Hidden Game Mechanics: Design for the Human Psyche - Extra Credits
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Sometimes games trick us into having a more engaging experience by simulating near-death escapes and gently massaging the odds to be kind to us. These hidden game mechanics play into the expectations of our human psyche to give us the results we expect.
Subscribe for more episodes every Wednesday! bit.ly/SubToEC
___________
This episode was written by Jennifer Scheurle!
See more of Jennifer's work: gaohmee.com/
Reach out to Jennifer on Twitter: @Gaohmee
___________
Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! bit.ly/ExtraStore
Play games with us on Extra Play! bit.ly/WatchEXP
Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! • Co-Pilot Mode - Better...
Thanks for participating in this week's discussion! We want you to be aware of our community posting guidelines so that we can have high-quality conversations: goo.gl/HkzwQh
Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: www.youtube.com...
Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): bit.ly/ECTweet
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/ECFBPage
Get our list of recommended games on Steam: bit.ly/ECCurator
___________
Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net
___________
♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM
bit.ly/1eIHTDS
♪ Outro Music: “Undertale - Shop Theme (Toni Leys Remix)” by Toni Leys
• Undertale - Shop Theme...
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Have you ever made it out of a tough boss fight with just a sliver of health and felt like AN ABSOLUTE GOD? Welp. We've got bad news for you.
Check out the Twitter thread from Jennifer Scheurle (and tons of game devs) sharing examples of hidden game design: twitter.com/Gaohmee/status/903510060197744640
Nice
When you play a game over and over, and you discover there's this part where you simply can't die and killing enemies don't even change anything, you just put your controller down and enjoy your sweet time.
I know though that lots of recent games stopped displaying the health bar and just makes the screen looks more red or something, which makes it very difficult to judge how close you are to death.
So who is this Jennifer person? What has she worked on?
I like when games make an enemy enter your field of vision at least once before attacking you, unfair for the enemy yes but god it's nice not to be one shotted by something you never saw.
Her twitter bio and twitter feed talk about her game design accomplishments, feel free to follow her for some good insights!
I literally JUST pulled a push door, not five minutes ago, due to a bad design, and thought "huh, it's like that Extra Credits thing."
Then I get back, open UA-cam, and this comes out.
Wat.
It's actually taken from the book that they showcase in this video 'The Design of Everyday Things' - one of the bibles of design (all design). A great read for anyone honestly, designers and non-designers.
You weren't trying to leave the Midvale School for the Gifted were you?
.
.
.
.
Google it if you don't get the reference.
I'm pretty sure those are called Norman Doors
50% chance
I wonder if thats actually the designers fault or whether its the fault of the people ordering the door and implementing it put it in the wrong way.
An easy way to avoid the "infinite bad rolls in a row" syndrome is to add a pity rate, where for each failed roll, the success chance goes up behind the scenes, resetting once the roll succeeds.
Say I have a variable I've named pity, when I call roll, the game makes a roll. I also tell the game whether it is a success or a failure that the player desires, and then add/subtract the pity value to/from the displayed chance (unless the chance is 100% or 0%, in which case, pity is bypassed). If the roll gets the desired result, I set pity to 0. If the roll doesn't, I add the chance of the desired result * some pity modifier (this way, failing a more probable roll will add more to the pity).
This protects the player from a plethora of bad rolls in a row, but the player doesn't know that.
Thanks random person from 2 years ago! Your idea helped me and my studio of 3 to release a xcom clone.
@@lavendervonstaro4004 I believe this is called Pseudo Probability, or in some games called PRD (Pseudo Random Distribution)
Id rather take the enemy health, the player health, and, if the player is about to die, no bad rolls por 2-5 rolls, if inversed the player will have a reduction of a chance to do something special like a crit.
@@makise4962 Not quite. Pseudo random distribution works both ways: successes increase the chances of failure and failures increase the chances of success. OP's case is a specific anti frustration mechanism that balances odds to yield more successes than should be logically expected
I think XCOM 2 had something like this, where missed shots secretly upped the chance for the next shot(s) to hit.
"I got your nose" fooling a naturally noseless individual. Fits rather well.
When you realize no one in Extra Credits has ever had any noses.
"Got yer nose" works even in a world where "nose" isn't so much as a word at all.
You could say that no one nose...
I get a sense of dread and horror watching this video. Not because of anything you guys said, it was great as usual, but rather because of the clear example of this tool being used for nefarious purposes. Destiny 2 had a hidden xp throttling mechanic that silently lowered exp gained while not telling. It would say you'd get 100xp, but in actuality only getting 10.
Pretty sure D2 still has exp throttling, but the difference is it's not hidden anymore
tbh the numbers are worthless, it's the percentage which matters. Like if you hit larger and larger numbers, but it doesn't matter if the enemy has larger and larger HP, as long as you feel you're levelling up fast enough, or slow enough for each level to mean something, then that's what counts.
Maz H it was done to cap grinders so they don't finish the game as fast as they did in Des1
Maz H: That is called a difficulty curve.
kindoflame it's not a difficulty curve if it's just making you grind
Remember last year when you were so overworked that you gave us some channels to watch during your break? I mean, I'd be fine with it since God, you guys are doing even more stuff now! Thanks you so much for your great videos about game design, history, and sci-fi!
I would love this again. :)
If this wasn't already mentioned, Mark Brown's Game Maker's Toolkit series is pretty awesome.
Watch Joseph Anderson! His reviews (especially Botw) are awesome and very in depth.
Karel Plets x1dcq~anything
6:30 "At first, Stanley assumed he has broken the map. Until he heard this narration and realized it was part of the game's design all along."
If you ever played any Pokémon games you would be condition to expect to miss on anything below 90% accuracy.
you forgot "twice in a row"
And then have the enemy 'mon hit/swipe you five times in a row...
@@Tersina Yep 😁, don't forget them waking up immediately after you putting them to sleep
being meguca is suffering
I just thought about that right now
I love the name 'coyote time' for a mechanic, it's just perfect.
My perception of the world is shattered. Nothing has meaning anymore.
Scott Nay If it's any consolation, nothing ever meant anything
Scott Nay you should lie down.
Really? No need to mention disadvantages? Or just plain out badly implemented hidden mechanics.
I remember when I was playing "Need for Speed Underground". The AI seemed pretty good first, but once you start noticing that even when you do extremly well, there is always one guy at you back, I started to feel sth was wrong here. So I waited a whole minute after the race started and began driving. It was no problem to catch up to the AI and just got hard after catching up to the top 3. Once you notice this mechanic, all races become completly obsolete, because the AI is always adjusting to your current speed to make it seem "closer".
You do realize that that specific game has a menu option to turn that shit off, right?
haha I remember that too in NF, no idea which one it was tho. AI would get crazy accelerations, getting you in matters of sec, - like you have said, it really killed it for me. :( after seeing - notcing, didn't touch it anymore.
I once beat such a racing game by purposely staying second and using a boost to get first only in time for the finish line.
So-called “rubber-banding”
@@satannstuff no, at least not the older ones
It's a mixed blessing.
The catch is that many tricks will, if revealed, make a good chunk of the audience hate you. You also get a lot of players who are absolutely and utterly convinced that devs are fudging things they aren't, in ways that they think ruin their fun, simply because they're aware that it's possible, and they'll work tirelessly to convert others to their belief.
