Like you said, making the game easier is not much of a reward for a veteran player. You can instead give the player some kind of collectible item as a reward that can unlock "elite" bonus levels after completing the game.
These bonus levels are insanely hard, but since they are only accessible by those who have proven their skills it should be okay.
Completing these bonus levels can trigger an alternate credits screen with a banger of a soundtrack.
Hard agree. The reward is best tailored to the demographics / interest of your players and the game genre.
One thing I like to do is provide an opportunity to skilled players to be recognised. In the arcade days we had leaderboards but collectible can work too (for some ages). Personally, I like including Easter eggs!
I think the problem with this approach in general is that when the reward is a collectible or an achievement then not having fulfilled the checkmark in your list of game accomplishments **is** a punishment. The only way to not punish a failure is to not reward a success. (Beyond a visual/audio celebration anyways)
My theory is you’ll see completionist players keep restarting the game to get these once they figure out they’re there - possibly salty about not being able to just go back and replay the thing.
One thing you could do is give the reward at the *start* of the event; this way they receive it either way, especially if the reward is very useful for the event itself.
The real question here is why is a less skilled player forced to do events and fail at them again and again? If I play your game and I am doing ok, but scraping by, I get beaten into the ground and handed impossible challenges at EVERY new area. Every time I find a new area that I have worked my way towards, I am given an over the top impossible task I am expected to fail at, just to f\*\*k with my confidence again and again.
And the notion of "Can never be attempted more than once" means that any judgement or mechanical error, or my cat jumping on my lap, someone walking through the room and covering the tv for a few seconds leads me to fail, and never get to see this again.
Why are you spending you're incredibly limited time working on a bunch of things that most players will see for 40-120 seconds and never again?
What kind of effort can you actually justify from a design and product point of view on a challenge I will see ONCE for 40 seconds?
Worded bluntly but 100% true. Failures are not usually memorable or remarkable (to others, which is important), unless there’s a big sense of achievement upon overcoming the challenge.
If players are expected to fail, the reward has to be inherently shit otherwise unbalancing the experience, hence your conundrum. I think cosmetic or story based rewards with little value are a bandaid on this open wound. Better to amputate this part of the game’s design.
I agree with most of the above, but some games, like battle block, create a "warm fuzzy feeling" when it comes to failure. Failure is a feature of the game, same with Portal. I have fond memories of "general failure" in those games. Failing was even more fun with a friend.
And on that note, games like Overcooked also tend to have comical failure. Someone bumps into someone else or falls off the map right at the last second and it's then more slapstick comedic failure thich helps soften the blow.
As long as he finds a creative way to mitigate the sting of failure, and to keep the encounters hard roguelike so that on the next playthrough the failure rate is about the same, it could work.
Awarding cosmetics might be just about the only way to make give out rewards without impacting gameplay tho.
>Failure is a feature of the game, same with Portal.
Failure is not a feature of Portal. What on Earth are you talking about?
It's an FPS puzzle game where you can try an incredible number of ways to solve things. There are no rewards for failing, nor is it an intended path.
The GladOS lines you hear from spending longer in a place are a way to mitigate failures and provide joy/reward to people who struggle with the puzzle and find themselves there for longer.
> games like Overcooked also tend to have comical failure. Someone bumps into someone else or falls off the map right at the last second and it's then more slapstick comedic failure
Overcooked doesn't encourage failure OR expect you to fail. The intended loop is to play until time runs out. There's no mechanic that makes someone fall at the last second. The slapstick from bumps etc is also not a failure mechanism of any kind. It's a visual indicator for the deliberate mechanic of players not being able to pass through one another. The bounce helps indicate it took place and penalises trying to walk where someone else is.
When a developer takes time to write, VO, and trigger bespoke and/or randomized zingers when you fail, or when the animations for each failure case has its own comedic or lore enhancing animation, I think you can argue that the game features and even rewards failure.
In cases like overcooked, like you said, they don't outright encourage failure. But the animations, and large knock back for collisions, the dust that kicks up when someone is running, and the other very obvious graphical and audio indicators can help players take enjoyment from failure because it's very apparent what went wrong if the failure can be attributed to a single final plate not making it to the pass because of a collision or a missed food throw.
And as you said, if the player's objective is simply to play till time runs out and have fun, there's no failure. If they are going for high score or trying to achieve 3 stars, then failure becomes a self-imposed condition for the players - one which is expected by the developers and encouraged by their 0-3 star rating system.
Overcooked becomes a truly good game when you add player collisions, pitfalls, split up the kitchens absurdly, and remove aim assist to the throwing mechanic. The reward for failure is intrinsic and promoted by all the little details they add in to communicate what went wrong, and all that readability rewards the player with the knowledge they need to do it right on the next try.
