I''ve noticed that many games have "pinch points" where alot of people just get stuck. I find that gamers are incredibly frusterated by these pinch points. For example, if you go on a message board discussing Ninja Gaiden you''ll hear many gamers griping about how much they hate Alma(a pinch point boss). Many claim to have put down the game after trying over and over again to beat her. I''ve noticed this phenomenon in other games too. I think in game design it''s important to give less skilled players a fighting chance ageinst these points in a game. Otherwise, impatient gamers may put down the game all together in frustration. In the case of Alma it would have been nice if the designers had left a way for gamers to go back and level up some if they couldn''t beat the boss. In other games alternate routes may be good ways around a pinch point. Maybe a gamer is terrible at puzzles but is great at combat. Perhaps that gamer could avoid the puzzle by doing an equally difficult combat challenge.

I really like your idea about letting players choose their own path to suit their playing style.

Or maybe puzzle games shouldn''t have difficult combat (if at all) and combat games shouldn''t have difficult puzzles (if at all). Then, a gamer who wants puzzles goes for the first and a gamer who wants combat goes for the second.

As for getting to a point where it''s too difficult for you to continue, this comes in two varieties:

1) You come to a point in the game that is abnormally hard and doesn''t fit with the difficulty progression of the game. This is what I understand "pinch points" (as used in this thread) to be.

2) The difficulty continuously increases but is always consistent with no place standing out as being abnormally difficult consider the difficulty curve to that point.

(1) should be avoided while (2) is fine. If you get stuck in (2) if you care enough you''ll practice enough (which probably isn''t too much since it''s a smooth progression) to pass the part. If you don''t care enough, then you probably don''t care if you get much further in the game.

quote:

---

Original post by Way Walker
Or maybe puzzle games shouldn''t have difficult combat (if at all) and combat games shouldn''t have difficult puzzles (if at all). Then, a gamer who wants puzzles goes for the first and a gamer who wants combat goes for the second.

---

But then a game will only attract one group of gamers instead of both. And what about the gamers that want both puzzles and combat? Neither of the games will completely satisfy them.

However, having noted that, a game should be somewhat focused and not try to do everything. If you try to satisfy everyone, you are likely to end up satisfying noone.

My point is, your suggestion is not the answer for every game. I don''t think there is a simple answer, and if there is, it takes a true genius to see it.

quote:

---

Original post by EasyRaider
But then a game will only attract one group of gamers instead of both. And what about the gamers that want both puzzles and combat? Neither of the games will completely satisfy them.

---

The idea still works:

Gamers who want puzzles should buy games with puzzles
Gamers who want combat should buy games with combat
Gamers who want puzzles and combat should buy games with puzzles and combat
Game designers should stop worrying about designing games to satisfy everyone because, as EasyRaider points out, you can''t.

Say you don''t like folk music. Would you buy a Peter, Paul, and Mary or John Denver album? If you did, I think it''d be pretty silly if you started complaining that you couldn''t get past the second track without turning it off. It''s very rare that a band will appeal to nearly everyone (e.g. I''ve met two people who actually dislike the Beatles) so why should we expect that of games?

quote:

---

Original post by Way Walker
The idea still works:

Gamers who want puzzles should buy games with puzzles
Gamers who want combat should buy games with combat
Gamers who want puzzles and combat should buy games with puzzles and combat

---

Well, yes, it's pretty easy from the gamers' point of view. But the developers have somewhat of a dilemma.

If they include both puzzles and combat, they can potentially attract all of these gamers. The game would also be more varied, possibly making it a better experience overall. But they also run the risk of ending up with a game with both subpar puzzles and subpar combat, a game that few want. By focusing on one element and doing it well, then at least the fans of that element will like it.

Is one strategy better than the other? I don't think so. Which strategy would I choose? To not worry about genres and just make the game I believe in the most.

To address the original subject, I think that pinch points can be a great problem. As suggested, multiple ways to reach the objective can be a good idea. Another solution is to offer on-the-fly difficulty adjustment. Then, when a player gets stuck, he can turn down the difficulty temporarily from a menu. Alternatively, this could happen automatically when the game detects that no progress has been made for a long time. For puzzles, where traditional difficulty settings do not apply, the game could offer hints.

[edited by - EasyRaider on May 2, 2004 7:06:21 PM]

Well both puzzels and combat have featured in some form pretty much every major commercial platform game released in the last few years (and probly before that), so to suggest the solution should be have either puzzels, or combat, but not both, puts you at odds with alot of industry people.

Having both creates a more enjoyable game because it gives you some variety. I think the parent post has a good idea about giving players alternative when it comes to a difficult point in the game (as long as those points are correctly identified).

quote:

---

Original post by botman2
Well both puzzels and combat have featured in some form pretty much every major commercial platform game released in the last few years (and probly before that), so to suggest the solution should be have either puzzels, or combat, but not both, puts you at odds with alot of industry people.

---

Well, I took it as just an example. It could just as well have been combat and racing or roleplaying and strategy. Either way, the main point is to either include multiple routes to accomodate different types of players, or to focus on one route and offer help when needed.