next »

[Soulliard]

First of all, I'm sorry if I implied that all games would work better without numbers being displayed--I think that'd be a ridiculous statement and I didn't make it.  What I meant to do was propose an alternative that isn't explored much.  I enjoy the numbers game myself, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a game that does it another way.

I don't know. I think there are plenty of games that already take this route. Just from the top 20 games of the TIGdb, there's Knytt, Knytt Stories, World of Goo, Gravity Bone, Aquaria (has some numbers, but still hides lots from the player), Braid, Within a Deep Forest, Samorost, 7 Days a Skeptic, and some of the games from Cactus Arcade.

To say that this sort of thing should never be done with strategy games seems a little overblown to me.  Wars have been fought for millennia without the strategians or tacticians knowing so many exact numbers.  Sure, they know things like how many troops they have and how much ammunition they have, etc. but it's hard to say exactly how strong or fatigued their troops are, how much damage on average one soldier can do per shot.  But surely they weren't just reduced to guessing the entire time.

But the numbers are always there in a game, whether you want them to be or not. And knowledge of these numbers will allow players to make much better strategies. If you hide the numbers, then top-level players are going to reverse engineer them and post them online, so the game dynamic won't change much. It'll just make the game more difficult for new players to get in to. I can't see how that's a good thing for any strategy game.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both showing and hiding numbers. Showing numbers allows for better decision making. Hiding numbers is more mysterious and immersive. For a game with a focus on important decision-making, numbers should be visible. For a game more focused on immersion and exploration, hiding numbers will be a better idea. The decision should be based on the type of game you're making. You should never just hide numbers just for the sake of hiding them (or show them just for the sake of showing them).

[Seth]

First of all, I'm sorry if I implied that all games would work better without numbers being displayed--I think that'd be a ridiculous statement and I didn't make it.  What I meant to do was propose an alternative that isn't explored much.  I enjoy the numbers game myself, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a game that does it another way.

I don't know. I think there are plenty of games that already take this route. Just from the top 20 games of the TIGdb, there's Knytt, Knytt Stories, World of Goo, Gravity Bone, Aquaria (has some numbers, but still hides lots from the player), Braid, Within a Deep Forest, Samorost, 7 Days a Skeptic, and some of the games from Cactus Arcade.

Yeah, and those are all pretty much strictly adventure or platform games.  I know those exist and take that route, but I still don't think that the have to be the only types of games that take it.   You seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that we should have the same games we have now that are so dependent on numbers, just without the numbers.  I'm not, or at least I'm not meaning to.  I think that if you start designing a game, even a strategy game, with the intention to keeping the number visibility low, it will encourage you to design a different sort of game that's not so number centric.  It would be unfair to players to keep the numbers vital to playing and winning the game if you at the same time don't show them and don't encourage making choices based off of them.  You say here:

For a game with a focus on important decision-making, numbers should be visible

but haven't I been arguing this whole time that hiding numbers would fundamentally encourage a different sort of decision making, one based on preference or aesthetics or personality rather than numbers?  Why on earth would I think that I should create a game that encourages one type of decision making but where the gameplay has a high demand on the other?  It's not completely a one or the other design decision either--I can imagine a strategy game that requires a high demand of attention to numbers and I can imagine games with a low demand of attention to it.  I don't see why we can't have RPGs (or RPG like games) or strategy games that don't require that you be extremely attentive to the numbers.

If you're talking about multiplayer games, where the competition and being just that tiny bit better than your opponent is the whole draw of playing, then you're probably right, people will just reverse engineer the game and post dominant strategies online.  But besides that, I think your argument falls flat--people play games all the time without ever going to GameFAQS.

[Soulliard]

If you want players to make aesthetic decisions in a turn-based RPG, or any other game where numbers really do have an effect, the best thing to do would be too make all choices viable, independent of whether or not numbers are visible. Hiding numbers isn't going to make players think they're not there. If one choice is unbalanced (as in the weakling vs mercenary example), players will quickly realize this either way (once they see both characters in combat, for example).

[jwk5]

I mean, you wouldn't have to reverse engineer anything to figure out that a steel sword is probably better than a rusty iron one.

