Some Thoughts on UI and Level Design

[sithys]

I am playing through Radiant Dawn again right now for the first time since 2012. One thing that I notice is that a lot of the levels can be extremely difficult for very stupid reasons. Let me give a few examples:

1. Sometimes there will be packs of enemies that stay perfectly still at all times, while other units will move only when attacked, while others will move if you cross a certain threshold, while others will move all the time. Sometimes several of these 4 types of units will be nearby, making it difficult to make decisions about how to advance. This is especially true for bosses.
2. Lots of maps have unique mechanics that are only used once. For example, there is a map where you must run around putting out fires in a village. On said map, there is a soldier just above the starting location that you need to fly up and kill with a flying unit, however the player is unlikely to know this until they see the soldier starting fires.
3. Enemies with special weapons, such as hammers or horseslayers, can appear in other packs of enemies with normal weapons. The player can sometimes be surprised by the death of a unit because of these weapons.

All of these examples have one thing in common, the game is not being transparent. The player must do some math or search the inventory of every unit that might attack in order to gather information. From a game design perspective, some of these activities might be consistent with a vision of the player as a strategist and therefore might be desirable to some degree. The questions arises as to whether or not this experience is always a positive thing for the player and if not, how this experience can be remedied.

So the first question, is this a good thing? Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn was widely criticized upon release for it's extreme difficulty. People who play Fire Emblem already, fans of the genre, might take the lack of transparency for granted. Ask yourself, if you gave Fire Emblem to your grandparents and it was the first video game they ever played, do you think they would enjoy it? Would your average random person on the street? Why or why not?

Game designers must always ask this question: what do I expect from the player? Fire Emblem expects several core abilities from players.

1. The ability to solve puzzles involving long-term and short-term goals and prioritize objectives.
2. The ability to keep units safe while meeting combat objectives.
3. The ability to recognize strategic advantages.
4. The ability to gather information about the current state of allies and enemies.
5. The ability to respond to sudden changes.

These are just some high-level expectations, and this list is not exhaustive. The issue of transparency affects all of these player expectations in some way, so transparency in my opinion is is one of the most important features that Fire Emblem is lacking. Needing to restart the level because of a mistake is reasonable, needing to restart the level because of an opaque user interface is less so.

So for the second question, how can more transparency be added?

In Awakening, bosses that don't move appear with a range overlay that indicates that they don't move. There is also a button that causes the range of all enemies on the map to appear in purple, so you know if you are safe from danger (except ambush spawns). This is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see even more transparency to aid the player, especially when advancing on an group of enemies at the limit of movement range. Imagine, instead of a simple purple overlay to show danger, there was a blue-to-red heat map of danger that would highlight extremely dangerous spots and less dangerous spots. It would be probabilistic and not guaranteed to be completely accurate because of the AI's movements, but it would help the player quickly identify danger spots they might have overlooked. Will that make the game too easy? Well no, what happens if that red dangerous spot is the spot you need to be in to kill the thief headed for the chest? Interesting conflict and triangularity do not need to be reduced by improving transparency.

So before I tackle the issue of new game mechanics, it might be a good idea to watch Mark Brown's video on Super Mario 3D World:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBmIkEvEBtA

If a map introduces a brand new mechanic, it should probably do so in a way that is safe for the player. The player should be relatively insulated from punishment if they don't grasp the mechanic right away. In the above example, I would have redesigned the village so that the player starts with some enemies nearby that they are encouraged to fight immediately. At the end of the first turn an enemy soldier just outside of the player's range would run into the player's range and start a single house on fire. The player would be able to react and thus understand the core mechanic. Then once the player understands the mechanic you throw in a twist that makes the player think. I might have placed some enemy magic users on the top level to encourage the player to send a flier up to fight them, and then spawn the soldier on the top level on the following turn instead of at the start of the level.

So for the last example, I would redesign the UI to provide information about bonus damage on or above the units. Since most enemy units do not deal bonus damage, the UI would not become cluttered. If a unit has a hammer, a little red icon of an armored knight with an explanation point, or some other icon, would provide enough information to the player to quickly identify the threat. Once the threat has been identified, the player must decide how they want to dealt with it. Dealing with threats is interesting, but if the threat isn't transparent and the player loses a unit as a result, the player will feel that the game is too cheesy.

