Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

What is the Source of “Fun” in Game Mechanics?

Discussion in 'Game Design' started by S_Darkwell, Jan 18, 2016.

  1. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Another expression I've heard for "making-the-player-feel-awesome-games" is "power fantasy". I might have said it before, but you two really should check out Dishonored.
    https://www.humblebundle.com/store/p/dishonored_storefront

    According to the wiki it even has a power called "wind blast" to smash doors! =)
     
    S_Darkwell likes this.
  2. tedthebug

    tedthebug

    Joined:
    May 6, 2015
    Posts:
    2,570
    @S_Darkwell
    Your comparison between Open for business & Going to Work is interesting. Do you think that whilst both rewarded you for 'working' one tapped into the extra reward of making something you own (your business) prosper compared to the other where no matter how hard you work at your job someone else (the company owner in the game) is the main beneficiary of your work?

    They both happened in a game but because one was 'yours' that was the one that gave more enjoyment as you reached each goal.
     
    S_Darkwell and Martin_H like this.
  3. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    Meh. They lost me at "supernatural assassin driven by revenge." I'm more of a White Hat kind of player, and I do get tired of game after game based on mass murder (though I have played such, on occasion). BUT, just in terms of game mechanics, that does look like an interesting one.
     
  4. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Well I play GTA5 still, but I've never actually enjoyed nor do I see any of the violent activities you can do. For me it's purely for the racing.

    With dishonored you don't have to be violent. There's other play opportunities like stealth gameplay.
     
    Master-Frog likes this.
  5. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    You can either play "high chaos" with lots of killing, or "low chaos" with stealth and cunning. I went for non-lethal takedowns on civilians and stealth killing the guards. How you play affects gameplay and narrative. The writing is excellent, the lore of the world is crafted with a lot of attention to detail and you don't have to kill anyone.

    source: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/i...honored-without-shedding-drop-blood-1c6327490

    That was part of why I recommended it to you :).

    Also I think "driven by revenge" really doesn't do the story justice. It's more about...
    ... getting falsly accused of murdering the empress, trying to rescue the kidnapped daughter of the empress, joining a resistance group to fight the regime that rose to power through its murderous conspiracy and some aspects that I don't want to spoil.
    It's only about revenge if that is your personal driving motive and you make it about revenge.
     
    S_Darkwell likes this.
  6. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    OK, now that does sound interesting. They should rework their marketing copy so they're not driving players away with the first sentence.

    But since the great many choices they give you doesn't seem to include which operating system to run it on, I can't play it anyway. :)
     
    S_Darkwell and Martin_H like this.
  7. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    That's a pity! Well, in case you venture into console gaming you know what to look for ^^. As far as I know its available for all the big mainstream consoles except WiiU.

    You're right about the marketing. It's weird that they don't mention choice, when that's basically their USP 0_o.
     
    S_Darkwell and JoeStrout like this.
  8. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    I just read your post and the thread that followed. It was a bit difficult to digest, but I take your meaning.

    I both agree and disagree here. I absolutely agree that there is a trend to corral Players into specific play styles, which may needless drive away some Players. However, what I believe @Asvarduil was referring to understanding the general premise of a character's interaction with the world. We can seek to offer freedom and avoid assumptions, but pushed far enough, we will cease to be make meaningful design decisions at all.

    Short of attempting to re-create a universe, we are limiting the Player's actions. If your vision for your game is a medieval action game, you might give the Player a sword. A sword is a limitation, if only because it's not a shovel.

    If you truly lack any intention for the player, what's the point of making a game? Even a toy requires some level of expectation for the Player. If a toy has a handle, you've expressed an expectation that it might be held.

    Again, thank you!
    - S.
     
  9. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Yes, indeed!
    - S.
     
  10. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Yes. I think it was my misinterpretation, not your misrepresentation.

    This statement makes me feel as though I am in good company. :D

    Absolutely. I'd be interested in whether or not there is a reasonable way of maintaining this interest without changing the mechanics themselves. I've seen stories smooth over the mid-game, but I've love to see a more intrinsic solution.

    Good idea. I will definitely try this approach. Thank you!

    Essentially what Spore tried to do, except on an even broader scale (from simple multi-cellular life to intergalactic travel). Like you stated, however, it's very hard to do well. Spore didn't succeed.

    Thank you so much again!
    - S.
     
