Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I think death in rpgs should be final !!!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 2:36:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,israel.amix (More info?)

Reviving is unrealistic and reloading saved games is cheating! Real
men play games like nethack where a dead character is dead forever!

RPGs with priests who can revive characters are not realistic, because
in most rpgs important NPCs die while your characters can be
resurrected.This is stupid.Death must be final or everybody could die
without consequences in such a world!

So I demand that all rpg deaths are final.Destroyed things are
destroyed, dead things are dead, lost body parts are lost forever !

More about : death rpgs final

Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:37:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 5 Mar 2005 23:36:07 -0800, insane_pile@yahoo.co.nz (Paul Eisner) wrote:

>Reviving is unrealistic and reloading saved games is cheating! Real
>men play games like nethack where a dead character is dead forever!
>
>RPGs with priests who can revive characters are not realistic, because
>in most rpgs important NPCs die while your characters can be
>resurrected.This is stupid.Death must be final or everybody could die
>without consequences in such a world!
>
>So I demand that all rpg deaths are final.Destroyed things are
>destroyed, dead things are dead, lost body parts are lost forever !

Every month or so, using a fictitious name, this troll floods 5000
newsgroups (all cross-posted to a single low-traffic but unrelated
newsgroup) with superficially relevant comments. The purpose is to disrupt
with off-topic crosspostings.

Like all trolls, he means to annoy and disrupt. The tracking newsgroup is
the way he "keeps score" of how much damage he has caused. Don't put
yourself on display in his trophy case.

If you feel you have to respond to one of his posts, please don't crosspost
to his tracking newsgroup.

Like all trolls, the way to handle him is to IGNORE him.

Take a few minutes of your time and check out the following score cards to
see firsthand what this perverted troll is doing. I promise, you'll be
amazed at just how active and perverted he is. You will see firsthand the
troll's work and his trophies. You will see into the sickness and darkness
of the worst troll on the internet today. Read some of his posts and look at
the headers. You will see than no newsgroup is immune. You will see
flamewars started, some containing over a hundred messages.

Browse the can.uucp newsgroup, his old score card, for Karl-Hugo Weesberg

Browse the is.matur newsgroup, his old score card, for Dan Simper.

Browse the scot.tld newsgroup, his old score card, for Bruno Beam.

Browse the israel.amix newsgroup, his current score card, for Paul Eisner.

He is known as the "anagram troll" because his fictitious names are often
discovered to be anagrams (for example "Dan Simper" is an anagram of
"Spiderman", Bruno Beam is an anagram of "Unabomber").

This guy is a serious troll with a serious problem. Don't be one of his
trophies.

Chances are that I don't subscribe to this newsgroup. I am simply monitoring
the newsgroups the Anagram Troll is using as his score card. Any posts from
me are a result of that monitoring. I normally only post to the newsgroup
being spammed, not to the score card newsgroup, thus I will not see any
replies directly to this post.

Above all, please do not allow him to start a flamewar or extensive
discussion in your newsgroup. He thrives on that. If it is too late, don't
crosspost to his score card newsgroup. That trophy count is his motivation
to continue trolling. Please help stop him in his tracks.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 7:31:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mark Morrison wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2005 23:36:07 -0800, insane_pile@yahoo.co.nz (Paul Eisner)
> wrote:
>
> >Reviving is unrealistic and reloading saved games is cheating! Real
> >men play games like nethack where a dead character is dead forever!
> >
> >RPGs with priests who can revive characters are not realistic,
because
> >in most rpgs important NPCs die while your characters can be
> >resurrected.This is stupid.Death must be final or everybody could
die
> >without consequences in such a world!
> >
> >So I demand that all rpg deaths are final.Destroyed things are
> >destroyed, dead things are dead, lost body parts are lost forever !
>
> An obvious troll, and follow-up group removed. That said -
>
> What's the general opinion on this ? I know Wiz 8 has a Iron Man
> mode, but the thought of playing though W8, even on easy, in IM mode
> fills me with terror. What's the appeal ? The sheer challange of it
> ? Bragging rights ? Do you get a new ending as a reward ?
>
> Personally, I put it down to masochism. :) 

Well, I play everything on Iron Man mode (and usually the hardest
available difficulty level), even if there isn't one. _Everything_. As
you can imagine, I complete very few games... but I take satisfaction
from making it past a certain point.

When I really enjoy a game, I try again and again, and I'm happy if I
manage to make it further than ever before. For instance, after MANY
restarts, I can now make it to Ravenholm in Half-Life 2 (Hard
difficulty level) pretty regularly.

As for Wizardry 8; technically, I do not switch the "Iron Man" switch
on, simply because it's possible to fall through the world geometry in
that game. It happens rarely, but when it does, I reload. Other than
that, though, I play to strict Ironman standards, Hard mode. And it's
possible; I got my characters to level 14 once, and died because I
rested somewhere I shouldn't have (I went exploring around Ascension
peak, and was surprised in my sleep by a bunch of very powerful
nasties).

So yeah, if you want the psychology of the Iron Man player, ask me. For
me, a game is SO MUCH MORE enjoyable if I know that I have to be
careful, that every decision counts. I don't do it for the bragging
rights (nobody really cares). I do it because when (rarely) I die in a
game and I'm frustrated enough to try to "cheat", that is, reload my
last save, playing instantly loses its appeal. The challenge is lost. I
generally play about 3-4 minutes more, then sigh, and restart the game.

So, to recap: I don't do it for the bragging rights. I don't do it for
special endings or in-game bonuses. I do it because that's simply the
way I enjoy playing; the tedium of having to redo the beginning over
and over again is more than balanced out by the raw excitement of
knowing I could die anytime.

As for everyone else: you should play games however you _enjoy_ playing
them. They're your games, and your computer, after all. :) 

Laszlo
Related resources
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 12:48:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg Paul Eisner <insane_pile@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Reviving is unrealistic and reloading saved games is cheating! Real
> men play games like nethack where a dead character is dead forever!

Actually, I sort of agree. If I ever make a CRPG, it will have a "Weenie
Mode" where you can save and restore all you like, and an "Iron Man" mode
where you can only save to quit playing. When you die, you lose the save
file.

> So I demand that all rpg deaths are final.

Ah, touch with reality slipping away there. Write your own RPG if you
don't like what others are doing.


mcv.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 1:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 5 Mar 2005 23:36:07 -0800, insane_pile@yahoo.co.nz (Paul Eisner)
wrote:

>Reviving is unrealistic and reloading saved games is cheating! Real
>men play games like nethack where a dead character is dead forever!
>
>RPGs with priests who can revive characters are not realistic, because
>in most rpgs important NPCs die while your characters can be
>resurrected.This is stupid.Death must be final or everybody could die
>without consequences in such a world!
>
>So I demand that all rpg deaths are final.Destroyed things are
>destroyed, dead things are dead, lost body parts are lost forever !

An obvious troll, and follow-up group removed. That said -

What's the general opinion on this ? I know Wiz 8 has a Iron Man
mode, but the thought of playing though W8, even on easy, in IM mode
fills me with terror. What's the appeal ? The sheer challange of it
? Bragging rights ? Do you get a new ending as a reward ?

Personally, I put it down to masochism. :) 

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:55:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

> As for everyone else: you should play games however you _enjoy_ playing
> them. They're your games, and your computer, after all. :) 

All valid points, but here is the other side of the argument.

-Not wanting to play the beginning of the game over and over. Because,
let's face it. The beginning of most RPGs is pretty boring. Your character
has no skills or special abilities, and at the beginning, most characters
are pretty much essentially the same. It's only after you gained some
skills that one character type is distinctly different from another. For
example, the difference between a fighter and a mage at the beginning is
pretty minimal. Since the mage hasn't learned many spells yet, and the
fighter is not yet proficient enough with his weapons, they're pretty much
playing the same way. Once you gain a bit of power in your respective
field, the game becomes more interesting, as there are different choices you
must make depending on what skills you've learned.

