Design Designing filler: your ideas?

[Yal]

I recently watched the GDC talk from the devs behind We Happy Few talking about how they designed the procedural cities in their game, and while it wasn't that interesting IMO since it focused a lot on the inspiration and visual design rather than the game design bits, there was a pretty big section about how they designed "filler" buildings that was pretty interesting. They originally only used one type of filler building, buildings you simply couldn't enter but helped make the city look more bustling, but later realized a need for spatial filler buildings as well because the curved roads in the cities would create unusable space between buildings if they weren't allowed to overlap, so they added buildings that had a very spindly look to them that made them look good even when stretched to fill pretty small gaps between 'real' buildings.

A lot of games have some sort of filler content... what's your ideas on how to implement filler properly? Should a game have as little filler as possible, or are there legit uses for filler content? (for instance, in We Happy Few the purpose of the filler buildings is to make the world feel more alive, because real people need places like offices even though the player cannot achieve anything meaningful by visiting them). What types of filler content feels the most grating to you? When does it blend in and when is it feeling obvious?

 

[JackTurbo]

I think the thing with "Filler" is that it should always have an important purpose and should only be used when you absolutely cannot use something more meaningful in its place.

So like with the given example its got a purpose (to make the environment more believable) and because of their procedural system a more meaning alternative isn't practical. However personally its something I'd strive to keep to a minimum on principle.

 

[CardinalCoder64]

However personally its something I'd strive to keep to a minimum on principle.

I agree. "Filler" to me is one of those things in games where it's not really necessary, but they're there to make the game look good and more immersive. It sounds like a lot of extra work but hey I can't imagine some games without them (Superman 64, Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis, Bubsy 3D)

 

[Yal]

"Filler" to me is one of those things in games where it's not really necessary, but they're there to make the game look good and more immersive. It sounds like a lot of extra work but hey I can't imagine some games without them (Superman 64, Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis, Bubsy 3D)

So the problem with those games is that they don't have enough filler? I can't say I agree with that sentiment, I'd say the problem is that the game mechanics of Superman 64 and Bubsy 3D both aren't fleshed out properly... the former tries to cram a million different things into the game without making any of them fun (XOMG FLY THROUGH RINGS XOMG SAVE PEDESTRIANS FROM CARS XOMG SAVE PEOPLE DROPPING FROM BUILDINGS) and the latter bases the game around a fundamentally flawed concept (explore a level where everything looks the same, the camera makes it hard to judge distance and direction, and there are no landmarks). I'll have to agree with you on the Aquaman game, though, since it's about you doing the same thing over and over.

For me, some games that suffer from having too much filler is MMORPGs like Aion and World of Warcraft: you pay your subscriptions per month, so the games need to make even the most basic tasks take lots of grinding or farming. Enemies constantly respawn, sometimes directly in your field of view, so you never feel like your actions have a lasting impact on the world, especially not when tons of players queue up to do the exact same thing. The exact same graphic is used for several different enemies, so you don't feel a significant increase in progress because you're still fighitng the same enemies, just with higher numbers attached to them. And on top of that these games often have problems with design by accretion, which means they have filler systems (or filler mechanics, whichever you prefer) as well once they've been running long enough.

(as you can tell, I've tried some MMORPGs out and not enjoyed the experience one bit)

 

[Ankokushin]

Well, I don´t know if the whole concept of "filler" is clear to me, but I love characters. Like, anything human, suffering, joy, really enriches the game experience for me. In many games you sometimes enter somewhere that has no itens or quest objectives but it has a note someone wrote, a person dead in a very significant position, a picture of a family, a ledger with information on expenses....
...these things really deepen my experience in the game, "useless" as they may be.

This is a matter of text, mostly, but I suppose it could be incorporated into design.

 

[RangerX]

This is not what I call filler content or the definition I see in gaming forums.
"Filler content" is more like content added to artificially make your game longer and its usually a bad idea, bad design when done even in professional games. Per example, a game where a crafting system isn't necessary nor the main focus but there's one so it conveniently take more time to do mundane tasks and it makes your game more marketable. Adds a bullet point behind the box and give the publisher the occasion to say "this game lasts for 200 hours".

 

[JackTurbo]

I personally despise filler content or padding in regards to gameplay content. Ubisoft are pretty bad for this, pointless collectibles and other unfun side content.

If content isn't fun and meaningful then it shouldnt be there.

I much prefer a short but engaging and memorable experience such as Gunpoint (which is only like 4hrs long) over longer experiences that are filled with pointless padding.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

I personally despise filler content or padding in regards to gameplay content. Ubisoft are pretty bad for this, pointless collectibles and other unfun side content.

If content isn't fun and meaningful then it shouldnt be there.

I much prefer a short but engaging and memorable experience such as Gunpoint (which is only like 4hrs long) over longer experiences that are filled with pointless padding.

I don't think of optional stuff when I think of filler either, though, and I have no problem with collection sidequests and stuff. Players that want to spend more time in the game doing them will do them, and players who aren't into that sort of thing won't. I normally wouldn't collect things in a game, but I've gotten some enjoyment doing otherwise mundane tasks in games, so I think stuff like that is fine.

Filler to me is collectathons and crap that are mandatory to beat the game. Anything that adds length to a game without adding any real value is filler. Devs do it because filler content is 1/10th the work of real content, but yields the same amount of added time for the player. I think filler can be done well, if handled by a smart developer, and I think most games can even benefit from it. The trick is to use filler sparingly to stretch out an awesome game for the player. Lots of RPGs do this, and I've never minded it. Doing a funny fetch quest or whatever can be fun once in awhile, can be a good break from the core game loop, and can keep an amazing game I don't want to end going for that much longer.

Everything can be used well in game design, I think. You just have to be smart about it. Filler is one of the harder things to use properly, because nobody wants to feel like their time is being wasted, but it can be used very well, I think. Even well enough to make a great game even better, if you're really good at what you're doing.

 

[CardinalCoder64]

I think we have 2 different definitions of "filler" here:
- Visual Filler, adding to the games' environment without serving any real purpose (ex. the plates, cups, and other useless junk found in a game like Skyrim, buildings/trees in the background found in a game like Gran Turismo, etc.)
- Mechanical Filler, adding to the games' length pretending to serve a purpose (ex. herding the Ordon goats in LOZ:TP, the Olympus barrel training from KH1 (debatable I guess), etc.)

I guess it all depends on how it's used, as with every game design aspect. It can actually be beneficial in some cases, but sometimes it's clear how filler can feel meaningless and unimportant, which is a shame considering how it can take away from perfectly good titles at times.

 

[Yal]

I think we have 2 different definitions of "filler" here:
- Visual Filler, adding to the games' environment without serving any real purpose (ex. the plates, cups, and other useless junk found in a game like Skyrim, buildings/trees in the background found in a game like Gran Turismo, etc.)
- Mechanical Filler, adding to the games' length pretending to serve a purpose (ex. herding the Ordon goats in LOZ:TP, the Olympus barrel training from KH1 (debatable I guess), etc.)

They're basically the same definition: filler is content that has no purpose for the player, often generic enough that it can be easily repeated as well. They still have a purpose for the developer, though: they're a cheap way to add more net content.

Fleshing the game out to make it a fuller experience (as @Ankokushin brings up) is something completely different, that's actual game content
(even if it's not necessarily playable... text logs and notes and stuff are pure information dumps)

Speaking of that, I really like the way the Souls games display random item flavor text during loading screens. You get gameplay tips AND lore at the same time, because most items has a flavor text along the lines of <brief description> <use in gameplay> <if item has special ability, point it out> <a few paragraphs of background lore>. You're usually enticed to read the text for the gameplay info, but loading times are usually great enough that you can leisurously read the flavor text as well, so you slowly osmose background info as you're playing the game, without really noticing. Skyrim has the same idea, but usually present you ONLY lore, making it easier to ignore because you have no real anchor to it.

 

[Ankokushin]

Fleshing the game out to make it a fuller experience (as @Ankokushin brings up) is something completely different, that's actual game content
(even if it's not necessarily playable... text logs and notes and stuff are pure information dumps)

I guess I just run around the forum missing the point of the threads just the right amount : )
(enough to annoy the participants, but not enough to annoy the moderators YET)

I like what @Yal says about the Souls series - in fact, I think most of the players would not even bother to read the itens if they weren´t forced on them during loading.

But I still have a problem with the precise definition of filler. Sure, insert repetitive, meaningless stuff to make it longer, but there is an amount of repetitive meaningless stuff that is part of gameplay, isn´t it? In a Runner Game, the map will repeat itself. In a classical JRPG, you will be forced to fight and grind for way too long, same monsters, no meaning. And what is the whole "get a key to open a door" thing (present in, I don´t know, one out of 5 games) if not a way to make you spend more time in a stage?

Mind you, I mean an actual key. In metroidvania games, you usually get itens and abilities that change the gameplay thus allowing you access into other areas - and this is very cool. But in many games, all you want is a key...
Anyway, I hope I didn´t miss the point too much this time.

Cheers!

 

[RangerX]

The line is thin between "legit gameplay" or a valid gameplay style and "filler". Filler starts when you feel its too much. When you feel its "tacked on", that the game would probably be BETTER without it.
And what's filler gameplay for someone might not be for another person afterall. Per example, a JRPG that you play in a relaxed way, without skipping nothing, doing all the quests and all the jazz but at the end of the day you still need to grind for HOURS if you want to be able to proceed --> this is bad design to me.
Then you have those grinding lovers...

 

[Yal]

And what is the whole "get a key to open a door" thing (present in, I don´t know, one out of 5 games) if not a way to make you spend more time in a stage?

This thing is kinda interesting, because it's legit content when you get it right but it really feels like filler if you get it wrong. *rubs chin* So what's the ways it's possible to get ability-locked areas wrong?

• Anything that literally just removes blockades or opens doors will feel lazy and filler-y. You see the path, you see that it's clearly blocked, and in that moment you not only know you'll be able to get to that area later, you also know how. This kind of blockade just ruins the surprise. Ideally abilities that lets you access new areas should let you do so in unpredictable ways, such as how Axiom Verge has an ability that lets you teleport to your remote drone - suddenly you can enter areas you expected only were there as side-areas for the drone, letting you tackle obstacles in completely new ways, and you can also launch the drone into the air and then warp to it to functionally get a jump much longer than normally available.
• Blockades should be a natural part of the environment; in manmade areas this means the objects should appear to have a purpose other than blocking your way, and in natural areas this means the objects should be placed so that they blends in, and ideally some should be placed randomly even in places they don't impede the player. This serves a dual purpose other than making the world make more sense: it means the player doesn't instantly KNOW every instance of this object conceals a path (you won't have secret areas FEEL secret if you can instantly tell where they are, which ruins the enjoyment of finding one), and having nearby 'deco-only' objects makes it easier for a player on the lookout for this type of object to tell they're nearby without them having to traverse all of the map.
  
• Abilities that are direct upgrades or obsoletes a previous ability without replacing it are both feeling fillery. Abilities should compliment each other and be unique, having slightly different versions just to pass blockades feels cheap. For instance, the Aerial and Underwater First-person Aiming abilities in Banjo-Tooie is an ability like this, where the ability just removes an obstacle that didn't have a reason exist to begin with. Not to mention how Grenade Eggs make normal eggs obsolete because they deal more damage AND break breakable walls.

 

[RangerX]

But then again Yal, your first 2 points aren't necessarily true. "It all depends" yet again how its done.
If I take Super Metroid for instance. That game feels right and is the core of the "Metroidvania" genre along with Castlevania Symphony of the night. I struggle finding "bad design" is Super Metroid.
Yet it does your point 1 and 2 plenty! But it feels fine and exciting!

 

[John Andrews]

My proposal for filler would be to make the game feel more alive, to make the game feel like you can interact with it more.

Some things in games are very irrelevant and the player doesn't even notices them, but if you could really interact with that irrelevant thing that is just filler, it feels like the game is alive in some form, that is not just a game, but something that is 'real' something that exists and something that matters, filler can be used to make games feel important, to make people take the game in count, for example (these examples may not be filler but anyway) there are games (even 2d ones) that have a desk, and on the desk is a pile of papers, and if you go over the desk you throw the pile of papers away, the game instantly feels more alive and 'real', and that's something players like in games (well in my case), the other example is that in a game (I don't remember it's name) you fight with swords and stuff, but in some places there is grass, and you could use the sword to cut the grass! and that's something nobody would pay attention to, but still were there, and tbh I spent some good time cutting grass in that game lol

I don't know if this is helpful in any way as of now but hey! I just wanted to give my opinion!

 

[RangerX]

oops wrong thread

 

[Ankokushin]

you fight with swords and stuff, but in some places there is grass, and you could use the sword to cut the grass!

Zelda? : D

But yeah, I guess cutting grass IS a kind of filler, in Zelda. Sure, you can find money and ammo but you might as well play the whole game without ever cutting grass. Feels like a clever way one of the developers thought of exploring the game mechanics. Nice kind of filler, but them again, I don´t know if it is a filler if the game doesn´t FORCE you that path.

• Blockades should be a natural part of the environment; in manmade areas this means the objects should appear to have a purpose other than blocking your way, and in natural areas this means the objects should be placed so that they blends in, and ideally some should be placed randomly even in places they don't impede the player. This serves a dual purpose other than making the world make more sense: it means the player doesn't instantly KNOW every instance of this object conceals a path (you won't have secret areas FEEL secret if you can instantly tell where they are, which ruins the enjoyment of finding one)

You know... even though I think this makes perfect sense... I honestly can´t remember a single game where this happens. Really, like... usually the cracked wall IS the place to blow. The issue being whether you will notice the crack or not.
I would rather the games were like Yal suggests.

 

[CardinalCoder64]

if you could really interact with that irrelevant thing that is just filler, it feels like the game is alive in some form, that is not just a game, but something that is 'real' something that exists and something that matters, filler can be used to make games feel important, to make people take the game in count

For me, the game that comes to mind when using this kind of filler is Undertale. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's #1 (if not a close tie with Skyrim) on the list of games with the most filler content. There are rooms and lines of dialogue in that game that quite literally serve no actual purpose other than to keep the player busy (like, you know, the Ruins) or to expand on the narrative. But here's the genius behind it: it never actually feels like filler. It feels "real". Those "useless" rooms still feel like they hold some kind of purpose to them. Yeah, you can still beat the game without going to San's/Papyrus's house, Napstablook's house, doing the snail race, finding the quiche under the bench, playing the piano to find some ancient artifact...but it wouldn't "feel" right to play the game without doing all those things (unless, you know, go genocide). It's...interesting to say the least. This is one example of filler being actually beneficial to gameplay.

Abilities that are direct upgrades or obsoletes a previous ability without replacing it are both feeling fillery. Abilities should compliment each other and be unique, having slightly different versions just to pass blockades feels cheap.

Again, it's all in the design and the way those abilities are used. Having super missiles over normal missiles in Metroid doesn't feel cheap/fillery to me, but having like 6 other beams over the default beam in Axiom Verge does. It all depends on what moves the developers make on their behalf.

 

[Yal]

I struggle finding "bad design" is Super Metroid.

• Kraid is in a hidden area, and the map room that reveals clues to where it is is permanently missable (not completely permanently, but it's past a point of no return you can't get back to until you beat him)
• The game's final area is past a point of no return ever and has save rooms so you can get yourself locked in and be unable to go back and find upgrades in case you struggle with the final boss, or want to go for 100% completition after beating the game
  
• Red doors needing 5 missiles to be opened so it's not obvious you have the right tool for the job when the first hit doesn't do anything
• For the most part there's no quick way to refill resources so you're forced to farm "pipe flies" for item drops

 

[John Andrews]

Hmm gonnq reead rhe renplies afrwr habgover, vey

I wrote that on phone

 

[RangerX]

• Kraid is in a hidden area, and the map room that reveals clues to where it is is permanently missable (not completely permanently, but it's past a point of no return you can't get back to until you beat him)
• The game's final area is past a point of no return ever and has save rooms so you can get yourself locked in and be unable to go back and find upgrades in case you struggle with the final boss, or want to go for 100% completition after beating the game
  
• Red doors needing 5 missiles to be opened so it's not obvious you have the right tool for the job when the first hit doesn't do anything
• For the most part there's no quick way to refill resources so you're forced to farm "pipe flies" for item drops

lol Manner of speaking Yal, the perfect game doesn't exist.
Just meant that game (and many others) are pulling some of your gameplay arguments you described up there as bad but in a good way.

 

[Yal]

Hmm gonnq reead rhe renplies afrwr habgover, vey

...and you probably shouldn't check the forums when drunk, lol

lol Manner of speaking Yal, the perfect game doesn't exist.
Just meant that game (and many others) are pulling some of your gameplay arguments you described up there as bad but in a good way.

Yeah, very few games manage to have both good ideas and good execution.


Also, there was a comment about Undertale having filler that I reacted to but forgot to post something about (and now I can't find it... maybe it was in another topic or maybe I'm falling asleep? ^^')... Undertale doesn't have content filler since a lot of the examples are unique and never reused (since the widely used of filler content is content meant to be reused unchanged). But perhaps they might qualify as time fillers instead or some other definition? Doesn't have gameplay purpose but gives you something to do? I'd still say something can't be filler unless it's actually reused, though... if you need to make something new from scratch each time, it's definitely not filler from the developer's point of view.

(Of course, games like No Man's Sky has content that is technically unique from a 'the values aren't equal' point of view but still FEELS the same to players because it behaves the same way... but going into details about that feels like opening a completely different can of worms)

 

[Cloaked Games]

So I think we've established that if it doesn't feel like filler content, then either you did filler content right, or it doesn't count as filler content in the first place.

I'm going to look at what @CardinalCoder64 defined as mechanical filler content, as I think visual filler content is almost always totally fine, since it doesn't waste the player's time in any way.

And I think that's the trick: bad filler content makes the player feel like they wasted time. And so, I think instead of trying to specifically determine how to use good/bad filler content, I think we should focus on how to not waste the player's time, with anything, filler content or otherwise. What feels like a waste of time when you're playing a game?

Note: Most of the games I reference are Zelda games (especially Breath of the Wild, since I've been playing that reccently). Mostly this is because more than half the games I've played are Zelda games...

Here are a few pieces to that:

-Avoid Repetition: When the player is doing the same thing over and over again, eventually that will feel like a waste of time. Now, depending on how much fun that is, what the purpose for doing it is, how often that happens, and how much variation you add, you can sometimes repeat something a lot, but you need to be careful.

In Puzzle Quest, doing the combat puzzles is not a waste of time, because it's core to the game-play experience, and it's fun to do, even though you do the same type of puzzle every single time. (That is, assuming you like games like that. If not, you didn't play Puzzle Quest). But in MMORPG's, you often end up grinding enemies, the same monsters over and over, this ends up feeling like a waste of time because you could be doing something else, but you have to grind.

-Consider the Purpose: One of the most important parts to any content in your game is why. What is the point of doing something? Sometimes it's just fun. (If you're content isn't fun, you might have a problem...) But beyond that, something feels like wasted time if there's no point. Even if something is super fun, if you finish and you think, "Huh? Why did I have to do that?", then it probably feels like a waste of time. For some people, this purpose can be advancing the plot (Like many in many RPGs), but this falls flat really quickly. The best way though, is in-game rewards that are actually significant, like cool items, access to new areas, actual changes to the game world, new abilities, life boosts, basically, significant advances to the playing experience. Rewards in the form of currency, XP, or achievements should be very limited, I think, or else combined with those other things.

I couldn't think of any games I've played that do this right all the time. Zelda is good sometimes, where the required main quests give you useful items, like the hookshot. Or in BotW where killing monster bases is always useful because your weapons break and you always need new weapons/food. On the other hand, Zelda side-quests, while in some games they give you better quivers or heart pieces (which are nice), they also (especially BotW) just give you stupid rupees you don't need. (BotW is the best at this so far, because rupees don't drop naturally, but still... I DON'T NEED 300 MORE RUPEES!)

In a sense, something doesn't feel like a waste of time if it feels useful or productive. Kind of the definition of that.

-Make things optional: Producers might not like this, because in some way, you just made the game shorter. But, at the same time, the game isn't any smaller and it's better for it. The best way to prevent something from being a waste of time is making it optional. Then it's there for the players who want to do it, and everyone else just skips it. This is better for everybody except the people who want to say the game is 200 hours long, and people like Jirard the Completionist*.

