Geronimo vs. game designers

I've done this countless times: I'll reach a point in a game, usually an action game, where I want to quit. I do this most often upon reaching a new level, where I save my game. Very often, after saving, I think, "What the hell, I have nothing to lose," and guns blazing I charge ahead recklessly just to quickly check out what's ahead for the next time I play.

Next thing I know I've reached the next level.

Seriously. I've done this in more games than I can remember, and not just in the FPS genre. When I make significant, rapid progress like this in a game, I am struck by these thoughts:

o I've probably missed important story bits, but do I really want to start over and lose my progress just to make sure I didn't miss anything important? Usually, no.

o Did the designers expect that charging through like Rambo would work? Do they care? Does it matter?

o Why is it that this can so often be a successful tactic? Does it show a flaw with the game's design if this tactic works?

About the only time this tactic fails is when stealth is involved, which requires more careful maneuvering, or when more difficult puzzles are part of the level's design. Otherwise, yelling "Geronimo" and casting caution aside seems to be an Achilles heel to most levels in action-based games.

Comments

[Chris Franklin]

So the solution is to make games so linear that a player cannot possibly avoid story points, and to make bullets so lethal that one can't possibly beat a level in the first run?

All Max Payne jokes aside, most developers still don't have gameplay QA. Testers hired by publishers are hired to look for bugs and ensure stability, and when developers play through their game they do it the way they know it was 'supposed' to be played through because... well, they designed it. It's why emergent gameplay had such a vague definition for so long (and still does, depending on who you're talking to) - it was originally a term just to describe what happens when players do something "unexpected" but still entirely within the rule set.

Part of the problem may be simply the game not giving the player enough information. Did you know that opening that door/killing that enemy/turning on that machine would end the level and your ability to explore it? I've been playing through Thief 3, and it has been very good about telling me when I am about to leave an area. It helps a lot when I am trying to decide if I want to stick around and rob a place blind or just complete my objectives and sneak out. It gives you the option to stay in the level, as well as fog to tell you you're about to leave. Serious Sam doesn't. Now, I love Serious Sam, but there were all kinds of instances where I open a door and try to run down the hall to check it out before grabbing the ammo in the room I was in only to find it's the 'exit' to the level and I am forced to continue without additional equipment, due only to a lack of informing me that I was essentially throwing the current level to the wind.

The other problem could just be the lop-sided design of the game. Something like Deus Ex comes to mind - sure, you can beat the game having only killed the three or four main characters you need to, but do you have any idea how hard that is compared to just killing everyone? Players will always tend towards the easiest path with the greatest reward, and one has to keep in mind that when designing a game a player may find a way you don't 'want' them to play far superior towards achieving their goals.

[brian]

Since most action games are hack'n slash/shoot 'em ups with dumb AI enemies, it usually behooves you to shoot first, ask questions later. Also, except for boss fights, because your character is usually more powerful and can withstand more punishment than your victims, the game does not penalize you for going full throttle. The only way it may differ is when you are required to distinguish between good NPCs and bad NPCs, usually in a hostage scenario. Then if you kill the prisoner you end up failing the mission.

[Chris Franklin]

Just another quick thought: The winstate of a game gives context to the rest of the game - IE, in Grant Theft Auto 3 killing innocent people gives you more money and helps you "win," so killing innocent people is "good." In No One Lives Forever, killing an innocent person more often than not instantly ends the level in a failure state. Since it makes you lose, it would be considered "bad." As such, when one action produces a "better" response than another - it puts you at the win state with less cost or increases your score - it can be considered that the designer believes this play to be "good." It doesn't matter if it is the way the designer thought the game would be played or not - so long as it is just the utilization of the same rule set (no hacks or cheats) then it is still the designer's game being played.

If running through levels killing everyone like this produces a winstate more easily than other means of play, it could be said that that is the intent of the developer and not a fault at all.

[Tamas Varga]

Halo penalized this Rambo-approach, especially on higher difficulty settings. For example the assault rifle's accuracy decreases with each continuous shot, so you should use short, precise bursts. Enemy AI gets more accurate as you spend time without cover, so you should use hit and run tactics. Your shield will only charge up when you don't get shot for a few seconds, which is only possible if you're in cover.

It's interesting to note that on higher difficulty, overly defensive tactics will also fail on some enemies. The Elite aliens have rechargable shields just like you, and they will always take cover when they're weakened. They also have unlimited ammo, so you are encouraged to make an offensive - but still tactical - move against them.

