The Minigame thread.

[JFSOCC]

Alright, Search shows there has been some discussion on this before. But the last post was made on 20 September and I don't want to be known as a thread necrophiliac

forums.obsidian.net/topic/59969-minigames/ For those who want to read the 2 pages of discussion.

 

Quick summation of that topic is that most people that posted there are against minigames, of any kind.

I'm not. But I do feel that minigames have often been poorly done, which makes it understandable that people don't like them.

 

But since that thread I've seen mention of minigames and discussion of individual possibilities pop up in many threads.

Whether for Lockpicking (NO!) or Crafting, games that are unrelated to the game world (why?) like Pazaak.

And the occasional example of a fun minigame that incorporates the game mechanics of the main game. (Mage's Maze from Quest for Glory was mentioned)

 

So rather than ask "minigames, yes or no"

I'd like to ask, what makes minigames interesting as option? Why wouldn't they work, or why would they. Do you have any ideas for minigames you'd like the share? or examples of minigames done well?

 

What would be the reason for minigames in a game? (can't the game entertain us without resorting to game in game?)

-----

Personally, I see minigames as a way to pace the game (tonally). If you want to not quest, do difficult dialogue, or commit goblin genocide, you can maybe do this other thing, and it gives you a benefit (whether items, xp, gold or abilities, or information) for when you get back to brass taxes.

I think the biggest problem with Minigames is when they are repetitive, more of the same. A lockpicking minigame would be cool, if you wouldn't be picking more than three locks in the entire game, as that is unlikely, it would become a chore rather than something enjoyable. when whenever you want to pick a lock, you have to go through that thing again. If it's too easy you wonder why, if it's too hard you get frustrated because your rogue should be able to pick a goddamn lock.

 

I also have mixed feelings about completely superfluous minigames, like gambling card/boardgames that some games have, because they have nothing to do with the world, aren't integrated into the experience, and therefore don't really make sense.

 

But... I can see minigames work out when they're within the spirit of what you are doing. If you have your stronghold, maybe you can do warfare from an overhead view, commanding units to capture and control lands, or defend your keep. (if it is a keep)

It would be optional, but integrated into the world. it would make sense in that context.

Information gathering minigames could be cool too, if diverse enough, but the question there is whether you'd not just make it part of the main game's questing.

 

Lastly, I'm always a fan of "free-play after game end" and minigames could maybe open up after game end to keep the game world from going completely stale. just a thought.

 

Your thoughts?

[sociosqu]

Good question, 'where do minigames work?'. I mean you already listed a number of good arguments why they usually do not work in a RPG. Usually I don't like them since I perceive them as time-burner only.

I could think of minigames to get you out of a dead end, like gambling for money when you urgently need to buy additional healing portions for next hard fight. In principle that thing you had in BG1, just you might really play. Gambling might be especially interesting when there's a 'Luck' skill that really counts there. Then it even might add nicely to the role-playing and it might be useful to have a lucky bastard in the party.

In case a game has a cheat/help system, like in Machinarium, a nasty minigame might prevent the player from using the help system too often.

(For me it worked out very well in Machinarium ))

 

One additional general thought: Minigames in general might counter the RPG concept since it takes the minigame-skill of the 'omnipresente authority figure' too much into account where the skills of the characters should count.

Edited November 26, 2012 by sociosqu

[DreamDancer]

I like minigames but only if they fit the world and belong to that RP setting. I vaguely remember Fable Fable 3? having a mini game where you shot waves of Undead wth a ballista from the wall of a besieged fort. First time you had to do it as part of the main story line, but afterwards it was an optional event that you could repeat.

 

Then there were the KotoR RPGs and in one of them you had to play Pazaak with someone to get information or favors out of him. That worked quite well because it felt like a natural part of the world and I really would like to see something like that added to PE to enhance the world and the immersion.

 

It is certainly tricky to pull off right, but imo it isnt impossible to add minigames in a lore fitting, tasteful way that doesnt make them stand out like sore thumbs.

[wanderon]

I see no point to wasting precious development resources for mini games that are not "required content" nor do I like implementing them as "required content" especially if they are used to bring another game form like twitch gaming into the CRPG.

