General Question: helping / preventing a stuck player
richard develyn
possible for a player in my game to get himself stuck - i.e. make the
game unwinnable.
I've racked my brains to see if I can think of a logical game-true way
out of this and I can't.
Since I personally hate this sort of thing when I play games myself I
want to put some sort of meta-game thing in place to tell the player
that this has happened to him.
Ways that suggest themselves to me are:
1) Put out a message like "You have a bad feeling about this. " (which
I'm not keen on without explaining why you would have a bad feeling,
and that kind of gives the game away).
2) Reduce the score. Certainly been done before, and I suppose it's no
less valid than raising the score when the player does something right.
3) Implementing an "am i stuck" command, and possibly a "why am i
stuck" command.
What do people think?
Richard
Victor Gijsbers
> What do people think?
Well, I think the crux lies here:
> I've racked my brains to see if I can think of a logical game-true way
> out of this and I can't.
Try racking your brains a bit further. Fiction is the most malleable
thing in existence - it *must* be possible to come up with a way to
ensure that the player cannot be stuck that still fits within the fiction.
The only elegant way of getting rid of the problems that accompany being
stuck is ensuring that people cannot get stuck.
Regards,
Victor
Paul E Collins
> 2) Reduce the score. Certainly been done before, and
> I suppose it's no less valid than raising the score when
> the player does something right.
To me, that wouldn't imply that I was actually *stuck* though -
precisely the opposite, that the game had been designed to continue
this way, and I had merely done something a less clever way (thus
losing a few points).
P.
Eric Eve
news:1137667105.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Despite my best efforts to prevent this I have discovered that it
> is
> possible for a player in my game to get himself stuck - i.e. make
> the
> game unwinnable.
>
> I've racked my brains to see if I can think of a logical game-true
> way
> out of this and I can't.
>
> Since I personally hate this sort of thing when I play games
> myself I
> want to put some sort of meta-game thing in place to tell the
> player
> that this has happened to him.
>
point, with an appropriate short cut-scene leading to a death or
failure message, and making sure there's an UNDO command available.
That way, the player knows s/he's taken a wrong turn, and doesn't
waste time playing on from an unwinnable position; also the player
can back out of the unwinnable state with a single UNDO and carry on
playing down a more productive path. Of course, depending on the
state of the story and the nature of the action that gets the game
into an unwinnable state, this may seem a bit abrupt or inelegant,
but this can be alleviated if the game signals in advance that the
next move might have momentous consequences.
-- Eric
richard develyn
I have a door with a comination lock leading to an armoury. The lock is
the spinning dial type, like a safe. You don't know the combination
therefore you can't open it. At a certain trigger point in the game
guards go into the armoury to change their weapons, however they
neglect to spin the wheel when they come out thus leaving the door
unlocked.
The aim of my game involves disabling the guards by preventing them
switching their weapons back again later on.
The correct sequence is therefore to open the door and go in. Looking
back on the door you can see a number of wheels on this side of the
door which are used to set the combination. Just spin one of these
around to another number, thus changing the combination, go back out,
close the door and spin the main wheel again (to lock it).
You will get stuck, however, if you turn the wheel outside the door
without changing the combination. The door is now locked and there's
nothing you can do about it. The trigger which caused the guards to
come and unlock the door doesn't happen again.
I can't think of any sensible way around this.
Richard
Blank
How about:
The door is not actually closed, but stuck on some tiny obstruction; so
even if the player randomizes the dial the door can still be pulled
open. The correct combination can be read from the dials on the back of
the door. The player must remove the stone chipping or whatever is
obstructing the door before re-setting the dials, closing and locking it.
richard develyn
and spinning the dial without changing the combination?
Richard
Andrew Plotkin
>
> The correct sequence is therefore to open the door and go in. Looking
> back on the door you can see a number of wheels on this side of the
> door which are used to set the combination. Just spin one of these
> around to another number, thus changing the combination, go back out,
> close the door and spin the main wheel again (to lock it).
>
> You will get stuck, however, if you turn the wheel outside the door
> without changing the combination. The door is now locked and there's
> nothing you can do about it. The trigger which caused the guards to
> come and unlock the door doesn't happen again.
>
> I can't think of any sensible way around this.
You could have a secondary trigger, which is logically dependent on
having the first one having happened. ("Oh crap, I left my car keys in
the safe.") Have that happen periodically until the player clues in.
Or you could be more blunt: if the player tries to turn the wheel, the
game says "It would be stupid to re-lock the vault when you don't know
the combination." Unless the player has been inside and examined the
wheels, in which case it's logical to say "You re-lock the vault,
muttering '3-65-83' to yourself. Sure wouldn't want to forget that."
(I am assuming that the player *can* reopen the vault once he *knows*
the combination.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Making a saint out of Reagan is sad. Making an idol out of Nixon ("If the
President does it then it's legal") is contemptible.
richard develyn
example. What I'm opting for at the moment is an intuitive sense of
foreboding, since the player may not have fully realised yet why there
is something wrong.
I put out:
(You get a strange but certain feeling that that wasn't such a good
idea; perhaps you should "undo" and "save" before carrying on.)
Richard
richard develyn
the combination. The player in my game is a small flying creature about
the size of a chihuahua. It can spin wheels, but not precisely, enough
to lock the door or to change the combination to some other number, but
not to actually open it.
Even if the player could open the door with the combination, the player
doesn't know the combination to start with (its not his safe).
Therefore the player could lock the door without first finding out what
the combination was (by looking on the other side).
I could put out a message saying "It would be stupid to lock the safe
without changing the combination - but that totally gives the game away
and may in any case be answered by a <Why?> if the player hasn't at
that point worked out that this is what he's supposed to do."
richard
Andrew Plotkin
which proposed solution you're talking about!)
Here, richard develyn <ric...@skaro.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unfortunately the player can never open the vault even if he did know
> the combination. The player in my game is a small flying creature about
> the size of a chihuahua.
Well, you should have said. :)
> I could put out a message saying "It would be stupid to lock the safe
> without changing the combination - but that totally gives the game away
If it's a choice between giving the game away and destroying it for
the player, you give it away. An obvious interaction is still
fun for the player -- not as much fun as a cool puzzle, but more fun
than finding the game unexpectedly stuck.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't shipped you to Syria for interrogation, it's
for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're innocent.
Uli Kusterer
"richard develyn" <ric...@skaro.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You will get stuck, however, if you turn the wheel outside the door
> without changing the combination. The door is now locked and there's
> nothing you can do about it. The trigger which caused the guards to
> come and unlock the door doesn't happen again.
>
> I can't think of any sensible way around this.
Can you add another trigger that causes the guards to come? E.g. have a
vase in the room that the player accidentally smashes that the guards
hear? The player would of course hide from the guards, and they come in
and also replace the vase with a new one to avoid getting into trouble.
Wouldn't something like that work?
Cheers,
-- Uli
http://www.zathras.de
richard develyn
door again? How many vases can I have?
Something like an alarm bell maybe - still not straight forward as I
would only want this to work once the main trigger had been set (as
that's a puzzle in itself, which I would rather not invalidate).
Richard
richard develyn
just putting out some sort of -stuck alert- style message and warning
the player he should undo and save before continuing?
Richard
richard develyn
although it's not hugely satisfactory ...
"You hesitate - have you really capitalised on the opportunity that
finding the armoury door open has granted you ..."
- and if you try to close it without even going through:
"You hesitate - maybe the door is unlocked now, and leadign to
somewhere ..."
Richard
Kevin Venzke
>I suppose that's a fair point, but is there anything really wrong with
> just putting out some sort of -stuck alert- style message and warning
> the player he should undo and save before continuing?
Bleah. I'd rather you contrive a reason to kill the player on the spot.
Telling the player he should undo and save is like admitting you
screwed up. It's about as intrusive as an in-game admission would
be, too.
And you'd be wasting any time spent on implementing anything
specific to this losing path.
Kevin Venzke
Kevin Venzke
I think this is OK. I thought you meant something like:
"[You just maybe/probably screwed up the game. You should
UNDO and SAVE while you still can. But probably just UNDO.]"
Explaining why the PC doesn't think he's used an opportunity
well is good.
Kevin Venzke
fel...@yahoo.com
> Unfortunately the player can never open the vault even if he did know
> the combination. The player in my game is a small flying creature about
> the size of a chihuahua. It can spin wheels, but not precisely, enough
> to lock the door or to change the combination to some other number, but
> not to actually open it.
>
nor
close it. Right? Then, even if the guards forget to lock, he can't get
behind
the door to change the combination. Or, if they forgot to close the
door
altogether, he can change the combination (the back of the door being
exposed), but he can't close the door, so his action isn't really
effective.
No offense, but the whole situation is contrived. Why not, then, just
tell the player he must not lock the safe before taking advantage of
the
situation? I don't think that's a bad thing.
Cheers,
Felix
Fish
> The aim of my game involves disabling the guards by preventing them
> switching their weapons back again later on.
Might I suggest at this point that this is an *amazingly* bad move?
It is illogical to require the player to die multiple times, see the
future behavior of the guards, realize the guards return, and act upon
the impossible future foreknowledge of a past life. I would call this
bad game design, personally.
I would suggest a puzzle design that has a trigger event *before* the
player can even get into the safe. He overhears a guard say, "We're
going to have to get new guns out of the vault soon, mine's almost
empty!" Or he finds a piece of paper from the Zorkmid Vault & Safe Co.
explaining the high quality of their merchandise and how the combination
is to be set. Or he acquires a schedule of events for the day ("4:00...
renew weapon supplies") or an emergency procedures booklet ("...in case
of break-in, guards will proceed to the emergency weapon cache at Armory
Vault #6").
Otherwise there's no reasonable way to learn the information other than
doing it, failing and dying, and taking that knowledge into the next life.
If the player than fails to take advantage of the information provided,
he can be stuck, but he can't say you didn't warn him.
But hey, that's just my take on game design. Your mileage may vary.
FISH
richard develyn
once its locked, but unfortunately he can lock it all too easy.
The situation isn't contrived - it's totally logical. In fact it's the
logic of the situation which is causing a problem and I'm trying to
involve doing anything contrived. Anyway, what you suggest is in fact
my current thoughts on this.
Richard
richard develyn
being *necessary* in order to complete the game. However if you haven't
figured out what you need to do (and it isn't difficult - but anyway)
then when you reach the end-scene it'll be obvious.
The crux of the situation is this: You have to disable the castle's
defences and then save the day yourself when the moment of crisis comes
(the end-scene). You get plenty of clues that this is what you should
do, but if you haven't figured it out then the end-scene pretty much
tells you. This doesn't mean that you *need* to experience the
end-scene in order to know what to do, it's just that if you do
experience the end-scene you will know for certain. Prior to that it
comes down to you having a "reasonable way to learn the information" -
which I hope you have.
Richard
richard develyn
Richard
Samwyse
> What's to prevent the player removing the obstruction closing the door
> and spinning the dial without changing the combination?
Put the obstruction in the lock mechanism. Instead of the guards
forgetting to spin the lock, they find that they can't and go to get a
set of tweezers or something. The player goes in, finds the obstruction
and easily removes it (with hands much smaller than the guards), in the
process changing the combination, which you note. "As you take the
metal flake, you accidentally change the combination to 42-23-5."
richard develyn
what you're saying. You have still given things away a bit since it
would be nice if the player could deduce from the rest of the game that
he should change the combination and then do so deliberately.
Richard
Uli Kusterer
"richard develyn" <ric...@skaro.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Sure, but what if you still don't change the combination and lock the
> door again? How many vases can I have?
Well, who cares how many vases there are? Yes, it may seem funny that
they replace the vases each time and you knock one over every time, but
the advantage is that it's a more subtle in-game solution instead of
knocking the player over the head by having the PC go "Hmmm... not sure
this is a good idea, there might be cooler stuff to do."
> Something like an alarm bell maybe - still not straight forward as I
> would only want this to work once the main trigger had been set (as
> that's a puzzle in itself, which I would rather not invalidate).
There are probably two hundred ways to achieve something similar, but
since I don't know the details and constraints of your game, I just
suggested this one in the hope that it'd give you some idea that worked
better in your case: Create some secondary trigger that only works when
the user does it wrong. The vase has the advantage that if a player does
it right the first time, she'll never know she could've tipped the vase.
And once the player does the right thing, you can have the payoff scene
where it says: "As you leave, you deftly avoid the vase."
Of course it'd be really cool if you managed to have a real running gag
here that's actually funny...
Neil Cerutti
4) Change the combination mechanism to one the player can't
operate. As I understand it, there's no possibility of the player
ever entering the correct combination and opening the safe, so
just make it impossible to "turn the dial". You'll need to invent
some sort of mumbo-jumbo combination mechanism that's possible
for guards to manipulate but not your player.
--
Neil Cerutti
The world is more like it is now than it ever has been before.
--Dwight Eisenhower