How Game Designers Protect Players From Themselves
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- 🔴 Get bonus content by supporting Game Maker’s Toolkit - gamemakerstoolkit.com/support/ 🔴
A designer’s job often involves making sure players are experiencing the game in the most fun or interesting way. In this video, I look at examples of games that have tried to achieve this - sometimes with success, and sometimes with controversy.
Note: Those World of Warcraft numbers are completely made up, for illustrative purposes.
=== Sources and Resources ===
- Sources
Sid Meier: The Psychology of Game Design | GDC Vault
www.gdcvault.com/play/1012186...
Firaxis’ Jake Solomon On What Went Right And Wrong With XCOM 2| Rock Paper Shotgun
www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016...
Water Finds a Crack | Designer Notes
www.designer-notes.com/?p=369
Spelunky by Derek Yu | Boss Fight Books
bossfightbooks.com/products/s...
Disable Timers | XCOM 2 Steam Workshop
steamcommunity.com/sharedfile...
Rest | WOWWiki
wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Rest
Designer Notes 15: Nels Anderson | Idle Thumbs
www.idlethumbs.net/designerno...
- Additional resources
Bloodborne Is Genius, And Here’s Why | hbomberguy
• Bloodborne Is Genius, ...
Nioh - Commanding Attention | Turbo Button
• Nioh - A Cut Above
New Doom's deceptively simple design | Gamasutra
www.gamasutra.com/view/news/2...
How Hyper Light Drifter’s Ammo Recharges Its Combat | Rock Paper Shotgun
www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016...
=== Chapters ===
00:00 - Intro
01:25 - Discouraging Unwanted Behaviours
03:24 - Encouraging Wanted Behaviours
04:19 - Doing it Through Mechanics
05:52 - Doing it Through Systems
06:53 - Using Carrot and Stick Properly
09:46 - Conclusion
11:20 - Patreon Credits
=== Games Shown ===
XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012)
Final Fantasy XV (2016)
Dead Rising 2 (2010)
Civilization IV (2005)
Nioh (2017)
XCOM 2 (2016)
Spelunky (2012)
World of Warcraft (2004)
Sunset Overdrive (2014)
New Super Mario Bros. U (2012)
Sonic Mania (2017)
Vanquish (2010)
DOOM 2016)
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (2016)
Bloodborne (2015)
Burnout Revenge (2005)
Hyper Light Drifter (2016)
Sonic Generations (2011)
Bayonetta 2 (2014)
Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening (2005)
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (2001)
Splinter Cell: Blacklist (2013)
Wolfenstein: The New Order (2014)
Project Gotham Racing 4 (2007)
Bulletstorm (2011)
Sleeping Dogs (2012)
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (2009)
The Last of Us (2013)
Uncharted: The Lost Legacy (2017)
Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception (2011)
Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009)
Hitman (2016)
Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (2015)
Mark of the Ninja (2012)
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice (2017)
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (2017)
Dead Rising (2006)
=== Credits ===
Music by Arcee on Soundcloud - / arsy1
Hellblade Development Diary 11: First Playable | Ninja Theory
• Hellblade Development ...
World of Warcraft | UA-cam
/ worldofwarcraft
=== Subtitles ===
Contribute translated subtitles - amara.org/v/C3BEs/ - Ігри
Want more game design knowledge? Check out this video on how you can use the MDA framework to analyse a game's design - ua-cam.com/video/iIOIT3dCy5w/v-deo.html
Thank you Mark.
“How game designers protect players from themselves” reminds me of how I always check to see if that fire effect will actually set me on fire
oh look a fireplace :>
“Does this flame protection armor work?”
*jumps into volcano*
Do you think... do you think that campfire will do
*The Thing?*
Dominick Scooterberry *burns to death*
2 mins later: “wait is that oven hot too?”
*climbs into oven*
Nootaboot *Clips through oven and falls out of the world*
_"instead of punishing a player that is too slow, reward a player for doing it faster."_
That rhetoric is so important in so many different areas.
E.G. instead of punishing your kid for getting bad grades, reward your kid for getting good grades.
you both make a pretty good point
Pay more for people that work hard
This the great poin, i am a student of economy and only know some of scientific schools are goingo for this lesson. This is a hole new way to look at the people and economic system.
It calls "positive reinforcement" concept in behavioral psychology. There is a good book about that and more: "Don't Shoot the Dog! The New Art of Teaching and Training" by Karen Prayor
Mobile Games: Everything requires energy, but you can pay for more.
Or watch ads o h wait you already watched one well the round is ended so here you go:
"You can buy this package we have for sale and its OK if you don't want to it's not even recommended, just don't complain to us when you face players in pvp that did buy them however! :)"
Yeah I'm out
Or just download a modded APK with unlimited energy because fuck microtransactions.
@@Jeerus they're getting smarter tho with their "you thought it was offline but surprise we need you to connect to the Internet to check your proof of purchase oh sorry it seems as if your version is hacked please download it from the play store to suffer having to buy energy you think you can one up us with this one didn't you?" tactic.
Yup I'm definitely not salty about that
@@sushiibird7799 yeah just like Terraria mobile
Ops...
Devs: Puts secrets and easter eggs
Also devs: "But you gotta go fast"
I'm glad someone said it. My BIGGEST problem with old school shooters.
Well.
Hoo boy does this one annoy me. Like you find out from a friend that they have an awesome item, but you haven't seen it yet. So you look it up and realize that to get it you had to go off the main path while the building your in was burning down and the game was telling you to get out of there ASAP. It doesn't make sense to give a player a sense of urgency but then reward them for dawdling.
I just hate how 100% runs are really discouraged by most games.
You want max scores and all items? Yours a buzzkill and playing the game wrong! I feel like the people who try to get all the achievements are actually punished.
doom eternal haha. Fast paced combat followed by 5 minutes of staring at the map
I remember when playing Far Cry 2 and there was a mission that required me to kill a leader of a terrorist group hidden in an African village in the mountains. Instead of trying to penetrate the village without getting caught, killing the target and then fighting with all the village to escape I manage to climb the mountain that in fact wasn't designed to get climbed and sniped the target from distance. It took me 30 minutes to climb the mountain but it was fun.
Awesome!
In far cry 5, to get the no alarms bonus when liberating an outpost, I take a helicopter, fire rockets at the alarms until they’re destroyed, and then gun everyone else down, and god damn it’s fun
@@checkenginelight6681 "Another successful stealthy outpost liberation!"
"But everything is on fire!!'
"Well.... yeah, but the alarm didn't sound..."
I did something similar lol, great game.
@@yorkfirepulse8724 wait u dont try to kill them?
For example, Fallout 4 discourage me to play Fallout 76, and reward me with more money and time to spend with my beloved ones.
Hilario Hernandez
Well said
Indeed
Fallout 4 was garbage lol
@jocaguz18 Not even the best Fallout game but okay
@@FormedUnique lmao whatever you say, Mr. "dick the destroyer".
"Protect the player from themselves" says Sidney Meier, the destroyer of sleep schedules.
"Now I am become Sid, the destroyer of sleep."
1 more turn just 1 more and bed 1050 turns later 1 more and I'll declare war, best game ever
"okay one more turn"
5 Hours later
True story
Civ is like a TV show that never ends that only gets better as you play
How dare you insult my intelligence"
*I said as I jumped off a cliff thinking there is a secret invisible bridge*
*I say the same as I hack away at every wall in the hopes that that there is a hidden room*
'Ah yes, a waterfall, there must be some loot in there, so predictable'
@@RoamingPlayer I tried doing that during a tutorial level and drowned
@@fish2716 big F
@@fish2716 lol
I love how dark souls discourages you from going to high level zones by having enemies absolutely obliterate you if you get hit, but does not completely stop you from trying.
Also, rewards players who can go to those areas with good gear
Gothic... Go anywhere, do anything
But if u wanna fight a troll with a pickaxe or rusty sword, don't come crying to us, bitch. Unless u know it's attack patterns perfectly and want to invest 30 minutes. It's repetitive and rather unfun but u can do it.
@@hulmhochberg8129 lol just spam attacks so they get perma stunned
This isn't really a dark souls thing. Any open level design game like a metroidvania or even an mmo typically did this.
@@esspooki3813 ah yes, the great idea of rewarding the best players by making them even stronger, thus trivializing whatever area you were meant to be completing.
My favorite XCOM 2 mod is one that doesnt have a timer until you are detected by enemies. It allows you to set up a position carefully, and then it increases the intensity once you kick things off. You get the best of both worlds.
I think there was also a resistance order in the expansion that gave the same benefit
SteelStringD20 that sounds awesome. It’s a little more realistic as well.
Or if you have a War of chosen addon, you can double the timer. 16 turns instead of 8, brilliant idea IMO
@@deadlyslayer271 there was, the Reapers "Infiltrate"
yeah, that make way more sense than a timer or a instant death when detected, you can be sneaky and slowly get trough the level but if you are detected much stronger ennemies will eventually come to screw you, encouraging you to go Rambo and totally change strategy, giving the player tension when playing sneaky and encouraging them to think quick when playing Rambo.
XCOM Players: I'm gonna play this cautiously and not take unnecessary risks.
Firaxis: That's not how you're supposed to play a strategy game.
Also Firaxis: enemies always get better rolls.
Also XCOM players: use Mods so we can actually have fun.
Guerrilla warfare: *is about using surprise, stealth and ambush to overcome superior forces*
Xcom 2: lol better sprint across the map blasting as we go!
My experience of XCOM is that you are always punished if you take risks. There are no benefits to taking risks.
@@niklasmolen4753 exactly. The 'reward' of maybe killing one alien in one mission is not worth the high risk of losing a soldier in combat forever...
@@astroman269 And then having to bring weaker soldiers to the next mission, potentially losing more soldiers.
Honestly, as someone who played Xcom: Enemy Unknown, the whole “playing the game extremely cautiously and spamming overwatch every turn” was never really about just completely optimizing the game. If anything, I would feel it’s the opposite. It was fear, not any kind of actual fear of the aliens, but a mechanical fear. A fear of that if my squad wasn’t constantly watching each other, I could lose them. I mean, if one of your guys even takes damage, they’ll be out of commission for weeks, and even months if they go below half health. I didn’t want to lose anyone, especially the soldiers who had several missions worth of experience on them. And being that I am not exactly good at this sort of game, I still will get my butt kicked while inching along the map in a tightly packed formation of soldiers. Every inch I get, I have to work for and for every mission I complete, the enemy just gets stronger. It does feel rewarding to get inch after inch, but then I’ll end up getting checkmated by the AI and whatever bad decision I made before saving, and I become so wrapped up in how to salvage this situation in the best way possible, that I end up not even playing the game anymore, forgetting about it until I eventually pick it up again because, in the end, I just can’t get enough of Xcom, despite how punishing it is. All in all, I actually use the optimized strategies because I’m dogshit at the game.
