Support NeoGAF

[Salsa]

I've often wondered about this and wether or not there's a better overall method out there to keep the flow of a game

I dont necessarely mean something that would go against the sandbox opportunities of some games, which clearly make them better; im not saying I think linear things are better, or that I don't care for choosing my own path or playing at my own pace: I really do, I love that.

but say, you're playing an adventure game, or something like that, and you KNOW that if you talk to a certain guy, or click on that certain thing; you're gonna move on and miss the opportunity to click/talk to everything else, and you're basically going around interacting with shit you ASSUME is not crucial in hopes of not triggering the thing that will make the game advance and basically move on from the current opportunities to explore. It applies to almost every genre really.

and suddenly you interact with X and "oh shit a cutscene is playing ugh" so you know you done fucked up if you were the sort of completionist or even someone who wanted to see more of what the game had to offer

now, that's a bad thing, right?

yet isnt going the route of THIS IS VERY CLEARLY THE THING or "there's no going back" equally shitty in terms of breaking immersion or feeling like you're "gaming" the thing? like tapping on a touchscreen like crazy or clicking on every single thing or picking up useless bottles in LA Noire, I dunno, that sorta thing

this is the type of fundamental player engagement stuff that companies that I at least think try to up their ante in that sense talk about a lot (say Valve) and I wish more developers went back to the drawing board in this sorta thing. It's like an "issue" that I feel everyone assumes has no fixing and is the only way videogames can be, but im sure there's a method out there for these particular genres to feel more engaging and flow better while not losing player agency... right?

 

[Salsa]

see where do I have to interact to get someone to see this thread

 

[Backlogger]

yet isnt going the route of THIS IS VERY CLEARLY THE THING or "there's no going back" equally shitty in terms of breaking immersion or feeling like you're "gaming" the thing? like tapping on a touchscreen like crazy or clicking on every single thing or picking up useless bottles in LA Noire, I dunno, that sorta thing

I would much rather have the warning than no warning though, even if it breaks immersion.

I don't have any examples on hand, but there are some games that do a decent job of letting you know via talking to an NPC that you might not be able to go back without breaking immersion too much. A basic cue such as "Let me know when you are ready to go" is better than "If you continue you can't go back".

 

[Wasp]

This is why I like to have the objective arrow turned on in the BioShock games. So I know where the next objective is so I can leave that until I've explored everywhere else first.

 

[Salsa]

I would much rather have the warning than no warning though, even if it breaks immersion.

I don't have any examples on hand, but there are some games that do a decent job of letting you know via talking to an NPC that you might not be able to go back without breaking immersion too much. A basic cue such as "Let me know when you are ready to go" is better than "If you continue you can't go back".

I dont mind an NPC stating it to ya if we're talking NO GOING BACK last boss kinda thing

but I think both extremes are often what you find in games. wether it's extremely obvious and feels silly / flow breaking to be crouching or whatever all around a THING trying to squeeze all the juice and when it's absolutely unclear and you end up hitting it by mistake. Both things take me back, maybe not in terms of immersion but in terms of flow. I think it's an issue that's not well-resolved, just kinda put back.

this akward zombie comes to mind:

This is why I like to have the objective arrow turned on in the BioShock games. So I know where the next objective is so I can leave that until I've explored everywhere else first.

yeah, but doesnt that feel.. wrong? in terms of flow? like a way around something that maybe shouldnt exist in the first place? at least in terms of how you percieve it?

it should be subtle and the experience should give you agency, or the feeling of it, in a way that doesnt feel like you're working against what you should be doing. right? feels like a "time out" in the middle of something

not saying I have the answer, just if people agree that it's a flaw

 

[Delta Assault]

More information for a player is always better.

You don't want the player to feel like they're tip-toeing across a minefield.

 

[Salsa]

More information for a player is always better.

You don't want the player to feel like they're tip-toeing across a minefield.

information doesnt necessarely translate as something being spelled out tho

 

[freeofgreed]

I feel you OP, was actually thinking about making a similar thread myself. The worst is when your playing an rpg and are in a dungeon and want to fully explore it before moving on, so you explore the area you think doesn't lead to the boss and then suddenly you're in the boss fight. Every time I want to go the "wrong" way I always end up going the "right" way and I hate it.

 

[Poodlestrike]

This is something I've been wondering about recently. I just played through Diablo 3's story for the first time (good game), and a lot of the time when I was in a dungeon or just running around the map I felt this pressure to avoid the exit path, since I knew that going down it could mean a lot of backtracking later. Kind of stressful, honestly.

I don't know if the solution is to have a big, honking arrow or an NPC warning you that if you click here, you'll advance to the next bit, but some sort of clear visual design language spelling out "this way towards the exit" would be great. Maybe it breaks immersion a little, but it'd be worth it, IMO.

 

[Salsa]

I feel you OP, was actually thinking about making a similar thread myself. The worst is when your playing an rpg and are in a dungeon and want to fully explore it before moving on, so you explore the area you think doesn't lead to the boss and then suddenly you're in the boss fight. Every time I want to go the "wrong" way I always end up going the "right" way and I hate it.

the thing is that the current alternative, while not as frustrating, still feels off to me. I feel like good design should make this whole ordeal flow better and make you not notice it but most developers don't care or just assume/do what's been done

This is something I've been wondering about recently. I just played through Diablo 3's story for the first time (good game), and a lot of the time when I was in a dungeon or just running around the map I felt this pressure to avoid the exit path, since I knew that going down it could mean a lot of backtracking later. Kind of stressful, honestly.

I don't know if the solution is to have a big, honking arrow or an NPC warning you that if you click here, you'll advance to the next bit, but some sort of clear visual design language spelling out "this way towards the exit" would be great. Maybe it breaks immersion a little, but it'd be worth it, IMO.

this probably puts off devs from doing more open stuff just as much as the idea that players wouldnt know where to go

 

[itschris]

I enjoy the way Dead Space handles it. This wouldn't necessarily work in every setting, but you press a button to have a holographic line project from Isaac's hand along the ground showing the way to the destination. That way, you can go in the other directions first. It's also more immersive, since it's actually part of the game world and other characters will talk about it and update your destination for you.

 

[Dusk Golem]

So, a bit random, I think the design of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers is very underrated for this exact same reason.

Basically, in the game, you have these open sort of levels... In actuality, they are linear, because you have a point A to point B structure, and where Point B is very obvious. However, what's a bit surprising is the levels themselves... They are kind of open and allow for a lot of exploration, side things to do, and generally have a LOT off the beaten path. If you just go from point A to B, the game is really simple. In fact, almost all the combat in the game is completely optional, besides two boss encounters and one enemy room towards the end of the game. There's some small things you have to do in some of the levels to progress, but a lot of it is optional, and there's just a lot to do in each area... You can herd sheep, playing giant fantasy chess, throw people with your psychic powers off cliffs, grow plants, fight enemies and optional bosses, take part in mini-game things, talk to people, find gold and chest, solve optional puzzles for optional areas, scale a crashed pirate ship for better armor... And just, basically every area is lush full of things to do, but none of it you actually have to do most of the time, and you can just run through whole areas skipping everything to get to the next if you just want to do the story.

What you need to do is also evident because of all the quirks in the world. You'll see character run and jump off of an exploding fountain, so you'll know you can jump at it and be expelled upward. You will see sheep running amok in a desert, and see an open stable and exaggeratedly angry farmers, so you can bring the sheep back to the farm. While running down a trail, you may see some monsters on motorbikes terrorizing a small town, and choose to help them or not. The exaggerated world leads to these things being obvious side things to explore, and these side things can lead to even ore side things.

I don't think every game should be designed like this, but I thought it was very interesting for this game, and would like to see more games take it's approach. Having a more linear 'path' through the game, and not just some big open sandbox world, but have like, stretching paths, kind of like Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask, where there's a hub, but stretching paths to goal points, and those areas you only need to do the bare minimum but there's a lot more to take part in if you desire. Plus, as your character is a psychic and the world is really Alice in Wonderland strange, there's quick travel to go back to areas you've visited and opened gates too, and you can easily walk back to things as well.

 

[lt519]

Just happened to me yesterday playing The Order which does not have a collectible count, so if you are a completionist and you miss an item you'll have zero clue what item in the entire game you've missed.

I had started a new chapter, was walking around examining objects, picked one up and it triggered a cut-scene and then pulled me out of the building into the new environment. I actually restarted the chapter and sat through some cut scenes again so I could finish exploring the building (which I did find another collectible) before picking up the advancing object.

Dunno how best to handle it, but it makes me want to use a collectible guide which then breaks the immersion even more.

 

[Salsa]

So, a bit random, I think the design of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers is very underrated for this exact same reason.

