Overwhelmed by decision making
by l3mon · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 01/26/2006 (6:07 am) · 10 replies
Hi!
I was pointed to a post on another forum recently I found very interesting. The author was saying that he disliked games with too many decisions and ways of solving, because he would have the feeling that he missed out on something. He also disliked games where the customisation was too overwhelming and he couldn't decide on how to make a character look, because he wanted it to look perfect and instead of playing he designed characters all over again.
I was very suprised, sure I encountered some games where I thought leave me alone with the customisation I'll take it as it is, but that's mainly because sometimes I lack the time to do so.
So never having considered this fact, I was wondering if there are more people feeling a bit uncomfortable with too many options, let it be in the game or in the interface.
Thanks for your replies :)
I was pointed to a post on another forum recently I found very interesting. The author was saying that he disliked games with too many decisions and ways of solving, because he would have the feeling that he missed out on something. He also disliked games where the customisation was too overwhelming and he couldn't decide on how to make a character look, because he wanted it to look perfect and instead of playing he designed characters all over again.
I was very suprised, sure I encountered some games where I thought leave me alone with the customisation I'll take it as it is, but that's mainly because sometimes I lack the time to do so.
So never having considered this fact, I was wondering if there are more people feeling a bit uncomfortable with too many options, let it be in the game or in the interface.
Thanks for your replies :)
About the author
#2
If someone that hadn't played with us before was going to come over and join us one night we would have them borrow the game and memory card the night before so they could create their character, if they wanted to. The main reason for this was there were so many options that it usually took 2-3 hours to create a character. We just didn't want to sit there and wait for someone to make a character, and there were some people that just opted not to do that, mainly because they didn't want to spend that much time on it. When you can change everything from look and size of your wrestler down to every move from every position and every camera angle of your entrance, it can be a bit daunting.
01/26/2006 (8:13 am)
I can see how someone could dislike a character customization with a lot of options. The more options you have the more time you're going to spend customizing keeping you from the game that much longer. Some people enjoy that level of detail and some don't. My friends and I used to play wrestling games a lot during our college days. The favorite being Wrestlemania, though the Smackdown series got some serious lovin from us also.If someone that hadn't played with us before was going to come over and join us one night we would have them borrow the game and memory card the night before so they could create their character, if they wanted to. The main reason for this was there were so many options that it usually took 2-3 hours to create a character. We just didn't want to sit there and wait for someone to make a character, and there were some people that just opted not to do that, mainly because they didn't want to spend that much time on it. When you can change everything from look and size of your wrestler down to every move from every position and every camera angle of your entrance, it can be a bit daunting.
#3
I have played games that gave me that exact feeling.. the Myst series is a good example.. as is (an oldie for sure) Phantasmagoria.. semi open ended engrossing stories.. but they have a way of making you feel like "I am missing something" and you continue playing certain areas over and over to make sure you got something you might suddenly need later on.
I would not say I dislike them.. but I prefer games that are a little more fail safe.. nothing like spending 6 hours trying to move to the next area just to realize you missed getting the widget from scene 2.
You also wonder if you missed a cool cut scene or story item by taking a certain path.. although this is a good thing when it comes to replayability.
MMOG(RPG)s can be overwhelming also especially if you joined years after launch.. I started UO (Ultima Online) at launch and grew to know it inside and out.. I quit after playing 5 years and later tried to return.. there was so much added and new to learn that I gave up.. I am not one who likes to be the "best" but I don't want to spend 100 hours just trying to re-learn how to compete...
05/04/2006 (11:41 am)
Quote:The author was saying that he disliked games with too many decisions and ways of solving, because he would have the feeling that he missed out on something.
I have played games that gave me that exact feeling.. the Myst series is a good example.. as is (an oldie for sure) Phantasmagoria.. semi open ended engrossing stories.. but they have a way of making you feel like "I am missing something" and you continue playing certain areas over and over to make sure you got something you might suddenly need later on.
I would not say I dislike them.. but I prefer games that are a little more fail safe.. nothing like spending 6 hours trying to move to the next area just to realize you missed getting the widget from scene 2.
You also wonder if you missed a cool cut scene or story item by taking a certain path.. although this is a good thing when it comes to replayability.
MMOG(RPG)s can be overwhelming also especially if you joined years after launch.. I started UO (Ultima Online) at launch and grew to know it inside and out.. I quit after playing 5 years and later tried to return.. there was so much added and new to learn that I gave up.. I am not one who likes to be the "best" but I don't want to spend 100 hours just trying to re-learn how to compete...
#4
05/04/2006 (10:22 pm)
I love the feeling, that not everything the player does is perfect, the correct choice, the right way. You can do something wrong but still get through, things may have changed or have different effects on the game. Deus Ex had great examples everywhere through it.
#5
One way of handling that is to present the options in small, bite-size chunks that don't feel as overwhelming. Don't give the player 327 skills to choose from right off the bat -- let them choose from a dozen Survival skills, then on the next page, Melee Combat skills, and then Ranged Combat, and so forth.
The ability to return to a previous page and alter your choices makes people more comfortable too, as it gives the sense that any "mistake" made isn't permanent.
Another approach is to offer default or random characters so the nervous/eager players can jump right in, but offer an Advanced Options button so the tinkerers and veteran players can explore the nuances of the character creation.
Still another approach is to defer class and skill choices until they've had time to play the game. Give them a few minor newbie quests to lead them to the Master At Arms, or the Blue Mage, or the Temple to pick up some basic skills and learn about character classes. When they've gotten a taste of what the different classes are like, let them sign up with the Barracks, or the Magehall, or wherever to cement their class choice and embark on the real adventure.
For any of these approaches, it never hurts to offer a reassuring message to the player that there's no single path to success, and regardless of the decisions they make, the game will be fun. (If it won't be, then perhaps it's time to examine your fundamental game structure and do some balancing!)
-- JohnDopp
05/19/2006 (10:16 am)
Many people are overwhelmed by having too many choices available, especially at the beginning of an unfamiliar game. RPG character creation is a good example.One way of handling that is to present the options in small, bite-size chunks that don't feel as overwhelming. Don't give the player 327 skills to choose from right off the bat -- let them choose from a dozen Survival skills, then on the next page, Melee Combat skills, and then Ranged Combat, and so forth.
The ability to return to a previous page and alter your choices makes people more comfortable too, as it gives the sense that any "mistake" made isn't permanent.
Another approach is to offer default or random characters so the nervous/eager players can jump right in, but offer an Advanced Options button so the tinkerers and veteran players can explore the nuances of the character creation.
Still another approach is to defer class and skill choices until they've had time to play the game. Give them a few minor newbie quests to lead them to the Master At Arms, or the Blue Mage, or the Temple to pick up some basic skills and learn about character classes. When they've gotten a taste of what the different classes are like, let them sign up with the Barracks, or the Magehall, or wherever to cement their class choice and embark on the real adventure.
For any of these approaches, it never hurts to offer a reassuring message to the player that there's no single path to success, and regardless of the decisions they make, the game will be fun. (If it won't be, then perhaps it's time to examine your fundamental game structure and do some balancing!)
-- JohnDopp
#7
I think it really comes down to the design... i.e. you can have mutiple paths/choices/decisions, but present it to the player poorly and they're gonna hate it. You have to be careful to keep the design clear and easy to understand and manage -- John's example of parceling skills into different sets is a good one.
Deus Ex is a great example of very good level/mission design. It offered the player multiple mission paths/choices, but for the most part the options were clear, the outcomes were clear, and so the player felt like he's been given enough info to do what he wants. I think an important point too that can be seen in Deus Ex is that -- although there are usually different paths available through a level -- they always converge at the important parts. You're never really left feeling like you missed part of the story or game, because you're alway brought back. Another good example of this is Farcry: You can sneak around the hills sniping, or jump in a Humvee and Rambo through it, but the game always maintains focus on the primary level goal.
Oblivion's character design interface is a great example of poor design. From the start, the player is not generally offered an acceptable looking character, thus forcing him into possibly the most obtuse, non-intuitive face customization interface in existence. Then, once inside, the player is offered an excessive array of settings, which are often dependent on other settings, which are usually not even shown with the settings that are currently being adjusted, with no clear view of their interdependencies... Well, I think you get the idea! Basically, it takes hours just to figure out what the hell is going on with it, let alone actually come up with an acceptable character look. (It sounds like the guy Markus mentions was probably playing Oblivion!)
To end the ramble: A game can present many choices to the player without him feeling overwhelmed. Two key points here:
1) Like John mentions: "Bite-size chunks" whether it be game interface, settings, character customization. And I add to that, "Chunks that make sense." =)
2) If you're going to provide multiple paths through the game levels, don't let them diverge to far from each other. Always bring them back to key events/locations.
05/22/2006 (3:37 pm)
Totally agree, John! I think it really comes down to the design... i.e. you can have mutiple paths/choices/decisions, but present it to the player poorly and they're gonna hate it. You have to be careful to keep the design clear and easy to understand and manage -- John's example of parceling skills into different sets is a good one.
Deus Ex is a great example of very good level/mission design. It offered the player multiple mission paths/choices, but for the most part the options were clear, the outcomes were clear, and so the player felt like he's been given enough info to do what he wants. I think an important point too that can be seen in Deus Ex is that -- although there are usually different paths available through a level -- they always converge at the important parts. You're never really left feeling like you missed part of the story or game, because you're alway brought back. Another good example of this is Farcry: You can sneak around the hills sniping, or jump in a Humvee and Rambo through it, but the game always maintains focus on the primary level goal.
Oblivion's character design interface is a great example of poor design. From the start, the player is not generally offered an acceptable looking character, thus forcing him into possibly the most obtuse, non-intuitive face customization interface in existence. Then, once inside, the player is offered an excessive array of settings, which are often dependent on other settings, which are usually not even shown with the settings that are currently being adjusted, with no clear view of their interdependencies... Well, I think you get the idea! Basically, it takes hours just to figure out what the hell is going on with it, let alone actually come up with an acceptable character look. (It sounds like the guy Markus mentions was probably playing Oblivion!)
To end the ramble: A game can present many choices to the player without him feeling overwhelmed. Two key points here:
1) Like John mentions: "Bite-size chunks" whether it be game interface, settings, character customization. And I add to that, "Chunks that make sense." =)
2) If you're going to provide multiple paths through the game levels, don't let them diverge to far from each other. Always bring them back to key events/locations.
#8
Related to this: Save games suck and checkpoints suck even more!
I'm of the strong opinion that save games are a crutch -- players should be able to solve the game without needing to reload constantly. If your game has an area like this, where the player has to save/die/reload several times just to get past it, your design is flawed and should be re-thought. Save games should be a convenience ("Hey, it's dinner time!"), not a necessity.
Checkpoints only serve to artificially increase the game's difficulty and duration, reducing the fun-factor considerably. I don't know anyone that enjoys replaying the same 20 minutes of a level 12 times in a row to finally solve it. Checkpoints are a relic of consoles when they had little or no capability to save a game. Now, they are completely unnecessary. Don't use 'em!
Ok, now I'm done. =)
05/22/2006 (3:50 pm)
Oh, another thing: ALWAYS give the player a way out. This is especially important if you're unable or unwilling to present all available information to him. The player always needs to be able to back out of a situation, or go back and fix something he screwed up. It's never much fun to feel like you're being railroaded down the Path of No Return. =PRelated to this: Save games suck and checkpoints suck even more!
I'm of the strong opinion that save games are a crutch -- players should be able to solve the game without needing to reload constantly. If your game has an area like this, where the player has to save/die/reload several times just to get past it, your design is flawed and should be re-thought. Save games should be a convenience ("Hey, it's dinner time!"), not a necessity.
Checkpoints only serve to artificially increase the game's difficulty and duration, reducing the fun-factor considerably. I don't know anyone that enjoys replaying the same 20 minutes of a level 12 times in a row to finally solve it. Checkpoints are a relic of consoles when they had little or no capability to save a game. Now, they are completely unnecessary. Don't use 'em!
Ok, now I'm done. =)
#9
Any more (or any less) destroyed any decision making capability in a reasonable time frame for continued use.
05/22/2006 (8:23 pm)
Way back in the dark ages when "Graphical User Interfaces" were ASCII menus and vterm control codes to manuever a block cursor around, I was taught that the optimal number of choices to present to a user at any one decision point was between 3 and 7, depending on the individual user.Any more (or any less) destroyed any decision making capability in a reasonable time frame for continued use.
#10
When I programmed a web-based space game, I found that people wanted a vanilla spaceship for each class made for them. I allowed them to customize the ship and then save that custom design for re-use later. The options were split into gun/hull/engine, and each had about 2-3 choices per ship class.
Of course, 3 choices for 3 parts means 27 possible configurations per class, which sounds like a lot. But I noticed that people rarely made more than two designs per class. A "budget"/scout ship, and something big and tough.
Since the game was a failure (my programming kept crashing the server, some real-time and scalability issues crippled the game for lots of players, etc..), I plan on using the same art for a Torque game. But this time, I'm just doing a low/medium/high option for ship classes, rather than all those configuration choices.
06/02/2006 (11:19 am)
^When I worked in web programmer, I usually argued to people that any more than 10 fields in a survey and nobody would respond. I remember still a customer demanded a monster survey of over 100+ questions divided into 20+ question chunks... oh, the nightmare!When I programmed a web-based space game, I found that people wanted a vanilla spaceship for each class made for them. I allowed them to customize the ship and then save that custom design for re-use later. The options were split into gun/hull/engine, and each had about 2-3 choices per ship class.
Of course, 3 choices for 3 parts means 27 possible configurations per class, which sounds like a lot. But I noticed that people rarely made more than two designs per class. A "budget"/scout ship, and something big and tough.
Since the game was a failure (my programming kept crashing the server, some real-time and scalability issues crippled the game for lots of players, etc..), I plan on using the same art for a Torque game. But this time, I'm just doing a low/medium/high option for ship classes, rather than all those configuration choices.
Torque Owner Jason Farmer
I think different people take to configuring different games differntly... I like making my own characters in a RPG, makes it more personalised. I'm role playing so I like to identify with the character I'm playing.
But I don't like adjusting settings on driving games. They alter the performance of the vehicle in ways I don't fully understand.
Even though I drive and ride a bike, I don't know enough about cars and bikes to know how to set up a racing game for optimum grip/control for a given terrain/conditions.
I like my configurations to have a described and noticable effect. In a RPG, I pick up a sword, I can find out how this sword is better than the one I've got. If I increase my strength when leveling up, it tells me that it will give more damage and allow me to carry more stuff... a lot of racing simulator options assume an amount of technical knowledge in this area.
More often than not on driving games you get to adjust the gear ratios, suspension settings, tyre compounds but there's little description for what effect this will have on the car.
If the settings were more generalised.. like choosing tyres based on descriptions.. a mini review perhaps.. Good grip in the dry, pants in the wet.
$2