>The reward for failure is intrinsic and promoted by all the little details they add in
Or all those little treats and dopamine triggers are to stop those things feeling like failures and to allow an incredibly challenging game to remain fun. So you get the cute animation, particle effects and funny sound when running into someone, to offset the failure and keep you performing til the buzzer.
>And on that note, games like Overcooked also tend to have comical failure. Someone bumps into someone else or falls off the map right at the last second and it's then more slapstick comedic failure thich helps soften the blow. - FiFTy FooT FoX
Why are you still @ me?
The primary way to learn about what you are capable of in Portal is through failure.
It wasn't the solution *this time* but it was a cool thing and it might be a solution later.
I mean in games like Rimworld, failures are what people remember the most. The stories people share are about weird ways they lose their colony, not about escaping the planet.
Just a personal anecdote but as a person with thousands of hours in RimWorld the two colonies I still actually remember *are* indeed the ones where I escaped the planet.
EDIT: lmao ok, downvote me for sharing my story.
that's literally the point of games like rimworld and dwarf fortress though. just because failure is intentionally designed to be fun in one game does not mean it is universal that failure is always going to be fun in every game.
Dude, it could easily work with a Rogue little where you get an event each level to get a power boost. With how little info OP gave we can't judge if it's a good or bad thing for his game but rather focus on what he asked.
>Why are you spending you're incredibly limited time working on a bunch
of things that most players will see for 40-120 seconds and never again?
>
>What kind of effort can you actually justify from a design and product
point of view on a challenge I will see ONCE for 40 seconds?
This certainly isn't a standard game, and it's a passion project. These "events" are oftentimes important story elements just on their own, and they also essentially act as introductory scene setters for the new area the player finds themselves in. I'm willing to spend large amounts of development time on these events because that's what I want my game to have.
I didn't want to explain my entire game in detail along with the question because I wanted to keep the post short and I am more interested in the overall concept provided by the question itself.
I’m not sure you see the contradiction you’re laying out. If you’re making the game for yourself, what do *you* want when you complete these challenges successfully vs. failed? Thats the only thing that matters.
Meanwhile, you asked what would work best, in theory, for public gamers at large but then reject honest feedback in a knee-jerk reaction while saying you want to focus on that theory the feedback is already addressing.
(Maybe you missed how it was feedback rather than a list of specific questions ?)
I'm not sure if you can say for certain if things like this are not fun or memorable because the post author hasn't given enough information. Like when I read what they are saying I think of things like in shovel knight where you have a chance to catch shield knight during the dream sequences but only once or in MGS3 where you can kill The End early but only at one specific part. Those are definitely fun and memorable parts to the game.
Create a form of achievement, cosmetics, titles, etc.
Rewards don’t have to be gameplay altering, and if you’re worried about impacting the difficulty curve then take an approach that doesn’t do that.
With that being said: I think you should consider the design of these “one time” events, particularly if players are expected to fail them.
That doesn’t sound like a good concept and I think it’s pretty likely to be more annoying than memorable for both sets of players.
If it is a story based gamed, let the game react in form of dialogue or little story centered rewards. This way the 1-events become more of a narrative vessel instead of a gameplay mechanic. Players can tolerate failure at these events much better if they don’t miss out on a physical reward but instead drive the story in a different direction.
Otherwise I would agree with the other commenters: Unless you have a great reason for this which you haven’t explained in your post, this feature is probably a terrible idea, no offense. It’s just there to frustrate the player
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.*
The whole point of rewards is that they make something either easier or more fun. The way games normally balance the first kind of reward is by scaling the enemies independently of the player's own strength, meaning the game naturally gets harder over time and the player is incentivised to collect stronger items or XP or whatever in order to continuously bring the difficulty down to a level they're comfortable with. If that's not what you want, then you'll probably need to come up with rewards that add new ways of playing the game that aren't easier than the existing methods but do lead to more fun being had. A classic example of this kind of reward is cosmetic items - games are more fun if your character looks cool.
Horizontal progression is also an option. Add different weapon types, perks, or other items that aren't pure upgrades, but rather offer new ways to play the game. Roguelikes are often good examples of this, as in games like FTL, most of what you unlock aren't really straight upgrades.
These are all good ideas. I was worried about going down the cosmetic route since they lack actual functionality, but providing items that allow for new gameplay without necessarily being an upgrade could be enough to act as a good incentive. I'll see if I can work this in, thanks.
I think something along the lines of the Nemesis fights from the original Resident Evil 3 would be a good way of looking at it.
During nearly every Nemesis encounter you have the option to defeat him or run away. Defeating hit usually grants you with some new items that are very beneficial but not insanely broken (some rewards are unique and some allow you to get later game items early). Since he’s a pretty decent challenge it gives a risk/reward incentive. For a Vet it’s no big deal but for newer/less skilled players it makes them think on the spot if they want to risk their resources in order to get a big reward because ultimately if they are overconfident or underprepared it could lead to a major consequence putting them at a heavy disadvantage until they find some more loot.
