Balancing Stealth vs Combat

[Sacred_Path]

 

*wonders why anyone would think that designing a play style around chugging potions is not inherently a negative thing*

 

*wonders how he played without casters just fine and why would anyone think that casting combat spells in combat is something odd*

 

=/ dodgy troll is dodgy.

 

It's you who's extolling the virtues of IE over possible elements of P:E so you'd better explain why, I reiterate, chugging potions in IE was just fine by you but you cannot possibly tolerate it in P:E.

 

Potions (or any other means of buffing) are ok IMO if it adds to the gameplay, if it's just another ressource you have to manage just like spells or per-day abilities. Which was probably the idea of the post this argument sprang from.

 

So you didn't play IE games with casters, ever? Well that explains so much (certainly certain problems you may have grasping the idea of limited-use abilities). And you really are worried that the goodness of the old days, with endless potion chugging while whittling away at Orc chieftans with your longsword +1 with a 10% hit chance to gain those 50 kill XP won't come back? Truly devastating q_q

[Ywerion]

I don't know, don't take this offensively please but if someone wishes to create fully sneak party just so he can avoid combat for no other reason but to neglect combat just to progress through game faster, not for challenge but to avoid any combat that stands in way of completing quests, then it is dunno, laziness? If that option is there available fine it's your choice to trade fun in favor of speed, but since PE is class focused then having any character be able to sneak, thanks to overdose of some spells and charms throwing out meaning of thief class entirely. And honestly would you really want to rush your way through PE?

Where then would be good old fashioned fun of sending thief scout to look out for enemies, prepare traps, steal enemy's weapon so he is left bare handed. XPless or not it still is spice of the game and great portion of fun.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood and missed the point of your suggestion and concern, PrimeJunta

[PrimeJunta]

@Ywerion -- That would happen if stealth was noticeably easier or faster than combat. I just don't think that's necessarily or even very likely so. In most stealth mechanics sneaking is slower than running; you spend a fair bit of time waiting for patrols to pass, and if somebody spots you, you're in a much tighter spot than if you had been able to pick your ground and properly prepare for the encounter.

 

Stealth is tricky. Err too much in one direction and it does become a dominant strategy. Err too much in the other, and it becomes as good as useless. It all depends on how the mechanics work in practice. I'll be quite interested to find out where P:E strikes the balance.

[Osvir]

Was writing a long post. Deleted.

 

Thought:

Does different Factions provide different types of experience?

[jivex5k]

The discussion amounts to this:

 

-) Non-combat will be favored because alternatives to combat are easier, less complex, cost less resources and take generally less time to complete. IE games are indicative in this regard, seeing how stealth and dialgue worked there.

 

-) That is not true!

 

The thing is, this is true for some people, and not for others. So of course this discussion is happening like this.

If you like combat and fighting, well why would you avoid fighting? Just to feed the urge to have the most efficient path to game completion?

 

Non-combat will be favored by those looking for the optimal path, assuming it becomes the optimal path. It might be much more time consuming to attempt to stealth through the entire game, nobody knows how stealth is going to work at all at this point.

 

You can break this whole discussion down further:

 

There are those who must take the optimal path to completion, and those who will play the game as they enjoy it regardless of how efficient it is.

 

So really, this whole discussion is pointless.

[Amentep]

I don't want a learn by doing system either (I think I said that up in the thread). Why would respawns effect loot (or are you saying that your party, after killing 5 monsters, stopped in combat to loot the bodies? No wonder they lost to the remaining 5! )

 

It affects loot. In IE games it is very easy to take loot during combat.

A rogue taking a strong stamina potion from a corpse could change the battle.

 

Right, but if respawns are in, and you're placing the loot, and you know what the other player grabbed, I suppose you could create a system where the respawn doesn't have the same loot.

 

If you're against respawns, then under quest xp you still get the full xp once you complete the objective (taking out the other 5 monsters), once the objective is complete there's no difference. So the issue seems to be under conditions where you don't complete your quest and whether the system should reward you for that (xp for kills) or not (xp for objective). Does that seem fair?

 

You're still improving your skills by killing them - by killing all of them not half of them

 

It only works like that... if the world follows your twisted logic. But that's highly unlikely.

 

Its a game, the world follows the logic of the game. I don't expect computer games to be as reactive to individual accomplishment as pen and paper with a DM who can make all sorts of considerations a game isn't going to make.

