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)
THE COST OF REPETITION
Posts
Ratty524
View playlists
CloseSo looking through feedback on one of my latest projects, I noticed a comment on one attribute of my items in the game. It's an item that warps you out of a dungeon at the cost of 50% of your gold, and the comment noted how it wasn't worth using as a result. The original reason I placed that attribute there, however, was because I was considering that it was a "get out of jail free card" and it had to have some sort of cost for getting out of a dangerous environment easily. Then I realized it had another cost: You have to redo the entire dungeon from the start, and the reduced gold will actually leave you less prepared than before. I want to focus on the former, though, in how painful it really is to do certain tasks over again in games, because if it really is that bad to redo a level, then maybe that cost would be just enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've played many games, especially older ones, where the punishment for losing is redoing everything. In my recent playthrough of Super Mario 3D Land, I actually felt mildly frustrated by the fact that once I die, before hitting a checkpoint, I have to play the entire level from the start, including collecting those hard-to-reach star coins used to unlock secret levels in the game. Even though I consider 3D Land a good game, I always felt a sense of ire out of having to do something I already accomplished over again, usually just for making one simple mistake in a particular spot within the level.
I want to hear from everyone else, though, as players and as designers, how do you feel about having to repeat tasks in a game, be it as a punishment or anything else? As players, do you think having to repeat sections is justified punishment for failing to beat a stage? As designers, do you also think there is an adequate place for this type of repetition in games, and if so, where?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've played many games, especially older ones, where the punishment for losing is redoing everything. In my recent playthrough of Super Mario 3D Land, I actually felt mildly frustrated by the fact that once I die, before hitting a checkpoint, I have to play the entire level from the start, including collecting those hard-to-reach star coins used to unlock secret levels in the game. Even though I consider 3D Land a good game, I always felt a sense of ire out of having to do something I already accomplished over again, usually just for making one simple mistake in a particular spot within the level.
I want to hear from everyone else, though, as players and as designers, how do you feel about having to repeat tasks in a game, be it as a punishment or anything else? As players, do you think having to repeat sections is justified punishment for failing to beat a stage? As designers, do you also think there is an adequate place for this type of repetition in games, and if so, where?
Malandy
357
For that project you're talking about... Could you have gotten enough loot and EXP, and stuff before you had to use your return item, that it recoups the time you spent and the amount of money that you lose when you use it?
But, yeah... 50% Gold Loss is a bit much... because it sort of makes the assumption of something like:
"I've used all my Revives, and Potions, and the loot I've got is worth 50% of my current gold and the money to pay for all those Revives and Potions and stuff... And it'll be noticeably easier getting here the next time."
That statement also assumes that all the items that you used can be gotten again, for some petty investment, or it might be more worth it to save-scum if you got screwed by the RNG...
Also, it depends on other things too. Like you said. If you're like... one step away from the exit, and you have to use the warp-y thing...
Vs. "I made it though 10%, and I know it's 10%, and it isn't that hard to get to 10% of the way though the level... And I learned what enemies are here, And I really should have known to pack that extra 10 potions..." then I'll accept it.
For 3D Land, since I haven't played it... How did you die? Was it from lack of planning, or random chance?
The feeling of frustration usually is worse, when you don't feel like you could have done any better the next time...
But, yeah... 50% Gold Loss is a bit much... because it sort of makes the assumption of something like:
"I've used all my Revives, and Potions, and the loot I've got is worth 50% of my current gold and the money to pay for all those Revives and Potions and stuff... And it'll be noticeably easier getting here the next time."
That statement also assumes that all the items that you used can be gotten again, for some petty investment, or it might be more worth it to save-scum if you got screwed by the RNG...
Also, it depends on other things too. Like you said. If you're like... one step away from the exit, and you have to use the warp-y thing...
Vs. "I made it though 10%, and I know it's 10%, and it isn't that hard to get to 10% of the way though the level... And I learned what enemies are here, And I really should have known to pack that extra 10 potions..." then I'll accept it.
For 3D Land, since I haven't played it... How did you die? Was it from lack of planning, or random chance?
The feeling of frustration usually is worse, when you don't feel like you could have done any better the next time...
Repetition can be fun if designed for, but most games use it anyway, and do not design for it.
For example, take any procedurally generated game: Minecraft, Binding of Isaac, FTL, Rogue, Spelunky, Desktop Dungeons, Solitaire. All of these games are somewhat repetitive by design - there is a basic set of rules and a general path and goal, and none of those change. However, the details change every time, and that's what keeps it fresh - sometimes there's two doors, sometimes there's three. Sometimes you get a Scroll of Fireball and sometimes you get a Healing Potion. These games are designed to be played multiple times, so death & repetition are fun. They're part of the game.
Sometimes even handcrafted games don't feel too bad. The incredibly small size of most of the Super Meat Boy levels makes them feel much less repetitive than, say, the 17th attempt at killing Ragnaros in World of Warcraft. The turnover time is very quick, and so even though the player is repeating the same actions, the successes (and new things to see) come in minutes instead of weeks. Same goes for Mario levels - the smaller each individual task, the better. If a player can consistently clear the first two minutes of a level but the end trips them up, making them replay a two-minute section several times just to re-reach the actual challenge is exhausting and generally not fun.
