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)
SHOULD A GAME TELL YOU ABOUT UPCOMING 'TURNING POINTS'?
Posts
Pages:
1
Feldschlacht IV
View playlists
CloseThis is something I see often in newer games; you get a certain point (around the middle or the end), where the game's world and narrative undergoes a major shift, and the game tells you pretty much "SHIT'S GOING TO GET REAL AFTER THIS POINT: ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?" and usually with an option to save your game and turn back. Usually, after these points the game's world changes substantially and you lose the option to do some things.
An example of this I'm sure we're all familiar with is the difference between the World of Balance and the World of Ruin in FFVI. Of course, FFVI didn't have this warning (as its more or a less a product of modern game design), but it did have a definitive 'mood' that reflected the upcoming change via a series of narrative curveballs and the Floating Continent, which had the feel of a 'final dungeon'. Now that I think about it, a lot of JRPGs have sequences which feel like the final part of the game, but aren't, and are actually climaxes in a disk or a chapter.
Now I don't hold it against older games for not having a warning before these events, because hey, they're older. Nor do I expect newer games to do this, but it's pretty nice. But to those who freak out over sidequests being locked out and such, I can see this being a big thing. What do you think?
An example of this I'm sure we're all familiar with is the difference between the World of Balance and the World of Ruin in FFVI. Of course, FFVI didn't have this warning (as its more or a less a product of modern game design), but it did have a definitive 'mood' that reflected the upcoming change via a series of narrative curveballs and the Floating Continent, which had the feel of a 'final dungeon'. Now that I think about it, a lot of JRPGs have sequences which feel like the final part of the game, but aren't, and are actually climaxes in a disk or a chapter.
Now I don't hold it against older games for not having a warning before these events, because hey, they're older. Nor do I expect newer games to do this, but it's pretty nice. But to those who freak out over sidequests being locked out and such, I can see this being a big thing. What do you think?
You could do this (but not all the time) and it puts an emphasis in the last segments of the game. Though, it does remove the freedom of backtracking for some players if they skipped something rather ludicrous. It does put an emphasis on "No Turning Back", but forces you to go on rather than to go back...
Meaning that you're toasted if you didn't carry that pack of Phoenix Downs. (If you find a way for that, though)
Meaning that you're toasted if you didn't carry that pack of Phoenix Downs. (If you find a way for that, though)
author=KatanaHiroshi
You could do this, but only in the last segments of the game. After all, it does remove the freedom of backtracking for some players if they skipped something. It does put an emphasis on "No Turning Back".
But like I said before, some fundamentally game changing events can occur in the world in the middle of the game. I think it applies in those cases as well.
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=KatanaHiroshiBut like I said before, some fundamentally game changing events can occur in the world in the middle of the game. I think it applies in those cases as well.
You could do this, but only in the last segments of the game. After all, it does remove the freedom of backtracking for some players if they skipped something. It does put an emphasis on "No Turning Back".
Now that's just an instant GG if they didn't get that instant Infinity +1 Sword.
author=Liberty
Just don't lock out the sidequests. ;p
For me, this...depends. I'd also like to use this opportunity to address this point because I know it's going to come up later. Read on.
It really depends on the nature of the change to the game world and what changes, and it also depends on what sidequests are locked and and what the rewards are.
I'm going to say straight up; the players that get outraged because they timed out of a Chapter 1 sidequest of 'Collect twenty bear asses for a copper sword' can really eat a fat one. There are games that keep all sidequests available indefinitely, but if the fact that, for example, a village gets destroyed early in the game and there's a small sidequest that gives you something that's easily replaceable elsewhere, then I really don't think that's a big deal and I think that's something players have to get over.
Now, on the other hand, if you have a game spanning, intricate sidequest and the player is inextricably locked out of it (or even worse, locked out of the conclusion) midway with no fair warning way early on, then yeah, that's a dick move. Missing some inconsequential sidequest with no significant narrative or gameplay reward because the world got destroyed (with warning, mind you) is not a big deal to me, and I don't think developers should try to bend over backwards for that if it doesn't fit their game.
author=KH
Now that's just an instant GG if they didn't get that instant Infinity +1 Sword.
How so? The player is warned all the same, with the option to turn back. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
I absolutely think a game should warn you, at least if you're reaching a PNR (point of no return). If the game gives you the opportunity to go back, then no warning is okay. Also, when locking out sidequests and special items, the game should alert you that you're coming to a spot where you're going to permanently lose options in the game.
Edit: Of course, timed quests and quests that are only there for a short portion of the game, yeah, players know that if the village is going to get wrecked by gears and they'll never be able to go back, then it's on them.
Edit: Of course, timed quests and quests that are only there for a short portion of the game, yeah, players know that if the village is going to get wrecked by gears and they'll never be able to go back, then it's on them.
I have no objections to missable content just as long as its clear in some capacity. It could be presentation (Floating Continent was a pretty clear signal) or even outright stated ("Hey I got a feelin' that we may not see Generic Peasant Hamlet #16483 if we do this, but it's probably nothing."). Exceptions are given for plot twists and other narrative devices where the above wouldn't work.
Personally I wouldn't care about locking the player out of side quests or similar content due to how the narrative goes. I would adjust the rewards of such sidequests so that they don't give unique or otherwise critical gameplay items or there are other opportunities to get said rewards. Basically I don't want the player to do side quests because they get the only Fire Absorb Anklet for the next 20 hours. I wouldn't track completed quests either to try and avoid sparking completionist OCD, but that's more of a Cavia troll move anyways.
Speaking of, I think one bad example is Nier where what feels like the next dungeon/chapter area ends up pushing the narrative to the time jump aka the first big point of no return. There's no warning signs that it's going to happen, go to somebody's mansion, meet a kid, head back to town, and bang welcome to the second half of the game!
Basically I'm with Feld's last post. Communicate clearly, consider missable rewards, and don't track missable shit.
Personally I wouldn't care about locking the player out of side quests or similar content due to how the narrative goes. I would adjust the rewards of such sidequests so that they don't give unique or otherwise critical gameplay items or there are other opportunities to get said rewards. Basically I don't want the player to do side quests because they get the only Fire Absorb Anklet for the next 20 hours. I wouldn't track completed quests either to try and avoid sparking completionist OCD, but that's more of a Cavia troll move anyways.
Speaking of, I think one bad example is Nier where what feels like the next dungeon/chapter area ends up pushing the narrative to the time jump aka the first big point of no return. There's no warning signs that it's going to happen, go to somebody's mansion, meet a kid, head back to town, and bang welcome to the second half of the game!
Basically I'm with Feld's last post. Communicate clearly, consider missable rewards, and don't track missable shit.
RyaReisender
200
Even though it takes away from immersion a bit, I like it when I'm warning at a point of no return.
It depends on design.
Do you have two drastically differrent roads and you want players to play them both? Warn them.
Or the story differs in nuances and while the outcome can be totally unlike the gameplay is kinda same? Keep it for yourself.
And always there is .the golden rule of showing not telling.
Do you have two drastically differrent roads and you want players to play them both? Warn them.
Or the story differs in nuances and while the outcome can be totally unlike the gameplay is kinda same? Keep it for yourself.
And always there is .the golden rule of showing not telling.
I feel like games should try to be as open as possible, in that optional content shouldn't become locked off to the player if it's at all preventable. That being said, I do believe that it's fine for content to become locked. Sometimes you just have to make concessions for the sake of something more important. There's no hard and fast single "right" way to do anything in a game, after all.
If there's going to be a point of no return, I think the game should tell the player, but, when talking about RPGs, in a way that doesn't break immersion or seem too mechanical. I don't like it when a big message pops up saying "YOU CANT TURN BACK". I've found, in my own experience, that when characters involved in the plot make warnings about "we won't be able to turn back after this" I believe them, as it's a conduit for the designer to reach out to the player and warn them.
I guess it's a similar principal to the designers warning the player about boss battles via save points and art design/imposing doors/corridors/keys etc. There are ways to give your player more subtle hints that you recommend something, and to me they're preferable to system messages and the like.
If there's going to be a point of no return, I think the game should tell the player, but, when talking about RPGs, in a way that doesn't break immersion or seem too mechanical. I don't like it when a big message pops up saying "YOU CANT TURN BACK". I've found, in my own experience, that when characters involved in the plot make warnings about "we won't be able to turn back after this" I believe them, as it's a conduit for the designer to reach out to the player and warn them.
I guess it's a similar principal to the designers warning the player about boss battles via save points and art design/imposing doors/corridors/keys etc. There are ways to give your player more subtle hints that you recommend something, and to me they're preferable to system messages and the like.
author=Pizza
when characters involved in the plot make warnings about "we won't be able to turn back after this" I believe them, as it's a conduit for the designer to reach out to the player and warn them.
I guess it's a similar principal to the designers warning the player about boss battles via save points and art design/imposing doors/corridors/keys etc. There are ways to give your player more subtle hints that you recommend something, and to me they're preferable to system messages and the like.
