SNODGRASS'S PROFILE

...uhh what??? Did you misinterpret the word influence for mandatory?

Well it depends on which train of thought.

For example, I easily countered your case of "easily replace chess for "insert game here" with Go by showcasing how unlike Chess, there are games where there can only be technically one class of players.

My suspicion though is it's not the sentences that's making it hard to understand but the type of games you may have experienced.

It's very hard to imagine a game that's hard at the beginning until you play a game that's hard at the beginning but where it's not frustrating to get killed. Of course it's a gamble of how much you love the initial game but if you've played a type of game like that, you'd just know it.

Even for rpg maker games I see some designers doing this but because of the system, you don't get the type of last boss and more of a "this is a dangerous beginning" but the potential and the relevant designs are still there.

Typically these types of rpg have a premise where you're not supposed to go to a place. Once you get to a place, you realize your character can barely defeat things and there's at least a 30% chance that if you over-stretch and overgrind without a dozen of potions your character may die.

They are not as good as high spikes that are well designed but given what most of RPG Maker games are made of, they are rarely the horrible Rpg Maker games.

In fact, it's wrong to say I think games are too easy. I'm the opposite of a hardcore gamer. Given a chance, I'd cheat before I would play unless a game can convince me that I'd lose something if I cheat in terms of plot sense and combat meaning.

That's where I think mainly the gap is. The run-on sentences as annoying as they are were there because the counter points you guys raised sometimes demand that. It's not like it's hard to verify my statements. Some of the examples I provide are free flash based games that doesn't take an hour to play to get an idea of. Neither are they so hardcore of a game that you would die time and time again.

...and again you just have to take responsibility for the counterpoints in relation to game design.

If you just say "oh are you on cocaine" or "oh I won't bother with your examples" or "oh I think you are for more challenging games because you think games are easy (even if I didn't say I thought that)" - then you are being irresponsible in the name of game design.

You're taking the route that least leads you to understanding. If a game theorist doesn't follow what a person is saying even after following up - they'd check up on the citations. In this case, I don't even get a sense that any of you tried to play the games I've mentioned. If you did, you certainly haven't mentioned your impressions of it.

I'm not even sure you guys have even tried to install a basic Go program. Go is one of those games where you learn the most from your first capture unlike Chess where you have to wait for an entire board game to finish especially if you don't know the rules.

Even in rpgs it doesn't make sense. How can you know all the rules if you don't know what skills you're about to get at level up? How can you know all the rules from killing slimes? I've played several Rpg Maker VX games where I didn't even know you press Shift to run because the initial ease was there but the games rarely even mention something as basic as player controls. Am I supposed to experiment on my keyboard instead of actually playing a game?

I'm assuming you meant this:

In this case, as far as the initial topic, cheap is this traditional expectation of easy->normal->hard curve (or even an end game flat curve) because we're so used to so many games that begin that way and we're so used to this idea that newer players need time to know the world that we fail to actually analyze whether the games are really introducing us to the world or simply giving plot delays and unnecessary bosses that doesn't really teach the players anything except for harder games where it's closer to a puzzle sequence game.

In the earliest of videogames, it was rare to have an easy->normal mode.

Of course over time something like balance needs to be made. The allure of games for being games wasn't there as much. There had to be something that makes games more than games.

This was coincidentally the time when story actually mattered thanks to the rpg genre who put the story aspect more to the forefront but was still a game much closer than the image interactive novels and click and point adventure games had and rpgs became a balance of those who love the combat as much as those who love the story. A hybrid that would even be more pronounced with the advent of mainstream English JRPG games thanks to the SNES and PSX.

The SNES made the concept of level ups a stock idea. A traditional concept that was much simplified from the PnP or early sandbox games that would branch off to CRPGs. The PSX made the concept of graphical presentation more pronounced in such games while also introducing the more niche genres like SRPGs and Dungeon Crawlers into a more mainstream concept.

At this stage, game design was limited because the rpg genre had not exploded and medieval themed designs that often stem from a nameless hero slaying a big boss and becoming a legend still prevailed but was often stretched out with cheap roadblocks in order to establish games as games and not just 15 min. boss battles.