Xcom unknown devs: "why does everyone play so conservatively?"
Chrysallid: (saunters out of fog of war on opposite side of map)
Chrysallid: (turns entire crew into zombies in single turn)
@@TomCruz54321 im atm again playing xcom 2 and thats kinda how i feel. I think it would be better to make the downed Soldiers bleed out more often than just die directly.
I once had a mission where enemy reinforcements came in permanently and i had one get hit and bleed out so i had to use my medikit so he survives and then carry him and rescue him and this mission was kinda tense i loved it. You could add in a nonremovable timer for bleeding out but every medikit you use one them delays it for some turns so youre either forced to finish the mission or retreat.
Good point. That fear you mention was waaay more motivating than any timer. They seriously messed up if they wanted people to take risks, when the consequences were so dire
Yeah, the horror of the first few missions in EU, where you have NOTHING, can still inform your play when you have better armor and weapons than the aliens. It's a mental block you have to learn to remove.
Dev: Puts permadeath in the game.
Player: Plays cautiously.
Dev: Why?... Add timers of course! To encourage the most fun playstyle!
Me: Xcom2 is still sitting on the second mission while I have finished Xcom1 3 times. Because Xcom2 is so much fun...
Hell, I have more playtime on Xenonauts than Xcom2 and that game crushes the player when it feels like it:)
Make no mistake, it's their right to make a game however they want to make it. It's might right to form a negative opinion on their decisions.
"Players optimize the fun out of a game"
_laughs in Factorio_
The optimizing *is* the fun
@Human beans I’m sure you already know, but that is actually a HUGE design compliment. (I mean, I suppose that was the point of this entire video.)
Factorio devs have on multiple occasions nerfed or tweaked game elements to encourage, more use of trains and belts over bots.
*Laughs in oxygen not included and mathing out everything*
*Laughs in literally every single fighting game*
Old Blizzard: Please, don't play WoW all day. Take a break and go meet your friends/family.
Current Blizzard: I need more MONEY don't stop playing I need more MONEY!
Blizzard makes their money all the same if someone plays for an hour or 10, if you're talking about WoW. In fact it's very heavily biased towards those once a day players, with all the best rewards available being something that can only be done once in a day or week and take very little time to get. Even deep end-game content can be done best in controlled bursts. In fact right now Blizzard makes most of their money from WoW from their in-game cash shop, mostly the services like race changes. Almost all of them just allow people to take a current character and make them different instead of making a new character. The design is the same since the original game: An MMO works best when the people with full time jobs and families can compete just fine with the rest.
The reason blizzard didnt want people playing extended periods is so that players wouldnt burn out as quickly, meaning the players would play more and blizzard would make more money.
@@austriab1 that and also, you burn out faster if you play for 10 hours a day
Ok Dutch
It was more of a callback to older style RPG's like DND where the player characters are suppose to take rests to recover skills etc. It was an immersion mechanic more so than a "don't play our game" mechanic.
The weird thing is that Xcom DLC already solved the issue with the introduction of meld. By moving quick you were rewarded but not forced. No idea why they didnt just do that again for Xcom 2...
They didn't.. lol
@@rebelheart4456 They didn't... what? Your reply makes no sense.
@@syweb2 ... Do that. That's why this video talked about XCOM. There you go that is the rest of my sentence
Because they didn't want the gameplay to be the same?
The setting was built around this aggressive concept. Earth doesn't belong to humanity and xcom anymore, you're not on the defense, and don't have time to just sit around and wait for the aliens to come to you. You're the attacker, you have to get in and get out as soon as you can.
@@rebelheart4456 I think meld was from enemy within, the DLC for enemy unknown, and the predecessor of XCOM 2. So the guy was right I think.
Often, playing a game the way it's meant to be played feels like work.
*cough*cough*destiny2*cough*
@@LunarGates sorry I can't play PvP with you rn I have to do some strikes first
i mean ig it's ok if you're a big time youtuber or something
Other then certain Mario games. They are usually super fun to me and don’t feel like work.
Yeah imagine if Minecraft got rid of iron farms, witch farms etc. imagine having to mine 40 stacks of iron for a super smelter, or killing hundreds of creepers for one day worth of fireworks
6:46
“Son of a Mother”
*Hmm, yes, the floor here is made of floor*
this movie is a film
Not true, you could be the son of a father.
@@Jamseth_Ingramious... Except you'd still also be the son of a mother.
That game has some of the best awful dialogue I have ever heard and I love it.
"Go f*** yourself! You shit piles give chase, I will kill your dicks!" said the angry lady
"What? What does that even mean? You're gonna kill my dick? I'll kill your dick! How 'bout that, huh?" replied the protagonist
@@T4gProd wtf
An interesting comparison to xcom 2's turn limits is Invisible Inc, which has a similar idea but much better execution. Instead of failing after a set number of turns, new security measures are introduced every 6 turns. This way, playing too slowly makes the game harder so forces the player to take risks but never gives you an instant fail. It also makes more narrative sense since it is the alarm level rising rather than rigging their own supplies to explode for no reason.
another game by the devs from mark of the ninja, which was featured in this episode :)
they make great games :)
Kinda like "wanted level" going up as more and more alien troops are called in.
NICE !
That's how War of the Chosen works when you assault an Advent Facility
Steamworld Heist is another game that does security measures after a few turns. It first starts with turrets, then it proceeds to spawn enemies, and then do that again but faster.
That's a good one. I like that approach of having difficulty as a sort of spectrum that changes over time as an incentive to take risks. Dota 2 has a similar mechanic in the end game of each match. When all the barracks on 1 team's side are destroyed, mega creeps start spawning which are extremely strong and are basically overwhelming in most cases, so that team has a short time window until their base is inevitably destroyed, to take risks (which can be fun/interesting).
Designer: okay, so we put fire here so they don’t go there
Me: “I wonder if this fire will kill me” *jumps into it*
That is exactly how I act in games. I learn each one from ground zero like a child, and my main rule is "what if...", for example:
Spawn me at some level, - and first thing I will try is going back.
Another example I thought of after watching this: In the Yakuza games, using the same Heat Action over and over will gradually reduce the amount of damage that Heat Action does until it's practically useless, especially against bosses. It forces you to get creative and use a variety of different moves, each with different conditions that need to be fulfilled before you use them.
It'd be nice if they actually told you this.
I honestly thought this video was going to be about how Game Designers need to make invisible walls to contain the player within certain areas so some goof doesn't just decide to walk off the map and screw around because he can.
But leave one small open area.
Rafee Samith lmao, true.
In some cases you have a damage effect that hurts the player if the try to leave the game area, radiation, mines, snipers, electric fields.
I thought the same about watching this video. That's way for the most part I like Rockstar more freedom to the player in single player at least. But this video is kinda saying it's our fault.
games should tell you if the fire is real on the loading screen
I really like how in the fire emblem games maps tend to make you want to rush by putting a village far into the map ( if you visit a village they give you items or even units sometimes) and they put a bandit near the village who will destroy the village if he reaches it. This incetevises the player to rush further into the map rather than playing very defensively while at the same time being completely optional.
I hate having civilians die, I will always rush to save them, and it feels extra rewarding to do so because of mechanics like that in games like FE. On the other hand, If a game *cough*XCOM*cough* dangles that objective in front of me but then says "this isn't actually as important as you want it to be" and then proceeds to creates a situation where its near impossible if not completely impossible to do perfectly, that sucks. Give me the carrot on the stick so I have the option, but don't let the disparity between the easy/normal and the hard way be so large that it ruins the fun regardless if you're "winning". To be honest that first level in XCOM with the civilians made me stop playing the game. Why bother to keep playing if your first level introducing a risk mechanic stacks the odds so much that you're always guaranteed to lose in some way regardless of skill. I like games like splinter cell because they always have the smart ways of playing and the risky ways of playing, but neither are so difficult that you feel the only way to win is to lose because you'll never be good enough to do it "properly". Still its better than the good old "oh you made 1 mistake 10 minutes ago in a mission you've already spent an hour on? Screw you, start over", that's not risk, that's having 0 respect for the player's time and effort.
I’m not a game designer and I’ve never played XCOM 2, but I think a better solution to making players take risks and play faster would be to give players extra rewards if they complete the mission under the turn timer, but allow them to keep playing if they don’t. This would incentivise the player to play quickly but allow those who really enjoy playing slowly to keep that playstyle.
Unless they added more items it wouldn't work well, Xcom 2 has a problem where the amount of extra goodies we could get from completing missions particularly fast either wouldn't really make sense, and outside of just giving us money there's not much else they could do with it, really they should have made the turn limit shorter, but only starts after you do your stealth, because getting the perfect ambush is amazing, and then following it up with a short, but intense assault is very fun, however with the fact aliens have free movement the first time they see you, and the fact they outnumber you, means that you really have to play risk adverse, because if you don't even a low teir enemy can get lucky and crit your soldier and insta kill them, or leave them in a state where they are out of commission for weeks
1 year after you commented, but I'm pretty sure Mario+Rabbids Kingdom Battle has extra coins for completing the battles within the turn timer as you described. (And also preventing the heroes from being KO'd)
It also made a comeback in the sequel's third DLC entitled "Rayman in the Phantom Show", with the turn 'par' being more upfront during battles.
@@ijamesweb BTW, XCOM, enemy within did introduce timed rewards with meld containers, that give you better items and units, but are timed on missions, which don't fail if not recovered in time.
I think the best way that makes infinite sense for the setting is that taking longer means more reinforcements come in. This is already in-game but it should’ve been a core mechanic.
@@ijamesweb One way i think XCOM could take that page is for certain rewards that might normally be obtainable to be destroyed (self-destruct on enemy corpses/objects), or to even have the aliens cause more damage to the environment the more time they have within a mission (which could come out of your pocket at the end of a mission).
If a mission can still be done slow, but it's going to take you many more missions to gain the amount of resources you'd get on less missions completed fast, at least SOME players would 'go for the gold'. Some players, like myself, just aren't going to play risky. We don't have it in us. So for me and those like me, taking longer meaning the game takes longer and building up takes longer is an acceptable result.
I didn't like the turn timers in Xcom 2 because when everything went wrong it felt like it wasn't my fault when things went wrong because I had to throw caution to the wind and risk soldiers lives in order to meet the arbitrary timer. I know full well that charging a low health soldier past a sectopod is probably going to get them killed but there's only 1 turn left on the timer before the mission fails so RIP.
It also feels at odds with the game's theming. You're given a small squad of 4 - 6 soldiers and typically start off un-known to the enemy; it feels a lot more like a SAS or Navy Seal team carefully and methodically sweeping and clearing rooms. And the design of the maps and missions further pushes this with enemies split up into packs and the maps being segmented by terrain and cover again makes it feel like you're sweeping and clearing rooms rather than a full on frantic frontal assault.
