Is consistency important to you?

[Alfonso]

I don't like the way 'consistancy' sounds like. It sounds like something a little complicated. There should be a simpler word for it. As simple as 'fun', 3 letters.

When I asked for some consistency in FF, I remember someone said "WOW! Do you want consistency in game?". My answer is yes. Consistency is not the idea opposing to fun. Every game has it actually. When you play a game, any game, there are always the rules that you have to follow.

In shooting game there is one important rule that can't be removed. That is "your enemy will get damage when your hit land on your enemy". Think about shooting game that doesn't have this rule. So whenever you shoot, no matter where you shoot, you get a kill. Even when you hit yourself, your enemy dies not you. Maybe it will be fun, for some people, for a while but I am sure noone will enjoy that such game for long. You need a flow of logic in a game. So you will learn what you need to do and when you know what you need to do, you will have the feeling that you have done something.
For example, you air rocketted someone for the first time in Quake3 after a long long practice. If the game doens't have consistency so the rocket flies to anywhere at any speed or splash damage of it is too great, you killed a guy not even in your screen but you didn't get any harm, you can't have such fun.
I am sure, there are differents opinions on how much consistency do you want in a game.
Maybe for some people, 'When I shoot, if the bullet land on enemy, enemy hp decreases' is good enough. Maybe some people want more, 'When I shoot, if the bullet land on enemy's head, he dies instantly' and more and more.

Consistancy in game won't ruin the fun. It actually can add more fun. Think about different types of ammunitions that you can craft with certain type of resources, and you have to do some area research to find the resources you need. It can go further than that for the fun of the game.
When A is B and B is C, A is C. Although, if A is not real B and C are also not real, nothing says A has to be real. Many MMORPG have fantasy world setting and use magic that noone in this world can explain how it works. But the consistency of the game starts from A: "there is magic".
We don't know if there is a ghost in a human body but in Ultima Online, it was assumed and when a player died he had to run back to a healer shop in his ghost form.

I am no expert in a game design but in my opinion, it is better to design the game from the inside of the game world and work the way back out to our real world, to UI, to how it looks on PC monitor. If everything starts from 'A' of the world of Ember, the game design will look more natural. Maybe you will believe that there is such world somewhere.
I want to see things in the world of Ember as a life-form in that world, not as a player sitting in front of my PC.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

you want a VR sim?

 

[Alfonso]

No, put me in the Matrix.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

they tried that already. It's The Matrix Online..... and it sucked.

 

[Daynen]

There are things in a game which should remain consistent; these include such things as our control scheme, our user interface, our menu responsiveness, and the way our characters react to the same things. This should not be confused with variety and diversity; more enemy types, more terrain types, more ways to play the game--these things are good and deserve to be fresh and different from each other. The way we interact with the game at a basic level is what should remain consistent.

 

[Vladplaya]

What @Daynen said.

Also we all want consistent hit registration, but it always will have issues due to latency. Other than that, weapon and skill behavior and damage consistency, is one of the corner stones of a skill based game, which Ember wants to be, so those shouldn't be an issue if they will hold truer to that vision through out the development and after the release.

 

[Alfonso]

I agree, but I guess I didn't make a good examples for what I wanted to say.
Or maybe I shouldn't fully agree with Daynen, yet.

What I wanted to say was consistency is not at the other side of fun, as some people think.
And it doesn't have to be in line with physics of our world, as some people think.
What I agree on is that there should be basic level of game play that remains constant, and that will be the 'A' in my posting. I think here is the difference in my thinking. Things like UI is high level design, placed further away from the base design of the game.

Imagine you are in a theater watching a movie. Base level concepts are things like, the time line of the world in the movie. Stone age, middle age, modern, future? Then you would want to know what kind of people are there, how do they live, things like that.
UI in this case, is more like, way the theater is designed, position of your seat in the theater, is the light adequate for watching movie, or such.

 

[DARKB1KE]

Perhaps it's just me but I think you might be using the wrong word. Consistency means things are congruent/the same throughout a system.

 

[Luisedgm]

Your post makes no sense, what do you mean with "consistancy"?
You want a game without glitches? that goes without saying.
You want immersion? Well everyone else does.
And please people stop using "fun" to build arguments, its a subjective concept, different people have different ideas of fun.
Get to the point, be clear.

 

[Demigan]

I don't like the way 'consistancy' sounds like. It sounds like something a little complicated. There should be a simpler word for it. As simple as 'fun', 3 letters.

When I asked for some consistency in FF, I remember someone said "WOW! Do you want consistency in game?". My answer is yes. Consistency is not the idea opposing to fun. Every game has it actually. When you play a game, any game, there are always the rules that you have to follow.

