Randomization and Replayability

[anubite]

IE-style games are very replayable. Games like Fallout especially so - because many events in the game randomly driven.

 

In order to strengthen the longevity of PE, I'd like to see:

 

-Some areas of dungeons/zones are randomly generated; you can do this with "puzzle pieces" of a level which can be rotated and placed randomly by the engine

 

-Some areas of dungeons/zones have random monster pools/locations - where the engine draws from a collection of pre-arranged or semi-random enemy groups

 

-Random events in cities and while travelling in the wilderness

[Kore]

To some extent I like randomisation, but I'd rather we on the side of too little rather than too much. Ideally I'd like the choice.

 

I am a power gamer, sometimes I prefer a good spreadsheet to actually playing the game itself. This requires me to know exactly what is available and where to find it. With too much randomisation I can't do this; rather than making a choice ahead of time between the long bow of awesomeness or the short bow of badassery I have to make do with whichever I stumble apon first.

 

Despite this I do like having some play throughs where I don't know what is available just so I don't make a beeline towards greywolf and his +2 long sword. Personally I,'d like the option to decide if things are randomised. Obsidian have enough resources I feel

[Aoyagi]

Randomization (events or location layout) tends to break the immersion unless the random events are like Fallout 2, meaning away from any other locations.

 

And the other problem is that, as far as I've heard, randomization can be very demanding on engine capabilities. Not sure how Unity and its mutation Obsidian uses would handle it.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Aoyagi

[Hassat Hunter]

Ehm, handcrafted areas?

 

How exactly would you plan "rotated and placed randomly"... this isn't some ugly game like Diablo II or a 3D game with presets... :/

 

(And thank the gods for that I might add)

[Hormalakh]

no randomization. irrelevant loot perhaps, butt nothing else. let replayability come from not being able to get to 100% completion of game in one run, i.e. some quests class/skill specific, etc.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Hormalakh

[anubite]

Areas can be "handcrafted" and still be semi-random.

 

That's what I mean by tiles.

 

And yes, 'randomization' can be heavy on an engine, but not in the way I'm describing.

 

What I'm describing is that some zones (especially dungeons) have "pieces" that are built by hand. Let's say 30 pieces. These pieces may be square and have 4 sides. If each piece can connect to any other piece (obviously not always the case), then you can have 32 comb per pair * 15 pairs = 480 different tile connection combinations, which is sufficiently complex I think and wouldn't be expensive to create. A system like this could make dungeons more unpredictable - you could have 1-2 fully handcrafted floors which are always the same, with 1 floor in between them which is random. Or, you could have 3 partially hand-crafted areas, where certain zones within these dungeons being random.

 

I'm not suggesting this as a way to replace hand-crafted zones, but as a way to extend the replayability. If you go through the same level over and over, you know how to expect something.

 

And yes, RPGs may be replayable just so you can make different choices, but RPGs should have some mechanical things which make replaying a game less monotonous. Not knowing what you're going to fight, when, for certain areas in the game, is a great balance/compromise I think and would add suficient unknownness to an area, making it more fun/challenging no matter how many times you've played the game.

 

RPGs often have a finite number of possible quest oucomes, that rarely exceeds 4. By adding some random elements to map design, you introduce more complexity and make the game have better longevity.

 

I am not suggesting Diablo-esque zones where everything is randomized because that "depersonalizes" the quest you're on. What I am suggesting is something which furthers replay value, by adding small sections of areas that are semi-random with semi-random encounters.

Edited November 16, 2012 by anubite

[Kore]

You have to ask at that point, what is the point in randomising the map? The shape of the map rarely adds anything to gameplay for me, it is predominately simply the back drop to the story and combat that takes place there. As long as it is suitably badass and makes sense then it fulfills all its requirements afaiac.

[anubite]

Well, the point of randomizing an area is to force the player to find the stairs to the next area, or to find the location of a specific item or NPC. Otherwise, on a second replay, the player can use metaknowledge to always find the correct path in the minimal number of steps. If gameplay is a chore and boring, then of course we want players to find the stairs to the next area right away! But if the game is good, a player shouldn't mind that parts of a zone are random and force them to continue making decisions based on their party's well being and resources.

 

Furthermore, with regards to randomization of enemies, it means you have to employ a potential wider of range of strategy, if the zone you enter rolls a monster encounter that has monsters that are resistant to your primary damage type (for instance). With regards to specifically randomizing a map, it may be for tactical purposes. If you enter a wide room, you can avoid splash damage easier. Positioning SHOULD be important for a IE-based game, even if positioning wasn't always important, I think tactical gameplay could have been improved for IE games, had positioning mattered more. You should be tactically aware of the environment you're in. It should provide some level of difficulty, to be in a zone which is cramped or choked, or a zone which has pillars to put your companions behind (or that foes can use), or a zone which has a bridge you can lure monsters over (to walk into your traps). Knowing that these environmental designs are coming up ahead of time, trivializes encounters because you never have to come up with new strategies or make decisions you didn't already know you weren't going to make.

 

When a game becomes trivial one generally loses interest.

Edited November 16, 2012 by anubite

[Kore]

If gameplay is a chore and boring, then of course we want players to find the stairs to the next area right away! But if the game is good, a player shouldn't mind that parts of a zone are random and force them to continue making decisions based on their party's well being and resources.

 

Sure this makes sense, I'm happy to agree to that. I will just say that for me exploration is only intrinsically exciting if there is new content for me to find. If I know what the content already is or that there are traps somewhere, but I don't know where then that's simple time wasting for me and I'd rather get on with finding out about new content or furthering the story.

 

 

When a game becomes trivial one generally loses interest.

 

Of course I'm simply questioning here whether randomising the map is the best way of non trivialising the game. You have made some good points though.

[anubite]

Well, I'd agree it's probably not the best way. But the best way is probably outside the scope of a game like this. What I'm suggesting I don't think would harm anyone replaying the game for a second time and would probably benefit some players. The best thing about this suggestion is that it's (probably) reasonably cheap and easy to implement and would make everyone's experience with the game a little more unique.

Edited November 16, 2012 by anubite

[Kore]

I think that if players intrinsically enjoy looking for traps and not knowing which monster is around the corner then perhaps a single rogue like dungeon would be good. That way players who enjoy it could simply keep going back to it; call it the Keep of Shifting Walls and you're set. I would perhaps argue that while you're completely right that positioning should be a factor in tactical gameplay that randomising dungeons completely would be unnecessary since you could simply vary the designs of each bosses lair or add moving parts to various boss fights. This would achieve that goal without annoying those players who does enjoy randomly placed traps and mobs for the hell of it. I consider it the game world equivalent of stubbing my toe in the dark

[Sacred_Path]

Randomization (events or location layout) tends to break the immersion

 

What?

 

Nothing breaks my immersion more than when I tread down a well-known dungeon corridor, thinking to myself "in the next room there are four snake-people and one snake shaman. Better summon some skeletons. Then have the thief open the door, send in the skellies, then cast some cloud spells and close the door. Profit."

[anubite]

Yeah I don't know how to defend that statement. It needs qualification. Immersion shouldn't be broken by random events - it's what makes FO/FO2 come alive most of the time.

 

Real life is random. Are you saying that things that emulate randomness are in offense to verisimilitude?

Edited November 16, 2012 by anubite

[Kore]

Real life is random. Are you saying that things that emulate randomness are in offense to verisimilitude?

 

Not at all, I'm saying that randomness can negatively affect gameplay enjoyment because it makes parts of the game tedious. While there is extrinsic enjoyment to be had through finding the chest full of treasure, there is no longer intrinsic enjoyment to be had because you know exactly what is there and what is not so curiosity is no longer the driving factor to exploration. It essentially becomes a grind.

[Pshaw]

While I like some randomization in games I cannot think of anyplace I'd want in a game like this aside from random encounters while traveling. These battles / events should probably be the only random events but even so I imagine they'll be randomly selected from a large pool of encounters which were hand crafted.

 

Honestly for re-playability in this game I want to see mutually exclusives quests and factions. To me these add more replay value than a dungeon being re-arranged the next time I play. If I'm joining the thieves guild as a faction I should not also be able to join the city watch. I'd rather see a handful of factions that I need to choose 1 or the other and then need to replay the game in order to access that content than randomized dungeons and the like. The same goes with quests maybe an NPC offers you 2 different routes to complete an objective so depending on which you choose you miss out on the next 2-3 follow up quests from choosing 1 branch over the other. This could also carry into your party members. if you must go investigate a series of murders at the request of 1 companion only to find that the murderer is somehow related to another (family or close friend) you then have to choose which companion to side with and either kill or drive off the other one.

 

It's choices like these that I'd like to see in the game because I think they add to replay-ability without compromising game quality in anyway like randomization sometimes can. I also find that for the most part randomization has very little effect on how you play where as having to make a choice that prevents you from seeing other paths will effect your story and character in a more meaningful way.

[Frisk]

I want extensive replayability, but I want it to come from different choices I make - either during character creation or during playing - choices like how I tackle particular problems, which companions I pick and so on.

 

Randomness has its place - I'm fine with the occasional random encounter when traveling, and of course I expect minor loot to be random to a certain degree, but randomness is not a factor for replayability for me.

 

As far as randomly generated areas go - no. Not in this game. It can work fine in tile-based games and such, but here we are hoping for beautiful, handcrafted large areas - not randomly created ones.

[PsychoBlonde]

I'm not sure randomization is key to replay ability. I find what drives me to replay cRPG's is more "ooh, here's this character build idea that could be really cool" or a desire to revisit the story. Not "maybe it'll spawn wolves this time instead of bears!"

[Somna]

And then you have landscapes where it's super pretty...and then you pass another spot and realize it's the exact same map, only rotated 90 degrees.

[Sacred_Path]

I'm not sure randomization is key to replay ability. I find what drives me to replay cRPG's is more "ooh, here's this character build idea that could be really cool" or a desire to revisit the story. Not "maybe it'll spawn wolves this time instead of bears!"

 

Of course the game must offer something besides randomization to warrant a replay.

 

But for party games especially, once you have some experience with the game, you'll note some very effective strategies and go with those. There is usually enough overlap between classes that even with a different party, you might not change your tactics much. To stick with my own example, most caster classes have summons and AoE spells. You'd have to go with 6 rogues just for ****s and giggles or 3 characters, but those tend to be the less enjoyable setups for a replay.

 

For a game with no randomization to be fun to replay you have to offer a lot of content and optional routes, like the TES games.

[Labadal]

After seeing the waterfall screen, I'm not sure if we'll see randomized dungeons. I'd rather see a handcrafted world.

 

If there are randomized locations, I hope there are only a few places, and that they aren't very important. Maybe caves that you enter that have a random layout.

[Osvir]

Just give us enough paths so that it gets difficult to get on the same path. One way is to look at the Equipment, the World is as it is, but if the Class, Equipment you wear, is different. See my Wall of Text in my signature, I'd love to get feedback.

 

On your first playthrough you have a Fighter with a Sword and Shield, playing through the prologue area you have upgrade your equipment in a unique way, your armor has +1 to Thickness and you have 232/500 experience in Sword & Board (Level 1). To get to Level 3 you would need perhaps 1500 experience instead (500/1500) etc.etc. Experience given in the weapon is not determined by "Hit" like in Skyrim, but by taking down enemies (Just like Baldur's Gate, the experience is rewarded at the end of the battle, when you stand there, Survivor).

 

Character Experience: Quest-Based only. Out of Combat skills, and Character Level. Can cast 2 Magic Missiles at Level 3. It makes sense that Quests would apply to the Character and his growth as he explores the world of P:E. It doesn't make sense that it would apply to Combat as well.

 

- "It is only at the end of the Journey that you understand that it was a Journey"

 

On another playthrough as a Fighter you instead have Dual-Wielding, playing through the prologue area and your armor is different too and has a +1 Flexibility.

 

The loot existent in the cave starting area is the same on both playthroughs, but what you can do with it is what is important, how you interact with it in your way. If there is only 3 of the same Armor in the starting area, we can only do 1 things with it, give each the Armors 2 upgradeable slots (that can be upgraded in 2 different ways) and you can suddenly do several different things with all three of them (IF resource based).

Edited November 16, 2012 by Osvir

[anubite]

Of course the game must offer something besides randomization to warrant a replay.

 

But for party games especially, once you have some experience with the game, you'll note some very effective strategies and go with those.

 

This is mainly where I'm coming from.

 

Yes, yes randomization on its own does not imply the game is more replayable. But don't patronize me. Think the idea through not in a vacuum, but in a finished game. Sections of levels are created with randomly selected small pieces (or tiles) that connect together. In these random zones, encounters are more random. You might fight unusual combinations of enemies in unusual combinations of terrain - you might get a group of 8 spellcaster enemies with are of effect spells and they might be positioned so that you're fighting in a choke point. Certainly invites some kind of desperate strategy to overcome an encounter like that.

 

If randomization makes a game tedious instead of fun, I seriously think one should rethink this statement - it is highly suggestive that the gameplay is not well-designed or fun. Part of enjoying an IE game SHOULD be the combat and the strategy/tactics. If you don't like that or you don't find that element fun, then I would argue the game is either flawed, or you're just looking for a CHYOA. Which is fine, but... what I'm suggesting would improve replayability for those of us who want more than a CHYOA and I hardly think a small amount of randomization in the game would be detrimental. If you already think the game is tedious, making certain areas random would hardly make it so more tedious that it would make you curse Oblivion and never play the game again.

 

The problem I have with replaying IE games over say, Fallout, is that I can of course employ a team of all Warriors if I want (though this means I have to not use any scripted companions, which is actually kind of boring usually), but that doesn't mean my strategy or tactics change that much. I know the encounters I'm going up against before I encounter them, so it's not like I even have to think on my feet or pause for a few minutes to devise a strategy before trying the encounter again.

 

I think adding some amount of random element to this game would drastically improve the gameplay, because you would be forced to build a party that can handle most situations, rather than a narrow number of them (because you always have metaknowledge of every encounter you will fight in the future, it allows for easier min/maxing). Part of the fun of playing most RPGs is discovering this optimal built set up.

 

But if you don't like IE-like gameplay, then I guess randomization does sound like a waste of Obsidian's resources. It does make me worry for the future of RPGs though, if all major RPGs must now cater to this group of people who only want to be told a story. You know there are books right?

[Aoyagi]

Randomization (events or location layout) tends to break the immersion

 

What?

 

Nothing breaks my immersion more than when I tread down a well-known dungeon corridor, thinking to myself "in the next room there are four snake-people and one snake shaman. Better summon some skeletons. Then have the thief open the door, send in the skellies, then cast some cloud spells and close the door. Profit."

So illogical maps and extremely generic corridors with some hardcoded points of interest are OK? See, that's why I think some people got PE wrong. What you want is Diablo. What I want is perfect had-crafted world, that makes sense and is logically connected. You can't really do that with randomization, unless it's only the way Grim Dawn uses, i.e. barricades within pre-built world.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Aoyagi

[JFSOCC]

Something is replayable when a second playthrough is a significantly different experience from the first playthrough. That means different challenges, not just different solutions.

[Ninjamestari]

I don't think randomization enhances replay value. Quite to the contrary in fact; it's the amount of personal choices, both in the game world and in the character sheet, that make the second and third playthroughs differ from the first. I dislike having Diablo like random elements; they only serve as a constant reminder of the artificiality of the world and thus weakening my immersion. I mean they work in Diablo, where immersion isn't going to happen anyway, but in a story driven real RPG immersion is one of the things that makes or breaks the game.