  11. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Contrary to popular opinion, Dishonored was a huge disappointment for me. I appreciated many aspects of it: the theme, the visual and audio style, the controls, and the multiple paths to any outcome. What ruined the game for me was that the stealth aspect of the game was terribly designed. Once I realized that the stealth was essentially a charade, I felt rather betrayed.

    • Nearly all of your cool abilities and weaponry required a lapse in stealth to appreciate
    • The AI was so poor that I could essentially just run through levels and still not be seen
    • It makes it extremely difficult to finish the game without any kills, not because it requires true Player skill, but because the game really doesn't expect you to.

    It's fine if a game is meant to be run-and-gun, but Dishonored presents itself as stealth-based, when it's not. I much prefer Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

    Apologies if I sound a bit hard on Dishonored.

    Through all of my disappointment, I can still see why others enjoy it. Alas, I don't appear able to. Alas!

    Be well!
    - S.
     
    Martin_H and AndrewGrayGames like this.
  12. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    I'd like to propose this as a 'Chinese Proverb' of game development, actually, and provide another way to say the same thing: form follows function.

    Mechanics are there to service some action. Leveling up means repeating some other action; QTEs involve doing something in a timely manner. A game with a levelup system instantly tells you that you're going to be practicing doing something; a game that involves QTEs instantly informs you that you'll need to do something really quickly.

    That's where mechanics are most useful - they're patterns of action in a work. In someways, I see mechanics as analogous to genres, really - mechanics are smaller-order conventions of actual play, while genres are higher-order conventions of an entire work. It should be no surprise that certain genres practically require certain mechanics to be classified as they are (for instance, RPGs don't require levelup systems, but most people can agree on something bearing resemblance with RPGs if they see a levelup system.)

    To put it another way, here's something I'm struggling with in my current work, Phoenix the Chicken. The game is about a chicken that humans eat, who evolves into a phoenix that revives other chickens for a time, before he burns out into a pile of ash, and awaits revival as a chicken (again, I swear I'm not making that up.)

    I made a MVP that appears to be well-received, but expanding the MVP has proven challenging because of the sheer number of possibilities. Pickups are a possibility in numerous ways - in Chicken form, if you gather enough pickups you evolve into a Phoenix, which further makes you have to risk losing by being eaten by a human. This usage forces a conflict - if I stay safe, I never get to revive chickens and scare off humans. Conversely, I could keep the 'evolution' timer, with pickups that allow Phoenix form to last longer. In this case, Pickups serve to create a conflict - I'll still reach Phoenix form, but do I play it safe and let myself evolve into a short-lived Phoenix, or do I play more risky and get more chances to scare humans and revive chickens?

    Now, I developed PtC without caring about genres or...well, anything really (it was mostly to troll @Gigiwoo because he insisted I create something silly and/or dumb. Thank you for permission!) But the fact is, the basics of the game involves A) gauges filling/depleting and B) positioning. Pickups are reasonable, because positioning already matters - if a farmer touches the Chicken, the chicken dies, but if a farmer gets too close to a phoenix (a bird that's on fire) they (wisely) get scared and run off. Levelups really aren't - you don't get to stay in a single form long enough to 'practice' anything. Now, levelups are often expressed by gauges, which seems to fit...except that gauges in this work exclusively disclose time to a transformation. Levelups are 'qualitative'* improvements...not transformations. It's a subtle difference, but enough of a difference to not be a good fit.

    TL;DR - See quote from @S_Darkwell; mechanics are just ways to express how the game can be interacted with; some interaction patterns may fit your idea really well, while others may not be the wisest course of action due to conflicting with other patterns of use in your work.

    *: They're actually quantitative, but in lieu of qualitativeness...holy crap, this thought just crashed my brain. Rebooting...
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
    Kiwasi and S_Darkwell like this.
  13. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Actually, no. Although the titles would imply different gameplay, both allow you to run your own business. The main difference, in my mind, is that because of all the additional complexity in The Sims 4, it was actually much harder to just spend time selling your product or service. The social interactions and staff management cumbersome.

    However, if the difference between the two games was owning your own business versus working for someone else, I'm certain I would prefer the former. Most of my The Sims games could be summarized as "Earn mad money, become leet in many skills."

    Character customization in many games is an attempt to foster a sense of connection (essentially ownership) of the character. I wonder if introducing a character editor similar to that in Skyrim or The Sims for a player's weapon and armor, and introducing systems that reward keeping them for the duration of the game would lead to more fulfilling gameplay.

    Thank you for the post, and the inspirational discussion!
    - S.
     