Basically, in the game, you have these open sort of levels... In actuality, they are linear, because you have a point A to point B structure, and where Point B is very obvious. However, what's not so obvious is the levels themselves... They are kind of open and allow for a lot of exploration, side things to do, and generally have a LOT off the beaten path. If you just go from point A to B, the game is really simple. In fact, almost all the combat in the game is completely optional, besides two boss encounters and one enemy room towards the end of the game. There's some small things you have to do in some of the levels to progress, but a lot of it is optional, and there's just a lot to do in each area... You can herd sheep, playing giant fantasy chess, throw people with your psychic powers off cliffs, grow plants, fight enemies and optional bosses, take part in mini-game things, talk to people, find gold and chest, solve optional puzzles for optional areas, scale a crashed pirate ship for better armor... And just, basically every area is lush full of things to do, but none of it you actually have to do most of the time, and you can just run through whole areas skipping everything to get to the next if you just want to do the story.

I don't think every game should be designed like this, but I thought it was very interesting for this game, and would like to see more games take it's approach. Having a more linear 'path' through the game, and not just some big open sandbox world, but have like, stretching paths, kind of like Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask, where there's a hub, but stretching paths to goal points, and those areas you only need to do the bare minimum but there's a lot more to take part in if you desire. Plus, as your character is a psychic and the world is really Alice in Wonderland strange, there's quick travel to go back to areas you've visited and opened gates too, and you can easily walk back to things as well.

I always wanted to try this thing but I got rid of my Wii early

even then I didnt know about this particular aspect. sounds cool.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

I'd imagine this just comes down to a scenario by scenario situation in terms of design. Here's a question I have though. Are you suggesting that this simply needs to be handled transparently?

Perhaps the ironic part of your question is, if this was handled well by the designer, and transparently, as I'm sure it has in numerous games/situations, you possibly didn't notice. As far as I'm concerned though, there are a couple more options here:

- Create the world in a modular/open way, so that activating a certain mission/cut-scene/trigger, doesn't eliminate any other relevant options.
- As mentioned, sign-post and direct the player as transparently and intuitively as possible, so that they aren't nervous about setting off important triggers, and warn them in a transparent way (without breaking the fourth wall) that they are in danger of not completing certain side-quests.

This may be the type of thing that never quite goes away, simply because it needs to be handled well for every scenario, which seems kind of impossible given the varying level of skill and dedication to this type of thing from designers/artists/teams.

 

[Salsa]

I'd imagine this just comes down to a scenario by scenario situation in terms of design. Here's a question I have though. Are you suggesting that this simply needs to be handled transparently?

Perhaps the ironic part of your question is, if this was handled well by the designer, and transparently, as I'm sure it has in numerous games/situations, you possibly didn't notice. As far as I'm concerned though, there are a couple more options here:

- Create the world in a modular/open way, so that activating a certain mission/cut-scene/trigger, doesn't eliminate any other relevant options.
- As mentioned, sign-post and direct the player as transparently and intuitively as possible, so that they aren't nervous about setting off important triggers, and warn them in a transparent way (without breaking the fourth wall) that they are in danger of not completing certain side-quests.

This may be the type of thing that never quite goes away, simply because it needs to be handled well for every scenario, which likely won't always be the case.

I just wonder if there's a way to make you, as you say, not notice. When you watch developer commentary or even read up on stuff about how level structure + tons of play testing leads to developers finding ways to make a player inherently go a certain direction without pointing them to it you gotta wonder to what lengths this kind of thing can be taken

I mean the illusion of agency is in some cases more important than to actually give it to you (if done well). Half Life 2 is a very linear game but it flows well. It doesnt have this issue (I dont think) even tho there's certainly some exploration to be had. In part is cause there's no real cutscenes, but I also think it's cause its designed so tight.

maybe there's not one mechanic out there that solves this other than "do I wanna bother making my design air tight and flow perfectly or do I just put an arrow there", but I do think it's a flaw in games and most games noawadays don't seem to care

 

[Dusk Golem]

Another somewhat similar idea on this is Resident Evil REmake's handling. Again, wouldn't work for all games, but works well for game's where you go around a few single locations. There's a set of goals you need to do, and back-tracking, you never get locked out of an area and things twist and loop into each other as you get further, but the map has a helpful feature where the rooms on the map are differently colored based on if you've found and done everything you can in that room or not. If it's shaded red, it means there's more to do, while green means you've done and found everything in the room.

 

[Overside]

So, a bit random, I think the design of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers is very underrated for this exact same reason.

Basically, in the game, you have these open sort of levels... In actuality, they are linear, because you have a point A to point B structure, and where Point B is very obvious. However, what's a bit surprising is the levels themselves... They are kind of open and allow for a lot of exploration, side things to do, and generally have a LOT off the beaten path. If you just go from point A to B, the game is really simple. In fact, almost all the combat in the game is completely optional, besides two boss encounters and one enemy room towards the end of the game. There's some small things you have to do in some of the levels to progress, but a lot of it is optional, and there's just a lot to do in each area... You can herd sheep, playing giant fantasy chess, throw people with your psychic powers off cliffs, grow plants, fight enemies and optional bosses, take part in mini-game things, talk to people, find gold and chest, solve optional puzzles for optional areas, scale a crashed pirate ship for better armor... And just, basically every area is lush full of things to do, but none of it you actually have to do most of the time, and you can just run through whole areas skipping everything to get to the next if you just want to do the story.