When you've proven that you've done something once, it gets tiring to do it again. Once a single challenge is complete, and the player knows how to execute it, they shouldn't be asked to execute the same challenge again. Twist the challenge slightly. Take parts of it and use it somewhere else. Give your game shorter turnarounds. The player already died, and they're already mad about it - don't rub it in.
For example, take any procedurally generated game: Minecraft, Binding of Isaac, FTL, Rogue, Spelunky, Desktop Dungeons, Solitaire. All of these games are somewhat repetitive by design - there is a basic set of rules and a general path and goal, and none of those change. However, the details change every time, and that's what keeps it fresh - sometimes there's two doors, sometimes there's three. Sometimes you get a Scroll of Fireball and sometimes you get a Healing Potion. These games are designed to be played multiple times, so death & repetition are fun. They're part of the game.
Sometimes even handcrafted games don't feel too bad. The incredibly small size of most of the Super Meat Boy levels makes them feel much less repetitive than, say, the 17th attempt at killing Ragnaros in World of Warcraft. The turnover time is very quick, and so even though the player is repeating the same actions, the successes (and new things to see) come in minutes instead of weeks. Same goes for Mario levels - the smaller each individual task, the better. If a player can consistently clear the first two minutes of a level but the end trips them up, making them replay a two-minute section several times just to re-reach the actual challenge is exhausting and generally not fun.
When you've proven that you've done something once, it gets tiring to do it again. Once a single challenge is complete, and the player knows how to execute it, they shouldn't be asked to execute the same challenge again. Twist the challenge slightly. Take parts of it and use it somewhere else. Give your game shorter turnarounds. The player already died, and they're already mad about it - don't rub it in.
In common experience, it is often agreed that repetition can be grating, but it'd be foolish to say that it is never of any use. In music, repetition of beat, rhythm and form characterizes what makes it aesthetically pleasing. Much visual art relies on the concept of repetition to convey a sense of method and precision. I haven't played any Megaman games, but the series comes to mind as being centred on the try-and-try-again mindset that players have to compete against themselves. As slash mentioned, Super Meat Boy capitalizes on the consequence of human error, be it reaction-based or strategy-based, by providing a quick-fire punishment-to-revival cycle that lasts less than a few seconds. The fun of Super Meat Boy lies in its endless trying, and challenging yourself to "get it right this time". Retries work best in reaction-based games. Puzzles not so much. In the purely strategic form of puzzle games, my theory is that if you have the solution in your head, it shouldn't take any more than 5 seconds to complete the puzzle. Repetition of elements that don't test user skill can be grating, but repetition where new aspects unfold each time can be engaging and thought-provoking.
As for RPGs and dungeon design, using an escape rope can function in various ways. I have not played Diablo, but I know that a game based on it called FATE used a Town Portal Scroll item that would create a portal to return to the hub and gather supplies. The cost for this action was the consumption of the scroll, which either costs money to purchase or can be picked up from loot. Then, after you've stocked up, you can jump back in the portal to where you were, thus eliminating the mostly pointless backtracking through the dungeon. Using a method like this can reduce the pointless replay of sections where you believe nothing is of use to replay.
I played your game Sellsword, and I had noticed it had a dungeon escape item. To my hazy recollection, it didn't cost any gold, but I could be wrong. While being a convenient addition, I hardly used the item, since it was too easy to just walk back to the beginning of the dungeon for it to be of any considerable use. The reason I'd escape a dungeon in this case would be if I was losing health and almost dying. I think that having to replay a dungeon where the enemies are still challenges is not such an irksome task, because if you would have gained experience, levels, items, or equipment, then it is an engaging test of whether you have collected or leveled enough yet. If anything, the escape item acts as a reset button to give you a chance to try again, and rather than being a punishment, it's a helping hand to aid you in defeating difficult dungeons.
As slash mentioned, in roguelikes where content is randomly generated, replays are essential to the fun of the game. The common roguelike adage is that "dying is fun". To some extent, modern games have forgotten this, and decided to feed the player's sense of invulnerability by making them unassailably strong, but sacrificing a sense of difficulty in the process.
The Metroid series of games are non-linear and feature a lot of backtracking, but it's actually surprising how linear a lot of this backtracking is, and how many aspects of the map change as you move around. The question one should be asking themselves, when considering repeat playthroughs, is whether it warrants a second visit. A similarly valuable pair of questions to ask: "Am I still testing a valuable user skill? Or am I just wasting their time?"
As for RPGs and dungeon design, using an escape rope can function in various ways. I have not played Diablo, but I know that a game based on it called FATE used a Town Portal Scroll item that would create a portal to return to the hub and gather supplies. The cost for this action was the consumption of the scroll, which either costs money to purchase or can be picked up from loot. Then, after you've stocked up, you can jump back in the portal to where you were, thus eliminating the mostly pointless backtracking through the dungeon. Using a method like this can reduce the pointless replay of sections where you believe nothing is of use to replay.
I played your game Sellsword, and I had noticed it had a dungeon escape item. To my hazy recollection, it didn't cost any gold, but I could be wrong. While being a convenient addition, I hardly used the item, since it was too easy to just walk back to the beginning of the dungeon for it to be of any considerable use. The reason I'd escape a dungeon in this case would be if I was losing health and almost dying. I think that having to replay a dungeon where the enemies are still challenges is not such an irksome task, because if you would have gained experience, levels, items, or equipment, then it is an engaging test of whether you have collected or leveled enough yet. If anything, the escape item acts as a reset button to give you a chance to try again, and rather than being a punishment, it's a helping hand to aid you in defeating difficult dungeons.
