by azeemba on 9/10/24, 4:11 PM with 109 comments
by drw85 on 9/12/24, 8:45 AM
There are many players that don't want to be challenged or explore, they want to complete tasks and get rewards. Some of them don't really care that much about the actual gameplay, as long as there is a quick way to complete sets of tasks and get their rewards.
Some of my friends are like this, they blast through games without looking at anything but the tasks and rewards and they hate having to figure things out, explore, discover and other road blocks to their "task list". They move at break neck speed too, like their lives depend on it. It's really hard to keep up, becasue they never stop at look at anything, but just rush to the next marker to finish the next task.
I had to actually stop playing certain types of games with them, because it would completely ruin the game for me.
I like exploring and discovering and figuring things out. If everything has an easy hint, marker, or otherwise shortcut that takes that away or discourages it, i would enjoy games a lot less.
An external wiki/youtube etc. gives you that choice when you need it, but it's far enough away that you can still enjoy those parts without using it.
by rspoerri on 9/12/24, 7:57 AM
Games that do that well, such as Zelda (which does this very well) introduce new mechanics and scenarios in an very iterative way. By having a linear structure. Other games use AI to control the gameplay flow.
A linear level structure could look like this: A & B are different types of enemies
| A (new enemy) | A,A (more complex situation) | B (new enemy) | B,B (more complex situation) | A,B (new combination) | A,A,B,B (complex new combination) | ...
This method works with lots of systems, such as level design elements, enemies or construction of ingame elements. The problem is that procedural content generation and open worlds make it hard for the game designer to introduce the content to the player in this order.
interesting videos on this topic:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMggqenxuZc (Half-Life 2's Invisible Tutorial)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnt5zxb8W0Y (Director AI for Balancing In-Game Experiences)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GV814cWiAw (Can we Improve Tutorials for Complex Games?)
by MEMORYC_RRUPTED on 9/12/24, 9:06 AM
It's the same thing with open world quest markers. Nowadays, a lot of open world games give the player the option to remove quest markers outright. It's great to have that choice. But compared to, for example Morrowind, it often turns out to be an exercise in frustration, because the quests and the world haven't been designed with that in mind ("Go south from Vivec and turn left at the third tree", followed by an internal dialogue about if you should count a stump as a tree and a four hour detour is one of my best memories).
There's also this middle ground: in Ghost of Tsushima you can summon the wind as a compass to guide you to your next quest marker. Mechanically it's the exact same thing as an arrow, or line to guide you. But the fact that it's so well integrated, and thematically fitting into the game, makes my brain experience it totally differently. Not needing it would be even better, but the way they implemented it is at least pleasant.
I wish more games had a journal to keep track of things :). Why do I need notepad open, or a wiki open when playing satisfactory? If I make the effort to calculate the exact amount of iron ore I need to perfectly match my iron rod production, it'd be great if I could keep track of that in game.
by jshaqaw on 9/12/24, 12:22 PM
PS - if you aren’t playing BG3 - this game is fantastic and a worthy heir to the BG 1/2 standard
by seanhunter on 9/12/24, 7:30 AM
In all of those examples I'm figuring things out myself and using a wiki and sometimes other community tools such as calculators etc.
I would be really amazed if this person makes a good game when their focus is make players do A rather than B instead of "how do I make this game as much fun to play as possible". It's also likely that the gameplay systems are really shallow if they feel they would be harmed by people searching for information in a wiki.
by noirscape on 9/12/24, 12:45 PM
* Give good in-game info. Players resort to wikis because they don't feel like they know what they're doing and there's nothing more awful than making a choice you aren't ready for. Roguelikes tend to be varying levels of this; Risk of Rain for example will absolutely give you the exact percentages for its items in the collection menu, but during a run you don't need those percentages to know what you should pick. The bad side of this is The Binding of Isaac, which just has items that do not work at all, for any player whatsoever. Isaac is a game where you open a wiki/cheatsheet just to make sure you aren't picking up a run-ending item. CRPGs are universally terrible at this, something only amplified by their dice roll system. Disco Elysium is the only CRPG I've played that made choices work without pulling up a wiki because it makes it very clear early on that most consequences are yours and it will not lie to you about how far your choices will reach.
* The Wiki Will Not Save You. This is for games like Nethack. Nethack has a wiki. Nethack also has so much depth that a single human will struggle to not just learn it, but might screw up even when they have all knowledge they need. Very difficult to design without alienating your players, but if it works, it's probably the best way to avoid wiki syndrome since there's so much info that most players will just end up mentally arranging the information they themselves need. (Noita I'd consider to be a partial success at this, where the wiki contains all valuable info for achievements without learning Swedish, but the actual spellcrafting and core loop is something with so much depth that every player I've seen try it ends up with their own preferred combos.)
by PrivateButts on 9/12/24, 8:01 AM
by JohnFen on 9/10/24, 4:49 PM
This is an interesting statement to me, and I think the truth of it is debatable. It's certainly true if you're only looking at a specific sort of player experience, but there are other sorts of experiences some people want which is greatly enhanced by the use of reference material.
Why would a game designer want to reduce the appeal of their game to those sorts of players? Players who want the "pure" game experience can simply not look things up on the wiki.
Surely, in the end, game designers want to make games that are fun and engaging, so if the use of a wiki makes a game more fun and engaging to some, why would a game designer object to that?
by have_faith on 9/12/24, 7:40 AM
by NotGMan on 9/12/24, 7:04 AM
People look up recipes all the time on wiki and yet Minecraft is the #1 best selling game, so obviously it isn't an issue in the real world.
by cloogshicer on 9/12/24, 8:33 AM
by Terr_ on 9/12/24, 8:53 AM
An example of things done right would be Deus Ex (2000): While a given character build or approach may restrict you to certain paths forward, you almost always have the opportunity to backtrack, explore, and loot to the other routes later.
In contrast, if the routes became totally inaccessible or a scripted event cleared them of useful items, then I would be more likely to consult a guide about pros and cons of the different options.
by troupo on 9/12/24, 7:41 AM
Games with multiple levels of puzzles and meta gameplay wouldn't exist without an active community and wikis, and they are great partly because of that. Think Noita, Animal Well or even Binding of Isaac.
On the other hand, you don't need a wiki to play and enjoy Ori and the Blind Forest
by bilekas on 9/12/24, 9:29 AM
For example, markets statistics to see live market information in game for trading, you have to use a user created website.
Want to see what components will get your ship in the configuration you want ? Third party tool.
Want to plan a nice scenic route somewhere with some interesting/valuable finds on the way ? Third party tool.
Want to go mining and be in anyway profitable, maybe looking for a particular resource, you guessed it, only through a third party tool.
On one hand this has brought the community much closer together as the tools for that in game don't exists. But it's ridiculous that core gameplay loops depend on user created tools.
by jccalhoun on 9/12/24, 12:40 PM
1) I have no idea what I'm supposed to do or where I'm supposed to go next. There have been lots of times when I've not know where to go next or seem trapped in an area with no enemies and had to go look up how to get out.
2) I want to make sure what I'm trying is even possible. I remember one game where a boss would come out of a room and attack. I tried a dozen times to shut the door to trap the boss before I looked it up and found out I was supposed to run away and you couldn't close the door.
by PeterStuer on 9/12/24, 8:07 AM
E.g to beat a youtube video that shows you how to complete a quest, you can have a ghost of your character frontrunning the player and doing exactly what needs to be done.
Most gamedesigners abhore even the thought of adding such a thing as they want players to explore and discover. And some will, but the majority that pay your bills will just use youtube or wikis or addons to just tell them what to do.
by __s on 9/12/24, 12:37 PM
Been enjoying Zelda randomizers lately, it needs a bit of a wiki to understand mechanics etc. But a game designed for randomization could include difficulty curve & then have higher difficulty levels where that hand holding backs off like how many modern roguelites have difficulty level mechanics
by scotty79 on 9/12/24, 3:27 PM
I think Papers Please did a great job with their checkpoint system.
Basically each important decision creates a checkpoint you can start the game from right before that decision so you can check various scenarios yourself without extensive replaying of the same parts in the same way.
by remoquete on 9/12/24, 8:42 AM
by yokoprime on 9/12/24, 11:28 AM
by Waterluvian on 9/12/24, 12:38 PM
by Timshel on 9/12/24, 7:40 AM
by googh on 9/12/24, 11:03 AM
by techdmn on 9/12/24, 11:06 AM
by roshankhan28 on 9/12/24, 9:00 AM