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)
BEING IN CHARGE OF YOUR STATS BEFORE THE GAME EVEN BEGINS
Posts
Pages:
1
Darken
3952
Darken
View playlists
CloseThis topic is largely going to center around western RPGs though I think a lot of JRPGs potentially have this trait too. The most fun part of WRPGs for me is the character sheet much like tabletop games, but when you actually play the game well... things don't go as planned, maybe bypassing conversations with a charisma stat is super underpowered and not enough to get through the game, maybe there's a weapon type you don't even see til half way through the game and you dumped all your character's college years studying them but just given a wrench for 25% of the playthrough. Basically it's hard to plan out a character or a party if you don't really know what the game is like, or what the level designers actually placed in the areas for you to take advantage of. You got infinite underwater breathing but there is like one mandatory swimming section in the game. Sure you can get through the game in spite of that choice, but it'd probably feel like a letdown.
Aside from "just make a good game that accounts for every build possible" I'm wondering about how to deal with the player making choices with unknown consequences. Sure another solution is to just make builds reconfigurable at a moments notice like you're some kind of stat fluid chameleon but some would argue that's less RPGy. There is something fun about rolling with what you got, or just like 'hey i have this character who is only good at talking to rats, wouldn't it be funny if that was enough to save the world?' A human DM (who is open enough) is likely good at facilitating that while still not having to adapt the entirety of a campaign to it.
One answer to all this is having a tutorial (like Deus Ex Human Revolution) show you all the instances of every mechanic/activity/stat use, then get them in a freak accident and do the whole "so fill out these medical papers to make sure I got this right..." *surprise stat screen* Though I think the problem is that a brief tutorial isn't always enough, it doesn't inform the player of what will actually be ahead. Will there be a hacking section REQUIRED for a side quest to be completed? (HR actually does this) No idea, but the game taught me what a hacking mini-game is like i guess.
It does seem though that the whole point of "builds" is that you're meant to replay the game several times to see the different results pan out. Lot of people say that about games when praising their open-endedness. Though I wonder if that's their brain using imagination to fill the gaps of hiding how rigid the game really is. If you were put in a psychology experiment where you were to play a game where the configurable stats actually did nothing at the start and you went on to play a mostly well paced game with few road blocks, would you even notice? This hypothetical assumes a lot but it's interesting to think about.
I guess I'm not just looking for solutions per say, but wondering about questions like: what are your immediate assumptions when being able to customize somewhat permanent stats at the start of the game? is there something you expect throughout an RPG to be relevant to your exact choices? Do you feel like you're buying advantages or identifying hard with the character? Do you just play the "meta"? (ie this stat seems OP im just gonna get it) Or is there some mindset you have I might not have considered?
Aside from "just make a good game that accounts for every build possible" I'm wondering about how to deal with the player making choices with unknown consequences. Sure another solution is to just make builds reconfigurable at a moments notice like you're some kind of stat fluid chameleon but some would argue that's less RPGy. There is something fun about rolling with what you got, or just like 'hey i have this character who is only good at talking to rats, wouldn't it be funny if that was enough to save the world?' A human DM (who is open enough) is likely good at facilitating that while still not having to adapt the entirety of a campaign to it.
One answer to all this is having a tutorial (like Deus Ex Human Revolution) show you all the instances of every mechanic/activity/stat use, then get them in a freak accident and do the whole "so fill out these medical papers to make sure I got this right..." *surprise stat screen* Though I think the problem is that a brief tutorial isn't always enough, it doesn't inform the player of what will actually be ahead. Will there be a hacking section REQUIRED for a side quest to be completed? (HR actually does this) No idea, but the game taught me what a hacking mini-game is like i guess.
It does seem though that the whole point of "builds" is that you're meant to replay the game several times to see the different results pan out. Lot of people say that about games when praising their open-endedness. Though I wonder if that's their brain using imagination to fill the gaps of hiding how rigid the game really is. If you were put in a psychology experiment where you were to play a game where the configurable stats actually did nothing at the start and you went on to play a mostly well paced game with few road blocks, would you even notice? This hypothetical assumes a lot but it's interesting to think about.
I guess I'm not just looking for solutions per say, but wondering about questions like: what are your immediate assumptions when being able to customize somewhat permanent stats at the start of the game? is there something you expect throughout an RPG to be relevant to your exact choices? Do you feel like you're buying advantages or identifying hard with the character? Do you just play the "meta"? (ie this stat seems OP im just gonna get it) Or is there some mindset you have I might not have considered?
Gari
127
Hello. I'm unsure it will help you, but here we go.
For the stat points, I would say it shall depends of what you want on your game and the feeling of reward the player will have: are there several ways to beat some parts of the game, depending of different behaviors/stats?
If yes, then you will want the player to work +/- heavily on specific stats/behavior to get him pass the trial. If not, it's to you as a developer to decide if you want to "punish" the player by disabling one or several ways. The more your game is expected to be difficult, the more rewarding the player will feel about passing the trial.
If no (for linear games), I guess there would always be some possible grind by level up.
As for the case the player doesn't know exactly if he did a good choice or not, I guess western game types are made to make you behavior a certain way, in which the player should stick (example : good/bad reputation, or shaping offensive/support/tank characters). I've not played too much of those games, but when I can, I tend to get some offense (attack or magic and speed), and a basic cure when possible. It often helps when begining.
Following a certain path sure helps to immerge in the game, as you feel as your actions have consequences (the main protagonist just feels like an empty shell in this case however). You have to build toward your own decisions, and sometimes adjust when time comes. It makes me think that to avoid cheaty stats, somes games make the cost in an already boosted stat/trait more and more costy, so that the player spends his points in other areas. It can be useful if you want to design the game not to be too much about grind, or let a hint to the player that focusing on one stat/trait might not be the best idea.
Dunno if I answered to what you asked, but good luck.
For the stat points, I would say it shall depends of what you want on your game and the feeling of reward the player will have: are there several ways to beat some parts of the game, depending of different behaviors/stats?
If yes, then you will want the player to work +/- heavily on specific stats/behavior to get him pass the trial. If not, it's to you as a developer to decide if you want to "punish" the player by disabling one or several ways. The more your game is expected to be difficult, the more rewarding the player will feel about passing the trial.
If no (for linear games), I guess there would always be some possible grind by level up.
As for the case the player doesn't know exactly if he did a good choice or not, I guess western game types are made to make you behavior a certain way, in which the player should stick (example : good/bad reputation, or shaping offensive/support/tank characters). I've not played too much of those games, but when I can, I tend to get some offense (attack or magic and speed), and a basic cure when possible. It often helps when begining.
Do you feel like you're buying advantages or identifying hard with the character?
Following a certain path sure helps to immerge in the game, as you feel as your actions have consequences (the main protagonist just feels like an empty shell in this case however). You have to build toward your own decisions, and sometimes adjust when time comes. It makes me think that to avoid cheaty stats, somes games make the cost in an already boosted stat/trait more and more costy, so that the player spends his points in other areas. It can be useful if you want to design the game not to be too much about grind, or let a hint to the player that focusing on one stat/trait might not be the best idea.
Dunno if I answered to what you asked, but good luck.
Darken
3952
Well your post does reveal how broad I'm being with my hypothetical RPG example. Because I guess the important stipulations are that:
1. It lets you customize your protagonist character to a high degree
2. The customizations are hard to go back on, or it's likely a waste to specialize into something completely different and you can't max out everything
3. Combat specializations are the main thing, but also assume that there's a lot of random utility skills/traits that either skip combat or make it easier down the line
Some of the solutions you mentioned are kind of what I mentioned, which sure yeah just adapt the game to every build, but that's easier said than done, or maybe impossible depending how strict the thresholds.
It even feeds into the bigger question of like: how does the player even know the pros/cons between a DPS character and a Tank type character? How do you even know the pros and cons of being good and evil? Obviously most games just get by due to appealing to people's sensibilities or they played DnD before. But how do you relay the consequences better without making them play the entire game?
1. It lets you customize your protagonist character to a high degree
2. The customizations are hard to go back on, or it's likely a waste to specialize into something completely different and you can't max out everything
3. Combat specializations are the main thing, but also assume that there's a lot of random utility skills/traits that either skip combat or make it easier down the line
Some of the solutions you mentioned are kind of what I mentioned, which sure yeah just adapt the game to every build, but that's easier said than done, or maybe impossible depending how strict the thresholds.
It even feeds into the bigger question of like: how does the player even know the pros/cons between a DPS character and a Tank type character? How do you even know the pros and cons of being good and evil? Obviously most games just get by due to appealing to people's sensibilities or they played DnD before. But how do you relay the consequences better without making them play the entire game?
LordBlueRouge
2143
Disclaimer: I've never been very good at video games. So take my feedback with a grain of salt. But for years, I couldn't really get into Diablo, because deep down I really wanted it to play more like Secret of Mana, cause that's the sort of game I grew up with?
But no um, my biggest struggle with the Diablo series was trying to figure out how the stat/weapon system essentially worked. There would eventually be a point in the game, where I'd come up against a monster or a dungeon I wouldn't be able to get pass because they'd take one too many hits to kill, before I'd eventually get surrounded and die.
It took me years to figure out how crucial the stat system was to the game. I think upon replaying the port of Diablo 1, I finally figured it out. Because in the PS1 version, (I haven't checked if you can do this in the PC version) but you could actually save your game more than once, which actually gives you a chance to start experimenting which weapon/armor load out would work better in a given situation. And that's when I realized you can't play Diablo like other RPGs: In Diablo, when you're creating your character, what you are actually doing is creating a tank that fires whenever you click the mouse button, and you continue to build this tank through the various rings, amulets boots and various suits of armor you find and equip along the way.
But after a certain point in Diablo, the weapons and armor that become available in stores aren't as good as the unique and rare items that you'll find in dungeons? - So what you're actually doing, near the end of the game, is trying to find that rare but really good weapon, that you'll use to carry through to the end of the game in order to face Diablo with. Having that weapon is kind of crucial to your setup. If you die and lose that weapon, there's really no point in retrieving your items or saving your game cause you're kind of screwed without it.
This is a really good question, (I wish there was a way we could stickie this in the game dev thread)
the only examples I can think of that might negate this issue from various games are:
-In Demon Souls/Dark Souls, other player's notes/deaths warn you of the dangers ahead.
-Monster Hunter demos/tutorial levels in the past, often give you playable builds to sample the game from; (but there's a very strong disconnect between the builds you actually use and the equipment you can actually earn.)
-(I haven't played too much of this next one but) Pokemon had a playable rival that you would randomly encounter you throughout the game. I realized years later, that these encounters were actually tests, meant to teach you in a less punishing way, so you could learn how to better gear your pokemon, toward the various situations and challenges that lie ahead.
- Metal Slug had a very quick visual tutorial, explaining very quickly the button layout and mechanics of the game.
- Super Metroid had another visual tutorial, but played out through the game's NPCs teaching the player hidden moves that they could use within the game.
But yeah, I'm not too keen on character creation in general. But it'd be cool if someone were to combine these different aspects, in such a way that it doesn't bog down the player with endless tutorials. Because The best way to learn in these games is through experimentation. But that experimentation should not only be immediate, but feel fun, in order to encourage more experimentation.
Years later, I remember returning to Diablo II, with a better understanding of how the game worked and I ended up hoarding all my skill points for Revive, so I could run around with a miniature army made up of all creatures that I just killed - Even though I wasn't great at these games, it was such a cool feeling to achieve that and finally figure that out on my own.