That era made famous the traditional cheap design where even popular unorthodox rpgs like Valkyrie Profile, Xenogears and Legend of Legaia still took a backseat to the general basic concept of a SNES rpg. Even mainstream titles like Final Fantasy VIII's system was rarely fully explored and attempts to combine a SNES themed rpg still prevail in most RP Maker games.

Even the basic RP Maker interface despite several renditions is still rooted closely to the Dragon Quest style of games on the SNES. There's nothing bad about that which is why I call it cheap rather than bad. It's also not outdated.

At this point, I still don't see what's so complicated that you don't know what part to be confused. I'm not even sure if that's possible.

Times have changed though.

The depths of roleplaying has changed. The methods of implementing difficulties more varied from game to game.

It is now possible today to have an rpg that is difficult in the beginning but no longer impossible or rogue-like and deliver a much richer, much more meaningful and ultimately much more educational and suspenseful design than the older types of difficult games as well as the older types of easy-normal-difficult curve games.

The examples are also varied enough that it is possible to call these concepts cheap because certainly it's not just one set of unorthodox games that exist today. It's a myriad of different games that break each mold.

Even without talking about difficulty:

-There are combat systems that allow rock-paper-scissors in a single instance of moves where as in the past, units of armies were necessary.

-There are combat systems where counterspells can be set and it's no longer a your turn after my turn of battle

-There are narratives that allow an opponent/the player to receive a penalty before the combat even happens

-There are combat systems that determine the difficulty based on which class you choose at the beginning

-There are combat systems that are so rich, there's no way an easier time in the beginning can make up the difference.

...the list goes on and on. Generic is no longer optimal, it's simply the most common design. I am just as confused as you are. Believe me I am trying to answer and this topic was asking for each of our opinions. It wasn't like I came here to prove the cheap design wrong. I'm simply explaining my position.

Break as in such stupid things like say a character who knows heal changing classes and in turn forgetting to heal even if he should know how to or such instances where say a character should fit a certain class if only one of their companions would train them and share their armor with them but because the design is cheap, you're sort of put in a world where snowflake #1 is snowflake #1 simply because the game designer says he should and the game designer is sometimes doing so in the name of balance so sometimes you end up with a character who's script is supposed to be that he's so powerful and confident that the opposing boss is a joke but then the difficulty doesn't match that in combat just so the designer and the player can feel there was fake meaning to the challenge.

As far as the analogy to chess, I didn't raise that. Someone else did. Sports...it's just unavoidable. Some of the deeper combat videogames have more semblance with sports take the gladiator fights in Mage Duel Extreme compared to your average Rpg Maker game. I'm not familiar with many Rpg Maker games though so I'm not saying this is the best, just one of the deeper ones that I've encountered.

Cheap designs are relative to what isn't cheap design but let's say your average SNES level rpg is using cheap design. Closer to cheap designs is simply the idea that a character is born to be played a certain style because of design.

It's worse if it's very traditional level up style of fighting.

The difficulty in narrowing cheap designs is that it can be dependent on the depth of the topic and both our familiarity with what games we know.

You can insert SOL for example because you know SOL. Because of that knowledge, you can have a standard of what's common and what's "cheap" about the common designs and what interesting aspects the unorthodox design does.

In this case, as far as the initial topic, cheap is this traditional expectation of easy->normal->hard curve (or even an end game flat curve) because we're so used to so many games that begin that way and we're so used to this idea that newer players need time to know the world that we fail to actually analyze whether the games are really introducing us to the world or simply giving plot delays and unnecessary bosses that doesn't really teach the players anything except for harder games where it's closer to a puzzle sequence game.


In terms of actual strategy, cheap in the sense that tanks for example are basically "shields for all purposes" and that they are often weak only because of arbitration rather than logic or design quality and they are an extension of past game concepts that never matured or matured only in a semblance of balance not in the name of roleplaying or reality. (Even fantasy reality)

As far as chess being ruined, take that up with Bobby Fischer. I'm just recalling a comment he made.

As far the essence of chess. It really depends on what you mean by essence.

Answering that question also has little to do with game design and more on game world architecture so for those who don't want to read much, just skip to part 2:

Part 1:

It's a common misconception to say anything hasn't changed in a static ruleset where players are competing at a high level. For example, if you have never been introduced to the idea of tanks, healers, etc. Rpgs can feel richer, more immersive and simply more about roleplaying. Once you know that, certain things become more like tropes. Can you still roleplay with them? Yes. But many of the complexities and the audience have change to adapt to the human realization of what those are. It's the primary reason why online can change many of the rules of offline gaming.

With deep strategic games like chess it's even more intricate and the legacy of the games means the speed of change becomes pulled forth further and further even though the basic definition sounds the same.

The three easiest strategic games to compare this subtle change is Chess vs. Go vs. No Limit Hold'em Poker.

Chess has very little middle game and end game. To this effect, it's like cheap design only slightly richer in depth.

Once you get past the first steps, chess is like two armies having crossed a river. Once you get past the river, it's pretty much two factors. One is breaking through your opponent's line to get to the king and the other is making enough small changes that your line doesn't get broken.

The premise of beating this game then is not to beat the game but to beat the beginning because after that there's little you can do. You can tweak it but you can't dodge a mistake. This comes closest to a linear rpg with easy difficulty curve at the beginning. Chess being longer than a typical rpg, things eventually wittle down to builds but not just builds but there's a certain growth pattern where everyone gets involved with the opening patterns that it's no longer a game of your move vs. my move unless you can counter those pre-meditated moves. It's like a race of instant noodles. You can't have a race involving the noodles until you cook it even though the beginning of the chess match kind of implies that the noodle must already be present.

Poker is different because psychology is not only involved but most importantly luck from having a poor hand and turning it into a great one by bluffing through it. In these types of games, attrition is the optimum way to survive. What this means is that the middle game is the optimum spot.

Unlike chess, you don't want to be immediately dominant or else you become a target (theoretically).

Generally given all skills of players, the difference seems slim and pedantic. Of course there's chess strategies and there's poker strategies. However when talking about design, this is important because it establishes the whole box.

It is what would make it possible to understand what a famous player is saying even if you have never played the game.

In this case, the focus from middle rather than the beginning moves changes what it really means to beat the game no more different than a boss that you need to wait out it's buff spells to expire is different from a boss whom you need to defend it if it has a tendency to cast death spells on the first turn except more major.

See by focusing on the middle, the value of survival vs. mounting offense is greater in Poker than in Chess by design. By having this element, it is possible to create a game tailored more towards comebacks in Poker even towards people who are not masters of the game where as the window of error in Chess is smaller and therefore comebacks have greater value but are almost impossible to pull off. If this were an rpg, chess trains players to grind because the base abilities are so important where as a poker based game comes much closer to a rpg with a trading card type of battle system where tactical setup becomes more important regardless of one's level.

Finally Go is the type of game that has three aspects but for the sake of over-simplicity let's say the end game is more important to Go. This is not true in terms of gameplay but in terms of optimum winning style: In Chess you can immediately end the game by capturing the king so the better you begin, the more optimal it is. In Poker you can still win the game by just sitting out so the better you stay alive, the more optimal it is.

In Go, scoring-wise, you need to balance between capturing (which is very hard to do) and optimal capturing as well as point scoring because it's impossible to capture one side totally given near equal skills.

For this reason, the way to beat the game is to eventually beat the game. In a rpg, this is more complicated because it's very hard for the ai to beat a human and too challenging of an ai takes the fun away and makes it more luck based.

For this reason, it would be much easier to show an Action RPG with instant kills. In these types of rpgs, buffing becomes more strategic but less powerful because there's no way to defend a kill. Instead buffing is more a way to speed up your initiative against your opponent.

In Go, this strategy is close to quickly putting your piece. Unlike Chess, being quick at Go can make you miss a spot and so a quick player is not so much putting pressure on his opponent to move faster but trying to keep the opponent from seeing the whole forest rather than the trees.

Then as the first instant kill hits, the next demand is that the player can align himself correctly to prepare for the next opponent. In this form, the design of beating the game is not so much to be the first one to kill or the one who can heal himself longest but the one who can play a Quick Time Event style of timing while surviving long enough to heal and then fight the next opponent.

This is where Go becomes deeper and where the end game becomes more of the focus. No matter how powerful, it's possible to lose in Go because it is a game where the power can be anywhere.

