Even if it''s fun, it could still be a waste of time???? When you''re designing low level activities that are supposed to compliment the high level stuff in a game, how do you tell the difference between "makework" and "serious" gameplay? Fun isn''t totally the answer, because an activity can be fun for awhile but ultimately be viewed as a waste of time. A couple of examples: Repairing weapons or buying food in an RPG. Turning power on and off to individual gadgets in a management game. Repairing buildings after an attack in an RTS. Buying fuel in a space trading game. One piece of advice in the book Game Architecture and Design advises that any choice you''d automatically make should be made automatically by the game. Does this mean that, say, in a game like Diablo, our weapons should automatically repair or bring up a dialog when we talk to the Blacksmith? Isn''t the possibility of going in with a sword that breaks less interesting than all the other choices? Same for Red Alert 2, after an attack. Are these choices just "makework" choices? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

Never having played Diablo or any of its sequels and prequels (but having played a few incarnations of C&C), I answer from my own perspective only.

(What else could I do? Anyway..)

If the decision is a critical strategic one - for example, repairing weapons and/or structures requires a significant amount of resources and/or time, which are both in short supply - then the decision should be left to the player. Otherwise we lose the Strategy in RTS. If the decision has no tactical impact but serves simply to heighten realism, then the decision could and should be made automatically. A garrison on leave or withdrawn from the front, for example, should automatically and autonomously check and repair all of their equipment as soon as they have tended to hunger and health. Logical.

Alternatively, it could be one of the game options which of such decisions the player should make.

Let me extend the analogy further. As you might recall, I'm interested in seeing which RP elements can be brought into sports games. Well, while heightened realism would be nice, along with the ability to make extended decisions, it would be detracting to have to choose which pair of shoes, socks and undershorts to wear before each game (the lucky shorts from the Olympic campaign of '92? the retro shoes from '85?) In sports these are as crucial as the high-calibre weapons of FPSes or the hp of RPGs. It is distracting and annoying to have to keep your player within bounds - to have to make every little decision . Why can't he automatically stay within bounds, within reason? If he's near the line and at a reasonable velocity, why not have him align with the endline or visibly try to maintain balance and stay in bounds? If his velocity is off the chart, then he can lose control and tumble out of bounds - illusion preserved without sacrificing the challenge of the game.

And I think that's the underlying principle: maintaining a convincing illusion. Anything that is detracting from the total immersion in the experience is bad, real or not.

P.S. I finally found one sports game (EA's NBA Street ) that overcame the bounds problem described above, and it makes the problem that much more visible in other titles. The moral? If you do it well, you make the competition look even worse, and without really trying.

EDIT: Spelling. Crucial.

Edited by - Oluseyi on October 1, 2001 8:35:21 PM

great topic...

about Diablo, I don''t think weapons should automatically repair ''cause that''s a warror''s skill so warriors become valuable in the dungeon...not all characters can do it so it makes the warrior useful

A CRPG in development...

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Talk about pointles... how about MMORPG''s? What happens when you reach level 99? Theres no storyline.. and its not like you can just go to the next level...

I personally think that Diablo should not have the manual repairment of weapons, but some people like to have that realistic life-like simulation.

Anyone ever play the great game called LOV(Legend of Valor)?

You had to buy food, but that made the game great. It was a real-life simulation RPG. The fact that you had to do what you would do in real life made the game better.

The interaction between people was great, and the fact that you could fight anyone, and be jailed, that was another good part.

I consider it one of the best games ever, it surpasses Diablo 1 and 2 by far(but not the 2 player version of 1 ).

And, look at Final Fantasy 7.

There is an arcade, which doesn''t mean much to you, but if you want to get every materia, you have to get a certain amount of coins from winning at the arcade.

Also, it gives you something to do when you are out on your date

Sometimes things seem pointless, but when they fit in the games structure, they are not pointless.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you..."~Friedrich Nietzsche

also I think it's makework when it adds no other element to the game. The action doesn't have to be full of interesting elements by itself but if it indirectly adds something useful then I think it's not makework.

one example is having to eat in a game. If it's just in there to make the game more "realistic" or "immersive" then it's probably pretty useless ...but if having to go buy food will likely cause the player to happen upon other adventures along the way then it could be a good addition indirectly adding enjoyment to the game

EDIT: and I think it's fairly subjective and up to the designer what will indirectly or directly add something to the game

A CRPG in development...

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on October 1, 2001 10:03:46 PM

I think it all depends on how much "realism" you''re going for. There ARE people who like playing games where they micro-manage everything (after all, who else plays SimCity?). Buying food in an RPG, in and of itself, is fairly useless. But it can also be a sign to the player of how much realism to expect. If you have to buy food, then you better keep an eye on your weapon as well, etc.

So, in summary, how much micro-management you put in the game depends on your audience you''re making the game for.

quote: Original post by Silvanis
I think it all depends on how much "realism" you''re going for. There ARE people who like playing games where they micro-manage everything (after all, who else plays SimCity?). Buying food in an RPG, in and of itself, is fairly useless. But it can also be a sign to the player of how much realism to expect. If you have to buy food, then you better keep an eye on your weapon as well, etc.

So, in summary, how much micro-management you put in the game depends on your audience you''re making the game for.

good point

A CRPG in development...

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

When you look at adding micromanagement to a game. You have to be wary of overburdening the player with repetitive actions that offer no advancement. Take buying food for instance,if a player doesnt see advancement from it, he will soon bore of it.

umm got to go..ill finish this later hehe

Hmmm... good answers all around, thx!

A tough activity to make choices on is what I call "gardening." Gardening is basically improving something for the sake of taking care of it or watching it grow. You see a lot of this gameplay in games like Settlers or Sim City, and even in Civilization style games, where you''re taking care of a city or empire.

The simcity player will probably have no problem with gardening. If, for example, they''ve got to go out and find a dozen specific components to repair a damaged starship, then that just serves to improve the property they''ve become attached to (potentially). But the more combat oriented player might find such activity tedious if it doesn''t lead to something dramatic. After all, it''s just repair.

When it''s a resource question, as Oluseyi pointed out, I can see it being an important decision. But when the player has tons of cash, something like this calls for an "autorepair" action, I''d guess.





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

Ok time to continue my previous post.

My point was simply that if a task doesn provide a player with advancement opportunity, it quickly becomes boring. Take for example fighting in diablo. It is extremely repetitive yet, players dont mind it because they see it as a means to an end. If you dont give a player something to look forward to and only provide him with more tasks for the sake of "realism", a player will quickly bore.

Ack ok I have to go again...might finish this later...good subject btw =)