As slash mentioned, in roguelikes where content is randomly generated, replays are essential to the fun of the game. The common roguelike adage is that "dying is fun". To some extent, modern games have forgotten this, and decided to feed the player's sense of invulnerability by making them unassailably strong, but sacrificing a sense of difficulty in the process.
The Metroid series of games are non-linear and feature a lot of backtracking, but it's actually surprising how linear a lot of this backtracking is, and how many aspects of the map change as you move around. The question one should be asking themselves, when considering repeat playthroughs, is whether it warrants a second visit. A similarly valuable pair of questions to ask: "Am I still testing a valuable user skill? Or am I just wasting their time?"
Hm... You could always (if using RM) create that spot as a teleport point (where you were in the dungeon) then have an event as you enter/use an item give them the choice of teleporting back to/near that spot (say, have certain rooms that trigger a checkpoint type switch).
You could also indulge in good dungeon design, where the main body of the dungeon is pretty straight forward and the side areas are for treasure, thus, when running back through the player only has to follow a set path that isn't windy. Or have short cuts open up as you go along, so that they can easily just cut whole areas out of their journey. It really is up to how you design the dungeon.
Think the sewers in Chrono Trigger where you make your way through and eventually open a door that leads to the end area. Because the dungeon is designed for you to pass through a few times in the game, that door helps cut out the extra areas of the dungeon, allowing a swift passage from start to end. In fact, CT has a lot of great dungeon design like that - if there's an area where you will be going through more than once, you will find small shortcuts to get to the start or end of the dungeon. Another example are some of the mountain ranges - especially the one with the waterfall - where you can take shortcuts down and out of the dungeon, no longer having to wander all the way through to get back.
Also, while 50% gold is a standard for some games, it really depends on how much items cost and how much gold you get. If a regular healing item costs 30 gold, heals 20 HP and you take 20HP damage per battle (or close to) then you're going to need a lot of those items (one per battle). Say enemies drop 10 G per battle, then you have a problem, especially if you remove half your money apon exiting. You're never going to have enough money to get the items you need. Now if, instead, enemies drop 80G per battle, that's a little better - half of that is 40, meaning you can stock up on items well enough, even if half of the money is removed.
You could also indulge in good dungeon design, where the main body of the dungeon is pretty straight forward and the side areas are for treasure, thus, when running back through the player only has to follow a set path that isn't windy. Or have short cuts open up as you go along, so that they can easily just cut whole areas out of their journey. It really is up to how you design the dungeon.
Think the sewers in Chrono Trigger where you make your way through and eventually open a door that leads to the end area. Because the dungeon is designed for you to pass through a few times in the game, that door helps cut out the extra areas of the dungeon, allowing a swift passage from start to end. In fact, CT has a lot of great dungeon design like that - if there's an area where you will be going through more than once, you will find small shortcuts to get to the start or end of the dungeon. Another example are some of the mountain ranges - especially the one with the waterfall - where you can take shortcuts down and out of the dungeon, no longer having to wander all the way through to get back.
Also, while 50% gold is a standard for some games, it really depends on how much items cost and how much gold you get. If a regular healing item costs 30 gold, heals 20 HP and you take 20HP damage per battle (or close to) then you're going to need a lot of those items (one per battle). Say enemies drop 10 G per battle, then you have a problem, especially if you remove half your money apon exiting. You're never going to have enough money to get the items you need. Now if, instead, enemies drop 80G per battle, that's a little better - half of that is 40, meaning you can stock up on items well enough, even if half of the money is removed.
turkeyDawg
195
Cashmere pretty much said a lot of what I was going to, but I'll make my post anyways. (Zello also makes some good, often not-thought-about points)
Honestly, when it comes to redoing challenges, I find that it's not the redoing part that causes frustration and other negative emotions, but one of these factors:
a) Trying too many times in a row.
The more I fail a challenge, regardless of its quality, the more frustrated I'll get, which will cause me to play worse and fail more. It also robs me of my ability to enjoy things afterwards that I would have enjoyed otherwise. So, a lot of times, when the game tells me "GAME OVER", I'll take their word for it and turn the damn thing off and try again tomorrow. Saves much sanity.
b) The game/challenge is as deep as a roadside puzzle, or just straight up sux.
Mario's auto-scrollers are boring as hell, so obviously dying and having to redo all that standing around and dancing to the music is horrid. Same goes for a lot of other level tropes like riding on moving platforms for ages or waiting for fire streams or whatever to turn on and off.
Like, in Super Monkey Ball, you have to get through a whole bunch of stages on a limited number of lives. I don't mind replaying the good stages. It's all the slow and boring, or super quick and one-dimensional frivilous stages I hate replaying.
Related quote:
However, Slash is right in that redoing something that isn't dependent on reflexes or dexterity (like so many platforming auto-scrollers!) is pretty much pointless. Though, with a lot puzzle games, namely ones where you can arrange things in a way that puts you in a dead game, this is basically unavoidable. A "save state" feature is still appreciated, even if I just end up saving my unwinnable state...
c) The game has a totally skewed sense of "crime and punishment".