I remember in the first Kingdom Hearts, right before the "point of no return" there's a door that looks very similar the doors at the beginning of the game in Sora's dream, or the one he found in the "secret place". Just seeing that door again is menacing on its own, so you KNOW shit's about to go down. Of course there's a save point in the same room, and when you approach the door Sora asks himself "well, am I ready?" and you're given the option to proceed. But I thought the door itself was enough to tell me that I really should save the game and prepare myself. If they made the door a recurring theme before every major fight in the game --- that way you don't need character dialogue to prompt you, the environment itself indicates that you should be prepared.
Another example is Mega Man --- before the boss, there's always the Wily gateway and a little hallway before the boss fight. There's nothing even in the hallway. But I remember every time I got to that hallway I was like "oh fuck, here comes the boss, better check my weapons or use an E-tank". Well, there's nothing really to check and there's no save points in Mega Man, but you get the idea: I readied myself (mentally) and just being in the hallway ramped up the tension. Imagine if there was no hallway, you just open the door and SURPRISE there's the boss! I think it's a great design decision to have that "boss hallway" before the boss fight, the idea could be adapted to work in a JRPG too.
And of course, Zelda. In every dungeon there's the boss key and boss door, so you always know to fill up your arrow quiver and hearts before you go through the boss door. It functions very similarly to Mega Man. Wouldn't it be awkward if, right before the boss, Navi prompts you and says "hey, there could be danger ahead ... Shouldn't you prepare yourself?" Well the whole dungeon has been dangerous, why haven't you said anything till now? It's immersion-breaking.
I like the door idea more than the idea of having a character say "Hey, we might not be able to turn back". The only problem I can see is that you lose the element of surprise --- every time there's a climax or a boss, you know there's a climax or a boss. On the other hand, you also gain it, because if you really want to surprise the player you could put a boss without a boss hallway ...
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=Pizza
I guess it's a similar principal to the designers warning the player about boss battles via save points and art design/imposing doors/corridors/keys etc. There are ways to give your player more subtle hints that you recommend something, and to me they're preferable to system messages and the like.
^^This.
It varies by game, but principles of story pacing and buildup come into play here. If you're about to go upset the status quo of a story, there should be some serious warning about what kind of ordeal you are about to undertake.
Tales of Symphonia, for example (mild spoiler alert), is a good example of this: at the very beginning of the game, you are presented with a goal: go to the Tower of Salvation to save the world. However, on your journey there, you learn more and more that such a fairytale ending of becoming an angel to cure all the world's problems is a big fat lie, and that doing would actually cause just as much harm as good. So by the time the party is ready to actually enter the Tower of Salvation, you KNOW shit is about to go south real fast. So players should save. This was conveyed through story and pacing, not through a system message. I would prefer this method any day.
I'm leaning towards being kinda sorta okay with locking out side quests, though I can absolutely understand why it would piss players off. It's kinda nice to circumvent a player's expectation that every location will be perfectly save to return to at their convenience to continue side quests.
But in tales of symphonia there's that whole "we gotta ride the wyverns to the tower of salvation so make sure you're ready" scene before the thing happens. Isn't this kind of scene what we're saying we should avoid?
Well, a lot has been voiced already.
There are a few more things going into it for me, namely the way the game is played alongside replayability and other things.
If you can do subtle clues - do it. This ideally also makes think about WHY it locks certain quests out.
Make the player learn whether or not the environment locks out certain things after some time. Make the player realize shit is about to go down, make them realize how this world and its quest system works.
The worst and best example of some stuff coming to mind would be Dragon's Dogma.
When you progress the story, numerous quests can be lost forever, without any prior warning or indication, with story passages completely unrelated to the sidequests.
The prime example of this is finding someone in a forest - it locks out an important quest line, a character, story-relevant(!) details, and an area with an herb you can only find there. Without any warning or any indication this quest is limited by time (there is one quest limited by ingame time and it's made clear)
You do this by continuing the story-line and reaching the capital.
Now - the whole game has a few changing things here and there you can miss. Numerous quests stay permanently, some do not. This one in particular has the biggest impact, and is so easy to miss precisely because it is early on where you do not know this yet. You can imagine, logically, searching for a person you may be too late if you wait forever, but you have no indication of "how long" that is, and the in-game day and night cycles are irrelevant for this.
Most sandbox RPGs do this loosely and you have "forever", you learn this is not the case - sadly this lesson is most easily learnt with the one quest that would be so good to see through.
That said - the game relies on multiple playthroughs to be fully completed (achievment wise anyway), to connect all dots and find all sidequests. It also makes you quickly realize (by nulling a few quests) that they change every now and then. Not knowing which or when is a really annoying part though, but I suppose it makes sense if you want to paint a more natural world.