Which illustrates one of the key problems with a lack of numbers. Exactly how much better is a steel sword than a rusty iron one? Is it worthwhile to buy it right when I can afford it or is it close enough in damage to the iron sword that I can just stick with the iron sword a while and save my money for the next best sword beyond steel? The numbers themselves are just a gauging system. They give you a relative idea of how effective is something is in comparison to something else. Sure, you could just change those numbers to text, for example an iron sword's damage could be "medium" and a steel sword's could be "high", but you're still expressing the same concept but with a less specific answer.

In an action game you don't tend to have as much time to think about the specifics, so "high" and "medium" are going to be pretty adequate answers to the question of damage. However, in a much slower paced turn-based game the specifics can make a huge difference since you are really trying to squeeze every drop of strategy the game's mechanics offer. Sometimes that 1 or 2 points of difference in damage can mean the difference between taking an enemy unit out this round or having him survive and possibly taking you out next round. You want as much information on the decision to make that attack as humanly possible.

I get what you're saying though, Seth, and I do agree for the most part because just like you implied it really boils down to the individual games themselves as to whether the "numbers game" is appropriate or not.

To say that this sort of thing should never be done with strategy games seems a little overblown to me.  Wars have been fought for millennia without the strategians or tacticians knowing so many exact numbers.  Sure, they know things like how many troops they have and how much ammunition they have, etc. but it's hard to say exactly how strong or fatigued their troops are, how much damage on average one soldier can do per shot.  But surely they weren't just reduced to guessing the entire time.

However, wars were also very taxing, stressful, and clearly not fun experiences. What you're giving a player is not a war, it's a game. The more informed your player is the more knowledge he has to make decisions and the better his chances are at fully enjoying your game. This is not to say that all war games need numbers, for instance Shogun: Total War doesn't use them, but some really do (playing any of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games without good statistical information would suck). The other thing to keep in mind is that in your example you are still providing numbers (number of units, number of ammunition, etc.) so you are still providing a "numbers game", it's just that the nature of your "numbers game" is different. It is tailored to that experience (i.e. the limited knowledge base during an actual war).

The choice to add in a visible math system (i.e. statistical information revealed to the player) is an easy one. Does adding it in enhance the game play, detract from the game play, or not really change it much at all? If the answer is either of the last two then it'd be better to keep the numbers hidden.

EDIT: To more directly answer the question posed in your first post, Seth, in an RPG I think it would depend on how action-oriented it is. If it is pseudo-real time (a la Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR, etc.) then numbers work just fine since I am seeing most of the action on screen anyways and don't really need a description (the numbers give me the exact info the animations give me the flavor).

If it is turn-based then it depends on the screen layout. In Final Fantasy's typical layout the numbers work better because again you see the action so the quick pop-up numbers give you a nice overview of the effects of those actions without breaking the speed and flow of combat. The same goes for a tactical RPG like Final Fantasy Tactics, I want quick and easy access info on what my actions do so I can keep pace.

In a turn-based game along the lines of Dragon Quest/Warrior (1-8) or adventure RPGs like Etrian Odessey or Might and Magic I prefer to have flavor text with my numbers, since there isn't as much animation going on. In almost all cases I prefer to have the numbers displayed, it just helps me make quick judgement calls without having to really contemplate the specifics ("Hmmm... just how much better is "medium" damage over "low" damage? Will it be enough to take out this enemy in one hit?)

[Kekskiller]

I think a good approach back from numbers is having "states" for everything. Enemies can die so fast in some action games, so there is no real difference between hit and dead. For example, an enemy has different abilities like walking, breathing, left/right hand. Every attack/item affects a specific state if you hit the enemy: your sword will cut a part of body (independent from damage you could cut everything except a steel armor or so), a potion landing of his head makes him fall asleep (state sleeping on, etc...). Such a "state machine" would base on states and abilities for each entity, where every item/action/whatever triggers a state on or off.

That could make an awesome simple but interesting action game (assuming every number in the game doesn't depend on player efforts, you know what I mean).

[Seth]

If you want players to make aesthetic decisions in a turn-based RPG, or any other game where numbers really do have an effect, the best thing to do would be too make all choices viable, independent of whether or not numbers are visible. Hiding numbers isn't going to make players think they're not there. If one choice is unbalanced (as in the weakling vs mercenary example), players will quickly realize this either way (once they see both characters in combat, for example).

Everyone keeps saying this choice is unbalanced (toward the mercenary, I assume), but my argument was that it's only unbalanced in a game that heavily values efficiency over aesthetics.  In a game that emphasizes choices based on personality or aesthetics over efficiency, would that be imbalanced (unless it is imbalanced toward the weakling).  And, like I've already said, I don't mean for that example to be a suggestion for an actual implemented in game choice.  I'm not arguing for making people think numbers aren't there, I'm arguing for a game design that doesn't emphasize the importance of numbers in making decisions, something that visible numbers do inherently.

the specifics can make a huge difference since you are really trying to squeeze every drop of strategy the game's mechanics offer

Which is something that I thought I was clear in saying that I wanted to get away from.  I don't like it when I find myself calculating too much.  I remember in FFTA you pretty much see the result (in numbers) of your actions before you take them, which, for the person trying to squeeze every drop out, ends up encouraging you just "try out" every possible move before you do it.  It's the same sort of anal retentive playstyle that I think (partly) leads to the way people will play Fire Emblem, replaying certain missions so they can have the most effective strategy and not lose any members of their team.  I think ambiguity and uncertainty is a good thing and I think it has a place in video games.  In fact I would prefer straight uncertainty to a RNG any day, which can also be the difference between winning or losing, but for some reason we don't hear anyone complain about it being in RPGs or strategy games.

However, wars were also very taxing, stressful, and clearly not fun experiences. What you're giving a player is not a war, it's a game. The more informed your player is the more knowledge he has to make decisions and the better his chances are at fully enjoying your game.

I certainly don't agree with this.  I don't think that a primary goal of a game should be to provide a fun experience, and I certainly don't think that losing isn't or couldn't be something that is interesting or even fun and I don't think more knowledge=more enjoyment.

[Soulliard]

Everyone keeps saying this choice is unbalanced (toward the mercenary, I assume), but my argument was that it's only unbalanced in a game that heavily values efficiency over aesthetics.  In a game that emphasizes choices based on personality or aesthetics over efficiency, would that be imbalanced (unless it is imbalanced toward the weakling).

Yes. Game balance is a term dealing strictly with game mechanics. In a well-balanced game, the interesting character would be just as strong in combat as the mercenary.

Which is something that I thought I was clear in saying that I wanted to get away from.  I don't like it when I find myself calculating too much.  I remember in FFTA you pretty much see the result (in numbers) of your actions before you take them, which, for the person trying to squeeze every drop out, ends up encouraging you just "try out" every possible move before you do it.  It's the same sort of anal retentive playstyle that I think (partly) leads to the way people will play Fire Emblem, replaying certain missions so they can have the most effective strategy and not lose any members of their team. 

I think these games both suffer from the numbers being too complicated. A lot of the problem I think you have with visible numbers is that, in many cases, finding the ideal strategy requires loads of number crunching (not fun for most people). I think that, in general, if the result of an action is too difficult to calculate in your head in a second or so, the mechanics ought to be simplified. Otherwise, you can get analysis paralysis like you describe.

I think ambiguity and uncertainty is a good thing and I think it has a place in video games.  In fact I would prefer straight uncertainty to a RNG any day, which can also be the difference between winning or losing, but for some reason we don't hear anyone complain about it being in RPGs or strategy games.

I've heard loads of people complain about too much randomness in RPGs. Maybe you just aren't exposed to it. Not that it's really relevant to the topic. 

And remember, your opponent's actions (or the actions of the environment) should always provide another degree of uncertainty.

I don't think that a primary goal of a game should be to provide a fun experience,

I think that's a good primary goal for a game to have. It doesn't need to be the goal of all games, but I'm sure glad there are some games out there designed with that goal in mind.

[Seth]

Yes. Game balance is a term dealing strictly with game mechanics. In a well-balanced game, the interesting character would be just as strong in combat as the mercenary.

