If you need wikis/walkthroughs/videos just to play the game, isn't it just bad design?

[Something Amyss]

So, I'm looking through the Steam sale today and I see a game that might be up my alley, but I want more details. I go looking, and the first thing I see is a pinned thread that details what you need to know to play the game, including a wiki, Youtube videos, a calculator program, and supplementary hints. My response? Basically this:

And worse, the post was done in a fairly condescending, dickish fashion. Buildings X and Y look visually similar, but obviously building X does this and Y does this. That's totally not bad game design, it's just you being dumb. While we're at it, here's some more ips to bypass what seems like bad level design.

The game in question also has a tutorial, which means that even after playing the tutorial, you're apparently improperly equipped. It made me think of the whole "Slaughtering Grounds" incident, where Jim Sterling was being called out by the developer for not assuming that you needed a gun out to specifically get ammo for it or that he should have noticed the "quests" under the blood splatter effects with terrible transparency. I get that the game is supposed to be hard, but this doesn't strike me as hard so much as bad game design.

I've been on a bit of an AVGN kick, so it also reminded me of "classic" games where you basically had to know someone who already knew the secrets. The so-called "Nintendo Power" games, the literal instances of Guide Dang It (TV Tropes Link [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuideDangIt]). And while it's sometimes done specifically to sell guides (which is a horrible practice anyway), it's often just bad game design.

At least, that's my perspective on it. I'm curious what others think of this practice.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think it can be a tough call because there's always the somewhat fuzzy line between a game that asks you to learn through experience and a game that forces you to look outside of the game for basic gameplay information. Some players want/need every detail about the game to be handed to them on a silver platter and complain that the game is forcing them to look for third party help when it's really just that the game expects you learn by, you know, actually playing the game. Also, there are some benefits to hiding things outside of the scope of standard gameplay in that it fosters a community of players collaborating in discovery and information sharing. Of course, all of even the most hidden stuff had to be found by someone at some point.

All told, I think a game that is pointlessly opaque or one that truly needs a guide to play is definitely bad design, but you first have to determine if it really is that opaque in the first place.

 

[DementedSheep]

Yes it is and I find it infuriating when fans respond to someone criticizing lack of information with "should have used the wiki". If you have to used external sources to understand how the game works then it's bad design. The game can still be great but that aspect needs work. Obviously if it's not that you don't understand the mechanics it's just a particular fight or puzzle is hard that's different but you shouldn't have to look up a guide for stuff like knowing what a skill or stat actually dose or to find the NPC that looks like every other NPC you can't interact with that you need to talk to.

 

[Little Gray]

Yes. If you have to look outside the game/manual to understand the basics then it is just plain bad game design.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I guess it depends. If we are talking about the very basics of basic gameplay, then yes something is wrong. The AVGN that comes to mind with that is Milon's Secret Castle in which progression was based on bullshit. Comparing that to say, simon's Quest, which was more a problem with translation of mysteries that could be solved if someone had proofread a page of text, it doesn't present the same probelem. I mean, older gamers have all been bit by this at one time or another. I got a lot of bootleg Comodore 64 games as a kid many of which I never knew what to do.

That said, the opposite holds true as when your hand is held too much the thrill of discovery goes with it. Getting a desperation move in FFVI was a great surprise that doesn't share the thrill of trying to trigger it because you've been told about it, and there's a better sense of fun exploration in GTA than in follow the waypoint Dragon Age. While ti can be overdone, having unknowns that you can, or even have to learn to progress is a part of what makes some games fun, and even a learning tool to test creativity, knowledge gathering, and lateral thinking. At times, I'd rather be dropped blind again into Might and Magic 3 or Ultima: Quest of the Avatar that be dragged through FF XIII's corrodors or even Skyrim's obvious directions (for the main story, there's plenty to explore int he back woods).

 

[Evonisia]

Yes. If you have to look outside the game/manual to understand the basics then it is just plain bad game design.

