Hello everyone, I don't normally venture this far south on the boards, but I've come up with a question while I was working on a level tonight for my current project. The level involves a series of pivotal decisions that the player must make very early in the level that decide the possibility for success in the end of the level. The level is long, and the time between the time when these decisions are made and the time when the result of these decisions will impact the player is potentially in excess of an hour [possibly several hours, plenty of time to have saved the game]. The problem is this: Should the player be allowed to continue along a level toward their objective when success in the over-all level has become impossible [or at least improbable to the point of the chances of success being negligible.] It's worth noting that the cost of failure is pretty steep, so it's not just a matter of clicking 'retry mission'. I've spoken to a few people about this, and have gotten some input, but I'd like to put the question forward to the lot of you for your suggestions. Here are a few of the things I've been considering: This level [and any level in which a player does not immediately pay for mistakes, or cannot continually correct mistakes] should be thrown out completely. The level should be shortened, so as to make the time between the time of the mistake being made and the time the effects are noticed, smaller. The level should result in failure as soon as victory is impossible [or highly unlikely]. As long as there is ample notice previous to critical decisions about the correct decisions, all is fair. Force the correct decision to be made previous to the player being allowed to progress in instances of pivotal decisions. Thank you for your input. ************************************************************ Below this line is information about the specific project If the above was sufficient, feel free to skip this. If this will aid your consideration, feel free to read it. ************************************************************ The project is a squad based tactical game, and for this particular level the player will likely have a sizable force to work with [7-10 characters]. The level in question is set up with the players force starting on one side of a rather long straight set of rooms, each divided by a door, and certain generally weak enemy units. At the end of this set of rooms is a single rather large and easily defended room that is a T-junction, with a door on either size [excluding the door the player used to enter the room], one door leads to the level exit, and the other leads deeper into the [rather large] level, and eventually leads to the players objective for that level. Coming from behind the player are going to be an endless stream of rather weak enemies to assault the player from behind, and will flood one room at a time [they trickle in, so holding a room from their advance is not *too* difficult, but taking a room back is nearly impossible]. The general goal of the level is to force the player to divide their forces, leaving several units in the large-easily defended room to hold open access to the level's exit, and the rest of the units actually progressing to complete the objective. The complete level [if completed correctly] will likely take well in excess of an hour to finish. Just a few minutes to reach the pivotal central room [the T-junction mentioned above], and over an hour to actually lay siege to the rest of the level, and complete the objected, and back track out of the level. If the player chooses not to hold that one pivotal room, though, actually finishing the level is impossible [the enemies will take up position in that room, activate various defenses in that room, and can easily hold it against any attack the player could mount, as the room was designed to be.] Any character killed is dead forever, and loosing an entire squad is potentially devastating to the players ability to continue forward. Completion of the level's objective will result in a 'mission complete' state, even if the entire squad is killed as it attempts to leave the level. 'Withdrawing' from a level results in minimal-severe [depending on the enemy presence in the immediate area, which in the case of withdrawing right outside of the room in question, would be severe] random casualties, and random resource losses in the form of equipment the squad was carrying being left behind. Leaving the level by moving units to the level exit [regardless of mission completion status], death, and 'withdrawing' are the only options a player has to leave a level. Saving inside the level will lock the player into one of these three fates. Failure of a mission objective results in a forced withdrawal, which will likely have very little penalty on the player in any position that isn't under the heavy enemy influence of that pivotal room.

I imagine a lot of players frustrated at the end of the level, unable to continue, thinking 'there must be something that I forgot to do...' and spending quite some time looking for it, when it is actually impossible for them to go forward.

It seems it's critical to inform the player of the situation; if losing a character permanently is possible, let him know, keep this in the documentation of the game *and* remind the player as soon as the character is dead; if he failed to reach a goal, and this makes the game a lot harder or impossible, tell the details to the player just as he fails.

However, there is one small detail that is very important... you write that failure is not just matter of retrying the level; does this means that you cannot fix mistakes, at all? or do you mean, just through the 1-hour-long level?

If it's just through the level, then no problem. If you mean the player can never, under any circumstance fix wrongdoings, then at least the player should *never* be locked into an impossible situation, since the only solution would be to restart the entire game.

Another less important detail is the difficulty, since the easier the game is, it's less likely the situation arises, thought it doesn't removes it.

Quote:The level involves a series of pivotal decisions that the player must make very early in the level that decide the possibility for success in the end of the level. The level is long, and the time between the time when these decisions are made and the time when the result of these decisions will impact the player is potentially in excess of an hour [possibly several hours, plenty of time to have saved the game].

I would say avoid the situation in the first place. If it would cause players to be frustrated (and even think about leaving the game and no longer playing it), then it is something that should be seriously though about being dropped from the game.

Quote:The problem is this: Should the player be allowed to continue along a level toward their objective when success in the over-all level has become impossible [or at least improbable to the point of the chances of success being negligible.

Here is a solution. At the point where the objects are needed, have a way for the player to quickly go back to where the items are and return to where they are needed. This might be a security door that can only be opened from the far side and once opened the player can move through it easily, or some other "thing" that you can use. This way, if the player does forget (or just doesn't know that the objects are needed), then they haven't wasted all that time playing your level.

Have a look at this aricle (http://www.designersnotebook.com/Columns/005_Bad_Game_Designer_1/005_bad_game_designer_1.htm). Especially the 8th entry.

I think greksters idea was a good one. I don't think you should hand the required strategy to the user on a plate. However if the level reallly is that long I would be pretty p*ssed if I realise I'd messed up (especially if I'd saved and couldn't go back), so I think adding a 'hold the room' objective is a good way to guide the player in the right direction.

If your game has normal mission briefings, can't you just diagram such ideas as valuable.

If the idea is, doing X is absolutely necessary - then the question is - is it the kind of thing that should have been known when planning the mission ... if so make it an objective or recommendation or something. If it couldn't have been known before than either do the "your player noticed the situation in game" type hack, or just leave it hard and punish the unwise.

If the idea is that doing X is helpful, but not necessary - the the question is still about when / how it should become known / obvious, but the options are different. A briefing that just generally points out "defensible" areas and/or likely "access points" the enemy will use should be enough for th brighter people - and those who like a challenge can skip it anyway. Or you can still use the in game notices ... or just hints ("if they keep coming through those doors they'll be like lambs to the slaughter" or "I love these turrets, we could hold off a hole army from here with just 2 men" ...) no rules, no force of god ... just good ideas suggested as appropriate. Of course your game would need "chatter" in general for this to work.

Alternatively ... you can always let the player sabotage or deactivate the defenses as an alternative ... giving you 2 ways to complete the missions well: method A) use the defensible position, split squad and kill lots of badies. B) destroy the defensible position, move on, and get the hell out of dodge.