The Minigame thread.

[Lephys]

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.

 

When you don't make it dynamic enough, it does. As much as I love Jacksmith, the smelting/pouring mechanic is exactly the same every single time. Unless you spasm and toss the mouse across the room, you're not going to spill the molten ore, or have any detriment to your forging process. So, the only factor there is whether or not you spasm. You don't really have to try to not spasm. You just don't do it. It's not any sort of fun challenge. Also, the blade hammering pretty much always gives you plenty of hammerings to go completely around the blade. This makes you be pretty careful, but it's exactly the same every time.

 

So, while I admire the "crafting can be active and fun" notion behind the game, I definitely wouldn't port it straight into an RPG. However, if you were to, for example, have to hammer differently each time (maybe the cooling molten block has a different temperature grid every time, so your hammer blows cause varying effects depending on the temperature of the area you're striking, which could be color-coded much like an infra-red thermal image for simplicity's sake), now you have a dynamic system.

 

I've said it 12 times and I'll say it again. If, after figuring out that mechanic, it becomes too tedious to repeat it a bunch of times, then the exact same logic can be applied to combat. "Oh look, bandits. Man, I've already figured out how to fight these guys and be victorious, so now fighting bandits is purely a chore and is no fun at all." And yet, I don't see anyone suggesting that combat getting duller with repetition is a good reason to not have a combat system.

 

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.

 

I acknowledge your point. I wasn't intending to suggest that the only puzzles were cardboard ones. I was only simplifying my example for the sake of not having to elaborate on the effects of the existence and differences of every single different type of puzzle. Sorry about that. But, the reason I made that example was because you went straight from "puzzles are minigames" in trying to make a point in the minigame debate, to "imagine playing the same puzzle over and over again... see? That would suck, therefore minigames must always suck." Your own correction on the variance within the group "puzzles" is counterproductive to the idea that the puzzle mechanic, in general, is monotonous. It's probably one of the most multi-faceted mechanics in existence, so it doesn't really follow that such mechanics can do nothing but produce tedium.

 

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.

 

My point was only that, if you weren't suggesting they were the only repetitive aspect, then why is no one arguing against all other things that are repeated hundreds of times in an RPG? (Combat once again... dialogue... looting...literally getting from point A to point B). That a minigame mechanic would be repetitive is not enough of a reason to completely eliminate it without eliminating all other repetitive aspects of the game. Some people aren't very good at RPG combat (managing the party and keeping people alive and efficiently taking down foes), but no one's suggesting that it's inherently wrong for combat to be mandatory to progress any part of the game's main story. Yet there should definitely never be a mechanic that could be found repetitive or tedious.

 

And if there's a difference for combat, then I'd be happy to be informed of it. And, even not knowing the difference (if it exists), I'd like to know why it's impossible for a minigame-style mechanic to possess such a mechanic. Technically, the combat system could be considered a minigame mechanic. It's just very well integrated into the rest of the game. Or rather, whatever you want to call it, why can't you have something like the combat mechanic worked in for lockpicking or crafting or pickpocketing or whathaveyou?

 

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.

 

How is it that it's intolerable for sub-systems like lockpicking or crafting to get tedious, but the very reason it would be okay to implement any sort of mini-game mechanic would be that it's a refreshing change of pace for the whole rest of the game, which apparently gets tedious (and it's totally fine)? I smell a double-standard.

 

Yet once more, I will point out that all Mario Party minigames are minigame mechanics, but not all minigame mechanics are Mario Party minigames. To which you will certainly respond "I'm not saying Mario Party is the only option to go with." But what you most likely won't do, if I had to guess, is explain to me why there is absolutely no possible minigame mechanic that could possibly be conceived that could serve well in an RPG environment. "Because all the examples of standalone minigames I can point out would be so terrible and tedious" is not a good reason.

 

This game is in development, and it is not limited only to what has been produced before. It's not as if my argument is "The whole GAME should be made out of minigames! It shouldn't even be an RPG anymore! 8D". So, I don't see how "It could be done if it was done well" can possibly be wrong. I'm arguing in favor of a possibility, and yet everyone seems certain that that the IM-possibility is true, all without even trying to come up with a viable minigame mechanic before declaring it can't be done.

[Kaz]

If the mini-game was something you could initiate on the side and served a more passive role, such as a card game at the local tavern, I think a lot of people would be more open to the inclusion of such things. It'd only take issue if the mini-game reoccurred even after the learning curved plateaued and kept barring me from additional game content.

