Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
HOW TO ENCOURAGE THE PLAYER TO EXPLORE?
Posts
Craze
View playlists
CloseMilennin
Well, first the player needs to know there is actually an option to explore. If you have a secret passage, but it's not clear to the player that it's there without hugging the wall or something, then most people will miss it.
Second, exploring must be fun and rewarding. Showing unique scenery, easter eggs, special gear, collectables, hidden monster/boss encounters, interesting lore pieces etc. A lot of empty dead ends kill exploration.
Avoid a lot of backtracking. Let the player unlock shortcuts to get back to the main path quickly after finishing exploration of a side path.
Basically, your level design must be built around promoting exploration. Have (early) secret rooms in obvious places, so they aren't too hard to find at least early on. Make multiple paths to the finish, so people may consider going back and take the other path.
Also, there will always be people who will not bother with exploring stuff. Some people prefer to stay on the main path and go for the goal as fast as possible.
i have to go and will reply to the rest of this topic later but milennin's posts caught my eye so i wanted to say something!
Quite a few of you are saying "use flashy bits" or "put special gear around" or some such variant. That's all well and good, but there's a more basic idea at work here: patterns. Consistency is so important in game design!
In FF Type-0 (granted I'm only about 8 hours in, this is based on what I know so far) every town has a short sidequest that earns you a Pyroxene (metaphyiscal worldbuilding hoo-hah). There's a few things that make them come together really nicely.
> They are all named "Name's Pyroxene" and share an icon
> All of their descriptions say "A l'cie pyroxene found in Town Name"
> You get one in each town after doing a short sidequest helping out
> The first sidequest is stupidly simple, and they slowly require more attention -- eventually you learn to hunt out the sidequest after liberating a town
> The first town to not have an immediate sidequest... finally reveals the guy you turn them in to!
Maybe it gets fucked up in typical FF fashion, but patterns are nice. Patterns are good. Brains like patterns. Compare Pyroxenes to the infamous Zodiac Spear in FFXII, where you have no information to go on. There's no pattern! You feel cheated! Use patterns.
Actually yeah, Craze is completely right. I realized that a lot of the exploration in games I know and love has a repeatable structure, a kind of "start at the beginning of level->find objects->get to the finish->start new level" kind of repetition. This repetition has a kind of zen feeling to it.
Upon reading El_Waka's post again, I would venture that this might be the undoing. If the exploration node is treated as an optional addon, then it's fine, but if you miss it it will affect your chances with bosses greatly later on? I think it's best to provide a structure where if you fail, you can easily know why you failed and remedy that. This makes me want to play your game and figure out what we're actually talking about here, because the question you asked seems very dependent on the context.
the second boss is almost unbeatable without exploring
Upon reading El_Waka's post again, I would venture that this might be the undoing. If the exploration node is treated as an optional addon, then it's fine, but if you miss it it will affect your chances with bosses greatly later on? I think it's best to provide a structure where if you fail, you can easily know why you failed and remedy that. This makes me want to play your game and figure out what we're actually talking about here, because the question you asked seems very dependent on the context.
Craze hits the nail on that one, as a player I take my cue from the dev in the first town and first dungeon, that sets the pattern for me. I take the time to bang into walls, rifle through other people's drawers and bookshelves and talk to every NPC in the starting areas and if I get a reward for doing so either in found items or side quests or helpful advice then I know to continue doing so in later areas. The first dungeon I wander down every side passage and twisting hallway, and look for anomalies, like a patch of worn pathway that dead-ends in a supposedly solid wall, a pattern of torches with a break in the pattern, oddly placed statuary or graphical inconsistency, not to mention jump spots. If I find something I'll then subject the next dungeon to the same treatment. If not I probably won't.
The dev needs to give clues as to the kind of playstyle he is aiming for in order to fully experience the game. Exploration triggers can be subtle or obvious, a treasure chest that is visible but not reachable from the main path is going to compel the player to find a way to get to it, whether that is via an alternate path or by finding an item that allows them to reach it, a legend about a mysterious treasure hidden in the halls of horror will inspire the player to go searching for both the halls and the treasure etc.