So what are your thoughts on transparency? What UI changes or level design changes would you make to improve the player experience? I want to hear from you.

Edited August 19, 2015 by sithys

[IceBrand]

I agree, a well organized and clean UI can help solve a lot of problems. RD wasn't the best when it came to introducing new concepts( since the enemies burning towns only appears once, I can see why they didn't bother with it too much) but it got the job done.

[XeKr]

I just want to note [spoiler=very minor FE14 gameplay spoilers]Fates literally does what you said regarding effective damage. There's an red exclamation mark above units if they have a weapon equipped that does effective damage to the unit selected. It's a yellow exclamation mark if the unit is dangerous to the unit/s selected, but indirectly (like if it's dangerous to the unit in the back of guard stance).

Also the dragon's vein mechanics all have descriptions and you can click on them to see specifically what tiles are affected.

I think the enemy movement range is improved slightly, since it doesn't exclude danger squares currently blocked by other units.

Not sure if that's what you were already implying, but it's happened, to a decent extent. >_>

[Irysa]

If a map introduces a brand new mechanic, it should probably do so in a way that is safe for the player.

This is not an infalliable principle. What if game's intent is to create a situation where you are surprised by something, then they must take action to alleviate the problems presented? There's merit to this kind of design too.

I think a lot of what you say comes from a premise that believes that all things within the game should be intuitive and flow naturally, but I'd say that the experience of getting stuck, being surprised, or even simply the potential for such an occurance creates tension and this in iself is compelling.

[sithys]

This is not an infalliable principle. What if game's intent is to create a situation where you are surprised by something, then they must take action to alleviate the problems presented? There's merit to this kind of design too.

I think a lot of what you say comes from a premise that believes that all things within the game should be intuitive and flow naturally, but I'd say that the experience of getting stuck, being surprised, or even simply the potential for such an occurance creates tension and this in iself is compelling.

Well it is compelling, I understand that. But it needs to be compelling in a responsible way. In my example it is literally impossible to respond to the soldier on the top level once he starts burning down the houses up there. It doesn't matter how compelled the player feels to rush up there and save the houses, there is an archer with 7+ crit chance standing guard over the area. The only way to save the houses after turn 1 is to restart the level and kill the soldier on the first turn. Is that what the game designer intended?

Surprise is good, tension is good too. That's the whole point of adding mechanics into levels. Tormenting the player is not good. Disrespecting the player's time is not good. If a game designer thinks to herself "how can I create tension and surprise in the player's mind without frustrating them," then that designer is more likely to create the type of experience that the player actually enjoys. It's a matter of intent. If the designer instead thinks: "how can I make this as hard and punishing as possible?" then you are going to end up with a very different experience. My point is that it's not black-and-white when it comes to designing mechanics and that surprise is not a bad thing.

Surprise can be a very very bad thing. Consider ambush spawns. You fight your way to the end of the level and are about to face the boss, then enemies randomly appear on the enemy turn and kill all your healers. SURPRISE!

The benefit of surprise is not in the moment of shock but in the moment where the player must stop and re-evaluate their assumptions. The player must engage in root cause analysis, they must shift their mental paradigm, they must see the true goal that they have been unable to perceive up until that point. The goal is to make the consequences of a surprise meaningful while making the shock just powerful enough to create an emotional response without punishing the player.

Why would any designer want to punish the player for being surprised?

[electricwolf]

Coincidentally I've recently done a playthrough of RD for the first time in a few years. Everything you've written about here seems pretty spot on.

In the fire-starting chapter there's no indication that the specific soldier that's unreachable by all except Marcia (who is unlikely to get the kill and extremely vulnerable to a nearby archer) is about to start a fire. There is prior warning that house burning will be a theme to the level but without any kind of pirate/bandit types or at least fire mages setting them on fire you don't really know who to target until they start burning. Maybe a torch item in the inventory of all house-burning units would make sense and make it clearer to the player.

Surprise is ok if the consequences of that surprise are not so great that they discourage the player from playing 'normally'. If you start expecting ambush spawns then players may move towards turtling strategies in fear of surprises.

One of the things that is good in FE is that pretty much everything follows rules, which allows the player to be in control. Taking this control away by essentially 'breaking' the rules with ambush spawns or the like is frustrating and is unlikely to promote any good game-playing experience based on the kinds of surprises I have seen in FE in the past. It is not impossible for surprise to be a part of the game, but it should be carefully managed so that it does not wrest control from the player.

[Gradivus.]

ambush spawns get too much hate imo

non-ambush spawns are pretty bad just for being trivial, ambush spawns can be a fair component if implemented well, like in FE12 and FE13, by providing significant indications and having them spawn early(-ish). Well-implemented ambush spawns can serve as anti-turtling incentives by encouraging the player to push forward in order to avoid facing too many, or by encouraging an offensive strat that kills the boss quickly (the latter applies for FE12 mainly; I think the game should tell the player about the bosskill thing in a tutorial or similar, though) or to block more distant forts more quickly.

Most of the complaints are based on the maps/games where they're implemented rather poorly or not made effective use of.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Gradivus.

[dondon151]

There is prior warning that house burning will be a theme to the level but without any kind of pirate/bandit types or at least fire mages setting them on fire you don't really know who to target until they start burning.

clearly the only weak unpromoted units on the map are going to set fire to the houses

the OP seems to be complaining about things that are impossible for the game to be transparent about without subjecting the player to a deluge of sometimes unnecessary information. yeah, it's annoying that not all enemies have the same AI, but not only is it too hard to show the player each enemy's AI (and explain what it means), it also simply doesn't make sense to give that information away to the player. the proposed solution of a heat map is extremely convoluted and doesn't sound like a feature that i would even bother using.

the OP also complains about how enemy weaponry is not transparent enough when it should be on the player to check the inventories of the enemies that he's about to face. if you get gimped by an unexpected enemy with a horseslayer or a hammer that's not an ambush spawn, it's your own damn fault. in FE10 a unit's equipped weapon is visible if you hover over that unit with a cursor. there's nothing to complain about here. it would be like if i blamed the game for not being transparent enough about AS when one of my units gets killed because i didn't bother to check enemy stats.

Edited August 25, 2015 by dondon151

[sithys]

clearly the only weak unpromoted units on the map are going to set fire to the houses

the OP seems to be complaining about things that are impossible for the game to be transparent about without subjecting the player to a deluge of sometimes unnecessary information. yeah, it's annoying that not all enemies have the same AI, but not only is it too hard to show the player each enemy's AI (and explain what it means), it also simply doesn't make sense to give that information away to the player. the proposed solution of a heat map is extremely convoluted and doesn't sound like a feature that i would even bother using.

the OP also complains about how enemy weaponry is not transparent enough when it should be on the player to check the inventories of the enemies that he's about to face. if you get gimped by an unexpected enemy with a horseslayer or a hammer that's not an ambush spawn, it's your own damn fault. in FE10 a unit's equipped weapon is visible if you hover over that unit with a cursor. there's nothing to complain about here. it would be like if i blamed the game for not being transparent enough about AS when one of my units gets killed because i didn't bother to check enemy stats.

Clearly? What makes you say that it is clear? If you sat down with a random sample of people from off the street and did a formal scientific experiment to determine the clarity of the player's implied task, how do you think people would do at taking the non-existent hints?

I design and program user interfaces for a living and from a programming perspective most of my suggestions are trivial. A heat-map would not be hard to implement or use, though I will admit it is a somewhat inelegant solution in that it doesn't solve the actual problem, it just treats the symptoms of the actual problem. A more elegant approach would be to make the relative threat of the enemy units much, much more apparent using all known psychological and perceptive techniques, though there are practical limitations to how detailed and varied you can make the assets in a game. Better enemy threat indicators would be an extremely efficient solution terms of time and money for the developer, which is why I mention it.

The player can check the inventories, yes. The question is not if the player can check the inventories, the question is whether the player should be expected to check the inventories. Checking inventories is not in itself a fun or even an engaging task. Good game design requires that all activities that the player engages in are by themselves fun. Jonathan Blow talks about this in several of his interviews, if you strip a game down, take away all the graphics and aesthetics, the music, the narrative, the Skinner Boxes and the loot treadmills and the XP systems and the stat systems, is the game still fun? The goal of the designer is to start with a fun experience and then add all the trappings that make it even better, not start with a fundamentally boring experience and trick the player into wasting time with it using psychological hacks.

