Player Convenience VS Game Depth

[Lux_Rayna]

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

I think you're talking about world dynamics, anything that makes the world feel more alive and feel ever-changing. Pokemon and your examples are examples of world dynamics. I like world dynamics, but I find that it really depends on how and why certain dynamics are implemented. In the pokemon example, a better decision would have been to make all pokemon available at all times of day. The only difference is that some would be rarer depending on the time, and when found they would be asleep until attacked. That adds dynamics in its true form, without taking inconvenience beyond conceivable limits.

I don't mind inconvenience, but i want it to be tasteful and logical. Mud frogs come out in the rain? Fine that sounds awesome. But *only* found in the rain? No way. Mud Frogs don't just disappear from the face of the planet when it isn't raining. They come out in the open when its raining, but where are they when its not raining? They have to be somewhere. That means SE has to make them available; otherwise its just a needlessly inconvenient mechanic.

I prefer world dynamics, but only when it isn't done purely at the player's expense.

[Gramul]

"Depth."
I really hate easy mode. Things get done way too quickly and I end up unsatisfied.

[Viritess]

I like the examples you gave. so i'll try and give an answer by the examples you gave.

The forggies. I personally don't have much issue wiith the rain = Frogspawn. The question becomes what is the timetable for rain. if its in Gridania, its raining alot there. Ul'dah, not so much. If it rains enough the people have some chance to nab a frog more then once a while in forever, i find it a fine mechanic.

How many frogs we spawning? I think you'd have to be careful about how many "limiting" mechanics you pile ontop of each other. If you have to wait for rain, there should be a TON of frogs spawning, likely in a few areas. So if people do have to wait for it to rain. they will have a likelyhood of actually finding and killing a frog. Droprate is another pile on.

My point. You probably don't want people waiting for rain that happens once a week, for a chance to kill 1 of 3 frogs Frog camping fest), that have a 1% drop rate for frog skin.

You probably want, wait for rain that falls every few hours. Frog fest. Reasonable chance of Frog skin. (little need to camp frog spawns)

For the sneaky example:

I also have no problem with the base mechanics but i'd tune them a bit: Instead of being booted to your return point. Have the guards rough you up and throw you outside the door. Since you've already failed to get to your goal. and will have to go through the same part you got to last time i see little reason to make you chocobo a travel distance all over again.

You'd likely want Sneaky, Sucsess = You are sneaky, goal meet. Failure = Start from the beginning and did not meet goal.

You probably wouldn't want: Sucsess = You are sneaky, goal meet. Failure = Goal not meet, have to start over, have to travel distance from home town/rez spot.

If you see the theme i'm pointing to. Often failure and having to go through from the begining is a fine penalty for failure itself. anything added to the top is generally time sink and exactly what people with limited time do not have the time to do. I know very few people who even with limited time have issues with having to "try again" if they fail. What they have issue with is the extra crap added onto the price of failure for little reason beside taking time.

And the point i'm pointing to with the frog example is if your looking for an interesting mechanic dealing wirt timeing. that should be the interesting mechanic. You likely shouldn't be asking people no matter how much time they can put in to wait for the stars and planets to align. Design your interesting mechanic, and make that the roadblock. If that is overcome (waited for rain) the rest should be effort of skill.

Summary: If part of your design involves Time used or timing, do your best to make that the only Time used or waited for mechanic in that "quest" or activity. Piling a bunch of time related mechanics onto a single activity hardly helps (And in my opinion is bad design anyway)

[Zyph]

There is no reason game depth has to mean sacrificing convenience. There are different ways to add depth, different areas that can be expanded on, allowing for complexity for those who choose to look for it, without being a burden for everyone else.

[Pyretta_Blaze]

Not getting into semantics or anything I think I am understanding what you are asking. I would much prefer depth. I would definitely prefer the longer airship ride. To me it is more of a "living world" type thing as is the frog skin example.

Bonus points if there were random occurrences on the airship you could be involved in if you wanted.

While the word convenience is often sounds like "EZ button" to me but things shouldn't be inconvenient for the sake of being time consuming.

[Jocko]

Viritess, I completely agree. I'm all for the opposition of pointless time sinks, but I'm also for adding an element of "chance", so to say. Nothing like the claim wars of XI, but enough to make a player go "oh!" as they're traveling towards a certain objective, stop, and take advantage of a situation that may not always be available to them. Going back to the frog example, I liked how you brought up that the amount of rain is dependent on the area that you're in. If you're going around Uldah for a large amount of time, you'll rarely see the mud frogs spawn, but when you travel to Gridania, there's a decent chance it will start raining on the way and you'd think "Oh, hey! I should stop and farm some mud frogs while I'm here and try to get 5 or 6 skins". That's sort of what I envision when I talk about mechanics such as these.

[northernsky]

[...]but I'm also for adding an element of "chance", so to say. Nothing like the claim wars of XI, but enough to make a player go "oh!" as they're traveling towards a certain objective, stop, and take advantage of a situation that may not always be available to them. [...]

I was not sure if I was agreeing with OP, but this part is really well said.

Reminds me of the random NPC that popped regarding imperial attacks recently. I thought it was quite exciting and added a little something when it popped as you passed by, but people got frustrated because of the unpredictable nature of the pops and unsuccessful farming for hours.

So yeah, if you want to take part in said content at any time just because, it gets frustrating, but if you see it as yet an additional, rare content, it effectively adds a lot of life and depth to the game. It's not a question of easy vs hard

[indira]

Player Convenience VS Game Depth

Player Convenience = short game life people will just move on since they win the game faster.

Game Depth = and actual game with checks and balences, not a here you go this epic armor for 50gil.

[Rokien]

Game depth includes the world around you, that even means waiting for an airship ride....

[Zyph]

Game depth includes the world around you, that even means waiting for an airship ride....

That even means riding on the airship even for 5 minutes and seeing the world pass below you, even if it is a low-poly model of the continent, it still feels breathtaking.