I have been thinking about this for a while and I thought I'd throw the idea to a crowd of experts. Recently, in TonK's Mushihimesama Futari 1.0 thread, lgb stated:
lgb wrote:"crazy hard" as in "unfair", at least doj is fair, futari 1.0 is just broken
Thus, my question is: How do you define fairness, in the context of action games?
To get as many diverse opinions as possible, if you have a particularly strong view, it would be best that you type it up before you actually read the thread. That way you won't be influenced by those who replied before you. If you then think that someone had stated what you intended better than you did, you can discard your own definition and instead discuss what has been said. I realise there's a possibility of wasting a bit of time here but in the end it's up to you! It would be interesting if you could state whether you went ahead and read the thread before replying.
Don't worry, I'm not going to paraphrase/steal/summarise all that's been said, I've already typed up my own definition. I've thought about it for some time thought and it may be a bit controversial so it would be best if I delayed its presentation as to avoid premature debate. Also, people will inevitably read it before posting so I don't want to influence them before they can present their opinions.
If we figure this out together we could end up with a really valuable tool that we can judge games with (and that can help us weed out the "this isn't hard or fair, IWBTG is harder" crap)!
Last edited by austere on Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
<RegalSin> It does not matter, which programming language you use, you will be up your neck in math.
Whenever I hear someone call a game fair, they usually follow it up with the phrase “you feel as though it is your fault you died”. Most people will able to relate to this, it is quite often accompanied by the feeling of being overwhelmed rather than frustrated. Or if frustrated, mostly at yourself rather than the game.
The best definition of fairness in an action game I could come up with is where a "perfect" player can complete the game during their first sitting. The ultimate 1CC. This is slightly different from saying a game is fair if it is possible to complete it (I mean if it’s not possible to complete, the game is broken or at least has a certain point agreed to be the point of completion – i.e. all games fit this condition, making it worthless): due to the condition of completion on their first sitting, the perfect player must complete the game with no prior knowledge of all the details (except, say a manual or the instructions at the start of a game).
Sounds good right? Unfortunately, all I've done is hide the definition under the term "perfect". What then, is a perfect player? A perfect player would have no reaction time, would be able to quickly analyse every situation and "judge" from his previous knowledge of the game, the best course of action. That is to say, the perfect player should not have played a game similar enough to the one we are judging.
As an example, someone experienced with STGs will know when it is time to stream, dodge or pattern form. As long as the game presents a situation where it is possible to dodge a section where streaming is optimal, the perfect player will be able to restrategise the next time around. As another example, consider Megaman, where the player is presented each enemy before actually having to defeat it in various situation. The perfect player will quickly learn the optimal technique and complete all the scenarios.
So, let us look at an example of what should definitely be an unfair game: I wanna be the guy (IWBTG). Most people say that this game is unfair and I have to agree. Does this definition weed this game out? This is when things get sticky. It turns out that I've yet again hid the definition under the term "judge" (which is why I used quotation marks on that word). For example, the perfect player need not even be human, how can we figure out what they would judge from all given information. Someone very familiar with platform games would make all the mistakes they were meant to in IWBTG, since it was designed to trip people who are used to them up. The perfect player might be a lot more careful! However, in the case of this game, there are decision that you can make which, even though they seem equally safe in comparison to other decisions, will end up failing you. Then it is settled, IWBTG is not a fair game.
... Or perhaps it is: what if there is something about the perfect player which causes him to choose the correct decision every time. Some bias in his decision making process that, in the example of Super Mario Bros 2, would cause him to avoid the poison mushrooms. A sort of intuition that this darker mushroom is bad for you? There's only one resolution to this: realising that every person has their own vision of the perfect player -- i.e. for lack of a better term, their own hyperplayer. From the perspective of this hyperplayer, which we all try to approach when we play and practice our favourite games, we judge whether a game is fair or not.
There lies the joy of playing a fair and difficult game for me. The more difficult (but fair) the game, the more enjoyable it seems. The more intricate the decision making process is. The faster I have to think and react. The more I try to minimise my own effective reaction time by using equipment (and programs!) with lower latency. As you learn each game you play, you compensate for your own flaws (reaction time, memory, nerves, limit of human ability etc.) and approximate the hyperplayer. Where parts would otherwise overwhelm you, you form strategies to minimise the chance of death. That’s why games which are not complex enough to present you with fair and challenging situation lead to frustration. That’s why euroshooters have health bars (to compensate for the poor design) and enemies that approach you from the back without any warning. The few bullets on the screen and the shitty patterns are easy to dodge, so they have to present something that seems like a challenge. Sure, you could go ahead and memorise everything but in the end it won’t be fun (unless one loves being frustrated, it’s not my thing!) and you won’t be able to complete much harder, but fairer games as a result of your practice. You’ll get pretty good at that game, but you won’t get pretty good.
So, to summarise, the decision of labelling a game fair is not universal. The best we can do is to argue whether our vision of a hyperplayer would be able to complete the game on their first try.
This post was reserved until the 28th of September.
Last edited by austere on Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
<RegalSin> It does not matter, which programming language you use, you will be up your neck in math.
since i only like play stgs, i'll just restrict my definition to that kinda shit because that's how super kool i r
In a single-player game where the player is meant to compete with other players for score or lowest times, anything is fair except an advantageous or disadvantageous event having any kind of bearing on a player's score that is not reproducible or otherwise makes a player's score incomparable to another's.
Man I hate that word. Anyway, I would define it as: Not Turok 2, or Shadow Dancer arcade (though, credit after credit, I finally cleared all of the last non-boss stage in one go...well, shit, except for the guys that disappear once being taken out the first time)
as far as that comment went, I was referring to what eoj had said about 1.0; that sounds pretty broken to me
I guess "random" one-ups are "unfair". I can definitely say that refusing to build your game so that pretty much everything can be dodged and trying to make it seem like it doesn't matter because you have a lifebar, is unfair.
I remember someone saying that if you can theoretically completely beat a given action game in exactly one try (and for "broken up" games this probably just means no game overing or quitting at any point), without getting hit or dying, via pure reflexes, it's probably fair. But uh...
austere wrote:Thus, my question is: How do you define fairness, in the context of action games?
When the game is hard but gives the player a chance at beating it, it's fair. When it's hard to the point of being almost impossible, or has mechanics that severely hinders your progress, it's unfair.
Beat-em-ups that reduce your health as time passes is really cheap and I consider unfair. Spider-man Arcade, US version of Metamorphic Force and Combatribes all has this, and they require near flawless play to beat, if they're beatable that is.
Quarter munchers come to mind as well. Narc is probably the best example I'm aware of; it's so hard it's stupid.
It should be possible for a hypothetical perfect player to beat a fair action game without taking any damage, on every attempt, and to do this without exploiting bugs or deliberately manipulating psuedo-random behavior.
That's not a complete description, just a baseline. Other things that I'd argue make a game unfair, or at least fucking obnoxious:
- Enemy attacks that can only be avoided by never entering the range of the attack
- Single enemy projectiles that hit multiple times as they pass through the player character (this is almost always due to terrible programming)
- Enemies that can attack from offscreen without telegraphing or following a consistent pattern
Ex-Cyber wrote:It should be possible for a hypothetical perfect player to beat a fair action game without taking any damage, on every attempt, and to do this without exploiting bugs or deliberately manipulating psuedo-random behavior.
That's not a complete description, just a baseline. Other things that I'd argue make a game unfair, or at least fucking obnoxious:
- Enemy attacks that can only be avoided by never entering the range of the attack
- Single enemy projectiles that hit multiple times as they pass through the player character (this is almost always due to terrible programming)
- Enemies that can attack from offscreen without telegraphing or following a consistent pattern
I agree completely. Though in a hitbar game, you can get away with enemies that are hard to avoid but which only take a very small amouhnt of health (e.g. Doom).
Also, new kinds of attacks and enemies (especially very deadly ones) need to be introduced to the player in a way that gives the player enough reaction time. And devs should not rely on save state to make a part "fair"-- saves should be there to help the player, but the game should be just as playable as if the game were created without a save feature.
I think difficulty curve plays a big part too because that sets expectations for the player.. it has to be somewhat smooth.
Fair would be a boss or enemy with a devastating attack, but that can be avoided, and leaves the boss vulnerable to retaliation if he misses. (That's you, Rugal Bernstein)
Enemies that don't snap out of their "pain" animation to quickly counter, DESPITE HAVING YOUR FIST ON THEIR FACE. (Looking at you, all bosses of SNK beat em ups prior to Sengoku 2)
Also, enemies not gaining invincibility. Except when they are falling, or just getting up. No other time applies. EVER.
Some pretty good responses so far! Ex-Cyber's one in hit the mark, my opinion. Probably because it's the closest to my own answer, lol. I'll give it a couple more days just in case there's more answers, but meanwhile check out this article:
Make sure to have a box of tissues on hand to wipe away the tears of laughter.
The question becomes: can we make a game that’s unfair and yet not frustrating?/moscallout Let us again lay out the standard argument against making an unfair game, “making a game unfair makes it frustrating and a frustrating game is unfun!” In this sentence lies the key to our problem. If we examine this sentence closely we find that it is not the unfairness that makes a game unfun but rather the resultant frustration. Thus our great question becomes: can we make a game that’s unfair and yet not frustrating
Woot. It is annoying how he comes close to figuring out the first piece of the puzzle but then backs away and hallucinates for a bit before coming at it again.
This article was aided by the assistance of Benjamin Lee Ahroni.
Let us now then work towards the crux of the solution, a formula for criteria whereby Kirby's Dreamland 3 is hitherto and presently the most superb action game of all time.
Why do pseudo-intellectuals try to come off like they do hard crossword puzzles yet cower/fume at the presence of an action game puzzle that doesn't involve pushing crates?
It should be possible for a hypothetical perfect player to beat a fair action game without taking any damage, on every attempt, and to do this without exploiting bugs or deliberately manipulating psuedo-random behavior.
I think if a game can be beat without dying it's fair. No damage takes it too far, but I'd say a game that allows for no damage is a better designed fair action game. A badly designed fair game should be called "Batman: Return of the Joker: A Knife in Your Face Just as the Enemy Appears"
I read most of that Game design article and these parts are intresting when applied to mainsteam gamers playing a shmup
Lack of Understanding
Any time where a player’s objective is unclear to them, their understanding of the controls incomplete or their comprehension of the meaning of the objects in the game hazy, they become frustrated. A game which is unfair ought to have excellent feedback mechanisms. If you put the player in a situation which is unwinnable you must make clear to them what doing better entails.
Repetition
Repetition is not fun. Even though we learn from repetition it’s still not enjoyable to be trounced all the time. It might behoove the designer to consider the unfair sections of their game like mini-games. The player must be able to progress through the game without having bested the unfair segments. Optimally, the player would get a chance to play these sections as often as they like, though that may not make sense within the context of your game.
This is what normally happens with most gamers trying out a shmup. As since they dont understand how to play shmups properlly both pratically (they dont understand the mechanics deeply) and mentally (they creditfeed their way to their goal which is the ending cutscene). Repetition in shmups is key, we might not mind so much but a non fan with a total lack of understanding isnt.
Maybe Cave and the rest should start to educate the ppl who play the games. I dont care how they do it (ingame or out) but ild rather have that they purposely changing their games to suit western gamers misconception. IE Slowdown removed from DS
On topic my opion of fairness is simlar to every one elses here but whats fair and unfair means different things to different types of gamers. eg a JRPG nut and a shmup nuts opion will be like ying and yang
