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)
HOW CAN DESIGNERS CREATE LEVELS TO DEAL WITH UNFLEXABLE PLAYERS?
Posts
Pages:
1
RedMask
1139
RedMask
View playlists
CloseI was watching a Lets Play of someone playing Super Mario Sunshine. She had the Rocket Jump and was trying to get to Pianta village. She fell off the platform but instead of simply rocket jumping back up from where she fell she instead went back through the sewers to a particular spot and then tried again wasting much of her time. She's done this in other areas too. In the first level of the game she kept falling off near the houses which she could have easily jumped back up on but instead kept taking a ridiculously long route back up frustrating herself in the process. Do some people just have linear brains, like unflexable mindsets in how things must be done? I'm sure there's probably a little of that in all of us to some extent but clearly some players only narrowly focus on one possible solution without considering others. So my question to all of you is, what can we all do as game designers to counteract this issue and show players that there are multiple ways and better ways to solve a challenge?
One option is to add hints after failed attempts. In that game, they could've maybe shown an NPC using the rocket jump at one point. (I've never played it before, so I can't really offer too much advice). Showing a demonstration is always a fun way to teach people mechanics, though.
I'm gonna be frank. Sometimes, as a player, you have brain farts and fuck yourself over. That's not the devs fault.
What we, as devs, need to do is:
- be open to the idea we might need to redesign or fix something
- realise that sometimes players are dumbasses
It's hard to balance the "should i fix this" vs the "no the player is a fucking moron" sometimes, but it's something you gotta figure out.
Usually you can figure it out by seeing how many people fall for the same issues, but a one-off is usually an idiot player. And they exist. I've seen people play games that they really shouldn't be playing because they are moronic cow people who don't know that picking up a chest will help them later on. Or because they're a bad match for the type of game their playing (me and bullethells, for example).
As a dev you gotta judge case by case.
What we, as devs, need to do is:
- be open to the idea we might need to redesign or fix something
- realise that sometimes players are dumbasses
It's hard to balance the "should i fix this" vs the "no the player is a fucking moron" sometimes, but it's something you gotta figure out.
Usually you can figure it out by seeing how many people fall for the same issues, but a one-off is usually an idiot player. And they exist. I've seen people play games that they really shouldn't be playing because they are moronic cow people who don't know that picking up a chest will help them later on. Or because they're a bad match for the type of game their playing (me and bullethells, for example).
As a dev you gotta judge case by case.
I spend more time trying to force games to let me take shortcuts than I do actually getting things done the intended way. I hopped up the sides of mountains in Skyrim, all the 3D Fallout games, Horizon Zero Dawn. Anything to avoid having to walk in a straight line to my objective marker or find the right path up to a cave.
I feel like some players find a method or routine that works for them, and they repeat it even if it takes longer or isn't as productive. Like people who build characters using objectively poor class set ups, but do so because they like certain aesthetics or play styles, even if it isn't the most efficient way to play the game.
It's a lot harder in 2D level design to have maps that players can't figure out unless it's a puzzle, since there are fewer ways to move in a 2D space. With Super Mario Sunshine, you can move in any direction, especially in levels with water. A player used to a 2D space might not necessarily think that using the rocket attachment to skip a platforming segment would work.
I feel like some players find a method or routine that works for them, and they repeat it even if it takes longer or isn't as productive. Like people who build characters using objectively poor class set ups, but do so because they like certain aesthetics or play styles, even if it isn't the most efficient way to play the game.
It's a lot harder in 2D level design to have maps that players can't figure out unless it's a puzzle, since there are fewer ways to move in a 2D space. With Super Mario Sunshine, you can move in any direction, especially in levels with water. A player used to a 2D space might not necessarily think that using the rocket attachment to skip a platforming segment would work.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
On the one hand, it's always a good idea to design your level with multiple, redundant forms of communicating to the player "HEY GO OVER HERE!!!"
On the other hand, some players are just dumb as all hell and will never pick up on even the most blatant of information.
Do not design for those players, or the people who are only kind of dumb will find your game boring and simplistic.
On the other hand, some players are just dumb as all hell and will never pick up on even the most blatant of information.
Do not design for those players, or the people who are only kind of dumb will find your game boring and simplistic.
Darken
3952
In that specific case it sounded like she wasn't very good at measuring jumps, but 3D platformer games in general make measuring jumps very hard naturally. A better player might not be better at measuring jumps so much as they've played enough games to where they always see if they can get away with exploiting that height gain. Or the simple question of "is the game really going to make me redo that?" That's a skill that's learned from just playing a lot of games that try to make backtracking less painful.
That said, there is an evident reason why SMG2 had that oddly over condescending dvd tutorial (europe/japan only) that probably no one bothered to watch (tbf I had no idea this specific move existed in the game). Nintendo was extremely aware that 3D platforming just does not come naturally to a lot of people, especially accounting for orbital terrain. In a 2D game maybe there's more opportunities for that person to realize you can probably just go back up.
