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)
REMOVING DEAD ENDS IN GAMES
Posts
RedMask
1139
RedMask
View playlists
CloseSo while working on an update, I recently filled in a dead end with treasure because it always annoyed me that nothing was there. It was a curled peninsula that looked nice but had no function. It was part of an area that had a lot of events so I didn't want to burden the map with more stuff potentially slowing it down. I wound up cutting off the normal point of entry to this area and instead made it accessible from a different map thus allowing me to put in more events without worry of slowdown.
This got me thinking. Is there ever a good way to include a dead end? I remember Final Fantasy II (Japan version of II) had doors that led to empty rooms. The only thing of note is that those rooms had a higher enemy encounter rate. So you could argue that those dead ends served as a punishment but personally I found them to be pointless.
So what are your thought on this? Also how long must a path be to be considered a dead end to you? Obviously a path that is say 10 tiles long with nothing at the end would be a dead end but what about a path that's say 3 tiles long? Is that perhaps just a decorative alcove in your mind?
For me, if there is a direction a player can go I try to have something there for them. But I'm curious to see if anyone can justify a purpose for a dead end.
This got me thinking. Is there ever a good way to include a dead end? I remember Final Fantasy II (Japan version of II) had doors that led to empty rooms. The only thing of note is that those rooms had a higher enemy encounter rate. So you could argue that those dead ends served as a punishment but personally I found them to be pointless.
So what are your thought on this? Also how long must a path be to be considered a dead end to you? Obviously a path that is say 10 tiles long with nothing at the end would be a dead end but what about a path that's say 3 tiles long? Is that perhaps just a decorative alcove in your mind?
For me, if there is a direction a player can go I try to have something there for them. But I'm curious to see if anyone can justify a purpose for a dead end.
Rine
1378
Oh god...these drive me nuts in RPGs
"There are two paths...one goes further in the dungeon, the other likely has a treasure chest *goes down one* Wait, I think this is the one that goes further in the dungeon, lemme check the other first *goes back, goes down the other* Well, shit...this goes really far too..."
If you can see where the path goes from the main route, or without going too far, its fine, it can be decorative. Just make sure it makes sense in theme. Wandering around a manse and stepping into the kitchen would obviously not go anywhere else. Collapsed hallways, the end of a vein in a mine, etc.
If you want to make them longer, perhaps make them part of a sidequest? IE, the main boss is at the end of the dungeon, but an NPC in the previous town wants six crystals from the cave, giving you reasons to explore the dead-ends besides the obvious 'there might be treasure'.
So aesthetically: As long as it makes sense. Gameplay: don't punish people for exploring, reward them.
"There are two paths...one goes further in the dungeon, the other likely has a treasure chest *goes down one* Wait, I think this is the one that goes further in the dungeon, lemme check the other first *goes back, goes down the other* Well, shit...this goes really far too..."
If you can see where the path goes from the main route, or without going too far, its fine, it can be decorative. Just make sure it makes sense in theme. Wandering around a manse and stepping into the kitchen would obviously not go anywhere else. Collapsed hallways, the end of a vein in a mine, etc.
If you want to make them longer, perhaps make them part of a sidequest? IE, the main boss is at the end of the dungeon, but an NPC in the previous town wants six crystals from the cave, giving you reasons to explore the dead-ends besides the obvious 'there might be treasure'.
So aesthetically: As long as it makes sense. Gameplay: don't punish people for exploring, reward them.
RedMask
1139
Good points Rine.
Dead ends could also be used for a story line purpose. For example you could have an alley way in a town that seemingly leads to just a dead end but a dialog sequence could be triggered there if say one of the characters in the party had something happen to them there or perhaps has something to say regarding the location and etc.
Dead ends could also be used for a story line purpose. For example you could have an alley way in a town that seemingly leads to just a dead end but a dialog sequence could be triggered there if say one of the characters in the party had something happen to them there or perhaps has something to say regarding the location and etc.
emmych
817
DEAD ENDS ARE TERRIBLE, put treasure in them. You made a good choice.
FF2's monster closets are one of the single most awful game design choices I have ever encountered in a game and I hate it
FF2's monster closets are one of the single most awful game design choices I have ever encountered in a game and I hate it
Rine
1378
Emmych: You could say a lot of things about FF2 were absolutely terrible design choices. Monster closets are just one of many.
"Hey, how should we have the characters increase their HP?" "By getting hit a lot of course!" *numerous players beat their own characters silly to get more HP*
"Hey, how should we have the characters increase their HP?" "By getting hit a lot of course!" *numerous players beat their own characters silly to get more HP*
emmych
817
FF2 was a terrible design choice from start to finish, EXCEPT for Mateus' character design. I am all about Emperor David Bowie.
Milennin
2060
I don't mind a dead end with nothing in it here and there, but it also depends on how long the walk back is.
Rine
1378
Well, on a fundamental design level, look at a dead end with nothing in it like this.
You give your players an option. Left or right. Both look the same. One choice is 'correct', it leads you further in to the game. The other choice is 'incorrect', it leads to nothing. If you give them no hints, they are making the choice completely arbitrarily. You are essentially asking your players to flip a coin, and punishing them if the choice is wrong.
Even if we take out random encounters, that still costs the player time. As a game designer, why would you punish your players for making a choice that is essentially (for them) completely random? Even if they go down the right choice, they'll still probably come back and check the other way, just in case...and again, you are just wasting their time. I know its not 'realistic' to have every path lead to something rewarding, but we make a lot of game design choices not based on realism, but on the players enjoyment.
(Not saying Milennin is wrong, they voiced a personal preference, just noting from a game design perspective why it is fundamentally bad design to have an arbitrary choice that punishes players. Players should have the information in front of them to make informed choices if there is a punishment for getting it 'wrong')
You give your players an option. Left or right. Both look the same. One choice is 'correct', it leads you further in to the game. The other choice is 'incorrect', it leads to nothing. If you give them no hints, they are making the choice completely arbitrarily. You are essentially asking your players to flip a coin, and punishing them if the choice is wrong.
Even if we take out random encounters, that still costs the player time. As a game designer, why would you punish your players for making a choice that is essentially (for them) completely random? Even if they go down the right choice, they'll still probably come back and check the other way, just in case...and again, you are just wasting their time. I know its not 'realistic' to have every path lead to something rewarding, but we make a lot of game design choices not based on realism, but on the players enjoyment.
(Not saying Milennin is wrong, they voiced a personal preference, just noting from a game design perspective why it is fundamentally bad design to have an arbitrary choice that punishes players. Players should have the information in front of them to make informed choices if there is a punishment for getting it 'wrong')
Milennin
2060
The reason why I don't think every dead end needs to have something in it is the same reason not every object needs to have hidden items in it. Checking on objects still takes time from the player and offers no reward for every object checked that didn't contain hidden treasure. Yet items hidden in objects are considered perfectly okay to have in RPGs.
The only difference there would be is that hidden items are optional, while dead ends can be entered involuntarily. It's up to the developer to not make dead ends a drag with the walk back (keep it short or let the player use a shortcut back) and to not use them frequently (otherwise it kills motivation to explore). Another interesting thing to do with dead ends is to offer some unique scenery instead of always putting down a treasure chest.
The only difference there would be is that hidden items are optional, while dead ends can be entered involuntarily. It's up to the developer to not make dead ends a drag with the walk back (keep it short or let the player use a shortcut back) and to not use them frequently (otherwise it kills motivation to explore). Another interesting thing to do with dead ends is to offer some unique scenery instead of always putting down a treasure chest.
Rine
1378
Unique scenery is a reward in itself yes, especially if the artist puts some work into it. The 'something' at the end of a dead end doesn't have to be gameplay oriented. Like what was said earlier, it could be a bit of story, a conversation, an interesting scene, etc. If you have limited encounters in the game, actually having one of those encounters down a dead end is technically a reward (you would miss out on the drops and xp otherwise).
I tend to put treasure in SOME and nothing in others. This way there's a reason to go searching - but I tend to rely on on-map enemies so you could argue that finding an enemy at a dead end doesn't really make it useless. Or some kind of event. Maybe you find an NPC adventurer who got lost or set up camp. Or just a dead end because, damnit, not everywhere has to exist for the sake of treasure!
That said, numberwise I'm talking say... 5-6 dead ends, about 4 of those would have treasure/events/etc. 2 might have nothing and again, your 'punishment' for heading that way is usually just time and whatever enemies you find along the way.
That said, numberwise I'm talking say... 5-6 dead ends, about 4 of those would have treasure/events/etc. 2 might have nothing and again, your 'punishment' for heading that way is usually just time and whatever enemies you find along the way.
author=emmych
FF2's monster closets are one of the single most awful game design choices I have ever encountered in a game and I hate it
author=emmych
FF2 was a terrible design choice from start to finish, EXCEPT for Mateus' character design. I am all about Emperor David Bowie.
k-kawazu loves you too ;-;
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're creating an area, I don't think it's necessary or helpful to block off every section of the ground except for the most direct path from start to finish. Parts of the map can and absolutely should be there just to make it look nicer. If you get rid of that, at the logical extreme, you have FF13 dungeons.
There's a difference between an extra 3 tiles that don't lead anywhere and an extra 3 screens that don't lead anywhere, though. Especially if there are battles on the way.
If you have random battles while walking, then anywhere the player walks changes the gameplay, in a way that makes the player worry about taking as few steps as possible. In that case you should really try to make it clear which paths are dead ends, unless you're specifically creating a dungeon-crawling maze like Etrian Odyssey. However, making the player worry about how many steps they take is a weird and outdated game mechanic that no one uses any more except in RPG Maker.
There's a difference between an extra 3 tiles that don't lead anywhere and an extra 3 screens that don't lead anywhere, though. Especially if there are battles on the way.
If you have random battles while walking, then anywhere the player walks changes the gameplay, in a way that makes the player worry about taking as few steps as possible. In that case you should really try to make it clear which paths are dead ends, unless you're specifically creating a dungeon-crawling maze like Etrian Odyssey. However, making the player worry about how many steps they take is a weird and outdated game mechanic that no one uses any more except in RPG Maker.
author=MillenninNo they're fucking not. RPGs figured out a long time ago not to fucking do that, and there hasn't been a game that had shit hidden in random objects in a decade.
Yet items hidden in objects are considered perfectly okay to have in RPGs.
emmych
817
author=JosephSeraphauthor=emmych
FF2's monster closets are one of the single most awful game design choices I have ever encountered in a game and I hate itauthor=emmychk-kawazu loves you too ;-;
FF2 was a terrible design choice from start to finish, EXCEPT for Mateus' character design. I am all about Emperor David Bowie.
I HATE FINAL FANTASY 2 SO MUCH ALRIGHT
/me does the little animal crossing angry dance
@LockeZ: idk what you're talking about, I thinking hiding items in pots and shit is a wonderful idea. I love that kinda thing and give 100% thumbs up to anyone continuing that trend.
I guess, when it really comes down to it, dead ends are kinda contextual? Like dead ends in a maze DO NOT PLAY NICE with random encounters! Also, it depends on what kind of dead ends we have: if the dead end is some gorgeous scenery, isn't that a reward in of itself?
I dislike dead ends with nothing because it makes me feel like I missed something, or I've gotten lost. Generally if I pick up $5 off the floor or find a potion in a chest, I mentally tick off that area and am done with it, rather than wandering around checking every wall and asking myself "why"
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
You're absolutely insane if you think making the player press A on every tile in the game is a good idea. It hasn't been done since the early PS1 for a really good goddamn reason: people figured out how to design video games better. Today no publisher would allow that, and no player would stomach that. Video game developers figured out a long fucking time ago to make that shit sparkle.
Mysticphoenix
411
If you don't want to put treasure in dead ends, then put something interesting to see, such as notes, nice room, more clues, footsteps, broken vase, bloods, pertified monsters.
Rine
1378
@LockeZ: I agree that hidden objects -without precedence- is an issue. Especially if you don't give people clues that they might be there. You shouldn't have players checking every tile just in case something is there, but making an area look obviously off, and rewarding the player for searching there is something that has been done fairly recently. Pokemon still does it. Of course, Pokemon also has a special item that helps you find said items if you leave it on casually. It would be fairly easy to turn these things into a sort of dowsing mini-game if you wanted.
FFVI's clock elixirs were amazing
edit:
PUT A GAME OVER
edit:
author=Mysticphoenix
If you don't want to put treasure in dead ends, then put something interesting to see, such as notes, nice room, more clues, footsteps, broken vase, bloods, pertified monsters.
PUT A GAME OVER
author=LockeZ
You're absolutely insane if you think making the player press A on every tile in the game is a good idea. It hasn't been done since the early PS1 for a really good goddamn reason: people figured out how to design video games better. Today no publisher would allow that, and no player would stomach that. Video game developers figured out a long fucking time ago to make that shit sparkle.
I like hidden items, but they need to be taught straight-out what you can search and what you can't. First 10 minutes should have examples of what you can search through the game so that people know that they can and thus will. Anything added later on to that list of searchables should be shown explicitly (say though a scene or a tutorial note when it comes up).
PS2 games still have the whole 'search cupboards and pots' stuff going on. Hello Dragon Quest games and Final Fantasy games and most other jRPGs. It's a THING and it's a thing I personally love.
But keep it consistent and keep it straight-forward.
