next »

[Martin 2BAM]

I had this problem with several games:
People quit it before reaching the end because they think it's sort of endless/procedurally generated or whatnot.
Even if it just means "do ANYTHING (even stand still) for 2 minutes and it's over".

How can I tell that there is a message afterwards and it's not infinite game, but at the same time not making it too obvious (no text?)

What made people play through Passage?
Any ideas overall?

Thanks
-Martín

[increpare]

passage was very obviously directed at an endpoint right from the start - at least on my playing.

Show us some examples and maybe we can offer some particular suggestions as to how to work around these issues (given that you want to)...

[LemonScented]

Passage tells you on the download page (and, I imagine, in the readme and wherever else it could be reasonably said) that the game 5 minutes long and that if it wasn't making sense you should stick with it. The game itself didn't do a lot to make it obvious (the characters move further to the right but the effect isn't immediately obvious - to some people I've watched play, they didn't even spot it was happening until the end).

If you can't find a way to suggest it in the materials that come with the game (on the download page or whatever), I guess that a clock ticking down, or a decreasing "time bar" could be a less-subtle but perhaps adequate ingame way of portraying it.

[Martin 2BAM]

Increpare, perhaps the fact that Passage is just "one level" and it kind of lets you somewhat explore helps.
But what if one makes a more introverted and claustrophobic game? It's kind of hard to maintain the player entertained when he or she is stuck.
(It happened mostly in prototype field-testing that I rather not share because I'm not confortable with them (they suck))

Lemon, I haven't read those instructions for Passage
Good ideas, thanks

[increpare]

(It happened mostly in prototype field-testing that I rather not share because I'm not confortable with them (they suck))

Oh come on, don't be a tease!

[Corpus]

In Passage, you started out being able to see the future condensed ahead of you. As you went on, the future expanded and the past condensed. There was a midpoint where they were both equal in width, after which the past occupied more and more of that graphic. It basically acted like a progress bar and, although it represented only horizontal space (and not the passage of time, which was the only actual factor in the play session's length/conclusion), clearly showed that at least the passage itself was finite.

And yeah, it also said on the website that the game lasts 5 minutes.

Depending on the mechanics of the game you're making, the fact that players can't at least surmise the endpoint (or even its existence) may well be a flaw in the design on quite a basic level. You could cheat and include a literal progress bar, but that wouldn't really be a very noble solution. It's quite possible that you need to reconsider the nature of the game itself.

Disclaimer: I haven't completed a game since like 2004 so you may or may not want to pay attention to me.

[Martin 2BAM]

Ok, Passage was a bad example

To summarize some solutions:
* Display a timer/timeout bar.
* Finity indicators (as condensed future/past)
* Showing the end-place right at the beginning and scroll back to the start-place.

What if you restart the "same" level each time with minimal changes that are only noticeable on the long term (you need to keep playing for a solid minute)?

[SirNiko]

I take it the purpose, then, is to keep the player going long enough to notice the subtle differences?

I'd just title each level in a non-random way. The player will continue to play to see all the level titles, expecting to stop only when they start to repeat (A sign the game is generating them randomly).

-SirNiko

[Martin 2BAM]

That doesn't help much unless you say the level count like Level 1 of 9... which I'm not very fond of.
It also can be a problem if you were planning a sudden unexpected end (or perhaps it can be worked around by telling there are 9 levels but actually stop at the 4th?)

Perhaps the game could hint you on it if you try to quit, but that's impossible for flash games because you can't handle/control that event.

[SirNiko]

No no, you don't need to number them.

For example, Level 1 is "It begins."

Level 2: "Another day in the life."

3: "Down we go."

4: "Things are looking up."

5: "Or are they?"

The point is that each title references the one before in a very vague way, so the player knows they aren't being spit out randomly. Because they know this, they are compelled to keep playing to see the rest, even if the actual game content appears to be repeating every stage.

-SirNiko

[moi]

maintain the player entertained

[Core Xii]

That would be the trick. If the player stops playing because they think the game is infinite, then clearly they're not having fun playing it.