Also the only areas of a dungeon in which I don't want encounters are puzzle/trap rooms. Having to dodge monsters whilst also dodging falling boulders, navigating a timed maze, or stepping through a positionally important step sequence is horrendous. Everywhere else, it's the cost of doing business. If I want that fabulous legendary treasure then I'm going to have to face the horrors of the halls.
In the end El_Waka you can only lead your player to the water, they have to choose to drink.
The dev needs to give clues as to the kind of playstyle he is aiming for in order to fully experience the game. Exploration triggers can be subtle or obvious, a treasure chest that is visible but not reachable from the main path is going to compel the player to find a way to get to it, whether that is via an alternate path or by finding an item that allows them to reach it, a legend about a mysterious treasure hidden in the halls of horror will inspire the player to go searching for both the halls and the treasure etc.
Also the only areas of a dungeon in which I don't want encounters are puzzle/trap rooms. Having to dodge monsters whilst also dodging falling boulders, navigating a timed maze, or stepping through a positionally important step sequence is horrendous. Everywhere else, it's the cost of doing business. If I want that fabulous legendary treasure then I'm going to have to face the horrors of the halls.
In the end El_Waka you can only lead your player to the water, they have to choose to drink.
ALso, you might want to teach your player how exploration in your game is done as soon as you can. If there's a wall hiding mechanic, force them to learn that. Beat them over the head with it. Because players are, as a group, fucking morons. They are babies who need to be taught 'search cabinets to find treasure' or 'that wall looks cracked. You can blow it to shit with a bomb'. If you do not make these things clear, the fuckers won't notice and thus will not bother.
That said, there's an especially moronic group who sees these things that are taught and play wrong anyway. And yes, you can play a game wrong. When everything in the game is telling you to pick up a chest (dude, it's bright red and flashing colours in your fucking face), if they don't pick it up that's on them, not on you. Especially if they were told that they need to collect chests to live.
Make your paths easy to see at a glance if the stuff is required to beat the second boss. If it's an optional item (not needed) then make it a little harder to see (but not too hard).
Showing chests is a good way to get people to look for routes to them. Put good treasure in the hard-to-get/find chests so that they know the reward is worth it and will actively seek out said rewards. (A good idea is to graphically differentiate between normal item chests and really good treasure chests, so that they know, at a glance 'I NEED THIS SHIT IN MY LIFE!' A good example of this is in the Ancient Cave of Lufia II. Normal random treasures could be found in the normal chests - it could hold great or horrible treasure - but when you saw a blue chest you would unleash the fires of hell to get the damn thing and destroy everything that stood in your way because those treasures were incredible and could be brought back in to the cave to give you a huge advantage. Also, they were awesome in the main game too.)
I mean, it's like everyone has ever said in every topic about treasure - if you put a long winding path with a million battles in front of a chest, that thing had better not be holding a fucking potion because your player will never bother finding another chest that is off track again.
A good game that did this in the group of the competition was A Traitor's Hold. First map you're on there's a hidden area that is easy to spot because it looks a bit off. It teaches you to look for the oddities in the maps, that there can be offshoot areas that are hidden and in one case confused the hell out of me because of a mapping error that I thought was a hidden treasure (damn it!). But at least everything that was hidden was optional and not required to beat the game.
That said, there's an especially moronic group who sees these things that are taught and play wrong anyway. And yes, you can play a game wrong. When everything in the game is telling you to pick up a chest (dude, it's bright red and flashing colours in your fucking face), if they don't pick it up that's on them, not on you. Especially if they were told that they need to collect chests to live.
Make your paths easy to see at a glance if the stuff is required to beat the second boss. If it's an optional item (not needed) then make it a little harder to see (but not too hard).