Edited August 26, 2015 by sithys

[Baldrick]

A more elegant approach would be to make the relative threat of the enemy units much, much more apparent using all known psychological and perceptive techniques,

What does this even entail.

The most elegant approach is to simply provide enemy ranges and a danger zone. If the player considers their move carefully and always assumes the enemy will attack if it can, they should not make any positioning mistakes.

The question is not if the player can check the inventories, the question is whether the player should be expected to check the inventories.

The answer is yes.

Checking inventories is not in itself a fun or even an engaging task. Good game design requires that all activities that the player engages in are by themselves fun.

I find it fun, it's like Where's Wally. Fun is not an objective thing; just because some people don't enjoy sudoku, it does not mean it's a badly designed game. Indeed, if every enemy had the same weaponry, there'd be less need to adjust your strategy, and that would be a less interesting puzzle.

The goal of the designer is to start with a fun experience and then add all the trappings that make it even better, not start with a fundamentally boring experience and trick the player into wasting time with it using psychological hacks.

If Fire Emblem is "fundamentally boring", complete transparency isn't going to change that. It seems your problem with RD is that it asks you to make decisions and punishes you if they're bad.

[Irysa]

I think Baldrick nailed it with the last point in his post but I'll respond to this anyway.

Well it is compelling, I understand that. But it needs to be compelling in a responsible way. In my example it is literally impossible to respond to the soldier on the top level once he starts burning down the houses up there. It doesn't matter how compelled the player feels to rush up there and save the houses, there is an archer with 7+ crit chance standing guard over the area. The only way to save the houses after turn 1 is to restart the level and kill the soldier on the first turn. Is that what the game designer intended?

You do realise you don't need to save all the houses to complete the map right? It's just a defeat boss map with subobjectives for extra BEXP. It's also somewhat intuitive to send Marcia, Danved and Calill up the ledges initially since only they can go up, wheras the rest of your mounts can only go to the right. You aren't even really penalised for failing to save every village, so this isn't the same as "you don't have to restart if a character dies", and there's no significant reward for saving them all. Finally, you can put the fires out and still get the bonus, and killing the archer on player phase should really not be that big a problem. Or hell just have Marcia fly in, extinguish, and Canto out. <_<

Seriously, you can react to it. FE actually tends to give players warnings about important subobjectives through the narrative anyway.

Surprise is good, tension is good too. That's the whole point of adding mechanics into levels. Tormenting the player is not good. Disrespecting the player's time is not good. If a game designer thinks to herself "how can I create tension and surprise in the player's mind without frustrating them," then that designer is more likely to create the type of experience that the player actually enjoys. It's a matter of intent. If the designer instead thinks: "how can I make this as hard and punishing as possible?" then you are going to end up with a very different experience. My point is that it's not black-and-white when it comes to designing mechanics and that surprise is not a bad thing.

You can't just arbitrarily decide that that was the designer's intent because you got frustrated. Lots of people get frustrated at high difficulty scenarios and are extremely quick to blame the game or designer instead of trying to see how they could be doing better or how they can respond.

Surprise can be a very very bad thing. Consider ambush spawns. You fight your way to the end of the level and are about to face the boss, then enemies randomly appear on the enemy turn and kill all your healers. SURPRISE!

Ambush spawns come out of forts or from the back end of the level most of the time they're used in the series. The only truly bullshit sameturn reinforcements are in New Mystery, because 12 mov flying dragons with wtfspeed are extremely difficult to not get screwed over by even with careful play.

The benefit of surprise is not in the moment of shock but in the moment where the player must stop and re-evaluate their assumptions. The player must engage in root cause analysis, they must shift their mental paradigm, they must see the true goal that they have been unable to perceive up until that point. The goal is to make the consequences of a surprise meaningful while making the shock just powerful enough to create an emotional response without punishing the player.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what the example you gave with Radiant Dawn 3-9 could be described as...