It is a little inconsistent though, as there are a few instances where you are warned about quest progress and also about a turning point. Meh.
---
A great example would be Devil Survivor, because there are many things you can miss - including ways to prevent deaths of certain characters, you will most likely miss unless you have been liking/following the characters involved.
The game is short and requires you to reach multiple endings to piece the story together and enjoy it fully and that makes it work well. Those are small disasters that make sense in the world and can happen. You can still proceed, even if at perhaps a slight disadvantage.
It's also a game that follows a lot of daily predictions you follow through, so you already have a lot of structure in your play and this part of freedom works really well and in favor of the overall game.
--
Basically ..
If you craft a game around this, making use of it, teaching the player about the rules (rules that make sense), then you are fine without clear hints, subtle or not.
And I'd like to consider such possibilities because they can work really well and make the game world feel changing and alive.
If you do a game where it's only a side-show and you want the player to progress at their leisure - keep them permanent unless there's REALLY good story reason to.
Make them available at a later point if you want to have something a little more difficult to reach, but avoid locking them out later.
Turning points in a huge sense should be clear because .. well, you can lose all your preparation, and additionally to not completing everything you may very well end up being ill-prepared depending on your playstyle. (or wanting to have separate saves or whatnot). I for one often like to rush through the story, to then catch up on the sidequests.
Using environmental clues, dialogue and such makes them feel not only more natural, but also gives you a huge arch of tension and anticipation for what is going to happen. Which is a good thing.
There are a few more things going into it for me, namely the way the game is played alongside replayability and other things.
If you can do subtle clues - do it. This ideally also makes think about WHY it locks certain quests out.
Make the player learn whether or not the environment locks out certain things after some time. Make the player realize shit is about to go down, make them realize how this world and its quest system works.
The worst and best example of some stuff coming to mind would be Dragon's Dogma.
When you progress the story, numerous quests can be lost forever, without any prior warning or indication, with story passages completely unrelated to the sidequests.
The prime example of this is finding someone in a forest - it locks out an important quest line, a character, story-relevant(!) details, and an area with an herb you can only find there. Without any warning or any indication this quest is limited by time (there is one quest limited by ingame time and it's made clear)
You do this by continuing the story-line and reaching the capital.
Now - the whole game has a few changing things here and there you can miss. Numerous quests stay permanently, some do not. This one in particular has the biggest impact, and is so easy to miss precisely because it is early on where you do not know this yet. You can imagine, logically, searching for a person you may be too late if you wait forever, but you have no indication of "how long" that is, and the in-game day and night cycles are irrelevant for this.
Most sandbox RPGs do this loosely and you have "forever", you learn this is not the case - sadly this lesson is most easily learnt with the one quest that would be so good to see through.
That said - the game relies on multiple playthroughs to be fully completed (achievment wise anyway), to connect all dots and find all sidequests. It also makes you quickly realize (by nulling a few quests) that they change every now and then. Not knowing which or when is a really annoying part though, but I suppose it makes sense if you want to paint a more natural world.
It is a little inconsistent though, as there are a few instances where you are warned about quest progress and also about a turning point. Meh.
---
A great example would be Devil Survivor, because there are many things you can miss - including ways to prevent deaths of certain characters, you will most likely miss unless you have been liking/following the characters involved.
The game is short and requires you to reach multiple endings to piece the story together and enjoy it fully and that makes it work well. Those are small disasters that make sense in the world and can happen. You can still proceed, even if at perhaps a slight disadvantage.
It's also a game that follows a lot of daily predictions you follow through, so you already have a lot of structure in your play and this part of freedom works really well and in favor of the overall game.
--
Basically ..
If you craft a game around this, making use of it, teaching the player about the rules (rules that make sense), then you are fine without clear hints, subtle or not.
And I'd like to consider such possibilities because they can work really well and make the game world feel changing and alive.
If you do a game where it's only a side-show and you want the player to progress at their leisure - keep them permanent unless there's REALLY good story reason to.
Make them available at a later point if you want to have something a little more difficult to reach, but avoid locking them out later.
Turning points in a huge sense should be clear because .. well, you can lose all your preparation, and additionally to not completing everything you may very well end up being ill-prepared depending on your playstyle. (or wanting to have separate saves or whatnot). I for one often like to rush through the story, to then catch up on the sidequests.
Using environmental clues, dialogue and such makes them feel not only more natural, but also gives you a huge arch of tension and anticipation for what is going to happen. Which is a good thing.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=Mirak
But in tales of symphonia there's that whole "we gotta ride the wyverns to the tower of salvation so make sure you're ready" scene before the thing happens. Isn't this kind of scene what we're saying we should avoid?