And of course, you have devs who, as EC has discussed on other occasions, will use the exact same tricks to get you to jump into exploitative microtransaction skinner boxes.
Yeah I would swear the odds in x-com are stackes against the player hard. It probably isn't the case but because of some reallly crazy coincidences I can't be convinced otherwise.
"The catch is that many tricks will, if revealed, make a good chunk of the audience hate you."
This, in fact, happened in the game dev circles on Twitter. A bunch of gamedevs mentioned tricks they pulled in various games, and people were LIVID! It led to one person saying "[Game dev] is like performing tricks at a birthday party and convincing the child that he's the real magician."
I loved Video Games, then i got a degree in Computer Science and Game Design and now i dont play them lol
That’s pretty interesting, why would you say that is?
school probably took most of their time
@@senorbill374 it's like knowing how "magic" tricks are done, or that Santa's not real , ignorance is bliss
Wait santas not real?
@@cryptouk7985 Nah. Magic tricks take a certain dedication and mastery. They are MORE exciting when you know how to do them.
I was playing a xcom like game and one of my units had a 100% chance of hitting the target. They missed
God Damn it Private Church!
Does that look like a big cat to you?
"In the end, a game designer's priority is to engage and entertain."
Ha - _I'm looking at you EA..._
Wait...they are game designers? I thought they were game studio headmen.
How about Gameloft then?
I liked gameloft back in the days when they mad brothers in arms for mobile, ahh the days before i hit puberty
AlfredEiji
Given that just FIFA alone entertains 15+ million players a year, they’re doing something right
Don't forget Ubisoft
On the ability of our psyche to judge chance, the iOS's music shuffle system works the same way. People were complaining that the randomization ended up with playlists that were bunching groups of same artists or same albums together, so the shuffle system actively avoids consecutive instances of songs with similar characteristics. Thank you for a good holiday episode!
Yup, people are terrible at randomness. It's a pretty famous experiment to do, have people write down a string of random numbers, and have a computer program generate a couple of strings with random numbers.
Almost without exception you can tell right away which ones were made by humans, because they are "too random".
A human writing that string (if it's between 1 and 10) would almost never write: 7, 7, 7, 3, 7 - because so many in a row wouldn't be random, right?
Or 7, 1, 2, 3, 4 - that's not random, those are consecutive numbers!
While in truth, for a truly random number generator, 77737, 71234 or 49205 are all equally random and likely.
Yep, they made it less random to make it feel more random.
Thanks for that, I had no idea, but it explains why it would go through sections of tracks I don't want to listen to know, and instead reroll, for a "better" shuffle.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, or wholly disingenuous. What some games might employ (and in the case of pokemon for instance, SHOULD employ) is a system where your INITIAL use of a 50% skill is a true fifty, but as you use it repeatedly, it works towards what feels like a true fifty, or actively makes whatever scenario your 50% move does, activate every other time. For instance, if I am playing borderlands, grinding a boss for a legendary, I know that he has a 3-10% chance to drop it. I also know that the game hates me, and doesn't want me to be happy, lol. I would actively support games implementing systems like that, at LEAST for tedious things like grinding, or pve. In pvp, everyone ought to have fair, honest numbers.
gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/tutorials/shuffle-bags-making-random-feel-more-random--gamedev-1249
Here's a really good example of what something like that could look like in practise!
Also great ep! Feels inspired by that twitter thread that was going around a month or two ago?
I"d love a list of common hidden mechanics.
Imagine a game that purposefully does stuff that feels wrong, and that was built around it. Like, the 50% chance was actually that, and part of the game was dealing with that fact. Imagine a game where all the hidden mechanics were shut off and built itself around that fact. Perhaps there's a narrative that the world is slowly unravelling, or even just dialogue where the player avatar talks about how everything just doesn't feel right. Thoughts? Anyone?
I was just thinking the same thing, it would certainly be a bad time for most players though, my friend and I were discussing on how we would build a game based on Made in Abyss, maybe this is the thing we need to nail that sense of unease a game like that would need.
Yeah, if we could properly communicate that "you are supposed to feel like something is terribly wrong" then we could slowly work off that. But how to we subtly tell a player that the game is trying to mess with them, that no, the game isn't busted, but we want to evoke the feeling of busted?
Well, horror games usually have bad shooting mechanics to make the gamer feel powerless.
Maybe the character would be going through a really bad fase of his life for whatever and his "feeling" that the universe is against him. So we could use these mechanics to represent those feelings
Interesting, William. Any connections you see between certain emotions and shut off hidden mechanics?
Pretty sure the hardcore games like turn based war games do that.
This is one of the many reasons I prefer tabletop games. It's a lot harder to use such tricks when all rules and random elements are openly known to the player, and that gives me a much stronger sense of achievement. Even before I found out about most of the things you mentioned, many of those "close calls" felt kinda wrong to me (in part because of how many of them you encounter).
But what tells you, that your GM doesn`t do similiar tricks?
@@TheWampam as a GM, I can confirm that I do those tricks, and they work! Although I think he's talking about tabletop games like Carcassone, where all the players have the same rules.
I think if you notice or feel something wrong about those hidden mechanics, then they aren't hidden enough!
Game Maker's Toolkit has a video about luck in video games and points out an example of a developer decided to display dice rolls instead of just generating some values. It's easier to accept the result of something physical than the result from "theory".
I've missed a 100% shot in X-com before because it visually rounds up for the player but really it's like a 99,95% chance to hit. It felt terrible and completely took me out of it. But I guess that's X-com, baby. :/
missing a 100% hit chance shot? that's the most xcom thing i've read
Reminds me of buff caps in Skyrim, 100% defense? More like 80, also the maths are so confusing that I used a mod to display the real stats
That Leetri Guy I can believe it, happened to me once at point-blank range, while flanking. With a plasma shotgun. TWICE(double-shot special ability). I was flabbergasted.
UncommonReality well defense in Skyrim doesn't use something like percentage, it's some vague numbers. An armor rating of 800 explains nothing to me as to how much damage my armor blocks on getting hit. I have no idea what the ratio is of __ AR=1 damage reduction. Lots of games do that, only one I remember offhand is Paper Mario. It was straight subtraction, Atk-Def=Damage. Dragon Quest uses a 1/4th formula for Defense, 4 points of Defense blocks 1 damage. And Dark Souls? £♡€₩ that game, Def doesn't seem to do crap even if you have other 1000 in a catergory, unless it's elemental than it's percentage based; 1000 or better makes you immune so it's a 10 to 1.
Speaking of X-Com, the very first one, a few decades ago, was lying with it's difficulty levels. Easy, hard, moderate? Pfff nah, you were playing in Superhuman everytime because the game really had only one setting whatever you chose. It was a bug though, not a feature, but it may be the source of the 'hard and unfair' reputation the franchise got (and worked hard to maintain)
A couple of my favorite hidden mechanics come from the Portal series. Did you know that when falling into a portal the game will automatically push you into the center so you won't miss? Did you know that in puzzles where you use momentum to fly across gaps the game gives you a set velocity to control where you land on the other side?
It's disgusting when similar techniques are employed to persuade the player in constantly dropping some cash in a ingame store.
I think it might have been a recent Call of Duty title that used some shady techniques to get players to buy more. Upon purchasing a premium weapon, the matchmaking system would pit the purchaser against lower-level players than usual for a few games (so they would score unusually high and feel good about buying the weapon) and at the same time the premium weapon would be loudly advertised to the players killed by it, to try and convince them that they could also do good with this weapon.
That's skinner boxing and I completly agree that it's scummy to do.
Jack Hudner I do not condone this type of behavior, but you gotta admit: that’s quite the creative way to add Skinner Boxes to a game
I made an ai to farm tapjoy and ads
I am now more aware of why the Moped was placed near the Jump Rope Challenge in Super Mario Odyssey.
A good example is Fire Emblem games since 6, that actually take the average of 2 random numbers, which has the effect of weighing the dice more the farther from 50 you get.
It was taken out of the low end at some point to nerf dodgetanking because enemies with 30% displayed hit actually only had 11%
I actually really hated that "true-hit" system in FE games, which refers to the false statistical hits, unlike the name suggests. Maybe I'm just better at understanding chance than the average person, but I really enjoy when games like Xcom or FE tell me actual numbers. I know that a 95% chance has a totes real chance of failure and I always account for that stuff.
Natsu playing a lot of tabletop rpgs will do that too.
You learn by brute force if nothing else what those probabilities really mean.
Natsu Technically speaking, FE didn't lie to you because I think all games that had True Hit except for Awakening, displayed accuracy as a number, not a percent. So it just said you had an accuracy of 30, which correlates to an an 11% chance to hit, even though most people assume it will correlate to a 30% chance to get. Awakening did lie because it falsely displayed a 30% chance to hit.
I think they can fix the "lie" just by putting it as an option in the advanced display which mist players won't use.
Natsu: XCom may have given you actual percentages but the original one had a hidden difficulty adaptation, and the modern one did fudge hit chances a bit to have gameplay be consistent with what we _think_ probability should be.
It makes me recall some clips and tales from the older games of stuff like high-level Swordmasters triggering Astra with 90 hit, just to miss all five times. Promptly, they get killed off by some axe user with only 50 hit.
And of course, the dreaded criticals that trigger at crit rate 1.
All totally plausible, possible outcomes, but boy do they cause controllers to fly out the window...
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Extra Credits crew and commentators :)
Nwoknu35 thank you! And a merry Christmas and a happy New year to you!
A little late, but same to you!
I don't mind most of these mechanics, but there's an issue with fudging probabilities: those things are used in the real world. Games that adjust the numbers for a more pleasurable gaming experience are essentially setting you up to fail when dealing with real-world probabilities. I know that the vast majority of people don't understand randomness but I just wish games wouldn't reinforce those misconceptions quite so much.
They shouldn't reinforce them at all. In fact, I'd say that whenever someone gets up on the forums and complains based on those misconceptions, the developers' response should be "Our game works with probabilities correctly. We are NOT going to change it to fit your misconceptions. Go learn some statistics."
You are already set up to fail when dealing with real-world probabilities even without gaming experience. They don't create that wrong perception, it is just inherent to humans. Also, people usually don't get rid of that even with education, simply because our brain works with assumptions all the time, even when we don't want it to.
"the developers' response should be "Our game works with probabilities correctly. We are NOT going to change it to fit your misconceptions. Go learn some statistics.""
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that you don't work in customer service.
Most of e-sports titles utilize what they "pseudo-random distribution" (I know that all RNGs actually PRNGs, but you may imagine this one as pseudo-pseudo-random number generator).
Basically, every time something procs its chance decreases and every time something doesn't its chance increases. Overall you get you stated chance (with all of the mathematical rigour), but "spikes" are smoothed (because no one wants seven 17% procs in a row in a million-dollar match).
the thing is - it's useless. We don't have to worry about "reinforcing" randomness-related misconceptions, because they are completely inherent and natural - they will exist, and people will still follow them, whether they are "reinforced" or not.
All media manipulates the audience to make them feel certain ways. But people expect games to be different, because they feel like they're involved in a system instead of a narrative or an experience. Is that a fair expectation? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it's probably not one game designers should always feel bound to.
sure, but I think by the same token it's an expectation they should consider very carefully before subverting. Not doing a little bit of hidden manipulation WILL cause certain kinds of people to get very angry. However, as I think Cuphead has shown: there are others (myself included) who actually love it when a game doesn't have any behind-the-scenes trickery. You can really only get away with that in the Indie market though. Despite what many think: it isn't really a skill issue. I'm not a particularly skilled gamer, nor do I have a lot of time for games. It's more of a personality type issue. I appreciate the honesty of a game that doesn't mess with chance. When a game does, I prefer the devs to be upfront about it. However, I understand the other side: a person who wants to complete the game doesn't want to get suddenly cockblocked by obscure math.
I think this is more important in competitive multiplayer games, where it's critically important to maintain a sense of fairness. Fudging the numbers a bit to provide a more engaging experience for PvE content is all well and good, but if you do that in PvP, players will rightly call foul. No one wants to lose because of some hidden mechanic that was never explained tipped the odds against them. It feels like being robbed of legitimate victory.
It becomes different when you pick up the controller. It's the difference between active and passive verbs. You didn't watch a man go to war, you, through your controller\avatar went to war. That doesn't mean you aren't being manipulated, but I can put the controller down. (Some games, if I remember correctly, even have endings for if you choose not to play.)
@Mooser323 This isn't a hard rule for competetive multiplayer games, either. Dota 2 has many instances of chance procs, but nearly all of them tweak the odds on every attempt to make the rate of successful rolls more consistent with what e.g. "25% chance" feels like. This is well-documented externally, but not something that the game itself explains to you. Failing ten crits in a row with a 25% chance and losing an 1v1 encounter by a small margin in a mostly skill-based game would seem unbelievable to both parties and feel like shit to the loser, even if it's technically a fair outcome of your displayed odds.
The basic point here is that hidden mechanics are meant to be just that. A good hidden mechanic exploits assumed human psychological flaws in ways that make the situation feel more fair and reasonable than leaving the numbers alone. If the numbers are being fudged in someone's favour and it feels like you're being robbed of a victory, the hidden mechanic has failed at what it's designed to do. But it's not as simple as being fine only when you do it in PvE games.
+Sophie Jones What makes you so confident that Cuphead has no hidden mechanics? The entire point of them is to be... well, hidden.
They make us believe the character we meet have emotions *show flowey* HAHAHAHAAAA
Undertale battle vs flowey is actually a really good exemple of that. You receive more damages when your life is high and you get healed more when your life is low. So the last part when you have a constant stream of attack and heal aimed at you feels really epic even though it's almost impossible to die even if you just stand there take all hits but also pick up the heals.
On top of that your damage increases with each blow dealt to flowey so it feels more and more epic.
This fight is a masterpiece of manipulating perception to make something really easy feel like you just barely managed to survive a monstruous challenge.
I guess there was a reason why I preferred the Omega Flowey fight as a final boss over the rest. XD
Sans is just unfair... but understandably so considering what you had been doing up until then and Asriel you can't fail at all no matter how hard you try.
The difference isn't that obvious. Most people don't notice it especially when they are not interested in game design. Also a lot of people don't even really look at the specific of what happens in their health bar, they just check on how they are doing sometimes, so seeing the health always low makes it more exciting.
I noticed that something was weird on my first game but was too into the epicness to really understand it honestly, so I actually really understood it on my second time fighting flowey. And I'm someone that is generally good at noticing those things. So I think you might overestimate how obvious it is.
Of course it's something that is still noticeable, it's not something like randomness manipulation which is actually impossible to see if you don't do the math yourself. But it doesn't have to be totally hidden to manipulate the general flow and feeling of a fight.
Joseph Rogers for real? i had harder time against asgore than sans, i sans had a clear way to attack, and asgore had a few attacks that i could only evade out of luck, i could not predict them, nor react to them in time
Hugo Fontes Same. That was REALLY too obvious. Even for someone like me who is bad at this game and needed to focus on the fight, it looked like it was not even trying to be hidden, and that killed half of the epicness for me. I like to deserve my victories, and seeing my health barely dropping despite the attacks I was getting... Felt off.
If this trick is well made and isn't too strong, it can be fun. But in Undertale that was too much
AWWWW ****. I was always proud of the Flowey fight...dangit...
But wait a second here. The human brain is also adaptable and tends to make assumptions based on previous experiences. Sure, from the perspective of making a good game, it might not at all be a good idea to make a 50% chance, actually 50%, but would it not be reasonable to actually have the player deal with the actual true values that are used, meaning that the hidden systems would be made public in some way or another, so that the human perception can actually learn to fix the flaw that we apparently inherently have at the moment?
Navnik BHSilver The better method is simply having the target move and actually require us to aim in some way against a real hit box. I find that the only reason why a video game would not have someone simply aim at something to determine whether they hit to be if they were implementing a D&D like system of Charisma, Wisdom, Intelligence, Constitution, or Strength saving throws against spells (dexterity saves I see as just your reaction time to move away).
@@evannibbe9375 We are talking about turn based tactics game like Xcom and Fire Emblems here......
Roll to attack the dragon -nat 1- you instead stoop to one knee and pull out a ring, the dragon thinks you're proposing to it. Roll charisma check -nat 20- it says yes.
NAT 20 when breaking a door down, you manage to disintegrate it. NAT 1 the next time you try it, it turns into a wall.
Literally every Vox Machina encounter with a door
Ah, classic.
Plot of Shrek
7:10
I love whoever's in charge of the visual _so much._
The writing is always incredible both in the background and in the actual speech.
hey i recently noticed that you guys dont seem to have any videos that focus on movement in videogames when it is one of those few things games in nearly every genre have, how come? it seems to me like an interesting topic
That's a good topic. I've been wondering about control inputs and how they impact game mechanics.
Check out this playlist on their Extra Play channel.
ua-cam.com/play/PLvFQJa1XAXzx0ABskDtl8FwIOMrrPuIOR.html
The Animation of Video Games. A lot deals with movement, especially when dealing with the Sonic games.
Game Maker's Toolkit has an excellent video on Mario's jump specifically, IIRC
The "coyote time" thing kind of follows along with the single-pixel hitboxes that's now convention for bullet hell games. Actual contact with the sprite never _feels_ like actual contact... they feel like narrow misses. Especially when collisions in game engine are often checked before that frame is drawn, so we actually only ever see the frame before the sprite gets touched if the sprite itself is being used for collisions, which only makes it feel worse. Solution? Make the _actual_ collision box drastically smaller than the sprite. Even players who are savvy with this convention will tend to instinctively not allow the sprite itself to collide with hazards, even when consciously aware of their wiggle room. It all contributes to the feeling of nimbly yet narrowly evading a massive barrage of bullets.
In some of the bullet hell games I've played, there's a visible dot in the middle of the sprite that's much smaller than the sprite. THAT is your hitbox.
When you're binging Extra Credits and then a new episode comes out
The "stole your nose" and "=O" in sequence is probably my new favorite graphic of Extra Credits ever drawn
I simultaneously hate this very concept, and know that it's a very good idea. On one hand, I hate being lied to, and on the other hand, well, this really does make for a better gameplay experience. I imagine it being like a game master rolling something that will outright kill the player's character, but saying that it missed by an inch, because they know it'll be more fun for everyone if the player character's death only happens because the player truly failed to keep their character alive, and not simply because a random roll gave some monster a, technically fair, but ultimately infuriating advantage.
Ryu D I feel the same. For me it's because I play games to test my skills and improve myself, but if the mechanics aren't telling me the true values of what I'm doing then all those things I thought I *actually* accomplished seem diminished now. But at the same time, I understand it does make for a better experience.
some of it makes sense, like coyote time.
depending on the game it can feel like you hit the button with the right timing because of other games you're used to, or because the game you're playing has animation for running that visually leaves enough of the character on the ledge that you feel like "i should be able to jump still" when you press the button.
another benign trick is regenerative health, in Halo there is a thematically relevant reason, "its the shields that are regenerating", so it makes sense and doesnt feel like cheating, also, all players get this buff so its fair and consistent, but in others like Call of Duty its just a lazy design feature to drag the under performing player along the path to "a sense of accomplishment" when really, the game is playing itself and you're left with a false sense of pride.
others are outright lies like "the first bullet always misses", that's not challenging at all, its a warning shot when its meant to be a shot to kill. this sort of trickery feels awful.
some racing games have rubberband A.I. that forces slower cars to magically speed up past their actual speed just to fake a "close win", Daytona USA, Mario Kart and Mario Party are awful with this.
or worse, games like Xcom will force you to badly fail a mission even if you manage to win it, if you have too many successful mission wins in a row. "if the player wins too many missions consecutively, it becomes next to impossible to complete the 4th mission without losing several squadmates."
@@FractalPrism.
So _that's_ why those zombie creating fuckwits showed up so early...
"tricks you into thinking the characters feel something"... Flowey was literally perfect as a visual to go along with that line
This reminded me of my favorite Westworld scene: "Everything in this world is magic, except for the magician"
Lying percentages without context are terrible design decisions imo. It may enhance the feeling of heroism when you take an impossible shot at an alien the first time, but it gets old really quick. If the entire game is based on unreliable percentages then it becomes all the more confusing when an easy shot (80%) will realistically miss 20% of the time while a difficult shot (25%) hits half of the time. Once you get more skilled at X-Com you begin to understand how the percentages work and you subconsciously start to reevaluate them in your head which is a not a fun way to increase the skill cap. Strategy games are supposed to challenge cognitive biases, not attempt to autocorrect them.
And if the game wants to teach us not to trust blindly numbers, that's great but it should do it in a way that makes more sense. If you want players to be more engaged in taking calculated risks in a meaningful way, then why not design a system that requires you to guesstimate your decisions based several audiovisual ques that represent shot difficulty, stress level, fatigue, experience, hatred for a specific type of alien rather than a giving an unreliable number?
Because that takes way more effort and talent.
xcom 2 already includes the pity bonus in its calculations, it's not a hidden mechanic. The only "hidden" part is that the easy difficulties give you a flat 1.2 or 1.1 multiplier. Once you play a harder campaign, all the numbers are exactly what you're shown
@@Jake007123 no it's just because games are not like real life, if you build a game following the real world rules your game it's gonna be a tagged as bad, sometimes we ha to cheat in design to make things fun is not a question of talent, try to make a platform game without coyote jump and watch a bunch of people saying that your game have bad controls.
Even multiplayer competitive games are not free from these tricks!
They'll carefully choose who they will match you against to insure you have juuuust the right win ratio where your retention is at its best.
And if you don't play the game for a while, and come back to the game later, of course they'll make sure to match you against someone bad, so that you win your first match!
this is super noticable in League of Legends. I think that every time I've took a break longer than a week, I've always won the first match after coming back to the game.
Depending on the MP game this is implemented, though, people want anything but this and they will raise hell against the developers if they notice this at play. The Call of Duty community *really* doesn't like when the devs talk about Skill Based Matchmaking.
HoodieGal That was just coincedence bro. League doesnt have that stuff. It has a protection System for new players though.
Skill based matchmaking tends to fail utterly whenever any sort of team work is required of the players. Half the time you might as well be playing with random teams.
Actually it could be interesting to have a game that tells you only the truth and uses mechanics that rather than trick you into believing in something, enlightens you with the actual feel of "the chances we have or the stakes. You know - Kind of the game that don't cultivate escapism and prizing so much, and try to ensure a sandbox of true environment.
Maybe our brains are bad at estimating because we just don't do that very often. We don't see the possibility in numbers in real life. With games we could actually feel what does that mean.
A good DM in DND will know this all too well
I wish more DMs wrote games, and I wish more Game Writers did PnP on BOTH sides of the board.
Modern gaming, regardless of genre with VERY few exceptions ('walking games' and the like), is essentially PnP with graphics: Randomized outcomes based on specific variables.
(I've never actually PnPed before though, so I admit I may be wrong, and this is just my opnion)
I think a good way to do percentages that feel more real to the player is Deck of Cards style: have a set number of Y/N to "draw" from then "shuffle" it when it runs out. Make the "deck" big enough that it's not too obvious, but small enough that long strings of "N draws" don't occur often. That way casual players think it's "fair" and "accurate" while hardcore players can "count the cards" to get the true percentage for each "draw."
I believe Tetris does that to prevent the occurrence of a sufficiently long string of S or Z pieces which can clog up the play area.
newer games of Tetris do this. The old NES Tetris and GB Tetris do not.
I wish I could get a job as a Cool Person.
I play XCOM and I laugh when I miss an 80% shot because it reminds me that 20% chance of failure is very real. There is a mod that calculates how lucky a soldier is based on their history of beating the odds, so it will say the actual percentage along with a "...but probably X%" I think it's interesting how some characters develop a habit of hitting less than ideal shots even when their aim stats aren't the best. "That's XCOM, baby!"
On another note, if the odds are being manipulated, things like microtrasactions can quickly enter an ethical grey area.
Try Disgaea 5, its built for you to 'break' the game. The developers made bugs from the old games features in newer ones. They made it so you can reach insane stats by playing with the rules and abilities available to you. They also make it obvious they are doing it, because in all honesty it makes for a better playing experience for a tactics based game. Also it keeps to chances if you have a 99% chance of hitting you will miss occasionally (99% is max) and it feels good (it sucks but you get over it and go to plan B).
I also want to say that I loved this video.
The old MMO City of Heroes actually had a mechanic called "streak breaker" which meant that it was impossible to miss more than X number of times in a row, based on your accuracy. For a 90% chance to hit could only miss once in a row.
Ironically, to portray a character in your party that feels emotions you displayed Flowey, *the one character in Undertale who canonically doesn't have emotions.*
Maybe some of this stuff should be tied to difficulty level. If you choose Ultraviolence or Nightmare, there shouldn't be a need to give you extra fake health between 1% and 10%.
For the most part, I agree. When I play higher difficulties, I do it because I want to prove to the game I can beat it without any mistakes. If I get reduced to 1 health, in my mind, I've already lost.
I think most games that have the thought to put in these systems in the first place also have the thought to do exactly this. BioShock has the ole "no attack will drop you to more than 1% health, which grants you mercy invincibility, then once that invincibility is gone, another hit will kill you unless you heal" deal. I know that on Hard and the PS3/Remaster-exclusive Survivor mode, that whole process is completely bypassed. Get hit for 20 or more damage at 20 health, you're dead, no second chances.
Another thought, if you find that your players react irrationally to seeing a chance to hit given as "90%", so much so that you have to start lying about those numbers, then maybe percentages aren't the right display choice for your game! How about a few simple categories instead: Sure Thing, Decent Shot, Tough Shot, Fat Chance. People who don't understand probability might rage, "How could you miss a 90% shot!", but "How could you miss a Decent Shot" answers itself.
HebaruSan to be honest, playing xcom, the game references at the beginning, the best run stories are littered with improbable situations. Missing 90% shots or hitting with 1% hail Mary shots by a soldier out of cover and surrounded by enemies, it can be frustrating, but i think it makes the game better than objectively lying to people about the odds.
I know Mass Effect 3 ( and probably 2 as well ) gave you a short period of invulnerability if your shields went down or your health was nearly gone. It's duration depends on the difficulty level, on the highest it only really ensures that you can't go down in fewer than 3 hits. There are of course enemies that fire more than 2 powerful shots in a row so sticking your head out of cover at the wrong time is not encouraged.
The only issue with the smoke and mirrors thing is if someone takes a second to test stuff out. That makes the experience feel absolutely terrible each time you find a similar situation and realize- "That wasn't skill, that was the game going easy on me." If you disagree, if any of you can remember playing a game at a family member or friend's house, do you remember how the first time you probably wiped the floor with them in the game, followed by being absolutely neutered the next round after they clearly get a little mad? That's what the game designers are doing.
This is great and all, and I know I'd be wrong to say that I can't enjoy games that do these things. However, as someone who likes to explore and learn game systems and eventually learn how to best utilize them hidden mechanics like these can be very annoying.
Ah, but then comes the good part. Once you do realize the mechanics are there, you can take them into consideration, and involve them when figuring out the best way to utilize all of the game's mechanics. It's like an extra layer of exploration. (For example, I've heard that a lot of speedruns of Resident Evil 4 involve the players deliberately getting hit by enemies, to trick the rubber-banding difficulty into going easier on them in later levels.)
The "got yer nose," followed by that face, gets me every time.
4:25 Is that a JoJo reference?
no
It is meee
DIIIO
yes JoJo part 4 Enigma arc :)
Nani?!?
I split my lip grinning so hard
i actually laughed out loud at the game suddenly having a gun XD
And then there's the other side of the coin that I personally experience all the time, and I wish you'd explore in another episode. I tend to notice these "tricks". I notice when an AI is intentionally designed to grab the idiot ball and hold back precisely when it's about to perform the coup de grace. I notice when NPCs don't play by the same rules as human players. I notice when the deck is "subtly" stacked in your favor.
And I feel condescended to. Like a cub racing its mother, who then just lets it win. The moment I notice a game is doing that is the moment I stop playing, because in my mind there's no longer any point. There never was.
So there you have it. There IS a demographic - I don't know how large, but I do know that I exist - that is appalled by the mentality glorified in this video and by how prevalent it has become, and who would prefer their experiences brutally transparent, honest and *fair*, so that they can accurately assess their skill and its improvement over time.
Add me to the membership list.
Maybe we should start a group on Steam or something dedicated to finding the lying games so those who value honesty can avoid giving them business.
You might be one of the absolute rarest types of people who do notice every little bit of fudging but my feeling isn't that you dislike being lied to, you just dislike noticing it. The Coyote Time phenomenon is possibly the best example of this, where if a game doesn't include it then, for the vast majority of players, jumping just feels wrong.
If you notice that identical attacks are making your health go down different amounts based on how high your health is, then they've weighted their compensation badly. If they're fudging the die rolls in XCOM and you're noticing it then, again, they haven't set things up properly.
I'd be willing to bet that, in a poll of 100 random gamers, at least 90 of them would say they don't want their games to fudge things for them and that they hate noticing it, but how true do you think that actually is? This is not to say that you're not speaking the truth, just that none of us are best placed to fairly evaluate our own psyche.
Count me in :
•Some non-obvious mechanics may be necessary to keep a game fun, or simply to implement the author's intent within technical means.
•Purposely hiding them is dubious. Just make them discreet.
•Lying is crossing the line. Like, giving the player numbers then calculating with different ones.
Yes, good fellow gamer.
So basically, XCOM's percentage vs. Fire Emblem's hidden True Hit.
Oddly enough, Pokemon actually manages to circumvent our inability to judge chance by re-framing what's considered "Risky". For roughly the first half or more of the game, all your attacks have pretty much a 100% chance to hit, with less accurate and more powerful moves being introduced closer to the end of the player's progression. This framing actually drives people to be acutely aware of almost any possibility to miss, even an 80% chance to hit as being quite risky.
Just look at how a certain move with 75% accuracy is so frequently called "Focus Miss"
I ran into this just last week. I was modding a game, and each player had a 50% chance of dying if targeted by this one ability. Well, sadly for the people using the ability, it missed/didn't kill 4-6 times and hit only 1 time; my players who were controlling the ability felt robbed. So that would have been a great moment to write hidden mechanics into the game.
I recall once reading an article about games like stellaris and civilization, and i recall specifically that several of these games’ AI players had secret mechanics to ensure that the player would always have to step in and deal with some looming threat to all. Like in stellaris, when a crisis begins. Has anyone who’s ever encountered, for example, the unbidden, noticed how they were never fought back and destroyed by the AI, or at least, not without the crisis causing incredible damage first? This is intentional, as it makes the crisis seem all that more powerful, and a worthy challenge for the player. Hell, the unbidden even take more damage(in the form of fire rate and hit chance) from player ships than any AI vessel. Another example is If a players economy is low or failing, stellaris will give that player an increased chance to receive special events or bonuses through science ships than when their economy is booming. Additionally, if the player has struggled with economic problems for a long enough time, the game subtly adds more resources from the deposits for a time. Personally, I *love* these kinds of mechanics. I love games like civ and stellaris but im terrible at management, and the small little boons have helped me pull rotting carcass’s from the dirt into galactical superpowers or world-spanning nations in civ.
speak for yourselves, after long exposure, i've grown mostly immune to RNG.
99%? WITNESS ME!
One feedback
Please try to link more examples with games.
I know you did at the end, but since I already read Jennifer's Twitter thread, I felt like you could've mentioned the games when you were mentioning the mechanics.
Examples are great in that, people can related to that phenomenon better.
I an aspiring game designer and I love this channel! So much great information!
I love how sneaky some of these mechanics can be. One well known example is the Fire Emblem series (well, Binding Blade through Awakening at least); these games fudge hit rates in a way to make them "feel" better to the way humans perceive odds. Hit rates above 50% are more likely to hit than as displayed, and below 50% are less likely (look up Fire Emblem True Hit if you want a more in depth explanation). It's kinda cool because this system inherently discourages low-chance strategies and rewards players for finding strategies with innately higher odds of success.
But these systems are bad for player who want to implement legitimate strategy. These system cater towards more casual individuals, which makes sense because that's the market for fire emblem.
GorgeousFortress What do you mean it's bad for players who want to use strategy? Just because the hit rates aren't what they say doesn't mean that they take away strategy. I'd wager that most players who know about True Hit make their plans taking that into account.
It's very bad for people who want to use strategy because even if most players who know about True hit take it into account, how many players even know it exists? I certainly didn't and I've played and beaten every Fire Emblem game except Thracia 776 and the remakes too.
Well, I'm pretty sure you still used legitimate strategy even though you didn't know True Hit was a thing. Just because True Hit often skews things in your favor doesn't mean all strategy is thrown out the window.
No, but every choice you ever made was in incorrect information. Meaning you did not make a good choice, you were fooled into making one.
This was very helpful in understanding the ways that designers compensate for our human impulses. Thank you for making 2017 a lot brighter for us all with all of your hard work and devotion to your content and quality. Here's to another fantastic year of learning why games, history, and science fiction matter!
One thing to add to this, as someone who plays a LOT of pen and paper RPGs, is that we do this to each other all the time around the table. As a GM and as a player, I have seen innumerable instances where a dice roll is fudged, or an HP total is altered, or an armor class is misrepresented, in order to create more dramatic tension. The GM never announces that this is being done, but it is.
I wonder how much of this is a result of our exposure to video games, where these hidden mechanics have been in use for years, and are much easier to conceal; and how much of it is just the human desire to entertain and engage with each other.
how does this square with the perception of a game following it's own internal rules and feeling broken when it doesn't?
For the most part, I would guess that part of the challenge to designers is in a) guiding the player (or at least the vast majority) toward a certain understanding of what internal rules are in play and b) executing these hidden mechanics skillfully enough that the player doesn't perceive any such break from those rules.
The probability examples illustrate cases where people are sometimes bringing their own hard-coded rules in with them. Designers often decide against trying to fight that uphill psychological battle, instead tweaking the experience to align with expectations.
So, cases where players feel like they've "broken" the game, without losing that sense of satisfaction and cohesiveness with the experience... Designers may have carefully considered both what rules they can lead players to accept as true and what "larger" rules players are bringing in with them and then tried to create those "satisfying game-breaking moments" that are just slightly outside them: it may feel to players less like the internal rules are broken and more that they've been "bent," that the game's rules are still internally consistent, they just turned out to be slightly broader than the players had thought (which may "feel" further than the designers intended -- just as the designers intended).
The tricky bit there would be hitting that sweet spot where it feels like a difference from the previous expectations without going so far as to make the rule system feel broken.
I noticed the "attack should kill you but leaves you with one hit point left" thing in Far Cry 3. If you suffer an otherwise-fatal attack, you're left with the absolute minimum amount of health and enemies will stop attacking for a second or two to give you a chance to heal yourself. I liked it; it kept the fights tense and minimized the amount of dying.
I noticed the "leaving on 1 hp" in deadcells.
To be fair, that was community-suggested. Dead Cells was far more brutally difficult in its early days.
"leaving on 1 hp" can be an intentional and proper mechanic.
I've never really thought about this. All of my game projects have very rigid, clear rules, they focus on pure functionality, but i never stopped and thought about those hidden things that make games so much more lively.
I think you are underestimating just how good our brains are at probabilities. Missing a 50% shot 7 times in a row has a less than 1% chance of happening.
kindoflame and that means by your 700th shot it's likely that at least one 7-miss streak has occurred.
The fun thing about the hitpoint mechanics is that the earliest instance of similar mechanics I know of is actually from a game released all the way back in 1995.
Mainly, Alien Soldier, a super-late Sega Genesis game (and a super-awesome one that you absolutely should play, along with Gunstar Heroes) would never let you die if you had more than 1 hitpoint, ever, period. Since the game gave players several ways to heal mid-battle (most notably by deflecting enemy attacks, a rather easy thing to do once you know how), it often even served a similar purpose of making battles feel a lot closer than they actually were, albeit with a different execution than "let's give the player invincibility for a few seconds". Of course, Alien Soldier is also a notoriously difficult game, so you kinda needed all the help you could get.
Also, mind you, the game in question had the option to display your exact number of remaining hitpoints (though it also had the option to hide your HP entirely and the option to display it as a bar), so it's not like it's a 100% secret mechanic like most modern examples, but it's still interesting to think about how Alien Soldier, whether as a mere coincidence or because the game's design actually inspired modern games (probably the former), used a similar trick to a lot of modern games.
Treasure games.
They were often ahead of their time.
Now I don't feel that clever for finding out Super Mario Odyssey's "Double Dive" trick
This was an excellent breakdown, but what *really* got me was that dude near the end who genuinely believed that someone had taken his nose.
As a hobby programmer I once made a monster have a 20% chance to be a bit more powerful in a game. But I had a lot of trouble actually finding the right percentage, it always felt slightly too low or too high; never was it actually one out of five. Once I realised that this is just the nature of randomness, I stopped testing it, because I thought it would all cancel out in the long run. But I did not realise that the players will also never actually feel like it's 20% and I should have added some secret code that made the monster more likely to be stronger if previously spawned monsters weren't, and vice versa. This way, it would feel a lot more 1/5 than before. Thank you for this inspiring video!
If I were your player, I'd rather you just be honest with me.
Every tabletop game master worth their salt has does this, I think. And most players know it. The game is still working, nah, working because of that.
Maybe a good example of this may be the neutral run final boss fight in Undertale?
Despite having around a pixel of health during the entire battle and Flowey's constant, seemingly -undodgeable attacks, it's very unlikely that you'll de at this point. If you pay attention, you'll see you're losing less "space" in the health bar as you would've if it was full.
Both the music and the story indicates this moment as a climactic counter-attack, and the game makes you feel like you're barely holding on to life but still refusing to give in to despair. It's such a great moment.
Watching this while playing Fire Emblem
The more recent ones do lie about those hit chances.
Fin0fLenster
FE 6 to Awakening also lied dude.
Kieran Moran pretty sure fates is the only one with true hit dude
EDIT: wait no I'm wrong, AdziPL is right, 6-awakening have the 2 RN system, fates has its own weird system, and Echos has 1 RN.
By "more recent" I meant 6 onward. Though I haven't kept up with the super recent stuff as far as that goes.
games before 6, and Echoes, has *true RNG*
Other ones roll two numbers and count average for them when testing percentages of hit rolls. Crits, skills and growths use the single number RNG. Fates has its own, more convoluted RNG - altgough if the hit chsnce is lower than 50%, it will be rolled with a true RNG - 36% is 36%.
Hanzo's arrow hitbox is the best example of hidden game mechanics
A great example of this, which is very, very common nowadays, is ammo and item drops like in Resident Evil 4. It is probably the secret behind that game's success. A survival horror game with an item drop system specifically designed so you NEVER run out of ammo, but also to start to starve you of ammo a bit if you accumulate too much, in order to force the player to always be juuust shy of being out of ammo. It also modifies enemy encounters based on how well you are doing, adding or removing enemies based on your recent performance. Max Payne also did this back in the day, and even advertised it on the back of the box, as a feature. Resident evil 4 did it, and never told anybody, and its often touted as one of the best games ever made.
Ive heard very few people complain about this though. It seems like people have a much less visceral reaction when a game's more implicit systems are built this way, than with things like fudging explicit numbers shown to the player. Even though in the case of resident evil 4, you could argue it is a much, much bigger lie. Its a lie that goes to the very heart of the appeal of survival horror, the fear and dis-empowerment that you might run out of resources and be unable to defend yourself. The game essentially ensures this can never happen.
Why is it that these kinds of "tweaks" feel less "wrong" to the players than simpler lies like coyote time, %chance fudging or magic pixels?
What about less "customized" tweaks that are just simple level design, like for instance, "boss fountains", a design trick where you always put a lot of ammo and healing items just before a difficult encounter or a boss, to make sure players always have enough to deal with them? This is almost never seen as manipulative, even though it serves a similar purpose to tweaking drop rates.
How about general rules regarding pacing and difficulty curves in a game? We are used to games starting out easy, and slowly getting more difficult as it goes. Obviously, "the real world" doesnt work like that, in the real world people are never guaranteed to have the challenges before them well suited to their current experience, so why isnt this sort of thing causing anger?
Entertainment is ALL smoke and mirrors, people!
The problem I have with nearly everything in this episode is that by encouraging these types of tactics, you're encouraging false views of the world. It'd be fine if the player is made aware of the difference, but especially the tactic of messing with the rng means you're encouraging a wrong view of probability, which is bad for both the player who then goes into the real world with a now stronger confirmation bias, as well as for other video games that have to deal with the expectations of other games using a different set of hidden stuff that doesn't fit what the player already is used to.
Quite. You shouldn't be altering the game's reality to fit the player's perceptions, you should be altering their perceptions to fit the reality.
Yeah, the percentage chances and stuff is a bit off, because it indeed skews something, no matter whether it's in favor of the player or not. But other examples like "coyote time" (never heard it being called like that but love it) are far better here. Or one more popular example I would have loved to see in the video is touching good or bad things. For example, a positive pickup might have a collision area that's actually larger than the visual, while some enemy might have a collision area smaller than the visual to ensure the player is more likely to just get away or just grab it. Both work in favor of the player without really skewing your chances or introducing some kind of extra unpredictability to the mix.
It doesn't work like that, though. Our brains lying to us is the default state. As is pointed out in the video, correct use of probabilities *feels* wrong. Look at how much people complain in games that don't use probability-skewing mechanics.
The thing about these mechanics is that it's usually pretty easy to spot them if you stop to think once in a while. Once you know what to look for, you can shift your perception to compensate. Does "50%" mean what it should *trivially* mean, or is it shorthand for some function where 0.5 is the starting value? Can you exploit the few moments of grace invulnerability at 1% health, or is it too stressful to be desirable for you as a player?
inb4 the heated arguments on RNG in Battle for Wesnoth and several of Fire Emblem games - which use actual unbiased RNG, like Fire Emblem Echoes..One player had a ridiculous stroke of bad luck (like missing 8 90% attacks and getting killed by a *MYTHICAL 1% CRIT* ), arguing the RNG is broken, then starting to call everyone idiots and retards when they explained otherwise. Or Battle for Wesnoth player, stating that actually it is the perception that trumps reality, and so BoW *oughts* to have a biased RNG, because, apparently, if RNG doesn't give him the results he expected, it works bad.
(pretty similar to typical SJW bullshit btw)
Thing is, by default, the human brain has a false view of how probability works.
That was already known before it was ever used in video games.
If you actually calculate probability correctly, the brain thinks it's being calculated wrong.
In fact, if you take a math course and there's a big part about probability, there's a good probability that it will teach the student about the things the human mind incorrectly believes about probability, and our perception of it can be so off that even after learning about how probability works, we still don't get how it works.
So I guess they don't make games based on how probability actually works. I guess they make them based on how it feels like it should work.
Now as you speak of it. This seems to happen in world of warships quite a lot. For example you can get a citadel hit almost for sure, if the hitpoints of the other ship are very low. That gives you some feeling like 'wow! At least at the end I got one!'
And it makes sense, because in some cases it is hard to get citadel hits. But this encourages you.
Thanks for this episode!
I really want to become a game dev when I’m older, and you guys make me feel like I can achieve that. I wish everyone at extra credit a very merry Christmas and a happy new year!
As a player, and I'm aware that I'm in minority, I often have trouble with these things. My nedlessly calculative brain tends to spot these mechanics, and then I fell treated as If I was stupid.
While some, like already mentioned "coyote time" (cool name, btw), make the gameplay better, even if noticed, some other manipulations, like on health bars always annoy me. It's like with some phones: battery gets to red in a thenth of time needed to discharge completely. Most people don't notice, so it's a good thing overall, just not for me.
You're not alone, buddy. I cannot stand math, but I accept that we need it in a physical universe. So, it bothers me when people use it to lie.
Yes, fiction is a lie in and of itself, but it's a lie told in good faith, and we accept that going into it.
With video games, we are the director/writer of the action parts, and to have our 'creative tools' outright lie to us - and not in 'good faith' way - well that just makes me wonder where the devs were even coming from.
If the lie supports the narrative (i.e. we have recharging health because we are a genetic experiment ingame) then that feel natural. If it doesn't, then that just feels like we're being lied to, but *without the power fantasy elements*.
It's like a stranger approaching us and telling us we're a nice person. Our response is, hopefully, initially one of mistrust. But, due to hypernormalisation in the gaming industry, we now accept what is essentially daylight robbery. Well, I mean, I don't, but others do, according to their own words.
It's like this: If you see a magic trick, it should be the right type of lie. If you can't see the magician move his hands because he blindfolded you, then he's not really a very good magician, because he didn't 'trick you', he just manipulated you. That's why it's called a magic 'trick' and not a magic 'lie' [this may not be literally correct, but certainly contains a truth!] And that's the type of lie that microtransactions and day one DLC tell us.
It's like they say: If you can't tell a good story, then tell a good lie.
But gaming is plagued with bad lies - the worst of which is that 'game/community support actually exists in any *meaningful* fashion' in 2017.
Ditto. I've noticed this on Factorio, with the tank's HP bar. Like 25% of the tank's health is on the last sliver. I'm just like... wtf game. I've noticed it on other games too, and figured it was something like this. I've played XCom, and can't seem to play it outside of the hardest difficulty. It's a problem I have with lots of games, not just this one. But what made me quit were those damn "save the object that's four moves away in three turns" missions, not the hit %. I've played enough D&D to know what true randomness feels like.
R/verysmart
also on Assassin's Creed. Damn, that last pip of health lasted as much as 1/4th of health!
Your brain are immune to illusions.
Did Illuminati already contacted you? )))
6:30 Probably the easiest way to realize this point is with a simple choose-your-own-adventure type of game/book. Sometimes just by providing a few customized lines of text or dialogue according to the player choices, you can make the player feel like they are the one in control, even when the actual story is already set in stone.
I was going to say that you used a lot from a tweet, but nevermind, it was written by the person who tweeted it
The skewed healthbar example is something I've never considered, but is probably in plenty of games I've played,
Hidden mechanics have made me real bold when playing video games;
I can't count the number of times where I was at "1 HP, GOOD TO GO"
Maybe all of these hide. Mechanics are a disservice to humanity.
I do a lot of statistics at work, so when I played Xcom, I was trying to visualize the distribution in my head. I thought understood real statistics, but my brain was as skewed as any one else. That was until I finish the game, after se erL hours of Xcom my brain finally got adjusted to reality.
To me, I think Coyote Time could be a cool mechanic for a game. The first few jumps are easy, but then there's this impossible one, and the game tells you to run nonstop. You try it, and fall off the ledge, the whole game goes slow-mo, and you kick off the wall for a little more distance. Then you jump onto the vertical wall on the other side, and you run up to the other side. That would be _sooo_ cool.
You know, when I play against someone and that someone keeps beating me without a sweat, I get angry. But what makes me even angrier is when they offer me that they will play with a handicap so I can have a chance. And it turns out games are all about that...
I'd rather fail miserably than win knowing that the game let me win. I feel weak, bad and dumb. But then games would be bad altogether without these mechanics. Still, I don't like it, not one bit.
I absolutely hate when you keep failing a part that the difficulty gets lowered and you notice it. Knowing my victory was not the one I signed up for, I immediately quit playing because the victory was aggravating rather than satisfying.
Awesome episode! Honestly never crossed my mind that these things might be happening in games.
If most people have trouble to correctly assessing the result of percentages, then games that take advantage of this to give a "better experience" only contribute to people still have that problem of evaluation or even increase it. It's a pity that this is seen as something positive instead of encouraging games to help people have a better perspective on how percentages work.
Juan Luis Vargas Pareja I assure you that this is not a major issue.
why do games have to be for the betterment and education? what is really wrong about making a game more fun? if done correctly and if you don't actually analyse the game you probably would not learn the difference anyway.
isnt about education, it is about disinformation
Juan Luis Vargas Pareja I dont think it matters. It has more to do with how humans think not how or what we have learned.
It dont matter if it is about how humans think or what we have learned, there is still a problem.
I remember something about DOOM doing the invulnerability thing. It's neat to find out how developers make games like these work so well.
In league of legends there is massive "Lollypopping". It means that spells, when they reach the end of their reach have an additional area where they look for targets which enable really clutch hits that just feel good
Ah. That's why "the magic pixel" happens so much!!!
6:18 "believing that the characters in our adventuring party have emotions"
*shows character without emotions
That's why the first shot always does so much damage
For me, once a hidden mechanic happens, i feel like something is wrong, and i start scanning my gameplay for mechanics like the 1-hp mercy system.
Video games are pretty good at getting you to recognize patterns from very few graph points, so most of these hidden mechanics are often unnecessary.
Nice one.
As a game developer, a trick I use is a "wavy" difficulty curve - a game has to gradually get more difficult but I will make it more of a waving line than a straight line, so the difficulty will go down at some points, or a level that appears really tough will be surprisingly easy - players feel more accomplished and praised for beating a "tougher" level that could have, in reality, been placed at a much easier part of the game - though I'm fairly certain this is a common trick
A good example of the accuracy point you mentioned is fire emblem fates, where it uses a 2 number hit check roll instead of 1, you can look up the specifics if you want, but basically it makes it so that >50% displayed hit chance is larger than displayed, and