Paradoxes in game design

Started by Legend, Sep 09, 2018, 01:02 AM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Legend

1. The reward for playing good is decreased difficulty.

2. The optimal strategy is to never use consumable items.


What are your thoughts? Can you think of any?


Dr. Pezus

Why is nr 2 optimal??

Xevross

Why is nr 2 optimal??
idk but I never use consumables because I'm always saving them for something super hard down the line. Of course in most games it never comes and you're left with loads of unused items at the end.

Dr. Pezus

idk but I never use consumables because I'm always saving them for something super hard down the line. Of course in most games it never comes and you're left with loads of unused items at the end.
I do the same but that doesn't mean it's optimal lol

Legend

I do the same but that doesn't mean it's optimal lol
It's optimal from the point of view of trying to be the best player at every moment. Ending a fight without using items is better than ending one with using items.

darkknightkryta

Yeah, that's how it's like when I play RPGs. I always use magic instead. Though with that said; I had to use an Elixir against Sephiroth in Kingdom Hearts.

the-pi-guy

1.  Make a game that changes difficulty based on player skill.  Good players would be rewarded by the game getting even harder.  

2.  Make a game that rewards player for using as many consumable items as possible.  Perhaps replenishing their entire stock and getting a few bonus items after ever battle.  

Legend

1.  Make a game that changes difficulty based on player skill.  Good players would be rewarded by the game getting even harder.  

2.  Make a game that rewards player for using as many consumable items as possible.  Perhaps replenishing their entire stock and getting a few bonus items after ever battle.  
1. That's not a reward, that's a punishment. Physcologically players would need a narrative built around that or other rewards to make it work.

2. Then at that point, they aren't consumables. They're more like spells with a recharge time.

the-pi-guy

1. That's not a reward, that's a punishment. Physcologically players would need a narrative built around that or other rewards to make it work.

2. Then at that point, they aren't consumables. They're more like spells with a recharge time.
1.) The reward is beating the challenges.  It's how a lot of games work.  It's not like a puzzle game rewards the player by getting progressively easier.

2.) Different perspectives!  

Legend

1.) The reward is beating the challenges.  It's how a lot of games work.  It's not like a puzzle game rewards the player by getting progressively easier.

2.) Different perspectives!  
1. Then it's not an rpg. That's just a standard difficulty curve as you get deeper into a game.

the-pi-guy

I was just trying to be silly.

Legend

I was just trying to be silly.
Games are serious business! /s

I just always feel weird as a player with stuff like this. On one hand Zelda botw is odd how the boss gets too easy, but on the other hand I really hate the L4D way of handling it.

the-pi-guy

Was reminded of this thread.  

kitler53

1. That's not a reward, that's a punishment. Physcologically players would need a narrative built around that or other rewards to make it work.

2. Then at that point, they aren't consumables. They're more like spells with a recharge time.
@1 - from my perspective being too hard is as much a punishment as being too easy.  there is a whole "science of fun" research area and it blows my mind that games have never engaged with that.  with all of the "artificial intelligence" available these days it ought to be dead easy to track a players play to determine with the game is too challenging or too easy and then make constant micro adjustments to difficulty to ensure the level of challange is appropriate to the player.

The hard part is games would need to stop using the troupe that progress is measured in "more HP" and "more dps".   


@2 - having played lots and lots and lots of games i'd say "consumables" are massively less fun then "cool down timers".   cool down timers are very inviting to a player to use them with no real punishment while still allowing balanced gameplay.   the main problem with consumables is the gameplay always is (and really ought to be) balanced for the player that does not use them.  if using consumables is "required" for the gameplay difficulty then "grinding for consumables" becomes a core gameplay mechanic.  i was willing to do that grind for world of warcraft but no other game has addictive enough gameplay for me to not drop the game.


3. my personal most hated paradox is how doing side quest in an RPG make the game unplayably bad.   I did this to myself in horizon zero dawn right now.  the game was so fun that i just wanted to do every side quest available to me (including the collection activities).  but in doing those side quests i got soo much xp that i hit level 40 before hitting the halfway point of the main quest line. now as i do the main quest line the things are soo fudgy easy it is pretty much unplayable. 


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

Legend

@1 - from my perspective being too hard is as much a punishment as being too easy.  there is a whole "science of fun" research area and it blows my mind that games have never engaged with that.  with all of the "artificial intelligence" available these days it ought to be dead easy to track a players play to determine with the game is too challenging or too easy and then make constant micro adjustments to difficulty to ensure the level of challange is appropriate to the player.

The hard part is games would need to stop using the troupe that progress is measured in "more HP" and "more dps".  


@2 - having played lots and lots and lots of games i'd say "consumables" are massively less fun then "cool down timers".   cool down timers are very inviting to a player to use them with no real punishment while still allowing balanced gameplay.   the main problem with consumables is the gameplay always is (and really ought to be) balanced for the player that does not use them.  if using consumables is "required" for the gameplay difficulty then "grinding for consumables" becomes a core gameplay mechanic.  i was willing to do that grind for world of warcraft but no other game has addictive enough gameplay for me to not drop the game.


3. my personal most hated paradox is how doing side quest in an RPG make the game unplayably bad.   I did this to myself in horizon zero dawn right now.  the game was so fun that i just wanted to do every side quest available to me (including the collection activities).  but in doing those side quests i got soo much xp that i hit level 40 before hitting the halfway point of the main quest line. now as i do the main quest line the things are soo fudgy easy it is pretty much unplayable.  
@1 A few games do attempt that. Most famous being Left 4 Dead.



With modern gaas it really should be all but standard. It'd be really yucky but it could be optimized off of microtransaction spending. Find the perfect amount of difficulty to push people towards buying stuff on a regular basis.

@2 I just finished Control and I loved its lack of consumables. Even guns use cooldowns instead of ammo and it just makes gameplay a lot more freeform. Every attack can be used regularly and you never "save" them for later encounters or harder enemies.

It has a lot of grindy content yet none if it is consumable focused.

@3 It wouldn't work for every game, but you could maybe have some excuse like "the bad guys are reinforcing their army more and more every day" and just scale up main quests for every completed side quest.