I think a better way to make players take more risks and play faster would have been to have more enemies to start showing up after the squad is discovered and the longer the mission goes on the more frequent and tougher the enemies get. I would have also liked to see some sort of recognisance system for the non urgent missions such as the assaults on the black sites so that you could have more of a plan and strategy in place and ultimately have to try your best to recover after something inevitably goes wrong.
I think that would be best. It also fits well into the whole resistance theme XCOM 2 has.
Using intel not just to unlock new territories, but maybe to invest in some recon of the Blacksites or maybe to gain additional benefits in missions.
And I like how some missions have enemy reinforcements start showing up after you got discovered and such.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 funny thing is the last(?) mission has exactly that. You spend intel to get an extra soldier, turn off automated defenses, etc. Unfortunately it comes so late in the game you have no problem unlocking all the buffs.
That's the same issue though. If u didn't already accomplish the mission, why would add more enemies fix that. It's still a punishment for playing a strategy game with strategy. Lol.
If they removed the aliens' ability to get a free move when spotted and instead made it so that when you get spotted you have the rest of that turn to kill all enemies that can see you before the call backup in it'd be so much better, maybe killing them all fast puts you back in concealment too, but the sound draws nearby pods. In WOTC you can beat some missions without ever being spotted and it feels *good.*
Well thats still your fault it went wrong because you didnt ration your time to ensure you got there.
Why not make the turn timer a bonus, secondary objective? I.E.
*Mission Objective: Rescue the hostages. Reward $1000*
*OPTIONAL objectives: 1. Finish mission within X turns. Reward (+$500)*
*2. Finish mission without losing any soldiers. Reward (+$500)*
I think you get the point. A lot of games use that same system. Getting actual in-game bonuses, that make the game easier, rather than just a higher score.
And that's what they did with XCOM:EW.
They took the concept of timed missions and made it optional.
EW introduces Meld, which is used for MECs and genetic modifications. It appears in EVERY mission (apart from some story missions and, obviously, the last one), but it self-destructs if it is not retrieved in time. Alternativley, you can complete the mission before that happens and you get it automatically.
I guess you could argue that making it optional, would only solve the problem for some fraction of the player base. There would still be some people who ignore it, end up playing the game "the boring way", and then end up ruining the experience the developer intended.
You could balance the game, in such a way, as to force the player to engage in the bonus content occasionally. In other words, if you ignore *all* the optional objectives, the game would be nearly impossible to beat. I think something like 25% would be ideal. You don't have to do *all* the bonus stuff to win, but if you do play the "dangerous way" at least every four missions, the game gets much easier.
@@Bluemilk92 mods
That's the gist of this video. Reward systems are better than penalties, and the harsher the penalty, the worse an idea it is.
@@Bluemilk92 Then I would not buy the game instead if I don't get to play it my style. It's largely the developer who misses out. Why would I spend cash on a game I don't like.
It's also worth noting that the ghost in Spelunky turns all treasure into more valuable gems as it goes through them, making it feasible to still play the game slowly and get every treasure at an even higher value, but only if you're willing to take the risk of navigating around the ghost. I appreciate how Yu turned that type of gameplay he didn't want into a different kind of difficult decision players have to make.
Everyone who played a strategy game knows that taking risk isnt a 50/50 but more of a 90/10.
You get wrecked when taking risk
Unless the enemy does it in which case it's a 10/90
Anyone who played Pokemon will tell you if it's not 0% it's a 100%
When a strategy game tells you the odds are 90/10, they actually are 50/50
If it’s not 100% accurate, it’s 50% accurate!
This also lets players choose their own level of difficulty. If you're just there for the story or the world, you can accept lower scores or fewer drops.
The benefit of rewards vs punishments is that it still gives players the CHOICE to play how THEY want. It's a recommendation, not a requirement, from the dev
So I have an example from the "failed objective doesn't have to mean instant game over" category.
I can't remember the name of the game I was playing but it was a tactical RPG with many, MANY branching storylines. There was a mission that boiled down to "enter map from one end, get your whole crew to the other end as quickly as possible to escape". Now, during briefing for this mission one of the characters tells you that there is a powerful enemy leader bringing a huge group and he's gonna be moving through the same area as you are and if you don't get clear before he shows up you WILL die. Suffice to say I did not make it out in time, big bad general shows up with his army, and I'm sitting here expecting an automatic game over because in this game a fair amount of the story branches lead to alternate endings or just straight up game overs. But... it didn't happen this time.
No, instead what I get is a scene of this new enemy group showing up looking like the worst day my party is ever gonna have, and then our exit point getting closed off, and then, to my utter surprise and joy, my party actually turning to fight as the battle objective changes from 'escape' to 'SURVIVE'. And then, to my even greater surprise and amazement, I actually won the fight. After managing to cause enough damage to the enemy forces they decide to retreat, and my little party somehow manages to come out on top of a battle that they shouldn't even have survived.
And sure enough, the game actually recognizes this, giving me a completely different after mission scene (I made a new save and replayed the mission the "right" way just to be sure) and opening an entirely different story branch due to one of the most powerful enemy forces in the game having been significantly weakened at a relatively early stage of the game. And I wish more game developers would try to make scenarios like this. And I do understand that many types of games don't really allow for it, but there are a LOT of ways that it could work, and it makes for amazing experiences when used well.
Ryktes That sounds awesome. The only problem with that kind of thing though is that you have to make sure the "percieved danger" matches the "effective danger". Even in games that dont let players do that, they'll build up an enemy as if they're the most dangerous person in the world. Then you steamroll them and proceed to "Wow [player] that was amazing and you're so cool." If it's something that lets you drastically change the game, it should be equally as difficult.
Joseph Kane True that. And this fight really was brutal enough to match. I think I lost something like 2/3 of my crew during that fight, over the course of what felt like a whole day but was probably only 30 minutes ~ an hour real time.
I totally agree with what you're saying too. I hate when a game spends all its time biggin up the bad guy and trying to be intimidating and then the fight ends in a minute or two cause you just obliterated him.
Can you tell me the name of the game?
I keep trying to remember it, but it was way back in the golden age of PS2 JRPG tactics games. I'm almost positive it was something from Atlus or NIS in the vein of Soul Nomad or the Disgaea games.
One of the Front Mission series?
Developers: "nO STOP YOU'RE HAVING THE WRONG TYPE OF FUN"
I downloaded bloodborne for free on playstation plus, and it sat in my library for several months. Yesterday I decided to whip it out and give it a go. I got about 2 hours into it before I got bogged down by the death system and the save system. You have to upload and download to and from the cloud to save your game manually, and when you die all of your money drops on the ground where you died, so when you come back to collect your money, you have to fight the same monster(s) that killed you the last time. Also... all of the monsters in the level are respawned which is nice in that it gives you a way to generate money but is not nice because it's just more tedium that you have to go through on the way to collecting your money off the ground. Ended up uninstalling the game because I felt the death system was too punishing and annoying to recover from. I'm used to Destiny where death is punished in certain areas (darkness zones), but even in those areas if you die you'll just respawn from a checkpoint and you just jump right back in.
thewisesamgamgee The game auto saves. If you exit the game, then enter it you’ll be back where you stopped with all the progress you made still there. Deaths in Bloodborne have stakes, dying means something, it’s something to be scared of, something to learn from. If you didn’t like it whatever, but it’s something you need to get used to.
And that quote is terrible. Who are you to tell me what is fun for me. May be optimization IS the fun.
Exactly! That's actually a thing I really enjoy!
What a dumb argument. Video games are entertainment products. Their point is to entertain the masses. Providing a challenge can be a part of that but it's certainly not the main point. You can make a case of first games in a series that certain mechanics are design choices to target specific demographics but for sequels those same mechanics are basically them telling me I was having fun wrong. In fact, the conclusion of the video is basically don't tell players they are having fun wrong, make the intended experience more fun instead.
This makes a lot of Doom Eternal's design decisions make more sense. There's a *ton* less ammo and access to the chainsaw, to the point where, rather than picking the gun you like the most and blasting away without a care, especially in tandem with the weak points mechanic, you absolutely need to utilize your entire arsenal to kill baddies. There might be ways to do it with more than one weapon, but never with *any* weapon. Try taking down an arachnotron with the rocket launcher and you'll meet a swift end, but whip out that plasma rifle upgrade you never used in the first game and blast them close range and boom, off goes that pain in the butt turret and they become trivial.
I prefer just to shoot the turret with the sticky bomb from the shotgun
Timed missions are one of my least favorite mechanics in any game. I want to take exactly how long I want to take to explore a level.
Developers also need to not impose what they think is fun so harshly because often times they are completely wrong because not everyone gets fun out of a game the same way.
Not every game is made for everyone. When you make games for everyone, you’re Ubisoft. No one wants that. Takes risks, some people will hate it, but most will love it. If you don’t take risks, gaming gets stale
I feel like timed gameplay can be fun if you can try over and over again, making it a skill you have to hone. I don't find it fun though if I have only one shot at it.
Developers dont need to care for every single person, if you dont like the game drop it, ive seen countless of poor community feedback nonsense, from runescape to ultrakill
But I would have liked the game if I wasn't rushed.
Half-Life has a really good system to stop players abusing cover - the AI. Enemies have aggressive tactics; taking cover simply allows them to push forward, retake ground and fight you in what is for you a less advantageous part of the map.
Don't forget the HECU grenade spam
Also enemies in half life 2 have basic combat ideals in them, if you fight a group they'll usually fire then as they reload take cover while the others cover them. Damn half life had some advance shit for its time
Except in half life 2 it doesn't work exactly. If you hide in a closet all the enemies will approach you one by one and you can just kill them with the shotgun easily.
@@mail123619 but then comes the grenade and you are forced to leave
More like they fall right into my cleverly designed kill zone of boxes, barrels and trip mines.
Game designers then:
Game designers now: let’s introduce gambling into the game with real life money to unlock in game items
*Protecting gamers from themselves since 2018*
*Publishers.
I believe most Game Designers and Studios are pasionate about games and want to make good games. They are just forced into Microtransactons and Shit, because of the Publishers, that will give them all the money needed for developement.
Here's a Pro Tip: DONT FUCKING BUY EA GAMES, GOD DAMN. And don't fucking buy ANY game with Microtransactions. It's THAT simple. Cause guess what? If they can't sell games with microtransactions, they ain't gonna implement it in the feautre. Unfortunately the Brain of an average Gamer appears to be as one of a mentally ill Chicken, so most will shove down Money to Publishers Mouths, that will rape Players Wallets, because they cann.
