Jump to content

Photo

Is 'no dmg' a poor standard of fairness?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Poll: Is 'no dmg' a poor standard of fairness?

Is 'no dmg' a poor standard of fairness?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#16 klop422

klop422

    Guess I'm full of monsters and treasure

  • Members
  • Real Name:Not George
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 02 November 2019 - 08:59 AM

Sorry if it's already been mentioned (I just skimmed the post) but I find the concept of "no damage" as a general rule is practically mandatory for fairness imo.

Consider a scenario where you scrape your way deep into a dungeon, find yourself with only a single hit point remaining, and then enter a room that REQUIRES you to take damage to pass <insert "Omae Wa Mou Shinderu" meme here>. It's really disheartening, it feels like the game screwed you over, and it's not fun. I consider it poor design. "Congratulations on getting here, but you didn't do it well enough so back you go!" If it's not telegraphed it's a slap in the face.

Related, put hearts/healing spots in your dungeons, unless it's supposed to be a gauntlet.



#17 NoeL

NoeL

    Legend

  • Members
  • Real Name:Jerram

Posted 03 November 2019 - 06:23 AM

To expand more on why I think required damage-taking is bad design: in the situation I mentioned before it breaks the established rules of the game. You generally don't lose until you've lost all your hit points - it's implied that as long as you're alive you're in the game, and losing hit points is punishment for playing poorly. When the game suddenly tells you that's no longer the case it's unfair.

With that said, you could definitely design a game in such a way that mandatory damage-taking doesn't break the established rules, but it would have to be very different to the typical action game.
  • ShadowTiger and Anthus like this

#18 TheLegend_njf

TheLegend_njf

    Deified

  • Members
  • Real Name:Grant

Posted 03 November 2019 - 07:56 PM

With that said, you could definitely design a game in such a way that mandatory damage-taking doesn't break the established rules, but it would have to be very different to the typical action game.

Aevin's example is also a good example where it's okay, like the toxic floor thing, but I feel it's fair, and only fair if there is a buffer in place, such as the healing before you enter the room.

-----

But ya, my takeaway from all this is that I was right about the "no dmg idea" being the golden standard in almost ever possible way, with the rare exceptions being RPGs and some very rare examples provided in this topic. But I also believe that many people are right by saying "It's only a good start" as relying on it as the only standard to fair design is clearly nonsense. You will almost certainly create terrible unfair challenges that only you think is fair. 

 

For example, you can no-damage a boss that doesn't telegraph anything and you're forced to memorize the entire thing. Does this make the boss fair because you can eventually figure out its pattern and take no damage? No, absolutely not. The boss is still bullshit because it's designed for you to beat it based entirely off memory as your only strategy. Just because the quest developer can "no dmg" it doesn't mean the quest designer can use this as his excuse to greenlight the room, boss, or challenge, it could still be a bullshit room. 

 

My experience with Mario Maker and discussions within this topic has made me realize there is another gold standard, you could say it's one step up from the "no dmg" is essential to fairness rule, and that is very good solid communication.

 

That's the bottom line. If the developer cannot communicate to the player what the developer wants the player to do to face that challenge, the developer has failed in every way in making a fair challenge. 

 

And what's unfortunate is that communication is not often a strong suit of many game developers because we're all kinda on the autistic spectrum in one way or another. lol (That's a joke, don't take me too seriously).

One thing that fails me personally, and I'm starting to realize it (and beta testers really help me with this area) is that I get into the same pattern of playing my quest over and over again. I do it my specific way, specific route, with the exact same strategies, and find myself completely blind to the overall design that other people will experience. I will not see how this corner is put in a bullshit spot because I personally never go near that corner. I will never see how a statue is put in a bullshit spot because I never go near that statue. But people playing it blind adds a lot more chaos to the "what to expect" realm of design, and holy shit, there is an infinite potential for a well designed dungeon to go horribly wrong if not every single one of these precautions are put into place. 

 

Which makes me realize, to make things fair, you need a higher vision. A higher way of looking at your rooms, you actually have to stare at this room and analyze every object and ask yourself "what does this object communicate to the random player", and this is my new discovery on why game design is so insanely hard. Because I have never thought for the life of me that I'd need to pay attention to every single object and think how every single person could responed to that object. 

 

At this rate, for me to get my quest right, and I mean right to the quality that I'd hope to achieve, it would take me at least 50 years to finish my quest. Of course, I'm going to have to settle to just let some bullshit slide, but hope I can just make it all work in the end. 



#19 NoeL

NoeL

    Legend

  • Members
  • Real Name:Jerram

Posted 04 November 2019 - 12:28 AM

Aevin's example is also a good example where it's okay, like the toxic floor thing, but I feel it's fair, and only fair if there is a buffer in place, such as the healing before you enter the room.

What Aevin did is recontextualise HP to act as a countdown timer rather than the standard "mistake buffer" (Mario 64 does the same thing turning HP into "oxygen" while in water). So while it still uses HP as the counter, Link isn't really "taking damage" in the way we're talking about.

Also, the reason RPGs don't usually stick to the "no dmg" rule is primarily because combat is clearly instanced (i.e. a definite beginning and end, with "safe time" between battles) and the player is given many ways to heal up between fights (spells, potions, etc.). Also because the often mechanically simple combat would make it way too easy to avoid damage if there were an option to.



#20 Deedee

Deedee

    Bug Frog Dragon Girl

  • Moderators
  • Real Name:Deedee
  • Pronouns:She / Her, They / Them
  • Location:Canada

Posted 04 November 2019 - 03:04 PM

One of the top rated quests on the site (Eiyuu) got away with forcing the player to sacrifice HP to trigger secrets. Forced HP loss isn't a bad thing, so long as it has player agency behind it.

But onto the topic's question; No Damage isn't the golden standard of fairness. NJF probably knows this with his trap rooms; Sure, he can no-damage them, but how can you expect players to have that same knowledge without taking damage, and how can you expect players with poor reaction times to get through them consistently?



#21 klop422

klop422

    Guess I'm full of monsters and treasure

  • Members
  • Real Name:Not George
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 04 November 2019 - 04:01 PM

[...]players with poor reaction times to get through them consistently?

I'm in this picture and I don't like it.


  • ShadowTiger, Anthus and Deedee like this

#22 NoeL

NoeL

    Legend

  • Members
  • Real Name:Jerram

Posted 04 November 2019 - 04:14 PM

One of the top rated quests on the site (Eiyuu) got away with forcing the player to sacrifice HP to trigger secrets. Forced HP loss isn't a bad thing, so long as it has player agency behind it.

I disagree, unless it's fairly telegraphed that the player will be expected to sacrifice HP (e.g. there's a way to heal before the first instance). Even then it could still be bad. I haven't played Eiyuu so I don't know how well this mechanic is implemented but I can easily see it going either way, so I don't think player agency is sufficient in itself to make mandatory damage-taking good design.

#23 Russ

Russ

    Caelan, the Encouraging

  • Administrators
  • Location:Washington

Posted 04 November 2019 - 04:39 PM

I disagree, unless it's fairly telegraphed that the player will be expected to sacrifice HP (e.g. there's a way to heal before the first instance). Even then it could still be bad. I haven't played Eiyuu so I don't know how well this mechanic is implemented but I can easily see it going either way, so I don't think player agency is sufficient in itself to make mandatory damage-taking good design.

In the case of Eiyuu, it's an item that sacrifices HP to regain MP. It triggers some secrets on the OW, but if I recall correctly, they're all quite close (within two screens even) of continue locations.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users