-Not wanting one's fate decided by buggy software. I've yet to see a game
where there aren't at least SOME potentially fatal bugs. If I lose a
character to incompetance or over-confidence on my part, I'm fine with it.
But if I lose a character due to a server crash or falling through geometry,
or some other bug (healing potions malfunction, accidental spawning of
hugely powerful monsters in places where they shouldn't be at the beginning
of the game, character stuck in wall and unable to dodge attacks at crucial
moment, etc.), I'm going to be seriously pissed.

-Three words. "One hit kills". Personally, I think these should simply not
exist in any game, but particularly if you're playing "Ironman" or
"Hardcore", where death is final. And I'm not just talking hugely powerful
monsters. I'm referring to things like swinging blades that instantly
decapitate you, or spikes that kill you on contact, or pits of lava that you
can fall into and die, or unavoidable traps that do far too much damage,
etc. The worst is when things like this appear without any sort of warning.
You're walking along, and whoops! Trapdoor opens beneath your feet and you
fall to your death on the spikes below. Such deaths should either be
completely removed, easily avoidable, or somehow recoverable, in that death
is not final.

-Not being able to experiment. For me, the most fun in a game derives in
playing in as many different ways as possible. That means being able to
explore new areas without the fear that you'll be killed instantly by the
first monster you see, or being able to try different things, like what
happens when you create a character who only fights bare-fisted or other
weird stuff like that. A "Death-is-final" system encourages players to
create "uber-builds", characters with only the best in equipment and skills.
In some games, you MUST create an "uber-build" if you hope to survive later
in the game. The problem with this is that in any given game, there are
mabye a dozen different viable builds that can survive the later aspects,
and anybody who does anything different gets killed off quickly, so
everybody ends up pretty much the same, so you get situations like "Hey,
look, it's another axe-wielding barbarian. I'll bet I can name all of his
equipment without even asking him..." Since there's only one "best" axe,
and only one "best" armor, etc., and no character would ever consider using
anything other than the best if they can get it, because that's the only way
to survive in a "Death-is-final" world, you end up with a world full of
nearly identical characters with no originality whatsoever.

-PKers. There are people who make it their sole purpose in life to go out
and ruin things for other people. While I respect players' rights to duel
and hold PvP contests, if somebody only wants to play cooperatively, their
work should not be ruined by a bunch of punk kids that band together (and
usually take advantage of 3rd party hacks) in order to take down the decent
folk. As long as there is online gaming, there will always be jerks out
there who want to ruin other people's games. Sad, but true. Since these
types of people generally use very underhanded means of attacking their
victims, you can never really be sure if you're safe or not. Situations
like the player that pretends to be on your side, then fires a whole bunch
of heat-seeking projectiles at nothing, teleports to town and declares
hostile on you, so those missiles are now aimed at you, and the perpetrator
is safe in town - these are unacceptable. (This is a common trick in Diablo
2, but I'm sure there are equivalent devious tactics in almost any online
game. In this particular case, there's a hack out there that does all of
those steps in a faction of a second, giving you no chance whatsoever to
react in time to save yourself.) I personally don't want to live in a world
where "trust no one" is the general rule. At least if death is not final,
the consequences are not so dire.

Anyhow, I think it's a fair bet to say there's just as many people on either
side of the fence, so it would be in the best interest of any game
developper to have both options available. Some people enjoy the thrill of
only being allowed to die once, while others want the option to be able to
come back to life should the unthinkable occur. Forcing one or the other
style of play is not something that I think game developpers should be
doing. Rather, giving the player the option to choose how they want to play
the game is generally the best strategy.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 6:14:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 6 Mar 2005 04:31:26 -0800, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

>As for everyone else: you should play games however you _enjoy_ playing
>them. They're your games, and your computer, after all. :) 

Very true. :D 

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 6:36:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Darrel Hoffman wrote:
> > As for everyone else: you should play games however you _enjoy_
playing
> > them. They're your games, and your computer, after all. :) 
>
> All valid points, but here is the other side of the argument.
>
> -Not wanting to play the beginning of the game over and over.
Because,
> let's face it. The beginning of most RPGs is pretty boring.

