next »

[Chaoseed]

So, in a lot of games (pick any random Final Fantasy) there isn't much point to equipment.  You go to a new area and there's better equipment available; you buy it and your characters get slightly more powerful.  It's like a measure of progress through the game; all it really does is let the designers put more powerful monsters in and know that you'll be able to defeat them.  Don't get me wrong, that's useful, but it doesn't go very far.

A more elaborate example is Kingdom of Loathing.  You have three basic stats that have different effects on combat.  Depending on what class you are and where you are in the game, you may want to switch equipment to get different benefits.  A lot of items also have strange little bonuses like added elemental damage, accumulating more money, etc..  The point is, a lot of times in KoL there's no obvious "best equipment".  This paves the way for interesting choices as you play the game.

Now, there have been various Facebook games and such things which are very simple RPG-ish games.  Usually they don't bother with equipment management; it's like Final Fantasy but one step further—the game automatically chooses the best equipment for you.  You don't ever have to actually "equip" it.

On the one hand, I can see how this would appeal.  Anything to make it easier for new players to get into the game, right?  On the other hand, once again it doesn't allow for the interesting equipment-switching gameplay.

However.  Perhaps there's compromise here.  The game could use a simple algorithm to try to find the "best" equipment and automatically use it; just press the "Do this mission with best equipment" button.  But there could also be buttons for, say, "Highest Attack", "Highest Defense" or "Highest Agility" (depending on your needs at the moment).  There could even be a "Do this mission with your custom equipment set" button for people who want really fine-grained control.  Of course, this would be pointless unless there were tasks in the game that really required a high defense, a high agility or some other nonstandard equipment setup.

What do you guys think?  Is this worth trying to set up?

[TwilightVulpine]

A compromise is the best way. In most games it's easy to determine which equipment is the best, with the rare exceptions of special equipments(with uncommon effects). It might be important to sort equipments by type, like the best spear, the best sword, the best light armor(speed), the best heavy armor(defense). Too many options might confuse some players, though. It is made easier in games where a character can only equip a single type of weapon... and it is made more difficult in games where the best is not obvious, like KoL from your example, Torchlight(many effects per equipment) or Mass Effect 1(slight differences between equipments of similar level).

A way to simplify and still keep customizability would be to assign a type of equipment to a character and give the option to auto-equip the best from the same set. An example would be assigning knives and light armor(ranked by speed/evade) to a character. Normal Auto-Equip would change to the best overall, which could be a hammer and a chainmail; Auto-Equip by Type would change to the best knives and light armor available. It would help to make the equipment types visibly ranked with different attribute priorities, so a player would know what to expect when assigining a certain type of equipment to a character.

Even then it wouldn't be very useful in the case of equipments with uncommon effects. Maybe the effects could be given a value only used for ranking(show the DPS was a interesting idea in Torchlight, but doesn't cover some effects as money bonuses, poison, buffs/debuffs). It could be a calculated value of "usefulness" factoring their effect on the gameplay e. g. regen increases the resistence of the character, so it could be assigned a value similar to a defense bonus. In this case, it would be better to show a group of the better equipments instead of indicating a single one.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

So, in a lot of games (pick any random Final Fantasy) there isn't much point to equipment.  You go to a new area and there's better equipment available; you buy it and your characters get slightly more powerful.  It's like a measure of progress through the game; all it really does is let the designers put more powerful monsters in and know that you'll be able to defeat them.  Don't get me wrong, that's useful, but it doesn't go very far.

well, there's not much point to action games either, it's not an issue particular to rpgs: in your average fps game or third person shooter you go to a new area and there are stronger enemies; you kill them and your character finds stronger weapons. the only difference is that in rpgs equipment tends to be more gradual; you may get a sword that's 10% stronger than your last one, whereas in action games weapons are like twice as powerful as the last one (rifle/shotgun vs pistol in most fps games). that's a length of game issue though.

in any case i find equipment management fun, particularly in games where weapons and armor have special side characteristics / special abilities, rather than just a higher number.

also, you talk as if the 'best equipment' idea were your own, and not actually implemented in most modern rpgs. ff13 for instance has an 'equip best' function, with options to prioritize different things. it even handles accessories. i remember an 'equip best' option even in some snes games.

