WouldBeCreator
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 936
Unfair surprise, they can suck it up and take it. If the system is worth pursuing, it is worth pursuing. You shouldn't avoid something just because it is new or different.
It really depends on the circumstance. A player should never die because the game functions in an unforeseeable way. So if the player starts with a torch, enters a dungeon, and it says, "It is dark. You should light a torch or a grue will eat you.", the player says, "Light torch," and it says, "It's to light your torch. A grue comes and eats you. You are dead.", that strikes me as a failed feature and the player shouldn't have to "suck it up and take it." It would be even worse if the game said, "You don't have anything to light the torch with! A grue comes and eats you."
Another would be if the player were told, "This dungeon is full of undead. I suggest you buy a weapon suitable to the situation.", and then when the player buys a mace and goes in, the weapon does no damage because in this game, undead can only be killed by having their heads cut off or being stabbed through the heart.
Players bring a set of expectations to the table and designers need to be cognizant of that. You can defy expectations if there is a good reason to, but that can't just be a 51/49 kind of thing, b/c the cost of changing is sufficiently high. That means WADS for shooters, the Warcraft 3x3 unit interface for RTS games, etc., unless there's a really good reason not to.
--EDIT--
Obviously, games where light is a central mechanic, you shouldn't take out light effects. Duh. Just like in games where dysentery is a central mechanic, you shouldn't take out shitting effects, as Galsiah noted.