"Crime" here being mistakes. Gradius takes you back to a checkpoint for getting nicked anywhere by anything. Harsh, but the checkpoints are generally close enough to make this livable. HOWEVER, they also take away ALL of your power-ups, which, I might add, take a while to build up! So, not only have you lost position, the game also just got, like, 15 times harder. Oh, yeah, sure, they do lower the dynamic difficulty whenever you die, but that honestly doesn't mean much at some checkpoints... Many other old arcade and arcade-styled games did something like this. Thank God that old tradition mostly died by the mid 90s.
A lot of modern "impossibiru" "masocore" games bring this back, for whatever fucking reason. Even though Meat Boy's stages are really short, the fact that you have to redo them after getting touched by anything, and their brevity and the "save after every level" progress system encouraging constant re-trying (see point A), honestly made the game about as frustrating to me as any older game I've played.
As for randomness, it helps, but it's not entirely necessary. A lot of static elements that depend on player actions, such as aimed shots, or momentum physics, can end up presenting different challenges each time when the player is just playing normally.
Honestly, when it comes to redoing challenges, I find that it's not the redoing part that causes frustration and other negative emotions, but one of these factors:
a) Trying too many times in a row.
The more I fail a challenge, regardless of its quality, the more frustrated I'll get, which will cause me to play worse and fail more. It also robs me of my ability to enjoy things afterwards that I would have enjoyed otherwise. So, a lot of times, when the game tells me "GAME OVER", I'll take their word for it and turn the damn thing off and try again tomorrow. Saves much sanity.
b) The game/challenge is as deep as a roadside puzzle, or just straight up sux.
Mario's auto-scrollers are boring as hell, so obviously dying and having to redo all that standing around and dancing to the music is horrid. Same goes for a lot of other level tropes like riding on moving platforms for ages or waiting for fire streams or whatever to turn on and off.
Like, in Super Monkey Ball, you have to get through a whole bunch of stages on a limited number of lives. I don't mind replaying the good stages. It's all the slow and boring, or super quick and one-dimensional frivilous stages I hate replaying.
Related quote:
author=slashI find this is only true of shallow, mediocre challenges. It's actually possible to get through something on dumb luck, so beating something just once doesn't actually prove much. This statement also assumes that the challenge is a simple binary "did it/didn't do it", when any game worth playing more than once has other factors, like "did it without getting hit twenty times / did it without wasting all my items / found a shortcut / got more points / etc". I've had moments in games where I beat something, but did it so sloppily that I actually reset and tried it again.
When you've proven that you've done something once, it gets tiring to do it again. Once a single challenge is complete, and the player knows how to execute it, they shouldn't be asked to execute the same challenge again.
However, Slash is right in that redoing something that isn't dependent on reflexes or dexterity (like so many platforming auto-scrollers!) is pretty much pointless. Though, with a lot puzzle games, namely ones where you can arrange things in a way that puts you in a dead game, this is basically unavoidable. A "save state" feature is still appreciated, even if I just end up saving my unwinnable state...
c) The game has a totally skewed sense of "crime and punishment".
"Crime" here being mistakes. Gradius takes you back to a checkpoint for getting nicked anywhere by anything. Harsh, but the checkpoints are generally close enough to make this livable. HOWEVER, they also take away ALL of your power-ups, which, I might add, take a while to build up! So, not only have you lost position, the game also just got, like, 15 times harder. Oh, yeah, sure, they do lower the dynamic difficulty whenever you die, but that honestly doesn't mean much at some checkpoints... Many other old arcade and arcade-styled games did something like this. Thank God that old tradition mostly died by the mid 90s.
A lot of modern "impossibiru" "masocore" games bring this back, for whatever fucking reason. Even though Meat Boy's stages are really short, the fact that you have to redo them after getting touched by anything, and their brevity and the "save after every level" progress system encouraging constant re-trying (see point A), honestly made the game about as frustrating to me as any older game I've played.
As for randomness, it helps, but it's not entirely necessary. A lot of static elements that depend on player actions, such as aimed shots, or momentum physics, can end up presenting different challenges each time when the player is just playing normally.
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=TurkeyDawgYou realize we're making RPGs here, right? When you choose your action from a list in a menu, the only way it's gonna have a different outcome is if the situation is different or the result is randomized.
As for randomness, it helps, but it's not entirely necessary. A lot of static elements that depend on player actions, such as aimed shots, or momentum physics, can end up presenting different challenges each time when the player is just playing normally.
As for games getting harder when you die... yeah, it doesn't inherently seem to make a lot of sense if you're not charging quarters for each death in an arcade. But rewarding the player for doing better does make sense. It feels super great to the player. And it is the same exact thing, just worded differently. It is hard to reward the player for degrees of success without also making it so people who are good at the game are given easier challenges than people who are bad at the game. In fact, it might be impossible. Please share any possible solutions you have?
author=LockeZ
As for games getting harder when you die... yeah, it doesn't inherently seem to make a lot of sense if you're not charging quarters for each death in an arcade. But rewarding the player for doing better does make sense. It feels super great to the player. And it is the same exact thing, just worded differently. It is hard to reward the player for degrees of success without also making it so people who are good at the game are given easier challenges than people who are bad at the game. In fact, it might be impossible. Please share any possible solutions you have?
