Free will or safety net?

Do you think it's better to have a safety net in your game for players or do you think they should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the negative outcome that might come of it?

For example, in my game should I allow players to use healing items even if their health bar is full?
In other words, should they be able to WASTE a health item because they were careless, or should I have a safety net that instead says "Your health bar is already full"?

Another scenario, should the game double check with a player when they decide to drop an item (in case it's an accident)? Or should the game just let them drop it and deal with the consequences?
 
Every choice like this depends on what you're trying to make. There are no wrong answers here - are you trying to make Dark Souls or Mario? You're indirectly asking what the atmosphere of your game should be like with these questions, but how would we know? What do you want to make?

If I had to guess, you'd rather let players waste health items and drop items, otherwise you probably wouldn't bother asking. So go ahead, hahah! Just do whatever you think suits your game. Both paths are completely valid! =)

Edit: I'm complaining about somebody asking game design questions in a game design forum, so maybe I'm crazy. I actually can't think of a game design question that shouldn't be answered with "depends what you're making," so maybe I shouldn't be answering too many questions here, hahah.
 
Last edited:

Neptune

Member
I personally try to avoid limiting the player to do something as much as possible (perhaps its just the style of my game?).
Especially in flow control... for example, if they want to open their inventory while another menu is open... I let them -- by setting up controls to close other menus, rather than setting up flow control to prevent them for opening menus while one is already open.

I do the same for actual mechanics. I try to have the player retain control as much as possible, except in the most important situations... like a cut scene or something.

But as Rich says, it mostly boils down to target audience / how casual is your game / how much do you want to hold your audiences' hands...
 

JeffJ

Member
As others have already said, it depends a lot on what it is you're trying to achieve in terms of gameplay, atmosphere, audience etc..

I will add some additional thoughts, though. Aside from appealing to your key demographic's tastes, preferably there should be a reason other than "just because" - as in, a design reason.

A simple example is reloading a gun. Most videogames handles this very casually. However, in games like Mafia: City of Lost Heaven and Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, if you carry a fully loaded revolver, fire off one shot and then hit reload, you lose the remaining five, because your character simply empties the cylinder. This is deliberate, to simulate the fact that you wouldn't have time to save individual bullets when reloading in the middle of a battle.
The reason I bring up this example is because, aside from appealing to the intended audience (more realism, less casual), it also serves an actual gameplay effect; suddenly, there's a small element of thought and strategy that goes into something as banal as reloading a gun; on one hand, you typically want to be freshly reloaded to have as many rounds ready to fire off as possible - on the other hand, you don't want to waste precious ammo by reloading after only a few shots. Suddenly something so small actual becomes a decision that is not entirely insignificant.

With this example in mind, allowing your player to heal when not needed doesn't immediately serve any purpose other than just penalizing those who make an erroneous button mash. What if you instead turned it in to a mechanical decision? Sort of like you can heal when at full health and consume the medkit, and it will go over you normal max health, but it will immediately start counting down towards your normal max, and after that, maybe even dip a tad below (to simulate over-medicating or whatever). This will give players a temporary boost for a tough battle, and they will make a conscious sacrifice by gaining a boost now and paying a lesser price later.

This is just one idea, but the general thing here is; try to see if you can incorporate an actual reason other than "just because freedom". Not only will it lessen the risk of annoying players, it will also elevate the small strategical options in your game and make for a more interesting gameplay.
 
D

Danei

Guest
In general I would feel annoyed at a healthpack being wasted if I use it at full health (unless it's an unidentified item or something), because the only time I'm ever going to do that after the first time I try it, to see what happens, is accidentally. It makes a game feel arbitrarily hostile/"hardcore", which to be fair actually improves the atmosphere for a few games, but mostly is annoying. Like "haha, gotcha, you hit the wrong key, loser! Better luck next time, womp womp."

I guess the main exception for me is if there's a strong simulation component to the game; then it would actually be less immersive to be unable to use the thing.

A couple further thoughts:
If I'm playing a game where a monster pops out from a dark corner and screams, and I have 1.5 seconds to hit a key while I'm panicking IRL, then accidental keypresses become part of gameplay. If I'm in a menu somewhere and time is stopped, then it's no longer gameplay, it's just unfriendly UI. So in general, I would say the best way to think about it would be to consider which way contributes to gameplay in ways you want to encourage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HayManMarc

Member
Dungeon Siege solved this by filling up your health then keeping what's left over in your inventory.
For example, the health potion starts out with 100 health points, but you only need 25 HP to be at Max. You take the potion and the game automatically only takes 25 HP out of that potion filling the player to Max HP and leaving the remaining 75 available for later.
 
D

deem93

Guest
I think that limiting game-breaking decisions is reasonable. In Dark Souls, AFAIK, if you somehow lose an important item, you can find in the chest, in Firelink Shrine.
The player should, at the very least, be informed that something they've done, will irreversibly prevent them from finishing the game (I think Morrowind did that).
 
G

GM029

Guest
For me personally I would find accidentally using up health when I didn't need it to be frustrating, especially if health were hard to come by and it would hinder my ability to continue on in the game. I don't really value realism/high difficulty levels in video games so I am probably not your target market however.
 
D

dannyjenn

Guest
Two things -

1.) Whatever you do, you should make it look and feel like a deliberate game mechanic rather than an oversight. It's ok to allow the player to waste Potions, but the player should not end up thinking that the game is glitchy.

2.) If the game is long, like an RPG, I would not allow the player to inadvertently do anything that will make the game unbeatable. If the game is short, or like a puzzle game, I think it would be ok to allow the player to do things that make the current level unbeatable so long as you include some way to reset the level such that the game itself is still beatable.
 

WarpDogsVG

Member
I think you might be oversimplifying these design problems.

Take the health thing. How easy it is to select the health item? How easy it is to get? Under what situations is the player using it - in combat? Out of combat? Turn based or real time? How 'deliberate' is the rest of your game? How severely do you punish other player mistakes?

There's too many variables to say whether one design is better than the other. For me it makes perfect sense why in Dark Souls I can chug a flask by mistake. It equally makes sense that in Final Fantasy I can't use a phoenix down on someone unless they are dead. It depends a lot on the game

Probably the best rule of thumb is to put yourself 'in the game' and ask if an action would make sense in the context of the game. A soldier in a desperate situation wasting resources? That doesn't make a lot of sense, so maybe restrict it or prompt the user to simulate the soldier's thought process. An adventurer who is stumbling upon healing left and right? Probably a lot more laissez-faire about things
 

Yal

šŸ§ *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
or should I have a safety net that instead says "Your health bar is already full"?
Nitpick: saying "your health bar is already full" will ruin immersion, reword it to "You don't need medical attention right now" or "No need for that" instead.

Personally I feel that adding in logic to prevent the player from doing stuff will make you waste effort doing stuff that will just frustrate players. Try to keep it to a minimum and only do it when needed (e.g. prevent the player from making the game permanently unwinnable)
 
Top