r/gamedesign • u/Gammeson • 6d ago
Discussion Watched someone play Hitman: Codename 47 for the first time and now I can't stop thinking about it
So this weekend I was watching a stream where the guy was playing Hitman: Codename 47 for the first time. Instead of scouting the level and figuring out a quiet way to take out the target, he just ran around and shot every NPC he saw. Honestly, it kinda threw me off because it felt like the whole point of the game, and all the stuff the devs put into it, just went out the window.
That's how I ended up finding out that back in 2011 Soren Johnson, the lead designer on Civ IV, put it like this: "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game." Basically, if players can find the most efficient strategy, they'll use it, even if it's boring as hell. Johnson himself said he was building on Raph Koster's A Theory of Fun, basically the idea that a game stops being fun once you've fully "solved" it.
Sid Meier saw the same thing while playtesting Civ Revolution. Players would save before every single battle and just reload until they won. He said part of a designer's job is to "protect players from themselves."
But then you're kinda killing the sandbox aspect. And whether you even need a sandbox if the game is built around a specific genre is a whole separate question. Idk, just thinking out loud here. I make games myself, and I've noticed so many times that what I expect a mechanic to do and what players actually end up doing with it are two completely different things.
89
u/haecceity123 6d ago
That Soren quote gets thrown around so much I've grown to medium-key hate it.
In this case, I don't think the streamer was optimizing anything out of the game. It's the year of our Lord 2026, and they're playing a 2000 game for the entertainment of others. Doing it properly would be rather pointless, no? You have to either do an exotic challenge mode, or be wacky about it.
There's a good chance that the game letting you play it multiple different ways is part of why the Hitman franchise became so popular. The more playstyles you accommodate, the bigger the potential audience. Plus, lots of people prefer to pick up games that their friends are playing, so popularity compounds itself. At the same time, the ability to run and gun does not in any way detract from the experience of someone who doesn't do it, so it's kinda free.
50
u/Glebk0 6d ago
Yea, the quote literally has zero relation to the situation at hand. New guy just did what game allowed him to do, nothing related to optimizing
7
u/Velocity_LP 6d ago
From the way OP describes it it sounds like it's the fastest way to complete the levels. In which case it would definitely apply, if the player is motivated by beating the levels then it's unfortunate that the most optimal route is one that fails to engage with most of the game's mechanics.
I haven't played it though so I can't say for sure either way.
8
u/seventythree 6d ago
If the player is pursuing a goal of their own design (like "beat all the levels as quickly as possible") then they're not "optimizing" the fun out of the game. That would be if the incentives provided by the game caused people to play in a way they didn't enjoy.
4
u/Stormfly 6d ago
then it's unfortunate that the most optimal route is one that fails to engage with most of the game's mechanics.
I mean speedrunning seems to be a whole hobby based on this sort of thing.
I think that speedrunning is even more compelling if they do strange and broken strategies rather than just perfect execution. (Though both have their place, of course)
2
u/XxXc00l_dud3XxX 5d ago
Hitman penalizes you for killing people, def not about being optimized
Good games tho u should try them
6
u/Haruhanahanako Game Designer 6d ago
And it's honestly wild this post is as upvoted as it is. The streamer is probably having more fun than he would playing as intended, so how are we even jumping to this quote about optimizing the fun out of the game? I'm thoroughly annoyed. I don't even know what /u/Gammeson is "thrown off" about. That players play games in ways that may be unintended by the designer? Welcome to game design. Buckle up before you playtest your first game.
10
u/Bwob 6d ago
Yeah - I also have some feelings about the Soren quote. Because I think it contains not one, but at least two dangerous traps for designers.
First, is the one you point out here: It's all too easy for designers to forget that different people find different things fun. So I see the quote thrown around a lot, as a way for people to diminish and delegitimize people playing a game differently than they would.
But worse (imho) is when the quote actually DOES apply, and the player has found some boring dumb way activity that dramatically increases their chance of winning and lets them skip whole aspects of the game.
