Codex Interview Wasteland 2 RPG Codex Interview - Part 2: Michael A. Stackpole

[Gregz]

And yeah, it definitely sounds like he doesn't want puzzles in the game.

Google has made puzzles obsolete; sad but true.

You repeat this bullshit for the second time already, but I've yet to see you substantiate it in any way. People also refer to google for walkthroughs and FAQs; does that mean google has made all but reflex-based and roguelike games obsolete??

I thought it was just...obvious, and didn't require substantiation. It's perhaps true that the crowd and a few others have the discipline to resist using walkthroughs/spoilers/etc. when they are stuck, but I remember playing wasteland as a kid and being stuck for days at a time. A few puzzles had me guessing for nearly a week. Maybe I didn't have a password, or I was missing a particular key, or robot part, or whatever. These days, how many gamers can honestly claim they would backtrack around for a week to find a key or a password? My guess is almost no one (although lots of people bullshit themselves and others about how hardcore they are, which is a completely different issue).

Back then, before the cluebook or Google this was how games were played, and why they took so long to complete. It was very gratifying to finally solve the puzzle, but extremely frustrating until you did. Most gamers today don't have that kind of patience or threshold for frustration, especially with the temptation of spoilers just a Google search away.

That's what I mean when I say puzzles are 'obsolete'. Puzzles used to be extremely challenging barriers to advancement in a game, the advent of the internet has rendered them optional. Those two cases are universes apart.

 

[Condiments]

Knotanalt and Toxic, I believe I understand what you're saying about "emotional engagement", but I wish to inquire further. What would you say about genres like survival horror that are constructed with the intention of eliciting emotions like fear and dread through their game mechanics? Things like sparse resources, pacing, lack of player control/power in relation to enemies and obstacles(how effectively enemies can dispatched if at all, camera angles, controls) alongside both audio and visual direction. Without the atmosphere and fear, these games would exist only as clunky action shooters(RE5, dead space) with little reason to play. I don't think developers should just "develop" things without awareness of how their audience may react to it, but there shouldn't be a singular focus of "I want the player to feel bad so I'll blow up a child he knows nothing about in a cutscene. Killing children is bad and makes people sad."

I think the problem primarily with "emotional engagement" is that with games like Mass Effect 3, they seek to engage players not through player involvement and mechanics, but with cinematic movie techniques. There is little world reactivity to how you build your character, so the segregation between story and gameplay is never more present.

 

[St. Toxic]

I'll let Knot take it, I don't have the time. Suffice to say Resident Evil was at it's scariest when it wasn't trying to scare you by shoving zombies at you through walls.

 

[Infinitron]

What would you say about genres like survival horror that are constructed with the intention of eliciting emotions like fear and dread through their game mechanics? Things like sparse resources, pacing, lack of player control/power in relation to enemies and obstacles(how effectively enemies can dispatched if at all, camera angles, controls) alongside both audio and visual direction. Without the atmosphere and fear, these games would exist only as clunky action shooters(RE5, dead space) with little reason to play.

 

[St. Toxic]

SS is a pretty good example. Especially comparing it to Dead Space, where after you've seen all the cut-scenes and had all the "buh" moments once over, it becomes, as Condi said, "a clunky action shooter with little reason to play". Even the atmosphere is smeared on too thick at times, and you stop taking the situation seriously. At least in SS enemies would roam around, respawn, pop up where you didn't expect them to. So, build an intricate space station, fill it with monsters, make them roam and that's it, you'll have people shitting their pants without the addition of scripted hysteria, though naturally SS2 was hardly free from that. Now, just add creepy ambiance and radio logs and you're set. RE2 did something similar in the police compound, which was nice. But it also did plenty of the other stuff, with zombies "SURPRISE" attacking out of windows and shit.

 

[Jasede]

Wasteland 2 proposed Kickstarter rewards updated:
http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=133

DRM Free!
The skill and weapon for supporters will not affect the game balance but will absolutely be entertaining
Added a Wasteland 2 poster to a 'light' level
Added a digital concept art book
Did a solid pass on clarification of reward levels

 

[DwarvenFood]

Th..th... they listened to fan output ? :singletearofeagle:

 

[Infinitron]

Th..th... they listened to fan output ? :singletearofeagle:

Remember that their project's viability directly depends on it. They absolutely have to remove any possible reason for people deciding not to donate.

 

[thesisko]

I thought it was just...obvious, and didn't require substantiation. It's perhaps true that the crowd and a few others have the discipline to resist using walkthroughs/spoilers/etc. when they are stuck, but I remember playing wasteland as a kid and being stuck for days at a time. A few puzzles had me guessing for nearly a week. Maybe I didn't have a password, or I was missing a particular key, or robot part, or whatever. These days, how many gamers can honestly claim they would backtrack around for a week to find a key or a password? My guess is almost no one (although lots of people bullshit themselves and others about how hardcore they are, which is a completely different issue).

What kind of retarded argumentation is that? You're basically just saying that no one would subject themselves to gameplay that they don't enjoy. If the puzzles had you "guessing for a week", then they were either badly designed or you were/are an idiot. I don't think anyone is pining for "puzzles" that simply exist to force people to engage in hours of trial-and-error.

Back then, before the cluebook or Google this was how games were played, and why they took so long to complete. It was very gratifying to finally solve the puzzle, but extremely frustrating until you did. Most gamers today don't have that kind of patience or threshold for frustration, especially with the temptation of spoilers just a Google search away.

It doesn't sound like you were "solving" any puzzles. And you should feel either stupid or simply relieved after blindly stumbling into a solution after days of trial-and-error.

That's what I mean when I say puzzles are 'obsolete'. Puzzles used to be extremely challenging barriers to advancement in a game, the advent of the internet has rendered them optional. Those two cases are universes apart.

Like Crooked Bee said, if that's your argument then any sort of gameplay that isn't purely reflex-based is optional and therefore obsolete.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

Those puzzles were there to force the player to find clues and think. That wasn't enjoyable, that was a trial, only real übermenschen were able to finish the game... Unlike now.

 

[Spectacle]

Somebody better tell the DoubleFine guys that puzzles are obsolete.

 

[nihil]

The mandatory puzzles could be a bit simpler, while some optional stuff could have really difficult puzzles. It's up to each player whether to look up a FAQ or not. I only look up FAQs if I'm completely hindered from making progress for many hours, and not before trying all kinds of stuff. In an RPG, you can ideally approach other problems if you get stuck, and retry later when you're smarter. This is usually not the case in adventure games (it comes to mind that I looked up a thing or two when playing The Dig).

 

[Gregz]

I thought it was just...obvious, and didn't require substantiation. It's perhaps true that the crowd and a few others have the discipline to resist using walkthroughs/spoilers/etc. when they are stuck, but I remember playing wasteland as a kid and being stuck for days at a time. A few puzzles had me guessing for nearly a week. Maybe I didn't have a password, or I was missing a particular key, or robot part, or whatever. These days, how many gamers can honestly claim they would backtrack around for a week to find a key or a password? My guess is almost no one (although lots of people bullshit themselves and others about how hardcore they are, which is a completely different issue).

What kind of retarded argumentation is that? You're basically just saying that no one would subject themselves to gameplay that they don't enjoy. If the puzzles had you "guessing for a week", then they were either badly designed or you were/are an idiot. I don't think anyone is pining for "puzzles" that simply exist to force people to engage in hours of trial-and-error.

Back then, before the cluebook or Google this was how games were played, and why they took so long to complete. It was very gratifying to finally solve the puzzle, but extremely frustrating until you did. Most gamers today don't have that kind of patience or threshold for frustration, especially with the temptation of spoilers just a Google search away.

It doesn't sound like you were "solving" any puzzles. And you should feel either stupid or simply relieved after blindly stumbling into a solution after days of trial-and-error.

That's what I mean when I say puzzles are 'obsolete'. Puzzles used to be extremely challenging barriers to advancement in a game, the advent of the internet has rendered them optional. Those two cases are universes apart.

Like Crooked Bee said, if that's your argument then any sort of gameplay that isn't purely reflex-based is optional and therefore obsolete.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. I had several very smart friends growing up, and they were just as challenged by those puzzles as I was (it was part of what made them fun).

I'm not making an 'argument', I'm describing my personal experience of before and after. Gaming today is fundamentally different than it was before the internet. In ways that are not often discussed. You don't understand this because you could barely read when I was playing Wasteland at age 15, before the internet existed. My describing what it was like obviously doesn't translate into your understanding what it was like. You were either there and know what I'm talking about or you weren't. Just like a lot of things in life.

I still play plenty of old-school RPGs with puzzles, but it's not the same as it was in the past. Today I'm always aware that there's a solution online. This was a non-option before the internet, because the internet didn't exist. If you were stuck, you were really stuck. The difference in wording is subtle, the gameplay impact is huge.

 

[thesisko]

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. I had several very smart friends growing up, and they were just as challenged by those puzzles as I was (it was part of what made them fun).

I've played enough adventure games in the 90's to know exactly what I'm talking about. The very fact that your so-called "smart" friends were equally stumped suggests that they were not "puzzles" to be cracked by applying brainpower but probably more in the vein of having/using/activating a specific object at a specific place for no apparent reason.

I still play plenty of old-school RPGs with puzzles, but it's not the same as it was in the past. Today I'm always aware that there's a solution online. This was a non-option before the internet, because the internet didn't exist. If you were stuck, you were really stuck. The difference in wording is subtle, the gameplay impact is huge.

And your point is what exactly? That you enjoy being frustrated yet are unable to prevent yourself from ending your enjoyment by willfully bypassing gameplay you claim to like?

 

[Gregz]

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. I had several very smart friends growing up, and they were just as challenged by those puzzles as I was (it was part of what made them fun).

I've played enough adventure games in the 90's to know exactly what I'm talking about. The very fact that your so-called "smart" friends were equally stumped suggests that they were not "puzzles" to be cracked by applying brainpower but probably more in the vein of having/using/activating a specific object at a specific place for no apparent reason.

I still play plenty of old-school RPGs with puzzles, but it's not the same as it was in the past. Today I'm always aware that there's a solution online. This was a non-option before the internet, because the internet didn't exist. If you were stuck, you were really stuck. The difference in wording is subtle, the gameplay impact is huge.

And your point is what exactly? That you enjoy being frustrated yet are unable to prevent yourself from ending your enjoyment by willfully bypassing gameplay you claim to like?

I made my point above, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And I enjoy a challenge, not being frustrated. That's a gray area spectrum. You probably don't understand what that means either, but I typed it out just in case.

That you enjoy being frustrated yet are unable to prevent yourself from ending your enjoyment by willfully bypassing gameplay you claim to like?

I think this is what you're so butthurt over, this is your regular mode of play, but you still need to feel 'hard core' and what I'm saying about puzzles being 'obsolete' challenges your self image. I sympathize, and there are times when I slip and google that spoiler faster than I should, but that's my point...times have changed...irrevocably...and games can't be designed with the same set of assumptions as they were in the pre-internet days.

TL;DR:

Puzzles used to be challenging 'gatekeeper' barriers of advancement. The internet has rendered them optional and toothless. There really is no debate here, and it's what I meant when I said puzzles are 'obsolete'.

 

[thesisko]

and games can't be designed with the same set of assumptions as they were in the pre-internet days.

Funny how I remember popular adventure games continuing to sell years after complete walkthroughs had been publish in numerous magazines. Hell, some games even shipped with a built-in walkthroughs or hints.
And I guess if you knew someone who'd beaten a game it also instantly became obsolete? How about them hintlines? Your internet argument is just a strawman.

Puzzles used to be challenging 'gatekeeper' barriers of advancement.

According to you. A puzzle should be designed with the intent to entertain, not frustrate.

The internet has rendered them optional and toothless.

The internet, or rather anything that makes a portion of game play effectively optional simply means that individuals will not subject themselves to it if they don't consider it to be entertaining. That's hardly something negative.

 

[thesisko]

Let me lay it out for you more clearly:
With playtesting, it's possible to take pretty much any of your beloved old-school puzzles and add enough hints and guidance so that someone such as yourself can solve it in approximately whatever amount of time it takes for you to break down and look up the answer.
Now, if that scenario still makes you pine for the good old days without internet then you're pretty much declaring yourself a moron, since you're saying that you wish it took more time to solve it, but if it did then it would be "obsolete" because you'd look up the solution.

And let's also analyze your actual claim here, that the internet has made puzzles "obsolete":
Since developers just want to sell their games and don't really give a fuck about you using a walkthrough or not, you must mean that you no longer enjoy a game with puzzles and won't pay for it. You used to like games where you solved puzzles but now you can't stand them because of the internet, correct?

 

[Country_Gravy]

Quest for Clues.

Anybody?

 

[Gregz]

thesisko

The playtesting theory doesn't wash because you have a highly variable audience. For instance, when I was 15 Finster's Brain was genuinely challenging (to the point of being frustrating). When I was 21 or so I replayed Wasteland after having studied computer science at GA Tech, and it was trivial. I walked right through it. I was surprised, because I remembered that part of the game being quite difficult. The difference was really night and day. So I thought about it, and realized the puzzle was designed by programmers, and that the puzzles reflected their skillset as programmers. Lots of binary math, etc. It was trivial for me because I had picked up those skills in the meantime, whereas when I was 15 I didn't know anything about programming or cs theory etc. The puzzle hadn't changed, I had.

Most people enjoy gaming because it gives them a sense of accomplishment (false or otherwise), solving puzzles gives the player a sense of accomplishment. So I genuinely want them in games, but designing spoiler-proof puzzles is non-trivial.

A few posts up, I mentioned Portal 1 and Portal 2. I really enjoyed those games, and they are generally quite popular. But...paradox...they are puzzle-based...wouldn't people use spoilers to get through the game and self-ruin the experience? Nope. Why? The puzzles are relatively trivial at the start, and as you advance from one level to the next the puzzles 'teach' the player how to solve the next level. The spoiler is built into the game, but the player experiences it as learning instead of cheating. So the illusion of accomplishment is maintained for the player. It's a clever way of solving the problem. So I'm not saying puzzles have no place in games today, or that it's an impossible problem to solve. It's just much harder to do right in today's environment.

 

[thesisko]

It was trivial for me because I had picked up those skills in the meantime, whereas when I was 15 I didn't know anything about programming or cs theory etc. The puzzle hadn't changed, I had.

And the problem is...? As long as people buy their game and enjoy the idea that it contains puzzles it doesn't matter if they solved it slowly, quickly or used a walkthrough.

Most people enjoy gaming because it gives them a sense of accomplishment (false or otherwise), solving puzzles gives the player a sense of accomplishment. So I genuinely want them in games, but designing spoiler-proof puzzles is non-trivial.

You didn't answer my question though. Would knowing that a game contains hard puzzles have enticed you to buy it pre-internet era but not today?

A few posts up, I mentioned Portal 1 and Portal 2. I really enjoyed those games, and they are generally quite popular. But...paradox...they are puzzle-based...wouldn't people use spoilers to get through the game and self-ruin the experience? Nope. Why? The puzzles are relatively trivial at the start, and as you advance from one level to the next the puzzles 'teach' the player how to solve the next level. The spoiler is built into the game, but the player experiences it as learning instead of cheating. So the illusion of accomplishment is maintained for the player. It's a clever way of solving the problem. So I'm not saying puzzles have no place in games today, or that it's an impossible problem to solve. It's just much harder to do right in today's environment.

Sounds more like your standards of what you consider to be an enjoyable puzzle have changed. If there was no internet but some games had frustrating "old-school" puzzles and other games had puzzles like you describe above....which would you have preferred playing?

 

[Gregz]

It was trivial for me because I had picked up those skills in the meantime, whereas when I was 15 I didn't know anything about programming or cs theory etc. The puzzle hadn't changed, I had.

And the problem is...? As long as people buy their game and enjoy the idea that it contains puzzles it doesn't matter if they solved it slowly, quickly or used a walkthrough.

I didn't enjoy the puzzle in either scenario. The first time it was too hard, and the second time it was too easy.

You didn't answer my question though. Would knowing that a game contains hard puzzles have enticed you to buy it pre-internet era but not today?

It's not an answerable question. I enjoy puzzles, enjoy challenges, and enjoy discovering solutions. If the game requires that I prove Fermat's Last Theorem in order to unlock content however, I would stop playing. That's the problem, how do you design interesting and engaging puzzles for 3rd graders, housewives, consoletards, and math professors? How do you avoid frustrating one or boring the other?

Sounds more like your standards of what you consider to be an enjoyable puzzle have changed. If there was no internet but some games had frustrating "old-school" puzzles and other games had puzzles like you describe above....which would you have preferred playing?

No, because the 2nd time around Finster's Brain was trivial. Too easy is just as bad as too hard. It's an experience of boredom vs. frustration, neither of which is desirable in a game. I don't have a solution, my point is that the vast majority of game designers don't have a solution either. Portal was flat surfaces and bouncing balls, extremely simple compared to a 'breathing world' RPG. The perfect game would be chock full of puzzles that engage and challenge a player of any level/experience, and one that uses the RNG+adaptable AI, or some other mechanic, such that there's not a single walkthrough on the internet because there's no demand for one.

 

[thesisko]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the existence of a walkthrough is somehow a problem. It's not. All your other statements are perfectly reasonable and equally valid whether a walkthrough exists or not.
Casual gamers wouldn't suddenly become fans of frustrating puzzles if they didn't have walkthroughs, they'd just play less frustrating games, like Portal.

 

[Gregz]

Well, there's no label on the box that says:

Warning: you will not enjoy this game unless 85 < Your IQ < 115

If the player is frustrated or bored it's already too late, and there's really no way for a particular player to know that ahead of purchasing the game. That's one issue.

The other is just anecdotal experience. Way back in the day, I remember playing these games...like Zork for instance...with a buddy...and we'd spend hours trying to figure something out, and when we finally did we'd jump off our seats and cheer like it was the greatest thing in the world. Some of that was just being young, but there is a correlation between how emotionally invested you are (blood, sweat and tears) and the emotional payoff of solving the puzzle. Most great/moving/powerful films involve the protagonist overcoming incredible odds and difficult circumstances (Rocky is one example), that's why we're moved when he finally succeeds at the end...because we struggled with him during the preceding 90 minutes.

Likewise with a game, you can't bullshit yourself after having spent hours pulling your hair our, and then finally getting that 'aha!' moment. It's a great feeling.

I haven't had that kind of feeling playing a computer game in a long, long time. Since the advent of Google and walkthroughs actually. (Well, OK, I remember camping the AC for a week in SRo and getting jboots in EQ, I was grinning ear to ear for hours after that...not a puzzle per se put plenty of pain and tedium that finally paid off). So I think frustration is a double-edged sword, it really sucks being stuck for hours...days...a week...but nothing is as gratifying as solving that problem without help.

I don't think most people do that today. They sweat a little, say fuck it, and Google their way to the credits. (Or some variation in between). It's a completely different experience.

 

[Jasede]

That's pretty much it. You just can't replicate the feeling of being stuck on a puzzle for hours, days, only to find the solution while you are in the bathtub, on the train or dreaming. Sure, there were helplines back then, but did your parents allow you calling them?

A couple of my greatest memories were about solving some tough puzzles on my own: winning the best ending in KQ 6, beating all the Quest for Glory games fair and square, finally having the right idea on what to do in a certain spot in Anchorhead and so on.

Yes, you had helplines and such back then, but that was a lot more effort than just slamming your query into Gamefaqs. Even reading a magazine was more effort. You were willing to grit your teeth and keep trying, no matter how long it might take you to finally beat the puzzle path in Indiana Jones 4: The Fate of Atlantis.

If your adventure doesn't have those "Help, I am stuck for a hours/days" moments it just isn't the same and nothing you can argue rationally can convince me otherwise.

I am sure all of you who played through Monkey Island as a kid, or Day of the Tentacle, or any other classic you care to name know exactly what I mean.

Edit: I just remembered not without sentimental memories the point in Day of the Tentacle in which I was helplessly stuck: I needed to open a car's trunk and didn't have the key. I searched everywhere, for hours. Until it finally struck me that it might very well be stuck in a door, but I couldn't see it from my angle because the door's backside wasn't visible...

 

[thesisko]

Still skirting around...the Internet isn't the issue. Either people enjoy the whole experience or they skip it because they don't think it's good use of their time. Whether they skip it by using a walkthrough or by playing something else is irrelevant.

And your line of logic still assumes that not having access to a walkthrough would make people more likely to buy a game with hard puzzles. Because that's what developers base their decisions on, sales, not whether people cheated or not.