Quote:

Original post by JohnJ It depends a lot on the type of game. For RTS style games, it's almost exclusively "POWER = EFFECT". There's little to no skill involved - basically just stats. Sometimes some skill (in the form of strategy) is mixed though. For FPS style games, it's almost exclusively "POWER = (Player skill)". There's little to no stats involved - basically just skill. Sometimes some stats (in the form of weapon upgrades, etc.) are mixed though. Personally, I prefer games where POWER = (Player skill) rather than EFFECT, because what's the challenge when winning against other players / NPCs when it's not you who's winning, but your character's stats?

In RTS games POWER = f(effect, skill), where effect = f(skill). What troops you have is up to you, and producing them is down to your skill. And the indication that there's little to no skill involved in RTS games is laughable, really - what RTS games are you playing?

Quote:

It is actually the restricted type of gameplay that seriously hinders one player to another in an online game. If the player's abilities are of the unrestricted type, then a level 1 player could actually take out a level 1000 player, just by being sneaky or clever.

Except that game would then cease to be the game it was, and become a totally different sort of game with a different focus. Just because the player involvement takes place before the engagement, does not mean that that involvement is any less valid - that's a pretty fundamental basis for most MMORPGs, and to remove it is not to improve it, but to completely change what it is.

Quote:

EFFECT would be leveling. PLAYER_SKILL would be courage, sneakiness, and cleverness. What is to stop a level 1 character from sneaking up behind and stealing a highly powerful weapon from a level 50 character? I bet that restriction is not something that seems reasonably realistic to the game world. And even if you can steal it, you would almost certainly need to be some specific level just to use it. Even more artificial limitations. By blocking those dangerous mountains and powerful weapons from lower level characters, you are hindering their development artificially, causing them to remain at lower levels for a longer period of time. What is the reason? So they play the way you want them to? Rather than providing risks with rewards in your games, you're simply throwing up impassable walls.

Quote:

Or you could just allow the player to run by and grab it with a sequence and button. The higher level character would need to step out of the way to avoid the thief, smack them around to disrupt the action, or fight them to reclaim it. It wouldn't be something that could be done out in the open. The thief would need to wait until the player is distracted.

Oh, so you love quick time events and their like, good for you, but, really, having some 5 min old character steal that sword off you that you spent 10 hours getting, and hundreds of hours leveling and equiping your character to get, is going to lead to the complete and utter collapse of the game as everyone leaves - even the hardcores, because while they might enjoy the chance of someone killing them in combat and stealing their stuff (by besting them), they aren't going to like a level one character doing it to them.

You've missed the whole point and enjoyment of the games that do this. You'd destroy most character (stat) development (I added the stat to differentiate from character development in the narative sense).

Quote:

In RTS games POWER = f(effect, skill), where effect = f(skill). What troops you have is up to you, and producing them is down to your skill. And the indication that there's little to no skill involved in RTS games is laughable, really - what RTS games are you playing?

Ooops, sorry about that - my mistake. I meant to say "RPG" or "MMORPG", not RTS. You're right about RTS's.

Quote:

Original post by JohnJ I agree with that - the only problem is it's impossible to make a completely unlimited game without an infinite development time.

Like I said before, the limitations I'm referring to are not engine or resource based. They are restrictions the designer literally ADDED to the game to assert control - to rail the flow of the game. If an action or solution is not available to a specific game because of engine/resource limitations, then it's not a part of this discussion.

Quote:

At some point you need to implement the rules of the simulation, and it's the implementation and complexity of these rules that decide how limited or free-style the gameplay will be.

In countless games, the simulation's rules are not what stops players from using their own solutions. It's a hard-coded wall. If I walk up to a man at a gate, and he wants a specific rare item before he opens the gate, I can just knock him out (an attack that already exists in the game) and open the gate myself (an action that already exists in the game). Wait, I can't do that, can I? The designer wants me to solve a quest, so for some unexplained reason, I can't come up with alternate solutions to the problem.

This isn't really the type of thing I'm concerned with. It's just a simple example of how designers can block freestyle gameplay. They don't have to use rules to govern it. They can use unexplained arbitrary restrictions. Why they do it is very clear. I just don't like it.

Quote:

For example in many racing games where you're car is artificially limited to the racetrack area, it's not because the developers thought it would improve gameplay, but simply because there's nothingness beyond the track - it wasn't programmed. To not limit it would either crash the game or allow your car enter a void of nothingness.

I'm sorry that you're unable to make the distinction between these two types of limitations, but I can assure you that they are not the same.

Quote:

Original post by popsoftheyear If I attack a robot with my knife, and no wires or anything is sticking out, I don't care how awesome I am at the game, the robot shouldn't be harmed because EFFECT should be nil.

I've faced this type of situation many times. Here are some alternate solutions, depending on what the game is capable of:

1. Lure the robot off of a cliff or into a trap.
2. Climb. Most robots can't climb. Even steps.
3. Use environment objects as defense and walk by.
4. Run to avoid the robot. Most robots are pretty slow.
5. Get one robot to fire at you, then dodge to let it hit another.

Note that these solutions do not require super duper game features. I can use most of them in any typical shooter. Even if the designer didn't want me to.

Quote:

This isn't an artificial limitation... it just makes sense.

I agree. I would never complain about the inability to kill a robot with a knife.

Quote:

This is why anything is NOT possible, even if the player is the best in the world.

Note that I said regardless of the challenge. Not regardless of the impossibility. If there's a chance to succeed, and the player has manual control over the attempt, then the designer doesn't have much room to stop them. They can bend the chances up or down, but they can't determine them.

Quote:

I guess all I'm getting at is you seem to be saying that PLAYER_SKILL makes the possibilities endless when you remove artificial or unrealistic limitations... I disagree. You might as well say POWER = PLAYER_SKILL in that case.

Which is exactly why I didn't say that.

Quote:

Original post by JohnJ For RPG style games, it's almost exclusively "POWER = EFFECT". There's little to no skill involved - basically just stats. Sometimes some skill (in the form of strategy) is mixed though.

Coincidently, RPGs have more of these limitations than any other genre.

Quote:

For FPS style games, it's almost exclusively "POWER = (Player skill)". There's little to no stats involved - basically just skill. Sometimes some stats (in the form of weapon upgrades, etc.) are mixed though.

EFFECT doesn't exclusively represent stats. It would also represent the firing rate of a weapon. The amount of damage it inflicts, the speed to reload it, etc. Even the player character's running speed is part of it.

A very clever player could have the same effectiveness with a knife as a very lazy player has with a plasma cannon. Since the player has manual control, the designer is removed from the inner loop. The designer can now only influence the flow of that part of the game, rather than completely direct it. The player is free to make their own choices.

The gameplay doesn't need to be real-time or twitch based to allow freestyle gameplay. Strategy is also part of the player's influence over the game. Skills can be made to provide a bonus, rather than to completely dictate success.

And just to be clear, stat related actions are not really what this is about. This is about the more general concept of overruling the player's range of solutions to assert control over the game.

Quote:

I'm sorry that you're unable to make the distinction between these two types of limitations, but I can assure you that they are not the same.

It's not that I can't make the distinction, it's that your writing style is very ambiguous to me, your use of "PLAYER_SKILL" to represent a non-computer stored variable being one example (of many). It's probably just me though.

Quote:

In countless games, the simulation's rules are not what stops players from using their own solutions. It's a hard-coded wall. If I walk up to a man at a gate, and he wants a specific rare item before he opens the gate, I can just knock him out (an attack that already exists in the game) and open the gate myself (an action that already exists in the game). Wait, I can't do that, can I? The designer wants me to solve a quest, so for some unexplained reason, I can't come up with alternate solutions to the problem.

I see what you're saying, and fully agree that games should avoid these limitations, but having designed, programmed, and finished several games, I disagree that the limitations are "for some unexplained reason". It's all too clear to me why the limitations are there, but perceiving this does require a level of foresight that usually only comes with experience in creating games (no offense).

Quote:

1. Lure the robot off of a cliff or into a trap.

Sounds fun! But it requires a robot AI that is "lure"-able. More work for the programmers.

Quote:

2. Climb. Most robots can't climb. Even steps.

Sounds fun! But it requires that you be able to climb, and the robot's AI needs to be able to handle this case appropriately - for example, lose sight of you if it only can see horizontally, and wander off. More work for the programmers.

Quote:

3. Use environment objects as defense and walk by. 4. Run to avoid the robot. Most robots are pretty slow. 5. Get one robot to fire at you, then dodge to let it hit another.

These will work, but they will with most other games today too.

Quote:

Coincidently, RPGs have more of these limitations than any other genre.

I agree - as with any other "POWER = EFFECT" game.

Quote:

EFFECT doesn't exclusively represent stats. It would also represent the firing rate of a weapon. The amount of damage it inflicts, the speed to reload it, etc. Even the player character's running speed is part of it.

Firing rate, damage levels, reload speed, running speed, etc. are all stats.

Quote:

The designer can now only influence the flow of that part of the game, rather than completely direct it. The player is free to make their own choices.