You can see by now that I really appreciate Bungie's design :) I wonder if they can get it better in Halo 2.

[Aubrey]

It sounds like we're crossing into the old didactic-message-through-degenerate-strategy conversation, where any strategy that results in success could be considered to be the "message" of the game.

Whether or not the designer goes into the game deciding head first whether an approach is "right or wrong" is really just a design choice. It shouldn't be taken as a given, Scott. He could equally say "here's the system. I've not specified the 'correct way to win'. Just have fun creating your own solutions".

Personally, I prefer the latter, and worry about people who think the former is the only/correct approach. Warren Spector recently commented on how experiences players confronted with multiple choices tended toward the choices that convention had dictated to them. An excellent counterpoint from Matt Sakey (http://www.igda.org/columns/clash/) explains that this is merely due to convention brainwashing, and that people will eventually learn to abhor new freedoms, and cringe at the old restrictions and implied methods of play.

Games which funnel a player's decisions into either success or failure catagories is only fun up to the point that they discover the one-and-only right way to do things. "You shoot the Stripper in the face? Sorry. She was important to the plot later on, not that you could have known. You lose. Game over. Get slapped on the wrist and repeat until you do things MY way", says the designer.

If a multitude of approaches is regarded as feasable, and rewarded as such, the player is able to explore the possiblity space with very different strategies every time. As the variety of legitimate approaches increases, so does the amount of enjoyment that can be had in exploring them. "You shoot the busty Stripper in the face? Well, see, that has implications to the social network sub-system of the game..." is the open minded solution that I expect we will see in the future "DNF might even get finished as a result of your actions".

[Scott Miller]

Aubrey, with regard to Geronimo-style tactics, my only real concern is that this tactic, if exploited, makes the game less fun for the player, and *that* should concern the designer. This tactic most likely means that the player is missing important story elements, and for sure is getting an abbreviated game experience.

I, therefore, consider this tactic, if it can be exploited too often in a game, to be a loophole, and one that should be closed by the designer(s).

Most likely, it's an AI oversight. Most AI is designed to handle players who progress halfway cautiously through levels, with aiming accuracy and firing rates adjusted accordingly. So when a player half-recklessly and at full speed zips past enemies, they don't jump in the way to slow the player down, they keep firing at the same rate and accuracy that they've been "trained" to handle. And this causes them to fail. They fail because they no longer serve their function as hazards very well.

Perhaps in the future enemy AI should be trained to spot speeding players, and adjust their tactics to prevent it from being a cake walk. Not make it impossible for good players, but just make it very difficult.

[benjamin graner]

I too do this, and what is interesting is that I feel like I've cheated. I somehow feel like I'm missing the true gaming experience. This was especially the case ina game like DeusEx1.

Maybe the culprit is that most games (especially action games) are based on going from point A to point B? If players had realistic objectives it might let players go through a game guns-ablazing while preventing the from feeling like they cheated the system.

[Nick F]

Personally, I much prefer blasting through a game as quickly as possible rather than having to endure the tedium of die -> reload -> repeat. It's partially why I enjoyed Max Payne 2 so much - there was minimal back-tracking and I felt I could sit down for an hour or so at a time and make significant progress.

I find games that hold me up too much tend to get frustrating and, ultimately, not completed (recent examples: Manhunt, Metal Gear Twin Snakes, Splinter Cell). You might interpret that to mean that I don't like stealth in games, but I completed Chronicles of Riddick over the weekend and thought that was a blast!

I think the most useful comments here are from the guy referencing how Halo's AI works. It shows an unusual awareness on the part of the developer of how the AI should reinforce the way the game is meant to be played. Halo on the harder difficulty settings, much like Goldeneye, is a very different beast from the easy or default levels. And all the better for it.

[benjamin graner]

"If running through levels killing everyone like this produces a winstate more easily than other means of play, it could be said that that is the intent of the developer and not a fault at all."
Nietzsche on game design. ;)

If the goal is to get the player to a winstate, then it is not a fault. I personally believe the goal is to entertain the player, and optimal-path solutions to winstates are not always the best choice for achieving that goal.

[Brian]

My brother and I had this same discussion when playing Dead to Rights on the PS2. He had already beaten it and was in the room when I was playing it. In this particular scenario, there is a city street with cars lining the sides, and baddies popping out of windows/tops of buildings/coming down the street. I basically walked right down the center of the road blasting everyone I saw... shotgun to the face for those up close, automatic weapons for those on buildings. My brother was flabbergasted and claimed I beat that level 'wrong' because he hid behind the cars and took out each guy with surgical precision (and spent 4 times longer). The funny thing was I never even considered that tactic when the level started.

I think it's a good design, even if done on accident. Two different people enjoyed the same level for two very different reasons.

[Reason]

Developers to gamers: STOP PLAYING OUR GAMES THE WRONG WAY.

[crowdpleazr]

Personally, I'm just as frustrated by games where I can get through them by going guns blazing, like how I want to play the game, and then suddenly I'm at a point where I'm so significantly weaker that it's impossible for me to go forward. If it were a linear scale of increasing difficulty, where I could see my folly, I wouldn't mind, but usually it's a sudden leap in difficulty. RPGs do this quite often (I've barely finished a single FF game because I can get near to the final boss with minimal difficulty, but suddenly I need to go back and level up for 10 hours before I can tackle the next boss...which bores me), but the Onimusha series is pretty bad like that, as are the Devil May Cry series.

[Aubrey]

Heh. Indeed. There seems to be a well rooted culture of dicouragement in a lot of studios. Rather than nuture the full range of possibilities created by the rules of the game, some designers try to stop them in their tracks.

Scott - don't make the mistake of thinking that if it's not fun for you, it won't be fun for anyone else. Different people enjoy different things. But, no-one enjoys being able to see what they think is a legitimate strategy, only to have their attempts to enact it destroyed by some designer's band aid fix. It's especially infuriating when this band aid fix is only there because the designer arbitrated a single avenue of what he percieved was the only fun aspect of the game. You HAVE to start accepting that the rules you design may well create outcomes you didn't expect. Rather than dismissing them as "errors", you can work these unexpected tendancies to your advantage, by nurturing those approaches so that a wider range of tastes are satisfied.

I want to see hitman, or thief, where the combat is actually enjoyable and skillful, and where it's not necessarily a "Bad" thing that you didn't ghost the entire level, because it has required an equal amount of skill to kill everyone on the level as it has to sneak past them all.

Equally, I want to see the ability to sneak past creatures in serious sam, and be rewarded, relative to how difficult that might be.

I say, stop being dismissive about alternate approaches, as if you have a right to arbitrate the "right" strategy. Start catering for them, instead.

[CM Lubinski]

Unfortunately, Rambo style does work in alot of games, however some players (as has been posted) DO like to play games that way. It is a very unrealistic way of winning, but we like it for the same reason we like Jackie Chan movies. The only way to avoid it is to make the AI alot more intelligent or make the plater alot more vulnerable. In either case, you are making the game more difficult, which is especially bad for people who aren't used to games. As a side note, I'd like to mention that in games such as Zelda: Windwaker and Max Payne, if I ever ran into an open field and started hacking or shooting like a psychopath and lived, well it was a feeling of accomplishement. This was an accomplishement because I had gained enough skill to be able to do this when I could not before. It's also good to note that in both of these games, CERTAIN enemies could be destroyed via Rambo, but others could not. It was a little bit of balance that might just be addressing your problem.

[Nathan McKenzie]

Aubrey:

I think Scott is commenting on this as a game player too, not just as a designer.

If a game will _let_ you win by playing in a way that you find unpleasurable, and if that way of playing turns out to be pretty optimal, that's a serious problem. I've seen statements relating to this SO frequently from MMO designers, something to the effect of "We give players this giant sandbox with so many cool ways of playing, and then they just camp and treadmill and ruin the game." And if you actually talk to the players, a great many of them will actively deride the treadmill... which they still happen to engage in.

My personal model of game->player interaction looks something like this:
1) Player is exposed to game.
2) Player begins to understand game system and begins to set goals.
3) Player explores different strategies for maximizing the attainment of those goals.
4) Player finds optimal strategies and sticks with them as long as they're effective and repeats them.

Obviously, this is a pretty goal-oriented view of players, but it does describe what happens with a lot of players pretty well. And typically, of course, the dividing line between "games" and "toys" is typically drawn by the presence or absence of externally provided goals, right? You'll notice that _nowhere_ in that description will you find "Player tries to have fun"... or even "Player knows up front which sorts of ways of playing the game will be fun." From my view, the role of the game designer is to make sure that steps 3) and 4) above produce fun.

It doesn't really matter if the game Scott was playing supports one hundred different ways of playing the game. Scott found the most effective way of playing the game (at least in terms of progress vs. time-spent), and it's one that, for him, doesn't produce much fun as a side effect. So the game fails on some level, at least for Scott. I guess you could argue that Scott, as a player, should just abandon the effective but unappealing strategy and go back to playing much more slowly... but the word "should" is awfully dangerous, and I don't think it maps very cleanly to what players actually do.

I firmly believe that adding extra ways of playing a game can very, very easily make a game substantially worse for the average player experience, all noble and lofty ideals about "player freedom and self-expression" aside.

[Eric Lulie]

I think a question that no one has asked yet: why should the game designer(s) care? (Or put another way: what's the benefit for the game development team for allowing the user to approach levels in varied ways?) In hindsight, yes, we can say that Game X is unique because it allows the end-user to approach the level as a patient sniper or as a 'geronimo'-style soldier or as a sneak, and make some sort of value judgment about the effectiveness of that uniqueness; while developing the game, though, doesn't that just add extra work and more resources (time, money, manpower, etc.) spent -- for no clear payoff?

I mean, assuming that the developers have included all of the assumed and expected conventions for a genre (and appropriate for the platform), I'm not sure the benefits are there for doing that much more; we assume that adding new and unique elements to a game cause it to stand it out from the crowd and that that uniqueness will have all sorts of positive effects, but that's not necessarily the case: uniqueness is no guarantee the game will sell any better (in fact, it may do worse because it's perceived as being less accessible than other titles in a similar genre; also, games which don't fit easily into a genre seem to have a much harder times than those that do), and it's no guarantee that your company will be considered important or 'hot' (which seems to do as much to sell a game, in some cases, as the actual game itself).

I, too, would like to see a general advance in game design, Scott, but I can't help but think that there must be some fairly compelling economic reasons for not wanting to expend a great deal of resources innovating a game design or production; it can't all be chalked up to stupidity and shortsightedness (which seem to be the usual reasons bandied about for game shortcomings, design decision-wise).

[Nathan Peterson]

Well.... Let me come in here for a second. Im a big fan of action games. But I also play a few RPG's (non MMO) and games on all systems (from classic nes to the latest and greatest in PC).

Linear was a necessity I believe, so when games like Zelda came out that wernt quite so linear (could go back to different areas already been to, talk to the same people again, etc etc) it was a big relief on the game player, but intimidated others. But now in the latest generation of games, Linear does not cut it anymore, except for specific genres. Take the classic RPG for instance, you HAVE to complete certain circumstances in a very specific order. if you dont, then you can't advance in the game. while in MMORPGs they cant be linear by almost definition. it HAS to be openended from a developer/producer standpoint, otherwise people will just stop playing (and paying) once they 'beat' their game.

But games that still have objectives, but instead of forced objectives, optional objectives, with rewards (leveling up a charactor, upgrading equipment, secret plot information, etc) then your creating a game which people will want to explore, and NOT go into headfirst only because maybe they could advance faster/harder if they dont do certain actions.

A good example of this is Fallout and Fallout 2. Im currently playing fallout #1 right now (played fallout #2 last week) and am really digging the gameplay. It advances very nicely, you dont HAVE to talk to people or anything to just get where your going, but by talking to an NPC and getting a location put on your map, you save time. along with the other RPG elements (which there are quite a few) in the game, theres still some heavy action stuff (albiet turn based) which is in my opinion, the core of the game still.

Other games that have encorporated RPG elements into a somewhat bland genre (action) are games like the Castlevania series. Hard to miss plot points (all automated when you hit a certain area). But its very important to 'ease' the player into the open environment. Fallout for instance doesnt just put you on a world map and say "go at her!" it has you get used to combat first by fighting somewhat small and dumb enemies. As well as pretty much starting out where you have to go, and along the way, other side stuff pops up.

More FPS's should have varied Elements of RPG style levels and a more open approach to levels. Duke Nukem 3D (not to kiss scotts ass or anything) The 'exit' to the level was a fairly Obvious Button. If you didnt want to exit yet, then you could continue to explore the area for other enemies or equipment or secrets (all of which I generally did). Doom wasnt quite so nice, I believe it had a small exit sign (sometimes?) above a door that was pretty unnoticable, and the 'switch' looked exactly like all the other 'switches' in the game.

