OMG Wow. OHKOs in games are the lamest thing ever!

[hoofhearted4]

so im on the very last boss in the game (or at least i think it is, im near the end at the very least) and its got over 6 million health, its a long battle. i had him down to 1/4 of his health, and then bam. he OHKOs me. now i gotta do it all over again.

 

needless to say, i officially think OHKOs in any game are the stupidest thing ever. now matter how small a chance they are. how to make a boss hard is not by giving it the power to ohko you. thats just lazy developing.

 

uhg :wallbash:

 

 

EDIT: he did it a few more times in the second battle, but hit my companions and not me thank god....and he was kinda the final boss. he evolved for a second, easier battle.

Edited November 12, 2011 by hoofhearted4

[dazzerfong]

I've played both Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon: both games (the original ones) have the potential to have your character dead in one hit. If you can't stand the pressure, don't play it: in my opinion, I love these games.

[hoofhearted4]

pressure? it has nothing to do with not "being able to stand the pressure" but the way to make a boss hard is not by giving it the ability for an automatic ohko. there is a difference between having a ohko attack and just doing a crap ton of damage. it did do a lot of damage, but its possible to survive. however one of its abilities was in fact "potential for instant kill" and when its a boss that takes like 10 minutes to kill, getting ohko near the end is extremely lame, cause there isnt anything you can do to stop it. no matter what tactics you use, equipment, or what have you, a ohko kills you..period....there is another ohko in the game called Death, and you can wear items that make you more resistant to it, making the 1% chance more like .05% chance....however the move the boss used it unique and cannot be speced against.

 

 

it was just frustrating when it happened after like 7-8 minutes of battle. and like i said. ohko =/= difficulty just frustration.

[Nephenee13]

IIRC you have to switch someone to Sentinel to tank that attack.

[Beriallord]

OHKOs used to be the standard for gaming in the old days. It wasn't until the internet following of people complaining about seeing a game over screen until they started dumbing things down. Even in Mario you could be killed 1 hit.

 

Also there is some equipment you can buy that makes you mostly immune to instant death. Still a chance you die, but its very, very unlikely and next to impossible your entire team gets wiped.

 

I thought FFXIII was a really easy game.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Beriallord

[dorkSIDES]

Depends on the games. I like it in stuff like ARMA 2, it adds an extra level of tactics and poise to the game play. Gives you something to think about before running in to battle. Just the way I see it.

[hoofhearted4]

yea. i deff understand how games have gotten easier (which is why i like Demons Souls soo much)

 

but in a game that requires strategy and stuff, ohkos take away that lvl because no matter how good you are, you can die with no effort involved.

ya i coulda specced to resist death, but yea. i didnt.

and i honestly dont remember now how i beat him. im sure i used a Sentinel because in the late game they are almost necessary. i think i had Hope Snow and Lightning in the end.

 

i thought FF13 was easy too easier then FF12 (the only other FF game ive played) as i still havent beaten it lol. but it was a fun. im one of the few ppl who didnt hate FF13. i thought it was a good game. but then, im not one of the long time fans who had high or different expectations. i enjoyed the game.

[Vagrant0]

The problem stems from this notion that "Death = Difficult". We had a generation where ALL games worked on this premise, about 10 years with things moving more into depth and mastery of a game, and now it's back to working solely on this premise. You see it all over the internet. People don't want games which are merely hard, they want games that are not only impossible, but impossible at excessive cost. Eg: games that uninstall themselves and fry your harddrive when you lose.

 

People forget that true depth of difficulty comes from not merely staying alive, but in doing it better than most. It's not about merely living, but living and defeating everything through mastery of the world. The part where game design is lacking is that there isn't much involved with obtaining that mastery. Not many games around that don't have a "one skill to rule them all", crafting trees that have more than 2 tiers, making certain things absolutely necessary to win anything at later levels and therefore limiting strategies to always require those things (eg stuns, constant healing, working around absolute resistances). This leads to games with very simplistic strategy once you find it and a feeling of disappointment because that one strategy works everywhere, continuously. And because the same people asking for more difficulty are usually the first to exploit, first to use the easy way to win, first to throw a fit and subsequently ban any form of "cheating", the cycle continues.

[Beriallord]

I prefer games that forces me to adapt my strategy to win. Like Baldurs gate for example, you couldn't use use the same strategy to win every fight in the game, many enemies required special strategies to take down, and many of the fights required some real strategic planning to win. In Dragon Age Origins, you basically can use the same approach to every fight and win. Meaning I can set the AI and never have to change it, and just roll over everything, without putting any thinking at all into it.

 

I am also not the kind of gamer to stop, or limit using certain things, if the game is broken, its broken, and not my problem. If the game isn't challenging as is, then its simply not challenging. I don't go out of my way to create artificial challenges for myself in games. I look for a genuine and real wholesome challenge that catches me off guard and unprepared at times and makes me pay for it. Challenging games don't have an easy way out.

[Vagrant0]

I am also not the kind of gamer to stop, or limit using certain things, if the game is broken, its broken, and not my problem. If the game isn't challenging as is, then its simply not challenging. I don't go out of my way to create artificial challenges for myself in games. I look for a genuine and real wholesome challenge that catches me off guard and unprepared at times and makes me pay for it. Challenging games don't have an easy way out.

Well, there is a difference between "I'm going to win this game naked, just using my fists, and running in constant poison condition" and "I know that powerleveling a skill or using a combination of spells (invisibility and doom (for classic FF) allows me to win most battles without a sweat, so I won't use those unless I really have a tough time."

 

In the first case, you are going out of your way to add a challenge (usually excessive) just because the game is lacking one.

 

In the second case, you acknowledge that something gives you a marked advantage because of some designed aspect or short sighted feature, but acknowledge that you are able to moderate its usage so that the game doesn't become too easy.