    AndrewGrayGames likes this.
  14. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    I'm not certain whether or not this was intended to be a personal compliment or a statement of pre-existing through, but I'll take it as the former unless corrected. :p

    Yes.

    I played it. :)

    Pacman?

    That's awesome. In a real way, @Gigiwoo lead you to design what you never would have otherwise.

    I think this could work! Additionally, a percentage of this could initially be retained after return to Chicken form, slowly fading away, thus benefiting Players who take the risk to return to Phoenix form again more quickly. Just a thought!

    Thank you!
    - S.
     
    AndrewGrayGames likes this.
  15. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    Yes.

    And, yes, Pac-Man. I think Pac-Man is probably the survival game; it is a pure expression of 'the hunted becomes the hunter,' which is at once empowering and utterly terrifying. Shifting between roles is what keeps the experience fresh, but most importantly, everyone and everything plays by the same rules - mechanics work the same way for enemies as players. I think that's why it's a timeless design.
     
  16. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Ah, damnit. Haha.

    Excellent link, though! I was not previously aware of the proper title for such responses.

    Agreed!

    It makes one wonder where other archetypal designs are hiding. It seems unfathomable that we have already discovered all of digital games' fundamental designs in such a short time, yet it also seems odd that we have not discovered more by now. It's like the Fermi's Paradox of games (though, note the pixel art on the page; it could be a sign). Perhaps the discovery of new game archetypes is more akin to pentagonal tiling, for which discovery occur only a few times every few decades (most recently last August!).

    Be well!
    - S.
     
    AndrewGrayGames likes this.
  17. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    That's totally fine! Our tastes just seem to differ, because we disagree on several games :). From those:
    I only really liked Baldurs Gate II but I never played it through to the end. Alan Wake was too casual for me. Limbo had a cool start, but the rest of the game couldn't hold the same intensity and the end felt like they ran out of time and just wrapped it up in the middle of what they had planned out. Don't Starve is too frustrating and obscure for me (I like the "wikigame" description that Totalbiscuit used). Bioshock felt like a rather lackluster System Shock 2 clone that wandered too far into the land of mediocre first person shooters.

    Interestingly though, I also really liked Deus Ex: Human Revolution. So what causes our seemingly different preferences to overlap here? I played through it on a console and I felt heavily urged toward a stealth playstyle with lots of hacking. The XP system rewarded you a whole lot more for certain tactics and in a way I found that quite judgemental. Also I found the difficulty to be balls hard, if you mess up the stealth, and try yourself at a full on shootout. I remember that I went back and sat through the several minute long on rails intro a second time because I wanted to lower the difficulty, after I got totally wrecked in my first enemy encounter. Of course there is the factor of the console controls, but I never felt those to be an issue in Call of Duty for example.

    In terms of number of memorable moments and depth of the story I'd probably say Deus Ex:HR was better than Dishonored. It is a great game despite all its flaws.

    But in terms of replayability and my enjoyment of the core mechanics for stealth, movement and combat, I clearly prefer Dishonored. I gave up on my second playthrough of Deus Ex but I think I finished Dishonored a second time and played the two story DLCs. I'll admit I gave up on a non-lethal playthrough of either the main game or one of the DLCs though. Not because it was too hard, but because I wasn't having as much fun.

    I don't really understand the "presents itself as stealth-based, when it's not" criticism though. Does it really present itself that way? There are plenty of weapons, skills and gadgets that don't say "stealth" to me, like the pistol for example. I just saw all that as choice and freedom and was happy to ignore large portions of the mechanics if they don't enhance my fun with the game. Corpses disappearing automatically after a stealth kill? Hiding the bodies in time is half the fun of a stealth assassination mechanic imho, so I just didn't take that skill, and played how I had more fun with the game. I might have even tried a run using no powers except teleporting and jumping higher.
    I'd agree that the game overall is way too easy though.

    Having talked so much about it, now I kinda wanna play it again :D.
     
    S_Darkwell likes this.
  18. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Yeah... it's in need of a rewrite, but I'm not too willing to spent time writing at least forty thousand words.

    There doesn't necessarily have to be expectations for something to be played with. A kid can play with a stick which ostensibly becomes a toy, but what you might expect a kid to do with it and what he will actually do are liable to go in vastly different directions.

    This is what emergent gameplay is all about. You end up creating systems that are so dynamic that whatever intention you had is dwarfed by what is actually possible. And speaking of dwarfs, the poster child for this is Dwarf Fortress. It's more the domain of "virtual worlds" rather than "games."

