Game: Battle for Wesnoth
Feature: Escape the forces attacking your home.
Comments: In the standard campaigns at least, you're given a choice as to which route to take while you run away from someone or other. Either way will lead to ambush (mountains -> orcs, swamps -> undead). The first time it's a pain. After that it's just plain ridiculous. Especially as you can simply beat the enemies attacking you if you're not so focused on moving your main character to a random signpost somewhere.

Game: Starfighter3000 (DOS version)
Feature: Fog.
Comments: I've never seen so much fog anywhere. Ever. It's even in space. The original Acorn version of the game didn't have any. Just why? Enemy fighters need to have little red rings drawn round them on your display, so you know there's something there. Even so, they start shooting at you before they show up on the display. The game might almost not bother with the actual graphics, and just have some red rings on a murky grey screen.

Game: Almost everyone
Feature: Video settings detection
Comments: Almost every game mis detects my proper video settings, notably Half-life 2, I can turn almost every setting to full, but it always sets it to medium or low. Argh!

Quote:But if there is no challenge, there is no fun. And if there's a save point everywhere that I need one without penalty, there is no fun.

And if there are insufficient save points for me to be able to make continual progress through the game, there's no fun.

Let me guess... you're a student? Or unemployed? Or otherwise have lots of free time? That's fine for you then, wish I was still a student, but I get, typically, about seven hours a week (one hour a day) to play computer games because I have a busy, busy life. The threat or danger of having to waste my precious time if I fail does not add suspense, or a fear of failure. Really, it doesn't. It adds frustration and annoyance and, very quickly, the result of me taking the game back to the shop for a refund.

You can play the game the way you want to play it - that's fine. Save very rarely and convince yourself you're having more fun. Let me play the game the way I want to play it, too. I will save very frequently and get to actually see all the cool stuff that's in the game.

One design decision (save when you want, or at least have frequent save points) allows both of us to enjoy the game - you don't have to save at all, and if you want to go back more than one save point you can. The other design decision (can only save at certain widely spaced save points) only allows you to enjoy the game, as I won't enjoy having my valuable time wasted.

If, as a game designer, you make the choice based on what you like, not what other people might like, then the chances are very high you are not designing the the kinds of games I (for one) want to play. If you feel comfortable with restricting your target audience just so you can feel the game is "challenging", I guess nothing more I can say will convince you otherwise. When I design games I prefer as many people to enjoy them as possible, not just myself.

Quote:And if there are insufficient save points for me to be able to make continual progress through the game, there's no fun.

Let me guess... you're a student? Or unemployed? Or otherwise have lots of free time? That's fine for you then, wish I was still a student, but I get, typically, about seven hours a week (one hour a day) to play computer games because I have a busy, busy life. The threat or danger of having to waste my precious time if I fail does not add suspense, or a fear of failure. Really, it doesn't. It adds frustration and annoyance and, very quickly, the result of me taking the game back to the shop for a refund.

You can play the game the way you want to play it - that's fine. Save very rarely and convince yourself you're having more fun. Let me play the game the way I want to play it, too. I will save very frequently and get to actually see all the cool stuff that's in the game.

One design decision (save when you want, or at least have frequent save points) allows both of us to enjoy the game - you don't have to save at all, and if you want to go back more than one save point you can. The other design decision (can only save at certain widely spaced save points) only allows you to enjoy the game, as I won't enjoy having my valuable time wasted.

If, as a game designer, you make the choice based on what you like, not what other people might like, then the chances are very high you are not designing the the kinds of games I (for one) want to play. If you feel comfortable with restricting your target audience just so you can feel the game is "challenging", I guess nothing more I can say will convince you otherwise. When I design games I prefer as many people to enjoy them as possible, not just myself.

I think the simple solution is just, to not have any saves points. Have restart points(like beginnings of levels) and give the player a choice to have all the monsters respawn when they die or keep the game state from the point just before you die and then reset the players position to a restart point. It may be annoying having to track through areas over again but at least you wouldnt have to keep killing the same monsters or redoing things and would be quicker to get back to the point that you were.

Anyway to get back on track

Game: Diablo 2 and almost every RPG
Feature: Character development
Comments: The large majority of RPGs do not allow you to test skills/stats, change them or adequately analyse which ones are good. This annoys me because in them you have a limited pool of skills/abilities and so you must choose carefully which ones you build up. But you are playing the game blind as you do not know what you will encounter in the future, and so you could end up creating a character which is unable to or only with difficulty able to continue. Generally to adequately build your characters in these games you need to look at a walkthrough(unless you dont mind playing for hundreds of hours like they did to make the walkthrough).

Game: Nearly every space sim ever.
Feature: Outer space is full of water.
Comments: In the real world, outer space is nearly a vacuum. In the alternative universe which nearly every space sim ever is set in, outer space is filled with water. There is a top speed which is only a few km/s at best, and continuous thrust is required to maintain constant velocity.

Quote:Original post by SunTzu
... [ Excellent, but ultimately futile, arguments ] ...

What he said.

Quote:Original post by Torquemeda
I think the simple solution is just, to not have any saves points. Have restart points(like beginnings of levels) and give the player a choice to have all the monsters respawn when they die or keep the game state from the point just before you die and then reset the players position to a restart point. It may be annoying having to track through areas over again but at least you wouldnt have to keep killing the same monsters or redoing things and would be quicker to get back to the point that you were.

How is that a solution? It's not going to satisfy either Roots or SunTzu!

Roots finds the presence of a save game system he doesn't have to use offensive. No doubt he's going to be annoyed that there's the option of teleporting to an earlier location without having to face the same challenges for the 100th time. Apparently that won't be fun.

SunTzu doesn't ever want to be forced to replay part of the game unless it's on his terms. You'll probably argue that it's not "replaying" since the game isn't the same the second time around, because there are no monsters. That's true: the first time you die. Every time through that level after the first is the same.

Quote:
Game: Diablo 2 and almost every RPG
Feature: Character development
Comments: The large majority of RPGs do not allow you to test skills/stats, change them or adequately analyse which ones are good. This annoys me because in them you have a limited pool of skills/abilities and so you must choose carefully which ones you build up. But you are playing the game blind as you do not know what you will encounter in the future, and so you could end up creating a character which is unable to or only with difficulty able to continue. Generally to adequately build your characters in these games you need to look at a walkthrough(unless you dont mind playing for hundreds of hours like they did to make the walkthrough).

I sort of agree to the extent that you shouldn't have to have supernatural knowledge of the future to complete the game. (Unless your character can see the future.)

What method of character development do you prefer?

1. Character progression is essentially fixed. When you gain a level, the game's designer chooses what happens to your abilities. Exceptions are not relevant: e.g. you can choose to train in swords or axes, but your choice of weapon has no effect other than combat animations.

2. Character progression is fully under the player's control, but the game ensures that the challenges presented usually complement the character's abilities. Exceptions are either heavily foreshadowed (so it's your fault if you get it wrong), or part of optional side-quests (so you probably have to play repeatedly with an assortment of different builds to complete all side-quests).

3. In a party-based game, the main character's progression is fully under the player's control, but the game controls the supporting characters' progression to ensure the party is balanced.

4. Character progression is fully under the player's control, and the game's designer provides several different methods of overcoming challenges. Often, none of the methods will suit the character and he won't be able to overcome that particular challenge. This implies a significantly non-linear game design in which the distinction between the main quest and side quests may not be clear, if it even exists.

5. Character progression is fully under the player's control, and the game's designer providers precisely one way to overcome a challenge. If your character can't do it, you lose.

Character development is pretty stupid anyway. In the average RPG, your character has been training intensively for eleventy billion years, yet after maybe a week of adventuring, he becomes hundreds of times more powerful in almost every facet.

Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum
Game: Nearly every space sim ever.
Feature: Outer space is full of water.
Comments: In the real world, outer space is nearly a vacuum. In the alternative universe which nearly every space sim ever is set in, outer space is filled with water. There is a top speed which is only a few km/s at best, and continuous thrust is required to maintain constant velocity.

I agree that realistic physics have merit, but I think for most people it also detracts from the "fun factor" of a game. Keeping track of physics in 3D space in the middle of a fast paced fight would be highly unfun. Personally I think realistic physics should only be used in 2D space games, as the physics are easier to visualize.

Quote:How is that a solution? It's not going to satisfy either Roots or SunTzu!

Ah! but then thats the good thing about games you could have many options to satisfy a large number of people you just have to program for it and ask the player at the beginning of the game how they would like to play.

Quote:What method of character development do you prefer?

None of those to be honest. Although its not much of a problem with single player RPGs, because they are for the most part quite easy. Even if your character is poorly optimised all you would perhaps miss is side quests and such but as long as you gain a few levels then the game can generally still be completed.

With a game like Diablo though, and it being online the problem is exaggerated and highlighted with the large number of build guides which you would be foolish not to conform to.

What I would like to see is one where all skills are useful(and proven to be) throughout the game. You dont have redundancies where a slightly more powerful skill replaces the previous one. Not all stats need to be on an ever increasing scale. It should not have weapons or quests which rely on skills/stats which you are not able to change to after acquiring the knowledge of them.

Quote:Original post by Torquemeda

Quote:What method of character development do you prefer?

None of those to be honest. Although its not much of a problem with single player RPGs, because they are for the most part quite easy. Even if your character is poorly optimised all you would perhaps miss is side quests and such but as long as you gain a few levels then the game can generally still be completed.

With a game like Diablo though, and it being online the problem is exaggerated and highlighted with the large number of build guides which you would be foolish not to conform to.

What I would like to see is one where all skills are useful(and proven to be) throughout the game. You dont have redundancies where a slightly more powerful skill replaces the previous one. Not all stats need to be on an ever increasing scale. It should not have weapons or quests which rely on skills/stats which you are not able to change to after acquiring the knowledge of them.

To the extent that this sounds like character development at all, this sounds like type 1 from my list. Your character's development is basically chosen ahead of time by the game's designer, and the choices you make have no significant effect on the outcome, in this case not because your choices have no effect, but because they have no permanent effect.

But it sounds more like you're arguing against any kind of character development. To my mind, character development is not easily reversible. If it takes you 5 hours of game time to specialize in magic, then changing your specialization to melee combat should take you between 5 and 10 additional hours of game time. That should be much longer than it would take to just find a magical solution to your problem.

Character traits you can swap around as easily as you'd swap a piece of equipment should be thought of as equipment.