I'm quite adept at the necessary mental gymnastics to enjoy stuff anyway... but... still... games could be better here. (And by "better" I mean "more fun")

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#118
post #12

> As a result, the game offers no easy satisfaction of hacking and slashing through weaker opponents. Besides the questionable morality of kill=experience=progress in typical hack'n'slash or roguelike, what started to irritate me in there as I grew older as well, was the stupid mechanics where crowds of enemies described as intelligent humanoids (i.e. not animals or robots) facing clearly overpowered high-level PC (f…

It's hard to make enemies behave realistically because people will quickly catch on their patterns.

Fallout 76 mobs, for example, make use of line of sight harder than other Bethesda games. They won't spawn where the players are looking, and prefer to spawn at their backs to get a free cheap shot and stagger. With enough players looking everywhere, they might be forced to spawn visibly, but near an object they can use as cover. Also, they have a sixth sense that makes them walk towards a cover if you aim your weapon at them from afar while hidden.

It's also notable that a near-death enemy will sometimes flee out of your reach to regen health, and attack you again when it's healthy enough. They will also flee/cover if they're a melee type and you climb where they can't reach you, waiting for you to climb down.

I guess the idea was making them realistic, but sometimes this behavior devolves into hide and seek, which can become frustrating as they can use ridiculous things as cover, like chain link fences, floor grills, or a sapling.

I have enough realism IRL, I prefer games that prioritize entertaining mechanics rather than frustrating realism.

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#119
It's something Roger Scruton writes about in Modern Culture. He pointed out that one of the distinguishing features of modern entertainment media is the collapse of persons into bodies, subjects into objects, fantasy rather than imagination.

In the imagination that art produces, and I agree with the article that Shadow of the Colossus deserves that label, enemies are not bodies, they're persons. In great art they can be more real than reality. In fantasies bodies are consumed for gratification and stimulation, they have no interior life.

It's also the difference between pornography and erotic art. In the former the people depicted become objects not even bodies but body parts, they're profaned. The only person that matters is the consumer. In erotic art it's the opposite, the eroticism happens between the subjects of the art, the viewer is placed at a distance.

There's a lot of games that have wrestled with this in regards to violence. Kojima back in the day already in Metal Gear Solid 2 but he made it an explicit design choice in Death Stranding (less so in the second than the first one, sadly I suspect for commercial reasons) in a way that reminded me a lot of SotC.

Re: The Melancholy of Slaying Monsters

#120
post #23
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game developers (mostly... hopefully?) try to optimize for the "fun" aspect of a game, not the "realism of the flight/flight instinct" aspect

Sure, but I don't think they must be mutually exclusive; on the contrary: in the late stages when your character is a tank, swarms of minions that posed a challenge in early stages become just a nuisance, mostly. You are walking legend slaying dragons for breakfast, everybody and their dog knows about your invincibility … but instead of giving you some respect, they try to bite your heels on the first sight. I guess…

"Man, after I finished the main quest and slayed ther Dragon God(TM), nothing has attacked me for days. I guess I'll start a farm."
Post reply on HN