Some Thoughts on UI and Level Design

[electricwolf]

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?

Apart from it being made clear in other posts that it is not only the brigands that attacks the NPCs, are we to assume from that text that all enemy units have the AI to kill NPC units? In the examples I showed there were groups of bandits or pirates (aka specific classes) basically pre-announcing their intentions.

I am not saying that there should be blatant exposition saying "Bandits raid villages in this chapter", I think all of us can acknowledge that doing that would be stupid.

Example of what is not needed:

https://youtu.be/97WzDfl2zXY?t=369

In this example the game tells you, through a tutorial screen, that bandits raid villages. It takes away from immersion but it does inform the player.

What I am saying is that there should at least be clear information available to the player in-game or the kind of introduction to that mechanic that was posted by sithys earlier.

Example of what is needed:

https://youtu.be/g1SEYD3q6no?t=142

In this example the game shows you the mechanic through a scripted event. Unless you hack the game, you cannot save the village. From here on in, you understand that bandits raid villages.

So:

FE8:

Bandits raid villages -> bandits raiding villages = bad -> don't let bandits raid villages

FE10:

NPCs killed = bad -> Protect NPCs

Fires = bad -> Don't let them start fires or extinguish them quickly

Except you don't know which units will attack NPCs or start fires. All you need in this respect is a pre-deployment event that showcases that bandits (and the dracoknight) attack NPCs and only unpromoted soldiers start fires. Even if the level design exists to slow your efforts to help NPCs/houses, knowing what you are up against is fair and allows a strategy to try to help them most effectively.

If someone is resetting and it isn't due to a fault of their own making (i.e. putting a player unit in range of an enemy unit with the potential to kill it), there is probably an issue with the level design or UI.

[Irysa]

I seriously don't understand why you two are fixating so much on the setting fires example. The village is not destroyed, it just starts burning and Geoffrey literally yells at you to put the fires out, they're a non critical objective, and you only lose some BEXP, not items. I mean, there is exactly what you're asking for with it being "demonstrated" with how the closest accessible building to the mounted units is set on fire no matter what when Roark gives the order to start burning the buildings. Sure, you might be surprised at the introduction of this mechanic but it isn't that punishing and isn't a big deal and adds a neat little side-objective, and the way it's introduced befits the kind of chaos wanton arson entails.

And again; the layout of the map encourages you to send Marcia and maybe a foot unit up from the starting position since Geoffrey's troupe is mostly mounted and will have to go round the long way. There is a goddamn speedwing on a Halberdier up at the top of the map, so you have a good reason to go up there. And since the Soldier to the north is an easy ORKO and can only be reached by Marcia on turn 1, why WOULDN'T you attack him? Seriously, this combined with complaints about the game not being overwhelmingly explicit as to what enemies have what types of weapons because it's "tedious" to have to actually examine the map and the enemies on it is beginning to make it seem as if you don't really bother to put any real effort into prep screen strategy in the first place, which is a deficiency as a player, not the game's fault.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Irysa

[sithys]

Apart from it being made clear in other posts that it is not only the brigands that attacks the NPCs, are we to assume from that text that all enemy units have the AI to kill NPC units? In the examples I showed there were groups of bandits or pirates (aka specific classes) basically pre-announcing their intentions.

I am not saying that there should be blatant exposition saying "Bandits raid villages in this chapter", I think all of us can acknowledge that doing that would be stupid.

Example of what is not needed:

https://youtu.be/97WzDfl2zXY?t=369

In this example the game tells you, through a tutorial screen, that bandits raid villages. It takes away from immersion but it does inform the player.

What I am saying is that there should at least be clear information available to the player in-game or the kind of introduction to that mechanic that was posted by sithys earlier.

Example of what is needed:

https://youtu.be/g1SEYD3q6no?t=142

In this example the game shows you the mechanic through a scripted event. Unless you hack the game, you cannot save the village. From here on in, you understand that bandits raid villages.

So:

FE8:

Bandits raid villages -> bandits raiding villages = bad -> don't let bandits raid villages

FE10:

NPCs killed = bad -> Protect NPCs

Fires = bad -> Don't let them start fires or extinguish them quickly

Except you don't know which units will attack NPCs or start fires. All you need in this respect is a pre-deployment event that showcases that bandits (and the dracoknight) attack NPCs and only unpromoted soldiers start fires. Even if the level design exists to slow your efforts to help NPCs/houses, knowing what you are up against is fair and allows a strategy to try to help them most effectively.

If someone is resetting and it isn't due to a fault of their own making (i.e. putting a player unit in range of an enemy unit with the potential to kill it), there is probably an issue with the level design or UI.

Absolutely perfect. Thank you very much for putting together this post. It perfectly demonstrates the right way to introduce something to the player. Mark Brown talks about this as well in his video on Half Life 2:

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

In the example of the swamp level in the first part, I don't think I agree that it is obvious that the bandits attack the prisoners. From the let's plays I have watched the players are consistently surprised and frustrated by the way the mechanics is introduced. Furthermore, the only way I found to stop the enemies from killing a prisoner is to use an unintuitive strategy that involves placing Vika in specific spots while untransformed. If feels cheesy and stupid to succeed and fail at the subobjective. Why have a subobjective that creates negative emotional experiences no matter the outcome?

A better way to introduce the mechanic would be to start the player further from the prisoners, but have one single prisoner nearby. Have a bandit that does very low damage just out of attack range but who will always move into attack range and attack but not kill the prisoner. The player is not given control until the bandit is given a single scripted move at the start of the level, and the bandit always has low enough speed so that you can reasonably kill him with any character. This setup is guaranteed to introduce the player to the mechanic.

[electricwolf]

Fixating on it because we are determined to prove that the situation and game mechanic could be done better.

I played the chapter recently and I couldn't get an easy ORKO on that soldier, what's to say that every player will have your experience of getting that first turn kill? It's certainly possible if you either give Marcia some levels or weapons better than what she comes with. And on the first playthrough you don't know to try and kill this soldier before the first enemy turn, so you're only preventing the burning with prescience or luck. I attacked the soldier on most of my playthroughs, but as I wasn't getting the kill, it set the house on fire. Without any knowledge, do I kill the soldier or put out the fire? If I put the fire out then the soldier (now that I know this unit will start fires) will start the fire again. If I kill the soldier, how do I know the village will not burn?

If I remember correctly, you can't block the soldiers path either, as that puts you in range of an enemy sniper that can OHKO.

Before the level, you don't know what the consequence is to losing villages. While it doesn't game over if you lose all of them, you only learn the reward for saving them at the end if you have the BEXP screen turned on.

During the level you have no idea how long you can leave houses burning until they are burnt. At that point it is too late.

While most players will probably manage to save all the houses if they make it their priority, there should be more to point towards which units initiate burning, how long houses take to burn, and what the consequences of burning are.

It is a situation of non-optimal design that we believe could be improved. I am honestly not understanding how anyone is against improving level design.

[dondon151]

because that's not improving level design.

irysa has expounded on how 3-9's map layout encourages sending marcia, calill, and danved up the ledges. this is in line with miyamoto's design philosophy in which the game naturally teaches the player what to do without explicitly telling the player what to do (or was it iwata's philosophy?).

i do not believe that it is beneficial to make transparent such trivial little details just so that the player can get things right on the first try (and even despite transparency, the player is still probably not going to get things right on the first try).

Edited August 26, 2015 by dondon151

[Irysa]

Base Marcia only needs to at least proc speed twice to be able to easily ORKO the enemy Soldier with the Brave Lance on Hard Mode. Her growth rate in that stat is 65%, and it's among the stats that are certified to go up if she gets any BEXP levels. She needs two strength and two speed to be able to ORKO him with a Steel Greatlance, or 1 strength and two speed with the Silver Greatlance. These are not steep demands.

If you don't meet any of the requirements you could forge her a weapon or rig a crit, but I'll accept that as being probably too specific for the context of the argument. I'm not sure if the enemy Soldier prioritises house burning over attacking, but it's irrelevant as Marcia also has exactly enough movement from the top most deployment spot to simply attack the Soldier and then canto onto the village where the Sniper can't attack her, protect it from being set on fire AND probably kill the Soldier on enemy phase.

EDIT: If you really want to, Calill can Meteor him to make it infalliable even on 0% growths. :V

Edited August 26, 2015 by Irysa

[sithys]

Fixating on it because we are determined to prove that the situation and game mechanic could be done better.

I played the chapter recently and I couldn't get an easy ORKO on that soldier, what's to say that every player will have your experience of getting that first turn kill? It's certainly possible if you either give Marcia some levels or weapons better than what she comes with. And on the first playthrough you don't know to try and kill this soldier before the first enemy turn, so you're only preventing the burning with prescience or luck. I attacked the soldier on most of my playthroughs, but as I wasn't getting the kill, it set the house on fire. Without any knowledge, do I kill the soldier or put out the fire? If I put the fire out then the soldier (now that I know this unit will start fires) will start the fire again. If I kill the soldier, how do I know the village will not burn?

If I remember correctly, you can't block the soldiers path either, as that puts you in range of an enemy sniper that can OHKO.

Before the level, you don't know what the consequence is to losing villages. While it doesn't game over if you lose all of them, you only learn the reward for saving them at the end if you have the BEXP screen turned on.

During the level you have no idea how long you can leave houses burning until they are burnt. At that point it is too late.

While most players will probably manage to save all the houses if they make it their priority, there should be more to point towards which units initiate burning, how long houses take to burn, and what the consequences of burning are.

It is a situation of non-optimal design that we believe could be improved. I am honestly not understanding how anyone is against improving level design.

Once again you hit the nail on the head with this post.

The player has so many questions. All of these questions can be answered simply by introducing the player to the mechanic in an insulated environment and by demonstrating a burning house in a scripted sequence. I agree with the design philosophy that the game should naturally show the player what to do instead of tell them with a tutorial. Show, don't tell. Not showing (and not telling) is not a valid solution, it's even better to tell than to do nothing at all.

The player shouldn't have to restart the level over and over again just to answer questions about how the game behaves when it is very easy for the game to demonstrate new mechanics using simple techniques that were available as early as Sacred Stones, as was demonstrated.

[Jedi]

Once again you hit the nail on the head with this post.

The player has so many questions. All of these questions can be answered simply by introducing the player to the mechanic in an insulated environment and by demonstrating a burning house in a scripted sequence. I agree with the design philosophy that the game should naturally show the player what to do instead of tell them with a tutorial. Show, don't tell. Not showing (and not telling) is not a valid solution, it's even better to tell than to do nothing at all.

The player shouldn't have to restart the level over and over again just to answer questions about how the game behaves when it is very easy for the game to demonstrate new mechanics using simple techniques that were available as early as Sacred Stones, as was demonstrated.

What you talk of, is spoon feeding a situation so there is no tension or adaptation, much like school before you get into serious education, you merely want people to regurgitate information or ideas instead of figuring it out on their own or making unique solutions.

Good game design will teach you how the game works, without beating your head in with an anvil, also while making you think "Oh hey, this may be a thing".

Skyward Sword is an example of what you are talking about and it is done so badly that I couldn't stomach replaying the game ever again.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Jedi

[sithys]

What you talk of, is spoon feeding a situation so there is no tension or adaptation, much like school before you get into serious education, you merely want people to regurgitate information or ideas instead of figuring it out on their own or making unique solutions.

Good game design will teach you how the game works, without beating your head in with an anvil, also while making you think "Oh hey, this may be a thing".

