3 ms·

There's a category of games whose depth goes so hard that they assume engagement outside of the application, and then there's Mega Man games who were built unde

There's a category of games whose depth goes so hard that they assume engagement outside of the application, and then there's Mega Man games who were built under the assumption that the player will enjoy trial and error, and to attempt to push through making the wrong stage choice by learning how to dodge boss mechanics. I firmly believe that the internet normalized metagaming as a side-effect (guides, talk to friends online, etc.) and that in turn affected the way games designed, and that's a hill I'm willing to die on. The vast majority of games should never, ever be designed under the assumption that the player has access to Google, and by extend ease of access to stuff like "the most OP Gundam parts", "most OP weapon for Elden Ring", etc.

haunter 2y ago
>The vast majority of games should never, ever be designed under the assumption that the player has access to Google Yet in the 90s/2000s we had games coming with full manual books with all the info printed, an offline wiki. Like HOMM2 my all time favorite http://homm2.free.fr/dl/pdf/Heroes%20of%20Might%20and%20Magic%20II%20-%20Gold.pdf http://homm2.free.fr/dl/pdf/Heroes%20of%20Might%20and%20Magi...
- b112 2y ago
  I think that all this really depends upon the game. Some are indeed designed to be more complex, yet in a good way. And there is a bit of a difference between a printed manual, and a wiki. I find that wikis often have solutions you're supposed to hunt for, where as a printed manual may tell a "story" of the land, and just give more generic "how to play" hints. In this context, I am very much mystified by "I played through game Y in 2.5 hours!". Uh, what?! I just paid for this game, and my goal isn't to run directly to some arbitrary finish line. I want to see things. Explore things. Learn the story that is presented around me. And I'm not referring to side-quests, although those are fun too. I mean, I've been in some games where there is just "stuff" in the world around me, and you can explore and find random info. I'm referencing games such as "The Last of Us" re: PS3/2013 version, where you could look at newspaper boxes and make out headlines, something that didn't make it with the same legibility into the PS4 remake. (Newspapers were still to be found in the PS4 remake, but a lot of places where there were papers in newsboxes had legible headlines in the PS3 version, and just blurred stuff in the PS4 version). To run a max speed through a game with all sorts of side-info, is like watching a plot laden movie at 5x on mute. What a waste of money, and joy. Another example is Horizon Zero Dawn, where there were all sorts of interesting recordings to be found, and just random info to be gleamed about "what happened", regardless of other main/sub plot info. Again, to fast forward "yay I did this in 2 hours!" is madness in the extreme to me. My point in the above is, that any sort of wiki requirement for these games is a solid ruin. What a way to reduce fun, if everything about the game, and things such as "how this world came about" is just laid out in a wiki. Yet at the same time, I don't want all puzzles to be so easily solvable. I don't want my hand held. Imagine playing God of War, with all puzzles solvable in 1 second. Why even bother? I wonder, there is often talk of great 'apathy' today in youth. Games are a part of youth. An example is 'hide and go seek', which in the real world teaches one how to be sneaky, how to think as another trying to hunt you, how to be clever, and just how to play with others. This game is teaching you to hunt, and to escape when being hunted! Video games of my youth taught me puzzles, were difficult, required fast reflexes, and by no means did I think better gear was the answer to issues I was having. Now games are often one dimensional. People look for the solve online before even playing. People have issues and 1 minute later are looking for a work around. When I was a kid, maybe I could find help by phoning a friend, but talk about embarrassing! Yet with puzzles comes satisfaction when there is a solve. And with easy answers, comes an empty feeling. So back to the wiki or not, I really think there should be no wikis, because the potential for lost joy is massive.
phn 2y ago
I think Elden Ring (and the souls genre in general) IS designed with the assumption players have access to the internet to search for stuff if they want. The game will still provide quite a challenge even if you know where you need to go and get weapons/items/etc. The bosses won't defeat themselves even if you know the overall strategy to use. I think of it as kind of a self-regulated difficulty system, if you want to go in blind you are still free to do so.
- a96 2y ago
  Elden Ring and Fallouts are IMO good examples of games that have done great in this environment. There are people wondering at the art and archaeology(!) and cultures and various descriptions and other lore bits scattered around the games while others are speedrunning and stat optimizing things. They're extracting enjoyment whether they're on their first playthrough or have thousands of hours invested in countless builds. Surely just about every technical detail has been discovered, debugged, and charted a long ago. There are probably far simpler ones as well. People still talk about chess strategies and things like that all across the detail spectrum. There is also the reality that most games produced just aren't worth that much of people's time. They may still be fun, but in a more limited capacity.
lmm 2y ago
Games should be designed for the world and players that exist rather than the audience the creator wishes they had. Ideally you shouldn't push players to search the internet, but you definitely shouldn't design your game such that searching the internet takes the fun out of it. Because like it or not, your players will search the internet.

