Encouraging players not to use an item

Started by
14 comments, last by jbadams 17 years, 7 months ago
If I'm going to need those bullets at some point in the game, you must ensure I still have them at that point. Encouraging me not to waste them earlier isn't enough; if I have to replay your entire game due to not being able to pass a certain point because I wasted the bullets you have a serious design flaw (sadly one that came up in a lot of adventure games).

Similarly, you can't let me use those bullets to kill off a character that needs to be around later on. At the least you'd need to make killing someone and instant loss so as not to waste any more time but preferably the action should be prevented entirely, otherwise we have much the same flaw where the entire game must be played again due to an incorrect decision.


If the bullets aren't required and I'm not going to be able to screw things up (or if you've gone the instant game-over route for killing the wrong character (could be annoying and/or seem quite illogical depending on the situation)) then let me use them whenever I like, and perhaps just provide the occasional gentle reminder that I shouldn't waste them.

If the bullets are required or I can screw up my entire game by killing the wrong person then I'd suggest not giving me any opportunity to use the gun before it's required, and further that you somehow ensure I can't use it later on.



Regarding having the gun jam it probably isn't a particularly good idea; if my gun jams every time I try to use it why would I assume it will work when I get to the situation that requires it? Furthermore, how are you going to explain it in a logical fashion? A more rational alternative to this particular option would be to only provide the ammunition when it's actually required and to then ensure that ammunition is removed from the player by the end of the situation.

Quote:Originally posted by Flarelocke
One game I played (can't remember which) had a good solution to this: when you're pointing your gun at someone the game designers don't want you to shoot, your character lowers the gun and won't fire.
That one only works well if I have my gun out all the time. If I do then that's fine, but being an adventure game I suspect it may not be the case. Essentially we have the same problem as the mysterious jamming; if I've always lowered my gun before then eventually I'll stop pulling it out at all and therefore won't realise when I'm actually able to use it.

A modification to this one that could make it work would be to have the character draw the weapon automatically when it should be used and holster it again after. This would wreck any suspense or element of surprise however and from the sounds of the OP these are desirable elements.



I'd say the option of making the gun an easier way out but never an actual requirement is probably a good one, and then just make the player aware that ammunition is scarce.


Hope my thoughts are of some help. [smile]

- Jason Astle-Adams

Advertisement
Lots of great suggestions. Since I would want this to be more of an adventure game than a shooter and I wouldn't want the player to use violent means to solve problems. I agree that it would be cruel to the player and stupid from a design perspective to require anything that you can use up. This is a game where encounters would be few and far between and somewhat scripted. A bullet to the head might provide an instant win, but that wouldn't always be an option. I would also like to make the gun impractical unless you really need the range. Since you would be playing as a scientist, your aim could be shaky and movement could be slowed.

I was thinking about adding a ranged item/weapon without ammo or anything later on just to put players at ease and maybe get more creative with puzzles. I was thinking about a ranged key/stun weapon. It could shoot small balls of light that stun enemies, disrupt machinery, open doors, etc. This wouldn't need ammo and could spawn some fun Metroid-esque puzzles.
Quote:Original post by Kazgoroth


I'd say the option of making the gun an easier way out but never an actual requirement is probably a good one, and then just make the player aware that ammunition is scarce.


Hope my thoughts are of some help. [smile]


Yeah, that would probably be it's function. Sort of a way to bail out of difficult fights or maybe a way to access something hidden in the game (like an optional bonus).
Quote:Original post by Funkymunky
Quote:Original post by Flarelocke
One game I played (can't remember which) had a good solution to this: when you're pointing your gun at someone the game designers don't want you to shoot, your character lowers the gun and won't fire.


HL2

Doom 3 as well.
Quote:Similarly, you can't let me use those bullets to kill off a character that needs to be around later on.


hehe, was just thinking of the old Sierra type games, and I guess it would defeat the purpose bringing up a message saying "I'm sorry, but you have killed a key character and wasted a bullet you needed to use later on. New Game, Reload Game or Quit to Windows?" [lol]

Sorry if someone has mentioned this before, but if it's going to be an adventure game, maybe you could structure your environment/stages such that you only encounter one bullet at a time along the way, and the person/thing you need to use the bullet against is in that area (prior to finding the bullet). But I guess it would be too obvious. This is definitely a tricky problem. Do you need to have a gun in the game? Is it a necessity?

Maybe you could have it that you can use a gun against anyone (but if it's against a character that shouldn't be killed or harmed by a bullet, have a scripted event or something that prevents this from happening). But make it so you can find another bullet later on, so when one is wasted you are able to complete the game.
Quote:Original post by Sandbar
Quote:Similarly, you can't let me use those bullets to kill off a character that needs to be around later on.
hehe, was just thinking of the old Sierra type games
Indeed, so many of them unfortunately suffered from this problem, and it's a massive design flaw.

- Jason Astle-Adams

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement