Bad Game Design - Random Outcome Encourages Reload of Save

[MMDE]

I think most people has come across a situation in a game where you feel the need to reload because of a bad outcome. This is made much worse where the outcome is random, there's no second chance, and it does make a difference for you in the game. It pretty much forces you to do a thing in the game, hope for good outcome, and then reload and try again if fail. Losing all and any progress you made, and going through the ordeal of reloading save. Many games doesn't even allow to reload a save unless you quit it, that's an even longer chore. You will still do this chore over and over until you get a good outcome. Reeks like bad game design to me.

 

In Dark Cloud one of the most important stats, especially for melee characters, is the defense. Your defense is only increased by these limited items you can find for your characters as you progress in the game. When you use the item, you get 5, 6 or 7 more defense. Getting 7 instead of 5 is almost 30% more. That makes a difference. So, what you do is save before you use the item, if you get 7, then save, else quit the game and reload the save. This you do for all 6 characters that gets a decent amount of upgrades each. Imagine if it always gave you 7... You'd have the exact same result in the game, but you'd not be wasting your time and get annoyed etc.

 

Seriously, it's just annoying when you get 5 or 6 like 10 times in a row, and then know you got like 6 more items left to do... for now.

Edited May 26, 2016 by MMDE

[Happy]

You'd be disgusted watching me play XCOM.

[Hemiak]

I hate to be "that guy" but I'm pretty sure the designers just wanted you to use the item, accept the randomness, and move on. I get you want to have the best possible character, but they probably thought it would make it more interesting if it was a variable.

Protip for developers: it isn't more interesting.

I rarely do the save + reload, unless it's for something like breeding chocobos in FFVII.

[DaivRules]

As a kid who played video games a LOT growing up, I don't think my friends and I ever felt "forced" to reload a save for any reason except we ran out of lives. I remember being in college when someone told me that they would reload a save until they got what they wanted and my brain felt like it ground to a halt. All I thought was "You suck so badly, you *need* to replay the same mind-numbing sequence until you *randomly* get the best possible outcome? Why even play?!"

 

I don't feel like it's bad game design. I think it's a challenge to just get better at the game. Finishing a game while getting the short end of the stick makes the victory so much sweeter.

[usrmd]

this is the same thing that the save resigner thinks

"well, i know i'd farm 100000000 monies anyway.. so let me just save some time"

[MMDE]

I hate to be "that guy" but I'm pretty sure the designers just wanted you to use the item, accept the randomness, and move on. I get you want to have the best possible character, but they probably thought it would make it more interesting if it was a variable.

Protip for developers: it isn't more interesting.

I rarely do the save + reload, unless it's for something like breeding chocobos in FFVII.

 

What they intend is not the result. This is why it is poor design. Forcing this by for example auto-saving before is also poor design, because it frustrates the user even more.

As a kid who played video games a LOT growing up, I don't think my friends and I ever felt "forced" to reload a save for any reason except we ran out of lives. I remember being in college when someone told me that they would reload a save until they got what they wanted and my brain felt like it ground to a halt. All I thought was "You suck so badly, you *need* to replay the same mind-numbing sequence until you *randomly* get the best possible outcome? Why even play?!"

 

I don't feel like it's bad game design. I think it's a challenge to just get better at the game. Finishing a game while getting the short end of the stick makes the victory so much sweeter.

 

Nobody is talking about difficulty, it's about getting the best outcome/perfect team/100%. I really thought this was a thing with trophy hunters who wanna get all the trophies OCD etc. I don't need to do this in Dark Cloud, far there from, but it encourages it, which is bad. It may as well have given me 7 in the first place. It always give me 10 with the HP.

 

Imagine if you can only get this one really cool item in the game if you're lucky with some random number generator outcome, and you only got one chance at it. Would you try again if you didn't get it? This is the case with for example stealing some specific item or drop from a boss in a game.

this is the same thing that the save resigner thinks

"well, i know i'd farm 100000000 monies anyway.. so let me just save some time"

 

This is nothing like what we're talking about. You're talking about grinding, which is a gray zone when it comes to game design. It's rather poor in most cases, when the user has to grind. Also, you're talking about editing memory to skip playing, and not just the game itself encouraging reload of save for better outcome of something you do.

Edited May 26, 2016 by MMDE

[usrmd]

This is nothing like what we're talking about. You're talking about grinding, which is a gray zone when it comes to game design. It's rather poor in most cases, when the user has to grind. Also, you're talking about editing memory to skip playing, and not just the game itself encouraging reload of save for better outcome of something you do.

