|
Introduction
A sort unspoken
rule in game design is that players should be able to lose. Just about
every game has some kind of fundamental mechanic that is possible to
fail. Whenever this happens, the player needs to try again and repeat
the process until successful. This is thought to add drama, tension and
also make the player's actions count.
It seems to be believed that
without it games would not be games and instead some kind of boring
linear entertainment. I think this position is wrong, extremely hurtful
and if not fixed, will become the downfall of the medium. In this post
I will explain why.
The Problem
In
a book or movie it is common that the reader/viewer need to experience
very upsetting events, that can be very hard to read about/watch. This
is especially true to horror, where the goal is often to upset the
reader/viewer and to evoke emotions such as anxiety, fear and disgust.
It is also common to have more boring and slow sequences in order to
build mood, explain character motivations, etc. These are not
necessarily very fun/easy to experience but will make up for it later
on and acts as an important ground to build the story from.
Note that
these "hard to repeat" moments are not merely handy plot devices or
similar. They are fundamentally crucial for creating meaningful
experiences and many (if not all!) of the great works among books and
movies would not be possible without them. Yet, at many times the only
reason one can put up with these kinds of sequences is because one know
there is an end to it. Just keep on reading/watching and it will
eventually be over and hopefully an important payoff will be given.
This
is not true for games. Whenever in a situation where loss is possible,
the player is forced to meet certain criteria or she will not be able
to progress. It is not possible to just "stick with it" to complete
these kinds of sequences. The player needs to keep playing the same
passage over and over again until proper actions have be performed. Not
until this is accomplished is the player allowed to continue. This
either comes in the form of skill based actions (e.g. platform
jumping), navigational problems (e.g. find the way out) or some sort of
puzzle that needs to be solved.
For sequences that are meant to
be emotional this can be devastating. Often the player is not compelled
to relive the experience and/or any impact the sequence was meant to
have is lost. Also, it sets up a barrier and effectively blocks certain
players from continuing. How can games possibly hope to match the
impact of books and movies, when the ability to have critical
"hard-to-repeat" moments are nearly impossible because trial-and-error?
Case Study: Korsakovia
This problem is very evident in the game Korsakovia. The game puts you in the role a man with Korsakoff's syndrome
and is played out in a sort of dream world, interwoven with dialogs
between you and your doctor. It is a very interesting experience, but
also a very disturbing one and the game is extremely brutal on the
senses. Even so, I felt compelled to continue and it felt like
worthwhile experience. This was until I the gameplay started.
Korsakovia has all problems associated with trial-and-error (skill,
navigation and puzzles) and this combined with the exhausting
atmosphere made it impossible to for me to complete it. It was simply
not possible for me to replay certain segments of the game and what was
the first time around immersive turned into an annoyance and a
(literal) headache. I am convinced that the game would have been a lot
better, and possibly a truly great experience, if the trial and error
mechanics where removed.
I do not mean to trash Korsakovia and I
think it is a really interesting experiment. However, it is such a fine
example of how trial-and-error can go wrong and I urge you all to try
it out. Considering that it is a research project, I think that is mission accomplished for the creator!
Allowing The Player to Play
The
problem with players not finishing games is something that recently
have gotten more and more attention in the games industry. After
analyzing stats collected, it has become quite evident that something
needs to be done.
For example, less than 50% of players ever completed Half-Life 2-Episode 1
which, considering the game's length, polish and difficulty, I am sure
that is a very high figure compared to other games. This means that
more games have started to try out methods at solving the problem. Some
examples are:
- In Secret Files: Tunguska one can choose to show all of the interactable areas in a scene (reducing pixel hunting).
- Alone In The Dark allows the player to skip chapters in order to force progress in a game.
- New Super Mario Brothers Wii has a mode where the game takes over control and completes sections for the player.
- BioShock
never really kills the player but instead just teleports them to a
different part of the map and leaves the enemies and environment in the
same states as when the player "died".
While this might sound
like steps in the right direction all of these solution suffer from the
same problem. They are all ad-hoc and breaks the immersion. The
solutions are after thoughts, do not really belong in the game world
and feels more like cheats than a part of the experience (BioShock
possible excluded as it actually works it into the story). When the
player chooses to display items and other interaction points in the
game, it turns the game from a living world into an abstract interface.
By skipping chapters in Alone in the Dark the player effectively skips
part of the narrative and misses out on parts of the experience. The
trick used in Super Mario removes any interaction from the game, which
is definitively not good for immersion.
Finally, although
BioShock is by far closest to having a working solution it still feels
tacked on and can easily lessen immersion (for example when forced into
respawn, charge with wrench, repeat situation). The player still also
needs to overcome certain challenges and are forced to repeat sections
over and over. However, there is never a moment where the player is
unable to progress, given that they are willing to stay at it, no
matter their skill level. It is far from an ideal solution, but a lot
better than blocking players from progressing.
I think that the
proper way to solve this is to incorporate it as a feature in the game
from day one. Making sure that players are not unnecessarily blocked
from continuing, is not something that should be slapped on as a side
thing. It is also very important that players do not feel that the game
is holding their hand every step of the way, something that can be very
hard unless planned from the start. It is crucial that players feel
that the performed actions and choices are their own and that they are
not just following commands like a mindless drone.
Fixing this
issue is really important. Games can not continue to deny content to
players and demand that they meet certain criteria in order get the
full experience. Not only does it discourage people from playing games,
it also make it impossible to create more "holistic" experiences. By
this I mean games that require the entirety of the work for the player
to truly appreciate it (something I aim to talk about an upcoming
post). It will be very hard indeed to insert deeper meanings into games
unless this problem is dealt with.
Less Challenge, More Immersion
Allowing
the player to get the full experience and not having win-to-progress
situations is a good start, but just the first step in the right
direction. As with Bioshock, the game can still have trial-and-error
like moments, where the player is forced to play section over and over
in order to continue.
This brings us back the problem that I mentioned
in the beginning: that repeating a certain experiences will either
lessen their impact and/or discouraging the player from progressing. As
these "hard to repeat" sequences are crucial in order to expand the
horizon of the medium, it is essential that we find ways of adding
them. And in order to do so, trial and error must go.
I think
that first step towards this is to throw away the idea that a
videogames needs to be a challenge. Instead of thinking of a game as a
something to be beaten, it should be thought of as an experience.
Something that the player "lives" through rather than "plays" through.
Why designers are unable to do this probably because they are afraid
that it will lessen the sense of accomplishment and tension of a game.
Many seem to think that trial-and-error based obstacles are the only
way of creating these emotions. I think this untrue.
Let's first
consider accomplishment. While this is normally evoked by completing a
devious puzzle or defeating an enemy, there are other ways to feel
accomplishment. Simply performing a simple act that changes the game
world somehow can give this feeling. For instance planting a tree or
helping out an NPC. There is no need for these to be obstacles in order
for one to feel accomplishment either and thus any sort of
trial-and-error is removed. It can also come in other forms such as
just reaching a destination. Also, if designed correctly one can trick
the player into thinking they accomplished something, for example
escaping a monster even though there was no never a way to fail.
Creating
tension is not only possible without using trial-and-error; skipping it
may even lead to increased tension! When the player fails and is forced
to repeat, there is no element of surprise left and it often also leads
to immersion being broken. For example when playing horror games like Fatal Frame and Silent Hill
I can be play for quite some time without dying, feeling highly
immersed. However, once death (which is part of the trial-and-error
mechanic) occurs I am pulled out of the atmosphere and suddenly realize
that I am playing a game. This means death lessens the immersion and
breaks the flow of the game. But will it not make the game more scary?
Regarding death and fear-factor, consider the following:
1)
If the player fears death because of a trial and error system, she
fears an abstract mechanic and not something of the game world. By
worrying about a game mechanics, the player is pulled out of the
experience.
2) Once death has occurred, the player will know
what to expect. If killed by a creature that jumped out from behind a
corner, the next time the encounter will have far from the same effect.
Instead
of punishing the player, I think it is better to add consequences. Even
just making the player believe that there are consequences (which Heavy Rain
successfully does) can be enough. Also, if one keeps the player
immersed then it is also easier for the players to roleplay and
convince themselves that they are truly in great danger even though
they are not.
In our game Amnesia,
we are doing our best to reduce the amount of trial-and-error and still
retain a really terrifying atmosphere. So far it is looking very good
for this approach and we have only seen good things come out of it (I
guess time will tell if we pull it of or not). If horror games, that
are notorious for using trial-and-error mechanics to enhance their
mood, can do fine without trial-and-error, I see no reason why other
genres shouldn't.
To sum things up: When one relies on abstract
game mechanics for creating emotions, one does so at the cost of
immersion and the players ability to become part of the game world.
End Notes
Of course trial-and-error should not be banned from game design. Many games like VVVVVV
and Super Mario thrive on the trial-and-error and has it as an integral
part of the design. Likewise, many adventure games are supposed to have
tricky puzzles, and could not do without them. Some games are meant to
be "just games" and to be a challenge to the player. I am not in anyway
opposed to this kind of design.
However, in other games trial-and-error is just bad and really drag down the experience. In its worst form trial-and-error:
- Discourages players by setting a standard of what sort of players are allowed to continue.
- Greatly lessens the emotional impact of events by requiring repetition.
- Breaks immersion and makes the player focus on abstract game mechanics.
- Forces games to focus on moment-to-moment fun and discourages a holistic payoff.
It
is extremely important to be aware of this and to ask oneself if a
trial-and-error mechanics really serves the game right. It is only by
breaking free of conventions like this that it will be possible to take
games into new and existing directions!
I would like to end with some wise words from funny man Dara Ó Briain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdQK4Wp10qo (Check at around 3:18!)
(From a British program called Gameswipe, which is well worth watching in its entirty)
|
Immersion is not necessarily supported by a lack of trial and error and it is not necessarily broken by death of the player character. Immersion is supported by the care and skill in the presentation of the game, so various games will provide immersion to a greater or lesser extent, but it is not a casualty of trial and error in all its forms.
One point of consideration:
- "If the player fears death because of a trial and error system, she fears an abstract mechanic and not something of the game world. By worrying about a game mechanics, the player is pulled out of the experience."
One could argue a skillfully presented fail actually supports immersion; that the fear and trepidation on the part of the player is precisely due to the effects of immersion. I think one could also make the case that a break in play, a break in direct support of the immersive experience is a part of the punishment of failure that drives players to replay, to re-engage in the experience.
Experiencing a game with no difficulty, no challenge, no threat of failure, is an experience one could argue is not as engaging an experience as one that does challenge the player; not as engaging, not as compelling and not as rewarding or fulfilling as one that does include a threat of failure. There's enough psychology research to back this up for me that this argument seems dead before it got started. In my humble opinion, a primary difference between game and toy is the potential for a fail state and an implied growth on the part of the player who overcomes that threat.
There are games where death play an integral part, like Planescape: Torment where the player is really meant to die at times in order to grasp the full story. In games like this, death is an integral part of immersing the player and to deliver a certain meaning. I am not really against death in games either, what I am think is when death means replaying the same thing over and over.
I cannot recall any games where I have felt that a trial-and-error mechanic have increased my immersion. As I pointed out, in atmospheric games like Silent Hill, forcing me to replay sections has never increased tension for me. That said, the "fear of replaying", have made me more scared, but it has also forced me into immersion breaking behaviour, such as backtracking to save. And once death occurred and I was force to replay a section, a lot of build up was lost. Since there are other ways to force this kind of tension, I see no reason of using a mechanic that force one to replay sections. If you have any examples where trial and error increased immersion I would be interested to hear about them!
When it comes to adding challenges in games, I think this can be done without ever using trial-and-error mechanics. First of all challenges can be optional for the player, so one who gets stuck can just continue. For example, in Professor Layton (although far from perfect) there is a lot extra puzzles available and there is often plenty of help whenever stuck. In this way players can be presented with challenges in a way that never boils down to trial and error. Also, challenges does not need to come from just overcoming obstacles, it can be a matter as understanding and gaining deeper insights as well.
Regarding "threat of failure", I think that any sort of consequence will do. Trial-and-error is not a necessary part to evoke this, and instead something I think can be quite harmful.
For me, a game (despite all baggage that comes with the world), is a way to simulate an experience that can be everything from simple to very profound and I think that we have barely scratched the surfaces of what is possible. I see no reason to limit oneself to experiences that are all about winning or losing.
"If you have any examples where trial and error increased immersion I would be interested to hear about them!"
This question suggests to me that there is a fundamental disagreement in game philosophy (or perhaps a disagreement in the definition of Immersion) between us because my answer can come simply by listing my top three games:
- Chess
- Poker
- NFL Football
Thinking of examples of games that run rough shot over the player and cause frustration is not hard. Again, this is not a inherit effect of trail and error or a 'replay after failure' mechanic, it is a result of less than optimal presentation of the experience. Indeed, life is full of trial an error, and this is a primary means of learning and progression which leads to feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction.
One side point: Optional challenges are not challenges. Your Professor Layton example skirts the issue by focusing on the optional challenges. Were the main challenges optional?
In an effort to smooth the discussion, I might take the other side for a moment. I can think of a game that does not request the player to replay: "You Only Live Once" [http://www.kongregate.com/games/raitendo/you-only-live-once] But, as I see it, there's definitely the threat of failure; it is a trial with error potential, just no replay. Would this be an acceptable example of your suggestion?
If the player can ALWAYS complete a sequence no matter what course of action he takes, he has no incentive to use his brain. He's just experiencing whatever is thrown at him.
This may be better for the storytelling aspects but it destroys the feeling of accomplishment that comes from using your BRAIN to overcome obstacles - one of the primary reasons I play videogames. This isn't the kind of accomplishment that you can "trick" a player into feeling.
Meaningful results can spring from a character's actions besides the simple ability to progress vs. the forced repetition of areas. For example, if the focus is to be on narrative, failure in a task can cause the death of a minor character or the destruction of a village. The story can progress, the game can progress... But something tragic has happened, and it's your fault. That can be powerful.
In a less artistic sense, the simple fight scene is a wonderful example of this. In a fight, complete failure leaves you dead and forces a retry - but semi-failure only leaves you hurt. This is a clear punishment, but you are still able to progress through the game. If we expand upon this concept it is possible to see success rewarding you with nice but unnecessary rewards - such as special weapons, abilities or even intangibles, such as trophies.
Characters actions should matter, MUST matter... But there are ways to make them matter besides restarting the level
Taking your ideas in stride, I agree with parts of it, but what you're proposing will only service a portion of the customer base. Look at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, this is a high production game that is all about "do it until you do it right and can progress". And yet this sold millions of copies in just the first few days. Obviously, the market for this type of game is huge. Is it the only way to be? No. SHOULD it be the only way to be? ABSOLUTELY NO! Should there be NO games like this? UNEQUIVICALLY ABSOLUTELY NO!
I would also like to point out that not all games are about immersion. How much immersion is there in Bejewelled? How much immersion is there Just Cause 2? How much immersion in Halo Wars?
Bejewelled - no story to be immersed in, just addictive gameplay
Just Cause 2 - the story is lackluster at best, gameplay is completely unbelievable, yet the gameplay is grippingly fun
Halo Wars - no immersion at all, the story is childishly presented, yet the gameplay is slick and well tailored for consoles, but ultimately it is a trial and error game
I bring these up just to counter with the idea that immersion isn't everything, isn't always required, and heck, some games you don't even want to be immersed into or the games don't want you to be immersed into them.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just debating for the sake of debating. :)
Nate
One way to minimize repetition is good checkpoint placement. Bayonetta had a system where you would start half way through a boss fight if you died on or after that half way point. Other games allows the player to save at any moment. Of course this only works if the player remembers to save.
Challenge is also very subjective. One persons death trap is another persons trivial leap. Certain skilled players will not enjoy a game if it is too easy. On the flip side those who can't pass a section stop playing a game. I believe there are many solutions to this problem. Multiple difficulty levels. Mechanics that lessen the challenge of enemies if the player dies a lot. Co-op allows another player to hold someones hand instead of the game.
I would argue that trial and error isn't the problem. Poor execution of trail and error mechanics create bad experiences and horrible games.
I'm not exclusively for trial and error games. I believe many interesting games could be created with some of the ideas from this article. But like Glenn said, "life is full of trial an error, and this is a primary means of learning and progression which leads to feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction."
1) The author used "games" too broadly. The issue of people missing the full content of games is a non-issue for the vast majority of games. It is only an issue for the narrow band of video games that have a large amount of narrative content that may be inaccessible and was expensive to produce. It is not an issue for games like poker, Agricola, or Street Fighter II.
2) The existence of fail-to-progress video games has existed for decades, so there is not a lack of industry experience in the matter. My favorite game containing this type of mechanic is Sakura Taisen. You can "fail" by responding to questions and events in such a way that characters may dislike you, but the game is designed so it can continue with its narrative and still provide all players with a standardized game experience. Players only "miss" non-story-specific narrative and events that help color the characterizations. In fact, players get to see failure-specific narrative that also helps color the characterizations. (And some characters, such as Orihime or Sumire, actually develop better relationships through responses that would be considered "bad" responses by other characters.) Even in the "standard" events, a player's response will have positive or negative effects on multiple characters, so there is never a "perfect" response, which helps players learn that relatively minor failures are acceptable.