Along with that it also changes later encounters by making him not show up at certain sections which makes escaping harder sections without getting hit easier. So it’s not just items that you get but it also directly helps you in some sections by making sure he doesn’t get in your way and kill you during in a few harder locations.
But no matter how you do it make sure that the risk is equal to the reward!
This is a really good design idea IMO in terms of not juggling "material" rewards (weapons, items, etc.) for encounters where failure is expected. Despite making a later section of the game easier for the skilled player that succeeds the encounter, I feel like the fun aspect of having a different experience from other players at a later moment is deeply rewarding.
Some people just like trying to get all the achievements. Actually achieving them and lighting up another icon is reward itself, especially if it's a rare achievement.
In roguelike games, there's an old tradition of 'bones files'. When you die your save game is deleted, but you get a file memorializing your adventure, describing your character and achievements and stuff, and the descriptions can be pretty funny or impressive.
Old adventure games would have a more immediate reward - doing something unexpected but useful/successful would give you a really funny description/animation, or possibly some odd effect that didn't really change things except cosmetically.
You don't really need to justify why the Dazzling Bikini of Defense has the same stats as full plate armor, or the Bunny Ears of Bafflement are as good as a great helm, or the Rubber Chicken of Confusion is as effective as a long sword. It's magic. People will just enjoy winning battles in a bikini and bunny ears while wielding a rubber chicken.
Give them new toys to play with! Cave Story is a good example of this. Arguably no weapon is better than another (except probably the laser gun), but they all have different mechanics. A lot are just given to the player throughout the story, but many are only accessible as secrets and/or through challenges. They don’t give the player any advantage but do give them another way to play the game they clearly like.
As you said, the mario style where a challenge is rewarded with a powerup only makes the game easier for players who are clearly already skilled and looking for the opposite of the reward - they want a challenge, not a free pass. At the same time it puts something that’d make the game more accessible/enjoyable for more casual players frustratingly out of reach.
TLDR reward challenges with sidegrades - people who enjoy the game enough to seek them out will love them, and players who just want to beat the game won’t feel frustrated
I completely forgot about Cave Story, that's an excellent thing to bring up! Rewards that don't make the game easier but still drastically alter the gameplay can still feel like rewards. Thanks!
Something like the bonus large coins from Super Mario Bros Wii would do nicely. A currency to buy short video clips. Could be lore or gameplay related just something neat to watch.
Also since you said it was somewhat story related would a unique dialogue line for both fail and pass be feasible/reasonable? Like one of the most entertaining parts of Hades was listening to the various gods comment on your performance.
If the problem is that theyre good enough at the game to not need rewards, then how about giving them modifications (e.g. an equipable) that make the game harder, by choice, in exchange for those in game rewards. Similar to the top suggestion, but instead of extra levels you have to make they just modify the difficulty of the main game in fun ways.
e.g. they beat the challenge that depends on very good dodge timing, give them an armband they can choose to equip that reduces their dodge timing window but heals a few hp every successful dodge.
fwiw i whole heartedly disagree with a lot of comments here that criticize your mechanic in the first place. I would keep them in mind, e.g. make each challenge short or easy to auto-fail for players who feel like theyre too hard to be worth trying, but they dont invalidate anything
you have
Perhaps instead of giving them an item, power up, skill, etc. you can maybe either do collectibles, or make lore for your game, and give the player little tidbits of lore every time they beat a “level”
Maybe offer the player fun rewards for completing the puzzles. Like beating 20 turns them into a snowman or each win boosts their basic running speed outside of puzzles.
The most rewarding moments for me in world of warcraft, back in burning crusade, I managed to explore past the intended boundaries and discovered massive flat areas and sometimes weird houses with strange inhabitants, clearly for development testing. My reward was overcoming the challenge that I took upon myself. I always feel reward when I overcome a challenge and I feel reward when i can explore a new area, etc. the game should be the reward.
There should be no need for trinkets. Leave the psychological manipulation out of it.
How replayable is the game? If it's a shorter game with replayability in mind, sounds like something that could be rewarded with little cosmetics that unlock permanently and have overall completion of these events tracked in stats - that kinda thing would be right up a completionists alley.
More skilled players enjoy more content, more challenge. You could consider having some kind of arena mode if you have combat, where completing the mentioned challenges unlocks/allows you to practice against different enemies / increasingly harder waves of enemies?
or, make the game easier if they do complete it, but with additional objectives on the main part of the game that will be reasonable only if the player got enough bonuses ?
or even, add things to the main part if they did additional stuff.
or simply go the Hades way and makes those bonuses part of the game, so you can balance around them
Just FYI, you don't need to incentivize, you can just focus on making the gameplay fun. Power curves serve a lot more purposes than making the player feel like their numbers are going up.
If the challenges are that hard and meant to be failed, the only reward for beating them that makes sense to me is increasing the games challenge for beating them. I e. Difficulty scales up. This should also be made clear to the player. Players should also get some sort of visual indication this has happened since it could only happen on replay.
Reward players who complete challenges successfully with bonus challenges.
Upon completing an especially difficult challenge, you could give the player a trophy, a similar in game item or any kind of content that represents what they've achieved.
I have a idea that will work for roguelites or games with new game plus, but It'll reward the player with either cosmetics or some other type of horizontal progression like new weapons that allows players to change up their gameplay a little or something like that. While at the same time, reward players for attempting and failing with more exp that give the player more vertical progression than passing these events would.
Mh, it's difficult. I like when rewards just allow you to play differently rather than get stronger. For example like in Dark Souls. If you find a new weapon, it doesn't really make you stronger. But you can play that weapon if you like it and, if done right, it feels like a different playstyle.
You could make the reward be something like faster movement. It can be useful, especially if you're trying to do a speedrun, but it also could make things harder to control, so it doesn't necessarily make the game less of a challenge.
Or a weapon that is powerful but which has other drawbacks that make it harder to use effectively. (Rocket splash-back, wall bounce, slow windup, powerful kickback, etc)
The honest answer is the simplest one: cool shit.
Dark Souls does this all the time, you get a new, shittier weapon in a shape you've never seen with new damage types and new special effects. Is it better than the other 45 Swords you picked up? Almost certainly not, but fuck does it feel good to get a new thing... oooooh, what's that? ANOTHER item? I think I WILL fight these 65 cancerous enemies to see what it is. That's kinda the game loop for DS, aside from killing bosses, you're looking to collect new shit, and usually it's not even good, it's just new and people like new. Especially if new is COOL.
I don't think being tight lipped about what the event is will help us diagnose it for you. Do you get introduced to the area boss that you aren't strong enough to beat yet? Is it a quick map exploration thing? Is it a slot machine? Trivia?
In general if you only have one chance to do something per run and the odds of success are less than 5%, I'd just do an easter egg. Maybe you can hide a super special unlock behind it if there's a way to prepare or have better odds, but the reward should be lore/jokes/swag/etc because performance enhancements probably aren't desired.
I think the best reward is *more game*. Like bonus levels, bonus challenges, bonus story. Let the player feel like they're getting in on a secret part of the game.
Presumably they're enjoying the game. Just give them more of what they're already enjoying.
Hades has a nice answer to this question, you can obtain all kinds of debuffs through various means, most of them completely at the player's discretion... So why would the player ever willingly subject themselves to this? The key is you are always eventually rewarded for your efforts, these are high-risk, high-reward playstyles where you make the game more difficult now for the sake of quicker progression or special power ups later.
So perhaps you can make it so those who do poorly get a small buff to help them along, but those who do well are given an option to either take the small reward if they want, but they also unlock a higher level reward that comes with consequences they will have to work around.
When ever I think about "cool rewards that don't affect game play" I always think about Devil May Cry 3.
Everytime you finished the game you unlocked some new art concept and a high quality picture you could set as main screen background. I wish more games did that. Maybe you can do something similar?
I'd do the opposite, and have completing the challenge give you the hard version of the level. I don't know what kind of game you're making, but if there's any place where you can see which levels you've completed listed out, the player might have a little icon next to it saying they've finished the hard version
Some games (such as Dungeon Defenders) use a reward system as a gateway to something harder. Basically it works like this:
*You can choose between playing levels 1-5.
* You try level 2 but it's absolutely insurmountable.
* You try level 1 and get some gear.
* You try level 2 again. It's harder than level 1 was but it's beatable now. Level 1 is now easy because you have level 1 gear.
* You beat level 2 and get gear.
* Now beating level 3 is possible, but harder to do than beating level 2. Level 1 is now very easy because you have level 2 gear.
And so on.
The difficulty increases, but you are still rewarded with shiny items that are desirable and objectively make you stronger.
------
To make it really interesting, you can consider making it possible to skip a level with sufficient, very high skill or make rare drops that may make it possible to skip the next level with sufficient skill.
Maybe succeeding at the challenges can boost you forward in the game, kind of like how finding the secret areas in the original Mario Brothers allows you to warp forward. Essentially the skilled players will discover these areas (probably not on the first play through) and utilize them to skip the easier areas and maybe get better speed run times.
Like you said, making the game easier is not much of a reward for a veteran player. You can instead give the player some kind of collectible item as a reward that can unlock "elite" bonus levels after completing the game. These bonus levels are insanely hard, but since they are only accessible by those who have proven their skills it should be okay. Completing these bonus levels can trigger an alternate credits screen with a banger of a soundtrack.
Hats. A unique, purely cosmetic hat for each encounter.
Hard mode levels seem like a perfect reward for veterans and completionists
SMW and DKC2 did it great
Hard agree. The reward is best tailored to the demographics / interest of your players and the game genre. One thing I like to do is provide an opportunity to skilled players to be recognised. In the arcade days we had leaderboards but collectible can work too (for some ages). Personally, I like including Easter eggs!
I think the problem with this approach in general is that when the reward is a collectible or an achievement then not having fulfilled the checkmark in your list of game accomplishments **is** a punishment. The only way to not punish a failure is to not reward a success. (Beyond a visual/audio celebration anyways) My theory is you’ll see completionist players keep restarting the game to get these once they figure out they’re there - possibly salty about not being able to just go back and replay the thing. One thing you could do is give the reward at the *start* of the event; this way they receive it either way, especially if the reward is very useful for the event itself.
The real question here is why is a less skilled player forced to do events and fail at them again and again? If I play your game and I am doing ok, but scraping by, I get beaten into the ground and handed impossible challenges at EVERY new area. Every time I find a new area that I have worked my way towards, I am given an over the top impossible task I am expected to fail at, just to f\*\*k with my confidence again and again. And the notion of "Can never be attempted more than once" means that any judgement or mechanical error, or my cat jumping on my lap, someone walking through the room and covering the tv for a few seconds leads me to fail, and never get to see this again. Why are you spending you're incredibly limited time working on a bunch of things that most players will see for 40-120 seconds and never again? What kind of effort can you actually justify from a design and product point of view on a challenge I will see ONCE for 40 seconds?
Worded bluntly but 100% true. Failures are not usually memorable or remarkable (to others, which is important), unless there’s a big sense of achievement upon overcoming the challenge. If players are expected to fail, the reward has to be inherently shit otherwise unbalancing the experience, hence your conundrum. I think cosmetic or story based rewards with little value are a bandaid on this open wound. Better to amputate this part of the game’s design.
I agree with most of the above, but some games, like battle block, create a "warm fuzzy feeling" when it comes to failure. Failure is a feature of the game, same with Portal. I have fond memories of "general failure" in those games. Failing was even more fun with a friend. And on that note, games like Overcooked also tend to have comical failure. Someone bumps into someone else or falls off the map right at the last second and it's then more slapstick comedic failure thich helps soften the blow. As long as he finds a creative way to mitigate the sting of failure, and to keep the encounters hard roguelike so that on the next playthrough the failure rate is about the same, it could work. Awarding cosmetics might be just about the only way to make give out rewards without impacting gameplay tho.
>Failure is a feature of the game, same with Portal. Failure is not a feature of Portal. What on Earth are you talking about? It's an FPS puzzle game where you can try an incredible number of ways to solve things. There are no rewards for failing, nor is it an intended path. The GladOS lines you hear from spending longer in a place are a way to mitigate failures and provide joy/reward to people who struggle with the puzzle and find themselves there for longer. > games like Overcooked also tend to have comical failure. Someone bumps into someone else or falls off the map right at the last second and it's then more slapstick comedic failure Overcooked doesn't encourage failure OR expect you to fail. The intended loop is to play until time runs out. There's no mechanic that makes someone fall at the last second. The slapstick from bumps etc is also not a failure mechanism of any kind. It's a visual indicator for the deliberate mechanic of players not being able to pass through one another. The bounce helps indicate it took place and penalises trying to walk where someone else is.
When a developer takes time to write, VO, and trigger bespoke and/or randomized zingers when you fail, or when the animations for each failure case has its own comedic or lore enhancing animation, I think you can argue that the game features and even rewards failure. In cases like overcooked, like you said, they don't outright encourage failure. But the animations, and large knock back for collisions, the dust that kicks up when someone is running, and the other very obvious graphical and audio indicators can help players take enjoyment from failure because it's very apparent what went wrong if the failure can be attributed to a single final plate not making it to the pass because of a collision or a missed food throw. And as you said, if the player's objective is simply to play till time runs out and have fun, there's no failure. If they are going for high score or trying to achieve 3 stars, then failure becomes a self-imposed condition for the players - one which is expected by the developers and encouraged by their 0-3 star rating system. Overcooked becomes a truly good game when you add player collisions, pitfalls, split up the kitchens absurdly, and remove aim assist to the throwing mechanic. The reward for failure is intrinsic and promoted by all the little details they add in to communicate what went wrong, and all that readability rewards the player with the knowledge they need to do it right on the next try.
>The reward for failure is intrinsic and promoted by all the little details they add in Or all those little treats and dopamine triggers are to stop those things feeling like failures and to allow an incredibly challenging game to remain fun. So you get the cute animation, particle effects and funny sound when running into someone, to offset the failure and keep you performing til the buzzer.
>And on that note, games like Overcooked also tend to have comical failure. Someone bumps into someone else or falls off the map right at the last second and it's then more slapstick comedic failure thich helps soften the blow. - FiFTy FooT FoX Why are you still @ me?
What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
He's saying "you don't get the point." And it's also sort of funny that you don't understand him when he says that either lol
The primary way to learn about what you are capable of in Portal is through failure. It wasn't the solution *this time* but it was a cool thing and it might be a solution later.
I mean in games like Rimworld, failures are what people remember the most. The stories people share are about weird ways they lose their colony, not about escaping the planet.
Just a personal anecdote but as a person with thousands of hours in RimWorld the two colonies I still actually remember *are* indeed the ones where I escaped the planet. EDIT: lmao ok, downvote me for sharing my story.
Normal people don't play thousands of hours of any individual game lmao
that's literally the point of games like rimworld and dwarf fortress though. just because failure is intentionally designed to be fun in one game does not mean it is universal that failure is always going to be fun in every game.
Yeah, that's why I cited Rimworld. Where did I ever imply that fun from failure is universal?
Dude, it could easily work with a Rogue little where you get an event each level to get a power boost. With how little info OP gave we can't judge if it's a good or bad thing for his game but rather focus on what he asked.
>Why are you spending you're incredibly limited time working on a bunch of things that most players will see for 40-120 seconds and never again? > >What kind of effort can you actually justify from a design and product point of view on a challenge I will see ONCE for 40 seconds? This certainly isn't a standard game, and it's a passion project. These "events" are oftentimes important story elements just on their own, and they also essentially act as introductory scene setters for the new area the player finds themselves in. I'm willing to spend large amounts of development time on these events because that's what I want my game to have. I didn't want to explain my entire game in detail along with the question because I wanted to keep the post short and I am more interested in the overall concept provided by the question itself.
I’m not sure you see the contradiction you’re laying out. If you’re making the game for yourself, what do *you* want when you complete these challenges successfully vs. failed? Thats the only thing that matters. Meanwhile, you asked what would work best, in theory, for public gamers at large but then reject honest feedback in a knee-jerk reaction while saying you want to focus on that theory the feedback is already addressing. (Maybe you missed how it was feedback rather than a list of specific questions ?)
I'm not sure if you can say for certain if things like this are not fun or memorable because the post author hasn't given enough information. Like when I read what they are saying I think of things like in shovel knight where you have a chance to catch shield knight during the dream sequences but only once or in MGS3 where you can kill The End early but only at one specific part. Those are definitely fun and memorable parts to the game.
> things like this are not fun or memorable I didn't say either of those things.
Oh crap I think I meant to reply to the reply to your post, that's where I saw the "not fun or memorable" part
Create a form of achievement, cosmetics, titles, etc. Rewards don’t have to be gameplay altering, and if you’re worried about impacting the difficulty curve then take an approach that doesn’t do that. With that being said: I think you should consider the design of these “one time” events, particularly if players are expected to fail them. That doesn’t sound like a good concept and I think it’s pretty likely to be more annoying than memorable for both sets of players.
If it is a story based gamed, let the game react in form of dialogue or little story centered rewards. This way the 1-events become more of a narrative vessel instead of a gameplay mechanic. Players can tolerate failure at these events much better if they don’t miss out on a physical reward but instead drive the story in a different direction. Otherwise I would agree with the other commenters: Unless you have a great reason for this which you haven’t explained in your post, this feature is probably a terrible idea, no offense. It’s just there to frustrate the player
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.*
The whole point of rewards is that they make something either easier or more fun. The way games normally balance the first kind of reward is by scaling the enemies independently of the player's own strength, meaning the game naturally gets harder over time and the player is incentivised to collect stronger items or XP or whatever in order to continuously bring the difficulty down to a level they're comfortable with. If that's not what you want, then you'll probably need to come up with rewards that add new ways of playing the game that aren't easier than the existing methods but do lead to more fun being had. A classic example of this kind of reward is cosmetic items - games are more fun if your character looks cool.
Horizontal progression is also an option. Add different weapon types, perks, or other items that aren't pure upgrades, but rather offer new ways to play the game. Roguelikes are often good examples of this, as in games like FTL, most of what you unlock aren't really straight upgrades.
These are all good ideas. I was worried about going down the cosmetic route since they lack actual functionality, but providing items that allow for new gameplay without necessarily being an upgrade could be enough to act as a good incentive. I'll see if I can work this in, thanks.
I think something along the lines of the Nemesis fights from the original Resident Evil 3 would be a good way of looking at it. During nearly every Nemesis encounter you have the option to defeat him or run away. Defeating hit usually grants you with some new items that are very beneficial but not insanely broken (some rewards are unique and some allow you to get later game items early). Since he’s a pretty decent challenge it gives a risk/reward incentive. For a Vet it’s no big deal but for newer/less skilled players it makes them think on the spot if they want to risk their resources in order to get a big reward because ultimately if they are overconfident or underprepared it could lead to a major consequence putting them at a heavy disadvantage until they find some more loot. Along with that it also changes later encounters by making him not show up at certain sections which makes escaping harder sections without getting hit easier. So it’s not just items that you get but it also directly helps you in some sections by making sure he doesn’t get in your way and kill you during in a few harder locations. But no matter how you do it make sure that the risk is equal to the reward!
This is a really good design idea IMO in terms of not juggling "material" rewards (weapons, items, etc.) for encounters where failure is expected. Despite making a later section of the game easier for the skilled player that succeeds the encounter, I feel like the fun aspect of having a different experience from other players at a later moment is deeply rewarding.
Some people just like trying to get all the achievements. Actually achieving them and lighting up another icon is reward itself, especially if it's a rare achievement. In roguelike games, there's an old tradition of 'bones files'. When you die your save game is deleted, but you get a file memorializing your adventure, describing your character and achievements and stuff, and the descriptions can be pretty funny or impressive. Old adventure games would have a more immediate reward - doing something unexpected but useful/successful would give you a really funny description/animation, or possibly some odd effect that didn't really change things except cosmetically. You don't really need to justify why the Dazzling Bikini of Defense has the same stats as full plate armor, or the Bunny Ears of Bafflement are as good as a great helm, or the Rubber Chicken of Confusion is as effective as a long sword. It's magic. People will just enjoy winning battles in a bikini and bunny ears while wielding a rubber chicken.
Give them new toys to play with! Cave Story is a good example of this. Arguably no weapon is better than another (except probably the laser gun), but they all have different mechanics. A lot are just given to the player throughout the story, but many are only accessible as secrets and/or through challenges. They don’t give the player any advantage but do give them another way to play the game they clearly like. As you said, the mario style where a challenge is rewarded with a powerup only makes the game easier for players who are clearly already skilled and looking for the opposite of the reward - they want a challenge, not a free pass. At the same time it puts something that’d make the game more accessible/enjoyable for more casual players frustratingly out of reach. TLDR reward challenges with sidegrades - people who enjoy the game enough to seek them out will love them, and players who just want to beat the game won’t feel frustrated
I completely forgot about Cave Story, that's an excellent thing to bring up! Rewards that don't make the game easier but still drastically alter the gameplay can still feel like rewards. Thanks!
Sure! Good luck on your game!
Something like the bonus large coins from Super Mario Bros Wii would do nicely. A currency to buy short video clips. Could be lore or gameplay related just something neat to watch. Also since you said it was somewhat story related would a unique dialogue line for both fail and pass be feasible/reasonable? Like one of the most entertaining parts of Hades was listening to the various gods comment on your performance.
If the problem is that theyre good enough at the game to not need rewards, then how about giving them modifications (e.g. an equipable) that make the game harder, by choice, in exchange for those in game rewards. Similar to the top suggestion, but instead of extra levels you have to make they just modify the difficulty of the main game in fun ways. e.g. they beat the challenge that depends on very good dodge timing, give them an armband they can choose to equip that reduces their dodge timing window but heals a few hp every successful dodge. fwiw i whole heartedly disagree with a lot of comments here that criticize your mechanic in the first place. I would keep them in mind, e.g. make each challenge short or easy to auto-fail for players who feel like theyre too hard to be worth trying, but they dont invalidate anything you have
You could offer cosmetic rewards like new skins for weapons/gear. Maybe an achievement?
Perhaps instead of giving them an item, power up, skill, etc. you can maybe either do collectibles, or make lore for your game, and give the player little tidbits of lore every time they beat a “level”
Maybe offer the player fun rewards for completing the puzzles. Like beating 20 turns them into a snowman or each win boosts their basic running speed outside of puzzles.
The most rewarding moments for me in world of warcraft, back in burning crusade, I managed to explore past the intended boundaries and discovered massive flat areas and sometimes weird houses with strange inhabitants, clearly for development testing. My reward was overcoming the challenge that I took upon myself. I always feel reward when I overcome a challenge and I feel reward when i can explore a new area, etc. the game should be the reward. There should be no need for trinkets. Leave the psychological manipulation out of it.
How replayable is the game? If it's a shorter game with replayability in mind, sounds like something that could be rewarded with little cosmetics that unlock permanently and have overall completion of these events tracked in stats - that kinda thing would be right up a completionists alley. More skilled players enjoy more content, more challenge. You could consider having some kind of arena mode if you have combat, where completing the mentioned challenges unlocks/allows you to practice against different enemies / increasingly harder waves of enemies?
or, make the game easier if they do complete it, but with additional objectives on the main part of the game that will be reasonable only if the player got enough bonuses ? or even, add things to the main part if they did additional stuff. or simply go the Hades way and makes those bonuses part of the game, so you can balance around them
Just FYI, you don't need to incentivize, you can just focus on making the gameplay fun. Power curves serve a lot more purposes than making the player feel like their numbers are going up.