I'm going to just agree with this. Can the game recover from that and be somewhat cool if you actually know what you're doing? Absolutely, but I'm not about to look up guides to tell me how to bloody beat a game's mechanics when it should be telling us. Now, beat a level or a puzzle? Fair enough, I suppose (though the former may be an indicator of bad level design).

 

[Irick]

I think the question is too general.
There are ways to produce well designed games that need out of game references Slaughtering Grounds is not one of them. It is bad to design play pieces that are not easy to differentiate. The visual language is important to establish. However: It can also be done well.

Consider, for instance, a game presenting a puzzle that requires that you reference a KJV Bible. Consider a game like I Love Bees. In fact, in goog ARG design it is arguably a core tenet to never fully explain how to play the game. It all depends on what kind of experience you are trying to present.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Yes, I'd say it's poor practice to make a game that requires sources not included with the game purchase (like physical goods packed in, files included on disc/in the download) to finish the game. Giving clues that might be hard to figure out but possible for the average person is fair, but requiring outside knowledge, such as of an obscure lost civilization, to open the door to the final boss is bad design.

It's also kind of dirty moves to make thing's like minigames where the core mechanics are not explained to the player and it's mostly luck based if they don't look up how the game works and making things harder of hidden just so the game publisher's book publisher buddies can sell more guides (or, in the old days, call that lovely help line that totally wont rack up the phone bill). FFXII and the Zodiac Spear's chest disappearing if you touch certain other chest throughout the game is a particularly egregious example. It is a good thing sites like Gamefaqs now exist.

 

[Foolery]

And that's pretty much why I can't get into Dark Souls. Requires too much googling to enjoy the damn game. I'm saying that makes Dark Souls bad, just not particularly inviting. Probably why I like Lords of the Fallen, better too.

 

[Little Gray]

And that's pretty much why I can't get into Dark Souls. Requires too much googling to enjoy the damn game. I'm saying that makes Dark Souls bad, just not particularly inviting. Probably why I like Lords of the Fallen, better too.

Really? The game literally tells you how to do everything. All the stats have proper descriptions and the tutorial is rather in depth.

 

[zinho73]

You have to be able to play the game from start to finish without consulting any external material.

That said, I don't mind if the game has secrets, hidden mechanisms, Easter eggs and all kind of stuff that rewards exploration, curiosity, skill and resourcefulness.

Obviously, not everyone will have the time and patience to discover everything on his own, so tutorials, videos and wikis are very welcome.

Dark Souls and The Binding of Isaac both have extensive wikis, but you can play both games to completion without never looking outside the game.

 

[g7g7g7g7]

I think everyone has done that thing in a game where they have been stuck for days on a really simple puzzle just using an item in the correct context or not having the right item or missing a certain switch or not seeing a really obvious hidden path before. Sometimes it's bad game design sometimes it's overcomplex context specific controls (Day of the goddamn tentacle) and it does suck but that moment when your friend tells you how to do it or you read it in a guide or on a forum and kick yourself for not working that out can be part of the fun.

I can't think of any specific examples right now but I have on occasion googled those silly questions and found a thousand replies to the post saying "thank you I was stuck for ages, can't believe I was that stupid!". It's been part of the interactive experience for years.

I think we are past the point where companies would deliberately create puzzles with abstract solutions so that guides would be sold and they get a cut, in the internet era that can't really happen anymore so it's not something I am worrying about.

 

[Erttheking]

It depends. There are some games like the one that the AVGN reviews where you can't get out of the starting room without a guide, and games like Suikoden and Radiant Historia where you need guides but you're having so much fun looking up what to do and then following through that it's almost like part of the adventure.

 

[Muspelheim]

Preferably, a game shouldn't need a wiki. But I'll take it, sometimes. Experiences like D0rf Fortress is worth it.

Of course, unless the game is nightmarishly complex with lots of moving parts, it should not need an external source to get going in. A Milon's Shitty Arsehole-esque in this day and age would have no excuse.

 

[Duster]

Honestly dark souls has aspects that are very imbalanced, namely finding a cure for basilisk curse, which makes the game a walking simulator even if you instantly know how to cure it.

I actually got to the upper blight town area with basilisk curse and broken enchanted weapons I purchased recently, and I was pretty upset.

Subtlety and complexity often make for better game experiences, like as mentioned, dorf fort and crusader kings 2, but it doesn't automatically make the game better.

 

[Roxas1359]

FFXII and the Zodiac Spear's chest disappearing if you touch certain other chest throughout the game is a particularly egregious example. It is a good thing sites like Gamefaqs now exist.

That was and always will be the biggest thing I hate about vanilla Final Fantasy XII. Luckily, in the International version that actually took that stipulation out, realizing it was stupid. Instead, they made an even more powerful weapon (225 base as opposed to the Zodiac Spear's 150) that you can only get when riding the giant airships, going onto the deck, and there is a 0.025% chance the chest will spawn with it. Did I mention, that chest is invisible? :3

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

FFXII and the Zodiac Spear's chest disappearing if you touch certain other chest throughout the game is a particularly egregious example. It is a good thing sites like Gamefaqs now exist.

That was and always will be the biggest thing I hate about vanilla Final Fantasy XII. Luckily, in the International version that actually took that stipulation out, realizing it was stupid. Instead, they made an even more powerful weapon (225 base as opposed to the Zodiac Spear's 150) that you can only get when riding the giant airships, going onto the deck, and there is a 0.025% chance the chest will spawn with it. Did I mention, that chest is invisible? :3

this pissed me off after putting 50 hours into the game, I went to check some guides just to look up certain hunts and best areas to grind for certain things, and I found out about that bastard...was so mad with how early some of those chests are.

that you can only get when riding the giant airships, going onto the deck, and there is a 0.025% chance the chest will spawn with it. Did I mention, that chest is invisible? :3

short of them telling people about it, HOW THE FUCK did someone find out about this? and why the fuck did they think THAT was better than the zodiac spear? Checking the bloody airship that many times...fuck that. if only the gambit system could've taken care of THAT problem >:/


OT: I don't know which game you are referring to in the OP on the steam sale, so I'm only going to speak about my own experiences, and what comes to mind instantly is kerbal space program and crusader kings II. Both games have alot of background information that I cannot recommend enough before diving in, but the games both have very high spots in my favorite games lists, and that's due to the depth/complexity. I'm sure if they spent a shit ton of time hand holding, then yeah, it probably wouldn't be necessary to use walkthroughs/videos, but I'm not exactly bothered by it, there are too many good let's play/commentary videos on youtube that explain better than what the developer probably could've done.

Still, games can do it very wrong and definitely can use it as shortcuts in bad game design, so it's kind of a toss up game to game, if the rest of the game is polished/highly enjoyable, then I can usually slug through the tutorial mess (or lack of) to get to the good stuff.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

In most cases you don't need the wiki. But it certainly speed ups getting into it. I for one enjoy the blindly stumbling around figuring stuff out portion of a game though.
I wouldn't call it bad design. Just not a game that appeals to you. Its very rewarding being one of the first to figure some of the stuff out and then be able to help others with it. At least for me.

 

[Roxas1359]

this pissed me off after putting 50 hours into the game, I went to check some guides just to look up certain hunts and best areas to grind for certain things, and I found out about that bastard...was so mad with how early some of those chests are.

Yeah, my first file I didn't get the spear, but I was able to later on in other files. Not to mention there is another chest in the game that has a 3% chance of having another Zodiac Spear in it, even if you didn't get the first one. So you can actually get 2 of them in one game. It's in a chest that's by where you go to get the Zodiark Esper.

short of them telling people about it, HOW THE FUCK did someone find out about this? and why the fuck did they think THAT was better than the zodiac spear? Checking the bloody airship that many times...fuck that. if only the gambit system could've taken care of THAT problem >:/

Luck my friend. Tons of luck. I actually got it after 13 tries, and the Airship tickets aren't expensive. I think the percentage goes up the more Airship routes you unlock. As for the Gambit System, the International version did tweak it. You can now customize and turn off guest party member's gambits, and you can turn off the Esper Gambits as well. For both guests and Espers, you can also assume direct control over them, but if the main party members die I think you still get a game over. The International version of XII is the best version because of all the tweaks it made to the game. Another change is that you can naturally break the 9999 damage limit; guest members can now level up (downside is now Larsa doesn't have infinite X-Potions, but to compensate they gave him Cura); there are 13 unique licenses boards for all party members based off classic Final Fantasy jobs and classes; new items and better spawn chances for certain weapons and items as well. Well, except for the aforementioned super weapon in the game. That super weapon also doesn't require a License Board piece to be equipped, so anyone can use it. One of the most amazing features is the "Speed Up" button. In the game if you hit L1, the entire game speeds up to double speed so you can make long grinding sessions half as long as before. Only problem with it is that if you abuse it too much I feel it makes the game feel way too damn slow. They added in New Game+ mode as well, with 2 main modes: Weak and Strong. Weak mode puts you at Level 1 and you can't level up at all, something that many people can apparently complete. Strong mode has everyone start at level 90 with Ribbions. Or you can just do normal New Game+. The Mist Special Moves no longer take up your MP, and they have their own little bar that recharges over time.

Another addition was the "Trial Mode" on the main menu, which pits you against monster after monster, each on getting more powerful. I b

 

[Something Amyss]

Some players want/need every detail about the game to be handed to them on a silver platter and complain that the game is forcing them to look for third party help when it's really just that the game expects you learn by, you know, actually playing the game.

While I agree this can be a problem, the topic was spawned by a game where the recommendation wasn't "play the game" but "here, watch this, read this, and this, and this, and...." And it seemed a bunch of the regulars agreed. And I agree that it's cool to have things outside the obvious, but there are games where we're expected to know these things. This is why I used the ammo example from Slaughtering Grounds. I can think of no other game where you hold an empty weapon and only an empty weapon to get ammo specifically for it, but the dev thought Jim was an idiot or intentionally being daft. Given the complaints on the Steam board pre-purge, it seems like this is not something that was mentioned in any information, either. The devs were all "you idiot, why didn't you try doing this thing which is in no way intuitive to a game?"

There's also the Nintendo Power bit. Like, most games had tips and tricks, but Milon's Secret Castle had something akin to "getting started." That's how obtuse the game supposedly was. The same segment of Nintendo Power that normally taught you secrets about games taught you basic things needed to progress.

One of the funny things is that people complain that gamers today need to have their hands held through a game, when games that are poorly designed or intentionally withhold information basically require that. I mean, it's one thing if you make a game where the rules are explained and people can't figure it out. It's another entirely if information needed to play the game is not included. And it's another entirely if the devs and/or their mouthpieces are complete dicks about it when explaining it.

Consider, for instance, a game presenting a puzzle that requires that you reference a KJV Bible. Consider a game like I Love Bees. In fact, in goog ARG design it is arguably a core tenet to never fully explain how to play the game. It all depends on what kind of experience you are trying to present.

Based on your examples, I don't think the issue is that the question is too vague. It looks like you're trying to redefine the question. Although my experience with ARGs is limited. Has there ever been a popular ARG that required a Wiki for you to get through? Or required YouTube videos explaining them? I have seen ones where there are Wikis or Youtube vids, or where you can look for a solution on the same, but "you need all these rules explained to you by an external source to progress" strikes me as still falling under bad game design even within your examples.

And you'll note this wasn't about TSG, it merely reminded me of it.

Now, can you name an ARG that meets the criteria set out here that constitutes anything other than "bad game design?" I would think that any good (ie not Slaughtering Grounds equivalent) ARG would avoid this, as it would kill the hunt and possibly stop the game cold without someone to hold your hand through it. ARGs tend to give you enough to actually play the game in my experience, which is the exact opposite of what I've described. But maybe that's just anecdotal.