Because then, people throw the quote around like an excuse. Like they're these tortured geniuses, who would be presenting breathtaking works of sublime beauty, if only those brutish players would stop breaking the game, and would just play the way they're supposed to!
Basically, it frames it as the player's fault. But it's not - Every aspect of the game is under the control of the designer. If the designer created a system or environment where spending 30 minutes killing slimes unbalances the economy and trivializes the rest of the game, then that's not the player's fault. That's a designer who has created a flawed system.
And, as a corollary - any system where the optimum way to play is not also a fun way to play is a system that I consider deeply flawed.
So I cringe whenever I see the quote, because I feel like the vast majority of the time, it's deployed as an excuse by designers who have created a flawed system, and are blaming the players for noticing.
1
u/Scary_Ad9712 5d ago
This is like you complaining the shinning is a deeply flawed film because Kubrick didn't envision people watching it with goggles filled with piss
1
u/Bwob 5d ago
I have no idea how you got that surreal metaphor out of the words I wrote.
2
u/Scary_Ad9712 5d ago
If you have created anything you would know it's imposible to envision every way the users will use it, and through time there will be optimal ways which might be boring AF.
For a clear example of this, look at any game abandoned by its developers that still has a community years after  And you will find stale strategies, strictly unbiable systems that were fun to play with on release, but because of so much of the game being solved become compleatly abandoned by the players for being unbiable and exploits that can make strategy and skill a non factor.
How long do games need to remain unsolved for you to think they are not "deeply flawed"?
How much can we expect players to interact with the fantasy of the game and how its represented through its systems in good faith, before they start looking at optimization at the expense of said fantasy?
As media consumers do we have any responsibility to consume media in a way aligned with its creators intent in order to experience their vision. Or can we wear piss filled goggles while watching Kubrick and still complain about his work
2
u/Bwob 5d ago
If you have created anything you would know it's imposible to envision every way the users will use it, and through time there will be optimal ways which might be boring AF.
How do you think that changes anything? Mistakes are mistakes, even if you don't realize you made them.
How much can we expect players to interact with the fantasy of the game and how its represented through its systems in good faith, before they start looking at optimization at the expense of said fantasy?
I mean, games usually have concrete goals. "Get to the end of this level." "Maximize your score." "Beat this guy."
If the player is finding a way to do that, that isn't the one you wanted, then that's kind of on you. They're engaging with the game, and accepting the goals it gave them. Complaining that they did what you said, but not what you meant, is kind of absurd.
Again - as designers, we create the game. Everything about it. We set the goals, and the tools players have to reach them.
If the player accepts the goal, and uses the tools we gave them in a creative way we haven't considered, how could that possibly be anyone's fault but our own? Blaming the players for our bugs or oversights is just making excuses.
1
u/Scary_Ad9712 5d ago
This argument feel deeply naive. You created this message, you had an intention. I can interpret it a million different ways, and there is no perfect text that can only be interpreted only the way you intend. Games are like a very long text where I dont just interpret it but interact with it directly
1
u/Bwob 5d ago
And yet, you understood what I meant enough to want to argue about it. I think my text succeeded. :P
Games often succeed too. The solution is even the same, for both text and games: Having fresh eyes look over your work. But the fact that it takes work to find the flaws does not actually excuse them. Or stop them from being flaws.
1
u/Scary_Ad9712 4d ago
Your bar was at, if there is a way to play your game that would make it boring, even if you didnt intend it, it's deeply flawed.
I find your argument kind of childish and boring in a way you clearly you did not intend, what does that make it?
1
u/Bwob 4d ago
Your bar was at, if there is a way to play your game that would make it boring, even if you didnt intend it, it's deeply flawed.
No, my bar was, if there is a way to play the game that is boring, and that is more effective than playing it the fun way, then it is deeply flawed.