Play some indie Titles. Play some older Titles. Play Nintendo eg (they actually give you full games without Microtransactions and Lootboxes), play (pay) any game you want, that doesn't have microtransactions. And if those games you want to play have microtransactions, pirate them. If all gamers had a brain, Lootboxes and Microtransactions wouldn't exist in the first place. And if nobody would pay for this shit, no game would have that mechanics.
@@sagichdirdochnicht4653
"And if those games you want to play have microtransactions, pirate them."
... you realize, of course, that this won't actually stop the microtransactions. It's the same game and it is.. significantly difficult to actually spoof the microtransaction system. And given how much money micros-transactions make, they frankly don't give a damn if you pirate the base game... actually, pirating games really just encourages them to go more into ongoing revenue streams.
And while you can 'just not pay the microtransactions' that doesn't change the fact the game is built around them.
Meanwhile, most people don't spend much on microtransactions. A few spend a bit, the majority spend none, and a small number of people with addictive personalities spend tons.
"Play Nintendo eg (they actually give you full games without Microtransactions and Lootboxes)"
Not anymore!
Lol instead of player-proofing their game they set up lures and traps instead
Gorbon Stop worshipping the past, companies have always made developers make games in the way that makes them money.
I think this is honestly one of your most important videos. I've myself made, and played lots of smaller gamejam games where the intention as a designer really took a wrong turn when it came to the execution xD It's why playtesters are also a gamedevs best friend !
To be fair, game designers can have some incredibly dumb ideas about what a fun player experience is. Playing xcom risky will ruin your hours long play through, but the complete lack of risk to pokemon is what lead to the entire nuzlocke community. Minecraft optimises no type of game play and is incredibly popular for it, and let's the players make up their own rules.
And those designers with their dumb ideas usually use phrases like "we need to protect players from themselves" as lame excuses to get their way and ruin a potentially good game. I hate this phrase.
I agree
Minecraft also isn't perfect on that regard. Mojang expected players to not grind XP for enchanting and just slowly gather it as they did other things. The result? XP farms, trading halls, and other exploit-ish contraptions that are a pain to make - just to get through a key stage of progression.
90% of the mechanics in pokemon arent used because the game is for kids, hell even teens and adults dont know how to play pokemon
@@animarthur5297
I dare you to play minecraft the way its "intended"
Dont build farms, grind slowly towards what you need.
I did that a few years ago. Did monster hunting to get enough xp for enchanting stuff.
It was really painful. Now in my current world i've set up a couble cave spider farm and boy oh boy. The investment was worth it
Now that I think about it; if XCOM 2 gave a reward for finishing in like less than 6 turns I would totally try my hardest to speed through it for that sweet, sweet etherium. But since beating in 5 turns gives the same reward as beating in 15 I might as well minimize damage taken.
Didn't they add this kind of system to XCOM: Enemy Within with the secondary resource containers which expire after a bit of time? That was a good balance of punishing and pushing you to play more aggressively.
Yes, the meld, I loved that mechanic and it was satisfying to collect it. Kinda disappointed it wasn't in XCOM 2
Yeah, it was a well-received system in EW, so I was a little surprised that it didn't come back for the sequel.
The new Supply Drop missions in WotC are an interesting new take on the idea, though, and I really appreciate how it plays out. WotC in general solved a lot of problems with XCOM 2's timers and mission types just by adding a lot more variety, where some mission types have no timers or the timer starts only when you take a specific action or there's a "soft" timer like Supply Drops where some of the rewards get pulled off the map every turn if you don't intervene.
Here's hoping they don't forget about it again when it comes time to do XCOM 3. ;)
T0mmy9898 the meld system was pretty cool. If u get meld u can get massive upgrades in the game. I never got meld however cuz that's where all the enemies were at. I would always lose a solider for some meld and it was never worth it.
+T0mmy9898 my only concern against the meld, that it was not properly inserted into the plot...WHY was that stuff there?
(bonus round: when on earth, the chinese goverment finds out how to replicate the alien alloy?)
X-com is at its best when the player takes risks.
Yeah, but missing 3 times in a row with a 95% accuracy while speeding things is not a reward for playing with risks.
95% is not 100%
@@noobestofdamall
That wasn't the point Isaac, the point i was making is that for most players it's no fun speeding through a purely luck based game, especially when the risks are so devastating to your characters and especially when you activate the dead = dead option.
Missing 3 times in a row on 95% accuracy reminds me of Shadowrun games.
Patrick Star That plagues almost all strategy games. If I’m playing Divinity or Darkest Dungeon and I miss a couple times it can fuck up an entire run. There is a difference between difference between difficulty and bullshit.
@@Patrick_The_Pure Yeah, RNG risks are just gambling. In a game with a timer, you expect to have control over the game's pacing in order to meet that timer. Enough bad rolls (which X-Com is famous for) and you LITERALLY CANNOT win in an allotted time. No reward for the risk.
Long story short, people respond better to rewards compared to punishments
Especially when they are being punished to do something that increases the likelihood of being punished
This video is amazing. I was prototyping a small 2d platformer where the player's throwing knives replenish slowly, and where enemies get harder the longer you stay on a level. Neither of these were fun, and now I can see why. Turning that on its head has given me SO many cool ideas!
Two thoughts I have already are giving the enemy a higher chance to drop throwing knives when killed by a melee attack, and adding a simple combo system that boosts the player's speed the more kills they've racked up, maybe a small % health regen bonus or health orb spawn chance
XCOM was played in the safest, most risk-averse way possible, because literally any other way is suicide, what with the RNG failing a 90% chance shot twice in a row (double shot), and enemies critically hitting a full cover soldier under smoke grenade coverage from 10 tiles away.
I never finished any XCOM game because of the RNG combat. It sucks. That plus "full cover" is bullshit. They could've made the cover stances a little bit better than COMPLETELY FULLY ENTIRELY EXPOSED. "He's two feet away even I can make that shot" - Me on every mission.
Daikataro Kamegawa Seriously. I swear any percentage chance it says is actually 10-20% lower, unless it's enemy crits. Although I have had a few instances where my troops survived due to bad RNG on the enemy's part.
Fun fact: I'm actually a really safe player and when something doesn't go as I want in some games, i tend to reload the last save. That's how I realized that XCom "RNG" wasn't: it's precalculated at the beginning of the missions. So if you do the exactly the same actions, it will end up all the time the same way even if there is 98% of hit chance and the ennemy will shut you down just after with their 5% behind a smoke.
Only reason i never played XCOM for long, no matter how awesome it looked. At the very core of this awesome, tactical turn based squad shooter with awesome base upgrading/management, was pure, unadulterated RNG. RNG at the core of a tactical, turn based game? Why even make a *tactical* game? gg....
Long War mod includes an optional game modifier that makes flank shots guaranteed hits, and another that makes them guaranteed crits if you want to go that far. I personally think they make the game a hell of a lot more enjoyable, because this goes both directions. You will always hit aliens when you flank them, but they will always hit you when they flank you. Makes the game a lot more about jockying for positioning and playing more aggressively, since playing defensively will eventually backfire. You can try to abuse overwatch, but if the RNG fails you're fucked once the aliens get in a flank spot.
Also double failing 90% shots is genuinely just really fucking bad luck. The game lies to you about hit percentages, but it actually generally weights the real hit chance above what it's displaying. It's a psychological thing since players generally assume anything over %50 is practically a guaranteed hit.
MGSV had this system implemented really well. For those who haven't played, when you use a certain playstyle (sniping for example), then enemies will eventually learn to counter it and this makes you switch your playstyle (if you snipe, the enemy gets counter snipers. If you get a lot of headshots, enemies will wear combat helmets).
Yeah! This is a really smart way to get players out of their comfort zone.
Yeah it made me play the game in different ways and ended up using almost every tool and weapon
Didn't make me change my style really at all, just needed better accuracy.
that would be perfect
Yeah I just ended up dumping resources into Armor-Piercing conversions and higher fire power.
If you build a stronger wall, I'll find a bigger hammer rather than subvert the wall.
Or to put it simply, 'challenge accepted.'
The problem with having these restrictions, it removes the agency from the players to enjoy the game how they see fit. If there is a turn limit, that limit shouldn't necessary end game in a loss, but rather increase challenge and difficulty of the level, so that hours of progression and careful approach doesn't simply go to waste. It still provides a satisfactory balance between the game and player itself. In Spelunky's design, it adds to the challenge, thus making it more rewarding rather than punishing. But the thing that disturbs me, is the phrase "Protect Players From Themselves"... while I'll respect the design choices of a game if it was meant to increase moment tension and challenge, I feel that this is quite narcissistic, as if players already didn't know how THEY wanted to enjoy the game themselves. Once it leaves the hands of a developers, it's in the hands of the players. It's being forced into a tutorial on how to enjoy a game, and told where to go, when all you wanted to do was just explore the environment. I don't think there is anything wrong with these types of players. I agree with you that a good system wouldn't remove a playstyle, but a good balance would simply minimize it.
Imagine being a channel so good, it is recomended to University students doing GameDesign, and then the students say "well, yeah we all kinda follow the channel already". Keep up the good work, it's incredibly useful!
What baffles me about Firaxis putting turn limits in XCOM 2 is that they had already, successfully, encouraged quick gameplay in the previous title!
In XCOM: Enemy Within, you can still overwatch creep through the entire level of the game, but if you're quick enough you can collect MELD, a material that unlocks access to powerful units and abilities. It's a reward, but it's *not* a punishment. It makes the player WANT to take the risks, as opposed to having to take them or risk suffering a crushing defeat.
I... don't know why they couldn't just expand upon that mechanic. It solved the Overwatch issue without offending the player. It was kind of ingenius to be honest.
yeah but once you grab the meld you could overwatch your way through the level as slow as you want and a lot of time i would bring 1 or 2 rookies just for meld collection with the probability that they wouldnt make it home (even though they did most of the time)
They kind of fixed this by putting things to shoot at which adds up to the timer in War of the Chosen. And gave you new perks that helps.
@@ardi.wibowo I used a mod to get rid of those timers (or at least make them a bit longer)
I hate being artificially forced into a tactical disadvantage
@@mwbgaming28 it does makes me nervous the first few times when i started playing xcom 2, i remember it's stressing cause I'm playing in harder difficulty, not the hardest.
But then i started to realize the developer took this timer seriously, giving us just enough time to complete every mission, like, they put serious thought when they designed this timer. provided that i, as a player, can use every move efficiently.
Aaand then i finished every mission faster as the game progressing, forgot completely that there's a stupid timer ticking lol
@@ardi.wibowo lol I have so many mods that I have never actually finished the game (giant cryssalids suck)
Some of us really enjoy strategically planning the most advantageous spot to clear out crowds of enemies. I love playing cautiously, taking time to observe and plan. I want games to support players who refuse to be sloppy and aggressive.