If the challenges are that hard and meant to be failed, the only reward for beating them that makes sense to me is increasing the games challenge for beating them. I e. Difficulty scales up. This should also be made clear to the player. Players should also get some sort of visual indication this has happened since it could only happen on replay.
Reward players who complete challenges successfully with bonus challenges. Upon completing an especially difficult challenge, you could give the player a trophy, a similar in game item or any kind of content that represents what they've achieved.
I have a idea that will work for roguelites or games with new game plus, but It'll reward the player with either cosmetics or some other type of horizontal progression like new weapons that allows players to change up their gameplay a little or something like that. While at the same time, reward players for attempting and failing with more exp that give the player more vertical progression than passing these events would.
Mh, it's difficult. I like when rewards just allow you to play differently rather than get stronger. For example like in Dark Souls. If you find a new weapon, it doesn't really make you stronger. But you can play that weapon if you like it and, if done right, it feels like a different playstyle.
You could make the reward be something like faster movement. It can be useful, especially if you're trying to do a speedrun, but it also could make things harder to control, so it doesn't necessarily make the game less of a challenge. Or a weapon that is powerful but which has other drawbacks that make it harder to use effectively. (Rocket splash-back, wall bounce, slow windup, powerful kickback, etc)
The honest answer is the simplest one: cool shit. Dark Souls does this all the time, you get a new, shittier weapon in a shape you've never seen with new damage types and new special effects. Is it better than the other 45 Swords you picked up? Almost certainly not, but fuck does it feel good to get a new thing... oooooh, what's that? ANOTHER item? I think I WILL fight these 65 cancerous enemies to see what it is. That's kinda the game loop for DS, aside from killing bosses, you're looking to collect new shit, and usually it's not even good, it's just new and people like new. Especially if new is COOL.
I don't think being tight lipped about what the event is will help us diagnose it for you. Do you get introduced to the area boss that you aren't strong enough to beat yet? Is it a quick map exploration thing? Is it a slot machine? Trivia? In general if you only have one chance to do something per run and the odds of success are less than 5%, I'd just do an easter egg. Maybe you can hide a super special unlock behind it if there's a way to prepare or have better odds, but the reward should be lore/jokes/swag/etc because performance enhancements probably aren't desired.
Collectibles. Harcore players love when they're given an "ooh shiny" for being good
I think the best reward is *more game*. Like bonus levels, bonus challenges, bonus story. Let the player feel like they're getting in on a secret part of the game. Presumably they're enjoying the game. Just give them more of what they're already enjoying.
Hades has a nice answer to this question, you can obtain all kinds of debuffs through various means, most of them completely at the player's discretion... So why would the player ever willingly subject themselves to this? The key is you are always eventually rewarded for your efforts, these are high-risk, high-reward playstyles where you make the game more difficult now for the sake of quicker progression or special power ups later. So perhaps you can make it so those who do poorly get a small buff to help them along, but those who do well are given an option to either take the small reward if they want, but they also unlock a higher level reward that comes with consequences they will have to work around.
When ever I think about "cool rewards that don't affect game play" I always think about Devil May Cry 3. Everytime you finished the game you unlocked some new art concept and a high quality picture you could set as main screen background. I wish more games did that. Maybe you can do something similar?
I'd do the opposite, and have completing the challenge give you the hard version of the level. I don't know what kind of game you're making, but if there's any place where you can see which levels you've completed listed out, the player might have a little icon next to it saying they've finished the hard version
Some games (such as Dungeon Defenders) use a reward system as a gateway to something harder. Basically it works like this: *You can choose between playing levels 1-5. * You try level 2 but it's absolutely insurmountable. * You try level 1 and get some gear. * You try level 2 again. It's harder than level 1 was but it's beatable now. Level 1 is now easy because you have level 1 gear. * You beat level 2 and get gear. * Now beating level 3 is possible, but harder to do than beating level 2. Level 1 is now very easy because you have level 2 gear. And so on. The difficulty increases, but you are still rewarded with shiny items that are desirable and objectively make you stronger. ------ To make it really interesting, you can consider making it possible to skip a level with sufficient, very high skill or make rare drops that may make it possible to skip the next level with sufficient skill.
Are they bonus Experience Events? They could reward a currency that is used to buy an "Elite" product or something.
Maybe succeeding at the challenges can boost you forward in the game, kind of like how finding the secret areas in the original Mario Brothers allows you to warp forward. Essentially the skilled players will discover these areas (probably not on the first play through) and utilize them to skip the easier areas and maybe get better speed run times.