I think I'll just let you win the argument.

If you have any specific questions that would help you understand the meaning behind the topic, I'll gladly answer. Otherwise, this isn't very productive.

By artificial limitations, I'm assuming you mean devices that violate or lie outside the game's established world fiction (even if it's supposed to mirror reality). There's no reason, for instance, that signature weapons couldn't exist in a high tech world, or that a sword could be linked by magic to its master (and that makes RPGs somewhat problematic, btw, in that the world fiction is often bound up in the levels).

But for skill based games like shooters, I agree with you Kest. It makes me think of Halo 1 & 2, which had situations such as (in 1) completely losing ally functionality when wedging the Warthog into interior levels and (in 2) having vehicle hijacking for Banshees disabled on a completely open water level even when standing right on top of it!

For your scenario with the guy guarding the gate because of a quest, I'm wondering: How do you feel about allowing players to drift into "no win" situations due to their choices? For instance, if you brazenly kill off the guy at the gate and go past, it seems fair to me that an alert should sound, the city should be sealed, and the guard should hunt the environs using ever tightening cordons.

Imagine a GTA situation where stars don't go away. A really, really skilled character deserves to win some award ("longest on the lam?"), but I'm not sure how much game there would be if you're running all the time. I'd do it for kicks, just to see how long I could beat the system-- but then I love playing against gangs of bots with perfect aim in Unreal or holing up in a level with the right geometry in GTA just to see how many SWAT I can kill. (In GTA it's utterly pointless, tho' and it destroys any hope of continuing on with the game, so I do it when I'm bored).

Another thing-- with the cpu's advantage in processing power, memory, physics and (to some degree) even prediction of the simulation, I'm wondering why would the situation you're talking about arise at all?

Let's take the death ray example. The player grabs it and now has one, and game stats show that he's a crack shot. He annihilates every guard in the prison.

So why doesn't the game universe unleash swarms of badasses packing death rays and nuke barrages? Why doesn't the game automatically balance out with the advantage that the group has over the individual-- sustained mass attack? In Splinter Cell I think this happens-- raise too many alarms and the AI become EXTREMELY tough to surprise, wear body armor and roam in packs. (I still think they chicken out and cater to the need to give the player a chance-- I'd have the national guard helicopter in and surround the building myself).

In many power leveling situations, I really think the game should simply humble the player, and this can be done without artificial limiations. Let them try to take on the gods, but don't feel any remorse about letting the gods use every ounce of their godly power. I remember in Morrowind a friend getting to Vivec and being able to kill him and wondering why the god didn't respond in a godly fashion. Why didn't he resurrect, laugh, inflict the player with every disease in the game, transmute his weapons to chitin and ask, "Care to try that again?"

So my answer to your original question is no-- don't impose arbitrary caps and limiations. Just have the world (when fairly justified) open up an unholy can of whoop ass on them when as they reach a certain threshold. If it's telegraphed in advance, if the player can back down, and if the game's still marginally playable, I think elite players will appreciate it.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator But for skill based games like shooters, I agree with you Kest. It makes me think of Halo 1 & 2, which had situations such as (in 1) completely losing ally functionality when wedging the Warthog into interior levels and (in 2) having vehicle hijacking for Banshees disabled on a completely open water level even when standing right on top of it!

How about squeezing a banshee into the doorway of a building to fight interior corridor battles with foot units? I use it as an example because most games would prevent it (for whatever reason), while Halo didn't (for whatever reason). The only thing that would stop your progress would be a doorway that was too small.

I remember making use of the ability more than once, and it certainly didn't spoil the game for me. How much fun is it to ram an alien jet into a tight hallway to blast down inadequately armed foot units? It wouldn't have been nearly as much fun if the level was designed for me to make use of that tactic (in which case, the foot units would have had rocket launchers, etc). The designers obviously didn't plan on it, but they also didn't prevent it with a "vehicle wall".

Quote:

For your scenario with the guy guarding the gate because of a quest...

