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)
CREATOR HANDICAP DURING PLAY TESTING
Posts
Luiishu535
View playlists
CloseRecently, I started a new play-through/test run of my game. While I know the game can be difficult (and is supposed to be), I'm still afraid of making the game too hard for the players, since I am biased as a developer. Therefore, I have decided to handicap my playing by not allowing myself to use certain items for example.
Now, during my current test run, I've taken it so far as to try to speed run the game. This means that I try to escape from as many battles as possible, without exploring too much for treasure/loot and avoiding to buy gear from shops.
So, I'm wondering if this handicap is bad and that it makes my game seem unbalanced, when I am technically playing as a rushed player who just tries to get through the game as fast as possible. My game is not a book; if you play badly/carelessly, you DESERVE to be punished.
Even though I am planning to add an Easy Difficulty later on for players who don't even try or are just playing for the story, I still feel a bit iffy about the situation.
With all this in mind, how much should I, as a creator of a game, handicap myself when play-testing?
Now, during my current test run, I've taken it so far as to try to speed run the game. This means that I try to escape from as many battles as possible, without exploring too much for treasure/loot and avoiding to buy gear from shops.
So, I'm wondering if this handicap is bad and that it makes my game seem unbalanced, when I am technically playing as a rushed player who just tries to get through the game as fast as possible. My game is not a book; if you play badly/carelessly, you DESERVE to be punished.
Even though I am planning to add an Easy Difficulty later on for players who don't even try or are just playing for the story, I still feel a bit iffy about the situation.
With all this in mind, how much should I, as a creator of a game, handicap myself when play-testing?
As much as you like?
Handicapping is a good strategy, but nothing actually beats getting someone else, who doesn't know what your game is to test play and give you feedback.
Handicapping is a good strategy, but nothing actually beats getting someone else, who doesn't know what your game is to test play and give you feedback.
I have a couple of beta testers who are currently testing the game while providing helpful feedback. I just simply can't sit down and wait while the others test my game though. When it's testing time, it's testing time for everyone!
author=luiishu535It's a good point, and as I said, Handicapping yourself while testing is a good strategy, because it allows you to play in a style that is different from your own, allowing yourself to look at your game from a different angle and adjust the game to meet that style.
I have a couple of beta testers who are currently testing the game while providing helpful feedback. I just simply can't sit down and wait while the others test my game though. When it's testing time, it's testing time for everyone!
Still, you are always going to be biased as a developer. Your design decisions will always make sense to you, since you crafted it to begin with.
To be more pertinent to your game, what design elements did you include to clue to your player that your game that it needs to be taken with a methodical approach? Even while speed-running, what paths did you take and did you find yourself using exploits/sequence breaks to get by? This is the sort of stuff that is best seen by another eye, because everyone has different approaches they take when they play games.
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
How much you want to handicap yourself while testing it depends on how hard you want the game to be. If you're marketing it as a hardcore game that requires expert skill level and total mastery of the game mechanics to beat, you shouldn't handicap yourself at all; in fact you may even want to assume that the player is better than you are, and cheat a little to make up the difference. If you're trying to make a game that's suitable to be someone's first video game ever, you should cover up the outer 80% of your screen with pieces of paper taped to your monitor, and also rig some keyboard macros to randomly push the wrong button for every fifth button press, and also be super duper shitfaced drunk.
LightningLord2
230
author=LockeZ
How much you want to handicap yourself while testing it depends on how hard you want the game to be. If you're marketing it as a hardcore game that requires expert skill level and total mastery of the game mechanics to beat, you shouldn't handicap yourself at all; in fact you may even want to assume that the player is better than you are, and cheat a little to make up the difference. If you're trying to make a game that's suitable to be someone's first video game ever, you should cover up the outer 80% of your screen with pieces of paper taped to your monitor, and also rig some keyboard macros to randomly push the wrong button for every fifth button press, and also be super duper shitfaced drunk.
How would you test intuitiveness, though? If I make a tricky boss fight, I might have an easier time than my players despite a stat disadvantage because I know exactly how the boss behaves and what's the (possibly) optimal equipment to take them on. A different player may need a while to figure out how to challenge this.
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 have to decide how long you are willing to allow them to flounder without figuring it out.
If you have different mechanics for each boss and figuring them out is a part of the difficulty, then deciding on this is actually pretty easy. You can just pick a number that you think is about the level of difficulty you want, and apply that to every boss in the game. Maybe you want players to lose if they spend more than half the boss battle without picking up the boss's strategy. Maybe you want them to lose if they don't pick it up by the end of the second time the boss goes through its rotation of skills. Etc. Once you've decided that, you can test the boss while intentionally doing the wrong actions up until that point.
