anomalous_underdog was constructed one fine Sunday morning when mother and father was talking about the birds and the bees to themselves, as it were. He likes coffee, 3d graphics, 4chan, video games, writing stories, music, peace, quiet, and the sound of necks breaking. He is currently a drop-out in college, and is currently employed in the game development industry.
Vagrant Story Silent Hill 2 Half Life 2 F.E.A.R. Max Payne 1 Quest for Glory I: So You Want to be a Hero? Einhander Bookworm Magic Inlay Crimsonland Resident Evil 4
This is a good idea. The podcast mentions this great hate for the classic boss level wherein the boss is waiting at the end of the level within a closed-space arena. While I really have no intense hate for it, I also like his suggestion: bosses that roam the level.
A lot of games already do this:
* God of War: where sometimes the boss is the level
* Enslaved: where this mechanical gigantic dog chases you, though the events are largely scripted: defeating the boss is done in multiple parts, normal gameplay is interspersed with encounters of the boss, where it finishes with either you or the boss retreating, until you encounter it again, and in the final part the boss is meant to die
* Dead Space and Resident Evil: where an invincible boss chases you around the level and the only way to kill it is to lure and trap it in a special way
* Clock Tower: where a serial killer hides in various places in the mansion to ambush you. unfortunately, the game has you needing to investigate those various places
Its true that sometimes the arena-type boss level gets shoehorned forcefully into the narrative (why is the boss patiently waiting for you at the end of the level?). And sometimes when you see those health stations just before a big door, its a relief for the player, but it doesn't make sense in the narrative.
"Games should never include small scuttling enemies that walk across the floor or hover above your head and are really hard to hit and are annoying."
First, I have no problem with small enemies. Enemy variation is good, but I believe there is a wrong way to design small enemies. The podcast notes an enemy in Singularity with an enemy that can kill you with one hit. I"m afraid I haven't played that game.
But I do believe enemy attacks should always have a tell-tale sign. The more grievous the attack, the more evident the hint should be. This is regardless with the size issue, because enemy size is not the issue here.
About attacks that kill you in one hit, as long as the player can anticipate it and have a chance to prevent it, then I think its fine. Dark Souls have some characters that can kill you in one hit, but such attacks are slow in charging up.
In contrast, one mission in Valkyria Chronicles end up with a regular enemy anti-tank unit killing my full-health tank hero unit in one hit. No matter how I looked at it, I think that was really pointless.
So I believe there is a right way, and there is a wrong way of doing one-hit kills.
Each enemy has its own "gimmick", a behavior that circumvents the player's usual method of attack, forcing him to rethink his strategies. They really would have an easy but unusual way to kill them, and the failure is the game not hinting or encouraging the player how to find that out.
So I do hope Singularity's small enemy was designed that it has a weakness.
Hints should be implicit and part of the story. For example, the minotaur boss in God of War starts with a short cutscene of soldiers trying to fight the minotaur and failing horribly. That is enough hint for the player to get that this guy is not to be messed around with.
The podcast mentions the small parasitic enemies in Dead Space. I really had no problem with those enemies because I discovered early on that the assault rifle is an effective weapon to dispatch them. The assault rifle shoots low damaging bullets, but the magazine size is high. One shot is enough to kill one parasite (or more if they are clumped together).
So the game becomes a matter of having "the right tool for the right job". It was odd though, that his experience with this enemy was vastly different from mine. Perhaps he never bothered using the assault rifle.
The podcast then mentions about the big fat necromorph that spawns the little enemies, in that it was unfair, doesn't add any value to the game, and that there was no tactic to fighting them.
I would say instead the surprise there is it punishes greedy players who keep on getting loot. And really, once you've found out about the nasty trick, you would obviously make it a point to avoid falling for it again. You need to make sure to shoot its stocky limbs and not its belly. And do not stomp on its corpse.
Again, this is the idea of each enemy having its own variation.
Did they perhaps feel cheated that they found a type of enemy that they couldn't get loot from?
I recently got a smartphone so I can listen to podcasts on the go. One of the podcasts I listened to mentioned this:
"Developers shouldn't shoehorn RPG elements into games that don't need them."
I think this is terribly narrow-minded. But let's hear more of his argument:
"Enslaved has a level-up system to allow your character to improve, but I believe the player has the risk to forget this as he has to remember to go to a level-up menu that's not focused on during a normal play session."
"All of Monkey's upgrades complement each other. There's very little reason not to want them all, so why should the player have to choose those upgrades themselves? Why not have them given automatically at a set point, or have his skills improve the more they are used?"
"In contrast, Zelda, has you exploring and one of the items you will eventually find is parts for a big heart upgrade. Once you collect enough, your max health improves. In this way, 'leveling up' is more convenient as you will inevitably find big heart containers in the course of the game."
(To be fair, Enslaved actually gives a message notification when the player has enough red orbs to be able to purchase an upgrade.)
Ok, saying "RPG elements" is pretty broad, but now we're getting somewhere. I think his main gripe is games that added leveling-up as a cheap way to add depth.
Leveling-up is having your character improve over time. Having him start out weak and through the course of the game, give him gradual improvements to allow him to face the proportionately increasing difficulty and complexity of the game.
Now, at its basic description that I've mentioned, that makes sense. You wouldn't want the player character to start out with high-level abilities, or rather, too many abilities, from the get-go, that would have overwhelmed the player with too many things he need to get hang of immediately (i.e. Bayonetta).
In traditional RPG games, those level-up improvements are largely formulaic. Allocating more points in strength simply adjusts the result of the formula for damage.
Now this becomes a question of "Why should developers be adding formulaic RPG elements to twitch games?".
Why indeed? Remember Hellgate London? A part-rpg part-shooter where the deciding factor whether your gun hit an enemy is by your character's stats and dice rolls, even though you've clearly aimed your crosshair cleanly at the enemy? And oh gee, I wonder how Hellgate London was received by gamers?
Shooters are established as games of reflexes and hand-eye coordination. Should we challenge that notion? What would be the point of creating a first-person shooter that doesn't rely on the player's reflexes?
But enough of that. Surely we can adapt the concept of leveling-up to games that don't require dice rolls.
Let's take leveling-up again at its basic concept: character improvement.
Mario improves over time, as he gains the Tanuki suit and the cape that gives him new abilities. Link gets the boomerang, the bombs, and they change how Link can dispatch enemies. Soma Cruz gets new powers by absorbing enemies. Racing games allow you to buy better cars or better car parts. First-person shooters let you obtain more powerful weapons over time.
These new improvements drastically change the flow of the game (at least, a good game should).
The difference with these against leveling-up is that experimenting with these improvements I mentioned is so easy. You get Mario's Tanuki suit or Link's boomerang as obtained items, with no cost (except for the hardships entailed), ready to be tested, as opposed to getting them by having to spend hard-earned skill points to purchase skills from a dull list, where new players will find it hard to visualize the worth of each skill. Which skill should he purchase? You really can't expect a newcomer to be able to choose confidently.
Fluff-filled descriptions for each skill doesn't help in making an informed decision. It would take a wiki where each player contributes their insight into the skills' appropriate use to help a player choose ("Skill X is really nice, but oh, its really only useful when you fight enemy A, otherwise forget about it. And when you fight an enemy using skill X, you can counter it using skill Y or skill Z depending on your class..."). And that will be a lot of reading. For a new player who just wants to play the damn game, that can be exasperating.
And if you needed to purchase improvements in non-RPGs, as with the racing game example, the racing game has leeway for mistakes: you can sell off car parts the moment you don't need them anymore, but skills you've purchased for your RPG character stay there indefinitely and if it turns out you didn't want that, then too bad.
This is why respec is such a heated debate in gamer communities. And I'm sure developers are pondering hard on the subject as well.
So then it becomes natural for RPG gamers to go through trial-and-error experiments called min-maxing. RPG games accommodate for players who have the mindset of "Oh I'll grind for hours and max out the strength and see how effective my character becomes, if it sucks then I'll just discard this character". This won't necessarily work for non-RPGs.
So the problem is that the RPG's level-up way of giving character improvement is normally a permanently life-changing process for the character, and as such, it should be decided on only after lengthy deliberation, and only after having gained a good grasp on the game's system. And that, may or may not be appropriate for a non-RPG game, where that kind of player mindset is not prevalent.
Accommodating Play Styles
Leveling-up also consists of letting the player choose how he wants the character to improve. He may opt for stealth skills, attack skills, et al. Basically, allowing the player to play using different play styles. This is at the heart of Western RPGs where the game should allow you to roleplay however you want.
I believe the characteristic of accommodating different play styles is already adapted in non-RPG games long before the "let's put RPG elements everywhere" idea came in. Even though the multiple play styles in non-RPGs is not quite as varied.
In Gradius, you can choose to be faster, have missiles, have a little guy who shoots with you, or have a shield, etc. You can customize cars in some racing games. Real-time strategy games have you purchasing various upgrades and can be played with different strategies in mind.
The golden grail here is to be able to establish emergent behaviour while using only the least amount of desired building blocks.
Take note that accommodating play styles is different from having a game that variates its requirements for winning. Each boss battle in Zelda games require your use of a new weapon's unique ability. It makes for good variation, but it doesn't necessarily accommodate different play styles ("I want to be stealthy but this game isn't letting me!").
That isn't to say its mutually exclusive. You could surely accommodate to different play styles and still have variating requirements for winning.
So I believe allowing the player to unlock and experiment with better versions of the things he can do, and optionally allowing him different ways to achieve his goals is as good as having put RPG elements in your game, without needing to shove a stat system to it.
So how about these as few suggestions to get your brainstorms started:
1. Tutor: A game where the player is gently introduced to the usefulness of each skill he gets, by "tutorial missions" in the vein of Starcraft 1, where each mission requires his use of that skill to succeed. Afterwards, the next non-tutorial missions given can be finished using any of the skills he currently has. He'll have more confidence in choosing which skill to level-up now since he has past experience with them. You could make this more complex by showing him only the missions that he seems to gravitate to (he likes stealth? give him more stealth-skill tutorial missions!)
2. Refund: An option to re-lock an unlocked upgrade, where you get back half of the points spent on that upgrade. Optionally, the option to refund is only allowed for a limited time after purchasing it.
3. Try-before-you-buy: Allow the player to try out a skill/weapon first in mock combat before he finally commits to purchasing it. Champions Online does this.
I started this game out as a learning experience in using Unity, then it was pushed aside as a side project. When I got hired, my employer looked at it and saw it as a viable commercial product. I agreed to give it to the company, and now its an iPhone game.
A really really simple game, its just a simple top-view game where you have a gun and zombies swarm you on all directions. My inspiration for this game was Crimsonland, and its similar to games like Dead Nation, or Nation Red, but mine is vastly simpler.
I'm busy adding updates like an iPad HD version, plus OpenFeint integration having online leaderboards and achievements.
So, I wonder, is it ok with Destructoid if I add a Destructoid mascot character in the game?
The Doc now has his support ability, Steroids, which, I've said before, raises the attack damage of a friendly organic unit, but damages that unit as a side-effect. The effect lasts for 2 turns and you can stack it.