Not the best example. I actually don't disagree with the designer's motivation there. It was just an example of how the designer can change the game world rules to suit the current situation, without any need to explain why other solutions are impossible. But as a player, I wouldn't really be bothered by that type of situation. Not having the capacity to kill everyone in the game world to get what you want serves a much higher purpose.

Quote:

I'm wondering: How do you feel about allowing players to drift into "no win" situations due to their choices? For instance, if you brazenly kill off the guy at the gate and go past, it seems fair to me that an alert should sound, the city should be sealed, and the guard should hunt the environs using ever tightening cordons.

I wouldn't enjoy any game-breaking situation that can't be recovered from. The same type of thing applied in Fallout when you get caught stealing from a city citizen. The entire city enters combat with you. I would say that if you can't provide reasonable solutions to a problem, don't have that problem at all.

On the other hand, if the game is checkpoint based, or there isn't much to lose by dying, then it wouldn't be a problem at all. I can't count the number of times I've died trying to do things that I knew I shouldn't do.

Quote:

..holing up in a level with the right geometry in GTA just to see how many SWAT I can kill. (In GTA it's utterly pointless, tho' and it destroys any hope of continuing on with the game, so I do it when I'm bored).

Are you referring to the newest GTA? I haven't had a chance to play it. How does it destroy hope of continuing the game?

I remember holing up many times in Vice City convenience stores, fighting SWAT and FBI, possibly for hours at a time. It is hard to escape the building, but not impossible. The easiest way I've found is to shoot their vehicles, cause an explosion to take out most of them, then run out and jump into one of their other vehicles. If you can manage to hijack a civilian car, you can spray it. Or if you don't mind taking the cheap way out, you can just make it to a safe house and save your progress. In either case, you get away with it.

Quote:

In many power leveling situations, I really think the game should simply humble the player, and this can be done without artificial limiations. Let them try to take on the gods, but don't feel any remorse about letting the gods use every ounce of their godly power.

Sounds like a game I would love to play. For me, there's nothing more fun than competing with elements that are not yet meant for me. Even if I don't get rewards, such as the items they're carrying, I still enjoy fighting outside of my league. I see little reason to forcably stop the player from making it happen. Especially if you make it clear that they are not meant to compete with it. It both warns the weary and excites the insane.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Everything may be a result of the design, but everything was not designed. As the designer, I can define rules, then let the pieces fall. I don't need to stay behind and babysit them.

How is anyone doing anything different? At least if you ignore MMORPG genre where the designers need to constantly pay attention to the balance between players and their abilities, and there are plenty of arguments why that has to be the case in that specific genre.

Quote:

Original post by Kest How is that any different than the real world? Are you saying it's utterly impossible for someone to reward themselves?

No. Rewarding yourself would be the Reward A from my example - being skilled and gaining an advantage over the opposition. You're just applying good strategy, tactics and execution of your own and profiting because of it.

Any reward based on the power of an ability or item is reward by the game, hence the designer. You might have gone through hell to get it, but it's still given to you - therefor it isn't a result of your innovative freestyle gameplay, nor a direct consequence of you being skilled.

Quote:

You went out of your way to kill an enemy that the game considered almost unkillable, and you can either (A) pick up the weapon that made him so badass, or (B) be left standing there looking stupid for taking a pointless risk. In order to double the reward, there would first need to be one.

That is just one specific example in a vaguely explained game of uncertain genre.

In any strategy game, be it real-time or turn-based variety, the advantage of accomplishing something daring and difficult is instantly obvious. Your position on the map has just improved greatly.

In competitive and skill driven action and shooter games that advantage is also obvious. You removed a significant threat and you're already much closer to completing the objective - that badass enemy is no longer standing in your way and you can probably take a shortcut to some key point.

In race games, skillfully taking a dangerous turn leaves you with a rather tangible advantage. In management games, making correct and well-timed decisions will also create the advantage.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Apparently, most RPG designers agree with you.

Are we talking specifically about RPGs here?

