Food and Puzzles don't mix

[Dr.Disaster]

I don't really understand why it sounds like you are taking issue with me suggesting that trying to play though the game without eating would be interesting. Unless you think that something hardcore can't be interesting.

Perhaps you should try your suggestion and tell us if it actually is interesting. I had a lot of fun playing a single wizard thru the game without drinking a single potion. Afterwards i did it with a whole party of mages but that was not really different compared to a regular play-thru.

Nowhere are those two things exclusive of each other. So how about you enlighten us plebs and share your reasoning for why there's something 'funny' about the fact that I suggested both a run without drinking potions and a run without eating food.

Didn't i make that clear already? The funny part is you think eating nothing and drinking all the time is interesting while drinking nothing and eating all the time is hardcore. What might be tougher to do: winning all battles with halved damage output and tons of replenishment or winning all battles with full damage output and massively limited replenishment?

[Azel]

In LoG 1 I was not compelled to come to the forums to post a discussion about the removal of food. This is because LoG 1 felt very much like a traditional old-school crawler, pure dungeon atmosphere with simulation features like "hunger"; so food made sense in that world.

So you didn't mind food in LoG 1 because it made sense to you there? I can only imagine that you'd feel that it makes sense because your characters are trapped in what amounts to a prison with 'no ready supply of food' so having to manage their hunger by scrounging for whatever scraps of food they can manage to find adds to the immersion. On that note though I fail to see how LoG 2 is any different. Your characters were prisoners on a boat and got shipwrecked on an island far from any traces of actual civilization. It's a wilderness and they end up there with nothing, so hunger is a very real thing that they would have to contend with, just like your characters in LoG 1 had to contend with it. Now if the game took place somewhere that had a village or other friendly area where you could reasonably see your characters stopping there to 'stock up' on food, then food would be less of a thing you'd need to manage as it's not a part of the survival of your characters.

Fair assessment. I suppose the distinction I should have made is that the puzzles in Grimrock 1 felt very "dungeon crawler" in their delivery; whereas puzzles in Grimrock 2 feel much more sophisticated. It is this sophistication that has prompted my opinion that the game has outgrown food. Although now that we have talked about it so much, I think what I'm really saying is that the game has outgrown "hunger." Food is fine (how else will a Farmer level up??) - hunger feels unnecessary.

But I like where your going with your retort. How is LoG 2 different as a game world? Well, in part 2 we have a Farmer class who only levels up by 'eating'. We did not have that in Grimrock 1. The idea behind the Farmer class is that there is so much food available that you could have a party of 4 Farmers and still hit max level. There's actually so much food available in Grimrock 2 that you can take all 4 Farmers to level 20 - which is much much harder a level to achieve with the other character classes who rely on "killing" to increase their levels. In Grimrock 2 you can Farm for food, not really something you can do trapped in a prison.

Can you see where this is going? In Grimrock 2 there is no concept of having to find food to appease hunger because your party is trapped on an an Island that provides unlimited amounts of food, both with monsters that drop food and water that provides fish as a food source. That is completely different from Grimrock 1 where you're trapped in a prison with absolutely no direct food source (ie, no unlimited fishing).

In Grimrock 2 there is so much food that a Farmer class can quickly and easily out-level every single other class in the game.

Also, we don't need a village or other friendly area to "stock up" on food... where do you think villages get their food stock from anyway? They get it from doing things like fishing. In Grimrock 2 we cut out the middle man! Spoiler: in one of the endings in Grimrock 2 your party gets to remain on the Island as its protectors. Theoretically, the party could gather all the unlimited food and create a village to sell/trade food to others. Tada!

So whether we are talking about the sophistication of the puzzles or the actual game setting, I still hold the opinion that "hunger" has no real place in the second game.

[Anurias]

Didn't i make that clear already? The funny part is you think eating nothing and drinking all the time is interesting while drinking nothing and eating all the time is hardcore.

No, you haven't made anything clear because it still sounds like you are insinuating that 'interesting' and 'hardcore' are mutually exclusive. I never claimed that playing without eating wasn't hardcore, I simply said I thought it was interesting. I also think that doing a run without drinking potions would be interesting. Both are harder to do than just a standard playthrough and both require you to consider things you wouldn't necessarily consider in a normal run. So again, I don't see what's funny about me stating that something is interesting and stating something is hardcore. The two statements are completely independent statements that don't have any effect on the other statement.

[Azel]

Didn't i make that clear already? The funny part is you think eating nothing and drinking all the time is interesting while drinking nothing and eating all the time is hardcore.

No, you haven't made anything clear because it still sounds like you are insinuating that 'interesting' and 'hardcore' are mutually exclusive. I never claimed that playing without eating wasn't hardcore, I simply said I thought it was interesting. I also think that doing a run without drinking potions would be interesting. Both are harder to do than just a standard playthrough and both require you to consider things you wouldn't necessarily consider in a normal run. So again, I don't see what's funny about me stating that something is interesting and stating something is hardcore. The two statements are completely independent statements that don't have any effect on the other statement.

Trust me when I say that no one else thinks your two statements are contradictory or funny or anything other than perfectly sensible. A run without food and a run without potions (and even a run without neither food nor potions) can all be interesting and hardcore.

...

I personally find the idea of playing through Grimrock without neither food nor potions to be an exercise in extreme masochism.

[Taem]

This conversation reminds me of my argument on health/hit points in sandboxed video games, such as Super Mario Bros. You can never actually "die", so why have a health system at all? You go from big, to small, to dead, but when you "die", you just restart the level from your last checkpoint. Losing all your lives results in having to restart from the last save point, but since you can never really die, what's the point of having health at all? Why not have all video games without the rogue-like element of a permanent death have infinite health?

I'll tell you why, it's because it adds flavor to the game, and brings a minor amount of excitement in the form of punishment for failure to excel at what would otherwise be a repetitive, monotonous exercise in controller reflexes, i.e. fine-motor-control. Having said that, I believe this is also the function of food in a game like GR2 - to bring an added element of punishment to those not adhering to the rules of the game, and for those willing to bend the rules (i.e. not eating), an added level of difficulty.

. . .


On a mostly unrelated note, for philosophizing on this subject I can grasp the merits of this conversation, but I think it's clear the designers don't give a flying f- about fixing the balance issues in this game, so in regards to the potential outcome of this topic, why continue this conversation? You talk about a four-man farmer team making it to the end, but I have yet to see a four-man firearm squad... because the designers don't care, despite how much others and I have gripped about lack of ammo in this game, with others have posted excellent remedies via crafting. That [firearms] is just one of the examples that many posters have expressed their thoughts on using these forums, but the designers have shown they really don't care, so what do you expect to accomplish by discussing this matter anyways? It may be interesting, but is solves nothing. I'm still waiting for a balance patch before I play this game again and if one never comes, then I won't be purchasing GR3, which is really where conversations like this lead to, isn't it? I mean, discussing these ideologies on these particular forums is mainly for the sake of the developers to see and fathom rather they like/dislike the concepts to add to the next iteration - is this a fair statement? But if they [the developers] refuse to fix inherently broken functions in the current game, then what's the point of any of this? I guess to see it in GR3... a game I'll never purchase until GR2 see's some attention. Sorry to hijack your thread with my thoughts - been awhile since I've been back on these forums and seems I haven't missed a damn thing. Signing out for a good while. Take care.

[Dr.Disaster]

Didn't i make that clear already? The funny part is you think eating nothing and drinking all the time is interesting while drinking nothing and eating all the time is hardcore.

No, you haven't made anything clear because it still sounds like you are insinuating that 'interesting' and 'hardcore' are mutually exclusive. I never claimed that playing without eating wasn't hardcore, I simply said I thought it was interesting. I also think that doing a run without drinking potions would be interesting.

In general "interesting" is something players might want to try themselfs while "hardcore" is commonly used when players do not believe the same something to be possible and thus they usually don't even try. Your reply suggests you changed your mind from "highly doubtful/pretty hardcore" to "interesting" during the past few weeks regarding potionless playing.

Both are harder to do than just a standard playthrough and both require you to consider things you wouldn't necessarily consider in a normal run.

I agree on the later but both being harder? Nah, a no-food-run is not much harder then a regular playthru. Players already used to potions do not wait until health/energy regen themselfs. They just down another potion so it's exactly the same for them, food or not. Even the permanently halved weapon damage can be set off for strength-based weapons rather easy: use Rage potions. Being used to play with low-end gear also helps a lot. Naturally potion making and taking aka micro-management might increase by a good margin but that's about it because alchemists do supply the party with a near infinite amount of reagents and in case reagents do run low just walk yourself a new stockpile.

[sarsharek]

I hardly see grimrock 2 as having "greatly matured" from grimrock 1. the scenery is different, thats the only difference. Character building was just as much a part of the oldschool games of the genre as it is now. Managing hunger adds to the immersion and fun for me and many others. it also adds to you'r total weight that you'r carrying wich is another dimension you need to manage.

edit - maybe to keep evolving it they can have some sort of 'hunting" type of activity that you can do on the island (like in the next game or whatever), to make sure you bring enough food down into the dungeon with you. maybe limitless food in the overworld but make the levels long and not have any or very little food so you have to bring it with you. that would be cool.

[Azel]

brings a minor amount of excitement in the form of punishment

There's a word for people who get excitement in the form of punishment: masochists

I would agree that the "hunger" element is enjoyable for the type of gamer who has masochistic tendencies. They are the same gamers who are most likely to use those other masochistic options like Singe-use Crystals and Iron Man mode. I have no problem with the masochistic features being "checkbox options" instead of mandatory requirements. If hunger were another checkbox option then, viola, problem solved. That way the non-masochistic gamers like myself are also gaining full excitement (from the lack of punishment).

Interestingly enough, I had come up with a way to enjoy a second playthrough of Grimrock 2 that was properly rewarding, as opposed to masochistic, I called it Doomrock:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9067

I have yet to see a four-man firearm squad

That is exactly what my Doomrock approach to the main campaign of Grimrock accomplishes: a 4-man firearm squad. And I came up with that approach because I noticed that once you beat Grimrock 2, the only other readily-available option for further Main Campaign playthroughs is doing it all over again from a masochistic approach via Singe-use Crystals and Iron Man mode. Since I'm not masochistic yet I love the main campaign of LoG 2, I came up with a fun way to enjoy it; and a 4-man firearm squad seemed ideal.

You should give it a shot, I think you'd enjoy it

[sarsharek]

You cant just lump things together without any proof. because it rarely adds up correctly. I cant speak for anyone else but i like the hunger system and alway's play the game on hard mode. however i dont use iron man or single use crystal mode. never have. To each their own.

[Anurias]

In general "interesting" is something players might want to try themselfs while "hardcore" is commonly used when players do not believe the same something to be possible and thus they usually don't even try. Your reply suggests you changed your mind from "highly doubtful/pretty hardcore" to "interesting" during the past few weeks regarding potionless playing.

Sorry Dr.Disaster, but your grasp of the English language has failed you yet again.

Interesting
Adj.
Engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity.

Hardcore
Adj.
Very intense or extreme

(Those are definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com/ in case you want to check the source. I didn't include all the variants of the definition because the others didn't apply to the context in any way. One definition of Hardcore was a 'type of music' for example, obviously doesn't apply so not included. Feel free to check the reference though, none of the definitions support your stance.)

So as you can see, something can be 'Very intense or extreme' and also be 'Engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity.' I never said anything about a run without potions to not be interesting. Also what one person finds interesting, another may not. What is interesting to any individual person is their personal opinion and tastes. Similarly, what is hardcore is a matter of personal opinion as well since different people find different levels of things to be intense or extreme. For example, I'm sure you feel that beating LoG 2 on easy mode isn't hard, but I've got some statistics that prove that wrong.

If you look at the global stats for Steam Achievements you'll see that only 14.6% of the people that have the game on Steam have beaten the Lindworm regardless of difficulty setting. Now you might go and say, 'Well that includes all the people that have the game but haven't played it.' That's true, so let's only count the 74% of people that have the game and have beaten the first boss, those people clearly have played the game and everyone that has beaten the Lindworm has to have beaten the first boss, so we end up with 19.7% of the players that have beaten the first boss have gone on to beat the Lindworm. That's about 1 in 5 people that have actually played the game regardless of difficulty setting have made it past the Lindworm. I don't know what you think about that, but I think that sounds pretty hard. Then you start throwing other things into the mix like 'no potions' or 'no food' and you're taking something that already is hard and making it even harder.

The point here is that I don't have to change my mind about something being hardcore in order for it to be interesting. There are plenty of ways to play the game that I find to be interesting ways to play it and some of those ways are more hardcore than others, and some of the things you may have thought were easy, are insanely difficult for others, but that doesn't mean that all of those players that found it that difficult didn't find it interesting.