EDIT: tl;dr I have not played a game that does this, but the idea would be to somehow figure out a way to bring about those consequences sooner, so the player can actually learn and experiment with those builds, without being permanent - this is different from simply rerolling your stats - I'm saying, give them an opportunity to see how powerful that build can become, immediately, so they can build towards that.
But no um, my biggest struggle with the Diablo series was trying to figure out how the stat/weapon system essentially worked. There would eventually be a point in the game, where I'd come up against a monster or a dungeon I wouldn't be able to get pass because they'd take one too many hits to kill, before I'd eventually get surrounded and die.
It took me years to figure out how crucial the stat system was to the game. I think upon replaying the port of Diablo 1, I finally figured it out. Because in the PS1 version, (I haven't checked if you can do this in the PC version) but you could actually save your game more than once, which actually gives you a chance to start experimenting which weapon/armor load out would work better in a given situation. And that's when I realized you can't play Diablo like other RPGs: In Diablo, when you're creating your character, what you are actually doing is creating a tank that fires whenever you click the mouse button, and you continue to build this tank through the various rings, amulets boots and various suits of armor you find and equip along the way.
But after a certain point in Diablo, the weapons and armor that become available in stores aren't as good as the unique and rare items that you'll find in dungeons? - So what you're actually doing, near the end of the game, is trying to find that rare but really good weapon, that you'll use to carry through to the end of the game in order to face Diablo with. Having that weapon is kind of crucial to your setup. If you die and lose that weapon, there's really no point in retrieving your items or saving your game cause you're kind of screwed without it.
author=Darken
It even feeds into the bigger question of like: how does the player even know the pros/cons between a DPS character and a Tank type character? How do you even know the pros and cons of being good and evil? Obviously most games just get by due to appealing to people's sensibilities or they played DnD before. But how do you relay the consequences better without making them play the entire game?
This is a really good question, (I wish there was a way we could stickie this in the game dev thread)
the only examples I can think of that might negate this issue from various games are:
-In Demon Souls/Dark Souls, other player's notes/deaths warn you of the dangers ahead.
-Monster Hunter demos/tutorial levels in the past, often give you playable builds to sample the game from; (but there's a very strong disconnect between the builds you actually use and the equipment you can actually earn.)
-(I haven't played too much of this next one but) Pokemon had a playable rival that you would randomly encounter you throughout the game. I realized years later, that these encounters were actually tests, meant to teach you in a less punishing way, so you could learn how to better gear your pokemon, toward the various situations and challenges that lie ahead.
- Metal Slug had a very quick visual tutorial, explaining very quickly the button layout and mechanics of the game.
- Super Metroid had another visual tutorial, but played out through the game's NPCs teaching the player hidden moves that they could use within the game.
But yeah, I'm not too keen on character creation in general. But it'd be cool if someone were to combine these different aspects, in such a way that it doesn't bog down the player with endless tutorials. Because The best way to learn in these games is through experimentation. But that experimentation should not only be immediate, but feel fun, in order to encourage more experimentation.
Years later, I remember returning to Diablo II, with a better understanding of how the game worked and I ended up hoarding all my skill points for Revive, so I could run around with a miniature army made up of all creatures that I just killed - Even though I wasn't great at these games, it was such a cool feeling to achieve that and finally figure that out on my own.
EDIT: tl;dr I have not played a game that does this, but the idea would be to somehow figure out a way to bring about those consequences sooner, so the player can actually learn and experiment with those builds, without being permanent - this is different from simply rerolling your stats - I'm saying, give them an opportunity to see how powerful that build can become, immediately, so they can build towards that.
Acra
332
I LOVE the concept of being able to build a character as you want, but it's frequently mishandled by a variety of factors. But this topic is kind of aaaall over the place, so let's back up.
