next »

[kyn]

Yeah, I guess that's true. Can't please everyone, right?

[Nava]

One way to do it is to make the really tricky bits (whether they be hard puzzles, nasty jumping sections or anything else that people might get totally stuck on) non-essential to progress, so if you can't do it you can leave it.

I felt that Aquaria did a good job of this; there are a few really tricky puzzles and bosses that are nonessential to the narrative and completion of the game. Personally speaking, there was only one part in the game proper that really stumped me, and Alec has since added a hint at that point. Aside from that, I enjoyed not instantly knowing the solution... there are not enough games these days that are mentally challenging.

But again, the point at which the developer cuts the easy from the difficult (i.e. the core gameplay from the tough bonuses) is not a point that will cater to everyone, since each person thinks in a different manner, some more linear and some more lateral. Unless a developer has the time and money to submit the game to a broad test population (which indie companies do not), they can only be expected to set that cutoff point according to their own tastes..... and since Alec and Derek (and probably the friends they had test it) are of above-average intelligence, I think they may even have been a little generous.

[handCraftedRadio]

I'm not really a big fan of how people think frustrating the player is a bad thing and try to avoid it at all costs. What use is a game or puzzle if it is not frustrating? Things like crossword puzzles or sudokus and those kinds of games are as frustrating as games get and there are many people who are obsessed with them.

[Alec]

Its okay, I'm going to add a bunch of anthropomorphic rabbits to the game and get John Romero to replace me as a judge at the IGF. I think that'll clear up a lot of the issues.

[Derek]

Some random commenter on the indiegames.com blog posted something like "Derek can't stand criticism, that's why he didn't post this video on tigsource!!!" which I thought was hilarious. The human brain is magnificent and all that but it's also a pretty unreliable instrument.

Haha, I figured someone would come to that conclusion.

I'll post the tour tonight, then.

[Akhel]

Derek can't stand criticism, one comment was enough for him to give in!!!

[Alec]

Derek can't stand criticism, one comment was enough for him to give in!!!

:D

[Edmund]

Its okay, I'm going to add a bunch of anthropomorphic rabbits to the game and get John Romero to replace me as a judge at the IGF. I think that'll clear up a lot of the issues.

when i saw the design tour i didnt really see anything negative about it, it wasnt that bad!

Honestly when he did gish he basically pointed out everything i would also point out in a post-mortem...   minus the jingling of keys...

really though criticism sucks, no one likes to be analyzed or pick apart and when someone say something critical about a game you put your life into it cuts pretty deep... luckily ive become emotionally numb by the 100s of 1000s of negative comments ive gotten over the years so criticism doesn't effect me like it has in the past.

the stuff that hurts is usually the stuff that's valid, when people say coil has major flaws in its controls and that everyone thinks the text scenes are loading... it still bothers me a lot, because they are huge flaws i overlooked when i was making it.

when someone says your games for fags, it doesn't bother me as much.. mostly because i only make games for fags.

We arnt perfect, we are new to making games and have years and years ahead of us to learn from and hone our craft. Criticism can sometimes be a very good thing because it forces us to realize our weak points and work on them.. that is if the criticism is valid.

those are my 2 cents.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I don't think it was just the criticism, but I do think that the person making that video didn't fundamentally "get" Aquaria, even though he was positive overall. I.e. he complained about the first puzzle not being blindingly obvious for instance. But I hate games that hold my hand and tell me where to go and make everything so obvious. I appreciate that Aquaria doesn't, and that it's a game I have to figure out and learn on my own. It's a game for people who want to explore a world, not a game for people who want to be told what to do. So even if he's right about a lot of people not being able to figure out that puzzle, that's criticizing the game by the standards of other games and other intentions, not Alec's and Derek's intention.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

BTW, as far as criticism is concerned, I found the comments to my game here funny:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/44325.html

[Edmund]

I don't think it was just the criticism, but I do think that the person making that video didn't fundamentally "get" Aquaria, even though he was positive overall. I.e. he complained about the first puzzle not being blindingly obvious for instance. But I hate games that hold my hand and tell me where to go and make everything so obvious. I appreciate that Aquaria doesn't, and that it's a game I have to figure out and learn on my own. It's a game for people who want to explore a world, not a game for people who want to be told what to do. So even if he's right about a lot of people not being able to figure out that puzzle, that's criticizing the game by the standards of other games and other intentions, not Alec's and Derek's intention.

yeah but this is expected with any critique... its the opinion of one person.
 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, but! There's a difference between criticizing a game for failing to live up to its intentions, and misreading those intentions and superimposing the intentions of other games, and criticizing a game for failing to do what it didn't intend to do. Criticism is great when they criticize things that a developer would, himself, criticize about their own game five or ten years down the road.

It's like if someone criticized a danmaku / bullet hell shooter for having too much action, and too much going on on the screen, and being too frustrating. That person wouldn't be getting that that was the whole point, that the intention was to do as much of that as possible.

Some critics correctly grasp the intentions of the game designer, and others don't, and I think it's fair to say that the criticism that doesn't is worse criticism than the criticism that does.

[Alec]

My favorite comment about Aquaria is from youtube:

"this looks like a good game for women and fags"

But yeah, I agree that Aquaria is shit too - in the eyes of a lot of people. I spent a year trying to improve it for the people who don't get it, and apparently that stuff didn't make a difference! I'm just frustrated because I did listen to all the criticism and acted on most of it, (the stuff that I figured I could change that would help without ruining the mystery of the game) and it still didn't help for some people. (including grand lord Jeff)

Criticism is useful, but I've already heard everything that anyone could bash about this game. Jeff didn't cover anything I haven't heard before. (and already changed in a number of cases, but I guess he was playing the old version for part of it and didn't notice some of the new additions) The only new piece of information was that he hated the energy form shot sound, which is pretty subjective.

Which is cool, everyone's allowed to say whatever they want. And I'm allowed to feel like a failure.

But seriously Edmund, your next game better have key-jingling sound effects in it. Otherwise you should quit.

[Valter]

I don't think it was just the criticism, but I do think that the person making that video didn't fundamentally "get" Aquaria, even though he was positive overall. I.e. he complained about the first puzzle not being blindingly obvious for instance. But I hate games that hold my hand and tell me where to go and make everything so obvious. I appreciate that Aquaria doesn't, and that it's a game I have to figure out and learn on my own. It's a game for people who want to explore a world, not a game for people who want to be told what to do. So even if he's right about a lot of people not being able to figure out that puzzle, that's criticizing the game by the standards of other games and other intentions, not Alec's and Derek's intention.

I also really hate games that try to give you the solutions to all your puzzles before you can. I couldn't finish Zelda: The Minish Cap, because that fucking hat was still trying to tell you how to do every thing even in the last dungeon.

However, I'm equally irritated by games that just throw you in and don't bother to explain anything. I also couldn't finish Zelda: A Link to the Past. It's about the opposite of Minish Cap, in that instead of telling you how to solve everything, they just toss you in and hope you can figure everything out.

Phantom Hourglass was a shining example of how action/puzzle games should be like. Players are capable of finding the solutions of puzzles if they look hard enough, but even then it's usually a sign that tells you, instead of throwing you into a cut scene where the fairy says "oh, that cracked wall looks suspicious!". Also, experienced players could find extra goodies if they look hard enough. By the end of the game, you aren't given any clues at all.

In other words, I think puzzle/action games like Aquaria and Zelda should give progressively less advice as the game progresses. The reason people might get frustrated with Aquaria might be that it's so early in the game that they think they're missing a key element of gameplay. I've played many games that will require the use of a "secret" move involving some button combination, without even ever telling the player how to use the secret move.

Also, Aquaria has a very large amount of detail, so players might think they are missing something from another location just because they glazed over it and thought it was scenery.

As someone who hasn't played Aquaria, I can't be sure of any of those points. However, I do think it makes a good rule of thumb to make at least the first puzzle simple to solve. Whether or not you want to hold the player's hand throughout the rest of the game, it's important to define the genre of puzzle solving early on. It might be paying attention to the scenery for clues, or using a certain move in a certain location, or even direct sliding-block puzzles or similar brain-teasers. You have to show the player what the limits are before you allow them access to the main bulk of the game, though, or else you're more likelier to confuse them, and at an earlier point.

I really need to buy this game. Considering that Ecco the Dolphin is in my list of favorite video games ever, I think I would get along with Aquaria just fine. 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Well, I can't imagine not being able to figure Zelda 3 out and giving up -- I mean, Zelda 1 I could understand, that flute and pond puzzle was pretty tricky, but Zelda 3? What could stump someone in that game...? Well, I guess how to knock down the book of Mudora was pretty obscure, but still.

