 |
Castle Paradox
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J.A.R.S.
In umbram deo, ex nihilo...
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: Under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Are these questions restricted to "an rpg" or "a good game"? Because, generally speaking, rpgs are far more restricted on the exploration to keep in balance than adventure games would. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding exploration, but I believe it is one of the limitations between the rpg and adventure genres (there are other factors, but I think it is one of the dominant ones). So, for an rpg, the very limitation (question #4) is what keeps in balance with the genre... but for a good game, the the limitation is external... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rinku
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 690
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread along w/ a request from Moogle1 inspired me to write this: http://rinku.livejournal.com/1213560.html
But to more specifically address the issues in this thread:
I think you guys need to be more specific about the meaning of "exploration". In one sense, all games are an "exploration", you're being exposed to something you've never been exposed to before. How is exploring Zelda 1 different from exploring Final Fantasy X? It's a different kind of exploration (free as opposed to guided), but both *are* exploration. In another sense, exploration can refer to opening up a map, gaining access to more paths and more areas of it. In a third sense, exploration can refer to discovering the rules of a game, discovering how new abilities work, how to kill new enemies. There are other senses as well.
The original issue, why Zelda 1 is more fun to explore than Legacy of the Wizard, seems moot to me, because for many people (not myself, but many others) Legacy of the Wizard is more fun to explore than Zelda 1. Asking questions like this based on what you personally find fun isn't a good approach when many others find the opposite to be fun. You can't form general principles based on a case study of yourself, you need to be more empirical.
I also think discussion of the different genres like RPG etc. is out of place -- those genres are just inventions, and there's no such thing as a "good RPG" or a "good adventure game" there's only "a game that's good that happens to be a RPG or adventure game". The principles of game design don't change by genre. They change by *framework*, such as if you're creating a sim-game like Will Wright's, or a social interactivity game like Chris Crawford's, but all the genres within the Miyamoto framework (adventure, action, platform, RTS, RPG, FPS, etc.), things we normally think of as "games", share basic principles which don't change by genre.
_________________
Tower Defense Game |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.A.R.S.
In umbram deo, ex nihilo...
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: Under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinku wrote: | This thread along w/ a request from Moogle1 inspired me to write this: http://rinku.livejournal.com/1213560.html
I think you guys need to be more specific about the meaning of "exploration". In one sense, all games are an "exploration", you're being exposed to something you've never been exposed to before. How is exploring Zelda 1 different from exploring Final Fantasy X? It's a different kind of exploration (free as opposed to guided), but both *are* exploration. In another sense, exploration can refer to opening up a map, gaining access to more paths and more areas of it. In a third sense, exploration can refer to discovering the rules of a game, discovering how new abilities work, how to kill new enemies. There are other senses as well.
|
I think the latter is more consistency-oriented than basic exploration. How consistent you are with the genre's rules defines it, though, from the player's perspective, it can be seen as exploration, but I think that it was clear from post one that the exploration was limited to the first two meanings, aka physical exploration of the unknown, so either the landscape (guided or free).
| Quote: |
I also think discussion of the different genres like RPG etc. is out of place -- those genres are just inventions, and there's no such thing as a "good RPG" or a "good adventure game" there's only "a game that's good that happens to be a RPG or adventure game". The principles of game design don't change by genre. They change by *framework*, such as if you're creating a sim-game like Will Wright's, or a social interactivity game like Chris Crawford's, but all the genres within the Miyamoto framework (adventure, action, platform, RTS, RPG, FPS, etc.), things we normally think of as "games", share basic principles which don't change by genre. |
I agree partially to that statement. Usually, good games are thought up THEN people put them into categories to ease the expression of what they just played (or for the marketing branding of them at e3). BUT, you'll perhaps agree with me that a lot of the OHR games are nearly stricly classic rpgs (although, compared to other engines, I'd be tempted to say that the OHR brings a lot more genres than usually would happen). My question was aimed at the msw because I wanted to know if it was an open discussion on the topic (adressing with the "good game" standpoint) or if it was projected discussion to better study a certain field that would happen to influence an aspect of a future game to come, and if so, in what genre that game would've been so that the discussion would've kept accordance with that one specific potential project of his.