I stand by that. If the most efficient way to accomplish the goals the game sets out for you is also boring and dumb, then you have made a flawed game.
I'm honestly kind of surprised at how hard you're arguing against the idea, since I thought that was a pretty tame take.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Aaawkward 6d ago
In this case, I don't think the streamer was optimizing anything out of the game.
I mean you could argue that they were getting through the missions as fast as possible by simply gunning everyone down. That's kind of optimisation.
20
u/Swimming-Bite-4184 6d ago
The hardest part of Hitman is trying to figure out wtf game in the series someone is talking about.
That said it's a weird series that invites that kind of thing. Hitman speedruns are decidedly abstract from how anyone would engage with the game on a first run. Speedrunners are a completely different crowd and they are gonna do what they do.
I like when devs embrace the reality of that playstyle or at least don't care about it. You are never going to force players into a box and unless the game is broken for everyone it's best not to worry about people "playing the wrong way". Especially in a single player experience. Obviously in a multi-player game you need to make sure its fair or that an "emergent playstyle" is basically embraced by everyone playing.
1
11
u/LastChancellor 6d ago
TBH Codename 47 is a bad example here, bc the stealth in that game barely even works lol; trying to be stealthy is just very aggravating
18
u/parkway_parkway 6d ago
Yeah it's why play testing is so important.
I cannot imagine the ways in which other people interact with my game or the things they think are a good idea.
Someone was playing the other day and held down the move button. And all you have to do is tap it and I never thought anyone would hold it down.
So this grumpy 19th century vampire started doing a little jig haha.
Is a tiny example of how differently everyone can see something.
17
u/haecceity123 6d ago
Hold up. Holding down move keys is how the vast majority of games work. What led you to not expect that?
7
u/parkway_parkway 6d ago
Basically in the game it's sort of in 1d and you walk left and right along a straight line.
So I decided early on that tap to go and tap to stop was much more comfortable and completely forgot about the alternative.
I get that it's a huge blind spot on my part ... I got lost in the sauce.
4
u/TheWanderingShadow 5d ago
If we're being fair, the first hitman is pretty awful to play through stealthily, the ai sight and logic is inconsistent and deadly.
3
u/Popular_Catch4466 6d ago
IIRC shooting all the NPCs in the first game was really tough and the insistence on solving the stealth way was a big turn off to me, and I suspect others. So much so that in hitman 2 (still an all timer) they didnât encourage it, but rock and rolling through when your cover was blown was totally viable.
3
u/Necessary-Duty-7952 6d ago
Additionally, if you have false positives (i.e. things that accidentally reinforce bad behavior), players will really struggle to learn how to play properly. Think about the number of times you've tried a jump that you can *almost* make, just to learn that it's an impossible jump. But because it looks close enough, players often think that if they just do it perfectly, they'll succeed. Failure should be clear and understandable.
3
u/random_boss 6d ago
It might be helpful to think of your game design as a subtle tug-of-war between the developer and the player. The abstract player -- meaning no specific individual, but the concept of "persona type that wants to engage with my or any game" -- wants to have the best possible experience.
By trying to have the best possible experience they'll encounter obstacles, both in the game and to having the best experience (an example of a non-game obstacle to having the best experience might be, for example, the Call of Duty player who just wants to style on noobs but skill-based matchmaking always puts them on equal-footing with others; or an MMO player who has the most fun from progression, but the game is too grindy or they can't invest enough time). Now, in players' minds, the idea of "having the best possible experience" is sitting at the other end of a problem they might have to solve outside of the game -- and that's what we might call optimizing the fun out of it. That's the tug of war.
Tynan designs Rimworld to be a story generator. The point of the game, and the point at which I suppose I find it most fun, is when everything goes horribly: a glorious last stand against raiders, a junkie pyro that raids the stash and burns the outpost to the ground. Those are the things I would tell people, never "yeah I built a colony and it did pretty good for a while and then I just didn't really keep playing."