In shooting game there is one important rule that can't be removed. That is "your enemy will get damage when your hit land on your enemy". Think about shooting game that doesn't have this rule. So whenever you shoot, no matter where you shoot, you get a kill. Even when you hit yourself, your enemy dies not you. Maybe it will be fun, for some people, for a while but I am sure noone will enjoy that such game for long. You need a flow of logic in a game. So you will learn what you need to do and when you know what you need to do, you will have the feeling that you have done something.
For example, you air rocketted someone for the first time in Quake3 after a long long practice. If the game doens't have consistency so the rocket flies to anywhere at any speed or splash damage of it is too great, you killed a guy not even in your screen but you didn't get any harm, you can't have such fun.
I am sure, there are differents opinions on how much consistency do you want in a game.
Maybe for some people, 'When I shoot, if the bullet land on enemy, enemy hp decreases' is good enough. Maybe some people want more, 'When I shoot, if the bullet land on enemy's head, he dies instantly' and more and more.

Consistancy in game won't ruin the fun. It actually can add more fun. Think about different types of ammunitions that you can craft with certain type of resources, and you have to do some area research to find the resources you need. It can go further than that for the fun of the game.
When A is B and B is C, A is C. Although, if A is not real B and C are also not real, nothing says A has to be real. Many MMORPG have fantasy world setting and use magic that noone in this world can explain how it works. But the consistency of the game starts from A: "there is magic".
We don't know if there is a ghost in a human body but in Ultima Online, it was assumed and when a player died he had to run back to a healer shop in his ghost form.

I am no expert in a game design but in my opinion, it is better to design the game from the inside of the game world and work the way back out to our real world, to UI, to how it looks on PC monitor. If everything starts from 'A' of the world of Ember, the game design will look more natural. Maybe you will believe that there is such world somewhere.
I want to see things in the world of Ember as a life-form in that world, not as a player sitting in front of my PC.

So if I'm correct, you are against any mechanic that isn't consistent. Such as recoil and COF. But I really don't understand everything else you are saying. Are you talking about the suspension of belief? Are you talking about pure mechanics? Are you talking about both?
Is this just a request for "if C4 can blow through 4 inches of tank, let it blow through a wooden door as well"? I don't really understand what you want to achieve here.

 

[TankHunter678]

I think we need to establish what you want to be consistent and how it should be consistent. As right now your argument makes no sense.

What needs to be consistent will be consistent. Some things will need to not be perfectly consistent (Randomized Cone of Fire as a tweak-able balancing metric and minor anti-aimbot) but overall most things will be consistent.

 

[NoahDVS]

Whenever you make a thread, you should think about what the main point of making it is. So far, I've gotten that you think consistency is good, but surely you can't mean 100% consistency in all aspects. An AI that always acted the same would be inflexible and would get boring fast. Perhaps you want enough consistency in the game rules that you can make assumptions without asking for directions? Perhaps you are anti-RNG? What is your angle?

 

[Alfonso]

Damn, another day with "I don't know what you are saying" responses.. It was my writing after all, how embarassing!

I was thinkning about crafting components in FF. There was something like, "Hyperkeg, description: No idea how it works" just put 18 of it together and you get a gear. Thinking about it now, that was after 1.0 so not the thing that people here will enjoy. But I thought new omniframe design was somewhat similar to that case and wanted to say let's not go there again.
Imo, that happened because, devs didn't design the crafting as if they were in FF and following the rules of that world. To prevent that, the game should have base concept of the world, for example 'physics, metallurgy' and things should be made within that rule. Here I thought, consistency was the right word to describe.(wrong choice Darkb1te?) Be consistent with the rules of the world, don't go outside, keep following it.

That hyperkeg was in FF because devs wanted a thing in that place but didn't put any effort to make it fit in the world.
Omniframe, Mark understands the desire of people wanting to show their pretty cosmetics to others, designed to have exposed cockpit. While his saying is reasonable, is that design philosophy from the Ember world or from our world? It is just one thing and is not a big deal but if things keep going this way, I think we might have things like hyperkeg everywhere.

I will be glad if I got it wrong.

 

[NoahDVS]

You're talking about whether or not something fits into the world of the game and makes sense rather than being arbitrary like hyperkegs were. That's subjective, but I get what you mean if that's what you mean.

 

[TankHunter678]

If that omniframe was a dockyard loader it would fit right in the world of Ember. Quick to get into, quick to get out, with a system of powered assist useful for moving crates on and off starships. Because it fits the needs of a dockyard worker, and the common design of a dockyard machinery like forklifts, or powered exosuits in other sci-fi worlds.

However as a made for combat frame it handwaves things with a forcefield. That makes its design more from our world (show off the character!) and does not make sense in what a soldier/reaper would want in any sci-fi universe like Ember. Maybe in an emergency, but that is about it.

 

[taiiat]

consistency is incredibly important for games - otherwise the entire game would just feel like reading through /b.

