Hidden Game Mechanics: Design for the Human Psyche - Extra Credits
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 гру 2017
- 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: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_p...
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...
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 love the name 'coyote time' for a mechanic, it's just perfect.
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.
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."
"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 do try to be aware of game development tricks, but I had never heard of Coyote time. I mean, I did notice it in some platformers where I was like "I was totally off that platform for a fraction of a second, game must not have registered I was in midair. Thanks game!", but in some cases I didn't know it was intentional, and I definitely didn't know it was common enough to have a name!
This was pretty damn educational!
I didn't know the term coyote either, but I could definitely tell a lot of games I've played made use of that mechanic
I know there's a lot of games where the collision of the ledge is actually a bit bigger than it appears, making it possible to look like you're floating or standing with only one foot barely touching the ground. But games that make it possible to jump after running off the ledge, I can only think of Donkey Kong Country games, and that was an actual clear mechanic doable after a roll.
I guess it's such a small time area that it only makes the difference between the game feeling absolutely normal or making you frustrated because you're pretty sure you jumped before falling, so we don't actually notice it when it's there.
+DaikoruArtwin I think the first one is what actually happens in Mario, despite their example. It's not so much that Mario can cheat a jump even with no ground below him ( in most of his games, anyway ) but that even when his feet leave the edge he's still technically on it. It's a good example of how oversized hitboxes can be a boon when high precision isn't required - after all, if you're not going to have to aim a jump into a Mario-sized hole in the wall, why wouldn't you want that extra let before you're truly off the floor?
It's simpler than that. When the player moves off the edge of the platform, the code that says "can't jump right now" is delayed from running for 1-5 frames. Otherwise, the player would look like there floating when they inch to the edge of a platform.
I good example of coyote time I think is terraria. It does the frame window method.
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
"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
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
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 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?
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
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.
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"d love a list of common hidden mechanics.
I am now more aware of why the Moped was placed near the Jump Rope Challenge in Super Mario Odyssey.
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?
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
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".
One interesting one I remember is in Borderlands 2.
When you level up, your health and shields are recharged and you gain a damage buff (I think it's 30 or 50%) for I believe a minute.
Designers commented on how they did that because they wanted to build up on the thrill of reaching a new level
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'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)
Hi octane wouldn’t have been able to pull that off today. The internet would figure it out and it would cause a shitstorm.
bet
0.0
The internet would still argue what is the best car colour (totally is blue)
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!
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.
“Game designer and cool person” best description of a guest ever
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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......
When you're binging Extra Credits and then a new episode comes out
I feel as though this video should have a giant asterisk next it clarifying that while hidden mechanics can be great for artistic and experiential driven games. Hiding or subverting your mechanics in competitive multiplayer games is *terrible*. In such games, gameplay mechanics should always be clear and consistent. The only exception being some edge cases in which the mechanics are so insignificant, or the knowledge of could lead to serious exploitation (though in either case the playerbase will likely discover them eventually anyway.) Hidden mechanics in competitive games are analogous to a sports referee who makes inconsistent and unexplainable calls. In any competitive environment, a clear and level playing field is absolutely fundamental, and should never be subverted for the sake of little experiential improvements.
They make us believe the character we meet have emotions *show flowey* HAHAHAHAAAA
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
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
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.
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 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...
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...
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.
What people constantly fail to understand when it comes to odds and randomization is that every time is independent of the last. So it's possible to flip a coin and get pure heads and no tails.
I remember Pandora used to have a problem where people kept complaining that it was sometimes playing songs multiple times even when it was supposed to be random. The funny thing was it was playing random songs. It was just that sometimes by coincidence it would play a song more than once because the odds of choosing a song remain the same even if its already been played. But of course people are stupid and when they hear "random" they think means it "different every single time". So Pandora had to change their algorithm to not be random while still telling people songs were chosen at random. SMH.
This reminded me of my favorite Westworld scene: "Everything in this world is magic, except for the magician"
I wish I could get a job as a Cool Person.
Yeah this is great but why do my allies in civ5 declare war right after we declare public friendship?
Bearcat Ben ikr, every goddamn time
-Stalin, right after becoming allies with Germany
That shouldn't be possible....
it's probably just a bad calculation mechanic - with you as an ally their 'army' is stronger, so their decision to declare war is met
@@primozivancic7316 that makes sense
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.
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.
Really good. I hadn't thought of all these angles. On the (new-ish) X-com, the 95% thing really annoyed me since I wasn't ever failing. It undermined my trust of the mechanics. So game designers have to be careful not to go to far with this, or maybe more importantly, to know their audience.
The actual problem with X-com was that you had so few shots taken and each shot having such a big impact that the luck of the die was way to important. If you would fire a few hundred shots each mission while taking a few hundred in return and consistently out-position your enemy in such a way to have a 25% to hit chance edge over him then the rule of large numbers starts kicking in and you actually hit 25% more shots than the enemy over the course of the match. When you are taking a few dozen shots each mission you are basically playing Russian roulette: "I have a 5/6 chance to hit and kill that enemy and if I fail he is sure to onehit my X-com operative next turn".
The other actual problem is how the game depicted the battlefield. 95% to hit was soldier and alien standing right next to each other with the gun even clipping through the enemy. Yeah, that's not a 95% hit chance. And the ridiculous ways in which the guns twitched in the last moment or shots took physics defying trajectories shows it.
a downside of a d20 system, is some things really do have more than a 95% success rate, but sometimes fails and those failures matter.
That’s XCOM baby!
I would imagine that in most realistic combat encounters, chance is not nearly as important. Soldiers would not be aiming 20 careful shots in a quick engagement, like in X-Com. They would be firing thousands of rounds downrange at a covered target, giving a 100% chance of suppressing them, and then flank around the side, giving many 60% chances of hitting a pinned target, who is unable to effectively return fire (so they can just flip the coin until it comes up heads). It's likely that a lot of combat these days is mainly a comparison of training and tactics techniques, and very rarely actually relies on chance.
The thing is, real combat is also stressful. It won't involve a man getting to rush down the enemy with a shotgun, or doling out rushing melee attacks, or blowing up a gas station to achieve victory. Real firefights also last MUCH longer than they would in a video game, often converting that feeling of tension and excitement into either boredom or just anxiety. Players can likely simulate these moments in X-Com by playing the game as safe as possible, but they would take an ungodly number of turns. It's the same reason that players are rewarded with health in DOOM when they keep the fight up close, and why Team Fortress 2 has a tremendous damage falloff at long ranges.
Btw, XCOM (EU, EW, 2 and WotC) secretly changes the odds depending on how good you are (up to ±30%!!!)
You dominate the battlefield? 60% hit becomes secretly 45% hit (without telling you)
Only one soldier is alive and he is sourrounded by enemies? I wonder why all of them miss
I mostly agree, that there is quite a bit of smoke an mirrors at work. But you have to be subtle enough for your players not to notice, and you have to be honest with enough of the systems that the hidden ones can do their work that much better.
I run dnd for my friends, and being a game master is much like being a game designer. You have to make sure the smoke and mirrors all point to what your trying to accomplish, and do your best from revealing whats going on from behind the screen. An example is rolling the dice in front of the players about 40% of the time, so that when you need to turn that max damage lightning bolt to do damage just slightly less then the players hp, they don't notice.
Give them the illusion of a living breathing world, but deliver in actuality, the catered experience.
But you must admit that some players do not want a fudged experience
In a previous video you spoke of automated adjusted difficulty. This is a hidden mechanic that does help the player, but it can lead to a large feel bad moment if discovered. I know that the more recent Fire Emblems are more honest about hit%.
While you can say we all love illusion, we can just easily say you are undercutting our "accomplishments" if we discover that we were given a unseen boost. Also there is an assumption here that it only works when we fight against the game. When fighting another player, I hope there are far fewer of these hidden mechanics.
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.
The vast majority of hidden mechanics I think are great and really enhance the game but some stuff goes too far. Lying about the stats of the cars in hi-octane feels less like a hidden mechanic and more like falsifying content. Plus devs seem a bit too ready to defend such extreme mechanics; probably from having to defend the very idea of hidden mechanics all the time from people feeling 'lied to'.
In reference to of the specific examples you gave; the last bit of health being more than you think, and the game bringing you to low health to make it feel more intense I have had this really ruin a game. Because I would rarely die when getting to low health (as I secretly had more health) the game felt easy in terms of survive-ability. On the other hand as I was constantly at low health (according to the health bar) I felt bad at the game. I constantly felt like I sucked at the game because I was often on low health but that the game was also easy because I would almost never die. One bit of the game saying the "game is hard and you're bad at it" and another saying "the game is easy and you're good at it" was really off-putting.
Ever seen a kid 'playing' a game at an arcade but they are actually only on the demo screen but their parents told them they were actually playing? fun for the kid right? only up until they realise and then even if they tried they couldn't find the same fun again on the demo. I have had games where once I realised some of the under-hood-workings the games fell apart. Not because I was bitter about being 'lied to' by the game (which was just trying to give me a good time) but just because I can't just tell my brain to fall for tricks when I knew they were tricks.
Also whenever hidden mechanics are talked about it always sounds like it is done under the assumption that having an experience on false assumptions is the same, or adequate replacement, to having the experience with no false assumptions. Was the kid at the arcade really having fun 'playing' the demo screen? There are valid arguments for yes and no so I don't think that thinking that they weren't having 'real' fun should be so readily discounted.
In many ways this stuff ruins games, I agree. For the average player who isn't going to think much about this stuff, it probably works. But I tend to get into the nitty gritty and really try to unveil a game's mechanics. I think more educated people (in terms of game design) are going to be more offended by this stuff, as it will be more obvious to them when it's appearing. Similar to how people more educated about shady marketing are less affected by it.
Frankly, I welcome those kind of mechanics and am always happy about them when I discover them, if they're there to fruther the fun I have with the game.
Coyote-Time, More Health then displayed, enemioes first shot always misses etc. are all hidden mechanics of this type and for me, the game isn't ruined by them but I appreciate the game more because of that.
"Lying about the stats of the cars in hi-octane feels less like a hidden mechanic and more like falsifying content"
VERY disappointed to see the normally bipartisan EC frame that as a 'good thing' (tm).
I have once seen a thread where a dev openly explained some detail mechanics that are normally hidden secrets. It was basically the topic of how much the AI cheats, and the response was that it mostly didnt, but there were these specific few things that it did, and it had an effect of around 5% compared to normal, with the reasoning of using approximations instead of solving a too heavy programming problem (it required solution to an NP-hard problem for exact evaluation).
People (myself included) were very positive about such things being openly shown. Knowing that there isnt a slight of hand going on somewhere makes you able to trust your deductions so much more. For people like me who likes to dive into the deep end of theory-crafting, it is of utmost importance that we have reliable knowledge about how things work. You feel cheated when you have spend many hours thinking about the implications of some system, when it then turns out that it isnt really how it works and all the plans you have come up to exploit it just doesnt work that well. An example of this would be fuel range in aurora (4x). If you build your fleet to exploit the limited amount of fuel on the opposing side, you are in for a bashing, because the AI's do not actually use fuel.
I think the Hi-Octane thing is very cool but only as a psychology experiment that the game designers did just for fun to see what would happen. I definitely wouldn't call it a positive game design thing, just the developers having fun and dicking around.
"tricks you into thinking the characters feel something"... Flowey was literally perfect as a visual to go along with that line
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.
I've noticed Coyote time a few times before, I always figured it was a sort of "lag compensation" to to account for the response time of the player and/or their television, especially in games with high speed.
I THINK I remember one where jumping while coyote time was engaged actually gave you a bigger jump than normal as well... not sure what it was tho
i've done this sort of thing as a dm in dnd, make a fight difficult then fudge the rolls when the players are struggling. dramatic wins are better than fair fights
How do you purposefully fudge a roll, tho? Are you using a loaded d20? I mean, that sounds like a fantastic plot device for important in-world events
Sundavr Astaton roll behind a book, or a tablet or laptop, look up at your player group, give them the most deadpan look as you tell them the monster hits, and quickly pick up that 1 you just rolled.
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.
The "stole your nose" and "=O" in sequence is probably my new favorite graphic of Extra Credits ever drawn
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.
I would rather just be told the truth instead of believing a lie. Still its nice to learn how much developers care and how much effort they put in the game, since apparently a lot of it goes unnotticed just so people get a specific experience.
feathero3, that's the problem, brains aren't good dealing with truth. That's the whole point
Iskanderdunedain I don't think human psych is cultura
Iskanderdunedain
Lie? 😤
If that's true, those people should go to park sit on a bench and watch the trees, animals and other people going with their own lives for their enjoyment, I guess this is as true as it can get.
What do you mean by lie? Are book's authors telling lies, movie makers, singers, painters, artists? All these people have their own methods to lie. Writers have words, movie makers have all sorts of techniques, painters can create an illusion of depth on a flat canvas.
This is not about *lie*, it's about creating an experience, those are the tools game developers have to tell a story, that's their intent; to tell a story.
They are artists after all.
But it's not the same thing. When you read a book, you already know exactly that everything there does not have the obligation to be true and realistic. You read knowing that, so it's not a lie in any way. You watch a movie knowing that it was not recorded, it was acted. It's been explicity told to you, so it's not a lie.
But with videogames it's another story. If the game tells you that you have only 10% HP remmaining, but in fact you have more, it IS a lie, because the game is telling you an explicit rule that just not happens. You don't play a game knowing that. A book, a movie or a painter obey the rules they tell you. A game in cases like that, don't.
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!
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.
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
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.)
I just want to say thank you so much for all your hard work! Over all these videos you have helped me find out what I'm interested in learning (applied psychology to gamifying education) and I hope to apply these principles and help change someone's life for the better! Thanks again and keep up the good work!
I an aspiring game designer and I love this channel! So much great information!
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.
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.
I remember the controversy over Truehit in Fire Emblem, which was basically you roll the hit chance twice and pull the highest when over 50% and the lowest when under 50%.
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.
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.
So basically, XCOM's percentage vs. Fire Emblem's hidden True Hit.
this episode is absolutely beautiful, welldone EC!
Awesome episode! Honestly never crossed my mind that these things might be happening in games.
Since making a video game I can’t help but try and work out what the design of not just video games, but any structured lesson or activity is trying to get me to do or testing.
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.
The "got yer nose," followed by that face, gets me every time.
Have been waiting for this ep to come out since tweeting about you guys + Gaohmee ^_^ love it!
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 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.
TY guys for another great video & wishing you all Happy Holidays.
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.
Now I don't feel that clever for finding out Super Mario Odyssey's "Double Dive" trick
If you pay attention a lot of these trick can be noticed and it can feel very patronizing when game tries to over emphasis the awesomeness of something that's happening while you can clearly see that you are given easy time.
Honestly, I mostly feel smug when I figure that stuff out. "Oh, you thought I'd feel grateful for making it? I know your tricks, YOU CAN'T FOOL ME!"
Love the reference to the "To Be Continued" meme. Great video!
See you next year ;D
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!
Super meatboy does not have coyote time, thats why people love it so much.
Yes, it can improve the feel in a game where the flow is wanted,
but there can also be games geared towards a fair challenge, darksouls-feeling, and that type of player will notice and despise hidden game mechanics, and conversly love a game that has none.
I recently played through the remastered Crash games and I had to actively use Coyote Time to get a gold relic in the time trial. I could tell that I was jumping "too late" and had to actively try to jump later than it felt possible. It kinda took away from the experience, overall.
Stratelier Nothing is right with collisions in Monster Hunter, but play it enough times and it feels natural. It is almost like learning broken hitboxes is part of learning a monster.
It has coyote time for wall jumps.
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%.
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.
The writing for this episode in particular really drove home the point you were trying to make, especially with that last line at the end.
I'm pretty sure your wrong about chance analysis. Anyone I know who has been playing tactical games for a while assumes anything below 65 percent will miss more often than it his and anything that does not say exactly 100 percent still has the potential to not work.
True, tactics games like that pretty much rewire your brain to be pessimistic about hit chance.
Nice one.
Excellent episode! :D Have a nice holiday season!
The "got your nose" reaction was incredible! Scott's a national treasure.
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.
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? )))
I always like watching this channel, you learn something new everytime.
you all are great! I discovered you this year and I am very grateful for it. happy 2018, y'all!