3) The act of trial-and-error is sometimes not a problem with a video game, but with the psychology of a specific player. Turn-based games such as Civilization are a prime example. One can play Civilization "correctly" and lose battles, but lots of people reload saved games until events go their way. However, if the possibility of loss was removed from a turn-based strategy game, there would be no challenge at all; but worse, there would be no narrative, since the failures add narrative to the story that the game session provides. If designer-created narrative exists within a video game, it is the designer's responsibility to make the narrative NOT failure-proof, but failure-tolerable. The video game should reward players for failing, as Sakura Taisen does. When players are rewarded for failure, they are much more likely to continue playing to the end, and much less likely to become bored from reloading and replaying.
First of all, I think there is a major terminology problem with word "game". Whenever I use it in the post, I am referring to a video game and not games in general(like chess, football). And with videogame I mean software that are simulating worlds in order to somehow engage the player. I know this still makes things fuzzy, but perhaps a little bit clearer.
Also, the kind of games that I am targeting are games where the goal is to create atmosphere and are not just about utilizing mechanics (like Tetris, Mario, etc). If the game's goal is to be a challenge and to provide the player with something that they can test their skills against then trial and error can of course a good thing, because it is part of the design.
There are plenty of games are mainly about atmosphere (just about any horror game) and here the trial and error cause large problems. Not only does it lessen the emotions that the game try to evoke, but it also makes it very hard to reach into other areas of other emotions. I consider this a large problem for games today, that games that rely on mechanics designed for quite different types of games. It stands in the way of being able to create a wide range of other types of experiences.
Having games that span a wide range of emotions has been talked about quite a bit the recent years. I believe it is because certain mechanics, such as trial and error, are still such a strong ingredient that games have not managed to get much closer to these goals. Only by moving in new directions will these kinds of things be possible.
I should also point out that I do not want games to become linear and plot-heavy works where the player's hand is held every step of the way. Neither do I want the games currently being made to stop being created. I simply would like to see more diversity and think that games can be a lot more than what they currently are.
I do not believe that this is catering to a niche audience, but that it is something that can greatly expand it.
As a side note, the game nature of videogames are not harming their mainstream appeal. Most people in the world enjoy non-video games of some form or other. They have failed many games before and will not run away crying just because they did not win the first time. More of them will diversify into videogames as they are more and more catered for by the industry. This is already happening in a big way.
Immersion is not the most important factor for many game players and the type of immersion that you are talking about is just one type: immersion in the game world. People who like to play challenging games become immersed in the activity itself, like they might be immersed in tennis, and this form of immersion is only provided by the right level of difficulty and challenge. It requires a goal. Completing a goal is meaningless if you cannot fail to complete it. The immersion provided by challenging activity is the reason gamers can even get into games with terrible plots and voice acting. If there was no way to lose the writing would have to be as good as a film for me to want to "play" or rather push the "game" along.
My comment above was written before I read your comment above that. Your clarification and limiting of your points to certain types of game does help a lot. I think there's recently been a general disdain for the game nature of video games in some circles, when it is that game nature that is the reason for them being so successful in the first place. Chess, football etc. are brought up for very good reason as the vast majority of video games are much more closely related to games than to media. The main difference with video games is they're able to add new contexts to games.
Seeing videogames as some sort of evolution of board games is another big problem in my opinion. Videogames are first of all ways to simulate worlds and using this technology to simulate variations of classic games is just a subset of what it can be used for. There is nothing wrong with it, but there is so little exploration into other areas, something I find quite sad.
Suppose video games stopped existing. I would use my extra time to play other games and sports, not on passive media where I am immersed into worlds. Perhaps it would be different for you. I'm just pointing out that I think a lot more people who play games are like me than you, based on sales. I suspect you only find it sad because you hold classic games/sports in relatively low regard, yet they have been massively popular long before video games existed (and still are) because they appeal to some basic human urges.
Because there was a strong distaste for traditional game examples that illustrate how trial and error (and failure replay) supports immersion, I'll list a few more:
- Unreal Tournament series or any multiplayer shooter.
- The Monkey Island series of games, which reward the player for trying new things by elaborating on the flavor of the world, even if it is not a successful try.
- I'd argue any challenging fail that gave the impression that the player can attain a goal if they change their strategy, gets players to think more about their strategy; which supports an increase in immersion.
As an aside, I feel it is important to call attention to the word immersion for a moment. To be immersed is to be involved, be that by problem solving, discovering/exploring or testing (trial and error). If you're immersed in a game, you're excluding other stimuli and ignoring other activities to some extent. That can apply to all sorts of art, media, conversation, games and other pursuits. Some comments have left me feeling this definition loosened a bit.
Hope that helps to clarify my view and forwards the discussion.
For genres outside of the adventure category, the problems you mention are largely due to poor design and implementation: unclear gameplay goals, players lacking the tools to continue, unpredictable systems, poor controls, bad interface, inconsistent gameplay progressions, etc. These problems are all exacerbated by lazy narratives that are more cinematic in nature and less and less player-driven. The game design community should be held accountable for fundamental gameplay experiences that are broken by poor design, but that doesn't mean we should abandon tried and true systems because we've given up on any idea of opportunities for refinement.
As others have noted, all of life is trial and error. If you have a decision with 2 or more options and one of the options is worse than the other, that's trial and error. Whether the consequence of "errors" is death or a lighter punishment (earning 100 points instead of 125 points,) an error is still an error -- it's imperfect play.
