Games that make you think

[Darque]

I love Killing Puzzles :D

 

Bloodrayne 2 for the win! (w00t)

[Krookie]

Tetris is as far as I go puzzle wise.

[Azarkon]

Roguelike games, TBS's, and good MUDs tend to make me think. Consequently, all three genres are absent from the mainstream, but then they were never part of the mainstream to begin with (except for, maybe, Civilization).

Edited November 23, 2005 by Azarkon

[Hell Kitty]

That's a matter of design, and it really only changes your tactics in battles, instead of actually making you think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One must think if they are to come up with tactics. I'm not saying it's rocket science.

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read an article about Deus Ex, in which the devs stated that the reason they allowed the player to choose which ending they wanted in the last 20 minutes, was because they didn't want to "punish" the player for the actions taken over the course of the game by giving them an ending they weren't happy with. This is a problem I think with many games, the need to keep the player happy no matter what. What's the point in thinking if you can win no matter what you do?

 

'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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's what I want from thinking in games, it's not about being intelligent, it's about being creative, solving problems by looking at the characters and environments and the tools I have, and coming up with ways to use them together, rather than trying to find the solution the devs want me to.

 

One example of this is in Deus Ex 2 when I used a barrel to block the door, trapping Sofia Sak and her bodyguards in her office.

 

I love adventure games, but I'm not interested in seeing how clever the devs can be in creating fiendish puzzles.

 

I'd also like to see choosing different paths/actions that have both a positive and negative effect. For example, do I go aid a fallen ally, which would lead to a failed mission objective, making further missions much more difficult, or do I sacrifice them in the name of success, making for an easier game, but losing their expertise which would give me access to otherwise inaccessable areas, etc.

Edited November 23, 2005 by Hell Kitty

[LadyCrimson]

I'd also like to see choosing different paths/actions that have both a positive and negative effect.

 

Just curious if you ever tried Black & White. I bought it because it was by the same guy who came up with DungeonKeeper, but I couldn't get into it...it did however have an interesting if perhaps underdeveloped element of good/evil actions affecting your environment.

Last time I was at the game store I noticed his company had another game out with a similar aspect that sounded more advanced, but I can't remember it's name.

 

EDIT: It's called Fable: The Lost Chapters

 

2nd edit: Actually doesn't sound that advanced...to quote the site:

"Forge a hero based on actions. Heroes age and evolve through the actions players choose and the paths they follow - be it for good, evil or in between. Those who ply the way of the sword will see their muscles bulge. Those who weave the dark arts will witness power crackle at their fingertips. And those who rely on speed and stealth will develop lightning-like reflexes and eagle-eyed accuracy."

Edited November 23, 2005 by LadyCrimson

[Hell Kitty]

I remember reading that your good/evil actions in Fable can be countered simply by donating to an evil/good temple.

 

Haven't tried Black & White. I always wanted to, but there is no demo and I was put off by so many negative comments. It seems to sequel hasn't really improved much either.

[LadyCrimson]

I'd be glad to send you my copy of the original B&W.

I know nothing about Fable since I don't have a console. I might check out the sequel since it's on PC tho.

 

Peter Molyneux has vision but Lionhead Studios lacks the execution I guess.

[Hell Kitty]

The PC version of Fable isn't a sequel, it's the Xbox version with extra bits.

 

As for the vision of Peter Molyneux, I think he might be going blind...

[LadyCrimson]

Peter Molyneux had vision

 

Fixed. :D

All this talking about 'thinking' games...makes me think it's time to install C3 again. Lugdunum here I come.

[Calax]

I remember reading that your good/evil actions in Fable can be countered simply by donating to an evil/good temple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

kinda. your donation to the light side is a heck of a lot of gold for a few points. The evil side is just plain hard to do, you grab a random guy and take him to the evil temple where he's sacrificed in funny ways.

 

usually if you really want to be evil you just run around kicking the crap out of people. Good... you donate money and help people in need.

[alanschu]

I read an article about Deus Ex, in which the devs stated that the reason they allowed the player to choose which ending they wanted in the last 20 minutes, was because they didn't want to "punish" the player for the actions taken over the course of the game by giving them an ending they weren't happy with. This is a problem I think with many games, the need to keep the player happy no matter what. What's the point in thinking if you can win no matter what you do?

 

 

I think this is easy to say. But in practice I wonder how you would do if you realized that the overall outcome of your story was dictated to you because of an action taken 10 hours earlier. Furthermore, such branching tends to duplicate work, especially if the branching means that you have to go elsewhere in the gameworld. I think it might be neat as well, but I'm not so sure people (including myself) would ultimately be happy with a game that had something seemingly innocuous at the time actually force you down a specific path many hours later.

 

A situation I can think of is when my friend got pissed off because he lost an item in PS:T that was needed for the foundry to retreive an item. He messed around for a bit and couldn't find an alternative, so he ended up having to pretty much restart the game. The bad thing is, he lost interest replaying the same stuff so he never actually finished PS:T.

[Kalfear]

Most games in last decade, I havent found really made you think all that much to be honest, odd item here (K1 had the floor puzzle and T3 on the Leviathon, K2 had the key pad in warehouse, ect) and there but by and far developers seemed more interested in linear stories, lots of action, and better graphics.

 

Only 3 games (be it any genre of gaming) that stand out to me as thinking games were.

 

1) Necropolis (multimedia game based on a fictional comic)

2) Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within (this game was TOUGH, but awsome)

and

3) Phantasmagoria

 

All 3 are multimedia puzzle/adventure games but really make you use your grey matter to complete them

 

Some older RPGs like Wizardry (think it was 5, been to long) and others had good puzzles in them as well but thats pretty much a lost art form in todays gaming.

[alanschu]

I don't mind "puzzles" per se.

 

But I don't like puzzles that are just puzzles for the sake of being puzzles. I would much rather have a game with no puzzles than a game with many thought provoking, challenging puzzles when the puzzles are completely out of context with the rest of the game setting.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think "puzzles"(in the widest sense of the word) can be very entertaining if they are done right, but not many developers know how to do that. Some tips:

• Puzzles are inherently frustrating, that is the nature of a puzzle. This must be countered.
  
• The player should always be able to figure out the solution by himself using relatively simple logic and common sense. If you encounter a broken vase, use the glue on it to put it back together again etc. NOT 'use the chewing gum on the statue to get the bicycle pump and use that to..'
  
• Trial-and-error must die. It is not fun for the player to click randomly on a puzzle or use every item in his inventory on an object because there is no other way to solve the puzzle.
  
• Puzzles must make sense within the context of the game/story. Solving a murder mystery to free an innocent NPC is good, encountering a random complex "floor tile" puzzle when trying to open a fridge isnt.
  
• Puzzles should make the players feel smart when solving them, not dumb because theyre so hard only the dev who made it knows how to solve it.
  

As for the vision of Peter Molyneux, I think he might be going blind...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Has he ever had it? The basic concept behind all Lionhead games is to make a completely bland and generic genre game and then add and hype small peripheral details that really have no impact on the game at large. B&W was a boring RTS and Fable was an equally boring HacknSlash action-adventure (no, it didnt even qualify as an RPG since it didnt have any roleplaying, just simple yes/no options)

Edited November 23, 2005 by Kaftan Barlast

[kalimeeri]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but 'thinking' in a game is more than deciding which weapon to use or sliding puzzle pieces around. I have run into a decent amount of tactical situations and puzzles that made me work to find a solution. That isn't the same thing as a story that compels you to think. To me the real gold is guessiing what's going on and why, picking up clues along the way. F'rinstance, 'who is The Nameless One, and how did he get into this mess?', or as in Final Fantasy X, 'why is Tidus's reality 1000 years in the past?'. A moral or philosophical dilemma or two keeps me thinking long after the game has ended.

 

Games that can do that stick in my mind, and remain on my hard drive. The rest are in the bottom drawer ... somewhere.

[metadigital]

I think "puzzles"(in the widest sense of the word) can be very entertaining if they are done right, but not many developers know how to do that. Some tips:

1. Puzzles are inherently frustrating, that is the nature of a puzzle. This must be countered.
    
   
2. The player should always be able to figure out the solution by himself using relatively simple logic and common sense. If you encounter a broken vase, use the glue on it to put it back together again etc. NOT 'use the chewing gum on the statue to get the bicycle pump and use that to..'
    
   
3. Trial-and-error must die. It is not fun for the player to click randomly on a puzzle or use every item in his inventory on an object because there is no other way to solve the puzzle.
    
   
4. Puzzles must make sense within the context of the game/story. Solving a murder mystery to free an innocent NPC is good, encountering a random complex "floor tile" puzzle when trying to open a fridge isnt.
    
   
5. Puzzles should make the players feel smart when solving them, not dumb because theyre so hard only the dev who made it knows how to solve it.
   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would add a corollary to Kaftan's First Law of Puzzles: the puzzle should include good feedback, especially for incorrect responses, that indicate how wrong the response was, as well as how many more responses like that will fail.

 

This also adds meaning to the Second, Third, Fifth Rules of Puzzles, and even a little to the Fourth Rule.

 

[CoM_Solaufein]

I hate puzzles, I like to kill 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Killing is good. One reason why I like hack n slash games.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Tetris is as far as I go puzzle wise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For a simple game, Tetris kicks ass.

[14884_1556103668]

Tetris is as far as I go puzzle wise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For a simple game, Tetris kicks ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tetris is too addictive

[CoM_Solaufein]

Yes it is. Surprise it doesn't induce seizures once it starts going very fast as you level up.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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 don't think weapon limits make players think a whole lot more. Wheter I have twenty or two weapons at my disposal at one given time, the same problems will still exist and will still require the same solutions. Look at some Zelda games, where you have two possible items to use at a time and need to open the menu and exchange them for others. In pretty much all cases I've come across in those games the item limit had no bearing whatsoever when it came to me figuring out how to solve a situation. All it did was make it longer to solve it since I had to manage the menu every once in a while to switch items, use a given combination for a particular task, then return to what I was using before.

[Darkside]

I like thinking elements such as puzzles (as long as they're not too difficult and serve some logical purpose, preferably with multiple solutions) and limited weapon capacity, but I like to have a little more than that. I like a plot riddled with questions, shrouded in mystery, and dark enough to give you nightmares (without being survival horror. A game can be dark without zombies and demons).

 

Of course, not all games should be deep. Sometimes it's good to pick up a game like Ratchet and Clank with a buttload of weapons, one deminsional characters, and enough cracks at pop culture to make milk come out your nose.

 

 

Note: My sudden obbsession with dark and scary things has nothing to do with me running around the Shalebridge Cradle on Deadly Shadows. Really. "

 

 

 

EDIT: The only real problem with limited weapons is that if you know you'll need three guns in an upcoming battle, and you can only carry two, you have to run all the way back for the one you left behind as soon as you finish with one. This always happened to me on "Assault on the Control Room" on Halo. There was one area I needed a sniper rifle to take down some gunners on cliffs, a rocket launcher to deal with a tank, and an assault rifle to finish the job. I had to finish sniping as many things as I could, run all the way across the tundra, grab the assault rifle I stashed, and run all the way back. Then afterwards, I still had to find a pistol to replace the rocket launcher (I hate rocket launchers, too messy).

Edited November 23, 2005 by Darkside

[Kaftan Barlast]

I hate ammo restrictions, I got very annoyed with Battlefield 2 for only giving you 5 magasines at best when the average IRL soldier packs 8-12. How am I suppose to give covering fire if I run out of ammo after 10 seconds? (Ok, I know they designed the machinegunner class especially for that but its annoying nontheless)

 

 

 

I would add a corollary to Kaftan's First Law of Puzzles: the puzzle should include good feedback, especially for incorrect responses, that indicate how wrong the response was, as well as how many more responses like that will fail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeh, but falls under the law of feedback which is basic gamedesign 101... and computer programs in general. You HAVE to let the user know that his clicking has an effect on his enviroment ALL THE TIME.

 

From Manny Calavera saying "No, I dont want to mess up my blade" when you tell him to use his scythe on something he cant use it on, to a link on this forum turning orange when you hold your pointer over it.

Edited November 23, 2005 by Kaftan Barlast

[Child of Flame]

Kaf, can you edit that last post, any n00b who reads it will be a lot more forum savvy, which is bad for my entertainment.

[mkreku]

I love how (almost) everyone keeps focusing on the wrong problem in this thread...

 

Yes, puzzles (or problems or stuff that make you think) can be frustrating if not done right. That is obvious. I don't want Bard's Tale 3 all over again, where one problem would make you stuck for weeks. Just don't put the extremely difficult 'puzzles' (for lack of a better generalization) in the main quest, but make them optional for the players who enjoy taking their time to work out solutions to different in-game problems. That way both those who enjoy puzzles and those who hate puzzles will be able to enjoy the same games.

 

Some of you in this thread keep confusing fantasizing with problem solving. Sure, Planescape: Torment made you think about what the hell happened to the poor characters, but there wasn't anything difficult or mind-bending about it. You just followed the story and that was basically it. You didn't exactly exercise your brain by fantasizing about the various story branches.

 

One great example of a problem I remember from 'the old days' was the flying carpet in Ultima V. In Lord British castle, at the top floor, was a small room on the roof. In front of that room there was a carpet that looked like a regular mat. During the course of the game you heard rumours about a flying carpet as you travelled the world. Eventually, if you found all the right clues and talked to all the right people, you'd find out that the carpet lying in front of that room is actually a flying carpet if you picked it up and used it. It was en extremely useful tool for travelling (since Ultima had a huge world to travel in), it was easy to get once you knew how (obtainable right from the beginning of the game), but only those who went out of their way to find out about it would ever get it. Not obligatory, but still a great incentive and reward for those who enjoyed taking their time to solve the puzzle. That's what I miss from today's games.

 

 

Edit: Spelling.

Edited November 23, 2005 by mkreku