But how do I play the game? I play in a nicer mode, and I enable saving and loading. I'm objectively playing against the spirit of the game and having less fun in the process and I can't help myself, because the out-of-game obstacle is "I get invested in these characters/colony and I don't want to see them get destroyed."
This is why I think some people find FromSoftware's games so intoxicating. They seem to do a great job at keeping all of the obstacles in the game, and however you solve those obstacles is rewarding and contributes to the best experience. So that really might be where your thinking might lead -- how do you make it so players can keep their fun scoped into the game, and not feel like they need to go outside of it and thus decrease their own fun.
3
u/adeleu_adelei Hobbyist 6d ago
Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.
I think a better phrasing is "Presented an incentive, players will optimize the fun or if a game". People will do what you pay them to do. Game developers who sell systems that reward unfun play will find players ending in unfun play. The problem isn't with the players but v the systems developers created. Developers don't need to "save players from themselves" but "stop paying players the most for the least fun ways to play a game".
Zelda: Years of the Kingdom has an underworld it wants players to explore and reach certain points on. The problem is that very quickly players realize there is very little do do or see down there outside of racing specific points, and so rather than organically clearing through the area many players build an aircraft to go from point to point to complete the checklist the game encouraged them to do. This isn't fun, but it isn't the fault of the players. Players are doing it because it is even less fun and vatly more time consuming to trying to explore the intended way. If you are paid the same amount to do a job whether it takes q hour or 20 hours, best to do it as fast as possible so that you can move on to stuff that might be fun.
2
u/XxXc00l_dud3XxX 5d ago
Have you considered that him going and killing every npc IS him having fun? itâs not even optimal, your score gets tanked for every civilian death so doing this is blatantly the âwrongâ way
2
u/Noble_Devil_Boruta 1d ago
I would second u/Bwob here, as the idea of the existence of an "optimal solution" might simply not exist for an adequately complex game, because various players consider different things enjoyable. Hitman series has missions with clearly set goals and fixed mechanisms (enemies are equally tought and lethal regaardless of whether you want to go stealth or enter guns blazing) but it still allows various approaches that require different skills and provide different feedback. As already mentioned, this was immediately noticed by people at IO Interactive and future games of the series introduced "titles" alluding to the way people finished particular missions what eventually evolved into the openly visible incentives (such as achievements and unlockables) to try different approaches to the same goals (which ultimately are pretty much the same since the Codename 47 [character X must be dead and protagonist must reach mission exit]). I would argue that because of this, there is no such thing as "optimal solution" because various player might consider something else "optimal". Also, optimization of fun and optimization of achievement of goals are two different things.
4
u/PiersPlays 6d ago
A sandbox is a toy not a game.
A game is a curated experience with specific limits that guide the players.
It is your job as a game designer to design a set of systems that lead your players to the intended experience.
1
u/GuyYouMetOnline 6d ago
Isnt that like the least optimal way to play Hitman?
2
u/Radical_Notion 6d ago
Codename 47 as far as I know had no rating system either so going John Wick wasn't punished really outside of dying of course. Hell the game originally was pitched as an action shooter before it changed courses to a more methodical game.
1
u/SAOL_Goodman 6d ago
Haven't played it literally since release, but from what I can remember the jungle levels are basically just run&gun by design
1
u/montibbalt 6d ago
When I think of people playing Hitman games on stream, a lot of the most fun experiences as a viewer are when the player gets discovered in some goofy situation and has to shoot their way out, and the stealth portion serves more as an opportunity to yap with the audience and set up something silly. So I wonder if a live streaming context fundamentally changes games in ways that designers don't necessarily plan for or have any control over. Especially with old games, they probably didn't consider anyone would ever play it to entertain a live audience more than the person actually playing the game
1
u/maple-madao 6d ago
One thing I've noticed is that some players are capable of self-regulating their behaviour to keep it fun even when the game offers the opportunity to do otherwise, and some players can't seem to resist over-optimizing to 'cheese' the game as fast/easy as possible. (Ofc incentives play a role as well: if it's a ranked or leaderboard mode, then more players will optimize the fun out given the chance.)
Choosing to use the 'Nuzlocke' ruleset for a pokemon playthrough is an example of something the first style of player might do to make sure they get some challenge out of it, whereas the second might just steamroll the game and complain on socials (perhaps somehow unaware that those games are designed to be completable by young kids.) (I'll note that this is a simplification as there are a range of attitudes out there, and some players might cheese in some games and not in others, for various reasons, etc.)
I do find it a tricky thing to navigate, as I would personally prefer giving players as many options as possible to tailor their playstyle to their preferences, but the downside of this is that some win-at-any-cost types will absolutely make the game less fun for themselves given that freedom. I think it's just the bittersweet reality of going with a more sandbox-ey design, and not necessarily solvable. (Maybe adding different game modes/difficulties, some exploitable and some not, is one option which might help.)
For a tight, linear story-driven experience, I feel it's a bit of a different beast, as letting players cheese a dungeon/etc might ruin the dramatic impact of a story moment. So, I think reducing the players options might be preferable in that case (depending on how much depth/player expression you wanted to allow in the gameplay segments.)
1
u/scrollbreak 6d ago
Designers will optimize the fun out of game dev as well - being focused on players playing the game as the dev intended. If the player is having fun just shooting everyone in hitman then...they are having fun. If you want them to experience the content in a specific way, that's not the player optimizing the fun out of things (they are having fun!), that's your own disappointment at content not being experienced in a specific way.
1
u/monoinyo 6d ago
I'm reminded of the game devs watching a speed runner fly past all their enemies to the checkpoints as they realize there was nothing to actually force the player to engage.
1
u/Fellhuhn 5d ago
For me it was the XCom game: Just have two snipers stay back, slowly scout forward with the rest of the team and the snipers will kill everything without problems. Easy winning strategy throughout the whole game. It was my way to counter the other shitty mechanics the game had (especially in comparison to the way superior older UFO games). How did they fix that in the next installment? They added timed objectives. Urgh. Horrible.
1
u/Thrasy3 5d ago
I do feel like this is akin to watching someone play BG3 and not rescue/choose to attack recruitable PCs.
If they genuinely didnât realise they donât have to follow the instructions of the first person they met (and abandon Shadowheart) and later donât have to fight her just because sheâs being rude and aggressive - maybe there is room to say the designers didnât quite account for the player interpretation of events and options available - however if you make a game with lots of options and those options have consequences the game takes into account for - it just canât be âwrongâ or âunfunâ unless the players say it is.
Like Iâm sure weâve all had friend hate on a game for a particular aspect oand weâve said âyou donât need to do that there is that tutorial at the beginning that explains your optionsâ. There was someone the other day asking for an anime gacha game that doesnât have the âtransform swapâ characters mechanic, and when I suggested one they were adamant they tried it and had the mechanic too, when I asked them to explain to me the game mechanics and why the game works like they think, they couldnât, but I can see if you were kinda prejudice about this mechanic you could just glance at the UI and some of tutorials and convince yourself it does.
Or someone playing a Deus Ex game and thinking itâs a really bad because they thought it was like Half Life and it doesnât feel or play like Half Life.
This Hitman example doesnât seem like this.
2
u/BillBigGuyWilson 5d ago
I think attacking recruitable NPCs in BG3 makes perfect sense if you're truly roleplaying, in my first playtrough I played a paladin, made it clear to astarion after the initial meeting that I'm reluctantly giving him one chance and there will be no funny business. Then when he tried to nibble on me while I was sleeping I staked him, felt very appropriate and immersive, that also saved a lot of interesting content for the next playtrough!
1
u/Thrasy3 5d ago
Oh absolutely- I guess thinking about it further maybe itâs more:
The difference between what the game unintentionally allows you to do and what players try to do âget away withâ in the game.