 

grinding is definitely a sad attempt to milk gameplay time from the players. with the randomly generated stats and reloading to attain them, its not so much an attempt to milk you, but an attempt to provide a bit of lucky and opportunity. the thinking is the same though.. but note,albeit your own accord, if it takes you 50 reloads to get the best stat for each character, is that not a grind? don't know why developers do these things.. kind of like perma death companions. why? we just reload anyways.. "but shit that save was 2 hours ago.. goodbye lydia." see, there is a bit of chance involved there, which i feel is the goal with most of the nonsense.

but yeah the method is totally different, resigning is the next step in your saying "Imagine if it always gave you 7..." notice the thought is the same as someone who actually does resign, so it is always max lolz .. when the idea is to accept the programming, the oversight or not, as apart of the experience.. like art. although we all game for our own reasons.

[MMDE]

but yeah the method is totally different, resigning is the next step in your saying "Imagine if it always gave you 7..." notice the thought is the same as someone who actually does resign, so it is always max lolz .. when the idea is to accept the programming, the oversight or not, as apart of the experience.. like art. although we all game for our own reasons.

 

Just because it wasn't intended, that doesn't mean it was good game design. There are other ways to go about it, like instead of adding randomness you could make the user do something extra to get more out of the usage etc.

[acasser]

The fault isn't in "lousy game design".  The fault is in lousy players who feel that anything less than perfection is unacceptable and therefore justifies save scumming to get an "optimal" outcome.

[DaivRules]

"You suck so badly, you *need* to replay the same mind-numbing sequence until you *randomly* get the best possible outcome? Why even play?!"

 

I don't feel like it's bad game design. I think it's a challenge to just get better at the game. Finishing a game while getting the short end of the stick makes the victory so much sweeter.

 

 

Nobody is talking about difficulty, it's about getting the best outcome/perfect team/100%. I really thought this was a thing with trophy hunters who wanna get all the trophies OCD etc. I don't need to do this in Dark Cloud, far there from, but it encourages it, which is bad. It may as well have given me 7 in the first place. It always give me 10 with the HP.

 

Imagine if you can only get this one really cool item in the game if you're lucky with some random number generator outcome, and you only got one chance at it. Would you try again if you didn't get it? This is the case with for example stealing some specific item or drop from a boss in a game.

 

I wasn't directly talking about difficulty either. See how you used the same words I did?

 

As an example of a game I am playing right now, Knack, 10 diamonds must be found within the 68 hidden treasure chests in a single play through. I'm on my 4th play through. The most I have found is 3. There is a save/reload method that can be used to open chests until a diamond is found. The number of people that feel the "need" to do that type of thing are a tiny percentage of gamers. Those same gamers worried about having a 100% profile or figuring out what the method to have the best possible stats are at end game.

 

It's still not bad game design. If anything, it's bad brain wiring. The compulsion to "need" to save/reload until achieving something arbitrary can not be blamed on the game design. The game was designed to be played as it's presented. Those players that take on the personal challenge of achieving their self-defined "perfect game" are doing it to themselves.

[MMDE]

I wasn't directly talking about difficulty either. See how you used the same words I did?

 

As an example of a game I am playing right now, Knack, 10 diamonds must be found within the 68 hidden treasure chests in a single play through. I'm on my 4th play through. The most I have found is 3. There is a save/reload method that can be used to open chests until a diamond is found. The number of people that feel the "need" to do that type of thing are a tiny percentage of gamers. Those same gamers worried about having a 100% profile or figuring out what the method to have the best possible stats are at end game.

 

It's still not bad game design. If anything, it's bad brain wiring. The compulsion to "need" to save/reload until achieving something arbitrary can not be blamed on the game design. The game was designed to be played as it's presented. Those players that take on the personal challenge of achieving their self-defined "perfect game" are doing it to themselves.

 

1. You were talking about difficulty, talking about how people need to do something to be able to beat it.

 

2. I got no idea why you wouldn't do it in Knack the way you explained that... I mean, if your goal is to get all the trophies in the game, that's what you gotta do.

 

3. Doing something to get what you want is not a bad brain wiring. A good example of this in other games would be some item you want from a one-time event. It is shitty game design when it encourages you to reload the save over and over to get the result you want. As I said, it could be done in totally different ways and still get much of the same effect.

If anyone wonders what I think about this game, not the biggest fan, but it has nothing to do with this. This is just a more general issue I see in many games in different forms.

 

Is there anyone who think this is good game design. Please do argue for this, because I don't see it if you can go other ways about achieving approximately the same result but with less frustration for the user.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, this is a typical trope of rogue-like games.  Luck can screw you over big-time, but depending on how "hardcore" you go with rogue-like, you usually have more tries, and you're often better off not reloading etc. But, a thing in most rogue-likes is that luck usually only play a part in how difficult it is for you, not necessarily if you succeed or not, but depends a bit.

 

If anyone has played Hand of Fate, it goes a bit wrong there, when doing the hardest stuff rely pretty much solely on luck. It's just start the game, do a couple of turns, then start over if you didn't get what you wanted.

 

Has anyone read any Fighting Fantasy game? There an example would be just surviving. It's not just that you gotta figure you way through sort of a maze, with tons of instant deaths and required missable items, so you gotta start over, but you got a battle system that relies solely on luck on top of that.

 

In many RPGs, you will have bosses that drop certain unique items or weapons and whatnot, like many Final Fantasy games are like this. If you want that item, you gotta replay that boss fight over and over until you get the item.

[usrmd]

It's still not bad game design. If anything, it's bad brain wiring. The compulsion to "need" to save/reload until achieving something arbitrary can not be blamed on the game design. The game was designed to be played as it's presented. Those players that take on the personal challenge of achieving their self-defined "perfect game" are doing it to themselves.

 

the truth is strong here, but there are still some occasions where convenience and time saved > repeated playthroughs.. uncharted 4 for example,  you can get the crushing trophy by completing only the prologue and epilogue.. basically every trophy hunter is all over that. and your example with knack, i'd be on that too.. 

 

3. Doing something to get what you want is not a bad brain wiring. A good example of this in other games would be some item you want from a one-time event. It is shitty game design when it encourages you to reload the save over and over to get the result you want. As I said, it could be done in totally different ways and still get much of the same effect.

 

well as with everything, it's all subjective and dependent on taste. most players probably don't really care if they get a 4 or a 7, makes no difference to them. a 1? your average player may reload a 1, get a 5 and call it good. and if there's one thing i've learned playing video games... you don't always get what you want

[Elvick_]

I honestly didn't even notice there were different amounts your defense would raise by, so that's how much it matters to me.

[starcrunch061]

I hate to be "that guy" but I'm pretty sure the designers just wanted you to use the item, accept the randomness, and move on. I get you want to have the best possible character, but they probably thought it would make it more interesting if it was a variable.

Protip for developers: it isn't more interesting.

I rarely do the save + reload, unless it's for something like breeding chocobos in FFVII.

 

That's definitely true. To be fair, though, the developers seemed to figure it out in Dark Cloud 2, and defense boosts are exactly 4 at all times.

 

Late to the party on this post, I know.

Also, MMDE's math is a little wonky. Getting 7 instead of 5 is actually a 40% increase (so it's significantly more than 30%).

[Tao-Sianu]

To be honest, Dark Cloud (quite a few Level 5 games actually, IMO) has quite a few really bad design choices that either frustrate or just make me question "...why?".

The defense food is one of them, but I wasn't invested enough to restart the game if I didn't get a 7.

Weapon breaking is another one more so that when it breaks I never thought "oh no, I better be more careful in the future!", I just restarted the game from the last time I saved (I saved like ever 2/3 dungeon floors) rather than sit around for ages mindlessly grinding levels on a new low tier weapon to replace it with...I mean, why would you? I don't mind a feature where weapons breakt, but the devs implemented it in a way that was simply a minor inconvenience rather than a consequence. The punishment of a weapon breaking was too severe to NOT just restart from the last save point and nothing stopped you from doing so.

Then the characters. There was little reason to have 6 characters anyway since there's really not much difference between most of them mechanically, but having those obstacles around the dungeons you need to keep swapping characters to get around is such a chore, especially the witch lady (don't know her actual name, I renamed her) who even requires you to fiddle what element her power is. A one time use blockade preventing you from passing is good enough to stop you progressing without the character, but having to switch characters multiple times per dungeon for such a simple 'press X to win' obstacle is such bad design, especially with the clunkiness of changing characters and weapons.

And bosses...My lord, the bosses. The only part I truly hated about the game were the bosses. You could be 1-2 hit killing regular enemies in a dungeon, but the bosses took forever. Once you figure out their simple pattern, it becomes a long hard grind of trying to stay awake whilst you tediously knock down their OP health bars. The main threat here is dying because you just stopped being interested.



It's a wonder I still managed to enjoy the game.

[RNumbers]

That's definitely true. To be fair, though, the developers seemed to figure it out in Dark Cloud 2, and defense boosts are exactly 4 at all times.

 

Late to the party on this post, I know.

Also, MMDE's math is a little wonky. Getting 7 instead of 5 is actually a 40% increase (so it's significantly more than 30%).

 

2 (the difference between 7 and 5) is 40% of 5 but roughly 30% of 7. This is probably how you're arriving at "different" answers. Not that it matters much, it just depends on how you want to look at it.

 

EDIT: For the record, I disagree with the argument that it's bad game design, but that's just my opinion.

Edited September 30, 2016 by RNumbers

[MMDE]

To be honest, Dark Cloud (quite a few Level 5 games actually, IMO) has quite a few really bad design choices that either frustrate or just make me question "...why?".

The defense food is one of them, but I wasn't invested enough to restart the game if I didn't get a 7.

Weapon breaking is another one more so that when it breaks I never thought "oh no, I better be more careful in the future!", I just restarted the game from the last time I saved (I saved like ever 2/3 dungeon floors) rather than sit around for ages mindlessly grinding levels on a new low tier weapon to replace it with...I mean, why would you? I don't mind a feature where weapons breakt, but the devs implemented it in a way that was simply a minor inconvenience rather than a consequence. The punishment of a weapon breaking was too severe to NOT just restart from the last save point and nothing stopped you from doing so.

Then the characters. There was little reason to have 6 characters anyway since there's really not much difference between most of them mechanically, but having those obstacles around the dungeons you need to keep swapping characters to get around is such a chore, especially the witch lady (don't know her actual name, I renamed her) who even requires you to fiddle what element her power is. A one time use blockade preventing you from passing is good enough to stop you progressing without the character, but having to switch characters multiple times per dungeon for such a simple 'press X to win' obstacle is such bad design, especially with the clunkiness of changing characters and weapons.

And bosses...My lord, the bosses. The only part I truly hated about the game were the bosses. You could be 1-2 hit killing regular enemies in a dungeon, but the bosses took forever. Once you figure out their simple pattern, it becomes a long hard grind of trying to stay awake whilst you tediously knock down their OP health bars. The main threat here is dying because you just stopped being interested.

It's a wonder I still managed to enjoy the game.

 

I agree. And about level 5, Ni No Kuni had some terrible design choices too. It had a lot of good stuff going for it, but for example the battle system was completely broken, and the "catching" system was terrible.

Edited October 27, 2016 by MMDE

[starcrunch061]

I agree. And about level 5, Ni No Kuni had some terrible design choices too. It had a lot of good stuff going for it, but for example the battle system was completely broken, and the "catching" system was terrible.

 

I liked the catching system. Battle wasn't great, but I always found the whining on the catching to be a little overblown. My issue was the quest system, where you had to do a bunch of stuff that had zero point in the game. Making that stupid weapon was such a pain.

[MatThaRiPP3R84]

yeah no budget no namers made the game and it shows. one of the worst games i've played in my life. shitty clunky boring gameplay, and menus inside menus that clunk and are generally shit. can't back out of the shitty dungeon screen which costs hours in some cases or just yet another fruitless chore for no reason. ridiculous difficulty spike with blatant refusal to give the new character you constantly need to use to kill a boss the fucking food that increases their defence, in time for the boss oh no, you have to do it with 1 fucking upgrade welcome to one shot land.

 

game is shit, and boring to boot. and the incesasnt fucking need guide writers have to put the time down on the guide as the #1 world record platinum speedrun holder instead of what it should be, the estimated time to plat a game for someone using the guide who has never played the game before. if i'd known i'd be on this CANCER for 60 hrs i'd have not started it.

[Wavergray]

I mean it is a 21-year-old PlayStation 2 game.

The decisions the dev made for the game probably seemed like a new or fresh spin on the genre at the time. 

[Beware_Of_Bob]

Getting max stats would probably make it super easy and boring, so I wouldn't do that.

[Luneth]

Game isn't even that bad. There's no need to even focus on getting optimal defense stat.

[MatThaRiPP3R84]

6 minutes ago, Beware_Of_Bob said:

Getting max stats would probably make it super easy and boring, so I wouldn't do that.

nah, I can't anyway apparently, if you don't get pike to help gaffer set up his shop, he does his back in and has crap inventory for the rest of the game, no attachments etc.

11 minutes ago, Luneth said:

Game isn't even that bad. There's no need to even focus on getting optimal defense stat.

it's alright but it's so easy to forget to save, as the pace breaks and then one wrong choice and no escape powders and ur fucked. and it can so easily happen. i was just under the impretion i'd be plodding about for 20 hrs orso, im at somewhere close to 30 now and im half way through lol.

[starcrunch061]

44 minutes ago, MatThaRiPP3R84 said:

yeah no budget no namers made the game and it shows. one of the worst games i've played in my life. shitty clunky boring gameplay, and menus inside menus that clunk and are generally shit. can't back out of the shitty dungeon screen which costs hours in some cases or just yet another fruitless chore for no reason. ridiculous difficulty spike with blatant refusal to give the new character you constantly need to use to kill a boss the fucking food that increases their defence, in time for the boss oh no, you have to do it with 1 fucking upgrade welcome to one shot land.

 

game is shit, and boring to boot. and the incesasnt fucking need guide writers have to put the time down on the guide as the #1 world record platinum speedrun holder instead of what it should be, the estimated time to plat a game for someone using the guide who has never played the game before. if i'd known i'd be on this CANCER for 60 hrs i'd have not started it.

 

Dude. I have tons of issues with the original Dark Cloud. But it's nowhere near 60 hours to plat.