Based on your thread, however, I'll just assume that the case is "good game" in general terms, and will answer to his thread accordingly.
4 . What is the proper balance of direction that makes exploration fun?
I'd say Dragon warrior is under that balance in the sense that it gives the feeling of "being lost" somewhat too often. Of course, given another context, being lost could be interpreted as a sense of urgency, but in Dragon Warrior, it ends up as a plain "you'll eventually die from attrition" kinda thing. (This applies only to most of the early dragon warriors prior to the Vth).
But as far as direction goes, I tend to agree with you that the direct approach of "go to X" is somewhat too straightforward and it could be stretched down into a series of hints. Regarding the topic of hints (as in indirect directions) I can only refer to the myst series of games that resolves around exploration and re-exploration. If you haven't played the game, I'll give a brief summary of the game's athmosphere to that you can best understand, bearing in mind there are 5 games in that series, the first which was, as far as I got told, the first game to outsell a movie's box office budget-wise (thanks to pre-rendered early 3d).
Myst is a game of exploration and re-exploration in the sense that you will visit and revisit the SAME locations over and over again, and visit new ones. There are virtually NO locations where you are not expected to go in the course of the game, which sorta stretches from your definition of exploration... it is guided, but by the systems itself. There are, at first, no clues on where you have to go, but nonetheless, there is a geographical limitation that is drastic, yet, the world feels too vast because you know it will be one puzzle after another, and often will you revisit similar locations for new puzzles to unfold.
And then, there is the whole linking book thing where, once you successfully finished a series of puzzles, you are brought up with new locations to explore inside another world (books). The exploration stretches into barren lands which are yet limitated as well. I couldn't emphasize more on the limitation idea behind myst, and yet, I believe it is the most "wide-opened" game I have ever seen. The world is small, but the possibilties in it are endless. There are rewards in that they allow you to pursue your quest (nothing or so is optional aside the reading of certain books whose sole purpose is flavor and understanding the world beyond how everything works).
Exploration, unlike what seems to be the common idea, can be part of the main quest as well. Exploration doesn't necessarily mean optional, and I think Rinku's post evocated that, or at least, it reminded me of it. So I believe Myst is a particularly good case of study on that topic since it offers both limited and non-optional exploration with a series of rewards which are clues to go on further. This type of exploration is good in a mystery setting (could definatly revamp the idea of the loss of memory in an rpg for example).
5. What kinds of non-textual hints are possible to help players explore?
As far as resolving puzzles comes along, a series of graphical clues could be found in outside regions (note that this is considering the exploration as optional, but in a setting much similar to myst).
Here is a series of way myst and its sequels used as matters of unwritten hints:
- Meeting with animal's whose voice imitates certain melodies.
- Getting in touch with the riddle before hand on an experimental system which has a certain partial tutorial mode which will later be required to use the real thing. This one is intensively graphically-driven.
- Lost books. These are written hints, but not textual as in they don't "give it" to you. In fact, you just know these hints are part of a whole and not necessarily meant to unravel the puzzles: they are mere comments on the world. Basically, it could be an old historian's record of statues in a world, unaware of the idea of an underlying puzzle.
Now these are more like hints to puzzles than hints to actual direction. As far as "the next place to go" is concerned, here are some thoughts.
- You find an object, and you need to go to where it is from. If the object is wet you know it was brought there not too long ago, and that it came from water. This is a vague hint as to where to go to, but assuming the object is made of a certain rock that is only found in certain hills, finding the hills with both the rock type and a proximity to water is plenty clue enough for me.
- The same can be applied through geologic knowledge. Given that you must find a certain plant and that it grows in certain regions only, the big idea is to find where the soil grows what plants and find it. Could also be used if the secret entry of a temple is rumored to be hidden behind one such plant. Possibilities there as well...
6. Why are interesting graphics important to exploring being enjoyable?
Are they?
I think a lack of repetition (richness of the environment) is much more important than the actual graphical quality of the environment. The less repetitive the frame, the more unique each area looks, which in turn gives the world a rich lore of landscape. The graphical aspect can be eye candy, like in most games, but is not a trivial aspect of why the exploration of that landscape is enjoyable, I believe.
