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

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

Huh...did not know about that.

*sigh* too bad I sold that ps2 card years ago :-/

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

....jesus. this international edition is sounding fucking sweet, like a developer actually listened to the fans complaints and acted accordingly.

can also assume direct control over them

I simply can't read those words anymore without hearing harbingers voice...

HELP.ME.

 

[Something Amyss]

In most cases you don't need the wiki.

Then it doesn't fit the criteria of the thread, really.

Its very rewarding being one of the first to figure some of the stuff out and then be able to help others with it.

That's not really happening, from the looks of things.

And the "helping others" thing is being treated like a curse.

 

[Rahkshi500]

It depends. Personally, I think the moments where it's a case of bad game design are outnumbered by the cases where it just encourages the player to learn more. Obviously in most cases when playing a game the first time, you're likely not gonna know every single trick or mechanic you can possibly ever know and use, because you're more often focusing on the main basic mechanics and aspects. I think having huge amounts of text shoved into the game that details every single mechanic or trick one can do will more likely ruin the gaming experience than looking up a guide, walkthrough, or wiki, because it can interfere with you actually trying to play and enjoy the game. Now, I think the case of walkthroughs, guides, and wikis are more often optional than mandatory, and that having to look it up to know the answer to something seems to be more of the player's desire to know or learn something than a fault of the game. Now, if it's something where you required to look it up somewhere to know the answers, then it would be a fair argument for a case of bad design. But if it's just something optional that can otherwise enrich your knowledge and gaming experience, then I don't think it's bad.

 

[Asita]

The question probably could stand to use a bit of refinement. For the sake of example, I'll happily admit to having a webpage opened to a guide whenever I start playing Persona 4 (And given the schedule restrictions I do feel quite justified in doing that for the sake of maxing out the Social Links). But then, that's likely comparable to a "Hero Run" of Majora's Mask[footnote]After getting all the items and masks, complete all the sidequests (Barring the bomb shop lady, as her quest is mutually exclusive with Anju/Kafei's) in a single moon cycle to ensure that all the NPCs get their happy endings[/footnote], which is to say that it's not necessary to complete the game or even do it well, it's just a 'perfect' run. Would that qualify for this discussion, or are we looking at a more basic and hardline level, like "can't beat story mandated boss without a guide because I was trying to get the nonlethal achievement on Deus Ex: Human Revolution"?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

okay, after doing some snooping and based off what you said in the OP, I can only imagine you are referring to the game "banished", in which case, yeah, it's not a walk in the park to get the hang of the mechanics and what they do in the long term (which unfortunately, is the whole point of the game, is long term development of your slice of land, so to speak.). I'm a little murky on if I want to call it bad game design...I've played the game for probably a grand total of an hour or so, and I got the basics down..but I do feel like there is plenty of room for improvement without harming the game as is, so I wouldn't call the game designed badly, just negligent in teaching noobies how to git gud.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no:

Open world/crafting games are fine, the tutorial can't shove every bit of information in front of you, and having a list of all combinations/tips/tricks in the menus discourages exploration and community.

Games that have hints as to what you're supposed to do next for those paying attention, but don't put big ol' signs everywhere are also fine. I cite Dark Souls as an example because there's usually a solution without dying/looking up a wiki, you just have to pay very close attention and be cautious. Although, Dark Souls is also guilty of (very) occasionally just throwing crap in random places and getting you 100% murdered without any sign of avoiding death. Not a perfect example, but it works.

As far as I'm concerned, anything not following these two things is usually just bad game design.

But being more specific to what you said, if just the basics aren't pointed out in the tutorial, or can't at least be figured out or inferred through the game itself, then that's pure bullshit.

 

[Olas]

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.

No, it doesn't. I've played over 200 hours of that game and I only just found out yesterday about 2 kinds of attacks you can perform, the running attack and rolling attack. The game doesn't explain almost anything relating to it's RPG mechanics, like the benefits of different covenants and weapon upgrade paths. And that's just the basic core stuff. What about all the secrets and hidden areas that would be almost impossible to find on your own? The DLC content is especially well hidden away. The game doesn't even provide you with basic hints as to which general area you should explore next half the time. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but it's severely lacking in terms of explanations, and I consider that a fault.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Not inherently bad design if it's a game for memory and exploration. For instance rogue-likes will always push you in at the deep end, with sharks and then shoot you in the leg just to make sure things aren't easy.
And absolutely everything will be up dependent on you to figure out while also not be horribly murdered.

However when a game has a tutorial and it doesn't teach you stuff, indistinguishable items/enemies/landmarks, terribly placed features, incomplete or inaccurate codex, unreadable map,... then you got shit design. Not necessarily the whole game, but when people can't operate it properly you got lazy as a dev. And I do software myself and know how tutorials/help menus/tips/settings are left for last minute clean up where you don't care that much how it's done, also know how unnecessary it feels to explain features you tested one billion times yourself and they look just plain obvious.

It can go wrong on both ends however, a game that will break the carefully crafted atmosphere of the game by putting neon outlines on every damn object and tell you to press X for every fucking goddamn interaction even after 100 hours of playing is just as bad as one that will never tell you how anything works. Do options devs, to those fucking options.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

In most cases you don't need the wiki.

Then it doesn't fit the criteria of the thread, really.

Its very rewarding being one of the first to figure some of the stuff out and then be able to help others with it.

That's not really happening, from the looks of things.

And the "helping others" thing is being treated like a curse.

I can't think of a single game where you 100% need the wiki.
It could take 40 hours to figure out how to progress or something but you still progress. I stand by my opinion of that not being bad design, it simply appeals to fewer people.
And if that wasn't happening, where would the wiki come from?

 

[joshuaayt]

If you actually need the wiki to do stuff, yeah, that's pretty bad- but these games do tend to be doable without. After all, it's community driven, and someone had to figure it out the first time.

The wiki usually just acts as a way to learn stuff quick'n'ezy, but you can almost certainly learn everything yourself if you want, even if it's just in-game reading. Intuitive gameplay tutorials are great, but a very difficult thing to do correctly, and almost impossible if your game is specifically complex.

I find if a game is crazy complicated, and I only really know how to do a small percentage of the possible things, I get surprised more often. Getting surprised is good! It doesn't happen in many games, so it's great when I find out about mechanics incidentally, while just doing the stuff I already know.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Maybe, but sometimes it's worth it just to catch the audience by surprise and play a fast one on them. It's a tightrope act, and it doesn't always work, but it can grant a game that something special when it does.

Take Metal Gear Solid. I bet you more than half the people who fought Psycho Mantis didn't know you had to switch controller ports untill the Colonel told them to, as he did with me. You could rightfully claim it's a bad game design because you're not coming to this conclusion on your own, but still, when it happens you're like 'Holy shit, that's awesome!'

Same with the Mimics in Dark Souls. The very first time you encounter one it's impossible to know it's not just a regular chest except for the missing chain, and who even noticed such an insignificant detail at that point? I can totally understand that people get pissed off it and say it's a bullshit tactic, but when it happens it rocks you to your core and brutally disrupts a routine you had assumed save and rewarding, not just in this game but in any game with loot chests. They instantly become the most feared enemy in the game.

Darks Souls on a whole benefits from not being very open with the player. See, I know a lot of people say the game is all about community effort and helping eachother, which is nice if that's what others get out of the game, but I don't think it's designed for that purpose. I feel Darks Souls is a game that walks the walk. There's so many games that take place in harrowing and dangerous settings, but inside you know it's not going to be that bad, because it's just a game meaning it's going to facilitate you along the way to help you reach the end. Dark Souls on the other hand enforces it's setting through the gameplay. The game doesn't care to explain much of anything to you, because the setting itself is completely apathetic to your presence. Again, I can totally understand that a lot of people don't like getting jerked around like this by the entertainment they spent their hard earned money on, and it is an acquired taste.

Getting to the the DLC of Dark Souls though was really obtuse and badly implemented. It wasn't meant to play a trick on the audience or anything, it was just 'Oh yeah, that key to access the DLC area is, like, miles way in that other area in some monster we just put there for no reason.'

 

[mad825]

The game doesn't care to explain much of anything to you, because the setting itself is completely apathetic to your presence

I really like this comment that people spread around, if this was any other game it would be a negative trait by calling it lazy/cheap game design.

 

[DementedSheep]

Maybe, but sometimes it's worth it just to catch the audience by surprise and play a fast one on them. It's a tightrope act, and it doesn't always work, but it can grant a game that something special when it does.

Take Metal Gear Solid. I bet you more than half the people who fought Psycho Mantis didn't know you had to switch controller ports untill the Colonel told them to, as he did with me. You could rightfully claim it's a bad game design because you're not coming to this conclusion on your own, but still, when it happens you're like 'Holy shit, that's awesome!'

Same with the Mimics in Dark Souls. The very first time you encounter one it's impossible to know it's not just a regular chest except for the missing chain, and who even noticed such an insignificant detail at that point? I can totally understand that people get pissed off it and say it's a bullshit tactic, but when it happens it rocks you to your core and brutally disrupts a routine you had assumed save and rewarding, not just in this game but in any game with loot chests. They instantly become the most feared enemy in the game.

Darks Souls on a whole benefits from not being very open with the player. See, I know a lot of people say the game is all about community effort and helping eachother, which is nice if that's what others get out of the game, but I don't think it's designed for that purpose. I feel Darks Souls is a game that walks the walk. There's so many games that take place in harrowing and dangerous settings, but inside you know it's not going to be that bad, because it's just a game meaning it's going to facilitate you along the way to help you reach the end. Dark Souls on the other hand enforces it's setting through the gameplay. The game doesn't care to explain much of anything to you, because the setting itself is completely apathetic to your presence. Again, I can totally understand that a lot of people don't like getting jerked around like this by the entertainment they spent their hard earned money on, and it is an acquired taste.

Getting to the the DLC of Dark Souls though was really obtuse and badly implemented. It wasn't meant to play a trick on the audience or anything, it was just 'Oh yeah, that key to access the DLC area is, like, miles way in that other area in some monster we just put there for no reason.'

Stuff like the mimic is fine. I've never seen a game with a mimic that tells you it is one before hand because that defeats the purpose.
Stuff like not mentioning dexterity increasing spell casting speed isn't and they should have mentioned diminishing returns. Hiding the entire DLC like that is too much. That NPC also had half the bloody spells in the game. I had to backtrack to a place I had no other reason to return to in order to find her because the golem didn't even appear the first time around and you still have to find her summon sign. There is no logic to it. They also don't tell you what "absolve your sins" actually dose and a lot of people who played the game that I've talked to never even knew could return NPC's to non hostile if you accidentally hit them. You have to do things in unnatural order to even meet Kaathe even though he is where a lot the information about the plot comes from, shows up at one of the ending regardless of if you ever meet him and has the convenient any one who wants to invade (which is big thing) will want to join. I like darks souls, I like the exploration and the secrets and having to piece the information about the world together but sometimes they go over-bored.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Wiki's/walkthroughs/videos are for after the first playthrough and if you feel the need to use them before that then you are basically admitting that you aren't good enough. Honestly, games are so easy nowadays that i find it really quite pathetic that people will look for a way past the lacking challenges

 

[zinho73]

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.

As long as you can complete the game it is not bad design. It might be, however, a design decision that you do not like, which is quite fair.

 

[VanQ]

It kinda depends. If you can learn and access all that information in the game then it is okay. There are three in game ways that can make this kind of thing good:

-Tell the player the basics: If they can play and enjoy the game with what they've been told it's alright
-Make the more complex stuff able to be figured out through common sense: If you tell me the 'E' button activates things and teach me by using it on a button, I should be able to figure out that I can us 'E' to open doors or search crates.
-Make stuff learnable through internal logic: This one may be a lot harder to do and I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. But if you can make mechanics in the game that allow the player to do a bit of thinking and use the internal logic to figure things out, I imagine you'd have a very fun and satisfying experience on your hands.
EDIT: A good example mightbe Crash Bandicoot's belly flop. Some tough enemies can not be killed by the usual Spin attack and you have to Belly Flop them. There are also crates in the game that can't be opened with Spin and must be Belly Flopped. The game never told you this but through internal logic you realize that Belly Flop is useful on tough boxes as well.

I'd have to say that despite its popularity, Minecraft did this poorly. It taught you nothing and dropped you in the world with your bare fists. I actually died on my first playthrough in the first night because I never imagined that it was a good idea to walk up to a tree and punch it with my bare hands. The friend that recommended it to me had to link me the wiki.

I'm also curious about just which game is the one being described in the OP though I know it's not actually relevant to the conversation beyond starting it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I think it depends... If you need a guide for very basic things about how the game works, or to understand the majority of it, then sure.

But if you get stuck on a particular moment?

It's very hard to predict what someone will understand easily, and what they won't. And it varies by person.
I used to play a lot of adventure games, and getting stuck on these was routine.
Sometimes you just couldn't find what you need. Sometimes, the combinations of items required were using weird logic. (or sometimes it was blatantly obvious logic, and and I missed it anyway)

Of course, sometimes, this was in fact bad design. Clicking on tiny near-invisible areas (the infamous 'pixel hunt') was never much fun.
Nor was Sierra's tendency to include 'point of no return' sections in their games, but structure them such that you needed an item that you could only get before this point, to solve a puzzle after this point...
Oh. You don't have that item? Too bad. Start over from whatever the last save you have from before that point is...
(Or all the way from the beginning, if you weren't careful with your saves...)

Can you believe it took them until Kings Quest 7 to stop doing that? And that was basically the last one they made...

 

[babinro]

Yes.

Diablo 2's runeeword system is a perfect example. Imagine trying to create Enigma from sheer trial and error within the game? Imagine how terrible the horodric cube would be without 3rd party resources. Diablo 2 was a masterpiece for it's time but that didn't make it flawless.

Another similar example for a less popular game would be the crafting system in FF 13. What a complete mess, right? Even online guides about that system feel overly complex. This didn't add to the games fun in any meaningful way. A straightforward crafting system would have been acceptable.

When your non-educational game requires you to research 3rd party sites to understand or get the most out of your mechanic than you've failed as a game designer.

Note: Being stuck on an intentional puzzle is a different thing. For example, being unable to complete a water temple in ocarina of time doesn't make the game poorly designed. Being unable to pick up a sparkling object in a point and click because you can't type the exact word the game is looking for would be a poorly designed puzzle.

 

[G00N3R7883]

Sounds like bad game design to me.

I'll tell you another one that annoys me: when you have to use Wikis to understand a game's story / world lore instead of stuff being explained in game.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The game doesn't care to explain much of anything to you, because the setting itself is completely apathetic to your presence

I really like this comment that people spread around, if this was any other game it would be a negative trait by calling it lazy/cheap game design.

Probably, but then there are certain things that just (arguably) work in one game but fail in another. People have every right to call it cheap and lazy game design, and maybe it is, but it enhances the setting to a palpable degree.