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)
PEOPLE WANT WHAT THEY CAN'T HAVE.
Posts
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
LockeZ
View playlists
Closepost=203191
Basically... I don't think "people wanting what they can't have" is something that applies to role-playing games. Its more "people want what they don't yet have". The player should always be able to obtain everything and everything should be useful if the game is properly designed...
Yeah, this. This.
What's the fucking point of leading them on a chase if you just piss on them at the end of it? That doesn't make them feel good. Cho's first post makes me wonder if he has ever even played video games.
The optional post-endgame superbosses in SMT games are generally gigantic piles of bullshit. But by that point in the game, the game has gradually trained you to expect it, and you wouldn't even still be playing if you didn't get hard-ons from insane difficulty. So it's not quite as bad as it sounds at first.
Basically... I don't think "people wanting what they can't have" is something that applies to role-playing games. Its more "people want what they don't yet have". The player should always be able to obtain everything and everything should be useful if the game is properly designed...
This is really what I meant, honestly. It's just that 'you want what you can't have' is more recognizable as a saying. I'm not suggesting you literally never give the player stuff that you're dangling in their faces.
Zephyr
1241
You could always put that chest with über equipment out of reach for most part of the game and only reachable at the final phase. At least all that eagerly wait is finally over by then. That is if the player still remembers there's a chest to obtain there.
from Zephyr
You could always put that chest with über equipment out of reach for most part of the game and only reachable at the final phase. At least all that eagerly wait is finally over by then. That is if the player still remembers there's a chest to obtain there.
This is a much better way to do it. Having something that looks rewarding to the player be completely unreachable is just bad game design. Nobody's going to like torturing themselves trying to find a way to get it, and Corfaisus' idea about punishing the player for doing so is even worse.
Developers shouldn't have a 'fuck you' mentality when they're making a game. It's their job to make it difficult but fair.
MKID232
435
post=203265Right. It would be cruel to, oh say, make people count three different objects to come up with a password for a door, then make them go through a quiz to test their memory, only to get a skillbook that, while powerful, costs too much mp to use effectively.from ZephyrThis is a much better way to do it. Having something that looks rewarding to the player be completely unreachable is just bad game design. Nobody's going to like torturing themselves trying to find a way to get it, and Corfaisus' idea about punishing the player for doing so is even worse.
You could always put that chest with über equipment out of reach for most part of the game and only reachable at the final phase. At least all that eagerly wait is finally over by then. That is if the player still remembers there's a chest to obtain there.
Developers shouldn't have a 'fuck you' mentality when they're making a game. It's their job to make it difficult but fair.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
post=203265from ZephyrThis is a much better way to do it. Having something that looks rewarding to the player be completely unreachable is just bad game design. Nobody's going to like torturing themselves trying to find a way to get it, and Corfaisus' idea about punishing the player for doing so is even worse.
You could always put that chest with über equipment out of reach for most part of the game and only reachable at the final phase. At least all that eagerly wait is finally over by then. That is if the player still remembers there's a chest to obtain there.
Developers shouldn't have a 'fuck you' mentality when they're making a game. It's their job to make it difficult but fair.
No, a "fuck you" mentality is exactly what we need. If you go out of your way to cheat in a game, you deserve a good kick in the neck.
MKID232
435
I personally think that the only time you should be allowed to cheat is AFTER you beat the game and the optional uber-boss (if it has one). Then it's like saying, "You already experienced the game, now go ahead and cheat to your heart's content."
Granted, this involves the player using cheats for fun instead of breaking the game. But screw those people!
Granted, this involves the player using cheats for fun instead of breaking the game. But screw those people!
from CorfaisusThis isn't entirely true. Of course it's okay to punish a player that's cheating. But if you include an item or treasure chest that the player can see but can't reach without cheating, then you shouldn't punish them for doing so. Unreachable rewards are never a good idea no matter how you look at it. It's bad design!
No, a "fuck you" mentality is exactly what we need. If you go out of your way to cheat in a game, you deserve a good kick in the neck.
WolfCoder
3554
post=203115
So some friends and I were at a roundtable talkin' about how pimpin' ain't easy and how bitches ain't shit (actually we were just shooting the breeze and talking about women and stuff in the most respectful way possible, I ain't even gonna lie)...
Grrrrrrrrrrr..!
post=203115
...
Of course it doesn't just apply to attraction and people, it really applies to...just about anything, and pretty much everyone, in some degree or another. It's one of those reasons why people hoard Elixirs, take on convoluted sidequests, and why people always come back for more no matter how many times they get their ass kicked by an optional boss. A lot of this ties into the thrill of the challenge, yes, but that's intertwined with what I'm saying. People say they're not going to do this type of stuff, but they do...
You and I fundamentally differ here (but not as much as you might think). If some idea is fascinating enough to me, I will then go step by step creating it. The result is positive if I've moved closer to that idea in some way. Hopefully I will never fully reach the destination, because if I can't, there becomes no end to the increase of positive results. It's easy to keep changing your idea. However, an idea is much less fascinating if I have no idea how to begin creating it. I have to know that I can go and make it first before I have to want it.
A fantasy tastes so much better if you had to work hard making it.
In terms of video games, I actually see it as me playing with the poor soul of my gamers~ How insanely hard can I make my game before the player just gives up? This kind of would show that if the player thinks victory is impossible, they will not want it even if it is possible or not. Start out easy and instructive so they know how to play, then turn up the burners slowly and then torture the gamer in the end.
"I'll beat this thing no problem!!" to start out with for those kinds of people. It's easy so even the less hardcore gamers think this. Then it creeps up on them at a point where they want to finish because they've gotten so far in the game.
post=203273You could always put that chest with über equipment out of reach for most part of the game and only reachable at the final phase. At least all that eagerly wait is finally over by then. That is if the player still remembers there's a chest to obtain there.Always worked for the Zelda and Metroid games. Having items/abilities that you don't get until later in the game open up new areas of old dungeons is a brilliant way to get the player exploring your game-world properly!
This. You tease them by putting the treasure RIGHT THE HELL THERE but don't let them open it. Chrono Trigger does it too. People play games for satisfaction, and if they work for it, you should reward them. If I wanted to be constantly pining for something I can't have, always being led on and never fully reaching it, I'd go out with my ex-girlfriend.
All of you except MOG sound like horrible game designers. =/
(Too bad none of you are actually answering his post in any useful way.)
---
I found that by telling people to use items in In Praise of Peace, they would use them to great effect. Then they would use attack items found later on, too.
Make them useful, show that they're useful, and make your game warrant the use of them, and ta-daaaa!
F-G: Death-by-immunity isn't bad game design if it's for one single ultraboss that's meant to be completely over-the-top.
(Too bad none of you are actually answering his post in any useful way.)
---
I found that by telling people to use items in In Praise of Peace, they would use them to great effect. Then they would use attack items found later on, too.
Make them useful, show that they're useful, and make your game warrant the use of them, and ta-daaaa!
F-G: Death-by-immunity isn't bad game design if it's for one single ultraboss that's meant to be completely over-the-top.
You and I fundamentally differ here (but not as much as you might think). If some idea is fascinating enough to me, I will then go step by step creating it. The result is positive if I've moved closer to that idea in some way. Hopefully I will never fully reach the destination, because if I can't, there becomes no end to the increase of positive results. It's easy to keep changing your idea. However, an idea is much less fascinating if I have no idea how to begin creating it. I have to know that I can go and make it first before I have to want it.
A fantasy tastes so much better if you had to work hard making it.
In terms of video games, I actually see it as me playing with the poor soul of my gamers~ How insanely hard can I make my game before the player just gives up? This kind of would show that if the player thinks victory is impossible, they will not want it even if it is possible or not. Start out easy and instructive so they know how to play, then turn up the burners slowly and then torture the gamer in the end.
"I'll beat this thing no problem!!" to start out with for those kinds of people. It's easy so even the less hardcore gamers think this. Then it creeps up on them at a point where they want to finish because they've gotten so far in the game.
Isn't this sort of what I'm saying? Sort of.
I think I misrepresented the point I was trying to get across here, and I apologize. Whether it's a video game, an object of your affection, or some personal item, wanting what you can't have doesn't positively apply if you literally never get it. Yes, that happens anyway to all of us in all aspects, but in cases where we DO get what we thought was previously unattainable, it's all the more sweeter when we finally get it. In terms of game design I am not advocating tempting the player with something he literally cannot get; this is rarely a good idea.
I am advocating dangling something in the players eyes and making him wait/work/really want it in order to get it. The 'out of reach chest until X point in the game' example is an example of exactly what I mean.
Okay I am going to throw this in the conversation and see how the seed goes. Pay attention.
The bold is important.
I'm going to hone in on this particular example and explain why it happens.
The difference in making an optional boss hard as hell and a storyline/required boss hard as hell is this; to be honest, all bosses should be challenging. Of course. And yes, the thrill of 'I'm going to beat you, motherfucker' can be elicited from both types of bosses. But the reason why optional bosses can get away with being SUPER SUPER HARD (but beatable) is not only because the player doesn't have to beat them, but BECAUSE the player doesn't have to beat them. Options.
In the case of a storyline required boss being super, super hard, players will eventually give up because they have literally no options left and they're stonewalled out of playing the game further. Turn the game off, throw it under the bed never to be seen again. However, with optional bosses, one of the reasons why players repeatedly throw themselves under the bus is because of the fact that while they could beat the game, see the ending, and sell the game or whatever and move on with their lives, the fact that there is this boss that they COULD beat, they don't HAVE to, but they CAN'T. They never have to, ever, but they COULD. They COULD.
"Why can't you beat me? You're just gonna beat the game and go on with your life like a chump while I'm just sitting here? Your friends beat me. That guy on the internet beat me 30 levels lower than when you tried. Your little sister even beat me when she played the game while you were at work. Alright then, so don't beat me. Never defeat me for all I care. You'll never have the satisfaction, and I'll be the one that always got away. You little bitch."
The human psyche in general cannot stand that feeling. Guess what? It keeps them coming back for more. All the time.
post=203115
the Law of Scarcity; basically, people want what they cannot (or feel they cannot) have.
The bold is important.
post=203115
and why people always come back for more no matter how many times they get their ass kicked by an optional boss.
I'm going to hone in on this particular example and explain why it happens.
The difference in making an optional boss hard as hell and a storyline/required boss hard as hell is this; to be honest, all bosses should be challenging. Of course. And yes, the thrill of 'I'm going to beat you, motherfucker' can be elicited from both types of bosses. But the reason why optional bosses can get away with being SUPER SUPER HARD (but beatable) is not only because the player doesn't have to beat them, but BECAUSE the player doesn't have to beat them. Options.
In the case of a storyline required boss being super, super hard, players will eventually give up because they have literally no options left and they're stonewalled out of playing the game further. Turn the game off, throw it under the bed never to be seen again. However, with optional bosses, one of the reasons why players repeatedly throw themselves under the bus is because of the fact that while they could beat the game, see the ending, and sell the game or whatever and move on with their lives, the fact that there is this boss that they COULD beat, they don't HAVE to, but they CAN'T. They never have to, ever, but they COULD. They COULD.
"Why can't you beat me? You're just gonna beat the game and go on with your life like a chump while I'm just sitting here? Your friends beat me. That guy on the internet beat me 30 levels lower than when you tried. Your little sister even beat me when she played the game while you were at work. Alright then, so don't beat me. Never defeat me for all I care. You'll never have the satisfaction, and I'll be the one that always got away. You little bitch."
The human psyche in general cannot stand that feeling. Guess what? It keeps them coming back for more. All the time.
MKID232
435
Now I understand why the optional boss that is harder than the final boss and could easily take over the world is like this. But one of your phrases sort of repeats itself.
not only because the player doesn't have to beat them, but BECAUSE the player doesn't have to beat them. Options.
MKID232
435
post=203321I understand, but it's the way it's said that makes it look like you just repeated.
I did that on purpose for emphasis.
EDIT: It could've worked just as well if you just emphasized BECAUSE in one sentence of it instead of with two divided by a comma.