'fun' is not a useful descriptor, because it's extremely vague. consistency is a very specific context, that things in a game must fit what that game already is and/or what that game is supposed to be.
that doesn't mean you can't have cool things, it just needs to fit into the game.

basically, it's a simple concept. you can do basically anything you want, so long as it makes sense when you play the game, and not randomly stapled on. i.e. feel like it belongs or is there for a purpose, mainly.


User Interface is rather a different story however, if it's purely functional, then it's programmer art and it basically functions like Windows Explorer. this is pretty much the most usable a User Interface can be, but it's certainly not consistent with the game.
but that's not necessarily a problem, if a User Interface isn't considered in-universe but a system you use. which is a completely acceptable way to make a User Interface.
and for that example - honestly - i'll take 'Windows Explorer' anyday over some artsy bullshit that actively gets in the way of doing basic things, rather than helping you do them, which is what a User Interface is for.

 

[NoahDVS]

consistency is incredibly important for games - otherwise the entire game would just feel like reading through /b.

'fun' is not a useful descriptor, because it's extremely vague. consistency is a very specific context, that things in a game must fit what that game already is and/or what that game is supposed to be.
that doesn't mean you can't have cool things, it just needs to fit into the game.

basically, it's a simple concept. you can do basically anything you want, so long as it makes sense when you play the game, and not randomly stapled on. i.e. feel like it belongs or is there for a purpose, mainly.


User Interface is rather a different story however, if it's purely functional, then it's programmer art and it basically functions like Windows Explorer. this is pretty much the most usable a User Interface can be, but it's certainly not consistent with the game.
but that's not necessarily a problem, if a User Interface isn't considered in-universe but a system you use. which is a completely acceptable way to make a User Interface.
and for that example - honestly - i'll take 'Windows Explorer' anyday over some artsy bullshit that actively gets in the way of doing basic things, rather than helping you do them, which is what a User Interface is for.

I think it's possible to make a UI make sense within the universe of the game, especially in a Sci-Fi setting. Addons the player adds to the UI can be like apps that omniframe pilots install to their frame's OS. Instant messaging is important. People IRL have friends lists on various websites such as facebook, why wouldn't a pilot have a friends list? Same thing goes for armies or whatever the equivalent might be in Ember. Humans can benefit greatly from being in groups with other humans.

Also, it's nitpicking, but I wouldn't argue that Windows Explorer has the most usable interface. Usability is highly dependent on the user. Some benefit from an even simpler looking UI like the Nautilus UI in more recent versions of Ubuntu while others can figure things out easily on their own and benefit more from having lots of features at perhaps the expense of a clean, simple UI.

 

[DARKB1KE]

Considering that crafting was never fully completed that's why some items didn't make sense. Lots of recipes were not done and the UI didn't show all info.

"no idea how it works" could be a joke. I found it a funny description, always enjoyable when devs sneak those into a game. it could also add more mystery into game when you need to discover things and how they work.

Also, they already had a previous resources naming convention that had futuristic names, but testing showed that 'people couldn't remember the names' so they went with a basic metal, organic, tech system to be more common to what people know.

 

[Daynen]

Perhaps OP is asking if a lot of things should be consistent between Firefall and Ember? As in, carrying over a lot of things from that game to this one? I'm still not sure we all understand the real question, but we're trying to answer the question we think is being asked, so we're making progress.

If the UI of a game seems like 'high level design' that's because it is. It's also one of the most important parts to get consistently right because every player sees it constantly. it's given far too little respect and consideration in most games--it's often bulky, obstructive, cluttered and hard to click/slow to respond, while either providing too little useful information at the right time or too much information in general.

The other thing that needs to remain consistent is the basic ruleset and physics of the game. If you discover a maneuver or technique that gets you a useful result, you should be able to repeat that technique until you've mastered it and consistently achieve said result, barring any obstructive terrain or extenuating circumstances. It's often easy to tell when a game violates it's own rules at a base level and is a very frustrating experience. I daresay that kind of 'cheating' by a game is what chases some people off; that's why it's so critical to make sure the game obeys it's own rules as consistently as possible.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

The other thing that needs to remain consistent is the basic ruleset and physics of the game. If you discover a maneuver or technique that gets you a useful result, you should be able to repeat that technique until you've mastered it and consistently achieve said result, barring any obstructive terrain or extenuating circumstances. It's often easy to tell when a game violates it's own rules at a base level and is a very frustrating experience. I daresay that kind of 'cheating' by a game is what chases some people off; that's why it's so critical to make sure the game obeys it's own rules as consistently as possible.

like you can clearly jump 1 meters from the ground.
but you can't jump over a fence that is 0.025 meters off the ground because there is an invisible wall on that fence that is 1.5 meters.

yeah... that can get annoying.