GENEROSITY IN GAMES

It seems to me that if something is worth noticing, and will improve the player's opinion of the game, you shouldn't make it easy to miss. You should make it prominent.

I think you're right that subtle touches add a lot. Little details won't make a bad game into a good game, but they can make a good game into a great game.

One of the biggest problems with movie-licensed games is that they are rushed out, only paying attention to the main game mode which is almost always an incredibly linear experience. Even if said game succeeds everywhere it is supposed to, chances are it won't feel great due to the absence of small details and little extras.

I recall seeing a review on Gametrailers for one of the Spiderman movie games (2, I think), where the reviewer claimed the game excelled where so many other movie titles failed by the inclusion of a 'webslinging' mode for Spiderman. The reviewer stated that this was the first time players had ever been able to experience travel through the city from the perspective of Spiderman. The designers didn't have to include this mode, and could have easily opted for a more linear game. Yet the inclusion of this simple extra was enough to elevate the game above the rest in the eyes of that reviewer.

(Sorry about that).

I'm guessing that the OP meant generous as in 'the developer was generous enough to spend the extra time fleshing out the game experience'. I believe detail might be a more appropriate word.

Cool touches are always cool. Of course it is sort of uncool that your game will never be popular enough to appreciate all the cool touches. But that shouldn't discourage you from putting loads of these immersion-bringing things into the table.

We have, for example, the case with the G-man in Half-Life 2. The first time you play the game you're likely to see him a couple of times. The second time you play the game you're likely to see him a couple of times again. But at different places. Putting him in enough places (almost) guarantees someone will see him, but people might see him in different places.

That's one way of handling it. Half-Life 2 is otherwise a pretty directed experience and a lot of what seems like happenstance "Oh did you just see that!" is actually pretty directed. Which is another approach to it. Make it seem like happenstance and awesome stuff but in reality you've carefully manipulated the free will of the player to turn at that exact moment. (of course 10% will still miss out, but what the hell)

The third approach is to treat it like easter eggs. Have a few and fairly hidden (though not overly so) things that the player that thinks "I wonder if I can..." gets rewarded for thinking that way.

Alright so three approaches to the "finer touches".
1) Cram in a lot, someone's bound to see a couple.
2) Direct the experience. (though someone's bound to miss a couple)
3) Hide it, but don't explicitly direct the player to it. "Reward exploration"

They all work in their own way. And the best games are those that combine them.

I can honestly say I've never gone through a game looking for stuff like that and probably never will. If it pops up in the normal course of playing the game, I will notice... though I probably still won't care very much. It might make me smirk for a split second, but an easter egg won't change my opinion of the game. They exist outside of the proper game, to me. Something the developer scotch taped onto the game at the last moment instead of actually bothering to weave it in properly.

If I were in a more romantic mood my answer might be different. I am feeling cynical this week. (I feel cynical 95% of the time.)

author=DorianDawes
But what if the subtlety is what makes it such a grand touch? It would have been ruined if Navi would have screamed out, "I THINK THERE'S A DYING SOLDIER IN AN ALLEY, LINK. HEY, HEY LISTEN."

Anything sounds ruined when you make Navi say it. But honestly, yes, I really do think this would have been better than the thing not being found by the player at all. If the scene has any value, seeing it is better than missing it. I have beaten OoT four times, during two of which I got every heart piece and item in the game, and I didn't know about this scene. I never saw it. Therefore, to me personally, the scene was worthless and added nothing to the game.

However, I do agree Navi is not an optimal solution. Shinan's suggestion of subconsciously directing the player to such things is an excellent one. Navi is obnoxious and makes it feel forced, but making the soldier always appear on the edge of the screen for a split second before stumbling out of sight into the alley ensures that a lot of people will notice and follow him. But it will still feel like you noticed something cool that other people wouldn't necessarily notice.

You don't really want people to miss the thing. You just want them to feel smug and superior good about themselves because they found things that they think other people would miss. The best (though possibly hardest) way to do this is to make sure everyone sees it, but trick them into thinking that most other people would miss it.

author=LockeZ
I can honestly say I've never gone through a game looking for stuff like that and probably never will. If it pops up in the normal course of playing the game, I will notice... though I probably still won't care very much. It might make me smirk for a split second, but an easter egg won't change my opinion of the game. They exist outside of the proper game, to me. Something the developer scotch taped onto the game at the last moment instead of actually bothering to weave it in properly.

I sort of disagree. I think there is a place for... small touches. Which is sort of what I mean by the easter egg approach to immersive stuff. (I'm not talking about actual easter eggs, which often are all about in-jokes) I mean in Half-Life 2, there are some obvious touches that you don't really reflect on but they make sense when you think about it. For example when you drive around in the buggy there's a few touches, like the safehouse that is marked unsafe or the fact that the ocean levels have dropped massively. In these touches, that are suggested backstory you can get a fair amount of atmosphere. And they're not in your face and they are also easily ignorable.

Valve is actually very good at this. Another example is Left 4 Dead which basically has nothing but implied storytelling in small "easter egg" areas in the game. Especially the scribblings on the walls if you take the time to read them. (though they are obvious) But also in a lot of other setting material (Another obvious one is all the contamination tents).

Recently I've been playing a bit of Fallout New Vegas and there's a game that almost feels like it fails at this kind of storytelling. There's bits and pieces strewn around everywhere, and occasionally the bits and pieces are really good (a skeleton in a bath-tub surrounded by drugs... that you obviously loot immediately.) but more often than not a bunch of abandoned cars or destroyed buildings feel placed there just for the sake of placing them there.

It's a nice example of sometimes being really good with the immersion-exploration and sometimes being really bad at it. (I know it'd probably break the illusion but sometimes I'd just like a scrap of backstory to these places other than the placements. And other times the placements alone tell a really strong story. So I'm sort of torn on the issue)

Yeah, even I can agree with this! And I don't do much when not needed. A lot of times in my past games I was actually able to add a dreaming system into the game, other times it's storyline based. And sometimes even maps can create this! Nostalgia, fun, interesting, call it what you want, but it sure is generous!