next »

[denzgd]

Right now, I'm working on a game that doesn't have any combat. Mechanically, it's an adventure game, but with social sim functions, too. I've been trying to put a lot of effort into the design, and it's heavily driven by interacting with characters, and of course adventure game-style puzzles. I have a lot of fun exploring in games, and that's largely what my game has been about, so far. But I'm not sure how to balance it. How do I know if my game is too big, or if objectives aren't clear enough, or if it's even fun?

I think my issue stems from the fact that I already know the solutions to the puzzles, and which things to do to have the best outcome in dialogue. Do you guys have any suggestions?

I'm also looking for any input on social sim mechanics, because right now I'm working with visual novel and Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball mechanics.

[TinyAngryCrab]

There are several different ways to analyse this.

The first is simple empirical - send a version of your game to some testers, and check to see how far most get through and what people get stuck/bored on. And I mean do it with analytics - you can ask them a bit too, but people are terrible at analysing their own experiences.

The second is to ask if you can steal the same visual and kinetic techniques which make combat fun for non combat actions. Examples would be throwing things, breaking things, etc - or even stealing individual bits of those things such as screenshake and particle effects for feedback. This is classic feedback clarity and fun, and although it is easier to do this in a combat game you can do it partially in a non combat game.

If that is inappropriate because you are literally dealing with, say, text puzzles then you need to ask how else you can give satisfaction to the player through clear problem definition and feedback. This means making the player aware of their options and giving them clear feedback. But there is also an element of what constitutes interesting feedback: if you're talking to a character, then good writing combined with interesting conversation options is, in effect, good emotional feedback. Consider a classic RPG like Baldur's gate or even a modern Obsidian game - it is fun to talk to the characters because they frequently have interesting things to say. And the interest of these things is predicated both on in-game reasons (I want to talk to this guy to get a key) and inherent reasons (I am interested in my relationship with this companion character).

When you ask about objectives not being clear enough - that is a question for playtesting (and also how unclear you want the game to be). Most games have a clear critical path (to keep players moving forwards relatively frictionlessly) and then obscure optional content. If you find that some of your puzzles are too hard then you can simply move them off the critical path and make them part of an overarching secondary mechanic (such as the stars in braid or talos principle).

But the most important thing is to realise that you are targeting a particular audience. In some ways, you have to be willing to say "I don't care if people who don't like puzzle games don't like my game - this is specifically for people who enjoy exploration and puzzles". Not every game can please everybody, particularly if you have made it with your tastes in mind.

[Jordgubben]

I have a similar project. Play-testing is probably the only way to go about it. But despite it beeing a web-game (multi platform, no install) I would not send it to any one I have IRL access to. This is because I want to be able to sit down next to them the first time the they play the game, take notes and not say a word.

Using quantitative study (metrics) requires volumes of players. I don't have volumes of players so qualitative study is the only way to go.

[oahda]

Make Fez.

[ProgramGamer]

Make Fez.

Make Stanley parable.

[Oskuro]

What makes a game fun (or a story) is not the combat, but the conflict. Combat is just a very easy way to implement conflict.

So the trick would be to look at a way to make the player feel they have overcome an obstacle whenever they achieve something.

And hey, even combat is not a guarantee, many games have combat, but it is so repetitive it reaches a point it is no longer fun to play (for example).

A good example of how to entice players by making them feel they've achieved something is the way RPGs (and by extension MMOs) handle character progression in a way that feels rewarding to the player. In other word: The Level-Up DING!

You'll have to look for a way to signal achievement that meshes with your game, but does not become too familiar (if you DINGed every five minutes in an RPG, it'd lose its value quickly).

I remember some classic adventure games that would do this by awarding points upon puzzle completion (thinking of classic sierra games here), or even play a little tune when the player did something right.

[denzgd]

TinyAngryCrab, you gave me a lot to work with. However, I'm not familiar with any analytical methods, so I don't know where to start, with that. Additionally, some of your suggestions, as well as Oskuro's, are more about visual cues to signify success in the game, rather than actual gameplay. I realize these things can really add to a game's "juice" but is this as important as establishing engaging gameplay? Or do they inherently go hand-in-hand?

As for the rest of you, I'm, like, 85% sure somebody else already made Fez and the Stanley Parable, so I don't think it's a good idea.