Some Thoughts on UI and Level Design

[Baldrick]

Thus the game must be classified as a very abstract simulation which is intended to simulate the decision-making required of a commander at the very highest level of an army.

How is this goal not met when newer players play conversatively? They're making decisions to defeat an enemy army and trying to minimise risk and casualties.

It is well-understood by the scientific community that humans respond to the promise of reward more than they respond to the threat of punishment. Thus any game mechanic which rewards the player is objectively better at creating effective incentives when compared to any game mechanic which punishes the player.

But, aren't those thieves a threat of punishment? They will take away your reward unless you outrun/kill them.

In fact, all enemy units are a threat of punishment, since they will attack your units and may cause them to die.

So, the objective ideal FE game is one with no enemies, only treasure chests to open.

As you say, challenge is a core gameplay aesthetic and has rewards of its own. When you beat a difficult chapter, you feel triumphant, right?

So, a rewarding mechanic is meaningless unless triangulated with a punishing mechanic, whereas a punishing mechanic creates a reward just by existing and being overcome by the player.

What's better at creating incentives?

there was a boss named Freya who was significantly harder to beat if you didn't kill the three mini-bosses that were in the same room with her.That solution, in which the difficulty of the encounters was directly controlled through the mechanics of the game (a opposed to an option in the UI)

If you have to kill those mini-bosses before engaging Freya, I don't see what's the big deal in choosing your difficulty level through doing or not doing something instead of through a menu.

The transparency of the mechanic in this case comes from the fact that it is an online game and everyone knows everything about the game at all times because of the internet and resource websites, and the designers design the game knowing this.

What is Serenes Forest.

Anyway, weren't you saying before that decision-making should be meaningful? How can it be when you can memorise a strategy you read in a guide.

This is almost similar to ambush spawns when projected into turn-based space, the difference is you can see the wall of fire clearly whereas the game only gives you a very, very vague warning that there is going to be a spawn at some indeterminate time in the future.

Forts are by no means vague. Often, you'll get verbal warning that reinforcements are coming as well.

Not all ambush spawns come from forts or have advance warning, but so what?

If there's a game with an invisible fire wall, does that mean fire walls as a concept are unfair?

[Radiant Dragon]

Yes it is a word that is not often used in normal conversation. Abnegation literally means self-denial or renouncing something, though in this context the "self-denial" is the literal denial of the existence of reality and the self, more importantly, the acceptance of a system which is not real or the self. Abnegation is pastime, like stamp collecting or baseball card collecting. Abnegation is mentioned by Extra Credits as an alternative word to "Submission" which was the original word used in MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. All RPGs give abnegation through their XP and progression systems.

Putting the rather condescending first sentence aside for now...

While I can understand how taking a break from the real world to play a video game could be considered a loose example of abnegation, I wouldn't consider collecting abnegation. What would we be renouncing here, exactly (besides a savings account in extreme cases, I guess)? I don't see how progression in an RPG is an example of abnegation, either.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Radiant Dragon

[Zerosabers]

Ambush spawns are annoying, but they're not completely unfair.

You can predict them easily enough and counter them for the most part by playing smart. I started playing FE6 recently and every ambush spawn has been pretty easy to predict. In chapter 7 the boss is alone at the start of a castle. After you get close enough 4 Soldiers 2 Archers 2 Mages all spawn to ambush you.

Its pretty obviously a trap and its the players fault for not being careful around a boss.

[Shrouded In Myth]

what the hell is this babble

that's not what abnegation means

you just made up a definition for it

Blame Extra Credits https://youtu.be/uepAJ-rqJKA

This is one of the reasons why I don't like them that much anymore, because of their tendency of renaming and redefining terms to something that makes less sense.

Fire Emblem has in the past consistently delivered three core gameplay aesthetics: narrative, abnegation, and challenge. Most of the design decisions support these core gameplay aesthetics and though I have never met the developers it is not a longshot to conclude that these are the primary goals of the developer.

I came to the same conclusion as well when I read about the aesthetics of play and realized that the reason why so many FE veterans don't like FE13 is because of a shift in these gameplay aesthetics, mostly that "abnegation" ( I use the word relaxation, which doesn't convey the idea well, but it's much better than abnegation) went from the least important gameplay aesthetic to the most important one. Anyways I always felt the RPG mechanics contribute to the challenge more, but the preparation menu contributes more to "abnegation" (I hate this term). If I'm not mentally prepared to take on the map I just scout the map to look for important details and formulate my strategies. It pumps me up for the map, because the more I learn about the map, the more I want to play it. I think before you asked whether checking inventories is fun, and I can say for me the answer is yes. I find data acquisition in Fire Emblem to be fun.

The transparency of the mechanic in this case comes from the fact that it is an online game and everyone knows everything about the game at all times because of the internet and resource websites, and the designers design the game knowing this. In later expansions, new UI elements were added to describe boss fights without the need for interaction with a third party.

This is the most important part. I often check Serenes Forest for information of whatever game I'm playing and I wonder why that information can't just be given in the game. As other users have argued it is so there is no information overload on the player which I agree with, but it's annoying to look up that information through a third party. So obviously everyone wants a better UI, that's a given but I have another idea.

So in the early days of gaming CRPGs such as Ultima and Wizardry were popular. Due to the technical limitations of the time these games had no map system and players had to make maps outside the game to have a sense of direction. As technology got better these games started implementing map systems and those days where players had to draw maps were gone and were dismissed as something you had to do to play the actually game, you can say it was considered non-play.

That was until Etrian Odyssey. The developers of those games challenged the notion that map drawing was non-play and unfun by giving the players tools to encourage map drawing. The series has some niche success so I think it's fair to say that they were right.

I think something like this should be in Fire Emblem. In TearRing Saga and Berwick Saga you can set up flags to mark tiles on the map. I didn't think much of it at first but as I progressed through the game I found myself using it much more, from not using it at all to using it several times per chapter. What if Fire Emblem went deeper than this? Instead of the game making it obvious that the enemy has a hammer, what if it made the player mark the enemy themselves so it can be obvious? This would encourage players to really think what exactly is important in the map, rather than the game telling them what is important.

World of Warcraft had a dungeon named Ulduar which is generally accepted (even by the developers) to be the best content ever created for the game. The pattern used in that dungeon was quickly abandoned because it was too difficult and expensive to develop. In Ulduar, there was no difficulty setting. Everyone played the exact same content. However, skilled players could through the mechanics of the bosses unlock "hard mode." For example, there was a boss named Freya who was significantly harder to beat if you didn't kill the three mini-bosses that were in the same room with her. That solution, in which the difficulty of the encounters was directly controlled through the mechanics of the game (a opposed to an option in the UI), is well-accepted to be the optimal solution to difficulty by the player base and even the designers.

Unrelated but I always questioned if this sort of thing is less difficulty select and more unbalanced gameplay. Like if it is easier killing the mini-bossesand there is no reward to not killing them why not do it? It reminds me of the Extra Credits eisode where they talked about the "hidden hard mode" in Dark Souls II where some builds are inherently harder to play as. I just found this to be an excuse for unbalanced gameplay and builds; it's like saying Sacred Stones has a hidden hard mode by not using Seth. It's pretty much saying that self-imposed challenges are difficulty options, in which case every game has a hidden hard mode.

[sithys]

Blame Extra Credits https://youtu.be/uepAJ-rqJKA

This is one of the reasons why I don't like them that much anymore, because of their tendency of renaming and redefining terms to something that makes less sense.

I came to the same conclusion as well when I read about the aesthetics of play and realized that the reason why so many FE veterans don't like FE13 is because of a shift in these gameplay aesthetics, mostly that "abnegation" ( I use the word relaxation, which doesn't convey the idea well, but it's much better than abnegation) went from the least important gameplay aesthetic to the most important one. Anyways I always felt the RPG mechanics contribute to the challenge more, but the preparation menu contributes more to "abnegation" (I hate this term). If I'm not mentally prepared to take on the map I just scout the map to look for important details and formulate my strategies. It pumps me up for the map, because the more I learn about the map, the more I want to play it. I think before you asked whether checking inventories is fun, and I can say for me the answer is yes. I find data acquisition in Fire Emblem to be fun.

This is the most important part. I often check Serenes Forest for information of whatever game I'm playing and I wonder why that information can't just be given in the game. As other users have argued it is so there is no information overload on the player which I agree with, but it's annoying to look up that information through a third party. So obviously everyone wants a better UI, that's a given but I have another idea.

So in the early days of gaming CRPGs such as Ultima and Wizardry were popular. Due to the technical limitations of the time these games had no map system and players had to make maps outside the game to have a sense of direction. As technology got better these games started implementing map systems and those days where players had to draw maps were gone and were dismissed as something you had to do to play the actually game, you can say it was considered non-play.

That was until Etrian Odyssey. The developers of those games challenged the notion that map drawing was non-play and unfun by giving the players tools to encourage map drawing. The series has some niche success so I think it's fair to say that they were right.

I think something like this should be in Fire Emblem. In TearRing Saga and Berwick Saga you can set up flags to mark tiles on the map. I didn't think much of it at first but as I progressed through the game I found myself using it much more, from not using it at all to using it several times per chapter. What if Fire Emblem went deeper than this? Instead of the game making it obvious that the enemy has a hammer, what if it made the player mark the enemy themselves so it can be obvious? This would encourage players to really think what exactly is important in the map, rather than the game telling them what is important.

Unrelated but I always questioned if this sort of thing is less difficulty select and more unbalanced gameplay. Like if it is easier killing the mini-bossesand there is no reward to not killing them why not do it? It reminds me of the Extra Credits eisode where they talked about the "hidden hard mode" in Dark Souls II where some builds are inherently harder to play as. I just found this to be an excuse for unbalanced gameplay and builds; it's like saying Sacred Stones has a hidden hard mode by not using Seth. It's pretty much saying that self-imposed challenges are difficulty options, in which case every game has a hidden hard mode.

Being able to mark the map would be a fantastic addition to the UI. I would say that that is another good solution to the issue I described in the original post. If what you are saying is true, that the act of finding things that you need to look out for is a relaxing pastime, though there is still the issue of poor human memory. People forget that they saw the hammer and then they are frustrated when they die to it. Your solution solves that problem while retaining the relaxing activity.

On a second play through, if your markings persisted in the world, it would provide not only a quick warning (that you created for your future self) but also a bit of nostalgia as you reflect on the last play through.

In Ulduar the rewards for killing a boss after activating "hard mode" are higher. An entire tier higher, if you are familiar with the tiered loot system in MMOs. In this example the player simply ignores the mini bosses but in other instances even activating the hard-mode can be a very challenging task in of itself, which requires an in-depth strategy, especially on 10-man. The reward for coming up with a successful strategy is a harder boss with higher rewards. It's a positive feedback loop of difficulty.

I want to talk about feedback loops at some point, I might have to start a new thread for that though.

Sanaki, I did not mean to sound condescending. You can blame extra credits for coining the term. I am not a game designer, I just design software for people around the office. I'm sure James and his friends had a good reason for picking that word to describe XP systems in RPGs. All vocabulary is arbitrary, though it is useful if the participants in a domain agree on it enough to use it to further develop the domain.

[dondon151]

I am not a game designer, I just design software for people around the office.

oh, i thought you were speaking from a position of authority, which is why i bothered to take you seriously. but since you don't seem to know anything more about game design than anyone else here, i guess i don't have to anymore.

discussing tangential examples from games that i may or may not have played doesn't deal with the core issue of sithys projecting his playstyle upon everyone else and dictating what strategy-oriented behavior is or isn't fun. some players don't like looking before they leap because they are bad at strategy games and that's what casual mode is for. otherwise, it should be expected of players to look before they leap, and the UI "improvements" that sithys is suggesting are not going to make that experience easier.

Edited August 30, 2015 by dondon151

[Shrouded In Myth]

Being able to mark the map would be a fantastic addition to the UI. I would say that that is another good solution to the issue I described in the original post. If what you are saying is true, that the act of finding things that you need to look out for is a relaxing pastime, though there is still the issue of poor human memory. People forget that they saw the hammer and then they are frustrated when they die to it. Your solution solves that problem while retaining the relaxing activity.

On a second play through, if your markings persisted in the world, it would provide not only a quick warning (that you created for your future self) but also a bit of nostalgia as you reflect on the last play through.

Thank you for clarifying the WoW example. Your idea for the second playthrough retaining the markings is an interesting idea. I think it can go further though. In Dark Souls and the related games online players can leave hints for others to find. In the proposed map marking system a similar feature can be used for players who don't want to go through all that; those players can just download someone else's marked map. For players without online they can just use some the developers provided which are based on their playtesters maps.

This can be incorporated in the story as well. In FE10 Micaiah is able to predict the future and in FE13 the Avatar can see "the ebb and flow of battle." These were just narrative cop-outs for more complicated, sensible explanations but with the proposed mechanic above they can be used to merge gameplay and narrative.

[Gradivus.]

DSFE and FE13 allow you to mark individual enemy ranges. Press X and the enemy is marked and their range appears distinctly either if you have the general enemy range off (DSFE) or always (FE13).

Edited August 30, 2015 by Gradivus.

[RJWalker]

Is this thread real? Are people actually suggesting players shouldn't have to pay attention in strategy games?

[sithys]

Thank you for clarifying the WoW example. Your idea for the second playthrough retaining the markings is an interesting idea. I think it can go further though. In Dark Souls and the related games online players can leave hints for others to find. In the proposed map marking system a similar feature can be used for players who don't want to go through all that; those players can just download someone else's marked map. For players without online they can just use some the developers provided which are based on their playtesters maps.

This can be incorporated in the story as well. In FE10 Micaiah is able to predict the future and in FE13 the Avatar can see "the ebb and flow of battle." These were just narrative cop-outs for more complicated, sensible explanations but with the proposed mechanic above they can be used to merge gameplay and narrative.

If the developers have information about what the players are using to remind themselves, they could use that data to improve the UI. One thing I don't want to see is the developer using the feature as an excuse to ignore good game design, because eastern developers tend to do that nowadays.

[Original Alear]

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.

"Know the enemy, know yourself, know victory." Ya it doesn't look like that's the original quote from Sun Tzu but w/e. I don't see how being good at receiving and obtaining information is not part of strategy. Take your idea of being able to mark up a map in a game - you now have enhanced options as far as making decisions about how you're going to organize data.

I don't think the ability to mark map spaces or units is a bad one, though.