For larger systems that span the whole game, like a crafting system or an ability-upgrading system, you might decide that the player should be allowed to spend several dungeons without figuring them out. Or even spend the entire game. With these types of systems, the player might only use the system once per dungeon or less, so it takes a lot more time for them to get comfortable with it. It can be hard to come up with rules here since even within a single game, some systems are always more complex than others. If you are confident in your tutorial (or in your player), maybe you can expect the player to learn a new system immediately, especially if it's introduced later in the game.
You can't predict player intuitiveness, because it's a player skill. Players develop that ability to figure things out over the course of playing a variety of video games. That means every player is different. You can't give your players a specific amount of skill - you can only decide what level of player skill you want your game to require, and try to keep that relatively consistent.
If you have different mechanics for each boss and figuring them out is a part of the difficulty, then deciding on this is actually pretty easy. You can just pick a number that you think is about the level of difficulty you want, and apply that to every boss in the game. Maybe you want players to lose if they spend more than half the boss battle without picking up the boss's strategy. Maybe you want them to lose if they don't pick it up by the end of the second time the boss goes through its rotation of skills. Etc. Once you've decided that, you can test the boss while intentionally doing the wrong actions up until that point.
For larger systems that span the whole game, like a crafting system or an ability-upgrading system, you might decide that the player should be allowed to spend several dungeons without figuring them out. Or even spend the entire game. With these types of systems, the player might only use the system once per dungeon or less, so it takes a lot more time for them to get comfortable with it. It can be hard to come up with rules here since even within a single game, some systems are always more complex than others. If you are confident in your tutorial (or in your player), maybe you can expect the player to learn a new system immediately, especially if it's introduced later in the game.
You can't predict player intuitiveness, because it's a player skill. Players develop that ability to figure things out over the course of playing a variety of video games. That means every player is different. You can't give your players a specific amount of skill - you can only decide what level of player skill you want your game to require, and try to keep that relatively consistent.
hedge1
862
Ratty524
Handicapping is a good strategy, but nothing actually beats getting someone else, who doesn't know what your game is to test play and give you feedback.
LightningLord2
How would you test intuitiveness, though? If I make a tricky boss fight, I might have an easier time than my players despite a stat disadvantage because I know exactly how the boss behaves and what's the (possibly) optimal equipment to take them on. A different player may need a while to figure out how to challenge this.
I think this is one of the biggest factors when play testing a more difficult game. I still remember the first RPG I ever had a friend play. For whatever reason I always ran from a lot of fights in the first dungeon. He didn't, however, and found the first dungeon literally impossible to get past. It's really easy to fall into a mindset and let that dictate game design. Play testing helps you avoid that.
So I think you're going to be a solid judge of the difficulty of the game without needing to handicap yourself. However, I don't think you'll be as good at gauging what the average person is going to pick up on and what behaviors they may cling to (such as not running from battle) that you did not.
If you want to handicap yourself, don't allow yourself to use anything that a player may not know or understand. If there's a particularly well hidden treasure, don't pick it up. If a certain boss has a major weak point, don't abuse it. If a certain item has a hidden property, avoid it. I think that will give you the best noob-friendly play test.
LockeZ
in fact you may even want to assume that the player is better than you are, and cheat a little to make up the difference.
I agree with the rest of what LockeZ said, but definitely not this. Absolutely do not cheat to help yourself win. That opens up all sorts of terrible doors. The only exception is if you're doing some sort of extra hard challenge mode and you're not even sure if it's beatable. If "I'm not sure this is possible" ever comes up and you're fine with it, go ahead and cheat to win. But if you want to ensure things are possible, the only way to find out is to beat it fairly yourself.
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 are theoretically situations where, for whatever reason, you might be developing a game for players who are going to be better than you, and you need to make sure they're still being adequately challenged. Most developers will never find themselves in that situation, but I remember hearing that the developers of Diablo 3, for example, were unable to beat the game on the hardest difficulty.
However there are also other reasons for cheating during testing that have nothing to do with letting yourself win. For example, after you're done testing the game at your own skill level and making sure it's fun, you might also want to cheat to test if it's still fun for players who are even better.
This all applies far more to games with some timing or reflex based gameplay than it does to purely turn-based RPGs. An ATB turn system that continues ticking as the player is choosing skills probably counts as timing-based for the purpose of this argument though.
However there are also other reasons for cheating during testing that have nothing to do with letting yourself win. For example, after you're done testing the game at your own skill level and making sure it's fun, you might also want to cheat to test if it's still fun for players who are even better.
This all applies far more to games with some timing or reflex based gameplay than it does to purely turn-based RPGs. An ATB turn system that continues ticking as the player is choosing skills probably counts as timing-based for the purpose of this argument though.
