next »

[Spectragate]

I'm working on a mobile game with some elements of dungeon crawlers like Nethack and Diablo.

When a player runs into a monster, they have a short little description under their healthbar of some key strengths of that enemy type, similar to something like Torchlight . As I add monsters that have some more unique abilities, I'm finding it harder to convey that information in that short text summary.

I was wondering then - how much information should you convey in game before expecting people to go to a wiki?

I started thinking of having an icon you could click that opens a panel and explains the monster stats and abilities, but I don't know if the player needs that information for every enemy type. If you look at games like Pokemon and Monster Hunter they have huge wikis on the creatures while the amount of info in game is quite simple and limited. I'm trying to make my game as simple and streamlined as possible, but there are a lot of complex systems running underneath that I'd like the player to know about if they so choose.

In a game like Dungeon Soup or Nethack, when does not being able to see every detail about the enemy without going to a wiki become annoying? Conversely, when does including that information become too much to deal with and become ignored by the player?

[DangerMomentum]

Convey enough information for the player to fight the enemy effectively. If you're dealing with a high stakes game / permadeath like Nethack or hardcore Diablo, then that's more information than a game like Dark Souls, where the player can learn by dying. Can the enemy steal the player's weapon? Can it drain your money or experience points? Does it have a one-shot and you're dead move it uses when it dies? These are all things that the player can avoid, but are very unfun if they discover it by losing. If the player can examine an enemy and get a little blurb, like "A caustic ooze that damages everything it touches", then the player has some heads-up that this enemy will damage them or their weapon when attacking it. You don't need to say "Damages your weapon's condition by 5/sec per stack, stacks up to 5 times" because that's a lot less likely to influence a player's decision. That's the stuff that can go on the wiki.

[Spectragate]

These are all things that the player can avoid, but are very unfun if they discover it by losing.

Tthat's a good way of wording it - I'm writing that out and sticking it to my monitor :D

You don't need to say "Damages your weapon's condition by 5/sec per stack, stacks up to 5 times" because that's a lot less likely to influence a player's decision.

That's one of the things I found while playtesting which surprised me. It seems you can feed the player information bit by bit, but at a critical tipping point it becomes too much and they just ignore all of it. I found myself doing that in Darkest Dungeon with it's number-heavy ability descriptions. I like your sample of the caustic ooze - that's what I was hoping for. I'll stick with the brief descriptions and simplify the abilities where I can.

As a side note, it's interesting how some games can get away with this and others can't. Games like Dota and Dungeon Soup I enjoy going to the wiki and finding out some crazy new mechanic I never knew about. Where as for other games like Darkest Dungeon, if I ever had to go to the wiki it was because I was frustrated about something I didn't understand. I guess one distinction is that if the player goes to the wiki while playing the game, there's probably something you failed to convey. If they go to the wiki while not playing the game there's some systems they are interested in learning more about.

[Dacke]

DCSS is interesting in that in it's design philosophy it has "unspoiled wins" as a core concept. I'm unsure if anyone actually plays it unspoiled, I only came across the idea after playing it for a long time.

Things ought to work in an intuitive way. Crawl definitely is winnable without spoiler access. Concerning important but hidden details (i.e. facts subject to spoilers) our policy is this: the joy of discovering something spoily is nice, once. (And disappears before it can start if you feel you need to read spoilers - a legitimate feeling.) The joy of dealing with ever-changing, unexpected and challenging strategic and tactical situations that arise out of transparent rules, on the other hand, is nice again and again. That said, we believe that qualitative feedback is often better than precise numbers.

In concrete terms, we either spell out a gameplay mechanic explicitly (either in the manual, or by in-game feedback) or leave it to min-maxers if we feel that the naive approach is good enough.

(my emphasis)

[s0]

this idea has a long tradition in the roguelike genre. afaik nethack was the game where the community started calling mechanic explanations and strategy guides "spoilers". ymmv tho because nethack is pretty much unbeatable without "spoilers".

personally, i love hidden mechanics and i also love *the experience* of getting curious about how things work and going to wikis to find out more. so i don't see having to consult wikis as a negative. there are 2 reasons for this:

1. it feels like im being let in on some secret info, which is exciting to me

2. it lets me control *how much* i actually want to know, because i'm not a min maxer and i tend to not want to know everything. i'm a fan of what the thing dacke quotes calls the "naive approach". i enjoy complex systems as an *experience* but am not interested in much of the underlying number crunching. for instance i don't really want to know about the exact mathematics behind crusader kings 2, because that would ruin the simulation/roleplaying aspect of the game for me.

[JWK5]

I prefer an accessible any time in-game library set up where I can go to get more detailed information on what the items do, the histories of the game world, the monsters, etc. What is even better is when it is one that is semi-unlockable, where you don't see certain things until you have already encountered, collected, or defeated them. That way, I don't have access to what I've not encountered but seeing gaps in my library tells me I am still missing things when I've been playing for a long time.

It is even better when the information is doled out in chunks. For example, when you first encounter an enemy only a brief description is available, after you defeat it a few times more information unlocks, and so on. So that over time you unravel more information about the enemy. Alternately, information could unlock when you use certain things on the enemy (for example, figuring out fire is their weakness unlocks a new bit of information).

With the items, you could reveal new information every X times the item is collected, or perhaps with weapons every X times it is used to damage or defeat an enemy.

In this manner you haven't entirely ruled out the usefulness of a Wiki because the player still wants to figure out how to get more unlocks and can be filled with extra side-lore and backstory, but you've created a repository for information within the game that is handed out with the pace the player is keeping and without spoiling anything really.

[Spectragate]

afaik nethack was the game where the community started calling mechanic explanations and strategy guides "spoilers". ymmv tho because nethack is pretty much unbeatable without "spoilers".

It's funny you mention that, I was going to note a similar experience. Whenever I've tried to play nethack I always find myself on the wiki within the first 10 minutes, but the wiki very clearly states that you should consider it all spoiler material and the game isn't intended to be played with it. So on one hand I've got this great game that I'd love to dig into the wiki and learn all it's systems, but then the wiki is telling me not to use it and it's much more fun to discover on your own. I always find myself stuck between the two worlds and end up giving up after the first few deaths.

[Drof]

Anything which isn't important for the player to know can definitely go on a wiki. If you want the game to be approachable, it should feel fun without looking anything up. If it's only fun if the player looks it up, nobody will look it up because noone will be invested enough to.

Arbitrary, random deaths aren't necessarily unfun. I barely ever understand why I lose in Dwarf Fortress, but honestly I think the only reason I play that game is to find out how it all goes to shit. I don't think I'm alone here.

But if you want players to get nethack-levels of strategy, you always want to have little hints of something greater, and maybe common rumours passed around.

[oahda]

I personally hate it, but Pokémon players don't seem to mind...

[Muz]

You decide.

Some games are unplayable without a wiki - usually games that rely heavily on crafting elements. This is completely fine. Assume the wiki as part of the game; it's like a reference book.

When I play a combat RPG, the first thing I look up is character builds. If it's a game with complexity, most of the game is planning ahead and building your stuff right, and sharing it with people. The wiki is a part of the game.


Some games are more fun without the wiki, because of discovery and surprises. This is where your usual roguelike falls.

Dungeon Crawl was specifically designed such that it would not require a wiki to win. I like that they highlight which are the good builds instead of forcing you to trial and error it. You still need to min-max to win, but it significantly lowers the learning curve.


If the wiki is necessary (crafting recipes etc), consider making it a part of the game. Like a pop-up, instead of an encyclopaedia.

[s0]

But see, i don't like too much ingame info. A wiki written by players sharing their experiences is more fun to read than an ingame encyclopedia will ever be.

[battlerager]

But see, i don't like too much ingame info. A wiki written by players sharing their experiences is more fun to read than an ingame encyclopedia will ever be.

... what if you don't have internet :S

[Muz]

But see, i don't like too much ingame info. A wiki written by players sharing their experiences is more fun to read than an ingame encyclopedia will ever be.

Wikis are great for things like strategy. Something like Dwarf Fortress, where there's many ways to design a room or suit up a dwarf based on the available resources.

Ideal non-wiki stuff:
- Two-handed weapons skill branches out into unlocking berserker skill
- Steel chain mail = iron + coal + smelter
- Fully armored torso = 2 chain shirts + 1 breastplate (this is actually a dwarf fortress thing and completely unintuitive)
- Skill gains from training

Wiki stuff:
- Bad guy X comes in at level 5
- How to manufacture steel mail out of wood and melted spears
- The optimum way to train a baby into a grizzled soldier

[s0]

ohhh yeah i can agree with that.

[oahda]

I misread the title earlier...

OK to expect them to go to a wiki? Never IMO. They can go there if they're interested in extra details but if they have to go there not to wonder what they're doing wrong because they weren't aware of some of a monster's common abilities... no. /:

But I don't necessarily think you have to explain every ability so long as the player can see them in action and learn which ones there are as they play.

[voidSkipper]

I personally hate it, but Pokémon players don't seem to mind...

Pokemon was amazing back before you could wiki it. All the bizarre rumours floating around the schoolyard, testing different actions to see what caused the inconsistent results, developing weird habits (everyone had their own weird button rain dance when throwing pokeballs, but after reading the source, the game never looks at the keypad during that sequence!)

The main thing, though, was that knowing the hidden mechanics wasn't required to play, enjoy or beat the game. Things that were integral to success, like weaknesses/resistances and levelling, were explained concisely by in-game characters.

So, directly: If a trip to the wiki is required to play, enjoy or beat the game, I'd call that a failure. Any other time is okay.

[quantumpotato]

Echoing what the previous 2 repliers said.

The natural response to "I don't understand" is to quit, not "let me see if they have a wiki.."

Nethack has a nice "?" feature -- hit ? and scroll to any tile on the map and you get a lore description of it. Completely absent is HP info etc, but the lore might make something sound dangerous to you which works well IMO.

I recommend you play 868-Hack, a phenomally well-designed roguelike. You have just the spell-names to figure out what they do but it's extremely learnable. Only a handful of enemy types that all behave very distinctly. Much less "total knowledge" then Nethack, so that helps learnability too.

[s0]

well i'd say it depends on whether i find the game intriguing enough in the first place. if i do, i don't mind checking out a wiki. in fact if the wiki is well written and well maintained (like the dwarf fortress wiki) i enjoy the experience, as i've said before. for DF especially, i consider reading the wiki to be part of the game. that said, i pretty much only learned how to play DF thanks to a nasty laryngitis that made me stay home for a week.

Nethack has a nice "?" feature -- hit ? and scroll to any tile on the map and you get a lore description of it. Completely absent is HP info etc, but the lore might make something sound dangerous to you which works well IMO.

interesting you say that because nethack is pretty much unbeatable without spoilers. in fact i would say nethack is probably the original "wiki game" (long before there was such a thing as wikis lol). theres just too much hidden information and mechanics to figure everything out on your own, (unless you have a lot of spare time haha).

[quantumpotato]

Yes, but I think that unassailable challenge is part of Nethack's experience. You're literally descending through Hell and fighting Death, Pestilence & Famine.

Examples of extra-game resources as part of game design:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/268898/The_Spiral_Dance_IceBound_shows_that_books_arent_out_of_style.php is a game meant to be played with its companion book.

Keep Talking & No One Explodes is meant for the 2P to be using a guidebook.. designed as part of the game.