haunter 2y ago

>The vast majority of games should never, ever be designed under the assumption that the player has access to Google Yet in the 90s/2000s we had games coming with full manual books with all the info printed, an offline wiki. Like HOMM2 my all time favorite http://homm2.free.fr/dl/pdf/Heroes%20of%20Might%20and%20Magic%20II%20-%20Gold.pdf http://homm2.free.fr/dl/pdf/Heroes%20of%20Might%20and%20Magi...

b112 2y ago
I think that all this really depends upon the game. Some are indeed designed to be more complex, yet in a good way. And there is a bit of a difference between a printed manual, and a wiki. I find that wikis often have solutions you're supposed to hunt for, where as a printed manual may tell a "story" of the land, and just give more generic "how to play" hints. In this context, I am very much mystified by "I played through game Y in 2.5 hours!". Uh, what?! I just paid for this game, and my goal isn't to run directly to some arbitrary finish line. I want to see things. Explore things. Learn the story that is presented around me. And I'm not referring to side-quests, although those are fun too. I mean, I've been in some games where there is just "stuff" in the world around me, and you can explore and find random info. I'm referencing games such as "The Last of Us" re: PS3/2013 version, where you could look at newspaper boxes and make out headlines, something that didn't make it with the same legibility into the PS4 remake. (Newspapers were still to be found in the PS4 remake, but a lot of places where there were papers in newsboxes had legible headlines in the PS3 version, and just blurred stuff in the PS4 version). To run a max speed through a game with all sorts of side-info, is like watching a plot laden movie at 5x on mute. What a waste of money, and joy. Another example is Horizon Zero Dawn, where there were all sorts of interesting recordings to be found, and just random info to be gleamed about "what happened", regardless of other main/sub plot info. Again, to fast forward "yay I did this in 2 hours!" is madness in the extreme to me. My point in the above is, that any sort of wiki requirement for these games is a solid ruin. What a way to reduce fun, if everything about the game, and things such as "how this world came about" is just laid out in a wiki. Yet at the same time, I don't want all puzzles to be so easily solvable. I don't want my hand held. Imagine playing God of War, with all puzzles solvable in 1 second. Why even bother? I wonder, there is often talk of great 'apathy' today in youth. Games are a part of youth. An example is 'hide and go seek', which in the real world teaches one how to be sneaky, how to think as another trying to hunt you, how to be clever, and just how to play with others. This game is teaching you to hunt, and to escape when being hunted! Video games of my youth taught me puzzles, were difficult, required fast reflexes, and by no means did I think better gear was the answer to issues I was having. Now games are often one dimensional. People look for the solve online before even playing. People have issues and 1 minute later are looking for a work around. When I was a kid, maybe I could find help by phoning a friend, but talk about embarrassing! Yet with puzzles comes satisfaction when there is a solve. And with easy answers, comes an empty feeling. So back to the wiki or not, I really think there should be no wikis, because the potential for lost joy is massive.

phn 2y ago

I think Elden Ring (and the souls genre in general) IS designed with the assumption players have access to the internet to search for stuff if they want. The game will still provide quite a challenge even if you know where you need to go and get weapons/items/etc. The bosses won't defeat themselves even if you know the overall strategy to use. I think of it as kind of a self-regulated difficulty system, if you want to go in blind you are still free to do so.

a96 2y ago
Elden Ring and Fallouts are IMO good examples of games that have done great in this environment. There are people wondering at the art and archaeology(!) and cultures and various descriptions and other lore bits scattered around the games while others are speedrunning and stat optimizing things. They're extracting enjoyment whether they're on their first playthrough or have thousands of hours invested in countless builds. Surely just about every technical detail has been discovered, debugged, and charted a long ago. There are probably far simpler ones as well. People still talk about chess strategies and things like that all across the detail spectrum. There is also the reality that most games produced just aren't worth that much of people's time. They may still be fun, but in a more limited capacity.

lmm 2y ago

Games should be designed for the world and players that exist rather than the audience the creator wishes they had. Ideally you shouldn't push players to search the internet, but you definitely shouldn't design your game such that searching the internet takes the fun out of it. Because like it or not, your players will search the internet.