This, I have no idea why a lot of games just want the player to be out there.
It's not even that much of a default mentality- just look at how difficult Dark Souls is considered by many. Players are a lot less cautious and patient than a lot of devs think.
How about a system that reward both styles of play. Because MANY times you'd like to blow shit up instead of hiding- wait SNAKE? SNAAAAAKKKEEEE!!
@@noobatron2663 Part of learning XCOM is training yourself to take it slow and make the best possible decision. Time limits in Xcom 2 on veteran or higher will get my whole squad slaughtered because they gave me 8 turns to get to a comm relay surrounded by 10 aliens
Yeah I loved doing it in the first Dragon Age, I had a rogue with maxed out stealth who would scout all the enemies/traps ahead.
Then aggro the enemies and lead them back to a choke point where the others had set traps and a mage with AoE spells.
Repeat as required and then loot in peace
I'm agree, since I'm playing lots of stealth game, it is the most natural way when I approach enemies in most games. I think the dev should also thinks that many types of players are exist. You cannot always force people to be aggressive towards the enemies
One good way of encouraging risky play is to offer bonuses for optional objectives. In Darkest Dungeon there's a thing you can run into that, if you so choose, will summon a very dangerous boss. The Shambler screws with your party's positioning and summons adds that becomes stronger and harder to kill if you let them live all the while summoning new adds if you kill the first ones with attacks that damage your whole party. If you defeat a shambler though you'll get one of several items to use for the rest of the run (unless you manage to lose it) these are equivalent or sometimes better than items you can pick up towards the end of a run. Getting one of these items early can let you stomp all over the early game.
Some gaming companies even protect us from our money.
Best comment lol.
EA Has entered the chat
I was fine with most of the turn limits in XCOM 2, but having turn limits during stealth (i.e. the aliens will destroy this cargo to keep it from being retrieved except they don't know you're there yet, you have to reach this extraction point by a certain turn because there will be too many reinforcements despite none being called, etc.) were silly but also made actually attempting stealth disadvantageous. Having to rush through an environment without the opportunity to scout for an opening just lead to getting caught, oftentimes in the middle of xenos that you would have killed had you not been sneaking around them.
Nick McGingerdick that’s true, it weakened the stealth mechanic, but i don’t think it made it disadvantageous. stealth was still super useful, especially in setting up an ambush. or if you had the phantom perk, it was still very useful for spotting for your sniper. I think it just kept stealth from being OP. so that you never had time to get everyone into the perfect positions, and you still felt the pressure when you were in stealth.
in this case, stealth isn’t about empowering the player with knowledge, it’s just about helping the player get by.
have you tried the mod that only starts the timer after your stealth is broken? that sounds like a cool in between.
@@lilchinesekidchen phantom mode with killzone is too stupid to use, very useful. People underestimate battle scanners too.
Eike Mentira right, xcom never really limited people’s strategies, it just never really taught people how to optimize different strategies when yours wasn’t working. (but that’s part of the appeal, you need to figure it out yourself)
like not all missions were timed (if i remember correctly), so when a timer is added, obviously you need to adjust your strategy.
@@lilchinesekidchen there are god tiers in this game and bad tiers, one common bad tier is gunslinger skill tree with sniper, it will always be overpowered by a low rank ranger. The only way to upgrade to god tier is if you have the holotarget assist + faceoff, I dont know why people always wanted to follow terrible skill tress and want the game to change, it's like asking the war to be fair or the enemies to stay stand to hit headshots in a fps game 😂😂😂
@Lex Bright Raven I actually don't know what he's talking about. The gunslinger tree makes brutal builds. My Col. Level Slingers put up better numbers than the Rangers do unless they get lucky with blamestorm. If people think the gunslinger are bad they just don't use them right. Hell, 1 high level slinger can solo a lost mission.
I love how Dead Cells handles this topic.
I began playing really slow because of the permadeath mechanic. I didn't want to lose all my progress and thus took enemies one by one staying relatively safe.
I actually became a little frustrated with the game because I just couldn't finish a certain level and kept on dying. This frustration then translated into me going head on into fights. And holy is dead cells good when you go fast.
First of all you get a movement speed boost when you kill enough enemies within a certain period of time. This boost is pretty massive and you will be flying through enemies trying not to get hit.
Another factor that encourages this playstyle is similar to the one in bloodbourne where if you get hit you can recover most of your health back by hitting enemies.
I actually enjoyed playing the game so fast that I based a build around it (there is a weapon that deals increased dmg if your movement speed is increased) and finished the game the first time with it.
Such a great way of encouraging players to play in a fun way, yet not running the fun for those who just want to take it slow.
Nice, good example! I like that idea of getting a speed boost for killing enemies. Often in Metroidvanias you start to just ignore all the enemies as you retread old areas but that will keep you fighting I imagine
yeah definitely especially due to the cells you get from enemies you kill.
It also features those timed doors that you need to reach within a specific amount of time for them to open, but I felt like they force you to skip crucial upgrades for later stages without giving you enough reward. They only provide cells and gold if I remember correctly so maybe they are a way of "grinding" for your next run instead of your current one.
The buffs over time is actually a new mechanic introduced in one of the latest major updates, and I have to agree it makes the game a LOT better... previously the game actively promoted sticking around at a safe distance spamming bleed knives or bombs or something, even with the Bloodborne rally mechanic and stuff in place. From what I can tell the buff also increases attack power (so you really want to keep the combo going to be efficient) and makes you be on fire (so running circles around enemies lets you stack up damage-over-time). They've definitely nailed making the FEEL of the buff match its utility, so you instinctively want it.
yeah it's so good that is a feeling of disapointment when you have your chain going but there are no more enemies in close proximity so it will run out inevatible.
This is unfortunately still an issue in Dead Cells - they've been taking steps in the right direction, so hopefully they continue to do so. Strong enough skills mean the optimal play against most enemies is to very slowly take them out from relative safety - I still felt I solidly had the best chance of victory via slow and methodical play.
Which is indeed unfortunate, because the movement and feeling of melee combo in Dead Cells is *so good*. If they can further discourage boring gameplay and significantly improve enemy variety (especially in the later areas and the bosses), it could easily go from a good game to a great one.
Steamworld Heist encouraged daring play really well, I think. If you take too many turns, enemy reinforcements start showing up, making it _much_ tougher to complete the objective. It fit the game's "space bandits" theme as well, and made for some tense situations where you _really_ need to nail a shot or one of your allies is gonna get bonked. (And cost you some level rewards too, _if_ you do complete the level with the extra pressure.)
If I remember correctly, some enemies will also run to trigger alarms when they see the player characters, which _also_ encourages risky play by having players risk over-extending their team to kill the enemy going for help... or otherwise suffer an early alarm, making enemies continuously spawn for the rest of the level. When that happens, it can take some really tricky moves to even have a shot at completing the stage!
I like how Rebel Cops (XCOM-like game) handles turn timers. The first real mission is a tutorial-lite, where the first section is pretty small, pretty easy to navigate, and with not many guards. But, the game forces you forward with a turn timer, and you aren't allowed to subdue anyone lethally. It's a great way to teach players how to move quickly in the game, while showing them how much easier stealth is if you can keep a lid on the situation. After completing the objective and running out the turn timer, the second half of the level is unlocked, which immediately goes loud and allows you to respond with lethal force. The whole second half is one huge chokepoint, which gives players a feel for combat and how to handle pushing forward. For the rest of the game there are only a few turn timers ever again, which are all fairly lax and don't require you to complete the entire level, only one main objective. The point isn't to always force players to take risks, but to force players to take risks if they want to complete everything there is to complete in a level. It also trains players that they will get killed if they just sit back and wait for the enemy to move instead, and that they need to initiate confrontations if they want to win while laughably outnumbered.
A great example of devs encouraging a style of play was with Dying Light, in the game the easiest skill to work with in the beginning is parkour. While the hardest to level up is combat. So every time a player is caught by a zombie, the are more likely to run and work with skills like vault than to attack it and risk death. The zombies in the game ae also built to encourage a style of play, most zombies are slow damage sponges making the player much more likely to take advantage of its lack of speed rather than suffer at its abundance of health. Other zombies, viral's, are fast and drawn by noise. This makes players less rash with decisions and more aware of surroundings so that they don't alert a viral. This encouraging of parkour dissipates during later parts of the game when players begin to level up the tree that suits them and unlocking skills that help their own play style, allowing for a really fun and customized game.
While I don't think anyone will read this, if you do, Dying Light is an amazing game and I would recommend it to anyone. The game is really well designed is really fun to play. Also if you did read all of this, Thanks for taking the time of day to read this little note, I hope you have a great day and enjoyed my note!
It's not actually that long so of course I read it.
Dork.
what the hell, I start playing a game, I hear loads about it, whilst I never remember hearing, reading or seeing anything about dying light before purchasing it... And yeah, dying light is an awesome game
Thats actually the only game i finished 100%
I literally had never heard anything good about this game til but your comment makes me want to check it out :)
It’s one of my favorite games!
This was a totally new way to look at games for me, thanks!
Neko Katana Long nice b8 m8
Its about the general public, and how to make the game appeal to the general public, not the individual I believe. you of course have the choice what game you would play, but the point is to not punish but discourage certain behaviour. when you make a game and make it intended to be played in a way you will understand what he's trying to say.
Neko Katana Long its the developers game. They decide how they want you to play because it is their story to tell. Just like in film and other forms of art the artist handcrafts a specific way for you to interact with that medium. Unless that design includes leaving things a bit more open to the player. You cant handicap every ip because they dont all allow you to do everything you want. Some developers want to give you a specific vision and others want to let you live your vision.
Neko Katana Long
well I guess you have to make your own game then... until then its not yours, you just own a copy...
someone can make a game however they choose and they can enforce whatever rules they like...
you don't choose to play by those rules you don't get the experience they intended...
Don't like it don't buy the game... you fucking moron...
Neko Katana Long
I bet you didn't even watch the video. You probably just saw the title and said "That is ridiculous." just like I did, but then I went and actually watched the video. The title may be slightly misleading. Did you even read the description, either? Nothing in this video says that you can't play the way you want to. For example, if you like doing Rambo mode in MGS5TPP then that's fine, but the game is _designed_ as a stealth game and as such it is much more rewarding when played the way it was meant to be played. Stealth games are probably the best example of this.
Also, when some people play a game they sometimes do un-fun things such as grinding or farming, which is sometimes not intended. Of course, some people like grinding, though, so maybe not the best example.
Back to MGSV, it is also a good example of another point brought up in the video. Instead of punishing players by giving them lower scores, (for example) for playing the same way through the entire game, instead, the enemies will start to adapt to your play-style by countering you, forcing you to change the way you typically approach things.
From the description: "A designer’s job often involves making sure players are experiencing the game in the most fun or interesting way. ..."
Ahh turn limits, the thing everyone hated and immediately modded out.
Yeah. There's an epidemic of "this kind of game attracts players than want to do A, but we're intentionally trying to be not that!"
It's like all the successful real time strategy games that make sequels that are more approachable or work on consoles -- and then predictably fail became the people who want to play an RTS don't want that, and people who don't want to play an RTS still don't want to play a slightly-easier RTS.
I like it quite a bit, there's a lot of builds you can make that allow you to absolutely blitz through enemies. I feel like the man when I absolutely lawnmower a map full of aliens.
@@joshnewell714 it's the most popular mod for the game by a very, very large margin.
@@joshnewell714 so you can think it's what made the game good but the majority of people who bought it disagree.
@@Timotheus24 I disagree. While get gud is always the goal. It shouldn't be a punishment to avoid high risks, especially when the enemy specializes in ambushing. It felt great pulling it off but it should be a bonus not a pitfall. Not to mention the rolls are never in ur favor.
Carmaggeddon is a great game to analyze. You could beat the game by racing well. You could beat it by pulverizing your enemies to a crisp. There's a reason that game was so beloved. The first time I got a 'cunning stunt bonus' (I like to switch the c/st), it felt like the Devs had rewarded emergent gameplay. You did something cool and the devs not only let you do that cool thing - but you got rewarded for it. Two important principles, never let your developer's vision get in the way of player's fun. Maybe you want players to play a certain way. If players are playing the game in a different fashion - hey, that's cool. Like, playing Civ2 as a democracy game with real players on a forum taking each of the advisor roles. Or Civ2 by PBEM and swapping a save file or Civ2 by modding the game to create endless historical scenarios. Sid was a smart man. Give players new ways of playing your game and tools, and you will improve replayability.
I feel like XCOM 2's turn limits would've gone down better if they weren't a hard fail-state, but rather a timer until the aliens started dumping huge numbers of reinforcements on the player, every single turn. This would make the mission infinitely harder to complete, and force the player to decide between cutting their losses and leaving, or trying to complete a mission that's only going to get harder and harder. This way, the player would feel like a goddamned hero when they beat the odds and win.
TBot Alpha Issue with that is by mid-game you have enough stuff(weapons, armor, skills, etc) to more or less wade through the enemy. Not easily mind you but unless the reinforcements are always the higher level, more annoying enemies that wouldn't work.
And that by itself gives the problem of those high level enemies not feeling unique enough when Advent has 30 of them waiting on the wings of every mission. If that's the case why don't they just have every mission only have 20 of each clumped up.
TBot Alpha sounds like a great mod to implement
Honestly I would purposefully take too long in that case because I feel like XCOM 2 has too few enemies... I like it when there are many weak to medium enemies at the same time in this game.
lazlo686 That mod already exists and has for a while.
I don't remember the name, but I remember reading the description and thinking "huh, that's one way of doing it" before grabbing the True Concealment mod
Private Switch What about the Lost
When you talk about XCOM and turn counts, it reminds me of the way Mario + Rabbids handled this. It allow players to take as many turn as they like, but give out a better score for taking less turns.
Removing Overwatch would make aggressive close-range enemies very difficult to balance. Without Overwatch, enemies like the Stun Lancer or Chryssalid can just waltz up to your soldiers and take them out with no way to stop it, even if you know they're coming. And without hit chances, the game becomes much more predictable; you can know exactly how much damage you will dish out on your turn and exactly how much damage the enemy will dish out. Thus, you never really need to take risks; you can find the optimal strategy for any given scenario, and once you do, the game's difficulty becomes a joke.
well you have a 1t? because that complex ia is a few heavy -.-
The Blizzard XP penalty / bonus one is a prime example of how presentation changes perception. Something every designer should think about when planning mechanics. especially when changing things after the fact.
It makes me think of Deep Rock Galactic, where people often used the (boring) bunker tactic. So, the developer added the oppressor, a new tanky enemy that is basically a bunker buster. The bunker can still be used but it is now more risky and you still have to stay on your toes
The problem with XCOM 2's turn timers is that it's either all or nothing. If your turn timer is up, then you lost. There is nothing in between. Invisible Inc does a much better job at turn timers. In that game the moment you enter the building the security notices the infiltration but doesn't know where you are yet. So every turn the alarm increases and every 5 turns something new gets added to the map. New cameras, more enemies etc... and after the last alarm stage you don't instantly lose the mission, you will just have a lot more things to worry about and it's going to be a lot harder for you to escape the building with all the new enemies patrolling the map. So you still have an incentive to move quickly but you don't instantly lose if you decide to waste a few turns.
Agreed! I wanted to see XCOM instead drop enemies on my ass or make my life harder as time went on rather than just instalosing me. This rings especially true on missions which had really short timers and really large stages and might have actually been impossible to win in the time limit.
Invisible was so fun to play. I hope they will make Inc2
I don't think turn timers are bad, they're just a little too stifling. Add one turn to each map and it should be fine.
The problem with the aliens dropping enemies on your ass if that if you are well positioned you could exploit it for farming, getting experience and loot too fast.
The Long War 2 mod does just that. The timers are shorter, but all they do is bring in enemy reinforcement.
4:48 "Doesnt use any ammunition and it showers the player with (GALLONS OF BLOOD!) Usefull health pick ups"
Wow, this was really helpful! I had an issue in my game (fast-ish paced bullet hell top down shooter), with it being more optimal in a lot of cases for people to carefully take out all the enemies and then wait for their health to regenerate, instead of going about the game as intended, which is to run through the levels top speed, dodging enemies and bullets, while shooting the things around them. (usually either behind them at swarms pf chasing enemies, or at destructible walls in front of them)
One disincentive I already had was making enemies have lots of health for how much damage you are doing. (compared to other top down shooters at least)
After some thinking, I decided that I’m going to keep the passive health regeneration after a period of not getting hit, since it rewards good play. However, I’m going to make enemies spawn behind you, so that you never can just sit around and wait for your health to regen (very unfun) without being at some risk - probably more risk than is worth it.
Second, I’ve lowered the health on enemies that shoot at you. These enemies are usually the biggest obstacle in my game when trying to rush forward, since they shoot lots of slow moving bullets that can be hard to get past if you’re moving towards the enemy, but don’t have enough range and speed to be that dangerous when you’re not trying to move toward them, or trying to move away. Lowering the health I feel like will reward quick thinking and good play, since instead of mostly aiming at the enemies that are following you (easier targets), you’re being rewarded for also trying to hit the enemies that are circling and trying to shoot you (surprisingly hard to hit).
I didn’t want a hard timer, since it just feels wrong, for the pace of this game, but am considering a timer that makes enemies gradually get harder. (so after say, 30 seconds in a level, some enemies get faster, or some enemies explode on death, or some other effect, depending on the level, and it will say something along the lines of “Uh oh, (whatever just changed)” or whatever, along with a sound effect and a graphic, just to spice things up and to encourage the player to go faster. Almost like the ghost in spelunky.)
Zelda Breath of the wild has its moments where it's really good at this, shrines for example can have multiple solutions, and when mapping a route I think is optimal for a casual player (will put a link if anyone is interested), I discovered that you can climb up to Zora's domain from akkala... you even get different dialogue if you manage! That shows the developers knew not everyone would take the straightforward path! Oh, and eventide island can be done without killing anything.
"Theres a famous story in World of Warcraft"
Me: LEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOY JEEEEEEEEEENKIIIINZ
Exactly😂😂😂
I dont get it
@@debangcool6076 It was a old WoW meme... like reaaalll old, Should watch the vid :)
Yes
At least I have chicken.
IMO: With the X-COM2 game, the turn timer got me to take risks, and at first I was ok with it. But the further I got into the game, it became less and less worth it to take risks, and in fact it became punishing since my units were often much higher leveled and geared out. This made it so that you lost a LOT of progress with risks, and it made the game even more difficult when you lost your more powerful resources. Soldiers are hard to raise from scratch the further you get into X-COM, and if all the missions required a time limit with the latest enemies, it made it difficult to get back up to a point where risks could be dealt with.
TLDR: XCOM2 forcing you to take risks was fine until late game, since you lost more when risks failed. Because of that it made it harder to deal with risks and starts a downward spiral of stressful gameplay instead of enjoyable.
That's why you rank up multiple squads instead of just hoping that no one ever dies.
WOTC did a good job encouraging players having more than one squad at max level with the stamina bars
This feels strange to me as I feel pretty much the opposite. Things were much riskier in the early game where soldiers may not survive a single enemy hit and had less skills or gadgets to help them out. Almost 100% of my xcom 2 deaths occur before I get the first armor upgrade. Once you have the first level of armor and weapons you start to have so many more options. You can survive a hit or two, you have more items to bring along, your soldiers have more abilities to use to get out of trouble with, and you simply have more soldiers on the field at a time, six vs four. I would contend there is less risk at high levels / late game because of this.
Before launch I was very dubious of turn timers. I was not anticipating it to be a good change. But having played through the game multiple times I can say my fears did not come to pass. The turn timers are very generous and usually non consequential unless things are spiraling out of control, where you have bigger problems than a turn timer. The turn timers are just barely tight enough to prevent players from taking multiple turns using half movement and overwatching, the thing Jake disliked in the first game. The turn timers only provide enough pressure that players can't fight a pod, win the fight, and then sit still for a couple of turns recovering. You need to keep moving forward at least a little. Half move and reload, half move and heal, but not sit still and creep.
@@esspooki3813 My soldiers usually get shot enough for it to not be a problem without it XD...
Ahhh, thats why zombies kept appearing from empty rooms and alleys even though i killed hundreds of them in Left 4 Dead
That's the director, friend.
Sometimes it's better for developers to take a step back. Games are interactive by nature, so while a developer may have a vision of how they want the game to be played, they need to also understand that people will have their own ideas and will still derive equal enjoyment from using a play-style that is counter to what the developer intended, and that's okay.
We could also encourage diverse play styles by providing rewards appropriate to the particular playstyle that a player is using.
Could not agree more. In the world of fiction, I've heard this called "death of the author". What you put into something may not be what your audience gets out of it.
Well it's pretty hard to justify taking unnecessary risks in XCOM when RNG can screw over an otherwise solid plan, suddenly putting your exposed units into mortal danger.
After you've had a 99% hit/100% crit chance attack miss, it's pretty hard to take risks confidently.
Right when your barrel is in them and you miss like aight imma alt f4
@@Ed-1749 underrated comment. Xcom is more fun when bad things go sideways and you find ways to recover.
Andrew Boyer sure, I get that, I like the permanent deaths for that reason. But missing a 98% shot when you literally have to turn your body 90 degrees to do so is fucking dumb
That the point though. Combat is chaotic and dangerous. It's just beyond your control.
@@JonathanBreese well, yeah, that IS the point. Which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to go out of your way to put your squad in unfavorable situations. That way one small hiccough doesn't create diastrous casualties.
The thing with XCOM is its not fun losing your whole team because your forced to rush in, Especially when your fighting overpowered enemies that can almost one shot your men and you only have 5 while they have 20+ monsters.
The biggest problem is the design they intended vs the style that the game had. It's a turn based strategy game, the fun is not present in taking risks just because, the fun is present in creating a strategy that might look risky, but because of the way you planned it, it will certainly succeed, in other words, it's not about feeling fast, it's about feeling smart.
To my mind Xcom is squad level combat. A war game. To my mind a damned good squad leader brings his entire squad home breathing. Taking risks gaurantees you lose some and potentially fail the mission.
Telescopic sectopods, mah favorite.
Y'all just admit it. They made it too hard for you.
@@owenst.hilaire7582 Do you think the leaders expected to take zero losses when they ordered their men to storm the beaches of Normandy?
After having this video in my recommendations for almost one year I finally watched this.
Same lol
In XCOM 2, there’s always some risk, no matter how cautious you try to be, so it felt unnecessary to have timers.
I admit though, timers did add some urgency and keep a mission from dragging forever.
I remember when I was playing a frontier survival game, and on part of the screen it was showing tips, and one of the tips was “Dont forget to take breaks and stay hydrated IRL!”. Nice to see that devs care about their players.
I mean who's gonna buy their games when we're all dead
Chris
Good point
the devs for warframe realized that they created a slot machine in the game when they saw that one of the players kept spending money on it. they removed it immediately
The dev probably was from r/waterniggas
I swear, an old game from 1998 called KKND 2: Krossfire has a tip that says: "When you get up at night to drink water, make sure to rinse the cup first since there might be a bug in it.".
I think the reason why many people didn't like taking risks in Xcom was because taking a risk in that game was just a throw of the dice. Taking a risk in games where RNG isn't the final deciding factor to whether you make it or not feels more fair because it's just about your own skill holding you back.
Furthermore, taking a risk can be fun and exciting but playing for hours and ONLY taking risks will make each new risk feel less exciting and you'd eventually just feel like you're just betting everything on RNG, especially when you try to play the safest way possible and still lose. For this reason I think even the players that do enjoy playing risky would not enjoy Xcom 2 because taking a risk is something you do spontaneously and not frequently.
Underrated comment.
I liked the tactical slow movement in XCOM Enemy Unknown. And risk-taking for me was sprinting ahead instead of moving to the best possible cover, so I could obtain a meld canister or save a civilian... I don't mind risk-taking, when it's occasional and warranted. Moreover, I'll take more risks when I know that my game doesn't simply come down to a dice roll. If I were controlling the characters and could consistently hit enemies in cover, I'd be more inclined to move quickly across the field. But taking a bad risk in XCOM often means a permanent loss, so how does one get to late game and experience the fun of an optimized and effective squad, if they're consistently losing troops?
I just want to give major credits to Wario Land 4 for actually making time limits FUN.
Each level in wario land 4 works like this: you go into a level using a portal, you enjoy it and spend as much time as you want on it and explore everything if you wish to do so. Then when you get to the end of the level you need to hit a switch with a bomb attached to it that will activate a timer and then you have to go back to the very beginning of the level with that timer. The music is very calm in the beginning but once you hit the switch the infamous "Hurry up!" Theme plays as you dash back to the portal you came in from. The world becomes unstable during the timer. Then as you get in the portal you're shown how the entire world just... *melts* behind you
I played Xcom 1 extremely slow because I didn’t want my favorite characters to die. If I lost one I felt extremely guilty even if I didn’t make a bad decision and just got unlucky. I didn’t find the game fun when I took risks, I found it fun when I completed the bonus objectives, didn’t destroy any loot with grenades, and all my troops came home safe. Getting caught in a position where I need to take risks absolutely terrified me because it was unrewarding, especially on high difficulties when an enemy you couldn’t see suddenly enters the fight right next to you.
“Fun” is relative. Making a game to only allow a specific playstyle to have fun limits the amount of fun someone could have by forcing them to play in a way they don’t enjoy.
4:57 I feel like another big reason why Doom's aggressive playstyle worked so well is the near complete lack of instant charges - most of the stuff the enemies hurl at you can be dodged with relative ease, unlike bullets from your average video game enemy that pretty much inflict damage whenever the enemy looks at you and pulls the trigger.
It's not pretty much, it does. Most FPS games use scan-line calculations for bullets, meaning it immediately does damage; there's no travel time. Some games actually do calculate bullet travel like Planetside 2, but for the most part it's just "calculate scatter/accuracy, draw a line. If the line collides with a hitbox, deal damage to the closest hitbox in that line. Play bullet animation."
@@recless8667 There's a name for that type of damage calculation: "Hit scanning", and the types of enemies who use it are commonly referred to as hitscanners. Your explanation of hit scanning is perfect, and also why people hate hitscanners in games as their presence removes any chance of strategy or tactics - they are literally "shoot first or get shot" enemies that often get the first shot in for free since you're usually busy dealing with another enemy when the hitscanners enter the battlefield.
@@Dargonhuman I think Rory tried to talk about the hit detection mechanic, and you're talking about basically an aimbot for bots. I can see a game with the hit detection like described above, but where bots would take seconds to actually shoot you. All the devs need to do is to make the bots' crosshair move taking time, and not instantly.
@@alexeysaranchev6118 No, the bots don't use crosshairs or reticles or anything; the computer simply calculates what objects are in the path of the bullet (also there's no actual bullet either), determines if the first object is penetrable or impenetrable, then calculates the next object in the path until the path is obstructed by an impenetrable object.
The same is done for the bullets you fire at enemies, the only reason you have a reticle or crosshair is so you know what path the computer will be calculating trajectory on, but as soon as you press the fire key, the computer does the exact same calculations on the line until it hits an impenetrable object. Slower projectiles do factor speed into the calculations, giving the target time to step out of the invisible line of trajectory before the calculated impact.
We ran into this problem of risk, reward and punishment when designing our game's combat system.
We used a pseudo turn-based combat, both enemies and the player would attack based on a predetermined amount of stamina, once it was depleted they would get tired and open to attacks. This meant that both the player and the enemies were always vulnerable, keeping you always on your toes.
In order to encourage players not to get tired, we designed it in such a way that evading enemy attacks would replenish big chunks of stamina. This meant that evading was your best strategy, since you need stamina to attack.
But It used to be different! No one could get tired thus making the players too powerful, the game was too easy. So we added the "tired mechanic" to encourage learning enemy attacks and evading accordingly.
The turn-based combat with the stamina thing reminds me a lot of Betrayal at Krondor, which has a similar system where you deplete your stamina to move, attack, and defend yourself. Makes it a tough decision whether to cast a huge damaging spell but leaves you vulnerable since it drains a ton of stamina or just fight normally but take more time in combat.
What game is it?
Krale Zero what game?
Underhero, there's some videos on their profile
Game looks very cool and it wears its paper Mario inspiration on its sleeve. Definitely looking forward to the finished product.
I used to mod the Worms forums and occasionally people would be annoyed that certain features, like the "infinite of every weapon" mode, were locked until you completed some amount of the single-player mode. If you were treating the game purely as a multiplayer experience that's a legitimate complaint, but for most people having that unlocked from day one would mean they just bummed around doing fun chaos until that got boring maybe seven minutes in, and then that's the end of the game. In a game with no story mode you have to have some way to introduce concepts slowly or else the players won't ever really need to engage with the core gameplay.
I was OK-ish with those timers in X-COM until I got into mission where I had to keep running with almost all my characters towards the end to even have a chance to finish the mission.
Only 1 or 2 of my characters could waste about 2 turns to fight or work on the objective.
In short, it was impossible mission for me to complete because how I created my team.
"Who are you to tell me I'm not supposed to use a spoon to cut steak? That that's not what it's _designed for?_ I, the eater, decide what silverware I will use on which foods."
**proceeds to eat soup with a fork**
Right. I don't play games where wanna-be Stalin designers force me to play one way or another. I play MY vision of the game, not their's.
Game Developers: YOU'RE HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY!
You supported the video by the ending of your comment. Idk if that was purposeful or if you're that oblivious
Yes, I was poking fun at the dissenting comments here who didn't follow the point of the video.
*WHATS WITH THE READ MORE*
"Players optimitize the fun out of a game"
Garry's Mod would like to speak with you
Its true though min/maxing all the time sucks.
TTT: Detective can use special area that tells you whether or not a player is a traitor, so outside of the traitors, everyone will want to go straight there first, and if you say you dont wanna go there, you're outed real quick, if you are in a group who gets stuck in with a traitor, what's to stop the people from just killing all 3 of you to make sure the traitor is killed?
Everyone going to one room and waiting to kill groups of 3 isnt fun
@@DisKorruptd TTT is a completely different game/mode than the basic GMod though.
What's a Garry's mod
@@lordvoldemort8742 A source engine-based sandbox.
When playing touhou I found something also used on undertale: the necessity of playing it again.
now, it might not seem like either an encouragement or discouragement at first and much more like a obligatory nuisance, but think about it;
you could give touhou a saving system, (they kinda did on LOLK) and you kinda finish undertale at only one run when you first play it.
but then, the game was created itself making playing the same level again rewarding, it add to the story telling.
-how?
touhou: like darksouls you restart with previous battle pattern experience, and you begging to notice and give value to enemies, designs.
undertale: why from all characters people who did the genocide run started to love sans? because you start to notice things you previously didn't. you start to create a likeness of them. Same thing touhou applied. On pacifist, you have a second chance of doing things even better this time, like not upsetting someone.
On story telling: you can make people start to notice subtle details they otherwise wouldn't on only one run. a phrase that start to gain a new meaning, a detail that you just didn't paid enough attention, something that only gain context after the event that made you reset occurs
ps: sorry if I made many english mistakes lol
It took me a good while when I first started playing Thief (the 2014 one) and they gave me that grappling tool that you can also knock guards out with that I wasn't supposed to knock guards out with it.
Completely changed the way I played. I was a lot slower, more deliberate, made use of hiding places and the shadows, whilst still trying to steal everything in the level.
This learned of playing a stealthy thieving game actually punished me when I started playing Stix (irreverent goblin thief game). I stuck to the shadows, clambered over rooftops, tricked guards out of my path, stole everything in the level, made use of the hiding places, and was consistently punished for not completing a level fast enough.
2 stealthy thieving games that had completely different styles of play, each punishing me with a score at then end of each level because I didn't play "correctly".
Though I like each game in theory I havent played too much of either because of that. Not a fan of being punished because I choose to approach a game in a way that works for me.