[Sandro G Meier]

It's really doesn't matter whether there is a mini-game or not. As my own, the only matter is does the mini game(s) fit into the game properly. Actually for RPGs, which may include the puzzles(like the lightning launcher puzzle in IWD, and Tulla Puzzle of Arcanum), and those puzzles IMO can be regard as mini-games, just without a performance, as basically RPGs are meant to be leveling up, combat, talking, whatever; and all are under a calculation.

And a lockpick one may be works well as in the TES there was such a mini, but according to there should be a skill of lockpicking, the problem is if there is such a mini how should perform the adventage of high level lockpick skills, also Compare the whole game is that worth to put it in as it might affect the whole game.

Crafting is a good idea for putting as a mini, if you can decide the performance of the item will be splendid....but that need lots of work, dude....

Another minigame I recommend is the card/gambling, I still remember in Arcanum when you doing the gambling, especially for the ship quest, it's really not exciting when you gamble with just dialogue. Actually even there is a luck or gamble skill, that still can affect the cards or some kind of probability of the gambling.

[Jojobobo]

I don't mind mini-games, but at the same time I wouldn't miss them if they weren't included and they do require the devs to throw resources at them to implement them properly. If they did have an obligatory mini-game (lockpicking) it should be randomised in a way that meant it was always challenging (for example the hacking in Bioshock was a good example of this, you never knew what pieces of piping you were going to get and so had to think on your feet). However they do always seem to lose the enjoyment factor over time. Non-obligatory mini-games (Pazaak, Caravan) are also good, but again they're one of those things if they aren't there people wouldn't notice or care.

[JFSOCC]

I can press a button 137 times in 10 seconds (Thank you, Mario Party, for telling me that),

That's seriously impressive. I just wanted to say that. that's 13.7 times per second. Insane.

 

 

 

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...

 

...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.

The more I read this thread, the more I think the hatred is not against minigames, but rather the repetitive nature of some minigames. the monotony that makes it a chore rather than something exciting. The trick is (I think) to make the minigames such that they are never exactly identical, but unique experiences in every instance. That's doable by changing the extranalities while keeping the mechanics the same. I've seen games that do minigames well, despite it's many flaws, many of the minigames or staple quests in the assassins' creed games are quite entertaining. In the first game, pickpocketing challenges where in different environments, different crowds, targets that behaved differently, such that while it was still "get close enough but not too close and press button x" each pickpocket was different. It didn't do it perfectly, but as an example it should work for what I mean. Many people here seem under the impression that a minigame has to be completely separate from the rest of the game. But that's when you get the "why bother?" disconnect. It's not about making these games optional, it's about making them fun, about preventing them from being overly repetetive, and about good pacing (a 1 minute game EVERY SINGLE ****ING TIME you pick a lock is bad pacing)

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.

 

When you don't make it dynamic enough, it does. As much as I love Jacksmith, the smelting/pouring mechanic is exactly the same every single time. Unless you spasm and toss the mouse across the room, you're not going to spill the molten ore, or have any detriment to your forging process. So, the only factor there is whether or not you spasm. You don't really have to try to not spasm. You just don't do it. It's not any sort of fun challenge. Also, the blade hammering pretty much always gives you plenty of hammerings to go completely around the blade. This makes you be pretty careful, but it's exactly the same every time.

 

So, while I admire the "crafting can be active and fun" notion behind the game, I definitely wouldn't port it straight into an RPG. However, if you were to, for example, have to hammer differently each time (maybe the cooling molten block has a different temperature grid every time, so your hammer blows cause varying effects depending on the temperature of the area you're striking, which could be color-coded much like an infra-red thermal image for simplicity's sake), now you have a dynamic system.

 

I've said it 12 times and I'll say it again. If, after figuring out that mechanic, it becomes too tedious to repeat it a bunch of times, then the exact same logic can be applied to combat. "Oh look, bandits. Man, I've already figured out how to fight these guys and be victorious, so now fighting bandits is purely a chore and is no fun at all." And yet, I don't see anyone suggesting that combat getting duller with repetition is a good reason to not have a combat system.

 

 

Oh man, this is why I hate random encounters so much. they become a chore when I'm really busy wanting to get to point B from point A. Now I have to get through this combat thing... again.

Combat isn't the thing I get most of my enjoyment out anyway. (Which is why I dislike dungeon crawlers masquerading as RPG's, like Torchlight and Diablo and Dungeon siege. All of which to my mind aren't RPG's)

But this too, as I mentioned earlier in this post, is about pacing and presenting the player with a fun and distinct challenge. Not just more of the same.