If you're talking about the moment where Raine stops the group and asks if they're prepared, then yeah I agree that it was unnecessary. Shoot, it's even redundant since players just went through an entire scene where the party disbands and everyone questions their motivations and uncertainties about the tower.
Unless that party disbanding scene is what you're referring to, in which case I disagree that it wasn't needed.
Overnight I remembered a great example of how not to do this: Getting The Sword of Kings in Earthbound!
(For those unfamiliar, The Sword of Kings is the only weapon Poo, the guy with the top knot and white robes, can equip*. The only place you can get this weapon is at the Stonehenge base from an enemy called Starman Super. The weapon's drop rate is 1/128, made worse due to how Earthbound's drop mechanics worked when you fought multiple enemies** which was common, plus if you beat the boss of the Stonehenge Base all enemies would disappear including the Starman Super and your chance to get The Sword of Kings. The strategy guide that came with the game told the players about this so almost everyone who played the game knew about it and tons of kids would waste endless hours slaughtering Starman Supers trying to get it to drop which lead to getting a ton of EXP which trivialized the rest of the game. Plus Poo is a caster and The Sword of Kings isn't even that great. It's funny in retrospect but I got some absurd number of levels grinding for that fucking sword.
* Okay he can also equip Yo-yos, the universal weapon of the game, but they uniquely reduce Poo's attack iirc.
** You can only get one item from winning a battle. If another enemy drops an item then the Starman Super won't drop TSoK. I don't remember the specifics though.
(For those unfamiliar, The Sword of Kings is the only weapon Poo, the guy with the top knot and white robes, can equip*. The only place you can get this weapon is at the Stonehenge base from an enemy called Starman Super. The weapon's drop rate is 1/128, made worse due to how Earthbound's drop mechanics worked when you fought multiple enemies** which was common, plus if you beat the boss of the Stonehenge Base all enemies would disappear including the Starman Super and your chance to get The Sword of Kings. The strategy guide that came with the game told the players about this so almost everyone who played the game knew about it and tons of kids would waste endless hours slaughtering Starman Supers trying to get it to drop which lead to getting a ton of EXP which trivialized the rest of the game. Plus Poo is a caster and The Sword of Kings isn't even that great. It's funny in retrospect but I got some absurd number of levels grinding for that fucking sword.
* Okay he can also equip Yo-yos, the universal weapon of the game, but they uniquely reduce Poo's attack iirc.
** You can only get one item from winning a battle. If another enemy drops an item then the Starman Super won't drop TSoK. I don't remember the specifics though.
Aegix_Drakan
6037
Ughm, I kinda wish the first Xenoblade had done that, or that it had handled leveling better.
Because of certain late game stuff, I found myself facing a sudden huge difficulty spike while very underlevelled with no side quests that were appropriate for my level, forcing me to spend a week or two grinding to be strong enough for the finale. -_-
It's a shame, really, as that's the one thing that took the game from "Holy shit, this MIGHT be the game that dethrones Crono Trigger and The World Ends With You as my favourite RPGs of all time, equally sharing the the number 1 slot", to just plain "It was a very great game"
-
I tend to give warnings for bosses and major stuff in my own games as well.
The Shackles of Varn games have the Will-O-Wisps (Also functioning as save points) that flicker faster when you're near a boss (the line when you interact with them changes to reference this as well), and I'm putting a warning signal (A character's Guardian Angel flashes) in Mayhem maiden as well. When player eventually sees one at the START of one of the dungeons I have planned...I'm sure the warning will be VERY clear. :P
Because of certain late game stuff, I found myself facing a sudden huge difficulty spike while very underlevelled with no side quests that were appropriate for my level, forcing me to spend a week or two grinding to be strong enough for the finale. -_-
It's a shame, really, as that's the one thing that took the game from "Holy shit, this MIGHT be the game that dethrones Crono Trigger and The World Ends With You as my favourite RPGs of all time, equally sharing the the number 1 slot", to just plain "It was a very great game"
-
I tend to give warnings for bosses and major stuff in my own games as well.
The Shackles of Varn games have the Will-O-Wisps (Also functioning as save points) that flicker faster when you're near a boss (the line when you interact with them changes to reference this as well), and I'm putting a warning signal (A character's Guardian Angel flashes) in Mayhem maiden as well. When player eventually sees one at the START of one of the dungeons I have planned...I'm sure the warning will be VERY clear. :P
Pages:
1
