I've been thinking about the design of my game over the last day or so, and it suddenly occurred to me how tricky it's going to be to control the progress of the player.

How do you handle this?

Let's say, for instance, that the player is told a stationary vehicle lies up ahead. They are then offered a direct route to said vehicle, or (if they pick up on the hints and clues) a path that will allow them to creep up on the vehicle unseen.

Now, let's suppose they pick the stealth option (the correct one). This will mean that when they reach the vehicle, they will find it's been abandoned. A search will then reveal a working torch in the boot. A few moves on from there, they come across an old bunker, which can only be accessed if they have the torch.

But if they miss the clues and go for the direct route, this results in them being spotted and the vehicle drives away, thus robbing them of the torch, which in turn means they can't access the bunker.

This is just one simple example, but the point I'm making is how do you get around the issue of a wrong decision meaning progress is not possible?

Of course designing the game in such a way would result in 'game breakers', but what's the answer to avoiding such a situation?

You obviously can't have the player not get the torch if they need to access the bunker to progress. So, an alternative is to still allow them to get the torch (or other alternate lightning source), but in doing so, they must either solve a puzzle or take health damage to get it. That's what I would do.

Most people don't like a game where wrong decisions means game over, and they got to replay the game, building up a list of what to do and not to do.

Such games can be fun, despite this, and most early games were indeed like this (such as NES Shadowgate: http://www.gamefaqs.com/nes/563455-shadowgate-1987 ), as they had such limited memory, and were generally simple and small enough that having to restart~replay wasn't that big of an annoyance (and no long cinematic and~or dialogue-plot-story scenes that you can't choose to skip past - a huge annoyance still with some modern games and definately an annoyance with the first games able to have such cinematics and~or dialogue-plot-story scenes, aka the PS1 games), as you enjoyed trying to slowly build up your list of what to do and not do, slowly progressing towards beating the game, slowly beating all of the puzzles of the game.

You can see the change~shift over to non-game-ending-decision games, in NES Maniac Mansion (both awesome games, btw, hehe): http://www.gamefaqs.com/nes/563438-maniac-mansion , as if you mess up, you get caught and taken to a dungeon, and once you get two people caught (you can switch control amongst 3 characters with a different skill), there's a way to get one of your caught characters out of the dungeon, so that it's never game over for you (well the games does have a few fatal-for-your-character easter-egg-like ways to game over for fun, hehe).

----------

so, the obvious response is, unless you intentionally want to make such a game-over due to decisions made in-game (replay) game, which you generally shouldn't do, you need to always have a back-up or fall-back way for someone to get past a puzzle or part of a game if they mess up on the main way of doing it "correctly" (and also a means for them to do so too if they can't figure out whatever the puzzle they need to complete to progress in the game, such as a hint system, which upon the third time, gives them the solution).

or, you could just have a cheat system, for someone to progress them forward in the game if the mess up, which is maybe the better method, as it means less work for you, as you don't need to make extra back-up or fall-back means and~or puzzles for progressing if they mess up on the main-"right" method

take for example Fallout 1 and 2, using my pretend commenting below to make the point about this topic:

"we created the combat system... but now we got to create a diplomacy~dialogue system and a stealth-sneak system, for people to have 2 alternative methods of doing things, besides combat (just killing everything, lol) ... argh, just more work for us, making the game much bigger, but people will probably enjoy it, while we who have to do this extra work, not so much"

this is actually a pretty big debate of game design: do you make multiple games within a game, or just one single game in a game ??? Is diversity or alternative methods and etc stuff really a good or bad idea in games ??? What's really more fun for the player? And, from the game makers' profit stand point, would it be better to have made 3 separate Fallout 1/2 games: a combat fallout1/2 game, a stealth fallout1/2 game, and a diplomacy-dialogue fallout1/2 game, or is having all of these 3 games in our one game of fallout1/2, better?

Well, I obviously want to avoid situations where a wrong choice means the game can't be completed, and would never purposely do this, but I suddenly realised I was blindly trotting along with my game, without giving my puzzles and object use much thought in terms of what will happen if the player misses them.