7. What sorts of things ought to be in treasure chests that are off the beaten path?
The treasure chest itself is a very narrow interpretation of reward. In fact, the whole rpg-ish concept on items is. I believe we should regard items as tools rather than actual items when given an exploration-based game's context. Tools with unique use (keys) or reccurent ones (literally a tool much like a screw-driver perhaps) are the way to go I believe. Sadly, this may look like it has to be in the main quest, but, nothing stops a maker from placing a secret "key" (key is a generic term for something that will unlock something else in that case) that will later unlock an optional door in a dungeon to get better armor or something... I must confess however that, as far as rewards are concerned, I'm a little too narrow-minded to usual equipement/potions, so I'll leave someone else answer this question.
3. What makes exploration fun to do?
Threat is but one idea... In myst, you are literally alone. No one wanders the world aside from you, which, for some reason, will not supress all of the fear factor. Looking up to the paintings, you can't help but feel like you are being watched. The reason is that the game does not tell you you are alone, you simply end up being. I think playing on this aspect is a remarkable choice. Much like not saying to a player he will not fight battles, but make him feel like he should be ready at all times "just in case". This gives a good indicator of peril, and I think that it is more threatening than attrition from random battles.
This time around, I'd rather touch the horror survival genre. Why? Because it deals with a lot more exploration, in my opinion, than most rpgs, in the course of the main quest (and subquests which allow you to survive). As a matter of fact, I'll use an OHR game as an example: Onlyoneinall's Bloodlust.
Bloodlust has an interesting, albeit not 100% original, take on the attrition idea. Leveling up makes your stats go downwards, which means that, the more you explore, the more you find monsters, and the more they get you weaker. The upside from this is that exploration will earn you better weaponry (artificially raising your stats for an even score).
Also, exploration is necessary to unlock doors, but exploration is also a lot about the lore behind the game. There are various written things that are not particularly "useful" to the game as far as progressing is concerned, but which add a lot of depth to it (much like System shock II's or Deus Ex's notes). Some of them even actually have a use when it comes to finding secret caches. Resources are rather scarce in Bloodlust, and the discovery of some ammo clips and medkits is more than welcomed, especially once you are face to face with a boss.
I think most of the successful exploration games use a method where you re-visit once or more various locations. This way, the world can be smaller, but richer, which sorta makes exploration and re-exploration better. In bloodlust, each level is an independant world where you need to go around a lot, check the newly opened doors, and see what changed while you had left a room. In a certain way, you explore every room every time you enter. That, I believe, is one interesting and fun thing about exploration.
I guess that pretty much sums everything I can think of right now. Hopefully this makes more sense to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.A.R.S.
In umbram deo, ex nihilo...
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: Under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
commenting on Rinku's livejournal:
| Quote: | There's a lot of leniency here, but you don't want to be too restrictive (only ~5% of the map accessible when you begin the game), unless they get map-opening items very early, as that leads to boredom, or too lenient (~95% of the map accessible when you begin the game), as that leads to confusion.
|
Exploration in the elder scrolls series is based off the idea you have 95% of the map available. Were you confused with that?
| Quote: | | One important goal is that every location in the game should have something interesting in it. Notice that virtually every screen in Zelda 1 has a secret: some have secret caves, secret under-tree passages, but all of them have *something* that isn't accessible to you when you first get there. Most games don't go to that extreme, but it's an extreme I like and I think it works, even though it takes a lot of effort: every single screen in your game should have something "under the surface" that isn't apparent to you when you first got there. All of them. |
That's huge, but I see your point and agree with it there. I wish there was more secret than the eye meets.
| Quote: | Related to the above two points is compactness: the map shouldn't sprawl, it should take no more than a second or two to go from one thing to another, not seconds of walking. Most game maps can safely be made half their size and still contain everything they contain, and the map would be better for the greater density. It shouldn't be so dense that the screen gets confusing, but it should be dense enough that there's always something within a few steps of you to do besides walk. The less empty space, the better (note: vast caverns or deserts that make you feel lonely are exempt, but few games use this well, and when they do occur the entire game shouldn't be like that, just one subsection of the map, as the deserts in Zelda 1).
|
Once again I agree with you. Aside from random battles, too much room has no real purpose except showing up graphical landscape perhaps, which truly doesn't add much to gameplay. Narrow exploration doesn't mean no exploration, it just simplifies distances (aka my MYST example).
Most of the other stuff I had covered accidentally before reading your post. Sorry for redundance all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msw188
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think its fair to say (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) that by "exploration" we mean "seeking for some known or unknown reward without knowing precisely where to look". So far we've mostly considered this in very physical ways, thus the emphasis on map design.
I read your Humble Tengu Report, and I'm not sure I agree with it. It sounds a lot more in agreement with Moogle1's sentiments, but you really don't convince me. It doesn't sound like any less of a self case-study than our discussions here. Why is compactness a goal? How is this overrided by a few select places emphasizing 'loneliness'? Why not override it entirely for a feeling of 'wildness', or 'grandness'?
You seem to assume that, while some people may like Legend of Zelda better and some Legacy of the Wizard better, ALL people dislike high obstacle:"interesting things" ratios. I have no idea why this would be the case, and I know that I have often spoken against it in games like Final Fantasy (except the first one). Part of what makes Dragon Warrior games so enjoyable to me is the vastness of the world and the large amount of ground you need to cover to reach your destination and/or explore. Little bonus "interesting things" along the way are, to me, just bonuses, and are not always needed or desired.
While I agree that it can be very helpful to think of your maps in a graph theoretical kind of way, the physical landscape matters too. In RPGs, a large part of the obstacle presented by enemies is cumulative - they wear you down over time, forcing you to use your supplies wisely (MP, in most cases). This is based on the physical length of your landscape as much as anything else; longer paths mean more battles. You could squeeze just as many battles in a smaller area, but why is this a good idea? It sacrifices the feeling of a large, unknown area to achieve the same effect.
I understand that not all people feel the same way as I do; I know of people who hate having to walk far to get to the "interesting thing". But I don't yet see any of these issues as having "basic principles" that somehow should apply to all of your Miyamoto Framework games.
All of that said, I do agree with your ideas about map accessibility and progressive ease of travel. I'm not ready to proclaim them as "basic principles", but I agree that I also enjoy games that employ many of the ideas you bring up in regards to these things. But none of that has anything to do with map density.
_________________
My first completed OHR game, Tales of the New World:
http://castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=161
This website link is for my funk/rock band, Euphonic Brew:
www.euphonicbrew.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msw188
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, JARS's replies showed up while I was typing my reply, so I'll address them here.
First of all, I was thinking more along RPG lines. But it doesn't have to be that way for the discussion. I haven't played much Myst, because I didn't like it. I like solving riddles, but not enough for them to be the focus of a game (I don't like 1 player puzzle games either). When I play a 1 player video game, I want to feel transported to another world. Myst, to me, fails at this because (and this is pretty much exactly what you're saying, I'm just rephrasing it), despite an incredibly high density of "interesting things" and attention to detail, there is not much exploration in the large, physical sense. Hence your comment "these are more like hints to puzzles than hints to actual direction".
All of which convinces me more that, regarding map design, I prefer grand scope to detail and density.
I like some of your other 'directional hints' ideas though, and I'm still interested in trying to think of others. Also, in regards to your thoughts on 7, well, look at question 8.
_________________
My first completed OHR game, Tales of the New World:
http://castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=161
This website link is for my funk/rock band, Euphonic Brew:
www.euphonicbrew.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinku
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 690
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't want to reply point by point because I don't care about the topic enough to do so (I think the feeling of exploration is a minor part of game design, since it's a psychological response and varies quite a bit between people, as opposed to map design, which is more clear-cut), so I'll restrict myself to a few of the more interesting points.
By basic principles of design I didn't of course mean universal rules; basic principles, when it comes to the fields of art, refer to things which the vast majority of people appreciate, as opposed to only a fraction. It's a fuzzy line, but think of it this way: it's a basic principle of music that it has a rhythm and a melody. I'm sure you can find people who hate rhythm, or hate melody, or both, but it's still called a basic principle because most people like music when it has a rhythm and a melody. Basic principles are derived empirically, based on a large number of observations.