If the core of what makes games fun is pattern discovery (which I think it is,) then "Trial and Error" might be codeword for one of a few things:
1. Gameplay Pattern Too Subtle: You (and 99% of the other players) missed the subtle hint in the cut scene which told you where to go next. Because the pattern wasn't discernible, you were forced to use trial and error, traveling to different locations until you found the one where the story picks up again.
2. Gameplay Pattern Too Noisy: You need to get through the hallway with 1000 moving lasers. Because there are so many of them it's beyond your capabilities to guess where the safe path through the room is . Instead of feeling clever, you brute-force the situation with trial-and-error.
Basically all good games are about patterns which (A) are perceptible, (B) are comprehend-able, (C) but aren't too simple, and (D) can be acted upon. And usually "trial and error" describes a game mechanic failure somewhere in A, B, or D.
I promise you I have no hate for games or sports :) I even like many trial and error kind of games (loved Osmos for a recent example)! I am also a big fan of boardgames and such.
I just say that it is sad that video games currently cover such a narrow range of experiences. It would be a shame if it stayed that way. And just sticking with producing the same type of games because of what we think people want, seem like strange thing to me. We will never know until we have tried (Heavy Rain sold great for example, even I suspect that might be a fluke).
Also saying that the games should have no goals or fail states is not what I have argued. Right now I have just said that we should try and make experiences where there is no trial-and-error in order to be able to evoke more varied emotions.
Glenn Storm:
Agreed, the discussion had strayed a bit! :) I am just trying to make clear what my intentions and the kind of games that I am talking about.
There is not a strong distaste for traditional games btw, I just do not think they fit definition of trying to immerse the player in a game world. I agree that immersion can mean a lot of things, but what I was after was immersion in a game world. Was sloppy with definitions there again. Must remember to be more clear when discussing videogames, since there are no real consensus for many terms.
For me personally, I felt that I lost immersion a lot when playing Monkey Island, because of obscure puzzles and the like. It feels a lot more like a puzzle-adventure then something supposed to immerse you in my opinion. Exploring and trying stuff is not bad as long as it is engaging. It becomes a matter of trial-and-error when you run back and forwards, getting the same responses and never progressing. That said, MI is a very fun game :)
What I am trying to argue is that trial-and-error mechanics limit the range of emotions that games are capable of producing. Games are very good at giving the player a "fun" time, but when it comes to "deeper meanings" there is a huge lack of this, compared to other media.
"I think this position is wrong, extremely hurtful and if not fixed, will become the downfall of the medium. In this post I will explain why."
Statements like this are just a bit silly and really don't help make a point at all.
Also specifying the specific type of games or goals being referred to right from the beginning would be helpful in steering the discussion in the right way, and there would be less rehashing of old arguments.
This last statement is much more acceptable. So let's take it from here. I agree that trial-and-error mechanics as you put it fundamentally limit *some* emotions. But they also enhance other emotions: the ones that are more to do with the player themselves rather than the characters in the game's universe. I accept that the range of emotions is probably smaller in gaming than in books and films.
You refer to video games as a medium and compare them to books and films. But video gaming is actually halfway between being a medium and an activity, two very different things (which is what makes it such a fascinating beast). "Trial and error" is part of any goal based activity, at least while you are learning the mechanics of it and how they combine. It does inherently limit certain emotions and a type of immersion. However, if trial and error is to be reduced, this implies reduced interactivity and the inability to learn the ins and outs of the mechanics and master the system. i.e. there is less "playing" of the game because play involves experimentation. You can go down this route but if you do you will necessarily lose part of what makes the game a game, and lose some of the emotions associated with play. This is the trade-off. I don't see this is a natural evolution for videogames, but more of a dilution of their essence in order to achieve certain effects. Therefore, I don't see how games in general would be doomed if they did not reduce trial and error. It seems more like games with reduced trial and error and therefore reduced interactivity would occupy more of a niche (perhaps a thriving one!) and there's nothing wrong with diversity.
I suppose "boredom" counts as an emotion.
I definitely reject the idea, as stated by a number of people here, that games engage your mind through trial and error and that if we eliminated this aspect from games they'd require less mental effort from players. If anything, I'd argue the opposite is true. I'm currently (re)reading "Dead Souls" by Nikolai Gogol. I know all the words in it already (from the standpoint of vocabulary), and in fact, I know the plot and the characters too because I've read it before. And yet, despite the complete lack of challenge, I find it far more mentally engaging than just about any game I've played. And unlike games, it keeps me thinking *after* I've put it down.
I more or less agree with the assertions that Thomas makes, and I'll give a couple of examples to explain how. The first one comes from Mirror's Edge. I died a lot playing Mirror's Edge. *A lot*. There were a few sections where I easily died a dozen, maybe two dozen times trying to get through one small section of a level. And so the conclusion that I reached from that was this - this character could not possibly have done what the game said they did. It required too much luck and too much unobtainable knowledge to be able to pull it off without dying. That totally broke my immersion in the game. I was no longer able at all to connect to the game, plot, or world. From that point on it wasn't a story I was a part of, it was just a bunch of code to try and solve.
The last example I'll give comes from Mass Effect 2, and this will contain a huge plot spoiler, so if you haven't played through the game and want to at some point I'd recommend skipping the rest of this post. Spoilers in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . OK. There's a section near the end of ME2 where all of your recruited characters leave the ship with you. At that point, your ship is invaded. You temporarily gain control of the pilot, Joker, and have to navigate him to a few points on the ship to get the right defenses operable. I found this section of the game to be quite tense and really interesting . . . until Joker got killed. Then I had to replay the section (I was quite close to the end of it). Now what was originally extremely engaging and unexpected had become totally known and I'd been completely brought out of the moment. By having to play through the section over again I lost my connection to the story and instead of being thrilled I was being bored.
yet this model seems to be extinct in modern games, sadly.
Trial and error is specifically grounded in a mathematical background, representing a complete lack of methodology except to try a range of options until one works.