So, as Xan suggests, instead of:

Location 1: Find the torch (on first visit or chance gone)
Location 2: Allow entrance to bunker, only if player has torch

I'll have:

Location 1: Find the torch (on first visit or chance gone)
Location 2: Offer alternative light source (available until player finds it)
Location 3: Allow entrance to bunker, only if player has either of the light sources

Really you want the player not just to get the torch but also to have to solve the puzzle to do so. If it was me I would try to contrive a way that the puzzle is reset (the car come back after a couple of turns if you leave the location, say), so the player can try again and keep trying until the puzzle is solved.

This is something I've been puzzling over (pun intended?) for a while myself. Since I am not an expert at playing text adventures, by any means, I find I often get frustrated with games that block my progress completely with puzzles - more so if said puzzles are particularly obscure and/or numerous early on.

In the case you described, however, you mentioned that there are hints and clues that the car should be sneaked up on, which is a good thing. The Pixie's suggestion about the car returning after a failed attempt sounds like a good one, too - it strikes a good compromise between allowing the player to continue, despite mistakes, but also having to think about their actions and complete the puzzle as intended.

A question that always comes to my mind whilst writing is whether a game is driven by puzzles, in which case solving a series of them leads to the end goal, or whether the game is more story/character-driven, in which case puzzles tend to be more optional/tangential to actually reaching the game's endpoint, but the way in which the player goes about solving them (if at all) affects the game's final outcome, or that of one of the characters, for example.

Good points from The Pixie and Chris.

If I have the car return, I'll have to think about a rewrite to make such an occurrence plausible (why does the same guy keep parking his car in the same location?) but that's for me to worry about.

Chris, what you say about the driving force behind a game has made me think. I'm not actual sure I ever set out to make my game puzzle-heavy. It was always more about surviving and finding objects that would come in useful, rather than be essential.

I think I want to go for a "If you have object X, this next step will be easy. If you don't, you can still manage, but it's going to be less easy" kind of vibe. Pulling this off, though, requires some thought.

I don't think it is possible to make a challenging (read: difficult but not impossible) game without game-breaking possibilities. After all, what is the point of a difficult puzzle if you don't actually have to solve it?
I use 4 approaches in my game:
1. Subtle clues to guide the player
2. No "random" game-breakers or player-killers: everything has a cause, and everything has a clue.
3. If they make a mistake, it is clear they've made a mistake: so they can Undo to reverse their decision.
4 Three levels of difficulty.

I don't know how much this will specifically apply to your situation, but there's an interesting article here with some thoughts on integrating plotting and pacing and puzzles.

Watcher55 wrote:I don't think it is possible to make a challenging (read: difficult but not impossible) game without game-breaking possibilities. After all, what is the point of a difficult puzzle if you don't actually have to solve it?
I use 4 approaches in my game:
1. Subtle clues to guide the player
2. No "random" game-breakers or player-killers: everything has a cause, and everything has a clue.
3. If they make a mistake, it is clear they've made a mistake: so they can Undo to reverse their decision.
4 Three levels of difficulty.

I agree, but only partly.

For instance, let's say a player needs to take an item at a particular location, in order to continue the adventure. I think it would be wrong - and even damaging to the game itself - to wait until several locations and puzzles later to tell the player, "Oh, by the way. If you didn't pick that key up that was hidden at that location right back at the start of the game, you better go back and get it." Sure, make them need a key, but don't force them to trace back 18 locations if they miss it.

Even worse (and yes, I'm thinking of that thing I decided to eat in your game which you said I'd need later) don't have an essential item destroyable, as this results in the player not merely having to retrace their steps, but start all over again from scratch. I'm not sure at what point in the game I'd have realised this myself, but let me tell you, if I hadn't had to download the game because of lagging, and start from scratch anyway, I very much doubt I'd have bothered.

I don't mind killing a player, so long as that death results from a really stupid decision. For instance:

The path continues north, while to the east lies a sheer cliff only feet from where you stand.
> e

Anyone that stupid deserves to die.

Marzipan wrote:I don't know how much this will specifically apply to your situation, but there's an interesting article here with some thoughts on integrating plotting and pacing and puzzles.

Thanks, Marz. I've got a few Emily Short articles bookmarked, and will certainly give this a read.

For instance, let's say a player needs to take an item at a particular location, in order to continue the adventure. I think it would be wrong - and even damaging to the game itself - to wait until several locations and puzzles later to tell the player, "Oh, by the way. If you didn't pick that key up that was hidden at that location right back at the start of the game, you better go back and get it." Sure, make them need a key, but don't force them to trace back 18 locations if they miss it.

There's subtle ways of 'gating' the game world with events or room layout to control or guide a player's progress without making it too obvious or restrictive. Like if they KNOW a key they'll need is in a certain area (maybe they overhear an NPC or find a note about it?) then it's no one's fault but their own if they go on without it and have to backtrack later.

Just personally, I wouldn't have any vital items just randomly hidden somewhere that MUST be had for a puzzle a good amount of time or distance away. Either let them be found reasonably near the obstacle, or be available in multiple ways (needing a meat item to get past a dog, or money or light sources that can be found in multiple places, or have a few different NPCs that a copy of a key can be gotten from...), or clue the player in through various means that they specifically need to be on the look out for a certain important item, and why.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting an essential item be hidden without sufficient clues. But I think many people (including me) have a slight blind-spot when it comes to clues and logical puzzles, and may miss an item even with the clues... or at least miss the fact that it's going to be needed later on.

Even worse (and yes, I'm thinking of that thing I decided to eat in your game which you said I'd need later) don't have an essential item destroyable

Hmmm, we are heading into design philosophy aren't we? (Well, I guess we actually started there). I can see your point, but in my view the player's mindset should always be "what is the use of this object?" and if they can't think of one - assume there is one they haven't discovered yet! At the risk of minor spoilers if anyone playing my game is reading this, you can eat or destroy the orchid, eat or kill the worm, or eat all the berries even after you're already full: any of which will stop you getting past you-know-who. But what normal person in real life would do that? I suppose if you are used to arbitrary games where you have to do basically random weird stuff to solve things, it would put you in a different mindset!

That said, there is a reason why I made both objects required to get past the first main stopping point edible and destroyable (the other one is needed later): you learn to be more careful before you get too far into the game (kind of a meta-clue to the gameplay).

I might have to consider making more things immune to mistakes at Chicken level, however

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why I decided to eat the worm. My hunger was as 'Not Hungry' at the time, so I can't even claim that as an excuse. I think perhaps it was frustration at not being able to get past you-know-who, as you put it.

Another aspect which you use, which I'm not a fan of, is the limited carry rule. I soon reach the point at which I can't carry any more, but trying to figure out whether or not the thing I'm wanting to take is more valuable that something I'm already carrying is a choice I don't like being forced to make. Sometimes it's obvious - if the item has served its purpose, for instance - but very often there's nothing in my inventory I'm willing to discard.

If it helps, here is the standard IF "cruelty" scale: http://ifwiki.org/index.php/Cruelty_scale

If a game is known to be cruel (either by reputation or by the game explicitly stating so), then the standard approach for players is to either save often (so they can restore back before the bad decision) or use some form of Undo. I'm not saying that you would want to make a "cruel" game. That seems to be somewhat frowned upon these days.

I think the standard approach to what you describe is to have multiple ways to solve a puzzle, and *that* is viewed quite highly. It allows players to solve things the way that makes sense to them. So you could find a torch in the car boot (if it doesn't drive away), or if you go down to the beach, you can find some bioluminescent sea water and carry it back in a bucket a child left behind. Or if you throw a rock into the darkness, you trigger a lever that swings the mirrors into position for the sun to light things up. (I'm not being totally serious there, but I hope you get the idea.)

And if you prefer one way to another, then perhaps the player can get some additional (optional) rewards for doing it the preferred way.

Limited inventories are one of those old-school IF things. I'm not a fan but I can live with it; there are other, far more annoying 'classic IF' traditions out there.

I have a hard time picturing myself ever deliberately destroying an item, it's just too ingrained in me that there will be a need for every one somewhere down the line. But if the player does do something that makes the game unwinnable, a message warning them of that would be the gentlest way to handle it. 'You feel you've made a terrible mistake.' or something of that nature. Kind of like Morrowind's 'the thread of prophecy is severed'. That way they CAN still play the game if they want to just poke around, but they're aware there's no winning short of an undo before they sink a bunch more time into it.

and like Morrowind, you can code in "cheat-programming codes" for the person playing the game, to fix up any mistakes and also any game ending mistakes, and~or to progress ahead or go backwards in progress (degression, lol) in the game, too

(a big issue with any 3d world game, is the A.I. movement of npcs~monsters and the physics ~ collision detection ~ location and~or size restrictions ~ etc ... in the 3d world: the npc is in my way, the npc is~got stuck, etc etc etc, lol)