We don't have the brains of our average movie hero
Think about your favorite movies or books. Would you have been able to figure out the ingenious tricks your favorite movie hero / heroine used to hoodwink the badguys?
I had an argument with a friend about games and the challenges they give us. He made an interesting assertion: We will never be able to keep up with our average movie or book heroes were ingenuity is concerned. We know how to hack and slash, we know how to solve puzzles if we're not stressed, but in general we'd hate most of the challenges our heroes / heroines have gone through because they'd be too stressful and require too much thinking. He thinks we'd get ticked at the game designer, blame the game for not clearly telling us what to do, and give up.
His examples (he used movies):
-Indiana Jones has to climb up a statue and push it over into a wall in order to escape a room of snakes (while the torch that's keeping them at bay is going out) in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
-Neo has to decide to sacrifice himself (he thinks) to save Morpheus from an impregnable fortress in The Matrix.
-Merry (?) tricks the indecisive Ents into attacking Sarumon by simply having them walk one way instead of another in The Two Towers.
My rebuttal was that there are many gamers who want to be able to do these kinds of things but that games can't let them right now. Gamers would welcome being able to make their own path using their own ingenuity, but the game has to recognize the solutions. Right now there's usually only one or two recognizable solutions and its very frustrating to have to find them under stress / fire. I called this a budget and tech problem.
He, however, thinks that, even 20 years from now, gamers will still mostly want very simple situations and solutions to deal with because, at its heart, entertainment is about relaxation, not thinking and analyzing. What about strategy games, I asked? Look at how consoles have dominated PC games in the stores was his response.
Anyway, I said I'd throw this out to the board just for discussion. What do you guys think?
I've been thinking about this very issue myself for quite a while. I think if the technology and budget are available, give the player as many options as possible, but also give them some direction.
This could be done with subtle effects such as rolling objects or dusty areas etc. to show the player what objects they might want to use or where they might want to go. If the player has NPCs with them the various NPCs might have suggestions along the way, essentially pointing out the hints the developers dropped. With a low difficulty setting the NPCs might point everything out, with a high difficulty setting they might point nothing out.
However, none of these hinted things should be known as solutions or something else, they just need to produce the correct results. The game should recognize when the task is completed, ignoring how it was completed. This way the player can truly go about solving the problems in any way they chooses, but they're not doing so blindly or with no idea of where to begin.
This could be done with subtle effects such as rolling objects or dusty areas etc. to show the player what objects they might want to use or where they might want to go. If the player has NPCs with them the various NPCs might have suggestions along the way, essentially pointing out the hints the developers dropped. With a low difficulty setting the NPCs might point everything out, with a high difficulty setting they might point nothing out.
However, none of these hinted things should be known as solutions or something else, they just need to produce the correct results. The game should recognize when the task is completed, ignoring how it was completed. This way the player can truly go about solving the problems in any way they chooses, but they're not doing so blindly or with no idea of where to begin.
Quote:Original post by digitec devil
I've been thinking about this very issue myself for quite a while. I think if the technology and budget are available, give the player as many options as possible, but also give them some direction.
So you're saying that we would be able to match our heroes given a few hints? If so I think I'd agree with you, because the hints are really just interface cues that make up for our lack of real input into the digital realm (we can't taste, touch, smell, etc.)
If games will look more realistic/reactive and manipulations will be more realistic, there are still alot of simpler puzzles that CAN be done by players (a game where you have to be a REAL nuclear scientist to solve the final BOSS puzzle wont be too popular with the general public).
I would just be satisfied with such realistic games which allow the player to be creative in solving problems (not just the typical 'led by the nose' precanned choreographed crap we mostly have today).
I expect that people will also get better at solving game puzzles when the programs allow them to, but you are right that split second recall of overly specialized knowlege to solve a problem (as done by the typical hero) isnt likely to make for a good game.
BTW I actually threw out a Lucas Arts game recently because of a poor design where a hop/skip/jump situation(one that couldnt be done with slow deliberation) was too hard to perform (and I had already wasted too much time on it). Its one of the places where I would have allowed a cheat to get past it. The game was a Console port to PC and apparently didnt have a cheat mode to bypass the situation. As on many such ports they didnt bother to readjust the game for the differences of the controls.
Quote:Original post by WavinatorQuote:Original post by digitec devil
I've been thinking about this very issue myself for quite a while. I think if the technology and budget are available, give the player as many options as possible, but also give them some direction.
So you're saying that we would be able to match our heroes given a few hints? If so I think I'd agree with you, because the hints are really just interface cues that make up for our lack of real input into the digital realm (we can't taste, touch, smell, etc.)
Exactly. The players on their own might do something successfully, but with some helpful hints they can do something epic.
The problem with stuff like this is that it's hard to give the player a thorough grounding in the boundaries of the game mechanics in these situations -- since that's basically giving the solution to the puzzle away -- therefore it requires some thinking outside the square on the part of the player to try to push the boundaries of the game mechanics in unexpected directions.
Most genres/games come with preconceptions of the boundaries of the game mechanics and the further you go outside these preconceptions, the more outside the square your players need to think.
These problems can be overcome with exposure to the game mechanic(s) that will be used to solve the puzzle, but to make the game enjoyable (for people who like to solve puzzles rather than pretend to zolve them after being told how) the exposure needs to be just enough to give the player impetus to actually try to use the mechanic, while maintaining the need to think outside the square.
[edit] Most of which has been said while I wrote this post and checked my email [lol]
Most genres/games come with preconceptions of the boundaries of the game mechanics and the further you go outside these preconceptions, the more outside the square your players need to think.
These problems can be overcome with exposure to the game mechanic(s) that will be used to solve the puzzle, but to make the game enjoyable (for people who like to solve puzzles rather than pretend to zolve them after being told how) the exposure needs to be just enough to give the player impetus to actually try to use the mechanic, while maintaining the need to think outside the square.