What you need to do is also evident because of all the quirks in the world. You'll see character run and jump off of an exploding fountain, so you'll know you can jump at it and be expelled upward. You will see sheep running amok in a desert, and see an open stable and exaggeratedly angry farmers, so you can bring the sheep back to the farm. While running down a trail, you may see some monsters on motorbikes terrorizing a small town, and choose to help them or not. The exaggerated world leads to these things being obvious side things to explore, and these side things can lead to even ore side things.

I don't think every game should be designed like this, but I thought it was very interesting for this game, and would like to see more games take it's approach. Having a more linear 'path' through the game, and not just some big open sandbox world, but have like, stretching paths, kind of like Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask, where there's a hub, but stretching paths to goal points, and those areas you only need to do the bare minimum but there's a lot more to take part in if you desire. Plus, as your character is a psychic and the world is really Alice in Wonderland strange, there's quick travel to go back to areas you've visited and opened gates too, and you can easily walk back to things as well.

That was a good one. Criminally misunderstood old school adventure design. Not suited for the modern review process at all.

But man, I havent seen an in game map so crappy and useless since friday the 13th on nes.

And I swear to god if I have to hear 'crystal beaaaarerrr' one more time...

But still, great game, great design.


Op, the answer you are looking for is in the past, modern game design has pretty much turned to shit.

WHat you are looking for is not an open world game, and not exactly a linear game, but a level 3(With maybe some 2's)-4 (With maybe some 5's) on the six point sliding scale of linearity vs. openess. You will find that pretty much every game that does what you are talking about well, falls in this category. This design generally isnt done anymore, because its more expensive and requires extensive testing compared to designing completely linear games, or sandbox games where you just generate a large world and drop crap and event points and triggers in it.

 

[Dmonzy]

Although there are a few (immersion-breaking) solutions to this problem, the only way to truly fix it by going to the heart of the problem: removing missables altogether. If the player doesn't have to worry about missing opportunities for stuff, they won't mind accidentally advancing the story once in a while when they are exploring since they can always come back and revisit areas/npcs/etc at a later time.

Obviously this means the game will have to be structured with this in mind, but is totally doable.

 

[Barrylocke]

Although there are a few (immersion-breaking) solutions to this problem, the only way to truly fix it by going to the heart of the problem: removing missables altogether. If the player doesn't have to worry about missing opportunities for stuff, they won't mind accidentally advancing the story once in a while when they are exploring since they can always come back and revisit areas/npcs/etc at a later time.

Obviously this means the game will have to be structured with this in mind, but is totally doable.

I'm for that if you aren't including things that are missed do to choosing one of X amount of options. I think it'd be unfortunate if games lost that sort of exclusive content.

On the other hand, I do understand not liking things being missable because of dungeons being 1 time affairs, especially if there's important side quest triggers or similar things in those dungeons.

 

[Deified Data]

I can sympathize, this is a problem I have in most of the games I play - wanting to complete as many side objectives as possible before tripping major storyline triggers and potentially locking myself out of content.

Needless to say I really appreciate games that ask "Are you sure? There's no turning back" before such turning points. It may break immersion somewhat (though not necessarily if well-written) but it saves me from pulling my hair out over something as simple as talking to an NPC.

Worst of all are the triggers that happen when you walk past an invisible threshold, no interaction required. I was exploring, dammit!

 

[Tal]

A game I thought handled this problem well is The Swapper. I initially played it the way I play everything else, trying to identify the critical path forward then avoiding that to clear all the other rooms first. But actually, you need to do all the rooms anyway to finish the game, and you are always capable of going back even if it doesn't look that way at first. So essentially the game didn't even really have optional side content, but it still felt like it did, and it certainly wasn't linear.

 

[mclem]

People say you should turn off the objective marker in Dishonored, because knowing where to go discourages you from exploring the level.

I had a different attitude. I kept the objective marker on, to show me where not to go.



It is something that's a bit of a bugbear of mine; the old chestnut of a fork in the road, wanting to explore both, but being forced past a point-of-no-return if you choose the 'right' one. It definitely hampers my feeling of freedom, even to the extent that I like to play with some form of spoiler-free walkthrough, simply so - as with the Dishonored example - I know where to *not* go.