If you want to split hairs, you didn't specify "game balance," and balance is a term that can be used in terms of plot or artwork etc.  I was applying the term to the imagined game as a whole--I don't don't see why you can't have balance or unbalance character choices in terms of personality or plot, and I think it may be useful to start thinking of games more holistically rather than "plot here, game here"--that's part of the reason I started this thread.  And I don't see why every character should be just as strong as another--that's certainly throwing away a whole of interesting dynamics that could come up.  The kings and pawns in Chess are not as strong as other units, for good reasons.

I've heard loads of people complain about too much randomness in RPGs. Maybe you just aren't exposed to it. Not that it's really relevant to the topic.

It's relevant in that people are saying no numbers would be bad because there is that level of uncertainty, yet most players still tolerate another type of uncertainty.  But you're right, the RNG isn't free from criticism.

I think that's a good primary goal for a game to have. It doesn't need to be the goal of all games, but I'm sure glad there are some games out there designed with that goal in mind.

Should I edit my statement and say "I don't think that a primary goal of a game should necessarily be to provide a fun experience"?  In any case if someone is going to argue based off the premise that games should be fun, I don't agree with that premise.

[jwk5]

I think these games both suffer from the numbers being too complicated. A lot of the problem I think you have with visible numbers is that, in many cases, finding the ideal strategy requires loads of number crunching (not fun for most people). I think that, in general, if the result of an action is too difficult to calculate in your head in a second or so, the mechanics ought to be simplified. Otherwise, you can get analysis paralysis like you describe.

The kicker is that I know plenty of people (myself included) who do calculate the results of the actions in a tactics game in a second or so. Some people enjoy the numbers game and some people are adept at utilizing it much in the same way some people are really quick on the trigger in a FPS. The need for the "numbers game" is going to depend on what crowd your game is aimed at, because different people enjoy different setups.

It's the same sort of anal retentive playstyle that I think (partly) leads to the way people will play Fire Emblem, replaying certain missions so they can have the most effective strategy and not lose any members of their team.

Which is not unlike the way someone will replay a mission in a FPS to beat it in a faster time, or to do it using less ammo. Or how some people will play a fighting game over and over learning the best possible combos and attack strategies they can. It's not anal retentive gaming, it is improvement through trial and error. There's nothing wrong with that, especially since where you argue

...ends up encouraging you just "try out" every possible move before you do it.

in a game with no number display that is exactly  what you'd have to do. The only way you'd be able to figure out the true effectiveness of your actions would be trial and error.

This is not one of those topics that can really be argued in concrete fact because it is like saying "Chess would be better with no pawns." Would it? To whom? How? Any answer you could provide probably would be neither right or wrong since it could be fun to some people or not fun to others. Just depends on who might enjoy it that way. It's all relative to the individual(s).

Should I edit my statement and say "I don't think that a primary goal of a game should necessarily be to provide a fun experience"?  In any case if someone is going to argue based off the premise that games should be fun, I don't agree with that premise.

If your game is not fun then it isn't a game, it is a chore. However, "fun" is a relative term. To some people gardening is work, to others gardening is relaxing and enjoyable. You should always try to make your game a fun experience (especially if you want anyone to actually bother playing it), but how you define "fun" is entirely up to you.

[Soulliard]

And I don't see why every character should be just as strong as another--that's certainly throwing away a whole of interesting dynamics that could come up.

Because that way, even people who are interested in winning would have a reason to choose an interesting character. Do you want to encourage people to pick the uninteresting mercenary?

The kings and pawns in Chess are not as strong as other units, for good reasons.

This is a ridiculous example, because in Chess, you don't pick the pieces you start with. If you did, everyone would pick all queens (well, some might take a few knights).

Should I edit my statement and say "I don't think that a primary goal of a game should necessarily be to provide a fun experience"?  In any case if someone is going to argue based off the premise that games should be fun, I don't agree with that premise.

You should probably edit that unless you want to completely change the focus of the conversation. But if your reason for hiding numbers is that it will make the game less fun, then your logic is lost on me.

[aeiowu]

Just sitting on the sidelines here but now I feel I need to pipe up.

I'm not sure Seth's intentions hit home here. Having an argument over which overarching design philosophy is better is not really the focus of this thread, and rarely is it useful. It borders on arguments about religion. As I understood it, Seth merely wanted to propose it as a thought experiment.

Not everyone would like this kind of game, hell it might be awful, but I suppose the question is: "Why not?" Or at the very least: "Why not think about it?" Perhaps if we submit to that question something productive will come out of this conversation, because right now it just feels like a lot of bickering that will eventually boil down to the central philosophies each of you have about game design. A "central philosophies" topic is another thread entirely. One I won't read.

[Seth]

Which is not unlike the way someone will replay a mission in a FPS to beat it in a faster time, or to do it using less ammo. Or how some people will play a fighting game over and over learning the best possible combos and attack strategies they can. It's not anal retentive gaming, it is improvement through trial and error. There's nothing wrong with that, especially since where you argue

but it's not necessarily the best design choice for every game--the game experience of most roguelikes can be cheapened by savescumming, or by letting yourself try multiple times with no acceptance of mistakes or consequences. 

in a game with no number display that is exactly  what you'd have to do. The only way you'd be able to figure out the true effectiveness of your actions would be trial and error.

In my example there was no true trial, which is why I put "try out" in quotes.  And measuring "true effectiveness" (as opposed to relative effectiveness or estimated effectiveness) is something I've been arguing as something that might be interesting to do without, so I don't see your point

If your game is not fun then it isn't a game, it is a chore. However, "fun" is a relative term. To some people gardening is work, to others gardening is relaxing and enjoyable. You should always try to make your game a fun experience (especially if you want anyone to actually bother playing it), but how you define "fun" is entirely up to you.

You should probably edit that unless you want to completely change the focus of the conversation. But if your reason for hiding numbers is that it will make the game less fun, then your logic is lost on me.

I do plenty of things every day that aren't "fun" but are interesting or rewarding in some way.  Fun is not the only way to do things.  It is a way, and a valid one, but to say games should be fun as their primary goal is, I think, limiting.

But reading what I originally wrote again I see I said "I don't think a primary goal of a game should be to provide a fun experience."  which is more anti-fun than I meant to be.

Because that way, even people who are interested in winning would have a reason to choose an interesting character. Do you want to encourage people to pick the uninteresting mercenary?

How many times do I have to say I didn't intend for that example to be seriously implemented in a video game?  My point was that if you show a character choice screen with this:

Weakling          Mercenary
STR: 5               STR: 25
AGI: 7               AGI: 20
INT: 6                INT:  19

or even

Weakling          Mercenary
STR: 5               STR: 6
AGI: 7               AGI: 8
INT: 6                INT:  7

or even

Fighter              Swordsman
STR: 10               STR: 6
AGI: 6                 AGI: 10
INT: 7                  INT:  7


the player will be encouraged to decide based off of numbers and with efficiency in mind, where if the player is presented with a description of their personalities or simply being introduced to each character, the player will be encouraged to select a character based on preference or personality or story line.  My point was not that we should pit aesthetics vs efficiency against each other in terms of game balance (though I don't think that's not a worthwhile thought experiment) but that getting rid of numbers would encourage players to make decisions based on aesthetics rather than efficiency--not that players wouldn't think about efficiency at all, but they would be encouraged to think about it less, to think less about the numbers that comprise their teams and think more about the personalities.


And, thanks, aeiowu, I never meant to propose this as something that should forever overhaul the way games are designed, but I thought there could be an interesting design that might come up from not thinking of numbers as a given as often as we do.

[Soulliard]

I think players concerned with aesthetics will pick aesthetically interesting characters, and those concerned with efficiency will pick efficient characters, regardless of what kind of information you provide them with. I think the best route when providing the player with an interesting decision is to supply them with all the relevant information, aesthetic or numeric. Why not try to make both groups of players happy? Not to mention those players interested in both aesthetics and efficiency.

As an aside, I agree that not all games should be designed with fun as their ultimate goal (although I think there are very few cases where making a game more fun is a bad thing). But the way you phrased your statements earlier made it sound as if fun should never be a game's primary goal.

[jwk5]

but it's not necessarily the best design choice for every game--the game experience of most roguelikes can be cheapened by savescumming, or by letting yourself try multiple times with no acceptance of mistakes or consequences.

I never said it was the best design choice for every game, I said it was the best design choice for some games. And the "cheapening" is your personal opinion, to others it may not feel so "cheap". I get what you are saying, I think, and I do agree that with some games going with a less numerical appearance would create a more pleasing experience. My point wasn't to debate that issue, my point was that not everyone feels the same. To some people and with some games the opposite setup is the more pleasing experience.

the player will be encouraged to decide based off of numbers and with efficiency in mind, where if the player is presented with a description of their personalities or simply being introduced to each character, the player will be encouraged to select a character based on preference or personality or story line.

Or, the might not like having the numbers hidden and opt to search for an FAQ to get the exact details.

My point was not that we should pit aesthetics vs efficiency against each other in terms of game balance (though I don't think that's not a worthwhile thought experiment) but that getting rid of numbers would encourage players to make decisions based on aesthetics rather than efficiency--not that players wouldn't think about efficiency at all, but they would be encouraged to think about it less, to think less about the numbers that comprise their teams and think more about the personalities.

They wouldn't think about it less, they'd think about it under different terms. Sometimes different is better or at least good, sometimes it is not.


To be clear, I do not disagree with you. In fact I would love to play more games that use a more aesthetic approach over a blatant numerical statistics. However, I'd also love to play more games built around blatant numerical statistics. I like them both, and I'd probably enjoy either if they were done well.

I think the point I've been trying to make in this all boils down to this: The reason there are so many successful analytically-minded games out there on the market is because is because there are so many analytically-minded people who enjoy them. Yeah, taking a game and making it more aesthetic than analytical might please some, but it will put off others. So it can make a game better, technically, to remove the visual elements of the "numbers game" but not better to everyone. Just as your point in this topic is valid, so is the opposite.

EDIT:

I think players concerned with aesthetics will pick aesthetically interesting characters, and those concerned with efficiency will pick efficient characters, regardless of what kind of information you provide them with. I think the best route when providing the player with an interesting decision is to supply them with all the relevant information, aesthetic or numeric. Why not try to make both groups of players happy? Not to mention those players interested in both aesthetics and efficiency.

Which illustrates my point well. Mostly it comes down to the players. Some people will enjoy it one way, some will enjoy it the other way. Your choice as a designer will come down to appealing to one group, the other, or try for a happy medium that might please both. There isn't really a wrong way to approach it in that sense (so long as whatever you do is handled well).

[ChevyRay]

This is a great thread. I thought I'd chime in to point out the concept of Fuzzy Logic if it hasn't already been mentioned. I think it ties into this topic quite well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

[Seth]

I think the point I've been trying to make in this all boils down to this: The reason there are so many successful analytically-minded games out there on the market is because is because there are so many analytically-minded people who enjoy them. Yeah, taking a game and making it more aesthetic than analytical might please some, but it will put off others. So it can make a game better, technically, to remove the visual elements of the "numbers game" but not better to everyone. Just as your point in this topic is valid, so is the opposite.

Well, I never meant to imply that it wasn't.  I do like numbers games and analytical games and I think people should keep making them.  But (and this goes to what Soulliard was saying) I don't think that game designers should always try to please as many people as they can.  I think it's important for a game designer to constantly consider what sort of experience they player will be having, and while that includes a consideration for whether or not it's accessible or if players like it, I think it's also important for designers to push the experience they want players to have, even if that means a smaller audience.  I think there are just some things you can't do if you're too concerned with appealing to everyone.

I think players concerned with aesthetics will pick aesthetically interesting characters, and those concerned with efficiency will pick efficient characters, regardless of what kind of information you provide them with.

That's probably true for some players, especially the two extremes, but there's a lot of us somewhere in the middle, like me.  I don't suggest getting rid of numbers out some idle notion of revolutionizing game design--it's really just something I would like to see more, as a player.  I often get frustrated when I like using axes and then I find a slightly better sword and feel compelled to switch weapons.  In most cases the statistical difference won't make much of a difference, but the part of me that is addicted to optimization often wins out, because I just KNOW that the sword is better--it doesn't make any logical sense to not switch weapons, just for some aesthetic preference.  I often find myself wishing I was encouraged more by the way games designed to not worry about efficiency so much, to just go along for the ride.