Pai
912
author=hedge1
If you want to handicap yourself, don't allow yourself to use anything that a player may not know or understand. If there's a particularly well hidden treasure, don't pick it up. If a certain boss has a major weak point, don't abuse it. If a certain item has a hidden property, avoid it. I think that will give you the best noob-friendly play test.
I feel like this is a solid piece of advice. And if you aren't exactly sure how to discern what your player might and might not know or understand upon first picking up your game, it can be helpful to have someone not only play test it, but allow you to watch while they play test it (via screensharing or etc).
It can give you a good idea firsthand of what players are going to be thinking about as they begin, the sort of things they'll examine or the strategies they'll employ going in blind, and what they will and won't see. Since you can watch the entire process, you can apply their results back into your play tests as your handicap (though the more variety of testers you get to determine how to handicap, the better, of course).
@Ratty: The only sequence breaks I'm aware of are re-entering a map to reset the encounter rate (sometimes though, it feels like it doesn't reset) and re-loading an old save when you make mistakes or know better strategies.
@LockeZ: The game is meant to be more Hard in difficulty, not necessarily RPG Veteran-Hard. Some people go into games and simply do nothing but mash attack. I'm not designing my game to fit that audience, since if I would, the battles in the game would be pretty meaningless and better be removed.
The game is meant for people who are somewhat familiar with RPGs and tries to come up with strategies. It's not strange if you at first lose to a boss in my game. The normal enemies are very deadly too; pretty much every encounter in the game after a certain point is a threat and can destroy your party if bad tactics/choices are made. I suppose the game simulates a bit of the old school experience, like the old NES Platformer. While not that cheap, the game will require the player to learn and get better at the game as it goes on.
Still, despite all this, I'm probably going to add an Easy difficulty to the game for players who simply can't beat the game on normal but still don't want to miss out on the story. This mode will simply be an easier version of the normal, where fuck-ups won't matter as much while enemies don't hit as hard.
@Hedge & Pai: I skip most of the secret rooms/equipments/treasure in my current run. I'm not using the best items available and I even skip a lot of stuff in plain sight by not exploring or buying new gear.
@LockeZ: The game is meant to be more Hard in difficulty, not necessarily RPG Veteran-Hard. Some people go into games and simply do nothing but mash attack. I'm not designing my game to fit that audience, since if I would, the battles in the game would be pretty meaningless and better be removed.
The game is meant for people who are somewhat familiar with RPGs and tries to come up with strategies. It's not strange if you at first lose to a boss in my game. The normal enemies are very deadly too; pretty much every encounter in the game after a certain point is a threat and can destroy your party if bad tactics/choices are made. I suppose the game simulates a bit of the old school experience, like the old NES Platformer. While not that cheap, the game will require the player to learn and get better at the game as it goes on.
Still, despite all this, I'm probably going to add an Easy difficulty to the game for players who simply can't beat the game on normal but still don't want to miss out on the story. This mode will simply be an easier version of the normal, where fuck-ups won't matter as much while enemies don't hit as hard.
@Hedge & Pai: I skip most of the secret rooms/equipments/treasure in my current run. I'm not using the best items available and I even skip a lot of stuff in plain sight by not exploring or buying new gear.
LightningLord2
230
A speed/timing based game is easy to make a handicap/cheat for - you should playtest while having the game run slower or faster depending on your intended skill level.
My main concern is still figuring out whether there's a good enough hint on what a boss does and if it's possible to tell how to counterplay their attacks. My battles should be won by skill and not by stats.
My main concern is still figuring out whether there's a good enough hint on what a boss does and if it's possible to tell how to counterplay their attacks. My battles should be won by skill and not by stats.
I generally beat a fight and then add another 20% HP/10% damage or so to give it some bite. I'll play it again at some point after that, of course, but it serves as a good starting point.
Then again I don't normally have all the messy mixed ways of getting stats that traditional RPGs do (levels and equipment growing at different rates), so it's far easier to balance out enemy stats, haha.
Handicaps do make sense though. I did it for Wine & Roses, for sure -- just doing stuff out of order to see if it's possible was fun.
Then again I don't normally have all the messy mixed ways of getting stats that traditional RPGs do (levels and equipment growing at different rates), so it's far easier to balance out enemy stats, haha.
Handicaps do make sense though. I did it for Wine & Roses, for sure -- just doing stuff out of order to see if it's possible was fun.
So you make the boss harder after you've balanced it into satisfaction?
I tend to do the opposite. I've actually been lowering a few bosses HP and made their skills weaker. I might be because most of the feedback I get is from casual players.
I have to be honest though, the game is pretty fu**ing hard ATM when I've handicapped myself so much.
Luckily, the game is for the most part pretty linear. Most of the new skills are also learnt from exploration.
If I had 5 difficulties; Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard, Veteran, the game would be leaning towards Hard. However, since there's only one difficulty atm, that difficulty is treated as normal, while a future update may include an easier difficulty.
I have tested the game out a lot and am pretty satisfied with the difficulty overall. However, I can't stop to think that I am biasing myself even more during my handicapped test run.
If players explore the maps, use items, buy new gear regularly and think before they attack, the game should still be challenging. These things should reward the player. If you skip everything I mentioned above, the game should rightfully be pretty brutal.
The only reason I'm worried here is because the story and characters are too damn awesome and well-written. I think the real problem here is that I can't decide what audience I am making the game for. Or what kind of game I'm even making.
It IS a dungeon crawler, but it plays together with a deep story and breathing characters. The setup for this game is very strange and uncommon.
The best solution here would be too have multiple difficulty modes. Normal and Easy, but perhaps it would be wiser to call them Story and Combat Mode.
I tend to do the opposite. I've actually been lowering a few bosses HP and made their skills weaker. I might be because most of the feedback I get is from casual players.
I have to be honest though, the game is pretty fu**ing hard ATM when I've handicapped myself so much.
Luckily, the game is for the most part pretty linear. Most of the new skills are also learnt from exploration.
If I had 5 difficulties; Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard, Veteran, the game would be leaning towards Hard. However, since there's only one difficulty atm, that difficulty is treated as normal, while a future update may include an easier difficulty.
I have tested the game out a lot and am pretty satisfied with the difficulty overall. However, I can't stop to think that I am biasing myself even more during my handicapped test run.
If players explore the maps, use items, buy new gear regularly and think before they attack, the game should still be challenging. These things should reward the player. If you skip everything I mentioned above, the game should rightfully be pretty brutal.
The only reason I'm worried here is because the story and characters are too damn awesome and well-written. I think the real problem here is that I can't decide what audience I am making the game for. Or what kind of game I'm even making.
It IS a dungeon crawler, but it plays together with a deep story and breathing characters. The setup for this game is very strange and uncommon.
The best solution here would be too have multiple difficulty modes. Normal and Easy, but perhaps it would be wiser to call them Story and Combat Mode.
A first run is normally to make sure that the mechanics work and that everything is in place. Once I know the fight works, I can estimate the tuning required. While I base HP/stats off of what I know the player will have numbers-wise, my games tend to have a lot of different ways for characters to interact and make each other far stronger. Thus, the baseline tends to be too weak -- as you can see with my final boss in Wine & Roses, which people have almost one-shotted down.
Ah, I see where you're coming from then. I play W&R a little a while back and noticed that the battles were more about strategy rather than power-grinding.
Just curious, how many times do you test run your games?
I usually test the bosses a few times at first when I make them. After everything's done, I start my first true run through the game. My second run (which is the one I'm at ATM) is mostly just a security run to check if everything's correct and nothing fishy's going on.
One shot the final boss? How is that even...
Just curious, how many times do you test run your games?
I usually test the bosses a few times at first when I make them. After everything's done, I start my first true run through the game. My second run (which is the one I'm at ATM) is mostly just a security run to check if everything's correct and nothing fishy's going on.
One shot the final boss? How is that even...
http://rpgmaker.net/games/4526/media/1063/ <- one-shot (not THAT oneshot)
i play my games constantly to the point of hating them.
i play my games constantly to the point of hating them.
Ouch... I guess that's what happens when you can add 9437 buffs to a character.
Same here lol. At first, I'm kind of proud and actually enjoying myself. After about 3481 tests later: "can't I just stop and call this finished? I want to mak nu gam now".
Same here lol. At first, I'm kind of proud and actually enjoying myself. After about 3481 tests later: "can't I just stop and call this finished? I want to mak nu gam now".
LightningLord2
230
Reminds me of Koji Kondo's composition works - he listens to his songs for hours on repeat. If he can't stand them anymore afterwards, he changes the music.
Also, bosses going down so fast reminds me of when I played Final Fantasy 1 - bosses just couldn't last enough to be a threat.
As for myself, I think for difficulty, I only make two levels - Normal and some cheesy word like Heroic, Extreme or so. The higher difficulty will improve the HP of all enemies, give some normal enemies new skills and boss gimmicks will be more exaggerated.
Also, bosses going down so fast reminds me of when I played Final Fantasy 1 - bosses just couldn't last enough to be a threat.
As for myself, I think for difficulty, I only make two levels - Normal and some cheesy word like Heroic, Extreme or so. The higher difficulty will improve the HP of all enemies, give some normal enemies new skills and boss gimmicks will be more exaggerated.