[brog]

If a decision is so shallow that there's a simple algorithm to find the best choice, there's probably no point giving it to your players (unless the purpose is to train them in basic mathematics or something other than providing gameplay), so, sure, automate it.  But even better, save development time by not putting it there in the first place - why spend time creating a problem and its solution, when you could be spending time on the decisions that players actually make?  There's no point wasting time on systems that the players aren't even interacting with!

I don't quite understand your point about "high defense", "high agility", etc. - if there is a trade-off between these which is significant in the game, then your equipment system is not shallow, there is a meaningful choice, and you're not in the situation you describe where an algorithm can replace the player.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

wouldn't that mean that any game you could make where the ai is better than the player shouldn't be made? i'm not sure i agree with that assumption. chess ai is better than pretty much every chess player but the top few thousand, but chess isn't ruined by the fact that you can replace the player with an algorithm -- chess doesn't feel shallower for that reason.

[Alec S.]

I think the issue isn't that equipment management is unnecessary, but that it's being done poorly.  Equipment shouldn't be gradual changes on a linear scale.  Equipment should either have special effects that make certain combination of equipment fit certain play styles, or make finding a particular piece of equipment change the gameplay in a fairly significant way.

An example of the former would be Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced, wherein equipment gives characters boosts to stats, as well as teaches them abilities.  You want to acquire certain items to get the abilities you want.

An example of the latter would be Metroidvanias/Zelda-likes where new equipment is relatively rare but also rather game-changing (the equipment and world is designed such that new items can be used to reach new areas, so they can't just be gradual changes on a linear scale.)

[Falmil]

I don't see the point of auto-equip. As long as a player can easily compare what they have on to another piece of equipment, and there aren't about 20 stats attached to that piece of equipment, the player should be able to see which ones are better. It's even better if you color code the better and worse stats.

[TwilightVulpine]

The problem is that when you have a game with equipment which mostly gets stronger, instead of actually different, and many characters, having to buy and equip each one individually, which very often involves interrupting the flow of the game, is just a repetitive task, not a strategic choice.

[Melly]

I like the definition of gameplay as a series of decisions, be they micro (reflex-based) or macro (strategy-based). To create engaging gameplay that doesn't waste the time of the player (by simply rewarding time spent or menial labor instead of skill built), your decisions must be meaningful, and the solutions to them must not be obvious.

Many games, RPG's being one of the most guilty genres, have elements in their gameplay that are there merely for the sake of convention. An example is the recently made Torchlight, which is an obvious, though well-crafted, clone of Diablo 2 with minor improvements. In that game, you have identification scrolls, meant to be used to identify magic equipment. Thing is, any equipment that has any form of extra attribute needs to be identified, scrolls are very cheap, there are no bad/cursed equipment types, and so on, making identification merely a waste of time with obvious solution (ID everything you get) inserted there purely to satisfy conventions.

As far as equipment goes, if equipment in your game is only of the Bigger and Better variety, you might as well not have it. It's an obvious choice between a weaker and a stronger piece of equipment that only serves to give players a shallow and fake feeling of progression and accomplishment (an even more common issue in MMORPG's).

The mentioned attributes of equipment choice in Kingdom of Loathing (I haven't personally played that game though) are a good example of meaningful equipment choice. Demon's Souls is another game in which you have several meaningful choices to your equipment that change your gameplay. In DS, more protective armor is often heavier, limiting your stamina and movement. Same with shields. The bigger the sword, the harder it is to swing. Tiny daggers aren't simply shitty weapons meant to be used until you get anything else that's better, they're very fast weapons that use little stamina and have some of the better backstab/riposte, changing the way you approach enemies.

It's not perfect, but it's one of the better examples I can think of right now. It's also one of the few games I can think of in which actually not wearing ANY armor can have a gameplay advantage, allowing you to maintain yourself fast and light while still using heavier, powerful weapons (riskier build though).

[gimymblert]

It's the old problem of "press button to win". Game are about interaction but not only, they are equally about manipulation.

There is a reason why hardcore gamer despise the rail shooter, mafia wars, the one button gameplay in smash and QTE, it's that it remove degree of manipulation, even if actually it came with the great discount of more option and more control.

Equipment management is not only a problem of efficiency but also the feeling of "playing", it give a tactile and visceral pleasure. It can also be a cognitive pleasure (sorting element) akin to crossword (repetitive trivial task), even if it does not add to the core gameplay. I think it's the balance between manipulation vs the interaction that make an efficient equipment management.

Myself i HATE useless busy work like items management (or complex button manipulation in fighting game), i want to go straight to the meaningful option.

Someone make a game where all you do is sorting items for your party

[brog]

wouldn't that mean that any game you could make where the ai is better than the player shouldn't be made? i'm not sure i agree with that assumption. chess ai is better than pretty much every chess player but the top few thousand, but chess isn't ruined by the fact that you can replace the player with an algorithm -- chess doesn't feel shallower for that reason.

You missed a couple of words in what I said: "simple" and "best".  Chess AI is not simple and doesn't necessarily make the best choice, and in games with non-trivial blind decision making there is no best choice.

edit: To clarify, "pick the one with the biggest number" is simple, "look 30 moves ahead to see which choice wins" is not simple, and "pick the one that beats the one your opponent chose" is not even an algorithm.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

'best equipment' options don't usually make the best choices either, though -- they just go for maximizing stats overall, but there are often cases where you need to do it manually. i don't think a rpg yet exists where the 'equip best' feature is always the best choice, even the most cookie-cutter rpgs have equipment with some special abilities here and there.

and even were it to make the best choice all the time regarding individual characters, sometimes you get a great piece of armor and have to decide who to give it to (if it fits more than one person); so even though it's obviously better than your old armor, it's an important decision which party member gets it.

[Aik]

Equipment management can be an important part of strategy. Baldur's Gate is the best example I can think of where I really care about the equipment, especially in the early parts of the game where you're scrounging for it and trying to wring out every advantage. Killing Flaming Fist officers for their plate mail and trying to get the +2 sword with cold damage are important parts of the game. Deciding whether you'll use your fireball wands and invisibility potions for an encounter matters.

Now yeah - if equipment doesn't matter then just save me the tedium - but if resources are limited and the game is tactical then how you manage your equipment becomes a tactical decision and so it's something that the player should be doing.

[LemonScented]

Kingdom of Loathing is brilliant, the only MMORPG I've actually wanted to play and enjoy playing. The equipment management is a joy in that, partly because it's a genuinely important part of the game (and so got the attention it deserves from the designers) and partly because the equipment itself is entertaining - "Right, so I'm taking off the ninja pirate outfit and donning the Tutu, the concrete boots and equipping the frying pan". I spent a long time designing a game (abandoned eventually for being too technically ambitious to complete on my own) which was about nothing but customising and refitting robots from scrap parts to go into battle - the combat itself would have been largely AI controlled, but driven primarily by what had been equipped.

Linear progression, of the type that could be automated (swap the +10 sword for a +15 one), seems pretty shallow to me. I like having to make trade-offs, or finding interesting equipment combinations for different circumstances.

[Jolli]

i dont see any problem with having 'unnecessary' content in a game...

[SirNiko]

To answer the topic title, "No", but only if you don't want to make equipment an interesting part of the game.