I used basic principle in that sense, things most people prefer. It's not a single case study because I've observed hundreds of people play games over the years, usually directly, and virtually all of them don't like walking long empty distances with nothing in that distance in a game. I'm not talking about distances with enemies in it, those are fine, I'm talking about distances with *nothing* in them, just empty space. You're the first person I know to say you like that.
I've never played the Elder Scrolls series unfortunately.
I also agree that exploration doesn't necessarily have to be of optional areas. However optional areas are usually more "secret" so the sense of discovery is stronger for them. But really, *everything* in a game is optional; the player could stop playing the game at any point, so you want to encourage the player's feeling of exploration in the main thrust of the game too. Final Fantasy X was very linear, but the first time I played the game I felt as if I were exploring a world, even though there was constantly a big arrow on the map HUD in the corner pointing where I needed to go next.
_________________
Tower Defense Game |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.A.R.S.
In umbram deo, ex nihilo...
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: Under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I think its fair to say (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) that by "exploration" we mean "seeking for some known or unknown reward without knowing precisely where to look". So far we've mostly considered this in very physical ways, thus the emphasis on map design.
|
I think a broader interpretation of exploration also includes "no rewards". If there is a reward to every exploration, the player will explore until that reward is fun. If he isn't sure there IS a reward, finding that one rare reward might be perceived diferently, and hopefully, with more relief/amazement.
| Quote: | Why is compactness a goal? How is this overrided by a few select places emphasizing 'loneliness'? Why not override it entirely for a feeling of 'wildness', or 'grandness'?
|
While larger environments might benefit the "wild"/"exploratory" theme, they significantly can affect gameplay. Walking for long distances with nothing to do except walk is sometimes poor gameplay. The eyes want to decipher the landscape for clues and the brain wants to have data to process. Presumably, quantity over quality might end up in shutting the brain process to minimal level in that metaphore, and that's not what you want, because such exploration is starting to dig into the fun of the player, and in a way, it might be one of the limitations you were looking for: if exploration kills the fun, you're gone too far. Maybe that's the idea behind rinku's basic principle there.
| Quote: | | First of all, I was thinking more along RPG lines. But it doesn't have to be that way for the discussion. I haven't played much Myst, because I didn't like it. |
I do agree with you, one of Myst's main flaw is its perpetual focus on puzzles and the complete no-use of objects, or abscence of combat, which, in my opinion, is an interesting aspect of classic rpgs. But myst with battles wouldn't work out. A better take on Myst's series might be System Shock II as I briefly mentionned it. Basically a 3d fps rpg with some of myst's elements, but the forthcoming bioshock promises for more. I guess I'll wait until summer to best narrow down the question of entertwining genres, so until now, rpgs are the best take on it. And precisely, Myst lacks the exploration: it is a confined environment.
Once again however, let me point out that System Shock II has a free movement system (its not pre-rendered scenes) and it allows you to look at places. Most of the stuff isn't hidden away from the eyes of the player, but several directions are optional, some of which end up in chemistry labs where you can get the necessary components to study on the remains of dead beings that you fail to understand. In SSII, exploration is at the core of refilling your very limited supplies, and so, the game relies a lot upon exploration for the 4 or 5 reasons that rinku stated in his journal. There are some for the story, and some that you need. Broadly speaking, there is the optionnal and necessary and the somewhat necessary.
I think exploration should be seen this way. There is the stricly optional which is usually flavorful to the game's story, then you have the necessary (keys, etc) that you need to progress, as rinku stated, and the last one is supplies, or semi-necessary. The thing is, you NEED supplies, but you don't need all of them necessarily. Based on your style of play, also, you may not need all types of supplies either.
One of the reason I allow myself to take from SSII here is that SSII is rather limited in size (a spaceship) but that the exploration within that ship is rather interesting. It is not a "high density of interesting things" such as myst, as you expressed concern of, but is more along the lines of a grand scope of detail and density. Everyone knows where the medic bay is, but it is really up to you to go there and search every cabinet, because all you need on this level, is a way up the elevator, and the medic bay will just provide you with the tools to survive on deck one: it won't give you a key.
