Geekly News - The top 10 Mistakes Designers Make

[Myrthos]

The Geekly News have created a list containing 10 mistakes that, according to them, developers still are making.

Mistake 1: Non-moving NPCs
This mistake is as old as some of the first Ultima games. Probably older, but that’s where I first saw it. Heck, it was in Zork I. That damn Grue was always in any dark area. Nowadays, we’ve got quest markers, minimaps, area maps, world maps, all nicely marked with quest givers, quest locations, sometimes even with quest objectives right on the map. So why on earth can’t we find NPCs that move around a bit? I know, game design 101 right? Make sure that there are landmarks for gamers to attach to and recognize. I get that. But having Johnny Questgiver walk to his house or down to the fountain isn’t a grievous error – especially not if I can read a note on his door saying where he went, or if he’s wearing clothes that are unique.

More information.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Amen to the last one on his list about auto-save checkpoints or no "save anywhere" option. That really bugs me when I can't save a game where I want to.

 

[Menigal]

It's amazing how many of these same points come up on pretty much every one of these lists, and yet, after years of them, designers are still doing these things. I wonder if mainstream developers are, somehow, not aware people feel this way, or just don't care.

The last point in particular is a biggie. I have, and will, not buy games because they lack a real save system. I've got limited game-playing time, and I'm not going to throw it away being forced to redo large sections.

 

[Tragos]

Fantastic article and i agree with all his points

If I wanted spawning enemies, I’d play Space Invaders

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Hehe, funny though that he lists the Gothics as an example for consolized user interfaces...

 

[holeraw]

Considering that all these (except perhaps #9) seem to be conscious design decisions, that often appear in games that are both commercially successful and 'critically acclaimed' (whatever that may mean for a computer game), I feel that there should be some explanation of what 'mistake' means in this situation.

It also seems to me that this article is a very good example of isolating a certain features, that you are already negatively predisposed to, without taking the big picture into account. I'm not convinced that this is a 'mistake' that the designers of the games mentioned actually do.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Mistake four and a few others made me immediately think of RedProjekt and their will to bring mature gaming. Their effort was indeed praised around.

A great list for game designers: the top 10 mistakes you make if you do nt include those features.

 

[fatBastard()]

What holeraw said.

Menigal: It is not necessarily a question of whether or not the developers care but rather whether a certain "improvement" is feasible (or perhaps even possible) or not.

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.

2) Repetitive Quests. Good point ... and then again not easily done. I agree that the "go kill x of y and bring me their tongues as proof" when put like that is boring, but the actual process of having to seek out a baddie or a group of baddies, do something (often dispose of them) and report back to the quest-giver is one heck of hard thing to remove from any quest driven game. Variations like the missing painter quest in Oblivion is a nice detour from the standard fare but let's not forget that this quest required a whole new graphical area to be made that could only be used in this single quest.

3) One Gameplay. Good luck creating an engine that is equally suitable for RTS, RPG and FPS gameplay and good luck to the design team that needs to implement 3 equally exciting gameplay portions in the same game without one of them feeling stale or rushed. Nice idea, not very realistic though.

4) Tutorials. Opinion, but while I tend to like tutorials, I wholeheartedly agree that they could often be made skippable.

5) Same UI. Again development costs. Most multiplatform games nowadays are developed on one platform and then ported to the others where necessary. However, with Microsoft's Games For Windows initiative where gamepad support is required, there really isn't that much incentive to use a lot of resources/time on developing diverse UIs.

6) Loot. He is Loot-gamer. Opinion.

7) Re-searching. Good idea. Completely dependent on the engine though. In the original Deus Ex, when the level design permitted it, you could turn around just before exiting a level and spot the stunned guard you hid behind a crate at the very beginning of the level ... however, savegames were HUGE at that time because every interaction you had made since starting the level was saved. Not as easily done in this day and age where one of the primary limitations of consoles is memory.

8) Spawning enemies. I agree, but necessary if you want to reuse areas for further quests. Therefore choosing not to use respawning requires a larger gaming world than would otherwise be needed. Resources that could otherwise have been used for moving NPCs perhaps?

9) Non skippable cutscenes. Absolutely agree. There is no reason that I can think of why a cutscene shouldn't be skippable. At least the second+ time you watch it.

10) Savepoints. Again, engine based. It is MUCH easier to implement a savepoint system than allowing to save whenever you like. The save files are usually a lot smaller as well. This is once again primarily an issue for consoles but like or not, the console market/audience is a lot greater than the PC market. (for most genres).

Just like it helps you become a better driver to actually ride a bike in traffic once in a while or walk the streets as a pedestrian, it also helps when gamers have a bit more realistic view on what can or can't be done within the time/money-frame a development house works with. When you're Blizzard you can do what you like, but most others have deadlines and milestones to meet and even the best idea can become too difficult or time consuming to implement and thus have to be cut from the game.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Hehe, funny though that he lists the Gothics as an example for consolized user interfaces…

Surprised me as well - but anyway - wasn't Gothic 1 once thought/planned to be for consoles, too ?




One point in the list also struck me as odd : The respawning.

Because

- for Action-RPG lovers, this is an MUST-HAVE
- for at least a part of the old school RPG lovers this is an MUST HATE

so to say.


Apart from that, the article sounded vera aggressive - just as if someone had been boxing into a nearest sandbag to let all frustrations go lo(o)se.

But as a list - I think it isn't bad. Might get high-tier devs better ideas.
I just didn't like the aggressive, "grumpy" wording.

 

[GothicGothicness]

10. Doesn't anyone get that the savepoints is not because of technical limitations only. It is to make the games somewhat challanging. Save anywhere whenever you want, makes the games really easy. Whoops I rolled a 10…. ok reload… yes I roled a 20 save. Actually I would say the savepoint system often cost more resources than the save anywhere feature.

 

[joxer]

Mistake 8: Spawning enemies

Sigh. I think this is the game designer’s worst mistake ever. Some people like spawning enemies, so if you’re one of them, feel free to move on to #9. I don’t. If I wanted spawning enemies, I’d play Space Invaders. I’ve moved past that. Give me intelligent enemies that are tough and challenging. Kill me. Make me think to get past them. Then I will feel achievement and you will have done a good job. Good game designer. But for the love of God, don’t get sadistic about it. Give me a little bit of fodder so I get just a little bit cocky about how awesome and heroic I am. Then kill me again. Piranha Bytes, please read this very closely as I feel you are all sadists.

This should be at the #1 place. I disagree with Alric, good action RPGs (most of ME/ME2 for example) do not have to include respawns. Even action FPS masterpieces do not have to include it (undying for example has only one respawn area but as a part of a dungeon where you need to find an escape route quickly and not to kill mobs). Where do I see respawns? Where designers don't make enough quests to make you level up so you must click, click and click on those annoying pests just to get enough XP. Or money. Or ingredients. Why waste the time on quests with equimpent/XP/cash/ingredient rewards when players will be happy destroying their mouse (or gamepad)?

In a MMO, mobs respawning is of course unavoidable.

 

[DeepO]

10. Doesn't anyone get that the savepoints is not because of technical limitations only. It is to make the games somewhat challanging. Save anywhere whenever you want, makes the games really easy. Whoops I rolled a 10…. ok reload… yes I roled a 20 save.

Not being able to save during combat while being able to save everywhere else is generally the best way to do it in RPGs imo.
Such a system forces players to repeat encounters they haven´t won yet without forcing them to go through encounters they´ve already won and I´d wager such a system also encourages designers to come up with more challenging individual encounters.
And the challenge of having to win multiple encounters in one go can still be present - occasionally there can be segmented encounters without possibility to save between segments, players can be locked in a dungeon they can´t rest in so even with saves they may end up being bitten in the ass resource-wise, etc.
One time checks like disarming a trap may be a liability in this system, but it can be solved by not making these checks random.
Checkpoint save system also almost inevitably leads to corridorized level design unless saving is limited only to pubs or something, but that almost inevitably leads to tedium.
There´s always a possibility to include some kind of iron man mode, anyway.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Well, diablo II for example has the system which I prefer, however they are not the kind of games which could benefit the most from this kind of systems.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

And the challenge of having to win multiple encounters in one go can still be present - occasionally there can be segmented encounters without possibility to save between segments, players can be locked in a dungeon they can´t rest in so even with saves they may end up being bitten in the ass resource-wise, etc.

That would be windows dressing. It is the application of the current recipe to a smaller scale.
No differences in principle between segmenting the gameworld into a sequence of small dungeons bordered by save points and limiting this approach to a selected list of places in the gameworld.

Multiple choices in design, determined by players' feedback have led to the specific save locations design.

Allowing players to save anywhere in the world does not mean that loading the previous save is enough to tackle the ongoing challenge.
Games can and were designed in a way hours of game must be replayed in order to get properly prepared to face a given challenge. A save anywhere system might force players to move back by hours in their save log.