That's NOT how players approach games. Most people presented a difficult scenario, come up with a guided strategy based upon the situation presented and the game mechanics known. While this is happening, as long as there are decent and reasonable strategies (to the player's mind), there should be little impact on engagement (immersion is the wrong word here). The problem you mention truly occurs when this mathematical sense of "Trial and Error" comes into play. When a player has exhausted their supply of strategies and is throwing themselves at a problem with no real goal in mind.
In truth this can be tailored to players of different skill levels, an increase in potential strategies, but a reduction of successful strategies, can be used to optimise potential for failure for the individual player so as this true sense of trial and error never occurs.
I don't believe this to be the downfall of gaming, in a case by case basis though, if dealt with poorly it could be the downfall of an individual game.
--Topic Shift--
As for the impact on immersion, a game over screen will always break immersion. If this is not your desired effect (the actual breaking of an immersive state prompts it's own emotions), then it needs to be mitigated. Now this isn't to say a reduction of difficulty is required, it just means failure needs to be a tangible possibility, but one that does not end the game. Several examples, when thievery in oblivion sends you to jail, it provides the player witha tangible failure that increases tension in future thefts without killing the player. Additionally, in Bioshock, the vita chambers are a passive form of failure, any resources used in a tough fight are still lost, making tough fights seem risky, but the player is not presented with a game over and so no immersion is lost (or at least the impact on current immersion is minimised, and potentially future immersion is enabled).
One last thing though, ensure story critical items are never replayed, if a player finishes a cutscene or a story dialogue, throw in a checkpoint. Nothing is more jarring than seeing the same patch of story repeatedly.
The Left 4 Dead series has proven to be an example of this. I believe it has to do more with the team dynamics that are required when playing online. During versus mode on XBL, if a survivor dies they are most likely to be watching through teammates cameras to let them know if an opponent is about to attack. These players are technically dead and can offer no support to their teammates other than verbal warnings.
When team based game play is involved immersion still exists after death because players (most of the time) enjoy watching what happens to their teammates. The thrill simply changes from having direct effect upon the game to cheering for your favorite team. Human emotions arise from their deaths that cause defeated players to stay immersed; guilt, shame, loyalty, kinship. For example, in Left4Dead2 if a player makes a mistake and she dies that will very likely result in the downfall of the team. Players who make mistakes and die prematurely will feel embarrassed and that emotion is part of the immersion process; to get people to care about the game.
Simply looking at professional sports fans proves that spectator immersion can be just as palpable as being on the team.
Your thoughts?
Not sure I would label that trial-end-error because the player is never stuck into a pattern of reliving the same things over and over again. I would even like to say that L4D is a nice example of an action game that has gotten rid of a lot of the trial and error usually found in these types of games.
The spectator cam is an interesting way of handling death and I wonder if the player->spectator conversion could be used in other ways. Would it be possible in single player and so on? That is a different discussion though.
#2) The very real doom for developers is the high-risk budgets. Without failure and the trial & error, there would be a game that would have to dramatize every outcome. The budgets would sky-rocket. Does COD dramatize you being carried on a stretcher, being operated on, getting your limb amputated, getting sent to a VA hospital built in the 50's to recover while war protesters blame you for the failure, and your government can't find you a job? No. They have a different story to tell. If you fail to propel the story forward they want to tell, you're going to have to try again.
#3) But I mention shooters, how about farming? Failure in farming is soft. You just don't progress. Clearly failing to act has undesirable results. You experiment with trial & error to see what works until you eventually learn how to play the game to get the results you want.
Failure is part of risk, and risk is part of gaming for centuries. If you want to push for something new that doesn't have failure, go for it, but don't call it a game. Remove the chance to fail, and you can call it a movie. Good luck with that.
I think Christopher summed this discussion up the best. Trial is not the issue, error is apparently not the issue. The issue is repeating sections of the game or story that makes the experience illogical or that forces the player to step out of the experience.
If put in that way, the argument over what a game is appears somewhat irrelevant. Create an experience and support it through a variety of cues to the player and allow them to interact in a way consistent with those cues. If you, as the designer, fail to support the experience or fail to allow interaction that is consistent with the player's expectations, you force the player to step out of the experience; subverting your own efforts. That can apply to designs of shooters, platformers, RPGs, MMOs or even SimCity: the movie. :)
I think it's ok for a player to fail just because they didn't quite have the skill to win. Think of a fighting game. In SFIV you'll lose, as you learn the moves, combo's, etc. You'll get better and win more. If at first turning on the game you win every round, it's going to get boring pretty quickly (talking single player).
Games that rely on trial and error as a mechanic is where the problem is. Something like hitting a button and having a piano fall on your head is not fun or challenging. How would the player know not to hit that button? Without a proper "education system" built into the game to give the player cues, these types of gameplay mechanics should be avoided.
I also wouldn't really call Super Mario trial and error. You may miss a jump, or get killed by a goomba, but you know the objectives. You can see what's coming. Practicing a level is what makes you better at the game, not trial and error.
You can fail at all of the games that you mention but it is a different form of failure. In Myst, Sam and Max and Braid if you don't figure out how to continue, you may be stuck for minutes, days, weeks or years. There is no game over screen but it is effectively a temporary game over. In some situations this can be more frustrating than a simple death and retry but it is probably appropriate for those games.
In SimCity your goal is to make your city thrive. You can fail by your own standards. When you played it, did you only create one city and stick with it for immersion? SimCity is more of a sandbox where anything can transpire out of its underlying mechanics as time goes on, but since there are goals there is a game. It's "story" is effectively generated on the fly so it is possible to produce an infinite variety of outcomes.
This blog post seems to be much more about ensuring that the story (as crafted by the game creator rather than being generated) is allowed to continue regardless of player action. The games you mention are not examples of that.
The real question isn't "how can we make it so anyone can win the game", it should be "how can we make it so everybody WANTS to win the game". So, then, we should examine why people quit playing games.
I can list several reasons I, personally, have quit games. It's not particularly scientific, but it might still be insightful.
1. Difficulty. Actually, not that common for me. Unreal Tournament 2004, got stuck on the final battle of the campaign. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. I quit after dying dozens of times on one of the earliest missions. I couldn't finish Braid with all the pieces. That's about it.
2. Repetitiveness. I can tell what the rest of the game is: the same thing I've been doing for the past five hours. That's why I stopped playing Just Cause, with about 90% of the game done. Same for Far Cry and Doom 3. The game had been exactly the same for the past several hours, and it wasn't enough.
3. The game decides to suddenly suck. It doesn't become difficult, it just becomes not fun. I quit Hitman 2 when it forced me to do run and gun, instead of disguise and stealth. Mirror's Edge forced a shooter segment on me periodically because the developers and/or publishers didn't want to come out and call the game a first-person platformer. I quit Red Faction: Guerilla the instant I smelled a mission where they forced me to drive all around the planet for no reason.
4. Despite the hype, the game kind of sucks, compared to modern games. Most common with "classic" games. I missed the original Unreal until I got it bundled with the whole series. Lack of modern features like autosave (which goes a long way towards removing repetition) generally keeps me from deciding to play an old, classic game over a less well-received modern title. For me, a lot of games like Jade Empire, Unreal, Max Payne, and Morrowind just couldn't hold my interest compared to modern titles.
5. The game sucks. Very common with PC ports. I literally couldn't play Beyond Good or Evil due to bugs with the port, and it is a testament to it's quality that I finished Bioshock in the state I had to play it. Poorly-ported controls also cause this: I didn't get into Jade Empire because the game was so console-oriented that the menus were unusable. There really isn't a way to fix this without fixing the game itself, something that should, but isn't, done.
To try to be semi-scientific about it, here's a sample of the games in my Steam list:
Defeated: 28 (40%)
No story/Multiplayer only: 17 (24%)
Quit from difficulty: 3 (4%)
Quit from repetition: 7 (10%)
Quit from sudden suck: 4 (6%)
Quit from better games: 5 (7%)
Quit from general suck: 6 (9%)
Total: 70
So clearly, for me, the main reason I don't finish games isn't because I can't, it's because I don't want to. And I consider myself a below-average gamer. Obviously then, we would be better off investing our time in making games of higher quality, not trying to maintain the illusion of challenge without actual losing conditions.
@Prash "This blog post seems to be much more about ensuring that the story (as crafted by the game creator rather than being generated) is allowed to continue regardless of player action. " > Indeed, it highlights a problem with the area of narrative design - where exactly is the line drawn between interactivity and storytelling?
I think that we as developers shouldn't be lazy and take Thomas's points into consideration IF we want to evoke more emotion into our games. It isn't the entire pie, but it is a piece of the pie that is often missing.
Good post.
I think Phil's post is a perfect example of the problem we're dealing with. To Phil, if "success" has no value then the game is worthless. Therefore, to "the player" the game is worthless. But this falsely assumes that all people engage in activities with the same mindset, which is just plain wrong. As a general rule I don't play games to "win" at them, though I do play most games to completion. I play games to *experience* them, which is exactly the reason I engage with other forms of media. Winning, achieving, overcoming, etc. is one way to experience, but it's certainly not the only way and it would be a shame if we didn't try to make games that encompassed other experiences as well.
Your reasons for not finishing games are spot on what I have gone through.
Not completely on the subject but I have never understood why developers allow cheap deaths, or place you in a situation where you have to think about how to move forward in the game. If I am playing Portal, this is to be expected, but not if the game in question is very light in puzzles.
Nothing breaks the immersion for me more than having to google how to move forward. I don't have unlimited time, most adult gamers don't, and it's annoying.
It should be the game makers job to ensure that the player always has options that will work, and to make those options obvious or not. This is highly associated with Difficulty, which is a user specific concept. The more or less obvious the correct option, and the more or less difficult to perform option equates to an overall difficulty.
Trial and Error(in the mathematical sense), only occurs when the correct option is too obscure to perceive. It could be hidden behind a large number of incorrect options(1 of 2000 skills will work), or simply be unapparent (a mechanic not taught). This will undoubtedly cause the player much frustration.
Now this should be carefully distinguished from it's sister problem, which is when the correct option is too hard to perform. For instance correct could indicate rushing a room and killing 3 men, but those 3 men can all kill you instantly, never miss, and you have no cover. This can be carefully controlled by difficulty level in most instances.
Now these are both related to failure but are separate from it. Trial and error for instance can occur while trying to find a location as well as during a game over inducing state (combat). As such it's not "failure" that causes the player difficulties it's the "reason" for failing that causes them the frustration that may eventually lead to giving up.
2. "Trial and Error will (not) Doom Games."
"I think Phil's post is a perfect example of the problem we're dealing with. To Phil, if "success" has no value then the game is worthless. Therefore, to "the player" the game is worthless. But this falsely assumes that all people engage in activities with the same mindset, which is just plain wrong."
This "problem we're dealing with" only really comes from one comment. Most people here are not taking the extreme position that one particular way is the best. I am simply saying:
a) Reducing trial and error is not "necessary" for games (though may help diversify them).
b) Reducing trial and error will sacrifice some emotions/aspects of play and designers should be aware of this.
I am not referring to trial and error in the most extreme sense where you the choice of trials is completely random and has zero intuitive basis. Very few games require this. I generally mean trial and error as a way of scoping out the mechanics of the game by doing things you wouldn't necessarily do if you *were* your avatar and creating extreme situations in order to understand the boundaries of play etc.
But I mean, c'mon, who didn't get frustrated getting killed and losing wings trying to get all the medals in Star Fox 64 in Expert? I had a huge sense of relief and accomplishment when I got it and to this day am very proud whenever I boot up the game and see the alternate title screen (which I saw again last week).