Firstly, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of making choices actually matter. Telltale games and David Cage games (Indigo Prophency, Heavy Rain) are pretty much reviled for failing at this. As soon as you get the whiff that none of these decisions matter or becomes incredibly obvious that the decision was quickly undone, the illusions shatters incredibly hard and violently. People don't like being lied to, especially when that was the big selling point. As an example, In Walking Dead Season 1, you choose between saving two characters. They then immediately sit everything out for the next chapter, and upon coming back after that, they're immediately killed off. It becomes offensively clear that every choice isn't going to have any narrative weight and be undone before it can amount to anything. And it happens again and again and again.
But that's from a narrative perspective. From a gameplay perspective, well, you need only look at any given Roguelike to see how wildly different that can get. A playthrough where instead of getting a shortsword, you get a rapid-fire crossbow is going to feel incredibly different. And one is probably going to feel like absolute hell compared to the other.
Anyway, to what's probably supposed to be the meat of the matter; I'm not fond of non-combat skills in video games. I've learned not to trust them, or at least not until it's painfully clear if they're vital or not. Simply put, combat is something you're guaranteed to do, the most common thing you're going to do, and, presumably, the toughest part of the game is going to rely on this.
A lot of times, using a skill to skip combat is ultimately going to give you less experience than just rushing headlong in. Less experience means less building the character, means it's a bad decision. It's less about actually needing the experience, so much as it feels bad for leaving free money behind. Some games try to reward you experience for the non-combat options, but then the hilarious/stupid thing to do is then immediately turn back around and mow everyone down for the standard-route experience, anyway.
Some general/vague thoughts on these:
- Consider making non-combat skills some kind of mandatory either/or pick. Say, every 5 levels, in addition to a normal skill point, you can choose a non-combat skill. This way you're forced to pick up some, but not all, of those skills in a non-intrusive way. And this way, learning Swimming isn't directly making you weaker for the remaining 95% of the game's gameplay.
- If you don't want to do that, make non-combat skills cheap. I'm not gonna waste 10 levels to max out the Cooking skill (unless it's the be-all end-all form of healing, I guess), but I might pay 1 for it.
- Alternatively, tie non-combat skills directly to stats. Say, you learn Swimming at 30 Agility. Or alternatively alternatively, learning Swimming also gives +2 Agility. Either way, they're more 'along the way', and don't feel like as much of a waste.
This might be hard to describe, but unless I have strong feelings on the matter, I have a tendency to not build a character in a 'non-canon' fashion. Like, if the main character is exclusively shown with a dirk and a hooded cloak, I'm probably not going to turn them into a bastion of walking metal with a poleax. This is why I don't particularly like customization of pre-existing / pre-named characters. If they're an ill-defined entity, then that's an entirely different story, of course.
I might as well add here that I literally don't understand the concept of 'identifying' with characters. Period. In any media. I believe it's very much a 'me' problem, and I think it's something I can't explain well. It's less that I don't identify with anyone, so much as it's a completely flat line, regardless of circumstances.
When it comes to assigning stats, it's pretty much always the same regardless, as a lot of games fall into the same pitfalls, again and again. Speed/Agility is almost inevitably the best stat, then Attack. Resistance and Defense are almost certainly the worst. And investing in HP is going to be more productive than either of those, as it does both at the same time, and frequently a better job, too. Full offense and taking care of a problem before it can even act is far more favoured than weathering a storm. Building for versatility usually makes you weaker than just dumping everything into one stat/skill, even in situations where it isn't favoured. It's something that requires a TON of incredibly careful balance, and I don't want to undersell that, but I think the bottom-line is that diminishing returns are vital for preventing the worst of this.
If you want to let the player go back on level/stat assignments, a fair price is to have it cost them a few levels in the process. This makes it so you can't get stuck, but that throwing points around isn't something you can do on a whim. I guess making it somewhat expensive instead is an option, too.
Lastly, while I don't think it really applies here, but I've always preferred a party of characters with differing specialties over a single character who has to become an omnidisiplinary expert to overcome his challenges.