    Dishonored has the problem of trying to convey a message that power corrupts through mechanics, which either meant you played with all the goodies and relished in wanton destruction or you blinked your way across a level while still putting the major targets into fairly disturbing scenarios. There was a lot to Dishonored that was just half baked.
     
    Master-Frog, Martin_H and JoeStrout like this.
  19. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    That's an interesting point. Reminds me of my favorite traditional card game, Spades, in which you routinely switch from trying to take tricks to trying not to take tricks. This is partly because of the bidding mechanic: you bet ahead of time that you will get N tricks, with a large penalty for getting less than that, and a small (but eventually-adds-up) penalty for going over. But then at other times, you can choose a "nil" play, in which you are heavily penalized for taking any tricks at all, but heavily rewarded if you succeed in taking none.

    This frequent (and sometimes extreme) switch between modes keeps the game very fresh. And I never until now saw the connection to Pac-Man's vitamins.

    I wonder what other games could benefit from this? Could some crazy Galaga clone have an occasional mode where your weapon is locked in auto-fire, while you desperately try not to hit anything? How about a Breakout game where your paddle grows to twice its usual size, and you need to avoid hitting any of the balls that come raining down? Where else could you completely reverse the usual goals on the player, forcing them to apply the same mechanics in a completely different way?
     
    AndrewGrayGames and Martin_H like this.
  20. tedthebug

    tedthebug

    Joined:
    May 6, 2015
    Posts:
    2,570
    Tiger heli or any similar game where you are shooting the enemy on the ground could benefit from that if you had civilians that caused some penalty if you kill them.

    Or things like fps' have pretty quick healing. What if the heal rate was lowered by each civilian you killed & you could never regain that loss at any stage throughout the game? You'd have to start playing carefully if you wanted to make it to the end game with a decent heal speed. Or perhaps ammo crates give you progressively less ammo for each civilian you kill, changing the game slowly from a run & gun towards a stealth/sniping game if you are a wayward shot at the beginning of the game.
     
    JoeStrout likes this.
  21. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    I think you just laid the groundwork for "Don't Offend Anyone Simulator 2016", the next great indie hit after "Shower With Your Dad Simulator". I really think this has potential.
     
  22. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    I appreciate your perspective, but we definitely have different perspectives. ;)

    Except! I do agree with Don't Starve being a "wikigame", except that I enjoy that aspect of it. I see "wikigames" similar to Ergodic Literature (House of Leaves being my favorite example).

    I actually enjoy a very wide range of games, so I'd be surprised if we didn't share quite a few (I also love System Shock 2). I'm highly critical, but find enjoyment in many genres. I definitely have a special place in my heart for the chilling and the thrilling, though.

    I'm primarily a PC gamer myself. I have a PS3, but it has been seldom used. I do have a handful of gamepads to use when more appropriate than a keyboard and mouse, though. As for gamepad FPS controls, I was never able to adapt. I was gifted a Steam Controller as a Christmas gift, though, and it was glorious. It took a few hours to get used to, but now I can FPS on a controller almost as well as I could from a >20 years with a mouse and keyboard.

    Perhaps this was a failure of my own interpretation.

    Your character in Dishonored is presented as an assassin, the game began by sneaking out of a prison, and much of the game feedback seems to revolve around whether or not you've been noticed. I interpreted this as a stealth game, but perhaps I should have considered this deduction more deeply. It's certainly possible that Dishonored is meant to be a middle-of-the-road approach, and I completely missed the point. It simply disappointed me that stealth seemed a valid approach, but it turned out not to be.

    Another small detail that I forgot to mention about my Dishonored experience is that after only a few levels, I ceased to be excited by Runes. I would collect them, but I couldn't find any upgrades that I actually wanted.

    I trust that Dishonored was a great game. I know many, many people who love it. Whether it was a failing on my end, on Dishonored's, or sheer incompatibility, I simply couldn't enjoy it (and I really wanted to).

    This is probably part of it. I enjoy really difficult games. I'm not an incredibly skilled gamer, but I seem to have a masochistic streak.

    Go! Play! Enjoy! :D
    - S.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  23. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Fair.

    It may be that what I'm try to express isn't coming across.

    We may live life with a particular ideal in mind. For example, "Don't judge people based on their appearances." We may agree with this statement, and seek to live by it -- but if we see someone ahead of us on a dark street frothing at the mouth, covered in blood, and carrying a very big stick, there is a high probability that not taking actions based on their appearances could lead us to harm.

    While I don't feel it applies to all games (heavily story-given games, for instance), I do largely appreciate the premise of giving the player greater freedom and greater agency within the gamespace. However, I feel that outside of "raw simulation" or "simplistic playbox" games, some assumptions must be made to help craft an enjoyable experience for the Player.

    Agreed. Dwarf Fortress is an incredible creation. However, it's far closer what I consider "raw simulation." You call it more of a "virtual world." With that I agree. Now, though, you're no longer describing how to make a good game. You're describing a virtual world.

    Consider this as well, a fully-simulated virtual world would necessarily contain games, and those would inherently be more restrictive. Restrictions imply assumptions (unless no consideration was given to this restrictions whatsoever). If these games too were limitless, we'd have a world, within a world, within a world, etc.

    At this point, whether we are both on the same page or not, I'm content to let this particular tangent rest where it lays.

    Thank you again for the discussion!
    - S.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2016
    Martin_H likes this.
  24. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    I had played (and now, despite about ~20 minutes of searching, could not locate) an indie game of which this statement reminded me. It was a horizontal side-scrolling aircraft shooter. The twist was that you could navigate normally, but you could only shoot by disabling your engines and falling. The game alternated between dodging enemies, and shooting frantically during the brief window of time between you beginning your plummet and immediately before hitting the ground (because if you waited to long, you would impact and destroy your ship).

    If anyone remembers the name of this game, I'd love to know!

    Really Big Sky is a game with a similar format, except occasionally you must switch into a drilling mode to drill through asteroids. If you fail, you ship is destroyed. If you succeed, you can quickly attempt to collect various bonuses within. After exiting the asteroid, you must switch back to regular mode to shoot again.

    I don't know that I know of any better way of preventing mid-game slump than such a reversal. I especially like that with care, it should still be true to the core of the game, as it utilizes the very same mechanisms.

    It strikes me that this is very similar to the push-pull method of social interaction that is frequently very engaging.

    Thank you!
    - S.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2016
    JoeStrout likes this.
  25. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    I feel like this could be extremely harsh, depending upon how long the game is.

    I prefer penalties presented as undesirable outcomes. Grand Theft Auto (even the first one). If you kill a gang member, that gang will gun for you for the rest of the game. If you commit a crime in view of the police, you'll be shot or incarcerated (if caught).

    This allows Players to enjoy the game in any way they want. If following the goals, avoiding injury of others becomes a challenge. If not, a Player may even seek to injure others, even if that puts their long-term survival in jeopardy.

    Thank you for the discussion!
    - S.
     
  26. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Hahaha. WTF?

    - S.
     
  27. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    Someone* needs to play the Kaizo Mario ROMHacks. Kaizo Mario is incredibly difficult, but notably takes mechanics (and bugs) from the Mario they're remodeling**, and use them in really really cool ways. For instance, Kaizo Mario 3. Also, Kaizo Mario World

    *: That means you.
    **: Kaizo is Japanese for 'remodel'.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2016
    S_Darkwell likes this.
  28. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Personally, I find the distinction irrelevant. They both belong to the same overarching medium, and only differ on the degree of player direction that's given (which is also a spectrum). Ignoring if your intent is to produce something largely, if not entirely, focused on narrative, most people will judge their play the same way as any piece of interactive media.

    Scoffing at virtual worlds for not being "games" completely undermines the fact that they astronomically outclass the vast majority of games on the depth of their gameplay. It's a trade off with accessibility.


    Huh, I heard it was from kaizoku (friend) because it was intended for a friend... that sick, sadistic, son of a... Not like I know japanese though.
     
  29. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    I've heard these mentioned in passing, but never had a chance to check them out. Thank you for mentioning them! I'll definitely give them a play!

    Thank you. :)
    - S.
     
  30. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Duly noted!

    Apologies if you thought I was scoffing, but as my quoted comment illustrates, I respect Dwarf Fortress. Greatly, in fact. I also have respect for other virtual worlds. I was merely making a distinction that I now understand you consider relevant. Which is fine.

    Again, apologies if my tone was unclear.

    Be well, and thank you!

    - S.
     
  31. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    Kaizoku (かいぞく) according to this dictionary means "pirate". Tomodachi (ともだち) is Japanese for 'Friend'. Kaizo (かいぞう) is remodeled.
     
    JoeStrout and S_Darkwell like this.
  32. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Just did! =) I launched the main game, clicked continue and saw the outro with the good ending. Seems like I did finish the mostly non-lethal playthrough.

    I still don't quite understand why you don't think stealth is a valid approach. I just finished the first mission on very hard again and my only lapse was that one unconscious body was found. I finished with 0 kills and got the ghost bonus for never being spotted. Of course it gets harder later on, but I think it's entirely possible to finish the game like that. If you mean something else I didn't understand what you were getting at.

    About being an assassin:
    With all the weird marketing I see how the subtlety in the narrative is easily lost if you don't actively search for it. I went out of my way to kill every guard I could find on my first playthrough too. But this time I paid attention to the narrative more closely and it really takes a while till someone calls you an assassin. Right at the start you are referred to as the empress' body guard and "Royal Lord Protector". The last words of the empress are "Corvo... it's all... coming apart. Find... Find Emily. Protect her. You're the only one. You'll know what to do. Won't you? Corvo?". Later in the story this makes even more sense. Moments before she had been introduced as the kind ruler that cares for her people and refuses to abandon them even as the plague rages in the city. So she kind of represents the good forces at work in this world.
    The note you get in the prision starts with "Corvo, Who we are is irrelevant right now. Just know that we have faith in you." Still nothing about killing.
    The first time you are called an assassin is by Piero when he hands you the mask to hide your identity. And then Havelock says that sometimes good men have to do bad things when he gives you the mission to assassinate your first target. But as you might remember he has his own motives. For him you are only a tool, that's why he had you freed from prision. He's the evil in disguise, you just don't know it yet. Even the outsider remains ominous in his first encounter when he says "... and you will play a pivotal role in the days to come.", slightly hinting that you'll have choices to make.
    And then just before you embark on the first assassination mission Callista talks to you and begs you to prevent her uncle, who is still working for the regime, from being poisoned for his unwillingness to give in to the corrupting forces that have taken control of the city. She says "Do you think you could protect him? You used to do that, right? Before you had your current profession, before you became an assassin". To her you are an assassin now, because that was the declared purpose of why you had been freed from prison and introduced to the loyalists. However what you first and foremost are is still the "Royal Lord Protector", sworn to protect the empress (well at least you tried) and her daughter (which you still can save). Your alliance to the "loyalists" is only a means to an end for you too, because you need allies and support, to go up against the regime and reach your personal goal. That's how I see it.

    As far as choice in games goes, I found this overall to be one of the better implementations, because it isn't so binary and shoved down your throat, like in many others. You don't have a slider that goes up or down to give you different special abilities depending on how many good/evil sidequests you solved and you don't have what I like to call a "game end-a-tron-2000 ending" where you push the button for the faction that you want to win. I find it much more interesting to stay focused on the narrative, stay emerged in the shades of grey of morality in this utterly bleak world, and then as final conclusion receive an ending to the narrative, that makes sense in the context of how you played (and I found both times it did). Of course internally it probably still is a number that goes up or down, but as long as that stays hidden I'm fine with that.
     
  33. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Right, I left Luffy-sempai down.
    Well, there are about a dozen different words for friend as far as I've noticed. I imagine I probably confused something.
     
    AndrewGrayGames likes this.
  34. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    Actually it's the chaos level. They just don't explain that it changes once you kill more than twenty percent of the people, and as far as I'm aware it's just the kill count. So if you want to do a low chaos run, you end up unable to use any of the fun and powerful goodies, which was kind of intended as a message about power corrupting.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  35. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    That makes sense! Could be that I played pretty far with 100% non-lethal and then lost patience towards the end and stabbed my way through the last 1 or 2 levels and still ended up with the low chaos rating. I have a friend who played non-lethal till the last mission and then killed everyone in that last one, still got the good ending too.
    I like the subtle corruption through power message, didn't really think about that while playing.
     
    Master-Frog likes this.
  36. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Forgive me. It has been a few years since I've played Dishonored, so you are right about him being called an assassin. And yes, I did play through most of the game without kills.

    I've read numerous examples where people were frustrated, having finishing the game in their own minds without kills, but being notified at the end that kills had occurred. This strikes me as poor design.

    Perhaps in summary, what I personally observed that bothered me most is that the AI is extremely weak (at least in my stealth experiences), and there is relatively few fun items and abilities that cater to the stealth player. As I haven't played in a long time, and you obviously play it more frequently, I'm comfortable accepting that I misinterpreted Dishonored's presentation and intention. Unfortunately, when I realized that the practical benefits of stealth gameplay were minimal and found myself with Runes that I didn't desire to spend, I lost interest. This may be very unfair to an excellent game, but alas, I found myself unable to enjoy myself. I really did try, too.