Options are always good in my opinion. Options can create different experiences in the same game. If developers started incorporating more Varied endings dependant on the players actions, then that would encourage more and more replayability and would also let everyone play in their own style first and formost. That to me would make games a bit more organic, and less of a "Hey Im playing a movie where I get to die a lot!" style of game.

Then again Scott. Maybe your just not much of an action gamer? (blasphemy I know, dont kill me please!)

-Nathan Peterson

[Scott Miller]

-- "Then again Scott. Maybe your just not much of an action gamer?"

It's pretty much all I play, though I don't claim to be among the top 30%. Back in the early 80's, though, I won several Dallas-area arcade tournaments, and held national records on several games, such as Missile Command, Armor Attack and Battlezone. Back in 1982, I co-wrote a book on beating arcade games, so at one time I was definitely among the world's elite -- back before they gave away Ferrari's for being that good! ;-)

Anyway, one thing a lot of games do now is degrade your aiming accuracy while running, so this is one good tactic in preventing Geronimo tactics. Another idea a friend here at work mentioned, which he said some RPGs have used, is making being shot in the back 2-3 times more damaging. Makes sense to me.

BTW, I'm ALL for letting players play and solve games how they want. But, I still think some games are designed with tactical loopholes, like the tank rush in the RTS genre, that is so one-sidedly effective that it becomes the one and only obvious tactic. This is bad design. It's a loophole that should be fixed. And though I didn't finish the game, I think Warcraft 3, for example, DID try to design away the tank rush as the clear winning tactic.

Games are very complex, and IMO there should be no clear winning tactic, nor should there be ways to play them that exploit an overlooked design weakness. It's these very design oversights that allowed me to play games like Armor Attack, Asteroids, and Battlezone for as long as I could stay away on a single quarter. Missile Command, though, was pure skill -- there was no weakness to exploit. And yet, there were many different tactical ways to play the game. This is the ideal design.

[Blake Grant]

"Doom wasnt quite so nice, I believe it had a small exit sign (sometimes?) above a door that was pretty unnoticable, and the 'switch' looked exactly like all the other 'switches' in the game."

I guess its a matter of opinion, but I always knew exactly which door was the end of the level in DOOM. It was always behind a distinct door, leading to a small room that only had the one switch which always exited the level. Duke pretty much did the same thing with different artwork.

Back to the original topic, my take on it is that the player should be allowed to Rambo through the level if that's what he wants to do. The game shouldn't necessarily make it easy for him to do so however. As an example, I played Chronicles of Riddick start to finish this weekend, and there were a few times when I basically just ran through a room past all the enemies because I knew I didn't have the ammo or health to deal with all of them. In the main instance I'm thinking of, I ended up going back and taking care of most of them later anyways (you have to go back through that area a few times). It should be up to the player to take the approach that he feels is appropriate for what he wants to accomplish in the game. If he misses out on something, then he misses out. He may or may not go back to find out what he missed. His choice.

Now, I agree that this isn't always the right course of action. It depends on the game. As described before, in MMORPGs, players tend to find out what monotonous procedure they need to repeat to level up quickly, and continue to do it whether it is fun or not because of the perceived reward of gaining a level (and not only MMOs are subject to this. This is pretty typical of many RPGs).

My biggest problem with the game Painkiller is that you are rewarded for destroying every little thing that you can in the game (barrels, chairs, etc) because they drop coins (which interestingly enough are not really all that useful anyways). As a result, the more OCD oriented of us have to break every single barrel in the game. But, should they remove that aspect of the game to force players to have more fun? Maybe, maybe not. I can choose to not bother with the barrels, or at the very least not comb the level for them. For those that have fun mindlessly smashing everything in the game and want to get every little coin they can, they have that option. As long as it becomes apparent to the player in what way he can have fun with the game, I don't think its necessarily bad that there are other options available which might be "more efficient" but less fun.

[flood]

I think Far Cry is the most recent action game that I’ve played that really didn't let you Rambo into situations. I felt that it was a really odd combination: the combining of Counter-Strike-ish tactics (super deadly bullets, lots of hiding, sniping, etc) with monsters. If there's a freaking monster I want to go blow him up, I don't want to have to strategize about how to beat him. But to their credit the huge open landscapes allows for lots of different paths through the game, but ultimately you’re still doing the same thing (finding an enemy, picking an approach, picking him off, etc). I guess I would like more choice about HOW I play, not just WHERE.

