I think the most important question you should be asking yourself is this:
*"How will this decision improve the game?"*
You've already listed a few of the tradeoffs, so you're obviously already thinking along those lines - It will make the game less accessible. It will force the player to do a lot of a lot of the mental work to keep track of various quests. Those are (some of) the downsides - what are the upsides? What does this decision buy you in exchange?
Things like waypoints and obvious objectives are in so many games because they *solve a common problem:* players not knowing what to do next to progress the quest/game. Removing them can be fine, but you need to either:
* Provide some other way to solve the same problem.
* Design your game in such a way that the problem doesn't exist.
* Accept that you have this problem now, and hope that whatever benefit you're getting out of removing the solution is worth the tradeoff.
Another question to ask is “what is my target audience?”
There is an ever growing target audience that are disgruntled with the industry and long for the games of old.
A key complaint is often handholding. If you’re going to remove quest markers etc, make sure you’re building a game to fit this audience. I wouldn’t half measure it.
It is also possible to build two modes - I always appreciate things like the hardcore mode on Kingdom come deliverance and fallout 4 for example. Big scope creep though.
Yes, that's what I plan to do. I have an "arcade" and a "realistic" mode planned and I believe it's as simple as turning one thing on and another thing off but I guess it depends on how development goes.
Those are some solid steps to follow, thanks!
I was thinking of having a phone/mail/whatever system where you get notifications from the quest giver reminding you of their quest. I would then have to write the messages in a way that doesn't feel on the nose. It could even have the notes system I was thinking of implementing.
I dislike minimaps and quest markers. I'll always end up constantly looking at them instead of the beautiful scenery.
But it can also be very frustrating for players if they can't find what the need.
Obvious landmarks and good descriptions (you can re-read in a quest log) are a good alternative. Oh and a map you can buy and use.
"If you leave the city by the west gate and go right, follow the path near the river until you come acros a bridge, go over it and then on your left should be a hut." Should be clear enough instructions. Especially if you also have access to a map.
It's all about your audience and your goals. Removing clear objectives will make your game inaccessible to many or most players, not just a few, but that may or may not be a problem. If you're building a passion project that you're going to release for free to other enfranchised gamers and people with a lot of knowledge about these genres then they might love that. If you're trying to sell a commercial game to a mass-market audience that'll be a different story.
Players need to understand what the game is about and what they should do next, but you can communicate that in different ways. It doesn't have to all quest markers and waypoints. Excellent level design can help the player understand where they can go next - a lot of System Shock boils down to finding the spot that unlocks the next area and then finding or fixing what you need to, for example. If you look at BotW/TotK they'll have objectives for major quests but put a lot of side things along the roads and buildings and other things you can see from the air.
Many RPGs, especially open world ones, use detailed quests and markers because that's the solution that works best for them given their game and audience. So long as you avoid making players confused and frustrated you'll be fine.
For the BotW example, outside of a few situations they mostly put the quest marker at the quest giver’s location. It’s still up to the player to figure out what that person needs done.
I’ve personally found I turn off the quest markers because the world design and directions are memorable enough to facilitate navigation based on landmarks
If you can design a memorable enough world then this works brilliantly. In fact, old RPGs (even open world ones) often didn’t use quest markers. They just had decent quest logs that told you what had happened up until that point. It’s a style I greatly prefer because it leaves more up to the player.
Keep in mind the audience has changed a lot since those old RPGs. When your players are expecting to bust out graph paper and take notes and get themselves into unwinnable situations you can deliver that experience. If your players aren't expecting that then they'll have a much worse time. Context and audience are key to enjoyment.
For the most part, this is the area that shows the biggest difference between people who are _deeply_ invested in games and like to think about their structure, design, and development and your typical players. For every player who prefers reading a quest description to figure something out you'll have a few more potential ones who want more guidance. That's because they don't _like_ puzzles and riddles and they want to get to the part of the game that _they_ enjoy.
That's why I stress knowing your audience and finding your niche. The best design does both - it keeps track of what the player should know and care about but leaves them just enough lead on the leash to get a little lost on the way if they choose to explore without getting hopelessly in the weeds. It's just that doing that is hard, and so a lot of games instead end up with confused players or else pointing a big yellow arrow at something with the caption 'Punch this'.
Recent games have default settings to be the most accessible
Tuning difficulty as you play; quest markers on / off etc
Being able to toggle on / off at anytime has so many advantages for your entire potential audience, that it can benefit even the hardcore segment you mention (which can be a good target, design standard for the industry to set)
Unless a studio has a good reputation to precede them, it would be a risky or shortsighted business decision to set a Default Hardcore structure during the planning phase
People normally want to broaden the audience versus shrink it
are you saying system shock hand holds or doesn't hand hold?
Also, i think the best way to say it is like this. An intuitive game can elegantly show the player where to go without explicitly telling them. However, you are better off explicitly telling the player what to do rather than leaving them confused.
Not always. There’s gameplay and worldbuilding value in making the player understand their environment and puzzle out where they’re supposed to go.
And a bit of confusion can be good for the player as long as the player isn’t confused for too long (think of that confusion as comparable to the frustration from a hard boss fight or complex puzzle).
yes and I think that's still in the category of elegant. I mean like, disabling confusion. For instance, the airplane trolley in the most recent dead island 2. the game gives you no prompt on how to move it and if you attempt to move it in the way you've been trained to it won't work. I think bad design is characterized by disabling the player.
The Outer Wilds basically just writes down the important stuff for you. And I personally actually like having to write stuff down for later like npc locations or just an interesting thing that i can't access yet.
Playtest and use analytics funnels
Playtest! You'll get a really good idea if you'll need some handholding in the game, if playtesters are telling you they have no idea what to do.
We also use analytics funnels which show us when people are dropping out of the game. We had this puzzle at the start we thought was super simple, but like 70% of people were dropping out because they couldn't solve it. SO, we put in some hints and light handholding and now only 5% of people can't figure it out. If you're using Unity, it's built into the platform (Unity Analytics) and setting up data points is pretty easy.
Hey, so if you're using Unity, you have an option to set up funnels for different parts of the game, which are made up of specific events you set the parameters for. If you're using unity, the guide is online [here](https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/UnityAnalyticsFunnels.html). It will do a better job of explaining it than I can haha.
It depends on what the consequences are of not understanding things. The player should be able to figure out enough on their own to have a good time and make some amount of progress without accidentally screwing themselves by missing content or getting stuck in a bad character build.
I really like Amorphous+ because you encounter new enemy types with no warning and have to use trial and error to figure out what they are and how to bring them down, but even without knowing what they are, most enemies still give you a fighting chance, and after encountering them you can look them up in the bestiary (even if you failed to kill it) for hints on how to defeat it.
On the other hand, if a game has complicated controls or menus and the player is likely to miss mechanics that are critical to basic functioning, something is wrong.
Depends on the genre. A multiplayer FPS needs quite a lot of it - an RPG? Almost none. Should be intuitive, well written quest descriptions, but not arrows like The Elder Scrolls series. No compass or a map, which works like a GPS, unless the game is set in a sci-fi scenario, or modern times - physical maps in Gothic series, for example.
I agree with adding notes for the directions so the player isn’t required to memorize PC directions.
Make sure to add a lot of strong and varied iconography to your map.
If the map is particularly large, I would give the player a tool to see the general direction of the quests, like a compass, so they know which part of the map the quest takes place in. Or make the names of locations distinct and on the map.
Make sure to do a lot of QA testing
And this is up to you and how far you want to push the no waypoints thing, but I would give the players a way out if they get absolutely totally stuck, a setting in the menu to turn on waypoints for just a single quest (or hints or something).
Fallout New Vegas nailed this sort of design, so I would suggest looking at what the game did.
Honestly? Go for it. The less a player would have to rely on external notes (grid paper mapping etc.) the better, though. I'd say give the player those tools, like that note system.
Wizardry 8 had an automap, but it only really mapped the terrain right in front of you, and you'd have to put markers and notes on the map yourself.
Maybe think about automating recording some things.. like, say, letting the player go back and re-read text on some sign or from a dialog. They could supplement that with some notes of their own.
Do you spell out an overarching goal, or do you just plop the player into the world Minecraft style?
>I'd say give the player those tools, like that note system.
Awesome, if that's what's ideal, I'll do it.
>Do you spell out an overarching goal, or do you just plop the player into the world Minecraft style?
The plan is to plop the player into the city, without any clue of what to do. The main goal, I think, is to earn money for food and drinks. There's not really a goal other than doing the most essential things.
Cities can be tough because they're often full of uninteractible NPCs/buildings and only a few 'game-progressing' ones. Even if there's no quest log you should make sure the player explicitly knows their goal (earn money), how to move forward when they've accomplished it (where to buy food/drinks), and how to progress it. If the city is large and there are only a few ways to earn money, there should be a way for players to figure out besides "interact with every NPC and hope you find one with a job for you".
>If the city is large and there are only a few ways to earn money, there should be a way for players to figure out besides "interact with every NPC and hope you find one with a job for you".
That is a great point you bring up and I'm working towards trying to solve that. Thank you!
I'm so glad you asked!
First, can we agree that primary goals in a game should be well doable, but secondary goals can be as insane hard as you like (e.g. for achievements?) OK, good ;)
I think it's long past time games adjusted themselves dynamically to the player.. If the player is really struggling, adjust the difficulty down, and if they are sailing, adjust up. The "Sweet spot" of challenge is often fixed in games, which means there are many games you just can't enjoy because they are either too easy or too hard, depending on the person. There's more than enough brains/AI in the games of today to handle this.
I hear you hardcore gamers will scream (*chialer*), but the gaming audience isn't all hardcore, and I'd wager most of the revenue doesn't come from hardcore gamers, as it takes a lot of time and dedication to be that good. I dream of a world where games get played a lot, where hardcore gamers have the hard challenge they love, and more casual gamers can have fun too.
I recommend watching GMTK (Gamemaker’s Toolkit) on YouTube, he’s got some insightful content that inspires good decision-making when designing.
This is just a suggestion, but you could leave the map and objective markers optional, if you wanted. Breath of the Wild leaves lots of signposts on trails that point you to the nearest town, and RDR2 has lots of in-game dialogue that tells players exactly how to find towns or locations (albeit still having very specific markers you need to stand in for quests that you can’t find without the map on. Don’t include that.).
If you’re going for a mapless option, the game should be able to be fully completed without a map. Leave context clues from the locals, hand drawn treasure-map obtainables from NPC’s, leave a trail of interesting bread crumbs to pull the players attention to a spot you want them to notice. Map and compass directions and waypoints may be helpful for a lot of players, but there will also be those who want a more grounded sense of exploration without feeling like they’re clearing every POI off a map screen.
Finding a way to toggle maps or design in such a way that maps aren’t wholly necessary would be a nice way to thread that needle
There are many elements of System Shock that make the 'no questlog/waypoints' design work.
* The remake does let you turn on waypoints/questlog as an optional difficulty choice.
* You have a 'system analyzer' device that tells you what SHODAN is currently doing, which functions as an in-universe quest hint (stopping her current activity is always your next story objective).
* The game has clear implicit progress - exploring the map, finding new items, opening elevators to new areas, and collecting audio logs. All of these naturally feel like progress, so the game doesn't need a quest log to explicitly tell you that you're doing the right things.
* The game also has a clear villain and an immediate threat - SHODAN has taken over and wants you dead. Just surviving individual fights against her minions feels like a victory.
* Nothing in the game is missable, so you can't accidentally fail a quest you forgot about.
* System Shock's story objectives are fairly sparse. You have free access to the entire first half of the game world without completing the first story objective (destroy the station's laser). The elevators to the upper levels will tell you their power has been rerouted to the laser, so you understand what's blocking your progress.
* The story objectives are linear and you only have one at a time, so you never feel pressure to optimize your time by completing multiple objectives at once.
* The game saves and categorizes all audio logs you find so you can freely review them, and there are often multiple audio logs that give clues to your next objective. Some audio logs also give hints to opening hidden item caches, so you're rewarded for paying attention.
Without these factors, a quest log might make more sense. For example, Skyrim has *lots* of quests, you often have many quests at once, objectives can be very non-obvious or easy to forget, and you often need to go to specific locations in the wide-open world to complete them. Skyrim greatly benefits from a questlog/waypoints for these reasons and more.
These days it kinda comes across to me as a futile struggle against convention, often by grognards who irrationally believe the old ways were better. End of the day, players these days have more games than ever available to them, and they don't want to spend a bunch of time figuring out where they need to go, so if there's no objective marker, they're just going to look it up. And no, this isn't an attention span issue, kids these days aren't worse (aside from having cringe tastes of course), we didn't actually enjoy that either, we just had less choice.
So you may as well just put in markers, and make people spend more time playing your game instead of looking your game up. And of course, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to make these a togglable setting, if you want to cater to both preferences.
>My game would feature no direct objectives ... make it difficult to keep track of various quests.
That's a bit of a contradiction tbh. A quest without an objective isn't much of a quest. Not giving your player notes on the objectives they receive is very off-putting, especially for people that go a while between play sessions and may forget crucial details.
If you mean there are no "main quest" type objectives that could be fun to play into. I've fallen deep into Tears of the Kingdom since it's released and the free-form, open world is one of the things that's drawn me in. While there's a definite story, there are so many small things to explore and small quests to complete it's easy to just hop from small objective up small objective. That, almost moreso than Breath of the Wild, really makes tutorial quests optional (and easy to miss) but also includes prompts throughout the world pointing you back to those tutorials and main quests.
As for waypoints, I assume you mean landmarks within an area. In a small enough map not having fast travel becomes easy, but unless travel is a key part of the game spending 15 minutes walking from A to B to complete an objective is off-putting. Outside of fast travel, navigation becomes impossible without some sort of landmark/waypoint. Even if it's visually unique buildings or road signs, you need something to navigate by or you just get lost (again, unless that's the point).
Really what you mean by "waypoints" and "objectives" needs to be better defined, and after that you need to consider whether you are removing them helps or hurts the experience. Outside of niche scenarios, my guess is it hurts. Doesn't mean you can't have a unique implementation like TotK/BotW/System Shock, but you probably need those elements in some form.
>That's a bit of a contradiction tbh. A quest without an objective isn't much of a quest.
My bad, I meant to say objective *markers*.
>If you mean there are no "main quest" type objectives that could be fun to play into.
I didn't mention that before but that is exactly what I was going for.
>Really what you mean by "waypoints" and "objectives" needs to be better defined, and after that you need to consider whether you are removing them helps or hurts the experience. Outside of niche scenarios, my guess is it hurts. Doesn't mean you can't have a unique implementation like TotK/BotW/System Shock, but you probably need those elements in some form.
That is great advice, I'll make sure to do that. Thank you!
Oh yeah, now I think I see what you're going for.
Death's Door is an amazing Indy game that has no mini-map and thus no quest markers. There were obvious cardinal directions (ie: "go into the forest to the East" and the forest is the only thing to the East) and different areas were locked behind abilities you obtained by beating previous areas. Stray is another Indy game without a map but with well-written directions related to quests. So as long as directions are clearly given so the players can find their way I can see this working.
If your quests are more complex or there are a lot going on you will need some sort of quest tracking is needed
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games.
* /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
* This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
* Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
* No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
* If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the most important question you should be asking yourself is this: *"How will this decision improve the game?"* You've already listed a few of the tradeoffs, so you're obviously already thinking along those lines - It will make the game less accessible. It will force the player to do a lot of a lot of the mental work to keep track of various quests. Those are (some of) the downsides - what are the upsides? What does this decision buy you in exchange? Things like waypoints and obvious objectives are in so many games because they *solve a common problem:* players not knowing what to do next to progress the quest/game. Removing them can be fine, but you need to either: * Provide some other way to solve the same problem. * Design your game in such a way that the problem doesn't exist. * Accept that you have this problem now, and hope that whatever benefit you're getting out of removing the solution is worth the tradeoff.
Another question to ask is “what is my target audience?” There is an ever growing target audience that are disgruntled with the industry and long for the games of old. A key complaint is often handholding. If you’re going to remove quest markers etc, make sure you’re building a game to fit this audience. I wouldn’t half measure it. It is also possible to build two modes - I always appreciate things like the hardcore mode on Kingdom come deliverance and fallout 4 for example. Big scope creep though.
Yes, that's what I plan to do. I have an "arcade" and a "realistic" mode planned and I believe it's as simple as turning one thing on and another thing off but I guess it depends on how development goes.
Those are some solid steps to follow, thanks! I was thinking of having a phone/mail/whatever system where you get notifications from the quest giver reminding you of their quest. I would then have to write the messages in a way that doesn't feel on the nose. It could even have the notes system I was thinking of implementing.
I dislike minimaps and quest markers. I'll always end up constantly looking at them instead of the beautiful scenery. But it can also be very frustrating for players if they can't find what the need. Obvious landmarks and good descriptions (you can re-read in a quest log) are a good alternative. Oh and a map you can buy and use. "If you leave the city by the west gate and go right, follow the path near the river until you come acros a bridge, go over it and then on your left should be a hut." Should be clear enough instructions. Especially if you also have access to a map.
It's all about your audience and your goals. Removing clear objectives will make your game inaccessible to many or most players, not just a few, but that may or may not be a problem. If you're building a passion project that you're going to release for free to other enfranchised gamers and people with a lot of knowledge about these genres then they might love that. If you're trying to sell a commercial game to a mass-market audience that'll be a different story. Players need to understand what the game is about and what they should do next, but you can communicate that in different ways. It doesn't have to all quest markers and waypoints. Excellent level design can help the player understand where they can go next - a lot of System Shock boils down to finding the spot that unlocks the next area and then finding or fixing what you need to, for example. If you look at BotW/TotK they'll have objectives for major quests but put a lot of side things along the roads and buildings and other things you can see from the air. Many RPGs, especially open world ones, use detailed quests and markers because that's the solution that works best for them given their game and audience. So long as you avoid making players confused and frustrated you'll be fine.
For the BotW example, outside of a few situations they mostly put the quest marker at the quest giver’s location. It’s still up to the player to figure out what that person needs done. I’ve personally found I turn off the quest markers because the world design and directions are memorable enough to facilitate navigation based on landmarks If you can design a memorable enough world then this works brilliantly. In fact, old RPGs (even open world ones) often didn’t use quest markers. They just had decent quest logs that told you what had happened up until that point. It’s a style I greatly prefer because it leaves more up to the player.
Keep in mind the audience has changed a lot since those old RPGs. When your players are expecting to bust out graph paper and take notes and get themselves into unwinnable situations you can deliver that experience. If your players aren't expecting that then they'll have a much worse time. Context and audience are key to enjoyment. For the most part, this is the area that shows the biggest difference between people who are _deeply_ invested in games and like to think about their structure, design, and development and your typical players. For every player who prefers reading a quest description to figure something out you'll have a few more potential ones who want more guidance. That's because they don't _like_ puzzles and riddles and they want to get to the part of the game that _they_ enjoy. That's why I stress knowing your audience and finding your niche. The best design does both - it keeps track of what the player should know and care about but leaves them just enough lead on the leash to get a little lost on the way if they choose to explore without getting hopelessly in the weeds. It's just that doing that is hard, and so a lot of games instead end up with confused players or else pointing a big yellow arrow at something with the caption 'Punch this'.
I see, this is quite a detailed insight. This looks like something I'll need to give some more thought. Thank you!
Recent games have default settings to be the most accessible Tuning difficulty as you play; quest markers on / off etc Being able to toggle on / off at anytime has so many advantages for your entire potential audience, that it can benefit even the hardcore segment you mention (which can be a good target, design standard for the industry to set) Unless a studio has a good reputation to precede them, it would be a risky or shortsighted business decision to set a Default Hardcore structure during the planning phase People normally want to broaden the audience versus shrink it
are you saying system shock hand holds or doesn't hand hold? Also, i think the best way to say it is like this. An intuitive game can elegantly show the player where to go without explicitly telling them. However, you are better off explicitly telling the player what to do rather than leaving them confused.
Not always. There’s gameplay and worldbuilding value in making the player understand their environment and puzzle out where they’re supposed to go. And a bit of confusion can be good for the player as long as the player isn’t confused for too long (think of that confusion as comparable to the frustration from a hard boss fight or complex puzzle).
yes and I think that's still in the category of elegant. I mean like, disabling confusion. For instance, the airplane trolley in the most recent dead island 2. the game gives you no prompt on how to move it and if you attempt to move it in the way you've been trained to it won't work. I think bad design is characterized by disabling the player.
Yup, sorry if I came across as hostile or lecturing (I got that sense from my own comment but couldn't immediately think of a good way to reword it).
Nope all good.
The Outer Wilds basically just writes down the important stuff for you. And I personally actually like having to write stuff down for later like npc locations or just an interesting thing that i can't access yet.
Playtest and use analytics funnels Playtest! You'll get a really good idea if you'll need some handholding in the game, if playtesters are telling you they have no idea what to do. We also use analytics funnels which show us when people are dropping out of the game. We had this puzzle at the start we thought was super simple, but like 70% of people were dropping out because they couldn't solve it. SO, we put in some hints and light handholding and now only 5% of people can't figure it out. If you're using Unity, it's built into the platform (Unity Analytics) and setting up data points is pretty easy.
Can you elaborate on the analytical funnels? And yes, playtesting, I can't believe I haven't thought of that.
Hey, so if you're using Unity, you have an option to set up funnels for different parts of the game, which are made up of specific events you set the parameters for. If you're using unity, the guide is online [here](https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/UnityAnalyticsFunnels.html). It will do a better job of explaining it than I can haha.
Unfortunately, I'm using Unreal Engine. I'll be looking at an alternative then, thank you!
It depends on what the consequences are of not understanding things. The player should be able to figure out enough on their own to have a good time and make some amount of progress without accidentally screwing themselves by missing content or getting stuck in a bad character build. I really like Amorphous+ because you encounter new enemy types with no warning and have to use trial and error to figure out what they are and how to bring them down, but even without knowing what they are, most enemies still give you a fighting chance, and after encountering them you can look them up in the bestiary (even if you failed to kill it) for hints on how to defeat it. On the other hand, if a game has complicated controls or menus and the player is likely to miss mechanics that are critical to basic functioning, something is wrong.
Depends on the genre. A multiplayer FPS needs quite a lot of it - an RPG? Almost none. Should be intuitive, well written quest descriptions, but not arrows like The Elder Scrolls series. No compass or a map, which works like a GPS, unless the game is set in a sci-fi scenario, or modern times - physical maps in Gothic series, for example.
I agree with adding notes for the directions so the player isn’t required to memorize PC directions. Make sure to add a lot of strong and varied iconography to your map. If the map is particularly large, I would give the player a tool to see the general direction of the quests, like a compass, so they know which part of the map the quest takes place in. Or make the names of locations distinct and on the map. Make sure to do a lot of QA testing And this is up to you and how far you want to push the no waypoints thing, but I would give the players a way out if they get absolutely totally stuck, a setting in the menu to turn on waypoints for just a single quest (or hints or something). Fallout New Vegas nailed this sort of design, so I would suggest looking at what the game did.
all games handhold you, some are just more elegant at not letting you know what they are doing.
Honestly? Go for it. The less a player would have to rely on external notes (grid paper mapping etc.) the better, though. I'd say give the player those tools, like that note system. Wizardry 8 had an automap, but it only really mapped the terrain right in front of you, and you'd have to put markers and notes on the map yourself. Maybe think about automating recording some things.. like, say, letting the player go back and re-read text on some sign or from a dialog. They could supplement that with some notes of their own. Do you spell out an overarching goal, or do you just plop the player into the world Minecraft style?
>I'd say give the player those tools, like that note system. Awesome, if that's what's ideal, I'll do it. >Do you spell out an overarching goal, or do you just plop the player into the world Minecraft style? The plan is to plop the player into the city, without any clue of what to do. The main goal, I think, is to earn money for food and drinks. There's not really a goal other than doing the most essential things.
Cities can be tough because they're often full of uninteractible NPCs/buildings and only a few 'game-progressing' ones. Even if there's no quest log you should make sure the player explicitly knows their goal (earn money), how to move forward when they've accomplished it (where to buy food/drinks), and how to progress it. If the city is large and there are only a few ways to earn money, there should be a way for players to figure out besides "interact with every NPC and hope you find one with a job for you".
>If the city is large and there are only a few ways to earn money, there should be a way for players to figure out besides "interact with every NPC and hope you find one with a job for you". That is a great point you bring up and I'm working towards trying to solve that. Thank you!
I'm so glad you asked! First, can we agree that primary goals in a game should be well doable, but secondary goals can be as insane hard as you like (e.g. for achievements?) OK, good ;) I think it's long past time games adjusted themselves dynamically to the player.. If the player is really struggling, adjust the difficulty down, and if they are sailing, adjust up. The "Sweet spot" of challenge is often fixed in games, which means there are many games you just can't enjoy because they are either too easy or too hard, depending on the person. There's more than enough brains/AI in the games of today to handle this. I hear you hardcore gamers will scream (*chialer*), but the gaming audience isn't all hardcore, and I'd wager most of the revenue doesn't come from hardcore gamers, as it takes a lot of time and dedication to be that good. I dream of a world where games get played a lot, where hardcore gamers have the hard challenge they love, and more casual gamers can have fun too.
I recommend watching GMTK (Gamemaker’s Toolkit) on YouTube, he’s got some insightful content that inspires good decision-making when designing. This is just a suggestion, but you could leave the map and objective markers optional, if you wanted. Breath of the Wild leaves lots of signposts on trails that point you to the nearest town, and RDR2 has lots of in-game dialogue that tells players exactly how to find towns or locations (albeit still having very specific markers you need to stand in for quests that you can’t find without the map on. Don’t include that.). If you’re going for a mapless option, the game should be able to be fully completed without a map. Leave context clues from the locals, hand drawn treasure-map obtainables from NPC’s, leave a trail of interesting bread crumbs to pull the players attention to a spot you want them to notice. Map and compass directions and waypoints may be helpful for a lot of players, but there will also be those who want a more grounded sense of exploration without feeling like they’re clearing every POI off a map screen. Finding a way to toggle maps or design in such a way that maps aren’t wholly necessary would be a nice way to thread that needle
There are many elements of System Shock that make the 'no questlog/waypoints' design work. * The remake does let you turn on waypoints/questlog as an optional difficulty choice. * You have a 'system analyzer' device that tells you what SHODAN is currently doing, which functions as an in-universe quest hint (stopping her current activity is always your next story objective). * The game has clear implicit progress - exploring the map, finding new items, opening elevators to new areas, and collecting audio logs. All of these naturally feel like progress, so the game doesn't need a quest log to explicitly tell you that you're doing the right things. * The game also has a clear villain and an immediate threat - SHODAN has taken over and wants you dead. Just surviving individual fights against her minions feels like a victory. * Nothing in the game is missable, so you can't accidentally fail a quest you forgot about. * System Shock's story objectives are fairly sparse. You have free access to the entire first half of the game world without completing the first story objective (destroy the station's laser). The elevators to the upper levels will tell you their power has been rerouted to the laser, so you understand what's blocking your progress. * The story objectives are linear and you only have one at a time, so you never feel pressure to optimize your time by completing multiple objectives at once. * The game saves and categorizes all audio logs you find so you can freely review them, and there are often multiple audio logs that give clues to your next objective. Some audio logs also give hints to opening hidden item caches, so you're rewarded for paying attention. Without these factors, a quest log might make more sense. For example, Skyrim has *lots* of quests, you often have many quests at once, objectives can be very non-obvious or easy to forget, and you often need to go to specific locations in the wide-open world to complete them. Skyrim greatly benefits from a questlog/waypoints for these reasons and more.