[Valorian]

*wonders why anyone would think that designing a play style around chugging potions is not inherently a negative thing*

 

*wonders how he played without casters just fine and why would anyone think that casting combat spells in combat is something odd*

 

=/ dodgy troll is dodgy.

 

It's you who's extolling the virtues of IE over possible elements of P:E so you'd better explain why, I reiterate, chugging potions in IE was just fine by you but you cannot possibly tolerate it in P:E.

 

On the contrary... My point was that constructing any play style around chugging potions is horrible. Especially if it involves chugging a potion, going invisible and then walking past enemies expecting the same xp as those who engage in combat.

 

 

Cat tells me to tell you he thinks you have huge comprehension issues.

 

 

So you didn't play IE games with casters, ever? Well that explains so much (certainly certain problems you may have grasping the idea of limited-use abilities).

 

Cat played without casters, yes. I included a caster from time to time, for fun. It's generally too easy with a caster, for Cat anyway.

[TRX850]

Award XP for successful lockpicking and disabling traps. If you're the sneaky type, i.e. a rogue, you're likely to be excellent at lockpicking and traps. So instead of XP for arbitrarily sneaking, which seems way too complicated to accurately measure, just award XP for the types of other opportunities that sneaky little hobbitses are likely to encounter.

 

Would that solve the problem?

 

(You could include pickpocketing/sleight of hand in that example too)

[Frenetic Pony]

Of course it doesn't matter if there's stealth resources.

 

Lockpicks (try lockpick, fail roll? Lockpick breaks.) Invisibility potions, etc. If combat is hard enough to require use of X or Y that takes money to replenish, that shouldn't stealthing your way past something be just as hard and take just a much?

 

In general I mean. I doubt it would be practical to balance every area so they're just as hard and require just as much for each approach. But as long as it's balanced OVERALL then if you're a powergamer on the hardest difficulty you at least need to determine which area is which if you want to get as much out of it as possible.

[Hassat Hunter]

Award XP for successful lockpicking and disabling traps. If you're the sneaky type, i.e. a rogue, you're likely to be excellent at lockpicking and traps. So instead of XP for arbitrarily sneaking, which seems way too complicated to accurately measure, just award XP for the types of other opportunities that sneaky little hobbitses are likely to encounter.

KOTOR2 and BG2 have shown us that, no, that's not a good sollution.

Especially working in a team, where obviously some would have combat skills and some stealth, it wouldn't balance out, most would just get both.

[TRX850]

Award XP for successful lockpicking and disabling traps. If you're the sneaky type, i.e. a rogue, you're likely to be excellent at lockpicking and traps. So instead of XP for arbitrarily sneaking, which seems way too complicated to accurately measure, just award XP for the types of other opportunities that sneaky little hobbitses are likely to encounter.

KOTOR2 and BG2 have shown us that, no, that's not a good sollution.

Especially working in a team, where obviously some would have combat skills and some stealth, it wouldn't balance out, most would just get both.

 

If you're an all-rounded team though, what's wrong with getting both? If you can do it all, you deserve it all.

 

I've skipped through some of the discussion here, but I thought the question was along the lines of whether a solo player or group of sneaky types could bypass most or all of the combat encounters and still be rewarded somehow? So if they want to sneak past enemies all the time, have those areas full of traps, locked doors and containers, and even opportunities for pickpocketing.

[Lephys]

To counter this argument, I'll ask - why should the player be rewarded for loosing combat against a group? If a Dragon gives 100,000,000 combat XP, should a player who gets the dragon to half her HP before running away get 50,000,000 combat xp? Because that's equivilent to killing 5 of 10 in a group...

 

Because the dragon will regenerate his stamina back when you leave, just like the player. Will rest too, probably.

 

The 5 monsters will stay dead.

 

So, wait, if you spend 5 minutes combatting something, and it happens to die, then logic dictates that you gained combat experience (fitness, weapon technique practice, dodging/blocking practice, etc.) and should be rewarded. BUT, if you spend 5 minutes combatting something, and it happens to not-die, then, logically, you didn't gain any combat experience?

 

And what about poison? Or traps? You can cut a rope and drop massive boulders onto enemies, killing them all with very little effort, or Sneakily poison their wine, then shuffle off to watch from a dark corner while they all die. You caused their deaths. Was that combat, or stealth? Should you get more experience for straight-up fighting them, instead of poisoning them or dropping rocks on them? And, if so, why shouldn't you gain XP for fighting the dragon for 15 minutes, but not causing its demise?