Achievements.
hides
LightningLord2
230
author=CashmereCatauthor=LockeZAchievements.
As for games getting harder when you die... yeah, it doesn't inherently seem to make a lot of sense if you're not charging quarters for each death in an arcade. But rewarding the player for doing better does make sense. It feels super great to the player. And it is the same exact thing, just worded differently. It is hard to reward the player for degrees of success without also making it so people who are good at the game are given easier challenges than people who are bad at the game. In fact, it might be impossible. Please share any possible solutions you have?
hides
Some parts of Super Robot Wars have a thing called Battle Masteries - each mission in the game has a bonus objective that awards a mastery point if completed. The game's difficulty is scaled to how many mastery points you have, making the game easier if you fail to achieve them. However, getting enough awards you several powerful equip items.
zeello
There's also the cinematic element. Its not realistic for the character to die and continue as though nothing happened, and especially not to have things that were attained during the failed attempt. (Since it makes the failed attempt "canon") Not only that, but having to repeat certain parts helps rebuild the atmosphere that was lost when the player died. In a way you want the game to help convince you that your death never actually happened since that would be unrealistic.
who cares about "realism". i don't know why it is ever brought up around here, unless you're making an actual simulator. you're making a video game. Is it realistic to die to a dragonling's fire breath and then lost exactly 50% of your gold? Is it realistic to have an evil brother from the moon who goes to the underworld to collect the crystals of darkness? Is it realistic to have you revive after death at all??!?!?!?
Whether or not it's fun and/or meets the goals of the game's design is what's important. Realism means nothing.
author=Crazezeellowho cares about "realism". i don't know why it is ever brought up around here, unless you're making an actual simulator. you're making a video game. Is it realistic to die to a dragonling's fire breath and then lost exactly 50% of your gold? Is it realistic to have an evil brother from the moon who goes to the underworld to collect the crystals of darkness? Is it realistic to have you revive after death at all??!?!?!?
There's also the cinematic element. Its not realistic for the character to die and continue as though nothing happened, and especially not to have things that were attained during the failed attempt. (Since it makes the failed attempt "canon") Not only that, but having to repeat certain parts helps rebuild the atmosphere that was lost when the player died. In a way you want the game to help convince you that your death never actually happened since that would be unrealistic.
Whether or not it's fun and/or meets the goals of the game's design is what's important. Realism means nothing.
This. I often see people arguing for doing things just for realism, and honestly I think people give way too much weight to it. Granted, people are going to want some measures of it in certain stories, but overall you don't need much of it unless your story really calls for it.
PS. I love you, evil brother from the moon!
I remember a blog talking about how videogames are a prime example of good parenting.
Focusing on encouragement and making clear, distinct rules which means your results of your actions (good or bad) are always the same.
You jump into that hole, you die and warp back to before, losing a life. And can retry right away.
As a whole, encouragment is always, always, always more important than punishment.
But I feel repetition is not as bad as "losing everything you just did". Give reasonable save points, do not make consecutive boss fights at the end of a long passage, do not have some sort of possible death mechanic if you have a huge interval of "normal" gameplay beforehand and/or give ways to transfer over some of the progress. Keep the treasure chests, part of your gold or part of your exp.
Repeating passages allows you to measure your knowledge of the area, your skills, even the strength of your party. It can be an interesting mechanic.
Remember Dark Souls? I love the way you die in there. You can continue on as though nothing happened, you still have a chance to retrieve that exp even - and if you screw up, you still lose something you can retrieve easily.
But since it's most important to get better at the game, you will always come out stronger when you face the same enemies again. It also gives you the affirmation that you indeed got better than before.
BitTrip always has you returning to the start of the stage, but they are so short that it matters little. It also is a rhythm-based game meaning you are also meant to enjoy the music, so repeating that gives you the edge of getting better at the whole thing and enjoying the music more.
Redoing hours and hours of progress is frustrating. There is middle ground like Etrian Odyssey, where you at least FEEL you keep progress, as you keep the mapping.
But as much as I am used to it, I usually take a break after losing a few hours and continue later.
One solution is to give many ways to avoid losing progress in the first place. In Etrian Odyssey you can always warp out and save - or you can be greedy/risky and try to move further and faster.
I think one way to make it harder for those seeking a challenge is - aside from different difficulty settings - to set possible extra challenges which are displayed throughout the game and may or may not give some optional extra goodies.
I know there are a few games enabling permadeath, for example.
Focusing on encouragement and making clear, distinct rules which means your results of your actions (good or bad) are always the same.
You jump into that hole, you die and warp back to before, losing a life. And can retry right away.
As a whole, encouragment is always, always, always more important than punishment.
But I feel repetition is not as bad as "losing everything you just did". Give reasonable save points, do not make consecutive boss fights at the end of a long passage, do not have some sort of possible death mechanic if you have a huge interval of "normal" gameplay beforehand and/or give ways to transfer over some of the progress. Keep the treasure chests, part of your gold or part of your exp.
Repeating passages allows you to measure your knowledge of the area, your skills, even the strength of your party. It can be an interesting mechanic.
Remember Dark Souls? I love the way you die in there. You can continue on as though nothing happened, you still have a chance to retrieve that exp even - and if you screw up, you still lose something you can retrieve easily.