Firstly, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of making choices actually matter. Telltale games and David Cage games (Indigo Prophency, Heavy Rain) are pretty much reviled for failing at this. As soon as you get the whiff that none of these decisions matter or becomes incredibly obvious that the decision was quickly undone, the illusions shatters incredibly hard and violently. People don't like being lied to, especially when that was the big selling point. As an example, In Walking Dead Season 1, you choose between saving two characters. They then immediately sit everything out for the next chapter, and upon coming back after that, they're immediately killed off. It becomes offensively clear that every choice isn't going to have any narrative weight and be undone before it can amount to anything. And it happens again and again and again.
But that's from a narrative perspective. From a gameplay perspective, well, you need only look at any given Roguelike to see how wildly different that can get. A playthrough where instead of getting a shortsword, you get a rapid-fire crossbow is going to feel incredibly different. And one is probably going to feel like absolute hell compared to the other.
Anyway, to what's probably supposed to be the meat of the matter; I'm not fond of non-combat skills in video games. I've learned not to trust them, or at least not until it's painfully clear if they're vital or not. Simply put, combat is something you're guaranteed to do, the most common thing you're going to do, and, presumably, the toughest part of the game is going to rely on this.
A lot of times, using a skill to skip combat is ultimately going to give you less experience than just rushing headlong in. Less experience means less building the character, means it's a bad decision. It's less about actually needing the experience, so much as it feels bad for leaving free money behind. Some games try to reward you experience for the non-combat options, but then the hilarious/stupid thing to do is then immediately turn back around and mow everyone down for the standard-route experience, anyway.
Some general/vague thoughts on these:
- Consider making non-combat skills some kind of mandatory either/or pick. Say, every 5 levels, in addition to a normal skill point, you can choose a non-combat skill. This way you're forced to pick up some, but not all, of those skills in a non-intrusive way. And this way, learning Swimming isn't directly making you weaker for the remaining 95% of the game's gameplay.
- If you don't want to do that, make non-combat skills cheap. I'm not gonna waste 10 levels to max out the Cooking skill (unless it's the be-all end-all form of healing, I guess), but I might pay 1 for it.
- Alternatively, tie non-combat skills directly to stats. Say, you learn Swimming at 30 Agility. Or alternatively alternatively, learning Swimming also gives +2 Agility. Either way, they're more 'along the way', and don't feel like as much of a waste.
This might be hard to describe, but unless I have strong feelings on the matter, I have a tendency to not build a character in a 'non-canon' fashion. Like, if the main character is exclusively shown with a dirk and a hooded cloak, I'm probably not going to turn them into a bastion of walking metal with a poleax. This is why I don't particularly like customization of pre-existing / pre-named characters. If they're an ill-defined entity, then that's an entirely different story, of course.
I might as well add here that I literally don't understand the concept of 'identifying' with characters. Period. In any media. I believe it's very much a 'me' problem, and I think it's something I can't explain well. It's less that I don't identify with anyone, so much as it's a completely flat line, regardless of circumstances.
When it comes to assigning stats, it's pretty much always the same regardless, as a lot of games fall into the same pitfalls, again and again. Speed/Agility is almost inevitably the best stat, then Attack. Resistance and Defense are almost certainly the worst. And investing in HP is going to be more productive than either of those, as it does both at the same time, and frequently a better job, too. Full offense and taking care of a problem before it can even act is far more favoured than weathering a storm. Building for versatility usually makes you weaker than just dumping everything into one stat/skill, even in situations where it isn't favoured. It's something that requires a TON of incredibly careful balance, and I don't want to undersell that, but I think the bottom-line is that diminishing returns are vital for preventing the worst of this.
If you want to let the player go back on level/stat assignments, a fair price is to have it cost them a few levels in the process. This makes it so you can't get stuck, but that throwing points around isn't something you can do on a whim. I guess making it somewhat expensive instead is an option, too.
Lastly, while I don't think it really applies here, but I've always preferred a party of characters with differing specialties over a single character who has to become an omnidisiplinary expert to overcome his challenges.
Pages:
1