[Hormalakh]

I hate monotonous combat too. It's one of the things so many people gripe about when talking about grinding in RPGs. The fact that we won't get XP in this game for killing enemies will finally be a reason where I will try not to kill everything in sight just to level up. I hated that mechanic then. I hate it now. I've also tried coming up with different ways of making the combat more interesting in other thread (AI thread, variation in combat, hotkeys, defeating enemies using different skills, etc). The only times combat is nice is if you beat something truly difficult (like a dragon in BG2) and get some bit of pride of being able to "figure out the mechanic" that works best behind that combat. Otherwise, it's grinding.

 

Dialogue is always fresh and new (for the most part) and once again that's why I don't mind dialogue. Imagine having to convince each NPC to talk to you through a series of convincing dialogue options before they would talk to you EVERY SINGLE TIME. I would find that annoying. It's monotonous and becomes a chore after the third time. But because each NPC gives you a little bi of the story and you get different choices in dialogue, it never loses its appeal. I've also had plenty of posts on thread regarding dialogue and how to keep it fresh on these forums.

 

So all of this isn't to say that mini-games are worthless. I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that mini-games can be worthwhile if 1) implemented correctly 2) are varied enough so that they do not become monotonous 3) fit the gaming genre. RPGs are known for combat, dialogue, loot, and C&C. These, in a way, can be seen as mini-games occurring within an overall theme. All these (combat, dialogue, loot, etc) become monotonous if not varied enough and many gamers gripe about them all the time. Adding other mini-games is not really a problem if done well and varied enough THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME to not become boring or hackneyed.

 

But they should follow a few rules that the RPG genre itself follows (unless aRPG). 1) It shouldn't be based on a players dexterity (how fast you can click something) 2) It should have multiple solutions or consequences 3) It should take into consideration the skills and attributes of the character being role-played. 4) It should be varied enough to not become a grind.

 

So following these above rules and considering what I've said already, with the main elements of an RPG being considered mini-games, I don't think anyone really has an issue with more variance on what you can do in an RPG. The issue then becomes a problem of developer time and resources. Every dollar or minute spent coming up with another mini-game is one that isn't utilized to implement core features that the developers have promised for an IE game. If they finish everything that they've promised (the main aspects of any RPG) and have time left over, sure I think they should onsider making robust, varied, and fun mini-games in certain aspects of the game. One place is the crafting mechanic. Making that aspect more fun to play would be a welcome sight. But they should keep in mind the above rules of an RPG: 1) it shouldn't be based on how fast you click 2) C&C 3) take into account character skill and attributes 4) not become boring after third time playing.

 

Creating a mini-game that fits the above rules is not as easy as you may think. If you have good ideas, then by all means suggest them to the devs and the forum.

[JOG]

Minigames that replace skill checks? (Lockpick, Persuasion) No, thanks.

 

Minigames that are games people play in the game world (e.g. playing cards in a tavern) sure, why not.

 

 

Just don't force us to play the game to continue in a quest. It's fine when that guy only trusts his gambling buddies, but when *I* don't feel like playing the minigame until he knows *my character* well enough, there should be an option to fade to black and claim that *my character* played for a couple of hours, rather than forcing *me* to do it.

Edited November 27, 2012 by JOG

[JFSOCC]

Minigames that replace skill checks? (Lockpick, Persuasion) No, thanks.

 

Minigames that are games people play in the game world (e.g. playing cards in a tavern) sure, why not.

 

 

Just don't force us to play the game to continue in a quest. It's fine when that guy only trusts his gambling buddies, but when *I* don't feel like playing the minigame until he knows *my character* well enough, there should be an option to fade to black and claim that *my character* played for a couple of hours, rather than forcing *me* to do it.

I disagree. there should be options outside playing the game sure, but I think it's fine to have content that is only accessible if you choose to play the minigame.

You got to be ok with not everyone seeing everything. I'm probably not going to clear out all 15 levels of the mega dungeon, that's fine. If you don't enjoy the minigames, don't play em. But that shouldn't mean that the minigames carry nothing of consequence. Just that there are options besides them. IE say you want to gather information, you can do that by beating a guy at this game, or you can do something else for other information elsewhere.

Edited November 27, 2012 by JFSOCC

[wanderon]

Why can't the game just be the game without mini-games cluttering up the landscape - just taking a group through the game and meeting the challenges set forth by the story and how it's implemented should be interesting and engaging enough without resorting to mini games of chance or other inane mini games to while away the hours at some tavern or circus tent.

 

The game and story should evoke enough urgency to make progress through the land and plot the only thing needed to capture your attention. This is a story driven RPG not some medival fantasy version of the sims.

 

If you need a break from the urgency then save the game and go do something else - don't make the plot hooks and quest options so inane that the player feels like spending an hour or two playing dice and quaffing ale for crying out loud and don't take resources away from making the story, quest lines, gameplay, mechanics, classes, dungeons, cities, dialoges, options, classes, companions, weapons, and every other thing that actually serves the story and progression to add some other little game within the game just becuase someone thinks playing dice in the tavern for hours would roxxors.

 

This is not a 25M action RPG for consoles and smart phones - it's a 4M old style isometric CRPG - hopefully with the emphasis on RP!

 

How many minigames did BG1 need to be played by so many for so long that a new official enhanced edition is being released tomorrow some 14 years after the original and so many people were preloading it last weekend that the servers couldn't handle it?

 

How about zero?

 

Thats how many we need in PE too! (IMNSHO)

[JFSOCC]

Why can't the game just be the game without mini-games cluttering up the landscape - just taking a group through the game and meeting the challenges set forth by the story and how it's implemented should be interesting and engaging enough without resorting to mini games of chance or other inane mini games to while away the hours at some tavern or circus tent.

 

The game and story should evoke enough urgency to make progress through the land and plot the only thing needed to capture your attention. This is a story driven RPG not some medival fantasy version of the sims.

 

If you need a break from the urgency then save the game and go do something else - don't make the plot hooks and quest options so inane that the player feels like spending an hour or two playing dice and quaffing ale for crying out loud and don't take resources away from making the story, quest lines, gameplay, mechanics, classes, dungeons, cities, dialoges, options, classes, companions, weapons, and every other thing that actually serves the story and progression to add some other little game within the game just becuase someone thinks playing dice in the tavern for hours would roxxors.

 

This is not a 25M action RPG for consoles and smart phones - it's a 4M old style isometric CRPG - hopefully with the emphasis on RP!

 

How many minigames did BG1 need to be played by so many for so long that a new official enhanced edition is being released tomorrow some 14 years after the original and so many people were preloading it last weekend that the servers couldn't handle it?

 

How about zero?

 

Thats how many we need in PE too! (IMNSHO)

You have repeated yourself like 6 times now, we get it, you don't want it. So far I've only heard one argument from you.

[Karkarov]

I don't know playing a mini game to hack a computer in Deus Ex Human Revolution feels a lot more fun than walking up to a treasure chest and rolling a d20 to see if I could open the lock in Baldur's Gate.

 

If the mini game is well made, intelligent, and still ties into character skills I am all for it. Just rolling a die and saying "you passed your skill check" isn't very exciting. I will never say no to a "chance" to make a game more enjoyable. It is a game after all.

[wanderon]

You have repeated yourself like 6 times now, we get it, you don't want it. So far I've only heard one argument from you.

 

We?

 

Have you become a spokesman for a particular group? The Theurgist Consortium perhaps as thats the only title visible?

 

Glad to see you are keeping track and also that you understand that of the three possible options:

 

1) For them

2)Against them

3)Undecided

 

I am indeed against the use of minigames - obviously the one argument you were able to discern from my numerous posts was enough to get my point across to you.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Jarmo]

A minigame that fit the setting and was actually a good thing that made the whole game better: Red Dead Redemption, Poker.

A minigame that was sort of ok and which I kind of liked: Kotor and 2, Pazzak.

A minigame that needs to die horribly: Kotor racing, Jade Empire, Shoot'em up.

A minigame that was so annoying I gave up the whole game just because of it: Alpha Protocol, Hacking.

 

Basically, I'm ok with well done minigames I can skip without major difficulties, or partake for minor (or major) gains.

I'm against minigames that take place of a skill roll or are plot necessary.

 

Overall, I'd say skip them and spend the effort elsewhere.

It's an unnecessary sidestep and flavor at best, major source of annoyance at worst.

[Hormalakh]

I don't know playing a mini game to hack a computer in Deus Ex Human Revolution feels a lot more fun than walking up to a treasure chest and rolling a d20 to see if I could open the lock in Baldur's Gate.

 

If the mini game is well made, intelligent, and still ties into character skills I am all for it. Just rolling a die and saying "you passed your skill check" isn't very exciting. I will never say no to a "chance" to make a game more enjoyable. It is a game after all.

 

Would you be ok with a lockpick game where if you pass the skill check or are borderline passing, you'd have to play a mini-game just to get the chest open? If you fail the skill check, then you aren't allowed to play the mini-game at all. That way your characters skill check (and role-playing) is intact.

 

That would be one way to incorporate such a skill-check into an RPG.

 

The other main issue I see with mini-games is that it breaks up the flow of a game. If you're dungeon crawling and you have to play a mini-game that takes from 1-5 minutes to do everytime you reach a chest, that's taking you away from the flow of fighting enemies and adventuring deeper into the dungeon. You keep having to change your focus on what you were doing and shift focus to a new way of thinking. This doesn't play well in a game. It feels like you're being forced to play a game you didn't want to play in the first place. And you're penalized (lack of loot) for not playing the game (lockpicking).

 

When I go into a dungeon, I expect monsters dying and me looting their corpses and adventuring down. Lockpicking chests and doors and setting off traps. Throwing me into a different game that I'm not expecting can be frustrating. This is why lockpicking mini-games that are forced everywhere are annoying. If I'm in the city and the thieve's guild requires me to beat all their locks and this is a separate mini-game, then I'm fine. I realize that I'm going into a separate gaming style and either I want to do it or I don't. Same with poker games and gambling or even crafting. As long as I have the expectation of a different game and this doesn't take away from the "flow" it wouldn't be a problem. Lockpicking and hacking mini-games everywhere take away from the flow of dungeon-crawling or combating.

 

Hope this makes sense.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Lephys]

^^ Yes. We. You see, Karkarov used his human powers of perception to observe and record the fact that at least one other person registered your unexplained loathing of minigames' implementation into an RPG. There's really no need to act like he's an idiot for stating such.

 

And yes, correct me if I'm wrong, but your explanation seems to be a circle. "I don't like minigames because they have no place in an RPG, and they have no place in an RPG because I don't like minigames."

 

 

Also, to Hormalakh, I'd like to apologize for getting a little worked up, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your stance on this whole thing. Part of the reason for my misunderstanding, however, is that, despite the fact that you haven't yet stated "I absolutely hate minigame mechanics and they are stupid and inherently evil," the brunt of your replies basically inferred that you were against them in any way, shape, or fashion. This topic is essentially a "should we even attempt to figure out how to implement such mechanics? or is it hopeless and pointless?" thread, so arguing against them rather than outright saying "I think maybe they could work if they were done like such-and-such," I kind of assumed that you were suggesting they pretty much couldn't work at all.

 

(EDIT: Agh, you made another reply while I was typing this, heh. This post didn't take into account your reply above this ^. Sorry about that.)

 

Your last reply on the matter was extremely informative and constructive. And I wasn't trying to suggest you didn't offer constructive critique anywhere regarding other systems' repetition. But, that you did was my point exactly. That mechanics like lockpicking and crafting have a long-standing precedent for being afterthoughts, and so, are seen from the first mention in a very negative light. There are plenty of people jumping on the "No, we shouldn't even TRY to discuss how minigame mechanics could be implemented. Just NO!" argument, but you don't see people arguing that for combat or dialogue. Everyone's happy to discuss what factors to fiddle with to make those two systems more enjoyable and less repetitive, but it's difficult to get anyone to truly discuss in-depth mechanics for things such as crafting and lockpicking.

 

And yes, I realize how difficult it is to make these mechanics as engaging and dynamic as things like combat and dialogue, but we're discussing gameplay and mechanics in the realm of what could be and what should be, since P:E is in development as we speak. So yes, I'm always for development priorities. Really, if Obsidian doesn't have time to work out any high-quality minigame mechanics for the more minor, one-dimensional (as they stand) systems in the game, then they definitely shouldn't. BUT, since we don't KNOW what they will and won't have time for, I feel that the only pointless thing to do would be to shoot down the very idea of improving upon past systems and how we might go about this.

 

That last bit wasn't aimed directly at anything you said... I sort of expanded to the thread in general there, heh. But, I'll definitely hash out what ideas I can on how to make minigame mechanics work. I just know that they can, and it'll take some major brainstorming to figure it all out. It's just difficult to put hours of work into figuring out specific details to post when so many people aren't even open to the idea of any mechanics potentially working. It's like trying to discuss classes, and someone saying "THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY CLASSES! ". I can't discuss things with myself, so I appreciate any input and/or constructive crticism anyone can provide.

 

(To everyone) Telling me WHY I'm mistaken or wrong gets us somewhere. Telling me only that I'm wrong gets us nowhere.

I don't want to be righter than anyone. I just want to be constructive, whether I'm hitting the bulls-eye or whiffing the target.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Lephys

[Hormalakh]

^ Yeah, I know that feel bro. See my thread on save-scumming.

 

I did want to tell you though that I expect to be disappointed in this game and I think a lot of people will. Everyone wants something different and there will be aspects that players will want that won't be implemented. It's just the nature of an idea. Everyone has in their mind a different idea of what P:E will be. And they hype up the game in their minds with interesting ideas that don't fit the developers vision. At the point when the game comes out, many people will whine and complain as to why their game idea wasn't implemented. Then they'll be disappointed. For no reason other than the fact that they had imagined the game differently than the developers. So ... just a way of saying (I guess to myself) keep your expectations low, and you'll be happy with the P:E results.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Somna]

I think I know a good place to put in a mini-game, actually.

 

Cutscene magic.

 

If we are stuck with Cutscene magic -- either getting smacked by it or mowing down others with it -- I know I'd like to have the option to either amplify the damage or mitigate the damage instead of sitting there annoyed watching it go off.

[Lephys]

Would you be ok with a lockpick game where if you pass the skill check or are borderline passing, you'd have to play a mini-game just to get the chest open? If you fail the skill check, then you aren't allowed to play the mini-game at all. That way your characters skill check (and role-playing) is intact.

 

That would be one way to incorporate such a skill-check into an RPG.

 

The other main issue I see with mini-games is that it breaks up the flow of a game. If you're dungeon crawling and you have to play a mini-game that takes from 1-5 minutes to do everytime you reach a chest, that's taking you away from the flow of fighting enemies and adventuring deeper into the dungeon. You keep having to change your focus on what you were doing and shift focus to a new way of thinking. This doesn't play well in a game. It feels like you're being forced to play a game you didn't want to play in the first place. And you're penalized (lack of loot) for not playing the game (lockpicking).

 

I am ALL for incorporating the skill check. I do not want minigames to replace anything. If anything, I want them only to fill a gap. Hence my comparisons to other systems. And I fully understand the pacing issue. But, on the other end of that spectrum (the extreme end, purely to illustrate the range inside which we must find balance), you run the risk of having everything so dedicated to keeping things fast/excitingly paced that you miss out on any variance whatsoever. I.e. dialogue with anyone in an "we're escaping from this stronghold" situation would become ludicrously short, etc. Again, obviously an extreme, but I think that means we can agree that you have to allow some degree of pace-changing or the pace, itself, becomes monotonous and unvaried.

 

So now it comes down to where that degree is on the spectrum of "no variance" and "variance for the sake of variance". I think it can be worked out. For example, take the "we've got to escape from this stronghold" example above. It should be pretty tense in that "If we don't keep moving, we're screwed" way, right, or it won't be differentiated from any other scenario in the game where you're sitting around petting rabbits or eating at a tavern. Well, having a simple skill-check for lockpicking, for example (as you may very well run into locked things when escaping from a structure that someone who isn't your friend built intentionally to PREVENT you exiting, hence the word "escape") might actually detract from that tension.

 

Imagine: Your party is making their way down corridor after corridor, trying their best not to attract attention. Obviously, guards are going to be pretty well posted if your enemies aren't idiots, so they can't avoid EVERYone. So you keep having to fight the the small patrol that spots you. You're maybe going about combat as efficiently as possible, though, so as not to attract EXTRA people by allowing alarms to be raised. You've gotta keep moving, gotta get out of here! The longer you stay, the more likely alarm will be raised throughout the guard ranks. You get to a locked door. "Crap, we have to get this door unlocked!" This helps the tension because A) it makes sense, and B) it's an obstacle you've got to tackle before you can keep moving. Well, "Oh, we've got a Rogue! *click* Done! Let's go!" makes it a pretty arbitrary obstacle. The only way real way to increase the tension there is to throw a bunch of guards (aka combat) in the way to delay you, OR to have the lockpicking itself delay you. Either way, if it literally takes no time whatsoever to do it, it actually detracts from the tension of the scenario.

 

In that scenario, having the rest of the party stand guard while the Rogue has to pick the lock might actually make it more exciting. And if it's GOT to take time, I'd rather have fun with the process of picking the lock (not necessarily have it be some uber challenge) rather than just waiting. The time delay is an integral part of the tense moment, in this specific scenario, but a time delay by itself is not fun at all. Having what comes down to essentially waves of guards attacking you while you wait is at least better than waiting, but it's still not that different, by itself. So, in that scenario, I could very much see some sort of interactive process to get that lock picked. Maybe you could even lock individual tumblers in place (yes, sort of like Oblivion, although I'm not endorsing the entire Oblivion system), then pull your Rogue off the lockpicking to fight another guard patrol that may have found their way to you, then resume the lockpicking.

 

Another thing to consider in all this is that, just because your Rogue is good enough to pick a lock, that doesn't mean that all locks are now easy. But, yes, you've got to implement additional factors for levels of complexity in minigame mechanics like that. You can't just say "Now you have to do this 5 times instead of 4." There has to be something else that wasn't even in play before. Kind of like how character progression provides you with additional abilities and strategic tools, rather than just increased stats and damage numbers that make you last longer and do things better. Or, in combat, how you've got this enemy that can knock you 20 yards into a tree, or this enemy that's really fast, or this enemy that casts spells and teleports, or this enemy who'll paralyze and poison you. Combat becomes complexly more difficult, rather than mathematically more difficult (i.e. this enemy has MORE health and does MORE damage.)

Edited November 27, 2012 by Lephys

[Lephys]

I think I know a good place to put in a mini-game, actually.

 

Cutscene magic.

 

If we are stuck with Cutscene magic -- either getting smacked by it or mowing down others with it -- I know I'd like to have the option to either amplify the damage or mitigate the damage instead of sitting there annoyed watching it go off.

 

I'm not really sure how to work in the cutscene-style system, BUT, assuming they figure out a way that works, I think that would definitely be a great place to implement some minigame-ish mechanics.

 

It should always first be decided whether or not something should have a delay. Then, if it DOES have a delay, why not make it more than a mere delay? That's exactly the "I want to use minigame mechanics to fill gaps" notion I was speaking of.

 

I think my new motto is "Why wait when you can do?". Or, maybe I should ask Snickers if I can use "Not going anywhere for a while? Grab a minigame." Hahaha...

[Karkarov]

When I go into a dungeon, I expect monsters dying and me looting their corpses and adventuring down. Lockpicking chests and doors and setting off traps. Throwing me into a different game that I'm not expecting can be frustrating. This is why lockpicking mini-games that are forced everywhere are annoying.

Let me tell you a short story...

 

One day, I was playing this game called Oblivion. I was still fairly early in, not that tough a character but I had some experience under my belt. I had decided to explore this old ruin, Ayelid to be specific, for loot and such. While on the second level I found myself a little outmatched and weakened. I couldn't rest because too many enemies were in the area, whats worse the original route I had taken into the level got blocked off. So I decide to try to scout out a way to get back up to the first floor, heal up, and then come back a little better prepared.

 

The thing is while searching for the exit I got worn down. I was weak, not as well geared as I really needed to be, and it was clear if I got involved with more enemies I would probably be taking a dirt nap. So when I get spotted by two skeleton warriors trying to find my way back out you can understand I was a little concerned with my situation. I could not stand and fight so I had to run, while doing so I of course got the attention of yet another skeleton. Fortunately I spot a stair case leading up, all that is between me and these stairs is a door that happens to be locked. I turn to look behind me and sure enough I see the shadows of the skeletons not far down the hall moving in for the kill. I check the room with a brief scan and don't see the key jumping out at me, and I simply don't have the time to search for it. I have no choice, I have to try to pick the lock.

 

This is where it gets interesting. My first pick attempt I mess up and break my pick, understandably I get a little po'd and throw out some colorful language. I give it a second shot knowing the skeletons are now in the room since I can in fact hear them moving behind me. This time I manage to pick the lock, jump through, and close the door back literally as the first skeleton is getting into melee. I run up the stairs and make my way out of the level living to fight another day.

 

Sure the game had a "save" anywhere system that takes some of the heat out of the moment. That isn't really the point though, this was an actual emergent gameplay situation I went through that was more fun and rewarding BECAUSE the mini game was there. To be specific there are two things that go into any skill check. The first is your characters relative ability at that task, this might be determined by level, skill value, stats such as dexterity, or any number of other esoteric bonuses or errata. The second thing is the skill check itself.

 

On one hand in the pure mechanics style game like Baldur's Gate or more recently Drakensang: The River of Time you "roll" a theoretical D20 and the RNG (AKA: Random Number Generator) decides whether you succeed or fail. It works, and while it isn't purely luck based you can get screwed and fail a check you shouldn't or very rarely succeed when you should not. The other method though is doing the skill check via mini-game. There is still a certain degree of luck, but it is now in the players hands. Beating a near impossible lockpick no longer boils down to trying over and over until I get lucky and roll a 20. The chances of failing a check I shouldn't just about goes out the window so long as I don't play sloppy.

 

The key thing, and the reason the mini-game when done right is better, is right in the story. I quote "This time I manage to pick the lock..." That's right "I" the player picked the lock. I saved myself not by getting lucky on the RNG but by keeping my cool, moving fast, and skillfully navigating a mini-game. Yes I would have felt the same sense of accomplishment if it had just been a skill roll and I succeeded, but it would have been smaller than what I got doing it myself. Also the sense of irritation I would have gotten from failing would still fall on me for screwing up and biting off more than I could chew, but part of me would still have said "$#@%#$^ RNG if the roll had been better..." In the mini-game set up if I had failed the blame would have only gone one way.

 

Also just because there is a mini-game doesn't mean skill is meaningless or you "have" to play the game. Skill should determine if you can even attempt the check in the first place, it should make mistakes more forgiving, and it should allow for greater room for error. For example you don't have to have your pick "dead on" correct just "close". For the sake of sanity there should also always be a "take 10" equivalent in there somewhere for those who are simply so skilled they don't even need to try to beat the check.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Karkarov

[Hormalakh]

^Cool story.

 

But, this is a roleplaying game. You're playing the roles of characters who are not you. If your character doesn't have the skill to pick a lock, you shouldn't be able to pick it regardless of how cool a bro you are.

[Lephys]

^ How's about this...

 

What if you've got a skill check to see if your character is even CAPABLE of successfully performing a skill-requiring task (such as lockpicking). Then, if his/her skill is high enough, yet another check determines how difficult the task at hand is relative to your character's current skill. For example, if you're at 30 lockpicking (example numbers), maybe you are capable of picking up through difficulty 40 locks. However, if the lock is 30 or below, you instantly pick it. If it's 31-40, you are presented with the "minigame" interface, and the difficulty of the "minigame" is directly tied to the difference between the lock rating and your character's skill (lockpicks become less steady, sounds or visual indicators for "sweet spots" fade, etc.) Then, above 40, you cannot even ATTEMPT to pick the lock.

 

Now, your character's skill serves a purpose and helps things make sense, as some locks require minimal effort (i.e. no effort on the player's part to pick), so you don't have to go through the motions, so to speak. The minigame mechanic would DIRECTLY represent a challenge to your character's skill level. Would that be a good method of minigame-interface implementation?

 

The same type of system could be tailored to a crafting minigame mechanic, if the crafting system were to support one.

[AGX-17]

The character's skill is just that, the character's skill. The player's skill shouldn't enter into it. Look at Oblivion lockpicking for the worst possible implementation. A skilled player can open any lock of any level right off the bat (level 1, no bonuses to lockpicking,) unless it's one of those quest-related "key required" doors, without regard for the character's skill. And then they can complete a low level quest whose reward allows them to unlock every lock automatically without fail, making the lockpicking skill just another thing to grind to get levelled or increase an attribute.

Edited November 28, 2012 by AGX-17

[Karkarov]

^Cool story.

 

But, this is a roleplaying game. You're playing the roles of characters who are not you. If your character doesn't have the skill to pick a lock, you shouldn't be able to pick it regardless of how cool a bro you are.

Man that has got to be the most pathetic reply I have ever seen. At what part did I say my character had no lock picking skill in that post? I even end with a paragraph that talks about how you should require certain skill levels to even be able to "attempt" an action to begin with. Of course I could not have picked the lock if I had no lock picking skill, but at that point the presence or lack there of the mini game would be a non issue wouldn't it?

 

If that is really all you have to say then you need to stop posting in this thread because you have nothing constructive to add.

 

 

The character's skill is just that, the character's skill. The player's skill shouldn't enter into it. Look at Oblivion lockpicking for the worst possible implementation. A skilled player can open any lock of any level right off the bat (level 1, no bonuses to lockpicking,) unless it's one of those quest-related "key required" doors, without regard for the character's skill. And then they can complete a low level quest whose reward allows them to unlock every lock automatically without fail, making the lockpicking skill just another thing to grind to get levelled or increase an attribute.

Except, again, I wrote in plain black and white you should require certain skill levels before allowing skill checks. You assume because the situation I discuss happened in Oblivion that I am saying "copy how Oblivion did it", which I clearly did not say. Read my final paragraph again.

 

Also I hate to tell you but everything is based on the players skill. The best character set up ever made will get crushed if the person in control uses the wrong abilities, or deploys party members poorly. The best trap detection in the world means nothing in Baldur's Gate if the player never bothers to set their characters to look for said traps. Character design itself is based on the players ability to make the right choices that result in an effective character.

 

It is a video game, player skill WILL enter into it by design.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Karkarov

[Dream]

Riddles and thought puzzles, but that's about it (no connecting blue tubes every time you want to hack something).