 

If the player needs a break from questing and roleplay I suggest loading up a different game or shutting off the computer and going for a walk...

[AwesomeOcelot]

One of the worst things to do is reward people for playing a minigame, you get a Deux Ex: Human Revolution scenario, it's not truly optional if there's a reward for completing it. I can't see commanding units from a top down view being at all good while still being a minigame, but I'd be fine with a game having two different types of gameplay, like the Total War series, or Brutal Legend, although obviously not this game, because it was pitched on Kickstarter. The thing about minigames is that I can undoubtedly play a full game with similar if not identical gameplay, so why would I want that gameplay in a RPG? That's on the off chance that the gameplay in the minigame is something I'd want to actually play, a lot of the time it isn't.

[gglorious]

The only minigame I've really respected is the persuasion minigame in Deus Ex:HR. The others are just kind of boring, and just something that gets in my way. So, I don't think a minigame will add anything. Even that minigame was only good because it was clever and revealed more about the characters in the story, but it's not as good for a game that tends towards text.

[DreamDancer]

Well my favorite mini-game implementation would be that classic scene, where the hero of the story sits face to face with the villain over a game of chess. While they make their moves they comment on events or make snide remarks about the opponent. In such a scenario it wouldn't even matter if you win or lose the mini-game, because it already serves as a story telling device.

 

Or imagine a world like FO:NV where it would make perfect sense for you to have a seat at a poker table, engaging in a friendly poker game with NPCs you want information from or make contact with, etc.

 

As I said, if done right and tastefully I could see mini-games as a good addition to the game world.

[wanderon]

Well my favorite mini-game implementation would be that classic scene, where the hero of the story sits face to face with the villain over a game of chess. While they make their moves they comment on events or make snide remarks about the opponent. In such a scenario it wouldn't even matter if you win or lose the mini-game, because it already serves as a story telling device.

 

Or imagine a world like FO:NV where it would make perfect sense for you to have a seat at a poker table, engaging in a friendly poker game with NPCs you want information from or make contact with, etc.

 

As I said, if done right and tastefully I could see mini-games as a good addition to the game world.

 

The problem for this sort of thing (and minigames in general) in a CRPG is the game is supposed to be about the characters skill set not the players - so who's poker playing or chess playing skills is this going to rely on and how are they going to be determined?

[JFSOCC]

Well my favorite mini-game implementation would be that classic scene, where the hero of the story sits face to face with the villain over a game of chess. While they make their moves they comment on events or make snide remarks about the opponent. In such a scenario it wouldn't even matter if you win or lose the mini-game, because it already serves as a story telling device.

 

Or imagine a world like FO:NV where it would make perfect sense for you to have a seat at a poker table, engaging in a friendly poker game with NPCs you want information from or make contact with, etc.

 

As I said, if done right and tastefully I could see mini-games as a good addition to the game world.

 

The problem for this sort of thing (and minigames in general) in a CRPG is the game is supposed to be about the characters skill set not the players - so who's poker playing or chess playing skills is this going to rely on and how are they going to be determined?

that's a false argument. it's not like you can't expect anything from the player. it's not a simulation where the only thing determining outcome is character stats.

 

One of the worst things to do is reward people for playing a minigame, you get a Deux Ex: Human Revolution scenario, it's not truly optional if there's a reward for completing it.

That depends on how generic the reward is, or how completist you are. Not everyone cares to get every reward.

[Atreides]

I liked New Vegas's caravan card game. A nice way to reliably make money, with an element of risk.

[wanderon]

 

The problem for this sort of thing (and minigames in general) in a CRPG is the game is supposed to be about the characters skill set not the players - so who's poker playing or chess playing skills is this going to rely on and how are they going to be determined?

 

that's a false argument. it's not like you can't expect anything from the player. it's not a simulation where the only thing determining outcome is character stats.

 

A false argument? Are we scoring a high school debate class here?

 

Yes the player can be expected to have some input altho in a ROLEPLAYING game that input is typically in the form of determining strategies and deciding how HIS CHARACTER would proceed. Success and failure should for the most part depend on strengths and weaknesses in his CHARACTERS skills and attributtes vs those of the enemies and the games mechanics and not on the players dexterity and button mashing prowess or on knowledge the player has gathered from experiences outside the game.

 

Introducing minigames like chess and poker at the very least unfairly skew game results towards those with specialized outside knowledge of their workings while offering nothing that relates to the players CHARACTERS in the game and thus IMO serve no useful purpose in the game save from those who happen to play and enjoy those games outside the confines of the roleplaying game.

 

Would you have the devs add these game forms to the "game requirements" -

 

CAUTION: Player must have a thorough knowledge of chess, poker, backgammon, hearts, spades, & old maid, and be ready to learn other card and strategy & board games specific to this game on the fly in order to participate fully in these adventures.

 

If you want to play chess or poker or other minigames - exit PE and do so to your hearts content - don't clutter up my CRPG with them...

[JFSOCC]

The problem for this sort of thing (and minigames in general) in a CRPG is the game is supposed to be about the characters skill set not the players - so who's poker playing or chess playing skills is this going to rely on and how are they going to be determined?

 

that's a false argument. it's not like you can't expect anything from the player. it's not a simulation where the only thing determining outcome is character stats.

 

A false argument? Are we scoring a high school debate class here?

 

Yes the player can be expected to have some input altho in a ROLEPLAYING game that input is typically in the form of determining strategies and deciding how HIS CHARACTER would proceed. Success and failure should for the most part depend on strengths and weaknesses in his CHARACTERS skills and attributtes vs those of the enemies and the games mechanics and not on the players dexterity and button mashing prowess or on knowledge the player has gathered from experiences outside the game.

 

Introducing minigames like chess and poker at the very least unfairly skew game results towards those with specialized outside knowledge of their workings while offering nothing that relates to the players CHARACTERS in the game and thus IMO serve no useful purpose in the game save from those who happen to play and enjoy those games outside the confines of the roleplaying game.

 

Would you have the devs add these game forms to the "game requirements" -

 

CAUTION: Player must have a thorough knowledge of chess, poker, backgammon, hearts, spades, & old maid, and be ready to learn other card and strategy & board games specific to this game on the fly in order to participate fully in these adventures.

 

If you want to play chess or poker or other minigames - exit PE and do so to your hearts content - don't clutter up my CRPG with them...

Well, that's assuming there's A. use of a real-world game. B. No teaching the game ingame.

I suppose you could limit participation to those characters who can reasonably be expected to play.

[DreamDancer]

Now when I brought up the examples of chess or poker, it was just that, examples. Of course you shouldn't make a game where outside knowledge is required in order to participate or even complete a game. That being said, it can still work if the game allows for some meta-gaming. Like TSW where you are supposed to use the internet to find out about clues.

 

Also, having a few optional side quests where specific knowledge is required, wouldn't hurt in the greater picture, as long as it doesn't happen in the important, main story quests or events. Just because not everyone profits from the inclusion of a certain quest or feature, doesn't mean it should never be considered adding it to the game.

 

Personally I don't like crafting and consider it a waste of time. I will never make use of that feature, but I sure am happy for those who enjoy it. So why not have a few quests where mini-games come into play, just as added fluff for those who like them. Of course they would still need to be done in a way that is consistent with the world they are set in.

 

Speaking of which...if you don't want to rely on outside knowledge or player knowledge, introduce new mechanics within the world through lore like books, conversations, etc. Pazaak, the Caravan Game from FO, they all did it.

 

In a world like PE what I could imagine as a mini-game is something like pet battles in a pit/arena. Trained beasts and monsters fighting it out, controlled by mind mages or some sort of magi-technical device maybe? Could easily do a mini-game out of that and it would still fit with the setting.

[wanderon]

@JFSOCC

Well, that's assuming there's A. use of a real-world game. B. No teaching the game ingame.

I suppose you could limit participation to those characters who can reasonably be expected to play.

 

Well my original post which you labeled as a false argument was in direct reply to one suggesting the use of chess & poker specifically.

 

As for developing a PE specific mini-game and then teaching it - my take on that was my first post in the thread:

 

I see no point to wasting precious development resources for mini games that are not "required content" nor do I like implementing them as "required content" especially if they are used to bring another game form like twitch gaming into the CRPG.

 

If the player needs a break from questing and roleplay I suggest loading up a different game or shutting off the computer and going for a walk...

 

Bottom line? I don't like mini-games and think the devs have better options for thier time & resources...

[Labadal]

Minigames?

 

 

[Aldereth]

On principle, minigame is a bad idea unless one is building a game like Ninetendo Sports or the Olympic game where it is suppose to be a small collection of game. Putting minigame in cRPG only work somewhat to the pacing as some one pointed out and if and only if they are done within context and does not detract too much from immersion like the lock picking or hacking in Deus Ex or ME 2. But do they really add to the immersion, most of the cases not at all and like I pointed out, it is more or less about not breaking it.

 

Further, if one really think about it, a lot of times, we only enjoy the minigames because combat (which is a very big part of any cRPG) has grown monotonous and a change of pacing would benefit the play experience. Sometimes, I feel that the dev. add those in to gloss over the combination of imbalance, power creep that has turn combat monotonous (The much hated Quick Time Event is a minigame that action game dev. use to hide the monotonous core game mechanic.). And I feel that some dev. use minigame to cover the weak plot that the player has got it "figured" out in mid game and is just going through the motion to see the ending (Think the first Assassin Creed).

 

Point is, if a game's core mechanic is strong enough, there is not any need for minigame and player would find their mere existence distracting. Think Civilization or X-Comm, player just want one more turn. If the plot is strong enough like Torment, player would just want to follow the story to the very end like reading a good novel.

 

Having said all of the above, that's just the ideal scenario. In reality, any game would have some kind of weakness that minigame can help cover up. It is just that, as someone who is invested in P:E (both financially and emotionally), I hope the dev. does not need this clutch.

[sociosqu]

At last I remember a minigame I liked.

The swordfights in Monkey Island! (of course)

Just epic.

Will there be a two-headed money in the game?

[forgottenlor]

I liked Arcomage in Might and Magic 7&8, It was just another quest. Beat an Arcomage player in every tavern for extra xp, it was one of the funner minigames too. It makes me think how difficult it is to make a decent minigame. I did not like any of the minigames in KOTOR or Jade Empire. I haven't played New Vegas so I can't comment there. I also did not like the Lock or Persuasion minigames in Oblivion.

[Lephys]

I'm confused as to what, exactly, the boundary is, in this thread, between minigames and non-minigames.

 

In the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, you had that little Rupee Toggle Shoot game towards the beginning that involved essentially a toggle shoot with your slingshot. That was a minigame, was it not? And yet, the only difference in gameplay between this and Link simply strolling about with his slingshot out was that a challenge was presented (moving rupees to hit) and a scoring system was set up for the purposes of that challenge (because a challenge, by definition, has rules and constraints).

 

So, why is it that a minigame is so evil, and why are examples of things no one wants to see in the game the only things that get to be labeled as minigames? "I don't want to see my characters suddenly playing soccer, or playing Mario Party, and therefore minigames are bad."

 

Also, why can't a game mechanic, minigame or no, incorporate both character skill AND player skill? The better your character is, the less difficult the challenge to the player. But it could still be a complex and enjoyable challenge. And who says it has to be twitch-based, or based on some other super specific skill?

 

There are an awful lot of conclusions being drawn based on some awfully specific paramaters here.

 

If you've got examples of minigames you think didn't work, then what would you do to those minigames to make them work better within their respective games? I would very much like to read about that, as opposed to "I ate food that tasted bad once, so now I don't eat food anymore."

 

Why something didn't work, or why you don't like something is FAR more important than the simple fact that you didn't.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Lephys

[Hormalakh]

Minigames are OK as long as they don't affect the main storyline IN ANY WAY. Lockpicking? No. You need that to proceed (without bashing in every chest, etc). Trap finding? No. If you need crafting to proceed, then no. If there are a few items that can be crafted with a mini-game, then fine. But otherwise no.

 

Mini-games work as challenges for the players who are interested in them. Puzzles are mini-games too. But you shouldn't need them to beat the game. The other issue is re-using the same mini-game over and over again. Imagine playing the same puzzle over and over again. It's already lost its charm after the first time. Mini-games are the same thing. After having to lockpick the same lock the same way over and over again, it goes from becoming an interesting mini-game to grinding. Even "improving" the locks is the same thing. Sooner or later you're going to spend more time developing a fully-fleshed out mini-game (like Bejeweled or something) inside the game to make up for the fact that the mini-game is becoming boring. That's dev time taken away from the RPG.

 

For those of you interested in playing mini-games, you can play bejeweled or something everytime you need to open a chest. When you beat the level, you can go ahead and pick the lock. Otherwise, you just move on. Let's see how fun you find that after the 30th locked door or chest.

 

A few short mini-games for special, one-time things is not a problem. Continuous mini-games are a bad way to introduce grinding into the game.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Gorth]

One of the worst things to do is reward people for playing a minigame

 

This.

 

Somebody mentioned Pazaak. One of the few minigames I didn't hate passionately after trying it, because the game was fun in itself. It could have been a completely self contained game, like solitaire or mah-jong and provide entertainment for it's own sake, not as something to "beat" to get extra bonuses elsewhere.

 

Lockpicking, hacking, etc. needs to go die horribly. They have all without fail being "work" rather than "fun" and rarely completely optional.

[xSigma]

Pazaak, Dice (The Witcher or regular), Any board game (Chess,poker,etc.) Chess simulators are not that big, you could easily squeeze in a couple of Mb into the game.

However, make them completely optional , don't make it part of a quest to advance...etc. Don't want to play Dice, don't go into the "Game House" (naturally that's the building that houses all of the games.

[wanderon]

KotOR (can't recall which one) - the mini gun or whatever when traveling from planet to planet - if I want to play a shooter I'll buy one - also the swoop racers - if I want a simulator I'll buy one -

 

what to do to improve them - leave them out - don't try to add in mini games becuase you think everyone enjoys playing them - use your resources to make a great CRPG instead.

 

No it's not OK to make mechanics in CRPGs that base success or failure on PLAYER hand/eye coordination - the object of the game is to roleplay a character and companions and by using your brain find ways to get them through the challenges presented to THEM by utilizing the skills the game provides for THEM - not directly to the player - it's not twitch, it's not poker, its not solitaire, it's not chess, it's not a shooter, it's not a race game, its a CRPG and it's enough to just be that period.

 

Why does every game have to be everything to every player?

[Lephys]

Minigames are OK as long as they don't affect the main storyline IN ANY WAY. Lockpicking? No. You need that to proceed (without bashing in every chest, etc). Trap finding? No. If you need crafting to proceed, then no. If there are a few items that can be crafted with a mini-game, then fine. But otherwise no.

 

Mini-games work as challenges for the players who are interested in them. Puzzles are mini-games too. But you shouldn't need them to beat the game. The other issue is re-using the same mini-game over and over again. Imagine playing the same puzzle over and over again. It's already lost its charm after the first time. Mini-games are the same thing. After having to lockpick the same lock the same way over and over again, it goes from becoming an interesting mini-game to grinding. Even "improving" the locks is the same thing. Sooner or later you're going to spend more time developing a fully-fleshed out mini-game (like Bejeweled or something) inside the game to make up for the fact that the mini-game is becoming boring. That's dev time taken away from the RPG.

 

For those of you interested in playing mini-games, you can play bejeweled or something everytime you need to open a chest. When you beat the level, you can go ahead and pick the lock. Otherwise, you just move on. Let's see how fun you find that after the 30th locked door or chest.

 

A few short mini-games for special, one-time things is not a problem. Continuous mini-games are a bad way to introduce grinding into the game.

 

So, since an arbitrarily chosen minigame mechanic such as Bejeweled -- an entire standalone puzzle game designed specifically to entertainingly pass the time without contributing to any other game or game system -- would be stupid to implement as an RPG sub-system, you can somehow logically deduce that there's absolutely no way in which an RPG could have a subsystem that WASN'T arbitrarily chosen and, instead, made perfect sense and enhanced the depth of the game?

 

Also, a puzzle is an established system. Some number of pieces of varying shapes and sizes fit together to form an image. Why on earth, with a system like that, would you be limited to "The same puzzle over and over again"?

 

And lastly, why is it still being suggested that "minigame" mechanics are the ONLY repetitive thing in an RPG?

 

I still have no evidence as to why "minigames" are inherently flawed. All that's been presented are specific examples of mechanics that other RPGs have used that happened to be flawed (with no suggestions on how to de-flaw them), and the fact that arbitrarily chosen puzzle game mechanics would be stupid in an RPG.

 

 

No it's not OK to make mechanics in CRPGs that base success or failure on PLAYER hand/eye coordination - the object of the game is to roleplay a character and companions and by using your brain find ways to get them through the challenges presented to THEM by utilizing the skills the game provides for THEM - not directly to the player - it's not twitch, it's not poker, its not solitaire, it's not chess, it's not a shooter, it's not a race game, its a CRPG and it's enough to just be that period.

 

Alright, so let's just have our characters automatically pick dialogue choices based on their Speech skill and Charisma rating. In fact, let's not even show the dialogue to the player. You don't need to know what was said, right? Because the success of your characters and the outcomes of their actions shouldn't have anything to do with your ability in any capacity. You're not there to play DialogueDash, right? You're there to simply pick stats and skills, then watch your characters make their journey through a giant, non-interactive cinematic sequence. Or hey, in combat, how about your characters simply pick their own targets and decide when to use which abilities. I mean, shouldn't your Level 20 Ranger know combat strategy better than you do? That's using player skill, not character skill, u_u...

 

Do you see the flaw there? Where do you draw the line? You must want SOME degree of your own "skill" to play a part in things. Part of roleplaying is getting to enjoy the experience of WIELDING your character's skills and abilities. You sort of immerse yourself in a fantasy world, and your characters are your submarine. That's precisely why you get to read dialogue, and choose from various options based on what YOU think your character would say.

 

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a first-person-shooter module be randomly loaded up in the middle of your cRPG. I can press a button 137 times in 10 seconds (Thank you, Mario Party, for telling me that), but I'm not suggesting we put in a mechanic that allows ONLY the people who can do that to have any success at something. But that doesn't mean that there's absolutely NO "minigame" or subsystem possible that could enhance your experience of the fantasy world via your characters without being ridiculous and/or pointless.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Lephys

[Hormalakh]

So, since an arbitrarily chosen minigame mechanic such as Bejeweled -- an entire standalone puzzle game designed specifically to entertainingly pass the time without contributing to any other game or game system -- would be stupid to implement as an RPG sub-system, you can somehow logically deduce that there's absolutely no way in which an RPG could have a subsystem that WASN'T arbitrarily chosen and, instead, made perfect sense and enhanced the depth of the game?

 

Also, a puzzle is an established system. Some number of pieces of varying shapes and sizes fit together to form an image. Why on earth, with a system like that, would you be limited to "The same puzzle over and over again"?

 

And lastly, why is it still being suggested that "minigame" mechanics are the ONLY repetitive thing in an RPG?

 

I still have no evidence as to why "minigames" are inherently flawed. All that's been presented are specific examples of mechanics that other RPGs have used that happened to be flawed (with no suggestions on how to de-flaw them), and the fact that arbitrarily chosen puzzle game mechanics would be stupid in an RPG.

 

Bejeweled was an example. Take your pick on the mini-games. I showed you jacksmith, the flash game. You can bet I wouldn't want to be forced to play that game everytime I wanted to craft something. Once you get the hang of the mini-game, it loses its flavor and excitement. At that point, I don't want to do it anymore. I bought an RPG, not a set of mini-games.

 

The puzzles I was talking about were riddles and such. Puzzles don't always mean the weirdly shapen cardboard cutouts that you have to fit together. Sudoku is a puzzle. Crosswords are puzzles. We have a whole lot of different puzzles. All of these puzzles, if implemented creatively, would be fine "mini-game" to have in the game. But I don't want endless iterations of any of these puzzles.

 

It also isn't being suggested that mini-games are the only repetitive aspect of RPGs. All grinding aspets of RPGs are hated by gamers, specifically because they are evil ways poor developers try to artifically extend the "hours of gameplay." It feels like a gimmick because it is.

 

All of this is not to say that short mini-games that change the pacing (as someone else eloquently put it above) of the game isn't a welcomed and refreshing addition to the RPG. Btu don't make the game some sort of Super Mario Party.