I really enjoyed the mix of play styles in Red Dead Revolver, which is arguably a Max Payne clone. It's just slightly less linear than Max, and has more variety to the level designs (some on horse, some are practically deathmatch levels, some linear Max-style levels, etc). You can play the game guns-blazing, or be more tactical by taking cover and sniping a little. What I really liked is that RARELY are you forced into one specific play style. The simple fact that they added a "formal" way to take cover both added to the variety of play styles and the authenticity of an old west shootout.

[oerhört]

Tough one.

As some here have already said, the key is to provide an equally satisfying challenge when you burst your way through, as when you take it slowly. However, I'm not so sure this necessarily makes a better game. Thief: Deadly Shadows and Hitman: Contracts are two recent games where combatting one's way through just isn't as much fun as doing things the "proper" way. This may be a flaw, but it also helps focusing the player on using stealth. If you could fight your way out of the situations, it wouldn't be the same. The Thief and Hitman experiences is some way or the other /meant/ to be the way they are. Trigger-happy gaming is losing the point. I don't know if I'd really prefer being able to skillfully slaughter everyone while playing Garrett.

[rodeoclown]

When playing the Thief games, I would usually try and kill every guard I could (well, not kill, but I knocked just about everyone out and dumped them all in a small, dark room), then I could move through the level at will, find everything to steal, and not have to worry too much about being caught.

I also Rambo'd through a few levels, and it feels good to do in Thief espescially, as if you run in and manage to kill everyone, you can feel an air of superiority, like you've 'beaten' the developers who didn't want you to play that way.

I do feel ripped off however when I play through a game really carefully, then decide to just race through to the end, and find that that technique is much more effective.

side note: How many people managed to earn the invincibility cheat in Goldeneye? You had to complete the second level in about 2:15 secs, and the best way to beat this time was to run past guards and have them shoot you in the back, which gave you a speed boost, shooting at doors to make guards on the other side open them and generally play completely differently to the 'correct' way to play the game (stealthily-like a spy should). That was a great level.

[benjamin graner]

This is probably a bit like the 'trap' in hockey.

My first google hit for 'trap hockey' is "If the game you're watching is dull chances are one team is playing a variation of the trap."

To distill the argument a bit, we are basically talking about tactics which have a high probability of success with a low degree of skill.

Is a hand crafted car better than an assembly line crafted car? Probably not, but we still respect the skill that is invovled in one person creating a car from scratch. An end product of skill is valued more than an end product reached by the easiest means nessecary.

If there is a gameplay rule to be derived from all of this it could be to try and avoid low skill, high success tactics. Instead the ideal situation is to create the ability for the player to win while also retaining the sense of 'skill'.

That being said, if you look at any of the top level Starcraft players things like the tank rush and other 'cheap' tactics don't rear their head as often, and becuase the players are at such a high level pulling off a rush is a skill in and of itself. The same goes for high level FPS'ers such as fata1ity or Thresh(well, maybe not Thresh anymore). Playing against other humans will always be the ultimate gaming experience, simply because we are all given the same tools and how we use them is truly a reflection of how skilled we are. When you play against AI it is not an even playing field, and that sense of personal skill doesn't always translate as well.

[benjamin graner]

p.s. please excuse my spelling of nec·es·sar·y , and probably other stupid typos...Word SpellCheck has robbed me of any vestige of english virtuosity.

[Brad Renfro]

"Equally, I want to see the ability to sneak past creatures in serious sam, and be rewarded, relative to how difficult that might be."

A guy walks into a bar, orders a beer, and then wonders why it isn't also a chicken sandwich...I understand the lofty goal of increasing player choice. What I don't understand is the desire to make ALL games like that. Why can't Deus Ex co-exist with Serious Sam? Serious Sam exists to provide a reckless arcade experience; it is what it is. If you wanted a simulated world full of emergent gameplay, why did you buy Serious Sam?

A game with a Rambo/Geronimo/tankrush design flaw, also known as "cheesing" or "the money play", is much more of an issue in a multiplayer game for obvious reasons. But in a single player game, if it hurts when I do this, I should probably stop doing it (within reason of course).