Games have to be entertaining. Long term failures are not funny. Short term failures are funny because they give the impression of learning something, and the 'learning' process is cheap, only two or three attempts.

 

[DeepO]

That would be windows dressing. It is the application of the current recipe to a smaller scale.
No differences in principle between segmenting the gameworld into a sequence of small dungeons bordered by save points and limiting this approach to a selected list of places in the gameworld.

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.

 

[oliverh72]

Fantastic article and i agree with all his points

Thanks!

I'm glad you guys liked the article - I'm going to keep writing interesting (hopefully) posts, so feel free to bookmark the site!

 

[oliverh72]

Well I guess not everyone agrees with me, which is totally fine. Just as an FYI, I was really trying to promote discussion, not suggest that ALL games ever should henceforth be designed avoiding these so-called "mistakes".

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. Some of these things in my list are reasons why, and I'm hoping that, at the very least, some discussion will be fostered.

As for the Gothics being 'console-y', I only meant that in the sense that, up until Gothic 2, it was still all keyboard-based navigation in the menus (or scroll-wheel) and it made no sense for it to be that way. I've bought and play all 3 (even that which they called #4), so I'm very aware they weren't actually console games - I was railing against the lack of polish put into interfaces, specifically ones that HAD begun as console games.

 

[oliverh72]

Considering that all these (except perhaps #9) seem to be conscious design decisions, that often appear in games that are both commercially successful and 'critically acclaimed' (whatever that may mean for a computer game), I feel that there should be some explanation of what 'mistake' means in this situation.

It also seems to me that this article is a very good example of isolating a certain features, that you are already negatively predisposed to, without taking the big picture into account. I'm not convinced that this is a 'mistake' that the designers of the games mentioned actually do.

Yep, most are conscious for sure. Doesn't mean that they can't be viewed objectively as to whether or not it's the best decision for the game that's being made though. I get so weary of seeing the same stuff in every game I play, be in action, rpg or strategy. Clearly, not all of it is exactly the same, but the same ideas, follow-through, etc. I think games are growing stagnant due to the accepted conventions. But at the same time, I'm completely aware that unless a game sells, it can be as unique, fresh and different as the day is long, and those ideas will likely be trashed and that's the end of that.

I was definitely a little bit optimistic and finger-pointy here, but I don't think it's a bad thing to do that every now and then.

(okay, I'll stop monopolizing post now)

 

[DeepO]

One point in the list also struck me as odd : The respawning.

Because

- for Action-RPG lovers, this is an MUST-HAVE
- for at least a part of the old school RPG lovers this is an MUST HATE

so to say.

I think that most of "old school" RPGs feature respawns.

That said, respawning is not a binary issue, it´s more a question of sensibility.
There are various forms of respawns and some, when implemented sensibly in the context of a given game, can enhance verisimilitude as well as diversity of challenges.
Having a portion of wildlife respawn after some time in a free roaming game might be sensible, having a scenario or two where enemies respawn till player deals with the source might be sensible, having additional spawns in already "cleared" areas based on story progression might be sensible, etc.
It´s usually only when respawns are implemented arbitrarily and across the board when it gets problematic. When a "cleared" area respawns immediately to full power the moment player leaves it, now that sucks.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

This should be at the #1 place. I disagree with Alric, good action RPGs (most of ME/ME2 for example) do not have to include respawns.

Okay, but

1. I just don't know any action-RPGs without

and

2. most people who love/like action-RPGs just say this - at least at the Larians' Forum, where most people regard all Divinity games (and especially Divinity 2) as action-RPGs …

Please give me examples of action-RPGs *without* respawning, then.
Just because I don't know any.

I think that most of "old school" RPGs feature respawns.

That said, respawning is not a binary issue, it´s more a question of sensibility.

With the first sentence I disagree with you, but with the second one (and what you have written after it) rather.

First, I want to have the ability to "clean" areas of enemies. No respawn. And - personally - I don't remember any "old school" RPGs *with* respawnuing - except Wizardry 8, which I abandoned for that reason.- I just didn't like it at one point anymore.

I also thing that repawns are the "natural enemy" of "explorer" types of players, imho.

Second, I can see that respawning can be a nice feature - if it *is* handled with sensibility.

I could imagine respawns in a wood, for example, but not on the roads around it.

A bit like I know it from Gothic 1.