Besides, you're being absoloute again when you say "without punishing the player", as there's nothing wrong with a bit of punishment assuming the penalties aren't very severe for something that can't reasonably have been forseen.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Irysa

[electricwolf]

clearly the only weak unpromoted units on the map are going to set fire to the houses

How is that clear?

Before the first enemy turn you could divide the entire enemy army into promoted and unpromoted, but even that what is to say that only unpromoted units will start fires? It's not obvious, it isn't clear, and it's not some sign of intelligence or skill to accurately assume that they will be the units to start fires if you had no prior knowledge.

Within the promoted group you could also divide it further into: General types, Warriors, Snipers, and Halberdiers, all of who could easily have their AI set to burn instead.

After the first turn when you see only the unpromoted units doing it, but disregarding the fact that promoted reinforcements may have the burn AI would either require some prescience or making an assumption based upon incomplete knowledge.

While it isn't essential to stop burning before it happens or even stop the burning at all, what is the argument against making the game more transparent in this instance? It doesn't come to any surprise that burning will be an issue on this map, just which units actually do it.

[dondon151]

Clearly? What makes you say that it is clear? If you sat down with a random sample of people from off the street and did a formal scientific experiment to determine the clarity of the player's implied task, how do you think people would do at taking the non-existent hints?

How is that clear?

how is it clear that brigands destroy houses or that thieves pilfer chests if you've never played fire emblem before

these things are hints or clues that the player is supposed to be able to figure out based on context. oh, we're more than halfway through part 3, the game script mentions arson, why are there still unpromoted enemies on the map when we haven't seen them since part 2.

I design and program user interfaces for a living and from a programming perspective most of my suggestions are trivial. A heat-map would not be hard to implement or use, though I will admit it is a somewhat inelegant solution in that it doesn't solve the actual problem, it just treats the symptoms of the actual problem. A more elegant approach would be to make the relative threat of the enemy units much, much more apparent using all known psychological and perceptive techniques, though there are practical limitations to how detailed and varied you can make the assets in a game. Better enemy threat indicators would be an extremely efficient solution terms of time and money for the developer, which is why I mention it.

this is the kind of wording that i'd expect to see in a scientific paper when the author is trying to make a statement while having zero idea of what he is talking about

FE11 and onwards feature the "--" movement for units with stationary AI, which is simple and conveys a lot of information. they don't convey AI traps because you're supposed to be a strategist in a strategy game and figure them out.

The player can check the inventories, yes. The question is not if the player can check the inventories, the question is whether the player should be expected to check the inventories. Checking inventories is not in itself a fun or even an engaging task. Good game design requires that all activities that the player engages in are by themselves fun. Jonathan Blow talks about this in several of his interviews, if you strip a game down, take away all the graphics and aesthetics, the music, the narrative, the Skinner Boxes and the loot treadmills and the XP systems and the stat systems, is the game still fun? The goal of the designer is to start with a fun experience and then add all the trappings that make it even better, not start with a fundamentally boring experience and trick the player into wasting time with it using psychological hacks.

apparently good strategy game design involves having zero strategy at all

what a great design principle

i bet in 2020 we'll be designing games such that even vegetables can find them engaging

Edited August 26, 2015 by dondon151

[electricwolf]

how is it clear that brigands destroy houses or that thieves pilfer chests if you've never played fire emblem before

Usually by spending the first few chapters of the game by making some fairly story inconsequential bandits say something along the lines of "Hey, we're bandits and we're going to pillage and stuff".

If only I had some evidence, ohwait the game script:

FE7 Prologue

Lyn:

“Oh no! Bandits! They must have come down from the Bern mountains! They must be planning on raiding the local villages. I… I have to stop them! If that’s all of them, I think I can handle them on my own. You’ll be safe in here, Mark.”

FE7 Ch3

Lyn:

“Taliver Mountain is home to a gang of vicious, ruthless bandits. No marquess holds power here. My village was near here, on the other side of the mountain. My people were… The Taliver bandits came at night. It took only one night. The survivors numbered less than ten, including me.”

Lyb:

“We need you to go and warn the villagers.”

(Yes, it says Lyb, this is directly from the SF FE7 script and it has a typo in it)

Tutorial:

By visiting a village, we gained a new companion. Wil is an archer. He uses a bow to fight.