I have the feeling that a lot of people *are* smart enough to figure out that Aquaria puzzle (or any other puzzle), they just don't have the persistence to do it. So it's not that people are stupid, it's that they're lazy and don't want to experiment. They're used to getting their way without having to think, so even requiring a tiny amount of mental work is unexpected to them. Maybe I had trouble with that puzzle too for a few minutes, but I didn't give up.

And yes, I despised that hat, along with the fairies in Zelda 64 / Majora's Mask. And the Owl in Zelda 4. Stop telling me what to do! What's the point of puzzles if there's these things telling you how to solve them?

[John Nesky]

Well, I can't imagine not being able to figure Zelda 3 out and giving up -- I mean, Zelda 1 I could understand, that flute and pond puzzle was pretty tricky, but Zelda 3? What could stump someone in that game...?

The first time I played Link to the Past, I got stuck in the first scene. I was running around in the rain and nothing I tried accomplished anything and I just found a bunch of dead ends. I gave up.

Later I found out that the bush in one of the dead ends was a trap door, and proceeded to uncover a fantastic adventure game.

The problem with puzzles isn't that you need a certain level of intelligence to solve them. It's that people approach puzzles with widely different assumptions, and their random flailing about for the first few seconds could be the difference between stumbling across a hint, and just getting frustrated and moving on. The problem space in the first scene of LttP was large enough that I felt like I still had plenty of options that were unexplored when I first came to that dead end, so I didn't immediately realize that there must be something important there and I left and explored other places. I persisted for at least 15-20 minutes in the rain with returning to the bush, which I had already mentally classified as a dead end, then put down the controller.

As a designer, when you've got a puzzle that needs to be solved by the player to progress, you have to reduce the problem space so that players who are stumped can figure it out quickly just by experimenting. If you give players too many choices, or you give them the opportunity to go away, some percentage of players will simply pick all the wrong choices or they'll go away and forget about the puzzle before solving it, and then they will be stuck.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Hm. I'd still say that persisting for 15-20 min and then giving up isn't enough persistence (at least for games with puzzles). Sometimes puzzles take weeks to solve. That's the fun of them. They wouldn't be as fun if you could figure them out without trial and error. Perhaps the difference is just due to how easily different people become frustrated and give up. I wouldn't become frustrated after 15 minutes of searching with nothing to show for it, I'd just keep searching for hours, and then if I found nothing, go back the next day and search for more hours. That's fun to me. I understand that that's not fun to everyone, but it's what I prefer, and I don't think it's bad when games work like that.

[John Nesky]

Hm. I'd still say that persisting for 15-20 min and then giving up isn't enough persistence (at least for games with puzzles). Sometimes puzzles take weeks to solve. That's the fun of them.

I am definitely not going to spend weeks on a puzzle in a game that hasn't already demonstrated to me that it has a lot of potential. Remember, this is the very beginning of LttP that we're talking about, and I played it before it became legendary. And there weren't even any interesting enemies to fight in the rain. There was just a bunch of space to run around in.

They wouldn't be as fun if you could figure them out without trial and error.

I strongly disagree that trial-and-error is an important part of puzzles. Trial-and-error is sometimes a decent way to let players discover what their abilities are and how various objects behave, but solving puzzles, to me, is about applying that knowledge. The puzzles I like are the ones where I already know the rules, but I don't know the strategy yet.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I didn't mean that trial and error is an important part of puzzles, just that they wouldn't be as much fun to me without trial and error. Where's the sense of accomplishment if you can  figure something out without much mental work? And I didn't mean trial and error in the sense of trying everything blindly until you stumble upon a solution, I meant it in the sense of thinking of something that might solve the puzzle, trying that, and when it doesn't thinking of something else that might solve the puzzle, and trying that. That's fun.

[John Nesky]

I certainly agree that solving puzzles should take some mental effort, and that they're not as fun when you guess the right solution every time. I think I am mostly just bothered by this:

I can't imagine not being able to figure Zelda 3 out and giving up

Being able to empathize with the people who get frustrated by your game and give up is an important part of being a designer. (As long as they're in your target audience... and you're free to exclude them from your target audience if you decide they're too wimpy.)