Showing chests is a good way to get people to look for routes to them. Put good treasure in the hard-to-get/find chests so that they know the reward is worth it and will actively seek out said rewards. (A good idea is to graphically differentiate between normal item chests and really good treasure chests, so that they know, at a glance 'I NEED THIS SHIT IN MY LIFE!' A good example of this is in the Ancient Cave of Lufia II. Normal random treasures could be found in the normal chests - it could hold great or horrible treasure - but when you saw a blue chest you would unleash the fires of hell to get the damn thing and destroy everything that stood in your way because those treasures were incredible and could be brought back in to the cave to give you a huge advantage. Also, they were awesome in the main game too.)
I mean, it's like everyone has ever said in every topic about treasure - if you put a long winding path with a million battles in front of a chest, that thing had better not be holding a fucking potion because your player will never bother finding another chest that is off track again.
A good game that did this in the group of the competition was A Traitor's Hold. First map you're on there's a hidden area that is easy to spot because it looks a bit off. It teaches you to look for the oddities in the maps, that there can be offshoot areas that are hidden and in one case confused the hell out of me because of a mapping error that I thought was a hidden treasure (damn it!). But at least everything that was hidden was optional and not required to beat the game.
Liberty's hitting the nail on the head as well (there must be a lot of nails around here). I feel like this isn't an issue of exploration, but player direction.
One of the hardest questions you have to answer during game dev, is: "Am I the idiot or are they? Am I designing this game terribly, or are they playing it haphazardly?"
For me, it seems arrogant and maybe even lazy to always blame the lack of success on the player. Firstly, you shouldn't defend a game for breaking its own rules. If your style of objects in the game's universe indicates that they only act one way, but then you break that rule to make the object act another way, it may not be the player's fault.
In El Waka's case, if walls are the same graphic as all the other walls, then the player should have significant indication that this wall is different to the rest. If you can trap them in a room that forces them to use the secret passage, or otherwise, then you can successfully teach the player how to access this item.
Secondly, you have to consider if discovering secret passages in walls should be paramount to becoming strong enough to progress at all in the game. If it is an optional extra that makes life easier, then it might pay to not be so obvious, and to be easily overlooked by the inattentive player. This rewards the player for paying attention.
Thirdly, if the player misses the initial goodies and just rushes through the game, is it possible to go back and retrieve the item, or otherwise correct their mistake? If not, and if it forces the player to load an earlier save to improve their character effectively, I believe that tends to ruin immersion and promotes the frustrating task of rehashing what is most likely identical gameplay just to get back to your previous spot with the required improvements.
Fourthly, being sure to communicate implicitly the value of exploration by rewarding the player early on for doing so, informs the player of what types of things you should pay attention to while playing this game. I believe nhubi explained this in great detail.
One of the hardest questions you have to answer during game dev, is: "Am I the idiot or are they? Am I designing this game terribly, or are they playing it haphazardly?"
For me, it seems arrogant and maybe even lazy to always blame the lack of success on the player. Firstly, you shouldn't defend a game for breaking its own rules. If your style of objects in the game's universe indicates that they only act one way, but then you break that rule to make the object act another way, it may not be the player's fault.
In El Waka's case, if walls are the same graphic as all the other walls, then the player should have significant indication that this wall is different to the rest. If you can trap them in a room that forces them to use the secret passage, or otherwise, then you can successfully teach the player how to access this item.
Secondly, you have to consider if discovering secret passages in walls should be paramount to becoming strong enough to progress at all in the game. If it is an optional extra that makes life easier, then it might pay to not be so obvious, and to be easily overlooked by the inattentive player. This rewards the player for paying attention.
Thirdly, if the player misses the initial goodies and just rushes through the game, is it possible to go back and retrieve the item, or otherwise correct their mistake? If not, and if it forces the player to load an earlier save to improve their character effectively, I believe that tends to ruin immersion and promotes the frustrating task of rehashing what is most likely identical gameplay just to get back to your previous spot with the required improvements.
