Support NeoGAF

[sprsk]

Today I was skimming through gamespots review for Megaman X8(cause the game is pretty awesome), and I noticed that the reviewer was complaining about trial and error game play. I began to wonder, what game doesn’t have this?

My two big examples are Metal Gear Solid 3 and Resident Evil 4. In both of these games you start out with infinite lives, and when you die you start at the "scene" where you died. So now you must go through the particular "scene" in a certain way as to complete it with the most ideal outcome. The game gives you an infinite amount of time to do it the right way. Is this not trial and error? Yes, it is. They key difference is that in those games it doesn’t punish you for failing whereas Megaman does.

Why is this a bad thing? Is it that big of a deal for someone to be punished for their failures? Perhaps because the designer of the game expects you to think a little more before you jump? Shouldn’t this risk make the game more exciting? None of you run out into the middle of a bunch of guard willy nilly expecting to make it through, so why should you when playing a platformer? Perhaps it’s the mundane ness (is that even a word?) of the task that makes it so frustrating. "I just have to jump over these stupid spikes!" A task as simple as jumping is more frustrating than say, knocking out 3 guards? Why is this I wonder?

I guess the whole "Cool Factor" plays in. A game like MGS or RE4 plays to our nerd sensibilities more than Megaman; certainly killing guards, being stealthy and or running from zombies is more interesting than killing arbitrarily placed robots. I guess in a sense it’s more believable, you are more involved because of the fact it’s loosely tied to real life and a previously established film genre.

So what does this all have to do with trial and error? Some of it could be an immersion issue, but I believe it’s mostly due to the harshness of limiting continues (mixed with the "I already beat that part why must I do it again" syndrome). I think this type of gameplay is all we have until AI can think, and isn’t something that should be punishable in terms of evaluating game design. Learn to think before you jump and don’t blame the game for your recklessness.

 

[Wellington]

I haven't read the review for Megaman X8, but I have certainly complained about trial and error gameplay before, so I will chime in.

You bring up good points with the bigger name titles, I'll give you an even better example - Metal Gear Solid, just before the fight with Revolver Ocelot, there are trap doors in the area in which you have to lay C4. The first any player reached it, how would they have known that the audible click signalled that the door was going to drop out from under them? I was upset, but they let me start right from that point when I gave it another shot, so it was no big deal.

My beef is when a developer feels like throwing something at me out of the blue and then punishing me by making me do the whole level or scene or chapter over. In MGS, after falling into that trap door you start in the same room, which is fine. But then a game like say Viewtiful Joe, where you have to start the whole level over again is a bit much, especially for a person like me that only has a set amount of time to play and get through games. A reviewer would fall under that category, bit being able to contribute a whole hell of a lot of time to every game. It just feels like devs artificially inflate the length of the game with trial and error gameplay that forces the gamer to start from the beginning every time.

 

[dark10x]

Well, it depends...

MGS3, for example, is trial and error based in the sense that you essentially test the limits of the game world and slowly begin to understand what you can and cannot do. You might take a variety of approaches before you finally begin to fully comprehend what is possible within the constraints of the game.

I've always complained about the trial and error gameplay in titles such as Splinter Cell, however...

What's the difference between MGS3 and SC? I felt that, in Splinter Cell, each scenario was very rigid in design and required the player to perform fairly specific actions in order to proceed. Early on in the course of MGS3, you encounter a somewhat large enemy camp. In this area, you will find a number of buildings (each with accessible interiors and exteriors -- including the roofs). There is a singular goal that lies before you (an exit), but there are an astonishing number of potential solutions to surviving this area. Success was never placed upon a rail.

In Splinter Cell, if you were to enter a large courtyard like area, the solution would generally be very specific. You would approach guards in a specific order, move through very specific pathways, and perform actions as the developer intended. You were basically following a set path and would be required to discover how to bypass each situation in order. When you died, you would simply repeat all of your actions up until the point of death. If you were spotted, the game was basically over. You COULD attempt to survive, but the end results were never good and resulted in the player simply wishing to restart that area and try again.

That is why I disliked Splinter Cell's single player portions. You were following a line drawn by the developers and you simply had to feel around in the dark to find that line once again should you run into trouble. The only sense of freedom offered was based around which tool you could use in any given situation. The most complex string of tool usage would generally be the path intended by the developers, but you could generally pass most situations without resorting to those items. You still were required to deal with the same enemies in the same order, however...

Now, in a fast paced action title (such as Megaman), trial and error is a bit different. While you ARE essentially following a set path, that path is not based on situation analysis. Splinter Cell gives the player the feeling of existing within a world where they must analyze their location and find the best COA. However, there was always one overall COA available. That was almost insulting to me. Something like Megaman relies on a completely different set of reflexes and skills. You simply have to put these skills to use and survive everything that the developers throw at you. You are never given the illusion of freedom, so you never miss it.

Really, I'm just thinking that trial and error itself can vary quite heavily depending on the application. Like anything else, it can be good or bad...

 

[Miburou]

Trial and error to me means that in a game the correct solution or way of approaching a problem isn't grounded that well in logic, so the only way to arrive to that is either by being lucky or by trying out all possible combinations.

If, after discovering the correct solution, you slap your forehead and think to yourself "damn, why didn't I think of that, it's so obvious now" then it's not trial and error, even if you only solved it that way, because there were hints to the solution, and it's a logical solution.

 

[Scrow]

with trial and error gameplay you lose a lot of suspense. it can ruin a game. i used quicksaves in HL2 way too much and I think it kind of spoiled the game for me a bit. next time i play it start to finish I wont use quicksaves.

 

[Kiriku]

I dislike trial and error gameplay mainly when game developers design their game around it with a "save anywhere" system. You enter a room filled with enemies you don't stand any chance against and die 5 seconds later. Forget to save before entering a room, and you're screwed.

 

[dark10x]

I dislike trial and error gameplay mainly when game developers design their game around it with a "save anywhere" system. You enter a room filled with enemies you don't stand any chance against and die 5 seconds later. Forget to save before entering a room, and you're screwed.

That type of situation in general drives me nuts. That's just bad design...

 

[FeedMeAStrayCat]

Trial and error gameplay in the vein of Splinter Cell is terrible. I can't play that game. Just too frustrating.

 

[Parallax Scroll]

I dislike trial and error gameplay mainly when game developers design their game around it with a "save anywhere" system. You enter a room filled with enemies you don't stand any chance against and die 5 seconds later. Forget to save before entering a room, and you're screwed.

That's why I'm generally not a fan of the quicksave setup most single-player PC games have. Developers know that most players can and do abuse the hell out of the quicksave system, so they purposely stack the difficulty so you'll need to save and reload a lot.

 

[boredJonathan]

Good point, Parallax. I've never been a big fan of the quick-save mentality that is so abused on the PC side. I don't play that way, but some games just force you to quicksave after every room you clear as opposed to making the game logically difficult.

However, try and explain this to most of the PC gamers I talk to and they want to strangle you and eat your children. Claim anything other than quick saving is dumbing things down for the console kiddies. It's a shame that people fail to see good game design in a well placed auto-save mentality. (Of course, if the save points are not well placed it can be frustrating as hell.)

Back on topic, I think overall that the idea of "Trial and error" gameplay is not a bad one, but needs to be handled well just like the auto saves. Using it to artificially inflate a games difficulty, or length seems cheap and most gamers can see through it. However, with a more open ended environment, a form of trial and error can lead to alot of unsual ways to get through the games puzzels or traps. Everyone has already mentioned MGS but that is again another good example of this. There is a room full of guards, and you have to get through. If they spot you, you are in a world of hurt. So, how do you get through? Silence pistol? Stun gernades? Straight up stealth? A mix of the three? That is where the fun of trial and error lies.

(And as a side note, I realize that SC is definately heavy on the trial and error, and that there is definately a favored path to go. More so than MGS, but I do believe that there is alot of variety in how you go about accomplishing those objectives. I played through the first SC without using hardly any gadgets, mainly because I kept hording them wanting to use them at the absolutely best time. When I went back and played through the game again, I knew what to expect and used alot more gadgets, and the game played entirely different. Plus.. I'm just a sucker for most stealth games so I still dig Mr. Fischer.)

 

[Kiriku]

That's why I'm generally not a fan of the quicksave setup most single-player PC games have. Developers know that most players can and do abuse the hell out of the quicksave system, so they purposely stack the difficulty so you'll need to save and reload a lot.

Yeah, quicksave is what I'm talking about. It can really throw off the difficulty balance, since the devs don't have to think about where to place save points. Since you can save anywhere, they can throw anything at you and put the blame on you for not saving beforehand. I've seen quicksave in a few Xbox games as well (because of the HDD), but generally and thankfully consoles don't have this kind of problem to any greater extent (because of the slow access memory card obviously).

 

[eshwaaz]

I don't think I can put it any better than others already have, but this is one of my biggest peeves. I absolutely hate when I feel like I'm being punished by poor game design.

If you fail because of your own impatience and recklessness, that's fine - you've got no one to blame but yourself, and will likely be able to make it on the next attempt if you play smart. But when you're not only faced with a situation that you cannot possibly survive the first time through, but also have to play through a significant portion of that level again just to make a second attempt(or third, or fourth), it can quickly get frustrating.

As Wellington mentioned, in games like MGS it's less of an issue since you generally get to try again from that same area. Otherwise, it's a cheap way of increasing the challenge and extending the length of the game, and few things kill my enjoyment more than that.

 

[Community Forum]

First you learn, and then you know.

 

[Alex Anderson]

This thread gives me nightmares about Stuntman.