[gunmaggot]

Constant, or regular, change - at least just in the background/incidental graphics.

[Saint]

This goes against the "not too obvious" thing, but you can present a quest to the player in such a way s/he knows there are conditions for the job to be done (Ie: "Kill the dragon! rescue the princess!"), of course this can also be done in a more subtle or suggestive way.

A good way to make this less obvious is to not suggest there is an end, but to simply suggest there is a next step - most Zelda games, for instance, start out by giving you a small task to complete and once you are done with that present you with a real, bigger quest. There is also the option to intentionally deceive the player - In my opinion, Okami did this for great effect (spoilers ahead).

At the start of the game, it basically tells you Orochi is the bad guy but once you have defeated him you learn that he was just a pawn in a game you do not know the scope of, and for a huge part of the game you get no indication of how long it actually is. This made the game grow immensely for me in terms of design and immersion.

[team_q]

IF you have an item screen, have a finite number of spaces, then the player knows that he is near the end when it's getting full.
Show all the worlds on the menu screen and scroll past each one.(N+)
Divide your game up into 3 or 8 worlds/items/shards/stars, because that's what videogamers know, and after collecting that amount, they know they are done. (Mario:RPG, LOZ, most platformers)

[Martin 2BAM]

maintain the player entertained

It's a little hard to do that in Flash if you're not making a puzzle or blowing shit up.
The little spoiled brats will ditch whatever is not obvious, blazing and/or fast paced.
Shit, people don't even read anymore.

Imagine Half-life 1's introduction if it were a Flash game today... no one could hold on that whole intro hour.

The point is that each title references the one before in a very vague way, so the player knows they aren't being spit out randomly.

Oh, now I understand what you meant... yes, that's a rad idea

Thanks everyone for being so helpful

[Lynx]

Try varying the content.  Different colors, new backgrounds, et cetera.  You want players to see that they are making progress in some fashion.

[laserghost]

Perhaps the problem comes from what we expect from games as gamers, due to precedent. I think a novice at video games may very well expect an ending, but someone who's played Tetris or Space Invaders would know infinite gameplay is a possibility. It might boil down to visual cues, like repeating environments, lack of story, or even a user interface set-up that resembles some other infinite game. I think gamers are pretty good at telling when something in a game seems set up to go on ad-infinitum, versus elements that have to run out at some point. An environment for example, usually doesn't repeat- which is why Pac-man, Asteroids, or Geometry Wars don't have them.

[Ninja Dodo]

What Lynx said. If you're working towards an ending you need to show the player progressing towards it, though I would go beyond visual changes and also progress the gameplay accordingly.

At the start of the game, it basically tells you Orochi is the bad guy but once you have defeated him you learn that he was just a pawn in a game you do not know the scope of, and for a huge part of the game you get no indication of how long it actually is. This made the game grow immensely for me in terms of design and immersion.

I actually hated that about Okami. I mean I still like the game a lot, but that was a major downside. The game has like five endings... constantly building up to some huge climax and then "Oh wait, no that wasn't it"... no sense of pacing whatsoever, plus way too much repetition.

[SirNiko]

What Lynx said. If you're working towards an ending you need to show the player progressing towards it, though I would go beyond visual changes and also progress the gameplay accordingly.

At the start of the game, it basically tells you Orochi is the bad guy but once you have defeated him you learn that he was just a pawn in a game you do not know the scope of, and for a huge part of the game you get no indication of how long it actually is. This made the game grow immensely for me in terms of design and immersion.

I actually hated that about Okami. I mean I still like the game a lot, but that was a major downside. The game has like five endings... constantly building up to some huge climax and then "Oh wait, no that wasn't it"... no sense of pacing whatsoever, plus way too much repetition.

This depends on the actual game content, though. My understanding (I could be wrong) is that the point is to make it seem like it IS the same level over and over, and he wants to string the player along just long enough to realize there's some subtle change going on that isn't immediately obvious.

Without knowing the nature of this subtle change, it's difficult to say whether significant differences between the levels would spoil that aspect of the game.

Hopefully we'll get some input from Nitram and he'll let us play his game.

-SirNiko