Should Gamers Use Smarter Problem-Solving?

Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Culture Clash' column exploring the effect of technical and gameplay advances on videogame problem-solving. A situation regarding Deus Ex: Invisible War is discussed, where "...testers approached a T intersection: to the right were laser tripwires and gun turrets; to the left was a locked door; and directly in front was a (usable) window. He said every single one of them, without fail, went to the right." The author explains: "One can imagine how frustrated developers must occasionally get when they watch gamers consistently employ Neolithic problem solving tactics when modern development tools make much more advanced techniques available." Is this a problem that developers or gamers should work to overcome?

Comments

Goofy Perceptions

[jmt9581]

Why do you think that every person goes right? For the exact same reason that people play games in the first place: excitement. Many people who play games are trained to go towards the machine guns, lasers, mirrors and battles in video games because that's traditionally wbere the action is in games. Gamers have been trained to do things like that because that's what games have taught them to do.

I like some of the ideas that are put forth in the article, but I think that people will gladly come up with new and interesting ways to succeed in games as the physics and AI models become increasingly complex.

Re:Goofy Perceptions

[gabec]

I've never played Deus Ex, but I know that in the scenario I would have done the same thing. Going to the left (Hallway with Guns and turrets) means a decided path from which you will not return.

Therefore if you go left to begin with you miss out on the other directions.

Even assuming I realized that the window worked, I would have still gone to the door first. Jumping through windows is usually a one-way event as well. Jump through, fall down a floor (or at least far enough that you can't hop back in) and continue with the game. So you still would be spending the rest of time wondering what was behind Door Number Three.

Going to the right, to the door, would present a small-risk. Go to the right, check the door. If it's locked at least you know you tried. Note it in case you have to come back or find a conspicuous key around. If it's not locked it's in all likelihood a room or closed-system with either plot or cool extra stuff at the end.

Not to mention that it answers the question: "What's Behind The Door?"

So I wouldn't call it "poor problem solving". I'd call it curiosity.

Tutorial much?

[BortQ]

I like the fact that the example provided happened to game testers. So hopefully when they saw this behavior they realized that they hadn't made clear all the options available to the user. Then they could add a tutorial, or maybe a cut seen with the key feature being somebody going through a window to avoid traps.

Hmm, something I just thought of: why would such a protected installation have a perfectly usable window there allowing intruders to gain entry?

Anyway, the key should be that as games continue to expand the range of what is possible in their system they must help the users discover and explore these new possibilities.

Ion Storm Austin needs to hire better testers

[frinsore]

I'm sorry, but this seems like Ion Storm's fault. They hired testers from a certain breed of gamers, the "casual hardcore gamers"; the type of gamer that spends a large amount of time with only a select few games, usually the most popular games at that.

If they had found people that had played similiar games, such as the original Deus Ex, Thief, or even Half Life, then 60 percent of the Thief gamers would go through the window while 80 percent of the Deus Ex and Half Life fans would have gone after the locked door expecting an item.

I'm sorry but multiple paths isn't a new conecpt, it was around in the oringal Deus Ex and Thief games, about 4 years ago. Invisible war being a sequal, I don't expect multiple solutions, I require that.

My personal problem with Invisible War was that the branching was pointless. All branches were shallow and did not require any special skills or abilities. If I'm given the option of blazing guns verse stealth I expect that choice to follow me for atleast 15 minutes, not the 30 seconds it takes to get past that one point. I wanted to feel like my actions defined the character, not always take the path of least resistance and then double back and make sure that nothing was missed with the second path that joined with the first after one room.

As for skipping the locked door ...

[dougmc]

Picking the lock on the locked door is quite possibly more expensive than fighting through the turrets and trip mines. At least in Deus Ex 1, you needed to use lock picks to unlock a door, and often they were a lot harder to find than ammunition and health packs. And if you never spent the points on learning to pick locks, you needed a lot of them.

And lots of games don't let you shoot out windows and go through them. If you want to let people do this, make it clear in the tutorial, or make it the only way to get through a section earlier in the game.

If you really want to make people go through the window and not through the war zone, make the war zone so incredibly difficult that nobody can get through. Eventually, people will look for another way.

Deveopers: stop making things indestructable!

[Lord Bitman]

I would take the laser tripwires path because I know when I'm being herded: the game continues in the direction that's the most-defended, everything else is always a dead-end.
I am sick of locked doors, unscalable short piles of office furniture, and unbreakable glass. I have grenades, you have technology. Stop making things indestructable! For gods' sake, I have a fucking CROWBAR, shouldnt I be able to pry something open? :)
As "interactive" and "dynamic" as half-life 2 claims to be, I know that it doesnt matter that "if it looks like wood, it splinters like wood!", because I'll still be herded along an unavoidable path full of enemies and scripted events. I would appreviate having the alternative method of reaching the end of the level by way of obliterating the entire building, thank you.

Not a fair test

[wowbagger]

There is not enough inforation in the article to judge whether the conclusion is fair or not.

First question: if I enter the T to examine the window, will I come under fire from the turrets?

Second question: Can I look through the window into the room beyond without breaking/opening it? I've not played Deus Ex, but in some games windows can be astonishingly opaque until smashed open.

In a fire situation, you neutralize the threats you can see first, then you look for the threats you couldn't see at first.

Here's roughly how I'd approach something like this:

OK, a T intersection. I can see a window. Crouch, sidle right, look as far left as I can without exposing myself to fire from the right. Hmm, a door. Maybe locked. Maybe has a oogie behind it, waiting for me to make a sound.

Sidle left, look right. Hmm. Lasers and at least one turrent. Will I come under fire if I enter the T? Maybe.

Look at the window. Looks breakable. Seemingly empty room beyond. Of course, there could be 2 oogies with Big Mean Nasty HoleMakers in either corner near me, and a Big Deep Pit With Sharp Pokey Things Of Instant Death just below the window.

OK, so the plan is: dive in left, sweep left to check for something in the corner, and then spin to check the turrets. If I come under fire, dive back out, attempting to take out one turret on the way. If nothing happens, check the door. OK, here goes...

At this point, if I start taking fire from the turrets I will HAVE to deal with them. IF this is how the setup worked it is little wonder most people dealt with the turrets first!