I agree.

Personally, I think games should move away from the "on-rails" feel that most games today have. Games like Crysis are definitely a step in the right direction with their open-ended worlds, but I'd like to take it even farther. My ideal goal is to create a game where there is no predetermined plot, and no staged events. Everything is the result of a complex and intricate simulation in which everything has a chance to interact and change the coarse of the in-game history. Plot should be an emergent result of complex AI's with conflicting interests, missions should be taking action on events that are really happening, etc., etc.

Quote:

Original post by Talin Everything he experiences is the result of your design.

Everything may be a result of the design, but everything was not designed. As the designer, I can define rules, then let the pieces fall. I don't need to stay behind and babysit them.

Quote:

He cannot experience anything that isn't part of that design - he might experience something you didn't plan, expect or think about, but it's still part of the mechanics you designed so the "he rewards himself" point doesn't stand.

How is that any different than the real world? Are you saying it's utterly impossible for someone to reward themselves?

Even though it was you who made a decision - without any influence - to take action to obtain this item, it was you who risked your skin to infiltrate enemy territory, it was you who devised a brilliant plan to kill or grab it off of an enemy, and it was you who executed it to now own the item, it wasn't because of you that you now have it. It was because the designer rewarded you with it...?

I would argue that the reason you now have the item is more attributed to your actions than my game's design. I didn't need to take any action for it to be possible, where I would have needed to take action to make it impossible.

Quote:

Either way, what really matters is that the reward is effectively doubled the way you put it. And in most games that would simply be a game-breaker - unless you balance it further which is what you're arguing against in the first place.

How is the reward doubled? You went out of your way to kill an enemy that the game considered almost unkillable, and you can either (A) pick up the weapon that made him so badass, or (B) be left standing there looking stupid for taking a pointless risk. In order to double the reward, there would first need to be one.

Quote:

Reward A is the in-game advantage you automatically achieve by doing something extraordinary or difficult. This applies to any game (and if it doesn't, it can be made to apply). That is the kind of reward that the player earns and takes in freestyle gameplay.

You're being escorted to die. Two guards armed with death rays are walking behind you, and one near a doorway you're about to pass through. You quickly lunge out at the doorman and kill him with your bare hands, only to find that his rifle fades away into dust. What is your advantage for this victory? Is it the two armed guards that are about to hasten your execution?

Quote:

Reward B is the almighty death ray / siege tank that the game bluntly throws at you for "being good" and accomplishing the said extraordinary feat.

Nice subtle exaggeration effect you got there. Does it really feel like the game is throwing items at the player when it makes perfect sense for the items to be available in that situation?

Quote:

I am a strong supporter of consistency (aka "realism") and giving greater significance to player's own physical and mental skill, but your argument the way I see it goes far too close to the other extreme end for my gaming/design taste.

Apparently, most RPG designers agree with you.

Quote:

Original post by JohnJ Sounds fun! But it requires a robot AI that is "lure"-able. More work for the programmers. ... Sounds fun! But it requires that you be able to climb, and the robot's AI needs to be able to handle this case appropriately - for example, lose sight of you if it only can see horizontally, and wander off. More work for the programmers.

Perhaps you didn't notice the glaring depending on what the game is capable of, immediately preceding that list. Since it apparently wasn't clear, that means to ignore any entry that wouldn't already be possible in the game.

As I said before, I'm not discussing limitations that are brought on by development issues, or even development laziness. I'm talking about limitations that are literally added into the game to stop the player from doing something. I keep reminding you of this, but you keep bringing it back into the discussion.

Quote:

It's all too clear to me why the limitations are there, but perceiving this does require a level of foresight that usually only comes with experience in creating games (no offense).

As I said before, several times, I understand why the limitations are there. I simply dislike them.

I do have some experience creating games. It's not attached to my signature, but you can see some snaps of my project here. It's slow-going, but I started from scratch, and programmed, modeled, textured, and designed it all myself.

Quote:

Nice subtle exaggeration effect you got there. Does it really feel like the game is throwing items at the player when it makes perfect sense for the items to be available in that situation?

I think this is another case of misunderstanding due to ambiguity. I think he thought you said when the player defeats a powerful enemy, the player should be rewarded additionally with a bonus like being given a big superweapon or superpower out of nowhere (which I understand now isn't what you meant)

Quote:

As I said before, I'm not discussing limitations that are brought on by development issues, or even development laziness. I'm talking about limitations that are literally added into the game to stop the player from doing something. I keep reminding you of this, but you keep bringing it back into the discussion.

