   Game progress too straightforward?
  Now I am not arguing that games are too easy, indeed I often argue that they can betoo hard.  But that they don''t require much brain-power or strategic thought beside solving a few puzzles.  It is usually a case of solve level , go to next one. Rinse, Repeat.It would be interesting to see more games where you have to take advantage of the strategic opportunities in order to make sure that you survive.  Some examples that give an example of this might work are RPGs where you start off fairly weak and have to level up (by fighting and returning to base to heal several times) and use your abilities to the optimum level in order to survive to the next town. I am not saying that games should be about leveling up, but that they should demand more strategic thought from the player.  For example how do they get to the next section when there is a troll that is too big to defeat (at least on the first encounter?) Would you need to backtrack to find a better weapon or hire some mercenary bodyguards?.  They don''t have a guarantee of being able to easily do the next bit, it isn''t just a cakewalk.Then again. 
  Remember that different people have different tastes, and a single person can enjoy different things depending on their mood (like moving from Serious Sam   to TES3:Morrowind   to Sokoban   in a single week).I think we already have game types adapted to all current player types (while I won''t argue that new niches can''t eventually open up), and many of these games even manage to hit different audiences (try playing Serious Sam   in Hard Mode for the high-score, or   in Tourist mode for the hidden secret areas, for instance).To sum it up, choose whatever game style(s) you like and create a game with it.   Victor Nicollet, INT13 game programmer ;  So you'd like that early decisions have impact beyond their immediate significance. I don't think this is possible with games that expect their players to go through the game only once. A very replayable game can easily do this. In ADOM for instance, the first time player would easily kill a cat without worrying of it's tragical moan. An experienced player would know that the very important Cat Lord quest is lost by killing even one feline - and would go to great lengths to save them - gathering giant rat corpses, saving wands of teleporting, refraining from firing spells at rooms they cannot see, etc. etc. The first kill in ADOM is very important for two (opposite) reasons: a quest asks to kill 20 monsters of the same species as the first kill - another asks to go down some infinitely deep dungeon as many levels as many as first kill monsters were killed (the difficulty increases with depth). A lot of experience is required to know what to kill at first.    ______________________________________Pax Solaris  [edited by - Diodor on February 14, 2004 10:44:35 AM];quote:Original post by Diodor  In ADOM for instance, the first time player would easily kill a cat without worrying of it''s tragical moan. An experienced player would know that the very important Cat Lord quest is lost by killing even one feline - and would go to great lengths to save them - gathering giant rat corpses, saving wands of teleporting, refraining from firing spells at rooms they cannot see, etc. etc.That''s cheating. The game handicaps me by causing me to lose a potential benefit without being aware of it. If I wasn''t aware, I should be able to inform the Cat Lord so, perhaps perform some penance, and then go ahead and fulfill his quest. ;  Not  cheating, but definitely a drag.  I guess if the world was structured such that any combination of actions and decisions would open a set of opportunities while closing a different set, it would be better.  For instance, in the Ogre Battle games, different decisions cause different special characters to join your party.  At one point, you can only get a character to join if you''ve already recruited a few of his comrades, because they can talk him into it, but if you have anyone at all from that nation in your army,  different character will refuse to associate himself with you, and will fight you to the death.So a good system for this would be one that never really screws the player entirely, but also makes it impossible to "max out" all your secret skills and inventory.  You shouldn''t be able to be a high priest of two opposing cults at the same time, and you shouldn''t be able to get the national treasures of all the warring states, unless you steal them.  You can''t please all of the people all of the time, but it takes a real jerk to make them all angry, too. 