Fourthly, being sure to communicate implicitly the value of exploration by rewarding the player early on for doing so, informs the player of what types of things you should pay attention to while playing this game. I believe nhubi explained this in great detail.
El_WaKa
3568
Thanks to everybody in this thread, although these tips work better for longer games and not for games that are beatable in less than 20 mins
Yeah, maybe nerfing the second boss would be better, but now I have another idea, how about a secret boss? It would be hard to beat unless you found the items, and to find him you have to look for secret spots, that way, people who don't like exploring can finish the game, while the others have another challenge to beat
Yeah, maybe nerfing the second boss would be better, but now I have another idea, how about a secret boss? It would be hard to beat unless you found the items, and to find him you have to look for secret spots, that way, people who don't like exploring can finish the game, while the others have another challenge to beat
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=CashmereCatBlending the two is fine; it's exactly what I'm suggesting game designers do, in fact. What I'm suggesting they don't do is release something that is not blended at all - that is purely a music album or purely a movie or, in the case of some games I've seen, purely a painting - and then expect the audience to accept that in place of an engaging game when the thing they purchased or downloaded was marketed as, ostensibly, a video game.
People don't experiment because they qualify things under game and movie and play and music and say "don't blend the two". Music games? No, keep within your own medium. Interactive games that work doubly as cinematic experiences and interactive experiences? Nope, don't go there, don't even try. All games have to have a mandatory level of gameplay to be considered games, anything else is obsolete.
Yume Nikki is a pile of horseshit but it does create some small amount of tension in the exploration. Battles and stamina costs and time limits aren't the only way to do that. Yume Nikki does it through emotions and mystery. I guess. All it elicits in me is boredom, but I assume that was at least what they were trying for. In any case, exploration is the primary game mechanic in Yume Nikki, and it does have a win condition for each section. There's always a goal you have to find.
This is not the case for the exploration in, say, a flight simulator. In a typical flight simulator, the only interactive objects in the world are the other planes. Which is why flight simulators don't advertise themselves as an open-world exploration games. Either they give you combat missions, or the controls are the primary gameplay.
I've played too many games with extended sections of gameplay (occasionally even the entire game!) that are like flight simulators without the flight. I'd call them walking simulators, but the RPG Maker ones can't even get that right because you can only walk in four directions. They're... commentaries on the meaninglessness of existance, I guess?
Sound of Flames
Poetry 2k
It can be interesting to try new things that aren't just games in RM. I've seen some pretty interesting shit over the years that doesn't really qualify as a game, but are interesting and worth checking out.
Use the engines to make and explore what you can do with it. If you make an album of music where each track is presented as a save file, hell, why not? It's an interesting idea. I mean, it's not a game but it's still an interesting idea that could spark off other ideas in yourself or others. (Of course, it won't work for being hosted as a game on the site because it's just an interactive jukebox and nope~ ....says the dev who put up a poetry game on the site which does just this, except with graphics and story telling a tale... okay, so there was more to it than just music but it had no real player interaction at all. Don't care, did the thing!)
Explore the thing to your hearts' content. Just don't expect everyone to enjoy or 'get' it.
Poetry 2k
It can be interesting to try new things that aren't just games in RM. I've seen some pretty interesting shit over the years that doesn't really qualify as a game, but are interesting and worth checking out.
Use the engines to make and explore what you can do with it. If you make an album of music where each track is presented as a save file, hell, why not? It's an interesting idea. I mean, it's not a game but it's still an interesting idea that could spark off other ideas in yourself or others. (Of course, it won't work for being hosted as a game on the site because it's just an interactive jukebox and nope~ ....says the dev who put up a poetry game on the site which does just this, except with graphics and story telling a tale... okay, so there was more to it than just music but it had no real player interaction at all. Don't care, did the thing!)
Explore the thing to your hearts' content. Just don't expect everyone to enjoy or 'get' it.