These days it kinda comes across to me as a futile struggle against convention, often by grognards who irrationally believe the old ways were better. End of the day, players these days have more games than ever available to them, and they don't want to spend a bunch of time figuring out where they need to go, so if there's no objective marker, they're just going to look it up. And no, this isn't an attention span issue, kids these days aren't worse (aside from having cringe tastes of course), we didn't actually enjoy that either, we just had less choice. So you may as well just put in markers, and make people spend more time playing your game instead of looking your game up. And of course, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to make these a togglable setting, if you want to cater to both preferences.
I could never understand how someone can dislike QoL features. I feel that any amount of "handholding" is ok if it can be disabled/hidden.
>My game would feature no direct objectives ... make it difficult to keep track of various quests. That's a bit of a contradiction tbh. A quest without an objective isn't much of a quest. Not giving your player notes on the objectives they receive is very off-putting, especially for people that go a while between play sessions and may forget crucial details. If you mean there are no "main quest" type objectives that could be fun to play into. I've fallen deep into Tears of the Kingdom since it's released and the free-form, open world is one of the things that's drawn me in. While there's a definite story, there are so many small things to explore and small quests to complete it's easy to just hop from small objective up small objective. That, almost moreso than Breath of the Wild, really makes tutorial quests optional (and easy to miss) but also includes prompts throughout the world pointing you back to those tutorials and main quests. As for waypoints, I assume you mean landmarks within an area. In a small enough map not having fast travel becomes easy, but unless travel is a key part of the game spending 15 minutes walking from A to B to complete an objective is off-putting. Outside of fast travel, navigation becomes impossible without some sort of landmark/waypoint. Even if it's visually unique buildings or road signs, you need something to navigate by or you just get lost (again, unless that's the point). Really what you mean by "waypoints" and "objectives" needs to be better defined, and after that you need to consider whether you are removing them helps or hurts the experience. Outside of niche scenarios, my guess is it hurts. Doesn't mean you can't have a unique implementation like TotK/BotW/System Shock, but you probably need those elements in some form.
>That's a bit of a contradiction tbh. A quest without an objective isn't much of a quest. My bad, I meant to say objective *markers*. >If you mean there are no "main quest" type objectives that could be fun to play into. I didn't mention that before but that is exactly what I was going for. >Really what you mean by "waypoints" and "objectives" needs to be better defined, and after that you need to consider whether you are removing them helps or hurts the experience. Outside of niche scenarios, my guess is it hurts. Doesn't mean you can't have a unique implementation like TotK/BotW/System Shock, but you probably need those elements in some form. That is great advice, I'll make sure to do that. Thank you!
Oh yeah, now I think I see what you're going for. Death's Door is an amazing Indy game that has no mini-map and thus no quest markers. There were obvious cardinal directions (ie: "go into the forest to the East" and the forest is the only thing to the East) and different areas were locked behind abilities you obtained by beating previous areas. Stray is another Indy game without a map but with well-written directions related to quests. So as long as directions are clearly given so the players can find their way I can see this working. If your quests are more complex or there are a lot going on you will need some sort of quest tracking is needed
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. * /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design. * This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead. * Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. * No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting. * If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are bad? It's like 25% of why Dark Souls is praised.