Aside from just solving the near impossible problem of making an accessible 3D platformer, you sometimes just have to accept the fact that there's just going to be edge cases. That whole experience you just described is potentially a learning moment for the player and an experience for you to agonize and make a thread over, so on the other hand it makes this stuff more enjoyable to bump into players like that than something to merely over-correct.
That said, there is an evident reason why SMG2 had that oddly over condescending dvd tutorial (europe/japan only) that probably no one bothered to watch (tbf I had no idea this specific move existed in the game). Nintendo was extremely aware that 3D platforming just does not come naturally to a lot of people, especially accounting for orbital terrain. In a 2D game maybe there's more opportunities for that person to realize you can probably just go back up.
Aside from just solving the near impossible problem of making an accessible 3D platformer, you sometimes just have to accept the fact that there's just going to be edge cases. That whole experience you just described is potentially a learning moment for the player and an experience for you to agonize and make a thread over, so on the other hand it makes this stuff more enjoyable to bump into players like that than something to merely over-correct.
grindalf
3556
I think she was just dumb and you should not worry about dumb people.
But in the case that she was not dumb and most players were not catching onto the fact that they could nozzle back up......
I would have designed a tutorial section of level that you have to travel past where the platform drops unexpectedly throwing mario to the section below and Flud(I think that was its name) would explain how to use the nozzles to get back up.
But in the case that she was not dumb and most players were not catching onto the fact that they could nozzle back up......
I would have designed a tutorial section of level that you have to travel past where the platform drops unexpectedly throwing mario to the section below and Flud(I think that was its name) would explain how to use the nozzles to get back up.
Azzie
1601
I think the most you can do is should do your best to make sure even the least skilled player can keep on track and not get lost in the level
If a player is going to basically go out of their way to frustrate themselves by taking the longest way even when a shorter option is available. There's not going to be much you can do to convince them without becoming intrusive/obnoxious in telling them "Go this way".
But if you think about it having the player decide to take a pointlessly long route back is better than the player feeling lost or not knowing how to progress.
If a player is going to basically go out of their way to frustrate themselves by taking the longest way even when a shorter option is available. There's not going to be much you can do to convince them without becoming intrusive/obnoxious in telling them "Go this way".
But if you think about it having the player decide to take a pointlessly long route back is better than the player feeling lost or not knowing how to progress.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Ultimately, I agree that people will always have brain farts and there is no such thing as a 100% idiot-proof design decision. However, one aspect that I see a lot of people overlook here is that the instance RedMask used here came from a Let's Play. I haven't seen the moment in question, so there are a lot of factors about the exact level and situation she was in, but I think there's a little more nuance to this topic than just "she dumb."
Assuming this LPer is commentating her playthrough, it's important to note that a good chunk of her focus was diverted away from the game so she could talk. That's easier for some people more than others. As someone who has streamed playthroughs of games, I can tell you with certainty that it's a whole lot easier than it may seem to have a brain fart when you're trying to talk about something else. Sometimes you have to fall back on your System 1 mode of thought while you System 2 focus on commentating. If a player is trained to follow certain behaviors in your game up to that point, that can lead to accidentally taking an unintended route when a much simple route is right in your face. To name a totally random example: after falling off a platform, you see a path back up that you've already taken at least once and know will get you where you need to go, and so immediately set down that path without taking the time/effort to devise an alternate path upward.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that this is what happened in the case of this LPer. What can you do as a designer to influence a player's System 1? Personally, I see a few factors that can lead to a failure to make the connection that the Rocket Nozzle can be used instead of the longer route:
The Rocket Nozzle is a temporary modification to FLUDD that, as far as I remember, is most often given to players to clear specific platforming challenges that could not be completed otherwise. Depending on when during the level the Rocket Nozzle was given to the player and how often they used it up to that point, it might be possible that the player simply forgot that she had it. If you put the box with the Rocket Nozzle right at the point where it could be used to get back to to that platform, it would have been a strong, silent hint that the Rocket Nozzle can be used more than just designated challenges.
Regarding level design, I seem to recall the more open-ended levels being littered with arrow signs pointing you to where you need to go. Put enough arrow signs in your levels, and players may subconsciously learn to rely on them instead of figuring out their own way through. If there were no arrow signs in the game at all, players would have had to train themselves to analyze and determine their own path through the levels. Alternative, if you do want those arrows in your game, imagine how a player would react if you put an arrow pointing straight up? If players started relying on those arrow signs, seeing one pointing straight up might cause them to stop their System 1 thinking and examine the environment to see how it's possible to follow the arrow's direction.