 

One would think the most logical system (while still within the realm of some abstraction) would be to provide 75% of the XP the dragon would provide for killing it in exchange for 75% of its health. Then, you'd only have the potential of gaining the final 25% if you actually ever finished killing it, regardless of whether or not it regenerated or didn't, etc.

 

Still doesn't tackle the poison/rocks vs. taxing-physical-combat discrepancy.

[TRX850]

I swore I wasn't going to get sucked into this discussion, but hey.

 

I think it comes down to what is a reasonable mechanic, regardless of the spectrum of play styles. A "reasonable mechanic" would be a simple mechanic. One that covers the majority of outcomes and still remains an elegant solution.

 

Isn't it a reasonable mechanic if you gain XP for defeating an enemy? Most of the time this means a kill, but in some plot-specific cases, the narrative takes over before the actual kill, and is counted as a defeat, which may or may not award XP commensurate to the challenge.

 

Same goes for solving puzzles, or picking locks, or disabling traps. You should get the XP because you "defeated" or overcame the task at hand, rather than a partial outcome. It's a reasonable mechanic.

 

If you want to accept quests and not complete them, that's your choice. You could still get a fair bit of XP on the fly for defeating enemies and solving puzzles, then change your mind about the quest-giver and do something else.

 

I don't think it's been stated here, but I get the sense that there's a certain amount of "jealousy" at the idea that a player on the other side of the world is somehow having more fun, or somehow exploiting their game experience, which ultimately has no effect on the game that you yourself are playing.

 

It's great that we're discussing options for refining the mechanics, but if it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

And to show that I think you're all still great, I baked you a cake.

[Lephys]

^ Hear hear!

 

*Raises mug*

 

That's how I feel. You've either got to accept abstraction, or not tolerate ANY abstraction (or literally as minimal abstraction as can be achieved via modern game-coding capabilities). So, either only certain degrees of effort (sneaking past enemies to obtain something, escape, etc., or killing enemies for some actual reason) should be rewarded, or literally all effort should be rewarded 1:1. Party walk 5 miles? You gained fitness and nature-watching experience. Talk to some people in town? You gained social interaction/conversation experience.

 

Everything we experience is, well, what experience represents. So, it all comes down to "how do we reasonably convey that gain throughout the game and not take 17-years to code it?"

[PrimeJunta]

Award XP for successful lockpicking and disabling traps. If you're the sneaky type, i.e. a rogue, you're likely to be excellent at lockpicking and traps. So instead of XP for arbitrarily sneaking, which seems way too complicated to accurately measure, just award XP for the types of other opportunities that sneaky little hobbitses are likely to encounter.

 

Would that solve the problem?

 

(You could include pickpocketing/sleight of hand in that example too)

 

In my opinion that would be worse. It would send you chasing after traps and locks whether you actually needed to deal with them or not. I've played games with this incentive, and that's exactly what happens. Hell, sometimes it's even mentioned in walkthroughs -- "Hey, don't forget to pick those locks, they're worth a hefty bit of XP." Once again, you have systemic incentives misaligned with in-game objectives, which produces degenerate behavior in players.

[TRX850]

Award XP for successful lockpicking and disabling traps. If you're the sneaky type, i.e. a rogue, you're likely to be excellent at lockpicking and traps. So instead of XP for arbitrarily sneaking, which seems way too complicated to accurately measure, just award XP for the types of other opportunities that sneaky little hobbitses are likely to encounter.

 

Would that solve the problem?

 

(You could include pickpocketing/sleight of hand in that example too)

 

In my opinion that would be worse. It would send you chasing after traps and locks whether you actually needed to deal with them or not. I've played games with this incentive, and that's exactly what happens. Hell, sometimes it's even mentioned in walkthroughs -- "Hey, don't forget to pick those locks, they're worth a hefty bit of XP." Once again, you have systemic incentives misaligned with in-game objectives, which produces degenerate behavior in players.

 

I'm probably asking the same question as others here, but, if you're actively avoiding combat so that you can play by sneaking about to find stuff, why wouldn't you want alternative XP to kill XP ? That doesn't sound like degenerative play. Just a different way of playing the game.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't think it's been stated here, but I get the sense that there's a certain amount of "jealousy" at the idea that a player on the other side of the world is somehow having more fun, or somehow exploiting their game experience, which ultimately has no effect on the game that you yourself are playing.

 

Cheap shot. Also probably not true.

 

Edit: TL;DR: Things are fun in a game if there's a reason to do them. Picking a lock because "ding! XP!" is a weak, metagame reason. Picking a lock because there's something you want on the other side is a good, in-game reason. I want to get rid of the weak metagame reasons because they cheapen the strong in-gmae reasons, and thereby reduce my enjoyment of the game. What's more, I believe that 99% of the people whining about no-combat-XP will enjoy a game with properly aligned incentives more as well, they just don't realize it themselves. I know what's good for Helm, Valorian, and you better than you do. So there.

 

I'm concerned about this question because I do not find degenerate strategies fun, and their very availability reduces the enjoyment I get from a game.

 

Seriously, think about how you play a game. Have you played DX:HR, DA:O, or KOTOR, for example? Those give XP for lockpicking or untrapping. There's a little "ding!" of XP gained every time you do that.

 

Did you pick all the locks and untrap all the traps you came across? I did. I don't know that I went out of my way to hunt for them, but I did clear every mine in a minefield even though I'd only have needed to clear a way through. I would be willing to wager that almost every player did.

 

If you remove XP from the equation and think purely in terms of the enjoyability of the activity, how enjoyable is going from mine to mine in a minefield and clicking on them, when there's a group of enemies to fight and a quest objective to reach on the other side? In my opinion, it's not bleedin' enjoyable at all. It's a pointless chore. Busywork. And it's definitely not something your character would do in the same situation in a book, movie, or PnP gaming session... well, not unless he so badly afflicted with OCD that he was barely able to function. Different players have different boredom thresholds, but whether you're talking about two minutes spent clearing a minefield you have no reason to clear, or a week spent grinding trash mobs in some MMO you kids keep talking about, it's still boring busywork you only do for that little "ding!"

 

And if that's the only way you're "having fun," well then it's a pretty sorry excuse for a game.

 

I want a game to be designed in such a way that it rewards as few degenerate strategies as possible, because I want to stay focused on what makes the game fun. Which in a cRPG is discovering places, uncovering lore, interacting with characters, solving problems, unraveling the great mysteries of the plot, and developing my party and my character. Anything that distracts from that and sends me gallivanting after locks, traps, or wandering yetis is bad and should be killed with fire. If someone else "has fun" clicking a button to see a counter go up and then get a "ding," well hey, I hear there's a multi-billion MMO industry catering just. to. you. So would you kindly leave at least a couple Kickstarted niche games to those of us who are in it for the gameplay rather than the "ding?" Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

 

There, done.

Edited January 17, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[PrimeJunta]

I'm probably asking the same question as others here, but, if you're actively avoiding combat so that you can play by sneaking about to find stuff, why wouldn't you want alternative XP to kill XP ? That doesn't sound like degenerative play. Just a different way of playing the game.

 

I want to play the game by actively seeking combat. Then I want to play it again, but this time I want to find diplomatic solutions wherever I can. And then I want to play it a third time, this time picking my battles carefully, avoiding ones I don't want to fight and getting maximum advantage in the ones I do. Then a fourth time, but now I want to disable and circumvent as many enemies as I can instead of killing them all outright.

 

And I want all of these approaches to be enjoyable and ideally roughly equally viable.

 

I'm starting to suspect some of you guys might not be very bright. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Huh.

Edited January 17, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Hormalakh]

Hey PJ. Thanks for this thread - I really like the ideas here but I wanted to add one thing. Why make the discussion strictly about two dichotomies: stealth and combat? There are other playstyles too. The "talk yourself out of situations", the "sneak", the "fighter", and a few others that I'm not creative enough to consider.

 

It would be nice to consider design decisions for all playstyles with your ideas in mind: namely, that most decisions should have a failure chance and a variable risk/reward structure. Moving away from insta-wins on dialogue would be one. Making sneaking a risky endeavor would be another.

 

This is to say I really liked your ideas about sneaking and would be interesting in hearing other similar ideas for other game mechanics: dialogue, alchemy/crafting, etc etc.

 

Although, I have a sneaking suspicion that Sawyer is on the same page as you and I on this. A lot of this will really have to be game-tested so that obvious degeneracy is spotted and "adjusted."

Edited January 17, 2013 by Hormalakh

[TRX850]

...a cRPG is discovering places, uncovering lore, interacting with characters, solving problems, unraveling the great mysteries of the plot, and developing my party and my character.

 

I hear what you're saying. My previous comment was a gut feeling I got from skimming reading through the thread.

 

But what you're after ^^^^ (the bit I quoted here) is something you can already do in most RPGs. My point was that preventing behaviour in other players who are not playing the same P:E playthrough as you has no effect on your enjoyment level. Only your own play style can dictate that. What others do in their own game is their business.

 

Really, I'm not trying to undermine anyone here. Discussion is good.

 

A minefield with loads of XP opportunities seems like an XP hotspot, and maybe they should have designed it so that it didn't give so much XP. I can't comment, because I haven't played the games you mentioned.

 

A well-rounded party will (and should) attempt to utilize all the skills available to them. That's intelligent play. My fighters will gain kill XP. My rogue will gain lock/traps XP. I honestly don't see the problem. All I can do is ask you to consider what I mentioned about wanting *other players* to conform to something that won't affect you.

 

Now....would you like a piece of cake?

Edited January 17, 2013 by TRX850

[Sacred_Path]

*wonders why anyone would think that designing a play style around chugging potions is not inherently a negative thing*

 

*wonders how he played without casters just fine and why would anyone think that casting combat spells in combat is something odd*

 

=/ dodgy troll is dodgy.

 

It's you who's extolling the virtues of IE over possible elements of P:E so you'd better explain why, I reiterate, chugging potions in IE was just fine by you but you cannot possibly tolerate it in P:E.

 

On the contrary... My point was that constructing any play style around chugging potions is horrible. Especially if it involves chugging a potion, going invisible and then walking past enemies expecting the same xp as those who engage in combat.

 

 

Cat tells me to tell you he thinks you have huge comprehension issues.

 

So you actually thought combat in IE games was horrible. Well, that's new. I assume the only thing you liked about combat then was that it gave xp?

[TRX850]

I'm probably asking the same question as others here, but, if you're actively avoiding combat so that you can play by sneaking about to find stuff, why wouldn't you want alternative XP to kill XP ? That doesn't sound like degenerative play. Just a different way of playing the game.

 

I want to play the game by actively seeking combat. Then I want to play it again, but this time I want to find diplomatic solutions wherever I can. And then I want to play it a third time, this time picking my battles carefully, avoiding ones I don't want to fight and getting maximum advantage in the ones I do. Then a fourth time, but now I want to disable and circumvent as many enemies as I can instead of killing them all outright.

 

And I want all of these approaches to be enjoyable and ideally roughly equally viable.

 

I'm starting to suspect some of you guys might not be very bright. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Huh.

 

If they ditched the "Quest only XP" and awarded individual task XP, you could do everything you describe here, and it should be an awesome experience.

 

If you want to pick every lock and disarm every trap, that's your right, and you should be rewarded fittingly.

 

It seems you are confusing MMO exploitable behaviour with a single player game.

 

If you are the only person playing your single player game, then......er.....don't misbehave? I'm not sure how we got here.

 

There's still some cake left!

Edited January 17, 2013 by TRX850

[PrimeJunta]

Hey PJ. Thanks for this thread - I really like the ideas here but I wanted to add one thing. Why make the discussion strictly about two dichotomies: stealth and combat? There are other playstyles too. The "talk yourself out of situations", the "sneak", the "fighter", and a few others that I'm not creative enough to consider.

 

My intention was to restrict discussion to stealth, because I thought that's a pretty hefty subsystem in and of itself and I wanted to keep things focused. I also wanted to avoid the quest XP/combat XP/task XP flog. That has clearly failed completely. Might be worth another try later after the whiners have finally gotten tired of whining about things no longer automatically going "ding!" every time they hit something so it falls down.

 

Perhaps try another thread with the broader scope after things have calmed down abit?

[Hormalakh]

Hey PJ. Thanks for this thread - I really like the ideas here but I wanted to add one thing. Why make the discussion strictly about two dichotomies: stealth and combat? There are other playstyles too. The "talk yourself out of situations", the "sneak", the "fighter", and a few others that I'm not creative enough to consider.

 

My intention was to restrict discussion to stealth, because I thought that's a pretty hefty subsystem in and of itself and I wanted to keep things focused. I also wanted to avoid the quest XP/combat XP/task XP flog. That has clearly failed completely. Might be worth another try later after the whiners have finally gotten tired of whining about things no longer automatically going "ding!" every time they hit something so it falls down.

 

Perhaps try another thread with the broader scope after things have calmed down abit?

 

Fair enough. In regards to the derailing of your thread, I suggest ignoring the posts that have no relevance to your topic at hand (including mine). Reviewing your first post and the meat as quoted below a few questions arise.

 

 

1 Moving while stealthed uses stamina. It regenerates when standing still.

2 Any character can enter stealth mode.

3 Any stealthed character has a chance of being spotted.

4 Heavy armor makes you easier to spot and increases the stamina cost.

5 Being a rogue or adding points to your sneak skill will make you harder to spot and will reduce the stamina cost of stealth.

6 Consumables exist to temporarily boost your sneak skill. These are used up when consumed.

7 Magic exists to temporarily boost your stealth. These take up your spell-caster's spell-casting capability.

8 Sneak buffs are incompatible with combat buffs. Use one, lose the other.

 

7- Should stealth spells like "invisibility" be "insta-wins?" Perhaps invisibility spells should either go up the spell tier or have much lower durations. These spells should likely be in tiers that never become "cooldown tiers."

 

6- I imagine these would be invisibility potions. Maybe invisibility potions are the only way of becomign invisible?

 

3- The problem with "chance spottings" is the reload frenzy/spamming with any highly random/volatile skill. If a failure occurs, the player is more likely to reload and try the same tactic again until he gets a "lucky saving throw."

[PrimeJunta]

If they ditched the "Quest only XP" and awarded individual task XP, you could do everything you describe here, and it should be an awesome experience.

 

It would be less awesome than with quest only XP. Why? Because picking only one of the approaches and neglecting the others will yield less XP, and a weaker character and party. If your wrecking-ball party didn't untrap and lockpick wherever they could, they'd miss out on that XP. If your sneaky party didn't kill everything they could, they'd miss out on that XP.

 

Seriously. How hard is this to understand? Task XP -- whether it's for killing or lockpicking -- creates perverse incentives that do not align with in-game goals, and thereby rewards players who play in an inefficient way ("do everything whether it gets you closer to your in-game goal or not") rather than a party that thinks and plays in-game ("do your best to achieve your in-game goals.")

 

If you want to pick every lock and disarm every trap, that's your right, and you should be awarded fittingly.

 

"Fittingly" meaning "in no way at all" -- beyond the immediate consequence of your action. The award for picking a lock should be an unlocked lock. There should be no advantage to picking a lock over using a key, if you happen to have it. It's what's behind the lock that's important. Maybe it's the princess you're supposed to rescue. In a quest-based game, now that is a useful point to award XP.

 

It seems you are confusing MMO exploitable behaviour with a single player game.

 

I'm not confusing anything, because it's the same behavior. Pull lever. Get pellet. Ding!

 

If you are the only person playing your single player game, then......er.....don't misbehave? I'm not sure how we got here.

 

We got here because you don't understand what's the difference between compulsively pushing a button to get a shiny, and doing something because it's engaging, interesting, exciting, challenging, or engrossing.

 

I'll try one more time. Compare these two:

 

Open bag of chips. Take a chip. Yummy. Take another chip. Yummy. Take another chip. Yummy. Repeat until bag is empty.

 

Open The Fellowship of the Ring. Start reading. Interesting. Keep reading. Whoa dude. Keep reading more. WTF are these black riders all about? Keep reading. Whew, that was close. And who is this Strider type? Keep reading. Oh ****, I hope Frodo pulls through. Keep reading. Dude, elves! Continue until Sam & Rosie get married and everybody lives happily ever after, or at least until they die.

 

Do you see any difference between these two experiences? Even a teensy tiny little one? Okay, good. Hold that thought.

 

Now think of a computer role-playing game with a great, sweeping, epic story, big world, horrendous beasties, great heroes, what have you.

 

Would it be better, or worse, if there's a bag of chips every few feet making you go "Rip. Oo, yummy. Take another one. Oo, yummy. Take another one. Oo, yummy?"

 

If this still doesn't communicate the idea, I'm sorry, I can't help you any more. You can lead a horse to water and all that commotion.