Sign in to follow this  

dillema

This topic is 4225 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I hope to make games one day pro. Thing is when it comes to games many people and review sites refer to gameplay as though it were the involvement of graphics, music, backgrounds, camera angles, characters, interaction and so on combined. The thing with this is one can choose to see things this way if they want and thats okay as we all have our own points of view and I do think like this at times as well as things other than mechanics (like graphics) can be what sets a game aprt from others. It does seem though that most review sites when reviewing a 1 on 1 fighter do not talk about the mecahnics, as I would imagine they dont know much behind it and the incredibly high amount of programming and mental gameplay logic it requires, but heres what I'm trying to get at. Very often do I see a person talk about a games gameplay as though it were like a fighting game, where say there is a skill level to the game and each characters move or almost every characters move (as far as I understand about fighting game mechanics, which seem very technical and I have very little knowledge of) can be countered, blocked, parried, or something else so the other persons character could beat the other with a move of their own that is specific to the situation at hand. I understand some game mechanics aren't very technical. Say like the first mario bros. where it seems to just be stomp on your opponent and shoot fireballs. Other games though like metal slug are somewhat different in that you have to dodge attacks alot by means of (if I remeber correctly) jumping and ducking as your shooting your enemy, and having to position yourself in a certain place where your enemy is, to trick him into thinking this is where you are going to be when he shoots something at you ( these are mind games and usually happen with bosses or bigger enemies) Also stuff like carefully knowing when to throw your bombs and which enemy to shoot first and the like which make this games mechanics more technical against games like mario bros. 1 and maybe even the ones after this (which also do seem to have some of these elements but maybe not so technical) I would say 1 on 1 versus fighters are probably the the most technical games out there as far as mechanics (could be wrong) but you guys can probably see how games like metal slug start to add up to a fighting games skill level and has more components than just jumping or running. Hope this stuff makes sence. Heres my dillema Lets say a game is really difficult and the manual proivided with it does'nt help much in beating the game. So this means if you can't get passed a certain level, some people might automatically check with some source like a tips and tricks magazine, the internet (gamefaqs) and other sources that help them get pass this stage their having difficulty with. So basically this person is being given the information in how to beat the game instead of using their head in order to figure out how to beat it. My question is should certain games like action ones have puzzles ( like onimusha) and implement other factors of strategy (also like when combat takes place where you control the punches, kicks) when all your looing for is a good action game that requires little to no thought, or would this be boring for you guys, as I have heard other people say this because it gets repetitive? Because basically if you cant get past a certain stage in a level because of a puzzle or some other difficulty and you go and look it up online, well whats the point of adding this type of content if your not going to try and figure this out? I feel if developers were to work some way around this type of stuff it would blance a game even more in various ways. This may seem a little abstract to you guys ( as it kind of is to me) if you havent played the games that I mentioned, and even then it still might be, as there are variables between game to game when it comes to this sort of stuff. But the general idea is there. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tihkn it's not a question of whether games should or shouldn't have puzzles, instead it's a question of whether you want to make your game for people who like puzzles or people who don't like puzzles - these are two different audiences who don't overlap much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have the core path through the game have only moderate puzzles (ones that can be solved with a bit of thinking), and access to special areas/weapons/abilities/etc is only availabel through the more complex puzzles, this solves the dilema (partially).

The players can usually finish the game without needing to look up the hints, but if they wnat to get to the bonuses, then they have to work at it (or cheat). This give the game replayability (for those that like to figgure it out) and slight replayability for those that cheat (they will replay to get the bonuses that they missed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Edtharan
If you have the core path through the game have only moderate puzzles (ones that can be solved with a bit of thinking), and access to special areas/weapons/abilities/etc is only availabel through the more complex puzzles, this solves the dilema (partially).

The players can usually finish the game without needing to look up the hints, but if they wnat to get to the bonuses, then they have to work at it (or cheat). This give the game replayability (for those that like to figgure it out) and slight replayability for those that cheat (they will replay to get the bonuses that they missed).


A little off topic, but I despise this sort of replayability. Actually, I don't think I've replayed a game solely for that reason since before the SNES came out. Personally, I only replay to get more secrets if I would replay it even if there weren't more secrets. Really, these are the sort of secrets that drive me to strategy guides so I don't miss anything that would require 10+ hours of replaying solely to do something that isn't worth 10+ hours of something I don't care to replay.

To get really off topic, I think this is why older games are perceived as better. Back in the day, you enjoyed the game so much you wanted to replay it even though there wasn't anything extra. For example, the only "extras" Super Mario Bros. were coin heavens and warps. The former wouldn't really motivate you to play the game again since it's nothing great, just some more lives which can make this play through easier. The latter just make it easier to get to "the good parts" so, if you don't like level 2, you don't have to play it. They increase replayability only by making it easier to get to level 4, which is the same level 4 I'd beaten 20 times, which I loved so much.

To get back on topic, if you want to keep people from cheating then don't make puzzles that people can post the answers for. 1-on-1 fighters are good at this because it's skill-vs-skill, there's no solution for that, only strategies. Same with FPS games that are still about shooting things and RTS's, especially in multiplayer.

As for puzzles, my experience is that people who like puzzles aren't going to look for cheats until they've concluded they're completely stumped (at which point it almost always turns out to be dumbassery on the developers' side that kept them from finding the solution). People who don't like puzzles are going to cheat to get to "the good stuff" or else not play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Way Walker

To get back on topic, if you want to keep people from cheating then don't make puzzles that people can post the answers for. 1-on-1 fighters are good at this because it's skill-vs-skill, there's no solution for that, only strategies. Same with FPS games that are still about shooting things and RTS's, especially in multiplayer.

Exactly what I wanted to write. There is a large class of games for which experts can only describe what skilled players tend to do, not give complete solutions that anyone can follow.

There are some puzzle games that people don't spoil by reading the answers.
The puzzles can be too numerous and dispersed for other people to know (e.g. finding a solution for a given sudoku is much harder that finding a person or computer program willing to solve it on demand and give hints).
Sometimes the puzzles are randomly generated by the game or arise spontaneously; for example the player experience in some levels of Rogue suddenly shifts from cautiously exploring to find the exit or to visit more rooms to carefully searching and guessing to find the secret passage cutting the level in half.
In both cases, since a ready-made solution is not available, the player can only win by being good at solving puzzles in a certain class.

Other times the puzzles or their solutions are difficult to remember, explain or transcribe; for example in Fish Fillets (two fish lifting and pushing blocks to clear a path to the exit of each level) solutions contain hundreds of steps, with very complex and hard to explain macro-operations and with many little details thst can cause defeat.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 4225 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this