Like the first Assassin's Creed game punishing me for walking too fast or climbing over rooftops. Which is what assassins *do*.
Much preferred AC: Odyssey. Got to run if I wanted, climbed where I wanted, wasn't punished for stealthily taking out forts with my bow, but could still wreck face with my sword.
Much better game in my opinion. It gave me *options* of how I wanted to play and I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
My only real issue with XCOM's timer was with how it clashed with its emphasis on stealth and ambush. You're allowed really ONE ambush in a mission which can be very satisfying to plan and execute, but because timers inexplicably started at unit deployment, not unit discovery, you were often pressured into wasting that opportunity.
Jeffrey Johnson at that point you just ask yourself: "why the timer didn't just start at the first unconceal? It would give the stealth more meaning, and still be relevant since you might have the objective unreachable by just conceal anyways, and having outer guards pull in at the alarm give trouble to a get in-get out strat.
Yup. That's the way I modified it. It works much better.
I personally Love playing games defensively. To me, That’s fun! I like feeling overly prepared so when I encounter a problem I know I’m prepared,, because I prepared. Preparing is something I genuinely enjoy and part of why I loved X-Com 1 and never ended up playing X-Com 2. I don’t like the time pressure and chameleon enemies. Randomness is something many find necessary to enjoy a game, but to me it kills the excitement.
i hate enemies that comes in waves. It doesn't matter how prepared you are to gank the enemy because after the they all died than suddenly the next wave already surrounded you.
@@fartyfat6539 they dont come in waves. Enemy units move in pods of 3 to 4, which have set patrol paths that they only deviate from when they hear gunfire, explosives, slamming doors, or breaking glass.
i kinda feel the same way
I find some randomness is OK but not when I miss an 90% hit twice in the campaign.
@@lulu111_the_cool why is that not okay? 1 out of every 10 90% shots you take are going to miss on average. If you take 20 90% shots in a campaign, then 2 of them should miss.
I write tabletop wargames and I love boards with lots of terrain and games in which people interact with their environment. Keeps things fresh from scenario to scenario.
For this reason, I always make cover your single best defence against ranged weaponry, to the point where in some more realistic games being in the open is practically suicide. Really makes players think about their surroundings instead of just "shoot baddie, capture objective".
Thanks for listing the games in the description helped me get back to a title I played on my Uncles Pc as a child and wanting to replay it.
Given how punishing XCom can be if you lose soldiers (heck, even getting a soldier damaged is dangerous unless you have reserve soldiers of proper level), I'm really surprised the designers felt this way about the game.
In fact, it feels like the game actively punishes players for playing the way the lead designer seems to think the game should be played. Play fast, and you'll get damaged and get soldiers killed. Those aren't good things.
In that particular example, I'm absolutely on-board with those limit-removing mods or the out-cry in general. Besides, I always thought XCom is a TACTICAL game. Going all in and taking stupid risks feels like the exact opposite of what a TACTICAL game should be.
Question: You KNOW how "punishing" it is if a soldier is wounded/killed and you don't have an adequate replacement, therefore WHY DON'T YOU HAVE AN ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT READY?
There is nothing stopping you from leveling 2-5 squads in a campaign at the same time, but for some damn reason people keep on trying to win the game only using 1 squad and never leveling anyone else, then when someone gets killed they start whining about how the game is too hard or the turn timers are too limiting (because now they are acting too cautious).
XCOM 2 is fuckin easy, it's easier than XCOM EU and EW were, power creep with your soldiers is so damn high that by the time you hit mid game you should be more than capable of steam rolling anything that gets in your way with nothing more than two sectopods, or a sectopod and an andromedon together being the only things remotely threatening to you.
Sidenote, have you even played XCOM 2? The only people that complain about turn limits are people that are overwatch crawlers, there is more than enough time in the default turn limits to play the game tactically.
because getting an adequat replacement takes like 10-15 missons when you are a bit into a game and if they die before you can have replacement ready because you are forced to rush its stupid
Fettgummie Why are you leveling only one squad at once? That's stupid, you have no one but yourself to blame because you, and not the game, decided to put all your eggs in one basket and only have one squad.
Raith i'd rather have one squad of experienced and high leveled soldiers than multiple mediocre squads. Yes, if you only have one squad then it is a big hit when a soldier dies but it rarely happens. If you have multiple mediocre squads then a dead soldier wont have as much of an impact but you will have far more casualties.
...So 1 squad of maxed out soldiers with 80+ kills each is somehow superior to 4 squads of maxed out soldiers with 30-40 kills each?
Do you even know how the game works?
Hell, you don't even have to do this all at once (though why you wouldn't want to I'll never know) you could just replace soldiers in the squad who hit max rank with lower-tier soldiers till they also hit max and that way you are constantly leveling troops instead of sending max level soldiers out on the random missions wasting all the xp they are earning.
Ironically, XCOM: Enemy Unknown's expansion, Enemy Within, encouraged moving fast way better than XCOM 2 did. Meld canisters are spread across the map, and expire after a set number of turns. The two main new features of the expansion, MECs and Gene mods, are both gated behind Meld, so going for the canisters rewards you in the long term with stompy robots and alien superpowers, but rushing for a canister that's in a bad spot can easily ruin an entire mission. It's a risk-reward deal that doesn't funnel you into a certain playstyle but rather gives you a reason to step up the pace.
kierany9, Exactly. They rewarded you for playing quicker and riskier. I quit Xcom 2 because it just felt like the game was constantly punishing me, it wasn't fun.
Was going to comment the same thing since XCOM 2's whole time limit thing was too arbitrary. It's stealth that doesn't want you to be stealthy and, instead, be risky with all your moves.
If anything, MELD should have been a lesson that rewarding success is better than punishing failure.
@@acomatosemob if you can't deal with XCOM, just lower the difficulty.. the game is not supposed to be a walk in the park, it's war and war is punishing
Thank you, Mark! Your videos are always jam-packed with relevant questions and useful content.
Game Designer: "We must protect players from themselves so that they have more fun!"
Player: "Turn limits in Xcom are the worst invention ever and ruin the fun of the game"
You have to understand the mentality they had when making the game slowly going through the level can be tedious I personally don't like the timers but I do like pushing through the level and getting into firefights and being out numbered because once I win the fight it makes the game so much more interesting they didn't want the game to be a slow point and click and a very basic strategy game they wanted more depth in combat and more realistic so the most common thing developers do is put a timer
@@MVPHILLY1 Okay, first off, how is it "realistic" that a power source in a protected facility is rigged to explode before anyone is spotted?
Second off, here's an idea:
What if they added, say, a material that you can only get if you complete the mission quickly, and call it, oh I don't know, *Meld.*
And an enemy that attacks soldiers not protected by other soldiers. You could call them *Seekers.*
And add both those things in a DLC, and call it *Enemy Within.*
Naaah, that woudn't solve anything.
@@dydlus plenty of facilities are rigged to blow after they are used xcom goes around hacking everything and anything........ Yeah I'm going to start rigging stuff to explode after my network gets exposed too it's common sense 😅
For many, the fun in X-Com is to carefully scout an enemy position and figuring out where to best place your soldiers in preparation for the attack. It is extremely satisfying when your careful planning allows you to wipe out a force far more powerful than yours with minimal losses.
The turn timer pretty much takes all of that away. It forces you to blindly YOLO your troops into enemy ambushes instead. You rarely have the initiative in the battles anymore. You just constantly get caught with your pants down and mostly survive by pure luck.
There are ways to still add some less "intrusive" elements of unexpectedness in the game that could be beneficial to gameplay. But that was definitely not it.
Then agian XCOM2 is the vastly superior game thanks to the turn limit forcing you to take calculated risks.
XCom enemy unknown had a lot of mechanics that penalized you if you rushed forward. XCom 2 they took none of those mechanics out and just forced you to rush forward.
X-COM Apocalypse had consequences if you simply made a mad dash into a UFO or jumped out from cover into an open area. They made up for it by having RT and TB modes.
If you're impatient like I am, you could use RT, but if you wanted a near-perfect mission by-the-numbers, then maybe TB is your cup of tea. Apocalypse gave you a choice, XCOM 2 basically shoves it down your throat.
If I wanted a fast-paced experience, I'd play doom, not an XCOM game.
I have another example of positive vs negative encouragement. In this case, it's how some tower defenses encourage you to use different towers/traps:
Positive -> Orcs Must Die: If you damage an enemy with different damage types (fire,bleed,stun,chill) you'll build up combos and earn extra money to spend on more traps.
Negative -> Dungeon Warfare: Building 5 of more of the same trap makes each new one cost additional resources.
Both of them have the same end result: If you use a lot of the same trap you'll have less money to build stuff, but one feels rewarding and the other one punishing.
sounds like the towers in dungeon warfare may not be balanced very well.
sounds more like so you change up your style.
this is still one of my very fav GMTKs.
it's the one i think about the most when trying to analyze a game.
The vid shows plenty of examples of bad game design
@@retrodkcn1979 I've seen you in a lot of comments in the video
You seem to have taken it very personally
I always loved the small demons in Doom trying to avoid the player or playing from long distance. It's like "yeah, you come from hell, and have greater numbers, and bla bla bla, but I've got a double shotgun. So come here, or I'll go for you!"
Meanwhile in DS2: "Yeah, sure you can kill the fire keeper. You'll even get an item for it. Oh and also you can never level up again without paying an outrageous sum this playtrough"
IMO D2 needs a overhaul the game is broken from years of trying to fix it with activision on them
@@shawno8253 ds2 is dark souls 2 not destiny 2
@@DaniHawkTV oh my bad
@@shawno8253 What did you associate "firekeeper" with in D2 ?
I agree this is stuped but WHY DID YOU KILL HER?
This is why Minecraft is so popular. You choose your playstyle and the game does not encourage or discourage any of them.
I don't like minecraft i feel it's boring and i used to play it sometimes when i was like 8 year old
@@irunasoft ok
@@irunasoft Thank you for your input
@@irunasoft k
Exactly, if you want a house you can have it, if you just wanna explore you can, if you just wanna kill monsters and get strong you can, if you wanna use redstone to get everything done you can, if you wanna live underground or at the top of a mountain, doesn't matter, both work, everything is available to you independently of your playstyle
Mario vs Rabbids actually has implemented such an „encouraging“ turn limit.
You can make the battles as long as you please, but in the end you get bonuses if you didn‘t take longer than X turns, if no one died and one other factor i can‘t remember right now.
But they don‘t show the limit during the first playthrough of the fights, which to me is a very nice thing, cause that way i’m not constantly stressed because I „only have x turns left before not achieving the goal“. First time is for fun playthrough, then you can replay the chapters to get full scores if you like or want the additional little presents.