This is why attrition comes in handy in exploration, because in SSII, the more monsters that get in your path, the more you are tempted to explore to get supplies before pursuing. It is understood that, lost in the middle of nowhere, with few health and clips, you might wanna drop by on the ammunition depot, security beacon or medical wing if you come accross it, even if you have no other reason to do so. Rewards, as material, as somewhat overused perhaps, but nonetheless necessary.
Also, now that you're in that one wing you're not supposed to be normally, you might stumble accross these datacubes which recorded messages. Most of them will just be fun because they tell you bits and pieces of what happened, some might even warn you of about dangers ahead such as boobytrapped elevators or infestation in certain rooms, and yet, some more will give you sidequests which, from exploration, will send you out on more exploration: this is the concept of sidestories where so many sidequests pop up that it truly affects the gameplay experience.
This leaves question 8 completely unanswered and that is because I am lacking the creative ability to give you more examples right now. Aside from story elements, rare are the non-material rewards aside perhaps from experience (which, literally isn't material, but is material to your future victory). SSII provides you with augment stations and odd dna currencies which end up modifying the gameplay experience too, which was one of its asset over all fps at the time, but I can't say they revolutionise exploration in regard to questin 8. Nor did Deus Ex, one of my personnal favorite games from design perspective that borrows a lot from SSII but adds npc interactivity and is more mission driven.
In Deus Ex, exploration is more rewarding in that it offers you pieces of equipment that are optional an condition a different style of play, but also in that it offers you various ways to pass each mission. Basically, in deus ex, you are given vague objectives most of the time, and it is up to you to explore and see how you'll make it. The first level is a particularly interesting one as far as exploration is concerned:
You have to enter NYC staten island's statue. Of course, there is the front door guarded with bots and explosives and soldiers. You "could" just take a GEP gun and deflorate your way out of it, but... If you took your chance around the main building, you could make a silent approach from behind where there are at least two other ways to enter the building, one of which is my favorite: the rooftops. But then, your brother, at the begginning gave you a choice of weaponry between a silent crossbow, a gep fun or a sniper... What's best to go on a rooftop? Silent or farsight? Once again, it depends on the way you will enter from the rooftops that are heavly boobytrapped and patrolled.
Basically, the more you explore, the more experience you get (gives you more skills) and imperatively, the more money you can find, as well as weaponry, but most importantly, exploration is necessary to even find a way to win, and there are several ways to win. That, is:
| Quote: | | "seeking for some known or unknown reward without knowing precisely where to look" |
where some of the reward lays in victory itself. Based on your definition, I believe Deus Ex to be one of the best exploration games, and yet, the environment is somewhat confined compared to exploration games such as T.E.S.IV Oblivion...
Being so big, the T.E.S. series always gave me the impression of exploration games where there isn't a very strong main plot and that you are given pretty much every quest through exploration. For some reason, I believe Oblivion doesn't have the edge over deus ex precisely because everything resolves around exploration here, so I'm not sure what your opinion is on this series, but I think they went beyond the limitations you are inquiring about... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Man
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 742
Location: S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude 123°43'
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Less lengthy, and I confess I haven't read hardly any of what you said, but I've had a little peeve with some games. My most recent example I can think of is Twilight Princess. You see, at the beginning of the game, there are a few hidden features, like a rupee or two in hard to reach places, presumably using items you don't have. I go back after I beat the game and find they didn't, and no new surprises either with my items.
_________________
"Everyone has 200,000 bad drawings in them, the sooner you get them out the better."
~Charles Martin Jones
Last edited by Joe Man on Fri Dec 13, 1957 1:21 am; edited 2,892 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msw188
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To Rinku:
I'm sorry, I sort of misunderstood you I suppose. When you likened your map to a graph and spoke of "interesting things" as the points, I did not think that obstacles (enemies) counted as "interesting things". In any case, I did not mean that I like strictly empty spaces, I enjoy having large distances that feel dangerous because of enemies. If you are simply claiming that large stretches of strictly empty space is bad map design, well then I believe that I can agree with that as a basic principle.
To me, the topic is interesting because I've heard many people say that they enjoy 'old' style RPGs over 'new' ones, and this is one area that I believe 'new' RPGs definitely stress less than older ones. When I ask people why they like older RPGs better, challenge is often brought up, but people also talk about the 'feel' of those old RPGs. I can't help but feel that exploration of large areas might be a part of this, if only because I am sure it is a part of it for me.
