lethediver wrote:Sar wrote:Can you provide any pro arguments, apart from your feeling? I mean, that might sound like a stupid answer, but Crawl manual actually makes an argument that
supports the existence of unavoidable deaths as a feature of Crawl. Here's that section:
- Code:
The possibility of unavoidable deaths is a larger topic in computer games.
Ideally, a game like this would be really challenging and have both random
layout and random course of action, yet still be winnable with perfect
play. This goal seems out of reach. Thus, computer games can be soft in the
sense that optimal play ensures a win. Apart from puzzles, though, this
means that the game is solved from the outset; this is where the lack of a
human game-master is obvious. Alternatively, they can be hard in the sense
that unavoidable deaths can occur. We feel that the latter choice provides
much more fun in the long run.
"This goal seems out of reach."
This is the part I disagree with. I think the goal is already 99% of the way there and only need 1% to complete. Crawl is very well balanced in terms of difficulty.
I wrote that paragraph quoted from the manual and you do it no service by quoting only half of it: it is trivial to make every game winnable. The problem is to keep up the challenge.
Why should every game be winnable? For many reasons. Because the point of playing a game (other than fun) is to win.
Crawl has a score, so achieving the best score for a very tough seed works for me.
Because a well designed game always have a path for the player to do this.
How do you expect to get away with this claim? Chess and Go are arguably well designed games and have no-win states (draw in Chess; for Go, jigo with even komi, or triple ko). Crawl is a single player game, but is has randomly generated content. Ensuring wins means we have to cut off a huge part of the evil end of the random tail... and in my opinion, that's the most interesting part of the game you would lose.
For concrete examples: games where the RNG throws OOD after OOD at you, or which are resource starved, e.g. the first potion of heal wounds is on D:12, and so on. Yes, many players will perish, but this is precisely the opportunity for really good players to shine.
You argue to remove the most dangerous early game killers, which is something different. However, I object to your thrust: instead of artifically removing dangers from the game, we should make sure that later parts of the game become more dangerous, so provide opportunities for good play to shine.
Because games where you can always win (even if very rare or very hard) are a true test of skill, and not merely luck. Because it may someday result in really fucking impressive streak.
This is the worst point in your list, in my opinion. As an ad-hoc definition of the
depth of Crawl, I take the maximum winrate over all species/background combinations, assuming optimal play, running over all players. It's a number between 0 and 1, and quite close to 1. You are argue it should be 1.
(This is inspired by the notion of depth for abstract board games which applies to Chess, Go and the like.)
The crucial bit is: making every game winnable
reduces depth. I am very much interested in a deep game, so I don't want that. The puzzles mentioned in the pas-de-faq have very little depth (I know people who argue that these are not actually games, but that is another issue.)
In concrete terms: I want to be able to distinguish mediocre, good, very good and excellent players. This is not possible if you lower the risk threshold too much. (I'd argue it is too low in current Crawl.)
In my opinion, we should actually strive to make the game harder, streaks be damned. I don't know what a good winrate one should aim for (say among viable species/background combinations), but I am certain is should be more like 80% rather than 100%. If every game is winnable at the outset, you forfeit a big chunk of potential depth.