[edit] Most of which has been said while I wrote this post and checked my email [lol]
Quote:Original post by digitec devilQuote:Original post by WavinatorQuote:Original post by digitec devil
I've been thinking about this very issue myself for quite a while. I think if the technology and budget are available, give the player as many options as possible, but also give them some direction.
So you're saying that we would be able to match our heroes given a few hints? If so I think I'd agree with you, because the hints are really just interface cues that make up for our lack of real input into the digital realm (we can't taste, touch, smell, etc.)
Exactly. The players on their own might do something successfully, but with some helpful hints they can do something epic.
Or rather, with some helpful hints, the player will know that he's still doing something that's recognized by the game. The problem is often that you can see one way to solve a problem, but you just don't know if the game is going to acknowledge it. That means it's often a waste of time to even try to go your own way. The player needs some feedback saying "Yeah, you can do this, and the game will react properly", or "Nah, sorry, we hadn't thought about this solution, so if you try to do this, you'll either screw up your game, or just waste your time achieving nothing".
A very simple example that comes to mind is in KoTOR, you have to trick a huge rancor into eating something explosive to kill it. My first idea was to give it one of those mines I'd been pulling out of the ground everywhere for the last 30 minutes, but it turns out the game only counts grenades as explosives. How was I supposed to know that? Does that encourage me to try to come up with ideas for solving these puzzles myself? Or does it just encourage me to look up a walkthrough, toss away my own initiative, and just stick to the simple solutions I'm given?
Games are limited, not just by the interface, like Wavinator said, but also by being unable to improvise or react. Everything has to be implemented by the developers, before the game can react to your actions. Some completely obvious (to the player) solution might be "invalid" just because the designer didn't think of it. That means the player needs some kind of feedback on whether or not his ideas actually works. Whether or not it's worth spending 5 minutes trying to stack those crates so you can escape out the window. Or if it's possible to trap that big monster coming at you so you don't have to fight it using your tiny pistol.
Quote:Original post by SpoonbenderQuote:Original post by digitec devilQuote:Original post by WavinatorQuote:Original post by digitec devil
I've been thinking about this very issue myself for quite a while. I think if the technology and budget are available, give the player as many options as possible, but also give them some direction.
So you're saying that we would be able to match our heroes given a few hints? If so I think I'd agree with you, because the hints are really just interface cues that make up for our lack of real input into the digital realm (we can't taste, touch, smell, etc.)
Exactly. The players on their own might do something successfully, but with some helpful hints they can do something epic.
Or rather...
I'm thinking further along than that (technology wise). The game will not have to recognize a certain action as producing the correct results for the missons/quests.
If you're supposed to kill a guy for example, you could just kill him, you could hire someone else to do it for a hefty fee, you could frame him for a crime and get him hanged. Each of these would result in him dying and that is the only goal you have, so the game doesn't care about how you got him killed, just that he is dead.
This of course involves a much more in depth system for a.i./physics/logic, but why limit myself in theory?
AH HA! I knew it! This is exactly what Im trying to overcome with my game! THIS is the exact reason why I decided to make an interactive RPG, because if you let the player interact with the environment the way they would logically, then the player is not bound by the game interface, only bound by logic. And most players are logical enough thinkers to develop ways around a problem given the appropriate tools!
For example, in SpoonBenders post, he mentions tricking a rancor into eating a mine. This didnt work in KOTOR but would have totally worked in the one I plan to make. Because a rancor eating a mine WOULD logically damage it!
How many times have you been playing a game and are working on a puzzle and were stuck saying, "Man, if I could only move this rock..." or "Oh crap! If I could only open this door...!" I think limitations like this, where the environment (being the only set of tools available to a player, outside of his inventory) acts only as a prop, put a lot of limits on how the game is played, often leaving the player having to trial and error his way through the game, and it makes for a stressful or disappointing experience.
For example, in SpoonBenders post, he mentions tricking a rancor into eating a mine. This didnt work in KOTOR but would have totally worked in the one I plan to make. Because a rancor eating a mine WOULD logically damage it!
How many times have you been playing a game and are working on a puzzle and were stuck saying, "Man, if I could only move this rock..." or "Oh crap! If I could only open this door...!" I think limitations like this, where the environment (being the only set of tools available to a player, outside of his inventory) acts only as a prop, put a lot of limits on how the game is played, often leaving the player having to trial and error his way through the game, and it makes for a stressful or disappointing experience.
Indeed, games are very limiting in their manipulations of the environment and NPC's. Its not the players solution that matters, is the solution the programmers have accounted for that does, which breeds a total lack of creativity in gamers. The best way to overcome such a problem isn't so much to program every possibly outcome, but to leave the objectives vague in how they are to be accomplished, with an open ended physics and NPC model. The programmer wouldn't have to come up with every solution the player might so he can think more on the fly.
The downsides to this are that the player may think of an expoit, or overly easy solution that the programmer hasn't accounted for, breaking what the programmer wants to generally be a difficult situation. An example of this might be infinite ammo, or being able to crush the pan-Ultimate uber boss 9000 with a rock, thus avoiding the whole hour long climatic combat. Then again, just squishing the last boss and not having to spend the next hour in some final apocalyptic fight would be quite refreshing. XD
The downsides to this are that the player may think of an expoit, or overly easy solution that the programmer hasn't accounted for, breaking what the programmer wants to generally be a difficult situation. An example of this might be infinite ammo, or being able to crush the pan-Ultimate uber boss 9000 with a rock, thus avoiding the whole hour long climatic combat. Then again, just squishing the last boss and not having to spend the next hour in some final apocalyptic fight would be quite refreshing. XD
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