No limitations are ever added to a game to stop the player from doing something without a reason - there's always a reason. If you eliminate from this discussion all limitations imposed by the capabilities of the game engine, you're eliminating this discussion almost entirely because most if not all artificial limitations are ultimately in place due to limitations of the game engine.

The only other possibilities I can think of are:
- Intentional reduction of "blood and gore" and other offensive content
- Intentional simplicity of gameplay (usually to reduce development time)

Other than this, it's considered a good thing to add to the player's capabilities, in which case the limitations I believe you're referring to are due to engine limitations.

Quote:

As I said before, several times, I understand why the limitations are there. I simply dislike them.

If you know why (and that you dislike them), then what is it we're supposed to be discussing here?

Edit:

Quote:

Almost all games seem to do it. I understand why - balance, but I don't agree with it. I'm curious to see other opinions.

Balance? Balance is the tweaking of strengths, weaknesses, and other stats to produce fun gameplay. It in no way imposes artificial limitations like not allowing a robot to be tricked or making a guard invincible (those are technical engine limitations).

I may be wrong, but I think you're confusing technical limitations with gameplay balance.

You'll have to forgive any serious confusion with my responses, but it looks like you've heavily edited your post since I replied. Things that were "entirely" before are now "almost entirely", and etc.

Quote:

Original post by JohnJ I think this is another case of misunderstanding due to ambiguity. I think he thought you said when the player defeats a powerful enemy, the player should be rewarded additionally with a bonus like being given a big superweapon or superpower out of nowhere (which I understand now isn't what you meant)

I'm fairly certain that's not at all what he meant, and find it odd that you got that impression from either of us. How would something like that have any bearing on the topic?

He was referring to a situation where one army conquers another army. They now have one less army to compete with, so that's part of their reward. Giving the player all of that army's assets in addition would be overkill. That was his message.

Quote:

If you eliminate from this discussion all limitations imposed by the capabilities of the game engine, you're eliminating this discussion entirely because all artificial limitations are ultimately in place due to limitations of the game engine.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but it's not true.

Quote:

If you can show me a single case where a limitation was imposed in a game that was unrelated to the engine's capability, I will be very, very surprised.

You can just use the one I already posted. Passing through the gate without taking on the quest. As I said, the actions and reactions are all there, but the game won't allow it to happen. How is that connected to the game engine's limitations?

Quote:

Even limitations imposed to keep the player from straying too far from the plotline (when normally doing the action would be quite possible within the engine) is ultimately a technical / developmental issue because removing such a limitation would create a case where the engine / mission tracker doesn't know what to do or gets all messed up.

Of course it is. Just like the race track example you brought up a few posts ago. There are plenty of limitations that are brought on by development hardships, and there are plenty that are not.

Quote:

Quote: As I said before, several times, I understand why the limitations are there. I simply dislike them. ?? I don't recall you saying that the limitations are there due to the limitations of the game engine and development time to improve the game engine.

Then perhaps I know more about why they are there than you do. The purpose of the limitations I'm referring to are design issues, not technical issues. The player isn't allowed to pass through the gate by knocking out the gateman because it subtracts substance from the game. The quest seems pointless.

Quote:

Things that were "entirely" before are now "almost entirely", and etc.

Yes, at first I said that all limitations are ultimately due to engine restrictions, but then I realized that there were two exceptions (both of which didn't effect this argument, but I felt I should mention them anyway for the sake of completeness):

- Intentional reduction of "blood and gore" and other offensive content
- Intentional simplicity of gameplay (usually to reduce development time)

Quote:

You can just use the one I already posted. Passing through the gate without taking on the quest. As I said, the actions and reactions are all there, but the game won't allow it to happen. How is that connected to the game engine's limitations?

Good point - I misunderstood your original post about the gate. Let me revise my argument in this case:

Think about it this way: If you're using a linear storyline and come to a point where the player could possibly bypass part of your story if they're clever enough, it presents an interesting problem. You can either:

A. Let the player skip part of the story.
B. Don't let the player skip, at the expense of adding artificial limitations.

But why is this problem occurring in the first place? At the root, these issues are caused because the story and engine are designed to be purely linear.

The issue wouldn't exist if the developers had the time and resources to improve the engine to the point where bypassing the guard is actually rewarding without sacrificing the length or enjoyability of the story.

So in a sense, it's still an engine limitation that resulted in the artificial limitation being added, even if not directly.


P.S. And yes, I edited this post too as I rethought and revised my ideas. I'll try to post slower in the future though :)

[Edited by - JohnJ on September 24, 2008 11:10:47 PM]