_________________
My first completed OHR game, Tales of the New World:
http://castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=161
This website link is for my funk/rock band, Euphonic Brew:
www.euphonicbrew.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinku
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 690
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, enemies are part of the obstacles on the path, not the things the paths connect. But what I meant in the paragraph that I spoke about empty space was not that paths should not be too long or contain too many obstacles, but rather a warning against the layout of paths being composed solely or mostly of empty waking time (which is a common mistake in newbie Ohrrpgce games). In some RPGs, empty space often equates to more enemies, because of random enemy encounters, but if you think about empty space in towns you'll see more of what I mean; it's not fun to have to walk for 3 minutes to get from the entrance of the town to the stores in the town. That's a common complaint against Wingedmene's first town, but in Diablo's town it's even more prominent.
_________________
Tower Defense Game |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msw188
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 1041
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but if you think about empty space in towns you'll see more of what I mean; it's not fun to have to walk for 3 minutes to get from the entrance of the town to the stores in the town. That's a common complaint against Wingedmene's first town, but in Diablo's town it's even more prominent. |
Hmm, I'm pretty sure I was one of the people who brought that up about Wingedmene's first town. Yeah, I definitely misinterpreted you on the first read.
To JARS:
I'm not sure what "the player will explore until that reward is fun" is supposed to mean (should "fun" be "found", perhaps?), but I believe that I was thinking along your no reward lines when I put in unknown rewards. It was a poor way of stating the concept, but I absolutely agree that the player should not always know whether or not there is a reward in every area. I've never played any of those other games you were talking about, so I can't say much about them.
To Joe Man:
I'm afraid I have no clue what your post is getting at. Are you saying that you expected there to be little extra things to get in early areas, and there were none?
_________________
My first completed OHR game, Tales of the New World:
http://castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=161
This website link is for my funk/rock band, Euphonic Brew:
www.euphonicbrew.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.A.R.S.
In umbram deo, ex nihilo...
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: Under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
probably a typo indeed *feels lazy to reread his colossal post in retrospective* omg...
As far as System Shock II and Deus Ex are concerned, I can only encourage you to play them if exploration is a theme you want to study further, or, for that matter, any other theme because, well, both had several best games of the year awards and are considered by many sites best rpgs of the year, and highly ranked in best games of all times (System Shock rates a first and fourth places for example according to two rankings. I personally would place it perhaps more in the top 10, but that's very arbitrary).
Eitherway, I believe that, more than the myst series, these games play on this theme. Strangely enough, they're both 3d, and somewhat connect only remotely to this discussion, but I believe that, the way I spoke about them, these concepts could easily be used in 2d as well... (maybe I'm wrong here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.A.R.S.
In umbram deo, ex nihilo...
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: Under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just something I've stumbled across while reading on bioshock this morning, this may not bring significant data to the conversation, but I think it is fun to see that there are actual commercial developpers considering the design element of exploration.
Ken Levine from Irrationnal games said, concerning bioshock (in defense of the genre of FPS that he claims bioshock to be a part of)
| Quote: | | There are two components to that, one is to create those tools, and the other is to make the world listen to those tools and behave consistently and interestingly with those tools. |
http://pc.ign.com/articles/733/733157p1.html
In this article, there are also indicators of the relationship with Deus Ex and SSII but sadly, not on the exploration topic (which is why I didn't quote them).
Mr. Levine doesn't teach us much that wasn't already mentionned in this thread, but I believe he gives a very narrow materialistic vision of exploration (a matter of tools and a world reacting to tools). It seems to narrow down exploration to objects as rewards and tangible exploration (physical). I am assuming that this is what "exploration" is all about to the commercial industry of first person shooters and hybrids, this of course, does not deny msw's point of a possible non-tangible exploration/reward system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinku
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 690
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Um, I'm a commercial (independent) developer considering the role of exploration too (Immortal Defense will be shareware), so you shouldn't find it that surprising. Of course, you perhaps meant large large corporations as opposed to small companies.
I'd say my theory of map design was also mechanistic; or at least it kept the non-material aesthetic things as like the coloring of the car.
_________________
Tower Defense Game |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