I'm not saying that all games need to be designed with streamers/LPers in mind, and I agree that this seems like a fringe case that wasn't entirely the fault of the game's design. I just think firmly establishing the base rules of your game and the toolset players can access will help mitigate these "brain farts".
Assuming this LPer is commentating her playthrough, it's important to note that a good chunk of her focus was diverted away from the game so she could talk. That's easier for some people more than others. As someone who has streamed playthroughs of games, I can tell you with certainty that it's a whole lot easier than it may seem to have a brain fart when you're trying to talk about something else. Sometimes you have to fall back on your System 1 mode of thought while you System 2 focus on commentating. If a player is trained to follow certain behaviors in your game up to that point, that can lead to accidentally taking an unintended route when a much simple route is right in your face. To name a totally random example: after falling off a platform, you see a path back up that you've already taken at least once and know will get you where you need to go, and so immediately set down that path without taking the time/effort to devise an alternate path upward.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that this is what happened in the case of this LPer. What can you do as a designer to influence a player's System 1? Personally, I see a few factors that can lead to a failure to make the connection that the Rocket Nozzle can be used instead of the longer route:
The Rocket Nozzle is a temporary modification to FLUDD that, as far as I remember, is most often given to players to clear specific platforming challenges that could not be completed otherwise. Depending on when during the level the Rocket Nozzle was given to the player and how often they used it up to that point, it might be possible that the player simply forgot that she had it. If you put the box with the Rocket Nozzle right at the point where it could be used to get back to to that platform, it would have been a strong, silent hint that the Rocket Nozzle can be used more than just designated challenges.
Regarding level design, I seem to recall the more open-ended levels being littered with arrow signs pointing you to where you need to go. Put enough arrow signs in your levels, and players may subconsciously learn to rely on them instead of figuring out their own way through. If there were no arrow signs in the game at all, players would have had to train themselves to analyze and determine their own path through the levels. Alternative, if you do want those arrows in your game, imagine how a player would react if you put an arrow pointing straight up? If players started relying on those arrow signs, seeing one pointing straight up might cause them to stop their System 1 thinking and examine the environment to see how it's possible to follow the arrow's direction.
I'm not saying that all games need to be designed with streamers/LPers in mind, and I agree that this seems like a fringe case that wasn't entirely the fault of the game's design. I just think firmly establishing the base rules of your game and the toolset players can access will help mitigate these "brain farts".
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Given that she apparently did this repeatedly I'm gonna guess this was more an issue on the player. Sometimes players get weirdly stubborn about the dumbest shit, and there's not a lot you can do to work around it. It's just one of those things about dev, where you need to accept that there's a fraction of players who will, for whatever reason, play your game Wrong, and there's nothing to prevent it.
(If you're encountering the same issue in multiple different players, it's on you, though.)
(If you're encountering the same issue in multiple different players, it's on you, though.)
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Putting this in hide quotes even though the context of this topic might have given away the twist in the above video.
I think there is a difference between being weirdly stubborn about something and being unable to see alternative solution, and that difference is whether or not the person is even aware that an alternate solution even exists. Technically speaking, she wasn't playing the game wrong by going down a path that has been proven to work in the past, regardless of how frustrating that path could be. Because it's been proven to work in the past, each time you attempt that path, the chance of seeing an alternate path can diminish, even if it's right in your face.
I genuinely wonder how many people who watched this video missed the gorilla. Anyone think their chances of spotting the gorilla would raise if they were frustrated?
I think there is a difference between being weirdly stubborn about something and being unable to see alternative solution, and that difference is whether or not the person is even aware that an alternate solution even exists. Technically speaking, she wasn't playing the game wrong by going down a path that has been proven to work in the past, regardless of how frustrating that path could be. Because it's been proven to work in the past, each time you attempt that path, the chance of seeing an alternate path can diminish, even if it's right in your face.
I genuinely wonder how many people who watched this video missed the gorilla. Anyone think their chances of spotting the gorilla would raise if they were frustrated?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I mean I'm not commenting on this specific case so much as the fact that, generally, there are player-based issues you can't control for.
I also think if you're not good at video gaming and talking at the same time you might not be cut out for LP but again, that's not on the dev to work around.
It's a lot more pleasant to work on creative things without treating the audience as increasingly difficult hurdles to leap. Obviously don't ignore them altogether (unless you're not planning to publish lol) but honestly, what kind of level design could one reasonably do to make up for the issue of "player is bad at multitasking but insists on a blind LP anyway"?
I also think if you're not good at video gaming and talking at the same time you might not be cut out for LP but again, that's not on the dev to work around.
It's a lot more pleasant to work on creative things without treating the audience as increasingly difficult hurdles to leap. Obviously don't ignore them altogether (unless you're not planning to publish lol) but honestly, what kind of level design could one reasonably do to make up for the issue of "player is bad at multitasking but insists on a blind LP anyway"?