Computer RPGs are flawed by default as they ported the mechanics of the pen-and-paper role playing games, but not being able to port the essential gameplay mechanisms as well. So they just ended up with the numbers. Why is that important? Because player's skill in a computer RPG can not be what it was meant to be in role playing games - his creativity and imagination.

The "real" RPG world does not have constraints and limitations that a computer game must. For the most part (with good DMs), your survivability depends almost entirely on your ability to be creative and improvise, because there is much more freedom to do so as your character can perform any complex action you think of - providing he wins the roll, of course - but the range of possible actions a character can take is infinite. It should be noted that even in pen-and-paper entirely freestyle RPGs, there is a necessary balance to prevent players' characters from becoming too powerful. Even there, no decent DM will ever allow your character to become too powerful for the rest of the party and his campaign..

A game can not simulate such environment because of technical limitations and lack of living, breathing, creative human as DM. Therefor freestyle RPG is not going to happen on a computer screen in the foreseeable future - or ever if you ask me.

Again I think you are arguing two points at once, of which I wholeheartedly agree with the first, and entirely disagree with the second. Fortunately, these two points do not need to go hand in hand in an actual game.

Fewer limitations is good - letting the player use his mind and reflexes to win encounters rather than ingame stats is also good.

Intentionally leaving loopholes in the game which allow the player to gain unbalanced power (stat-wise, not due to his skill!) for any significant period of time and be able to override challenges easily during that effect I see as bad design under any circumstances. Realistic or not, it's still a glorified cheat code in my eyes - it has the same effect and serves the same purpose, no matter how "deserved" it may or may not be. I'm actually rather sure the community would eventually come to see it the same way - I would imagine a lot of posters on that game's forums to say "You picked up death ray? Dude, that's just like cheating. Do it properly with your knife before you start bragging". There are such examples even in games which tried to balance things out. ;)

Quote:

I would say that if you can't provide reasonable solutions to a problem, don't have that problem at all.

Exactly.

And in this case it just depends what solution is considered "reasonable" or "adequate". In the gate example, apparently some developers think it's adequate to simply block the player from skipping the quest - and this is understandable since if you work hard on a game's linear story you don't want the player missing out.

But it's not the only solution. The deeper you look into the issue the more you'll discover that all limitations like this can be solved with the right technology! For example, like Wavinator said, if the player is skilled enough to get a powerful weapon, simply adjust the enemy opposition to keep up the challenge (but still make it rewarding for the player by keeping some normal-grade enemies to defeat). Unfortunately it takes more work to properly solve these issues because it requires an entirely different way of thinking about game design and engine design, but I believe it's worth it.

Quote:

Original post by Talin Any reward based on the power of an ability or item is reward by the game, hence the designer. You might have gone through hell to get it, but it's still given to you - therefor it isn't a result of your innovative freestyle gameplay, nor a direct consequence of you being skilled.

I can't imagine many people agreeing with you here.

People carry weapons. If you kill someone carrying one, it's a given that you should now be able to take it. I may have designed many bad guys with weapons, and provided many ways to kill them, but I didn't design a path for you to fight and take any specific bad guy's weapon. That would be your own doing. You're saying that by not preventing you from doing this, I'm rewarding you?

Isn't that like saying that by not murdering someone, I'm rewarding them with life? Even if almost all game designers murder people, my not doing so would not be a gift.

Quote:

In any strategy game, be it real-time or turn-based variety, the advantage of accomplishing something daring and difficult is instantly obvious. Your position on the map has just improved greatly.

I'll just go ahead and give you that. So what? All games reward players for victory. The difference here would be that the reward is natural. You get to take the stuff that's laying on the ground, which only seems reasonable. Now you can take that powerful gear and fight twice as many bad guys at the same time, or fight far more powerful bad guys.

Quote:

In competitive and skill driven action and shooter games that advantage is also obvious. You removed a significant threat and you're already much closer to completing the objective - that badass enemy is no longer standing in your way and you can probably take a shortcut to some key point.

Sometimes, the entire motivaton behind fighting the enemy is to acquire their items. How cool is it to be stripped of everything you own, then have the capacity, using the game's rules, to re-arm yourself and beat the enemy senseless with their own weapons?

Quote:

Computer RPGs are flawed by default as they ported the mechanics of the pen-and-paper role playing games, but not being able to port the essential gameplay mechanisms as well.

Whatever the case, it doesn't make it impossible to introduce the type of gameplay I'm referring to. Having to actually THINK to accomplish a skill-related action wouldn't take away meaning from the RPG genre. And if the player needs to think, then the player is introducing their human skills. It no longer revolves entirely around a dice roll.

Quote:

Intentionally leaving loopholes in the game which allow the player to gain unbalanced power (stat-wise, not due to his skill!) for any significant period of time and be able to override challenges easily during that effect I see as bad design under any circumstances.

What exactly is unbalanced power? I thought all power that you have over your enemies is unbalanced. Sometimes, a good strategy will lead to such results. Other times, simply thinking outside of the box can lead to it.

If I shoot down an enemy aircraft, then climb into its half-damaged cockpit and use its turrets to mow down the entire battlefield of foot soldiers, I used a combination of my skill and game stats (the turret) to win a seemingly impossible battle. Without that "doubled" reward, I wouldn't have stood a chance against the ground troops.

I think this is a mostly subjective topic as it depends on the game itself (on the particular rules of the game), but I agree with the general opinion that things that don't really make sense to the player would indeed cause frustration to the player. There are a couple of things in play here:

1. Real World Logic
2. Player's Own Logic
2. Game's Gameworld Logic, in the form of game rules

All of these things clash against each other in every game you find in the world, both on the screen and otherwise (such as sports, board games, etc). So then the trick to every game is to balance between these three perspectives. How I see this being done is to first introduce the gameworld logic to the player first before his assumptions can be made about what can or cannot happen in that game. Once this happens, the player will then be playing from the game's gameworld perspective, not from any other perspective, and once that happens, usually that is considered a success.

I see this slow introduction technique used more commonly in puzzle-adventure games than in other games, as in order for the player to progress through a puzzle-adventure game, they must often take on the mind of the developer(s) or the world logic built by the developer(s) in order to solve that puzzle. Part of the fun is to discover/learn the particular pattern of thinking that is required to successfully get through a particular puzzle.

In FPSes however, I feel that due to the trend of everything rushing to becoming more "realistic" while often times lacking that critical introduction of the gameworld's logic to the player (as every game, no matter how "realistic", will always have "artificial" limitations), these three perspectives often do battle against each other as often as players do battle between themselves on multiplayer fragfests. Players, due to the fact that they haven't been briefed by the game on the gameworld's logic (often times what happens is that the game believes it doesn't need to as realism is its design goal) often bring their own logic to the game, and whenever they find that something doesn't happen the way they thought it should, frustration results.

What I believe would help is for the game to stop selling itself on it's realism, and for it to instead introduce its particular gameworld logic to the players, those based on realism or otherwise. The game has to realize that no matter what real world physics equation it adopts or abstracts into its engine, it will always still, in the end, be a game. But well, I don't really think this is going to happen anytime soon (*laughs out loud*).

[Edited by - Tangireon on September 25, 2008 11:03:08 AM]

Quote:

If I shoot down an enemy aircraft, then climb into its half-damaged cockpit and use its turrets to mow down the entire battlefield of foot soldiers, I used a combination of my skill and game stats (the turret) to win a seemingly impossible battle. Without that "doubled" reward, I wouldn't have stood a chance against the ground troops.

Good examples. And to anyone who says this "unbalances" the game, here's my perspective on "balance:

In a perfectly "balanced" game, the player would get nowhere, and everything would remain the same. The point of a game is often to allow the player to tip the current balance and be the hero.

Some games simply give the player incredible superpowers to be the "hero", but there's no challenge. Others make the opposing AI so stupid that there's also no challenge.

Others (which I believe are more fun to play) maintain a reasonable balance while still allowing the player to use their skills to "tip" the balance and work toward the goal. Different skill levels simply control how strictly the balance is maintained.