The Minigame thread.

[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.

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.

 

 

Hey .... what I said back there... yeah, I'm sorry. I was taking my frustration from a different thread out on you. So I apologize about that. Going back to what you had written, and re-reading the last paragraph again, I can see now that you did indeed mention character skill being an important aspect of it.

 

The main concern I have is that some players might still be upset if they cannot pick the lock fast enough and blaming the minigame for ruining the game for them. in your same story, if someone was to die they might either blame themselves, or more likely, they'll blame everyone but themselves: the mini-game for being "stupid", the developers for making a stupid "mini-game", their character for not being able to simply by-pass the lock.

 

ultimately, the primary goal of the mini-games should be to be fun. For different players, that means different things. if they do implement such a system, making it optional would be the most ideal. of course, then they have to design with that in mind, and that costs even more dev-time, and so on and so forth.

 

hopefully this was a more substantial response to your posts and you find something worthwhile in it. no hard feelings, eh?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Karkarov]

hopefully this was a more substantial response to your posts and you find something worthwhile in it. no hard feelings, eh?

No problem, stuff happens. My only point is a mini game "can" enhance the game if it is done right. But it does have to be done right. If you have a 0-100 skill system a guy with a skill of 10 should not be able to even attempt a "hard" lock pick for example. To be honest though mini game or not those types of rules should apply to all skills. If you rank a 15 "bluff" on a 100 scale and you are trying to bluff your way past the 20 year veteran captain of the town guard who works the seediest part of the city.... you should probably not be able to do it. The D20 system is good for pen and paper because you obviously aren't going to throw down a chemistry set and tell your player to act out their alchemy check, but that "might" work in a video game.

 

The biggest most important thing that has to be in there no matter what, hopefully for any skill check too, is the ability to "auto-attempt" the check. The take 10 rules from 3rd Edition were the one thing that I felt no one could argue was not better than 2nd Edition D&D. Nothing in 2nd Ed was dumber than going up to a skill check which literally came down to "anything but a 1" and having to roll. Yes the room for failure added some tense moments sort of, but it was dumb. A master of deception who has 30+ ranks in bluffing should not have a 1 in 20 chance at failing to bluff the local tavern bouncer who has been on the job for 3 months.

 

Edit: Oh couple things I forgot. The mini game needs to be in real time. Just because I am in a lock pick mini game doesn't mean the enemies around me should just politely stop attacking.

 

As far as the auto attempting goes it should also be fairly straight forward. 0-100 scale again for simplicities sake... but if your skill is 50% higher than the "challenge" rating of the skill check your auto attempt should always succeed. Example: Lock pick has a rating of 50, you have 76 lock pick skill (one point above 50+50% [25]=75) then your auto attempt has a 100% chance to succeed.

 

That way you still can't get a guaranteed success on really hard checks but the lower ones you can just bypass the mini game altogether after a certain point. For situations were time may be of the essence just make sure the mini game always take a set length of time to finish when you auto attempt, that way there is still "some" encouragement to beat it yourself though you don't "have to". Thus we simulate the "take 10" rules in a fair and reasonable way.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Karkarov

[AgentOrange]

I don't mind stuff like card games, things like poker and black jack - Caravan in New Vegas was a very well designed little game - so long as they are completely optional; I actually had a lot of fun playing Black Jack in NV and getting kicked out of casinos for winning too much. However none of the skill based checks should involve mini-games, absolutely none. It completely removes the point of having a skill check in the first place if you then have to waste time on some repetitive puzzle anyway, especially when you then have a chance to fail that puzzle (player skill disconnect, why the hell would should my expert level hacker fail a moderate difficulty word search minigame because I can't spelling); it is destructive against any sense of reality as well, when some ultra high level military security computer has the same security system as the nuka cola factory janitors electronic journal, better to leave the intricacies whatever security system you're hacking up to the player's imagination or convey it through words. Jesus **** it's somewhat unrelated but the water pipe hacking game in Bioshock, I mean ****.

[JFSOCC]

This weeks extra credits has something interesting to say about minigames. (not the main topic, but they touch on it)

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/combining-genres

[Hormalakh]

This weeks extra credits has something interesting to say about minigames. (not the main topic, but they touch on it)

http://penny-arcade....ombining-genres

 

OMG I JUST CAME HERE TO POST IT! Great minds think alike.

[Lephys]

OMG I JUST CAME HERE TO POST IT! Great minds think alike.

 

It's a good thing I didn't ALSO come here to post it. That would've shattered the truth of your saying.

 

"Great minds think alike... and apparently also overly-analytical, unnecessarily wordy minds? o_O"

 

Hehe. Sadly, I'll have to wait 'til I get home to watch it.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Lephys

[Umberlin]

Minigames can enhance, if they're well done, and take away if they're not. I'm pretty sure we've all experienced minigames one way, the other, or both, at some point. As for minigames beyond the usual, 'lock picking mini game' or 'hacking minigame' I think the most common use is the game within a game. KotOR and KotOR II's pazaak, for instance. People's enjoyment of such things, and thus mileage, may vary, and thus resources may be used well, or completely wasted, on the whim of the audience, sometimes regardless of how good, or bad, such a thing is.

[Lephys]

^ I actually kind of forgot about tavern games and such, heh. I think those actually work the best when they're... I won't say "skill-based," because that suggests "twitch" mechanics to people's minds, but... effort-based? What I mean is, when the only gamblesome (that's a word now) game you implement is basically a variant of poker, in which about half the game is chance and the other half is statistics, the demographic for that game is restricted to people who happen to enjoy passing the time with chance and statistics. Since these are not traits that inherently make an RPG an RPG, I'd bet that that's a pretty small percentage of the RPG-playing populous (say that ten times fast...).

 

Usually there's an incentive, such as the gambling mechanic. The potential to win money for your character. However, it'd probably be even better to:

 

A) Design a game that uses a greatly reduced chance factor and involves a more enjoying challenge, and

B) incorporate the minigame into some other aspects of the main game, beyond currency winnings.

 

For example, why not have people in each town who are the reigning champ at the game, and you can challenge them to win some accessory or other item that's more useful than a sheer amount of currency? Beating one would reveal/allow you to challenge the next one in the next village, and they'd get progressively more challenging to best as you went through the game. Now, this minigame, though optional, IS actually applicable to your character's progression through the game, just like any other optional system (content that's restricted by lockpicking skill, or by speech skill/choices, etc.)

 

I guess the only thing I'm wholeheartedly against is the intentional design of a sub-system like that to be completely inconsequential to any other system in the game (Like a poker game in which you can't even win money.). It's a bit self-defeating, as, since the only people who have any reason to partake in the minigame are those who just so happen to specifically enjoy something about that game (sort of like enjoying something that's blue simply because it's your favorite color and not because of the design or function of the object itself). It might as well be ANY minigame at this point. A little soccer game, so that people who are playing the RPG and also happen to like soccer can opt to play it. Because even if it isn't soccer, it's become arbitrary by design, and then is quite literally wasted resources.

 

Kind of what you were saying, Umberlin, I realize. But, I guess what I'm saying is that, even though there's always going to be SOME number of players who don't particularly like a specific design decision, there has to be some other standard for deciding whether or not it works with the game. Because, if everything that everyone didn't enjoy became optional and arbitrary, the entire game would be incohesive and pointless. On the other hand, you cannot maximize variance for the sake of variance, i.e. "One guy really likes this idea, so it's totally in, u_u"

[Umberlin]

If they have a dual purpose things work out too, you could increase your Thief's throwing skill to get better at the Dagger Throwing game in the Theive's Guild, in Quest for Glory 1. And, obviously, that helped you anytime you were throwing something. Just the same, taking part in the game was a way to increase your money, and other little bells and whistles, which also played a part in the larger game. Not to mention the whole thing just felt very 'theify' It worked there. In other games such attempts don't work. it was gambling, throwing daggers for money, but the variance was on the skill of your thief - your investment into the character and the game paying off, and your character feeling like a thief, and part of the theive's guild.

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, really, as I thought it was a good example of such a game done well, simply because it fits your character and his place in the world. Just the same Mage's Maze, better implemented in the VGA remake though it may be, was still a part of being a Wizard, and betting Erasmus' old butt at it netted you a spell. Part of the game, a gameplay experience, sure, but more importantly, part of your Mage character and part of the Wizard's place in the world (though you don't become an official Wizard until Quest for Glory 2, and taking part in W.I.T.'s challenges). Mini games done right in an RPG, that was also an adventure game . . . and maybe done right in an RPG 'because' it was partially an adventure game, with puzzles and such.

[JFSOCC]

If they have a dual purpose things work out too, you could increase your Thief's throwing skill to get better at the Dagger Throwing game in the Theive's Guild, in Quest for Glory 1. And, obviously, that helped you anytime you were throwing something. Just the same, taking part in the game was a way to increase your money, and other little bells and whistles, which also played a part in the larger game. Not to mention the whole thing just felt very 'theify' It worked there. In other games such attempts don't work. it was gambling, throwing daggers for money, but the variance was on the skill of your thief - your investment into the character and the game paying off, and your character feeling like a thief, and part of the theive's guild.

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, really, as I thought it was a good example of such a game done well, simply because it fits your character and his place in the world. Just the same Mage's Maze, better implemented in the VGA remake though it may be, was still a part of being a Wizard, and betting Erasmus' old butt at it netted you a spell. Part of the game, a gameplay experience, sure, but more importantly, part of your Mage character and part of the Wizard's place in the world (though you don't become an official Wizard until Quest for Glory 2, and taking part in W.I.T.'s challenges). Mini games done right in an RPG, that was also an adventure game . . . and maybe done right in an RPG 'because' it was partially an adventure game, with puzzles and such.

I've only played quest for glory 5, but I enjoyed the dagger throwing minigame there, was also a good way to make some money. I also loved the trap-disarming minigame there, was a case of minigames well done.

[Umberlin]

Hhmmm . . . oddly, Five is actually considered the lesser of all the entries, typically anyways. I don't think it's terrible, not King's Quest VIII terrible anyways, but I'd definitely recommend 1-4 . . . though, I guess, knowing how the series ends, it might seem pointless. Anyways, yeah, QfG often made mini games work, because were still part of the game, working with the skills and abilities you had.

 

Mage's Maze, for example, required you to have acquired specific spells to even play, and your ability in them, and your mana pool (thus your other magical stats) factored in. Or the rope walking mini game in II, again, a Thiefy thing. A Fighter getting good at the Spear Throwing, Balance Bridge and other mini games, mini games none the less, but games that factored in on advancing your abilities, and eventually in the story for Fighter and Paladin characters. Just the same, the Wizard could sit and play Awari with the Yesufu, to increase your inteligence in Quest for Glory III, at the same time, you could talk to Yesufu about things, while playing the game, he wouldn't talk about otherwise, thus gaining information about the game world, characters and things of interest/relevance while increasing your stats.

[JFSOCC]

tbh I think most of the hate against QFGV was that it was 2.5D. it was it's own game, and they made it different from the first four. (I played a tiny bit of the first before the outdated graphics of the first game made me quit.)

[limith]

The board games in Assassin's Creed 3 are acceptable minigames. The naval battles are an acceptable "side game" that still gets boring after a while if they didn't add the full sync conditions that are very hard to do. Lockpicking or other mandatory annoyances are not. However, minigames in AC3 are a waste of development resources for something like PE unless a dev has free time they are killing and it doesn't affect game development. Just my 2 cents.

Edited November 29, 2012 by limith

[Lephys]

The board games in Assassin's Creed 3 are acceptable minigames. The naval battles are an acceptable "side game" that still gets boring after a while if they didn't add the full sync conditions that are very hard to do. Lockpicking or other mandatory annoyances are not. However, minigames in AC3 are a waste of development resources for something like PE unless a dev has free time they are killing and it doesn't affect game development. Just my 2 cents.

 

Everything gets boring "after a while." That's why we like variance so much in life. We eat different foods, go different places, watch different movies, wear different clothes, discover new things. Something's ability to become boring is not a legitimate reason to never implement it, or we would never implement anything, and games wouldn't exist. You cited AC3 minigames as being "acceptable," indicating that, despite the fact that they possess the ability to bore at some point, some factor besides that caused you to give them a check mark. It is precisely that idea that's at the core of my stance on this discussion.

 

And I'm sorry, but I still don't see any reason that "lockpicking or other mandatory annoyances" are inherently annoyances. The very mechanic of lockpicking, itself, is an annoyance if you choose to acknowledge ONLY the fact that locks are preventing you from getting loot and are requiring time and repetitive actions (even a second or two of clicking and waiting as opposed to ANY manner of minigame-esque interface). If that's the case, and such things offer nothing positive to a given player, then so be it. But if they DO offer something positive, then what is it that they offer? If the cons are "worth it," then there must be pros in place as well. I'm simply trying to explore what those pros are, and what makes them worth the cons.

 

I realize how analytical I'm being, but I promise it is not my intention to be derisive or simply cause grief by arguing.