Very rarely does anybody thing something is a waste of time if you don't have to do it. As much as I complained about the mini-games in Zelda, it doesn't really matter because I just skip them most of the time. And if it looks fun, I'll do it anyways. And nobody was supposed to find all 900 korok seeds in BotW, I think I've gotten around 60, and that seemed like enough for me. So you could argue that the korok seeds were filler content, and, yeah... but no one really cares. Except Jirard.

There's more, but I'm out of time for now. The point is: how do we not waste the player's time? Filler content itself is not really the issue I think.



*As a side note, a 100% completion bonus should be incorporated I think, all the time, even if it's really lame... Also, post-game save, so you can keep playing after you finished. Unlike the bulk of the Zelda games. Actually, two of the Paper Mario games have extra quests to do only after you played the game.

 

[John Andrews]

<Reserved to answer replies>

 

[RangerX]

<Reserved to answer replies>

Hanghover isn't done yet?

 

[John Andrews]

Hanghover isn't done yet?

It is man, I just didn't want to read the replies at that time lol, I already read them but I don't know what to reply :/

Spoiler: ps

Ps: man, that was a good night

 

[Yal]

"Fighting the same monsters over and over" is something you do a lot in both generic RPGs and critically acclaimed Breath of the Wild and Dark Souls (let's just say Zelda games are RPGs because they have stat progression, OK? x3). The difference is that generic RPGs usually have what you're fighting be the only thing that influences the fight, so fighting enemies in a wide field and fighting enemies in a dungeon corridor is functionally identical. BotW and DS both have the environment actually impact how the fight works, due to mobility and placement influencing dodging and attacking. For instance, all attacks have a range and some attacks have longer range than others, so if one side (typically you) has access to magic projectiles and the other doesn't, the projectile side has an advantage. BotW takes this even further with how everything has tons of interaction with the environment, such that throwing bombs around carelessly can make you unintentionally chop down trees with the blast, dealing huge damage to anyone caught under falling trees.

BotW has a bunch of problems with the breakable equipment, btw.... it's been in some analyses, in particular one titled "Not enough Zelda" that's kinda interesting once you're past the spoiler territory. Basically, at the start of the game it feels fresh to have to replace your weapon after every major encounter but eventually you reach a point where your inventory is constantly full of good weapons and you have to ignore most of the loot you find... and ignore most of the encounters you find because you'd just waste good weapons to get something that's probably not worth your time. Also, some enemies are objectively impossible to beat early on even if you get perfect at dodging them, since your weapons break before you'er capable of dealing enough damage to kill them. (Your bomb power is basically an infinite-use attack but its damage isn't up to par with your weapons, and most enemies try to avoid bombs if they see you pulling them out so they're not reliable). There's also an issue with how attack and defense values are using plus and minus, having too good armor makes even the strongest enemies do laughably little damage while having too bad armor makes everything able to oneshot you, and sometimes upgrading armor can take you from being oneshot by everything to invincible...

Anyway, I guess that's not really on the topic of filler and more focused on balance, sorry about going on a tangent

I guess one of the reasons for WHY BotW has so good filler content is that it's the least boring way to restock on your consumable weapons, though... every encounter feels different because of the level design being different, and the enemies' emergent behavior makes unpredictable stuff happen so the game can allow you to approach them in any way you want without the AI breaking completely. The player has the choice to do the filler or skip it, so it feels less like filler mechanically... and since it's everywhere, it's spatial filler that makes the world feel more alive.

 

[SamuraiSnowman]

I'm just gonna say my two cents cuz I need posts. Filler is stuff that feels pointless to the main narrative or gameplay. Fetch/collect quests....FILLER. BABYSITTING QUESTS....FILLER. But in the end I dont think it matters. If you make any part of your gameplay compelling (filler included) than thats awesome. Garlic JR saga in DBZ is 100% filler but its one of my favorite sagas because it did something different from the main series. ALL UNDERDOGS fighting an immortal being and they won the fight. So in conclusion, whatever youre gonna add in your game, just make it dope af.

 

[SamuraiSnowman]

you could even say my post was filler