Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411276 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 11:00:26 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignHow to Handle Game Overs in an Ace Attorney Style Game?
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: How to Handle Game Overs in an Ace Attorney Style Game?  (Read 1279 times)
wizered67
Level 1
*


View Profile
« on: December 30, 2014, 03:08:46 PM »

I was considering working on a game with game play similar to the Ace Attorney games, but I keep returning to the question of how to punish the player for mistakes.

The original Ace Attorney games all handled game overs by forcing the player to return to their last save point. However, to me this feels like lazy design. Either the player can circumvent it entirely by saving before every decision (a common tactic for players of the games) or the player will be forced to replay segments they already have gone through. In my opinion, the fun in games of this type is often in figuring out a mystery or puzzle for the first time. I don't think it's entertaining to replay segments you have just completed.

In the latest Ace Attorney game, Dual Destinies, the player was given the option of restarting from the question they were on when they lost, essentially making game overs meaningless. In my opinion this was better than forcing the player to tediously do exactly what they did before, but the game was criticized for being too easy by including things like this. Similarly Layton Brothers Mystery Room, which I recently completed, has no way to lose which also drew some minor complaints.

So do you guys have any thoughts on the best way to handle failure in a game of this type?
Logged
Armageddon
Level 6
*



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2014, 08:33:26 PM »

I've never played Ace Attorney but with games based around interrogation fail states maybe look at LA NOIRE. I really like how they did it. There is no "game over", you either win the case or you don't. If you bring in the wrong suspect to interrogate and your line of questioning is really bad because you didn't get all the clues to ask about then he walks free and that's it. Sometimes cases end in foot/car chases and whether you catch them alive or not determines how the case ends.
Winning or losing the case affects how the people at the station treat/talk to you, not in a big way sadly, but enough to have an affect. Also you have to live with your choices, did you send an innocent man to prison? Was the suspect really innocent? Etcetera.
I have no idea how they accomplished this in LA NOIRE, but it really flows well and it even adds tension to your questions because there is no going back to fix things. Either you do your job well or you move on to the next case.
Logged

wccrawford
Level 3
***



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2014, 04:08:32 AM »

I'm not a big fan of lose states in puzzle games, and that's what Layton and Phoenix are when it comes down to it.  There is a set of information that you are given (or must uncover) and you need to solve the puzzle(s) to complete each sequence.  The lose states were the worst part of Phoenix.  They meant save scumming (which is tedious and breaks immersion) or replaying the entire thing over again, being forced to listen to things you've heard multiple times already anyhow.

Phoenix could be fixed by simply allowing the player to *skip* entire testimonies.  They can't miss a vital clue because they can re-listen to any part of the testimony at any time.  In fact, I often *hated* having to listen to the whole testimony once before I could call someone out on the lie I"ve already caught.

Layton did it better.  You can't "lose", but you can lose points, which means you fail to unlock bonus puzzles later.  And I'm fine with that.  Originally, I would play those games by save scumming and guaranteeing a good score, but now I don't and I'm much happier for it.  If I ever get to the end of one of them and want more points, I'll be fine with replaying the whole thing, I think.  (It hasn't actually happened yet.) 

Likewise, I think Phoenix could also be fixed by deducting points from the player for guessing wrong.  I don't know what kind of reward they'd get at the end for being wholly right, but that's just another thing to design for the game.
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2014, 05:10:19 AM »

yep just remove game over states and use branching instead
Logged
SirNiko
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2014, 02:23:18 PM »

I liked the way Dual Destinies restarts from the missed question (I would save my game to avoid failing in the earlier Ace Attorney titles). I would even suggest there shouldn't be a fail state - just include a few lines of humiliating dialogue that loop the player back to the choice, possibly with a clue in the dialogue that gives the player a hint. Since it is trivial once you know the answers to each testimony, you don't prove anything by making the player repeat it to get back to where they got stuck.

Some of the later AA games got clever, adding a few layers to solving some clues. Instead of simply finding the right combination of a statement and evidence, for example, you might have to follow up with a second piece of evidence in response to a generic statement by the prosecutor. Since the statement is generic, you don't know if the first evidence was correct. They did other things, like offering the player multiple choices for revising pressed statements or forcing the player to pick between multiple theories before presenting evidence, which increased the number of possibilities to discourage brute forcing solutions.

One possibility might be to end of the case slightly if the player makes lots of mistakes, such as the client losing their job if you fail often, as opposed to getting a promotion if you clear them with few errors. Unfortunately, you'd need to think hard to find a way to make it worth replaying a case just to input the correct answers after you know them all, and I'm drawing a blank on how you'd do that. Some of the AA games do something like this at the end, where the player is prompted to present a piece of evidence in the epilogue of the case (for example, showing Buttz the statue to show his ex did care about him). Failing to show the right piece of evidence caused you to miss out on a few lines of dialogue. Unfortunately, it means replaying the last segment of the case if you want to get another chance to see it.

Unless you're looking to deviate from the AA formula a lot (such as offering randomized elements to the cases, or LA Noire style branching outcomes) I'd say just ditch the fail states and make the mysteries reasonably difficult and accept that you're making a fun game, not a hard one.

Also, personal opinion, the Crime Scene Investigation elements where you play with cool tools or solve puzzles by manipulating evidence (as opposed to simply picking the correct evidence for a contradiction) are great and make the game much more fun. Including enough of those might even make it worth replaying cases just to have fun with the mechanical puzzle elements.
Logged
wizered67
Level 1
*


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2014, 10:47:30 PM »

Lots of good ideas, thanks guys!
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic