Is this the worst idea ever?

An open world RPG with literally NOTHING written down for the player, and hardcore quests with permanence behind every choice.

So basically there's always, always, always people complaining that RPG's are being dumbed down and that they're all just becoming action games. What if someone made a game that called people out on this?

No compass. No markers. No fast travel. No custom map.

Maps in the game will be pieces of paper that you need to decipher yourself.

You need to look at stars and the sun to determine time and direction.

You're expected to keep you own journal. Like a real life journal next to you to write down details in.

Quests are not explicitly laid out for you.

Also, details of quests are randomized to make sure that you can't just look it up.

When you find someone you need to talk to you actually have to bring up the quest.

And you can screw up a quest.

And quests can cancel one another out forcing you to pick a direction.

Quests would also expect you to do some thinking on your own. Not have some special vision that walks you through investigating, like in Witcher or Horizon.



SO, yeah.

Worst idea ever?

 

I've got a couple cents on this topic:

1. I don't think you can say worst idea ever in videogames (or maybe creative industries in general). It can certainly be not the best idea ever, but there's certainly an audience for it, if it's executed well.

2. I find that every game has its own point of balance in how much it imitates reality. You've got some that strive to only look realistic, some that are completely abstract in every way, some that try to simulate reality in their mechanics.

3. It's not like there haven't been games implementing at least part of this, and pretty hugely successful at that. If I'm not mistaken, Daggerfall has some parts. I don't know if Mount&Blade counts...

4. I don't know about the real-life journal. You kind of can't include that in the specification, because then it becomes the player's choice, and nothing prevents the player from keeping a journal anyway. Of course, some people do keep notes, although maybe not for RPGs, at least not often.

 

It's not a horrible idea. However, I'm certain this philosophy would work better with an adventure game than an RPG.

I'm having a hard time coming up with the words to explain this, but I feel like RPG combat would not fit well in a game with such an intense focus on navigation and chronicling. So much effort has to come from the player just to figure out where to go that there's not a lot of attention left to give for things like character building and gear management.

That said, if you're not in this to make a bunch of money, I would say you should absolutely work on a prototype and see how it feels to you and to your testers. If sales are important, I would carefully consider taking a smaller step away from the typical experience than this.

 

Looks like some typical hardcore roguelike already, I would say go for it.

 

I would play this game. Or rather, I would play a game that used these systems, as long as there was some sort of wrapper around them. I think a game that is just a collection of "call outs", to borrow a phrase, would not be fun. But I do like the idea of having to become my own cartographer and record keeper.

 

I don't think anything having to do with video games can be called a "worst idea ever."

As to whether this is a bad or good idea, I think it sounds like a rather good one. It doesn't sound like it requires fancy graphics or even 3D play, so you could get away with something simplistic artistically.

As for the map thing, I think you could make a completely legitimate argument that you can buy a map in-game. Historically, maps could be purchased. It makes sense unless you're walking uncharted territory.

But yeah. No pause, everything is in real time, you have to write down yourself any quests by NPCs, they give you realistic locations ("100 paces past the large oak on the hill," rather than "let me mark that on your GPS."). Sounds interesting.

 

I mean worst game idea have been pretty successful lately, if you pick pre minecraft wisdom, concept like rust, dayz, etc ... didn't make sense, they are unfair, have dominant strategy, etc ... and now are a fairly popular genre. Doing a survival horror without any mean of fighting back was a big no, until amnesia did it completely, and now it is the norm.

Worst ideas are idea not executed, idea are cheap.

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that the ultimate evil in game design is puzzle solving, i.e. thinking the player should do X. It doesn't matter if it's only used twice (like in old games) or if it's signposted to hell and back (like in modern games), the real problem is the player is forced to smash their dick against a rock. There is no "thinking for yourself" because it's all about doing what someone else has set out for you to do.

This is all in contrast to problem solving, where the player is given a conflict without any mention of how they should solve it. Just consider this: would you feel smart because you took notes, or because you created a plan?

 

Some people do, not me, but some do, as a designer that's a painful lesson to learn lol. Everytime you say would you X, there is an entire underserved market literally waiting to make you rich. But gamer culture tend to blind people (it's not about getting rich either) and meanwhile the people who made episode are rich.

 

I'm guessing you don't like puzzle games

There is pleasure to be found in being able to decipher the intentions of another person to produce the effect they intended. Not every gamer is looking to exercise complete and unrestricted agency.

Do you advocate death of the author?

 

It is ironic that most puzzle games (like a match 3) don't actually use puzzles. Adventure games can go F*** themselves though.

ftfy

The issue I have is that it's fundamentally designing games backwards from the way they are played. It's starting with an end first. It's why the norm is to outright give the player the goal and guide them right to it, because otherwise the player can easily have no idea there even is a puzzle, much less how to solve it.

As far as death of the author goes, the only thing I'm advocating is the death of the author's neckbeard... I mean ego... both, really. Game design is a tango, and both player and designer are necessary. The idea of unlimited player agency is just as juvenile as the designer thinking it's purely his story. It's the designer's job to create the world and it's conflicts, but it's the player's role to answer and respond to such a world.

 

Fair enough. When I think puzzle games, I think adventure games or stuff like Myst.

Eh, depends. I've played a few that were fairly logical. Syberia 1, for example. And the original Myst was pretty straightforward (as was Myst V to a lesser extent).

What's wrong with designing them backwards from how they are played? Doesn't that allow the designer to craft a better experience? As to whether that hinders or helps a puzzle, well that's a function of the skill of the puzzle designer.

I definitely get annoyance with garbage puzzles (and similar design in other areas). But if you want anything to flow properly from one thing to the next, if you want to maintain some theme, you need to author the experience. Of course there are good and bad ways to do that, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As to the player's role in the world...perversely enough when it comes to my own ideas for games I intend to do that fully. But I don't think that's necessary for all games. Running through a setpiece event in Assassin's Creed may contain only the barest amounts of player agency, but it's still more than a movie (or cutscene) and has additional impact because of that.

 

I get what you're both saying.

I just think that they're almost two completely different experience.

In a murder mystery like the movie "Clue", or the book it parodied "And Then There were None", it was explicitly laid out that this was something to figure out. They present you with a series of events and facts that you needed to piece together to make a story that fits together.

Same could be said of a lot of Lucas Arts pixel clickers.

While on the other hand an ACTUAL murder mystery would be more about digging up the clues rather than piecing them together.

It's like an open world verses a linear game.

On one instance the goal is to overcome what the designer laid in front of you. On the other it's about looking for the best approach to tackle an issue in front of you.

And I have to say I like both equally.

I think if you were to do a game like what I've suggested it would work best designed like a spider-web of pointers.

You have the central outcome(s), the end point, right in the middle. Then you have multiple branches that lead to it. In turn those branches have multiple branches, and the branches link to the branches.

So you are just bumbling through the world and you find a diary. Inside the diary a girl talks about being love with a mysterious man that shows up, and there's hints that he is shady but she doesn't quiet get it. The only piece of information in the diary that you can work with is where the girl is from, so that you can go talk to her family. When you talk to her family they say where she last was seen. Go there and you find out there were some mercenaries traveling in the area. Go to them and uncover an underground slave trade. Go to their hideout and rescue the girl.

MEANWHILE, there's more than just THAT specific entry point.

You could have looked for other people that went missing.

You could have run into their families.

You could have found out that a rich person was buying slaves while breaking into their house.

You could have stumbled onto the den.

You could have been approached to buy a slave.

You could have been drugged and wake up in a cage in the den.

You could have heard about someone seeing a shady character in town.

Then instead of rescuing the victims, you could have done work for the bad guys. Which in turn would be an entry point into a crime ring. Or maybe you find evidence of a crime ring while you investigate the den. And if you killed everyone, then there's no one left to tell their boss about you.

See what I mean. You would get the best of both worlds.

 

I agree, but if there were multiple ways to complete specific tasks based on your actions I think it could work.. Issue with that being it's a mammoth task to undertake.

 

First off, don't assume that giving the player any degree of agency somehow nullifies authorship. Theming is in more than just the plot, and if anything, problem solving forces baking theme into the world and mechanics (as in intrinsically tying the theme to what the player has to actively think about). Deus Ex is problem based, and you will never hear a criticism of it being found wanting for theme.

Consider the opening conflict of Fallout. The vault's water chip no longer works, so the vault's supply of water is rapidly diminishing. There are several solutions, from a few different ways to acquire a new water chip to striking a deal with the water merchants, each carrying a nuanced impact for the vault and society. The player has to actively think about what their actions mean, on top of how to accomplish their chosen ends.

The problem with puzzle solving is that people don't randomly make goals. People experience problems to which they make plans to solve. There is only one way to keep a player moving toward a goal, and that's by constantly telling them what they need to do. There is no deep understanding because the designers are only focused on getting the player to do what they want. The only thinking the player has to do is about getting into the headspace of someone deranged (they have to be if they're making games). Fundamentally the difference between puzzle solving and problem solving is executing on an insane Batman gambit versus concocting an insane Batman gambit. Which one do you think makes for a better experience?

Press F to pay respect... yeah, just because it's interactive, that doesn't mean it's more impactful. This is a notion that people who put too much stock in immersion need to be broken from. It's just a shallow appeal to narcissism that acts as though it's first person. People get caught up in it only because of the point of view.

 

Can you shed some light on this idea? Randomized quests have been done quite a lot, but it always seems the specific hand-crafted ones are more compelling. What exactly would you randomize to make sure you can't just "look it up"?

 

Fair enough. Good example.

At what point does "3 puzzle-solving actions" become "problem solving?" Because this example seems to highlight that whenever you're presenting a player with some kind of goal like this (obtain X), even if you build in a bunch of ways to do it, the player still has to decipher how one of those ways works.

In Assassin's Creed Unity and Syndicate, there are a few assassination missions where the only rule is "assassinate this person." However, at the same time there are a few very obvious, almost scripted ways to do it presented to the player. I'd almost say these are the most "problem-solving" types of sequences I've seen in games, along with Hitman. But they still have that "directed" veneer over it.

Depends on if you're Batman or not. If you're Batman (or Sherlock Holmes, or Mrs. Marple, or whatever) and can come up with illogical and outlandish schemes to solve a problem, it's obviously better that way. But most people simply aren't that person. I know I've rolled my eyes at the plans of the latter two I mentioned more than a few times. I could never come up with some of the things they come up with. But at the same time I can enjoy watching their plans unfold.

If I'm tasked with drawing a corrupt politician out of a bar so I can kill him (I'm talking about in a game NSA, please don't hurt me), I'm gonna just wait until evening when he leaves on his own, or kill him from afar. Meanwhile a directed experience might use some thrilling scene to draw him out.

And of course you can say, "oh, make it so the player HAS to take action. Make it so he doesn't leave/time stands still. Make the windows bulletproof." But when you're doing that you're taking away possible agency from the player to fit into your own schemes once again.


Maybe I need to play Dishonored and Prey. But even in stuff like New Vegas and Alpha Protocol and Splinter Cell (Chaos Theory!) I found myself up against "no, I can't do that because reasons" situations. If I take out the whole group of legion soldiers who discover me/I discover, somehow word still manages to get back to Caesar. If I use "Chain shot" and hit Conrad Marburg six times with an overpowered pistol, he still manages to get away. Heck, the very beginning of Chaos Theory forces you into a situation where you have to incapacitate at least one person (rather than avoiding them entirely, like a real "ghost" would) standing in your way.

It's just, it doesn't seem like you can completely avoid the breadcrumb trail of games, and if it's there at ALL, you can't really condemn the entire thing.

I'm not saying all such situations are more impactful. But it definitely can be.

Spoilers for the end of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood: at the end of the game Desmond, controlled by Juno, kills Lucy. As it happens the game basically stops and waits for player input. When the player makes any input, he moves closer to killing her. Even though this is nothing more than a scripted scene, it does a far better job of showing the player the coercion Desmond is under, his (futile) struggle against it. It draws it out too long, but in terms of showing the player what the character is experiencing it's better than just seeing it.

 

Early stage MineCraft did the no map or market thing. My daughter and I ended up with several micro huts built around the place when we got disoriented and couldn't get back home.

Eventually one of our first big projects was building a road from our main base to the key points of interest on the map.

Life is feudal is another game that takes a hard line. It takes almost as long to cut down a tree as it does in real life. Despite how boring that is, it has a following.

 

Just about every competent combat system is based in problem solving. You'll have a hand full of variables that have to be balanced and used until the problem stops being one. Dark Souls is a primo example where there are probably a dozen different ways to take out Havel.

The question I have to ask that's at the heart of all of this is why? Sure, a directed segment could be more entertaining, but what kind of situation would cause the characters to go to extremes? Let's even look at the case where you just wait around for him to come out. He might knowingly walk out of the bar, but before him are ten cyborg bodyguards that can shoot the fleas off a dog's back at 300 yards. Now what? You'll have to get clever and understand the rest of the game's systems to find your own answer.

Problem solving can still exist even if there is only a single outcome. I'll point back to combat that can only ever be won with the complete eradication of the problem. So the distinction between puzzle and problem has nothing to do with the number of possible cases involved, instead it's how and what the two methods communicate to the player. Puzzles only tell the player what they want the player to do, whereas problem solving is rooted in having systems that communicate what their state is.

 

So it sounds like you're arguing for systems-based gameplay, a la Dishonored, Prey, Deus Ex, etc. That correct? I can certainly understand the "purity" of such a design, and certainly enjoyed it in Deus Ex. But claiming that deviating from that is the "greatest evil" is like saying that the greatest evil in books is not communicating all information that the main character has to the reader, or that all cars should be manual, or that RPGs must have turn-based combat. You might argue that it provides the "essential experience," but some people aren't looking for that so-called "essential experience" and there's nothing objectively wrong with that. It's just different.

This is a creative endeavor. There are rules, but there's no hard and fast rule for how it should work.

If there was, The Road or The Sound and the Fury would never have been published. Those books were terrible reads.

 

Seems like an easy solution to letting players get their bearing is with landmarks.

Minecraft is sort of the same thing again and again and again, all randomly generated.

But in a pre-made game you can see distant mountains, castles, towers, oceans, rivers, and so on.

The whole underlining concept to me would be that doing the actual leg work to figure out your location, where things are, and how to get there would be its own sort of fun.

 

Have you played MineCraft? The procedural generation is pretty decent. It ultimately boils down to the same concept. You can navigate by land marks, if you take the time to do it. Or you can simply wander and get lost.

 

True.

But in a game like Skyrim you'll also run into streams and paths that will always take you somewhere. Once there you could just ask around.

 

That's pretty close to how real life works.

The standard advice for someone lost in the wilderness is to head downhill until you reach water, then follow the water until you reach a settlement. It tends to work reasonably well. Humans like to build settlements near water.

Even in a survival setting without other humans, the water would be one of the easiest landmarks to orientate yourself to.

 

Id say it's a fantastic idea. Nigh on impossible though... there's 1000's of tiny steps games will take before they get close to that. Oblivion had that big white tower and Skyrim had the mountain, both in the centre of the map so you can navigate yourself a bit. I don't use the maps in GTA after a day. If the map designers have the time and effort to build enough detail in to each section, enough so the player can remember it then you're there.

Making your way by the stars I have considered before, you can't ask a player to memorise all those constellations though. As a middle ground have the character remember the constellations he's seen before, if you can match them up to what you currently see in the sky then that gives you your bearings, which gives you your compass. Technically you've navigated by the stars, nice sense of achievement, but the game did the heavy lifting for you.
I'm also a big fan of paths... and signs. don't know why rpg's seem to want rid of them. As long as I can navigate without having to open the menu then I'm pretty happy with being told the way as you would in real life. If you can remember a cut through then great, if not your going the long way round.

 

What's important isn't that you build a system, but that you design like you are. There is an inherent connectedness that a system will create, and it's that connectedness that's the core of problem solving. You can always ask a player why they are doing something and get a substantial answer, backed by a chain of events that lead to their actions right now and in the future.

Think about why you're doing something the next time you're collecting bear asses or solving a door puzzle that has no relation to anything that came before or after. The inherent evil of puzzle designing is that it's insular. It's easy to start designing puzzles in isolation, or even developing the plot separately from the mechanics. It's viewing and designing the game in discrete chunks instead of one congruous whole. The irony is that while you were freaking out that problem solving might not have themes, it's puzzle solving that's far more likely to drop the ball and lose any and all meaning.

 

I love this idea! It makes a sandbox game truly a sandbox...not just an open world. I would definitely try a game that made me think and solve problems rather than follow a set row of quests gain experience just to follow another set of quests to level up again, etc., etc.

I side not, we will not have radar maps in our game or fast travel and landmarks will lead players where they need to go..or rather where they want to go as no one must go anywhere other than where they wish to go.

 

I definitely see what you're saying. Thing is most games I play have some sense of that, even if it's outlandish. The Deponia games have some completely ridiculous activities the player winds up doing, but most of the time they're definitely leading to some intended outcome. Sure, I'm selling a black woman into slavery to a literal monkey organ grinder. But it's so he gives me something I need to progress elsewhere.

...although I'll be honest, I don't remember the specific reason for that so maybe you're right there (maybe I was too astonished and amazed at something so brazen). But I'm pretty sure it was for a reason that made sense in the universe!

 

I'm not sure that's the best example to pick among all of them

 

Lol, yeah. Well it's one of the ones that really, REALLY, REALLY stuck out. Like, just wow. And being mixed (part black) myself gave it that additional oomph to put it in the list of "most memorable gaming moments" - for better or worse!

 

Lack of map in Minecraft is a design flaw. Those paper-based maps are crap. Going for to much realism is a folly. Having a large map without compass and map will just annoy the hell out of people. Players want convenience. They don't want to struggle with basic things if it's not the core of the game. In an RPG a map is a must. Maybe not so in a survival game where orienting yourself is part of the core game loop.

 

I can't agree. Both is valid, and there are good rpgs without a built in map: