Avoid Balancing All The Fun Out Of The Game

[ffordesoon]

This might be controversial, so let me explain myself a bit. I'm also not sure if anyone's asked for this specific thing yet, but I want to make sure it's covered, and I have no idea what the hell to type into the search engine, so feel free to merge this thread with another one if this has been covered before.

One thing I like about games before "AAA experiences" were A Thing is that they let you break and exploit them in fun ways. In Fallout, to use an example I'm sure you're familiar with, the gambling system in that game was, depending on your stats, just hilariously broken. If your Gambling stat was above, like, 50%, and you had a Luck of 5 or above, it paid out often enough that some careful play could easily net you 2000+ caps in about a half-hour. Some would say that's cheating. I say it's fun. Why? Because nothing about that contradicts the rules of the game, you still have to earn a good chunk of caps doing quests so you don't go broke, your stats have to be within a certain threshold, and it takes a long time to earn any real money unless you're playing a dedicated gambler character. Another good example: Deus Ex and its LAM-stacking trick. Or putting a bucket over some dude's head in Skyrim and robbing him blind. I'm sure we can all name more.

When I play something like Mass Effect, by contrast, it's fun, but they've overcorrected. I'm restricted to one path, skills progress in an utterly linear fashion and branch once, and there's nothing I can exploit in a fun way. There are exploits, but nothing emergent or interesting or humorous. It's all dull stuff like "This gun is obviously the best gun in the game!" and "This skill works too well!" I realize Mass Effect isn't a sandbox game, but you see my point.

So, basically, give us a smorgasbord of systems created for maximum enjoyment, not maximum balance. Let us poke and prod them, and if they occasionally shit out a brick made of solid gold, smile and nod and let us keep it.

Does that make sense, or am I being too obtuse?

[cah]

Bugs can be fun, but I think one would have a better time playing with the modding tools.

[Color Blotch]

Does that make sense

For me, no it doesn't. I find the main purpose of core gameplay mechanics is to create an illusion of "having interests" in game. You want money to buy stuff because you need stuff to survive. You organize your party, develop strategies and builds all for that purpose. It is the perception of that interest that drives your in game motivations. And it is with these motivations you can imagine real characters making their difficult decisions as they go through the story. But as soon as illusion of having interest breaks, so do motivations, so does roleplaying.

Playing Skyrim with a sword doing 350+ damage per swing is only fun for a couple of hours. But after that you suddenly find that when nothing threatens you, your "battles" now is just clicking on enemies. You can defeat anyone, but you don't need to, and you don't care.

Bugs can be fun, but I think one would have a better time playing with the modding tools.

Yeah, there's an unlimited potential for breaking everything in every imaginable way for those who find the game too balanced for their liking.

EDIT:

When I play something like Mass Effect, by contrast, it's fun, but they've overcorrected. I'm restricted to one path, skills progress in an utterly linear fashion and branch once, and there's nothing I can exploit in a fun way. There are exploits, but nothing emergent or interesting or humorous. It's all dull stuff like "This gun is obviously the best gun in the game!" and "This skill works too well!" I realize Mass Effect isn't a sandbox game, but you see my point.

If there's anything wrong with Mass Effect then it's certainly not too much balance. It has horrendous difficulty spikes, the skill system is full of holes and equipment progression makes utterly no sense. Not to say that it's a bad game (I actually like it quite a bit), but if you using it as an example, then it's likely you don't actually mind balance as much as something else.

[axeldeath]

"Avoid Balancing All The Fun Out Of The Game"

You've never played Wizardry then I take it.

[Drool]

Playing Skyrim with a sword doing 350+ damage per swing is only fun for a couple of hours. But after that you suddenly find that when nothing threatens you, your "battles" now is just clicking on enemies. You can defeat anyone, but you don't need to, and you don't care.

Frankly, Morrowind was much worse in this regard. Potions of Fortify Intelligence broke the hell out of the game. To say nothing of a sword with Calm Human and Calm Monster on it...

[Color Blotch]

Frankly, Morrowind was much worse in this regard. Potions of Fortify Intelligence broke the hell out of the game. To say nothing of a sword with Calm Human and Calm Monster on it...

I didn't mean Skyrim as the worst case example, just something from my recent memory. As for Morrowind, yeah, I always thought of it as a game in which you kind of have to make the rules for yourself. The toughest part in it, rather than finding exploits, is to think of a way to play the game which isn't an exploit in one form or the other.

Anyway, after rereading the first post I believe that what the OP meant to say is "Avoid removing features and simplifying gameplay due to balancing concerns". Fallout and Mass Effect are probably bad example in this case though. Since there's pretty much no balance in Mass Effect, it's unlikely that any of design decisions in that game were dictated by the need to improve balance. Comparing Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2 is probably a better way to illustrate that point.

[Zombra]

As long as I don't trip over exploits left and right, I'm happy. The game certainly doesn't need to be balanced into superbland homogeniety.

Personally, I play games "as intended" and don't look for the cracks filled with infinite xp loops. If there's broken stuff, I usually don't even notice.

So please at least playtest enough that "normal" players, if there are such a thing, won't find obviously broken tools. Thanks. Good post ffordesoon.

[Grampybone]

I have a different balance proposition. Don't make NPCs and opponents lvl up with you. Fallout had it perfect. Some areas are tribals, some deathclaws. It's up to players to explore and avoid areas if their asses got kicked.
Nothing worse than having a same battle with same lvl opponents wherever you go.

[axeldeath]

As long as I don't trip over exploits left and right, I'm happy. The game certainly doesn't need to be balanced into superbland homogeniety.

Personally, I play games "as intended" and don't look for the cracks filled with infinite xp loops. If there's broken stuff, I usually don't even notice.

So please at least playtest enough that "normal" players, if there are such a thing, won't find obviously broken tools. Thanks. Good post ffordesoon.

I never understand this viewpoint, wouldn't the game being balanced make it far funner when doing replays. It means that all playstyles are valid, if your game is too unbalanced it restricts the number of ways you can play. How does balancing remove the fun from the game?

[Balls Out 3]

I agree to an extent. Once a game is too balanced, it does tend to feel a bit bland. I'm not sure "balance" is quite the way to define the problem for me, though. This is a bit hard to describe, so buckle up for a minute. I'm about to get a little abstract on yo ass.

If you were to imagine the "fun level" or "progress" of a game to be plotted out as data points on a chart, the old CRPGs would have a very rocky line, with ups and downs, but a clear overall slope upwards. The newer Mass Effect games would have the same slope as well, but it would have a much smoother curvature (and IMO, never quite reaches the same level of fun).

An example to illustrate this would be like getting the SMG in Fallout. That was a big, satisfying, and fun jump in power, but I wouldn't say it broke the balance. In a lot of modern games you wouldn't find anything like that, you'd just find another gun that is slightly better than the previous one. Another example would be how the level scaling was done, as was already mentioned. Give me the rocky road over the clear, straight, and narrow one any day. Turn the dial up to 11, instead of 6. Fuck having a smooth, even gradient. Hopefully you see my point.

[axeldeath]

I agree to an extent. Once a game is too balanced, it does tend to feel a bit bland. I'm not sure "balance" is quite the way to define the problem for me, though. This is a bit hard to describe, so buckle up for a minute. I'm about to get a little abstract on yo ass.

If you were to imagine the "fun level" or "progress" of a game to be plotted out as data points on a chart, the old CRPGs would have a very rocky line, with ups and downs, but a clear overall slope upwards. The newer Mass Effect games would have the same slope as well, but it would have a much smoother curvature (and IMO, never quite reaches the same level of fun).

An example to illustrate this would be like getting the SMG in Fallout. That was a big, satisfying, and fun jump in power, but I wouldn't say it broke the balance. In a lot of modern games you wouldn't find anything like that, you'd just find another gun that is slightly better than the previous one. Another example would be how the level scaling was done, as was already mentioned. Give me the rocky road over the clear, straight, and narrow one any day. Turn the dial up to 11, instead of 6. Fuck having a smooth, even gradient. Hopefully you see my point.

But why can't you have both? For example, having energy weapons as a skill would mean you started off slowly but could become extremely powerful towards end-game, they'd also be rare and ammo would be scarce. Then another option could be small arms (rifles, pistols etc.) which were common and powerful in the start-mid game but stopped advancing from then on.

They'd both be valid playstyles but they'd also be balanced. Slow unlocks doesn't mean the game is balanced, it just means you upgrade more freqeuntly. I wouldn't find a game where "guns" was the only useful skill when I could also have "charisma" and "sneak", I'd far prefer to be able to shoot my way through an area on one playthrough, sneak my way through another, and use my silver tongue on a third. Only making shooting my way through a valid playstyle is my definition of boring.

[Balls Out 3]

But why can't you have both? For example, having energy weapons as a skill would mean you started off slowly but could become extremely powerful towards end-game, they'd also be rare and ammo would be scarce. Then another option could be small arms (rifles, pistols etc.) which were common and powerful in the start-mid game but stopped advancing from then on.

Something like that might be ok, I'm just stating a preference for one style over another.

Slow unlocks doesn't mean the game is balanced, it just means you upgrade more freqeuntly.

I agree, that's why I said:

I'm not sure "balance" is quite the way to define the problem for me, though.

Again, I just prefer one way over the other.

I wouldn't find a game where "guns" was the only useful skill...

I was only using the Fallout SMG as an example. The differences in design philosophy can apply to entire games, not just when it comes to weaponry. Of course the game play should support various play styles and multiple pathways.

[axeldeath]

Of course the game play should support various play styles and multiple pathways.

But it's pointless supporting the different playstyles if you don't balance them, that's all I'm saying.

[Balls Out 3]

But it's pointless supporting the different playstyles if you don't balance them, that's all I'm saying.

More or less. I'm not really talking about balance though, but more about having an "extreme" game, less of a "moderate" one, if you will. Such a game can still be balanced, it's just a little tougher to do, I'd imagine.

[Color Blotch]

If you were to imagine the "fun level" or "progress" of a game to be plotted out as data points on a chart, the old CRPGs would have a very rocky line, with ups and downs, but a clear overall slope upwards. The newer Mass Effect games would have the same slope as well, but it would have a much smoother curvature (and IMO, never quite reaches the same level of fun).

An example to illustrate this would be like getting the SMG in Fallout. That was a big, satisfying, and fun jump in power, but I wouldn't say it broke the balance. In a lot of modern games you wouldn't find anything like that, you'd just find another gun that is slightly better than the previous one. Another example would be how the level scaling was done, as was already mentioned. Give me the rocky road over the clear, straight, and narrow one any day. Turn the dial up to 11, instead of 6. Fuck having a smooth, even gradient. Hopefully you see my point.

I can see what you're saying, but again, perhaps Mass Effect is a bad example. For example ME1 weapon progression is as rocky as it gets: initial assault rifle -> raptor VI -> spectre gear assault rifle; or initial shotgun -> Firestorm IV -> spectre gear shotgun. Each stage presents a massive leap in quality with pretty much nothing of particular interest in between.

I suppose that the problem you refer to should rather be called "lack of exciting weapon choices". That happens because developers have to satisfy audience's desire for "lots and lots of guns". With so many of them, it's pretty much impossible to think of a way of making each one distinctly different and still useful for the player. That's why weapon choice in modern games is so expressively boring. But then again, it's not like ignoring balance is going to make it any better. Having a pair of guns clearly outperforming all the others isn't really that much of interesting choice at all. What makes choices exciting is both distinctive difference and balance between available options.

[Balls Out 3]

I can see what you're saying, but again, perhaps Mass Effect is a bad example.

Perhaps. I don't remember the first one that well, and I haven't played the third.

I suppose that the problem you refer to should rather be called "lack of exciting weapon choices"

Well, it's not just about weapon choices. It's overall design. Basically, I want more hardcore systems like some of the old CRPGs had. They may not have always been perfectly balanced, but I don't mind. In some ways, I think they were more fun.

[ffordesoon]

I agree to an extent. Once a game is too balanced, it does tend to feel a bit bland. I'm not sure "balance" is quite the way to define the problem for me, though. This is a bit hard to describe, so buckle up for a minute. I'm about to get a little abstract on yo ass.

If you were to imagine the "fun level" or "progress" of a game to be plotted out as data points on a chart, the old CRPGs would have a very rocky line, with ups and downs, but a clear overall slope upwards. The newer Mass Effect games would have the same slope as well, but it would have a much smoother curvature (and IMO, never quite reaches the same level of fun).

An example to illustrate this would be like getting the SMG in Fallout. That was a big, satisfying, and fun jump in power, but I wouldn't say it broke the balance. In a lot of modern games you wouldn't find anything like that, you'd just find another gun that is slightly better than the previous one. Another example would be how the level scaling was done, as was already mentioned. Give me the rocky road over the clear, straight, and narrow one any day. Turn the dial up to 11, instead of 6. Fuck having a smooth, even gradient. Hopefully you see my point.

You said what I'm saying better than I did. And I agree, it is hard to express without sounding like you just want to be able to cheat your way through the game, which I don't want. That's why I asked if what I was saying made sense, or if I needed to clarify it further. My point is that systems without any, er, "wiggle room" feel as smooth as they are dull, because there are no surprises.

@axeldeath:

I'm not suggesting that there should be no balance. My point is that the balance should be focused on maximizing player enjoyment instead of allowing for the smoothest possible ride at the expense of a lot of the game's vitality. I was more annoyed from moment to moment with Fallout 1 than I was with Fallout 3, but I think Fallout 1 is the better game by far. Not that I'm suggesting they make the game actively annoying, because that is the obvious opposite of player enjoyment, but as Balls Out suggested, without some troughs in the "fun curve", there aren't any peaks. The first Witcher's another example, though one I'd rather they didn't repeat. The Prologue and Act One are mostly an unrelenting bore with glacial pacing, but once you get out of the sewers in Act Two, everything clicks and the game suddenly becomes awesome. Again, it's not an example I'd prefer to see repeated in W2, but it was a hell of a peak after so much trough.

I don't want to be annoyed, but I do want to be let off the obvious leash. There are games that feel overly "designed", I guess, and that's shitty. I loved DXHR, and it's technically a "better" (read: more polished and functional) game than Deus Ex proper (well, aside from those shitty boss fights), but it feels like a lesser game in many ways, because all the rough edges have been sanded off of the design. I feel that way about the Mass Effect games too; as much as I love ME2 and ME3, and actually do feel they're a better execution of the original concept than ME1, there's something rather small about them, something so overly polished, that every good memory I have of those games has a little sigh of disappointment attached. It's a really bizarre feeling, because I did love those games, and I feel like "They were better than ME1, and also disappointing!" isn't something I can say without being laughed at, but I feel that way all the same.

@Color Blotch:

I really should have said "Mass Effect 3" instead of "Mass Effect", because that's where the problem is most pronounced. I know some people would say it's Mass Effect 2, but I think 3 was worse about it overall. Which is bizarre, because 3 added in revised versions of a lot of the features 2 did away with entirely. But there it is.

[axeldeath]

I'm not suggesting that there should be no balance. My point is that the balance should be focused on maximizing player enjoyment instead of allowing for the smoothest possible ride at the expense of a lot of the game's vitality.

And how better to maximize player enjoyment than allowing everyone's playstyle preference equal validation?

I was more annoyed from moment to moment with Fallout 1 than I was with Fallout 3

And Fallout 3 is possibly the worst balanced RPG I have played. If you picked any skill apart from guns you were stupid.

The first Witcher's another example, though one I'd rather they didn't repeat. The Prologue and Act One are mostly an unrelenting bore with glacial pacing, but once you get out of the sewers in Act Two, everything clicks and the game suddenly becomes awesome.

How the hell does that have anything to do with game balance? I barely made it through that first section of The Witcher and only it's praise forced me to go onwards, There doesn't need to be boring shit to make the fun, funner. You just need to balance one type of fun with another.

I loved DXHR, and it's technically a "better" (read: more polished and functional) game than Deus Ex proper (well, aside from those shitty boss fights), but it feels like a lesser game in many ways, because all the rough edges have been sanded off of the design.

Again, another game which had poor balance. The game rewarded you far more exp for playing a sneaky character than any other playstyle. The original Deus Ex was in comparison quite well done (apart from the swimming skill).

---

I honestly don't know why this is even an argument. A balanced RPG means that every playstyle is valid and allows far more people to enjoy the game in a way that suits each particular person's taste. An unbalanced RPG rewards one style of play and leaves other players disgruntled and forced to play a certain way.

[Zombra]

But why can't you have both? For example, having energy weapons as a skill would mean you started off slowly but could become extremely powerful towards end-game, they'd also be rare and ammo would be scarce. Then another option could be small arms (rifles, pistols etc.) which were common and powerful in the start-mid game but stopped advancing from then on.

What you're describing isn't balanced at all, in a game design sense. Worthless at the beginning isn't balanced against decent. Mega-powerful at the end isn't balanced against decent.

What we're talking about (I think) is a system where it doesn't really matter what decisions you make. Every problem can be solved with equal ease (or difficulty, for places you're "not supposed to go yet") whether you use firearms, energy weapons, melee, diplomacy, or toaster repair. Making sure that every character build is viable, even ideal, for every situation is very dull. I want my pacifist party to be worthless when it comes to stopping a platoon of ravenous mutants from destroying a town. And I don't want my combat monster characters to be able to develop a cure for the California Plague.

I don't just want my choices to change how I succeed in the game. I want some of them to let me fail sometimes!

Of course, failure needs to be interesting. Maybe new side missions can even open up. Fail to stop the bomb blowing up the mayor's wife? What if he goes insane with grief and he runs off into the desert, and now you have to go rescue him? Bandits took over the town because your party couldn't fight them? What if now you have a chance to negotiate with them over trade policy with the next town?

[axeldeath]

What you're describing isn't balanced at all, in a game design sense. Worthless at the beginning isn't balanced against decent. Mega-powerful at the end isn't balanced against decent.

But this is exactly how a lot of games handle it. If you tagged energy weapons at the start of Fallout you were going to have a very tough time until late game, if you instead tagged small guns you'd have a relatively easy early start game and mid game but a tough end game. You don't have to make each combat style equally strong throughout the entire game.

What we're talking about (I think) is a system where it doesn't really matter what decisions you make. Every problem can be solved with equal ease (or difficulty, for places you're "not supposed to go yet") whether you use firearms, energy weapons, melee, diplomacy, or toaster repair. Making sure that every character build is viable, even ideal, for every situation is very dull. I want my pacifist party to be worthless when it comes to stopping a platoon of ravenous mutants from destroying a town. And I don't want my combat monster characters to be able to develop a cure for the California Plague.

How did that even occur to you? Balance isn't making every possible character build viable for every single mission or encounter, it's about making every single character build a viable way to play the game. If I play through Fallout: New Vegas doing a speech run on hard I open up loads of new possibilities but also close myself off from many combat-centric quests. Then maybe next time I'll roll a energy weapons specialist, though I can steamroll most enemies, I'll have to spend extra time doing quests because my speech isn't high enough and I'll have to confront hard enemies like Deathclaws rather than sneak around them.

Each playstyle has pros and cons and since this is an RPG every point you spend in one stat means you wont be spending it on another, spent a load of skillpoints on Speech yet get stuck in a combat situation? You're screwed. Put loads of points into Guns yet come across a quest that requires a good negotiator? No quest for you.