Really though, to try and qualify something as a "game" or not depending on whether or not it has several points in a pre-specified checklist of "what makes a game" is quite limiting. I'd rather have an RMN with Sound of Flames recognized as a true, legit 100% game than many of the other unfinished, unpolished games on this site.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If you wanna make something that's not really a game in RPG Maker, I don't really see the point, and I think you're wasting your time, and personally I would probably not touch it, but I can't tell you that it's wrong. It would be unfair of me to grade something you made as a terrible video game when what you were actually trying to make was a burrito.
When I have a problem is when you wanna make about a third of what should be the gameplay in your RPG be something that's not really a game. You're having an identity crisis as a designer at that point, and you're damaging the other two-thirds of your game. You're either implicitly lying to your players about what they should expect, or you're just an idiot who can't tell the difference between a flight simulator and Ocarina of Time. Either way, get your shit together.
Cashmere, words do have definitions. Calling something a word when it doesn't fit the definition of that word is lying to the player. The player will not appreciate that.
When I have a problem is when you wanna make about a third of what should be the gameplay in your RPG be something that's not really a game. You're having an identity crisis as a designer at that point, and you're damaging the other two-thirds of your game. You're either implicitly lying to your players about what they should expect, or you're just an idiot who can't tell the difference between a flight simulator and Ocarina of Time. Either way, get your shit together.
Cashmere, words do have definitions. Calling something a word when it doesn't fit the definition of that word is lying to the player. The player will not appreciate that.
author=LockeZ
Cashmere, words do have definitions. Calling something a word when it doesn't fit the definition of that word is lying to the player. The player will not appreciate that.
If it's not a game, then they will not be the player. But I'm being facetious. I just hate when people say things aren't really games because what they're often describing are games in every sense of the word. What they're trying to say is that they didn't engage with the game. So, in essence, I'm reacting to a generalization that very many people make, and trying to overcorrect it by being negative towards a definition that you made, which, by all means, pretty much encompasses what I agree to be a game as well. Therefore you're right.
Although I'd still call a Flight Simulator a game.
eplipswich
2728
Very interesting. Here's my 2 cents on this:
I think the reason why he ignored these things is because the object is probably not appealing enough? So it's like, make the object seem unique enough that people may want to investigate it (either immediately or later)
For this, if you ask me, don't just make the room empty. Have something that gives a clue to something so that players would investigate, eg. something shining, or when the player enters a room, you feel something vibrating etc. These may seem subtle, but they are important factors that would likely encourage players to want to find out more.
I put a small animation that shows you can go behind some walls, and the characters were surrounding an object so maybe the player would investigate it, right? nope, he ignored both things..
I think the reason why he ignored these things is because the object is probably not appealing enough? So it's like, make the object seem unique enough that people may want to investigate it (either immediately or later)
I have made some small changes to see if players would notice them (They are not in the current version of the game) like hidden room that looks empty at first glance, obviously they would check everything to see if there's something hidden and then (when they found the item) try the same in the others rooms, right?
For this, if you ask me, don't just make the room empty. Have something that gives a clue to something so that players would investigate, eg. something shining, or when the player enters a room, you feel something vibrating etc. These may seem subtle, but they are important factors that would likely encourage players to want to find out more.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
No amount of clues indicating that the player can find out more is going to make him or her want to. Hold on - I'm not talking about the same thing any more. Different argument this time.
Your clues aren't really very subtle at all, but you're relying on the player using a specific type of video game logic - "if something is in the game then it's probably important." This is not a logical point of view for people who don't play video games, nor for people who haven't had the same experiences in video games that you have had. In real life, or in a game like Elder Scrolls, pretty much everything you come across is irrelevant to you, and there's often a penalty for taking it. In a game like Portal, if something is useful then you're forced to get it. In a game like Minecraft, you can take and use literally anything and win with any of it, so you learn to only take what you think is interesting. The player could be in any of these mindsets, or a different one I didn't think of. So just signaling the fact that something exists in that room or behind that wall isn't going to automatically get players to search for it. Why would they? You didn't tell them to.