(so there's a clear incentive for visiting villages)

FE7 Ch14

Bandit:

“Eh? What’s all this? Looks like a war’s broken out. Aha ha ha! Perfect! Time for a raid! Up and at ’em, mates! That village is ripe for plunder!”

(these are actually pirates, not bandits)

FE8, Ch5

(At the beginning of turn 2, two Brigands appear under the west wall)

Brigand:

“Look at this. Now’s our chance! C’mon, lads! Let’s join the fights and steal our way through this pathetic town!”

(no explicit intention of raiding villages but c'mon, stealing your way though a town is implication enough)

Can't currently find anything regarding thieves (especially since the SF script for Matthew's recruitment is missing and would likely explain what thieves do) but the fact that they have lockpicks and you are shown what lockpicks can do is more of a hint than you ever get regarding the burning of villages in FE10.

[Gradivus.]

FE11 demonstrates that thieves can destroy villages at the start of C1, it might stand in the tutorial too, dunno.

FE6 did a very similar thing with a brigand in C1.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Gradivus.

[Radiant Dragon]

Ambush spawns come out of forts or from the back end of the level most of the time they're used in the series. The only truly bullshit sameturn reinforcements are in New Mystery, because 12 mov flying dragons with wtfspeed are extremely difficult to not get screwed over by even with careful play.

Awakening has some pretty awful ones too, namely the Falcoknights in Chapter 16 that cover half the map (the important half, mind you; the other half is untraversable) and have ridiculous speed, similar to the dragons you mentioned. The reinforcements in Laurent's paralogue were pretty frustrating for me, also.

However, the OP does have a point about checking inventories at the beginning of each map not being fun, because it really isn't. Neither is going around marking all of the enemies with Counter at the start of a map in Lunatic+. That being said, it's not having to check the inventories that isn't fun, but rather the process of doing it that isn't fun. More so in the older titles than newer ones, though, since as dondon mentioned the newer titles let you see a unit's weapon just by hovering over them. Needing to make sure that Panne isn't going to nuked by a Sage holding a Rexcalibur tome is an important part of coming up with a strategy, but it shouldn't be so much of a chore. Fate's exclamation marks are definitely a step in the right direction.

[dondon151]

Usually by spending the first few chapters of the game by making some fairly story inconsequential bandits say something along the lines of "Hey, we're bandits and we're going to pillage and stuff".

okay we're talking about FE10

how is the player supposed to know at all that only the brigands will kill the NPCs in chapter 1-8 if you've never played FE10 before

how is the player supposed to know at all that thieves will loot the chests in chapter 1-E and escape

your only proposal cites examples from a game that has a forced tutorial campaign which everyone hates

Needing to make sure that Panne isn't going to nuked by a Sage holding a Rexcalibur tome is an important part of coming up with a strategy, but it shouldn't be so much of a chore. Fate's exclamation marks are definitely a step in the right direction.

effective weapons are especially threatening, but many enemies are especially threatening - enemies with silver and brave weapons, for example. we can't give a heads-up for every possible threat.

Edited August 26, 2015 by dondon151

[electricwolf]

okay we're talking about FE10

how is the player supposed to know at all that only the brigands will kill the NPCs in chapter 1-8 if you've never played FE10 before

how is the player supposed to know at all that thieves will loot the chests in chapter 1-E and escape

your only proposal cites examples from a game that has a forced tutorial campaign which everyone hates

The player doesn't know that brigands attack the NPCs until it starts happening, which is frustrating just like the burning villages.

Again, in this game there is no obvious tutorial that explains those enemy behaviours. Although this game was designed as a sequel, there was no explicit hints and that can lead to frustration.

FE7 was my first FE game and I enjoyed the game, and the tutorial levels, very much. Don't assume that your opinion is the only one or that citing a few posts from people on the internet (or /r/fireemblem) are going to make me believe that the forced tutorial was actually quite useful to new players.

[Baldrick]

The player doesn't know that brigands attack the NPCs until it starts happening, which is frustrating just like the burning villages.

If only there was a game script... oh wait.

1-8:

Jarod: We'll lure the rebels to Shifu Swamp. We'll plant tales of a mass execution there.

Prisoner: They're killing our men!

Pelleas: Prisoners from Joad Work Camp are being collected in Shifu Swamp and

executed...

