Is it necessary to make games where we spend 1/2 hour exploring an area, not quite sure where the exit is? Then spending another 1/2 hour trying to find the key. Is what we are giving the players to do really interesting ? Can games be made which can be played in small doses, with rapid bouts of progress and entertainment?

Well, as usual, I''m probably not addressing the topic head-on, but I don''t think games should make you spend time looking for that ONE answer to that ONE obstacle. Instead, there should always be more than one way to achieve a goal. Furthermore, I believe there should usually be more than one goal at a given time.

---

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

I''ll bet you this is the future of "epicasting." I''m still trying to get my brain around the concept, but I think you can definitely create targeted bursts of entertainment without filler. I suspect it''s going to be popular if it can be turned into a viable business model.

I think the search the level / find the red key gameplay is just an artifact of narrow gameplay. In the beginning, there were monsters in a maze. This got boring in and of itself, so puzzle goals were added (hey, some people like puzzles...). Once players killed all the monsters, however, the was nothing else to do-- and if you couldn''t solve the puzzle, you got exactly the problem you''re pointing out, aimless wandering.


One thought about the aimless wandering: it would be interesting if the exploration and puzzle solving were interesting by itself, and then you added monsters.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote:

---

One thought about the aimless wandering: it would be interesting if the exploration and puzzle solving were interesting by itself, and then you added monsters.

---

(Hope i got that right)

So You''ve never played any of ye-olde style text adventures then Wav, (I used to love them, havent written one in ooooh ages, if I didnt have enough going on I''d write one, but I dont have the time). Thats what they relied upon, exploration and puzzle solving. At one point with them though things did start to get silly as designers/writers tried to come up with harder and harder problems, you''ve heard the tale of one designer who presented a problem to the user where the user had to "disbelieve illusion" to progress, with no clues... However they''ve evolved from there, u must have seen "Simon the Sorcerer" and other such adventure games Wav.

Ok onto the real topic..

Ketchaval, if what your giving the player to do is spend an hour trying to solve a puzzle like that then, no, its not interesting
as Nazrix says there should be more than one solution to a puzzle, and going back to the text adventures, most of the good ones gave u a few puzzles to solve at any one time (if not multiple solutions..)

People will choose (and play) games dependent on how much time they want to spend playing. If they''re going to sit down for a long session they may choose something thats going to last (e.g. an RPG), if they''re taking a 5 minute break they''ll choose something like minesweeper. Games that are split into levels or scenarios tend to cover the range of playing times (usually they start at 15mins+ though).

How can we make exploration more interesting?

Things to do -dynamic environment.. player has to deal with rivers.. subsidence.. change in weather conditions.. getting "trapped" in cave systems..


The big / small picture.

As the player explores can we give clues to the bigger picture. Ie. Cliche. Exploring a ruined city.. what was the purpose of that building. why is the city deserted.. what is that monolith in the centre of the town.. were there any survivors..?

Small picture. what is going on here in the present.. regardless of the history. Ie. What became of the local bandit patrol?

Ability for object experimentation.. multiple uses for objects.
Eat food? trade it for a phrase-book (ZX Spectrum gamers) use food as bait to attract scavenging creatures.

Interesting things...

Three things that help exploration immensely:

1) Mood evoking atmosphere: The steady whistling of the wind. The knock-knock-knocking of shutters in the distance. The way the shadows draw long as the sun goes down. You want something that hints at mystery.

2) Danger: Decaying structure. Traps. Monsters. This makes the process of discovery tense.

3) Reward: This is what it''s all about. Sure, you can explore bombed out ruins just for the sense of melancholy, if you tend toward the manic depressive as I do. But most people will need a reward. This doesn''t only have to be treasure. It could be the final answer to a long mystery. It could be a vital bit of lore. It could prove your bravery to your tribe. Whatever it is, there should be motivation, and the more player inspired the motivation is, I think the better.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

1/2 hour wandering syndrome.

Well, I suppose it comes down to player goals (as Nazrix and Wavinator pointed out). What (short and long term) goals are we giving to the player? Is it really to just survive the level and get to the exit. (Ie. Doom). In this case, maybe the wondering is the sign of a lack of indicators as to how to achieve the goal.

Whereas if the aim of the game is to complete Tasks in the area that the player is in, and then leave. Maybe this is a sign that either there should be an automatic helicopter rescue when the player has completed the goals, or b. that the exit should be better indicated.

Is the fun of the game in completing the task? Or in how the task is completed?

One thing that could be done, would be to have the Grand Theft Auto / Freedom Force big green arrow solution. A big arrow that points in the direction of the next enemy to be defeated. ( Which is a feature of these games that I quite enjoy). These arrows allow the player to not have to worry too much about working out WHERE the enemy is, but HOW to deal with them!

Consider Boulderdash, in this game the exit to the level does not appear (or open) until you have completed all the tasks in the level.

So it all comes down to gameplay goals and how to achieve them. Of course on the other hand, careful consideration of how to achieve a balance between making it easier for the gamer to complete the necessary goals and not destroying the atmosphere of the game.. ie. a game which emphasises atmospheric exploration of ruins-- a big green arrow might destroy the atmosphere, but maybe another technique could be used which would preserve the atmosphere and still help emphasise the completion of gameplay tasks.

[edited by - Ketchaval on June 4, 2002 1:34:17 PM]

One way to fix this problem, to create a "constant action" game, is to bring the action (monsters, NPCs, puzzles, whatever) to the player, instead of making the player seek out everything. This gives you better control over the pacing of the game, and keeps people from getting lost\stuck. The only disadvantage I can think of is that players can''t really play the game at their own pace, but that shouldn''t be too much of a problem.

I think Devil May Cry did a great job of what you seek. The puzzles aren''t too hard, there are clues, and secret missions. You reach a new room or area and enemies come at you and its very intense and the music changes.