But since it's most important to get better at the game, you will always come out stronger when you face the same enemies again. It also gives you the affirmation that you indeed got better than before.
BitTrip always has you returning to the start of the stage, but they are so short that it matters little. It also is a rhythm-based game meaning you are also meant to enjoy the music, so repeating that gives you the edge of getting better at the whole thing and enjoying the music more.
Redoing hours and hours of progress is frustrating. There is middle ground like Etrian Odyssey, where you at least FEEL you keep progress, as you keep the mapping.
But as much as I am used to it, I usually take a break after losing a few hours and continue later.
One solution is to give many ways to avoid losing progress in the first place. In Etrian Odyssey you can always warp out and save - or you can be greedy/risky and try to move further and faster.
I think one way to make it harder for those seeking a challenge is - aside from different difficulty settings - to set possible extra challenges which are displayed throughout the game and may or may not give some optional extra goodies.
I know there are a few games enabling permadeath, for example.
turkeyDawg
195
author=LockeZTrue. A battle system would have to be pretty damn elaborate otherwise. I'm sorry if its kind of tedious how I don't usually argue game design from an RPG perspective, but I really haven't played as many RPGs as I have other genres, and most of the RPGs I've played are pretty bleh design-wise.author=TurkeyDawgYou realize we're making RPGs here, right? When you choose your action from a list in a menu, the only way it's gonna have a different outcome is if the situation is different or the result is randomized.
As for randomness, it helps, but it's not entirely necessary. A lot of static elements that depend on player actions, such as aimed shots, or momentum physics, can end up presenting different challenges each time when the player is just playing normally.
As for games getting harder when you die... yeah, it doesn't inherently seem to make a lot of sense if you're not charging quarters for each death in an arcade. But rewarding the player for doing better does make sense. It feels super great to the player. And it is the same exact thing, just worded differently. It is hard to reward the player for degrees of success without also making it so people who are good at the game are given easier challenges than people who are bad at the game. In fact, it might be impossible. Please share any possible solutions you have?Even when charging quarters it didn't make perfect sense. I think the reason those trends died out is because designers realized people would be more willing to keep throwing quarters at a game if it was a bit more fair.
And yeah, withholding a reward can be as bad as punishment, but my example wasn't about how you lost something when you died, but that you just lost TOO DAMN MUCH when you died compared to just how easy dying is. Otherwise, I'm fine with the sense of resource momentum these kind of games have, where not dying or using other limited resources on a tough spot lets me use them on something later, until I can figure out how to get through that without the crutches and so on.
You could also consider rewarding the player with less important things. Like how Sonic games let you build up all this speed, but it's not like you can't beat the game if you're not blasting through with SONIC SPEED. The speed is largely aesthetic. Other aesthetic things, like unlockable costumes/paint jobs are an option. Also, consider something like this: Beating a boss with enough health or whatever left and/or within a certain timeframe let's you do some awesome cinematic fatality on the guy, rather than just watching him fade to red. PS2 Shinobi kinda has this in that the Tate cutscenes where all the enemies split in to bloody halves can be done on the bosses if you can quickly kill all the mooks and deliver the finishing blow on the boss before that timer runs out. I mean, they're totally fine the next cutscene, but it's still cool. I've only ever managed it on two bosses, though.
The latest Fire Emblem and Etrian Odyssey have done really well imo because they ask you whether you want serious death penalties or not. I opted out in both games (but still turned up the difficulty on FE; sadly those are not separate options in EO) because it's just not something I like. It doesn't add to the experience for me as a player.
This is not to say that you can't have serious setbacks due to death if you want. I don't really care, do what you want. Just know that if you're making a 20 hour game and I can lose 25 minutes of progress at a time, I personally might not make it to that finish point due to frustration.
For really long RPGs, I like how DQ does it. You die, you warp back to the last church you saved at and lose half your gold. You can bank your gold away though, and you don't lose banked gold. The only thing I'd add is a quicksave feature, so that you can make a temporary save file when you need to go or just want a break.
I don't think your main body necessarily needs to be totally straightforward, but I agree with this overall. Good dungeons don't HAVE to have shortcuts back or anything like that... but I think a lot of players appreciate it. Grandia 3 was really good at this -- exploration and sometimes solving a short optional puzzle would open up an easy route to and from the mid- or end-point of the dungeon.
*flashbacks to 1G/enemy in Three the Hard Way*
Economy is only as important as you want it to be, but you need to at least think about it if you're gonna have traditional currency in your game.
This is not to say that you can't have serious setbacks due to death if you want. I don't really care, do what you want. Just know that if you're making a 20 hour game and I can lose 25 minutes of progress at a time, I personally might not make it to that finish point due to frustration.
For really long RPGs, I like how DQ does it. You die, you warp back to the last church you saved at and lose half your gold. You can bank your gold away though, and you don't lose banked gold. The only thing I'd add is a quicksave feature, so that you can make a temporary save file when you need to go or just want a break.
Liberty
Hm... You could always (if using RM) create that spot as a teleport point (where you were in the dungeon) then have an event as you enter/use an item give them the choice of teleporting back to/near that spot (say, have certain rooms that trigger a checkpoint type switch).