In real life, I passed seven doors and fifteen cars on my way from my car to my apartment today, and I didn't check any of them to see if there was free stuff hidden in them.
Your clues aren't really very subtle at all, but you're relying on the player using a specific type of video game logic - "if something is in the game then it's probably important." This is not a logical point of view for people who don't play video games, nor for people who haven't had the same experiences in video games that you have had. In real life, or in a game like Elder Scrolls, pretty much everything you come across is irrelevant to you, and there's often a penalty for taking it. In a game like Portal, if something is useful then you're forced to get it. In a game like Minecraft, you can take and use literally anything and win with any of it, so you learn to only take what you think is interesting. The player could be in any of these mindsets, or a different one I didn't think of. So just signaling the fact that something exists in that room or behind that wall isn't going to automatically get players to search for it. Why would they? You didn't tell them to.
In real life, I passed seven doors and fifteen cars on my way from my car to my apartment today, and I didn't check any of them to see if there was free stuff hidden in them.
El_WaKa
3568
I have uploaded a new version of the game, can someone play it and tell me if the hints are subtle enough? Or if is easy to find every secret? The game is pretty short, maximum 15 mins and I think is necessary to play the game before saying something about it
Oh, and the boss (the four slimes) is easier now (maybe too easy...)
Yeah, you are right, I can't expect that every player checks every room and try to find everything, I think the problem is with the boss...
It has to be easy enough for players that just want to finish the damn game, but hard enough so players that explore every inch (and have better weapons, skills, etc.) can have a nice challenge
In a large game, this is more easy, just grind and come back when you are stronger (and then maybe explore a bit more) but in a short game like this you don't want the player waste time grinding when the game ends in less than 20 minutes anyway...
Or I could just, take the boss out, but then what's the point of exploring? Why find a shiny new weapon or a powerful spell when there are no big enemies to use it? (Who would use Meteo or similar spells against random encounters?)
Right now, I have this, an optional boss, it's not necessary to beat the game (It unlocks another ending though) and it's hard if you are not prepared
But what I really need to do is expand the game, more places to explore, more battles, more everything, because right now is too short...
Oh, and the boss (the four slimes) is easier now (maybe too easy...)
author=LockeZ
No amount of clues indicating that the player can find out more is going to make him or her want to. Hold on - I'm not talking about the same thing any more. Different argument this time.
Your clues aren't really very subtle at all, but you're relying on the player using a specific type of video game logic - "if something is in the game then it's probably important." This is not a logical point of view for people who don't play video games, nor for people who haven't had the same experiences in video games that you have had. In real life, or in a game like Elder Scrolls, pretty much everything you come across is irrelevant to you, and there's often a penalty for taking it. In a game like Portal, if something is useful then you're forced to get it. In a game like Minecraft, you can take and use literally anything and win with any of it, so you learn to only take what you think is interesting. The player could be in any of these mindsets, or a different one I didn't think of. So just signaling the fact that something exists in that room or behind that wall isn't going to automatically get players to search for it. Why would they? You didn't tell them to.
In real life, I passed seven doors and fifteen cars on my way from my car to my apartment today, and I didn't check any of them to see if there was free stuff hidden in them.
Yeah, you are right, I can't expect that every player checks every room and try to find everything, I think the problem is with the boss...
It has to be easy enough for players that just want to finish the damn game, but hard enough so players that explore every inch (and have better weapons, skills, etc.) can have a nice challenge
In a large game, this is more easy, just grind and come back when you are stronger (and then maybe explore a bit more) but in a short game like this you don't want the player waste time grinding when the game ends in less than 20 minutes anyway...
Or I could just, take the boss out, but then what's the point of exploring? Why find a shiny new weapon or a powerful spell when there are no big enemies to use it? (Who would use Meteo or similar spells against random encounters?)
Right now, I have this, an optional boss, it's not necessary to beat the game (It unlocks another ending though) and it's hard if you are not prepared
But what I really need to do is expand the game, more places to explore, more battles, more everything, because right now is too short...
