Timeline for How do I get players to say "no" when they are afraid of missing out on sidequests or XP?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2019 at 17:08 | history | edited | altskop | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved grammar in some sentences
|
| Jan 28, 2019 at 10:51 | comment | added | Baldrickk | My version of this story was at a point in one of the COD games my friend was playing. He couldn't complete one mission - if you've played it, it's the one where you end up running towards extraction through some woods with mortar fire all around you. We played it enough we knew where every single explosion happened, where every enemy was, so much so that we were head-shotting them the first time they came out from behind cover, but always got hit by an explosion as we left the trees and died. Turns out the only way is to sprint past everything without stopping. It doesn't tell you this. | |
| Oct 5, 2017 at 17:26 | comment | added | Kevin Fee | Another example of your suggestions is "Until Dawn" which has an early bit that says "Sometimes the best choice is to do nothing at all" while giving you the option to throw a snowball that will smack a bird and kill it (which then notes that "Nature is out of balance" and results in animals trying to kill you later). From what I've seen of people playing it, people understood the message, and if they didn't, they understood after they killed the bird. | |
| Oct 3, 2017 at 23:47 | vote | accept | Thunderforge | ||
| Oct 3, 2017 at 16:45 | comment | added | TylerH | @ShaharDekel Yes, I mention that in my fleshed out answer. | |
| Oct 3, 2017 at 15:52 | comment | added | Shahar Dekel | @TylerH a "maybe later" option may require to change the game mechanics. If, for example, an XP is rewarded for a side-quest, then to keep the quest relevant to the player's level, it should also feature stronger enemies, better loot, more XP etc... | |
| Oct 3, 2017 at 14:37 | comment | added | Shufflepants | Personally, my ingrained sense of how video games work lead me to hack literally everything in the building I could before heading up to go on the hostage mission. And even when I was told that the hostages had already died, I assumed it had nothing to do with my decision to dawdle around and that it was impossible to save the hostages. This idea was further reinforced when I didn't even find the room with the dead hostages. It wasn't until I saw online somewhere about an achievement for saving them that I realized that it was even possible to save them. | |
| Oct 3, 2017 at 9:25 | comment | added | Konerak | The takeaway about the DX:HR story is that it follows a classic software development pattern "fail early, fail loudly" (or fast-often-whatever the speaker wants). The idea is to give early feedback and make sure the intended recipient gets it, so he can use it further along the process. On a sidenote, I can't think of any other DX:HR quest further in the game which is so time-critical again... | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 16:04 | comment | added | Anoplexian | As a player, I read the options because I've played numerous games with the mindset of "find everything". I'd say to never force the player to make a choice that drastically affects already put in gameplay. That is to say, never force the player to make a choice that is irreversible. An example is Mount & Blade, in which given an option at the beginning the game will save at every city. If you make a decision to "secede" from your kingdom and take the city you sieged anyway, you don't have the ability to reverse it without either a different save or numerous hours of further gameplay. | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 15:14 | comment | added | TylerH | @trlkly Good suggestion; I've answered with a fleshed-out response now. Thanks | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 13:20 | comment | added | David Starkey |
+1 This is exactly what I was thinking. Build it into the tutorial, using relatively minor consequences at first if you'd like. It's just like teaching players to think with portals or jump to hit ? blocks.
|
|
| Oct 2, 2017 at 6:22 | comment | added | trlkly | @TylerH You really ought to make that a full answer. Maybe flesh it out a bit, but still give it as an answer. Something like that might actually be enough without drastic changes. | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 6:08 | comment | added | John D | @Thunderforeige Why don't you make it so even if they choose yes, it will still lead to the same outcome as the no path | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 0:04 | history | edited | altskop | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved wording and corrected couple errors
|
| Oct 1, 2017 at 22:28 | comment | added | TylerH | Another alternative would be to offer them a "maybe later" option instead of a flat out "no". That would tell RPG players "OK, I can come back to this later/it will be offered again later, I don't have to do it now". As a player I really appreciate these opportunities because I do hate to miss out on potential XP/game play. | |
| Oct 1, 2017 at 18:23 | history | edited | altskop | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed a grammar error
|
| Oct 1, 2017 at 18:16 | history | answered | altskop | CC BY-SA 3.0 |