<snip>

Absolutely. I can completely understand people who like to reload a lot
(though I do think that people who reload whenever they meet with the
slightest difficulty or when they find themselves in a suboptimal game
state are missing some of the most fun gaming experiences). I do _not_
usually enjoy replaying the beginning of a game over and over again;
it's just that, for me, it's a price worth paying.

> -Not wanting one's fate decided by buggy software. I've yet to see a
game
> where there aren't at least SOME potentially fatal bugs. If I lose a
> character to incompetance or over-confidence on my part, I'm fine
with it.
> But if I lose a character due to a server crash or falling through
geometry,
> or some other bug (healing potions malfunction, accidental spawning
of
> hugely powerful monsters in places where they shouldn't be at the
beginning
> of the game, character stuck in wall and unable to dodge attacks at
crucial
> moment, etc.), I'm going to be seriously pissed.

I completely agree. If I die due to an obvious bug (stuck on walls,
falling through the world geometry), I reload. In games where I know
things like this can happen (Wizardry 8 comes to mind), I don't
actually turn "Ironman mode" on; even though I play Ironman style, I
still want to be able to reload if I'm killed by a bug.

> -Three words. "One hit kills". Personally, I think these should
simply not
> exist in any game, but particularly if you're playing "Ironman" or
> "Hardcore", where death is final.

That depends. There are some games with "one-hit kill" monsters that I
consider to be fair. For example, ADOM and Nethack have basilisks and
cockatrices, respectively, which can kill you with their touch. As long
as it's possible to avoid such monsters or kill them from a distance, I
don't have a problem with them.

Similarly, on Hell (and even Nightmare) difficulty, Diablo 2 has
monsters that can easily one-hit kill the non-melee classes, especially
the Sorceress. I don't see this as a big problem, even in Ironman; if
you can't evade brutal melee monsters with a Sorceress, you shouldn't
be playing on Nightmare or Hell... evasion is a basic skill in that
game.

> And I'm not just talking hugely powerful
> monsters. I'm referring to things like swinging blades that
instantly
> decapitate you, or spikes that kill you on contact, or pits of lava
that you
> can fall into and die, or unavoidable traps that do far too much
damage,
> etc.

Again, there are games with instakill deathtraps that are still fair.
Half-Life 2 is a good example; there are many such traps there; you can
fall to your death, be blown to bits by exploding barrels, sliced apart
by blade traps, electrocuted... the list goes on. But with proper
situational awareness, you need _never_ get caught by any of these
traps. You don't even need twitch reflexes to avoid those traps; just
awareness of your surroundings.

Other games are borderline-unfair, like Severance: Blade of Darkness.
Games with jumping puzzles, or difficult action bits where a mistake
means death.

> The worst is when things like this appear without any sort of
warning.
> You're walking along, and whoops! Trapdoor opens beneath your feet
and you
> fall to your death on the spikes below. Such deaths should either be
> completely removed, easily avoidable, or somehow recoverable, in that
death
> is not final.

I don't actually know any games which have deaths _that_ unfair.
Examples?

> -Not being able to experiment. For me, the most fun in a game
derives in
> playing in as many different ways as possible. That means being able
to
> explore new areas without the fear that you'll be killed instantly by
the
> first monster you see, or being able to try different things, like
what
> happens when you create a character who only fights bare-fisted or
other
> weird stuff like that. A "Death-is-final" system encourages players
to
> create "uber-builds", characters with only the best in equipment and
skills.

This is true; then again, a well-designed game will allow you to do all
these things without guaranteeing your death.

> -PKers. There are people who make it their sole purpose in life to
go out
> and ruin things for other people.

I don't play online much, so I can't really comment on this. I haven't
decided whether I'm going to play "Ironman" if/when I ever play WoW,
for example; I will certainly _try_, on an non-PK server, obviously.

> Anyhow, I think it's a fair bet to say there's just as many people on
either
> side of the fence, so it would be in the best interest of any game
> developper to have both options available. Some people enjoy the
thrill of
> only being allowed to die once, while others want the option to be
able to
> come back to life should the unthinkable occur. Forcing one or the
other
> style of play is not something that I think game developpers should
be
> doing. Rather, giving the player the option to choose how they want
to play
> the game is generally the best strategy.