Regarding level design, I seem to recall the more open-ended levels being littered with arrow signs pointing you to where you need to go. Put enough arrow signs in your levels, and players may subconsciously learn to rely on them instead of figuring out their own way through. If there were no arrow signs in the game at all, players would have had to train themselves to analyze and determine their own path through the levels.
I think you can get away with littering everything with arrows early on to give players a sense of how the game flows and how everything is structured. You can (and probably should) gradually wean the player off of arrows and other obvious visual guides as the game goes on, and by a certain point the player should be acclimated enough with tools/abilities available to them to figure out how to navigate your design.
But I think it's also important to respect your player's abilities and their capacity to acclimate themselves to how your game is designed. I know that if I'm being corralled into the solution for every single thing in a game, I feel like I'm not being respected as a player. The key is a finding a balance between approachable design and having faith in the people playing your game.
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=Sooz
but honestly, what kind of level design could one reasonably do to make up for the issue of "player is bad at multitasking but insists on a blind LP anyway"?
Little to none, which is why I said exactly that in the beginning and end of my first post and spent the rest of it exploring a different approach that could help reduce (not eliminate) the chance of future brain farts. "Some people just won't get it" is both a true statement and a hard stop on any sort of conversation to be had on this topic. It is possible for both the player to be bad at a game and the designer to be bad at designing, but only one of those points is worth talking about.
Also, just because you're bad at a skill doesn't mean you can't develop it or have fun with it. I don't know whether the LPer in question is a full time LPer or some rando doing this for fun in her spare time, so I don't think "just stop if you're not good," is a particularly helpful take.
author=Sgt M
I think you can get away with littering everything with arrows early on to give players a sense of how the game flows and how everything is structured. You can (and probably should) gradually wean the player off of arrows and other obvious visual guides as the game goes on, and by a certain point the player should be acclimated enough with tools/abilities available to them to figure out how to navigate your design.
Agree that's how it should play out, but not every situation is that nice and smooth. Where that "certain point" is, and whether or not the player started getting frustrated before or after that certain point is not is a case by case basis, and one that shouldn't be immediately met with a blanket "you just don't get it."
If you've done all that you can to teach the player how to play your game and they still don't internalize the lessons, then fine. That's on them. But arrow signs aren't the solution to every problem, and there may be alternative, less overt ways to teach players how to navigate your game.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
OK so like what further discussion on the topic "How can designers design levels for unflexible players?" are you hoping for? Because what I've gotten from your posts is primarily "It's hard to play well and talk at the same time," "Put in extra signposting," and "Don't design bad," none of which are especially new territory in the discussion.
Bandito
801
Answering Op's question, you can't. Gamers will play the game however you want to, and aside from a tutorial (written or shown in gameplay otherwise)explaining new mechanics, game developers shouldn't try to manipulate gamers decision-making. That's part of the experience.
Darken
3952
game developers shouldn't try to manipulate gamers decision-making.
Wait until you find out what game design is about
RedMask
1139
Thanks for all the responses, it was an insightful read.
I think I came up with a decent idea that could help players without frustrating them. This might not be easy to implement but perhaps in menu you could have a sliding hint scale which would give you a partner who gives out tips when needed based on where the player set the scale. So lees confident players could have a more hand holding experience when the scale is at 100% and vetern player can set the hint scale to 0% and you can set it to 15% 50% 75% and etc depending on your skills. This still might not work perfectly since a game dev can't account for every mistake a player makes but its an idea.
There probably isn't a perfect solution but it was interesting to think about.
I think I came up with a decent idea that could help players without frustrating them. This might not be easy to implement but perhaps in menu you could have a sliding hint scale which would give you a partner who gives out tips when needed based on where the player set the scale. So lees confident players could have a more hand holding experience when the scale is at 100% and vetern player can set the hint scale to 0% and you can set it to 15% 50% 75% and etc depending on your skills. This still might not work perfectly since a game dev can't account for every mistake a player makes but its an idea.
There probably isn't a perfect solution but it was interesting to think about.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=RedMask
I think I came up with a decent idea that could help players without frustrating them. This might not be easy to implement but perhaps in menu you could have a sliding hint scale which would give you a partner who gives out tips when needed based on where the player set the scale.
Based on my experiences with similar mechanics, I can see some ways that this could still be frustrating:
1) "OK, yes, I know, thank you, please tell me what I'm missing instead!" Often devs think something is completely obvious (and it probably is to most players!) but a player is just totally incapable of picking up on it for whatever reason. To the dev, the idea that you should hint it just doesn't come up, because it's 100% intuitive to them.
Alternately, the player's hung up on a more obscure issue, and gets so frustrated with the more basic hints that they give up on the hint system entirely.
2) Considerably less valid, but you will get people pissed about the existence of an optional "easy mode."
Pages:
1
