[ad_1]
Is trial and error good game design?
Is trial and error good game design?
by u/ReasonableAdvert in gaming
[ad_2]
View Reddit by ReasonableAdvert – View Source
[ad_1]
Is trial and error good game design?
Is trial and error good game design?
by u/ReasonableAdvert in gaming
[ad_2]
View Reddit by ReasonableAdvert – View Source
Sir, we call it “prototyping”
If done well absolutely.
Look at From Software games.
Never has been, **but** it can be interesting if the game doesnt directly punish you for it. Sort of like having the “trial and *error*” part of the learning equation, where the game doesnt just make you restart but instead adapt and try something new.
Change abilities, try a different approach, observe etc instead of just insta-killing you.
Depends on how it’s done.
Trial and error can be fun when you’re given all the tools and information you need to know the first time around, and the trial comes from you finding the right way to do it and the error is you making mistakes.
Trial and error is less fun when you don’t have that information and your options are mostly just look it up, or keep dying until you’ve brute forced a solution.
I feel it’s old school design influenced more by the era when games were designed to be hard to deter rentals and compensate for small games.
Modern games however can still do it fine, I think the Stuntman games had an interesting concept through trial and error gameplay. Even if I did find them very hard as a kid.
I remember the computer game Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy(1984) was like this. You had to type in random acts until you progressed. If you did it wrong, you died. If you didn’t read the book, you didn’t know what to do. It was literally trial and error for me.
I mean, Hades was a massive hit. Every mechanic can be good, and every mechanic can be bad. It depends on what they’re making and who is making it.
I misunderstood the question and thought you meant games like Bloodborne and Donkey Kong Country š
If it’s done bad then it’ll be like the Michael Jackson Moonwalker (Sega Genesis) moment
While trial an error can be done intentionally with mechanics added to avoid frustration, many old games had trial an error like gameplay for the limitation of the hardware, like resolution, for example, or colour, or amount of sprites that could be added to hint you something that should be avoided, etc. Your case however looks like plain bad design xD
It was bullshit then and itās bullshit now. Thereās zero way to avoid it. You have no idea itās there. Then what happens next time? You just jump over it. Thereās no real learning of game mechanics or design there for the player. Itās just a cheap death. At least in FromSoft ARPGs (Iāve beaten them all but Demons Souls) I rarely felt like a death was cheap because of a trap or anything like that. I just wasnāt paying attention to the indications beforehand that there was a trap.
It can be, but this game is example of doing it poorly, f this game
It depends on the game and how its implemented. I think Limbo is a pure trial and error game. Get to each puzzle, jump, and die, until you figure out the right time to jump. It was infuriating because there was no way to know what was the intended move until you tried and erred a few times and there was also an extremely limited amount of things you can do.
Superhot is also a “die a bunch of times until you figure this out” game, but failing a level doesnt feel quite so infuriating. Theres alot of solutions each level can have, and youre learning what one of them could be with each try.
Compare this to something like the Obra Dinn, where you are also trying and erring, but you also have all the information you need to complete each puzzle, and its less about repetition, but your ability and mastery of the game. Its very satisfying, despite there only ever being one correct solution.
Thats not to say its always bad design. Kaizo levels in Mario have their appreciators. So does Fear and Hunger. But thats catering to a certain masochistic tendency not everyone has.
Yes if the “retry” is quick, no if you lose large amounts of time getting back to try again. I don’t have a lot of gaming time, so i avoid games that waste it.
I will die on the hill that yes, it is.
If people feel frustration from it they need to fix their attitude in life.
Ah yes the beginner’s trap AVGN talked about in his review of Super Pitfall and how it could have been worse with things like lava, fire sharks, more spikes, laser cannons and upside down volcanoes.
are you talking about game development?
or are you talking about games being designed around the player failing in order to learn via trial and error.
either way this question needs some work because trial and error is a method in which you can present challenge to a player, how you go about doing it determines if it is well designed or not.
If trial and error is the only way then itās not good design. To me it should be obvious what you need to do by looking at the level. Then itās up to the player to have the skills to do.
I think trial and error can be ok, even fun, if the penalties for failure are low, and success rewards the player for trying out new strategies and tactics.
So many games explicitly tell the player how to overcome any challenge, that it’s a breath of fresh air to find a game that gives you a set of tools and goes “Here, have fun and play around!”
No
Where are the lava sharks?
I would say so. A lot of people love Soulsborne type games because they encourage learning through failure and can ultimately lead you to completely mastering the game. That being said, not everyone likes Soulsborne games. Art is subjective. Personally I think it’s one of many good ways to make a game, not the only or the best though.
It can be if itās done right, like Fromsoft games or Cuphead but then there are other games like āI wanna be the Guyā that are just stupidly unfair
In the example posted it looks extremely unfair. But I believe I feel out many new games today by trial and error. Feeling out reaction timing in action games, learning a boss pattern by playing the encounter. All of it is trial and error. The thing that makes it good design is conveyance. Are enemies telegraphing their attacks? Is the game presenting a pattern and sticking to it? Does what you see clearly translate to your understanding of what is being asked of you to decide, react, QuickTime, whatever.
Yes, yes it is. If you want a simple breeze through then watch a movie. Games thrive off of the overcoming aspect. Anything from beating a Mario level to beating an Elden Ring boss are great feelings for the player.
i love avgn video about this game
Yes and no. I look at it as a means to teach that you cannot expect to go into everything fully prepared and knowledgable about what is to come, so that you must learn to quickly adapt to your situation lest you fail. But even in your failures, as long as you aren’t disheartened, you can try again with the knowledge of your own failures
It really depends on the audience you’re after, take fromsoftware games like dark souls for example, they target a more hardcore audience but are open to casual gamers too, but when you play dark souls, you know it’s gonna take some time to learn it’s mechanics but ultimately rewarding.
This AVGN episode is burned into my brain.
Cat Mario.
Trial and error pretty much describes dark souls games which is why I consider the games so boring and badly designed, give me a game with difficulty that doesn’t rely on me dying first to figure shit out. It’s also why their difficulty is way overplayed, so many games are way more difficult than it and actually have a fair/interesting way to provide difficulty.
I actually highly prefer games that donāt tell the player much of anything about how to play them, can be unfair, or that require a lot of trial and error or experimentation to figure out. La Mulana, Noita, Fez, Tunic, Donāt Starve, Rain World, etc.
It depends, if it makes the game fun then yes, if it makes the game frustrating then no. I think the heightened awareness of game design over the last decade or so as a result of channels like GMTK and Extra Credits before that has kinda warped people’s perception of games. That’s not to disparage either, they are/were great channels, but there’s no hard rule of X is good and Y is bad, it’s just guidelines on how to make an enjoyable game.
All that said, I think it’s hard to make a great game that can only be beaten through trial and error
Only if the game has a quicksave feature like the 90s PC games.
No. Thereās a difference between hard, but fair and memorize everything on this level or you will die
Thats how evolution works
Very good question, I though about it too…
Every learning process has a repetitive part, since you are a baby and start walking, fall, stand up, fall, until college where you need to try an exam until you pass it.
However as a concept, taking in mind every videogame would have a part of repetitive learning, if it is the main mechanic is so boring to me. Dark Souls, every time you face a boss you learn the set and timing of one movement bit more, when you know the 5/6 moves and timings perfectly you try until you nail it. Like this one, many games. Is it skill or is it patience? Hard or tedious?
I think is bit ambiguous and depends individually, but imo if is the main way the game challenges you it is a bit lazy and non creative way to do it.
Insurmountable odds will always be better than being handheld to victory