You could also indulge in good dungeon design, where the main body of the dungeon is pretty straight forward and the side areas are for treasure, thus, when running back through the player only has to follow a set path that isn't windy. Or have short cuts open up as you go along, so that they can easily just cut whole areas out of their journey. It really is up to how you design the dungeon.
Think the sewers in Chrono Trigger where you make your way through and eventually open a door that leads to the end area. Because the dungeon is designed for you to pass through a few times in the game, that door helps cut out the extra areas of the dungeon, allowing a swift passage from start to end. In fact, CT has a lot of great dungeon design like that - if there's an area where you will be going through more than once, you will find small shortcuts to get to the start or end of the dungeon. Another example are some of the mountain ranges - especially the one with the waterfall - where you can take shortcuts down and out of the dungeon, no longer having to wander all the way through to get back.
I don't think your main body necessarily needs to be totally straightforward, but I agree with this overall. Good dungeons don't HAVE to have shortcuts back or anything like that... but I think a lot of players appreciate it. Grandia 3 was really good at this -- exploration and sometimes solving a short optional puzzle would open up an easy route to and from the mid- or end-point of the dungeon.
Liberty
Also, while 50% gold is a standard for some games, it really depends on how much items cost and how much gold you get. If a regular healing item costs 30 gold, heals 20 HP and you take 20HP damage per battle (or close to) then you're going to need a lot of those items (one per battle). Say enemies drop 10 G per battle, then you have a problem, especially if you remove half your money apon exiting. You're never going to have enough money to get the items you need. Now if, instead, enemies drop 80G per battle, that's a little better - half of that is 40, meaning you can stock up on items well enough, even if half of the money is removed.
*flashbacks to 1G/enemy in Three the Hard Way*
Economy is only as important as you want it to be, but you need to at least think about it if you're gonna have traditional currency in your game.
These are some really insightful thoughts, guys. Thanks!
That's actually what it was intended to be used for. During playtesting I noticed that you can definitely get into situations where you are both out of resources and the next battle you encounter would almost guarantee to lead you to a game over. With the encounters being random, going back to the exit in this state isn't a reliable solution, and I didn't want the player to rely on save-scumming in any way, so that's why the Warp Gem exists.
More on-topic, though, basing a game around repeated practice to get right, as with Megaman and maybe I Wanna Be the Guy probably has a way of alleviating any frustration gained by having to do something over again. I think it also really depends on how fun the task you are redoing is. I remember many complaints from reviewers of Super RMN Bros. 3 in regards to repeating levels and tasks, but with that context, the levels they had to repeat are usually either mundane or absolutely frustrating challenges anyway. So I think making the game fun and challenging in a legitimate way is key.
Reality is "boring." People experience reality on a daily basis, so what are you offering that's new/gives them a break from reality? I mean, sure, you could definitely use SOME elements of realism to keep the player immersed, but Craze couldn't be more right about his statement.
author=Malandy
For that project you're talking about... Could you have gotten enough loot and EXP, and stuff before you had to use your return item, that it recoups the time you spent and the amount of money that you lose when you use it?
But, yeah... 50% Gold Loss is a bit much... because it sort of makes the assumption of something like:
"I've used all my Revives, and Potions, and the loot I've got is worth 50% of my current gold and the money to pay for all those Revives and Potions and stuff... And it'll be noticeably easier getting here the next time."
That statement also assumes that all the items that you used can be gotten again, for some petty investment, or it might be more worth it to save-scum if you got screwed by the RNG...
Also, it depends on other things too. Like you said. If you're like... one step away from the exit, and you have to use the warp-y thing...
Vs. "I made it though 10%, and I know it's 10%, and it isn't that hard to get to 10% of the way though the level... And I learned what enemies are here, And I really should have known to pack that extra 10 potions..." then I'll accept it.
For 3D Land, since I haven't played it... How did you die? Was it from lack of planning, or random chance?
The feeling of frustration usually is worse, when you don't feel like you could have done any better the next time...
- In Sellsword (the game I'm mentioning in question), that is a factor. Your second-or-so-on trip will definitely be easier due to the experience and gold you will rack up for beating enemies, but one mistake I made was making items over-priced and having the enemies drop few gold per unit. That's something I'm going to address thanks to some other feedback I've gotten
- With 3D land, I can definitely say it was through lack of planning or at least careless play. Every challenge felt legitimate, so I guess my punishment was deserved? Then again, the fact that the game gives out extra lives like candy means that you could always try again within a single stage.
author=CashmereCat
I played your game Sellsword, and I had noticed it had a dungeon escape item. To my hazy recollection, it didn't cost any gold, but I could be wrong. While being a convenient addition, I hardly used the item, since it was too easy to just walk back to the beginning of the dungeon for it to be of any considerable use. The reason I'd escape a dungeon in this case would be if I was losing health and almost dying.
That's actually what it was intended to be used for. During playtesting I noticed that you can definitely get into situations where you are both out of resources and the next battle you encounter would almost guarantee to lead you to a game over. With the encounters being random, going back to the exit in this state isn't a reliable solution, and I didn't want the player to rely on save-scumming in any way, so that's why the Warp Gem exists.
More on-topic, though, basing a game around repeated practice to get right, as with Megaman and maybe I Wanna Be the Guy probably has a way of alleviating any frustration gained by having to do something over again. I think it also really depends on how fun the task you are redoing is. I remember many complaints from reviewers of Super RMN Bros. 3 in regards to repeating levels and tasks, but with that context, the levels they had to repeat are usually either mundane or absolutely frustrating challenges anyway. So I think making the game fun and challenging in a legitimate way is key.
author=unityauthor=CrazeThis. I often see people arguing for doing things just for realism, and honestly I think people give way too much weight to it. Granted, people are going to want some measures of it in certain stories, but overall you don't need much of it unless your story really calls for it.zeellowho cares about "realism". i don't know why it is ever brought up around here, unless you're making an actual simulator. you're making a video game. Is it realistic to die to a dragonling's fire breath and then lost exactly 50% of your gold? Is it realistic to have an evil brother from the moon who goes to the underworld to collect the crystals of darkness? Is it realistic to have you revive after death at all??!?!?!?
There's also the cinematic element. Its not realistic for the character to die and continue as though nothing happened, and especially not to have things that were attained during the failed attempt. (Since it makes the failed attempt "canon") Not only that, but having to repeat certain parts helps rebuild the atmosphere that was lost when the player died. In a way you want the game to help convince you that your death never actually happened since that would be unrealistic.
Whether or not it's fun and/or meets the goals of the game's design is what's important. Realism means nothing.
PS. I love you, evil brother from the moon!
Reality is "boring." People experience reality on a daily basis, so what are you offering that's new/gives them a break from reality? I mean, sure, you could definitely use SOME elements of realism to keep the player immersed, but Craze couldn't be more right about his statement.
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
There's a balance to be struck; the events in the game have more meaning and seem cooler and more interesting because you get hurt when dragon fire hits you. Imagine that, instead, you gained three grand pianos for every inch of skin that is hit by the dragon fire, and got a game over when you acquired seven hundred grand pianos. That makes no sense; the realism of enemy attacks leading to harm and eventually death creates context for the gameplay and builds a fantasy world that the player cares about. I don't even mean that they get immersed in the story, just that the things that are happening on screen mean something more than random shapes and pictures with arbitrary rewards when you press a certain sequence of buttons.
However I do agree that when most people attempt "realism" all they're really doing is the first thing that comes to their mind, with very little concern for how it actually affects the game. Motion capture for 3D characters is a good example of this. It's often used to create realism at the expense of gameplay. I do not care about the loss of realism from having twenty frames of animation cropped off the beginning of my character's pivot animation. I do care about the loss of gameplay from it taking 1/3 of a second for my character to start moving when I press the joystick to the left.
In Bioschlock, when you die, you respawn thirty feet away with full health, and the enemy's HP stays exactly where it was. Their goal with this system was to make sure people can progress even if they suck. A lot of players don't like the system because it makes them feel like their character is less badass. He isn't an action hero who tore a bloody swathe through the ruined city of Rapture, defeating everything in his wake; he's a useless tool who got killed several hundred times. Are these players wrong? No, not really. I'm sure that fact really did bother them. But the system also bothered them for gameplay reasons that they had a harder time putting their finger on. It wasn't just the character who ended up being a tool; it was the player too. The system didn't make you overcome the challenges with skill. You could effectively just throw dead bodies at the enemies until they succumbed under the collective weight of your corpses. Failure was a viable strategy. An optimal strategy, in many cases, actually. That felt extremely unsatisfying for the player. Without that gameplay element, they wouldn't have minded the other part so much - your characters in Earthbound, Dragon Quest and World of Warcraft don't feel any less like heroes because they're revived by divine powers if they die, after all.
However I do agree that when most people attempt "realism" all they're really doing is the first thing that comes to their mind, with very little concern for how it actually affects the game. Motion capture for 3D characters is a good example of this. It's often used to create realism at the expense of gameplay. I do not care about the loss of realism from having twenty frames of animation cropped off the beginning of my character's pivot animation. I do care about the loss of gameplay from it taking 1/3 of a second for my character to start moving when I press the joystick to the left.
In Bioschlock, when you die, you respawn thirty feet away with full health, and the enemy's HP stays exactly where it was. Their goal with this system was to make sure people can progress even if they suck. A lot of players don't like the system because it makes them feel like their character is less badass. He isn't an action hero who tore a bloody swathe through the ruined city of Rapture, defeating everything in his wake; he's a useless tool who got killed several hundred times. Are these players wrong? No, not really. I'm sure that fact really did bother them. But the system also bothered them for gameplay reasons that they had a harder time putting their finger on. It wasn't just the character who ended up being a tool; it was the player too. The system didn't make you overcome the challenges with skill. You could effectively just throw dead bodies at the enemies until they succumbed under the collective weight of your corpses. Failure was a viable strategy. An optimal strategy, in many cases, actually. That felt extremely unsatisfying for the player. Without that gameplay element, they wouldn't have minded the other part so much - your characters in Earthbound, Dragon Quest and World of Warcraft don't feel any less like heroes because they're revived by divine powers if they die, after all.
author=LockeZ
In Bioschlock, when you die, you respawn thirty feet away with full health, and the enemy's HP stays exactly where it was. Their goal with this system was to make sure people can progress even if they suck. A lot of players don't like the system because it makes them feel like their character is less badass.
Ironically, their character only feels less badass if they die a lot of times :P