In some Final Fantasy games (FF1, for example), getting the equipment was more significant that equipping it. You put forth some effort, and your character got stronger. The decision was which item to buy from the list, or solving the puzzle to acquire the item. In some cases, the way you grow dictates the playstyle. If you just got a sword that boosts your Fire Attack by 40, you're going to make that character target Ice monsters to maximize damage, even if he can target other foes and still be just as effective as before. Your decision there is how to make the equipment you have (which is the best and need not be changed) give the best results.

Sometimes the equipment is a puzzle. In Kingdom of Loathing, for example, the puzzle might be to find the combination of gear that gives the best result. Which is better, equipping the full brimstone outfit for +items and +meat, or to make up a set of random items that gives more meat or more items, but not both? This can be used in conjunction with the player's actions while wearing the equipment, for a double layered puzzle: maybe one set is the best if you just mash attack every round, but another set is better if you use a specific set of commands in a specific place to push it a little further.

Other times, it's just to suit the player's playstyle. FF13 has no "best" weapon, in the sense that each level 1 weapon you get is equally powerful in a different way, and can upgraded to level 3 which is likewise balanced with all level 3 weapons. One weapon is high damage, low magic, another is balanced, another is also balanced at lower power but gives some special ability. The player can pick (somewhat arbitrarily) which weapon s/he likes best and upgrade it to its maximum tier (which is different for each weapon, but otherwise equal in most situations.

All of these are good ways to utilize equipment in a game and have meaningful decisions come as a result.

-SirNiko

[William Broom]

I like the definition of gameplay as a series of decisions, be they micro (reflex-based) or macro (strategy-based). To create engaging gameplay that doesn't waste the time of the player (by simply rewarding time spent or menial labor instead of skill built), your decisions must be meaningful, and the solutions to them must not be obvious.

Many games, RPG's being one of the most guilty genres, have elements in their gameplay that are there merely for the sake of convention. An example is the recently made Torchlight, which is an obvious, though well-crafted, clone of Diablo 2 with minor improvements. In that game, you have identification scrolls, meant to be used to identify magic equipment. Thing is, any equipment that has any form of extra attribute needs to be identified, scrolls are very cheap, there are no bad/cursed equipment types, and so on, making identification merely a waste of time with obvious solution (ID everything you get) inserted there purely to satisfy conventions.

As far as equipment goes, if equipment in your game is only of the Bigger and Better variety, you might as well not have it. It's an obvious choice between a weaker and a stronger piece of equipment that only serves to give players a shallow and fake feeling of progression and accomplishment (an even more common issue in MMORPG's).

The mentioned attributes of equipment choice in Kingdom of Loathing (I haven't personally played that game though) are a good example of meaningful equipment choice. Demon's Souls is another game in which you have several meaningful choices to your equipment that change your gameplay. In DS, more protective armor is often heavier, limiting your stamina and movement. Same with shields. The bigger the sword, the harder it is to swing. Tiny daggers aren't simply shitty weapons meant to be used until you get anything else that's better, they're very fast weapons that use little stamina and have some of the better backstab/riposte, changing the way you approach enemies.

It's not perfect, but it's one of the better examples I can think of right now. It's also one of the few games I can think of in which actually not wearing ANY armor can have a gameplay advantage, allowing you to maintain yourself fast and light while still using heavier, powerful weapons (riskier build though).

I don't think it's necessarily true that you should always remove these kinds of trivial decisions. Everything you've said here is based on the view that a game is nothing but its mechanics - that when you play a game, all you're doing is making a series of decisions. But this isn't true.

An 'unnecessary' action like identifying items or equipping armour might not have any value in terms of gameplay, but it can have value in terms of atmosphere, story or presentation. For example, in Torchlight, maybe the use of identify scrolls builds up the feeling of exploring unknown, uncharted regions. When you're in town and you have to remember to stock up on scrolls, it makes you feel more like an adventurer preparing for his journey. And maybe if you played old-school RPGs (videogames or pen & paper) it gives you a little kick of nostalgia. So that's three reasons to include identify scrolls which have nothing to do with game mechanics. (I haven't actually played Torchlight, so I don't know if these are true - it's just an example of how such a game element could be useful.)

I could give similar reasons for manual equipping i.e. it makes you feel like you are micromanaging your party even if you're not really, and it emphasizes the feeling of reward and progression you get from buying new armour. But I guess you would have to decide on a case-by-case basis if these things are worth the downsides, like frustrating the player by putting them through 'meaningless' actions.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i agree with that -- obviously correct actions can add to a game's atmosphere or charm. for instance, there's no reason zelda makes you constantly cut down bushes to find rupees: isn't it obvious that you'll always want to cut them down to look under them to see if you can get free money? why not automate the cutting of bushes? why would money appear under bushes anyway? why don't bushes stay cut after you cut them? who puts that money in there anyway?

but the very act of cutting down bushes and finding rupees and hearts and stuff under them is fun, even if it's the obvious choice. it's fun cause it adds to the immersion of the world, makes the world feel as if it's reacting to you.

similarly, the mere act of equipping new weapons and armor after finding them can be fun, even if it were always obvious what's the best thing to equip. it adds to the immersion that you're outfitting your team for battle.

and likewise with identifying items: it's more fun if an item is a surprise that you reveal rather than known as soon as you get it. it's like getting a mystery present vs a present wrapped in paper that you can see through.

[Chris Whitman]

An 'unnecessary' action like identifying items or equipping armour might not have any value in terms of gameplay, but it can have value in terms of atmosphere, story or presentation. For example, in Torchlight, maybe the use of identify scrolls builds up the feeling of exploring unknown, uncharted regions. When you're in town and you have to remember to stock up on scrolls, it makes you feel more like an adventurer preparing for his journey.

Yeah, I was totally with Melly on this one, but I think this is also a really good point in some cases. In Torchlight, though, I really felt like you were asked to do this repetitive task too frequently for it to be meaningful. In the same way, I really felt like the enormous volume of useless items you found detracted from the game. Like, every monster is loaded with junk, and nearly all of it is just vendor trash.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that taking out even boring or redundant options is not always better than leaving them in, which seems counterintuitive, but look at FFXIII: they pulled basically all the RPG gameplay tropes out of the game, from the "exploration" that's just walking around a map that only contains two things anyway, to the dialogue that's just people saying things like, "You are Cecil! I have heard of your feat!" But as a result there was basically no game left to play. It's just a really, really, incredibly, long, long movie with fights the AI pretty much plays for you.

Sometimes I think it's okay to make the player do a little busy work. Sometimes I think it can actually be engaging, but you always have to be conscious, I think, of the fact that it's basically cheap operant conditioning. Push the button! Watch numbers go up! I think it can be used to make someone maybe more invested in a good experience, but it has to be used not for evil.

[Melly]

@ William

I'll be honest, I thought of what you said not long after making my post, but I'll let you have the credit. I can agree with you, though. I was a bit rushed to state that you should never have any decisions without meaning, if they can enhance other aspects of the game, like its world's atmosphere. So yeah, you're right about that.

In Torchlight, though, the ID scrolls are an example on how not to do this. Not only are they meaningless, but they also do little to help the world feel more 'real', or engaging. The volume of items in that game is ridiculous, and you'll find yourself idetifying items almost a thousand times at least during your first playthrough, and 99% of them will be crap. It becomes a mechanical, constant action that detracts from the world and makes it more apparent as a fake reality coded into a cold computer. It's there purely because Diablo 2 had them.

I do feel however that more meaningful decisions and actions tend to, when woven well into the game world's fabric, boost that world's atmosphere even more. In my Demon's Souls example, I mentioned that a big part of the interesting decisions as far as equipment goes comes from their different weight and how it affects your character. Most RPG's nowadays don't have stuff like that, and in this one it makes the world feel more like a real living thing, because you're taking into consideration things that you probably would if you truly lived in that place.