Skyward Sword is an example of what you are talking about and it is done so badly that I couldn't stomach replaying the game ever again.

Can you give some examples from Skyward Sword so I can follow? I played the game but it has been a few years. I remember not liking the whole dowsing system.

[dondon151]

one more thing about 3-9 now that i've looked at a map again

there are a pair of soldiers in the bottom right corner of the map who are guaranteed to start burning down a house and you have no way of killing either of them short of possibly calill meteor shenanigans

so it seems pretty clear from this detail that the game doesn't intend for the player to be able to prevent all of the houses from being torched, anyway

[Baldrick]

Apart from it being made clear in other posts that it is not only the brigands that attacks the NPCs, are we to assume from that text that all enemy units have the AI to kill NPC units?

That's a fair assumption to make going in blind. But if you look at enemy ranges, you'll see the dragonknight has the best movement on swamp tiles, so you need to deal with him immediately. Once you've done that, you'll have enough information to identify which enemies will attack NPCs.

What you would want from the chapter; Micaiah to announce that the bandits and dragonknights will be aggressive and the other enemies will wait around? (it makes sense in the plot, she can see the future)

EDIT: I've illustrated my argument so that you can physically see it.

I am not saying that there should be blatant exposition saying "Bandits raid villages in this chapter", I think all of us can acknowledge that doing that would be stupid.

???

You cited Lyn's tutorial giving you information such as "if you visit villages you get good things!" as an example of good exposition.

What I am saying is that there should at least be clear information available to the player in-game or the kind of introduction to that mechanic that was posted by sithys earlier.

Example of what is needed:

https://youtu.be/g1SEYD3q6no?t=142

In this example the game shows you the mechanic through a scripted event.

A better way to introduce the mechanic would be to start the player further from the prisoners, but have one single prisoner nearby. Have a bandit that does very low damage just out of attack range but who will always move into attack range and attack but not kill the prisoner.

So what are you saying is you're both too stupid to work things out through inferring the text, and have to be physically shown it.

I think the average FE player is smarter than that.

Actually, that "better way" is exactly how 3-9 does it (replace bandit with soldier, prisoner with house, attack but not kill with set on fire but not destroy).

So explain that.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Baldrick

[sithys]

That's a fair assumption to make going in blind. But if you look at enemy ranges, you'll see the dragonknight has the best movement on swamp tiles, so you need to deal with him immediately. Once you've done that, you'll have enough information to identify which enemies will attack NPCs.

What you would want from the chapter; Micaiah to announce that the bandits and dragonknights will be aggressive and the other enemies will wait around? (it makes sense in the plot, she can see the future)

EDIT: I've illustrated my argument so that you can physically see it.

???

You cited Lyn's tutorial giving you information such as "if you visit villages you get good things!" as an example of good exposition.

So what are you saying is you're both too stupid to work things out through inferring the text, and have to be physically shown it.

I think the average FE player is smarter than that.

Actually, that "better way" is exactly how 3-9 does it (replace bandit with soldier, prisoner with house, attack but not kill with set on fire but not destroy).

So explain that.

If you think the average player is smart then you would be dead wrong. Don Norman dedicated an entire chapter to the topic called "Human Error? No, Bad Design" in his landmark book The Design of Everyday Things. The chapter "Knowledge in the Head and in the World" further supports all of my arguments. The human brain did not evolve to map controls to burners on your stove at home, and despite the obvious nature of this fact your typical household stove is so poorly designed that even after years or decades of use people still turn the wrong burner on. And for what?

I would ask the same question of many games. Your player is going to be bombarded with numerous questions when they encounter a new mechanic for the first time, and the only way to answer those questions is to try over and over again. And for what? What does the player gain? Nothing, the emotions of surprise and conflict are perfectly achievable using transparency. Your average human DOES actually need to be physically shown how things work. That is an observable and irrefutable scientific fact. You can refer to the aforementioned book if you depute this. A player cannot make decisions, and therefore they cannot experience conflict, surprise, or any of the emotions the designer wants them to experience, if they cannot first perceive and then create a mental model of the mechanic.

In the example of Super Mario 3D World, the player is introduced to a novel mechanic in a safe place where they won't lose a life if they fall off the flip switches. What would the designer gain by omitting this safe environment? Absolutely nothing. What does the designer lose by including this environment? Absolutely nothing. The player is still presented with a challenge once they have created the mental model required to interact with the game. The player still experiences all the good emotions, surprise, conflict, intensity, change, and all at no cost.

I am going to repeat this again and again and again in every post in this thread if I have to, there is a difference between perception and decision-making. It is the responsibility of the designer to make perception trivial so that the greatest number of users can reach the decision-making cognitive stage, because as Raph Koster points out in his brief book on game design, the human brain evolved to enjoy games that model reality in an insulated environment to prepare players for the real world decisions they will need to make.

Edited August 27, 2015 by sithys

[dondon151]

In the example of Super Mario 3D World, the player is introduced to a novel mechanic in a safe place where they won't lose a life if they fall off the flip switches.

news flash: all single player video games are "safe" places. you lose a life in the game, that's fantastic, nothing bad happens to you in real life except that you wasted some time learning about the game.

or let's return to the example of 3-9: you don't even game over if a soldier lights a house on fire. this is a completely safe place.

If you think the average player is smart then you would be dead wrong. Don Norman dedicated an entire chapter to the topic called "Human Error? No, Bad Design" in his landmark book The Design of Everyday Things. The chapter "Knowledge in the Head and in the World" further supports all of my arguments.

video games and appliances are two different entities designed with two different goals. the point of a game is to present a problem that can be solved in an interactive manner. the point of an appliance is to present as few problems as possible to the user. an appliance that presents problems is a poorly designed appliance; a game that doesn't present problems can hardly be defined as a game.

maybe the paradigm of this generation of video game designers is that the point of a game should be to present as few problems as possible to the user, in which case i'm chagrined that so many of you have been coddled into this mindset.

it often comes up when i'm teaching people how to play new board games that rather than explaining the rules verbatim from the rulebook, i'll demonstrate gameplay by diving straight in after a cursory overview of the fundamentals. the players learn faster that way and they tend to be less confused.

A player cannot make decisions, and therefore they cannot experience conflict, surprise, or any of the emotions the designer wants them to experience, if they cannot first perceive and then create a mental model of the mechanic.

in fire emblem we call this reading the script and viewing the map

Edited August 27, 2015 by dondon151

[Quintessence]

I completely agree with dondon regarding 'the paradigm of this generation of video game designers'. It seems like games nowadays are losing, continuously, some sort of sense of intuition and awareness a player must have. Games like FE should promote strategizing, use of awareness, making the player stay alert at the signs/hints/clues the game either gives, suggests or implies. What kind of game is a game where you go into a car and the car drives you to the goal? Where's the mental effort? Where are you training your brain? Video games are not only for fun and entertainment, but also to improve people's skills, abilities, perceptions, intuition, gain experience, dive into alternatives to solve a problem, etc. (the list goes on).

I mean, if I get to 1-8 where you see 6 or 7 civilians in a swamp (and you know they don't move), and you see a dracoknight (it flies!), the first thing you ask yourself, from common sense (not even using scripts or hint/references) is: will npc survive a round against the draco if they engage combat? If you know the npc is one shot'ed then the minimum thing that should arise from one's head is 'I need to defend him', and so on.

Baldrick's img is perfect.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Quintessence

[sithys]

I completely agree with dondon regarding 'the paradigm of this generation of video game designers'. It seems like games nowadays are losing, continuously, some sort of sense of intuition and awareness a player must have. Games like FE should promote strategizing, use of awareness, making the player stay alert at the signs/hints/clues the game either gives, suggests or implies. What kind of game is a game where you go into a car and the car drives you to the goal? Where's the mental effort? Where are you training your brain? Video games are not only for fun and entertainment, but also to improve people's skills, abilities, perceptions, intuition, gain experience, dive into alternatives to solve a problem, etc. (the list goes on).

I mean, if I get to 1-8 where you see 6 or 7 civilians in a swamp (and you know they don't move), and you see a dracoknight (it flies!), the first thing you ask yourself, from common sense (not even using scripts or hint/references) is: will npc survive a round against the draco if they engage combat? If you know the npc is one shot'ed then the minimum thing that should arise from one's head is 'I need to defend him', and so on.

Baldrick's img is perfect.

You can have mental effort, brain training, improvements to skills, abilities, perceptions, intuition, and you can gain experience, dive into alternatives to solve a problem, etc, while also having transparency. Ambush spawns are an extreme example of lack of transparency, because they literally add nothing to the game and they do not accomplish any of these goals, at best they punish the player but there are much better, more efficient ways of challenging the player.

Games must always present problems to the player. The designer must make sure that the problem presented to the player is the correct one. Some problems are meaningless. They add nothing to the experience. Such problems should be eliminated. Opacity of the mechanics and the UI and the level design are such problems.

When a person turns the stove on they ARE presented with a problem. The problems of how to cook the food they want to cook. The designer of the stove is responsible for making a product that gets out of the way and lets the user solve the actual problem that they are actually interested in solving, making food. The same is true for game design, the problem in Fire Emblem is not one of data acquisition but of data processing. The skill the player is interested in learning is how to respond to changes, not how to identify changes using an opaque UI.

[Shrouded In Myth]

When it comes to UI, Fire Emblem should try to make actions take as little clicks as possible. Intelligent Systems does a good job at doing this and they continue to improve the UI. One thing that I want from the games is the ability to mark the maps so you can decide what's important to mark, instead of the game doing it for you. This would encourage players to think what exactly they need to pay attention to instead of the game doing it for them and them not learning why a certain unit or tile is important.

As for whether or not frustration is something the designers intended I say yes. In the FE12 Iwata Asks they say that the essence of Fire Emblem is "pleasant feeling of tension." Tension because of the severe punishments for wrong moves such as a unit's death and pleasant because you overcame a seemingly unfair situation. They mentioned Thracia 776 embodies this very well.

I actually want more games to be like FE5, there are plenty of surprises that is a bit unreasonable for you to expect but it's all the more better than it. Yes you feel frustrated but that's the point. In the story Lief is fighting a losing battle and can only hope to not lose, hence why the escape objectives. He gets surprised by the enemies traps and gets scolded by August for falling for it. The player is likely feeling very tired for dealing with a this but continues pushing on despite their fatigue. Wait, that the fatigue mechanic! They have the choice to just accept their losses and move on adopting August's cynicism or refuse to let even a single ally die, adopting Leif's mindset. Obviously the latter is much harder and more frustrating but when you pull it off it feels so muxh more satisfying because the game didn't pretend you developed into a hero that refuses to yeild to impossible odds, it actually made you into one. Like players want to have a story of overcoming impossible odds and have that communicated through gameplay, but when the series actually does that it is considered bad. It seems like the player only wants to feel like they're a hero rather than adopting the mindset of a hero, which led to some thematic betrals in the recent games.

Honestly I don't really trust Western opinions of the series because for some reason Westerners, inculding players and game deaigners, do not understand the SRPG.

[dondon151]

Games must always present problems to the player. The designer must make sure that the problem presented to the player is the correct one. Some problems are meaningless. They add nothing to the experience. Such problems should be eliminated. Opacity of the mechanics and the UI and the level design are such problems.

you're implying that the problem of estimating how the enemy will behave is a meaningless one in the context of fire emblem. i vehemently disagree; that is one of the essential problems of fire emblem. in contemporary fire emblem games (i.e., FE6 and onwards) the player is rewarded for solving the problem of predicting enemy AI because AI is no longer random. in even more contemporary (i.e., FE11 and onwards) lunatic modes, knowledge of enemy AI targeting priority is necessary for an easier time and there is no way, for example, for the game to be transparent about "oh if i placed my four dracoknights in this formation with these weapons equipped then these four enemy paladins would spread out their fire in the dumbest way possible."

When a person turns the stove on they ARE presented with a problem. The problems of how to cook the food they want to cook.

no, no, no. you're playing around with words here and i don't like that. the problem of how to cook food is a different problem of how to use a stove. a stove is a tool used to fix the problem of how to cook food; operating a stove does not necessarily entail cooking food. they are two different problems.

for that matter, stoves are not transparent at all about how to cook food. the problem of how to cook food is meaningless because the purpose of cooking food for most people is to produce an edible product, not the act of cooking itself. a stove that was transparent about this problem would have detailed instructions or thorough settings for automatically cooking every kind of food imaginable that can be prepared on a stove. but it doesn't, so prospective cooks still have to figure this stuff out.

man, stoves are terribly designed. the only people who can defend stoves are those elitist chefs that don't represent the average cook.

since you're not responding to my excellently articulated points, i can assume one of the following: that you agree with me, that you can't come up with a rebuttal, or that you're not really interested in debating about this topic.

Edited August 27, 2015 by dondon151

[Baldrick]

I would ask the same question of many games. Your player is going to be bombarded with numerous questions when they encounter a new mechanic for the first time, and the only way to answer those questions is to try over and over again. And for what? What does the player gain?

People might get hurt falling off a bike, so let's put training wheels on every bike and never let people take them off.

After all, a bike without training wheels is a dangerous, poorly designed tool. A scientist once said the average person doesn't have the brainpower to learn how to ride a bike.

Your argument is even stupider because you won't be hurt if you fail at a video game.

Your average human DOES actually need to be physically shown how things work. That is an observable and irrefutable scientific fact.

Incorrect. You can show the average person a red man and a green man, tell the player the red man wants to kill the green man, and they will understand. You do not need to show them an animation of the red man attacking the green man unless they are stupid.

[sithys]

you're implying that the problem of estimating how the enemy will behave is a meaningless one in the context of fire emblem. i vehemently disagree; that is one of the essential problems of fire emblem. in contemporary fire emblem games (i.e., FE6 and onwards) the player is rewarded for solving the problem of predicting enemy AI because AI is no longer random.

no, no, no. you're playing around with words here and i don't like that. the problem of how to cook food is a different problem of how to use a stove. a stove is a tool used to fix the problem of how to cook food; operating a stove does not necessarily entail cooking food. they are two different problems.

for that matter, stoves are not transparent at all about how to cook food. a stove that was transparent about this problem would have detailed instructions or thorough settings for automatically cooking every kind of food imaginable that can be prepared on a stove. but it doesn't, so prospective chefs still have to figure this stuff out. man, stoves are terribly designed.

since you're not responding to my excellently articulated points, i can assume one of the following: that you agree with me, that you can't come up with a rebuttal, or that you're not really interested in debating about this topic.

You are saying exactly what I am saying. They are two completely separate problems. One problem is important, one problem is not important. You need to make the unimportant problems transparent so that the player is not distracted from the important problems.

Restarting the game over and over again just to figure out how the AI behaves is not an important problem. Your vision of Fire Emblem is one of guard-rail driving. You turn your brain off and drive straight until you hit the guard rails and repeat that process over and over again until you reach the destination. It's not a healthy approach to driving and it's not a healthy approach to designing cars and roads.

Much of the tension is not caused by punishing the player for wrong moves, much of the tension is caused by punishing the player just to punish the player.

I am a western player, and so I would be interested in your perspective on what an SRPG truly is. Enlighten me.

By the way, not all red men want to kill the green men, only a subset of the red men want to kill the green men. Because they are programmed to. And you can't see code. Furthermore, you are viewing the level from the perspective of a person who likely has years of experience playing a series that was on the verge of being cancelled because of low sales. Experience with the product does not warrant ignoring well-understood design principles.

Edited August 27, 2015 by sithys

[Quintessence]

You can have mental effort, brain training, improvements to skills, abilities, perceptions, intuition, and you can gain experience, dive into alternatives to solve a problem, etc, while also having transparency. Ambush spawns are an extreme example of lack of transparency, because they literally add nothing to the game and they do not accomplish any of these goals, at best they punish the player but there are much better, more efficient ways of challenging the player.

Games must always present problems to the player. The designer must make sure that the problem presented to the player is the correct one. Some problems are meaningless. They add nothing to the experience. Such problems should be eliminated. Opacity of the mechanics and the UI and the level design are such problems.

When a person turns the stove on they ARE presented with a problem. The problems of how to cook the food they want to cook. The designer of the stove is responsible for making a product that gets out of the way and lets the user solve the actual problem that they are actually interested in solving, making food. The same is true for game design, the problem in Fire Emblem is not one of data acquisition but of data processing. The skill the player is interested in learning is how to respond to changes, not how to identify changes using an opaque UI.

Ambush spawns

Yes, they accomplish the aforementioned goals. Why do you say they don't? Because the weight of failing to survive them is higher than the reward of actually resisting a wave of spawns? Ambush spawns aren't always a lack of transparent UI, the game generally anounces it or expects the player to be prepared for them at some point of the game. Some ambush spawns are dumb, ok, that's another thing; but they do help the player to be aware, identify changes and respond to them.

[sithys]

Ambush spawns

Yes, they accomplish the aforementioned goals. Why do you say they don't? Because the weight of failing to survive them is higher than the reward of actually resisting a wave of spawns? Ambush spawns aren't always a lack of transparent UI, the game generally anounces it or expects the player to be prepared for them at some point of the game. Some ambush spawns are dumb, ok, that's another thing; but they do help the player to be aware, identify changes and respond to them.

All ambush spawns accomplish is forcing the player to replay through unchallenging content that they are more than qualified to move past. The only response to being "warned" of an incoming ambush spawn is to turtle up and hit the end turn button over and over. That doesn't sound like an interesting or compelling challenge. There are much more efficient ways of creating much more interesting challenges for the player to experience.

[Gradivus.]

There are plenty ambush spawns that counteract turtling strats, encourage quickish progressions etc. I described it a bit more on the first page, they just get too much negative response based on incorrect knowledge about their function. In awakening you could well have juggernauts and be able to win by putting them into the middle of the field, but ambush spawns aren't to blame for that, it's the general game design. If you play FE13 with non-godlike units, that can be more significant, and FE12 presents a bunch of situations where reinforcements (in the form of ambush spawns) ensure that turtling is a bad idea. Granted, the ambush effect only matters on some maps, but makes a notable difference there in terms of how the player can respond to them. Non-ambush spawns are so easy to get rid of, it isn't even funny.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Gradivus.

[sithys]

There are plenty ambush spawns that counteract turtling strats, encourage quickish progressions etc. I described it a bit more on the first page, they just get too much negative response based on incorrect knowledge about their function.

I have never encountered a single ambush spawn that discouraged turtle strategies. The only thing I have ever experienced from ambush spawns were repetition of content I already beat. Would you like to give a specific instance where the ambush spawn is the only/best disincentive to turtle?

[Gradivus.]

FE13 C7, C16, C19, C20, C21, C23, C24

FE12 P7, P8, C4, C19, C20, C22, C23, C24

Enough examples?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Gradivus.

[sithys]

FE13 C7, C16, C19, C20, C21, C23, C24

FE12 P7, P8, C4, C19, C20, C22, C23, C24

Enough examples?

Could you provide some context and explain your rationale behind at least one of these examples?