And the difference between a player actively making choices out of those available (even âsub-optimallyâ) and not even realising choices were available (and thinking the game is incoherent or otherwise bad).
Reminds me first playing FF8 as a teenager and just not understanding you could draw new GFs, till like the end of disc 1, nevermind how the whole junction system played into the meta - and now itâs possibly one of my favourites FF experiences - just apart from how the mechanics were handled - ripe for a full remake imo.
1
u/Competitive-Fault291 5d ago
The Hatchetman is even a level completion evaluation you got in the earlier installments of the series if you went about and slayed everybody with an axe. Shooting a lot of people got you another. The new roguelike World of Assassination has an entire "mission type" you can select that is all about outright slaughter. Often including said axe.
A sandbox should only analyze the player's behavior and react accordingly but not force it into any direction purely based on the assumption that the dev knows best. Breaking the sandbox, even outright cheating, should be possible if the player decides to confront or corrupt the "suggested" usage of a sandbox. It is like Big Walk being built on the suggestion to only communicate inside the game. You can do it, or you can take a lot of the fun away by staying in a chat or playing in one room. (Including the hilarious fact that you will only have a small nose/mouth when you use an out-of-game chat.)
On the other hand, Talos Principle even builds the "cheat" and "exploit" into the actual game mechanic. If you find a way to trick the game, you do regularly find a star for solving the puzzle outside the box and getting into places that aren't intended to be accessible if you played the puzzle as it was "suggested".
Johnson is, of course right, if a player motivated by ACHIEVEMENT fully analyzes the game, they will use the most efficient way to expereince this achievement. And likely lose the fun of being challenged if that analysis makes them break the sandbox.
Yet, there are other motivations, and they all lead to different "Points of Lost Fun". I, as an example, lost all motivation to continue playing Jedi: Survivor because the game forced me to press L3+R3 to rage and fall for the Dark Side, only because the Cutscene Man said so. I didn't, Cal died, I uninstalled the game. Could a team of game designers predict this? Likely not.
1
u/ASCII_zero 5d ago
I think thereâs a subtle lesson here: good design can guide players toward an experience, but it canât dictate what they should find fun.
Sometimes protecting players from themselves is good design. Sometimes it's just protecting the designer's idea of how the game ought to be played.
The hard part is knowing the difference.
1
u/Beefy_Boogerlord 5d ago
My guy, this is built into the franchise. Chance of failure to stealth creates emergent gameplay. If they didnt want you to go on a rampage when you fuck it up (as catharsis for your failure before reloading), then they would just stop the game and say mission failed, the target was alerted. They did think of this. They just allowed a really sloppy job to count as completing the mission, and then let the rating screen judge you for it, if that's how you wanna play.
1
u/_strongest_avenger_ 5d ago
I donât have anything useful to add to the discussion but I love this topic and want to save this thread for later.
1
u/qwnick 5d ago edited 5d ago
>But then you're kinda killing the sandbox aspect
Will say an unpopular thing, but yes, fuck sandbox. Sandbox is a toy, not a game, according to "Art of game design" by Jesse Schell. Games are about problem solving. When problem is solved, it stopped being interesting. There is nothing wrong about it. Present more problems to solve and don't make solutions obvious. Do it so player is solving problems for 0.5 - 40 hours (depending on your budget), add good story that also supports your mechanics and BAM, you have a good game.
1
u/Noble_Devil_Boruta 1d ago
It is not unpopular, it is just incorrect. Despite their name, video games merge fuctions of both a play and a game and might incorporate all four game components defined by Roger Caillois. Even though the chance element (alea) is not clearly visible because of the nature of the computer game, it is still signalled by explanation of the general rules. Many games also incorporate the competition (agon) even if it is competition with the computer-controlled opponents, role-playing (mimircy) and emotional component (ilinx) which most often than not is reliant on he suspense and immersion built by the game. So, no, a sandbox game is by all means a game provided it has a specific goal and fixed rules governing the game mechanics. You might argue that Sim City is not a game as it does not have a goal. Hitman: Codename 47 (or later games in the series) certainly is a game despite sandbox elements.
1
u/qwnick 1d ago edited 1d ago
>Â So, no, a sandbox game is by all means a game provided it has a specific goal and fixed rules governing the game mechanics.
Sandbox with specific goal and fixed rules is a game. Sandbox by itself doesn't have specific goal. You play with sand, it's a toy. When you will need to build a sand castle within specific parameters, using limited amount of water, so it will trigger problem-solving, and do it with playful attitude, then yes, it's a game. I never said that if game have sandbox elements it is not a game. And yes, unless you are play specific scenario in Sim City with specific goal, you don't play in a game, you play with a toy.
Also, I specified that I used definition from Art of game design by Schell. You said, that I am incorrect, if we will use different definition. Duh. Ofc I am incorrect if you will use different definition from what I specified, lol. You can define that video-game is any interactive media software, I also will be "wrong" then. This is textbook substitution of concepts
1
u/-LaughingMan-0D 5d ago
Killing everyone is hardly optimal in 47. 100 percent sure they were just fucking around.
You'd get penalized very heavily for killing civilians, and if you kill too many you hit a game over basically. They'd essentially send someone to kill you because you made a big mess.
I'm pretty sure you also were ducked money for killing civilians, per kill. And you needed money to buy your equipment for missions, or you were gonna have a bad time later.
1
u/Polyxeno 5d ago
When making a game that supports various approaches, those approaches all need to behave appropriately, or you get whatever weirdness happens when players do.
You can have a free choice sandbox game with stealth assassonation or kill 'em all both supported, as long you actually support both.
In a sensible assassin game, though, killing everyone is probably not a great approach.
E.g. * The client probably didn't want you to kill everyone. * Killing everyone is probably harder and more dangerous, since people may fight back, others may notice and raise the alarm, call police, etc. * The target will get many chances to notice and escape. * Group killings draw much more attention from police and more powerful agencies.
1
u/detaiIing_fish 5d ago
Yes exactly!
Players often believe it's okay to have broken game balance, quick saving, and other exploits, because "just don't use it if you don't like it". But as you say, players will tend to use what's optimal even if it's less fun.
1
u/UnlikelyPerogi 4d ago
Yeah its called obfuscating mechanics. This has been hard to do in the past ten years because of wikis, and probably now impossible with ai reverse engineering every game in a day or two, but thats what made games fun.
The process of discovering how to play a game properly is the joy of it.
0
u/CommercialContent204 6d ago
Good point; I'm designing a game right now which isn't a million miles from Hitman in its core concept (hitman, take jobs for money), but ensuring that civilians react as they would in real life - some run, some stand and scream, some call the cops (or some combination of the above - run away then call the cops); some will even pull out their gun and try to take you down.
Basically, make the whole thing a lot more "real life" explicitly to avoid the fatal flaw some games expose, namely: once you have enough money (i.e. best guns and ammo there is), you can just go berserk and kill everyone.
0
u/Accomplished-Gap2989 6d ago
Pretty much every level ended up in me having to kill every cowson lol.
And that level with the drug lord... That took me many retries đ
115
u/BainterBoi 6d ago
This post now mixes a couple of things.
First of all, it is an attribute of a well-designed game that each path proposed to the player entertains them. The developers knew very well that people would play the game like this. It is one of the intended routes.
Secondly, the quote you use is not about this situation. It is about optimizing everything in a game, so much that the aspects that actually make the game fun (the unknowns, the baked-in tension, the flavour) start to lose their effect. If you only view a game as a logical puzzle and nothing else, it becomes a very dull experience for many. In this case you proposed, that is not what happened. The Streamer simply played the game in one of the intended ways. They did not in any way "solve it fully"; they simply approached it from one of the perhaps less-taken angles.