@ChevyRay:  Interesting, I haven't heard of fuzzy logic but it seems to be about a lot of same stuff that made me decide to make this topic.  I was thinking about how computers only work in discrete states but real life is much more inexact or ambiguous.  I'll take a closer look at the article later.

[ChevyRay]

@ChevyRay:  Interesting, I haven't heard of fuzzy logic but it seems to be about a lot of same stuff that made me decide to make this topic.  I was thinking about how computers only work in discrete states but real life is much more inexact or ambiguous.  I'll take a closer look at the article later.

I actually first picked up the concept in O'Reilly's AI for Game Developers, which is basically an introduction to a myriad of different topics, and it had a chapter that covered Fuzzy Logic, which I thought was one of the most interesting sections. I'd like to find a more in-depth read on it, though.

[Afinostux]

I actually first picked up the concept in O'Reilly's AI for Game Developers, which is basically an introduction to a myriad of different topics, and it had a chapter that covered Fuzzy Logic, which I thought was one of the most interesting sections. I'd like to find a more in-depth read on it, though.

http://www.red3d.com/cwr/games/ is a good place to start. it's a bit old, but most of the papers on it are freely available and fairly simple.

http://www.iau.dtu.dk/~jj/pubs/logic.pdf seems more in-depth, but from what I can see, it all just boils down to having a common comparison function, and classifying something by the highest value it gets in that function.

Was that book any good? I was considering buying it, but I've found so many free resources everywhere that I can't quite bring myself to.

[Soulliard]

I think it's important for a game designer to constantly consider what sort of experience they player will be having, and while that includes a consideration for whether or not it's accessible or if players like it, I think it's also important for designers to push the experience they want players to have, even if that means a smaller audience.  I think there are just some things you can't do if you're too concerned with appealing to everyone.

In the case of an RPG, however, I don't think hiding numbers would add much to the experience (unless it's a Survival Horror RPG, which would be awesome). And this would certainly turn off a lot of players.

That's probably true for some players, especially the two extremes, but there's a lot of us somewhere in the middle, like me.  I don't suggest getting rid of numbers out some idle notion of revolutionizing game design--it's really just something I would like to see more, as a player.  I often get frustrated when I like using axes and then I find a slightly better sword and feel compelled to switch weapons.  In most cases the statistical difference won't make much of a difference, but the part of me that is addicted to optimization often wins out, because I just KNOW that the sword is better--it doesn't make any logical sense to not switch weapons, just for some aesthetic preference.  I often find myself wishing I was encouraged more by the way games designed to not worry about efficiency so much, to just go along for the ride.

I'm the same way. I pick characters and items that are both interesting and effective. The best way to encourage me to pick an interesting character is to make the interesting character effective in combat as well. It would be better to make the weak character stronger, rather than hiding the fact that he's weak. 'Cause players will found out how effective the character is soon enough.

In BG2, Minsc is not only funny, he's one of the best warriors you can recruit. In KotOR, I found Jolee to be a really interesting character, and as a jedi, he was also an able combatant. In Plancescape: Torment, Morte is amusing, but also surprisingly deep, with one of the best backstories of any game character ever. And despite appearances, he's good in combat, too. No character can take a hit better than he can.

In the Axe/Sword example, a better solution would be too make both weapons viable. Perhaps the axe has longer reach. Or the axe is stronger but the sword is faster. Or the axe is stronger but inaccurate. Or the axe has a chance of breaking shields. Or the axe is stronger, but you can use a shield at the same time as the sword for better defense.

[jwk5]

In the Axe/Sword example, a better solution would be too make both weapons viable. Perhaps the axe has longer reach. Or the axe is stronger but the sword is faster. Or the axe is stronger but inaccurate. Or the axe has a chance of breaking shields. Or the axe is stronger, but you can use a shield at the same time as the sword for better defense.

Going one step further you could do it like Final Fantasy 4 and allow the player to switch out equipment mid-battle. This way it becomes useful to have a sword and an axe since both are most useful under different circumstances. Diablo 2 did it nicely as well, you had 2 weapon sets you could equip and switch between on the fly (with one key press) so you could have for instance a sword and shield and quickly switch to bow and arrows or switch from an axe to a spear.