First off before everyone goes crazy about this topic I will state my credentials and history with the DTA team. I am a game developer who works mostly on contracts from other studios as well developing my own titles. I have been following this community for a fairly long time and even though I sometimes offer solutions to bugs or problems I have been wrong in the past on how to correct them simply because I am unfamiliar with the engine as a developer tool.
Having said that this is to dissect Dawn of the Tiberium age as ether a challenging game or a punishing game (single player only).
GDI Campaign: The Toxic Diversion:
This campaign was truly difficult but in a good way, it offered the player the ability to analyze the situation and make solid informed choices on how to proceed with their strategy. Granted it was overwhelming at times I feel that this was done still within the bounds of the game only being challenging. Unfortunately these mission scenarios sometimes punished the players and forced them to memorize enemy movements to survive in the later missions or placed them in a situation where what they were doing before will cause them to fail now.
Soviet Campaign: Creeping Destruction:
This campaign starts out challenging but quickly turns punishing. The early missions are a challenge and play very well allowing players to evaluate their strategy and react to the AI. But the later missions quickly become punishing by overwhelming the player with the enemy movements and relying on memorization rather than wit.
Through my experience it is easy for developers to make a punishing game simply because the developers already understand what it is they have built but sometimes fail to see through the eyes of the players or understand that not everyone has the same mind set of how to play the game and win. Now I am not saying the developers of DTA are wrong or bad at their job in any way I am only that some of the choices they have made may deter new players from enjoying the game or preventing players from playing it again due to a silly rage moment in a campaign.
The main issue is the campaigns lack the freedom of movement when it comes to figure out how to best solve a problem. Yes we all know specific units do wonders against others, buildings and such, but I am talking about how the player will use them to complete the scenario. Often the players will find themselves barred from information by the unrevealed terrain and stuck in a situation where a enemy group has reared their head. Or to have their entire control group decimated by what was lurking around the corner. The campaigns are very unforgiving in the learning curve when progressing through the scenarios.
Nod Mission: Eradicating the Red:
Sometimes the design of the scenario can start right but end badly for a player. This mission starts out friendly enough but once the first objective has been completed the player is faced with an insurmountable force to reckon with before any scouting or build up is allowed. Often throwing a new player to this punishing situation will deter them from even continuing the game. Also the reinforcements the players receive will often be completely obliterated if destroyed on the tile they spawn on.
This is a classic situation of false telegraphing, the player is thrown into a covert situation and then gets turned upside down.
Nod Mission: Reunification:
This scenario was challenging but rewarded the player as play progressed with increasingly more powerful challenges. I did not find this scenario punishing at all and found that the learning curve placed into this mission was well rounded and balanced.
Soviet Mission: Red Paradise:
This mission punishes the player from the start forcing them into a ambush scenario making the players restart the scenario and replay from memory. The problem is the lack of information the player has at their disposal.
Siege missions in general need to telegraph attacks with either a visual warning(revealed terrain in the attack corridor) or a small recon force attacking before the large force advances. Yes the player could send a unit to scout but with a lot of the siege maps that is never advisable because the player will need all of their resources to deter enemy assaults.
My suggestion to reduce player punishment is to give them more information while in the scenario to make better choices or at least telegraph the next event rather than throwing them curve balls. When creating a scenario the developer must ask them selves what will happen if I spawn this here? Is this area safe? Can the player even do anything with this here? If you can't come up with at least 3 viable choices the player could make while making a decision on placement and AI strategy then I would suggest rethinking the design layout.
The RTS genre is a very difficult layout to not make punishing because players often rely on throwing everything including the kitchen sink at their foes. But developers must remember it is not always about unloading everything on the AI but how best to complete the scenario with the least amount of losses possible or with the least amount of units possible. Starting players with a large pre-built bases, massive army, or desperate situations often overwhelms even experienced players forcing them to make cookie cutter choices on the situation rather then letting them focus on making a educated choice thus punishing them with an overload of information. Timed pressure is another issue that can be overly frustrating to players; not everyone can make decisions like clockwork and require time to make up their minds but in some instances it can make the game play more appealing to the player.
All of these design choices are for the developers to make, if they feel that a punishing game is their design choice that is their right and no one will take that away from them. But so far Dawn of the Tiberium Age is a punishing game to experienced and new players. QUICK_EDIT
That's a very interesting analysis and a nice amount of feedback. Actually, this is probably the most extensive piece of feedback we've ever got.