Bioshock is interesting though, because while they remove the punishment for death, they do so because you're going to die a lot. It's traditional in that way. The core loop is the same; the meta loop had been loosened.
Designing a game that includes that sort of thinking means a big change for the way a game is made -- it's not a little tweak; it requires everyone to rethink how things are going to go down. It's not necessarily more expensive to put together a game with intuitive user experience design, but it does require a step back to think about it. I don't think it's the norm to step back and think about something so core to something like a shooter.
It's a balance, too. I stop enjoying games for two reasons in this area: it's clearly too hard, and I don't want to waste my time with something I'm no longer enjoying, or: it's clearly pandering to me and feeding me information I could have discovered or worked for myself, and now there's no point in continuing because I feel like a baby.
Now, I think Modern Warfare does this well. Although they design on Veteran and tune down to Regular (from what I understand), Regular is tuned so that often the player *almost* dies in situations that would require a checkpoint restart on Veteran. So on Regular the player says "Whoo! That was CLOSE!" and on Veteran he says "I need to figure out where I'm getting shot from at this point". I think the two levels appeal to different people, and perhaps even has the granularity of appealing to people in different moods.
Then, Modern Warfare's Regular mode has the baby problem. It allows players to do some silly things that should get the player killed, like melee constantly, or run and gun. It removes some of the magic when you realize you can stand and shoot from the hip like Rambo, because the enemy bullets aren't programmed with high enough numbers to kill you in some encounters.
Lots of epic moments are derived from almost dying, so I think it's just a tricky, perilous balance in mission design and tuning to achieve encounters where the player is aware that a wrong move could mean his death, but he doesn't feel like he's on a tightrope, and if he makes one wrong step he'll fall to his death. There has to be some leeway, but there has to be a pit full of spikes you might fall into.
In that case, I think there's something to be said for discussing an alternate to GAME OVER, or respawning -- something akin to killing an enemy while in bleed-out in Borderlands to get yourself back on your feet; a way for a player to climb out of death.
In a sequence which is driven by narrative, however, the very nature of retrying absolutely destroys immersion. The failure to complete an objective has context within the narrative which the game must ignore in order to give the player another chance. The player no longer feels like a participant in the story, because their actions (failure) are not allowed to impact it.
Story-driven games can safely incorporate Fail/Retry if it is seperate from narrative sequences. For example, traversing most of the levels in Half-Life 2 is gameplay-driven, with reduced narrative. When challenges are presented, the narrative context is high-level goals only, allowing the gameplay to be the active story for the player. When the narrative is more involved, the gameplay difficulty is decreased greatly, or the chance of failure removed.
The conclusion I draw from this is: If you implement a success or failure situation in a story-driven sequence, failure should only modify gameplay or story variables, it should not halt progress outright.
This allows the challenge to retain the weight of failure without risking repetition of sequences which are not enjoyable to repeat. In fact failure may have more weight in this system, as it has permanent cost to the player in game terms, rather than being wiped clean until success is achieved.
1) That Trial and Error indicates a success/failure mechanic
2) That Trial and Error indicates repetition
3) That Trial and Error is indicative of Difficulty
All of these are both wrong and right at the same time. Each of the above statements are utterly false, and totally correct based on context, and none deal with the core concept of Trial and Error.
Please note; a player will not quit the game for any of the following reasons;
1)Repetition
2)Difficulty
Instead they quit because they see no way to break those items, or any reward for engaging in them. Incredibly different concepts.
Players will engage in an activity ad-nauseum, as long as there is some perceivable benefit in them doing so. Repetition will not break engagement as long as the task is rewarding, or as long as there is a foreseeable means to break repetition. Players will happily fail at something as long as they are given clear indicators as to why and how, and as long as there is a foreseeable way to overcome this Difficulty, players will persevere.
Stop looking at Trial and Error AS the problem, rather it is the end result OF a problem. Standalone it's a perfectly viable game mechanic, to be manipulated and used as a designer feels fit.
As for the discussion, Mike Engle, Christopher Wragg and Kyle Jansen already said everything.
---------------------
By the way:
Damn the f*king jumping air-puzzle sections in God of War!!! xC
And all the QTE in Clive Baker's Jericho (RE4 did it very well do add the game).
COD MW and MW2: ok, I did choose the Veteran difficult, but the galery shot sections... :X
That's all.
In other news, keep a look out for my next blog post, to be entitled, "Player Interaction: Why It Is Horrible and Will Soon Cause the Death of All Game Developers and Their Families."
I'll point to Hotline Miami as a game that I feel is all about repeating the level, and is enjoyable as a result. Making the perfect run through a Hotline Miami level feels worth the time spent replaying the levels to see what you're doing right and wrong, and I laugh at my failures there, despite the fact that I'm typically frustrated by them in other games.
Conversely, I was furious at Brutal Legend when the introduction of RTS elements, a few chapters in the game, totally threw me for a curve. I wanted to experience the story and atmosphere, and the RTS game mechanics (which I felt weren't really advertised before purchase) really stole that from me.
Then, of course, there are roguelikes (FTL, for example) that are specifically designed for players who desire the possibility to fail spectacularly, against completely impossible odds. Starting a roguelike, they never know whether the game session is even winnable or not.
I still feel completely immersed in games like Hotline Miami and FTL. But I also feel deprived when games like Brutal Legend throw difficulty and repetition at me and I eventually rage quit as a result. This isn't a binary issue - it really comes down to the type of game you're making and the type of audience you're courting and there's an entire spectrum of ways to address the issue. I think the frustration comes when I feel that gameplay and story are at odds - do you want me to experience your story, or do you want me to overcome your gameplay challenges? Frequently, you can't have both to full satisfaction.