Games that make you think

[Hell Kitty]

A complaint I often see from gamers today is that there aren't enough games that make them think, but what exactly is meant by that? Thought-provoking stories that leave them pondering after they finish playing? Puzzles that leave them stumped for hours? What are some examples of the type of thing people are looking for, from both past and present games?

 

One of the dumbest things I've heard recently is that the reason Halo only allows you two weapons is because Xbox doesn't have enough buttons and this is an example of dumbing down. The opposite is true, as an FPS that limits the amount of weapons the character can carry makes the player think more than an FPS that allows you to carry every weapon in the game and allows you to access them at any time.

 

If a game like Deus Ex was to be remade, rather than having a bunch of quickslots in which to put all your weapons and an inventory that pauses that game when you access it, I'd limit the weapon selection to primary, sidearm and perhaps melee, and not pause the game in the inventory screen, that way the player would have to think more about the weapons they choose when entering a battle. This is the kind of thinking I want from my gameplay, but it's not something that's generally given any credit.

[Lord Tingeling]

^^To be totally honest I've never considered that sort of thinking to be any different than the sort of thinking you usually do in a hectic match of Q3.

 

Where am I, where are the closests spawns, what weapon should I use, etc. As you said it's not given much credit, but a game that is skill based to such an extreme extent as Q3 is isn't something you can just breeze through without thinking. Likewise with Battlefield 2. The sort of awareness that these games require is something I really am quite fond of.

[mkreku]

What I think games in general are lacking nowadays are puzzles. There are lots of shooters out there, and whether or not you can carry one or two weapons at the same time is irrelevant to the question. That's a matter of design, and it really only changes your tactics in battles, instead of actually making you think. If you believe that is what you need intelligence for, then you really need to start using your brain.

 

Puzzles are a remnant from adventure games (the dead genre) that used to add a certain degree of difficulty to games. In RPG's specifically they used to be riddles, talking dogs, hidden shop categories (anyone remember pressing D in Ultima..?), text parsers that emulated human intelligence quite badly and so on. And that's what I miss from games today. Most 'problems' in modern games seem to be of the sort "find the right key, for the right door" and that's it. You trudge along the corridors (most games don't have open spaces either) until you find the right monster that drops the key. Then you go back to that locked door and unlock it. Problem solved. Or even worse: the horrid "turn the mirrors until the beam hits the opposite wall" problem..

 

I just feel that game developers of today are afraid to provoke the players so they guide you through the puzzles in the games, holding your hand every step of the way. Just ask yourself this: when was the last time you got stuck in a game? It used to be the other way around; they designed puzzles to **** with your mind and make you cry. Strangely enough I prefer the latter.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Actually I really like the two weapon thing. It gives the game a wonderful flowing sense. Shoot your weapon till you empty it, switch to the backup roll across the room , pick up the weapon of the person you just killed and continue. Rather than hide behind crate, cycle through 10 different weapons (each with sub weapons) till you get the one you want then pop up and shoot.

 

Shin Megami had some killer puzzles.

 

The three fates one was fun although if you didnt know the fates it's going to drive you crazy. Not only did you have to walk the correct path, but you had to kill the fates in the correct order too otherwise they would just flee and respawn.

 

Develpers used to be the "enemy" it was their goal to make the player suffer while playing (entertainment was just aq byproduct).

 

In one of the old adventure games it used to say something like "The developers are laughing at you" after you failed a puzzle X number of times.

 

With games now being more casual entertainment , the adversarial nature isnt so apparent.

[Diamond]

I really can't see the problem with "thinking" in games. If I want to think I play chess or a puzle game, or find something better to do instead playing games. But if I play a non-puzzle computer game - no thank you, I am looking for things like immersion and emotional impact. The last thing I want is to get stuck on a time-consuming puzzle, while playing, say, an RPG.

[Lyric Suite]

I am looking for things like immersion and emotional impact.

 

And most games do a terrible job at that. Might as well put some puzzles to shake things up a little...

Edited November 22, 2005 by Lyric Suite

[Atreides]

Have the player think by giving several viable dialogue respnoses. (S)he'll have to read carefully before selecting the relevant one (within reason). Related to my Optimal thread in NJ forum.

[Diamond]

And most games do a terrible job at that. Might as well put some puzzles to shake things up a little...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you don't have to play "most games" to begin with. All games offer different form of entertainment, and there is always a good quality game in each genre.

 

Anyway, I gave just examples of what I *could* look for in a game. Surely I will not expect deep characters in Unreal Tournament, but I'd pick that game if I want to play CTF with friends.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Diamond

[Diamond]

Have the player think by giving several viable dialogue respnoses.  (S)he'll have to read carefully before selecting the relevant one (within reason).  Related to my Optimal thread in NJ forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, that's the sort of thing that can go in non-puzzle game. The example is riddles in dialogues - you still think, but it doesn't take a bloody week to decipher it.

[Commissar]

I remember one of the best games I ever played was Myst. I wasn't into it initially at first, since it came out when I was a young'un, but my uncle got hardcore involved. He's not even remotely a gamer - and I suppose I really can't claim that title myself anymore - but we'd swap notes on our progress during family get-togethers and the like. I remember trading all sorts of cryptic scribbles back and forth - he was more musically inclined, so he'd record all of the noises made by puzzles involving sound, looking for patterns, and he literally filled up half a notebook with various observations. Good times.

 

That kind of gaming just won't survive in the modern market. Hell, I haven't touched any of the Myst sequels myself, so I suppose I can't really complain.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I never really liked Myst. I remember going over a friends house and being shown 7th guest and then spending the afternoon solving the puzzles.

 

Puzzles are ok but if there is one thing that totally lacks any sort of replay value it's a puzzle.

 

Last puzzle game I played would be twin memory on the DS. Although I wouldnt call them puzzles as much as diversions.

[Janmanden]

Not mentioning puzzles and board games.

 

It's really nice to come across a game where a single problem can be solved in a lot of different ways and not just by dialogue...like some of the cRPG games from BioWare/Interplay/Troika. Need more of those. Trying out different solutions are so much more fun, when it's actually possible.

 

Unfortunately you often only need to think once. Next time you play the game it's just a routine, unless you are the lucky amnesiac type that wakes up on a slab with no memory of who you are or what games you played *envy*.

 

But getting stuck in a linear game...and start thinking up alternate futile 'rocket science' solutions and going over the evidence in your head...is the beginning of a very long and boring story...unless it's one of the LucasArts adventure games like the Day of the Tentacle.

 

Just started playing and finished Max Payne 2. In the final battle I was really confused. I saw how the grenades affected the environment and thought about using that to bring down the cage. Spend a long and futile hour to realize it just didn't work that way. If you haven't played it yet I am not sorry, if I saved you from a fruitless hour of complete boredom - it wasn't worth it.

 

I remember a point in System Shock 2, where I was running low on ammo and had to deal with it somehow. I thought about lifts and pits and the lethal effect that these things can have on players and I was happily surprised to see that it worked on monsters too. Nice thing about games with limited resources are that they force you to use every tool to the maximum effect...and I am so grateful when it's supported.

 

Not so great when an intellectual pursuit turns into a no-brainer...or it's the same number each time. F.x. in the System Shock games you got keypads and need codes...but why is it always the same code? Could have been so easy, in a computer game (nudge-nudge), to randomly generate a different number for each new game. Or in games like Deus Ex and Bloodlines, where you got a hacking skill, so that you don't actually have to read thru hints to figure out the needed code. Or one of those perks or traits in...is it Fallout...that colours your dialogue so that you know in advance what kind of response attitude you'll get. Not to mention those awfully cruel mean people that makes Walkthroughs with the malicious intent of ruining games for the weak of mind - they should be shot on sight. Not that these pursuit really requires any thinking, but it's steps in the wrong direction.

 

Sorry about the long post, but I didn't have time to write a short one...

[Darque]

If a game like Deus Ex was to be remade, rather than having a bunch of quickslots in which to put all your weapons and an inventory that pauses that game when you access it, I'd limit the weapon selection to primary, sidearm and perhaps melee, and not pause the game in the inventory screen, that way the player would have to think more about the weapons they choose when entering a battle. This is the kind of thinking I want from my gameplay, but it's not something that's generally given any credit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to agree with this entirely.

 

Recently I played a FPS called Darkwatch that limited you to just two weapons, though you could use your guns to "pistol whip" enemies too (so you had 3 options)... this really made you think and choose your weapons carefully....

 

...do I take the big gun that I can't really whack people with if I run out of ammo..

...do I take a shotgun that sucks at long range, but has a nasty spike on the end that makes it a damn fine melee weapons...

...do I take the pistol that's really fast but if I run out of ammo I'm screwed..

 

...etc.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Darque

[metadigital]

What I think games in general are lacking nowadays are puzzles. There are lots of shooters out there, and whether or not you can carry one or two weapons at the same time is irrelevant to the question. That's a matter of design, and it really only changes your tactics in battles, instead of actually making you think. If you believe that is what you need intelligence for, then you really need to start using your brain.

 

Puzzles are a remnant from adventure games (the dead genre) that used to add a certain degree of difficulty to games. In RPG's specifically they used to be riddles, talking dogs, hidden shop categories (anyone remember pressing D in Ultima..?), text parsers that emulated human intelligence quite badly and so on. And that's what I miss from games today. Most 'problems' in modern games seem to be of the sort "find the right key, for the right door" and that's it. You trudge along the corridors (most games don't have open spaces either) until you find the right monster that drops the key. Then you go back to that locked door and unlock it. Problem solved. Or even worse: the horrid "turn the mirrors until the beam hits the opposite wall" problem..

 

I just feel that game developers of today are afraid to provoke the players so they guide you through the puzzles in the games, holding your hand every step of the way. Just ask yourself this: when was the last time you got stuck in a game? It used to be the other way around; they designed puzzles to **** with your mind and make you cry. Strangely enough I prefer the latter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dark Moth]

Puzzles are a nice touch. I've never played Myst, but one of the good things about K1 is the riddles/puzzles you occasionally had to solve to get ahead. It was a nice alternative to simply blowing your way through things. I think one of the main things keeping things like puzzles from appearing frequently is the fear that (as mkreku mentioned above) the puzzles will be too hard and gamers will get frustrated to the point of giving up entirely. It's always been my impression that a lot of people enjoy gaming because it doesn't involve a lot of strenuous brain activity.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I played all the big adventure games(and many small ones too) in the early ninties and the puzzles werent fun. They ranged from frustrating to game-stopping and there was no internet to help you.

 

 

And honestly, most of them required zero brainpower since they were either completely random or so profoundly illogic that trial-and-error was the only viable approach.

[Gabrielle]

I don't like puzzles. I'd rather not play a game that makes you think. "

 

 

 

 

I prefer action!

[Krookie]

I don't like puzzles. I'd rather not play a game that makes you think.  "

 

 

 

 

I prefer action!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've gotta agree. I don't really like puzzle games.

[metadigital]

I leik puzzles.

[Gabrielle]

I wouldn't make a good adventurer. I'm not very good with puzzles. Maybe I could be a warrior to bash things or a spellcaster that casts magic.

[Darque]

I hate puzzles, I like to kill

[Gabrielle]

I hate puzzles, I like to kill 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes kill! Death to the disbelievers!

[LoneWolf16]

I hate puzzles, I like to kill 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I like to get my violence out in the digital realm, thank you very much...that, and needlessly complicated puzzles tend to provoke more anger than even the most violent game for me.

[LadyCrimson]

'Thinking' in games, for me, comes from the ability to be creative within the game, to be not limited to one particular path, design, or solution, within the general 'rules' of the game.

 

Caeasr3, for example. Many ways to successfully design a 'winning' city.

Roller Coaster Tycoon, because of designing coasters and park layouts.

 

Strategy games work too, although only if they allow for a lot of variation in gameplay or have something unique about them, such as DungeonKeeper or Majesty.

 

I like puzzles, but I'm not very good at solving them if they're set up like IQ tests...Myst was great, but Riven was too much of a brain-strain without a walkthrough to be fun for me.

 

And if I may add...running an obstacle course 20 times to figure out the right path to avoid being crushed by thumping blocks is not a puzzle to me.

[Calax]

how about killing puzzles?

 

"If I kill this guy this way that door opens up. But if I kill him the other way I can fly into another room... hmmmmm."

 

And Myst once you now how to do it can be done in under 45 seconds...