Geekly News - The top 10 Mistakes Designers Make

DeepO said:

No, it would not be windows dressing.
"Occasionally" was the key word there.
Having to repeat encounters you´ve already won all the time is different from having these types of challenges in a game on just a few occasions.

Click to expand...

All the time or occasionally does not change the nature of things.

Just as players do not die in every section between two save points. They die occasionally. Therefore they only face the principle occasionally.

Just windows dressing on the same principle, accomodated to satisfy one's tastes.

oliverh72 said:

I wrote the article mostly because I'm surprised that a lot of these things aren't questioned at all, when, imo, they should be. I've been playing games for 31 years of my 39 and I don't get surprised by a game much anymore.

Click to expand...

They are not questioned because this is what the players want.

Things have evolved and developpers have adopted players'tastes.

The Witcher 2 is a recent fine example. It features a non revolutionary gameplay but for once, a mobile light armoured character that is supposed to be played as a mobile light armoured character.

The game took the path of a light tutorial, relying on players' gaming experience to fill the gap. No rocket science as the character plays as one could expect a mobile light armoured character to play.

The result was that the game was bashed for too light a tutorial, that does not show the player how to play the game.

Same with the other points like non moving NPCs: moving NPCs are perceived as a pain by players because they have to look for them when they need the NPCs. A little routine players feel getting old quite fast.

Designers only give to players what the players want. And players want the quoted points.

fatBastard() said:

What holeraw said.
1) Non-moving NPCs. Sure it is a nice feature, but you can pretty much double the development time if you want to implement this. Look at the number of NPCs in Gothic compared to the Elder Scroll games.

Click to expand...

Yes but the ES NPCs are far less interesting to talk to than the Gothic ones. I'd rather have 10 Piranha Bytes NPCs than 100 of Bethesda's lobotomized mannequins.

ChienAboyeur said:

They are not questioned because this is what the players want.

Things have evolved and developpers have adopted players'tastes.
…
Designers only give to players what the players want. And players want the quoted points.

Click to expand...

Yep. I'm sadly going to have to agree with you. The new JRPG Wizardry for the PS3 got bashed and low rated in several reviews for being "too old school" and not being "accessible". It's a Wizardry for Christ's sake! It's supposed to be old school, but these days that sort of thing will get you a low rating which will translate to lower sales.

ChienAboyeur said:

All the time or occasionally does not change the nature of things.

Just as players do not die in every section between two save points. They die occasionally. Therefore they only face the principle occasionally.

Just windows dressing on the same principle, accomodated to satisfy one's tastes.

Click to expand...

When 100% of a game adheres to a design principle it is a different "nature of things" to when, say, 1% of a game adheres to a same principle.
Can´t be more obvious, really.

This particular point is annoying me right now in Risen

This goes the same for maps – let me mark on maps, or even better, have a ‘map fog of war’ that shows where I’ve explored.

Click to expand...

If you're going to have an open world, you damn well better have a map that allows adding notes. There are a tons of areas I need to revisit because I didn't have the right skills or levels. Now I'll have to run through the whole world again because of no map markers… grrrrr… Another example where Morrowind did it better.

ChienAboyeur said:

They are not questioned because this is what the players want.

The Witcher 2 is a recent fine example. It features a non revolutionary gameplay but for once, a mobile light armoured character that is supposed to be played as a mobile light armoured character.

The game took the path of a light tutorial, relying on players' gaming experience to fill the gap. ... The result was that the game was bashed for too light a tutorial, that does not show the player how to play the game.

Same with the other points like non moving NPCs: moving NPCs are perceived as a pain by players because they have to look for them when they need the NPCs. A little routine players feel getting old quite fast.

Designers only give to players what the players want. And players want the quoted points.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. Designers generally put stuff in games that they think will make it better, not ALWAYS what players want. Plus, I never said 'don't give me a tutorial', I said that a good tutorial '...completely makes me forget that I’m playing a tutorial, immersing me in the gameplay and the environment right off the bat.' Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but what I'm asking for is a game that doesn't just dole out more of the same and instead makes the tutorial an exciting part of the game proper. And if it's not exciting, let me skip it at least.

Motoki said:

Yes but the ES NPCs are far less interesting to talk to than the Gothic ones. I'd rather have 10 Piranha Bytes NPCs than 100 of Bethesda's lobotomized mannequins.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but there is a reason that the end result of the Radiant AI in Oblivion turned out to be a lot less impressive than the initial gameplay/hype videos suggested: The resources needed to implement it across the board far outweighed the perceived gains of having more living NPCs.

Cyrodiil in Oblivion was already being blamed for being smaller than Vvardenfell in Morrowind. Imagine the outcry if Bethesda had reduced the number of NPCs to a quarter in order to implement more "interesting" NPC schedules. No, the "natural" order of things is: the larger the gaming world, the more static the content ... unfortunately.

fatBastard() said:

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but there is a reason that the end result of the Radiant AI in Oblivion turned out to be a lot less impressive than the initial gameplay/hype videos suggested: The resources needed to implement it across the board far outweighed the perceived gains of having more living NPCs.

Cyrodiil in Oblivion was already being blamed for being smaller than Vvardenfell in Morrowind. Imagine the outcry if Bethesda had reduced the number of NPCs to a quarter in order to implement more "interesting" NPC schedules. No, the "natural" order of things is: the larger the gaming world, the more static the content … unfortunately.

Click to expand...

I recognize that there are always trade offs, but I think some sort of better compromise could have been achieved. They could have had at least some more complex and interesting NPCs and then just have the bulk be generic filler for towns.

I think the problem (for me) with Bethesda is that they always go for the macro level and want to do all these complex systems and have the game run things on its own etc but they overlook the micro level and just the fact that sometimes the simple things make a game much more enjoyable. They bit off more than they could chew with the Radiant AI and had to nerf it, but some well written and acted dialog for some of the npcs would still have gone a long way to fleshing them out and making them feel real.

I just don't think the technology is there yet for the things they want to do sometimes and you still need an individual touch of human being. They figured this out with the generated landscape in Daggerfall. Sure the landmass was more huge than any RPG before or since, but it was all dull. A much smaller landmass that is more detailed is better than quantity without quality.

I wish they would get that through their heads about the npcs as well.

DeepO said:

When 100% of a game adheres to a design principle it is a different "nature of things" to when, say, 1% of a game adheres to a same principle.
Can´t be more obvious, really.

Click to expand...

1pc of it or 100 pc of it does not change the principle. Same principle used on different scales.

fatBastard() said:

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but there is a reason that the end result of the Radiant AI in Oblivion turned out to be a lot less impressive than the initial gameplay/hype videos suggested: The resources needed to implement it across the board far outweighed the perceived gains of having more living NPCs.

Cyrodiil in Oblivion was already being blamed for being smaller than Vvardenfell in Morrowind. Imagine the outcry if Bethesda had reduced the number of NPCs to a quarter in order to implement more "interesting" NPC schedules.

Click to expand...

Dubious. All depends on the real quality of the radiant AI that was supposed to be included in Oblivion. If it did correspond to what it was sold for, then cutting by three quarters the number of NPCs would have constitued a good deal.
Especially when it comes to mind that modding was extensively supported, meaning that mods could have added more NPCs later.

Considering the deal that is NPCs, dull NPCs, additional dull NPCs through modding vs much less NPCs, vivid NPCs, additional vivid NPCs through modding, well, the second term is the deal.

A world that starts small but with a big potential that can be exploited through the years thanks to an extensive support to modding is more promising than a world starting bigger with much less potential that is exploiting through the same capacity to modding.

ChienAboyeur said:

Dubious. All depends on the real quality of the radiant AI that was supposed to be included in Oblivion.

Click to expand...

I don't think they had anywhere near the level of AI of what they were selling in that old E3 video. If you pay attention to it, most of the events were obviously scripted right down to having voice actors record specific lines of dialog. Now I do think they were truthful that they gave the npcs a lot of autonomy in terms of attacking and had to dial that down to prevent total chaos, but as far as the rich world shown in that video goes it was all smoke and mirrors.

Bethesda keeps trying to implement this design philosophy of having the computer create and run the world with minimal human hand crafted input but we don't have Star Trek holodecks. The technology just isn't there yet. If you want a rich, detailed game at this point and time you still need a good bit of human artistic creation.

Considering the deal that is NPCs, dull NPCs, additional dull NPCs through modding vs much less NPCs, vivid NPCs, additional vivid NPCs through modding, well, the second term is the deal.

Click to expand...

At one point I tried modding some more interactive and reactive npcs that moved around and had schedules and such in Morrowind. It ended up being a huge pain in the ass because the underlying system did not support it and I eventually gave up. I know someone did eventually come up with some rudimentary schedules for the npcs in some of the Morrowind cities, but it would have been far easier to build upon if the game had it in there in the first place.

I think the biggest hurdle now though for creating additional vivid npcs is voice acting. For a modder, it's exceedingly difficult to create new npcs with full voice vs just text. It means you have to hunt down some volunteers to be voice actors, give them the lines, nag them to record them, hope that they have decent sound equipment and know what the heck they are doing and that it all doesn't sound too terribly amateurish (which in my experience sadly it usually does).

You will always see far less fully voiced npc/quest mods in games unless it is something really generic like crowded roads where the npcs are just there for atmosphere and grab the stock greetings with minimal interaction.

Voicing over is one of these technological developpments that mechanically withdrew from the potential of implementing RPGs.
The modding scene should be a food for thought. The scene attracts all kinds of talents involved in the developpment of video games save voice talents. You dont have those voice talents in the making showing up to get training or recognition.

This said, the first hurdle is the status of AI available to the creation of NPCs.

Radiant AI by Bethesda's depiction was supposed to be a big thing in terms of RP support.
It was supposed to allow NPCs to navigate the gameworld on higher level directives, displaying in the doing stubs of personality and providing the player with RP situations.
The single directive: eat at noon was supposed to lead the NPC to try and meet this directive within the restrictions of his class and under the gameworld laws.
A beggar finding no one to give him his pitance could have chosen to rob food, be caught and end in jail.
Extremely high potential in terms of RP.

But I dont think Bethesda had any thing close to that. Skyrim for the moment shows they are backpedaling from the perspective of getting the gameworld aware of what a role is, what behaviour is etc...

The removal of class also removes the possibility (and requirements) of getting the gameworld to understand what a class a player is playing. So let alone what role the player's avatar is.
They started on that with attempts like Baurus telling what class the player was based on his previous actions just after the tutorial/escape from prisons in Oblivion. A stub but one could have thought they would have digged deeper in this direction for their next attempt.
Nope, they removed the stuff and now, in all likelihood, players will be able to play anything without it being connected in any way to the gameworld.