    Again, I don't doubt Dishonored's merits, merely observed what I considered design flaws preventing me from enjoying what many others have.

    Thank you so much for taking the detailed explanation, though! It certainly helps me realize that my dissatisfaction may have originated from a much smaller details that simply affected me in particular.

    Thank you!
    - S.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  37. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    I too completely missed this subtext, but now that you mention it, I can see it. Insightful!

    Thank you!
    - S.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  38. leegod

    leegod

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Posts:
    2,472
    What game is fun? I also read some game design book like [The art of game design] and have enormous experiences about many games from the age of Nintendo's Famicom to recent PS4, 3DS consoles, PC, Arcade games, I reached conclusion that, game should be open-ended, and have mutual-interaction factors between game and gamers. The more these factors game have, gamer will feel as the more fun game.

    So this is why so many gamers be sick of current AAA games, because they repeat all the same mechanics like past games. There are no new experiences. They just evolves in Graphics qualities.

    But at the same time, gamers eye's standard become very high cuz of those AAAs, gamers can easily do not even want to play indie games too.

    So game mechanic should be evolutionary and very deep open-ended, almost need to be programmable programming game to gather recent gamers and satifying them.

    This is my personal opinion.
     
    S_Darkwell likes this.
  39. S_Darkwell

    S_Darkwell

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Posts:
    320
    Agreed! Of course, there are exceptions. Unfortunately, it's still in a large company's best interests to publish games that stand on the shoulders of prior successful games. Innovation is risky, and larger companies frequently have to answer to shareholders, who are not willing to take such risks.

    That's okay, though. This simply means that AAA games will continue to make similar games with a larger scope (and push forward technology), and indie studios will push forward innovation. Some AAA companies noticeably sacrifice quality to meet strict budgets, but others truly are dedicated to refining the craft.

    I think the industry will find equilibrium, and we will reach a good balance ranging from indie solo developers to AAA pulp producers.

    - S.
     
    AndrewGrayGames and Martin_H like this.
  40. Master-Frog

    Master-Frog

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Posts:
    2,302
    I like horror more than any other genre.

    Not because you survive. Because, that's not the point of horror. Horror is about experiencing feelings you wish to never experience. Such as defeat, loss, or realizing that you are trapped somewhere and can not escape, except maybe through death... but sometimes, not even then. Survival and a thrill has nothing to do with it. As you said, you're not a horror player. Just thought I would offer that perspective for you.
     
    Kiwasi and S_Darkwell like this.
  41. Master-Frog

    Master-Frog

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Posts:
    2,302
    @S_Darkwell - You've come from the perspective that all games are fun, which I have argued in favor of in the past. However, not all people experience fun the same way. You're trying to hit a moving target, there. So your question really has no answer.

    Game mechanics don't create fun or invoke an experience of fun. I know there's a recent obsessive trend with the word "mechanics" in this community, because it seems like it might hold some secret to making a better game.

    So, I see people looking at every piece of this machine (game) and saying "aha! this is the important part!"

    It's not how you build the machine (mechanical) it's how the machine looks and feels (experience) when it is completed.

    Nothing wrong with asking, but there is no single mechanical component of the machine that makes the whole machine.
     
  42. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    Also, fun isn't always the point of games.

    Spec Ops: The Line is a game that's all about deconstructing the Modern Military FPS genre, and does so while holding absolutely no punches. It's not 'fun', as the game continually mocks the 'hero complex' that most FPS games are based off of, but most who play it all agree that it is a quality game that does what it sets out to do, well. Papers, Please is another great example of a game that's not fun...because that's not the point.

    If your aim is fun, you should choose things that enhance that emotion. If you're trying for something else, make everything reinforce that instead. It's not just your art, music, and behaviors that have to all be serving a common purpose - the spirit of the work determines much as well.
     
  43. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    Then why do people play either of these? Are they being paid to do so? Is it assigned as homework? Are they just being kind to the developer? There must be some motivation to spend your time on it, or you would go do something else.

    I haven't heard of SO:TL, but I have spoken to people who actually play Papers, Please, and they claim it's fun. It's certainly not fun for me (I tried it once for about 60 seconds), but clearly it was fun for them.