It is like a game that tricks you into thinking the boss is the one you are facing but turns out the final boss is someone who has poisoned your potions. It's much more suspenseful but it can also feel cheap but the point is, it's totally different from just beating the game. You have to not only know the game but know the faction and know the mystery. To this effect, it's pseudo-detective themed rpg except more combat oriented.

Add to the human vs. human factor then these games are simply ever-shifting. For example besides these rules I have read stories where certain Chess players in tournaments would tap the board to distract their opponent or suddenly give them a kick. In poker, tournaments are longer so it's not just an issue of talent but of composure. In Go, end game upsets happen more often than in chess because you have to take up so many variables that the best way to beat the game is not always to do the best academic move but like an unorthodox surprise punch angled in a different manner, it needs a setup that takes into account the human fatigue of your opponent plus factoring all the moves that you previously did with your opponent so the strategic pressure is more on par with a grandmaster playing multiple chess games at the same time with his opponent only he's facing an equally capable opponent all wrapped in one game.

These factors alone means depending on which premise you start with, it can totally change the design all together. Beating someone may not necessarily mean getting the win or optimum wins may not necessarily be total domination or close fights. Even rematches are not simply a form of re-beating a bigger and better boss.

As far as game design goes:

Part 2:

It's not a rhetorical question.

To make the analogy clearer, look no further than fighting games.

In fighting games, easier games turn players into button mashers. Normal -> challenging games often turn those disinterested into cheap move abusing players.

Only the hard human games train fighting gamers to be be more skilled.

Where the analogy fails of course is that fighting games have zero value in narratives. A powerful boss is more a fancy way of giving a game over screen rather than a way to present the "presence" of a dangerous threat that can only be beaten by the character you are playing.

At best you can have a fighting game where the first ai is uber skilled or a rpg hybrid like Starwish where the first boss is the hardest and a normal -> challenger level gamer may try to beat that boss in New Game+ sans cheats.

Rpgs though are more about stories, narratives, addictive plots than combat simulators.

For this reason, the prestige of a champion is that much more important.

It's like in sports. If the belt or the trophy has no meaning, then there's almost no storyline. If the holder of the belt is not a x time champion, there's less story.

Sports can regurgitate between different generic teams precisely because the position of the ultimate challenge has value both to the players and to the audience.

In rpgs that's the ultimate intent IMO. What use is big bad mega boss if years down the line people don't even remember him compared to a pretty boy like Sephiroth?

In game design, it's even more ambitious. How can the boss be realistic rather than "born to be strong" and how can the protagonist be worthy while still being the only one who can defeat that boss instead of being a snowflake?

To extend that, in game design how can you present the boss to be less of a pawn by the game designer and more of a king in terms of chess value to the player?

It's even more problematic if the narrative is that the protagonist is supposed to be lvl 1 but also an uber powerful character like in Disgaea. How can you present the narrative that yes this guy is powerful and has high potential but this is the obvious reason why he can't beat his opponent directly yet.

Only by implementing an answer to the above factors can a game designer create a deep realistic curve. First by showing why such creatures are powerful. Second by showing why such powerful creatures can finally be beaten.

Again I go back to a basic dungeon crawler like Monster's Den Book of Dread.

No matter how high the initial difficulty, the game eventually becomes normal to easy once you get an introduction to the rules. Yet the beginning is hardest because it forces you to stick to those rules + a little of luck. By doing so, the game can show it's depth both to players that have played the game to the very high levels and to people that haven't reached that high of a level. By also making the first level difficult, Den's first level is also good enough to prepare players for the later levels without softening up the later levels.

The design basically kills two birds. 1st is proper context of difficulty. 2nd is proper respect to builds as well as proper respect to the average enemies.

In contrast, a game that starts easy at the beginning might as well be a tutorial or a practice mode. Unfortunately even with tutorials, once you face a tough enemy, you're back to trying to learn the trick against the tough enemy because often times the initial design of ease trains makers to simply buff up the challenge and make unique opponents a rarity rather than a commonality. Long story short, the lack of difficulty is just an excuse to delay the challenge. The player learns nothing. The designer is invested less into an introduction. The curve does nothing to boost the game design except maybe make players play longer before they quit or force veteran players to play some time wasting introduction plot that does little to nothing except show that the PC is a snowflake and that the game is bound to be a power fantasy that occasionally rather than regularly hosts challenging and plot + value adding combat situations.