Tauroneo: Not only Joad. There's reportedly a plan to exterminate all prisoners

in every camp and let the swamp conceal the remains.

The forced tutorial wasn't even that helpful if you can't apply those reading comprehension skills to another game, huh?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Baldrick

[dondon151]

oh baldrick i was pointing out that we don't know that only the brigands will kill the prisoners but the non-brigands won't

[Baldrick]

Don't the dragonknights attack them as well? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

[Radiant Dragon]

effective weapons are especially threatening, but many enemies are especially threatening - enemies with silver and brave weapons, for example. we can't give a heads-up for every possible threat.

This is true, although 'especially threatening' enemies with Silver weapons tend to also be the ones that are promoted when their peers are not, which is another way to distinguish them. And how often do generics have Braves anyway, besides the Dreadlords in Awakening (whom can hardly be considered generic)? Still, you have a point. Although the goal is to make it easier to look at all of the enemy unit's inventories, not necessarily effortless.

oh baldrick i was pointing out that we don't know that only the brigands will kill the prisoners but the non-brigands won't

Case in point: I didn't know until just now that that one Dracoknight that starts on the map won't go after a prisoner if I didn't kill it with fire Tormod.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Radiant Dragon

[Baldrick]

Actually, the dragonknight will attack civilians.

Also in 3-9:

Roark: Crimean soldiers! How dare you turn your weapons against us! You will
pay for this betrayal. Men, burn these shanties to the ground! Show these
fools what we do to traitors!

I guess the game doesn't explicitly tell you that only the unpromoted soldiers will burn houses, but not only will it be obvious from enemy phase 1, like Irysa said, you can put out the fire so it's hardly a harsh punishment.

[dondon151]

that's their problem: it's not immediately obvious before turn 1. it's a dumb complaint.

[sithys]

how is it clear that brigands destroy houses or that thieves pilfer chests if you've never played fire emblem before

these things are hints or clues that the player is supposed to be able to figure out based on context. oh, we're more than halfway through part 3, the game script mentions arson, why are there still unpromoted enemies on the map when we haven't seen them since part 2.

this is the kind of wording that i'd expect to see in a scientific paper when the author is trying to make a statement while having zero idea of what he is talking about

FE11 and onwards feature the "--" movement for units with stationary AI, which is simple and conveys a lot of information. they don't convey AI traps because you're supposed to be a strategist in a strategy game and figure them out.

apparently good strategy game design involves having zero strategy at all

what a great design principle

i bet in 2020 we'll be designing games such that even vegetables can find them engaging

Things are more obvious in retrospect. If you were to playtest this mechanic I guarantee that only a tiny, statistically insignificant percentage of the population would take the hints and predict that they need to kill the soldier on the first turn. The first order optimal strategy to saving all the houses in this level is to immediately restart the chapter after realizing that the top houses cannot be saved. When you have a first order optimal strategy like that, it indicates that there are flaws in the design.

When I mention that a more elegant solution would be to have the information present in the game world instead of in the UI, it's because I feel that if information needs to be in the UI then the design of the world needs improvement. Providing information in the UI should be a last resort. In Fire Emblem, it can't really be avoided because of the precedent set by earlier games. People who are familiar with the games will be able to use the UI even if it is poorly designed.

Here you have redefined the word "strategy." Strategy is defined as the "the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle." Strategy does not necessarily entail being a scout or understanding what a scout does, though good military strategies make use of scouts. A strategist does not need to scout the battlefield, he has help to achieve that particular, relatively uninteresting task. There is a clear separation between information acquisition and information processing. The first is tedious and the second is engaging. You could look at a well-designed spreadsheet of information and have fun coming up with a strategy. If the designers added a new UI that provided important information, such as equipped weapon and stealable items in color-coded rows, where selecting a row highlighted the enemy in the scenario map in a split UI, it would go a long way to providing information to the player. You could even put the text "Scout's Report" at the top of the interface for flavor.

If you take nothing away from reading what I am saying, please understand that there are TWO phases to cognition in my example, perception and decision-making. They are absolutely independent, and designs that fail to help the player perceive information should always be improved. Perception is NOT strategy.

Edited August 26, 2015 by sithys