    Probably this is just illustrating how loose and ill-defined language can be sometimes. Perhaps by "fun" you mean something like joy, whereas by "fun" I mean something more like satisfaction (or enjoyment, which is not the same as joy, despite the same root!). All games that are voluntarily played are fun in some way, I think. (And no, I don't buy @Master Frog's claim that he plays horror games because he wishes to experience feelings that he wishes to not experience.) "Fun" is what you're having when you are doing something you enjoy, and we choose to do the things we enjoy doing, except when there are negative consequences to doing so.
     
  44. Schneider21

    Schneider21

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Posts:
    3,512
    This is easily one of the most intelligent threads we have on the boards now, and I'm going to wait until I get home, put on my smoking jacket, pour a snifter of brandy, and read it in its entirety whilst smoking from a comically long pipe in an overstuffed armchair.
     
    Gigiwoo, S_Darkwell and JoeStrout like this.
  45. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    A monocle is required.
     
    Kiwasi, S_Darkwell and JoeStrout like this.
  46. Schneider21

    Schneider21

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Posts:
    3,512
    Surely sorrow awaits me,
    For though well equipped I may be,
    With alcohol and drinking glass,
    And comfy chair to rest my ass,

    And wearing coat in which to smoke,
    And puffing pipe with thoughtful tokes,
    I yet must read this chronicle,
    Without a freakin' monocle.
     
  47. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    The bit in bold is what I take away as being important. Also, I don't think the point of games alone is 'fun' - I'd go with 'engaging.'

    A lot of us, when we learn what a game is, associate games with fun - you know, tic-tac-toe, chase, king of the hill. These games help us practice concepts in a way we enjoy.

    When you get to Papers, Please and Spec Ops: The Line, games that most agree aren't fun, you're left with engagement. In SO:TL, you want to know how the story is going to end, even with the game mocking the player directly. In PP (no, the game!) I think the draw is problem solving - you have to support your family, but by letting people in to The People's Republic of Jerkistan, you're deciding whether the current despotic goverment of the fictional nation will continue to ruin everyone's life, or if you want to take a chance on letting the rebels do something.

    Now that I'm done praising those games, I think you're right @JoeStrout - while some people will get off on either game, I think most won't, because the subject matter is oppressive. I'm an utilitarian-optimist: I think people play games to escape reality, while practicing skills they know they'll need. I'm sure any number of people can (and, will) prove me wrong, but in all my years of being a gamer, that's the common trend I see. Those games are certainly good, but niche for that very reason. The world sucks enough without virtual worlds being equally as sucky in depressing ways.
     
    S_Darkwell, JoeStrout and Schneider21 like this.
  48. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    ...That was beautiful. It brought a tear to my eye!
     
    Gigiwoo, S_Darkwell and Schneider21 like this.
  49. Schneider21

    Schneider21

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Posts:
    3,512
    Perhaps as a way of joining in on the conversation intelligently, I'd like to bring up (apologizing in advance if it's been done already, as I've already indicated I'm monocle-less and haven't read the whole thread yet) the notions of games as art.

    Films that end on a sad note and keep you crying for days on end can be critically successful while not being typically what you'd describe as enjoyable. This almost seems to give credence to Frog's opinion on the horror genre(which I disagree with), but I think it's aligned with the ideas expressed here... The experience is one that is recognized as worth having.

    Another note is that I always hated the water temple in Zelda: OoT. I hated it. To this day I can't tell you exactly why I hated it, but I didn't enjoy playing the game during that phase. And yet it never stopped me from pushing past it to get back to the parts I did enjoy. I don't know if that temple was intentionally more difficult or if I just sucked at it, but that feeling of relief after emerging victorious made up for the suffering earlier. Which seems to suggest more to the point of Joe's accomplishment theory (which I do agree with).
     
  50. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    I really liked Spec Ops: The Line, because it turned out to be an experience that was far richer and emotionally complex than I had expected. In the context of military shooters as a genre it felt new and fresh. Plus I managed to go in without having seen big spoilers beforehand, so the key moments of the game were still pretty powerfull, even though I knew from reviews that there were some extraordinarily bleak moments in the game at all. I think this review does a pretty good job of explaining it:




    I don't enjoy papers please at all. It completely fails to get an emotional response out of me (I think that is the reason why I don't like it). It just feels like doing tedious and complicated work with winning conditions that I'm unable to meet. When I saw the first video review I thought "Huh, interesting idea.". And that was pretty much the height of enjoyment I got out of the game.
    I haven't played "this war of mine" yet, but I fear it will be no different.
     
    S_Darkwell and JoeStrout like this.