Doomed from the start

Drigovas · 2007-07-14T05:24:26

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.

Game Design and Theory Game Design

Started by Drigovas July 12, 2007 05:21 AM

12 comments, last by jbadams 16 years, 9 months ago

Drigovas

509

Author

July 12, 2007 06:18 PM

Thanks for the input.

As it stands right now, the 'mission briefing' hasn't been written, but there most certainly will be one, and it most certainly will contain information somewhat to the effect of "There will be only one exit" and "Make certain to secure passage to the exit for the rest of your team". The exit is also very clearly marked already, and a defensive advantage is already presented in that room, so this central room is very obviously of tactical importance. As the original design stood though [and still stands, but thats because I've not worked on it], the level never actually restricts the player from shooting themselves in the foot by abandoning that strategic point.

Putting the level on the back burner for now though [especially considering the clear response of "don't do it"], and going with things a bit more typical and straight-forward [attack this, defend that...]. Who knows, maybe it'll make it in later.

With regard to loosing characters, once a character is dead, the individual character is gone forever [no resurrection], but it's not like the team will forever have a empty slot in it. Extras can be recruited at very little charge to the player, but characters gain experience [it doesn't make *that* big of a difference, but a hardened veteran is of substantially greater value than a fresh recruit, especially considering they both take up a single character slot when deciding who to bring on a mission]. Starting a squad from scratch with all fresh recruits, and suffering the resource loss associated with loosing the complete equipment set of a full squad can be pretty bad, but not unrecoverable.

guywithknife

479

July 13, 2007 07:00 PM

I like this idea. Definitely put it in, but warn the player (you said it's already obvious that its an important room, so mention in the briefing that you need to defend the exit and your set). I like how it forces the player to split concentration between the defence and the attack on the rest of the level. Challenging and great for a later mission, provided the rest of the level isn't too easy.

Like I said, I like it.

Tom

352

July 13, 2007 07:23 PM

A mention in the briefing isn't enough, as many players will largely ignore briefings and get straight into the game. You need to have plenty of indications as to what specifically must be accomplished during the mission. One of the worst design aspects of MechCommander was the complete lack of useful tactical information given (or, rather, not given) during each briefing. I had to fail some missions several times before I had enough information to complete them. I did finish the game for some reason, but it frustrated me to hell and back.

GDNet+. It's only $5 a month. You know you want it.

jbadams

26,386

July 14, 2007 05:24 AM

Quote:Original post by Drigovas
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.]

I don't really think it's fair for that situation to be allowed to occur - there's little fun in playing a game you cannot win unless you're at least provided with an alternative (but presumably lesser) objective that can still allow the player to achieve something.

In my mind it's ok (sometimes even a very good thing!) to allow the player to continue after achieving the objective has become improbable but if they're able to reach a stage where it becomes impossible I'd personally consider your design to be flawed unless you're providing some lesser or alternative objective that can still be achieved (in a survival game for example perhaps you can no longer save the city, but you can still rescue some people).

Your specific example sounds like it might be alright: it's possible for the player to get themselves into a situation where they are unable to survive leaving the mission, but reaching thier target still achieves something. As others have mentioned however, it would be a good idea to somehow indicate to your player that leaving a rear-guard is a recommended course of action, especially considering the penalties for not doing so.

- Jason Astle-Adams

Doomed from the start

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Doomed from the start

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines