Jump to content

Photo

Memorization


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Cukeman

Cukeman

    "Tra la la, look for Sahasrahla. ... ... ..."

  • Banned
  • Location:Hyrule/USA

Posted 22 September 2017 - 05:01 PM

I was watching a ProJared video and he suggested that having deaths without warning is flawed game design. I have to say that's not always true.

 

If there's a predictable pattern to it you did get a warning- your first death. Having a passageway with death traps to memorize is just another variety of challenge. One that can be enjoyable.

 

Now, if it's unpredictable and obscenely hard that's one thing, but don't tell me you can memorize the Z1 forest path N-W-S-W, and that's fair, but you can't remember to fall left, right, right, left, right down a shaft with spikes? Same exact challenge, who cares if you lost a life while you learned or not? What did you really lose? A few minutes? Seriously. Big deal.

 

Vanishing blocks aren't popular, but how is it no one seems to mind in Zelda when you have to memorize the order to hit switches in? Same exact challenge. The only difference is the number of deaths on your final counter. A silly little number. Why is that so upsetting to people? It's not offensive to retry a level, it's not any negative reflection on the player. In reality the number of deaths just symbolizes the number of attempts. Are there any puzzles in Zelda you tried several times before getting them right? Each time you tried again is the result of failing before. In either case, losing a life or not, you failed the challenge, then you retried. In both cases you lost a little time. That's all. Nothing more.

 

If you have to retread a lot of a level to get back I can understand the frustration, but if it's nothing more than a game over screen versus a "wrong" buzzer and a puzzle reset... that's just a difference between SFX and animations between attempts. How is one worse than another? Why do people associate "game over" with "you did bad" and a second attempt without dying as "no big deal"? It doesn't make sense. In either case you failed and retried, one should not be considered more severe than the other.

 

Why give one retry format more weight than another? It is only a virtual experience after all.

 

I know there is a slight bit of a rant mixed in here (because this topic bothers me), but there are also legitimate points being made.


Edited by Cukeman, 22 September 2017 - 05:02 PM.

  • Anthus likes this

#2 Moosh

Moosh

    Tiny Little Questmaker

  • ZC Developers

Posted 22 September 2017 - 05:49 PM

A completely memorization based puzzle isn't fun. Like if there's no secondary puzzle involved in finding the path, a maze path might as well just give you a key to unlock the way forward. How is writing down four directions in notepad any different from just picking up a key aside from that you can randomly find the "key" by wasting a few minutes of your time guessing different paths?

 

I think an important distinction for me is that in order to be well executed memorization, there still needs to be some dynamic gameplay to it after you see what you need to do. Like say you're fighting a boss and it raises it's left pinky and then a bit later emits an array of multicolored lasers from its groin. You're probably not going to associate the pinky lift with groin lasers the first time through, but afterwards you can recognize that that tell and know the attack is coming. But the nature of the attack is important here. If it attacks points relative to you that change every time it uses the attack and you need to react accordingly every time you see it coming, that's engaging gameplay. If it fires at five arbitrary points on the screen and it's the same five points every time and you have to memorize where they are, that's when I question what's the point. Samus Returns has some great examples of that second kind of boss. Cycle based design...yuck.

 

I guess another kind of memorization based design that works is when it's a funny trap that players fall into the first time and every time after that it's so trivial to avoid it might as well not be there. Something that makes for a great memorable moment but ultimately little time lost. Kinda the polar opposite of my first point, but in moderation it can work.


  • Rambly and Anthus like this

#3 Koh

Koh

    Tamer Koh

  • Members
  • Real Name:Dominic
  • Location:Monsbaiya, Virginia

Posted 22 September 2017 - 06:04 PM

Read up on Fake Difficulty.

 

And what Moosh is describing is telegraphing.  Memorizing what the boss does to telegraph its attacks to you is a skill and totally fair.   But those memory flip games where you don't even get to see where the cards are before they turn over isn't.  It's just trial and error, and that is a form of fake difficulty.  The game is withholding information that is critical to progress.  That doesn't make it hard, it makes it tedious since you'll have to get that information from elsewhere or trial and error, trying everything with everything.  A game with a REAL challenge will give you hints and clues as to what to do, while you have to put the pieces together yourself, like LaMulana.


Edited by Koh, 22 September 2017 - 06:06 PM.


#4 Cukeman

Cukeman

    "Tra la la, look for Sahasrahla. ... ... ..."

  • Banned
  • Location:Hyrule/USA

Posted 22 September 2017 - 07:11 PM

Read up on Fake Difficulty.

 

And what Moosh is describing is telegraphing.  Memorizing what the boss does to telegraph its attacks to you is a skill and totally fair.   But those memory flip games where you don't even get to see where the cards are before they turn over isn't.  It's just trial and error, and that is a form of fake difficulty.  The game is withholding information that is critical to progress.  That doesn't make it hard, it makes it tedious since you'll have to get that information from elsewhere or trial and error, trying everything with everything.  A game with a REAL challenge will give you hints and clues as to what to do, while you have to put the pieces together yourself, like LaMulana.

 

 

But you could say the same thing about puzzles in Zelda. Say you have to put a block somewhere but you put it in the wrong place and have to start the whole puzzle over. You could say that's "fake difficulty" because the game didn't let you know what the solution was before you attempted it.

 

You might argue that Zelda is different, because a puzzle is a mystery to be solved, but the placement of a few death traps is also a puzzle to be solved, you uncover the mystery of their location, and avoid them the next time.

 

I agree that there is such a thing as fake difficulty, but that's very different than predictable memory based challenges. With the memorization examples I'm talking about the game isn't withholding any critical information to succeed, you just have to uncover that information by springing a trap; when you die the game is informing you: "Death trap here, avoid next time". It's the same with a Zelda puzzle, you could argue the game is withholding critical information by not telling you how to solve the puzzle, but (just like with death traps) THAT'S THE POINT, you uncover the solution to the Zelda puzzle through trial and error. Would you really want to put a sign in the dungeon room revealing the puzzle's solution? No. In the same way you wouldn't want bright red flags warning you about every death trap, because then there'd be no point to having them.



#5 Anthus

Anthus

    Lord of Liquids

  • Banned
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:03 PM

edited for clarity:

I have mixed feelings about this, and have thought about it a lot after a certain boss in Samus Returns. Using that as an example again, without spoiling the location, or what it is, there's a boss late-game that literally makes you memorize its patterns. That's the fight. Mess up a few times, and it wrecks you, completely, and utterly. I think with bosses, this kind of memorization is not exactly fun. It felt kind of shoe horned in, and it was such a large difficulty spike. It was the only point in the game where I actually died several times. I found the problem to be, not with directly remembering its patterns, but the fact that it was so different than a lot of other challenges wthin the same game up to that point. The final boss however, I think was really well done. Some people might like the challenge, and variety but for me it was annoying to hit a road block, but this goes into subjective territory here.

 

Some people genuinely enjoy bosses like that, but I don't. I think bosses with a "wait, wait, attack" pattern are dated, archaic, and don't really work well, save for some rare cases. It's reminiscent of game design from 30 years ago, and not the good kind. This 'bad' boss I'm talking about also does the exact same thing every time, so you have ample chances to memorize it. That doesn't make it fun though at least not for me. I can't pass, even though I know what to do, but can't get in the buttons presses in time without a lot of do-overs. My fault, sure, but not fun to me. Admittedly, there is a huge sense of satisfaction after beating it. I guess that has to count for something.

 

If it's telegraphing its moves in a way I can learn, and I don't have to wait an eternity to hit it, that's fine. I like bosses that are skill based, without wasting your time. Bosses that only let you get in so many hits before going into another cycle are not good, and it makes any actual skill you have moot, cause at the end of the day, you're waiting for it to show you its weak point, and your skills can't speed up the battle. That's a bad boss, for me, and is very counter intuitive to what the boss is trying to be.

 

A puzzle in Zelda will make you memorize stuff, but it's a different mental challenge to figure it out. Puzzles challenge your critical thinking, and logic skills, bosses tend to challenge reflex, and patience. You don't exactly have to be on your toes in a do or die situation in a puzzle, whereas a boss enemy that's trying to blast you into oblivion requires a little more quick thinking. A good puzzle allows you to solve it quickly if you know how. That's the reward. Getting through it faster on subsequent playthroughs, or if it shows up again. It rewards you for being good at the game, while not making you wait. Good bosses also do this. Block puzzles be damned though, those suck no matter what. Give me a timer, and I'm done. :P

 

Again, it's hard for me to form a solid opinion on this either way. There's good and bad examples of memorization based puzzles, and bosses. Generally speaking, I don't mind games that do this well or even just okay. However for bosses it should be kept to a minimum if the memorization isn't fun, and engaging in some way.

 

EDIT: Okay, I was thinking more about this. It really depends on how much time you have to waste to get back to where you were. Rayman 2, as an example, is hard as shit. But, dying puts you really close to where you died, and you get to try again a lot of times. You can get a game over eventually, but it's not as bad because I'm not wasting 5+ minutes each time and I ultimately like the game.


  • Cukeman likes this

#6 Cukeman

Cukeman

    "Tra la la, look for Sahasrahla. ... ... ..."

  • Banned
  • Location:Hyrule/USA

Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:24 PM

I wouldn't want a game to be all memorization / trail and error, but I think it can be a good element to have in places.

 

When I think of fake difficulty I think of stuff like starting with a tiny given amount of lives, no chance to earn more and no continues. Having to start a whole game over without adequate tries.

 

You do have a point about there being clues and a logic to puzzles in Zelda (maybe not in Master Quest :P ), deadly environment hazards often don't have clues or may only give you a split second to react.

 

It's interesting to hear you compare the risk of dying to a time limit, I know time limits are often frustrating in puzzles, and a time factor (of how many hits you can take) does apply with bosses, you are right about that. I'll have to think about that in terms of level hazards though, not sure how that applies until I give it more thought.  

 

EDIT: I think RE4 has some good "memorization" traps that work because continue points are frequent. Many times you'll meet a new enemy who kills you in an instant, from that you learn strategy in which enemies to keep distance from and which to attack first. There are also a couple "jump scare" deaths and instant death traps that are fun without happening more often than you'd like. Admittedly, part of that being effective is because it's a horror game.


Edited by Cukeman, 22 September 2017 - 09:36 PM.

  • Anthus likes this

#7 Koh

Koh

    Tamer Koh

  • Members
  • Real Name:Dominic
  • Location:Monsbaiya, Virginia

Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:57 PM

I was actually about to make that note on your point with the Zelda puzzles.  You see there, just like LaMulana, you have all the information you need to succeed the first time around, without trial and  error.  You have 3 blocks and 4 switches that won't stay down when you stand on them.  It's not rocket science to figure that out.   And there's even puzzles like this in Lufia 2 that you can do the first time around, because they give you plenty of information to succeed right away.

 

 

Having to die to learn something isn't challenging at all, that's just bad design.  You shouldn't be forced to see a game over screen for learning what to do.


Edited by Koh, 22 September 2017 - 09:58 PM.


#8 Anthus

Anthus

    Lord of Liquids

  • Banned
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 22 September 2017 - 11:01 PM

Having to die to learn something isn't challenging at all, that's just bad design.  You shouldn't be forced to see a game over screen for learning what to do.

 

Uh, no, it's not inherently bad design. That's a very black-and-white way to look at it. There's a lot of games that do it well. The Rayman series, besides 1, and 3, for example. Dying on a boss, or tricky level segment isn't the problem. It's if the stuff is actually fun, and if you feel that your time is being wasted. I can't stress that part enough.

 

If you don't enjoy it, you're allowed to not like it. There's nothing wrong with not liking dying in a game, but for me, there has to be some repercussions for missing a jump, or not hitting a boss at the right time. If you never died or were even punished in a game, then what's the point? What's the incentive to even play it if it requires so little of me/ offers no challenge? If I can just walk through a game, and never have or need to learn anything, then that's even worse, and more boring than a tough as nails game with a lives system and harshly damning deaths cause at least I feel something after beating a game, like Zelda 2 for example.

 

I'd rather watch a movie/ video/ TV show before playing a game with no deaths, or learning, or whatever within the game's context. Again, to each their own. Everyone's tastes are different. :P


  • Shane and Cukeman like this

#9 Cukeman

Cukeman

    "Tra la la, look for Sahasrahla. ... ... ..."

  • Banned
  • Location:Hyrule/USA

Posted 22 September 2017 - 11:28 PM

I was actually about to make that note on your point with the Zelda puzzles.  You see there, just like LaMulana, you have all the information you need to succeed the first time around, without trial and  error.  You have 3 blocks and 4 switches that won't stay down when you stand on them.  It's not rocket science to figure that out.   And there's even puzzles like this in Lufia 2 that you can do the first time around, because they give you plenty of information to succeed right away.

 
Let's assume that all Zelda puzzles contain enough hints to solve them the first time if you're smart enough and observant enough (I don't believe this is 100% true, but let's pretend it is for the moment). Even with clues, does that mean you get every puzzle in Zelda right the first time? I don't. Some puzzles require trial and error on my part, not because they are badly designed, but because I'm not amazing enough to get them all right 100% of the time.
 
But I'd argue that many puzzles in Zelda are trial and error where you flick a switch to gain access to a chest, but by the time you arrive at that chest, you see that there is an additional task you must do to prevent the chest from being blocked as you walk towards it. There are plenty of puzzles in Zelda where you stop and think- oh I have to do this THEN do that as well, so that this other obstacle won't get in the way, I didn't even know that was an obstacle until I flicked the switch and got halfway there. Seems to me many (not all) puzzles in Zelda do encourage trial and error.
 

Having to die to learn something isn't challenging at all, that's just bad design.  You shouldn't be forced to see a game over screen for learning what to do.


And what if you do see a Game Over screen, where's the harm in that? It's not shameful or frightening. What is it about seeing a Game Over screen that is problematic exactly?

 

To me it's just incentive to try harder and improve my skills to overcome the challenge- and that's the same feeling that resetting a puzzle should evoke: "Oh drat, well let's try and get it right this time"

 

EDIT: You are right, having to die to learn something isn't challenging, the challenge is avoiding the problem AFTER you died from it the first time.

 

EDIT 2: What about the first level of the original Super Mario Bros.? You start running then collide into a goomba. That death teaches you to jump. Bad design?


Edited by Cukeman, 22 September 2017 - 11:35 PM.

  • Anthus likes this

#10 Anthus

Anthus

    Lord of Liquids

  • Banned
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:17 AM

 
Let's assume that all Zelda puzzles contain enough hints to solve them the first time if you're smart enough and observant enough (I don't believe this is 100% true, but let's pretend it is for the moment). Even with clues, does that mean you get every puzzle in Zelda right the first time? I don't. Some puzzles require trial and error on my part, not because they are badly designed, but because I'm not amazing enough to get them all right 100% of the time.

 

...

 

EDIT: You are right, having to die to learn something isn't challenging, the challenge is avoiding the problem AFTER you died from it the first time.

 

EDIT 2: What about the first level of the original Super Mario Bros.? You start running then collide into a goomba. That death teaches you to jump. Bad design?

 

This. I was guilty of the point I'm about to make in my first post here, but just because you die on a boss, or level, doesn't mean the game or section is badly designed. The game can teach you, but finding the sweet spot between balance, and bullshit can be hard.

 

I'm currently writing a long ass thing in Word (or whatever, we'll just call it Word) about boss battles with cycles, and why they aren't as good as skill based bosses. I'll probably make a thread for it, as it is gonna be looooooong. I think, in particular, OoT for example, has better puzzles than LttP, but LttP excels in bosses. More at 11.


  • Cukeman likes this

#11 Cukeman

Cukeman

    "Tra la la, look for Sahasrahla. ... ... ..."

  • Banned
  • Location:Hyrule/USA

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:25 AM

If it's telegraphing its moves in a way I can learn, and I don't have to wait an eternity to hit it, that's fine. I like bosses that are skill based, without wasting your time. Bosses that only let you get in so many hits before going into another cycle are not good, and it makes any actual skill you have moot, cause at the end of the day, you're waiting for it to show you its weak point, and your skills can't speed up the battle. That's a bad boss, for me, and is very counter intuitive to what the boss is trying to be.

 

That's my issue with many 3D Zelda end battles, such as OoT Ganon and WW Ganondorf. It's additionally vexing to me since I know that only the final blow is doing actual damage that counts; I could whale away on them forever in cycle after cycle and never kill them without the ending blow.

 

I was actually about to make that note on your point with the Zelda puzzles.  You see there, just like LaMulana, you have all the information you need to succeed the first time around, without trial and  error.  You have 3 blocks and 4 switches that won't stay down when you stand on them.  It's not rocket science to figure that out.   And there's even puzzles like this in Lufia 2 that you can do the first time around, because they give you plenty of information to succeed right away.

 

I missed this before, but... "succeed right away"? Where's the fun in that? Instant gratification isn't gratifying at all, working to achieve something IS... at least for me. I like having to stop and think about it and even fiddle around with things to solve it.


Edited by Cukeman, 23 September 2017 - 12:30 AM.

  • Anthus likes this

#12 Anthus

Anthus

    Lord of Liquids

  • Banned
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:31 AM

And La Mulana is hard as balls. It's a borderline rogue-like, which is why it's funny Koh is using it as an example. :P

#13 Nicholas Steel

Nicholas Steel

    Hero of Time

  • Members
  • Location:Australia

Posted 23 September 2017 - 02:25 AM

Now, if it's unpredictable and obscenely hard that's one thing, but don't tell me you can memorize the Z1 forest path N-W-S-W, and that's fair, but you can't remember to fall left, right, right, left, right down a shaft with spikes? Same exact challenge, who cares if you lost a life while you learned or not? What did you really lose? A few minutes? Seriously. Big deal.

If there is no dead-end path that leads to nothing but spikes than the falling maze idea is fine (Donkey Kong Country 2: Squawks Shaft, Battle Toads in Battlemaniacs descent section after the 1st level). If there are dead-end choices than it would need some degree of telegraphing the choice before you reach the point where you have to decide which direction to go in, like what vvvvvv tries to do.


Edited by Nicholas Steel, 23 September 2017 - 02:28 AM.

  • Cukeman likes this

#14 Koh

Koh

    Tamer Koh

  • Members
  • Real Name:Dominic
  • Location:Monsbaiya, Virginia

Posted 23 September 2017 - 09:51 AM

I should clarify what I meant.  Dying in and of itself isn't the problem it's the forced backtracking and such for something the player has no way of knowing the first time around.  This is why we have health bars and such.   So your health is your mistake counter, how many mistakes you can make before you have to go back.  That is 100% fair.  But the games where the character is a One Hit Wonder, it shouldn't be a memorize and regurgitate situation, but rather something the player can pick up on as they're given subtle clues and hints.  Because otherwise, you WOULD be wasting your time doing the same thing over and over again, just trying to memorize exactly what happens without any telegraphing.

 

I used LaMulana as the example because it gives you just enough to lead you in the right direction, but also not overdoing it like A Link to the PAst's ginormous cracks in the walls.  You have to put the pieces of the puzzles together yourself, they just give you the clues and lore you need to figure out out.  That is totally fair.  But being totally blind and being expected to die numerous times just to progress isn't fair or challenging, it's just a waste of your time.  Why play a game like that when you can instead play a better game that has proper telegraphing and/or hints and clues?


Edited by Koh, 23 September 2017 - 10:00 AM.


#15 Anthus

Anthus

    Lord of Liquids

  • Banned
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:05 PM

I should clarify what I meant.  Dying in and of itself isn't the problem it's the forced backtracking and such for something the player has no way of knowing the first time around.  This is why we have health bars and such.   So your health is your mistake counter, how many mistakes you can make before you have to go back.  That is 100% fair.  But the games where the character is a One Hit Wonder, it shouldn't be a memorize and regurgitate situation, but rather something the player can pick up on as they're given subtle clues and hints.  Because otherwise, you WOULD be wasting your time doing the same thing over and over again, just trying to memorize exactly what happens without any telegraphing.

 

The health bar thing is true, and that is exactly how Rayman 2 handles it. Games with OHKO's usually offer you a way to get by better once you do figure it out, and that is part of the challenge. It's not for everyone though, and I don't see myself ever revisiting Contra when, for me, there are better games out there. It's a risk/ reward system. I'll agree that games like Contra, and even SMB to an extent can waste loads of time by killing you, and asking you restart, but I don't mind it, cause the game is telling me I messed up in a clear way. If I don't learn to jump on a Goomba, then I won't get past the first screen. In SMB, it is also possible to reach world 8-1 in about five minutes if you know what you're doing.

 

This was refined when saving became a thing, and games like DKC are more bearable because of it for newcomers, even if you do have to replay a couple of levels. I'm talking mostly about platformers here, cause they, as a genre require memorization in a high degree to be good at, and run through levels. That's why people also like Classic Sonic so much. It's really hard to actually die in those games, but stage hazards can mess you up, and drop you to a lower, slower part of the level. Sonic 2 does this best, with Zones like Chemical Plant, and Aquatic Ruin. These are all different styles of the same thing. The level is telling you that you messed up. Be it a death, game over, or losing time, either way, there's gotta be something. I would rather not restart a large chunk of level, but if it is a new game that I haven't played before, it simply means I'm not good enough yet.

 

Losing interest in a game like this is fine, there's games I've quit playing cause I got stuck, and just didn't feel like doing it. That means it wasn't well enough designed for me as a player, not that the design choices are automatically bad for everyone.

 

Puzzles in LttP are like this too. I'd argue that there aren't really traditional puzzles in that game. It's more like, navigation puzzles. Use this item to get there, push that block, pull that switch, go find that key. It's not exactly exhilarating in concept alone, but LttP's memorization is in the level layouts themselves. These elements combine to make a situation that you can be in control of based on your skill. You can save time if you know the layouts, and can breeze through the dungeons. This also applies to fore mentioned deaths in platformers.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users