The Toxic Diversion was our first public campaign. It was aimed at experienced players, with the difficulty of the missions increasing towards the end so that new players wouldn't get entirely scared off. It also scales with the selected difficulty. I personally think that it's a pretty successful campaign; it's not too easy, not extremely difficult, and the missions are varied. The feedback on it has also been generally positive.
The Soviet Campaign was also aimed more at experienced players. Especially the last missions were meant to be very challenging, being difficult for the best players in the community. This campaign also scales with the selected difficulty level, although I agree that for this campaign's last missions the scale is more like Hard, Very Hard and Extreme instead of Easy, Normal and Hard.
Eradicating the Red was meant to be extremely hard. So hard that it makes casual players cry. I purposefully made it as painfully hard as possible; very challenging for the best C&C players around in the community. Right now the mission is most likely easier than it was meant to be though, since the Soviet faction has got nerfed pretty hard. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Last edited by ^Rampastein on Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:19 pm; edited 2 times in total QUICK_EDIT
I'm glad that this hasn't turned into a flame war and that you think that my analysis is nice!
I often find that in-depth reviews of projects yield positive results for future development on that project.
I am aware of the reasons why some scenarios are the way they are. But the essay is to over view current content vs. new and existing users. If the gap becomes to large the only players will be "hardcore" players which will then taper off over time.
I ran into a similar situation with one of my projects in a closed beta a couple of years ago were I was determined to make a very difficult level but still keep it enjoyable for new players. I found that using subtle cue's to coax the players to identify specific events with another event (kinda like some psychology mumbo jumbo) to ensure that those players were not left behind and the experienced players ignored it all together. It's all about finding the balance or zen of the game.
Honestly though I feel you guys are doing a great job and should keep up the hard work. Just try to keep in mind my dissertation. QUICK_EDIT
I wrote my whole previous post using a smartphone, and its battery ran out before I got to answer all the points of the first post.
Quote:
Nod Mission: Reunification:
This scenario was challenging but rewarded the player as play progressed with increasingly more powerful challenges. I did not find this scenario punishing at all and found that the learning curve placed into this mission was well rounded and balanced.
I purposefully built Reunification to be an easy mission; I wanted casual gamers to have something they could enjoy without spending too much time on it (since as you've noticed, right now most of our missions have been made with more hardcore fans in mind).
Quote:
Soviet Mission: Red Paradise:
This mission punishes the player from the start forcing them into a ambush scenario making the players restart the scenario and replay from memory. The problem is the lack of information the player has at their disposal.
Here I must disagree. The player isn't forced to replay from memory, the mission just uses a basic classic trick which WW also used in Tiberian Dawn; placing units behind trees. You can easily get through the initial part by taking small steps with your V2s and putting them to guard mode, letting them automatically clear all the infantry from behind the trees. There's also one scripted attack in the beginning, but that is also easily dealt with by basic micromanagement skills. Once you get to the base, it's basically a pure "base against base" situation, relying on the basic RTS skills of scouting, economy, base and unit management. Now, the initial infantry attack on the base and the scripted surprise in the beginning might make you lose the mission once or twice, but from what I've heard, most people have cleared this mission on their second attempt (usually they've actually lost because of a naval Cruiser + Destroyer attack built by the Allied AI, not because of the scripted surprises).
Quote:
All of these design choices are for the developers to make, if they feel that a punishing game is their design choice that is their right and no one will take that away from them. But so far Dawn of the Tiberium Age is a punishing game to experienced and new players.
I'm (currently) DTA's only active single player mapper and aside from Under Siege II, every mission that's currently in DTA has been created by me. I mostly make missions which I enjoy myself, and I enjoy missions which I personally can barely beat. Since I'm a very experienced player, that means very challenging missions (on the Hard difficulty level, at least). I'm aware that I also play games with a different mindset than most players; in case I do a mistake, I usually enjoy it when I get brutally crushed by the AI. Since DTA is a project from which I will never be getting any profit, I do things almost purely for the fun of it. For missions that means a high difficulty curve most of the time. It's not uncommon for me to get feedback from other staff members about the difficulty level being too high; it's just that for a non-profit project I do what I'm interested in doing.
I also have to add that Westwood's original (TD & RA1) games weren't easy either; many modern RTS gamers would likely find some missions of the original campaigns overwhelming. So, as a mod that had remaking TD as its original goal, we also had to make rather difficult content.
However, I'm aware that many players are wanting easier missions and that most people aren't playing with the same mindset as I am. We've had plans of remaking the TD GDI Campaign with the rest of the staff, and in case those plans are realized, it will more or less follow TD's difficulty level. The campaign will most likely also be mostly done by another mapper. So, if we remake WW's campaigns, they won't end up being as hardcore as our own Soviet Campaign; while I personally like doing hardcore missions, we of course want every kind of gamer to have something they could enjoy in our list of missions and campaigns.
I am glad that this essay has helped, but I am not saying don't make challenging maps are super difficult scenarios.
Look at it this way if the scenarios or campaigns were marked with a predetermined difficulty the player would be well aware of the kind of heat they are jumping into. So you could have 5 missions with a predetermined level of normal, then 5 hard, and then 5 nut busting brutal.
Example:
Nod Campaign (Hard):Random Title
-With a simple system with this (Not relying on the difficulty selector) the players would be aware of the situation and will have a clue that at some point if not at the start the scenario is going to ramp up into a brawl even with the difficulty selector set on easy or normal. Because we all know if a campaign is designed to be hard it is going to be hard.
Also when players see a campaign they will automatically assume its going to be part of the single player theme and that it is going to start out like a traditional RTS story; starting out with a handful of easy feeler missions then start raising the difficulty with a wide array of mission to play on.
I let one of my dev buds who is a old C&C fan play DTA with me. Although he is intimately knowledgeable of the old C&C he was completely lost in DTA. (I think he was rusty) but he made some solid points. He pointed out how the AI reacted was different, some units behaved more independently and the new tech tree. He looked at me and said: "This is a completely different game.". I had to agree with him because this wonderful creation is a completely different game.
(He got his fanny beaten by a normal AI in Enchanced tech 7)
He then said that they should make a arcing storyline with this game and its new factions and run with it. I again have to agree.(We understand you have campaigns be we were discussing one of similar length as the old game)
Sadly he didn't have enough time during that session to try out a campaign but you guys got another game developer to sit down analyze it and figuratively pat you on the back like I did. QUICK_EDIT
Frankly, Im just working on the "Get Good" advice. It hasn't helped me yet, but I haven't had the time to commit to it yet either. Frankly this is the route I see a lot of CnC mods going. In case anyone here hasn't checked it out yet, and why wouldn't you have, the Yuris Revenge Mod kinda falls into that punishing territory in about half its missions all around, with no ability to actually save your game, thus forcing the team to let you play all the missions individually. That last bit being an engine problem and totally not their fault. But seeing as its a growing trend, and I want to keep playing these mods, I feel I have to shape up and find ways to get better, or get left behind, and I refuse to let that happen. Still, maybe making the learning curve not as sharp is an option? Maybe? _________________ Establishing Battlefield Control. Standby....... QUICK_EDIT
The purpose of the essay is an objective analysis vs bias contention. It is the goal of any player to strive to become more adept at the game they are playing.
Yes many RTS games and mods can be punishing but it also has to be catered to the RTS demographic. Otherwise developers risk making a game considered casual vs. strategic or competitive.
Example:
Earth 2150 Trilogy is infamous for being punishing to new and experienced RTS players as a whole. But once players discovered everything their was to that world the game unraveled into something much more that a traditional RTS.
As a game developer I understand the limitations or short falls of a engine as a developer tool, but learning how best to use those limitations can often yield unexpected and positive results.
Example: Silent Hill
The developers of Silent Hill wanted to create a large expansive world for the playstation console but had to deal with the limitations of the technology at that time. To content with this they opted to not render distant objects and obscure the players vision with a misty fog. Although unintended they managed to cultivate a game world more eerie than intended and this benefited their game and story as a whole.
As stated before this essay is not to objectify the development team but for their use as brain food for future development. Honestly I would not have done so well myself without other developers checking in on me and discussing my work as whole.
Also Rampastein your mapping is really high quality stuff and I feel I can say that the original developers of C&C would be impressed by the skill presented by your levels. QUICK_EDIT
By designing missions for experienced 'hardcore' players you effectively limit the interest that your mod will receive.
If you're happy pouring hours of work into making a game mod for a handful of people then continue I won't try to stop you, but if you're looking for a highly popular mod then you'll have to find better ways to cater to all skill sets.
For example have some missions teach the player good ways of doing things, small simple challenges within the missions to teach them good unit combinations and strategies. Try to make sure that the player has the right tool-set (units) to fulfill all the roles they might require to enjoy being creative with.
Strategy games do become more enjoyable if they require creativity instead of grinding. Restarting the same missions over and over is very frustrating and in conclusion causes the player to just leave and forget the mod all together. I already noticed this with Twisted Insurrection. QUICK_EDIT
I let one of my dev buds who is a old C&C fan play DTA with me. Although he is intimately knowledgeable of the old C&C he was completely lost in DTA. (I think he was rusty) but he made some solid points. He pointed out how the AI reacted was different, some units behaved more independently and the new tech tree. He looked at me and said: "This is a completely different game.". I had to agree with him because this wonderful creation is a completely different game.
(He got his fanny beaten by a normal AI in Enchanced tech 7)
Enhanced mode is indeed quite different from Tiberian Dawn (intentionally so; hence the name), so him getting beaten in his first match against a normal AI is not unexpected; especially if he is used to playing TD. He might have had a better chance in classic mode (since it has the same tech tree and game balance as TD), but if he'd still play while expecting the AI to behave similar to how it behaved in TD's campaign, he'd still have lost.
Thanks to the TS AI system and also thanks to Rampastring's AI coding, DTA's AI behaves far more dynamically and aggressively than TD's.
Einhander wrote:
He then said that they should make a arcing storyline with this game and its new factions and run with it. I again have to agree.(We understand you have campaigns be we were discussing one of similar length as the old game)
The truth is that DTA wasn't made with a new story in mind; even the stories in the existing campaigns/missions stand-alone; they are stories of just that campaign or mission itself and are pretty much irrelevant to any of the other current (and future) campaigns/missions (unless Rampastring decides to make a sequel to any of his current missions that is, of course).
The actual story behind DTA is still the same is the story behind Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert; even the new units and structures that were added in the enhanced mode were added while considering whether or not these units could actually have existed in "the first tiberium war" (Tiberian Dawn) or "the great world war II" (Red Alert) or right before or right after either of these wars.
Although creating a new story might indeed be interesting, such a story is only made interesting through how its told; via a lengthy campaign. Currently we don't have enough skilled and motivated singleplayer mappers to create such a lengthy campaign and even when we do acquire them, recreating the TD campaign will be the first priority.
I also think that even if we do end up having the opportunity to create a new lengthy campaign with a new storyline, it'd be best for this storyline to also be stand-alone (like with the already existing campaigns), rather than to be the story of the mod itself; that's already the norm of all current campaigns after all.
commandcraft wrote:
Frankly, Im just working on the "Get Good" advice. It hasn't helped me yet, but I haven't had the time to commit to it yet either. Frankly this is the route I see a lot of CnC mods going. In case anyone here hasn't checked it out yet, and why wouldn't you have, the Yuris Revenge Mod kinda falls into that punishing territory in about half its missions all around, with no ability to actually save your game, thus forcing the team to let you play all the missions individually. That last bit being an engine problem and totally not their fault. But seeing as its a growing trend, and I want to keep playing these mods, I feel I have to shape up and find ways to get better, or get left behind, and I refuse to let that happen. Still, maybe making the learning curve not as sharp is an option? Maybe?
I understand where you're coming from and although most of DTA's missions are indeed pretty difficult, it's not entirely intentional. Rampastring is our only singleplayer mapper right now and it's only natural for him to create missions he enjoys playing (especially considering it's harder to stay motivated while working on a campaign on your own otherwise). With the difficulty of his missions I wouldn't dream of giving up saved game support however; regardless of what other features would be offered in return (I don't think even Rampastring can beat some of his own missions on hard difficulty without the ability to save).
Some easier missions will surely be added in the future, but you should surely already be able to beat at least a few of the existing missions. Playing a lot of skirmish and gradually increasing the difficulty by either increasing the AI difficulty level or increasing the number of enemy AI players should also help you to improve you skills to the point where you'll be able to beat some of the missions you currently can't get past (mind that lowering the game speed while playing a mission can make one hell of a difference for the final outcome of some missions however). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Example:
Nod Campaign (Hard):Random Title
-With a simple system with this (Not relying on the difficulty selector) the players would be aware of the situation and will have a clue that at some point if not at the start the scenario is going to ramp up into a brawl even with the difficulty selector set on easy or normal. Because we all know if a campaign is designed to be hard it is going to be hard.
Personally when something requires lots of trial and error I find that pretty boring. Established rules, clear signals and throwing problems at the player that they can overcome with skill and thought it was is most fun. But also breaking established rules is one of the best things that can happen in games... you think you're safe from one direction, then in comes something to stop that, or the map expands and there's a bridge leading into your base etc though there should still be notification that something has changed. QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Punishing vs. Challenging games