I agree. Give us maniacs an "Ironman mode", and make saving painless
for the majority. Everyone gets their way.

Incidentally, even though I can (and do) play Ironman in any game, I
appreciate games with an explicit Ironman mode... because it shows that
the developers believe that the game _is_ completable on Ironman. That
is, it usually means that the game is "fair"; no unavoidable
deathtraps, no random instakills, no impossibly difficult bits. And I
think a fair game with decent--but not impossible--difficulty levels is
more fun for everyone, Ironman gamers and reloaders alike.

Laszlo
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:35:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Mark Morrison" <drdpikeuk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k4ll21dqsrothhfqiakqled285lfclmvkm@4ax.com...
>
> What's the general opinion on this ? I know Wiz 8 has a Iron Man
> mode, but the thought of playing though W8, even on easy, in IM mode
> fills me with terror. What's the appeal ? The sheer challange of it
> ? Bragging rights ? Do you get a new ending as a reward ?
>
> Personally, I put it down to masochism. :) 

Or greed in my case :)  Battlecry 3, Ironman mode, you get double XP for
everything, but if you die, your out. Always a bit of a shock to lose a high
level character to an assasin, or to a mob mass which you for some reason
cant outrun. Yep, a bit of a shock, since I just lost my lvl 46 fey
paladin... Almost eye watering shock really. :p 

Ceo-
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:42:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

mcv <mcvmcv@xs2.xs4all.nl> writes:

> Actually, I sort of agree. If I ever make a CRPG, it will have a "Weenie
> Mode" where you can save and restore all you like, and an "Iron Man" mode
> where you can only save to quit playing. When you die, you lose the save
> file.

Moria/Angband etc. beat you to it. Death = death there.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:36:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,israel.amix (More info?)

Hi
I think that death in rpgs should be semi-permant.
It should be like the orignal Wizardry game.
The bodys were left in the dungeon with <some of thier equipment> and you
had to rescue them bring them back to town and resurect them.
I had 2 teams that rotated when one died the backup character would rescue
them lvl up till he died.
Some of the best fun was a rescue party trying with a lone character !
In fact that would be a great game the orginal wizardy made with modern
graphics and sound :) 
I even liked hand maping the dungeon!

"Paul Eisner" <insane_pile@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:D 97491c7.0503052336.71abcb1b@posting.google.com...
> Reviving is unrealistic and reloading saved games is cheating! Real
> men play games like nethack where a dead character is dead forever!
>
> RPGs with priests who can revive characters are not realistic, because
> in most rpgs important NPCs die while your characters can be
> resurrected.This is stupid.Death must be final or everybody could die
> without consequences in such a world!
>
> So I demand that all rpg deaths are final.Destroyed things are
> destroyed, dead things are dead, lost body parts are lost forever !
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:01:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:36:41 -0500, "Rick Ryan" <nighthawk@axecessnet.net>
wrote:

>Hi
>I think that death in rpgs should be semi-permant.
>It should be like the orignal Wizardry game.
>The bodys were left in the dungeon with <some of thier equipment> and you
>had to rescue them bring them back to town and resurect them.

That's the catch right there - some of the equipment (e.g. Rings of
Protection against Crossposters) disappears forever. This can be very
expensive, especially if some items are extremely rare and require tons of
ground pounding to obtain a replacement needed to progress through the rest
of the game.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:47:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:
> mcv <mcvmcv@xs2.xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>> Actually, I sort of agree. If I ever make a CRPG, it will have a "Weenie
>> Mode" where you can save and restore all you like, and an "Iron Man" mode
>> where you can only save to quit playing. When you die, you lose the save
>> file.
>
> Moria/Angband etc. beat you to it. Death = death there.

Roguelikes in general. I'm a fan of AdoM, personally.


mcv.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 4:05:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <1110112286.791891.239950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> As for Wizardry 8; technically, I do not switch the "Iron Man" switch
> on, simply because it's possible to fall through the world geometry in
> that game. It happens rarely, but when it does, I reload. Other than
> that, though, I play to strict Ironman standards, Hard mode. And it's
> possible; I got my characters to level 14 once, and died because I
> rested somewhere I shouldn't have (I went exploring around Ascension
> peak, and was surprised in my sleep by a bunch of very powerful
> nasties).

I'm not quite as hard as you, but reloading would be very rare in Wiz8.
If I barely escape a fight after using up lots of potions etc. i accept
it.

Wiz8 is pretty fair as a rule - battles are tough but if you use good
tactics you should win. The problem is that most games are not like
that. And that is partly due to the harm done by the 'save-reload'
mentality. People will complain if they can complete a game in a few
hours play, even if it involves repeated reloading. So games are made
to be impossible without it.

- Gerry Quinn
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:57:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

> I think that death in rpgs should be semi-permant.
> It should be like the orignal Wizardry game.
> The bodys were left in the dungeon with <some of thier equipment> and you
> had to rescue them bring them back to town and resurect them.
> I had 2 teams that rotated when one died the backup character would rescue
> them lvl up till he died.
> Some of the best fun was a rescue party trying with a lone character !
> In fact that would be a great game the orginal wizardy made with modern
> graphics and sound :) 
> I even liked hand maping the dungeon!

In case Raymond wasn't obvious enough, ALWAYS REMOVE CROSSPOSTS WHEN
RESPONDING TO TROLLS.

Anyhow, this system works - provided you're in a multi-player mode all the
time. But if you're playing a single-player game, or even just adventuring
on your own in a multi-player world, this system doesn't work at all.
Unless you program in some sort of means by which the character wakes up
again in the temple, and as payment for their services, they have taken some
of your prized possessions. Or you could just say that before the temple
acolytes found you, some vagrants looted your corpse and stole anything of
value they could before being driven off. You could even maybe get your
stuff back if you hunted down the vagrants who robbed you, but they'd be
hard to find. There should be a punishment for dying in the game, but not
necessarily a permanent one. Another commonly used tactic is to take away a
good chunk of experience when a character is killed. Diablo 2 is one game
that uses this technique, but it suffers from the fact that you cannot ever
lose enough experience to be demoted a level. So people take the tactic of
doing a dangerous fight just after levelling, so they don't lose anything by
dying over and over again. This is just wrong.

(Personally, I'm against the whole "levelling" process altogether. It's
just really artificial and somewhat arbitrary. I think a character should
improve their skills as they get more experienced, but there shouldn't be
defined levels where you advance. Betrayal at Krondor is an older game, but
an excellent example of how to make a non-levelled system work.)
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:03:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> wrote in
news:k4ll21dqsrothhfqiakqled285lfclmvkm@4ax.com:

> On 5 Mar 2005 23:36:07 -0800, insane_pile@yahoo.co.nz (Paul
> Eisner) wrote:
>
>>Reviving is unrealistic and reloading saved games is cheating!
>>Real men play games like nethack where a dead character is dead
>>forever!
>>
>>RPGs with priests who can revive characters are not realistic,
>>because in most rpgs important NPCs die while your characters
>>can be resurrected.This is stupid.Death must be final or
>>everybody could die without consequences in such a world!
>>
FFT wasn't it?

>>So I demand that all rpg deaths are final.Destroyed things are
>>destroyed, dead things are dead, lost body parts are lost
>>forever !
>
> An obvious troll, and follow-up group removed. That said -
>
> What's the general opinion on this ? I know Wiz 8 has a Iron
> Man mode, but the thought of playing though W8, even on easy, in
> IM mode fills me with terror. What's the appeal ? The sheer
> challange of it ? Bragging rights ? Do you get a new ending as
> a reward ?
>
I finished it on Iron man. It was rather easy, if you'd survive a
start and are able to get into the city somehow. Dunno if I played
on normal, or hard. I just started three times. Once because I went
backwards and missed a hole in the floor.

If you'd like a hard game try Dungeon crawl.
!